A better Canadian analogy would be a ski-mask. We have every right to wear them but corner store operators would have every right, and good reason, to be alarmed should we choose to cover our faces with them inside. Now picture a gang of young men wearing ski masks and it is remotely possible you will develop some sympathy for the problem. Of course, you could go on spotting arguably silly hoodie incidents and continue to pretend otherwise.

Big Brother is watching you! Hoodies = Resistance (say with French accent)! Fight the power! Fight the powers that be!

"It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could igve you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself—anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face? was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: <i>facecrime</i>?"

Each of those question marks is meant to be an elipsis, btw.

It's a tough question. Therein lies, I think, the distinction between the conservative and the libertarian.

That said, some of Blair's new laws about disturbing the peace are just utterly ridiculous.

My solution? Let the population defend themselves again, with fists or with guns.

Oh God, I meant ellipsis. I feel as though Ben is watching me. I am cracking up.

/spamming Alan's comments

I know in my heart I am always wrong, Flea, so your work here is good. I think the real analogy, however, is scarves. You can tie them over your face when it is cold. Pure unmitigated evil.

Ben: I prefer cudgels and large frozen seafood objects.

Alan, it is not so much that you are wrong; it is that you do not know what you are talking about. By all means believe otherwise but please to let me know the next time you are planning a trip to England. I want dibs on the best parts of your CD collection.

"Always carry a firearm east of Aldgate, Watson."

Alan -- So that's what they look like... I'd always wondered.

But I must say that I'm a flail man, myself.

Flea, I can only point out that I do know what I am talking about and that the mark on the LLM thesis was A+.

And I know what I am talking about when I say that, in spite of the fact that the two of you went Orange in this last election, we see a conservative and a libertarian sensibility duking it out here...

(I haven't quite decided which side I'm on yet, though I do always lean towards liberty...)

I fear robots.

I too fear robots. Result!

See! It <i>is</i> a beautiful thing, this blogosphere. How else could the Flea and I meet and share our mutual fear of robots despite our disagreement on my mental state (upon which question he is at 100% where I am only 50/50).

Actually, I know this is ostensibly a left wing blog, but Alan seems like an old fashioned Tory to me. He doesn't really seem like a libertarian or a (new) conservative.

Re: the thesis, I'll assume this means Alan now believes in credentials and will govern myself accordingly.

Not really, I believe only in the substance of what I researched and wrote. Credentials, like professionalism or branding, are a mechanism for general authority, an oxymoron. In this case, my writing is specifically on point regardless of its role in the larger degree making process. You may read it and challenge it on its face as well. It is independent and open to contest.<p>On the labelling, I do not think of my self as leftist as much as others seem to. I am conservative in this context if that means I am not keen on wide use of camera arrays connected to biometric image understanding software for suspect ends. I do think that state use of my appearence is the equivalent of state use of my DNA when the technology now exists to make that equivalency. The state of our technology should not define the state of our freedom.

The substance of what you researched and wrote is most interesting. But the A+ asks us to defer to the authority of the person assigning the grade.

As for the conservative tag, I think authoritarian is a better description of my anti-hoodieism.

No, nay, never - I informed you of the grade in way of the sideshow barker. See the bearded lady, I say I say. Only then will you go into the tent to judge for yourself. Prove the grade a fraud, I say I say. What's done is done.<p>My pro-hoodieism is directly tied to my abiding faith in cozyism.

I'm with you when it comes to biometrics etc. I think at best, they're a nuisance, at worst, they're a menace. They'll probably also make us lazy when it comes to real threats, and overzealous when it comes to harassing old bozos in bars.

On the credentials front, I think you want to have your cake and eat it too. That is, you want to say you *know* (e.g., I know what I'm talking about because I wrote my Master's thesis on the topic, which implies not just writing, but supervision, and conferring of authority, and expertise). But you also want to say (when it's convenient) that there is no knowledge, only opinion (e.g., you claimed earlier that no one was more illogical than anyone else and that credentials don’t matter). Doesn't change the fact that it's a self defeating argument. If there is no knowledge, then no one need take your opinion about its lack of existence seriously. In any case, you didn't ask us to read your amateur scribblings on the subject. You asked us to believe that you knew what you were talking about because you'd received an A plus when you wrote on the subject in your Master's thesis. Personally, that sounds good to me. It's probably a good thesis. I may even read it because you received an A plus.

I am an Ivan Illich sort of professional so I am not impressed with credentials or any status based argument. Remember the comment that inspired the link to the thesis was not about whether I am wrong (something I embrace) but this:<blockquote class="smalltext">Alan, it is not so much that you are wrong; it is that you do not know what you are talking about.</blockquote>The point of posting the link was not to play a trump card. That is bad cedential waving. The point was only to say I do know what I am talking about, that I have an interest and that my opinion is as good as the next guy's. I am not saying I will always be right and you must obey. People who know me giggle at the mere suggestion.

Actually, I meant to suggest you did not fully appreciate the nature of the British hoodie menace (hence my dibs on your CD collection before you travel to England) and not that your thoughts on surveillance were uninformed.

Far be it from me to ever suggest I was actually paying attention to what was written but...I was actually just paying attention to what was written. Being a son of a son of Grrrrrrreenock and being trained in the way of the heedbutt, I fear no hoodie, Jimmy...err Master Flea.<p>The CD collection is, however, a naturally coveted thing as every man who loves the trilby needs a large measure of ska in his life.

Ska? In that case you should be all means treat hoodie kids as friendlies. I have no inheritance to fret about.

It's all about making new friends.

And yet, and yet, knowing what you are talking about *is* a claim to expertise (specialised knowledge), not a claim to an opinion which is 'as good as the next guy's."

Speaking of educational reformers, have you read "Teaching As A Subversive Activity?" It's a book that criticises various aspects of old fashioned schooling, including the top down elements. It's one of these 'form is content' thingies. So the *way* in which we learn is *part* of what we learn. According to the theory, if we learn passively, we will become passive citizens. The authors describe their method thusly:

"In contrast to a "production" approach to teaching, the inquiry method focuses on the process, rather than the product [form is content] . Thus, a good teacher is one who realizes the "answers" are not in the books, but within the learners themselves. Doing and experiencing are the key ingredients to real learning, and how and what we learn does not happen sequentially and especially does not happen for all learners in the same way at the same time."

Anyway, when I was a teenager I was a fan, but I've reformed. Actually, there were a lot of these books around especially after the 1960s, and their influence seems to have grown over the years. The main source of the criticism comes from the idea that authoritarianism is seen as the guiding principle behind rote learning and obedience at school (and/or that authoritarianism is/was the message that was received by students when they were subjected to expert opinion and old fashioned teaching methods). So things like fascism are seen as transmittable through everyday experiences of obedience to the teacher and through submission to authority.

As I said though, I think this approach to teaching and learning is wrong headed. In my view, it’s important to make a strong distinction between authority and authoritarianism. I think authoritarians actually fear knowledge, especially knowledge that is made available to ordinary people. A fairly rigorous education is, in this regard, an advantage and a protective influence against abuses of authority. Also, I have to say that I don't believe that ‘micro-fascism’ exists. What I mean by this is that I don’t think the sources of big things like fascism or authoritarianism lie in the every day, or that their essence can be found in minor processes that occur at school (such as seating arrangements and who gets to talk and how much and who has expertise), even if the every day involves some bossiness. I don't think that memorising a bunch of verbs in order to pass a test is the same order of obedience as obeying a tyrant even if I have to memorise verbs repeatedly. So for me it's not a natural step from 1) an old fashioned process of conferring expertise to 2) a society that is governed by tyrannical institutions. In any case, I think micro-processes (such as how we learn at school) have been over-emphasised especially in the last few decades. I think we need to take a different tack and look at macro-processes and *gasp* look at gross abuses of authority that have actually occurred in recent years rather than trying to root out the authoritarian essence in what are comparatively innocuous and mundane everyday events or methods.

I know, I'm a dullard. And I talk too much.

I rejected your first line before you wrote it as it is untenable and untrue. It is possible to know something and leave it open to criticism.

I didn't make up the connection between knowing what you are talking about and expertise, it's just what it happens to mean.

I disagree entirely. No one knows anything in that ultimate sense. Even if they do know it as much as you can, I still do not think that creates something that is a status or a title like "expert" or "authority".

I never said that knowing was absolute, by the way. You are the one advancing that position. Most of what we say is knowledge is just the relatively best guess, which is subject to criticism, of course. In fact, part of what makes something knowledge is that it is subject to criticism. This does not mean that nobody has any knowledge. It just means that some guesses are better than others. Does anyone here go to a mechanic to solve their law problems? No, we go to a lawyer because he or she knows. That does not mean that he or she is infallible. Does anyone go to a mechanic to get bypass surgery? No. That's because doctor's have specialised knowledge. There is no shame in it. It's what we all do.

Doctors.

You would go to a mechanic if the law question was about cars as lawyers are dependant on others for the factual explanation that the law requires for every case. That is why it is different from medicine in one sense, though to fix the patient much context has to be gleened.<p>Foythermoah, your characterization of lawyers, mschanics and doctors fails to consider what Stephen Haper fails to consider when he says we can trust his vision because he is an economist. There are crappy lawyers and crappy economists. Having the status in itself does not in any way assure outcome.<p>I am Wesleyan in this respect. When anyone calls themselves or another a guru or even leader, I am suspect. When anyone says you can trust my words because of credentials I am also suspect. The words have to stand on their own. And there is usually a counter arguement that is at least as valid or certainly requiring fair analysis and likely adoption in part. Expertise is usually a road to blind faith and ruin.

You are indeed suspect.

When you go to a mechanic, you're not asking him about the law, you're asking him about cars. Even if it's about cars and the law, it's still mainly about cars because that's a mechanic's area of expertise. So there are limits, areas of overlap, or even dependence between knowledge about the law and knowledge about cars. To take another example, doctors can be sued for malpractice and so there is a hybrid law/medicine area of expertise as well. That doesn't take away from the fact that we go to a doctor for a bypass and a mechanic for an oil change and try not to mix the two up. I'm not saying that there aren't bad lawyers or mechanics either. But I'd rather a bad lawyer than, say, a bartender on an issue having to do with torts. At least the lawyer may have some idea where to look for answers. That's not to say that a bartender would definitely not know. It's just that it's more probable that a lawyer would know.

On the issue of whether expertise makes one a leader, you're right that specialised knowledge doesn't automatically confer other qualities. For instance, Stephen Harper may be a fine economist, but there are limits to specialised knowledge. That's why it's specialised. Being a good economist, i.e., someone who knows how the economy works doesn't necessarily make one a good leader overall. Harper does not have a degree in societal goal setting. Let's say Harper's main goal was to create a nation of slaves. Many people would say that enslaving the populace would be the sign of a bad leader. And yet, there is nothing in his area of expertise that would explicitly prohibit that. If he wanted to illegalise various sex acts, this would also not be prohibited by his expert knowledge. The issue of whether this is good or bad for society is separate from his area of expertise. We can argue as well about whether moral expertise even exists. Some say: yes. Others say: no. This doesn't take away from other types of expertise, like medicine, or the law, or from expertise in general.

I agree that gurus are flaky. In fact, saying that there are gurus and other flakes is distinguishing between those who know what they are talking about and those who don't. Frankly, a lot of the gurus I know are selling relativism of one kind or another. It flatters the ego to be told that no one is better and that credentials don't matter. So a lot of people believe it. But it's still a bogus line of thought and it's something that most people contradict every day that they visit mechanics, or lawyers, or doctors (and not only visit, but pay money to visit). Anyway, the claim of relativism is always made with the proviso that the relativist is exempt. "No one is more knowledgeable than anyone else... except for me" sayeth the relativist "I actually know something. At the very least, I know that relativism is true."

Your argument appears to be what I have written is a bogus line of thought as it is a bogus line of thought. You have not defined "specialised knowledge" and relies on the new undefined bogeyman of "relativism". You wallow in anecdote despite my specific provision of opportunities to dissuade you from such thought. How pop.

You are letting me off too easy, BTW.

Yes, I know.

I am keenly aware as well that it is now the weekend in Hungary.

I should go out and buy some eggs.

I am glad to have been able to trigger an event, however small, in the Hungarian economy.