More Google Wave Invites

Apparently I am a google wave bad ass (actually I think I am just the only person in the country who actually uses it…) but I now have approx 20 more invites and have already invited everyone I know (which is only 3 people). Soooooooo….. I thought about writing up another contest type thing but response to the last one was pretty lackluster. So instead I will give an invite to anyone who posts a good card on any topic in the comments.Make sure you include your gmail address.

6 thoughts on “More Google Wave Invites

  1. Britain Kennedy

    I can't remember where I got them but they were in a random file… If it's good enough send the invite to bkennedy@gmail.com , if not it's cool and I can post some homecut stuff. Just a random biopower turn I've managed to win rounds on.

    attempts to emancipate biopolitical subjects only reinforces biopolitical regulation – illusions of liberation and free thought deter action.

    Zizek, Slavoj. 2002.
    [Senior Researcher at the University of Ljubljana, Ph. D in kicking your ass. Welcome to the Desert of the Real. p. 2]

    Is this not the matrix of an efficient critique of ideology – not only in totalitarian conditions of censorship but, perhaps even more, in the more refined conditions of liberal censorship? One starts by agreeing that one has all the freedom one wants – then one merely adds that the only thing missing is the ‘red ink’: we ‘feel free’ because we lack the very language to articulate our unfreedom. What this lack of red ink means is that , today, all the main terms we use to designate the present conflict – ‘war on terrorism’, ‘democracy and freedom’, ‘human rights’, and so on – are false terms, mystifying our perception of the freedom instead of allowing us to think it. In this precise sense, our ‘freedoms’ themselves serve to mask and sustain our deeper unfreedom. A hundred years ago, in his emphasis on the acceptance of some fixed dogma as the condition of (demanding) actual freedom, Gilbert Keith Chesterton perspicuously detected the antidemocratic potential of the very principle of freedom of thought: “We may say broadly that free thought is the best of all safeguards against freedom. Managed in modern style, the emancipation of the slaves mind is the best way to prevent the emancipation of the slave. Teach him to worry about whether he wants to be free, and he will not free himself ”Is this not emphatically true of our ‘postmodern’ time, with its freedom to deconstruct, doubt, distantiate oneself? We should not forget that Chesterton makes exactly same claim as Kant in his ‘What is Enlightenment’: ‘Think as much as you like, and as freely as you like, just obey!’

  2. Austin

    Not sure if the formatting’s right in this comment box.
    My email is austin.likes.math@gmail.com

    Solutions that do not Attend to the issue of Dependence will not only be Ineffective, but also Reinforce the hazardous concept of Welfare Dependence currently ingrained into the American Society

    Smiley 01 (Marion Smiley, PhD from Princeton University, Professor of Ethics and Philosophy at Brandeis University – “’Welfare Dependence’ : The Power of a Concept”)

    While there are clearly those who resist using the language of dependence to talk about welfare reform,1 a surprisingly large percentage of those who now participate in the welfare reform debates rely on the concept of dependence extensively. Michael Novak, among others, proclaims that “at the heart of the poverty problem is the problem of welfare dependence.” (Novak, p. 9) Daniel Patrick Moynihan goes further than Novak by translating the primary “problem” of welfare into the primary “issue” of welfare. According to Moynihan, “the issue of welfare is quite simply the issue of dependency.” (Moynihan, p. 3) Both men acknowledge that the problem of poverty is still with us. But they do not treat it primarily as an economic problem. Instead, they treat it as a problem of individual behavior – “dependence” or “dependency” – that we can associate with recipience itself.
    Very few of those who use the term “dependence” in their arguments about welfare define the term itself. But they do make clear that welfare dependence is at least two things: the recipience of a particular kind of welfare assistance, namely, that associated with poor people’s programs, and dependent behavior on the part of recipients. Likewise, they hint that while such behavior is individual, it is shared by an entire class. While this class of individuals is composed almost entirely of those who accept poor people’s assistance, it is frequently referred to as “the dependent class” and distinguished from “functioning citizens” who are ostensibly independent. Lawrence Mead, among others, is not shy about associating this class directly with the problem of welfare dependence. According to Mead, “[t]oday the social problem is not mainly the destitution of functioning citizens and their families but widespread dependency, with millions of Americans, including many working-age adults, subsisting on Federal benefit programs.” (Mead, p. 19.)
    Novak, Moynihan and Mead are all conservatives. Hence, we should not be surprised to discover the central place that they give to the notion of welfare dependence. But they are not alone in placing welfare dependence at the center of our attention. Since the mid-1980s both conservatives and liberals alike have bemoaned the problem of welfare dependence and have placed their concern for it at the center of both general political diatribes and key pieces of legislation. Moreover, they have done so not only in the U.S., where the language of dependence – and the focus of attention on independence — remains strongest, but in the U.K., Australia, Canada, and other political communities that place value on “independent citizens” and/or have been strongly influenced by U.S. political culture.
    While the language of dependence has taken hold in welfare reform debates in much of the English speaking world, it does not of course register complete agreement on the subject. Proponents of the welfare state continue to call for greater assistance in at least designated areas and associate the term “dependence” with different meanings than their anti-statist counterparts do. Hartly Dean and Peter Gooby Taylor, for instance, speak of powerlessness rather than laziness or weakness of will in their discussions of dependence (Dean and Gooby Taylor, pp. 551-83) and feminists who write about the welfare state talk about the “dependent class” as not only powerless but subject to a patriarchal state or “substitute father.”2 In other words, there are many minority voices among those who decry welfare dependence, many of which self-consciously avoid blaming victims.
    But the language of welfare dependence nevertheless prevails, even among those who are generally open to welfare assistance. Moreover, it does so in both public debate and academic research. As Sanford Schram shows very effectively in Words of Welfare, the language of welfare dependence persists not only among “New Democrats” but among left leaning scholars of the welfare state who incorporate such language into their economic analyses.3 According to Schram, by the 1990’s, social scientists of poverty were compelled not only to ask key questions about poverty in the language of dependence but to construe welfare recipients as members of “the dependent class” for purposes of research.4
    Moreover, even progressive historians of the welfare state frequently treat “welfare recipience” and “welfare dependency” as interchangeable terms of analysis and associate both with various poor people’s programs. Interestingly enough, in doing so, they generally forgo the moral and psychological traits that are often associated with welfare dependence in public debate, e.g. laziness and weakness of will. But they do not generally forgo the association between welfare recipience and a class of welfare dependents known as “dependents.” Nor, with several important exceptions, do they include in this class recipients of social security or other middle class welfare programs.5 Instead, like most everyone else, they focus their attention on recipients of poor relief and refer to them as the dependent class.
    Since the language of dependence is so widely accepted, we might want simply to let it go. But, as I suggest in Part III, the concept of dependence as now formulated has a host of negative consequences when invoked in discussions of the welfare state, consequences that follow not only from the intentions of those who use the term, but from the concept’s own formulation. Hence, in order to grasp these consequences fully and prevent their reproduction in the future, we need to ask: “What does the concept of dependence as now formulated entail?” “How is it formulated?” I address both of these questions below within a more full blown analysis of the concept of dependence as now formulated.

  3. max smith

    3. Lack of jobs and low wages make poverty inevitable – Wisconsin proves.
    Community Advocates, Public Policy Institute, 2009. “The Causes of Poverty.” Accessed 8/19/09, http://ca-ppi.org/causes/
    There are now well over 9.3 million unemployed Americans and no more than 3.3 million available jobs—a job shortage exceeding 6 million. We unfortunately don't have specific data for Wisconsin, and the most recent data for the Milwaukee area is over two years old. Based on current U.S. data and the older Milwaukee data, however, it's reasonable to estimate that Wisconsin as a whole has a job shortage of at least 120,000, and that the Milwaukee area's job shortage is in the range of 35,000–40,000. The current Wisconsin minimum wage is $6.55 per hour. In mid-2009, a higher federal minimum wage kicks in at $7.25 per hour. But full-time and year-round workers who earn the minimum wage end up with $14,266–$15,080 in mid-2009 – which is thousands of dollars below the poverty line for a single parent with two (or more) children or a married couple with one (or more) children. Thousands of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and American workers – including many adults with families – earn the minimum wage or close to it. They remain poor not because they don’t work, but because their low wages leave them below or barely above the poverty line.

    max5470@gmail.com

  4. fhemani

    farazhemani@gmail.com

    Small businesses key to economy
    Journal Gazette, September 8th (Journal Gazette, subset of Times news, “OUR VIEW: Growth of small business key to economy” 09/08/09, Online [FH])
    A key to any economic recovery is for people to put forth ideas for small businesses, to seek to fund their ideas, and for some of those ideas to emerge into successful businesses, just as some will surely fall short. “Small businesses are the lifeblood of cities and towns across the country,” President Obama proclaimed back in May. “Over the last decade, small businesses created 70 percent of new jobs, and they are responsible for half of all jobs in the private sector. They also help enhance the lives of our citizens by improving our quality of life and creating personal wealth. Small businesses will lead the way to prosperity, particularly in today’s challenging economic environment,” he said. The investment forum hosted by Eastern’s Business Solutions Center is a continuation of efforts by various entities to positively contribute to the regional economy by encouraging locally developed business ideas and plans. Among those in attendance was the CEO high school class from Effingham, which is another example of efforts to encourage entrepreneurial thinking and activity. The forum last week is another positive step to support and encourage the lifeblood of cities and towns. It is the sort of activity we need more of, to spark private sector growth that is needed in our economy.

  5. Donald Virts

    donvirts@gmail.com

    Trade turns securitization – we view other countries as collaborators rather than threats
    Ikenson scholar at the CATO institute 12/02/09
    (Daniel Ikenson scholar at the CATO institute 12/02/09 http://www.policynetwork.net/trade/publication/no
    International trade today is no longer a competition between our producers and their producers. It is more appropriately characterized as a competition between entities that increasingly defy national identification. Dramatic increases in cross-border investment and the proliferation of transnational production and supply chains have blurred any meaningful distinctions between our producers and their producers. Very often, they are we and we are they, working collaboratively toward the same objectives. Understanding this new reality and the process that spawned it must become second nature to policymakers and the public if we are to vanquish, once and for all, the outdated, zero-sum-game characterization upon which rests the argument for protection and insularity. Trade policies predicated on antiquated assumptions—policies designed to serve primarily the aims of certain domestic producers whose interests are too often conflated with the national interest—should yield to policies that reduce frictions throughout supply chains— from product conception to consumption. Today, the factory floor crosses borders and spans oceans, from the idea mills in Silicon Valley to the components producers in Singapore to the assembly operations in Shenzhen to the distribution centers in St. Louis to the shoppers in suburbia. Under this arrangement, trade barriers are akin to malfunctioning equipment on the assembly line. They raise costs and reduce efficiency in a way that hurts everyone touched by the production and supply chains, including, most profoundly, people in the country imposing barriers. Despite these lessons, the global recession has caused some governments to indulge in retrograde policies and others to be tempted by them. Policymakers have implemented or flirted with ideas that presume the world is still characterized as “us” versus “them.” Their ideas would reintroduce barriers and discount the role that the integration of markets—that supply chains, foreign direct investment, and the collaborations across political boundaries and across skill sets—has played in drastically reducing poverty in poorer countries, creating growth, generating wealth, and boosting living standards across the globe. History reveals that our economic growth is a product of enlarging the pie, but policymakers are still tempted to carve it up. Policies that do not try to channel incentives for the benefit of specific groups but rather provide the greatest opportunities for citizens to participate most effectively in our increasingly integrated global economy are the ones that will maximize economic growth and national welfare. People in other countries should be thought of more as customers, suppliers, and potential collaborators instead of competitive threats. Policies that attract investment and human capital— rather than seek to advance the interests of import-competing industries exclusively—are more likely to enable collaboration with complementary work forces through integrated supply chains or foreign direct investment.

Comments are closed.