the role of critique

I've been thinking a lot about the House of Representatives' resolution on troop build-up. Excuse me, their *non-binding* resolution. Part of me finds the resolution to be a waste of time. It's toothless. It doesn't affect public policy. All critique, no action. How many more tax dollars did this resolution cost us? Why spend all the time and money and resources on a resolution that's "symbolic," as all the press coverage keeps reminding us.

Nicole reminds me that the resolution represents a moment to debate (finally) the on-going Iraq quagmire. Bush and his cronies so effectively silenced debate (a staff member called me un-American for organizing a panel discussion on the war in 2003 at my former institution) that this kind of open dialectic is long overdue. But is it open dialectic? The democratic leadership stifled GOPs who wanted to offer alternative plans, after all. So it's hard to see this as an open debate. Seems more like a "we're in charge now, ha ha!...and we're going to get even by engaging in non-binding resolutions."

And I'm also thinking of Jeff's posts about critique. My graduate program emphasized rhetorical analysis as the core of writing instruction. Analysis, as an alternative to "take a position" strategies of argumentation. Analysis, as a way to develop a critical perspective in response to texts and other artifacts. But, similarly, that version of engaging with issues often seemed toothless. Seemed like a deliberate eschewing of *production* of texts. First-year comp students as ("critical") consumers. And now, the legislature in a similar position: being critical, but not really doing or making anything.

Just thinking out loud.