Politics: April 2006 Archive Page

It was in Romania, while making a film about Ceausescu, that I first stumbled across the historical legacy of the communist joke. There I learned that a clerk from the Bucharest transport system, Calin Bogdan Stefanescu, had spent the last ten years of Ceausescu's regime collecting political jokes. He noted down which joke he heard and when, and analysed his total of over 900 jokes statistically. He measured the time gap between a political event and a joke about that event, and then drew up a graph measuring the varying velocity of Romanian communist jokes. He was also able to assert--somewhat tenuously--that there was a link between jokes and the fall of Ceausescu, since jokes about the leader doubled in the last three years of the regime. The story of Stefanescu, the statistician of jokes, was, ironically, much funnier than the jokes themselves. It seemed to capture the prosaic reality of the little man struggling against the communist universe. --Ben Lewis --Hammer & Tickle (Prospect)

In Georgia this week, the campaign manager for a candidate for governor resigned amid allegations he doctored the Wikipedia biography of an opponent in the Democratic primary.

Morton Brilliant was accused of revising the entry for Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor to add his son's arrest last August in a drunken driving accident that left his best friend dead.

The information was accurate and had been in the news. --Shannon McCaffrey --Wikipedia Ripe for Political Dirty Tricks (Breitbart | AP)

Thanks for the link, Mike.

Student Mike Rubino and I have been talking via e-mail with the director of our writing center, about how to get students thinking about the relative value of Wikipedia as a source.

I tell students that it's fine to refer to Wikipedia when preparing for an informal oral presentation, or as part of a blogged response to a reading assignment. In a research paper, however, it's not a credible source -- except if the research paper is on a very geeky, very rapidly changing topic related to the internet, or a meme that's currently spreading through youth culture, in which case the Wikipedia article is likely to have more up-to-date content than what you find in the mainstream media.

Congressman John P. Murtha will be the keynote speaker at this year's commencement, Saturday, May 13 at 11 in the Katherine Mabis McKenna Center on Seton Hill's Greensburg campus. --Alexandra Nseir --Murtha to speak at May commencement (Setonian)

I have heard both faculty and student grumblings about Murtha, who is, depending on who's talking, either pro-labor or anti-business, pro-life or anti-woman, pro-Iraq withdrawal or anti-American, and pro-2nd-Amendment or a gun nut.

I just hope he's a more inspiring speaker than the one who described getting high on marijuana on the day he graduated from college and basically told all the graduates that what they had just spent 4 years doing was crap, or the one that spent most of the time reading a sappy urban legend that's been going around the internet for years.

When people drink they become totally different people and I do not feel that I should put myself in that situation because if something were to happen, I would mostly likely have no chance to protect myself from a 200 pound kid, who isn't even thinking rationally. Next thing, I'll wind up dead in a ditch. Now do you see why I think I have a problem? hah

I do not feel that people should be as paranoid and protective as I am, but I do think that there are precautions that people should take. I feel that I should be aware of who lives around me and I reguarly check my state's sex offender registry website. It is called Megan's Law and I think that it is important for people to log in and see who their surrounding neighbors are. --Gina Burgese --PA Megan's Law Website Info (GinaBurgese)

Gina is not currently taking a class with me, but from time to time she uses her blog as a soapbox. This entry really impressed me.

Agent Marks and I were uncertain how to end it, but thankfully, our undercover agents came to our rescue. They mounted a joke insurgence and effectively re-took the NJZ. It started off with each undercover agent coming into the zone, one after another, telling jokes in a town-crier fashion. --Guerilla Improv: No Joking Zone (Improv-Abilities)

A great piece of activist anti-comedy.

If more people did this, we could just walk out on the streets for our amusement, and wouldn't be lashed to the TV set.

"We cannot determine whether the addition to the letter was made by someone within the office or by someone with access to the office, but it is on my letterhead and the responsibility for it lies with me. A valuable lesson has been learned and new procedures will be adopted as a result." --Lawmaker Puzzled by Obscenity in Letter (AP|Yahoo!)

Passive verbs are loved by people who are found (by someone) to have been involved in actions that are considered (by some) undesirable.

Emphasis was added (by me).

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. --The Bill of Rights: Amendment I

The First Amendment, among other things, prevents the government from arresting or silencing a citizen for expressing an unpopular or offensive opinion that powerful people may not want to hear.

It is also popularly misunderstood as a magical powerup that protects authors from the consequences of exercising free speech.

My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. Or, as the Ninth Amendment puts it, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Thus, your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness takes precedence over my freedom of speech.

The owner of a theatre has a right and obligation to other patrons to eject someone who falsely shouts "fire," just as an airline has a right and obligation to single out for extra security screening someone who makes a joke about carrying a bomb.

If an employee makes a racist or otherwise insensitive remark, the employer has the right and obligation to discipline the employee. Even if that employee remark does not amount to libel, the livelihood of co-workers who are not responsible for the employee's remarks may be affected if customers see the company as permitting insensitive behavior.

If a football player insults an assistant coach, the head coach can order him to run laps. If the player isn't willing to do the punishment, then he's free to quit the team. The coach is free to order the team to wear pink tutus and ballet slippers, and the NFL is free to discipline the coach, or give him a raise if they want to. But whatever happens, it's not a First Amendment issue, because the laws of Congress have nothing to do with the matter.

The First Amendment does not require that a citizen be furnished with a platform from which to speak. Thus, if group X invites Sally to speak at a meeting, and Joe shows up with a bullhorn to interrupt Sally's speech, Joe's rights are not being violated if the police show up and escort him out of the building. The First Amendment is also not a shield behind which one can hide after publishing libel, defamation, or threats against specific individuals or small groups. It does not insist that owners of private property permit protestors to camp on their front lawns, or spray paint graffiti on their walls. It does not require that city authorities stand by idly while marchers tie up traffic. It does not prohibit schools from disciplining students who post vulgar or offensive MySpace entries.

There are many good arguments for why tolerance and open-mindedness are the best default practice, particularly in educational communities where people need to be free to make mistakes in order to learn from them. However, in no case does the First Amendment protect the speaker from the consequences of the choice to speak freely. Those consequences might range from losing an election to losing your job; from losing a friend to losing your good name.


It's purely a coincidence that I'm blogging on the First Amendment the day after some Seton Hill students launched a petition to cancel classes on the Monday after Easter. That calendar had been set over a year in advance -- almost two years, really. I know both the students who spearheaded the petition, and think of them both as upstanding citizens. I have no sense that the administration can, will, or even might respond with sanctions.

The First Amendment protects their right "to petition the government for a redress of grievances," but since the Seton Hill administration is not "the government," the First Amendment would have absolutely no relevance.

None.

But if those students had chosen to libel, harass, threaten, or make personal attacks, the university would be perfectly within its rights to respond with sanctions.*

If you want to say something that violates a contract with an employer, jeopardizes your enrollment with an educational institution, or flaunts the conditions of membership in the local treehouse club, the government won't arrest you. But your employer, your institution, and your clubhouse president are likewise free to apply whatever sanctions they feel are appropriate.

* Just in case any student is worried that I've gotten inkling of some administrative crackdown, let me repeat -- I'm not actually blogging this First Amendment piece out of concern that there was anything wrong with the petition. (I signed it, by the way, and told my class that as long as they do the work that's due Monday, and participate in a discussion via their blogs, that's fine with me.)

One of our administrators pointed out that she actually proposed the Friday/Monday plan that the students want, but was pressured to change that to Thursday/Friday because, as a Catholic college (so the argument went) we should be more sensitive to the liturgical significance of Holy Thursday (the day Jesus shared the Last Supper with his apostles) rather than the Monday after Easter (which is.. I don't know? the day the apostles showed up to work late because they didn't make it back from Jerusalem in time).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

Does something not strike you as odd here? --Bob Carter -- There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 (Telegraph)

I'm not really sure what I think. Certainly recycling and avoiding waste are sensible, but when well-meaning activists use bad science to back up their claims, reason suffers.

The complex choices facing leaders in the Middle East have long confounded observers. But two graduate students at Carnegie Mellon University are hoping their video game based on the conflict will help players find solutions _ and raise capital for their new company.

Asi Burak and Eric Brown, along with a team of fellowr students, have spent more than a year building PeaceMaker, a computer game that attempts to simulate the violence and political turbulence of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle. --Daniel Lovering --Students hope Mideast video game will produce insights, investors (OhmyNews)