Shots In The Dark
Monday, April 30, 2007
Red Sox Fans, Rejoice
Your team thumped the Yankees again this weekend, taking two of three and continuing to look awesome.
The Yankees have used at least five pitchers in ten straight games, which appears to be a record of pitching ineptitude unequaled in the history of baseball. What the team wouldn't do for John Wetteland now....or, for that matter, Roger Clemens?
There is even talk that George Steinbrenner will fire Joe Torre, which is bizarre on so many levels, not the least of which is that Steinbrenner's brain is supposedly turning into mashed potatoes, so how does he even know what's going on?
More seriously, how could you even think about firing a manager for the Yankees' current dilemma? Torre has had three hurt starters—Mike Mussina, Chien Ming-Wang, and Carl "Even My Girlfriend Thinks I'm a Wimp" Pavano. His ace reliever has an ERA around 10, and his set-up guys aren't doing much better. HIs hitters are also flailing. Bobby Abreu can't buy a hit, Hideki Matsui is ice-cold, Robinson Cano isn't hitting well, Johnny Damon is at .240-something, and even A-Rod has dropped off a bit.
So, let's see: no pitching, not much hitting. Definitely must be the manager's fault.
As for the Sox, they look very impressive...if their pitching can sustain its current level, and they can stay healthy, they're going to be tough to beat.
The Yankees have used at least five pitchers in ten straight games, which appears to be a record of pitching ineptitude unequaled in the history of baseball. What the team wouldn't do for John Wetteland now....or, for that matter, Roger Clemens?
There is even talk that George Steinbrenner will fire Joe Torre, which is bizarre on so many levels, not the least of which is that Steinbrenner's brain is supposedly turning into mashed potatoes, so how does he even know what's going on?
More seriously, how could you even think about firing a manager for the Yankees' current dilemma? Torre has had three hurt starters—Mike Mussina, Chien Ming-Wang, and Carl "Even My Girlfriend Thinks I'm a Wimp" Pavano. His ace reliever has an ERA around 10, and his set-up guys aren't doing much better. HIs hitters are also flailing. Bobby Abreu can't buy a hit, Hideki Matsui is ice-cold, Robinson Cano isn't hitting well, Johnny Damon is at .240-something, and even A-Rod has dropped off a bit.
So, let's see: no pitching, not much hitting. Definitely must be the manager's fault.
As for the Sox, they look very impressive...if their pitching can sustain its current level, and they can stay healthy, they're going to be tough to beat.
Yale on the Move
In the Times, Peter Applebome writes about Yale president Rick Levin's push to add two residential colleges to the undergraduate population. Levin frames the idea as partly intended to relieve the pressure of the application process.
...after Yale expanded to its current size in the 1960s, there were roughly 4,000 to 5,000 applicants a year for 1,300 positions in the freshman class. The size of the freshman class has remained about the same, but now there are some 20,000 applicants, including a growing number of international ones, plus all the other desired niches of minority students, athletes, children of alums and the rest.
Dr. Levin says there’s something perverse about the current system, where “prestige and reputation tend to depend on how many students you reject.”
This is true, of course, and good of Levin to say so. But a couple caveats: Yale had some opportunity to calm the application waters a bit by terminating its early admissions program, but has so far declined.
Moreover, isn't there a sense in which saying that more admissions will ease admission pressures is like Robert Moses saying that we need more highways to ease traffic? If you build it, they will come.
Nonetheless, what with this article and the implosion of MIT admissions chief Marilee Jones, I sense we're on the verge of a backlash against admissions insanity. This might be one backlash that Harvard wants to get in front of.....
________________________________________________________________
P.S. Incidentally, I recently met a current student at the Yale School of Organization and Management. We agreed that New Haven was becoming a very pleasant place in which to live....
...after Yale expanded to its current size in the 1960s, there were roughly 4,000 to 5,000 applicants a year for 1,300 positions in the freshman class. The size of the freshman class has remained about the same, but now there are some 20,000 applicants, including a growing number of international ones, plus all the other desired niches of minority students, athletes, children of alums and the rest.
“Expansion could help relieve those pressures and create more opportunities for students who are just ordinary, extremely brilliant and talented students who don’t have any of those other connections,” Dr. Levin said. “We have astonishing educational resources here. If we can educate more students and give them exposure to the opportunities here, I think we can make an even more substantial contribution to the nation and the world.”
Applebome points out that Princeton too is enlarging the size of its undergraduate population, and the Yale Daily News has a nice piece about enlarging campuses at Yale*, Columbia, Princeton and Harvard. Surely increasing the size of the undergraduate population is being considered at Harvard, but is there any public debate about the idea? Not that I know of.Dr. Levin says there’s something perverse about the current system, where “prestige and reputation tend to depend on how many students you reject.”
This is true, of course, and good of Levin to say so. But a couple caveats: Yale had some opportunity to calm the application waters a bit by terminating its early admissions program, but has so far declined.
Moreover, isn't there a sense in which saying that more admissions will ease admission pressures is like Robert Moses saying that we need more highways to ease traffic? If you build it, they will come.
Nonetheless, what with this article and the implosion of MIT admissions chief Marilee Jones, I sense we're on the verge of a backlash against admissions insanity. This might be one backlash that Harvard wants to get in front of.....
________________________________________________________________
P.S. Incidentally, I recently met a current student at the Yale School of Organization and Management. We agreed that New Haven was becoming a very pleasant place in which to live....
Crimson Blues
Four Harvard students were arrested for disrupting a speech by FBI director Robert Muller. Some of them wanted justice for former Black Panther Herman Bell. One of them was upset about history, shouting, "We will never forget the role of the FBI in McCarthyism!" Another wanted to "stop the unconstitutional repression of the environment."
Two of them were Harvard Crimson editors.
This is, of course, unprofessional and inappropriate behavior for a newspaper editor, who is supposed to be covering the news, not engaging in protest, and promoting free speech, not threatening it.
Nor is it the first time in recent memory that Crimson editors have behaved in ways that cast doubt on the paper's objectivity. A couple years ago, several Crimson editors threw a party to cheer up Larry Summers after his ouster. Given the high feelings at the time, and widespread concern that the Crimson was pro-Summers, it was exactly the wrong thing to do.
I wrote about that at the time and received a deluge of mail from Crimson folks explaining to me that the term "Crimson editor" doesn't actually mean that they are a Crimson editor, it's a blanket term referring to anyone who was at some point a Crimson editor. As in "Crimson editor David Halberstam...."
There are only two reasons I can think of for this bizarre usage. One is for the Crimson to associate itself with successful alumni. The second is to create bonds between current and former Crimson people, so that the alums will hire the current students.
But the policy does more damage to the paper than good. Two Crimson editors impinging on the free speech of a Kennedy School speaker? That makes the paper look awful.
There's a simple solution: the word "former." As in, "...former Crimson editor David Halberstam..." (Which, to be fair, the Crimson does seem to use.)
Of course, I don't actually know if the two students arrested the other night are former editors. But if they aren't, they should be.
Perhaps the ombudsman should weigh in?
Two of them were Harvard Crimson editors.
This is, of course, unprofessional and inappropriate behavior for a newspaper editor, who is supposed to be covering the news, not engaging in protest, and promoting free speech, not threatening it.
Nor is it the first time in recent memory that Crimson editors have behaved in ways that cast doubt on the paper's objectivity. A couple years ago, several Crimson editors threw a party to cheer up Larry Summers after his ouster. Given the high feelings at the time, and widespread concern that the Crimson was pro-Summers, it was exactly the wrong thing to do.
I wrote about that at the time and received a deluge of mail from Crimson folks explaining to me that the term "Crimson editor" doesn't actually mean that they are a Crimson editor, it's a blanket term referring to anyone who was at some point a Crimson editor. As in "Crimson editor David Halberstam...."
There are only two reasons I can think of for this bizarre usage. One is for the Crimson to associate itself with successful alumni. The second is to create bonds between current and former Crimson people, so that the alums will hire the current students.
But the policy does more damage to the paper than good. Two Crimson editors impinging on the free speech of a Kennedy School speaker? That makes the paper look awful.
There's a simple solution: the word "former." As in, "...former Crimson editor David Halberstam..." (Which, to be fair, the Crimson does seem to use.)
Of course, I don't actually know if the two students arrested the other night are former editors. But if they aren't, they should be.
Perhaps the ombudsman should weigh in?
Blog-nost at Harvard?
Kennedy School economist Dani Rodrik has a new blog!
And pretty high-level thinkin' it is, too. All those who say that Harvard professors would have to dumb themselves down to write a blog—an argument I've never understood, since a blog is essentially a big, blank sheet of paper—should take a look.
So far, the economists at Harvard are leading the way into the blogosphere. Rodrik is already engaging in a pretty good debate with Greg Mankiw. "Now, neither of Greg's arguments is exactly right..."
Which Harvard humanist will be first to blog? Hurry, folks, or you will confirm Larry Summers' suspicions about the superiority of his profession as compared to the humanities....
Professor Rodrik, just one suggestion: How about a name for your blog?
And pretty high-level thinkin' it is, too. All those who say that Harvard professors would have to dumb themselves down to write a blog—an argument I've never understood, since a blog is essentially a big, blank sheet of paper—should take a look.
So far, the economists at Harvard are leading the way into the blogosphere. Rodrik is already engaging in a pretty good debate with Greg Mankiw. "Now, neither of Greg's arguments is exactly right..."
Which Harvard humanist will be first to blog? Hurry, folks, or you will confirm Larry Summers' suspicions about the superiority of his profession as compared to the humanities....
Professor Rodrik, just one suggestion: How about a name for your blog?
Friday, April 27, 2007
The Case of the Bloody (sic) Sock
The Times reports on the controversy that is sweeping the baseball world: Whether Curt Schilling painted his sock red to make it look like he was bleeding while pitching against the Yankees in the 2004 championship series.
Doug Mirabelli now says he was being sarcastic when he said the "blood" was actually paint.
Johnny Damon, another 2004 teammate of Schilling’s, said, “As far as I know, it’s authentic.” Then, he smiled.
I do like that Johnny Damon.....
Looks to me like the blood is real. But then, I've always thought that, while Schilling deserved much credit for pitching a great game under tough circumstances, the business about the blood was over-hyped. So you bleed a little? Who cares? I once got kicked in the face playing soccer against, um, Harvard. I got a nosebleed but kept playing; my white shirt looked like a Jackson Pollock in red. It looked macho, but it wasn't really reflective of pain.
Now, football players whose uniforms get stained with blood—that's toughness.....
The Schilling sock:
Actually kind of nasty.
Doug Mirabelli now says he was being sarcastic when he said the "blood" was actually paint.
Johnny Damon, another 2004 teammate of Schilling’s, said, “As far as I know, it’s authentic.” Then, he smiled.
I do like that Johnny Damon.....
Looks to me like the blood is real. But then, I've always thought that, while Schilling deserved much credit for pitching a great game under tough circumstances, the business about the blood was over-hyped. So you bleed a little? Who cares? I once got kicked in the face playing soccer against, um, Harvard. I got a nosebleed but kept playing; my white shirt looked like a Jackson Pollock in red. It looked macho, but it wasn't really reflective of pain.
Now, football players whose uniforms get stained with blood—that's toughness.....
The Schilling sock:
Actually kind of nasty.
The H-Bombed
After publishing two issues in three years, Harvard's sex magazine has come and gone.....
Is this conclusive proof that sex at Harvard is infrequent and does not last long?
Is this conclusive proof that sex at Harvard is infrequent and does not last long?
George Tenet Writes a Book
Don't you just love it when the bad guys start turning on each other?
The Times reports on a forthcoming book by former CIA director George Tenet:
“There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat,” Mr. Tenet writes in a devastating judgment that is likely to be debated for many years. Nor, he adds, “was there ever a significant discussion” about the possibility of containing Iraq without an invasion.
The evidence that George W. Bush is the worst president in American history continues to build....
The Times reports on a forthcoming book by former CIA director George Tenet:
“There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat,” Mr. Tenet writes in a devastating judgment that is likely to be debated for many years. Nor, he adds, “was there ever a significant discussion” about the possibility of containing Iraq without an invasion.
The evidence that George W. Bush is the worst president in American history continues to build....
The Devil in Ms. Jones
The big story in higher ed today is, of course, the resignation of MIT dean of admissions Marilee Jones, who apparently did not go to the colleges that, for 28 years, she said she did.
(A shout-out to the Crimson: You guys had a piece about the resignation posted hours before the MIT Tech.)
Jones' lies have obviously given her some psychological issues, and it's interesting to consider how her own lack of degrees have caused her to argue that we need to ease the vicious competition in college admissions.
As Zach Seward writes in the Crimson, in her book "Less Stress, More Success," Jones...
....warned students against “making up information to present yourself as something you are not.” She wrote, “You must always be completely honest about who you are.”
I know I should be outraged at Ms. Jones' deceit—and MIT certainly had no choice but to fire her—but I find myself feeling bad for her.
For one thing, her apology is pretty straight-up.
“I misrepresented my academic degrees when I first applied to M.I.T. 28 years ago and did not have the courage to correct my résumé when I applied for my current job or at any time since.... I am deeply sorry for this and for disappointing so many in the M.I.T. community and beyond who supported me, believed in me, and who have given me extraordinary opportunities.”
I can think of various Harvard evildoers—plagiarists, Russian rip-off-ers, manure-stealers, and so on—whose mea culpas were considerably less forthright than that.
Second, Ms. Jones was right about the insanity of college admissions, and this is not, frankly, the note one hears from Harvard, which uses students' mad desire to get into Harvard as a way to promote the brand.
Releasing the number of people who apply every year, for example, seems designed to show the world what a desirable place Harvard is....and attract ever greater numbers of moths to the flame.
Third, Ms. Jones did help increase the number of women at MIT from 17% of the student body to about half. That's a substantial achievement.
Fourth, Ms. Jones showed that, in fact, you don't always need a college degree to be a skilled, gifted, and hard-working person. As a result, she showed our society's obsession with the appearance of qualifications, rather than the reality of them.
Of course, you can't have a dean of admissions faking her resume. But doesn't the fact that she faked her curriculars and was still successful suggest the inherent absurdity of the whole college admissions game?
(A shout-out to the Crimson: You guys had a piece about the resignation posted hours before the MIT Tech.)
Jones' lies have obviously given her some psychological issues, and it's interesting to consider how her own lack of degrees have caused her to argue that we need to ease the vicious competition in college admissions.
As Zach Seward writes in the Crimson, in her book "Less Stress, More Success," Jones...
....warned students against “making up information to present yourself as something you are not.” She wrote, “You must always be completely honest about who you are.”
I know I should be outraged at Ms. Jones' deceit—and MIT certainly had no choice but to fire her—but I find myself feeling bad for her.
For one thing, her apology is pretty straight-up.
“I misrepresented my academic degrees when I first applied to M.I.T. 28 years ago and did not have the courage to correct my résumé when I applied for my current job or at any time since.... I am deeply sorry for this and for disappointing so many in the M.I.T. community and beyond who supported me, believed in me, and who have given me extraordinary opportunities.”
I can think of various Harvard evildoers—plagiarists, Russian rip-off-ers, manure-stealers, and so on—whose mea culpas were considerably less forthright than that.
Second, Ms. Jones was right about the insanity of college admissions, and this is not, frankly, the note one hears from Harvard, which uses students' mad desire to get into Harvard as a way to promote the brand.
Releasing the number of people who apply every year, for example, seems designed to show the world what a desirable place Harvard is....and attract ever greater numbers of moths to the flame.
Third, Ms. Jones did help increase the number of women at MIT from 17% of the student body to about half. That's a substantial achievement.
Fourth, Ms. Jones showed that, in fact, you don't always need a college degree to be a skilled, gifted, and hard-working person. As a result, she showed our society's obsession with the appearance of qualifications, rather than the reality of them.
Of course, you can't have a dean of admissions faking her resume. But doesn't the fact that she faked her curriculars and was still successful suggest the inherent absurdity of the whole college admissions game?
Drew Faust in the FT
In the Financial Times, Rebecca Knight has a piece about the challenges lying ahead for Drew Faust.
Some interesting quotes:
Thomas Cech gives his first interview about Harvard (that I know of) since the presidential search:
He says Harvard has not paid sufficient attention to undergraduate education. "Just like deferred maintenance on your buildings, you can live with it for a long time," he says. "When you are really that great, and have a great reputation, you don't pay much of a price for certain things – like undergraduate education – going downhill."
Former Princeton president William Bowen praises Faust:
"Her challenge will be to get people to work together, to think – and act – across traditional disciplinary lines," says Mr Bowen, a senior research associate at the Andrew Mellon Foundation, where Ms Faust is a trustee. "The power of persuasion is very important. She will need to encourage [the faculty], and to inspire. She will be good at that. She has a good sense of interpersonal relations."
Mr. Bowen, as I reported in 02138, did not support the choice of Drew Faust as president.
Also, some blogger pops off.
"Harvard needs to start a capital campaign because: one, it's overdue, and two, Allston is expensive," says Richard Bradley, author of Harvard Rules: The Struggle for the Soul of the World's Most Powerful University. Mr Bradley says that because Ms Faust is "not a celebrity academic, not a larger-than-life personality, or Harvard alumna", her appeal to donors is uncertain."
That's true, I did say that. Please note that I did not say she will not be good at it; my quote is purely a "remains to be seen" kind of thing.
Some interesting quotes:
Thomas Cech gives his first interview about Harvard (that I know of) since the presidential search:
He says Harvard has not paid sufficient attention to undergraduate education. "Just like deferred maintenance on your buildings, you can live with it for a long time," he says. "When you are really that great, and have a great reputation, you don't pay much of a price for certain things – like undergraduate education – going downhill."
Former Princeton president William Bowen praises Faust:
"Her challenge will be to get people to work together, to think – and act – across traditional disciplinary lines," says Mr Bowen, a senior research associate at the Andrew Mellon Foundation, where Ms Faust is a trustee. "The power of persuasion is very important. She will need to encourage [the faculty], and to inspire. She will be good at that. She has a good sense of interpersonal relations."
Mr. Bowen, as I reported in 02138, did not support the choice of Drew Faust as president.
Also, some blogger pops off.
"Harvard needs to start a capital campaign because: one, it's overdue, and two, Allston is expensive," says Richard Bradley, author of Harvard Rules: The Struggle for the Soul of the World's Most Powerful University. Mr Bradley says that because Ms Faust is "not a celebrity academic, not a larger-than-life personality, or Harvard alumna", her appeal to donors is uncertain."
That's true, I did say that. Please note that I did not say she will not be good at it; my quote is purely a "remains to be seen" kind of thing.
The Public's Not Really That Split
How's this for a misleading headline?
Today the Times runs a story about a poll on global warming.
Americans in large bipartisan numbers say the heating of the earth’s atmosphere is having serious effects on the environment now or will soon and think that it is necessary to take immediate steps to reduce its effects, the latest New York Times/CBS News poll finds.
If you polled the question, Is the sky blue?, you might not get such a level of consensus.
So what is the Times' headline?
Public Remains Split on Response to Warming
This is absurd. If you read the entire story, what you see is evidence of a landmark shift: the ascension of environmentalism to the forefront of the public consciousness.
I've been writing about the environment for years, and in my experience, politicians—even well-meaning ones—have all had the same mantra: "We want to do good things for the environment, but the public just doesn't care; when you ask people what issues are important to them at election time, the environment is always way down the list."
And for many years that was true.
This poll is evidence that, at last, there is a broad public consensus that the nation must act as a steward of the world's environment. Of course, people will always be split on how best to act. That's as it should be.
But this near-unanimity on the need to act? That's the story—and that's what the Times' headline should reflect.
Today the Times runs a story about a poll on global warming.
Americans in large bipartisan numbers say the heating of the earth’s atmosphere is having serious effects on the environment now or will soon and think that it is necessary to take immediate steps to reduce its effects, the latest New York Times/CBS News poll finds.
Ninety percent of Democrats, 80 percent of independents and 60 percent of Republicans said immediate action was required to curb the warming of the atmosphere and deal with its effects on the global climate. Nineteen percent said it was not necessary to act now, and 1 percent said no steps were needed.
Ninety percent of Dems, 80% of independents, and—and this surprises me somewhat—60% of Republicans think immediate action is required.If you polled the question, Is the sky blue?, you might not get such a level of consensus.
So what is the Times' headline?
Public Remains Split on Response to Warming
This is absurd. If you read the entire story, what you see is evidence of a landmark shift: the ascension of environmentalism to the forefront of the public consciousness.
I've been writing about the environment for years, and in my experience, politicians—even well-meaning ones—have all had the same mantra: "We want to do good things for the environment, but the public just doesn't care; when you ask people what issues are important to them at election time, the environment is always way down the list."
And for many years that was true.
This poll is evidence that, at last, there is a broad public consensus that the nation must act as a steward of the world's environment. Of course, people will always be split on how best to act. That's as it should be.
But this near-unanimity on the need to act? That's the story—and that's what the Times' headline should reflect.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
In the Chronicle of Higher Education (subscriber only), David Oxtoby, president of Pomona College—who struck me as one of the more intriguing candidates for the Harvard presidency (relatively young, Harvard degree, scientist, current college president, successful fundraiser)—warns that students' obsession with Advanced Placement courses is spinning out of control.
Advanced Placement tests have become such a popular tool for students (and parents) desperate to increase their chances in the competitive admissions lottery — and for high-school administrators eager to raise their schools' academic profiles — that the phenomenon has taken on a life of its own. The arms race leading to more and more AP courses and exams is not likely to slow without a concerted effort on the part of American colleges and universities to rein it in. ...
It's an interesting piece from an interesting president.
Advanced Placement tests have become such a popular tool for students (and parents) desperate to increase their chances in the competitive admissions lottery — and for high-school administrators eager to raise their schools' academic profiles — that the phenomenon has taken on a life of its own. The arms race leading to more and more AP courses and exams is not likely to slow without a concerted effort on the part of American colleges and universities to rein it in. ...
It's an interesting piece from an interesting president.
Joe Lieberman Makes the Case for War
In the Washington Post, Joe Lieberman argues against withdrawal from Iraq:
The suicide bombings we see now in Iraq are an attempt to reverse these [American] gains: a deliberate, calculated counteroffensive led foremost by al-Qaeda, the same network of Islamist extremists that perpetrated catastrophic attacks in Kenya, Indonesia, Turkey and, yes, New York and Washington.
The current wave of suicide bombings in Iraq is also aimed at us here in the United States -- to obscure the recent gains we have made and to convince the American public that our efforts in Iraq are futile and that we should retreat.
This logic leads one to a terrifying conclusion: The more "gains" we make in Iraq, the more bombings result. Therefore, every bombing is actually a sign of progress.
In other words, if there are no bombings, we're winning. And if there are lots of bombings, we're also winning.
Where is Joseph Heller when you need him?
And here's another dangerous piece of rhetoric:
Al-Qaeda, after all, isn't carrying out mass murder against civilians in the streets of Baghdad because it wants a more equitable distribution of oil revenue. Its aim in Iraq isn't to get a seat at the political table; it wants to blow up the table -- along with everyone seated at it.
So Al Qaeda is a nihilist organization that simply wants to blow up everything and everyone?
I'm no Al Qaeda expert, but this is not a serious argument. What would Al Qaeda do if the U.S. pulled out of the country? Lieberman would have us believe that the answer is bombing until Iraq is just one big pile of carnage. But even from my layman's perspective, Al Qaeda seems a terrorist organization with distinct political goals—getting the US out of lands it considers Muslim and holy.
I have no idea what Al Qaeda would do in Iraq if we pulled out. But it doesn't sound like Lieberman does either. And his construction—Al Qaeda wants "to blow up the table—along with everyone seated at it" is nothing but fear-mongering. If we're really going to fight Al Qaeda, we need a more sophisticated understanding of the organization than that.
But then, that's Joe Lieberman for you....
The suicide bombings we see now in Iraq are an attempt to reverse these [American] gains: a deliberate, calculated counteroffensive led foremost by al-Qaeda, the same network of Islamist extremists that perpetrated catastrophic attacks in Kenya, Indonesia, Turkey and, yes, New York and Washington.
Indeed, to the extent that last week's bloodshed clarified anything, it is that the battle of Baghdad is increasingly a battle against al-Qaeda. Whether we like it or not, al-Qaeda views the Iraqi capital as a central front of its war against us.
Does Lieberman, who has been for the war since before it started, remember that Al Qaeda wasn't actually in Iraq until after we invaded that nation?The current wave of suicide bombings in Iraq is also aimed at us here in the United States -- to obscure the recent gains we have made and to convince the American public that our efforts in Iraq are futile and that we should retreat.
This logic leads one to a terrifying conclusion: The more "gains" we make in Iraq, the more bombings result. Therefore, every bombing is actually a sign of progress.
In other words, if there are no bombings, we're winning. And if there are lots of bombings, we're also winning.
Where is Joseph Heller when you need him?
And here's another dangerous piece of rhetoric:
Al-Qaeda, after all, isn't carrying out mass murder against civilians in the streets of Baghdad because it wants a more equitable distribution of oil revenue. Its aim in Iraq isn't to get a seat at the political table; it wants to blow up the table -- along with everyone seated at it.
So Al Qaeda is a nihilist organization that simply wants to blow up everything and everyone?
I'm no Al Qaeda expert, but this is not a serious argument. What would Al Qaeda do if the U.S. pulled out of the country? Lieberman would have us believe that the answer is bombing until Iraq is just one big pile of carnage. But even from my layman's perspective, Al Qaeda seems a terrorist organization with distinct political goals—getting the US out of lands it considers Muslim and holy.
I have no idea what Al Qaeda would do in Iraq if we pulled out. But it doesn't sound like Lieberman does either. And his construction—Al Qaeda wants "to blow up the table—along with everyone seated at it" is nothing but fear-mongering. If we're really going to fight Al Qaeda, we need a more sophisticated understanding of the organization than that.
But then, that's Joe Lieberman for you....
Is Curt Schilling a Bloody Liar?
Was that actually paint on his sock back in 2004, not blood? On his own blog, Schilling isn't saying a word....
The sock itself is in the Hall of Fame. If Schilling really wants to put this matter to rest, he should advocate that an independent body test the red substance....
The sock itself is in the Hall of Fame. If Schilling really wants to put this matter to rest, he should advocate that an independent body test the red substance....
What's Good for the Goose
What if Larry Summers were receiving an award from a men's group about what a great role model he is for young men, and during a question-and-answer session, he referred to all the female undergraduates as "girls"?
People would be pissed off, right? Letters to the Crimson...dark mumblings...shaking of heads at the Faculty Club.
But that's exactly what Drew Faust did yesterday, with the genders reversed.
Yesterday the Harvard College Women's Center gave Faust an award for "professional achievement." As the Crimson reports, in a subsequent q-and-a,
Faust shied away from talking business, declining to answer questions about her role in undergraduate life, and at one point asking Dean of the College Benedict H. Gross ’71 to answer a question about whether the recent focus on equal opportunity for young women had left undergraduate men neglected.
“It’s not a strategy on my part* to deflect these questions to someone else,” she said, “but Dick, is there a concern about boys?”
Boys?****
I wonder how Drew Faust would have felt, back when she was in college in the late 1960s, if an incoming male president referred to her as a "girl."
A president whose rise to power was predicated on her predecessor's gender-insensitive remarks ought to be more careful with her language. After all, men aren't the only ones who can be sexist.
_________________________________________________________________
Incidentally, this* is an interesting piece of rhetoric. As anyone who has followed Drew Faust over the past several months knows, it is exactly her strategy to deflect these questions to someone else.
There's nothing wrong with that. If Faust doesn't feel that it's appropriate for her to discuss substantive matters in public, that's her prerogative.
But when the double-speak begins—"it's not a strategy on my part," when clearly it is—that's when a leader's credibility starts slipping away. The erosion happens so subtly at first, you don't even realize it. But remarks like that start the process.
_______________________________________________________________
****A poster writes the following: Here's a classic case of: you had to be there. Faust was responding to a question about "boys." The person who asked the question used the term "boys" repeatedly, and when Faust referred the question to Dean Gross, she was asking him about research in that particular area of developmental psychology.
If that's correct, then I am wrong in faulting Drew Faust for using the term "boys," and I withdraw the criticism with apologies.
People would be pissed off, right? Letters to the Crimson...dark mumblings...shaking of heads at the Faculty Club.
But that's exactly what Drew Faust did yesterday, with the genders reversed.
Yesterday the Harvard College Women's Center gave Faust an award for "professional achievement." As the Crimson reports, in a subsequent q-and-a,
Faust shied away from talking business, declining to answer questions about her role in undergraduate life, and at one point asking Dean of the College Benedict H. Gross ’71 to answer a question about whether the recent focus on equal opportunity for young women had left undergraduate men neglected.
“It’s not a strategy on my part* to deflect these questions to someone else,” she said, “but Dick, is there a concern about boys?”
Boys?****
I wonder how Drew Faust would have felt, back when she was in college in the late 1960s, if an incoming male president referred to her as a "girl."
A president whose rise to power was predicated on her predecessor's gender-insensitive remarks ought to be more careful with her language. After all, men aren't the only ones who can be sexist.
_________________________________________________________________
Incidentally, this* is an interesting piece of rhetoric. As anyone who has followed Drew Faust over the past several months knows, it is exactly her strategy to deflect these questions to someone else.
There's nothing wrong with that. If Faust doesn't feel that it's appropriate for her to discuss substantive matters in public, that's her prerogative.
But when the double-speak begins—"it's not a strategy on my part," when clearly it is—that's when a leader's credibility starts slipping away. The erosion happens so subtly at first, you don't even realize it. But remarks like that start the process.
_______________________________________________________________
****A poster writes the following: Here's a classic case of: you had to be there. Faust was responding to a question about "boys." The person who asked the question used the term "boys" repeatedly, and when Faust referred the question to Dean Gross, she was asking him about research in that particular area of developmental psychology.
If that's correct, then I am wrong in faulting Drew Faust for using the term "boys," and I withdraw the criticism with apologies.
The Corporation on the Hot Seat
The Crimson reports that Ryan Peterson, the president of Harvard's Undergraduate Council, has made a move that is sending shock waves through the Harvard world: He has asked to meet with the Corporation.
Consternation! Gnashing of teeth! Beating of breasts!
Peterson wants to talk to the governing board about calendar reform. Harvard students want the college to be more like Yale, which holds its undergraduate exams before Christmas, allowing students a little time off. As things stand, Harvard has its exams in January, and basically winds up blowing off the whole month.
Peterson puts the Corporation in an interesting position. It will either have to—gasp!—meet with someone other than its own seven members. Or it will suggest contempt for the reasonable petition of a student leader.
Which way will the Corporation go—in the direction of openness and transparency, or just more elitism and non-accountability?
Peterson's request exposes an interesting dilemma at Harvard right now: With Derek Bok wrapping up his interim presidency and Drew Faust declining to speak her mind, as well as a temporary FAS dean, there's a real power vacuum at the university.....
Is the university without a leader?
Consternation! Gnashing of teeth! Beating of breasts!
Peterson wants to talk to the governing board about calendar reform. Harvard students want the college to be more like Yale, which holds its undergraduate exams before Christmas, allowing students a little time off. As things stand, Harvard has its exams in January, and basically winds up blowing off the whole month.
Peterson puts the Corporation in an interesting position. It will either have to—gasp!—meet with someone other than its own seven members. Or it will suggest contempt for the reasonable petition of a student leader.
Which way will the Corporation go—in the direction of openness and transparency, or just more elitism and non-accountability?
Peterson's request exposes an interesting dilemma at Harvard right now: With Derek Bok wrapping up his interim presidency and Drew Faust declining to speak her mind, as well as a temporary FAS dean, there's a real power vacuum at the university.....
Is the university without a leader?
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
It's the World We Live In
When American soldiers decided that they wanted to take occupancy of an abandoned spaghetti factory in Baghdad to use as an outpost, they ran into one unexpected problem: In a hole in the courtyard outside the factory, they discovered a corpse floating in several feet of shit.
The body, floating, was in a billowing, once-white shirt. The toes were gone. The fingers were gone. The head, separated and floating next to the body, had a gunshot hole in the face.
To their credit, the soldiers decided that they needed to do something for the victim, whom they dubbed "Bob," as in, bobbing up and down. (You can understand the need for a little dark humor.)
And, sadly, it is, of course, an apt metaphor for the war and America's involvement in Iraq.
Read the full story by David Finkel in the Washington Post—it will reinforce your admiration for our soldiers even as it breaks your heart over what has happened in Iraq.
The body, floating, was in a billowing, once-white shirt. The toes were gone. The fingers were gone. The head, separated and floating next to the body, had a gunshot hole in the face.
To their credit, the soldiers decided that they needed to do something for the victim, whom they dubbed "Bob," as in, bobbing up and down. (You can understand the need for a little dark humor.)
The body, it was quickly decided, would have to be removed before the 120 soldiers could move in. "It's a morale issue. Who wants to live over a dead body?" [Army Major Brent] Cummings said. "And part of it is a moral issue, too. I mean he was somebody's son, and maybe husband, and for dignity's sake, well, it cheapens us to leave him there. I mean even calling him Bob is disrespectful. I don't know. It's the world we live in."
He paused.
"I'd like to put him in a final resting place," he said, "as opposed to a final floating place."
This is the kind of story Kurt Vonnegut, RIP, would understand. It's horrible almost beyond belief, but there is also beauty and courage in it.And, sadly, it is, of course, an apt metaphor for the war and America's involvement in Iraq.
Read the full story by David Finkel in the Washington Post—it will reinforce your admiration for our soldiers even as it breaks your heart over what has happened in Iraq.
The Truth about Tillman
We all know that Pat Tillman, the former Arizona Cardinal who volunteered for the military, was killed by friendly fire, and that the Bush Administration tried to cover up that news.
Nonetheless, the details of the cover-up are truly disheartening. Yesterday, a former comrade of Tillman's described how he suspected at once that Tillman was killed by U.S. soldiers, but was forbidden to tell Tillman's own brother, who was in uniform and fighting nearby.
If the Administration lied about something so high-profile, imagine how many lies it has told about people and subjects less likely to attract the attention of the press?
Jessica Lynch also testified at yesterday's Congressional hearing, reiterating that she was not the hero the Pentagon made her out to be. (Some of us have believed this all along.)
The thing is that Pat Tillman, his brother, Jessica Lynch—they are heroes, and not just for their wartime service.
Kevin Tillman and Jessica Lynch are heroic for their determination to see the truth come out. They are heroes in in a way that this White House could not understand and certainly does not deserve.
Nonetheless, the details of the cover-up are truly disheartening. Yesterday, a former comrade of Tillman's described how he suspected at once that Tillman was killed by U.S. soldiers, but was forbidden to tell Tillman's own brother, who was in uniform and fighting nearby.
If the Administration lied about something so high-profile, imagine how many lies it has told about people and subjects less likely to attract the attention of the press?
Jessica Lynch also testified at yesterday's Congressional hearing, reiterating that she was not the hero the Pentagon made her out to be. (Some of us have believed this all along.)
The thing is that Pat Tillman, his brother, Jessica Lynch—they are heroes, and not just for their wartime service.
Kevin Tillman and Jessica Lynch are heroic for their determination to see the truth come out. They are heroes in in a way that this White House could not understand and certainly does not deserve.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
More Zen
I've just realized that my posts today are a bit, well, cranky. (Also, for some reason, blue.)
Apparently I need an infusion of Tuesday Afternoon Zen.
Tampico, Mexico, by Claudia Zamorro
Apparently I need an infusion of Tuesday Afternoon Zen.
Tampico, Mexico, by Claudia Zamorro
Why the Washington Media Makes One Puke
At the White House Correspondents Dinner*, Eric Alterman, the most unpleasant and unpopular man in journalism, and Anna Marie Cox, the worst journalist ever hired as a columnist for Time (and that's saying a lot)—who boldly announced that she was giving up her Imus-addiction after his "nappy-headed ho's" comment—got into a catfight.
Here's the transcript!
Various websites would have you side with Alterman or Cox, depending on whether you're middle aged and stodgy or young and self-consciously obnoxious.
Me? As the names roll off the tongues—Michael Kinsley! Peter Beinart! Jim Kelly! John Huey! Rick Stengel!—I just wish we could drop them all into a lifeboat in the middle of some ocean and then wave buh-bye.
These people have convinced massive corporations to give them huge salaries to write for media that no one reads anymore. Several of them are supposed to be liberal, but they are all within such a narrow range of conventional opinion, their liberalism is about as threatening as throwing a Wiffle ball against the Washington Monument. (Although I do like Wiffle balls.)
When it comes to politics, the MSM truly does not realize how irrelevant its pundits have become...and the very idea of anyone arguing about the columnists in Time magazine as if it could possibly matter is enough to make you....well...not read Time magazine!
___________________________________________________________________
*Actually, at a brunch before the dinner.
Here's the transcript!
Various websites would have you side with Alterman or Cox, depending on whether you're middle aged and stodgy or young and self-consciously obnoxious.
Me? As the names roll off the tongues—Michael Kinsley! Peter Beinart! Jim Kelly! John Huey! Rick Stengel!—I just wish we could drop them all into a lifeboat in the middle of some ocean and then wave buh-bye.
These people have convinced massive corporations to give them huge salaries to write for media that no one reads anymore. Several of them are supposed to be liberal, but they are all within such a narrow range of conventional opinion, their liberalism is about as threatening as throwing a Wiffle ball against the Washington Monument. (Although I do like Wiffle balls.)
When it comes to politics, the MSM truly does not realize how irrelevant its pundits have become...and the very idea of anyone arguing about the columnists in Time magazine as if it could possibly matter is enough to make you....well...not read Time magazine!
___________________________________________________________________
*Actually, at a brunch before the dinner.
The President and the AG
So President Bush actually feels more confident about Alberto Gonzales after Gonzales testified before Congress last week.
As the Times puts it, Bush's vote of confidence in Gonzalez...
...indicated that Mr. Bush, at least for now, has concluded his attorney general can weather the challenge to his leadership at the Justice Department, barring any evidence of wrongdoing.
Maybe so. But does Bush realize that the real damage Gonzalez is inflicting is to him? In putting his credibility on the line for an incompetent apparatchik, the president makes himself look stupid, and gives Americans even less reason to respect him than we already have.
Of course, there's always the possibility that Bush figures we've lost all respect for him anyway, so what difference does it make?
Actually, that's not entirely nuts....
As the Times puts it, Bush's vote of confidence in Gonzalez...
...indicated that Mr. Bush, at least for now, has concluded his attorney general can weather the challenge to his leadership at the Justice Department, barring any evidence of wrongdoing.
Maybe so. But does Bush realize that the real damage Gonzalez is inflicting is to him? In putting his credibility on the line for an incompetent apparatchik, the president makes himself look stupid, and gives Americans even less reason to respect him than we already have.
Of course, there's always the possibility that Bush figures we've lost all respect for him anyway, so what difference does it make?
Actually, that's not entirely nuts....
The Most Annoying Trend on the Web
Ads that are indented so that they block, say, the bottom half of a single line of text—you can still read the line, but only if you squint, invariably seeing the ad at the same time. (I think it's supposed to look like a technical mistake, when in fact it's the opposite.)
Would print editors permit their business sides to run ads superimposed over text? No. So why do they allow it online? Because online editorial is run either by tech geeks or by young "editors" who've never acquired the concept of church/state separation.....
Would print editors permit their business sides to run ads superimposed over text? No. So why do they allow it online? Because online editorial is run either by tech geeks or by young "editors" who've never acquired the concept of church/state separation.....
A Summers Myth
In the Los Angeles Times, David Greenberg wonders whether the media isn't too quick to judge men who make gaffes.
In recent years, this hysteria has exacted apologies, resignations and other pounds of flesh...The sloppy, sexist remarks that former Harvard University President Lawrence H. Summers made about women and science deserved a reprimand, but they didn't justify the loss of his job, which came fast and furious last spring.
I know and like David, but he's wrong about something here—a mistake I want to point out since it's become so common, it's now conventional wisdom.
Most commentators who write about Summers' exit from Harvard now conflate it chronologically with the women-in-science comments, as if the former hastily followed the latter—it came "fast and furious."
The conflation creates a causality that isn't accurate.
In fact, as we on this blog all know, Summers left Harvard more than a year after "the troubles," and could very well have survived "women in science" had he not begun making more missteps.
This matters for two reasons.
One, the suggestion that Summers was fired for exercising his right to free speech makes him an unjustified martyr.
Two, it obscures the fact that there were many other issues involved in Summers' resignation, some of which are ongoing at Harvard. (Debates over centralization and executive power, for instance.)
I don't expect that pointing this out will make any real difference, since this conflation has now become the conventional wisdom about Summers' ouster. (As Michael Kolber might say, sometimes the media is lazy.)
Perhaps I will rename this blog "Tilting at Windmills"....
In recent years, this hysteria has exacted apologies, resignations and other pounds of flesh...The sloppy, sexist remarks that former Harvard University President Lawrence H. Summers made about women and science deserved a reprimand, but they didn't justify the loss of his job, which came fast and furious last spring.
I know and like David, but he's wrong about something here—a mistake I want to point out since it's become so common, it's now conventional wisdom.
Most commentators who write about Summers' exit from Harvard now conflate it chronologically with the women-in-science comments, as if the former hastily followed the latter—it came "fast and furious."
The conflation creates a causality that isn't accurate.
In fact, as we on this blog all know, Summers left Harvard more than a year after "the troubles," and could very well have survived "women in science" had he not begun making more missteps.
This matters for two reasons.
One, the suggestion that Summers was fired for exercising his right to free speech makes him an unjustified martyr.
Two, it obscures the fact that there were many other issues involved in Summers' resignation, some of which are ongoing at Harvard. (Debates over centralization and executive power, for instance.)
I don't expect that pointing this out will make any real difference, since this conflation has now become the conventional wisdom about Summers' ouster. (As Michael Kolber might say, sometimes the media is lazy.)
Perhaps I will rename this blog "Tilting at Windmills"....
Mourning David Halberstam
I am saddened and also, for the following reasons, a little freaked out by the death of David Halberstam.
1) I saw Halberstam walking down the street a couple weeks ago, past the Cafe des Artistes on West 67th Street. He looked great—dapper, vigorous, elegant. I thought about introducing myself, then decided that I shouldn't bother him.
2) One of the reasons I thought about introducing myself is that I've been meaning to drop him a note; I recently read two of his baseball books, The Teammates and Summer of '49, and wanted to chat with him about baseball, the Red Sox, and the summer of '78. But I've been busy, and I put off writing the note. There's a lesson in that.
3) This paragraph, from Clyde Haberman's eloquent remembrance in the Times:
Mr. Halberstam was killed doing what he had done his entire adult life: reporting. He was on his way to interview Y. A. Tittle, the former New York Giants quarterback, for a book about the 1958 championship game between the Giants and the Baltimore Colts, considered by many to be the greatest football game ever played.
Halberstam and I were/are working on very similar projects.
My own feelings aside, this is a real loss. First Vonnegut, now Halberstam. Wherever you are, Norman Mailer, please look both ways.
1) I saw Halberstam walking down the street a couple weeks ago, past the Cafe des Artistes on West 67th Street. He looked great—dapper, vigorous, elegant. I thought about introducing myself, then decided that I shouldn't bother him.
2) One of the reasons I thought about introducing myself is that I've been meaning to drop him a note; I recently read two of his baseball books, The Teammates and Summer of '49, and wanted to chat with him about baseball, the Red Sox, and the summer of '78. But I've been busy, and I put off writing the note. There's a lesson in that.
3) This paragraph, from Clyde Haberman's eloquent remembrance in the Times:
Mr. Halberstam was killed doing what he had done his entire adult life: reporting. He was on his way to interview Y. A. Tittle, the former New York Giants quarterback, for a book about the 1958 championship game between the Giants and the Baltimore Colts, considered by many to be the greatest football game ever played.
Halberstam and I were/are working on very similar projects.
My own feelings aside, this is a real loss. First Vonnegut, now Halberstam. Wherever you are, Norman Mailer, please look both ways.
Funny...or Tacky?
The Times makes a joke in its Boris Yeltsin headline:
Boris N. Yeltsin, Who Buried the U.S.S.R., Dies at 76
Boris N. Yeltsin, Who Buried the U.S.S.R., Dies at 76
The Ombudsman at Work
Michael Kolber, the Crimson's ombudsman, writes a whole story about how the Crimson made a mistake and then ran a correction. Apparently newspapers do that.
Several forces seem to be driving newspapers toward more accountability and transparency: the New York Times-Jayson Blair scandal, the ombudsman industry, and the growth of Internet media including a phalanx of bloggers and watchdogs focused largely on the foibles of the old media.
I have never read those thoughts before. You say these blogger things focus on the "foibles" of the old media?
It would be unfortunate if all this criticism enfeebled newspapers, but there’s a difference between fearlessness and recklessness.
So, so true. There is a difference between fearlessness and recklessness.
It may be premature, though, to say The Crimson does as good a job as it should.
This is verging on ombudsman self-parody.*
Forgive the sarcasm. It's just that, since Kolber's last column, there's been some very problematic stuff in the Crimson, most notably the reporting on Theda Skocpol. Lots of interesting issues there—anonymous sources, "news analysis," different versions online and in print, and so on.
Yet for some reason, Kolber writes his one-time-a-month column about corrections even though he admits that the Crimson promptly corrected the story in question and in general is pretty good about running corrections.
It may be premature, though, to say The Crimson does as good a job as it should.
A few weeks ago, Kolber's editor, Kristina Moore, said she would encourage him "to draw some stronger conclusions." Keep encouraging, Kristina.
And then Kolber becomes approximately the 100 millionth media commentator to say something not very interesting about Jayson Blair.
Let me put it this way: Do you think that even one person at the Crimson was made uncomfortable by this column?
_____________________________________________________________
* Speaking of ombudsman self-parody, I just noticed that Kolber's column is titled "On Corrections." Hilarious—just the right blend of earnestness and self-importance. Reminds me that back when I was a plebe at the New Republic, the magazine had a "most boring headline" contest. The winner? Flora Lewis' column titled "Worthwhile Canadian Initiative."
Several forces seem to be driving newspapers toward more accountability and transparency: the New York Times-Jayson Blair scandal, the ombudsman industry, and the growth of Internet media including a phalanx of bloggers and watchdogs focused largely on the foibles of the old media.
I have never read those thoughts before. You say these blogger things focus on the "foibles" of the old media?
It would be unfortunate if all this criticism enfeebled newspapers, but there’s a difference between fearlessness and recklessness.
So, so true. There is a difference between fearlessness and recklessness.
It may be premature, though, to say The Crimson does as good a job as it should.
This is verging on ombudsman self-parody.*
Forgive the sarcasm. It's just that, since Kolber's last column, there's been some very problematic stuff in the Crimson, most notably the reporting on Theda Skocpol. Lots of interesting issues there—anonymous sources, "news analysis," different versions online and in print, and so on.
Yet for some reason, Kolber writes his one-time-a-month column about corrections even though he admits that the Crimson promptly corrected the story in question and in general is pretty good about running corrections.
It may be premature, though, to say The Crimson does as good a job as it should.
A few weeks ago, Kolber's editor, Kristina Moore, said she would encourage him "to draw some stronger conclusions." Keep encouraging, Kristina.
And then Kolber becomes approximately the 100 millionth media commentator to say something not very interesting about Jayson Blair.
Let me put it this way: Do you think that even one person at the Crimson was made uncomfortable by this column?
_____________________________________________________________
* Speaking of ombudsman self-parody, I just noticed that Kolber's column is titled "On Corrections." Hilarious—just the right blend of earnestness and self-importance. Reminds me that back when I was a plebe at the New Republic, the magazine had a "most boring headline" contest. The winner? Flora Lewis' column titled "Worthwhile Canadian Initiative."
Monday, April 23, 2007
Jeremy Knowles: An Update
Harvard Magazine has more info on Jeremy Knowles' fight against cancer.
Knowledge of Knowles’s illness was closely held within the University, and it seemingly had no effect on his work. During the winter, however, his health worsened, acutely so in mid April, causing the initial announcement of his absence last week; at that time, as reported, Knowles hoped for a course of care that would lessen what Bok described as “acute and persistent pain,” enabling him to return to work in short order. Today’s announcement makes clear that that will not be possible.
It goes without saying—but let it be said regardless—that our thoughts and prayers are with Dean Knowles.
Knowledge of Knowles’s illness was closely held within the University, and it seemingly had no effect on his work. During the winter, however, his health worsened, acutely so in mid April, causing the initial announcement of his absence last week; at that time, as reported, Knowles hoped for a course of care that would lessen what Bok described as “acute and persistent pain,” enabling him to return to work in short order. Today’s announcement makes clear that that will not be possible.
It goes without saying—but let it be said regardless—that our thoughts and prayers are with Dean Knowles.
Hard News
The Crimson reports that Jeremy Knowles is stepping down as dean to attend to his health; Knowles has prostate cancer.
He wrote the faculty, “I'll be working from home for a week or so, trusting (and believing!) that I shall be fully re-harnessed thereafter. As Christopher Robin put on his door for Winnie-the-Pooh to read: ‘Bak Sun’!”
Dean Knowles, get well soon.
He wrote the faculty, “I'll be working from home for a week or so, trusting (and believing!) that I shall be fully re-harnessed thereafter. As Christopher Robin put on his door for Winnie-the-Pooh to read: ‘Bak Sun’!”
Dean Knowles, get well soon.
Colleges Go Oprah
At Harvard, students just want to be infantilized (except when they want to drink beer); at Yale, the deans want to treat students like children.
In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, Yale dean Betty Trachenberg just banned a student theater production from using swords and daggers as props.
Yale deans should not be in the business of censorship. Nor should they be idiots. When every newspaper and broadcast network is showing a photo of a campus killer waving a gun in each hand, she's worried about a swordfight on stage?
Perhaps this confirms the wisdom of her decision to retire....
In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, Yale dean Betty Trachenberg just banned a student theater production from using swords and daggers as props.
Yale deans should not be in the business of censorship. Nor should they be idiots. When every newspaper and broadcast network is showing a photo of a campus killer waving a gun in each hand, she's worried about a swordfight on stage?
Perhaps this confirms the wisdom of her decision to retire....
142 Comments!
Thanks to all who contributed to the conversation below, more than doubling the previous record for comments posted regarding an item on this blog. I'm not quite sure what came out of it...but somehow, I feel that we haven't heard the last of the issues you all raised and debated over the weekend.
And I am struck again by the question: What does it say about the greatest university in the world that there is no public forum where this kind of discussion can take place other than a single blog?
And I am struck again by the question: What does it say about the greatest university in the world that there is no public forum where this kind of discussion can take place other than a single blog?
Harvard Goes Ga-Ga over Google
The Crimson reports today on an important watershed in the partnership between Harvard and Google: In the next few weeks, students will be able to use the Hollis computer system to access tens of thousands of books from Harvard libraries that Google has digitized.
These books are out of copyright, so this move is a good one for both readers and writers.
But here's the worrisome part:
Although Harvard’s collaboration with Google currently only involves out-of-copyright books that are not too fragile to scan, [director of the University Library Sidney] Verba has said he hopes the project will eventually include all the books in the Harvard collection.
It's true: Verba has said this on several occasions, and that's alarming. Google's attempt to scan every book has profound and problematic implications for copyright and intellectual property issues. Those concerns have prompted publishers and authors to sue the octopus-like tech company.
But even though it is a move with huge public policy ramifications that will affect hundreds of thousands of authors, Verba's decision to cooperate with Google was never publicly discussed. It was, in fact, only announced after the decision had been made.
And just how did that decision get made? It followed a secret meeting between Verba and Sheryl Sandberg, a Google vice-president who just happened to be Larry Summers' chief of staff at Treasury. What a coincidence! Sandberg happened to meet with Summers before visiting with Verba.
Verba may not have known what he was getting into—or what he was being pressured to do. As he later told the Times, "It's become much more controversial than I would have expected. I was surprised by the vehemence."
This is why Harvard requires more transparency: to avoid, as the song says, dirty deeds done dirt cheap. The Google decision is one that will affect every professor at Harvard, but there wasn't a single meeting, forum, editorial or other means of public discussion that took place before the decision was made.
Instead, a single person at Harvard made this partnership with Google. I'm betting it wasn't Sidney Verba.
These books are out of copyright, so this move is a good one for both readers and writers.
But here's the worrisome part:
Although Harvard’s collaboration with Google currently only involves out-of-copyright books that are not too fragile to scan, [director of the University Library Sidney] Verba has said he hopes the project will eventually include all the books in the Harvard collection.
It's true: Verba has said this on several occasions, and that's alarming. Google's attempt to scan every book has profound and problematic implications for copyright and intellectual property issues. Those concerns have prompted publishers and authors to sue the octopus-like tech company.
But even though it is a move with huge public policy ramifications that will affect hundreds of thousands of authors, Verba's decision to cooperate with Google was never publicly discussed. It was, in fact, only announced after the decision had been made.
And just how did that decision get made? It followed a secret meeting between Verba and Sheryl Sandberg, a Google vice-president who just happened to be Larry Summers' chief of staff at Treasury. What a coincidence! Sandberg happened to meet with Summers before visiting with Verba.
Verba may not have known what he was getting into—or what he was being pressured to do. As he later told the Times, "It's become much more controversial than I would have expected. I was surprised by the vehemence."
This is why Harvard requires more transparency: to avoid, as the song says, dirty deeds done dirt cheap. The Google decision is one that will affect every professor at Harvard, but there wasn't a single meeting, forum, editorial or other means of public discussion that took place before the decision was made.
Instead, a single person at Harvard made this partnership with Google. I'm betting it wasn't Sidney Verba.
New York Goes Gay and Green
It's fascinating to see how, in the vacuum of federal leadership, the states and the private sector are taking the lead in public policy.
In New York, for example, Mayor Bloomberg introduced a 25-year "master plan" to help deal with expected growth in the city, and particularly the environmental toll that growth could take. A central part of the plan: "congestion pricing," in which drivers would be charged $8 for driving south of 86th Street in Manhattan.
This is a wonderful idea. Manhattan is a city of pedestrians, perhaps the only such city in the United States, and it is absolutely nuts for people to drive around the city just because they love to park their asses in their SUVs. Anything that can encourage the use of public transportation and leave fewer cars crawling around city streets sounds like a good thing to me. Not to mention the obvious energy savings it would provide....
Also yesterday, New York governor Elliot Spitzer announced that he'd be introducing a bill to legalize gay marriage in New York. Good for him—during his campaign, he said he would, and now he's keeping his promise. New York—well, New York City, anyway—is a place of diversity and tolerance, and we should affirm that by extending this right.
In New York, for example, Mayor Bloomberg introduced a 25-year "master plan" to help deal with expected growth in the city, and particularly the environmental toll that growth could take. A central part of the plan: "congestion pricing," in which drivers would be charged $8 for driving south of 86th Street in Manhattan.
This is a wonderful idea. Manhattan is a city of pedestrians, perhaps the only such city in the United States, and it is absolutely nuts for people to drive around the city just because they love to park their asses in their SUVs. Anything that can encourage the use of public transportation and leave fewer cars crawling around city streets sounds like a good thing to me. Not to mention the obvious energy savings it would provide....
Also yesterday, New York governor Elliot Spitzer announced that he'd be introducing a bill to legalize gay marriage in New York. Good for him—during his campaign, he said he would, and now he's keeping his promise. New York—well, New York City, anyway—is a place of diversity and tolerance, and we should affirm that by extending this right.
Friday, April 20, 2007
The Rehabilitation Continues
In the Washington Post, Al Kamen floats Larry Summers' name as a possible successor for Paul Wolfowitz, should Wolfowitz resign as head of the World Bank.
Some thoughts.
Would he be a good choice? This pick might run into fierce opposition. Obviously, Summers is more than well-versed in the issues...but I imagine that there are people there who never thought much of the draconian tight money policies he and Bob Rubin imposed on various nations during the 1990s.
Would he do it, though? I could argue it round or flat.... It's a high-profile job in the kind of work that Summers loves. But on the other hand, the second that he takes a new job, Summers will be held accountable for results in a way that he isn't now. Also, Summers is probably making much more money now than he would at the World Bank, where he couldn't rake in speaking fees and which would probably require him to step down from his hedge fund position.
Most interesting, though, this is more evidence of how Summers' reputation outside Harvard continues to rise like the proverbial phoenix.
Some thoughts.
Would he be a good choice? This pick might run into fierce opposition. Obviously, Summers is more than well-versed in the issues...but I imagine that there are people there who never thought much of the draconian tight money policies he and Bob Rubin imposed on various nations during the 1990s.
Would he do it, though? I could argue it round or flat.... It's a high-profile job in the kind of work that Summers loves. But on the other hand, the second that he takes a new job, Summers will be held accountable for results in a way that he isn't now. Also, Summers is probably making much more money now than he would at the World Bank, where he couldn't rake in speaking fees and which would probably require him to step down from his hedge fund position.
Most interesting, though, this is more evidence of how Summers' reputation outside Harvard continues to rise like the proverbial phoenix.
What Harvard Can Learn from Nine Inch Nails
In the post below, I mentioned that Trent Reznor has posted a song online that anyone can download and remix, using the Apple program "Garageband."
Kind of cool, right? An approach to making music that fosters interactivity, democracy, creativity, individualism and collective effort, all at the same time.
So here's a suggestion: Why doesn't some Harvard professor post a paper online and allow contributors to create similar mashups? Wikipapers, if you will?
(What if, say, a professor did so with a class he or she was teaching?)
Of course, doing so would require someone with a high degree of intellectual self-confidence. You never know what might happen. But isn't that the fun part?
Kind of cool, right? An approach to making music that fosters interactivity, democracy, creativity, individualism and collective effort, all at the same time.
So here's a suggestion: Why doesn't some Harvard professor post a paper online and allow contributors to create similar mashups? Wikipapers, if you will?
(What if, say, a professor did so with a class he or she was teaching?)
Of course, doing so would require someone with a high degree of intellectual self-confidence. You never know what might happen. But isn't that the fun part?
Friday Picks of the Week
Yes, picks. Two of them, actually.
I'll be so busy writing about baseball this weekend that I won't have much opportunity to watch it, which is near-tragic, because it's Yankees-Red Sox time. Three games at Fenway, both teams at the top of their division, Manny Ramirez showing signs of coming out of his worst slump ever, A-Rod reminding people how awesome his talent is...(Is there a more graceful swing in baseball?)....
It's early yet, and there are lots more Yankees-Red Sox games coming up, including three at the Stadium beginning next Friday. (Perhaps the temperature will break 50 by then.) But this is not just baseball's best rivalry, it's baseball's best baseball.
My second pick of the week is radically different from the utopian optimism that is, despite everything, baseball.
Some years ago, I fell completely for a woman because—well, for many reasons—but one of them was that we both loved the Nine Inch Nails' song "Closer." We used to joke that if we ever got married, that would be our first dance, which, if you happen to know the song, would pose certain technical issues. (As it turned out, we didn't, so that was all right, then.) Closer had a bizarre combination of an absolutely addictive melody and lyrics of utter, primal desperation. (Romantic, eh?) The relationship didn't work out, but over the years Nine Inch Nails continued to make music that was simultaneously dark and beautiful.
Now Trent Reznor, the mastermind behind Nine Inch Nails, has come out with his first album
since 2005's "With Teeth." It's called "Year Zero," and it is brilliant. In my experience, it's almost impossible to praise a record without making a complete ass of oneself, so I will just throw out a few adjectives: ambitious, angry, complicated, anxious, mature, serious, catchy, beautiful, haunting.
And political. American musicians have, by and large, failed to address the politics of the Bush administration and the war, which is one reason, in my opinion, why the music business is slumping and irrelevant. But Year Zero is both explicitly political—in the song "Capital G," for instance—and implicitly so, in its consistent tone of loud desperation and relentless paranoia. This is a record about a country on the verge of extinction, which is an apt description of the United States in the twilight years of the Bush administration. (We will continue to exist, but everything we stand for, everything that makes the United States distinctive and uplifting and meaningful and special, is threatened.)
In the song "Zero Sum," for example, Reznor sings, "Shame on us/For what we have done/May God have mercy on our dirty little hearts/And all we ever were/just zeros and ones."
It's not easy to listen to; it's surprisingly easy to listen to.
A few more facts about Reznor and Year Zero:
You can hear the whole record online here.
Reznor has an astonishingly good website.
He creates most of his songs on a Macbook.
He gets it: You can download the song "Survivalism" in a format that allows you to remix the song with Garageband.
Reznor's song about drug addiction, "Hurt," was covered by Johnny Cash a year or so before Cash's death.
Check out "Year Zero." For all its gloom, the mere fact of its existence brings hope.
I'll be so busy writing about baseball this weekend that I won't have much opportunity to watch it, which is near-tragic, because it's Yankees-Red Sox time. Three games at Fenway, both teams at the top of their division, Manny Ramirez showing signs of coming out of his worst slump ever, A-Rod reminding people how awesome his talent is...(Is there a more graceful swing in baseball?)....
It's early yet, and there are lots more Yankees-Red Sox games coming up, including three at the Stadium beginning next Friday. (Perhaps the temperature will break 50 by then.) But this is not just baseball's best rivalry, it's baseball's best baseball.
My second pick of the week is radically different from the utopian optimism that is, despite everything, baseball.
Some years ago, I fell completely for a woman because—well, for many reasons—but one of them was that we both loved the Nine Inch Nails' song "Closer." We used to joke that if we ever got married, that would be our first dance, which, if you happen to know the song, would pose certain technical issues. (As it turned out, we didn't, so that was all right, then.) Closer had a bizarre combination of an absolutely addictive melody and lyrics of utter, primal desperation. (Romantic, eh?) The relationship didn't work out, but over the years Nine Inch Nails continued to make music that was simultaneously dark and beautiful.
Now Trent Reznor, the mastermind behind Nine Inch Nails, has come out with his first album
since 2005's "With Teeth." It's called "Year Zero," and it is brilliant. In my experience, it's almost impossible to praise a record without making a complete ass of oneself, so I will just throw out a few adjectives: ambitious, angry, complicated, anxious, mature, serious, catchy, beautiful, haunting.
And political. American musicians have, by and large, failed to address the politics of the Bush administration and the war, which is one reason, in my opinion, why the music business is slumping and irrelevant. But Year Zero is both explicitly political—in the song "Capital G," for instance—and implicitly so, in its consistent tone of loud desperation and relentless paranoia. This is a record about a country on the verge of extinction, which is an apt description of the United States in the twilight years of the Bush administration. (We will continue to exist, but everything we stand for, everything that makes the United States distinctive and uplifting and meaningful and special, is threatened.)
In the song "Zero Sum," for example, Reznor sings, "Shame on us/For what we have done/May God have mercy on our dirty little hearts/And all we ever were/just zeros and ones."
It's not easy to listen to; it's surprisingly easy to listen to.
A few more facts about Reznor and Year Zero:
You can hear the whole record online here.
Reznor has an astonishingly good website.
He creates most of his songs on a Macbook.
He gets it: You can download the song "Survivalism" in a format that allows you to remix the song with Garageband.
Reznor's song about drug addiction, "Hurt," was covered by Johnny Cash a year or so before Cash's death.
Check out "Year Zero." For all its gloom, the mere fact of its existence brings hope.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
An Apple a Day
Microsoft plans to sell $30 copies of Windows to Third World nations.
Because that's just what developing countries need—more bugs.
Because that's just what developing countries need—more bugs.
In Iran, the Inmates are Running the Madhouse
The Iranian Supreme Court has just freed six vigilantes who killed five people because they considered the victims to be "morally corrupt."
Two of the victims, for example, were an engaged couple who allegedly walked together in public.
On what grounds did the court free the murderers?
That they were acting "according to Islamic teachings."
Nice religion you got there, guys.....
Two of the victims, for example, were an engaged couple who allegedly walked together in public.
On what grounds did the court free the murderers?
That they were acting "according to Islamic teachings."
Nice religion you got there, guys.....
The Right Sniff
I guess dating Giselle makes a man feel secure about his sexuality. Tom Brady is doing perfume ads...but reportedly acting like a diva.
The Globe, Marching in Lockstep
As if to reaffirm its subordinate status to the mother ship, the Boston Globe simply reprints the International Herald Tribune's piece about Larry Summers' influence and popularity in Asia.....
I'll Drink (Moderately) to That
At last, sanity: John McCardell, the president emeritus of Middlebury College, argues that the drinking age of 21 actually fosters irresponsible drinking, and says that the drinking age should be lowered to 18.
Well...yes.
I remember all too well when that ostensible practitioner of limited government, Ronald Reagan, started forcing states to raise their drinking age or lose federal highway monies. I've never quite been able to reconcile the idea that you can send 18-year-olds off to war to kill people but they can't have a beer. And I've always thought that if you teach kids how to drink moderately—as, say, the French do—you can actually cut down on alcohol abuse and stupid drunken accidents.
McCardell thinks that, on campuses, a drinking age of 21 infantilizes students, encouraging immature behavior with alcohol and disrespect for law generally. Furthermore, an "enforcement only" policy makes school administrations adversaries of students and interferes with their attempts to acquaint students with pertinent information, such as the neurological effects of alcohol on young brains. He notes that 18-year-olds have a right to marry, adopt children, serve as legal guardians for minors and purchase firearms from authorized dealers, and are trusted with the vote and military responsibilities. So, he says, it is not unreasonable to think that they can, with proper preparation, be trusted to drink.
Just to repeat:
McCardell thinks that, on campuses, a drinking age of 21 infantilizes students....
Judging from the item below, he's either right, or that's just the way students like it....
Well...yes.
I remember all too well when that ostensible practitioner of limited government, Ronald Reagan, started forcing states to raise their drinking age or lose federal highway monies. I've never quite been able to reconcile the idea that you can send 18-year-olds off to war to kill people but they can't have a beer. And I've always thought that if you teach kids how to drink moderately—as, say, the French do—you can actually cut down on alcohol abuse and stupid drunken accidents.
McCardell thinks that, on campuses, a drinking age of 21 infantilizes students, encouraging immature behavior with alcohol and disrespect for law generally. Furthermore, an "enforcement only" policy makes school administrations adversaries of students and interferes with their attempts to acquaint students with pertinent information, such as the neurological effects of alcohol on young brains. He notes that 18-year-olds have a right to marry, adopt children, serve as legal guardians for minors and purchase firearms from authorized dealers, and are trusted with the vote and military responsibilities. So, he says, it is not unreasonable to think that they can, with proper preparation, be trusted to drink.
Just to repeat:
McCardell thinks that, on campuses, a drinking age of 21 infantilizes students....
Judging from the item below, he's either right, or that's just the way students like it....
Skocpol on Curricular Reform
She's not easily scared off, is she?
Theda Skocpol makes her case for herself as dean true curricular reform.
Theda Skocpol makes her case for herself as dean true curricular reform.
Harvard as Grief Counselor
Since when has it become the role of the university to make its students feel better when something bad happens?
The Crimson reports that some students are frustrated with the University for not publicly expressing its sympathy for the Virginia Tech victims and their families.
The University’s decision not to issue a letter immediately following the events left some students critical of the approach. Harvard officials yesterday posted a statement of sympathy online and announced a service to remember the victims at 10 p.m. tonight in Memorial Church.
...UC Representative Jon T. Staff V ’10 criticized the administration’s approach.
“Harvard certainly hasn’t done enough to respond to the tragedies that have happened in Virginia over the past week,” he said. “It is the responsibility of the administration to send some sort of message to the Harvard community and the Virginia Tech community about what happened.”
Um....why? Other than the fact that Harvard and Virginia Tech are both universities, Harvard has no connection to what happened. Why does the Harvard "community" need a statement that "Harvard" is sad? Of course people are sad. But Harvard is not Oprah; its job is not to hold its students' hands and make them feel better. Nor, frankly, would the Virginia Tech community give a damn if Harvard sends them "some sort of message."
This episode suggests two things. First is how completely modern students have embraced the concept of in loco parentis, in which the university is supposed to play the role of parent to today's youth.
This infantilizing relationship between university and student, so challenged by students of the 1960s and 1970s, has come back in full force. It is only challenged when students lament alcohol restrictions during The Game. Now they want the University to give them a hanky. You can't have it both ways.
The second lesson of this episode is that it is a display in the narcissism of the young. What is so singular about this tragedy that the university must publicly nurse its charges through their grief? The fact that the gunman killed (primarily) students. Yet yesterday 171 Iraquis were killed in a car bomb explosion in Baghdad. Do any Harvard undergrads care? Where, as Bob Dole once said, is the outrage?
The Crimson reports that some students are frustrated with the University for not publicly expressing its sympathy for the Virginia Tech victims and their families.
The University’s decision not to issue a letter immediately following the events left some students critical of the approach. Harvard officials yesterday posted a statement of sympathy online and announced a service to remember the victims at 10 p.m. tonight in Memorial Church.
...UC Representative Jon T. Staff V ’10 criticized the administration’s approach.
“Harvard certainly hasn’t done enough to respond to the tragedies that have happened in Virginia over the past week,” he said. “It is the responsibility of the administration to send some sort of message to the Harvard community and the Virginia Tech community about what happened.”
Um....why? Other than the fact that Harvard and Virginia Tech are both universities, Harvard has no connection to what happened. Why does the Harvard "community" need a statement that "Harvard" is sad? Of course people are sad. But Harvard is not Oprah; its job is not to hold its students' hands and make them feel better. Nor, frankly, would the Virginia Tech community give a damn if Harvard sends them "some sort of message."
This episode suggests two things. First is how completely modern students have embraced the concept of in loco parentis, in which the university is supposed to play the role of parent to today's youth.
This infantilizing relationship between university and student, so challenged by students of the 1960s and 1970s, has come back in full force. It is only challenged when students lament alcohol restrictions during The Game. Now they want the University to give them a hanky. You can't have it both ways.
The second lesson of this episode is that it is a display in the narcissism of the young. What is so singular about this tragedy that the university must publicly nurse its charges through their grief? The fact that the gunman killed (primarily) students. Yet yesterday 171 Iraquis were killed in a car bomb explosion in Baghdad. Do any Harvard undergrads care? Where, as Bob Dole once said, is the outrage?
Fox Mocks the Dead
You have to see this Fox News obit of Kurt Vonnegut to believe it...the nastiest piece of work I've seen in quite some time.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Creepy Stuff at Virginia Tech
The Times isn't the only institution trying to exploit the tragedy at Virginia Tech for its own ends—now the Church of Scientology is sending "grief counselors," i.e., missionaries....
Oh, and President Bush, who opposes gun control, also went to the campus yesterday.....
_____________________________________________________________
P.S. In a comment below, I mentioned that Facebook would be an appropriate forum for the expression of grief. Someone else had the same idea.
Oh, and President Bush, who opposes gun control, also went to the campus yesterday.....
_____________________________________________________________
P.S. In a comment below, I mentioned that Facebook would be an appropriate forum for the expression of grief. Someone else had the same idea.
The Decanal Discussion, Day 4
John Huth. Berkeley Ph.D. fascinated by the experimental origins of electroweak symmetry. Yes, you heard it right. Electroweak symmetry. (Like you don't know what that is.)
Discuss.
Discuss.
Corzine on the Hot Seat
John Corzine wasn't wearing his seat belt even though his SUV driver was going 91 miles an hour.
What's wrong with this sentence?
1) No Democratic governor should be driving around in an SUV that is not a hybrid. (Corzine's Suburban was not.)
2) ...wasn't wearing his seat belt...even though SUVs are notoriously unsafe at high speeds.
3) ...91 miles an hour. That put not only Corzine at risk, but everyone else on the highway.
New Jersey troopers driving the governor around are apparently allowed to break the speed limit when necessary because of "security concerns."
(The extension of "security concerns" to virtually every elected official in American life, no matter how plebeian, is a great unreported story. It's really just an excuse for assuming anti-democratic privileges such as bodyguards and the right to speed.)
Why was Corzine rushing so? He had to get to a meeting with the Rutgers women's basketball team.....
What's wrong with this sentence?
1) No Democratic governor should be driving around in an SUV that is not a hybrid. (Corzine's Suburban was not.)
2) ...wasn't wearing his seat belt...even though SUVs are notoriously unsafe at high speeds.
3) ...91 miles an hour. That put not only Corzine at risk, but everyone else on the highway.
New Jersey troopers driving the governor around are apparently allowed to break the speed limit when necessary because of "security concerns."
(The extension of "security concerns" to virtually every elected official in American life, no matter how plebeian, is a great unreported story. It's really just an excuse for assuming anti-democratic privileges such as bodyguards and the right to speed.)
Why was Corzine rushing so? He had to get to a meeting with the Rutgers women's basketball team.....
Harlem is Hot
In what New York City neighborhood can you now find FedEx-Kinkos, Starbucks, Staples, Chuck E. Cheese, Children's Place, Citarella, Old Navy and H &M?
In Harlem—which is, coincidentally, my neighborhood.
As the Times reports, the pace of gentrification is astonishingly fast in Harlem. I have mixed feelings about the prevalence of national chains in the mix, but make no mistake: This is a good thing. These businesses aren't forcing out interesting local shops. They're taking over underutilized and empty spaces, and putting dreary, dirty and depressing shops out of business. And they're bringing a new energy and vibrancy to 125th Street. And make no mistake—the people who've lived here for some time need shops such as Staples and Old Navy. For too long, they've had to travel south to 96th Street or thereabouts in order to purchase some basic goods.
Now, if Columbia would just start building its new campus...this is going to be the hottest neighborhood in the city.
In Harlem—which is, coincidentally, my neighborhood.
As the Times reports, the pace of gentrification is astonishingly fast in Harlem. I have mixed feelings about the prevalence of national chains in the mix, but make no mistake: This is a good thing. These businesses aren't forcing out interesting local shops. They're taking over underutilized and empty spaces, and putting dreary, dirty and depressing shops out of business. And they're bringing a new energy and vibrancy to 125th Street. And make no mistake—the people who've lived here for some time need shops such as Staples and Old Navy. For too long, they've had to travel south to 96th Street or thereabouts in order to purchase some basic goods.
Now, if Columbia would just start building its new campus...this is going to be the hottest neighborhood in the city.
A Harvard Writer on Duke
In the Crimson, Lucy Caldwell writes about the "sensationalizing" of sexual violence in the Duke rape case and elsewhere.
So many facets of society have become so hypersensitive to such matters that we seem to be losing our ability to discern between legitimate issues of sexual violence and overblown or exaggerated circumstances... We’d do well to keep that in mind at Harvard this week, as the annual Take Back the Night events kick off. Take Back the Night, which began in the seventies, consists of candlelight vigils, rallies, and informational events aimed at promoting awareness of sexual crimes. This all sounds fine enough—preventing sexual violence is a laudable goal. The trouble is that much of the dialogue of events such as Take Back the Night ignores the fact that in many cases, preventing sexual violence hinges on sexual responsibility.
Hoo, boy. Prepare to get flamed, Lucy. (Not by me—I give you credit for guts, though I think your column lets men off the hook too easily.)
Now, this is an interesting idea:
As for Take Back the Night at Harvard, I suggest that at their closing candlelight vigil, they light a candle for the other victims of sexual violence politics—the ones who find themselves unfairly accused of serious sexual misjudgment. To acknowledge those victims—now that would be seizing the night.
There's about as much chance of that happening as there is of Al Sharpton apologizing for his role in the Tawana Brawley fiasco....
So many facets of society have become so hypersensitive to such matters that we seem to be losing our ability to discern between legitimate issues of sexual violence and overblown or exaggerated circumstances... We’d do well to keep that in mind at Harvard this week, as the annual Take Back the Night events kick off. Take Back the Night, which began in the seventies, consists of candlelight vigils, rallies, and informational events aimed at promoting awareness of sexual crimes. This all sounds fine enough—preventing sexual violence is a laudable goal. The trouble is that much of the dialogue of events such as Take Back the Night ignores the fact that in many cases, preventing sexual violence hinges on sexual responsibility.
Hoo, boy. Prepare to get flamed, Lucy. (Not by me—I give you credit for guts, though I think your column lets men off the hook too easily.)
Now, this is an interesting idea:
As for Take Back the Night at Harvard, I suggest that at their closing candlelight vigil, they light a candle for the other victims of sexual violence politics—the ones who find themselves unfairly accused of serious sexual misjudgment. To acknowledge those victims—now that would be seizing the night.
There's about as much chance of that happening as there is of Al Sharpton apologizing for his role in the Tawana Brawley fiasco....
Get Well, Dean Knowles
As Johannah Cornblatt and Samuel Jacobs report, at yesterday's faculty meeting, Derek Bok announced that FAS dean Jeremy Knowles was unable to attend because of unexpected complications from previously unannounced prostate cancer.
This is sad news. Let's hope that this is minor and quickly remedied. Our best wishes for a speedy recovery go out to Dean Knowles.
This is sad news. Let's hope that this is minor and quickly remedied. Our best wishes for a speedy recovery go out to Dean Knowles.
Mourning in America
Virginia Tech has created a memorial website, which shows that the title of this post isn't quite appropriate; on the Web, the whole world can mourn.
Meanwhile, on the front page of its website, the Times boldly displays something called "Interactive Feature: The Victims."
The paper continues to strike the wrong note..."victims" are not an interactive feature. They are victims.
Meanwhile, on the front page of its website, the Times boldly displays something called "Interactive Feature: The Victims."
The paper continues to strike the wrong note..."victims" are not an interactive feature. They are victims.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
The Times is Creeping Me Out
Is it appropriate for the New York Times to run short bios of those killed at Virginia Tech, then ask readers to "Share Your Memories of _(Name here)"?
If the Times had some special connection to this campus and/or these students, maybe. But it doesn't—and as a result, these special sections feel creepy and voyeuristic to me. Like crashing the funeral of someone you don't even know while other people pour out their grief...all so that the Times can drive blog traffic.
Yuk.
If the Times had some special connection to this campus and/or these students, maybe. But it doesn't—and as a result, these special sections feel creepy and voyeuristic to me. Like crashing the funeral of someone you don't even know while other people pour out their grief...all so that the Times can drive blog traffic.
Yuk.
He's Killing Them in Asia
Larry Summers is hugely popular in India, China and other Asian nations, according to the International Herald Tribune.
It is going to be so interesting when
It is going to be so interesting when