text:
piątek, 16 grudnia 2011

Cracow.mobi review

Last week, I visited Cracow and its first edition of conference on mobile application developement.
I was delivering a presentation about Testing in Android (in Polish). It was my second try with this presentation.
The first time was during mobilization.pl conference in Łódź, which I also coorganized last October.

The event was held in conference centre of Technical University of Kraków: Kotłownia (boiling room) and GIL .
Registration was a bit crowdy but in a minute I got nice set of Android stickers and id. Some students came to me and said they liked the presentation in mobilization.pl despite the fact that examples (maven!) did not work.

Coffee was served downstairs but the place was not labelled properly I think so not many people knew it.
There was no food provided for atendees but I was stressed with my presentation so I did not care so much.

First day of the conference had two tracks (Android and iOS) held concurrently. I stayed in Android because my presentation was the 3rd.
The Kotłownia site was really great. The screen was big, there was also LCD screen for the presenter so speaker could see his slides without turning back on the attendees.
What is more the room had 2nd level being also equiped with a small screen and few rows of chairs for attendees.

The organizers already announced some changes in the agenda due to abscence of speaker (in iOS track) and then conference started.
The conference started strong. First Android speaker was Pawel Zieba and talked about sqlite. I liked the technical content he delivered with some minor exceptions to some presentation skills (sometimes too quiet). Pawel got lot of question from the public so it means it was interesting for many.
Next presentation was eagerly awaited by me. Konrad Malawski was talking about roboguice. I know what roboguice is, I even once aimed at presenting about it but never actually got into. Konrad made really good impression on me with his presentation. Roboguice seem to make code look better. The presenter answered smoothly real-life questions so I really believe he is using not only gives presentations about it.

I will not judge my own presentation. I am still not very happy about it, maybe next conference it will go smoothly. Again I had some problems with examples and multiscreens.
I need consider showing videos instead and not switching to eclipse.

After lunch there was a presentation from Jacek Laskowski who just started learning Android, half a year ago. Jacek is a person who inspires me and many people from JUGs in Poland. It was a pleasure to see Jacek presentation skills (great voice, good interaction with audience) and I think he made the most of few lines of code he presented.

Next presentation by applicake guy was about content synchronization. Unfortunately I haven't seen that fully so I am not able to judge it.

Next day seemed to be less rich in presentations for me but started strong with very inspiring speech by Łukasz Mikulski and games in our life.
Cool transitions (I guess thanks to Mac's keynote), embedded videos and real life examples made it good start of the day.
This speaker was late so before he started there was a really cool round of "introduce yourself" with everybody having a microphone to say few sentences about themselves. There was a bunch of interesting people representing startups or portals.
The agenda was already a mess so noone know at what time next presentation starts.

I moved to GIL to see the presentation I missed during mobilization.pl from Bartłomiej Zass from Microsoft. He is proffessional speaker and he confirmed that: technical problems were solved with grace, good interaction with attendees, no difficult questions. After lunch I come back to GIL to see presentations about phonegap. Krzysztof "Procek" Ścira was natural born speaker. It was smooth and he talked about practise giving many useful tips for people who like to start the adventure with phonegap. His presentation attracted only handful of people (due to problems with agenda I guess) and he treated this group with great respect and did very good presentation with focus on practical things (project setup etc.).

To sum up, I think that event was good but there is lot of to improve for the next edition.
I liked:
+ general idea :)
+ android stickers and t-shirt (I got 3 :) - as a speaker, for answering questions and for being mobiledeveloper.pl fan :))
+ meeting few people I knew before only from twitter
+ having a chance to see Jacek Laskowski in action and spare few words with him

I did not liked:
- agenda changes, moreover poorly advertised
- speakers that did not arrive (yes I know is not the fault of organizers, we faced the same during mobilization.pl)
- afterparty on the last day, should be on Friday

Brak komentarzy:

Prześlij komentarz


Content-Type: application/http; msgtype=response

WARC-Identified-Payload-Type: application/xhtml+xml

WARC-Type: response

text:
BY ERIC ZORN | E-mail | About | RSS

« Obama/Libya | Main | Bus: Keep City Council large »

Sunday, March 27, 2011

Dumbbell report

A reader wrote to ask if I had seen that, on his blog, WLS AM 890 weekend talk show host and publisher and editor in chief of the Chicago Daily Observer Tom Roeser recently referred to President Barack Obama as "a non-patriot,a denier of national exceptionalism, a rootless nihilistic dumbbell educated beyond his intelligence."

I was not. I rely on others to inform me when Roeser's ugly sputterings veer into unintentional hilarity, and I thank the reader for the tip and note that perhaps it is a sign of progress that Roeser didn't refer to Obama as a "mulatto" or otherwise invoke his race -- race and ethnicity being obsessions of his. Hope.

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

--At least he didn't call him a "dumb twat" as Bill Maher said about Sarah Palin on his ever so hip live program on the edgy HBO......

ZORN REPLY -- Both are examples of people saying in a public forum the sort of thing that they'd say to their friends over drinks in a private setting.

Maher's was worse because it was not only gratuitously sexist and vulgar, it also stepped on a pretty decent joke -- that Palin was very angry about what she heard happened in Japan and said it was time we invaded the Tsunamis. The only excuse/explanation for it is that it didn't appear scripted... one of those tossed off comments that even three seconds later even he probably realized was quite regrettable.

Roeser's was written and published, so evidently quite well considered. And certainly one reason it sounds so harsh and weird is that very few people seriously make the claim that Obama isn't very, very smart. It's possible to disagree vehemently with the actions of leaders and the statements of others whom you believe to be quite intelligent -- disagree as I do with much of what Newt Gingrich has to say, for example, I would never call him a dumbbell.

Palin, on the other hand, does not seem particularly bright, nimble of mind or well-informed. It's why the "invade Tsunami" joke is funny and wouldn't be about Gingrich, Obama or indeed most prominent politicians and pundits.

Neither Maher nor Roeser are stupid men, meaning it's fair to hold them accountable for their stupidest statements.

Pretty bad, but not quite as bad as Eric Alterman in a recent Nation article referring to Ronald Reagan as a mendacious aider and abettor of genocide, or words to that effect.

I do wish Roeser would do the honorable thing and shut up. Right after Alterman does the same.

Ah, and I had forgotten what a a super-patriotic, exceptionalistic, rooted, proprietary, undereducated brainiac Mr. Roeser is.

Truly, not since Father Coughlin have we been so fortunate to be blessed with such divinely inspired brilliance on the radio.

"Genocide" might be a tad too strong of a word to use, but are you aware of the recent history of Central America and Reagan's role in it? Fascinating reading, but not around mealtimes or before bed.

Dienne, name-calling is not unique to the right. And I note that, when the right has something to do with it, it's called murder, but when the left has something to do with it, it's called a people's revolution.

Central American death squads vs. Palestinian and Algerian freedom fighters. Professor Alterman and his ilk are not frequently apt to notice the latter.

I gotta go with MCN on this one.

To those non-partisans paying attention, there is plenty of slime on both sides. "Bush is Hitler!" which begat "Obama is Hitler!" come to mind....

quotidian: That indeed was a teachable moment.

We know a guy is really horrible when the best "defense" people like MCN can muster is "but what about what so-and-so said?"

Roeser is exhibit A in the Hall of Fools who were Inexplicably Allowed to Write Columns for the Sun-Times.

ZORN REPLY -- And the Tribune at one time, in fairness.

1) I'm always surprised by people who think that compound epithets are more effective than a single, meritorious jab.

2) I too thought that "Bush is Hitler!" marked a new low in public discourse. Of course, I though the same thing about "the Clintons murdered Vince Foster."

3) If he maintains his current rate of absurd vitriol escalation, sometime in September 2012, Tom Roeser will allege that Barack Obama is a Blacula.

-- MrJM

I make no excuse for Palestinian "freedom fighters", but what no one on the right (and most on the left) don't seem to notice is why the Palestinians might be fighting for their freedom in the first place. How would you feel if the government bulldozed your home because your third cousin twice removed was alleged to be involved in some anti-government activity? Especially if that home was one you'd had to flee to in 1967 after being chased out of the home you'd fled to in 1948.

@Pan, you clown, you: I have been dumping on Tom Roeser for ages, including on this board. I gueses you conveniently forgot that. The nicest thing I can say about him is that he is a blowhard.

Oh, and by the way, I guess you missed the part where I earlier said "I do wish Roeser would do the honorable thing and shut up."

The point I'm making is that Eric, as might be expected, takes pleasure in pointing out stupid and and inane remarks made by righties but doesn't have any interest in pointing out the same made by people with whom he tends to agree.

Dienne, the point I'm making is that those Palestinian freedom fighters are a bunch of murderers. Call a spade a spade, OK?

"I make no excuse for Palestinian "freedom fighters", but what no one on the right (and most on the left) don't seem to notice is why the Palestinians might be fighting for their freedom in the first place."

There is no Palestinian people or any historic nation of Palestine. There are Arabs of various backgrounds who live on the West Bank and in Gaza but the concept of a Palestinian nation is strictly a modern leftist invention.

If you doubt that, then name some famous people in history who called themselves Palestinian. Name a ruler of the nation of Palestine (before Arafat).

"...Zorn doesn't like it that Roeser Criticizes President."

Criticism is one thing, baseless, derogatory name-calling is another.

Second to bottom story of the day..Frequent Zorn Commenter Attacks Columnist, Ignores Column.

Professor Zorn, can you defend the president against Tom Roeser? Does Obama believe in American exceptionalism? BO has said otherwise. What are BO's roots? Was he raised by a father, or even by a mother? No parent raised him so he was left to his grandmother, whom he later said was a racist. Obama is educated, but do we know anything of his Harvard grades? Have we seen his law school writings?

Easier to attack the attacker, Professor.

ZORN REPLY -- It depends on the definition of the term "American exceptionalism," which is thrown around quite a bit as though it has a single, universally understood definition. I think Obama is a patriot who believes very much in our Constitution and the balanced form of government we have as well as in our special role as world leaders and the preeminent power in the free world. You saw that in his speech last night. Does he beleive we are always right, always better, always smarter? That inherent in our DNA is a moral, ethical, political superiority? I don't know. Do YOU?

What are his roots? They're very well known. Are you saying that people of great quality can't come from broken or non-traditional families. That seems like a cruel and ignorant thing to say.

Is he intelligent? Law schools profs remember him as brilliant and he was the editor of the Harvard Law Review. You want transcripts and term papers? Did you want to see GW Bush's term papers, Rufino? Reagan's college transcripts? Or are you just a sad, bitter partisan?

Top story of the day, **Obama Ignores Zorn, Declares American Exceptionalism**

Such things can happen if our press would hold our politicians accountable, rather than acting as a campaign auxiliary.

Professor Zorn - George Bush DID release his Yale transcripts. Obama did not release his transcripts. Are any of Obama's Harvard Law Review writings available? I think BO's past is very undocumented.... and the major press outlets are uninterested.

ZORN REPLY -- If you are seriously interested in this topic here are two links

But, again, the relevance at this time is so dubious as to call into question the motives of those still asking the questions. His past is VERY well documented -- how many biographies had been done of GWBush at this point in his presidency compared to those of Obama?

You're not a birther by any chance, are you, Rufino? Thought so.

"Dienne, the point I'm making is that those Palestinian freedom fighters are a bunch of murderers. Call a spade a spade, OK?"

As were the Nicaraguan Contras, funded in part thru illegal arms sales to Iran the "sponsor" of Hezbollah (murderers and legit political party, like the IRA) and Hamas (ditto).

Now, who was president during that break down in military discipline that allowed the USA to support murderers killing our enemies (the Ortega regime) AND murderers killing our friends (Israel)? Alterman was being the hyperbolic jackass that he (far, far) too often is, but it wasn't *completely* baseless.

Maybe the genocide referred to was the Reagan admin's lack of response at the beginning of the AIDS epidemic. I know the lack of response killed about 2 dozen of my friends.

I read the articles that you linked to from Politico, and in the second one, there is a short paragraph which reads as follows:

"One thing Obama did not do while with the review was publish any of his own work. Campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said Obama didn't write any articles for the Review, though his two semesters at the helm did produce a wide range of edited case analyses and unsigned “notes” from Harvard students."

This, in my opinion, doesn't really tell us very much at all about his own opinions.

The comments to this entry are closed.

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.

•  The Tweet of the Week 2015 Compendium
•  Transition time
•  Medical pot shops are coming! Take a chill pill, folks.
•  Open Thread: The Weeks In Review
•  Fine lines final four
•  Two takes on medical tokes
•  Missed it by that much
•  16 is the new 21
•  Fine lines
•  'As much as you love the bulldog, the fact that it exists at all is borderline animal abuse'

• `The Office'
• American Idol
• Anthony Porter Case
• Blago trial
• Books
• Chicken!
• Commenters
• Common Sense Caucus
• Current Affairs
• Film
• Fine Expressions
• Fine Shots
• Food and Drink
• Friday Night Lights
• Grey's Anatomy
• How Long Does it Take?
• Jessica Reynolds
• Mad Men
• Megan Crepeau
• Month in Review
• Obama
• Peterson case
• Predictions
• Prickly Pair Podcasts
• Race to the Slop
• Religion
• Rhubarb Patch
• Rules for commenting
• Somebody Nobody Asked
• Speaking of Sports
• Spit takes
• Sports
• Television
• The Killing
• This I No Longer Believe
• Trayvon Martin case
• Video Commentaries
• Webliographies
• Weeks in Review
• YaGotta

December 2015 posts
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31

Browse archives

Chicago Tribune Media Group

warcinfo:
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-143-72-160.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2018-22
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for May 2018
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf


text:
BY ERIC ZORN | E-mail | About | RSS

« Chicago's inspector general calls out 'loafing,' 'unnecessary' truck drivers | Main | Chapman boosts concealed-carry proposal »

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

What do we mean by 'American exceptionalism'?

The term "American exceptionalism" has been appearing in many political arguments lately -- who believes in it? does President Obama believe in it? -- but I'm not sure what it means to those who are using it.

Before you give me your answer in comments, here are portions of the musings of two writers on the subject.

First, Glenn Greenwald in Salon:

Does the U.S. indeed occupy a special place in the world, entitling and even obligating us to undertake actions that no other country is entitled or obligated to undertake? And, if so, what is the source of these entitlements and obligations? Is it merely our superior military power, or is there something else that has vested us with this perch of exceptionalism?

....It's a common human desire to believe that one is special, unique, better than all others. Few people aspire to ordinariness. We view the world -- physically and mentally -- from our own personal perspective, and are inherently situated at the center of it. As tribal beings, we naturally believe that our customs and the beliefs with which we were inculcated from childhood are superior to Theirs....

The fact remains that declaring yourself special, superior and/or exceptional -- and believing that to be true, and, especially, acting on that belief -- has serious consequences. It can (and usually does) mean that the same standards of judgment aren't applied to your acts as are applied to everyone else's (when you do X, it's justified, but when they do, it isn't). It means that you're entitled (or obligated) to do things that nobody else is entitled or obligated to do.

And next from Andrew Sullivan's Atlantic blog:

If America's ideals are universal, they cannot be reduced to the ownership of one country. And that country's actual history - as opposed to Bachmannite mythology - is as flawed as many others. Why, after all, did America need a Second Founding under Lincoln - almost a century after it was born? Which other advanced country remained so devoted to slavery until the late nineteenth century? Which other one subsequently replaced  slavery with a form of grinding apartheid for another century? Besides, much of the thought that gave us the American constitution can be traced back to European thinkers, whether in Locke or Montesquieu or the Enlightenment in general. Seeing America as the sole pioneer of human freedom is to erase Britain's unique history, without which America would not exist. It is to erase the revolutionary ideas of the French republics. It's historically false....

This is not to say that America doesn't remain, by virtue of its astonishing Constitution, a unique sanctuary for human freedom. We are freer here in terms of speech than in most other advanced countries, cowed by p.c. laws and restrictions. We are freer here in labor and capital than most other countries....

In other words, America's ideals are not unique to America, and America's success led it to the same temptations of great powers since ancient times. America's exceptional freedom and exceptional wealth did not exempt it from unexceptional human nature or the unexceptional laws of history. To believe anything else is to engage in nationalist idolatry...

What I see [in the U.S. involvement in Libya] is far from exceptional. It is the routine pattern of the rise and fall of all republics that become empires. It is what happened to Rome and Spain and Britain: Success, over-reach, hubris, bankruptcy and decline. And the withering of the sinews of a republic's body - as in the supine, divided, incompetent Congress, and a court so deferent to the emperor's unrestricted power in waging war wherever he pleases.

UPDATE -- Here's a third,  from The freest and most democratic nation? in the Economist.

The statement that America is "freer" or "more democratic" than literally every other society on earth, is argued largely through the quotations of founding fathers and Lincoln, as if saying something made it so.....

The influence of money undermines the one-man one-vote ideal. Gerrymandering renders most congressional elections utterly uncompetitive. The party system is not realistically open to the rise of new parties. The electoral college allows a popular-vote loser to become president ....Corruption among high officials is not uncommon. .... The legal environment is hostile to labor compared to other democracies. The justice system is usually agreed to be unfair to Latinos and blacks, and America imprisons a far bigger share of its population than any other democracy does. Racism hampers economic mobility. ...

America is not only imperfect. It is imperfect in ways that sometimes shock not only the Europeans .... but also many Americans, including the centrist types ....The blanket statement that America is the "most free, most democratic" country on earth strikes the serious comparativist as what it is: not an empirical fact but as an article of faith, one that needs to be accepted before a true patriot can go on to make minor, qualified criticism. This is not clear thinking, and ....no argument based on it can be solid either. Nor is it real patriotism: a real patriot is an honest critic.

Your turn.

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Let's look at Greenwalds argument first, and let's do it based on facts.....his firest paragaph is pur gibberish. I know most of the American people would be happy, proud and supportive when other countires get to the point where the feel entiled to take action . My version of exceptionalism is that we have the means and the moral standing to act for the greater good. Ad when te reciepents of said greater goods can't see yey what we can do then we have to teach.,What American exceptionalism means is winning world war 2 and rebuildfing Germany and Japan. People who doubt American exceptionilism neen no look furthur than the Marshall Plan. Despite the calls of imperialism from the keft, isn't it clear by now that our aim is to leave ASAP in most actions?

And to answer Sulluivan - Exeptionalism is in fact going into to protect civilians and rebels with not assured payback., It i in fact taking a flyer and hope i ends well for all invoilved. And then we have to do what the Marine do best, build school, police and schools.....

Amerika has become a nation of Nazis. Here's a few famous nazis:

George Bush (the butcher)
Laura Bush (the bitch)

Millions of nameless others too.

Two Americans who are not nazis:

Sara Palin
M. Bachman

Wow, an idiot who spells America with a K. I thought those people went extinct years ago!

ZORN REPLY -- A rare sighting!

"...and the moral standing ..."

Read some Chalmers Johnson - hardly a loony liberal - to see just what our "moral standing" in the world really is.

Wow - a Godwin on the second post!

Seems to me that we've taken on the role of the big kid who protects the other kids from the bullies. While I don't always approve, I'm not sure I'd want to live in a world overrun by bullies.

How is American exceptionalism different from Nazi superiority?

"Nazi superiority" was very much a racial construct. Now, I know a lot of people believe that the notion of American exceptionalism is the province of privileged white males, but I don't think you can say that its proponents think or speak in terms of an "American race." They speak in terms of the nation, its constitution, and a founding concept that treasures freedom.

I think the exceptionalism is not one thing, but the combination of:

Having the largest economy in the world
Having the highest living standards in the world
Having the strongest military in the world
Having the greatest freedoms in the world
Having the greatest entrepreneurial spirit in the world (partly due to generous bankruptcy laws that enable people to think big, so even if their big idea bombs, they aren't ruined for life)
Having the most diverse ethnic population in the world

Doesn't mean we are perfect or haven't had our issues...

ZORN REPLY -- Some of these assertions are mere braggadocio. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living_in_the_United_States talks about the "standard of living" claim, for instance.

Freest country? See

(may be some duplication, this is just a few minutes of googling around)

But yes, I don't think many of us on this thread will gainsay that the US is a mighty and on-balance wonderful land of great opportunity and significant liberty. The "exceptionalism" debate seems to be about what flows naturally from those significant assets; what further claims we may then make. And what the dividing line is between those who do and don't "believe in American exceptionalism," as the criticism goes.

Brian- nice answer. I agree that the American exceptionalism is combo platter. However, if you take one or two of those away, does that make it go away? If so which ones are the most important or are they of equal importance?

I'm realizing that all my ideas and opinions about what it is and why it exists and whether it is unique are contradictory.

It's hard to say whether certain items on my list are necessary but not sufficient in and of themselves. I think any countries that do not treat it citizens equally by law (such as those that don't allow women to vote or even drive) are immediately crossed off the list with respect to freedom -- but obviously the US has had its own history with that.

I think one has to view our spot atop the world as a potentially temporary one, as many of the things on my list have been claimed by various countries throughout history. For example, our innovation gave the world telephones, TV, computers, and the internet, but those are all recent. China can say it invented paper, Italy created the modern plumbing system, etc. And of course other countries have had superior militaries. I do hope we don't fall into the cycle where our greatness leads to hubris and then decline. (I realize some believe that already has happened -- but I view our decline is due more to the rest of the world catching up thanks to technology and communication rather than any major flaw on our part.)

Sullivan is good at knocking down arguments no one has advanced.

"If America's ideals are universal, they cannot be reduced to the ownership of one country."

I don't think proponents of exceptionalism are advocating the hoarding of our ideals. Russia, Iran, Lybia, the rest of you--take all you want! There's no shortage of "America's ideals"; they are in the public domain.

"Why, after all, did America need a Second Founding under Lincoln - almost a century after it was born?"
I'm not quite sure what this "Second Founding" has to do with the price of eggs, but if he is saying that the concept of exceptionalism is the belief that the US has a perfect history, he is again beating on a straw man. Certainly, hard-core exceptionalists overlook many of America's past sins, but I don't see how the fact that Lincoln helped correct the nation from a dark turn diminishes the many ways the US has stood as a leading force for good over history and why it still can claim that role. It often comes down to the plain fact that often are motives are actually pure and that sometimes we are the only nation not afraid to stick our neck out and sacrifice "blood and treasure" on behalf of the right cause. I don't think it is fruitful to embrace such an absolutist notion as exceptionalism. I am more concerned about its converse: the idea that our past is so flawed that we must constantly atone for it, and because we've not been perfect we have no more right than any other country to take a leadership role in certain world events. It's this kind of thinking that puts murderous dictatorships on the Human Rights Council. I thought especially in his first year, Obama was too concerned with confessing our faults; his comment that "like it or not" we are the superpower, was all too revealing.
And now with Lybia, we can say that "NATO" is now leading the operation, but let's face it: without the US taking the lead, there is no operation. Yet Obama is so concerned with denying that, that he is struggling to form a cogent expression of the objective.

I am NOT going to lambaste Zorn for his choice of subject matter. I am glad that he raised the topic. However, I assert that this is a phony issue. I base this on my agreement with the above quoted portions of Greenwald and Sullivan -- whom I assume are way left of center. I am a moderate conservative.

Rather – let me discuss what I think is new and significant. Many and sundry people believe themselves to be CITIZENS OF THE WORLD rather than U.S. CITIZENS.

I found this very prevalent in American born people when one of their parents is foreign born and that foreign born parent came to the U.S. because of marriage – rather than to flee political oppression or economic hardship.

That is the case for several of my wife’s cousins and I believe it to be the case for our President Obama.

In a similar vein – it is my understanding that many younger Europeans consider themselves to be EU citizens rather than citizens of Spain, Holland, etc.

American exceptionalism means we're better than they are.

What always strikes me when looking at our history and the founders is that the revolution didn't pervert itself and devour its own. Far from being perfect, this country and its citizens have made an attempt for 235 years to adhere to the principles put forth in the constitution. Slowly and at times painfully our form of governance has attempted to expand and make these rights universal for all .The result of these efforts are nicely summed up by Brian.

---Sullivan should be advised that what is historically false is the suggestion that the murderous ideas of Revolutionary France have anything to do with the United States. That's just dead wrong.

Also, I'm pretty well read in history but this is the first time I've ever heard the term "Second Founding."

Despite these nits, Sullivan might have been credited for making some sense until he collapsed in his last paragraph. I'm sure he had some chuckles after writing that purple prose.

Finally, Mr. Greenwald is literally off in left field.

ZORN REPLY -- I realize we're all busy here, but you call this a comment? Google "Second founding" and Reconstruction -- 8,000 pages; "Second Founding" and Lincoln" -- 2,500 pages. I guess it's not the most common term of historical art in the world, but it nicely hints at how we had to hit the "reset" button nearly 100 years on.

It's a pretty common chapter in 8th grade history texts how the Founders were influenced by European writers and thinkers and how our founding documents are in many ways a synthesis thereof. Pick nits with the exact examples if you want, but overall you haven't said one thing here to counter Sullivan or Greenwald (he's "literally" in left field...wow), or importantly, to advance a contrary view.

This is nothing new. Americans have always been brought up to believe that they were God's chosen ones--the kindest, strongest, most righteous people on Earth. It's a great recipe for disaster.

"Believing that one is special, unique, better than all others".

I've heard people say that's the definition of a liberal.

Is that first post really by Jim Carmignani? He usually types a lot better than that!

As I said in my first post I believe this “American Exceptionalism” stuff to be a phony issue. However, I took issue with those American born citizens who view themselves as CITIZENS OF THE WORLD rather than as U.S. CITIZENS.

There is nothing sacred about being a Chicagoan or a resident of Illinois or a Cubs fan. However, there is something SACRED about being a U.S. CITIZEN. This is based on the following:

As we should all know “freedom isn’t free.” Rather its price is the blood and lives of those in the military.

---France took a bit of the American ideals and went crazy with them. I agree, though, MCN, that the direction that France took from 1780 on was a great deal off from the American one. Marie Antoinette is one of my favorite delusional and over-the-top people from that time. I can only imagine what it was like to play at her Hameau at Versailles during that time.

I agree with JerryB that Sullivan takes on arguments that most people would never make. And definitely those people who have close personal ties to some other country tend to consider themselves citizens of the world, and not just the US.

Contradictions on exceptionalism...
- Americans as a group seem to have short term memories when it comes to recalling the bad times. Even those who've lived through them and those who've studied them, seem to be overly optimistic about America's fate. I have not found that to be true for any European country as a whole. Possibly you could group Canada (except Ontario) into the same boat as weak American copy. Unsinkable, unrealistic optimism could be what keeps American on top or be her fatal flaw. Those that don't learn from history, are deemed to repeat it.

- People in their twenties seem to be less optimistic and picture that doomsday is just upon us and we need to be prepared to live like the pioneers did in Illinois in short order. I think this is true in any country, though and it's just a lack of deeper perspective, but it contradicts the prior point and it makes the case that America is just as flawed and doomed as every other now-gone empire.

- Did the Founding Fathers actually take into account the things that brought Rome down and try to take all the good things from Britain and use that in forming the constitution, the government, etc? If America takes the best of all scenarios and past situations, mixes them up, then it is exceptional.

Feel free to poke all kinds of holes in what I posted.

ZORN REPLY -- While it's true that no person with even a middle-school grasp of history could ever think of America as a perfect nation, that's not the argument Sullivan knocks down. He's talking about nationalist idolatry, the idea of "America as the sole pioneer of human freedom" and that "America's ideals are...unique to America," the sort of pride and patriotism that verges into uncritical and simple thinking. We have a great country and a great constitution. We haven't always gotten things right and we're going to get things wrong in the future, and there's no shame in that or surprise, but there ought to be a reminder to stay humble and keep our ears open to other ideas.

You have convinced me. "- -" certainly does NOT mean you think the guy is brilliant. See 9:43 AM Comment.

---@EZ: You call that a reply?

Do you think the ideas of the Committee for Public Safety and Directory really affected the Founding? Especially given they occurred AFTER the Founding? Is your history as infirm as Sullivan's?

Despite how many hits Google might have turned up, I don't recall hearing the term before and I've read a LOT of Civil War-era history, and I would challenge whether that term has any real significance.

Speaking of calling that a reply, I am fully aware of how important pre-Revolutionary War European thinkers--many of whom I have read, imagine that?--were on the Founding, and I wish you had observed that I did NOT challenge Sullivan on that issue as he was quite correct. Point taken? As noted above, I wish the CPS had actually put those ideas into effect.

Sullivan's last paragraph IS purple, and I'm sure he had a lot of fun writing it. And as I read it again, I'm not exactly impressed with what it suggests about his knowledge of imperial history. The United States is not the Roman, Spanish or British Empires and this is not the 4th Century AD.

As far as Greenwald goes, I just didn't see anything in there that was interesting enough to merit a response, as I've been reading that tired stuff for a long time in the usual rags and it's boring.

Good post.

The American Constitution, the Founding Fathers of 1789; and The Federalist Papers are all unaccountably brilliant. Then in the next breath I say remember slavery, remember de facto and de jure discrimination against Blacks, remember the treatment of American Indians.

One can not fully understand the American Constitution and The Federalist Papers without first having read the Second Treatise on Government by John Locke.

Remember that in the late 1940’s – for the first time in the history of the earth – the U. S. could have been master of the earth – since only we had the A-bomb.

JerryB: "I am a moderate conservative."

Is today "Words Mean Whatever We Want Them To Mean Day"?

-- MrJM

"How is American exceptionalism different from Nazi superiority?"

Seriously? Do liberals actually believe this?

moperina, I think that the Founding fathers did try to take the good things from Britain (they were Englishmen, after all) but also they tried to eliminate some of the bad things. A couple of examples of the latter:

Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution. The purpose of that was not specifically to define treason, but to limit what it was. It didn't consist in disagreeing politically with the government or the sovereign (as people had lost their heads for in Britain not long before) but only in making war on the United States or in giving aid and comfort to those who do.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or restricting the free exercise thereof." Not long before in Britain, people had lost their lives in gruesome ways for splitting from the established Church, whatever it was at the time. (Look at the history of the reigns of Henry VIII and his progeny for examples; even the Settlement Act of 1704 (?) restricts Roman Catholics from being anywhere near the monarchy.) The Framers were determined that none of that [stuff] was going to happen here!

No doubt the term "American Exceptionalism" contains a certain amount of hubris and the ideals embodied in our constitution did not spring from a sudden burst of original thought from the Founders. Geography and natural resources have also shaped "The American Experiment". Judging the actions and policies of the United States from World War l when we emerged as a world power to the present how do we fare? How are we judged? In the twentieth century the world has seen the rise and fall of Communism, Fascism, Colonialism, and the rise of the European Union. The United States and its culture has had a profound influence on the world. Would another country under a different form of government or economic system given the same power and influence exercised it better? Worse? Maybe China in the future will provide the answer.

MCN, I've read a lot of Civil War era history too, and I never saw the term "Second Founding" either.

Two words I associate with "American Exceptionalism:"
Jingoism & xenophobia.

"How is American exceptionalism different from Nazi superiority?"

"Seriously? Do liberals actually believe this?"

Calm your nerves, Jimmy G. *One* person posted this. it's an idiotic remark. I notice no "liberal" attributed Tory II's idiotic comment to all conservatives.

Maybe you should take your medication *before* you comment from now on; you might actually contribute something valuable for a change like some of the sensible conservatives on this board.

MCN- you should know that Sullivan is a Brit and the term "Second Founding" is actually fairly common in England... that might help put his piece in context for you too.

But the fact that you don't see ANY correlation between U.S. history and the rise and fall of great empires before us is astonishing to me... it doesn't necessarily mean that we are fated to follow in their footsteps, but we should certainly heed their warnings and realize our current hegemony is by no means guaranteed. Only if we somehow avoid the same fate as every other empire in history can we truly call ourselves "exceptional".

You say:

[JerryB: "I am a moderate conservative."
Is today "Words Mean Whatever We Want Them To Mean Day"?
-- MrJM]

I don’t know what you are talking about.

I am to the left of Boris, Greg J. and MCN – especially on issues of constitutional jurisprudence.

I certainly believed in pre-marital hanky-panky. Thus I was never part of the religious right.

As a hunter and outdoorsman I am literally and figuratively a “tree hugger.”

I am left of center on the various gay/lesbian issues. As you well know – the tide of gay/lesbian marriages is NOT stressing my heterosexual marriage.

I concede that I once suggested that we do some mixed martial arts sparring – under professional supervision of course.

Maybe I owe you one for a cheap shot I once took at you. I don’t remember. Just don’t become a Stosh-like stalker.

Jon B- is it untraveled, inexperienced, uneducated, unbalanced (and whatever other "un" term applies) people who take American Exceptionalism a step further and become jingoistic and xenophobic? Or is it exactly the same thing, meaning if a person believes that America is exceptional then they also believe that America and Americans are "THE" best on every level, have the only answers to all problems, and are afraid of/dislike all other nations and people?

Just asking if it's an "equal" or a "step beyond"....

Kip: Your point is well-taken and I for one wish Tory II would either display some intelligence or depart.

MrJM: I am personally acquainted with JerryB and, after some lengthy conversations with him, I agree with that he is a moderate conservative. He's certainly to the left of me on some issues and I'm a pretty typical Catholic conservative (that term has a particular meaning).

BruceL: I did not say that I did not see any correlation between the US and earlier empires. I can certainly see them, but I think the r-squared is kind of low. In any event, if one were to compare ancient Rome to the United States one would find many more differences than commonalities. Same with Spain and Britain, not too mention empires like the Aztecs, Incas, Chins, Manchus, Moghuls, Ottomans, Abassids, Hittites, Egyptians, Assyrians, Fatimids, Byzantines, Carolingians, Russians, Soviets . . . .

MCN- I might agree that if one were to compare ancient Rome to the United States one would find many more differences than commonalities... and yes, the same is true of all the other aforementioned empires. Problem is, if one were to compare all those empires to each other one would also find more differences that commonalities.

The one commonality they all have... they're gone!

"...it's an idiotic remark"

Is it?

"American exceptionalism means we're better than they are."

Who are "they"?

"American exceptionalism", at least as I think the phrase is usually understood (by both sides) is just a large-scale version of the idea that rules, and more generally the rule of law, are Very Important and Must Be Followed and there are No Exceptions *except* that when it comes to _me personally_ and _my family_, well, there's some background story or special circumstance that makes it ok to not follow the rule. Writ large, this becomes American exceptionalism, where it's important to bring foreign dictators to justice (but we won't sign treaties that call for war crimes tribunals, because they might try some of our guys, who had a good excuse), and it's important to bring down global carbon emissions (but we won't join the Kyoto Protocol, because it would require us to actually decrease *ours* and that would be hard), and it's important to disarm globally (but we don't want to decrease our arsenal, because we're the protectors of the "free world"), and it's important to write constitutions that prohibit gender discrimination and other forms of discrimination (but we shouldn't pass an ERA because... actually I don't even know the reason why we're special there).

The small-scale version has been a core philosophical disagreement between the left and the right for a long time, so it shouldn't be too surprising that the large-scale version is now becoming so.

If we're not careful, American exceptionalism will mean, "we are a nation of laws and will endeavor to act in accord with those laws, except when we decide it's not in our interest."

BruceL: Not quite sure how to respond to that remark.

Amongst our current imperial competitors, how do we compare against the Red Chinese?

Oh, and I forgot to thank you for clarifying the "Second Founding" remark. I had forgotten Sullivan was a Brit.

Before I forget, the first reference I see in my google search for "Second Founding" is to that of the Second Founding of the Space Marines.

Of course, one could simply say we must be exceptional because more immigrants come here than all other countries combined...i.e., it's not like we are exceptional because we are selective.

"I concede that I once suggested that we do some mixed martial arts sparring – under professional supervision of course."

I have to admit, I missed that.

Unified rules?

-- MrJM

So much presentism in this discussion!

I understood "American exceptionalism" to be about how the USA was different from other Western countries, not about how the USA was better than them. I think I came across the phrase in Marxian historiography (or maybe critiques of Marxian historiographies) that traced how the USA went through the same kinds of economic transformations that Western Europe did, but came out with a very different economic and political structure (weaker unions, weaker welfare structures, etc).

These writers were trying to explain why the US was so markedly different from European countries. It was not used to explain why the USA was better than anyone; or that the USA had any inherent or "rightful" superiority in contrast with the world.

It seems that many here, including Sullivan and Greenwald, are using the phrase "American exceptionalism" to cover a modern updating of Manifest Destiny.

"Maybe you should take your medication *before* you comment from now on; you might actually contribute something valuable for a change like some of the sensible conservatives on this board."

Oh, look who is talking. Mr. Long-on-personal-attacks-and-short-on-substance. Do you EVER post a message without a personal attack? Are you capable of it?

How can you compare "Tory II," whoever that is, with Wendy C, one of the most prolific liberal commentators on this board?

B.S. my friend. You did a thousand word parody regarding my suggestion. Even Wendy C. remembers that challenge. That is why I think she is a bit attracted to me - along with the fact we were once neighbors. (Attracted in a platonic way of course.)

MCN will throw an open house. Bourbon and single-malt will flow. He has a large back yard.

Cigars, too.

Jerry, the only thing more impressive than your vast store of knowledge is the depth of your modesty.

---MCN- My initial answer to "how do we compare against the Red Chinese?" would be, "we'll see over the next 100 years".

But back on point, Sullivan says "It is the routine pattern of the rise and fall of all republics that become empires." Clearly, China is not a Republic, neither are any of our other current "competitors", so let's drop them for the moment. We are (or should I say "were"?) a Republic, and we are following a similar pattern as the past empires Sullivan spoke of. He is merely noting the similarities and warning us that we are travelling down a dangerous path and we are not really heeding those lessons of previous imperial powers.

And now off point, and bear with me for a moment because it's kind of tangential (and influenced by my son, who is currently addicted to the Star Wars movies so we've watched them way too many times recently). For those of you who've seen the movies, you know that in the beginning it is a Republic governed by a Senate and founded on moral principle. As the Republic grows and becomes more influential there are those within the Republic that crave power for their own ends and ultimately take over the Republic from within by stripping away the powers of the Senate, reorganizing the gov't into the Intergalactic Empire and declaring themmself Emperor (I know, I know, it's based on Rome, but bear with me).

So here's my son's question: Are we still like the Old Republic, or have we unknowingly become more like the Intergalactic Empire? I don't have the answer, I'll leave that one open to the forum though (leave it to kids to ask the tough questions).

---Wendy C:

Well Done!!

To me, the term recalls America's history as a "new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." It recalls the "American experiment" -- that is, whether a nation "so conceived may long endure." It suggests America's status as a nation self-consciously grounded in universal ideals rather than a particular ethnic, religious, or even cultural heritage. It suggests America's inherent pluralism and its studied neutrality (not always observed, of course) regarding individual characteristics and personal background.

ZORN REPLY -- I can never read that passage without translating it as "dedicated to the proposition that all white, property owning males are created equal." Not to be churlish about it, but some of this founder fetishism needs to be tempered now and again.

BruceL: I was not aware that Spain was a republic during its imperial days. In its Republican days, Rome was really an aristocratic oligarchy, which we are not, leftist criticisms to the contrary. In addition, if we are drawing parallels here, the Roman Empire lasted for five hundred years in the West and another thousand in the East.

This suggests we have a ways to go.

Also leftist criticisms to the contrary, if we are an empire, it is a commercial one, i.e., our ability to directly assert political power over other countries not remotely of the degree which, say, the British could exercise at their imperial peak.

The Star Wars movies are comic books. I wouldn't try to draw too many historical lessons out of them.

@WendyC: "They" are everybody who isn't an Amurrican.

moperina – Not necessarily uneducated, etc. people. Given your two options, I would say “step beyond.” I agree there are many Unique things about America, but to say it is Exceptional glosses over (in my mind) the darker aspects of the nation, currently and historically. If America has no faults, then “logically” we will know and do what’s best for the rest of the world. Any resistance is taken as a sign of “their” ignorance and inferiority.
I should emphasize “associate with” because that’s just my perception. Kind of like how the words “birth certificate” have connotations they didn’t a few years ago.

MCN- I'm not declaring that the end is near or anything, but to Sullivan's credit, there are parallels... that's all. And yes, we all know Star Wars is fiction, but I thought it raised an interesting question about America's place in the world that was relevant to this thread... and just because it is fiction doesn't mean it can't lend some perspective to the discussion. Sorry if you disagree.

As for "if we are an empire, it is a commercial one, i.e., our ability to directly assert political power over other countries not remotely of the degree which, say, the British could exercise at their imperial peak." How would you then explain our current intervention in Libya? Iraq? Afghanistan? Are those "commercial" Tomahawk missles we're firing? I'll agree we are, in fact, a commercial empire, but we are also a resource-driven, military empire that uses force to get what we want (which, unfortunately, is usually oil).

I've always personally considered "American exceptionalism" to be our ability to reinvent ourselves in relation to so called "homogenous" societies. IMHO, our immigrants have allowed America to stay exceptional and bring in new blood and ideas. By drawing from different societies at different times in our history, I think that we have been able to avoid SOME of the issues that brought down some older, more entrenched empires, especially a homogenous ruling class. By offering a path to success, we have been able to draw some of the best and the brightest from around the world, and they shape us as much as we shape them. AS long as we are considered the land of opportunity, i feel optimistic about our ability to innovate and succeed. Plus I want to be invited to MCN's BBQ

Thanks Jon B. I follow your logic. "Associate" would be too strong a word for me, personally.

Of course we are exceptional--every country is--but figuring out how is a challenge. Consider the most American of events--the Civil War. On one hand it was exceptional: in no other country in the Americas, except Haiti, did people go to war to protect slavery.

On the other hand, the Civil War was not exceptionally bloody: though it was awful enough (about 670,000 people died, including 50,000 civilians) it was nowhere near as bloody as wars fought at the same time in China (20 million people died--most of whom were civilians) and Paraguay (over half of its total population was killed).

BruceL: I was anticipating your Afghan/Iraq comment. In Iraq, we are largely on our way out. In Afghanistan, you would be surprised if you knew just how much control the Afghan government exerts over us. It isn't exactly Gaul under the Romans, Mexico under the Spanish or India under the Raj.

Don't make too much of my remarks about Star Wars. I'm under the influence of votefortheworst.com and am feeling rather snotty today.

TJR: I don't even know who you are. You have to establish bona fides first. Did you go to Brother Rice?

MCN, my wife went to Mother McAuley. Is that good enough?

MCN- I know we're on our way out of Iraq, and I won't disagree that we hold little sway in Afghanistan; I was merely pointing out that we are not waging commercial warfare there (although some would argue that we are already waging commercial warfare around the globe, but we can save that discussion for another day).

No worries on the remarks though, nothing uncivil or anything, and although we disagree I appreciate the discussion. I'm not a Brother Rice man but I'd love to be there if you have a BBQ for the commenters here... I'll bring a bottle of Redbreast and I promise not to bring up Star Wars.

But you should really be careful with that VoteForTheWorst.com ... it'll do bad things to your brain, man... bad things.

DaveB, you have to be bloody kidding. If it was in the 1976-78 time frame, let me know. If it was after that, get me her cell phone number.

BruceL: You have to be nice to me. MCN does not throw barbecues. MCN has dinner parties. Men only, with excellent food and liqour and civilized conversation.

Actually, the NeubyFest summer party will hopefully happen sometime this summer, before summer ends.

MCN- In that case, I would love to attend one of your dinner parties if you ever hold one for this forum group... I will still bring a bottle of Redbreast (the finest copper kettle irish whiskey there is, imho) and I still promise to not bring up Star Wars, unless it pertains to SDI, the SALT II Treaty or Reaganomics. Oh, and if smoking is allowed, I'll bring some Monte Cristo No. 1's.

Mein Gott!

DaveB is a great guy. I hope Zorn comes too.

But these other guys have to pay their dues. At the very least they have to get snarked over by Zorn a dozen times.

O.K. My "snarked" is Zorn's insightful yet blistering criticism.

JerryB: I agree. These guys gotta pay their dues. Which means that Zorn has to beat on them for a few months. Or years, depending on whether they stick it out.

Besides, my wife doesn't just let any stray into Casa del MCN. Hell, it took years before I could talk her into going out on a date with me. And then she put up security at the Northern Trust.

On one of my shoulders sits the “bad angel” and on the other sits the “really bad angel.”

So the RBA suggests: “Why don’t you provide an online guide on this blog as how to score points real fast.”

The BA then hurriedly suggests –“Not so fast JerryB – I rather not see all hell break loose.”

Should say "made ME put up security". True story.

Naw, MCN, she was class of '65.

Zorn writes: "I can never read that passage [from the Gettysburg Address] without translating it as 'dedicated to the proposition that all white, property owning males are created equal.' Not to be churlish about it, but some of this founder fetishism needs to be tempered now and again."

I'm certainly against founder fetishism. The idea that the founders were perfect is, of course, nonsense, just as the idea that our Constitution is perfect is nonsense. (I like South Africa's better.) Still, I'm not against legitimate, informed, and thoughtful admiration. The founders were subject to the prejudices and political realities of their time. Obviously, they did not live up to their own ideals when it came to slavery. Obviously, the idea of sex equality was totally foreign to them. I don't believe that these facts make them unworthy of respect or fascination or impressive monuments.

They created a republic dedicated to universal human rights. It was a fresh idea at the time, and America's founding is one of the great achievements, maybe the greatest achievement, of the Enlightenment era. The founders practically invented the ideals we judge them by today, which the world takes for granted. We know that they were wrong about slavery and other inequalities because it conflicts with the standards of equality that they themselves enshrined. It was in many ways an elitist, intellectual, and ironically exclusionary movement -- the province of smart, wealthy people who were up on the latest European political philosophy. At the same time, it was radical in its implications and radically just in its principles. Skipping ahead to the "second founding," it's hard to admire Lincoln too much.

If the idea of "American Exceptionalism" is to suggest that America has done and can do no wrong, that's obviously ridiculous. If it's to say that America shouldn't have to play by any rules on the world stage, that's obviously (I think) wrong. If it's to say that it's the "greatest country in the world," then one turns to a clear-eyed assessment of measures of greatness, and America, while certainly the richest and most powerful country in the world with a very strong and admirable commitment to individual liberty and human rights, doesn't fare as well as it could and should on some of those measures. If it's to say that America is stubborn and arrogant and proudly insistent on its own ways of doing things, that's true to some extent, but then it's not a flattering label.

I tend to think of it as a pointless term that could mean too many different things to be useful. The way it's been used lately is truly stupid -- a sort of dumb patriotism test for political opponents, as in "Obama doesn't believe that America is the super-duper specialist place on earth! Look at this snippet of a speech I've totally taken out of context! Also, he doesn't wear a big enough flag pin! Go Fox!"

A while ago Peter Beinart wrote an interesting (though also irritating) article about liberal vs. conservative patriotism. His basic thesis was that liberals are patriotic in that they are committed to American ideals, whereas conservatives are patriotic in that they are committed to America itself and, in particular, its symbols (the flag, etc.), no matter what. He set it up as intelligent, prodding love (i.e., Come on America, live up to your best ideals, do better) vs. blind faith (i.e., love it or leave it, we're already number one). The irritating part was that he was giving some credence to the conservative form. I guess I still buy the liberal form, though, and find some bona fide inspiration in America's history and worthy ideals.

ZORN REPLY -- That sounds like a startling yet abortive attempt at genuine thoughtfulness from Beinart, who has not in the past impressed me. Post the link if you have it.
As for "I don't believe that these facts make (the founders) unworthy of respect or fascination or impressive monuments," I totally agree. By founder fetishism I mean that tendency to treat the constitution not just as generally wise and important, but as sacred writ. For instance, though I tend to side with gun owners (of which I am not one) in many of the debates on gun rights, I don't do so out of respect for the 2nd Amendment. I believe that was written at a time when society and firearms technology were so vastly different that relying on the implicit related policy prescriptions written back then is wholly ludicrous. Yet at the same time I think it's worth visiting or revisiting the question of what the right to self defense -- clearly a natural right -- ought to mean in the context of gun laws. But I do go on.

Not Brother Rice, but the Jesuits got a hold of me at Marquette

TJR: Going to a Jesuit school is the next best thing to a Catholic education.:)

JerryB: My apologies. Guess I've utterly forgotten it then.

(What a relief to know that these back-and-forths aren't taking up too much space on my internal hard-drive. "Are you sure you want to delete all of the items in the Recycle Bin?" >> Yes.)

-- MrJM

I appreciate this and your comment on the union thread.
Your parody was funny. That's why I remembered.

OK to take a swipe at me. As I instructed Wendy C. on another thread --I will not get angry if it is clever, witty, funny, and partially true.

Hugs and kisses!!!

Oh! no! -- I take this back. I do not want to stress your heterosexual marriage any more than it already is.

Thus best wishes.

Your “stress” set of posts were the funniest thing I ever read on this blog. Almost puked from laughter. That was perfect for my drinking buddy and very good friend – the highfalutin and self-righteous MCN.

Keep up that sort of work – even if it is aimed at me. I do deserve some push-back since Zorn is now trying to be extra-nice to me.

Zorn: Here's the link to the Beinart article:

Agree about him and everything else you said in your reply.

Zorn & JakeH:

Perhaps we will disagree on specifics but standing alone I support your statement:

[By founder fetishism I mean that tendency to treat the constitution not just as generally wise and important, but as sacred writ.]

In the fall of 2009 I attended -- as a spectator -- the first day of an international conference of constitution drafters at the University of Chicago Law School. In the world – about one new constitution is adopted per year.

The bottom line was that a constitution should neither be too hard nor too easy to amend. The problem with making a constitution too easy to amend should be obvious to you and JakeH. The problem with making a constitution too hard to amend is that it will more and more be ignored over time.

The U.S. Constitution is hard to amend. But this problem is ameliorated by the relatively free reign of Supreme Court interpretation.

When Hitler was busy gassing Jews, there were millions of Amerikanos looking the other way. ----

ZORN INTERRUPTION -- Let me just stop you right there, Tory, and send you on your way. You're banned from this blog. Go play troll somewhere else.
Good day.

Tory ll:

Perhaps there is a valid point buried in your several postings.

I am a long time regular on this blog. I can assure you that 99% of other blog commentators now assume that you are deranged from the way you sound.

If that is the case -- then why post?

The comments to this entry are closed.

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.

•  The Tweet of the Week 2015 Compendium
•  Transition time
•  Medical pot shops are coming! Take a chill pill, folks.
•  Open Thread: The Weeks In Review
•  Fine lines final four
•  Two takes on medical tokes
•  Missed it by that much
•  16 is the new 21
•  Fine lines
•  'As much as you love the bulldog, the fact that it exists at all is borderline animal abuse'

• `The Office'
• American Idol
• Anthony Porter Case
• Blago trial
• Books
• Chicken!
• Commenters
• Common Sense Caucus
• Current Affairs
• Film
• Fine Expressions
• Fine Shots
• Food and Drink
• Friday Night Lights
• Grey's Anatomy
• How Long Does it Take?
• Jessica Reynolds
• Mad Men
• Megan Crepeau
• Month in Review
• Obama
• Peterson case
• Predictions
• Prickly Pair Podcasts
• Race to the Slop
• Religion
• Rhubarb Patch
• Rules for commenting
• Somebody Nobody Asked
• Speaking of Sports
• Spit takes
• Sports
• Television
• The Killing
• This I No Longer Believe
• Trayvon Martin case
• Video Commentaries
• Webliographies
• Weeks in Review
• YaGotta

December 2015 posts
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31

Browse archives

Chicago Tribune Media Group


WARC-Identified-Payload-Type: text/html

WARC-Truncated: length

text:
« A Keyhole Look at Rural Student Mobility | Main | Are Schools Today Better Prepared for Disaster? »

New Orleans: 'Relevant' Research in Action

As education watchers reflect on the fifth anniversary of the hurricanes that devastated Gulf Coast schools, they may find a few lessons in how to make all research more relevant to schools.

Back in February, at an Atlanta conference of the American Association of Colleges of Education, the director of ED's Institute for Education Sciences rolled out his "Five Big Ideas" to improve education research. "If researchers want their work to be relevant," John Q. Easton said then, "we need to spend time in schools talking with administrators and teachers about the challenges they face; we need to reach out to policymakers; we need to collaborate with researchers outside their expertise."

Education researchers have complained for years that accountability has made schools increasingly unwilling to open their doors. Yet that normal reluctance was nothing compared to what researchers faced to study schools in the aftermath of Katrina, when administrators were too busy trying to locate students, find homes for returning staff and open their doors to spare time for researchers.

The researchers that got a foot in the door after Katrina went a step beyond simply being relevant.

"We didn't go into schools to gather research data; we went into schools to see how we could be helpful with the recovery," said Joy D. Osofsky, professor of pediatrics and psychiatry at Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center in New Orleans.

Osofsky and her team adapted a mental health and trauma screening tool for 19 schools in Orleans, St. Bernard and Plaquemines parishes. "We would be unobtrusively around, and what they discovered &mdash and we had anticipated &mdash was there were a lot more problems than they had expected. What happened very quickly in all of the schools we worked with was they realized they could get a lot of help and services from us."

Other recovery researchers echoed Osofsky's advice. For example, Deborah M. Alvarez, assistant professor of English at the University of Delaware, led groups of her students to volunteer in the schools and held training seminars for teachers on how to help students improve their literacy skills and mental health by writing about the disaster. Those teachers later helped Alvarez get clearance to work in the Recovery School District, which she said was previously "almost impenetrable" to her as a researcher.

Today, Osofsky's team has five years of longitudinal mental health data on 23,000 students, and it was able to adapt its trauma screening tool and training for educators in Chile after the earthquake earlier this year.

The relationship has also given Osofsky's team an up-close view of how St. Bernard and Plaquemines parish students cope with a new disaster, in the form of the oil spill that is devastating the communities' fishing and tourism industries.

"It's very important to go and hang out, so people just start to trust you, rather than see you as a researcher just going in and collecting data," Osofsky said. "We're sort of embedded in the schools now; we're collecting data, but we're also really a part of these schools at this point."

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.
Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.

Follow This Blog

Most Viewed on Education Week

Recent Comments


text:
Google is planning to enter the U.S power market: Bloomberg

June 11, 2014, 3:32 PM ET

Google Inc. is looking to make a deeper push into the billion-dollar U.S. energy market by developing tools to deliver power more efficiently, Bloomberg News said, citing people familiar with the plans.

Google /quotes/zigman/30194416/delayed /quotes/nls/goog GOOG , long an investor in clean energy, is in the early stages of building software and hardware to manage power lines and other infrastructure, Bloomberg said. Google’s Energy Access team is taking the lead in that, the news agency added.

The U.S. electric grid has delivered reliable energy for decades, but there’s hope that a “smart grid” would improve it. Constant communication between the power network and homes and businesses would cut down on waste and inefficiencies.

Moreover, as solar and wind power become more prevalent, the grid would need to become “smarter” and more flexible to handle the peaks and valleys of renewable energy.

In January, Google spent $3.2 billion to buy Nest Labs Inc., a home automation company, seen as a bid to strengthen its position in the “Internet of things” market. The Internet giant has invested more than $1 billion in solar and wind projects across the globe.

Companies in the “smart grid” business include Opower Inc. /quotes/zigman/30072109/delayed /quotes/nls/opwr OPWR , which debuted on the New York Stock Exchange in April. Opower makes software that tracks energy use in homes and encourages homeowners to conserve by comparing their usage to their neighbors’.

– Claudia Assis

More from MarketWatch and Energy Ticker:

Buffett to double his $15 billion solar, wind investments

Map of where Tesla can sell cars looks similar to U.S. political map

Story Conversation

Commenting FAQs »

About Energy Ticker

  • Energy Ticker is MarketWatch’s blog about the energy industry and investing in energy companies. It’s meant to serve as a guide for investors looking for the newest, most important and market moving news and information on the industry. Hosted by lead writer and veteran reporter Claudia Assis, Energy Ticker hopes to be the essential guide for those interested in the global business of powering our planet.

    You can reach Claudia at

    You can also follow her on Twitter:

    Follow Energy Ticker:


text:
Follow us:

Sounders FC

Daily coverage of Seattle Sounders FC, MLS and world soccer.

April 20, 2010 at 4:21 PM

Sounders FC quotes after Tuesday’s training (team release)

Sigi Schmid – Head Coach
(On challenges of playing two road games in four days . . .) “It’s always tough playing on Thursday and coming back and playing on a Sunday, especially when it is a Sunday afternoon and especially when you are travelling between the two games. You’re travelling to game one and you’re travelling to game two and so doing two on the road like that is tough. Toronto went through it last weekend but they had the first one at home so that makes it a little bit easier. We will get through with it. It is the way the schedule was dealt to us and we will face it. It means we might have to mix and match the lineup a little bit and make sure guys are fresh for the games that we need to play and just play good soccer.”
(On FC Dallas . . .) “Dallas is an interesting team because they have a lot of pace. [Jeff] Cunningham is obviously a guy who scored a lot of goals last year in the second half of the season. He is a very streaky forward so you hope he doesn’t start a streak against us. But they have got good attacking parts. [David] Ferreira is a dangerous guy as well. Dax McCarty is a good player who also tends to get forward as evidence by the header that he scored against New York. Daniel Hernandez is a good solid rock of a defensive midfielder who is like that fulcrum that you can pivot around. So from that standpoint they are a good team in terms of their balance and how they relate to each other.”

(On health of Sounders FC players . . .) “Marshall today we had an alternate training day and same thing for Freddie and same thing for Kennedy. It’s just some things that we see on the different things from the heart monitors they wear at training to the Omega Wave. So we can see who is a little more depleted than somebody else and that’s what allows us to do a regeneration that is appropriate to them rather than just a group thing that fits everybody.”
Freddie Ljungberg – Midfielder/Forward
(On how to approach a two-game road trip . . .) “I think maybe we will rotate a little bit in the squad to keep people fresh after the long flights and the games are quite tight. [. . .] It’s just sleep, eat and all that boring stuff and hope we can get some results.”
(On difficulty scoring at home versus on the road . . .) “There are lots of reasons. I think we had some chances that maybe we should have scored on in the beginning and the end as well. I think we need to get the passing tempo up a little bit. I think that will create more chances and that’s from all over the pitch. When they come up here, our opponents are quite organized and they know we like to go forward and they sit in. To get the chances and openings we would like to have a crisp, quick passing game and sometimes we maybe take too long to hit the ball sharp enough or hard enough. It’s small things like that but hopefully we will get better.”
(On more players seeing game action . . .) “It’s great for people to get some playing time but at the end of the day we need to get the points. So we will see afterwards if it is a good thing or not. It’s great for the guys to get playing time. Mike Fucito, I talked to him before, I love his work ethic, the way he thinks and stuff. I am very, very pleased that he scored and hopefully he will get more chances.”
Kasey Keller – Goalkeeper
(On what to expect on two-game road trip . . .) “I don’t expect anything. You never want to be the team to jumpstart somebody’s season so we want to obviously play off of the momentum from getting the late goal last game. Going two games on the road, we don’t want to come home without any points or with only a couple points. We feel very confident with our ability on the road, stemming from last season and then obviously picking up a point at Salt Lake. So we feel very confident we can go. We have got a good squad so if we need to maybe change some players around to make sure we have a full rested team we know we are capable of doing that as well. No reason why we can’t go into Dallas and Toronto full of confidence and go in there and pick up some points.”
(On challenges of playing two road games in four days . . .) “I think what’s a little bit different is, because of the distances travelled, it doesn’t make sense to come home. A lot of times you would have a midweek game and then you have a two or three hour drive home and then you takeoff later. I have done it a couple of times in England where we did stay over when we had games in close proximity but it is rare and obviously where you would not have to jump on a plane and fly four hours to your next destination. In saying that, in some ways it gets an extra trip out of the equation so we go. We know we have got four days on the road. We just need to concentrate and do our job. It’s a rare occasion and we just need to make sure we are ready for it. Like I said, we have a good squad. We’ve got guys who are ready to step in if some guys are a little banged up or a little fatigued. [. . .] I feel very good in our prospects in these two games.”

No personal attacks or insults, no hate speech, no profanity. Please keep the conversation civil and help us moderate this thread by reporting any abuse. See our Commenting FAQ.

The opinions expressed in reader comments are those of the author only, and do not reflect the opinions of The Seattle Times.

The Seattle Times

The door is closed, but it's not locked.

Take a minute to subscribe and continue to enjoy The Seattle Times for as little as 99 cents a week.

Subscription options ►

Already a subscriber?

We've got good news for you. Unlimited content access is included with most subscriptions.

Subscriber login ►
The Seattle Times

To keep reading, you need a subscription upgrade.

We hope you have enjoyed your complimentary access. For unlimited access, please upgrade your digital subscription.

Call customer service at 1.800.542.0820 for assistance with your upgrade or questions about your subscriber status.

The Seattle Times

To keep reading, you need a subscription.

We hope you have enjoyed your complimentary access. Subscribe now for unlimited access!

Subscription options ►

Already a subscriber?

We've got good news for you. Unlimited content access is included with most subscriptions.

Activate Subscriber Account ►


text:
Friday, August 26, 2011

Soul Weather: Summer Solstice

While Lee was glazing and firing pottery for Bazaart, and trying to winkle her way into people's daily lives, Dirk was mudding the kitchen.  In all his years of renovations, he'd left the walls of the houses more or less intact.  So when he decided to open the kitchen to the living area, he'd had a lot of destruction to do, and his inexperience made the process not very pretty.  He hasn't figured out how he'll fix the hardwood floor where the studs and footing for the walls had been, but perhaps something clever will occur to him while he puts up Gyprock and begins taping and mudding.  This last is a process he likes.  He tries to do it with as little energy and mess as possible, as if the carefulness of the physical labour gives it more dignity – moves it closer to craftsmanship.  But his inexperience has left him with some spectacular holes in the kitchen walls, so he's filling these in slowly, letting them dry, taping a crack or two, and then going back to add another layer of Polyfilla to the pits and furrows in the kitchen plaster before he returns to mud the cracks and the divots lefts by the screws.
            Last year at this time, he'd missed spring.  In April and May, life completely went missing as he spent early mornings burrowing around in his basement digs with his eyes closed, like a mole, and then came rushing out into the light, dashed into work, and then buried himself completely and sympathetically in his caseload.  Because he wasn't noticing the weather, he was almost grateful for the rain that drowned the fields around Melville and Yorkton, and for the women who flooded into Regina to visit sisters and daughters, needing to talk with someone about their men's despair and helpless fury.  In the more worrying cases, daughters and sisters encouraged the wives to call Mobile Crisis Services.  Sometimes they simply had difficulties understanding their husbands' ranting and railing:  surely crop insurance would get sorted out and it would be tight, but they'd be okay for a year.  These calls weren't taxing.  Being a guy, Dirk could try to explain what it felt like not to have meaningful work.  Income wasn't the only issue for men, whereas a farm wife always had work, and that work counted, whether anybody said it or not.  A meal on the table or a clean shirt said it.  These were also men whose last emotional words might well have been uttered on their wedding days, so getting the farmer to talk about his feelings was probably impossible if not counterproductive.  The urban women's magazine strategies of probing and questioning wouldn't help her deal with his moods.  So Dirk, feeling deeply conflicted, had to talk to women about how to ignore men's moods.  Make a quilt.  Knit a sweater.  Start a reading club or a 'Stitch 'n bitch' group – something that gives you pleasure.  That would get you and your family through.  At the end of the day, he dodged unseeing back through the rain, down into his burrow, and did anything he could to get through to tomorrow.  He watched crummy TV.  Sports and sitcoms required no concentration.  He sometimes played with his sons' gameboy.  Or he played computer games that allowed him to save the universe.
            Then he looked up one day, and found the sky blue and the leaves full-sized.  He'd never before in his life lost a season.  So this year as he works at remaking the ground floor of his house into a space for the group of undergraduates Lee will organize for him, he has all the windows open, which means he's sometimes cold.  But the fresh air keeps Ruby's nose busy when she isn't asleep on the floor in the middle of his workspace, and he simply pulls on the old sweater with its elbows out that's already got its patina of polyfilla and paint.  He turns his Bob Dylan or Bruce Cockburn up loud and gets to work.  While people continue to complain about the rain, wondering if cold grey springs are going to be the new normal on the prairies, Dirk is even happy with the rain.  Well, not happy exactly, but comforted by weather he can inhabit, comforted by a frame of mind that can haunt something besides itself and its distraction.
            So he watches every millimetre of change.  At first, the trees seemed untrusting, which he understands.  Then their buds, snail-like, crept to the ends of branches, where they looked like the round heads of finishing nails.  Then he notices that, in the midst of people's soggy whiny complaints, the leaves on trees and shrubs tended to stretch after a couple of days' rain, though whether this showed enthusiasm and gratitude, or whether they're clutching at sunlight, he doesn't know.
            The weather doesn't seem to be moving in a straight line, though it never does on the prairies.  The weather gods will give you a tiny taste of sun and warmth and then lapse far back into an earlier season.  So that now it is a breezy June day, close to the solstice, and he can hear the rustle of leaves, but the sound is dry and fretful enough that it could be a fall day rather than a prelude to summer.
            He wants to know where he is, meteorologically speaking.  He doesn't want to look up to be suddenly enveloped in the grief of last fall:  the kids buying supplies, going off to school, meeting new friends, all elsewhere.  Hungry wretchedness fills you when your wife tells you that your kids are happy with the new life they're living without dad.  You stare out the kitchen window while she tells you this.  And afterwards every rainy day when leaves lie in sodden golden puddles under bare branches will carry echoes of this conversation.   It's as if seasons – their smells, their whispers on your skin, the particular angle of light – have a clock that turns back at will and can plummet you again into that mood.  This vision will forever stand for the fact that there's a whole other world you know nothing about. You aren't living here, among the glorious Regina fall days, but in a world where you have no senses, no touch or sight, and your kids report on home runs and new video games matter-of-factly in your weekly phone call, without any engagement in their voices.  Is this because they're as grief-stricken as you are, because their mother is standing right there, or because they've forgotten the smell of you?

The photograph at the top of the page is of an installation at the Walker Art Center.  Unfortunately, I've lost the name of the artist and the installation is no longer listed on their web site.

No comments:

Post a Comment


text:
Go Back   Muse Messageboard > Tags

Threads Tagged with royale with blood
  Thread / Thread Starter Last Post Replies Views Forum
Today 02:00 PM
by james90 Go to last post
5,647 629,091 Kit & Tab

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Follow the Muse Messageboard on Twitter!
'Pornogenic' - this refers to pics of Muse (and their crotch regions)


text:
No. of Recommendations: 0
There are a lot of VISA credit cards from all over that offer cash back from 1 to 4% You can even get them from such places as Wal-Mart, K-Mart, and other retailers. Even some (believe it or not) home based businesses have there own VISA cards that give cash back. Just check around your own town. Im sure you will find at least 2 VISA with cash back.

Print the post

UGC Disclosure Notice Regarding Credit Card Posts
Community board discussions about credit cards are not provided or commissioned by banks who may have advertising relationships with The Motley Fool. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by the bank advertiser. It is not the bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.
TMF Credit Center
The Motley Fool Credit Center arms you with real tools and simple messages, that will help you in every credit situation.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.