Thanks for taking the time to teach me something I did not know.

I always thought Krugman was a sometimes useful, but overall rather weaselly sort of Democratic Establishment apparatchik. Talking about cult figure, what hypocrisy. He's responding to the threat against his own popularity which is tied at the hip to the Clintons, and has been since the 90s when he was expected to get a post in the Administration biut was deemed more valuable as pundit. Krugman's biggest fans tend to be naif Econ 101 types with the most shallow and often mainly ideological understanding of issues.

He's only recognized by serious economists for his pundit status. And he's only on the NYT for his party loyalty and predictability, which is their definition of "balance" i.e. hacks from all sides. The real joke on Krugman is that Frank Rich, the politcal and culture commentator, and former theater critic, actually has a better predictive utility on economics.

He was good 2000 when he attacked Bush's early moves to inflate the housing bubble, which he ran away from with his tail between his legs when Democratic backers in construction started telling Dems to shut up about the housing bubble.

I was also pretty disgusted with his support of Clinton's NAFTA, deregulation, and his $45K "consulting" pay from ENRON boosterism during the 90s, and his overall tendency to pawn onto Democrats whatever laissez-faire-voodoo the DLC lifts straight from Corporate Republicans.

The conclusion I came to years ago is he's a liberal economist second, Clinton adviser and party apparatchik first. Liberal when criticizing a Republican, Laissez Faire when backing a DLC type "well intentioned" trickle down policy, and never really Progressive.

Which btw, also applies (to a lesser extent) to Brad de Long, another Clinton economic adviser who was seduced onto the Clinton bandwagon and Chicago school. Though de Long has been somewhat more repentant for NAFTA and deregulation.

Still, there were better economists who got it right, and their criticism of NAFTA and deregulation were ridiculed by establishment suck ups like de Long and Krugman.

kozmik...you should repost that as it's own blog.

"What ritual practice achieves is not, as some would have, a blind submission to authority or adherence to rigid and inflexible dogma. Rather, it is a collaborative process in which the community re-affirms the cultural values and ideals that they hold and the foundational narratives which help them to understand who they are as people. ... And perhaps most crucially, it is a process in which even apparently passive observers are crucial participants."

To say that these are people just engaging in the political process is to deny the apathy that has affected the voting citizenry since pre-Bush years while also negating the deep sense of 'active citizen potential' that Obama seems to be inspiring.

While I have no problem with a healthy dose of cycncism, I think the times call for a collective voice and vision that begins to drive this country down a different path.

Also, wouldn't it be nice for the majority of voters (especially NEW voters and formerpassive observers') to vote without holding their collective noses??

misinformation,

I intend to in no way to deny the apathy that has afflicted voters, particularly younger voters, for a very long time.

To me Obama's greatest recommendation is his ability to energize and attract into the process the youngest voting generation. It is a phenomenon which brings to my mind 1968 and Eugene McCarthy.

I am an Obama supporter as I think to affect change in our national policies there must be a president who will tell us (the citizenry) what we need to here and who has the ability to mobilize the citizenry against the traditional power structure. I think Obama has that ability and the desire to do so.

Though I find Mr. Headman's analysis interesting, I think he's thinking way to far into the matter.

I like this article, but I will never be able to stomach the word "meme." Sorry.

Thanks, Headman. This badly needed to be said. A lot of people on the left have a very impoverished concept of collective life, divided between irrational "revealed religion" on the one hand and a strictly instrumental and pragmatic politics on the other. To them I can only say: "Dudes! Read some Emile Durkheim."

But I'm a literary historian, not a student of the philosophy of religion, and my grasp of the secondary literature is not what it could be. Could you give me a couple of names, more recent than Durkheim, who support this conception of "cultus," and of "ritualization" as a mode of collective thought? Hope this inquiry isn't too academic, but it would be helpful for something I'm working on.

To go back to politics: you should write an editorial, for the Chronicle of Higher Ed, or the Boston Globe or something. This is a moment when philosophy of religion really does have something vital to contribute to political discourse.

Not sure if I could get the Globe to print my editorial :)

Anyway, if you want to know more, I recommend Jonathan Z. Smith "Map is not Territory", Catherine Bell "Ritual Practice", and Paul Ricoeur (everything he's ever written, he's a genius).

People are fawning all over Sen. Barack Obama, especially since Super Tuesday. But do people really know his record in the US Senate and shouldn't people know it before voting for him? After all, you wouldn't buy a car without researching it first. Here are
some facts about Sen. Obama's voting record, pursuant to www.senate.gov: He voted for an additional $36Million for Guantanamo Bay (SenRollCate 93 in 2005); He voted to move interstate, class action lawsuits from state to federal courts, thus making it harder for consumers to sue [SenRollCall 9 in 2005). He failed to vote at all on S.Amdt 3164 in 2007 to safely redeploy troops from Iraq. One final note. He did not even vote to bring Bin Laden to justice (SAmdt2135 in 2007).
Enough said.

Well this is off topic from the article but I felt that rgl1973 , needs to prove what he is presenting as fact.

Are you saying that Senator Obama voted Yes in regards to 2005 Senate Roll Call Vote for the 1st session of the 109th Congress Samdt367 to HR 1268?

I looked and unless the Government computers are not telling me what the record is then is has him listed as a Nay.
(http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00093)

As to your second voter roll call SenRollCall 9 in 2005, here is what I found, and I am no lawyer, (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00005:@@@D&summ2=m&), and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt after your first view of the voting record was wrong to please explain what exactly this law does? How do you come to the conclusion that, "He voted to move interstate, class action lawsuits from state to federal courts, thus making it harder for consumers to sue." The reason I ask besides the reason I sated above is because no where in the Summary is the word Consumer, only the reference to Class action and jurisdiction. Of course there is also the part that states, "Prohibits a Federal district court from approving: (1) a proposed coupon settlement absent a finding that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) a proposed settlement involving payments to class counsel that would result in a net monetary loss to class members, absent a finding that the loss is substantially outweighed by nonmonetary benefits; or (3) a proposed settlement that provides greater sums to some class members solely because they are closer geographically to the court."
As I states I am no lawyer but it would appear that what this is prohibiting is Trial or Class Action Lawyers from taking the spoils of their fees if the Client monetarily losses money. So I come to the conclusion that this is the Class Action Fairness act but by all means tell me where I am missing the boat! No I have read that the Grist did not like this bill because as they steted it is harder to move things forward in a federal court and also the judges who serve are appointed thus making ruling possibly in favor of the current administration, so obviously there were critics. Of course Kennedy, Dodd, Obama, and feinstein voted yea with Biden, Kerry, Clinton, Durbin, and Boxer voting nay. Again maybe you can flesh out the realities of this bill.

I look forward to your post.

Thanks, David H / numinous Nimon. That helps a lot! Also, I think, answers Emma's question.

Cultus by contrast, is a term used in the study of religion to denote those ritual practices in which a community comes together to establish a collective picture of the world, themselves, and their place in it.

it is a collaborative process in which the community re-affirms the cultural values and ideals that they hold and the foundational narratives which help them to understand who they are as people.

This administration has cast us adrift from whom we view our country and ourselves as. We not only desire but also need grounding and a sense again of place because our attributes and values were stolen from us by this administration!

Our illusions and the myths of America have been shattered leaving only the void and fear of the unknown. At this point we do not know who we are, where we are going and why this happened.

Clinton is associated and intertwined with Bush and the past. We know the answers for the new consensus reality for America is not to be found there.

We look to Obama to integrate the story of our present place with the past to form a consensus to move into the future. Clinton cannot do this because of the past intruding into the present and future vision.

If Obama is not the Icon for the future or if he fails to bring the country together and reestablish a vision for the future the results may be like the French Revolution of the past.

The participants who caused our tragedy, or worse the scapegoats pointed out by the real participants will be attacked by society and all manor of retribution aimed at them.