Glittering Cloud
Campaign 2008 Issue Tracker
Here’s a crude but clever little tool developed by a company called Daylife for the Washington Post. It’s a good example of what people used to call smart agents, only it lacks the capacity to learn. (Actually, the term is still used, although most of the Google search results on the term seem to be from several years ago).
I like the idea of representing data visually and then providing links so that you can learn more where and when you choose. I was looking at Denis Kucinich, for example, and noticed that his two big issues seem to be the Iraq War (50) and Health Care (33). Then I compared that to Barack Obama, whose big issues are also the Iraq War (488) and Health Care (222).
Why does Obama have so much to say on his website when he is so short on detail elsewhere? True to her fence-balancing strategy, Hillary also has Health Care (578) and the Iraq War (558) as the top two, each with almost identical emphasis. She out does Obama, though, in sheer output. John Edwards’ economic populism puts Health Care (240) well above the Iraq War (122).
On the Republican side things are much different. Fred Thompson’s top two, for example, are Abortion (91) and the Iraq War (62). That’s a frightening combination that must reflect his desire to launch a campaign that would capture the lunatic fringe right that apparently feels so alienated from the rest of the Republican field. My guess is that we will start to see a rise in Immigration (28) as the primaries approach.
Rudy Giuliano presents a more complicated picture. Immigration (121) and Health Care (121) top his lists, with the Iraq War (116), Abortion (93), and the Economy and Budget (84) not too far behind. That’s either a sign of a more nuanced strategy or a lack of focus. Not surprisingly, John McCain’s number one issue by far is the Iraq War (349) with immigration a far second (86). He’ll be gone before my birthday in March.
The Academy on Capitalism and Limited Government Fund
The 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure affirms that “teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject.” This affirmation was meant to codify understandings of academic freedom commonly accepted in 1940. In recent years these understandings have become controversial. Private groups have sought to regulate classroom instruction, advocating the adoption of statutes that would prohibit teachers from challenging deeply held student beliefs or that would require professors to maintain “diversity” or “balance” in their teaching. Committee A has established this subcommittee to assess arguments made in support of recent legislative efforts in this area.
Freedom in the Classroom (2007), AAUP
Free market capitalism, limited government, individual rights, individual responsibility, enterprise and entrepreneurship are the foundation of a productive and successful American society. To promote and advance scholarly research and teaching about these vital principles, gifts from donors have established an endowment within the University of Illinois Foundation—The Academy on Capitalism and Limited Government Fund. The Fund is overseen by the Academy Fund’s board of directors and it will provide grants for programs, research and activities on the Urbana-Champaign campus in response to proposals submitted by faculty and approved by the Chancellor’s office.
Steven Forbes and Robert Novak are in the neighborhood this week, helping to launch The The Academy on Capitalism and Limited Government Fund’s inaugural conference. As the IlliniPundit would have it, “this is just the beginning of a growing effort to bring more conservative thought to the University of Illinois campus.” I think calling a large research university like the U. of I. ‘liberal’ because it hires a few high-profile critics is like calling the Bank of America ‘generous’ because it sponsors the local cancer drive.
Indeed, as the first comment notes, “I thought we already had such an academy at UIUC. It’s called the School of Business.” Or the Economics department, or… The comment writers then launch a lively but altogether irrelevant discussion of the general education requirements. What’s so unhelpful is that the writers seem unaware of the simple fact that the courses are meant to create a conversation with society at large, not to “represent” each point of view “equally.”
We live, for example, in a culture dominated by white, materially privileged men. No one needs to speak for them; they own most of the microphones. But a good education tries, at least, to offer other voices. Thus the required course in Minority Studies. That’s also why the AAUP is not interested in the specifics. Obviously, if you simply repeat the implicit arguments of the culture around you– capitalism is good, government should be limited– the powers that be will not be upset. If you want to hear that point of view you can turn on the TV.
What I find interesting, though, is the way the Academy (or its founders) seems to have been fooled into believing the bloated self-image of a small number of academic stars. If they spent a little time among the so-called liberal professors they would find that very few are anti-capitalism in any substantive sense. They are more like rich rock star paid to perform their “criticism” and then go home to their expensive cars and big houses. There just are not very many Bonos out there. (Just ask the Graduate Employees Organization.
Young Folks