First Day in Chicago

My partner and I made it to Chicago without a hitch even though CNN was reporting that National was having at least 30 minute delays. We checked our flight on the departure/arrival board and saw no delay from any airline at all.

We arrived late in the afternoon, checked in, and we had lunch at Eleven City Diner. It's a wonderful old-time diner with a "cheery Chicago attitude" (read: not New York). I immediately get the sense that there's some historical/cultural rivalry between Chicago and New York. I don't know if I'll have time to explore that on this trip, but I will tread carefully in the few days that I am here. Anyways, I ordered a patty melt and Wisconsin cheese cheddar fries. Very satisfying and huge portions!

Afterwards, we headed over to Shedd Aquarium which was very near Soldier Park. Everything was in walking distance from our hotel so there was no need to grab a cab or rent a car. The air was cold, but not frigid, no precipitation or the famous Chicago winds. At the aquarium, we were able to see Chicago's stunning skyline, and the evening twilight made the view spectacular; stars in the urban sky. It definitely reminded me of San Francisco and New York. It was just nice to be in a proper city again.

This morning we woke up to snowfall. Temperature is cold (to me it's always cold) and the winds have picked up. It's not a storm, but it's a steady downfall which might make sightseeing somewhat difficult today. Hopefully we and another friend/colleague who is also interviewing for another position will be able to check out The Field Museum and their exhibit on maps. Yeah I know it sounds weird but Foucault did talk about geography and the field is entertaining some of his concepts and theories. So at least it'll be inside.

-----

I'm keeping up with the latest news on Benazir Bhutto's assassination yesterday. The latest report suggests that she was not killed by shrapnel or a bullet, but from physical trauma like hitting her head (???). I watched the press conference by the secretary of the interior (?) who then showed the last known video of Bhutto. That was seriously disturbing to watch because you know what happened next. But frame-by-frame, Bhutto moved offscreen as the camera panned to the right, and a second later you can see the people in the crowd react instantly to the blast.

Bhutto was buried today and no autopsy was performed on her for cultural and religious reasons. Which means no one can confirm the actual cause of death.

At that moment, I realized that the assassination is already having some eerie similarities to JFK.

All I Want For Christmas is ... Aliens v. Predator: Requiem!!!! OMGWTHLOLOL?!?!

I bet you of all the things to do on Christmas Day, watching the premiere of Aliens v. Predator: Requiem was not one of them. But we did. It was my idea to watch the movie considering I'm a big fan of both franchises, but it was a counter-intuitive choice. Of course, thanks to my partner we rationalized the choice as an act of recalcitrance against the maniacal consumerism that Christmas generates every year. And on that note, we watched the film.

*SPOILER ALERT*

For a film that we knew beforehand would be stupid, it was worse. Not disastrous because there were a few moments that I liked, namely being scared to my wits and watching victims writhe in pain as "chestbusters" break out of their hosts.

That was cool to watch, but also shocking because the victims also included children and pregnant women. That was truly different in this film because we normally attribute feelings of protection to children and pregnant women. Horror movies are constructed in a way that gives heroes and heroines a reason to survive and fight off whoever or whatever is gouging, cannibalizing, pummeling, ingesting, or decapitating them. Obviously, the word "killing" is a foregone conclusion, but the manner in which victims die is central. Anyways, children are very useful to instill the drive to stay alive by soliciting your paternal/maternal instincts. Think of the relationship between Newt and Ripley in the second Aliens installment. But in this movie, one of the first victims was a father and son, in which we got to see the kid's chest pulse and explode, and the screech of the pre-adult alien slithering out in a pool of gushing blood. Another scene had the "predalien," the alien/predator incarnation from the first AVP, stalking a bunch of newborns in a hospital. *Shudders* And finally, a scene which still freaks me out, a hospital ward full of pregnant women who become impregnated by the "predalien." Needless to say, what came afterwards was absolutely grotesque. Oddly enough, my partner wasn't even phased ... something about alien-on-human violence that is more bearable (and entertaining to watch) than human-on-human violence. Go figure. That scene still unnerves me.

Anyways, we're off for the MLA conference in Chicago. We'll be staying for about 3 days. Mostly work related stuff and maybe a day to do the tourist stuff. I've got a deadline to submit a call for papers in a proposed anthology, and one or two job applications before the end of the month. And on top of that, another chapter to finish. Then it's off to Kansas to stay for another few days to visit my partner's parents. It'll be cold and freezing, but we'll have lots of home cooked meals. I can't wait!

This Just Gets Worse

I read and saw the testimony of Jaime Leigh Jones before the House Judiciary Committee who was gang raped by KBR employees in Iraq. I am absolutely horrified at what she endured at the hands of her co-workers, and moreover, utterly sickened by the apparent cover-up. I could be wrong but contractors are under the jurisdiction and protection of the DoJ, yet the DoJ is not responding to this crime and perhaps countless others. The DoJ didn't even bother to send someone in which Representative Conyers slammed them for their particular absence and silence.

Seriously, WTF?! When is the DoJ going to start to stand for justice?!?

Daily Musings ... Annoyances

So I received word that two universities that I applied for have hired someone else. They sent nice thank you letters stating that the applicant pool was "exceptional" and that my "qualifications" was exemplary, and while the choice was difficult under these circumstances, they believed they found the right candidate ... besides me. Of course, I'd feel better if I made it on to the short list. That's the real recognition. Out of, say for example, 200 applicants which is a conservative number, being on the short list of 2-4 finalists means a whole lot more. At this point, I'm just happy to be on anyone's short list. Two jobs down ... about 24 more to go, if they ever send a notice anyways.

IT'S OVER!!!

'nuff said.

Final grades are done for both sections.

Scantron machine was still broken.

Second section's grade results was very similar to my night class. Here's the quick comparison:

Section 1: Final = 73.2%; Midterm = 87.8%.
Difference: 14.6%

Section 2: Final = 72.4%; Midterm = 84.3%.
Difference: 11.9%

I ended up curving the results after all ... A LOT ... just to save the few who were hit pretty hard.

But it's done and over. This semester is officially at an end for me.

Collateral Damage

So going into finals, I realized that I had way too many "A" students. Part of the inflation is how easy the midterm was which I think I need to redo. So in order to really discern the "A" students from everyone else, I had to make the final exam much harder. I added more multiple choice questions, elevated the complexity of the wording of the questions, and changed the final essay section to focus on the Iraqi Constitution. Obviously, the final exam heavily emphasized the lectures and in-class discussions so students would be in good shape if they were attending. Of course, it doesn't guarantee that students in attendance knew what was going on and that discrepancy showed. For the most part, the exam was hard ...

It was *A LOT* harder.

I think it was way too hard.

Average final exam grade from one section was 73.2%.
Compared with their midterm grade it was 87.8% so a 14.6% difference.

So I accomplished my objective and found out who the "A" students were. But the dedicated and solid students were also hit hard, dropping almost a full grade which really sucks. In general, the students were weak in one of two areas: the multiple choice questions, or the essay section. That was intentional and the differences really came through as students with excellent writing skills scored very well in the essay section, and those with strong deductive skills scored high marks in the multiple choice section. The 2 or 3 that did well in both received an "A." Unfortunately, there were those that did poorly in both sections, and when that happens you've hit the bottom hard.

Like rock bottom.

Like Age of Dinosaurs bottom.

Like so far down below there would be no point in trying to dig you back up ...

Not even for your skeletons.

I'll find out what happens tomorrow in my last section and see if the pattern remains true. If it does, then I'll have to evaluate my choices.

Grading ...

One class is done and another tomorrow morning.

If there's one thing I hate more about final exams, it would be a broken scantron machine.

End of the Semester Blues

So the last class of the semester ended last Thursday with a nice round of applause from my students. I even got to hang around after their student evaluations and chatted with them as they exited the building. Little did I know that I spent over two hours talking with them about everything. Certainly not time wasted, but it was damn cold outside.

I also got a notice from the chair of my program indicating that my time is almost up. I had to send my abstract, recent conversations with my committee, and a schedule of completion before he authorized an extension of time for my degree. He approved of the extension but I was a bit unnerved at the ordeal. To waste close to ten years is not something to laugh at but to be extricated from the program is aggravating. So the clock is ticking; I have the Spring 2008 semester to finish. I am near completion but I've got some editing and revising to do.

And I've got no choice but to finish it now.

'Tis the Season

This is why I hate snow. You figure people will have the common sense NOT to drive. But they do.

LOLOL

Just in time for Christmas!

YAF Watch

I'm highlighting a new blog called YAF Watch, a blog dedicated to monitoring the activities of the YAF chapter at Michigan State University. The SPLC and many other anti-hate organizations recently categorized the MSU chapter of YAF as a hate/extremist group, one of the first and only student group to be on the list.

My Blog's Reading Level

Get a Cash Advance

College level reading, eh? Instead of reaching for greater levels of literacy, articulation, and comprehension which are noble goals of a civil society, I think I'll head the other way down to the vulgar, the profane, and the barbaric. I think that'll be a lot more fun. ^.-

Ascension!

A really great article from the NY Times about the average length of graduate students to complete their dissertation and move on with their lives.

Exploring Ways to Shorten the Ascent to a Ph.D.
by Joseph Berger

Many of us have known this scholar: The hair is well-streaked with gray, the chin has begun to sag, but still our tortured friend slaves away at a masterwork intended to change the course of civilization that everyone else just hopes will finally get a career under way.

We even have a name for this sometimes pitied species — the A.B.D. — All But Dissertation. But in academia these days, that person is less a subject of ridicule than of soul-searching about what can done to shorten the time, sometimes much of a lifetime, it takes for so many graduate students to, well, graduate. The Council of Graduate Schools, representing 480 universities in the United States and Canada, is halfway through a seven-year project to explore ways of speeding up the ordeal.

For those who attempt it, the doctoral dissertation can loom on the horizon like Everest, gleaming invitingly as a challenge but often turning into a masochistic exercise once the ascent is begun. The average student takes 8.2 years to get a Ph.D.; in education, that figure surpasses 13 years. Fifty percent of students drop out along the way, with dissertations the major stumbling block. At commencement, the typical doctoral holder is 33, an age when peers are well along in their professions, and 12 percent of graduates are saddled with more than $50,000 in debt.

These statistics, compiled by the National Science Foundation and other government agencies by studying the 43,354 doctoral recipients of 2005, were even worse a few years ago. Now, universities are setting stricter timelines and demanding that faculty advisers meet regularly with protégés. Most science programs allow students to submit three research papers rather than a single grand work. More universities find ways to ease financial burdens, providing better paid teaching assistantships as well as tuition waivers. And more universities are setting up writing groups so that students feel less alone cobbling together a thesis.

Fighting these trends, and stretching out the process, is the increased competition for jobs and research grants; in fields like English where faculty vacancies are scarce, students realize they must come up with original, significant topics. Nevertheless, education researchers like Barbara E. Lovitts, who has written a new book urging professors to clarify what they expect in dissertations; for example, to point out that professors “view the dissertation as a training exercise” and that students should stop trying for “a degree of perfection that’s unnecessary and unobtainable.”

There are probably few universities that nudge students out the door as rapidly as Princeton, where a humanities student now averages 6.4 years compared with 7.5 in 2003. That is largely because Princeton guarantees financial support for its more than 2,000 scholars for five years, including free tuition and stipends that range up to $30,000 a year. That means students need teach no more than two courses during their schooling and can focus on research.

“Princeton since the 1930s has felt that a Ph.D. should be an education, not a career, and has valued a tight program,” said William B. Russel, dean of the graduate school.

And students are grateful. “Every morning I wake up and remind myself the university is paying me to do nothing but write the dissertation,” said Kellam Conover, 26, a classicist who expects to complete his course of study in five years next May when he finishes his dissertation on bribery in Athens. “It’s a tremendous advantage compared to having to work during the day and complete the dissertation part time.”

But fewer than a dozen universities have endowments or sources of financing large enough to afford five-year packages. The rest require students to teach regularly. Compare Princetonians with Brian Gatten, 28, an English scholar at the University of Texas in Austin. He has either been teaching or assisting in two courses every semester for five years.

“Universities need us as cheap labor to teach their undergraduates, and frankly we need to be needed because there isn’t another way for us to fund our education,” he said.

That raises a question that state legislatures and trustees might ponder: Would it be more cost effective to provide financing to speed graduate students into careers rather than having them drag out their apprenticeships?

But money is not the only reason Princeton does well. It has developed a culture where professors keep after students. Students talk of frequent meetings with advisers, not a semiannual review. For example, Ning Wu, 30, a father of two, works in Dr. Russel’s chemical engineering lab and said Dr. Russel comes by every Friday to discuss Mr. Wu’s work on polymer films used in computer chips. He aims to get his Ph.D. next year, his fifth.

While Dr. Russel values “the critical thinking and independent digging students have to do, either in their mind for an original concept or in the archives,” others question the necessity of book-length works. Some universities have established what they call professional doctorates for students who plan careers more as practitioners than scholars. Since the 1970s, Yeshiva University has not only offered a Ph.D. in psychology but also a separate doctor of psychology degree, or Psy.D., for those more interested in clinical work than research; that program requires a more modest research paper.

OTHER institutions are reviving master’s degree programs for, say, aspiring scientists who plan careers in development of products rather than research.

Those who insist on dissertations are aware that they must reduce the loneliness that defeats so many scholars. Gregory Nicholson, completing his sixth and final year at Michigan State, was able to finish a 270-page dissertation on spatial environments in novels like Kerouac’s “On the Road” with relative efficiency because of a writing group where he thrashed out his work with other thesis writers.

“It’s easy, especially in our field, to feel isolated, and that tends to slow people down,” he said. “There’s no sense of belonging to an academic community.”

Some common sense would also hasten the process. The dissertation is a hurdle that must be cleared, not a magnum opus, the capstone of a career. Princeton’s Mr. Wu has made that calculation.

“You do not want to stay forever,” Mr. Wu said. “It’s a training process.”

E-mail: joeberg@nytimes.com

Correction: October 4, 2007

The On Education column yesterday, about efforts to shorten the time it takes to earn a Ph.D., misstated the number of graduate students at Princeton University. There are more than 2,000 — not 330, the number of Ph.D degrees the university awarded last year.

Perfect

"Sometimes the appropriate response to reality is to go insane."
-- Philip K. Dick

Headaches

It's been awhile since I posted anything and I guess that's a good thing. It means that I'm focusing on my dissertation, applications, and whatever else that requires my attention. It also means that my mind is a wreck as I try to wrap my head around my dissertation.

I tried to start revising my chapters. I wrote these chapters a long while ago and I just do not agree with what I wrote back then, and more importantly, my argument has changed quite dramatically. I guess that's what rewrites are all about which is to refine your argument. But right now it looks like a monumental task to do.

Another Step Closer ...

Actually there's a few more but the good news is that I'm done with my conclusion and I mailed it off to my chair today. I also sent in my "Intent to Graduate" forms for CGU which is nothing more than a post-graduate evaluation form. I also mailed off the first round of job applications and that was a mad dash that included a host of updates and revisions to my cv, job letter, and contacting my committee for updated letters of recommendations. I have another round at the end of October which includes some that I'm really hoping to get. *crosses fingers*

At any rate, my dissertation is done ... sort of. The research is done, but now I have to go back and refine my chapters and bring my argument out more. Here's the gist of my dissertation for those of you who are interested. It's a load of nonsense, but oh well. It's part of the profession ...

My dissertation is a both an application and a critique of Michel Foucault’s concept of governmentality in relation to legal studies scholarship of hate violence. The dissertation enables a radical interpretation of the relationship between state power and the construction of hate violence as a domain and rationality of governance. My argument contends that past and current hate crimes legislation functions as one of the most productive and efficient mechanisms to institutionalize state power in the regulation, management, and governance of difference. In Chapter 1, I review the existing literature on the discursive and ideological construction of “hate.” I argue that it is not only an object of knowledge to be defined, but that it also enables and rationalizes different exercises of state power other than punishment. In chapters 2 and 3, I examine two federal laws passed in response to hate violence: the Hate Crime Statistics Act (1990), and the Violence Against Women Act (1994). The chapters analyze the governmentalization of “sexual orientation” and “women,” respectively, as specific rationalities of governance. I argue, in general, that the two laws had a double function. On the one hand, both standardized a set of “risks” of hate violence that are specifically associated with the two identities. On the other hand, under the guise of protection, these same “risks” also functioned as a gateway to police these identities.

Chapters 4 and 5 form the second part of my dissertation which examines recent efforts to criminalize hate speech. Chapter 4 uses poststructuralist critiques of discourse and language to reveal limitations in the scholarship of critical race theories and feminist legal studies. Central to their intellectual and political project is the experience of pain and injury caused by hate speech that forms the basis for, and appeal of, criminalization. However, poststructuralists contend that regulating speech will not repress its injurious effects, but will instead reproduce the pain and injury as a fact of law. In order to reconcile these concerns and advance their political project, I argue that critical race theories must abandon their liberal humanist appeals to the pain and injury caused by hate speech, and aggressively adopt a paradigm and discourse of war. Only then can hate speech, as the speech of “my enemy,” be regulated.

Finally, Chapter 5 analyzes the U.S. Supreme Court case Virginia v. Black (2003). I argue that the Court’s plurality decision to strike down Virginia’s anti-cross burning law was not a total loss, but a unique development of “true threat” doctrine to define classes of hate speech. The appeal of this case is that it not only reveals the theoretical and legal implications of criminalizing hate speech, but it also demonstrates how culture is a critical site for contextualizing the power and pain of hate speech. Finally, my conclusion assesses the usefulness of governmentality in hate violence studies, and the benefits and challenges of interdisciplinary research.

American Style Democracy

By way of: http://community.livejournal.com/politicartoons/780521.html.

"The Play" - 1982 Cal-Stanford Big Game

I'm not a fan of either Cal or Stanford for obvious reasons. I never went to either one for college. But "the Play" is one of those historic sports moments that just made me love the sport of football forever. Anyways, like any great play there's always a bit of controversy. Stanford claims that the ball was down on Cal's 49 yard line. But a UC Berkeley professor (obviously from an unbiased point of view) uses the magic of digital 3-D technology to demonstrate once and for all that the ball was never downed.

Enjoy!

A Final Lecture

Professor Randy Pausch of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University gives his final lecture this past Tuesday. He was diagnosed with an incurable form of pancreatic cancer and even though he underwent a series of aggressive treatments in chemotherapy, his cancer returned leaving him with only months left to live. I read the article about him and he has such an incredible life.

I read his lecture. I saw it on video. And I am so humbled by his words and life.

Just a Thought on Foucault

So I've been avidly working on my conclusion and I realized two things about it:

1) The conclusion doesn't have to be all that complex. I was lucky enough to read two great examples from two of my friends and they were short, simple, and to the point. It was more than restating the argument, but about contextualizing the work in other ways and setting aside room for a future research agenda. However ...
2) Even when I don't need it to be complex, I keep coming across stuff that does complicate things a lot more than what I actually need.

Here's one example ...

I was rereading Foucault's lectures on race and racism in "Society Must Be Defended," and in the section on biopolitics in History of Sexuality. As a follow up, I read an interview from Foucault in Power/Knowledge. His interviews often provide some of the best details into his works. I was looking for additional tidbits of information when I came across this:

Grosrichdard: To come now to the last part of your book .... [ref. HOS]
Foucault: Yes, no one wants to talk about that last part. Even though the book is a short one, but I suspect people never got as far as this last chapter. All the same, it's the fundamental part of the book.

By the way, the last part of History of Sexuality is "Part Five: Right of Death and Power Over Life." This is the section discussing biopolitics / biopower of race deployed as a technology of power in the specific practice of preserving and disqualifying life. Obviously, our use of "race" is not used in the same way that Foucault does to denote multicultural relations, for instance. Instead, it is how "race" is deployed as a method of discerning, categorizing, and mobilizing differences in population as a question and problem of "species." This is where Foucault makes the provocative claim that "massacres are vital," leading political theorist Mitchell Dean to call this section, Foucault's "dark side." At any rate, that section about biopolitics was hugely critical in my research about hate violence. Anyways ...

I was struck by Foucault's observation about the reception of his book, especially when he considers it to be the "fundamental part of the book." So why did people did not want to talk about the last section? And who exactly are "they?"

I remember my graduate seminar in cultural studies and my first introduction to HOS. I distinctly remember that our coverage, though mainly for a lack of time, only covered the major insights around discourse, sexuality, and power. But not the last section. As a matter of fact, I don't think I touched the last section until I came across the governmentality lectures and subsequent scholarship that referenced biopolitics / biopower at the start of my dissertation. I wonder if we could measure the distribution of HOS according to discipline? I haven't really come across a work in the humanities that uses/discusses Foucault's biopolitics / biopower section except for the social sciences. And while quite a few social scientists use HOS in general, a lot more seem to be rooted in the humanities in general. So I'm wondering if there's a disciplinary boundary that governs Foucault's chapters in HOS?

*shrugs*

The Last Few Steps

I have a number of things on my plate again that needs to be taken care of before the end of the month. Among them are:

1) Finish my conclusion: It's just that simple. Finish it and move onto my revisions.
2) Job applications: Yep I'm on the market this year. There's a number of pretty nice positions that look interesting so I'll give it a go.
3) Intent to Graduate: I have to file an intent to graduate? Weird but oh well.
4) CSU Forgivable Loan crap: I have to reconfirm my status as "continuing student" in the program otherwise they'll start sending the bills.
5) Schedule a defense: It'll be my "Judgement Day." Yikes.
6) Everything else that I forgot to list goes here.

West Virginia Torture Case

This is absolutely horrid case. A commentator described the incident like a scene out of a horror movie. I'll keep following this as best as I can.

UPDATE: Somehow my google news filter missed this case that occurred in January 2007.

Details Emerge in West Virginia Torture Case

By JOHN RABY and TOM BREEN
Associated Press

BIG CREEK, W.Va. — For at least a week, authorities say, a young black woman was held captive in a mobile home, forced to eat animal waste, stabbed, choked and repeatedly sexually abused — all while being peppered with a racial slur.

It wasn't until deputies acting on an anonymous tip drove to a ramshackle trailer deep in West Virginia's rural hills that she was found. Limping toward the door with her arms outstretched, she uttered, "Help me," the Logan County sheriff's office said.

Six people, all white, including a mother and son and a mother and daughter, have been arrested and could face federal hate crime charges in the suspected attack on 20-year-old Megan Williams, who remained hospitalized Tuesday with injuries that included four stab wounds in the leg, and black and blue eyes. Her right arm was in a cast.

"I'm better," Williams told The Associated Press in a voice barely above a whisper.

"I don't understand a human being doing another human being the way they did my daughter," Carmen Williams said Tuesday from the Charleston Area Medical Center. "I didn't know there were people like that out here."

The AP generally does not identify suspected victims of sexual assault, but Williams and her mother agreed to release her name.

A prosecutor said police are investigating the possibility that the victim was lured to the house and attacked by a man she had met online, but Carmen Williams insisted that wasn't the case. "This wasn't from the Internet," she said.

Authorities were still looking for two people they believe drove the woman to the house where she was abused, said Logan County Chief Deputy V.K. Dingess. Deputies also interviewed Williams on Tuesday morning. An FBI spokesman in Pittsburgh, Bill Crowley, confirmed that the agency is looking into possible civil rights violations.

The case is "something that would have come out of a horror movie," Logan County Sheriff W.E. Hunter said.

The home is in a forlorn part of Logan County about 50 miles southwest of Charleston, where the scattered homes are marked by "No Trespassing" signs. An old shed linked to a mobile home by an extension cord is what authorities say became a hellish prison for Williams.

Deputies found her when they drove to the home on Saturday after receiving an anonymous tip from someone who witnessed the abuse, officials said.

The woman was forced to eat rat and dog feces and drink from a toilet, according to the criminal complaint filed in magistrate court based on what the suspects told deputies. She also had been choked with a cord, it alleges. Deputies say the woman was also doused with hot water while being sexually assaulted.

One of those arrested, Karen Burton, is accused of cutting the woman's ankle with a knife. She used the N-word in telling the woman she was victimized because she is black, according to the criminal complaint.

Carmen Williams said doctors told her daughter she may be well enough to leave the hospital within a few days, although a nurse said the young woman's condition was listed as "under evaluation."

"I just want my daughter to be well and recover," Carmen Williams said. "I know the Lord can do anything."

The six suspects were arrested Saturday and Sunday. Frankie Brewster, the 49-year-old woman who owns the home where the suspected attacks occurred, is charged with kidnapping, sexual assault, malicious wounding and giving false information during a felony investigation.

Her son, Bobby R. Brewster, 24, also of Big Creek, is charged with kidnapping, sexual assault, malicious wounding and assault during the commission of a felony.

Frankie Brewster was released from prison in September 2000 after serving five years for voluntary manslaughter and wanton endangerment in the death of an 84-year-old woman, according to court records.

Burton, 46, of Chapmanville, is charged with malicious wounding, battery and assault during the commission of a felony.

Her daughter Alisha Burton, 23, of Chapmanville, and George A. Messer, 27, of Chapmanville, are charged with assault during the commission of a felony and battery.

Danny J. Combs, 20, of Harts, is charged with sexual assault and malicious wounding.

All six remained in custody Tuesday in lieu of $100,000 bail each, and all have asked for court-appointed attorneys.

Quotation for the Day

Education is a method whereby one acquires a higher grade of prejudices.

-- Laurence J. Peter (Educator & Writer, 1919-1988)

Clown Power!!!

Of all the counter-demonstrations, this has got to be the most ingenious and creative. Clown Power vs. White Power? Who do you think will win? Read the article to find out!

Photo and article courtesy of Asheville Indymedia.

Nazi's out of Knoxville!

Saturday May 26th the VNN Vanguard Nazi/KKK group attempted to host a hate rally to try to take advantage of the brutal murder of a white couple for media and recruitment purposes. http://www.volunteertv.com/special

Unfortunately for them the 100th ARA (Anti Racist Action) clown block came and handed them their asses by making them appear like the asses they were.

Alex Linder the founder of VNN and the lead organizer of the rally kicked off events by rushing the clowns in a fit of rage, and was promptly arrested by 4 Knoxville police officers who dropped him to the ground when he resisted and dragged him off past the red shiny shoes of the clowns. http://www.volunteertv.com/home/headlines/7704982.html

“White Power!” the Nazi’s shouted, “White Flour?” the clowns yelled back running in circles throwing flour in the air and raising separate letters which spelt “White Flour”.

“White Power!” the Nazi’s angrily shouted once more, “White flowers?” the clowns cheers and threw white flowers in the air and danced about merrily.

“White Power!” the Nazi’s tried once again in a doomed and somewhat funny attempt to clarify their message, “ohhhhhh!” the clowns yelled “Tight Shower!” and held a solar shower in the air and all tried to crowd under to get clean as per the Klan’s directions.

At this point several of the Nazi’s and Klan members began clutching their hearts as if they were about to have a heart attack. Their beady eyes bulged, and the veins in their tiny narrow foreheads beat in rage. One last time they screamed “White Power!”

The clown women thought they finally understood what the Klan was trying to say. “Ohhhhh…” the women clowns said. “Now we understand…”, “WIFE POWER!” they lifted the letters up in the air, grabbed the nearest male clowns and lifted them in their arms and ran about merrily chanting “WIFE POWER! WIFE POWER! WIFE POWER!”

It was at this point that several observers reported seeing several Klan members heads exploding in rage and they stopped trying to explain to the clowns what they wanted.

Apparently the clowns fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the rally, they believed it was a clown rally and came in force to support their pointy hated brethren. To their dismay, despite their best jokes and stunts and pratfalls the Nazis and Klan refused to laugh, and indeed became enraged at the clowns misunderstanding and constant attempts to interpret the clowns instruction.

The clowns on the other hand had a great time and thought the Nazis were the funniest thing they had ever seen and the loud laughter of over 100 counter protesters greeted every attempt of the Nazis and Klan to get their message out, whatever that was.

Many of the local Knoxvillians that came to counter demonstrate had no illusions about why these out of state bad clowns with swastikas were doing in their town.

“KKK YOU CAN’T HIDE, WE CHARGE YOU WITH GENOCIDE!”

“GAY, STRAIGHT, BLACK, WHITE ONE STRUGGLE ONE FIGHT!”

“U.G.L.Y. KLAN YOU AIN’T GOT NO ALIBI, YOU UGLY, YOU UGLY”

Were just a few of the chants that the non clown counter protesters rained down upon the Nazis. The clowns interacted with the non clown protesters with glee and even participated in a chant or two, though apparently with no idea that the Nazis were indeed not clowns thinking it was just part of the show.

In the end the 20 or so sad VNNers left with their tails between their legs. At this point over 150 counter demonstraters were present. The clowns seeing how dejected and sad the Nazi’s looked began singing to cheer them up.

“hey hey hey hey, ho ho ho ho—good bye, good bye” everyone sang waving their arms in the air in unison.

After the VNNers left in their shiny SUVs to go back to Alabama and all the other states that they were from the clowns and counter demonstrators began to march out of the area chanting ‘WHOSE STREETS? OUR STREETS!”

But the cops stopped the clowns and counter protestors. “Hey, do you want an escort” an African-American police officer on a motorcycle asked. “Yes” a clown replied. “We are walking to Market Square in the center of town to celebrate.”

The police officers got in front of the now anti racist parade and blocked the entire road for the march through the heart of Knoxville. An event called imagination station was taking place and over 15,000 thousand students and their parents were in town that weekend. Many of them cheered as the clowns, Knoxvillians and counter protestors marched through the heart of Knoxville singing and laughing at the end of the Nazi’s first attempt at having a rally in Knoxville.

On June 16th the Stormfront Nazis are trying to have a second rally in Knoxville. Clowns, anarchist, activist and others are all invited to come and creatively and nonviolently help us confront these Nazis and give them an even bigger counter rally than the first. If you can come, or can help email.

knoxvilleantiracistaction@yahoo.com

or join our myspace at:

http://www.myspace.com/knoxvilleantiracistaction

Thanks to Three Rivers Earth First!, Mountain Justice Summer, Katuah Earth First!, Knoxville Anti Racist Action, Katuah Anti Racist Action and the clown block for utterly wrecking the failed attempt of the Nazis to get a foothold in Knoxville. In one day Three Rivers Earth First!ers posted over 1000 anti racist fliers all over Knoxville recruiting people to come, this is just one example of all the work and effort that went in to creatively and nonviolently rejecting the VNNers out of Knoxville.

Judge: Iowa Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

"DES MOINES n Gay rights advocates won a major victory Thursday when a Polk County District Judge ruled that the state's ban on gay marriage violates the Iowa Constitution."

This is a major development and I need to read the decision but it sounds like the ban on marriage was a form of sex discrimination. Of course, I am sure the decision will be appealed. We'll just have to wait and see for the next round.

read more | digg story

California Politics

OK this is absolutely horrid and a complete power grab by Republican forces. Under the guise of "fairness" and "equality" an initiative is underway that will split up California's 55 electoral votes according to congressional districts instead of the lump-sum victory that is currently practiced. Only two states in the union have this model and they are not big electoral states like California.
I've read Barbara Boxer's op-ed piece and I generally agree with her assessment. It would make sense if all the states in the union adopted this plan to have true equality and maintain the Electoral College. But to have only California divvy up its vote is not only extremely disingenuous, but that the plan caters to nothing more than a Republican power grab.

See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-barbara-boxer/stop-the-gop-electoral-co_b_60728.html
And Fair Election Reform to sign the petition.

I would also add that there's generally no reason why immigrant and communities of color wouldn't vote conservatively. On the whole, these communities are socially conservative on issues such as preserving family values, protecting religious freedom, and extending crime control. They are also fiscally conservative emphasizing merit in work and education, and the lowering of taxes. This is an agenda that ought to play well for Republicans. But the Republican leadership, both on a local and national level, keep mucking things up on one issue: immigration. Republicans paid a price for invoking anti-immigrant sentiment under former Governor Pete Wilson, and they have continued to pay for it especially in recent years. The rhetoric has inflamed many voting immigrant communities away from the Republicans to the Democrats, and in one case, albeit anecdotally, some have voted to spite the Republicans for what they saw was a blatantly stereotypical, unfair, and uncivilized attack. If Republicans want to develop and secure an electoral base, they're going to have to deal with race and immigration productively, and not as a knee-jerk reaction. You cannot use or be associated with anti-immigrant rhetoric for the backlash has been, and will continue to be, quite severe.

I don't see that happening any time soon.

And So It Begins ...

... a new semester begins today for me ...

... another round of students to teach ...

... a curious group of students known collectively as "freshmen" to deal with ...

... another hot and humid day ...

... and somehow I'm suppose to finish my dissertation this semester ...

Uhhhhh ...

I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy -- but that could change.

-- Dan Quayle, Former US Vice President (1989-1993)

End of Summer

I'm going to make one last big push to finish my conclusion and get on with my chapter revisions and edits. It's the last week of summer; the Fall semester begins next week. I finished my syllabus and it looks like crap. I have nothing but totally random notes for my conclusion. On a brighter note, one of my favorite committee members sent a very supportive email, reassuring me again that it will be done and that I will be an awesome academic.

Hooray!

Making Sense of It

I came across this chart on all the major presidential nominees and their political positions on major issues. It's pretty amazing to see the ideological fault lines occur between Democrats and Republicans, but to also see the differences within the ranks.

Bill Walsh (1931-2007)

This is a sad day.

Bill Walsh, the imaginative and charismatic coach who took over a downtrodden 49ers team and built one of the greatest franchises in NFL history, died Monday morning at his home in Woodside at the age of 75 after a three-year struggle with leukemia.

For the rest of the tribute, click here

CNN & YouTube Democratic Debates: My Initial Thoughts

So after watching the CNN and YouTube Democratic debates, I was immediately left with this question: So who won? Who moved ahead? Who stood out? Who fell behind? Who, in the end, looked Presidential?

I hate answering these questions. I'd rather deal with Michel Foucault's conception of power than Dennis Kucinich's proposal to stop funding the war to end the war.

I will state unequivocally that the YouTube-inspired questions were insightful, humorous, passionate, and the format added a really different energy to the debates. The "winners" of the debates were the folks from YouTube, and this debate, of user-generated material, will set the standard for political debates in the future.

I neglected to post what I said specifically when I was interviewed by the Swedish news team that I think might be useful here. One of the things she asked was this relationship between users of YouTube and a platform like CNN? I responded that it will be a unique format because you really are talking about two different communities and their own ways of gathering, presenting, and using information. YouTubers, and users like them, are very self-sufficient, very sophisticated and savvy about using the internet to find what they want to know and relaying that information to others. There's an inherent freedom that a powerful corporate media, like CNN, does not promote. It's "news" in their own way, while CNN is a medium in which information is presented to us, so there really is no way for "users" to define the material.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that all YouTubers do not watch CNN, and those who watch CNN do not use YouTube. That sort of distinction is not very useful to me. What is useful is the impact of the YouTube vids in a format that is still corporate controlled and it just happens to be a Democratic debate? This is similar to a live Q&A session in a debate that is covered on live television, but what the vids presented, that was fairly consistent, was how creative, insightful, provocative, knowledgeable, and powerful, user-generated content is in a live format. I should say, questions from ordinary people (the duo from Tennessee comes to mind and it was hilarious! On a separate note, I wonder if there's a way to rate the videos themselves.). What I thought was revealing was how each candidate responded to the videos themselves. The candidates seemed to fall along these lines: either they picked up the video and rolled with it, and did quite well, or, they looked awkward, distant, unsure, in a sense, almost out of touch with the people themselves.

Here are some high points that demonstrated what I mean: Obama's response to a video questioner who asked how does Obama deal with the charge that he's not "black enough?" Obama began his response about hailing a taxicab in Manhattan which drew a solid response. Another is Richardson's immediate answer to whether the No Child Left Behind Act should be scrapped or revised? His response was to scrap it which also drew a solid positive response. And finally, Hillary Clinton's response to her being a woman, which is a similar set of questions posed to Obama, was by far, smartly done and also drew some strong positive reactions and praise saying, "I couldn't run as anything other than a woman."

Dodd was smart, but he looked as though he was speaking on the Senate floor. Same with Biden. Kucinich, although had a high point on his call to end the war by cutting funding, was awkward. "Text Peace" which is a cool tagline, but once is enough. Edwards had his charm and high moments, but seemed only good at populist themes.

Richardson is interesting because as a governor, he can see the effects of federal policy from a local level, and it seems like he has a solid position from the ground up. However, there were some random moments in his responses, almost a stammering, the kind when someone is excited, who knows the answer, but stumbles upon his words. It wasn't pervasive, but it was memorable. The one I remember was some mentioning of "Muslims" which made me wince because of the context of his response. Maybe it's a good thing I don't remember the specifics.

Gravel was just an angry oddball, but I suppose being last in the polls you have nothing to lose so I thought of him as a "What the hell I'll say what I want to say at this point" of a campaign. His, "I took the train" after Anderson Cooper's question in regards to personal transportation and global warming, is one of those moments that marks Gravel's disposition.

So who do I think won?

Well ... ... ...

UPDATE: 07/24/2007, 11:18am EST
So I was reading the Washington Post and rewatching the debates again. On a lead article in the Washington Post was the tagline describing the YouTubers as "citizen-interrogators," their videos adding the necessary edge to the debate. I generally agreed, but I thought it was strangely unsettling. For reasons that I generally mentioned, the YouTube element was remarkably productive, but as I stated earlier, it's still under the context of a corporate medium. I'm not referencing this to YouTube as a corporation. That is not the focus of my attention. It's about CNN and, as a practical matter, the videos had to have been prescreened and selected based on a specific criteria: humor, wit, presentation, identifiable question, raising an issue, etc. Again, this is not my actual point, but important to remember that it is a specific selection of YouTube videos, and I agree with this pre-selection. I certainly do not want to see, what I believe, would be the vast majority of nimrods and nutcases using the debates to showcase their neurosis.

It's this notion of the "citizen-interrogator," and I think it's a particular social and political function of, simply put, asking the hard questions. I think it's great that the videos raised a number of difficult and personal issues for the candidates. I'm sure it could've went further, but it was just enough for me to see the differences amongst the candidates.

But, and this is my point, whose job is it to "ask the hard questions?" Where were the "hard questions" one year ago? Two years ago? Six years ago? I find it extremely disingenuous for CNN to pat itself on the back for utilizing a new form of "user-generated" content, of allowing and encouraging "citizens" to raise these questions, when it itself was suppose to do that for us because it's their damn job?!? I'm annoyed. It seems that using "citizen-interrogators" is a "safer" way to do the job that CNN is suppose to do, lest CNN be accused of being less than transparent. And through it all, CNN will take credit for this so called "innovation" when these practices of interrogation, criticism, and problem-solving have long been a staple of the very best bloggers on the internet representing all points on the political spectrum. All CNN did was distill and repackage a medium and community for mass consumption.

YouTube, CNN, Swedish TV, and Me

So I'm at Murky doing what I always do which is read, research, and write when the owner announced that a Swedish news team will be interviewing and videotaping patrons in regards to the upcoming CNN / YouTube Democratic debates.

So just 10 minutes ago, I was interviewed by the Swedish reporter, with a camera crew hovering over my table with my laptop, sipping my chai latte, and talking about virtual communities, politics, and the debates tonight. How weird is that?!? Afterwards, the reporter said I was sure to have lots of fans in Sweden. WOOT! I'm almost famous!!!

However, my only regret is that I couldn't catch her name or the station. It was Swedish after all, and I didn't want to press it after the second time or else I would look like an idiot. But throughout the interview, I had only one thought ...

I AM SO GLAD I SHAVED TODAY! ^.^

Security, Territory, Population

I just picked up and started reading a new book titled, Michel Foucault: Security, Territory, Population (2007), edited by Michel Senellart. These were lectures given by Michel Foucault at the College de France from 1977-1978, and it was recently translated into English. And it couldn't have come at a better time than right now as I'm writing my conclusion. It's "new" in the sense that it's now accessible to people like me, but "old" if you already spoke French.

I wish I had access to these lectures much earlier because it clarified so many questions I had in relation to my dissertation about major concepts like discipline, normalization, law, state, security, and population, all of which I've had trouble trying to reconcile as my project is in many ways a discussion about the relationship between cultural studies and political science. But reading through the first two lectures, I'm beginning to rethink the scope and substance of my argument, and, it is refining my argument ... at least, I hope so.

I'm doing more reading today and jotting lots of notes here and there. I'm writing my conclusion as I read, editing as I go, and clarifying the individual arguments in each chapter while thinking about the big one. It's like juggling several pins while walking on a tightrope 1,000 ft. in the air across a mile long chasm, and you have to hurry before the fire burns through before you fall to your perilous death.

Sounds like fun.

Where Did My Time Go?

Egads! It's July 16th! The latest movie installment of the Harry Potter series is definitely a hit. So is Talk to Me starring Don Cheadle and Chiwetel Ejiofor, and so is the newly redone Transformers! And I'm back to writing again. With a little over two weeks left into the month, I have to crank out my conclusion before August rolls around and I have to make preparations for the new Fall semester. Once again, time is running out.

iPhone on Conan

Yes I did check out the iPhone and it is the coolest gadget ever, doing pretty much everything except use it as a phone. Crappy phone company = crappy phone service. Anyways, I thought I post a clip from Conan O'Brien about the many uses of the iPhone. Enjoy!

Back To Work

Kinda' back to work. Reading two anthologies at the moment. The first, Law in the Domains of Culture, edited by Austin Sarat and Thomas R. Kearns, and Cultural Analysis, Cultural Studies, and the Law: Moving Beyond Legal Realism, edited by Austin Sarat and Jonathan Simon. Austin Sarat, by the way, the main guy on law, culture, and legal studies, and was the past president of the Law and Society Association. A pretty good discussion thus far on the nature and impact of interdisciplinary work in a rigid discipline like legal studies, but there are moments that made my eyebrow furl. The obvious one is their definition of interdisciplinarity, at least some parts of it is contradictory. On the one hand, it is clear that they are talking about the limits of legal methodology and the problem with defining "culture" as a legal concept. Hence, the use of literary, sociological, anthropological methods that have traditionally dealt with "culture" can be enormously useful as a legal method. On the other hand, there are moments when "culture" is used as a pedagogical tool in legal studies. For example, how I would use various episodes of The Wire to talk about practices of surveillance, containment, and policing. I'm just using these episodes as examples to illustrate theoretical concepts, but, as my partner often tells me, a media studies professor would talk about them in a totally different manner which, of course, furls her eyebrow whenever she reads how other disciplines use film and tv media as teaching tools as opposed to proper objects of analysis. So it's somewhat problematic, yet predictable, on how people think of interdisciplinary work in their respective fields. What I think thus far is that legal studies ought to write against the law, in similar ways that cultural studies write against culture.

More on this when I read further.

Chungs Update

I came across another good article by Marc Fisher, columnist for The Washington Post, a video link of a press conference, and a discussion also led by Marc Fisher.

UPDATE: I like this Marc Fisher and I'd forgotten that he was among the few, if not the only one, who covered the recent appointment of Michelle Rhee to the top position of the D.C. school system of simmering Black-Korean tensions with the recent laundry pants case. Here's his article and check out the subsequent reactions to his post. It's very predictable.

D.C.'s Black-Koren Dynamic: A Simmering Tension
by Marc Fisher, Metro Columnist

What do the $54 million pants man, Roy Pearson, and the new D.C. schools superintendent, Michelle Rhee, have in common?

Their moments in the news in recent days have lifted the lid off a cauldron of black-Korean tensions. This relationship has a volatile history in Washington, running back to 1986, when Rev. Willie Wilson of Union Temple Baptist Church famously led a boycott of an Asian-American grocer in Southeast who had supposedly disrespected a black customer. The episode culminated in Wilson saying, after being asked if his demands were inflaming racial tensions, that if he and his followers hadn't forgiven the Asian shopkeeper, "we would have cut his head off and rolled it down the street."

Interestingly, until the start of last week's trial, the mail on the Pants Man was focused almost entirely on issues of abusing the legal system, the eternal battle over tort reform, and how the District could possibly have such a fellow serving as an administrative law judge. But once the trial started--and most importantly, once the first news photos of Pearson started appearing online, on TV and in the paper--the tenor of reader reaction changed dramatically. I still heard plenty of outrage about how Pearson was tormenting the owners of the dry cleaners and wasting the court's resources, but now that it was widely known that Pearson is black, a good chunk of the mail shifted to matters of ethnic rivalry.

Similarly, the surprise announcement that Rhee, a Korean-American woman, would become the first non-black chief of the D.C. school system in nearly half a century immediately engendered all manner of comment about supposed antipathy toward blacks by Koreans--all this from people who know nothing of Rhee's background, approach or personality.

I'll spare you the comments that consist solely of racist vitriol, but I think there's value in looking at the texture of the incidents and complaints that readers report about encounters with Korean merchants. I doubt that these incidents are much different from those that could be catalogued about any dry cleaner, no matter the owner's ethnicity, but here's one of the more thoughtful comments I've received from readers who believe the pants case is more about black-Korean tensions than anything else:

"The main thing here is the strained relationship between Korean businesses and Blacks with regard to customer service or lack thereof," wrote Keith Jones, a legal assistant at a major Washington company. He told of an Asian-owned grocery in his D.C. neighborhood where he says the owner routinely sells coffee creamer that has passed its sell-by date, as well as a dry cleaner that he says charges exorbitant rates.

"It is clear that the Korean merchants have a lot of businesses in urban America and that they are unified," Jones writes. "Blacks in these urban settings, for the most part, rely solely on Korean establishments in their neighborhoods. This is due to access and ultimately, their socio-economic status. I am certainly not saying that this justifies the Pearson case, especially not the amount. From the examples I gave from my own experience, however, one can only imagine what a Black person experiences daily dealing with the Koreans."

And here's an account from Rosemary Reed Miller, the longtime owner of Toast & Strawberries, which was one of the city's best-regarded boutiques, talking about her experience with a Korean dry cleaner:

"I had brought in a pair of pants which had a small spot. They cleaned that area, but left a larger spot on another area of the pant. When I pointed that out (unfortunately, I didn't see the spot until after I had paid), they told me that the large spot was on the pant when I brought the pants in. They wouldn't give me my money back, and implied that it would be another fee to get out the second spot. I decided to walk.

"When you're in business--and I had a small shop, Toast and Strawberries for over 20 years--I know you can't be perfect with everyone, but this I thought was unreasonable. I've lived long enough to share [Pearson's] pain. I am African American, but didn't sue. However, I feel as though I should have sued that cleaner even though my silk pants had a modest price tag. I've fought for the civil rights of all people all of my life. People need their rights to be addressed, and the people who 'wrong' them should be educated not to do something like that again to another person.

"I appreciate his suing on my behalf. Obviously $60+ million is 'over the top.' And I understand that
Korean-Americans have made efforts to be 'nicer' to their Afro-American clientele, but I think these cases are examples of their needing to be more sensitive. If they had listened with more understanding in the beginning,
and paid him for his 'lost' pants, I would hope that Mr. Pearson wouldn't have had such a strong sense of outrage."

Why do the kinds of poor customer service that might otherwise result in a grumble or a decision to shop elsewhere morph into ethnic tension in the black-Korean dynamic? This has been the subject of considerable study since the 1992 Los Angeles riots, in which some Korean grocers took up arms against black rioters, and the years that followed, when some rappers took after Korean merchants in their lyrics? (Warning: That link goes to a song with R-rated language.)

In part, this divide is a continuation of black-Jewish tensions that developed when many shops in American ghetto neighborhoods were run by immigrant Jews. But there's an additional element that many of the academics end up focusing on: It's a culture clash between two groups with very different behavioral mores.

Contrast a Korean social manner in which merchants may put change down on a counter rather than touch a customer's hand, or an infelicitous command of English that can make a shopkeeper seem distant and even disrespectful, against an African-American culture in which strangers are expected to make eye contact and acknowledge one another in a respectful exchange. Here's a black writer's perspective on this, and here's a Korean writer's view of a similar situation.

Did Roy Pearson sue the Chung family, owners of Custom Cleaners, because they are Korean immigrants? There's no evidence of that. Will the rank and file of the D.C. school system refuse to give Michelle Rhee a chance to succeed because she is Korean-American? Certainly most people are better than that. But in both cases, the noise around the black-Korean tension is loud enough to make hard situations much harder, and that's worth keeping a close eye on.

NOTHING!!!

That's what a D.C. Superior Court judge ruled against Roy Pearson in his $54 million dollar suit against the Chung family. The Washington Post has a great article that includes a link to the court opinion. Apparently, Pearson called forth several witnesses to testify and one of them described the Chungs as "Nazis." Pretty strong words to use against your local laundry, and definitely not a comedic description like, for example, "The Soup Nazi" in Seinfeld. Judge Judith Bartnoff adeptly rebuked each of the witnesses and their testimonies, but I check it out in full because they can be read as narratives to be deconstructed. Aside from the dramatic use and intent of the witness, I want to know what would compel someone to describe the Chungs as "Nazis."

It's such a bizarre case when I first heard about it months ago, but unfortunately, there's the distinct possibility that Pearson will file an appeal. The Chung family will have a donation drive to support their legal expenses because their savings have been depleted as a result of this idiot.

Plaintiff Gets Nothing in $54M Case of Missing Pants
by Henri E. Cauvin and Debbi Wilgoren

The D.C. administrative law judge who sued his neighborhood dry cleaner for $54 million over a pair of lost pants found out this morning what he's going to get for all his troubles.

Nothing.

In a verdict that surprised no one, except perhaps the plaintiff himself, a D.C. Superior Court judge denied Roy Pearson the big payday he claimed was his due.

Delivering her decision in writing, Judge Judith Bartnoff wrote 23 pages dissecting and dismissing Pearson's claim that he was defrauded by the owners of Custom Cleaners and their "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign.

"A reasonable consumer would not interpret 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer's unreasonable demands or to accede to demands that the merchant has reasonable grounds to dispute," the ruling said. " . . . The plaintiff is not entitled to any relief whatsoever."

It was a pointed rebuke of Pearson's claim, and came with an order to pay the cleaners' court costs. But even bigger troubles may loom for Pearson.

Financially, he could soon be on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees incurred by the owners of Customer Cleaners. Attorneys for the Chungs have said they will seek such payments, as well as sanctions against Pearson for bringing the lawsuit. Bartnoff said in her ruling that she would decide those issues after both sides have filed their motions, counter-motions and legal briefs.

Professionally, Pearson could find himself out of his $96,000-a-year job as an administrative law judge for the District government.

All that is certain right now is that he won't be getting the multi-million dollar payout he demanded when he filed suit in 2005 against Soo Chung and her husband, the owners of Custom Cleaners.

No one, not even Pearson argued that his pants were actually worth $54 million. The whole suit had cost just over a thousands dollars, and letting out the waist, as Pearson had asked the cleaners to do, was only going to cost him $10.50.

But this case -- decried by both trial lawyers and the defense bar -- was, to Pearson, about far more than the pair of pants.

It was about safeguarding the rights of every consumer in the District who, Pearson argued, might fall prey to signs like those once posted in Custom Cleaners. Satisfaction was in fact not guaranteed, Pearson argued, and his own experience put the lie to the supposed promise.

For years, Pearson had been a customer of Custom Cleaners, the only dry cleaners in easy walking distance of his home in the Northeast Washington neighborhood of Fort Lincoln. Even after a squabble several years ago over another pair of lost pants, Pearson continued to patronize the Bladensburg Road NE business.

So when Pearson was hired in April 2005 to be an administrative law judge and needed to have all of his suit trousers altered, he went to Custom Cleaners to have the work done.

Until he landed the judgeship, Pearson had been out of work. Strapped for cash and running up close to his limit on his credit cards, he brought his pants in one or two at a time to avoid maxing out his credit.

On May 3, he brought in the pants he planned to wear three days later. But on May 5, the pants were not ready, and the next day, May 6, they were nowhere to be found.

A week later Soo Chung found what she said were the missing pants. But Pearson said they were not the pants he had left to be altered. Not only was the pattern different, but the pants proffered as his had of all things, cuffs. Only once in his adult life, he said, had he worn cuffed pants, and never, he suggested, would he have so defiled his treasured Hickey Freeman suits.

Pearson demanded $1,150 to buy a new suit. When that didn't fly with the Chungs, Pearson swung into action, filing a lawsuit that would eventually make him the talk of the town and fodder for late-night comedy.

Along the way, he rejected offers to settle, first for $3,000 , then for $4,600 and finally for $12,000. A judge headed off Pearson's efforts to turn the case into a sort of sweeping class-action suit and tried to rein in his "excessive" demands for documents. But the judge found he could not simply dismiss the claim, and that meant Roy L. Pearson Jr. vs. Soo Chung et al. was going to trial.

By the time it did, on June 12, it was in the hands, a new judge, Bartnoff, and it lived up to its billing. Media hordes descended, including television crews from Korea, where the Chungs were born. CNN updated its viewers frequently.

A dozen witnesses testified. One, called on behalf of the plaintiff, compared the dry cleaners to the Nazis.

When Pearson testified, he lost his composure and began to cry.

When she took the witness stand, Soo Chung did the same.

Finally! Now I'm Done!

Finished my final edits last night.

Printed a hard copy.

Went to Kinko's to xerox it.

Walked over to the Post Office and mailed the copy away.

Now what?

Oh yeah! A little free time to myself. Maybe go outside and embrace the first day of summer. Or maybe just recoup my lost sleep.

Still Waiting ...

Yep I'm still waiting on the last edit to be turned in before I do any real work on my chapter. I don't like to start mashing up my chapter until I read all the edits otherwise I could be working on a section that needs nothing further. In the meantime, I tried writing my conclusion, but nothing concrete. Just random thoughts but I think the general idea is about the relationship between the disciplines of cultural studies and political science on questions of law, state, and power.

I got an email from my committee chair indicating that she's excited to read my last chapter and is eagerly anticipating its arrival. But she also said that her time may be limited because of other professional and personal obligations.

Translated: Finish now or else.

BBC World Ads

I picked this up by way of Digg. Participatory democracy in advertising? I'm intrigued!

The Continuing Saga of Being Done

Finished with my first round of edits and revisions. I still have to figure out decent titles for the chapter and subsections. I'm waiting on another set of draft revisions from a friend before I finalize it. I should be able to send it off by tomorrow or Thursday.

Quotation for the Day

There are two kinds of light -- the glow that illuminates, and the glare that obscures.

-- James Thurber, US author, humorist, cartoonist, satirist (1894-1961)

Editing & Revising

The problem with taking a few days off from finishing your first draft is that you come back to hours of editing and revising. I already found a bunch of holes and gaps in my chapter that I need to clean up.

Just Because ...

Zero 7 - Destiny
Music Video Codes By Music Video Code

Done!

The first draft of my last chapter is done. Now I have to send it out to my friends first and go another round or two of edits and revisions for clarity before I send it to my committee.

*whew*

It's finally taking shape and I can see the end now.

Dissertating

Chapter Update: After a concerted effort this past week and a half, I think my chapter is 90% done, and if all goes well, I will meet my deadline. But there is a problem. There was one part of Justice Thomas's dissent about the phrase, "freedom from," reminded me of something I read from awhile ago. Instinctively, I knew it was enormously significant so I went about my library looking for the book, and my notes. The problem was that I couldn't figure out who wrote it. So I spent some hours browsing through the web -- Google Book -- until I finally found it. The book is Michael Clifford's Savage Identities: Political Genealogy After Foucault (2001).

And I lost that book this past year when I moved to Washington, DC.

Doesn't that suck?

Anniversary

Do you know what today is?

It's our Anniversay!

Yep, it's 7 years today!

Tony Toni Tone Videos | Movie Clips | Chicago MLS

Another "Monica?"

What is it with Washington controversies and the name "Monica?" *shrugs*

I took a break again from writing and tended to my usual mix of answering emails and surfing the web. The more I read about Monica Goodling, the more I became absolutely disgusted. And what is it with Republican lawmakers praising her for her courage to offer testimony? She is by no means a person to be praised -- she needs to go to jail. The damage she, and many others, have done to the Justice Department is staggering.

But at least I can find comfort and solace from Bill Maher's take on Monica Goodling and what she represents. Besides, I have to laugh, otherwise I'd be crying all the time.

Unbelievable!

A colleague of mine posted a comparison of his professional biography (under a pseudonym) with that of Monica Goodling, the former #3 DoJ official who recently resigned amidst controversy and has testified against Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez that he was fully aware of the firings of the US attorneys. The comparison of their resumes is utterly astounding.

And who says meritocracy doesn't matter anymore?

HEROES Season Finale

It was damn good. I like watching movies/series with multiple storylines and characters whose narratives parallel with each other. What I always look forward to is the finale, how well the storylines intersect at the end and as a segue into next season. And the season finale of HEROES was pretty damn good. Check out the episode, How to Stop an Exploding Man, online.

And here is the rest of it.

12

12 more days to my deadline and I'm at the cusp of a foul mood. From now until the end of the month, I will be stressed out, overcaffeinated, sleep deprived, and if I was still smoking, I'll be a walking chimney.

Despite all of this, I found this quotation from Philip K. Dick oddly comforting.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
- Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

Perpetually Dissertating

Every now and then I come across writing tips from various bloggers, writers, "how to's," and what not. Most of them seem to be common sense, and some are so vague that they are practically useless. But the one thing that does catch my eye is when the practice of writing is thought of as a ritual or routine. My dissertation advisor described writing like working out. You just have to integrate it with your daily routine. Like working out, there will be days that will be productive; and others that are not. Either way, it's the routine that is important.

Along that theme, I read something similar from Freelance Switch about a morning writing routine which seemed really insightful especially since I now have "a morning" to write now. But I refuse to wake up at 4:30am. That's way too early. =P

Create a Morning Writing Ritual
in Productivity by Leo

If you’re like most writers, you procrastinate. You have a hard time getting started writing, unless you’re seized by a burst of inspiration. Instead, you might do some “research” online, fiddle with your to-do list, or work on a number of other tasks instead of doing the writing you need to do.

If you’re having trouble getting your writing done, try creating a morning writing ritual. You can get a lot more done each day, as an early boost of productivity will spur further productivity throughout the day.

Why create a morning routine? A few reasons:

1. It gets your most important task out of the way. This assumes, of course, that your writing is your most important task, or at least one of them. But if it is, you don’t want to put off that task till later — do it first, and then you can check that off your list!

2. Stuff can get crazy later in the day. If you put your writing off until the afternoon or evening, other stuff will come up throughout the day that will interfere with your plans. And a lot of times, that stuff is urgent, pushing back your writing until the next day — when the process is repeated. Do it early, before the rest of the world gets in your way.

3. It’s peaceful. Mornings, for me, is the quietest time of the day. The kids aren’t up, there’s no hustle and bustle, the phone’s not ringing, the television’s not on. It’s just me and the cat. The sun is rising, and the day is new and beautiful. It’s the perfect time for great writing. Even if your morning writing ritual starts when you get in the office, it’s still the quietest time of the day for many offices. And quiet is good for writing.

4. You can relax later. Once you’ve got your writing done, you can goof off without guilt! Guilt-free goofing off is priceless.

5. Routines ensure that things get done. Without order is chaos. And while many of us writers enjoy chaos, it’s not always the most productive way of doing things. If you have a specific routine, with a specific order of doing things, and it becomes a habit, you know that what needs to get done will get done. It’s simple and effective.

So how do you create a morning writing ritual? Well, that’s different for each person, but here’s what works for me:

1. Prepare the night before. When you first wake up, you’re not always thinking right. Prepare for your morning writing ritual when your thinking is clear, in the evening, and your morning will start off so much better. How can you prepare? Get your writing tool out and ready to go — whether that’s your word processor (Google Docs for me) with your document open and ready to go, or your favorite writing pad and pen, have it out and set up. Next, clear away all distractions (this is a later step, but it’s good to get it ready now). Prepare the stuff for your coffee or tea, or whatever you like to have in the morning, so that it’s ready to go when you wake up. Anything else you can think of that you’ll need, get it ready. Also: know what you’re going to write, and have your pre-writing prep done as well.

2. Set a time to start. I like to wake up at 4:30 a.m. every morning, and get writing at 5:00 a.m. after getting my coffee ready, using the bathroom, eating some toast. But your wake-up time may be different. Whatever time you choose, set a fixed time to get started with your writing. Now when that time comes, brook no delay or excuses. Start on your writing right away. No excuses!

3. Get your coffee first. Before you start writing, it’s good to have an enjoyable morning beverage or snack, such as coffee or tea or toast or a bagel or a smoothie. Whatever you enjoy, have it right before you start writing. This will make the entire ritual an enjoyable one, and one that you look forward to each morning. Give yourself a reason to jump out of bed!

4. Don’t check email or RSS feeds. This is the biggest mistake many writers make. They check their email, or read their Google Reader or Bloglines. Even if you tell yourself it’s just for 10 minutes, you will get inevitably sucked into that hole of distraction and time-wasting from which no writer returns. Do not do this. Trust me. It has ruined many a productive day for me. Tell yourself that you cannot check email or feeds (or whatever your distraction of choice is) until you finish your writing (or at least 1 hour of writing). Seriously. Don’t do it.

5. Clear away all distractions. Related to the above, but clutter on your desk and your computer should be cleared off to remove any visual distractions. Turn off email notifications and the phone and anything else that might pull away your attention. I like to clear off my desk and I’ve removed everything from the walls that might distract me. Focus is key!

6. Just write. OK, you’ve got your coffee, you cleared away your distractions, and your writing time has come. It’s time to crank out the copy. If it helps, set a timer for 30 or 45 or 60 minutes, and try to write as much as possible during that time. You can do 30-10 intervals — 30 minutes of writing and 10 of break time (check email or walk around), followed by another 30-10 interval. Repeat as necessary. They key is to maintain focus — every time you feel pulled away from writing, stop, and pull yourself back. Just crank.

7. Celebrate when you’re done! Finished writing your piece or the chunk you wanted to write for today? Hooray! Now give yourself a reward. This should be a part of your ritual. The reward is the pleasurable ending, the completion of the sandwich, with the writing being the meat (or hummus or tofurkey, if you’re a vegetarian like I am). Sandwich your writing ritual in pleasure, and you’ll be more likely to do it every day.

8. Practice. This ritual will not become a habit right away. It will take focus and energy to do it at first, but after a fortnight or so, it should become an established routine and things should start to go smoothly. Ahhh! Productive and enjoyable writing!

The List of "Don'ts" for Students

I should be back to writing, but I had to do a double take on this one. By way of Orcinus who got it from Progressive Historians, it's a 26 point guideline called, "Don'ts for Students" published in 1981 by ... the North Carolina Moral Majority. Yep, it's a piece of Jerry Falwell's legacy. Orcinus called it the best summary of "the educational messages fundamentalist high school kids get from their parents and elders."

After I read it, I reminded myself that this was one of the reasons of why I teach -- well, 26 of them anyway. Although #24 seemed to be okay, but I'm skeptical of its intentions which still includes all 26 of them.

Don'ts for Students.

1. Don't get into science-fiction values discussions or trust a teacher who dwells on science fiction in his/her "teaching."

2. Don't discuss the future or future social arrangements or governments in class.

3. Don't discuss values.

4. Don't write a family history.

5. Don't answer personal questions or questions about members of your family.

6. Don't play blindfolded games in class.

7. Don't exchange "opinions" on political or social issues.

8. Don't write an autobiography.

9. Don't keep a journal of your opinions, activities and feelings.

10. Don't take intelligence tests. Write tests only on your lessons. Force others to judge you on your own personal achievement.

11. Don't discuss boy-girl or parent-child relationships in class.

12. Don't confide in teachers, particularly sociology or social studies and english teachers.

13. Don't judge a teacher by his/her appearance or personality, but on his/her competence as a teacher of solid knowledge.

14. Don't think a teacher is doing you a favor if he/she gives you a good grade for poor work or in useless subjects.

15. Don't join any social action or social work group.

16. Don't take "social studies" or "future studies." Demand course definition: history, geography, civics, French, English, etc.

17. Don't role-play or participate in socio-dramas.

18. Don't worry about the race or color of your classmates. Education is of the mind, not the body.

19. Don't get involved in school-sponsored or government-sponsored exchange or camping programs which place you in the homes of strangers.

20. Don't be afraid to say "no" to morally corrupting literature, games and activities.

21. Don't submit to psychological testing.

22. Don't fall for books like "Future Shock," which are intended to put readers in a state of panic about "change" so they will be willing to accept slavery. Advances in science and technology don't drive people into shock. It is government and vain-brain intrusions in private lives, which cause much of the unbalance in nature and in people.

23. Don't get into classroom discussions which being: What would you do if....? What if....? Should we....? Do you suppose....? Do you think....? What is your opinion of....? Who should....? What might happen if....? Do you value....? Is it moral to....?

24. Don't sell out important principles for money, a scholarship, a diploma, popularity or a feeling of importance.

25. Don't think you have to associate with morally corrupt people or sanction their corruption just because "society" now accepts such behavior.

26. Don't get discouraged. If you stick to firm principles, others will respect you for it and perhaps gain courage from your example.