At lunch with Dirk today, I mentioned a minor dilemma I’m facing.
Dan’s thoroughly excellent bloggers pannel is organized, in part, by the New Political Science section, a section whose aims are squarely at odds with my personal conception of what the scientific study of politics is all about, but that’s neither here nor there.* This is all hunky-dory and wonderful—except, allocation of panels at APSA is a zero-sum game, and the sums are determined by panel attendance. Showing up at a NPS panel, rather than the competing methods panel, will help NPS get more panels at APSA in 2005, probably at the expense of political methodology (who have already been marginalized down to 7 panels—total).
So, my attendance will be under protest, with absolutely no slight intended to the wonderful panelists, audience members, or Dan’s work coordinating the panel.
Also, I’m taking wagers on which panelist will first mention anal sex. The smart money would be on Ana Marie Cox, but there are others who might be called on to speak first and who might be tempted to raise the issue for discussion.
* Incidentally, I would also find objectionable any organization whose hypothetical goal was the use (and abuse) of political science (and, perhaps more importantly, my APSA dues) to advance conservative, libertarian, or any other political causes, beyond the narrow remit of the APSA to defend academic freedom and provide an open forum for the exchange of ideas and research.