American Studies Professor Saul Cornell on "New Originalist" interpretations of the Constitution

Fordham historian and American History Professor Saul Cornell has written a forceful and clear article in Dissent criticizing those from the Supreme Court on down who claim to know "the original meaning" of the Constitution. Cornell argues that "new originalist meaning ultimately has nothing to do with history: it is a modern ideology dressed up in historical clothing." This is perhaps his most biting passage:

In the wacky world of new originalism, dissent becomes assent, minorities become majorities, and the interpretive method of the Anti-Federalist losers supplants the methods of the Federalist winners. Such creative rewriting of the past makes for interesting alternate histories, but it is not a serious scholarly methodology for understanding the historical meaning of the Constitution. It is a legal scam.

Many American studies students have taken Professor Cornell's courses in early American history or constitutional history. Especially if you're heading off to law school after you graduate--as many of you are!--have a look at the article....and write a response here on the blog, too!

A most American Studies Easter Break

Senior year is almost over. This will likely be my last blog and testament since there are a number of papers I need to finish and polish, and I was never quite as good at blogging as I should have been to begin with.

Over the Easter Break I visited the Philadelphia, described by fellow blogger and very good friend Kaylyn as the "Birthplace of America." While my Virginian sensibility kicked in at this claim (causing Kaylyn to very nearly turn the car around) I do appreciate the great historical place this city of brotherly love has for the United States (after the state of Virginia voted on independence and brought it to the Continental Congress (See 1776 for a delightful musical version of these events)).

We saw a few of the sites you would expect, Independence Hall, the Liberty Bell, Ben Franklin's Grave

Here is the hilarious epitaph that Franklin wrote for himself in his youth "never intended for actual use" it lives on on a plaque next to his grave.

We walked South Street for most of its length, stopping in a recycled art store where I was very tempted to buy a bowl made from a melted record. I ate the requisite Philly Cheesesteak which, despite my fears, was actually better than the one I usually get at the bodega down the street.

So, as for the last blog and testament part. It's been an interesting four years. For any potential Fordham students or current undecided students out there, look into the American Studies program. I hear many of my friends complain that their advisor doesn't know who they are, that they feel on their own academicswise. No one in the American Studies program feels that way. The program really does become a tight knit community. I would consider all of the American Studies majors in my year a friend, and over the last three years we have watched and encouraged each other's academic growth. Prof. Gold's Major Developments in American Cultural class was a high point in my college career. There is no doubt in my mind that Prof Hendler truly cares about the success of every student in the major, not to mention his son is almost too adorable at advising meetings. Profs Aronson and Cahill were a nearly perfect combination of approaches and demeanors for the Senior Seminar.

This program gave me the freedom to chose from a wide variety of subjects (from Funk music to The Postmodern American Novel) while requiring of me a sense of academic rigor that I sense is lacking from the college experiences of some of my peers.

I'm moving out to St. Louis to freelance as an electrician in theaters with the hope of being accepted to a playwriting MFA in a years time. To a lot of people that might seem completely unrelated to American Studies, let me assure you it is not. The American Studies major provides its students with the academic discipline to achieve in any number of post-graduate pursuits. It is a major that encourages both individualism (and what could be more American) and cooperative group work towards common goals (and what could be more American). I know I have sent a few of my younger friends towards the program, and I couldn't be happier that they are continuing the pursuit. I encourage everyone to look into this major as I can't imagine having gone through the last four years in any other program. Thank you Prof Hendler, Prof Gold, Prof Aronson, and Prof Cahill, you have truly made a difference in my life and you are mentors that I will remember for years to come.

(sorry for getting sentimental)

-Taylor Riccio

Letter in the NY Times on union-busting in Wisconsin

I'm a little reluctant to use the blog for self-promotion, but I can't resist posting a link to the letter from me that the New York Times published today.

This letter came about in a sort of interesting way. I posted something very much like this on my Wall in Facebook right after reading the story about the law in Wisconsin passing, and a bunch of people "liked" it. And I asked myself why only my friends--most (but not all) of whom probably agree with me--should be reading it. So I rewrote it according to the guidelines of a letter to the editor, and sent it in...and they published it!

The lesson is: we all comment on things on Facebook, and we all post links to stories in the newspaper and other places. But sometimes maybe we should try to reach larger audiences, people we don't already know and agree with, by moving things in the other direction--from Facebook into other venues, even "old media" like the newspaper.

Writing from leave,
Professor Glenn Hendler

P.S. Apologies to Dr. Edward Cahill for the fact that the Times listed me as Director of the American studies program. My signature clearly told them that I'm on leave this semester from that position, but they didn't include that detail....

Public Broadcasting + Proposed Budget Cuts = Public Reaction

On February 19, the House passed a bill that would eliminate all federal financing for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting by the year 2013.

However, just a few days earlier, Obama's proposed budget for the 2012 fiscal year promised not a decrease, but a $6 million increase to public broadcast funding. Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) President and CEO Paula Kerger released a statement saying, “Our country is confronting difficult decisions, so we’re very thankful that the Obama Administration recognizes the critical value of public broadcasting and the public service it provides to American teachers, parents and children." (PBS Statement on the President's FY 2012 Budget)

This is not the first time Congress has butted heads over potentially cutting public broadcasting, but it is perhaps the first time the ensuing debate among the public has occurred in a primary way on the Internet. I wanted to explore the public reaction in more depth (at the risk of blatantly overusing the word "public" within a single blog post.) First, however, I had to clarify some details about exactly what the cut in funding would mean.

Congress allocates money each year to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) . According to CPB's web site, "Funding for CPB helps to support more than 21,000 American jobs, which contribute more than $1 billion to the national economy." In addition, the site assures that CPB's main source of income is membership contributions, and that according to the Public Broadcasting Act, no more than 5% of federal funding can go toward administrative costs. This means that 95% of federal funds allocated to CPB go directly to stations like PBS and NPR.

In 1995, as I recently learned, a similar attempt to eliminate federal financing for public broadcasting was "thwarted by the timely appearance of Sesame Street characters and by panicked supporters who filed petitions and flooded Congressional offices with calls," as reported by the New York Times on February 27, 2011.

This time, however, in the aftermath of the bill there was an overflow of online petitions, rather than phone calls (the same style of petition being widely used to respond to proposed cuts to Americorps and Planned Parenthood). This time, even a visit to the capitol from Arthur (yes, the aardvark) did not prevent the bill from passing in the House. See below for a charming image of the PBS star with co-chairman of the Public Broadcasting Caucus, Earl Blumenauer of Oregon.

Source: New York Times (Harry Hamburg/ Associated Press)

Blumenauer argued in his letter to the House that "Public broadcasting is America’s largest classroom and we cannot force our stations to close their doors. Funding for CPB is what makes our local public TV and radio stations thrive. It’s what gives our communities a voice and provides the infrastructure that connects rural to urban." Unfortunately, he did not meet as much bipartisan support as he has in his past defenses of public media, and now the decision will be up to the Senate. So, in the meantime, what role does the public have in influencing what will be done with funding for public broadcasting?

We are being encouraged by groups like 170 Million Americans for Public Broadcasting (name taken from the number of Americans who use public media each month) to pressure our elected officials to find different areas of the federal budget to cut. They and similar activist groups hope that their online petitions will be supplemented by phone calls by supporters- but at this time in history, will the public express their feelings in venues outside of cyberspace?

From Wisconsin to Washington, DC, and everywhere in between, we have recently seen Americans respond to legislation in some of the most tried-and-true ways we recognize from civil rights protests, but we have also seen an unprecedented use of the online space for reacting via Facebook, Twitter, online petitions, emails to elected officials, and more venues that provide space, if not a location, for conversation with officials.

Even in this modern age, in which we largely accept online conversation as genuine, I have to wonder whether officials have to react in the same way to masses of emails that they must to postal mail, phone calls, and especially gatherings of actual constituents. There is a way in which earlier forms of communication required either the official or someone in their office to actively receive and deal with the public sentiment accordingly. Some feel that Internet activism is the new frontier. Our parents couldn't attend protests while sitting in class, after all, but in a few clicks, we can participate in some form of political movement even without physical presence. Critics call it "slacktivism": if we cared deeply about the issues, we would be out there making sure someone was listening, rather than simply making ourselves feel that we have participated by adding our email to a list, especially when that list may or may not reach, or have great meaning for, the elected officials in whose hands these decisions finally lie. I myself have "signed" countless petitions on Facebook and activist websites (including 170 Million Americans), without ever really being sure what my signature means or where it will go.

In addition, ironically enough, when we have more venues for mass communication than ever before, we are faced with a new problem of disunity: masses of people will not appear to be masses if they are divided in their methods of reacting. When individuals feel similarly, but have different levels of media literacy, how will they connect with one another?

Now I am left wondering: will the people who rely on public broadcasting for news, arts, and culture be able to unite- in an online space or otherwise- to convince their elected officials to restore federal funding for public broadcasting before it is too late?

Borders Sings the Blues (to the tune of bankruptcy)

Professor walks into a bookstore. Professor is looking for a copy of Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian. Instead, Professor finds Jersey Shore’s J-WOWW signing books. A humorous anecdote told in my Literature of the West class by Professor Contreras may have incited a roar of laughter, but it should be sadly noted that, it’s funny because it’s true.

Bookstores are (and have been for some time) trading out literary icons such as Cormac McCarthy for 15-minutes of fame (or in this case, 3 seasons worth) pseudo celebrities, such as J-woww. In fact, the entire MTV reality crew is diving into the shallow pool of publishing; Snookie came out with a novel entitled A Shore Thing, while J-Woww opted for non-fiction to release her life lessons in The Rules According to J-woww.



Not only are bookstores selling out, they’re shutting down fast. Within weeks, Borders is slated to close a whole 200 stores across the country.



So who killed who first? Why all the dead Borders? While some surmise that it’s simply because people don’t read anymore, media doctors diagnose it with “a failure to understand the digital revolution.”

While back in the nineties, the battle in the world of books may have been; big chains vs. your local independent bookstore (i.e. You’ve Got Mail), now the opposing teams have multiplied thus resulting in one-huge-book-massacre. Now, it’s the big-chains versus the web, versus the ipad, the kindle, versus the fact that readers don’t read books!



The Ipad: Your new local bookstore?

Think about how much time the average person spends reading blogs, surfing the web, playing video games, watching tv in comparison to what that time-crunch may have been say, twenty even ten years ago. The media is going to war to win over your time and more importantly, you money. Why spend it on us when you can get it for free!

Media Industries Professor, Brian Rose offers some enlightenment to the situation: “The imminent death of bookstores, or more exactly chain bookstores, is, sadly, the inevitable result of overexpansion, pricey real estate (in a sour economy), and the inability to compete against online retailing. More pressingly, the continued growth of e-books (now 10% of all books sold), makes it difficult for chain bookstores to compete with the instant gratification available with a cheaper download. Very sad--but interestingly, it may mean that the only survivors are independent bookstores, who not only started the concept of book retailing, but have a much firmer grasp on how to reach their literate, neighborhood customers.”

So the demise of the chain doesn’t mean death for everyone, in fact it could mean a ressurecction for independent bookstores (like my personal favorite independent in the West Village THREE LIVES & CO.) Last year I wrote a paper in Rose's class about the demise of the Independent Bookstore and now we're bracing for its comeback? Talk about karma!

Oh, and Professor Contreras never did find that McCarthy book. Borders doesn't carry it.

Santa Brought American Studies Loot!

Finals are finally over! I hope every one is having a relaxing break with family & friends!

It's the day after christmas & I'm wondering: what did Santa bring all the American Studies Majors?

I had a particularly fortuitous christmas this year: lots of cookies and lots of american pop-culture paraphernalia! Or as news-satirist-extraordinaire, Stephen Colbert tweeted this morning "I got everything for Christmas! That's right: I asked for everything!"

Here's a run-down of the best gifts I found under my tree, hoping to see yours as well!


#1. The Best American Essays of the Century (edited by Joyce Carol Oates and Robert Atwan)

I never thought I'd say this, but boy was I glad to find this 568-page-book Christmas morning! This hefty collection includes the finest American essayists (some of my included favorites: E.B. White, Joan Didion, James Baldwin & Mark Twain) and aims to be "more or less a chronological story of America as the century unfolded." God-willing and sans-homework, I'll be able to make a dent in it before next semester. Perhaps the reading will prepare me for my American Studies class in the Spring, "American Voice"? Who says a Christmas present can't kill two birds with one stone?



#2. DVD Box Set of The Pacific

Produced by box-office-hit makers Stephen Speilberg and Tom Hanks, The Pacific (debuted on HBO in 2001) recounts the true stories of marines who fought against the Japanese in World War II. Now, I am no history or war- buff, but as a media junkie I can attest that this miniseries is exciting, moving and most of all: addicting. So it's probably best to get started watching now, seeing as starting it during the semester may become dangerous to your G.P.A.



#3. SPACEBALLS!

In my opinion, definitely one of Mel Brooks' bests! This Star Wars parody hit the screens in 1987 and made fun of just about every American stereotype under the sun: no gender, race or religion was left mercy! Regardless, it's pretty hilarious. It also pokes fun at shameless product placement and Star Wars' movie merchandising: an important shift in the American movie business. Star Wars was the first film to prove that merchandising can make just as much, if not more than box office revenue. Here, director George Lucas decided to trade in a small writer's/director's fee for 40% of the Star Wars merchandising rights. A wise move on Lucas' part, as the film made 4.2 billion worldwide, the merchandise took in double that! This was actually a test question on my Media Industries final last year: What did the American movie business learn from Star Wars? I wrote: Merchandising = $$$ (Thanks Professor Brian Rose!)



Mel Brooks as the treacherous President Skroob sniffs 'Perri-Air'



Screenshot of Spaceballs: The Toilet Paper



Evil-Villain Pizza-the-Hutt





Now that I think about it, this post itself seems a bit like one big product placement. Apologies, I assure you no company has endorsed me to blog about this! It's just that since it's the holidays, expect me to be reading less primary (scholarly) works and more pop-culture media texts!

Cabritismo

We were talking about cabritismo at dinner the other night. Cabrito is goat in Portuguese. A goat, when tied to a post, will eat all the grass in its reach, down to the roots, denuding the ground in a sweeping circle along the radius of his line. Cabritismo is this ultimately self-defeating greed.

Mozambican friends claim that it is standard practice in business here. An employee skims away at the margins of his or her employer's business, even at the risk of threatening his or her own employment by bringing down the company. Our dinner guest told us about a rather heroic newspaper editor here who's been running an opposition paper. Among many of the daily, petty thefts he dealt with, we learned about an elaborate scheme to steal a few hundred newspapers each week as they were delivered from the printer; not much in money, but enough to make it even harder for him to run his business.

Coincidentally, the next morning over coffee, I read this passage, from a piece by Adam Gopnik in The New Yorker, on Adam Smith's archetypal idea, the invisible hand:

…one can't grasp the idea of the invisible hand without the balancing idea of the imaginary inner witness. All those [inner] moral judges are what let the invisible hand work….The narrow animal instinct is not to trade and exchange and invest; it is to hoard and guard and pillage. The acquired human trait is the market trait, and it depends on trust, sympathy. To see what happens in the absence of trust, one need only consider the recent history of the developing world; if there is not civic capital, a network of trust, already in place, "privatization" just produces kleptocracy.

So, here is Adam Smith in 1776 understanding perfectly the cabristismo that markets, without sympathy and trust, produce. My wariness of neoliberal American ideas about unregulated markets is rather unexpectedly confirmed by looking west from Mozambique.

Focusing my gaze here, in Maputo, I see something I understand as history in action, something known intellectually, but now felt and observed. "Market man" is nothing natural, but a being cultivated--out of cultural habits, daily practices, and regulated rules of the game. I watch this cultivation in Mozambique with perhaps the same ambivalence that Adam Smith watched the unfolding of early capitalist marketplaces. Mozambique is galloping along in its development, but will it do so in ways that spark trust more often than cabritismo?