Weclome to the first of a double-post Tuesday night. I have been busy learning the intricacacies of curriculum revision at McGill and it turns out that well, it’s complex. Kind of reminds me of scientology, like if I get far enough into it, someone’s going to take me aside and tell me that aliens actually created the world. Or maybe just a giant spaghetti monster from space. Anyway, I’m knee-deep in graduate directordom, having showed my poor colleagues with a rain of documents for tomorrow’s all day meeting on curriculum (AM is the grad portion) and having co-run an orientation today. I feel like I’ve been doing this forever. It’s been about a month.
—
I read with interest an op-ed this morning on a bill to revise Canadian bankruptcy laws. The story is familiar to Americans — the goal is to make it harder for the average consumer to take the less damaging road when debt overwhelms them and they need to declare some kind of bankruptcy. The law is similarly noxious to the American one, with one important exception, an exception wrung from the liberals by the NDP when they negotiated a deal to keep the Liberal government from falling: businesses that go bankrupt will still protect workers’ owed pay and pensions. It’s a small thing, really, but one of those differences where I’m interested enough to wonder about the multiparty system. Is it a case where a left party got a progressive concession that humanizes the bill, or is it a case where the difference makes no difference, and the bill is still essentially as inhumane as the U.S. version?
—
A new publication arrived in the mail today:
“Digital Media and Disciplinarity,” The Information Society 21:4 (2005), pp. 249-256, wherein I argue that there is no point to turning digital media studies into a discipline, but that the field does raise some interesting questions toward the construction of a new set of objects and problematics (which is not to say that it’s there yet). Yes, this is a “state of the field” essay in a “state of the field” journal issue.