Login
Forgot Password?

OR

Login with Google Login with Twitter Login with Facebook
  • Join
  • Profiles
  • Groups
  • SuicideGirls
  • Photos
  • Videos
  • Shop
Vital Stats

signalnoise

Oak Park, IL

Member Since 2004

Followers 129 Following 336

  • Everything
  • Photos
  • Video
  • Blogs
  • Groups
  • From Others

Friday May 20, 2005

May 20, 2005
0
  • Facebook
  • Tweet
  • Email

Asked whether he would welcome the likes of former President Carter, who has headed countless monitoring delegations en route to becoming the world's most recognized arbiter of election fairness, Nazief suggested a low-profile monitoring team might be acceptable.

"It's OK for Jimmy Carter to come, any time," he said.



I like that the way this quotation sounds, as if it would be cool if Jimmy just came by for some hummus or whatever. You know, because he was in the neighborhood. biggrin

Just to note: People who bitch that the upcoming Egyptian elections do not include any one who wants to run are just plain wrong. Sure, I like democracy, and I would *rather* that Egypt hadn't waited decades before holding a proper election, but it's just asinine (to get catty) to ignore context.

Egypt has never elected its leader (and "ever" means in like 7,000 years). On top of that, one of the strongest parties could be the Islamic Brotherhood, an extremist bunch that I personally (and most little-d democrats) would not like to see win much of anything. In the end, no process can stop a democracy from destroying itself if that is what the people want. But, for a democracy still finding it's feet, it seems that slightly different rules to get the process going are not out of the question. [Don't get me wrong - I'm no "flip of the coin = democracy" a la Adam Przeworksi from a few years ago. There ARE more basic standards than that, but they *are* flexible.] Opposition parties, albeit the official ones already in parliament, are allowed - I think that's enough for this time out.

In other news...I sort of freaked out about the exam yesterday. So I bought a lot of books. whatever wink

Essentially, those of us taking the exam dedicated ourselves to group study. This meant, in part, that folks would read certain areas and report back, sharing notes and memos. Only some of my colleagues have been less than super about holding up their end of the deal. I understand folks are busy and all... but come on?

This has too bad repurcussions:

1. As people are way behind in their reading, when we get together to talk over themes, ideas, and so on - people are *weak.* So, I might offer my take on Cox and McCubbins's Legislative Leviathan ... and no one else has read the book, or anything *else* about Congress. This makes it a bit hard to check each other, and develop meatier arguments.

2. This also means that areas where I'm weak ... well, it means I could be *really* weak as the notes from those areas (like American political development, race and politics, or American political theory) are MIA.

It's not as bad as all that. I've gamed the exam pretty well. The exam is three flights of three questions, and you answer one question from each flight. The first flight is political behavior/public opinion, which I can do. The second flight is institutions. There *will* be a Congress question (Congress is THE institution of political science - as there are lots of members who turn over reglarly, lending it to analysis). I can *do* Congress. The third flight ... that's where it gets tricky. Flight three is race, urban, social movements, political develoment, and political thought - sort of a potpoourri flight. I could nail urban .. but there's no *guarantee* of it. The odds are good - my advisor (the urbanist) was in charge of the exam this year, and he has taught an urban politics seminar the last two years. I've also taken a seminar on social movements. But this is a broad area ... I felt I really needed to beef up on one more area - the area I know will be on there: race and politics. [U of C political science is one of the best departments in the country to come and study race and politics, so you know there will be a question on it on the exam.]

This is hardly a catastrophe. I made sure to cover myself by reading a bit of something from all the aras of the exam: I've done some of the race reading - I just looked at Cathy Cohen's Boundaries of Blackness, a super-smart analysis of the black community's response to AIDS. What it does mean, is that in the next week and a half - instead of working on my seminar paper - I'll be blitzing the race and politics work (a few more books and articles). All will be well. No all-nighters or anything. It's just frustrating, like group work always seems to be eh? tongue

The other downside: I might have to take my first incomplete *ever* to finish this seminar paper. It's for sucks. But not really - I'll hammer it out right at the beginning of summer, and move on. Oh the excitiement. smile

Further, my JAW hurt yesterday. I think I slept funny, and did something to my neck. I'm not exactly a hypochondriac, but I proceeded to bug my wife with worries about ear infections and an illy defined "bone rot." Today, things are much better. biggrin

The weekend is here .... and there are too many movies: Star Wars, Layer Cake, and Dominion (the OTHER Exorcist prequel) all beckon.... I'm sure we'll figure something out...

Have a good one. kiss

VIEW 4 of 4 COMMENTS
bredoteau:
I just heard about Layer Cake. Let me know if it's any good.

I laughed pretty hard at the words "bone rot."

Honestly, it sounds like you'll be fine for the exam. But I'm not going to indulge you on the group discussion. It could lead to a good example of the collective action problem. My dogmatic objections mean that I have to exclude any and all evidence. They all had the very rare 72-hour bone rot. Yeah, 72-hour bone rot.

Dworkin is very, very obtuse. I agree. When she's analyzing Tolstoy and Baldwin, I can't tell is she's approving or disapproving. She says clearly that despite all her objections, she still loves the great works, but I just can't tell what she's saying half the time! Fuck! I think the middle will be more clear. I hope, at least.
May 20, 2005
shard:
When I have amassed my fortune, I'm going to do a lot for charity for the homeless and mentally ill.

Did your wife sock you in the jaw, or did you eat something really chewy?
May 20, 2005

More Blogs

  • 08.10.24
    1

    I'm not just getting old, I'm feeling old

    I opened this account back up a few weeks ago because I wanted some…
  • 08.09.24
    1

    Hellooo

    I am back again again. How are we doing out there? I am defin…
  • 11.09.21
    3

    Ch-ch-changes

    It occurred to me I do have something new to blog about! I used …
  • 11.09.21
    2

    Hello again, again

    I have not written a blog in a very, VERY long time. Not sure I hav…
  • 01.21.20
    0

    I guess I'm hanging out again?

  • 06.08.18
    0

    I am supposed to working, but instead I am wondering: can I find a s…

  • 11.08.17
    0

    up sick

  • 11.02.17
    0

    I still love good old IRC for cybersex

  • 11.02.17
    0

    Confrontation: managed

  • 10.31.17
    0

    Tall girls dressed as kittens in knee high boots are my weakness

We at SuicideGirls have been celebrating alternative pin-up girls for:

23
years
10
months
24
days
  • 5,509,826 fans
  • 41,393 fans
  • 10,327,617 followers
  • 4,600 SuicideGirls
  • 1,114,303 followers
  • 14,949,527 photos
  • 321,315 followers
  • 61,464,887 comments
  • Join
  • Profiles
  • Groups
  • Photos
  • Videos
  • Shop
  • Help
  • About
  • Press
  • LIVE

Legal/Tos | DMCA | Privacy Policy | 18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement | Contact Us | Vendo Payment Support
©SuicideGirls 2001-2025

Press enter to search
Fast Hi-res

Click here to join & see it all...

Crop your photo