Russell Jacoby, a history professor at UCLA, has written this column for the Chronicle of Higher Education essentially outlining a critique of the academic tendency to complicate everything. I mean, how often have you heard professors say they are going to “complicate” a situation, point out “complexities” in a model, etc.? Being an English major, I hear this kind of stuff (and regurgitate it into my papers) all the time. But isn’t the whole point of academia to take a incomprehensible system and turn it into something comprehensible? Certainly I prefer over-complication to over-simplification, but the results of either extreme are rather undesirable.

Jacoby points out a couple reasons why the tendency for over-complication has become the norm:

1.) New scholars need work. If you’re studying, say, Shakespeare, you find that a lot of scholars have already done plenty of work on that guy. In fact, he may be coming quite close to being understood! Heaven forbid! Suddenly, you could be out a job. So, why not poke holes in previous simplifying theories and “problematize” the whole thing. As long as you can turn it back into a problem, you’re still not hopelessly irrelevant.

2.) How do you prove it wrong? If your theory is nothing but further “problems” based on your observations, people will rarely call you out on it. Sure, everything is very complicated and requires more than a “binary” understanding, but if that’s the case, isn’t it trivial to note it? I mean, if you say something that no one can (or even wants to) question, why should you be writing it at all? Complication insulates you from criticism.

I don’t necessarily agree with Jacoby’s extrapolation that complication in academia leads to academic dishonesty (because of “other options to academic dishonesty”), but I do find his dissection of the “complications” in academia important in the grand scheme of things. In all their attempts to complicate matters, professors have veered dangerously close to self-parody (see: The Post-Modernist Essay Generator) and by rejecting any attempt to simplify rather than complicate, their knee-jerk predilections obscure the bigger picture rather than illuminate it.

Oh, and that song is great.

George W. Bush wants you to know that if we don’t make telecom companies retroactively immune from prosecution for their lawbreaking, they may actually decide to break the law less. At least we agree on that.

Oh, but he thinks the whole breaking the law thing is good. Nvm.

In all seriousness, by laying out his argument in this fashion, Bush isn’t doing himself any favors. “Now that the telecoms aren’t illegally spying on you any more, don’t you feel outraged?” I doubt many Americans will shed tears for AT&T and Verizon getting sued for illegally listening to their calls. I mean, this FISA telecom immunity bill isn’t even to “make us safer.” It’s to protect lawbreakers from prosecution for stuff they already did.

Bush is correct in that by punishing the telecoms, they will probably be less likely to break the law in the future. Sounds good to me. Everyone knows what a “law-and-order” guy I am.

For those unfamiliar, a good FISA bill roundup here.

After my column today presented an opinion on the pathetic state of NBC, a breaking story has only added fuel to the fire.

“Scrubs,” which has always been partly owned by ABC Studios, is leaving the hell that is the Peacock network for the greener pastures of the alphabet network. Obviously, this wouldn’t be a huge of a deal normally – especially since this has been hinted at for years – but right now it’s huge because “Scrubs” was supposed to be in the midst of it’s final season.

So what exactly is happening?

Read the rest of this entry »

Free speech is dead.

This last weekend, I was in Indianapolis to watch my younger brother swim in the state swim meet. He won both events he entered even though he broke his foot in the middle of the meet — but that’s not really relevant to this column. The relevant part is that, to support my brother, a couple of friends and I decided to make signs to bring to the meet. The signs were fairly innocuous — one had his name on it, and the other was one of those with a message where the words spell out ESPN.

We had taken care to make sure there was no profanity or offensive language on the signs, and we figured our biggest problem would be ensuring that we didn’t block people’s views when we held them up. We were wrong.

As my brother was receiving his first-place medal, I noticed a rent-a-cop making his way up the stairs toward us. He climbed over the people in my row and said, “I’m going to need that sign. I saw it earlier, but I didn’t get up here in time.”

I asked him if he was serious, he said yes, and I threw the signs in his face.

In looking back on the incident, I found a fair bit of irony. You see, in the week leading up to the meet, my uncle, who was also there, had been poking fun at me for some of the recent events surrounding the IU basketball program. The main thing he’d commented on was the incident during a game where a fan was asked to remove a shirt that said, “Bring back Bobby!”

“So, I hear the First Amendment has been suspended in Bloomington?”

Well, evidently it was suspended in Indianapolis as well.

There’s a slight difference between my situation and the situation of the brave soul who dared to summon The General. All I hoped to accomplish was to support my brother, and I thought I did so in a fairly polite way. I know that I’ve seen signs at Assembly Hall that are similar to what I had this weekend, and even some that were maybe a little more provocative — so that’s not an issue on this campus. However, it reeked of preventative overkill. Since the officials didn’t want to judge what signs are legitimate and what signs aren’t, they just took all signs, as well as chest painting and basically anything else one could think of. Sporting events are supposed to be entertainment, but the authorities found a way to suck out all the enjoyment.

I take more issue, though, with the Bobby Knight shirt. Despite my anger, my signs weren’t really that big of a deal in the long run. That fan, though, was trying, I assume, to make a statement about the state of IU athletics. That’s free speech. That’s the First Amendment. And that’s more than just fun and games. That’s freedom.

The Politico had an interesting post this week about GOP fears of being portrayed as racists or sexists in the general election. Specifically, it was reported that the RNC was conducting polling in order to “determine the boundaries of attacking a minority or female candidate.” Now, as both a minority and a female, I was incredibly touched by this goodwill gesture. One wonders though, do Republicans actually need a poll to indicate when they’ve crossed the line?

I’m certainly sympathetic to the GOP’s struggle over its image with minority voters. Unfortunately, stories like these just reinforce the notion that sensitivity and tact are alien to some Republicans. When you have top campaign strategists complaining about the “P.C. police” and the “narrow standards,” there is little that a poll or survey can do. When I think about all the ridiculously racist rhetoric that emerged from the immigration debate, I am convinced that these efforts at fostering tolerance are too little, too late. Ultimately, all the high-minded rhetoric from Republicans about “sensitivity for this race’s historic firsts” is just not matched by reality.

While I don’t believe that Republicans are necessarily more racist or sexist than the general public, one has to admit that the party seems to attract such crazies. This movement that I was once a (proud) member of has been totally hijacked by radicals who are more than willing to exploit such sensitive issues. And that’s a pity.

The Pop Culture Register

Barker is a sophomore majoring in journalism and business.

Recently, I found myself watching the “Knight Rider” remake/TV movie/backdoor pilot on NBC. Though not a fan of the original, I gave the program a chance, mostly because there wasn’t anything else on. Sadly, the only things I remember about the two-hour program were how atrocious the acting was and how the entire thing was nothing more than a blatant ad for Ford.

Actually, let me take that back. I also recall the continuous plugs for the network’s new show, “My Dad Is Better Than Your Dad,” yet another reality program like those NBC has been pumping out for months. At first, I was disgusted with the addition of more reality shows to the NBC slate. But then I realized something.

This is NBC, and based on its recent programming decisions, I wasn’t too surprised.

Read the rest of this entry »

An Afghan journalist employed by Canadian television has just been designated an enemy combatant after four months without charge. It’s unclear whether he had a lawyer, which is a roundabout way of saying that he didn’t.

Is this the face of our enemy? Really? Let’s suppose that he is a terrorist, posing as a journalist, with ambitions to damage America and NATO operations in Afghanistan. How does our process of detention without transparency help us? Our credibility is shot, because as an enemy combatant, Jawad Ahmad has no rights and nothing we get out of him is admissible anywhere. The information we do get very well could be tainted, and if he had no hate for America beforehand (he did work for two Canadian media sources, after all), he certainly does now. Those media sources, which could have cooperated with us by giving us the information he gave to them, now have no reason to do so. Now we just have a 20-year-old journalist in our custody in legal limbo.

This is the way we do things now. So it goes.

I don’t usually make sports posts, but today marks the first spring training (it’s spring?!) game for my favorite baseball club, the Chicago Ursine Young (not to be confused with the Chicago Ursine Adults), playing the New York Giants of San Francisco. In any case, this has made me about as giddy as I can legally get without the use of mind-altering substances.

As any Cubs fan knows, every year is “The Year,” that is to say, the year that the Cubs end their near-century-long championship drought. Nothing gets me riled up quite like the Chicago Cubs. It’s basically like Lucy and the football; every year they get my hopes up, and every year they snuff them out faster than you can say “All-Star Break.”

But hey, hope springs eternal or something. Cubs-Giants@Scottsdale, first pitch 3:05 p.m. ET. It may be 20 degrees outside, but there’s no need to fear. After steroids hearings, forgettable trades and a snowy winter, spring is finally right around the corner. Baseball is here again.

According to a report in today’s Variety, the European Commission has fined Microsoft 899 million Euro (1.35 billion dollars) for not complying to an anti-trust law in 2004. This is the largest fine in the history for a single company.

But, chances are Bill Gates doesn’t even care. Just over a billion dollars? Man, he probably lights that many dollars bills on fire just to see it burn.

Read the rest of this entry »

Bad news for Roger Clemens: Congress wasn’t fully convinced of his statements and thinks he may have lied under oath. To combat that, letters have been sent to the DOJ so they can look further into Clemens’ statements.

Read the rest of this entry »