take a bow, chorography. you're a new woman.

the year was 1559; the place, england; the man, w. cuningham. a bold innovator, it was old w. (winston? winthrop? weathervane?) who has the honor of introducing the word chorography into the english language. quoth he, according to the oed, "Cosmogr. Glasse 7 Chorographie shewith the partes of th' earth diuided in themselues." since we've already done with the wacky inconsistency of renaissance english spelling, why not also discard with the narrow paradigms that predicted the obsolescence of so many methodologies? it's the perspective, and not the scope, of chorography that interests us; and given that so much ire is dumped on the tunnel vision required by specialization, it's the perspective that should provided the most satisfaction.

on that note, i'd like to propose, as one theme of discussion, the international standing of the united states. by that i mean more than the standard post-cold war narrative so tiresomely trotted out in international relations textbooks: the actual weight of the united states, relative to other world powers and minor actors, measured in actual and potential economic influence, diplomatic standing and military power. the analysis can be static (an immediate appraisal) or dynamic (adding a time variable for the historical view). the failure of the american financial system has brought economics to the fore--a blessing for so many friedmanites and keynesians--and has made relevant again the question of whether or not the united states is, in fact, the world's leading power. should we succumb to the moment and proclaim the death of american hegemony? what does the crucial role played by chinese capital in plugging up the largest investment banks in the u.s. mean? i'll have a post up with my thoughts soon enough. in the meantime, i invite anybody who is interested to either declare the future unquestionably bright or else to dance gleefull on america's grave.