I Am Dissatisfied with Political Science
So last night's performance went pretty well. For the three of us, at least, it was our best yet. We got lots of laughs, possibly more than the two acts that preceeded ours. Maybe. I mean, we had some moments where the audience was screaming and clapping for some extended amounts of time. I couldn't stop lauging, though. Every time I start laughing, I have to try and turn it into a maniacal grin, but everyone knows I'm laughing at our own jokes. It's just because we're so damn good and we know that we're so damn good. Wow, I wish I could do this sort of thing more often. Truly, last night was awesome, and tonight's should be even better. So if you haven't seen EOS yet, fellow Ann Arborites, it's worth it. Maybe not as good as last term's, but still a memorable one.
Didn't go out last night, but after the show I did go to the Rendez-Vous and did some writing. I'd started a story earlier that day and I wanted to keep working on it. Of course, it's something old that I'm trying to rework, but this new version is better. The new version is inspired by some things I've learned in my history class this term. That's on reason I've never really finished anything - every time I get an idea and start in on it, new information comes to light that shatters the whole underlying idea behind the story. Now, though, I think I'm at a point where I have a solid interest in some things that can only be reinforced by any new information I might come across, so this story may actually be finished. Or maybe this just means I have to work faster before I learn anything too revolutionary and thus have to start over again. But I made progress last night, and I think that the first scene has a good mood to it that sets up the right energy for the rest of the story.
I am so dissatisified with the entire field of political science. I just feel that it misses the point. CONSPIRACY THEORY: political science is a creation of 20th century fascism to make students think they're learning something when in fact the whole field is just a mass of empty numbers. When political scientists make theories, they're merely scratching the surface of the matter. The field doesn't go deep enough to find the true answers. They view governments in an impartial, empirical way, and this is a mistake. Governments are artificial, human-created things. For example, you can look at nature in an empirical way because nature just is the way it is - it always was that way and always will be. Gravity just exists. Wrinkles in space and time and all that shit just exist. Governments do not just exist. They were created by people for certain reasons, and you have to think about why they were created before you can view those numbers in any meaningful way. For example, when political scientists think about why voter turnout is so low in the United States, they look at the clauses of the Constitution as evidence for why this is so, and they say that this is the way the Constitution is and there's out answer. This isn't good enough for me. WHY is the Constitution the way it is? Why does the Constitution make the numbers turn out the way they do? What do those numbers really reflect? Another question: why is the U.S. system so disproportionate? That is, why do so many people feel underrepresented? To say that small district magnitude is the answer is only scratching the surface. Look, in 1776, small district magnitude might have been okay since we had a small population and maybe a more unified ideology among the population, but as the population grew, we could have explanded the district magnitude over the course of decades to accomodate the growth and make the system more proportional. BUT WE DIDN'T. Why? The answer (I think): the U.S. Constitution is not an innocent, impartial document that can be viewed empirically. It is a document that was created to uphold racism and the status of the rich white plantation owner. Seriously. Look at a painting of the men in power in 1776, then look at a photograph of the men of 1876, then of 1976, then of 2006. The faces are the same: rich white men. This is the framework from which I view those numbers. This is what I think the numbers reflect. Political scientists think the numbers reflect a small district magnitude or something, but they don't see it in any context. That's why I'm dissatisified with poli sci. Look, this rant may not make a lot of sense, because I just wanted to bang it out quickly so I can get to homework, but if you have any questions on it, I'll be happy to try and answer them for you.
I've been watching "The Untouchables" on AMC while writing this entry. Finally, a movie classic on AMC. Let me tell you, that's a damn good movie. Kevin Costner is not a great actor, but I like the movie for other reasons. The main reason I like it: it's not really a movie about Prohibition. Rather, it's a trip across the American imagination. It shows all of the most memorable aspects of the American mythology, and that's what makes it so fascinating. What do I mean by that? First off, it's set during a very mythic time period - Prohibition - which is a time that created lots of famous American characters: the rum-runner, the gangster, the brimmed-hat law enforcer, the Irish cop. It emphasizes the role of the automobile, the great 20th century invention. It has the scene along the Canadian border where the Chicago police officers charge alongside the Canadian mounties toward Al Capone's men who are in the process of making a liquor deal, thus turning the movie into a western. It has the shootouts, the dark urban alleyways, and the league of tough guys who team up to take on evil. In many ways, the movie is historically innacurate (apparently the Mounties only road horses in the 19th century; by 1930, they had cars), but it's not about accuracy. It's an illustration of the dreamtime of 20th century America, and it's a true classic for that reason.
Time for homework.
W.
Didn't go out last night, but after the show I did go to the Rendez-Vous and did some writing. I'd started a story earlier that day and I wanted to keep working on it. Of course, it's something old that I'm trying to rework, but this new version is better. The new version is inspired by some things I've learned in my history class this term. That's on reason I've never really finished anything - every time I get an idea and start in on it, new information comes to light that shatters the whole underlying idea behind the story. Now, though, I think I'm at a point where I have a solid interest in some things that can only be reinforced by any new information I might come across, so this story may actually be finished. Or maybe this just means I have to work faster before I learn anything too revolutionary and thus have to start over again. But I made progress last night, and I think that the first scene has a good mood to it that sets up the right energy for the rest of the story.
I am so dissatisified with the entire field of political science. I just feel that it misses the point. CONSPIRACY THEORY: political science is a creation of 20th century fascism to make students think they're learning something when in fact the whole field is just a mass of empty numbers. When political scientists make theories, they're merely scratching the surface of the matter. The field doesn't go deep enough to find the true answers. They view governments in an impartial, empirical way, and this is a mistake. Governments are artificial, human-created things. For example, you can look at nature in an empirical way because nature just is the way it is - it always was that way and always will be. Gravity just exists. Wrinkles in space and time and all that shit just exist. Governments do not just exist. They were created by people for certain reasons, and you have to think about why they were created before you can view those numbers in any meaningful way. For example, when political scientists think about why voter turnout is so low in the United States, they look at the clauses of the Constitution as evidence for why this is so, and they say that this is the way the Constitution is and there's out answer. This isn't good enough for me. WHY is the Constitution the way it is? Why does the Constitution make the numbers turn out the way they do? What do those numbers really reflect? Another question: why is the U.S. system so disproportionate? That is, why do so many people feel underrepresented? To say that small district magnitude is the answer is only scratching the surface. Look, in 1776, small district magnitude might have been okay since we had a small population and maybe a more unified ideology among the population, but as the population grew, we could have explanded the district magnitude over the course of decades to accomodate the growth and make the system more proportional. BUT WE DIDN'T. Why? The answer (I think): the U.S. Constitution is not an innocent, impartial document that can be viewed empirically. It is a document that was created to uphold racism and the status of the rich white plantation owner. Seriously. Look at a painting of the men in power in 1776, then look at a photograph of the men of 1876, then of 1976, then of 2006. The faces are the same: rich white men. This is the framework from which I view those numbers. This is what I think the numbers reflect. Political scientists think the numbers reflect a small district magnitude or something, but they don't see it in any context. That's why I'm dissatisified with poli sci. Look, this rant may not make a lot of sense, because I just wanted to bang it out quickly so I can get to homework, but if you have any questions on it, I'll be happy to try and answer them for you.
I've been watching "The Untouchables" on AMC while writing this entry. Finally, a movie classic on AMC. Let me tell you, that's a damn good movie. Kevin Costner is not a great actor, but I like the movie for other reasons. The main reason I like it: it's not really a movie about Prohibition. Rather, it's a trip across the American imagination. It shows all of the most memorable aspects of the American mythology, and that's what makes it so fascinating. What do I mean by that? First off, it's set during a very mythic time period - Prohibition - which is a time that created lots of famous American characters: the rum-runner, the gangster, the brimmed-hat law enforcer, the Irish cop. It emphasizes the role of the automobile, the great 20th century invention. It has the scene along the Canadian border where the Chicago police officers charge alongside the Canadian mounties toward Al Capone's men who are in the process of making a liquor deal, thus turning the movie into a western. It has the shootouts, the dark urban alleyways, and the league of tough guys who team up to take on evil. In many ways, the movie is historically innacurate (apparently the Mounties only road horses in the 19th century; by 1930, they had cars), but it's not about accuracy. It's an illustration of the dreamtime of 20th century America, and it's a true classic for that reason.
Time for homework.
W.