Shouts Received
80
Professor William Ayers and the Corruption of the Academy
ashokThis is a really long post, so I'll sum it up here:
1. The academy is about making money, so how do Bill Ayers and all his radical views fit in? The obvious answer is that the academy, weirdly enough, uses him for its own purposes.
2. Ayers' article "Narrative Push/Pull" shows how a radical can blind himself to how he's sold out. In "Narrative Push/Pull" he uses moral relativism - he defends the IRA and implicitly himself - to advance the idea that everyone has a story to tell. His end might actually be noble, if it weren't for the means.
3. The problem with the means is that stories depend on morality in some formal sense. You can't really make sense of a story unless it affects how you view things on a deep level.
4. This confusion means he misreads his own legacy - the truth is, this is his world, he's won academia and the culture wars. He doesn't see that and thus doesn't see how he's marginalizing minorities. He misreads his own narrative.
80
Professor William Ayers and the Corruption of the Academy
This is a really long post, so I'll sum it up here:
1. The academy is about making money, so how do Bill Ayers and all his radical views fit in? The obvious answer is that the academy, weirdly enough, uses him for its own purposes.
2. Ayers' article "Narrative Push/Pull" shows how a radical can blind himself to how he's sold out. In "Narrative Push/Pull" he uses moral relativism - he defends the IRA and implicitly himself - to advance the idea that everyone has a story to tell. His end might actually be noble, if it weren't for the means.
3. The problem with the means is that stories depend on morality in some formal sense. You can't really make sense of a story unless it affects how you view things on a deep level.
4. This confusion means he misreads his own legacy - the truth is, this is his world, he's won academia and the culture wars. He doesn't see that and thus doesn't see how he's marginalizing minorities. He misreads his own narrative.
gwayo
wellgroomednerd
Mutton
36
Why were Hamilton & Madison opposed to a Bill of Rights?
Commentary on Federalist 84 that's pretty easy to follow - the crucial arguments against a Bill of Rights are:
1. Listing rights means the federal gov't can legislate/invoke authority over things it hadn't thought of.
2. You typically retain rights when the sovereign is separate from the people. Saying "we the people" and then listing rights is contradictory to a fault.
3. Rights don't mean anything unless the gov't is properly run anyway. The Soviet Constitution lists nothing but rights, tons upon tons of them. Somehow it didn't add up to much.
deepbrown
33
John Lewis: Georgia’s Massive Voter ID Checks are Harassment
I'm proud to say that John Lewis is my representative--and our district went for Obama in the primaries at over 80%. But we've all known (sadly) that we would have issues here in Georgia. This isn't the first undermining of fair voting--they now require photo ID, which many senior citizens, people who don't own cars in low-income communities (etc) don't have.
69
A Legacy of Resentment
Very interesting read, particularly if you were born after the 60s. IMO, John Lewis had every right (and then some) to invoke George Wallace's name, and here's why.
302
Chicago Tribune: Obama For President
Very sober and balanced points made by a paper that has never before endorsed a Democrat for presidential office. Great to share with your favorite moderate swing voters.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is