They make no bones about being prescriptive and laying out the principles and values that “should” inform deliberation. I agree with many, if not all of them, but doubt everyone does, or would, or even should. My agreement is probably based upon (emanates from?) a subjectivity similar to theirs, but I don’t think I want everyone I interact with to be boilerplated along “my” lines (! Horrors!)
While I am attracted to the idealism and possibility in Habermas (as I understand the distillation of his views, having not yet squeezed him in ~ even via Bryan’s audio link), what a bland, dull, and monotonous mode of production.
I am intrigued, however, by the chart G&T have put together on p. 53, contrasting prudence, reciprocity, and impartiality as principled (philosophical?) bases for approaching moral disagreement. The notable absence in sign language interpreter’s code of ethics (in the US) of any mention of “impartiality” has been a gap that has drawn my attention for a variety of reasons, but this reading has me wondering if there is an even deeper debate between/among members of the Deaf community and sign language interpreters – one which challenges the basic assumptions embodied in an “impartial” base. Deaf people have overtly questioned this as a different cultural value, but I hadn’t yet come across an alternative. I think the notion of reciprocity might do it ~ being as it already is a noted and notable intra-group value of American Deaf Culture. The premises and assumptions that accompany these three foundational bases (as laid out by G&T) open up terms for deliberation (!) that might actually move the institutionalizing forces of the RID (national certifying body) and NAD (nat’l advocacy organization for the Deaf) toward a mutually-satisfactory outcome.
So, I’m wondering if deliberation based on reciprocity is a contingent strategy or mode that needs to be responsive to the conditions and environment of a particular issue? It may, in fact, be quite well suited to some contexts, and inappropriate for others. G&T seem to propose it as the rubric for all political decisions. I think this is much too broad.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Stephen made a typical grand entrance, kvetching about the campus cop who hassled him en route. 
He’s also pulled his usual stunt of mixing us up with an undergrad (welcome Jamie! I’m sure you’ll fit right in) and given us an impressive lot of books to read and ideas to ponder.
Viveca (pushing her statute of limitations, as she says), Donna, and Brian drove most of the discussion last night; usefully for me, as I became aware of some huge gaps in my basic knowledge. Just when am I supposed to read Habermas (I missed the recommended title, but I gather its 1200 pages, and he authored many pieces) and Hegemony and Socialist Strategy?
Meanwhile, I enjoyed Wolin’s piece in Benhabib on “Fugitive Democracy.” (PDF available for download – just search.) The concept of fugitive democracy is in many of his works.
What struck me is its resemblance to the conceptualization James and I have of “problematic moments” in which contesting/contrasting discourses emerge simultaneously in talk and a group must choose between recognition or repression.
Overall, everyone’s voice got in at some point (a feature of Stephen’s classes which I value highly) and I’m psyched. (I did squelch a desire to just let out a holler on a few different occassions.)
Popularity: unranked [?]
Bush by numbers: Four years of double standards
These are creepy – they show how if you simply SAY things, repeatedly, and the media disseminates what you say, “reality” follows. 
Here’s a few, click through to read them all:
1 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security issued between 20 January 2001 and 10 September 2001 that mentioned al-Qa’ida.
104 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned Iraq or Saddam Hussein.
101 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned missile defence.
65 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned weapons of mass destruction.
0 Number of times Bush mentioned Osama bin Laden in his three State of the Union addresses.
73 Number of times that Bush mentioned terrorism or terrorists in his three State of the Union addresses.
83 Number of times Bush mentioned Saddam, Iraq, or regime (as in change) in his three State of the Union addresses.
This is an edited extract from “What We’ve Lost”, by Graydon Carter, published by Little Brown on 9 September. ~ sent to me via email from Becky Townsend
Popularity: 1% [?]
Stephen is already out of the starting gate! Not only did he send the proposed syllabus today for Democracy, Rhetoric, and Performance, he also got in the first joke, enticing Scott the Snakemeister to return for an encore performance.
Of course, there is reading DUE for the first class….welcome to grad school!
Popularity: 1% [?]
