jump to navigation

Student Loans February 8, 2010

Posted by Dwight Furrow in Dwight Furrow's Posts, politics.
Tags: ,
add a comment

The New York Times reports that the Obama Administration’s student-loan reform package is in jeopardy. A reform bill has passed the House of Representatives but it languishes in the Senate where the bank lobbyists hold court.

The reform is in trouble because of—Republican opposition. Who could have guessed?

The current student loan program is a government subsidy for banks. The government provides banks with money to lend to students and pays banks a fee for their trouble. The federal government also guarantees the loan so the banks incur no risk.

The proposed reform would simply have the government lend directly to students bypassing the banks altogether saving an estimated $87 Billion over ten  years.

So Republicans who are constantly complaining about budget deficits are opposed to a simple idea that reduces the budget while enabling more students to attend school.

Anyone who thinks Republicans are genuinely concerned about budget deficits is a fool. They are fine with government spending as long as it is lining the pockets of private corporations.

book-section-book-cover2 Dwight Furrow is author of

Reviving the Left: The Need to Restore Liberal Values in America

For political commentary by Dwight Furrow visit: www.revivingliberalism.com

Death of a Bookstore February 7, 2010

Posted by Nina Rosenstand in Culture, Current Events, Nina Rosenstand's Posts.
Tags: ,
1 comment so far

Recently I blogged about the sad demise of used bookstores across the country. Now, for us San Diegans, it is hitting home: The most fascinating, thought-inspiring used bookstore in San Diego, Wahrenbrock’s, closed in 2009, and now the remaining inventory is being sold next weekend. Today’s article in the Union-Tribune illustrates some of the points I made in my previous post.

 “The last time I saw it truly busy in here was in 1997 or so,” said Jeff Brehan, a friend of the Valverde family and a former Wahrenbrock clerk. “Chuck’s lament was that customers he used to see three times a week he’d barely see once a month.”

So here we are, with the ultimate treasure trove of books in San Diego abandoning us, because we abandoned it. And I feel guilty—because Jeff is talking about me (among others): if I, an intellectual whose business, and passion, it is to read, couldn’t even bother to come back to W. more than maybe two-three times a year lately, then how can I blame others?

I have a proposition for you good people reading this blog: we can’t save Wahrenbrock’s, but maybe there’s another used bookstore in your neighborhood? How about if you make a point of, maybe every 2-3 weeks, to go in there and look around, spend 20+ minutes, and buy a  book? First ask if they have a Philosophy section. If they don’t, then buy a book, anyway. Maybe just a $2 crime novel. And then report in to this blogpost about what you bought, if it is in any way philosophically relevant—which just means that it will get your mind started with new questions. Let’s do it.

How to Game the System—and Lose February 4, 2010

Posted by Dwight Furrow in Dwight Furrow's Posts, Education.
Tags:
3 comments

Kevin Carey explains how he squandered 4 years at a University and still received his degree.

I spent phenomenal amounts of time during my four undergraduate years on wholly nonacademic pursuits—drinking beer, hanging out with my girlfriend, playing poker (thank God the Internet hadn’t been invented yet or I’d be doing this still), watching the 11 p.m. ESPN SportsCenter, watching the 2 a.m. ESPN SportsCenter, killing time between the 11 p.m. and 2 a.m. SportsCenters, and so on. […]

I wanted to take art history because I had a vague sense that it was the kind of course freshmen took. But that course was full. I took history of architecture instead because it seemed similar, it was available, and the line was short.

Six of my credits could be earned in phys-ed courses. So I took lifeguarding for three credits, which was good for a summer job. A one-credit “Advanced Basketball” class involved little basketball instruction, but it was a great way to get access to scarce court space for five-on-five full-court games in the middle of the day. “Weight Training” did the same for the weight room, and “Intro to Karate” filled out the slate.

Binghamton had a science distribution requirement, but you were allowed to take some courses pass/fail. […]By the end of the semester, I calculated that I had to answer 20 percent of the final-exam questions correctly to pass the course. Since the exam was multiple choice, with only four possible answers to each question, that wasn’t much of a challenge. I also took Drawing I that semester because I was told there would be nude models. (There were, but not the kind I had hoped for.) […]

I waited until my final semester, when, despite a carefully planned strategy of non-course-taking, I still needed eight credits to finish. I signed up for “Gender, Policy, and Law” because I figured there would be a lot of women in the class. (There were, but not the kind I had hoped for.) It also met in the middle of the afternoon on Tuesdays, perfect for a lifestyle centered on four-day weekends and the 2 a.m. broadcast of ESPN SportsCenter.

Carey admits his responsibility for his careless attitude toward education; but seems to also blame the University.

An institution that routinely describes itself as “the best public university in the Northeast” shouldn’t hand out four credits for a 10th-grade C. It should aspire to be more than just a knowledge vending machine of courses to be chosen at semi-random with little in the way of guidance or forethought. It should look for opportunities to teach undergraduates more than its peers, not less—indeed, that’s what phrases like “best public university” ought to mean.

But if someone is willing to devote this much effort avoiding real work, it is hard to see how modifying the rules will help much.

Is Staying Slim a Moral Responsibility? February 2, 2010

Posted by Nina Rosenstand in Culture, Nina Rosenstand's Posts.
Tags: , , ,
33 comments

The Los Angeles Times Health section reports that Americans (who are fit) are getting increasingly impatient with fellow Americans who are obese.  And it may not just be a concern over societal costs:

“In our society, being heavy has become more of a stigma lately because we’re struggling with other issues of consumption,” says Abigail Saguy, associate professor of sociology at UCLA.

The economic climate, a recent history of people buying more than they can afford as well as environmental issues, including the depletion of our planet’s resources, are making people feel more angry about society’s overconsumption, she says. Obviously overweight people are an easy target.

“They’re almost a caricature of greed, overconsumption, overspending, over-leveraging and overusing resources,” says Saguy. “Though it’s not entirely rational, it’s an understandable reaction, especially in a country founded on the Puritan ethics of self-reliance, sacrifice and individual responsibility. If people feel they’re sacrificing, then see someone spilling over an airplane seat, they feel angry that that person is not making the same sacrifices they are.”

That perspective is interesting in itself: according to the analysis, those among us who are not obese or even overweight—because of hard work, or luck (youth and/or good genes)—consider their fitness a personal achievement reached through deprivation and hardship, and resent those who appear as if they don’t want to do their share in the department of suffering.  “If I’m going to suffer and go without, the least you can do is not flaunt your unwillingness to suffer with me!” The article takes for granted that resentment toward people who are heavier than oneself boils down to the assumption that we all can, and should, take personal responsibility for ourselves, and those who don’t are viewed as the losers in an Ayn Rand-style universe of self-reliant people.

There may indeed be a streak of resentment based on a philosophy of personal responsibility in this growing attitude, but since I just got back from a trip to Denmark where the debate has taken another direction I can’t help but compare the tendencies. The Danish newsmedia reported a few weeks ago that, according to a new poll, a majority of employees polled were in favor of their workplace taking responsibility for their fitness and weight. In other words, overweight workers would be put on weight loss and fitness programs through their workplace (with sanctions if they didn’t stick with the program), but the ultimate results of the program would be the responsibility of the workplace, not just the individual worker. The resentment toward heavy people is on the rise in Denmark, just as it is here, and it is assisted by an attitude of publicly accepted ridicule to the point where “fat jokes” are becoming commonplace and acceptable (among fit people, that is), at a level of cruelty that we are simply not used to (yet) on this side of the Pond, because we have a higher level of sensitivity toward issues of discrimination, and legislation to match that level. But instead of insisting on personal moral responsibility, the majority of the polled Danes placed all responsibility for their weight and fitness on the workplace. So essentially, if they remain heavy, it’s management’s fault, not theirs. So, while the “personal responsibility” ideology may be insensitive to genetics and health issues that may make it hard for a heavy person to slim down, the “workplace responsibility” attitude seems like nothing short of a Sartrean “Bad Faith,” a complete abandonment of the idea of taking charge of one’s own life. Interesting contrast, huh?

Business Ethics January 31, 2010

Posted by Dwight Furrow in Dwight Furrow's Posts, Ethics.
Tags: ,
2 comments

Capitalist theory asserts that businesses in a competitive environment will follow ethical norms and be honest, fair, and diligent, if  they aren’t ethical, consumers will not do business with them. Thus, consumer protection legislation is unnecessary.

Whatever modicum of plausibility this view had should have been thoroughly shattered by recent experience—but the theory persists nevertheless.

So how would this theory account for the behavior of the European airline Ryanair?

The Irish Times

RYANAIR HAS appeared in the bottom 10 of an “ethical ranking” of 581 companies, based on environmental performance, corporate social responsibility and information provided to consumers. … Ryanair is ranked 575 on the latest list, just ahead of Occidental Petroleum, US tobacco company Phillip Morris and oil giant Chevron. At the bottom is Monsanto, chiefly known for genetically modified foods.

Henry at Crooked Timber notes:

The company prides itself not only on being perceived as having no social conscience, but as having a reputation for screwing its customers as systematically and mercilessly as possible. Which other airline’s CEO would announce that he wanted to charge passengers to use the toilet as a publicity stunt? Clearly, Ryanair thinks that this reputation is a money spinner for them (it is quite deliberately cultivated), and they have indeed made quite a lot of money. But why (if they are right) would a reputation for shafting your customers be a commercial asset for a consumer-oriented business in a relatively competitive sector? The standard economic account doesn’t seem to provide much insight. Help me out here.

Apparently, there are plenty of customers out there who think being disreputable and unscrupulous is a sign of a good business that can get you to your destination cheaply and safely. Morality is a sign of weakness, inefficiency, and woolly thinking so Ryanair is their kind of outfit.

There is a market for everything; ain’t capitalism grand?

Twittering January 28, 2010

Posted by Dwight Furrow in Culture, Dwight Furrow's Posts, Technology.
Tags:
add a comment

For those of you listening to your Ipods, updating Facebook, tracking 3 Twitter conversations while finishing your defense of the Ontological Argument, here is something else to do: read the Encyclopedia Brittanica’s blog posts on controversies about multitasking.

Technology author Nicholas Carr writes:

The ability to multitask is one of the essential strengths of our infinitely amazing brains. We wouldn’t want to lose it. But as neurobiologists and psychologists have shown, and as Maggie Jackson has carefully documented, we pay a price when we multitask. Because the depth of our attention governs the depth of our thought and our memory, when we multitask we sacrifice understanding and learning. We do more but know less. And the more tasks we juggle and the more quickly we switch between them, the higher the cognitive price we pay.

The problem today is not that we multitask. We’ve always multitasked. The problem is that we’re always in multitasking mode. The natural busyness of our lives is being amplified by the networked gadgets that constantly send us messages and alerts, bombard us with other bits of important and trivial information, and generally interrupt the train of our thought. The data barrage never lets up. As a result, we devote ever less time to the calmer, more attentive modes of thinking that have always given richness to our intellectual lives and our culture — the modes of thinking that involve concentration, contemplation, reflection, introspection. The less we practice these habits of mind, the more we risk losing them altogether.

There’s evidence that, as Howard Rheingold suggests, we can train ourselves to be better multitaskers, to shift our attention even more swiftly and fluidly among contending chores and stimuli. And that will surely help us navigate the fast-moving stream of modern life. But improving our ability to multitask, neuroscience tells us in no uncertain terms, will never return to us the depth of understanding that comes with attentive, single-minded thought. You can improve your agility at multitasking, but you will never be able to multitask and engage in deep thought at the same time.”

I guess this means that if you are a contemplative sort with a penchant for profundity you should be careful about the multitasking. But if daytime soaps and reality shows are your thing, you might as well be twittering.

book-section-book-cover2 Dwight Furrow is author of

Reviving the Left: The Need to Restore Liberal Values in America

For political commentary by Dwight Furrow visit: www.revivingliberalism.com

Will He Fight? January 28, 2010

Posted by Dwight Furrow in Dwight Furrow's Posts, politics.
Tags: ,
add a comment

I was unfortunately unable to watch Obama’s State of the Union Speech. I will have to watch it tomorrow.

This is a crucial time in his presidency and he needed to be at his best—and the immediate response suggests to be that he was.

But there is a sense in which the speech is inconsequential. I agree with Jonathan Zasloff:

I care what happens over the next few days and weeks.

When the likes of Bayh, Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Landrieu, Holy Joe, and Rahm start saying, “let’s go slow and not try to do too much,” will the President listen to them?

When Congressional leaders ask the President to give them leadership and direction on health care, will he provide it?

When they try to hollow out financial regulation, or destroy the bank tax, will the White House go along?

When Lisa Murkowski tries to attach her egregious rider to an appropriations bill to stop EPA from regulating climate change, will Obama threaten a veto?

When the going gets tough in Washington, will Obama take to the hustings and campaign as if his Presidency and the nation depend upon him winning (because it does)?

Will he fight?

Obama has done a lot of good things—especially the stimulus package which has saved jobs and stabilizing the banking system, which has saved a whole lot of jobs. He has made a few mistakes—but then he has the most difficult job in the world. Who wouldn’t make mistakes?

The question is will he provide the kind of extraordinary leadership we need in this extraordinary time. Or will he succumb to the inside-the-beltway inertia that swallows any good idea and regurgitates it as patronage for oligarchs.

book-section-book-cover2 Dwight Furrow is author of

Reviving the Left: The Need to Restore Liberal Values in America

For political commentary by Dwight Furrow visit: www.revivingliberalism.com

Comics of Interest II January 27, 2010

Posted by iduckles in Art and Music, Uncategorized.
add a comment

Continuing on my theme of philosophically interesting comics books, I intend to devote this entry to an examination of what people normally associate with the form: the cape and cowl style superhero. Rather than discuss the genre generally, I want to focus on a specific series, The Brave and the Bold volume 3, issues 27-30 written by J. Michael Straczynski with art by Jesus Saiz. The Brave and the Bold is published by DC comics and features team-ups between various characters in the DC Universe. I will examine the four most recent issues of this series (still available at your local comic book shop) because the creative team behind the book is really doing an amazing job. Each of these four books is an out of continuity one-shot (meaning that each book tells a self-contained story that can be understood on its own without having to have read other comic books or even be familiar with the characters in the book), which makes them a perfect starting point for people who are new to the comic book medium.

Each of the four books features a team-up between a well-established superhero and a more obscure character(s) from the DC Universe. What sets these books apart from more generic super-hero comics (not that there is anything wrong with that) is the way Straczynski uses these team-ups to explore themes and issues that transcend the normal fare found in comics. I want to briefly discuss each of these books in turn. As a quick note, I won’t be discussing the art in these books but suffice to say Saiz does an outstanding job.

Brave and the Bold 27 CoverIssue #27: Batman and Dial H for Hero. At this point, Batman needs no introduction, but Dial H for Hero is an old-style rotary phone dial that turns the user into a superhero when he or she dials the letters H-E-R-O. In this story, the owner of the dial is visiting Gotham City (Batman’s hometown) when it is stolen by a petty thief named Travis Milton. Milton uses the dial and is transformed into a Superman like character named The Star. When the Star rescues a window cleaner who has fallen off the scaffolding, Travers realizes that his new-found powers provide him an opportunity for redemption and an escape from his life of crime. Of particular interest is the way Strazcynski uses this set-up to explore the nature of heroism in comic books, and he suggests what might motivate someone in this fictional world to put on a costume and start fighting crime. The psychological profiling of superheros and villains has been done (often poorly) by many in the wake of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons Watchmen, but Strazcynski is able to give a more optimistic spin on this well-worn trope.

Brave and the Bold 28 CoverIssue #28 begins when the Flash (the fastest man alive) breaks his leg while inadvertently traveling back in time to the Battle of the Bulge. Because he needs to run at super speed to return to his own time, the Flash is trapped in the past until his leg heals. While there he encounters the Blackhawks (a multi-national group of WWII flying aces) who themselves have been accidentally dragged into the battle when they were ambushed while on R&R in Belgium. In the DC universe, the general criterion that distinguishes heroes from villains is that heroes do not kill while villains do. This creates a dilemma for the Flash as he finds himself in the middle of a war, teamed up with an elite band of soldiers. The way in which the Flash resolves this dilemma provides the core of the story and the way in which Straczynski uses this framework to explore notions of heroism and the obligations of citizens during wartime is fascinating.

Brave and the Bold 29 CoverIssue #29 one again returns to Batman, this time teaming him with an obscure 60’s counter-culture superhero: Brother Power the Geek. Straczynski uses this match up to contrast the values of the 60’s (particularly the hippies and the counter-culture) with the values of contemporary America. This is a story that has already been dealt with in many contexts, but Straczynski is nevertheless able to find an interesting and compelling take, particularly as he contrasts the ideals of the Summer of Love with America in 2009.

Issues #30: My personal favorite of the four and the most obviously “philosophical,” this issue teams the Green Lantern with Dr. Fate. Very quickly, the Green Lantern’s powers come from a ring that is fueled by the user’s will power. Dr. Fate, as the name suggests is a servant of the forces of fate and destiny. Straczynski uses this team-up to explore the classic philosophical debate of free will vs. determinism. What I particularly appreciated about this book was that, in true philosophical fashion, Straczynski does not provide any answers, but instead raises issues and questions about this topic as he uses these characters to explore many of the different perspectives one can take. This book in particular would work as an excellent way to get students to think about these concepts and some of the issues and consequences of the various positions one can occupy in this debate.

Freeze Frame is Not Right for Dems January 26, 2010

Posted by Dwight Furrow in Dwight Furrow's Posts, politics.
Tags: ,
1 comment so far

Obama’s announcement of a spending freeze for discretionary programs was a surprise. Cutting the federal budget during a recession, when unemployment is high, is a really dumb idea.

It turns out that this is not really a spending freeze; it is a budget cap that doesn’t kick in until 2011 and allows the administration considerable flexibility in keeping stimulus and other federal money flowing through the economy. In essence, he is doing what he promised during the campaign—taking a scalpel to programs that don’t work and using those savings to fund programs that do.

Despite some of the apoplectic responses in the left blogosphere, this is not a job killer.

But it is still not a good idea. The Obama Administration is negotiating with itself here. Republicans will not give him credit for any budget reductions.

Obama came into office with the task of changing American’s perceptions of the value of government. Now is the time to convince the American public that government has an important role to play creating jobs when private industry has failed.

Instead, by calling this a “freeze”, which is what the Republicans have been calling for, he has reinforced the failed Republican narrative that government is not part of the solution. This is bad economics; it is disastrous social policy. And it sends the wrong message at the wrong time.

Moreover, his so-called “freeze” does not include military expenditures which are the biggest source of waste and fraud in the budget. If we need to scrutinize individual programs for their effectiveness, why does Defense and Homeland Security escape scrutiny?

The answer is that conservatives would whine if he proposed cuts in these areas.

Obama’s tendency to reinforce right-wing ideas continues to disappoint.

book-section-book-cover2 Dwight Furrow is author of

Reviving the Left: The Need to Restore Liberal Values in America

For political commentary by Dwight Furrow visit: www.revivingliberalism.com

Thoughts on Bookstores January 26, 2010

Posted by Nina Rosenstand in Culture, Nina Rosenstand's Posts, Philosophy of Literature.
Tags: , , ,
1 comment so far

At the start of the Spring 2010 semester I thought I’d celebrate our return to the Halls of Thinking with some thoughts on books and bookstores. Sunday I was out and about in a neighborhood close to home, but one I haven’t explored much. And there, in a strip mall, tucked in next to a deli and a pizza place, was a used bookstore. And I jumped for joy! An honest-to-goodness used bookstore!  Now why would that matter so much to me? In all likelihood (because I didn’t have time to explore it, but I will do so in the near future) all it offers is paperbacks of bestsellers, some gardening books, some books about weight loss, and raising children, and other types of books that people discard when they move on to something else. A Philosophy section is not very likely, unless it is lumped in with “Metaphysics,” meaning New Age stories of reincarnation and How to Get Everything You Want through Maniacal Positive Thinking. But what elated me was the mere thought of being able to go into a bookstore full of old books, and let serendipity take over—take books down from shelves, browse and become inspired, and end up going home with some brand new thought process tucked under your arm. Something I used to do at least once a week for my entire adult life, regardless of where I have lived, until the arrival of Amazon.com, AbeBooks and the other book search engines. And that is of course also why the used bookstores are disappearing. There used to be one used bookstore after another on San Diego’s Adams Ave. Now how many are there? Three? And I’m as much to blame as anyone else who goes online instead of patronizing the used bookstores. But it is horrendously sad, because when you “browse” for books online, you only go after what you already know. The Hermeneutic Circle has captured you. Yes, Amazon’s clever trick of pointing out what other people buy may expose you to books you hadn’t thought of, but it still isn’t the same as spending time in a place where all the possibilities are right there in front of you, in the stacks. It has to do with our 21st century time perception, and our sense of convenience—we want what we want fast, and as cheaply as possible, so we can go on to other things. Who among us these days takes time—perhaps hours—to browse a bookstore when the outcome may even be nil? We (some of us) have stopped considering browsing in used bookstores as something you do for its own sake, something enjoyable. But we are the ones who lose out, because we think we already know what we want and what we need.  We’ve deselected the element of the chance encounter through the assumption that we can manage and control what comes into our lives, and that of course goes for many situations other than browsing in bookstores…

But it can get worse. How about losing regular bookstores, with new books? A recent CNN report told us that there are now no more regular bookstores in the city of Laredo. And before you start thinking snidely about Laredo, Texas, cowboys, and so forth, just let me remind you that for one thing, reading books used to be a widespread, nonpartisan pastime, and for another, you can’t jump to cultural conclusions based on geographical assumptions. So Laredo has lost all its bookstores, and it seems that other cities will follow. The irony is that it wasn’t even because nobody was buying books in the last remaining mall bookstore—it was a thriving business, but the bookstore chain was looking to save money by closing outlets.

Barnes & Noble says it closed the Laredo store as part of an overall strategy to shut down the chain of mall-based bookstores. Even though the Laredo store was profitable, the overall chain was losing money, according to company officials.

Some in Laredo fear the lack of a book store will make the city look like an ignorant outpost on the Texas border.

“Assuming that we don’t read because we’re Mexican or we’re immigrant or we’re poor, that is not the case,” said Xochitl Mora, the city’s spokeswoman who spearheads the “Laredo Reads” initiative.

“Our challenge is to convince a corporate America bookstore and others they will find a literate, articulate, eloquent citizenry.”

The publishing industry is in the midst of a revolution. Threats from Internet sites, like Amazon.com, and electronic book devices, like the Kindle, have cut into profits of retail book giants. In addition, bookstores are facing increasing competition from mass merchandisers like Target and Wal-Mart.

About 50 to 60 small Barnes & Noble-owned bookstores have closed every year over the last 5 to 6 years, the company said. Rival Borders has also struggled financially amid the tough marketplace.

This tendency is bad news for the efforts to reverse the dropping literacy rate among young people, and that’s alarming in itself. But this leads to another concern: a change in attitude toward the very activity of reading—which I of course do for fun, and I assume that you do, too, but look at the homes featured in the endless series of home improvement shows on cable channels. Where are the bookshelves? Where are the home libraries? A young friend of a friend came to our house a while back, and looked at our bookshelves (which take up a wall), and asked, innocently, ”Why do you have so many books?” As if that is even a good question, ever. But it provided for a great opportunity to have a conversation about books…

Are we really on the road to a future where owning and reading books is “quaint” and perhaps a little subversive, a little disturbing? Is Ray Bradbury going to be right?