'what do we look like a couple of nerds?'

Bernard Harcourt looks like the sort of guy who, if one were to say “He got a BA from Princeton under Sheldon Wolin, then went on to get a JD and PhD from Harvard and now teaches Foucault and is the chair of the University of Chicago Department of Political Science,” you would nod and say, “Of course,” as if his life could not have taken any other course. Think a non-douchy version of Jeff Goldblum from Jurassic Park. With better hair.

If you want to feel better about yourself, though, 
just google a pic of him with a moustache.

I briefly met Professor Harcourt when I came to visit U of C in the spring of 2010. He kindly let me sit in on a class on critical theory he was teaching at the law school. The class reminded me why I wanted to return to school, I decided to turn down a PhD program elsewhere, and enrolled in U of C’s MA program. And then promptly failed to take any class with Professor Harcourt before I finished. This, I am sure, will be one of those poor life choices that will still result in a facepalm when I am sixty.

Yesterday, Professor Harcourt had a piece up on the New York Times’s Opinionator section of their website discussing the nature of the Occupy Wall Street movement, identifying OWS as a sort of Foucaultian critique in action. Money quote? Money quote:

Occupy Wall Street, which identifies itself as a “leaderless resistance movement with people of many … political persuasions,” is politically disobedient precisely in refusing to articulate policy demands or to embrace old ideologies. Those who incessantly want to impose demands on the movement may show good will and generosity, but fail to understand that the resistance movement is precisely about disobeying that kind of political maneuver.*

In this he agrees with Mike Konczal, who wrote a couple weeks ago about the theory underlying the OWS protests, who further draws on David Graeber’s work to identify the small-a anarchist and small-d democratic theory underlying OWS’s method’s. Konczal quotes a review of Graeber’s Direct Action (sorry for the large blockquote, but it’s kinda important):

And what seemed like a tedious attention to meeting process was the result of a commitment to direct democracy and rejection of a politics of representation in favor of a politics of participation. Instead of focusing solely, or even largely, on ends, the global justice movement focused on means, attempting to live out its ideals in the present and sneak moments of liberation on the sly.

While anarchists formed the avant-garde of the global justice movement, they generally did not try to convert other protesters and sympathizers to an explicit belief system. Instead of pushing a party line, they spread practices, advocating the adoption of affinity groups, consensus-based decision-making and spokescouncils. Graeber argues that the Direct Action Network, the most significant organization of the global justice movement, while short-lived, was extraordinarily successful in diffusing a directly democratic model of organizing.

This rings true, at least to me, given reports of OWS’s operating methodology: their concensus-based General Assembly, complete with complex hand signals, their committee structure, and – more than anything – their complete unwillingness to articulate demands at the organizational level.

[Read More]

Eccentricity is good.

No. Wait. Let me back up a bit.

Ten years ago Dutch, Bizzo, myself and a number of other miscreants were lucky enough to be placed in the same hall. This hall, named Norton Hall after David Z. Norton, a philanthropist from the great city of Cleveland, OH^sd, was the beginning of my growth into the person that I am today. Which, for the most part, I'm pretty happy with^sd2.

Before Norton, I was a completely shy, unadjusted, and overall really sad kid. I basically had (have?) no friends from high school outside of my now ex-girlfriend^sd3. No friends from middle or elementary school. None from my neighborhood, really. I just never fit in anywhere.

But fittingly on the day of my 18th birthday, that arbitrary day in which you become "a man^sd4" I started to grow up. Or, at least, found people who were accepting of my, well, eccentricity.

I can't put into words how big of a deal this was for me. Coming from an entire lifetime of not fitting in and being too different and unable to figure out how to achieve any semblance of normality, and moving on to a situation in which I was accepted damn near immediately did wonders for my psyche. Because of Norton, I am ditriech. Which, makes sense actually. Partially because I registered the (highly inventive) screenname ditriech on 8/29/01 with AIM. But mostly because my entire level of comfort of who and what ditriech and ditriech_actual are stems from meeting, knowing, and becoming friends with these extraordinary people.

That is to say they accepted my eccentricity. Mostly. Because some of the shit I do still fucks with Dutch. But thems the breaks.

But what's the point behind all of this? Well, on this day in 1859, one of the more eccentric American personalities in history, Emperor Joshua Norton I became emperor of these United States. Oh, and protector of Mexico.

I mean, I could get into how he deposed Congress, abolished both the Democratic and Republican parties and, most awesomely, banned the word "Frisco" over the years. But that's not the point of Emperor Norton I. Hell, there are probably homeless people throughout DC that have this shit done by 0900.

What is important about Emperor Norton I is that he was accepted. Norton dined for free--with his dogs--in the finest restaurants in the city. He was given balcony seats in theaters across San Francisco. But the best example of his acceptance occurred in 1867, when he was arrested on the grounds of insanity. Newspaper editorials were written decrying the incident and he was subsequently released, received a formal apology from the Chief of Police and was saluted by police on the streets. No one man should have all that power.

Especially one that doesn't fit in anywhere else.

So happy Emperor Norton Day from all of us here at Psi Upper Norton

So Bizzo has thrown down the gauntlet to justify myself after days of inane and incoherent babbling about why I like the Libyan rebels, despite all apparent reason. Don't get me wrong; there are a lot of very rational arguments for why intervening in general, and, further, in Libya is problematic. I'm sure Bizzo will bore you with many of them, so let me take this opportunity to dismiss and discredit them all beforehand...categorically. There. Done. Because it comes down to this: Fuck all of the complexity. The world is complex. I like the rebels and you should to...and here’s why:  

While it is messy in the short term, supporting what these rebels stand for represents our only long-term solution to the so-called "War on Terrorism." To support this, I'm not going to fight the specifics of each reason why it is not clean and convenient to intervene in Libya. Instead, I’ll give you a reason why we should, and let Bizzo reply to that. I would argue that, no matter the upfront complexity, the long-term benefit outweighs the short-term pain. Simply put: their cause is our cause. It boils down to this: Al Qaeda (AQ): what it represents and how best to fight it.

I would first argue that, in this day, Islamic radicalism represents a major challenge for US interests—perhaps our major near-term, geo-strategic challenge. While it is not, and will never be, an existential threat to this country, AQ and its ilk represent a severe psychological and economic threat. Furthermore, it is the only realistic way that Americans will be attacked at home and abroad--short of nuclear war. Because of this fact, and the link to our need for oil, AQ is a major strategic problem.

[Read More]

Naturally, if you read this book and fall asleep, you're not cut out for a career in political theory.

Very clever. Curly brackets! Because it's a genealogy!

But what if you read this book and angrily pace around the room because you can't understand half of it? Well, my guess is that you've got the temperament, but the jury is still out on the ability.

[22:18] ditriech: what is this. i dont even
[22:19] WhamBangThud: DEATH PICKLE
[22:19] ditriech: how did you know what i call it?
WhamBangThudsigned off from "gmail.DFFAA63A" at 22:22.

Welcome once again to my favorite weekly post, Always Bet with Black. And, as per usually, we kick things off with a picture from Britty.

"happy will kill you", by Britty

Ah. She's her brother's sister ain't she?

Anyhoo, for reasons known only to him, instead of the old format, young dits has decided to pick all of the bodog.com games. He insists that this will make it easier for you, the reader and consumer.

What he's doing is that he's showing you the spreads they have (pretty much the initial ones) and what he's betting on, using a gambling term known as "units". The units, typically, will vary week to week. But it's basically a confidence rating. That's really all you need to know.

We'll keep track of both his actual money picks and his total picks. Possibly even picks by conference.

Also: we have no idea if Random Numbers is coming back this year, because of the Dutchman being busy with actual things. But we do know that Rabbit Day will be back.

Because it is awesome.

Picks below the jump?

Today's BSOW, which I'm like 85% sure I've done before but am too lazy to check, is "Your Hand In Mine" by Explosions in the Sky. For two, very good reasons.

1) It is Frakking Awesome.

2) It is the beginning of "FNL" here in the Mind of a ditriech.

Ok. Let me explain the latter point.

I have a bunch of weird rules, traditions and shit that I do because I'm not normal. Like at all. Most of them revolve around football, predominately Ohio State football now.^sd. One of these traditions, that I'm pretty sure no one knew of before like now^sd2 is FNL.

It's simple enough really, Basically, starting with the first Friday of August (i.e. today) I watch FNL every Friday until the collegiate football season is over if at all humanely possible. This is, actually, quite normal for me so far. The insane part started about 2 or 3 years ago when I decided that just watching the movie wasn't enough. I had to make a drinking game out of it. This too, isn't all that odd. The worst part is that I made a drinking fantasy game.

That I play by myself.

For like 16 weeks.

Well, technically 15. The first week is like a preseason to get me used to drinking Miller Lite again.

...

At home that is^sd4

But yeah, in case you were wondering the rules go like this:

Points are only counted during the 30 minutes pregame before you are watching FNL^sd3, during the movie itself and for an hour after, but only if a) you don't immediately watch something else and b) you play at least three songs from the sdtk while drinking.

...

I know

Continuing: each 12 oz can/bottle of Miller Lite is 5 points.

Each 12 oz can/bottle of Miller High Life is worth 4.5 points

Each 12 oz can/bottle of MGD is worth 4 points

Each 12 oz can of The Beast is worth 3.5 points.

For each 24 oz you drink, you add 1 point to the score. For each 40 oz, 2 points. For each 22 oz, add 0.8 points.

Highest point total after The Game wins. Low man has to buy the high man a beer.

It's fun. I'll be updating throughout the year via twitter.

Explosions in the Sky
Your Hand in Mine
The Earth Is Not a Cold Dead Place/Friday Night Lights sdtk

Not that it was so difficult, in this case. But I like to remind you from time to time:

I am right about everything.

ditriech: should i bring tang? 14:40
zero dutch: No 14:40
ditriech: buzzkill. 14:50
zero dutch: Weirdo 14:51

ditriech:  Also, I'm about to get a Growler of beer. Stay tuned   14:27
zerodutch: And I'm stuck at my boss's place working. I hate you. 14:29
ditriech: I just finished a Growler in 20 minutes. Now a rhino hero 15:22
zerodutch: Hate hate hate 15:23