But as much praise as I have for his admirable courage in denouncing Sarah Palin, declaring the Reagan Revolution dead, and being an overall voice of right leaning reason in an intensely partisan intellectual climate, he still disappoints my sensibilities at times.

Or perhaps rather than disappoint, he just misses the point.  Today’s New York Times column, “The Fatal Conceit,” is a good example of the David Brooks I don’t like: the one who dishonestly sidesteps the argument.

The fatal conceit for conservatives is the idea that society can be better than it is now with effective, efficient government.  Conservatives are more content to leave and be left alone in the face of societal ills.  Markets and individuals will take care of it all on their own, and if they can’t, then the problems are insolvable.  According to conservative dogma, domestic policy should enable individuals to act freely and to take on problems in their own way.

But it’s a bizarre hypocrisy to call left leaning domestic policy social engineering while leaving right leaning social policy alone, virtually free of ideological criticism.  If government officials legislate to regulate, change, or simply govern, at what point does this become “social engineering?” For Brooks and many conservatives, its precisely at the point where the officials themselves are part of a leftist party or ideology.  Not, mind you, at the point the legislation crosses any threshold or boundaries of principle or effectiveness.

Calling leftist legislation “social engineering” becomes a fairly meaningless ad hominem attack.  Meaningless in the sense it relates to no real substance, attack in the sense it just coarsens our debate and, again, circumvents the point.

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day — because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

The index fossil?

Andrew Sullivan links to this photo and related commentary today.  From the photographer’s website:

These photographs of albatross chicks were made just a few weeks ago on Midway Atoll, a tiny stretch of sand and coral near the middle of the North Pacific. The nesting babies are fed bellies-full of plastic by their parents, who soar out over the vast polluted ocean collecting what looks to them like food to bring back to their young. On this diet of human trash, every year tens of thousands of albatross chicks die on Midway from starvation, toxicity, and choking.

To document this phenomenon as faithfully as possible, not a single piece of plastic in any of these photographs was moved, placed, manipulated, arranged, or altered in any way. These images depict the actual stomach contents of baby birds in one of the world’s most remote marine sanctuaries, more than 2000 miles from the nearest continent.

Meanwhile, energy companies battle each other and the Senate on climate change legislation.

Four of the biggest thinkers alive today will be together for one night in New York.  Open to the public with photo ID. Not to be missed.

As much respect as these giants deserve for their continued efforts and devotion to intellectualism,  I generally don’t condone the particular brand of intellectualism they practice. Over the next few blog posts, I’ll take them one at a time.

Judith Butler, for one, I can’t understand.  Nor do I really understand the schools of thought she’s associated with, like continental feminism, continental philosophy, and post-structuralism.

This could be due to my own intellectual shortcomings.  Indeed, Butler’s been called “probably one of the ten smartest people on the planet” by English Professor Warren Hedges.  I’m not likely to have accolades heaped upon me anytime soon for the weight of my mind,  but my inability to get my head around Butler’s ideas and possible genius, I suspect, is due less to my limits and more her bad writing and bad thinking.

William Zinsser, who I personally consider an authority “on writing well,” said, “Writing and learning and thinking are the same process.”  Put another way, soundness of thinking and soundness of writing are inseparable.  One cannot think clearly if he or she isn’t writing clearly; one cannot write clearly if he or she isn’t thinking clearly.

So let’s keep that in mind as we read a now infamous quote of Butler’s:

The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.

For that gem, Denis Dutton awarded her first place in the Bad Writing Contest in 1997.  He aptly explained, “To ask what this means is to miss the point. This sentence beats readers into submission and instructs them that they are in the presence of a great and deep mind. Actual communication has nothing to do with it.”

And that’s why I can’t abide Butler’s perspective and perhaps the entirety of the intellectual movements she’s a part of.  There is no soundness to the writing, the thinking, or the learning. It’s a mishmash of nonsense passed off as brilliance and has sadly created a generation of uselessly irrelevant academic careers.

Zinsser identifies four elements to the writing/thinking/learning craft:  clarity, brevity, simplicity, and humanity. I won’t deny Butler’s striving for humanity, but after reading the confusion that is her process, I’ve little regard for her achievements at clarity, brevity, and simplicity.

Of course, Butler “bit back” in reaction to Dutton’s admitted rudeness. On the pages of The New York Times, she explained the reason she and other academics write in such obscure language is because it’s necessary to overthrow existing power structures.  Quoting fellow critical theorist Herbert Marcuse, Butler explains academics like her don’t use traditional, linear writing and thinking because their entire intellectual enterprise “presupposes the collapse and invalidation of precisely that universe of discourse and behavior…”

This hits at the heart of my problem with Butler, et al.  I’m using her as an example of what has been called “French Theory” by Stanley Fish.  The basics of French Theory were most famously espoused by Jacques Derrida in the ’60s.  It’s been called many things, like postmodernism and deconstruction.  There are many nuances and inconsistencies among the various thinkers who’ve come to be lumped fairly or unfairly with the movement. But there is a uniting thread among everything Fish calls French Theory as it was practiced in America.  Namely, that human knowledge is a social construction and should not be confused with an the actual external reality it claims to describe.  Furthermore, language itself is a construct and should not be confused with the concepts it claims to describe.

On its face, I don’t disagree with this perspective.  Indeed, similar ideas were expressed by Friedrich Nietzsche at the end of the 19th century, and I hold them to be among the most important moments in Western thought.

But Butler and a cadre of other American academics latched onto the idea that “there are no facts, only interpretations,” and took it into untenable, useless, silly territory.  Perhaps the funniest moment in the movement was a joke made by the physicist Alan Sokal and the ensuing vitriol now known as The Science Wars.  Sokal published a paper in a postmodern journal, arguing reality itself was a construct and that modern physics proved this.  Postmodernists loved it, until Sokal published another paper explaining he was just kidding.  Those who liked his first paper became the butt-end of an academic hoax.

Now, I’m not sure about Judith butler’s take on the subjectivity of physics. It’s unfair for me to take her to task for the sins of her colleagues. And my complaint with her isn’t really over science, per se.  Rather,  I’m troubled by what I see as a fundamental hypocrisy within her line of thought.

Butler’s academic work has tried to, in her own words, question the “presuppositional terms” of thought, mostly within feminist and gender theory.  Like her French Theorist counterparts, she believes there are no facts, just interpretations, and that interpretations should bear scrutiny for bias, assumption, racism, sexism, patriarchy, colonialism, etc.

Fair enough.  We’re all biased people.  No harm in exposing that. The harm comes in when one tries to replace those biases and interpretations with other biases and interpretations.  What I see as the central hypocrisy of Butler’s thinking is her up front, immediate claim that there is no such thing as capitial “T,” Platonic Truth, followed by the zealous commitment to her own set of irreproachable truths.

If we’re going to challenge the presuppositions of how we organize society on the basis there are no truths, just constructs, what makes those criticisms anything but constructs themselves? And constructs laden with bias, at that? Butler cannot ground her own perspectives in any epistemology because she has outright rejected epistemology.  Her own perspectives are as justified as the ones she seeks to challenge and overthrow.

I see this as hypocrisy at a deep level.  She”s trying to have it both ways by claiming limits to reason prove her own brand of reason.  I would be granting it legitimacy if I called it dishonest, disingenuous, or inconsistant.  It doesn’t deserve these compliments.  Rather than take Butler on with the philosophy she seeks to destroy, we can use the rules laid out by Zinsser.  Her poor writing is evidence of poor thinking.

Though Butler likely has no respect for him, another great thinker made this matter clear in the early 20th century.  Ludwig Wittgenstein provided us final words on all thought when he wrote,  “What can be said at all can be said clearly.” I find these sentiments congruous with was Zinsser promotes, and solid grounds to reject the entire enterprise Butler has engaged in. 

If you can’t say anything clearly, don’t say anything at all.

“Never waste a crisis” was the wisdom emanating from the new White House as the Obama Administration took office in January. Anyone listening took that to mean big things were on the way–that the time for “change”had indeed come.

Ten months later, change is the last word on anyone’s minds.  Instead of debating the bold initiatives Obama campaigned on and spoke about in his inaugural speech, daily news cycles focused on whether or now Olympia Snowe will lend her support to the comprised Max Baucus health care reform bill.

Now that she has thrown her weight behind the bill, debate about content seems even farther away than before.  For cable news outlets and the emasculated broadsheets trying to stay afloat in this economy, the substance of what Snowe and Baucus have wrought is seemingly of no consequence.

How has the Obama Administration fallen apart in just ten months? In February, full fledged nationalization of health care was on the table.  By summer, the focus was a public option passed before the Congressional recess.  By the recess, Obama backtracked, aplogized, and said the public option wasn’t necessary. Nor was his deadline.

I’m not one for looking too deeply into political comparisons.  But Barack Obama, despite a bold and broad vision beautifully articulated on the campaign trail,  has shaped himself into the Jimmy Carter of our generation. One word, sadly, best defines the president: ineffective.

A crisis hasn’t just been wasted.  Another one may have been created.  Obama has shown his leadership style precludes being tough.  His Democratic “allies” in the House and Senate don’t fear him or respect him, and the GOP is confident they can stop his agenda in its tracks.  For Obama and the country in desperate need of the bold vision he outlined in the 2008 campaign, this is a serious problem.  Very little if anything has come of this administration thus far.  The only landmark piece of legislation passed was the deeply flawed stimulus bill, the effect of which is impossible to debate.

The terrible inertia we’re caught in is a crisis itself.  For Obama and America, this is a story of crisis wasted, not averted.

In it’s current House and Senate forms, the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act creates a path to citizenship for undocumented children.  Short of the comprehensive immigration reform progressives and even Obama have pushed for, The DREAM Act offers citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants with proof of arrival prior to being 16 years old.

I recently spoke with Joel Kuszai, Associate Professor of English at Queensborough College, about the DREAM Act. Kuszai has worked with undocumented students at Queensborough, and is hoping the DREAM Act passes.

“I got involved when I had a girl stand up in class one day and say ‘I don’t exist.  I’m undocumented,’ ” Kuszai told me.  Through this experience, he realized undocumented students “don’t exist on anyone’s radar.  They don’t even exist.  These kids get no financial aid to be in school. They do it all themselves.”

According to Kuszai, there are roughly 7,000 undocumented students at Queensborough alone.  The community college either looks the other way or simply lacks the resources to check on the legal status of all the students enrolled. And Queensborough is not alone among community colleges in doing so.  In North Carolina, the State Board of Community Colleges decided to allow its 58 instituions to allow illegal immigrants to enroll.  The UNC system may pave the way for other states to do the same.

In the broader view of the issue, at least 65,000 undocumented students graduate high schools every year in the U.S., according to a recent article published by the South Florida Sun Sentinal.  Of those who do graduate, there is a nebulous, undefined world awaiting them. The chances of them attending college are slim.

For Kuszai, passage of the DREAM Act is a “no brainer.”  Creating a path to citizenship for undocumented students would allow them the work openly, legally, attend college and receive financial aide, as well as serve in the military.  “Imagine if you were going to punish the children of parents who drink and drive. It just doesn’t make sense.”

Kuszai hopes the healthcare debate doesn’t grind on too long or cost Obama too much political capital. “Comprehensive immigration reform isn’t going to happen, I don’t think. The right will never go for it.  But the DREAM Act is a step in the right direction.  We need to give undocumented kids a way out of the wilderness.”

Man Push Cart (2005)

Chop Shop (2007)

Jackson Heights has a long standing South Asian (or Desi) community; the neighborhood has been a destination for immigrant families from the sub-continent for the past thirty years.  South Asian and Indian businesses, restaurants, bakeries, food markets, clothing stores, and shops selling everything from Hena ink to the latest Bollywood DVD releases line 37th Avenue from 73rd Street to 76th. This commercial district, known as Little India, has become a destination for tourists as well, having been noted in New York City guidebooks as the best place to find authentic Indian, Bengali, Bangladeshi, or even Nepalese cuisine.

To add to the allure of Jackson Heights, the neighborhood’s residential areas are stunningly beautiful. The single family townhouses and larger apartment buildings rest on quiet streets shielded by a canopy of vertical oaks and maples, giving the feel of a small scale Upper West Side and at a third of the cost.  A home comparable in size and amenities selling for $900,000 in the exclusive Manhattan neighborhood may go for as little as $350,000 in Jackson Heights.  Many new residents are young couples moving from Manhattan.

For anyone working in Manhattan, Jackson Heights offers excellent transportation back and forth from the island. The Roosevelt Avenue station serves the E and V express trains, in addition to the V, G, R, and 7 lines.  A morning commute to Washington Square Park takes as little as 25 minutes.

Authentic cuisine,  affordable home prices, and a quick commute are now making Jackson Heights a home for young professionals who may have previously been looking to live in Manhattan or Brooklyn neighborhoods.  Though the Desi community are no at all opposed to welcoming in new people, there is a rising fear of gentrification and affordability in the neighborhood for the immigrant and working class families who have made it a home for so long.

I recently spoke with Annetta Seecharran, Executive Director of SAYA! (South Asian Youth Action),  about some of the changes taking place in Jackson Heights and what they mean for the South Asian community there.

“Jackson Heights has become an attractive place for young professionals who are being pushed out of Manhattan. It has transportation, is centrally located, and is affordable,”Seecharran told me.  But this trend is “driving gentrification,” she added.

“To be clear, having a mixed community of ethnic and economic diversity is good for the future of Jackson Heights. I want the neighborhood to be a place where all boats can rise and all people are welcome.”

Seecharran does worry about an “emerging conflict of interests.”  “The issues important to the young professionals are not the issues important to the immigrant class. We need more dialogue across class and ethnicity.”  For both the Desi and younger professional communities, the related subjects of housing and gentrification are very sensitive, “potentially explosive” according toSeecharran.

One issue Seecharran sees where both communities of Jackson Heights can cooperate and establish more dialogue is education.  Young professionals looking to make a long term home in Jackson Heights may exert greater and more effective pressure on local schools to improve their services to students and families, something the working class and immigrantpeople of the community would benefit from.

Dromm, a gay activist and former school teacher, won despite Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s support for the incumbent.  He also had to contend with anonymous efforts to bring attention to his sexuality and arrest records in the campaign.  Dromm, who is openly gay, was arrested in 1972 at the age of 16 for disorderly conduct charges related to prostitution, though he denies he ever engaged in soliciting sex for money.   He contends he plead guilty to the charges for fear of being outed as a gay teen.  Dromm was also arrested in 1988 for drunk driving, but says he has been sober since 1990.

Dromm entered election night with the endorsements of both The New York Times and The New York Daily News. Both papers cited Dromm’s energy among the reasons for their endorsements, something Sears has arguably lacked in her second term.

The 25th District includes Queens neighborhoods Jackson Heights, East Elmhurst, Rego Park, and Corona, and may be Queens most ethnically diverse neighborhood. Among the myriad cultural backgrounds represented in the neighborhoods,  immigrant families from South Asia and Indian feature prominently and may have been instrumental in Dromm’s win.  Sears recently supported laws banning street vendors in Jackson Heights, particularly along 37th Avenue in the heart of the commercial area known as Little India.  In a September 3 debate with Dromm and challenger Stanley Kalathara,  Sears opposition to street vendors drew vitriol and boos from the largely South Asian audience present.