Cambridge Common

Some Notes on CampusTap and the New Space

2006-02-27T19:50:00.000-05:00

Hey everyone,

I just wanted to take a minute to address some of the comments and concerns we've been getting regarding our move to CampusTap. I'm cross-posting this here since many of the criticisms are being voiced here, and so that people who aren't plugged into CampusTap can read this as well. (more in expanded post)

First of all, we're really sorry about the delay in getting anonymous commenting up and running--the people designing CampusTap have been working extremely hard to set up that feature, as well as the RSS feed, which many people--both CampusTap users and non-users--have been requesting.

Second, we thank you for all your critical feedback--it lets us know what we need to fix and/or watch out for. At the same time, we hope that you can also be open-minded about the switch. Based on our experience with them, the CampusTap people aren't evil, institutional hyper-capitalists scheming to take over the world with their service/product--they're genuinely nice, earnest people who continue to go out of their way to help build us a server we'd be excited to use (partly because it's important to them that we become users, but also because they share our interest in the possibilities of New Media).

I'll be the first one to admit that the CampusTap site seems overwhelming and a little clannish at first, especially in comparison to clean-and-easy blogger (although, as you can tell from our whacked-out font that we've been trying to fix for weeks, blogger's not problem-free either). But the main advantage of CampusTap is that we get to dream up almost anything we want and, though it will take some time to build, eventually it can be realized. The CampusTap people are all ears--seriously. They want criticisms, suggestions and feedback. All that's required on our end is a little patience and a little trust. Honestly, this isn't so much to ask given the ease with which, if CampusTap did do something to frustrate us, we could easily switch back to blogger. But for now, we're making an investment (not monetary; just time- and hope-related) because we're enthusiastic about the new, customized features Campustap can construct, given that they can also eventually provide most of the same features we love about blogger.

For one thing, CampusTap lets us have multiple blogs on our single cambridge common site. At the moment we have our main blog, a guest blog (not yet in use) and an archives page. In the future, when we get more writers, we're looking into the possibility of an exciting layout redesign that we wouldn't be able to do with blogger (or at least it would cost a lot to pay someone to figure it out for us).

A few of us are also warming up to the nifty calendar function, which is actually a feature we had been trying to figure out how to incorporate into cambridge common ourselves before campustap approached us. The calendar can be helpful if you want to find out about campus events in your area of interest without having to deal with a flood of emails. It also gives us at cambridge common the ability to easily show our support for various real-life campus groups' endeavors.

Most importantly, CampusTap is an exciting experiment in online networking among campus communities. We’ll never know how useful it can be in bridging groups on campus and facilitating debate and information sharing until we—collectively—give it an honest try, understanding that it may not be perfect, we may ultimately deem it undesirable, but at least we’ll have explored it as a possibility. I hope you’ll be open to taking a chance on this project, taking its brand-nameyness with a grain of salt, and taking advantage of a rare opportunity to participate in building a network from the ground up.

Thanks for bearing with us during this time of transition. We think it'll be worth the wait.

RELAUNCH!

2006-02-24T00:22:00.000-05:00

We're online with CampusTap! Come share some wisdom with us in OUR NEW HOME!

Success...?

2006-02-23T19:21:00.000-05:00

This was a post I wrote last November and never published because it seemed to add little to the age-old question, but in retrospect, and at the beginning of a very busy semester, I think it is an appropriate time to ask some questions like these:

A couple of interesting conversations I've had this weekend have prompted me to really reconsider what I personally define as success, for myself. I think that sometimes what's easiest to say and what sounds good or right is not really what we feel inside: though I may say, and truly want to believe, and sometimes do believe, that I am comfortable with my academics being less than stellar because I have chosen to spend my time here in other ways, I know that a little part of me is disappointed whenever I see my transcript and wonders if I have sacrificed or compromised my future goals in some way for something I can't even put my finger on. I think this is true for many who enjoy their academics, but feel that their devotion to other causes, which may be equally or more important to them, make it impossible to learn and perform as they know they could.

So. How do you define success? How should we define success at Harvard? Do we lie to ourselves on the surface to relieve the stress or burden we may feel to do something big or achieve a certain level or result or make change, but by denying what we feel inside, do we do ourselves greater injury? Is it possible to turn an entire college of overachieving do-it-alls into satisfied and occasionally mediocre people? ...how?

reminder

2006-02-23T17:12:00.000-05:00

Hey all, just a quick reminder that we're having a little shindig tonight at 9 pm in the Lowell Grille (in the basement of O-entryway) to celebrate our move over to CampusTap and our new writers and to hopefully encourage some friends and readers to come share their thoughts with us (along with some pizza and drinks).

update: A reader reminds me that I haven't explained what CampusTap is. Basically, it's a new venture being kicked off by a handful of Harvard students that seeks to be the blog platform- like Blogger- for Harvard. The Crimson has a story on the site today.

Another quick note: many apologies to those of you who are having a hard time reading the site with this new font. We have no idea why it changed and I don't really like it. Luckily, as of 9 pm tonight, it won't matter!

Hope to see you there.

Larry Summers Takes A Bow

2006-02-22T23:55:00.000-05:00

One year ago, I spent the better part of the afternoon at a rally sponsored by the Coalition for an Anti-Sexist Harvard, where a hundred undergraduates suffered through subzero temperatures and intermittent rain to demand Larry Summers' resignation. The protest was timed to coincide with a critical meeting of the faculty, which was being covered by media outlets nationwide. It was a convergence of local and national opinion - the back of my head, for example, was featured on the next week’s Independent, but I had friends whose grandparents came across their pictures by way of the Associated Press. Larry Summers probably wasn’t having a fantastic day on February 22nd. Frankly, he’s not doing much better this year, since he's apparently opted for the whole unemployment thing instead of doggedly picking a fight.(more in expanded post)

What surprises me, though, is that I’m kind of ambivalent about the whole resignation announcement. Last year, I felt so strongly about the need for a change in leadership that I stood in an ankle-deep puddle of ice water for an hour and even filled out my own little no-confidence vote to place in the rally’s novelty-sized ballot box. If that’s not dedication, I don’t know what is. This year, for no apparent reason, I can’t seem to summon up any sort of seething rage.

It’s not like Larry Summers has personally changed my mind; if anything, I’ve been pretty disheartened by the constant controversy over things like Dean Kirby’s resignation and the backsliding on issues that hit closer to home, like Harvard’s refusal to join the lawsuit against the Solomon Amendment, pay its workers a living wage, or include gender identity and expression in its non-discrimination code. I’m convinced that leaders need to lead, and that conviction doesn’t necessarily stem from any sort of progressive belief that Harvard needs to set a global example (although, in an ideal world, maybe it would). Instead, I’d be satisfied if Harvard’s leadership took the initiative to solicit student opinion and listen to concerns instead of waiting until they’ve got dozens of unwashed labor activists calling the New York Times from their office. The student body is incredibly diverse, and almost every student group has concerns that deeply affect their college experience. I’d be refreshed if this was acknowledged by anyone, including Summers’ successor.

I’m invested in a university that functions as a model of academic excellence and democratic ideals, and I don’t believe that we were headed in the right direction – so why am I ambivalent right now? On a visceral level, I feel bad for Larry Summers because he’s human and deserves some degree of sympathy. It’s one thing to watch someone resign in an acknowledgment of bad decisions on his part; it’s another thing, though, to watch him shrug his shoulders and call it quits because a significant portion of his colleagues find him generally unlikable. My guilt complex is fairly overactive, and when I opened my inbox and found Larry Summers’ terse, wistful letter, something in me died a little. In a totally irrational way, I feel bad for wishing this upon him. Clearly, no individual student is responsible for his departure, but I held a sign and let my mullet-like haircut grace the cover of the Independent, so I feel apologetic in an admittedly irrational way.

It’s easy to become apprehensive about the more concrete effects of Summers’ departure, too. First and foremost, I worry about what this decision is going to do to the credibility of the left at Harvard. It was easy to dislike Summers when he had done something that was widely recognized as sexist – or, at the very least, wholly insensitive – by a large audience across the nation. At this time last year, the same announcement would have carried a very different symbolic weight, and it might have suggested that Harvard’s female students mattered more than its feckless president. It would have been a lesson, for better or for worse, in cause and effect and the importance of taking responsibility for one’s own actions – and that could have been meaningful for women and minorities everywhere. Instead, the lack of a single, salient source of discontent at the time of the announcement means that the whole episode is likely to go down as an anecdote about liberal academia’s chokehold on free thought – and that’s a drastically reductionist understanding of the whole debacle.

It makes sense for activists to be apprehensive about the announcement – not necessarily disappointed that Summers is leaving, but disappointed that the whole ordeal is likely to become a retroactive pox on the left at Harvard. Summers is departing at a time when there’s no single error in judgment that might merit his removal from power. Overall, this – more than anything else – is disappointing to those of us who can identify a litany of past frustrations and are still hoping against hope for positive, progressive institutional change. Harvard can easily stand up for its students and develop ethical fiber by divesting from Sudan, by refusing federal money until all of its students are eligible for the same employment opportunities, by updating its non-discrimination code, by fully recognizing underfunded academic disciplines, and by paying its workers a living wage. The feuds that marked Summers’ tenure didn’t have to be political, but the intractability of the university’s position turned them into ideologically charged free-for-alls between liberal academia and a controversial, more conservative figurehead. Now, by avoiding any issue directly and stepping down in a period of general discontent, there’s a good chance that the decision will go down in history as a victory of the implacable left, without really remembering why discontent built over the years. Overall, that’s bad news for those of us who will sacrifice a good pair of shoes and risk frostbite to fight sexism, but can’t seem to get excited about a decisive victory over nothing in particular.

on the radio

2006-02-22T19:49:00.000-05:00

Earlier this evening I participated in a roundtable discussion on WHRB about the Summers resignation. The other panelists were Zach Seward, the former Crimson Managing Editor who broke the story itself for the WSJ, Eric Lesser, the President of the Dems, and Matt Meisel, one of the co-chairs of the Crimson. I think it was a good discussion, although the other three probably contributed more to it than I did. The piece also featured a taped statement from Professor James Engell on behalf of the faculty, an interview with Richard Bradley of Harvard Rules and a (wo)man on the street montage of Harvard students. Check it out and share your reactions.

on covering coverage and breaking news

2006-02-22T01:52:00.000-05:00

On a few email lists, and now in the comments section, has been the complaint that Cambridge Common thinks it "broke" the news that Larry is resigning. I quickly mentioned this issue earlier today, but I thought it was fair to address it more in full. Apologies to people on the FUP list who have already read this explanation. (more in expanded post)

I do not claim to have "broken" the fact that Larry Summers was resigning. Simply speaking, I (and people on email lists) "broke" the fact that the Crimson believed that the WSJ had the story and that some Crimson staff members were sharing this information. That fact (and it is a fact) was verified by two sources and a half a dozen emails. I realize that the emails are less reliable, but the sources at the Crimson were as reliable as any sources that the Crimson uses on reporting on other things.

Simply said, this was coverage of the Crimson. If anything, that people believed that because I reported this fact-that the Crimson believed that it had been scooped by the WSJ- they believed that Larry was in fact resigning is a testament to the reliability of the Crimson.

To the extent that you believe that the Crimson should not be covered as a newsmaker in and of itself, or to the extent that you do not trust me as a source and therefore don't believe my sources were legitimate, I would understand concern and clarification. But if you believe that I am a reliable source and the Crimson is a legitimate thing to be covered, I held myself to the same standards that the Crimson holds itself to.

It seems odd to me that some have decried my coverage of the "breaking" of the story, and yet do so because they are so interested in that fact as a piece of news. Because I wrote about the "breaking" of the story before it was "broken" doesn't make my story any less legitimate. In addition, this seems ironic to me considering the fact that the story the Crimson ended up running this morning was about the fact that another media source had confirmed the story but they could not.

In any event, I want to make this clear because it's important to me not to delegitimize the hard work done by the people who actually confirmed the truth of the story and worked hard to do so. I was excited to find out about the process as it was happening, but only because the process itself is important and a valid thing to cover.

I hope that's clear. Feel free to share your thoughts and wisdom. If you're interested, you can read more about my thoughts on alternative media at Harvard.

Think we're spiffy?

2006-02-22T01:45:00.000-05:00

Come hang out with us at the Cambridge Common R E L A U N C H party!
This Thursday, 9-11 pm, Lowell Grille.
Some food, some great company and some RELAUNCHING!!!

civilized cultures would never do such a...oh wait...

2006-02-22T01:21:00.000-05:00

Things like this are part of why I'm so frustrated when people make broad generalizations about the noble attributes of 'Western Civilization' in opposition to "[Islam,] a rather sizable religious tradition [that] doesn’t seem even to comprehend the notion of free expression."

Some guy I'm reading for class wrote the following a while ago:

It will be said, that we do not now put to death the introducers of new opinions: we are not like our fathers who slew the prophets, we even build sepulchres to them. It is true we no longer put heretics to death; and the amount of penal infliction which modern feeling would probably tolerate, even against the most obnoxious opinions, is not sufficient to extirpate them. But let us not flatter ourselves that we are yet free from the stain of even legal persecution. Penalties for opinion, or at least for its expression, still exist by law; and their enforcement is not, even in these times, so unexampled as to make it at all incredible that they may some day be revived in full force.
-J.S. Mill, "On Liberty"

More recently, a popular music group had this to say:

I know you'd like to think your shit don't stink
But lean a little bit closer
See that roses really smell like boo-boo
Yeah, roses really smell like boo-boo
-Outkast, "Roses"

Wise sentiments, both.

avoiding a fall after summers

2006-02-21T22:53:00.000-05:00

A recent anonymous commentor offered some good reasons why we undergrads should care about our presidents' resignation. In particular, they note that this is an important opportunity to reassess and clarify our own priorities for our undergraduate education--priorities we want the next president to take up. After this year's UC elections, I proposed coming up with a wish list for the coming year; now, I think another exercise in envisioning and articulating is in order.

If we don't start talking now about what we want from our future head honcho, we doom ourselves to complacency in what may be, as Francisco predicts, a continuation of the same old problems (does the corporation have the real power anyway?).

What do we want our new president to advocate for? What changes do we wish to see? (more in expanded post)

I, for one, agree with the aforementioned commentor that the continuation of financial aid improvement is a top priority. Students' financial situations make a huge difference in their Harvard experience--from feeling annoyed when peers casually discuss plans to jet-set to Paris for spring break, to having to work multiple jobs in order to get a head start on paying off loans. A president should be committed to recruiting low-income students and supporting them while they're here.

A new president should have more respect than Summers had for the social sciences. Desiring to improve the 'hard,' 'empirical' sciences is all well and good, but faculty in the humanities also deserve respect, attention, and support. Holding up the science departments as bastions of real truth while relegating humanities fields to a mere means of filling out a liberal arts education implies a dangerous tendency to ignore the ways that science is embedded in social practices (courses in the history of science department offer some fascinating perspectives on this).

A new president should seek innovative ways of building community among undergraduates, transforming the mosaic-style diversity of Harvard--where groups self-segregate and there are too few consistent attempts to bridge them--into a more mobile, fluid, kaleidoscopic diversity. Expanding social space, as the anonymous commentor noted, should be one of the new president's concerns, but so should capitalizing on what positive momentum was created by last year's summers scandal (whether or not you think it was blown out of proportion, the Women and Minorities Task force that was created as a result could become a major asset in promoting diversity among faculty in general and within certain departments specifically).

Finally, it seems to me that the both the FAS faculty and the new president will have to come up with more effective, satisfactory way of communicating. Maybe the problems had a lot to do with Summers' personality and style of interaction, but perhaps if the faculty had some mechanism for airing grievances before they grow so out-of-hand as to warrant a call for a no-confidence vote, it could create a more open relationship between faculty and administration so that the president doesn't have to be a bulldozer in order to get things done. Maybe I'm naive in thinking that this sort of improvement can be made, but it seems to me that a president should be able to persuasively advocate a vision for reforms while still being able to take faculty feedback into consideration.

Those who know more about this and all things Harvard than I do, please share some wisdom. What's on your wish list for the post-Summers era?

Different president, same shit

2006-02-21T22:42:00.000-05:00

To go off Deb's point, why should the average Harvard college student care about Summers' resignation? While I think that Summers has been a bad president (weakening the Af-Am department, comments on women, etc.), I don't think that it matters that he has resigned because whoever replaces him will most likely follow the same policies. Who cares who the actual person in charge is, if Harvard remains the same. Is the same argument I have with folks who think that the problem with the American government is Bush. No, the problem with the American government is the American government, i.e. it's the system, not the person. If Bush died tomorrow, he would be replaced by Cheney and things would remain the same or get worse. Same principle applies to Larry Summers. A progressive President of Harvard University could accomplish a lot. Harvard is a leader (if not the leader) of American higher education. Harvard has played a leading role in monumental changes in the American college system, such as the SAT, but is any future president of Harvard really going to rock the boat like that? No. Therefore, why care? The personalities will be different, the policies are the same i.e. Allston campus still gets built and the residents screwed over, still no campus center, still an undemocratic governance structure, etc. Hopefully, whoever they find to permanently replace Larry will be better at PR. As long as the next president doesn't stick his (or her, but doubt the corporation would do that) foot in his mouth and continue doing what Larry was doing then he will be successful. That was Larry's only real mistake, saying stupid things and attracting too much media attention.

trans happenings, part 2

2006-02-21T22:34:00.000-05:00

Another major upcoming trans-related event is actually part of a project I’m working on at the moment: the undergraduate production of Eve Ensler’s The Vagina Monologues. While Ensler requires that all productions of her show include certain of her original monologues, she allows some wiggle room for the rest. This year’s undergraduate production (I specify undergraduate because the Divinity School did the show this year as well, performing it in a church and selling “God loves vaginas” t-shirts. Kudos to them!) will include three original monologues focusing on transgender people and their significant others, friends, family and allies (known in nifty shorthand as SOFFAs*). The pieces are based on anonymous email submissions that circulated over the BGLSTA list earlier this year; they’ve been adapted into monologues by a team of writers, directors, actresses and consultants.

Including transgendered characters in the show is interesting and important for a number of reasons, but one of the most striking statements it makes is that “The Vagina Monologues” is not synonymous with “The Woman Monologues” because not everyone who has a vagina is a woman. (more in expanded post)

The people working on the “trans monologues,” as they’ve come to be known, have faced an extremely difficult, delicate task. They needed to be able to convey the feelings and experiences of real people by turning them into characters. They had to stay close to the original words in order to honor their authenticity, yet make them theatrically powerful enough to resonate with audience members who have given little or no thought at all to transgenderism.

Also at issue was the question of who should perform the monologues. Some feel that it would be inappropriate to require that a transgender person play a transgender character—such a mandate would fly in the face of producers’ efforts to avoid typecasting in the show (for instance, a white actress, in character, recalls getting her period for the first time by saying the line, “Fifteen, black and poor, blood on the back of my dress in church.”). Others, however, feel strongly that trans actors must participate in the performance; otherwise, the production itself would be perpetuating a problem that one of the trans monologues points out: “talking about trans people like they’re not there.” Speaking on behalf of the voiceless is important, but only up until the point at which we can speak for ourselves. At a certain point, allies need to be able to step back and support, rather than represent.

Come out and see the show this Thursday, Friday, or Saturday and make up your own mind about the trans monologues (and just enjoy a great production). Tickets are $8 for students and always sell very fast, so stop by the box office soon! If you have any immediate thoughts, too, as always, we'd love to hear them.

*update: In a writing rush, I incorrectly wrote "SAFAs" instead of "SOFFAS" because I remembered what the acronym sounds like and its general gist, but couldn't remember what it stands for and meant to look it up later, but forgot. A guardian angel of sorts emailed me to correct my error. Thanks to them and to everyone for your patience and kindness.

And this matters to us because...?

2006-02-21T22:19:00.000-05:00

Alongside Andrew's very on-top-of-it updating, I'd like to ask all of you some more wishy-washy questions. Why you think the average Harvard student should care about Summers resigning, why people do care, or why they don't? Apart from the peripheral (or perhaps not-so-peripheral) effects of Summers on the general Harvard image, I'm inclined to feel that there really won't be any real, immediate consequences on Joe Schmoe's day-to-day Harvard experience, but should there be? Should the students have a say in who sits in that Mass Hall office next fall? Or would that just be an extension of what some are suggesting is an undue power/influence that FAS has shown over the presidency of the entire University?

other exciting news: trans happenings, part 1

2006-02-21T22:12:00.000-05:00

I mentioned a while back that issues of transgenderism would be big this year. Well, this week is a big week. On Monday night, members of the Harvard Trans Task Force (TTF) led a workshop on supporting and honoring the trans members of our community. But the workshop audience wasn’t just your typical BGLTSA crowd. The event took place immediately preceding a UC town hall meeting, and UC President John Haddock laudably sent out some emails to UC representatives encouraging them to attend the TTF workshop: (more in expanded post)

Mischa Feldstein and the BGLTSA have kindly offered to give the UC a special session "Trans Training 101" on Monday before our meeting. This is not a required activity, though I would encourage as many of you as possible to attend. I'm posting below some information about the session:

Trans 101: This is an excellent opportunity to hear Michael Greenspan, a knowledgeable transgender activist, talk about what it means to be transgender and how trans issues have shaped his life and can/do shape the lives of the students you represent. Transgender students at Harvard face a unique set of challenges, and this is a valuable chance to learn about those challenges and how we as community members and leaders can effect positive change. This training assumes only that you enter with an open mind.

Mischa emailed me and some others with some more information about the training--it sounded really wonderful; I was bummed I couldn't go:

This is an excellent opportunity to learn more about a relatively invisible minority here on campus. As leaders of campus organizations, all of you face the difficult task of serving the interests of the student body, yet there persists a general lack of knowledge and understanding of the needs and challenges specific to transgender communities on campus - communities that intersect with many of those that your organizations represent. The training will go over the basics - from what transgender means to a discussion of what it is like to be transgender at college.

Given the kind of heated controversy that often surrounds topics of queerness in the mainstream (not that queerness in queer-supportive communities and/or academia doesn’t have its share of pitched battles, too), isn’t it a little curious that John’s endorsement of this workshop training elicited not so much as a peep of protest? I cautiously take it as a good sign, but in all likelihood the silence is due to apathy, not assent.

Well, the Trans Task Force has a lot more exciting events in the works for this year, so the current silence won't last. I know I'm really excited for the potential for some intense dialogue...

did Bok prepare?

2006-02-21T20:56:00.000-05:00

A great find from Vikram posted as a comment below (from Blue Mass. Group):

Derek Bok, who was Harvard's President from 1971-1991, will return to serve as interim President - perhaps this explains Bok's resignation as head of Common Cause last week. The timing seems a bit too close to be pure coincidence - Bok must have known Summers' resignation was coming.

Does this explain Larry decision to get out and going skiing for the weekend?

WHRB to play Summers resignation address

2006-02-21T20:00:00.000-05:00

Now (8 pm) WHRB is going to play the speech Larry made from in front of Mass Hall this afternoon. You can tune in to 95.3 (if for some reason you still have a radio) or check it out at their website.

UPDATE: It's not on, so I guess throptalk was wrong or there's a delay...

UPDATE 2: It's on.

breaking: a protest and possible sit-in

2006-02-21T18:21:00.000-05:00

It's official, Trombly and his crew (whoever they turn out to be) will be protesting next Tuesday's faculty club meeting and, if the faculty doesn't make its case, "adjourn to the Faculty Club and will remain there until an explanation is provided."

covering the coverage of my coverage of the coverage of the coverage

2006-02-21T17:22:00.000-05:00

Good lord, all of this coverage is making me tired. I just got off the phone with a Boston Herald reporter who is writing a short story about Cambridge Common breaking the news. I tried to make it clear: all we did was cover the coverage to come. In any event, a few other Boston blogs have kind words for Cambridge Common in covering all of this (Universal Hub and Hub Blog) which are much appreciated. The word got out because Instapundit, one of the biggest blogs in the country, linked over to my first post. We even got a link up in TradeSports where people were betting on Larry's future.

Hub Blog sums it up best: it's not your father/mother's media anymore.

breaking? a sit-in?

2006-02-21T17:03:00.000-05:00

Further proof that we now live in bizarroland: a conservative Editorial Exec at the Harvard Crimson, Drew Trombly, is promoting the idea of a sit-in at either the Faculty Club or Professor Judith Ryan's (an anti-Summers leader) office hours. He's posted the idea in our comments section and over at Summersville, and a few other active conservatives (Kavulla of the Crimson/Salient and Vivek Ramaswamy of the Harvard Political Union) are pubbing the idea on political email lists. Strangely I feel for their cause: while I'm not a big Summers fan the Faculty simply hasn't made an adequate public case for their revolt. That’s not to say that I don’t think it was warranted, but if the President of Harvard is resigning we should be able to point to an OpEd or a speech or something. Occassional quotes (anonymouse and otherwise) and random anecdotes are clearly not enough.

Even so, a sit-in would be hilarious and absurd, especially when the basis of the conservative critique of both lefties on campus and the faculty itself is an inability to deal "rationally" with serious issues. Part of me is rooting for it to happen, the other part of me is worried that only incredibly strong drugs would allow me to make it through the whole thing with my sanity intact.

liveblogging Larry

2006-02-21T16:13:00.000-05:00

That's right, Garrett Dash Nelson over at Demapples is actually LIVEBLOGGING Larry Summers resignation speech. For so many reasons, we now officially live in bizarroland.

Summers emails campus

2006-02-21T13:23:00.000-05:00

As I'm sure you all know, this email was just sent around to campus:

Dear Members of the Harvard Community,

I write to let you know that, after considerable reflection, I have notified the Harvard Corporation that I will resign as President of the University as of June 30, 2006. I will always be grateful for the opportunity to have served Harvard in this role, and I will treasure the continuing friendship and support of so many exceptional colleagues and students at Harvard.

Below are links to my letter to the community, as well as a letter from the members of the Corporation and a related news release.

Sincerely,

Larry Summers

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/daily/2006/02/21-summers.html
http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2006/0221_summers.html
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/daily/2006/02/21-board.pdf

NYT piles on, breaks new news

2006-02-21T12:46:00.000-05:00

The New York Times has finally chimed in with some new tidbits:

Lawrence H. Summers, the president of Harvard University, has decided to resign and is expected to make his decision public later today or tomorrow, three officials affiliated with the university said today.

Someone has finally gone past the two anonymous Wall Street Journal sources, so I think it's finally safe to say that the fat lady is singing loudly. Another interesting revelation:

Derek Bok, who served as president of Harvard from 1971 to 1991, and before that as dean of the law school, is expected to step in as interim president, starting in July, according to a university official.

A new president by next fall. Would the first female president of Harvard be too not subtle?

UPDATE 1:15 pm: The Crimson is now reporting the same thing.

my favorite response:

2006-02-21T10:21:00.000-05:00

This is my favorite response yet to Summers resigning (from RedIvy):

A Sad Day
If the rumor mill is true, then tomorrow will go down in the annals of Harvard history as a truly sad day indeed. A moderate and effective President with many great ideas will be forced to resign by a group of very vocal socialist FAS professors that have hijacked this university, despite clear opposition from both the student body and the faculty of most of the graduate schools. It all started with a few innocent and completely appropriate comments made that were a little too much for the professors' vision of a socialist utopia embodied in Harvard. If we can be grateful for anything in this, it's that the pack of wolves who forced Summers out will have little or no say in who comes in next. Maybe our next president will help us to work towards giving them the boot, something that, I think we can all agree, is long overdue.

I honestly think that many Republicans are still fighting the Cold War, and I love it.

it's officialish?

2006-02-21T09:48:00.000-05:00

It's funny, some have criticized (maybe fairly) this blog for feeding the rumor mill without hard facts. Then I read the Crimson story today: it's the same thing! No one but two Wall Street Journal anonymous sources seems to be able to confirm this thing. Until then, I will continue to report on reports of other people's reports.

whoa

2006-02-21T01:31:00.000-05:00

As if this evening couldn't be any weirder, the Indy weighs in.

hilarious.

2006-02-21T00:58:00.000-05:00

Some members of The Crimson are apparently livid with their leakers (which are, I assure you, numerous). An anonymous poster posted a line from an email to News-Talk that I found entertaining, for obvious reasons. Summersville picked it up: "crimeds never should have spoken to outside sources - especially not Andrew F-ing Golis." As fits with the pattern of the night, the entirety of that email was leaked to me about a half hour ago. It's below the fold. (more in expanded post)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Andrew Mark Trombly
Date: Feb 20, 2006 11:32 PM
Subject: RE: [NEWSTALK] Covering Summers' Resignation
To: Timothy John McGinn , Newstalk < newstalk-l@thecrimson.com>

Even (and especially) if the story hadn't been confirmed, crimeds never
should have spoken to outside sources - especially not Andrew F-ing Golis.
The way this story broke is unacceptable. It makes us look like fools when
the rumors are attributed to crimeds while The Crimson is refraining from
releasing the story. The rumor mill never would have started churning if
people had managed to keep their mouths shut.

DMT

-----Original Message-----
From: newstalk-l-bounces@magenta.thecrimson.com
[mailto:newstalk-l-bounces@magenta.thecrimson.com ] On Behalf Of Timothy John
McGinn
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 11:23 PM
To: Newstalk
Subject: [NEWSTALK] Covering Summers' Resignation

Have we confirmed that Summers is resigning yet? (Some of the emails
that've been forwarded over newstalk would seem to suggest we
haven't.) I mean, if we haven't, that's one thing, but if we have,
wouldn't it have made more sense to do a web update with a first
write-through of the story as soon as we did? We could've controlled
the release of the story that way, before it leaked all over house
open lists and cambridge common and whatnot, and then published an
updated story tomorrow with student reaction. Obviously if we're
still trying to nail this down on the record the whole situation is
different, but I was just wondering...

/tjm

looking for confirmation

2006-02-21T00:02:00.000-05:00

Does anyone have Larry Summers phone number?

BREAKING: Summers is resigning

2006-02-20T22:30:00.000-05:00

ORIGINAL POST: I have it from two sources at the Crimson, and it is now on the Adams house list, that Summers is resigning. Apparently the Crimson is leaking like a sieve. Either that or they're floating false information. You know what I know, but it looks like it's all over.

UPDATE: I just spoke to someone in the Crimson newroom who told me that they are in the process of writing the story as we speak and will be publishing it later tonight. The person also told me specifically that it was not a Lampoon Hoax. Again, just reporting what I know.

---

Travis Kavulla wrote this to GOP-Open:

Rumor has it that Larry Summers is resigning.

The Wall Street Journal is supposedly breaking the story tomorrow; The Crimson is looking for confirmation on the story.

From Currier-Wire (via Dems-Talk):

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [CurrierWire] summers resigns
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:59:32 -0500
From: Zak Tanjeloff
To:

Yup. I called up a friend at the Crimson and said it's true. They have some legit sources apparently. From my understanding, the reason he is resigning is because the corporation has begun a dialogue with the faculty, something which it usually never does. It seems that the corporation was beginning to mull Summers future and thus, Larry thought it better to resign now then face another vote of no confidence and a potential reaction from the corporation.

Z

Another possibility?

All this is a ploy to make money on in-trade stock. Larry isn't resigning tomorrow, I am sure of that. The stock on in-trade just went up from 72 to 99 dollars a share... and that happened only from the information from a few crimson people and Travis K. This is a classic case of insider trading and someone is going to get busted for it... mark my words, Summers doesn't resign tomorrow and someone makes a lot of money...

Of course, for that to be true Kavulla and Tanjeloff's friend and my sources would all have to be lying, which is possible, but would be kind of sad. I would bet that anonymous commenter is just worried about losing a lot of money, hence the watching the price.

Freedom to deny truth?

2006-02-20T21:24:00.000-05:00

On the recent debate on freedom of expression prompted by the cartoons depicting Mohammed, what do you all think of this article, where a notorious Nazi-denier is sentenced to several years in prison? While we might feel that this is an extreme case, where do we draw the line between freedom of interpretation and something that should be punished by law?

summersgate links

2006-02-20T13:37:00.000-05:00

As the Summersgate speculation reaches fever pitch, I thought I'd through a few links out there for any of you who, like me, have had to dig around to figure out what in the world is going on.

First, CampusTap is hosting an open discussion blog called Summersville. We'll have more news about CampusTap and Cambridge Common's future soon, but for now suffice to say the site is a cool new space for Harvard blogs.

Second, check out Richard Bradley's blogging on the whole thing. Bradley is the author of Harvard Rules, and is very much anti-Summers. He's also very thorough and collects all of the latest news on what's going on, whether you agree with his opinions or not.

There seems to be a growing consensus that Summers is done, what do you think?

The (Native) American Dream

2006-02-20T02:03:00.000-05:00

If you saw this woman walking down the street would you think:

a) She is a model.

b) She is a teacher.

c) She is a sales clerk.

d) She is former $60,000/day-making drug dealer.

If you chose "d" then you are absolutely right. Today's NY Times contains a feature on this woman, Eugenia Phair, who is a Native American of the Lummi tribe in Washington and a former high-level drug trafficker. Take a few minutes and read the article on her life both pre, during, and post-drug trafficking. Any reactions?

Unhand The Throne

2006-02-19T11:42:00.000-05:00

Check out this Boston Globe article published today on the possibility of President Summers being removed from office by the Harvard Corporation in order to settle the ongoing dispute between him and the University. Seeing as how the faculty plans to have a vote of no confidence in him on February 28 the Globe states that the Corporation may "act quickly" to avoid what is expected to be a lopsided vote of no confidence. Throughout this time of President Summers being on the hot seat for controversy after controversy after controversy my main question in the midst of all this has been: why should any undergraduate care?

Do President Summers' statements have any impact on us as students at the University he presides over besides offending some of us (and does offending students and faculty justify his removal) What is this impact?

Does President Summers have a greater responsibility to students and faculty or to the Harvard Corporation and its shareholders (or to alumni? Staff)?

As has been previously suggested, a vote of no confidence from the student body directly or the UC representatively would mean...what? Please respond to any of these questions of you have opinions on them, informed public.

the crimson's solution to sexism? girls just wanna have fun

2006-02-18T03:20:00.000-05:00

In a staff ed titled “True Equality,” the Crimson pans the idea of a women’s center, emphasizing instead a need for more co-ed social space. Setting aside the fact that the women’s center plans include a café, that the center would be open to everyone, and that the staff ed’s subtitle, “Women don’t need a center, they need to be treated like other co-ed groups,” implies that women are a co-ed group (huh?), the editorial’s major flaw is that it misidentifies the primary battleground in the fight for gender equity. “Harvard’s women would be better served by democratizing a social scene dominated by all-male institutions than by meeting rooms,” the Crimson staff insists. Failing to account for the many permutations of sexism that Harvard women encounter during both daylight and nighttime hours, the Crimson’s stock answer to problems of gender inequality seems to be, “Throw more parties where everyone’s invited.”

Did I miss something? Since when did the typical college party scene become the ideal site for combating patriarchy? The Crimson’s logic resonates eerily with certain free-trade arguments we’re accustomed to hearing: we just need to level the playing field. Then, all the deserving groups, stifled and constrained up to this point by artificial barriers, will rise to their proper place of equality in healthy, meritocratic competition. Do we really think it’s that simple? (more in expanded post)

Integrating social spaces may be an important element in promoting gender equality, but it certainly isn’t a silver bullet. Just as the Civil Rights Movement and official desegregation did not end racism but in some ways only further obscured it (making it more difficult to talk about systemic racism without seeming paranoid or hysterical), “democratizing social space” on an institutional level can actually be a dangerous move if it’s not accompanied by a healthy dose of awareness of the subtle, nuanced forms of sexism pervading society. Of all the spheres that undergrad Harvard women navigate, the social scene will continue to be one of the most difficult as long as individual people continue to carry deeply rooted sexist ideas. Dialogue, education campaign materials, political will, and--yes--meeting space will go much further than vodka, beer and house music in helping concerned Harvard students to attack sexism in Harvard culture.

Even within the narrow parameters of Harvard's social scene, the Crimson is off base in its assessments. We need only look at the institutions it touts—the Seneca, the Bee, the Isis, and sororities—to see that these groups' influence does not, in fact, move us closer to a time “when women do not have to stand outside a final club mansion in a short skirt and heels, hoping to be judged ‘hot’ enough to have a social life.” If anything, it's just that women are the ones judging each other as pledges or punches--a kind of screening process. The Crimson staff argues that women's social clubs are primarily “hamstrung by a lack of space and resources.” But why should we believe that, if women's social clubs are granted these things, the objectification and judging process will not simply take place indoors? Is the Bee, with its new home, really making great strides in the struggle against sexual objectification?

The Crimson also asserts that groups like the Bee are “successful women’s communities,” and thus both need and deserve the College’s support. But they never elucidate their criteria for success. Let’s be real: we’re not talking about gaining access to “a room of one’s own” here. We’re talking about throwing parties. And even in this capacity, the College shouldn’t actively support the groups absent evidence that the social climate they specialize in creating will actually benefit the entire undergraduate population, not just a select final-club-friendly crowd.

While sexism in social life is a major problem, women-led student organizations like ABHW, SAWC, Women in Business, Girlspot, Fuerza, AAWA, Strong Women Strong Girls, RUS, the Women’s Leadership Network, and others are in a better position than sororities and female final clubs to address it within the wide range of manifestations of gender inequality at Harvard. A women’s center would aid them in these efforts by providing, as RUS's proposal states, “a centralized home for all groups concerned with women’s issues,” and serving as “a non-discriminatory destination for students of all genders who are committed to the advancement and well-being of women at this university.” Hey, sounds like my kind of party.

Sorry, Mr. Wealthy Shooter of My Face Who I Give Money To

2006-02-17T16:19:00.000-05:00

Well the guy that Cheney shot has now emerged from the hospital in Texas where he has been for the past week and what was one of the first things to come out of his mouth? An apology to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, the man that has permanently tatooed him with shotgun pellet holes and wounds along the right side of his upper body. I'm all for forgiveness but come on...

This comes a day after sheriffs in Kenedy County where the shooting occurred decided not to press charges in the incident after deeming it a "hunting accident". Conflicting reports have arisen over numerous details about the shooting and its subsequent investigation including when exactly Cheney was questioned by sherrifs in Kennedy County, whether Secret Service agents initially turned away the sheriffs, etc.

What suprises me about all this is that: (1) Harrington has been released from the hospital much earlier than most people expected (read: Cheney got him the best doctors...if not his personal ones), (2) the sheriff's investigation seems to be based primarily on Cheney's personal account of what happened, and (3) nobody has heard a peep from Pamela Pitzer Willeford, a high-level U.S. diplomat who was the third person present when Cheney shot Harrington. What I see is the Vice President's entourage (including his doctors, the Secret Service, and more) doing a darn good job at protecting him, whether it means they are restricting some people from talking, working their tales off to make sure that the medical condition of Harrington didn't worsen, stifling the local sheriff's investigation or what have you.

UC special election

2006-02-17T03:15:00.000-05:00

The results are in. You may not have known it, but the UC just held a round of special elections to fill 6 seats in 5 houses. The three victories of note: a Haddock campaign worker, an ex-VP candidate and a former UC member. Erik Kouslkalis won John Haddock's seat in Currier and, seeing as how he was an active member of Haddock's campaign team, he will likely be a close ally of the President. Tom Hadfield, who ran for Eliot UC Rep in the fall and then for UC VP with Magnus Grimeland in December, finally managed to get himself onto the Council but appears to have given up on his brief effort to convince the Council to hold a campus vote on student confidence in President Summers. If he ran for VP as a sophomore from off the Council, one can imagine what he'll be looking to do as a Junior on the Council if he can stay on until next December. Finally, Eddie Lee won the seat in Leverett and previously served last year as a first-year. Lee was best known as an outspoken supporter of funding Christian groups whose constitutions explicitly prohibit non-Christian leaders, a practice deemed by many to violate the UC's anti-discrimination policies.

Are any of the other races of particular note? The rest of the results are below the fold. (more in expanded post)

Adams: 1 Seat

Elected: James Sietstra
2nd: Jacob Mays
3rd: Tom Hamnett
4th: Kyle A. Krahel
5th: Erin Frey
6th: Jill Sylvester

Currier: 1 seat

Elected: Eric Kouslkalis
2nd: Joe Cooper

Eliot: 1 seat

Elected: Tom Hadfield
2nd: Greg Schmidt
3rd: Brian Aldrich
4th: Harrison Greenbaum

Leverett: 1 seat

Elected: Eddie Lee
2nd: Ben Decker
3rd: Matthew S. Fasman

Winthrop: 2 seats

Elected: Raymond Palmer
Elected: Jenny Skelton
3rd: Dan Koh
4th: Tom Jackson

big Q!

2006-02-17T00:23:00.000-05:00

Alright, I know we've been overdoing the event promoting the last few days, but some stuff is just that good. Tomorrow is the Big Question, an amazing project that is trying to encourage people to engage those scary deep meaningful conversations with people other than their roommates late at night. I love the thinking out loud, it's the best way to build community knowledge and insight. The challenge for Harvard students (for me, anyway) is learning to listen...

Go ask the Big Question tomorrow, share and listen! They're asking: Social Justice Tourism? What do service trips mean for us and for the places we go? The blurb is below the break... (more in expanded post)

?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?
* Have you spent time volunteering or teaching abroad?
* Have you gone on "alternative" spring break trips before?
* Ever feel like the "big questions" don't get asked at Harvard?
* Do you like FREE PIZZA? :)

This Friday, PBHA Presents this Semester's First...

((((((THE BIG QUESTION))))))

"Social Justice Tourism?"
What do service trips mean for us and for the places we go?

Special Guest:
Hamilton Simons-Jones,
Tulane University Director of Community Service

Hamilton helped organize the PBHA intersession trip to New Orleans.

This Friday, February 17th, 5PM-6PM
Phillips Brooks House Parlor Room
FREE PIZZA! :)

?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?

The Big Question is an experimental new PBHA project intended to provide
a weekly space for taking on the tough questions about society and our
role in it. The Big Question is not about jargon-filled policy debates or
easy answers from experts but instead strives to create an open, humble,
and respectful environment for constructive dialogue on essential issues.
For more information: stevelin@fas

Yale divests from Sinopec

2006-02-15T21:28:00.000-05:00

Last week, the Crimson informed us that Harvard had increased its investments in a Chinese oil company named Sinopec. Today, Yale divested from Sinopec and six other oil companies completely saying:

Yale’s decision to divest from these oil companies, which are actively conducting operations in Sudan, is based on the finding that more than half of the Sudanese government’s revenue is derived from oil. As the source of such revenue, the companies are presumed to be committing “grave social injury” by providing substantial assistance to the perpetrators of genocide.

Last year's divestment success at Harvard was exciting, but don't be fooled: according to Yale's study we are still funding genocide. There is no moral distinction that I know of between Sinopec and PetroChina, so it's time for Harvard to stand up and do the right thing.

Harvard Salient: "look at me! look at me! PLEASE LOOK AT ME!"

2006-02-15T16:33:00.000-05:00

Now, let's be honest, I'm not exactly immune to the allure of self-promotion. Unless you're writing for the Crimson or some other overly dominant news source, media is part ideas and part politics; you've got to get attention if you want to be heard. The Salient has for a long time been an all too able embodiment of that principle: provoke first, explain second, bask in the attention, adulation and disdain third. But, one would think the Fullah Barbie, a profoundly hilarious martyrdom complex and an appropriate but unhealthy love of Harvey Mansfield would be enough to satisfy their need for conservative flamboyance and blatant demagoguery. Apparently not, and this week the Salient decided to publish the cartoons of Muhammad that have resulted in international outrage, both peaceful and violent, and a sudden interest on the Right in free speech. And they're very excited about it. (more in expanded post)

Let me start by noting this: I am not attacking their right to do so. People have the right to do and say all kinds of silly or tasteless things (like run through Harvard Yard with socks on their ears declaring their love for football tees and clowns, for instance), that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to say they are wrong or weird for doing it. So please, spare me the free speech whining, no one's knocking on Travis Kavulla's door in Mather and demanding that he follow them to one of our secret prisons in Eastern Europe.

But seriously, what point was there to do this other than pure attention-mongering? Yes, I know, it's a statement of principle that reaffirms the freedom of the press in the United States. That's fine, it's a good principle. But who really thought it was in jeopardy? Mature people realize that part of having a right is being intelligent about exercising it. Of course, the other argument is that the cartoons have a powerful political point – that they are witty or important observations of the realities of "Muslim extremism."

First of all, no, they're not. None of them are particularly insightful as individual political statements; they range from sarcastically self-referential to downright meaningless. Second of all, was the Salient really worried that we hadn't heard this profound set of ideas? Were they worried that the Harvard political community hadn't noticed the massive international debate, protest, deaths and diplomatic stress? Please.

Again, because I fear that some people might spin my thoughts into a defense of the violent outrage, let me be clear: the Salient can print whatever it wants, the Danish newspapers should be able to print whatever they want. The Danish papers, though, could at least make the claim to starting a relevant and difficult political debate to justify being offensive. The Salient is just looking for a few more readers, a lot more attention, and a lot of liberal outrage. In some ways, I guess this post gives them what they want. Unfortunately, I'm not outraged that they printed them, I'm just disappointed that their sophomoric stunts have reached a new low.

Katrina

2006-02-15T12:38:00.000-05:00

I encourage any and everyone interested in Hurricane Katrina and the *ongoing* efforts to rebuild the Gulf Coast to come out tonight to "Stories from the Front Line: Communities Rebuilding from Katrina" from 8-9:30 p.m. in Lowell Dining Hall. You'll be able to hear from people such as the Mayor of Moss Point, Mississippi--the small Gulf Coast town that Cambridge adopted in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and that PBHA has and will be sending groups of students to (including my trip over Spring Break). A number of undergrads that went on the trips to Moss Point, Ocean Springs (Mississippi), and New Orleans over Intersession will also be there sharing their stories of what it was like to go to the region. In talking with them personally I've come to understand that words and pictures cannot adequately express the situation along the coast but maybe the one above will help (from AllHipHop.Com).

columnists

2006-02-15T09:20:00.000-05:00

The Crimson has announced its Spring columnists. The Ed Board gave them to... THEMSELVES! Alex Slack, Maggie Rossman and Hannah Wright, all Crimson Ed Execs from the fall semester, somehow managed to convince the people they hired to hire them! I can't imagine how that worked out...

In all seriousness, looks like an interesting group. Mr. Schmidt, Ms. O'Brien, Mr. Kavulla, Mr. Goldenberg, don't dissappoint!

manliness and masculinity

2006-02-15T01:34:00.000-05:00

Tonight (Wednesday night), will be Round Two of the Harvey v. Judith Lecture-Off. I don't know about you, but I'm excited.

In October, Harvey Mansfield proposed a New Feminism (conservatism) in Sever at the same time as preeminint radical social theorist Judith Butler gave a lecture on her new book in the Holyoke Center. Tonight, Mansfield is back for more and this time lecturing on "manliness" in Kirkland (6 pm) at the same time as famous gender and queer theorist Judith Halberstam is speaking in the Barker Center (5 to 7 pm). Halberstam, visiting this semester from USC, is most famous for her book Female Masculinity. I would love to know if either speaker had the other in mind when scheduling their event; it certainly seems too good to be coincidental.

bi meets world

2006-02-15T00:52:00.000-05:00

In addition to the ones Jersey listed, there's another reason to celebrate this time of year. It's the BGLTSA's Bisexuality Week!

Actually, the bi-friendly activities continue for more than just one week. For now, I'll just list the next three upcoming events, and I'll post the rest as they approach. Looks like they've got some interesting stuff planned--if you attend any of them, by all means post a comment with some of your impressions, reactions, concerns, and/or celebrations. (more in expanded post)

Perceptions of Bisexuality Discussion
Thursday, February 16th, 8:30-10pm. Eliot Memorial Room.
Why is the Facebook.com the easiest way to come out as bi to your friends, and how does it affect people of either gender who would be interested? Why do girls who post "bisexual" on their profiles at .comlove-match websites get 7 billion more hits than girls who post just lesbian? Why do people think that bisexuality is a "just a phase" and how are women and men who are bisexual but who marry a member of th eopposite sex later in life perceived? Is someone bisexual if they think they are, or only if they are dating both men and women, and if so, do you have to be dating a man and a woman at the same time? When a bisexual is dating a man, is he perceived as gay, until he dates a woman, at which point he is heterosexual?
If you're interested in tackling these questions and other funny and frustrating misconceptions, come to the "Perceptions of Bisexuality"discussion!
For more information: Contact Jana (jlepon@fas)

I Don't Like the Word 'Bisexuality' Discussion
Sunday, February 19th, 7-8:30pm. Check www.hcs.harvard.edu/queer for location.
Got beef with "bi"? Whether you think it's too inclusive, not inclusive enough, outdated, misunderstood, or just right, come discuss the word that has changed our generation's perspective of sexual orientation. We hope to see all viewpoints represented in this discussion, from people of all genders and orientations.
For more information: Contact Mal or Josh (hellman2@fas, jdsmith@fas)

Call to Duty Tour
Tuesday, February 21st, 7pm. Starr Auditorium, KSG.
The Kennedy School is hosting speakers from the "Call To Duty" tour. The individuals who will be speaking are gay ex-military servicemembers who have recently completed their military service. They will be speaking about their personal experiences in the armed forces, and how difficult the "don't ask, don't tell" law has made their lives and the performance of their duties. Harvard is the first stop on a national speaking tour.
For more information: Contact Josh (jdsmith@fas.harvard.edu) or visitwww.calltodutytour.org

follow-up: another reason to celebrate

2006-02-15T00:24:00.000-05:00

A while ago we discussed whether Wal-Mart should be required by law to stock and sell emergency contraception (with some readers getting deep about the stigma attached to medicine; the challenge that huge corporations pose to free/competitive market theory; and, as reader "thelonius" suggested, the opportunity to further "align women's issues with the greater global-economic justice movement." Word.).

Members of the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Pharmacy may not have been thinking on such a grand scale when they voted on the case, but the outcome is definitely exciting. As a as a result of the Board's unanimous decision, the Beast of Bentonville (as it's known to some) announced today that it will start carrying EC in the Bay State. Score one for the gender/economic justice team! But wait--it gets better: (more in expanded post)

The retailer said it is also giving serious thought to carrying the drug at all of its 3,700 pharmacies nationwide. The only other state where Wal-Mart sells the so-called morning after pill is Illinois, where a state law requires it. Elsewhere, Wal-Mart has refused to stock the drug for undisclosed "business reasons."

Melissa Kogut, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, said she is hopeful Wal-Mart will start carrying the morning-after pill nationwide. "What's happening here in Massachusetts is really a turning point," she said.

For me, the exciting part isn't so much that Wal-Mart was quick to comply. For all I know, they could be calculating the EC issue on a purely economic basis, reluctant to irritate their conservative, 'family-values'-interested consumer base by selling it, but happy (or at least not distraught) dispensing it under government mandate since the state shoulders the blame while stores enjoy higher revenues. But it is exciting to see such a government body affirming so strongly the importance of emergency contraception in communities. Of course, this is also the state that legalized same-sex marriage, so I'll save my Tiger Woods fist pump for when some conservative states come around, too.

say what?

2006-02-14T20:25:00.000-05:00

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron."

Who said it? (don't cheat!) Do you think these words still apply?

On This Special Day

2006-02-14T10:21:00.000-05:00

As many of you already know (or hopefully should know), today is Valentine's Day. The day of love. The day restaurants nationwide thank 5th Century African Popes for creating what is probably their best business day of the year. If you have a significant other, make sure you take the time out to express those innermost, gushy-most feelings so they know that you care. And buy them stuff...because words are not enough.

Some of you may not know that in addition to Valentine's Day today is Singles Awareness Day. Instead of spending the day out with that special someone your awareness of being single is heightened by every person you see serenaded by an acapella group, snuggled up with their lover on the shuttle, or banging against the walls next to your room. Tough...get a bottle of wine and drown those sorrows. By yourself (you ARE single).

In addition to the aforementioned two holidays today is National Condom Day (most likely for the former holiday...not the latter). In 2006, don't be one of the 15.3 million U.S. citizens that will be diagnosed with an STD (many of these people being of college age). Even worse, don't be someone who doesn't know that they have one. Like BET says, Rap-It-Up (or better yet, pen-i-cillin).

Finally, today is Race Relations Day (to some). Hug a Black person...then check for your wallet.

Hooray for interracial 99% protected when used correctly loving. Yeah...

Yesterday Abu Ghraib, Today Guantanamo Bay, Tomorrow...?

2006-02-14T01:21:00.000-05:00

A report to be released this week by the United Nations' Human Rights Commission calls for the immediate close of the U.S. military's blackhole of a detention center, otherwise known as Guantanamo Bay. The report also calls for the prosecution of those involved in the perpetration of the prison up to the highest levels of "military and political command" to be brought to justice. According to the UK's telegraph, this may even include U.S. President Bush as the commander-in-chief of the U.S. military and chief executive of the government. This is looking to be a pretty crap next few weeks for the White House while Cheney ducks the spotlight after shooting a man and federal budget cuts from Bush continue to draw popular and legislative criticism.

I wonder what would happen if this U.N. commission visited U.S. prisons on the mainland. There are surely many here with conditions not befitting any human being despite whatever crimes they may have committed, yet they are allowed to persist. Although U.S. prisons may be deemed as being in better shape than many other countries' prison systems the world over that doesn't make ours decent. Our prisons should not only be comparatively decent but normatively decent.

a note on anonymity

2006-02-13T22:20:00.000-05:00

Since a commentor brought it up in one of the recent discussions, I thought I'd take a minute to highlight some advantages and disadvantages I see with using anonymity on the blog. This issue has special relevance to certain of our goals and visions at Cambridge Common, so I think I speak for all the contributing writers when I say that we would really appreciate your feedback on this topic, since it will help us to improve the overall project. (more in expanded post)

UPDATE: Someone helpfully pointed out to me that this post is far too long for people short on time. So for those of you who wish to be spared my anecdotes and pontifications (smile), here's the bullet-point version:

Advantages to anonymity:
* Protects privacy in case of sensitive content and/or special status within the University.
* Puts focus on what's said, rather than who's saying it.
* Freedom from fear of mean personal attacks (which, unfortunately, do happen).
* May aid in free expression.

Disadvantages to anonymity:
* Enables mean-spirited attacks and/or lying (only seriously problematic in certain cases like the UC race).
* Keeps others from getting a sense of how your views on different issues fit together (can be mitigated by adopting a pseudonym).
*** Hinders Cambridge Common's function as a catalyst for real live interaction and community, rather than a substitute for it. The blog, and New Media, are not enough--it's wonderful and vital to get to know in person the contributors we meet in online discussions!

Conclusion 1: Consider attaching your real, full name or a fake name to your comments. It makes it easier for the rest of us (1)to get to know you online, (2)to develop a more complete sense of your various opinions and perspectives, and (3)to get in touch with you if and when we want to (which is the best part!).

Conclusion 2: What are your thoughts on the function of anonymity, others of its advantages and disadvantages, and on how we can make Cambridge Common more effective at translating online community to real live community?

* * *

All right; now, for the brave or bored among you, here's the raw footage:

As some have noted, anonymity can be very useful in focusing attention solely on what's being said, rather than on who's saying it. Our own subtle prejudices and biases (based on the age, perceived gender, race and ethnicity, social position, etc. of the person writing, and/or our real-life interactions with them) can certainly affect the way we read and interpret people's words, affecting our ability to really understand what they're trying to say and consider it fairly.

The above-mentioned recent commentor's reason for maintaining anonymity is slightly different from being concerned that revealing one's identity will skew the way one's comments are received, though equally understandable: in their words, "I only remain anonymous because my position within the university somewhat necessitates it."

Also, some people may simply feel that they can express themselves better and more freely when they're not worried about the possibility of others criticizing them personally. This is an issue that has sometimes come up on open lists, when people simply abstain from voicing their opinions because they have no desire to be the target of caustic remarks. In more extreme cases, the unfortunate reality is that some contributors may feel they would be jeopardizing their own safety ('outing' themselves in any number of ways) by attaching their name to certain sensitive information or opinions.

Using a pseudonym provides many of the benefits of anonymity, and different people have various reasons for adopting them. Author bell hooks, for example, chooses to use a pen name, even though her identity is known, as a way of cultivating the emotional strength she needs in order to write about some deeply personal and highly charged issues. Some people, particularly on blogs, just use them to be goofy. And pseudonyms have advantages beyond regular anonymity: they help to distinguish the writer more easily from the many other anonymouses (so people don't have to refer to them as "anonymous 3" or "anonymous at 12:37"), and they also help to establish a continuity of thought for the person, so people who have read their comments in the past can better piece together their various opinions and perspectives.

Are there other advantages to anonymity and pseudonymity that I've overlooked? Let me know.

Okay, now for some disadvantages.

One of the major drawbacks to anonymity that we actually had to take action against in the past is the way it allows people to say hurtful, rude, and/or untrue things without having to suffer the social consequences of doing so. During the UC campaigns and election, anticipating the great damage that anonymous traducements could cause to candidates and their staff, we instituted a policy restricting anonymous UC-related contributions. Typically, though, the harm in the occasional petty insult is far outweighed by the benefits of maintaining the anonymity option, especially when people often call each other out on being out of line.

A second major downside to anonymity is that it prevents people from getting to know each other, both online and offline. As I said above, adopting a consistent pseudonym (or various permutations of one, like our friend guess who/why/where/what) helps gives the rest of us a better sense of how your ideas fit together. It also assists in creating the feeling of an online community, with many recognizable members.

But Cambridge Common is not only about creating an online community, which brings me to the disadvantage to anonymity that I most deplore. Remaining anonymous robs the rest of us of the chance to translate online community to real live community. To illustrate this point, I'll offer an example from my own experience. A while back, someone wrote a very kind, complimentary comment on one of my posts, signing it "E." Frazzled with life at the time and thinking I knew the person's identity anyway, I didn't respond with my thanks right away, thinking I'd catch up with them later. Well, the person I thought was E, wasn't E. So a few weeks down the road, I tucked a note to E in one of my posts, apologizing for not thanking them sooner and asking that they email me, if they wanted to, so that we could meet up and chat outside the blogosphere. Happily, E did email me, we met up for lunch one day, and our dining hall dates now average about two and a half hours. We both agree that we're just sorry we didn't meet sooner, since E will be graduating in the spring.

So the moral of that story is, as enjoyable, productive and exciting as blogging and New Media can be, they can't beat face-to-face interaction. Online communication undoubtedly has certain key advantages: it's wonderful for connecting people across large geographical distances, and it's fabulous at facilitating the speedy sharing of large amounts of information. But since most of us who read Cambridge common are right here on campus, we should take advantage of that fact and use the blog as a catalyst for real-life interactions, not as a substitute for them. And while in some cases you can have your cake and eat it too, remaining anonymous and still meeting up with other contributors offline, posting your name just makes it that much easier for the good people of the world to get in touch with you (I know I'm stoked about meeting up with another thoughtful contributor for the first time this week!).

Really, I can scarcely overemphasize this point: Cambridge Common is not a self-contained universe, nor should it be. With this in mind, I hope that you contributors who post anonymously, and you readers who have yet to comment, will consider attaching real or fake names to your writings. It will bring us that much closer to forming real live offline community.

What do you think of all this? How can we improve Cambridge Common so it's more effective at fostering offline community? As always, please share some wisdom.

ps: hi, E. :)

constructing dialogue

2006-02-12T20:46:00.000-05:00

I'm sure I'm going to get kicked off a lot of emails lists if I keep doing this, but I couldn't help but be fascinated by an email sent out over GOP-Open a few days ago:

Subject: [GOP-Open] conservative women - have strong feelings about feminism, bettyfriedan?

Let me know ASAP, like this night. We have an opportunity to put somebody on a panel on NPR radio to discuss this issue, taking place TOMORROW. They're looking for "a smart, articulate young woman who feels disillusioned by the [feminist] movement." You would probably be going up against people who are supporters of Betty Friedan / the more radical strain of feminism.

The whole thing reminds me of a strange episode during the Larry Summers/Sex Differences debate of last year. My blockmate was supposed to go on TV (as "the woman" representing the Crimson Ed Board) but was replaced when the show found out she had a nuanced, and not completely anti-Larry position (she wrote a great piece about it). Considering both incidents, it seems fair to ask: is there any reason to believe that any dialogue on TV or radio or anywhere else is "representative"?

snowball fight!

2006-02-12T16:46:00.000-05:00

Via Dems-Talk:

WHAT: MASSIVE SNOWBALL FIGHT
WHEN: TONIGHT AT 10:30PM
WHERE: HARVARD YARD

Sharp Shooting Cheney

2006-02-12T15:57:00.000-05:00

Numerous national news outlets are reporting that U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney shot a 78 year-old man with a shotgun today while on a hunting trip in Texas. Although the story is that it was a mistake, how can someone mistakenly shoot a person while aiming at a bird? Also and possibly equally important, who shoots a relatively small bird such as a quail with a huge, powerful shotgun? Will the man, a lawyer from Austin, Texas, pursue charges against the VP? We'll have to wait and see...

debauchery deserves some consideration

2006-02-11T18:10:00.000-05:00

I'm rushing out the door at the moment, so I don't have time to write a lengthy post, but I mainly want to direct your attention to this post on Demapples calling for liberals (everyone, but liberals especially) to boycott the Debauchery dance party in Winthrop tonight. I hadn't realized until today, when I read yesterday's Crimson article on the dance, that there's fake money involved. Personally, that makes me very uncomfortable. Anyway, as i said, I don't have much time at the moment, but I'll be posting more thoughts on this later, but in the meantime I just wanted to urge people to read Third Degree's post on Demapples, think through the Debauchery issue for yourselves, and whatever you end up doing tonight, have fun and be safe.

UPDATE: Since I posted last night, there's been a fair bit of continuing talk about Debauchery among the Dems, resulting in some stark divides. Last night, one guy from the Dems even stood outside Winthrop holding a sign in protest, until he was instructed by police to stop since he didn’t have the administration’s approval. I chatted him up, as well as a couple of other passersby, and I’ve been following some of the conversation on the Dems open list and blog, Here are some of my impressions and thoughts on what I’ve heard; I hope you’ll share yours too.(more in expanded post)

First of all, the argument that Debauchery is bad because it’s immoral or indecent doesn’t fly with me unless it includes a clear definition of what pertinent morals are being violated, and makes a case for why we should uphold those morals while still acknowledging that they’re not absolute or objective. Personally, I’m much more likely to be persuaded by a convincing explanation for why something is harmful to people, rather than an appeal to predetermined moral standards for their own sake.

But some who attack these moral appeals go too far themselves in deriding dissenters for being too uptight and preachy. Criticism is great, but trying to shut down a conversation on the grounds that the problems it addresses are not as serious as Iraq, Darfur, nuclear war, actual sex trafficking, etc. ignores the fact that little problems are often related to big problems. Plus, it can be helpful to start discussions that are obviously immediately relevant to students’ lives and choices. Also, as John Stuart Mill might say (sorry, I’m reading him right now for class and I swear it’s relevant), voicing opinions and judgments about moral standards is necessary and healthy in a community that values free speech as long as advocates don’t hold their opinions to be infallible—not simply true or correct, but beyond all conceivable reproach.

Okay, moving on to the nitty gritty of the arguments I’ve heard people make about why the dance is bad or not bad, or even good. I’ll start with the not bad.

Argument 1. We shouldn’t waste our energy criticizing the behavior of the Debauchery attendees, who are, after all, consenting adults. Who are we to tell them what’s appropriate?

As a dance sponsored by Winthrop House, Debauchery affects me as a student because it’s something the University indirectly approved. Plus, I think it offers some interesting food for thought which may affect the way I explain my position on the subject to friends of mine. And that’s kind of what we do here at Cambridge Common, among other things: comment on social and political happenings on campus.

That said, I do think that protesting outside the dance is largely a waste of time since you’re probably not going to change the minds of people who have already bought tickets. Protesting outside a final club would also be a waste of time, and would probably even be counterproductive to your aims. But that’s why discussion forums are helpful.

As for the consenting adults aspect, it’s true that no one’s forcing people to attend this party, and no one’s forcing the people who come to participate in any certain way. But consent is more complicated than whether or not you know what you’re getting yourself into. There are huge gray areas between what people are sure they’re willing to do and what they’re sure they’re unwilling to do; most of the time, these gray area situations depend a lot on context. In a haze of alcohol and in an environment in which people can mask inappropriate and/or hurtful propositions behind an excuse of, ‘it’s only a game,’ my concern is that people will feel pressured into doing things that they feel on some level are degrading. Yes, it’s their decision to go to a party where they’re more likely to encounter these gray areas, but it’s Harvard’s decision whether or not to sponsor such an event, and I think they made an irresponsible choice.

Argument 2. People won’t be pressured into doing things they’re uncomfortable with because the rules of the game say you still get paid for saying ‘no.’ Plus, the squat team will be there making sure there’s no coercion going on.

A couple of flaws with the down payment rule, as I see it. I don’t know precisely what the rule is, but I figure it’s either that you pay the full price up front for what you want, regardless of the answer you’ll get, or you pay part of the fee first, get the answer, and if it’s a ‘yes,’ cough up the rest. The latter scenario seems a bit complicated for drunk people, but hey, if anyone can manage economic transactions, Harvard kids can. In the first scenario, the rules of the game still establish a pressure to consent to propositions because the more you say yes, the more people will proposition you. I suppose you could bank on playing hard to get as a strategy, but after a while people would probably give up on you, knowing that their Bauch bucks could be better spent elsewhere. In the second case, there’s still an obvious incentive to consent because it means you earn more Monopoly money.

Now, just because the rules are set up this way, while it may create something of a problem, doesn’t mean that partygoers will necessarily behave according to the incentives and goals that the rules establish. As defenders of the Debauchery have said, in the end it’s just a party, and people will do what they do in order to have a good time. But again, since the dance is sponsored by Winthrop House, they should be accountable for establishing a situation in which the whole point of a party is to earn money by performing sexual favors for people (no, this doesn’t mean only oral sex, and while some people will probably just ask their friends to do goofy things, the way the party was advertised certainly implies a sexual connotation). Having people there on the lookout is great, but if you have to form a squat team whose purpose is to intervene in dubious situations that the structure of the dance itself helps to create, maybe that’s an indication that the party needs to be reconsidered.

Argument 3. There’s no inherent problem with sexism here since everyone gets spending money and everyone is equally objectified.

The remedy for sexist objectification is not equal-opportunity objectification. In the first place, I think objectification is harmful in and of itself in most cases, so I don’t see extending it to men as a happy solution (others may disagree). Secondly, attempts like this never actually pan out anyway because of the very deep roots of gender hierarchy. Objectifying men tends to be a silly or funny enterprise. Why? Because it seems out of place to see men in women’s traditional role: the looked-at, rather than the looker. It was this phenomenon that Laura Mulvey described when she coined the term "male gaze" in her highly influential and still controversial 1975 article, "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema."

People have maintained that drawing a parallel between objectification at Debauchery and objectification at final clubs is nonsensical since one of the main problems with final clubs is that men control the space. At Debauchery, theoretically, the space is neutral. But while I agree that the problem of male domination may not be as pronounced at the dance as it is in the clubs, it’s still worse than regular parties because of the theme and structure of the dance.

A cartoon appeared in the joke edition of the Crimson during finals period depicting the Bee club’s new house populated by passive-looking bees being sexually ravaged by animals representing all the male final clubs. While the point of the cartoon was probably to make fun of the Bee club members more than to comment on gendered power dynamics, it does raise an important point. Even when women supposedly control their own space, it doesn’t guarantee that they will exercise most of the agency in terms of deciding what goes on. The subtlety and complexity of sexism—which, at a very basic level, posits women as objects and men as acting subjects—means that superficially leveling the playing field just doesn’t cut it. The Debauchery party doesn’t exist in a social vacuum; gender roles and hierarchies permeate the event (as they do most parties). And the proposition/compensation structure unnecessarily exacerbates these already-existing problems.

Okay, moving on to “Debauchery is good” arguments.

Argument 1. Harvard kids don’t have enough sexual interaction. Why deny them a much-needed opportunity to blow off some steam and get up-close-and-personal with each other?

I don’t object to parties, I just think there are other, less loaded themes for house-sponsored dances than quasi-prostitution.

Argument 2. Liberals are often talking about a need for more sex-positiveness; now you complain when we finally get some.

My guess is that most people who attend Debauchery do not have overall sex-positive attitudes. In fact, the party’s marketability rests on its image of sexual scandal, which means people there get their jollies from doing things that they think on some level are bad and dirty. This isn’t sex-positivity. It’s college kids taking advantage of an excuse to do things they think are illicit, without having to face the normal repercussions (i.e. damage to reputation) of such activities. A sex-positive party scenario, on the other hand, would involve people celebrating sex—including, but not limited to, the taboo aspects of it—while accepting full responsibility for their choices and the social stigmas attached to them.

Argument 3. People didn’t actually go to the party shouldn’t judge it; it was actually a lot of fun, and most people didn’t even bother with the money aspect so much—it was basically just a good party.

I’m glad a lot of folks had a good time and I’m a little relieved to hear that the propositioning component didn’t dominate the dynamic. But that doesn’t erase the fact that it’s still built in to the concept of the party, and that the University is sponsoring the party. People may have ignored the Bauch bucks this time, but that’s no guarantee that the same thing will happen if and when the party continues in future years. The theme and structure of the party itself are a problem since they increase the likelihood of putting people in difficult situations where sexual harassment and assault are more likely to occur.

And finally, some “Debauchery is bad” opinions.

Argument 1. People should not be performing sex acts in public.

Honestly, more public sex acts probably went on at my high school homecoming dances than at Debauchery. Let’s not feign shock at the fact that these things occur. We can talk about why we think sex ought to be a private affair between or among committed people—that’s not a given, but a subject for thoughtful discussion—but we shouldn’t pretend as though public sex is anything new. Even at Harvard.

Argument 2. Prostitution is immoral and illegal. Since the ‘winners’ of Debauchery are awarded prizes, the setup is sort of like delayed compensation for performing sex acts, especially since people had to pay for tickets to get in.

I don’t know enough about prostitution or stripping laws to be able to say whether the Debauchery structure qualifies as prostitution, but my guess is that is doesn’t. The illegality claim seems like a stretch. As for prostitution being immoral, I think it’s an interesting topic we could explore, but I’m not willing to unquestioningly accept it as a universal standard. Does the dance promote prostitution? I don’t think so. Some Harvard students may get a kick out of publicly playing at prostitution, but I suspect the vast majority of them would also be offended if others actually called them whores in all seriousness. Thus, the party treats prostitution lightly by turning it into a game. And it’s this part I object to. Whether prostitution is good, bad, both or neither, it definitely has serious implications. Playing make-believe with sex work in order to get off on the feeling of doing something scandalous while denying culpability because it’s ‘just a game’ is a logical outlet in a sex-negative culture. But it’s also naïve and potentially harmful for people who have trouble separating deeds and emotions (which, to some extent, is most of us).

Finally, to be fair on the quasi-prostitution issue, a person could technically win for refusing to perform sex acts and accumulating the fake money that way, but they would still have to have been propositioned quite aggressively, which, as I said earlier, could create problems anyway.

Argument 3. We need to have a standard of decency. This clearly crosses the line of appropriateness.

Again, this isn’t a real argument for anything except blind conformity. We ought to talk about pernicious practices by identifying the specific (though often subtle) harms they cause, not by simply appealing to some standard of decency that’s immune to scrutiny.

Like the problems with final clubs, the issue with Debauchery isn’t that it’s a bastion for rape or anything that extreme. Rather, largely because of the subtle gender norms at work, the theme and structure of the event are likely to help create situations in which people feel pressured to do things that they’re not totally comfortable with.

Thanks for reading, please share your thoughts, and again, have a fun and safe weekend.

a hero

2006-02-11T12:55:00.000-05:00

I was reading the coverage of the opening ceremonies of the Olympics and I came across a list of the eight women who carried the Olympic flag. "The eighth was Cambodian human rights activist Somaly Mam." Who is Somaly Mam? I thought. Obviously they're trying to bring some attention to her, why?

I googled her and found this story from December, "A Life in the Day". Read it. This woman fights against the worst of human nature, people and things we don't talk about because we don't like to admit that they exist:child prostitution, rape as tourism, sex slavery. I often feel badly in need of heros. Here's one.

except when it's MY holy symbol

2006-02-10T19:01:00.000-05:00

Volokh brings up an interesting point (quoting someone else):

Republication of the cartoons boils down to this: Depicting Mohammed in violation of Muslim tenets strikes a blow at the very heart of Islamic beliefs, and and such sacrilegious desecration of their beliefs is so offensive and hurtful that it simply should not be allowed, even under the guise of "free speech."

Personally, I don't buy into that, but here's a question for discussion: Isn't this the same argument advanced in the United States by those who want a constitutional amendment (and implementing federal and state statutes) to ban the burning or other desecration of the flag of the United States? Can one support the right to publish the cartoons and also support a flag-burning amendment? If so, how does one distinguish between the two?

The take home message for me is this: Hillary or no Hillary, the flag-burning issue should now be fundamentally dead in American politics.

CPAC: HRC goes to DC

2006-02-10T18:43:00.000-05:00

The Harvard Republican Club has headed down to DC this weekend to hang out with, according to advertisements on their email list, "Cheney, Coulter, and all the bigwigs in the conservative movement." CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, is one of the center pieces of this movement, and something liberals should look at very seriously both in order to understand our political opponents and ourselves. The conservative movement is incredibly good at teaching (or indoctrinating, depending on how cynical you'd like to be) and training its foot soldiers, and CPAC is one of the primary ways it does that. I'm not sure the liberal/left movement wants to go exactly that route, but it's something to think about.

I don't have any commentary beyond that (please do share yours), but definitely check out the coverage from CampusProgress, whose writers are there and blogging. I'd love to hear HRC's take on all of this...

UPDATE: The NYTs has an interesting article.

UPDATE 2: Remember how I noted that the HRC advertised CPAC with enthusiasm for Ann Coulter? Check out what their lovely and hateful hero had to say (here and here). I'll give you a hint, it had to do with "ragheads."

money, death and Harvard

2006-02-10T15:27:00.000-05:00

In case you missed it, in today's Crimson (and very unfortunately buried on the third page): Harvard Grows Sinopec Holdings.

In case the Harvard Administration missed it:

A report by the Harvard Corporation Committee on Shareholder Responsibility (CCSR) stated that “substantial revenue from Sudan’s oil production has gone toward the purchase of weapons.”

Weapons? For what?

U.S. Secretary of State Colin S. Powell said in September 2004 that “genocide has been committed” in the western Sudanese region of Darfur, and that Sudan’s government along with so-called Janjaweed militiamen “bear responsibility.”

Remember when we invaded Iraq and retrospectively decided that it was because Saddam killed his own people? 250,000 dead. 2 million displaced, homeless, starving and desperate. In Sudan. Killed and displaced with our money. But hey, I'm sure the profit makes it well worth it.

UPDATE: I quoted 250,000 dead from DivestSudan. Last year, I read numbers around 400,000. Eric Reeves puts the number at 340,000. The official UN number is set at 70,000, but the BBC describes that number as "obviously wrong." Read the BBC's full discussion of the difficulty of getting an exact number.

American Hegemony?

2006-02-10T09:47:00.000-05:00

A few times this week I have been bothered by people's comments about professors with accents and how awful it is to have to listen to them. While I understand that sometimes there are TFs that you really simply cannot understand, what bothered me the most was these particular professors, while they did indeed have accents, spoke fluid English that was for the most part very correct. The height of my frustration came when in a class, the professor, who is French but speaks excellent English with a light French accent, switched off with the (American) TF and someone beside me said, "Thank God, someone who can actually speak English." Excuse me? Can you speak a second language the way he speaks English? Is this, as I feel, yet another case of American hegemonistic intolerance or am I being too sensitive?

more misdirection

2006-02-09T01:45:00.000-05:00

Was anyone else bothered by Wednesday's opinion piece in the Crimson trumpeting the right of the U.S., as a sovereign nation, to crack down on illegal immigration by building a wall along the Mexico-U.S. border? The main objection I had was that the author places the blame solely on Mexican immigrants, inveighing against them for "flaunting our laws" without also recognizing U.S. companies' role in actively recruiting undocumented labor.

This 2001 article from the New York Times, "Meatpackers' Profits Hinge On Pool of Immigrant Labor," explains a situation with which most of us are familiar, but which today's editorialist failed to even mention: the dependency of key U.S. industries on (often illegal) immigrant workers:

Of course, because of the widespread use of counterfeit documents, no one knows for sure how many [immigrants] are working illegally. But industry and government officials say that, for better or worse, foreign-born workers are now one of the most vital elements in the American food and agriculture system.

About one million farm laborers are on the job at any one time, according to the United States Department of Agriculture. And a government study estimated that nearly 40 percent are illegal. A few years ago, the Immigration and Naturalization Service estimated that about 25 percent of meatpacking workers in the Midwest were probably illegal.

Given agribusiness's inclination to use illegal labor in order to drive down wages, perhaps our major beef ought to be with companies like Tyson Foods that flaunt U.S. laws by actually importing undocumented Mexican workers to their midwestern meatpacking plants: (more in expanded post)

The indictment of Tyson Foods Inc., the nation's largest meat processor, on charges that it conspired to smuggle illegal immigrants to work at its plants, is a sign of how dependent the American food and agriculture system has become on foreign-born workers, many of them here illegally.

Because of this heavy reliance, agriculture experts say, a major effort to crack down on the hiring of illegal workers could disrupt the nation's food industry.

"This would really cripple the system," said William Heffernan, professor of rural sociology at the University of Missouri who has studied immigrant labor. "In the communities where these plants are located there isn't an alternative work force. They'd have to raise wages and improve the conditions."

Until 15 or 20 years ago, meatpacking plants in the United States were staffed by highly paid, unionized employees who earned about $18 an hour, adjusted for inflation. Today, the processing and packing plants are largely staffed by low-paid non-union workers from places like Mexico and Guatemala. Many of them start at $6 an hour.

The shift in the economics of the food and agriculture industry has made such jobs unappealing to Americans, but highly enticing to immigrants.

Companies like Tyson, Smithfield Foods and Conagra have profited from paying low wages, pushing production lines faster and hiring workers who are much more willing to endure the hazardous conditions of a meat-processing plant, industry experts say.

In addition to letting U.S. companies off the hook, the editorial also breezily dismisses concerns about the proposed border wall, noting that unlike the Berlin wall, this one would block immigration, not emigration. Yes...but do we really want to make our country into one giant gated community? Will building a barricade really stem the tide of immigration, or will its primary effect be diverting attention from the extreme economic disparities that lead to most illegal immigration in the first place, including the U.S.'s role in alleviating and/or exacerbating those disparities through things like NAFTA?

The Dems open list is already abuzz with some commentary on the article; people may post more of their thoughts on Demapples soon, so keep your eye on that gorgeous site, too. I'm sure some of you readers are well-versed on U.S. immigration policy issues, so please share some wisdom and help school the rest of us!

celebrating a political life

2006-02-08T22:06:00.000-05:00

So, the talk shows are all abuzz about whether or not Lowery and Carter's speeches were inappropriate. I linked to some clips below. I want to offer some thoughts about the controversy, hopefully you'll do the same. Forgive the rantiness, I'm taking a breather from other work and writing quickly.
---

Celebrating a political life without politics, simply doesn't make any sense. Especially when that person's politics meant speaking truth to power, even when it wasn't "appropriate" or "acceptable" according to the powers that be. Coretta Scott King committed her life to fighting for civil and human rights, fighting on behalf of the poor and people of color, fighting against war. Today, civil and human rights are violated around the world and in our own country. Poor people, and disproportionately people of color, are suffering without real opportunity, in prison, trailers and slums throughout our country. In another country we have killed at least 30,000 and maybe as many as 100,000 innocent civilians based on an exaggerated threat and faulty intelligence. We are setting up 14 bases but claim we are introducing democracy.(more in expanded post)

As one reader has already pointed out, President Bush and the conservatives of the world would rather remember Coretta Scott King as the good wife of the hopeful civil rights leader that "fixed the race problem" in this country. Sorry, that just can't fly. We need to remember her suffering at the hands of her own government (including wiretapping and blackmail by the FBI). We need to remember that her husband sacrificed his popularity to oppose an unjust war and that she continued to speak out against that war after he was killed. We need to remember that she fought against American businesses who were complicit in South Africa's apartheid. We need to remember that she didn't just fight to end Jim Crow, but also to radically transform our country to a place of racial and economic justice. We need to remember that she carried on her husband's tradition of non-violence, and strove to transform the entire world to peace. And, most importantly, we need to remember that we aren't there. Not even close.

The right-wingers are acting offended so that they don't have to talk about those things. Have they asked this: what does the King family think? If they're not offended, if they're not upset, who are you to say what is or isn't appropriate at their mother's funeral? Essentially, the Right wants the country to remember the woman and forget the life and the causes. They want to mourn and reflect, but they don't want to have to reflect on the things they disagreed with.

If you haven't already, watch Rev. Lowery's speech:

She extended Martin's message against poverty, racism and war,
She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions way afar.
We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there,
But Coretta knew and we know that there are weapons of misdirection right down here,
Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds.
For war billions more, but no more for the poor.

purdy

2006-02-08T19:33:00.000-05:00

congratulations to the College Dems on their new website and blog.

the controversy over remembering Mrs. King

2006-02-08T17:50:00.000-05:00

Below, Jersey Slugger notes his surprise at the amount of attention that has been focused on the passing of Coretta Scott King. Check out that conversation (it's a good one), but I think it's equally interesting and surprising how controversial that event became. Before I share thoughts, some video:

Via Crooks and Liars:
A summary of the event and the controversy from MSNBC's countdown.

Via Expose the Left (yes, I read "Expose the Left"):
Reverend Joseph Lowery's controversial comments.
Jimmy Carter's controversial comments.
Debate over the issue from Hardball.

Check it all out, read the NYT story (or others), and share your thoughts. I'll do the same later tonight.

Just The Basics (view video through link below)

2006-02-08T16:20:00.000-05:00

I waned to share an e-mail I received yesterday with you all. It is from a good friend and mentor of mine, David Jenkins '05, and it gives a glimpse of the work he is doing in South Africa to help bring basics such as electricity and water--things we in the U.S. and at Harvard seem to waste en masse--to a population lacking it due to the government's privatization of those industries (once privatized, the prices became too costly for many people to afford these basic utilities). It is a reminder to people like myself that the struggle we are engaged in is global and systematic and cannot be isolated by region or event as well as how, as David said in a later private e-mail, "The police protect wealth not people".

***********************************************************************************

Dear Friends,

I know that I've been terrible about updating people on what's happening with me here in South Africa; I've been working on a blog with lots of details that is slow on going up. I've been seeing some very cool stuff, and will hopefully update everyone soon, one way or another. Still, I had
an experience yesterday that was at once frightening and developmental, and since the footage I was shooting is now online, I thought I would drop this quick note to a group of friends. (more in expanded post)

Some background: In Soweto, one of the groups I've been working with is called the Soweto Electricity Crisis Committee [SECC], which is a social movement that formed five years ago in response to the privatization of the government's electricity services, which left most poor people unable to afford electricity. Right now the SECC struggle focuses on the same issue with the privatization of water, and the tactic in each struggle is to simply reconnect (repeatedly if necessary) water and electricity for free (illegally) for people who need it. I will attach a version of a short article that I co-wrote for the SECC newsletter, which explains the seriousness of the water issue (mind you, it is in SECC language).

Yesterday afternoon I was called by a member of SECC, who let me know that a confrontation had arisen between, on the one side, the electric company (Eskom) and the police, and, on the other side, a group of community members and activists from the SECC. Eskom—whose (domestic) shareholders fill the ranks of the ruling ANC—had decided that in the run-up to the local election, they would disconnect the electricity connection from Trevor Ngwane, the lead SECC organizer's house; Trevor and four other SECC members are for the first time contesting seats against the ANC in the local government election, so it seemed ironic that the company would choose now, after five years, to forcefully disconnect. I was asked to transport people
and film what was happening, which I did. When I arrived, the Eskom employees had already been to the house twice—once without the correct paperwork, and once, they decided, without enough police protection.

You know, I have always been trying to think about issues of social justice in terms of the larger theoretical and political issues at stake, but sometimes it feels contradictory; i.e. only slightly-relevant or elusive theoretical stances on issues of obvious basic living—like people's right to quality food, shelter, work, and education. However, when the police open fire on people for demonstrating—loudly, but non-violently demonstrating,—when you film them aiming guns and firing rubber bullets at people who are begging them to stop, when they shove and hit elderly dissenters, when they perform "crowd control" by firing into people's homes, and—I guess this is what I'm feeling the most—when you look up from filming all this and realize that you are the one on the opposite end of a shotgun barrel that is firing rubber bullets… That's when all that theory hits home in a deep way. That's when you see once and for all, without a shadow of doubt, that the police—working public security for a private corporation and the political party that constitutes at least part of that corporation—is nothing more than a mechanism of repression, to stop dissent, to maintain unlivable conditions that make other people lots of money, and not, by any means, to serve and protect.

On this Indymedia South Africa link-- http://southafrica.indymedia.org/ --is a very edited 1.3 minute take from the footage I shot yesterday. It leaves out a lot: the demonstration that followed the disconnection, people bleeding and being taken to the hospital, people in solidarity supporting one another after the police left; and I should note that I also didn't catch on tape the worst of it. But at least it gives a feel. Peace everyone, and in case you're worried, don't be; I'm in good hands.

Dave

Contradictions Abound

2006-02-07T21:41:00.000-05:00

The amount of attention that has been garnered by the passing of Coretta Scott King is beginning to not just suprise me, but shock me. At her funeral this past weekend numerous famous civil rights figures and contempoary local politicians were in attendance (as is expected) but, for some reason, so were the four living U.S. Presidents. Not only were these people in attendance but Hillary Clinton, Ed Kennedy, and a host of others took time out of their schedules to pay their *respects* as well. As a crusader against capital punishment, against the War in Iraq, pro-women's lib(eration), pro-queer rights (including same-sex marriage), and pro-animal rights (she's a vegan for political reasons) she's basically pretty darn leftist. Do the U.S. and these leaders realize these things in their adulation of her?

I find it contradictory that people like our current President or his father would attend the funeral of this woman--our current President due to the recent immense budget cuts to education and health programs that she and her husband, Dr. Martin Luther King, would have surely opposed and H.W. Bush due to the criticism that Reagan initially had for her husband's birthday being established as a national holiday (criticism that was probably shared by his VP, H.W.). I guess it can be summed up in one word: politics.

Anyway, can anyone give me clarification as to why she is being treated in this way? I in no way am attempting to diminish her to "Dr. Martin Luther King's wife" as so much of the mainstream media and history books depict her. She has fought for the past 38 years since MLK's death to help bring his dreams to reality (even more counting when MLK was alive) but I still feel like people are attending because of her historical and present-day symbolism to the civil rights movement as oppose to their agreement with what she fought for. Other thoughts on this? Anyone also feel strange about the attention focused on her passing?

you see, it's the whole checking and the balancing part that you don't seem to get

2006-02-07T01:01:00.000-05:00

It's actually become kind of hilarious to read about and listen to the Bush Administration (and their luckily few allies on this) try to defend their warrantless wiretapping. This New York Times article is either the most biased piece of trash ever written (and colluding with the Senate Judiciary Committee), or these people are kind of out of their gords. My favorite give and take from the article:

"In all honesty," Mr. [Senator Lindsey] Graham told Mr. Gonzales, "this statutory-force-resolution argument that you're making is very dangerous in terms of its application for the future." An expansive reading of the 2001 resolution, Mr. Graham said, may make it "harder for the next president to get a force resolution if we take this too far."

Mr. Gonzales maintained yesterday that the two enactments "complement each other."

The committee's chairman, Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, responded, "Well, that just defies logic and plain English."

But wait, it gets better.(more in expanded post)

Mr. Gonzales conceded that his was not the only possible way to harmonize the two Congressional actions. But the administration's reading is, Mr. Gonzales said, "fairly possible."

Ladies and gentlemen, the Attorney General of the United States of America is presenting a legal case regarding spying on its own citizens to the Senate of the United States based on the conviction that his legal position is "fairly possible." My mind has been blown. This can't be right. No one's that crazy. But the Financial Times represents the issue similarly. Quoting Gonzalez:

"No communications are intercepted unless first it is determined that one end of the call is outside of the country, and professional intelligence experts have probable cause [that is, "reasonable grounds to believe"] that a part to the communication is a member or agent of al-Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organisation.

I almost imagine Senators wanting to say to him:

"Yes sir, Mr. Attorney General. But the point of the separation powers... yes there are three co-equal branches of government. Yes sir, we're called the Congress, the Legislative Branch. Anyway, the point of the separation of powers is that we'll feel a lot better if one of us, the other branch is called the Judiciary, does the part where we determine what is and isn't reasonable. Right, that part. You see, that way we share power. Yes sir, share."

Am I missing something or is this just weird? I honestly hope I'm just confused, let me know if I am.

should wal mart be forced to sell emergency contraception?

2006-02-06T18:41:00.000-05:00

Some of you who've been reading for a while probably know by now that I like Planned Parenthood, and that my affinity is at least partly connected to the fact that my mother works for the well-known non-profit. But despite my ardent admiration for its dedication to providing important health services to millions of women in the U.S. and beyond, I found myself cringing at a PPFA-related online poll that my mom forwarded to me a few days ago, asking me to submit my vote. This time, I thought, they've gone too far. (more in expanded post)

Those who follow news on reproductive choice are probably familiar with the recent controversies over whether individual pharmacists should be allowed to refuse to fill people's emergency contraception prescriptions on personal moral grounds. In addition to individual employees exercising discretion over which prescriptions to fill, some pharmacies have opted, for similar philosophical reasons, not to stock certain kinds of birth control at all. Notable among these pharmacies is Wal Mart. So while I wasn't surprised at the poll soliciting my vote on the Wal Mart contraceptive issue, I was dumbfounded by the specific question it posed, and the way the email summarized the issue at hand:

A lawsuit has been brought against Walmart for failure to stock and dispense emergency contraception.

Walmart pharmacies serve primarily mid-to-low-income people. In many communities, Walmart is the only pharmacy in the local area. Low-income women have few choices when it comes to accessing emergency contraception. Please indicate your support for requiring Walmart to stock emergency contraception.

Because of the publicity around the lawsuit, CNN is polling on whether WalMart should stock EC. The poll is now in the "QuickVote" box on: http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/01/walmart.contraception.ap/index.html

Here’s where the poll currently stands:

Should Wal-Mart be required to stock the "morning after pill"?

Yes -- 47% -- 51895 votes
No -- 53% -- 58999 votes
Total: 110894 votes

PLEASE VOTE!!!!

Hold on, back up a minute. Should Wal Mart be required, by the government, to stock a medicine to which it objects on moral principles?

Should Wal Mart be required to stock anything it doesn't want to stock? It it the government's job to tell private retailers what to sell?

This one really had me confused. That is, until I actually clicked on the link and read the corresponding article.

As it turns out, we're not just talking about any old merchandise here. The government can't butt its nose into Wal Mart's decision, for instance, not to sell Jon Stewart's book "America" (not that it would want to, I guess). But in Massachusetts, where the lawsuit was filed on behalf of three women plaintiffs, it comes down to a question of whether or not emergency contraception is legally considered a commonly prescribed medicine. If it is, then according to state law, all pharmacies must supply it. If it's not, then businesses can decide for themselves whether to stock it. From the CNN article:

A new state law that took effect late last year following heated debate among lawmakers requires all hospitals to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims. It also allows pharmacists to dispense the pill without a prescription, but does not require it.

The lawsuit, backed by abortion rights groups Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts, NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts and Jane Doe Inc., argues Wal-Mart is violating a state policy that requires pharmacies to provide all "commonly prescribed medicines." They are suing to force compliance with the regulation through the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act.

In a letter to a lawyer for the three women plaintiffs, "Wal-Mart attorney John W. Delaney wrote that Wal-Mart has 'long had the corporate policy of declining to make available EC (emergency contraception) medication, based on, among other things, a view that EC medication is not 'commonly prescribed' and within the 'usual needs of the community,'" the article says.

If the poll question had asked me whether I think emergency contraception satisfies the criteria in question, I would have answered yes. The FDA's research committee has reccommended that EC be granted over-the-counter status, and many prominent physicians' groups support EC as an important option for preventing unplanned pregnancies. According to Planned Parenthood's website, "Widespread use of emergency contraception could potentially prevent an estimated 1.5 million unintended pregnancies and 800,000 abortions each year in the United States (Glasier & Baird, 1998; Stewart, et al., 2004). In 2000, an estimated 51,000 abortions were prevented through the use of emergency contraception; moreover, ECPs were responsible for approximately 43 percent of the decrease in total abortions between 1994 and 2000 (Boonstra, 2003)."

On January 19, the American Public Health Association adopted 19 new policies, including this one:

Access to contraceptive prescriptions: Supports many provisions to ensure women are able to have contraceptive prescriptions filled without interference or delay, including collaboration between pharmacist associations, pharmacies and schools of pharmacy to work with reproductive and public health professionals to conduct ongoing educational programs for pharmacists about the dispensing of contraception and emergency contraception. Continues to urge the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to make emergency contraception available over the counter.

It will certainly be interesting to see how this case plays out. Now that I understand what it was really trying to ask, I would vote yes on the initially baffling poll question ("should Wal Mart be required to stock 'morning after pills?'") since I think the availability of emergency contraception is very important for many people--including individuals, couples, and families--and thus for a community. How would you vote on CNN's question, and, if you see an important distinction between the two questions, how would you vote on EC's qualification as a commonly prescribed medicine that fills the usual needs of a community?

Sak passè avèk Haiti (What's up with Haiti)?

2006-02-06T09:17:00.000-05:00

Tomorrow Haiti will hold its first elections since 2000 when the nation elected Jean-Bertrand Aristide as its President. In 2004 Aristide was removed from power following months of turmoil domestically through groups who strongly and violently opposed him as well as internationally from world powers such as France and the U.S. On February 24, 2004 one of these two groups completed the rebellion by removing him from power. Some say it was the pressure from rebel groups that forced Aristide to resign and exit the country with the help of the U.S. (he left the country on a U.S. military plane that took him to the Central African Republic); Aristide himself says that it was the guns of the U.S. Marines who arrived and demanded he board a plane out of the country.

Few people look at the history of Haiti to gain an understanding of its current political or economic situation. Many will be able to tell you that it is the poorest nation in the Western hemisphere though few know that this stems in large part from the reparations that Haiti was forced to pay to French slaveholders by France, the U.S. and other nations in 1825: 90 million francs (or $21 billion today). This embarassing, morally backwards, and economically crippling demand impeded Haiti from utilizing its early independence, only 17 years after the U.S., for the betterment of its nascent republic. Haiti did not complete paying off this debt for 122 years. Luckily, the U.S. didn't have to pay similar reparations to the British for the 587, 182 slaves (very near the population of present-day Boston) in the U.S. around the time of independence since they kept them and proceeded to utilize their labor for free for the next several decades. What if...

a missing piece in the free speech/Islam discussion

2006-02-06T04:02:00.000-05:00

Travis Kavulla, writer for the fledgling conservative Red Ivy blog, is right about one thing. Liberals ought to be outraged about the violent responses among many Muslims to 12 Danish cartoons depicting Mohammad, one showing him with a bomb in his turban. Such reactions choke free speech and trample the ideals of intellectual freedom that liberals claim to cherish. Conservatives are right to condemn these hateful acts. But by viewing condemnation as the only important response to this situation, we succumb to a myopia that hinders us from defending liberal ideals. (more in expanded post)

Denouncing dogmatic overreactions only gets us so far in stopping and preventing them. Blaming Islam as a religion for the violence, as Travis does, get us nowhere. Many liberals rightly recognize the hypocrisy in passing judgment on Islam itself for the violence committed in its name, given how much destruction and injustice has been spread worldwide, historically, in the name of Christianity--through murders, prosyletizing enslavement, and missionary-led colonialism. Unfortunately, this insightful recognition makes us hesitant to comment negatively whatsoever on the recent upheaval. Instead we silently shake our heads or immediately begin searching for nuanced causes of fundamentalism-fueled riots and terrorist threats, without first acknowledging that such violence both saddens and frustrates us.

Liberals need to force-feed political dialogue a dose of nuance by realizing that condemning these reactions, while appropriate, is only part of the struggle. Booing a speaker doesn't accomplish as much as finding your own soapbox to stand on; this is a major principle of democratic dialogue. So in addition to calling for an end to suppression of free speech, we also have to call for a resurgence of energies dedicated to expanding freedoms of expression, not only in Europe but in predominantly Muslim nations. The fact is, the majority of Muslims are not violently fundamentalist; yet, repressive governments stamp out moderate and progressive Muslim voices by keeping a stranglehold on civil liberties. Plus, Western media sometimes fixates on extremist elements to the exclusion of progressive forces. If we are committed to supporting people's struggles for civil rights worldwide, times like this are critical moments to demonstrate our solidarity with Muslims around the globe who want peace as much as we do.

Actively lending support to moderate and progressive Muslims--not by speaking on their behalf, but by offering to publish and translate their works; by lending vocal and financial support to certain organizations and leaders; and by strengthening our own Islamic and Middle Eastern studies programs--this positive democratic action is a crucial component conspicuously absent from Travis's argument.

It's time we used liberal ideals of democracy to make real efforts at breaking the cycle of violent Islamic fundamentalism. We need to demonstrate a sincere commitment to collaborating with Muslim supporters of democracy. We need to educate ourselves as individuals and as a community about Islam and the positive elements of the histories and ongoing struggles of Muslim societies. We need to issue vehement outcries against anti-Muslim violence in the U.S. and around the world. And we need to show appreciation for the Muslim members of our own progressive community.

Since one reader actually asked that we start a thread on this topic, many of you probably have lots of thoughts and opinions to contribute, and hopefully some information from which we can all benefit. So let's get it started--as always, please share some wisdom.

calling out into the void

2006-02-05T16:25:00.000-05:00

We were hoping that this weekend would be dedicated to discussing the letter below, a kind of call to arms for democratic discourse and commitment to building a new left of common causes. Alas, even after begging a few political lists to speak up, responses were few and far between. There is, of course, a whole host of reasons that this could be the case: people don't want to read six paragraph letters, people generally agree and have nothing to add, people generally disagree and feel it's pointless to discuss, etc. etc. I'm willing to accept any and all of these explanations, but I would really like to try to figure out which is true.

One reader wrote... (more in expanded post)

...that the audience is the problem:

Golis, the reason no one is commenting on this is because they haven't thought that much about New Media and they don't know that much about the history of the American left. I know you like studying the new left in the sixties, the New Deal coalition and early progressivism, most political people don't. They like playing paintball.

Another reader wrote that the effort itself was the problem:

Basically, it's unrealistic to expect that by calling for dialogue you are suddenly going to have an explosion of people rising up and saying brilliant things or suddenly networking. Calling for dialogue is kind of vapid, almost as vapid as the bit about the coalition of infinite causes at the end... which btw is a lot of the reason that the Dems keep losing.

Which is true? Both?

Obviously, there's something self-indulgent in trying to make an accounting at one's own failed attempt to gain attention and start a conversation. But it also seems to me important to try to understand why exactly no conversation occurred, even if that means pondering our own inadequacies here at CC. Share your thoughts!

an open letter: CC, new media and the Harvard Left

2006-02-02T21:02:00.000-05:00

Below is a letter that we're sending out tonight on email lists and to friends. Give it a read. Please let us know what you think about CC, New Meadia or the Harvard Left.

---

To all!

Last spring, a website called Cambridge Common was founded to add more voices to our campus’s political dialogue. This fall, all four of us took up the project, using the blog to offer thoughts about campus, national and international politics and society, and encouraging our readers to do the same. We’ve had some success and, along with a handful of other emerging blogs at Harvard like Team Zebra, Quenchzine, and Demapples, have started to build an online community of political perspectives and dialogue, offering a great alternative to old-school print media and top-down opinion writing. We’re writing this letter in the hopes that you will join the community, either with Cambridge Common or by starting blogs of your own.

New Media, including blogs, has sparked enthusiasm worldwide. Whereas in the past only the wealthy, the powerful, the connected or institutionally-endorsed had easy access to public discourse, now anyone with a computer and an internet connection has a shot at gaining not only an audience of observers, but a community of contributors. In other words, the internet has created an entirely new public sphere. At Harvard, this creates a particular and exciting set of possibilities: our community is small, we are privileged enough to have technology and time, and we are here to learn, most often from each other. The radically democratic ethos of New Media—the understanding that no one person’s beliefs or arguments or politics should be privileged by volume instead of quality and that everyone should have equal access to expressing themselves—gives us the opportunity to engage each other in a new way.

As we said before, this letter is intended to encourage you to join us, teach us, learn with us and express yourselves. Just because we have started to write on a blog doesn’t make us the best or only qualified people to share our thoughts. We know from classes, friends, student groups and the comments section of Cambridge Common that there are a ton of you who are passionate and articulate about political and social issues but aren’t joining the public dialogue. Some are too shy, too busy or too humble. For the shy and humble among us, we hope you’ll recognize that everyone’s contributions are works in progress that serve the greater community. Bloggers needn’t know all the answers; sometimes it’s just important to bring up good questions. For the over-committed, we hope you can make time. If not, encourage others who you think can and should to consider doing so. We don’t just need pundits; we need activists and organizers, thinkers and questioners, writers and facilitators.

Over the last 40 years the left has been gradually losing power in America. Partially, we think, this is a result of the fact that we are no longer easily driven by a single cause that is simply defined, or even a small handful of causes with obvious connections; as a community we have come increasingly to recognize the importance of a variety of viewpoints in the context of our political perspective. This is difficult because it divides us, but it’s important because it broadens and deepens our understanding of the world and our ability to change it. We will never again have a singular cause or just three or four causes. Our task now is to become each other’s constituents, overcoming our divisions in order to celebrate and advocate a whole host of common causes. This is not an original thought: attempts at building multi-issue campaigns and diverse, united communities have met with varying degrees of success. We simply hope that Cambridge Common can contribute to this ongoing effort, using diverse voices to find common causes.

Right now at Cambridge Common, our goal is to recruit more people who self-define on the political left—liberals, radicals and moderates; Democrats and democrats—to join our team of regular contributors to the blog. We’re looking for people of various perspectives to join our community of writers and thinkers, discussing among ourselves and with readers the issues and ideas that animate us.

If Cambridge Common is not a project for you, we still hope you’ll take advantage of New Media. If it is, we would love to hear from you. You can get in touch with any of us individually or join us at the Cambridge Common Open House: Thursday, February 9, from 8 to 10pm, location TBA.

Thanks for reading and sharing your wisdom,

Andrew Chimaobi Deb Katie

If You Write It, They Will Come

2006-02-02T21:00:00.000-05:00

Interesting story from today's Globe. The Secret Service came to a Rhode Island middle school just hours after a 13 year-old seventh grader submitted an assignment to his teacher where:

"The boy...had written an assigned class essay saying that his idea of a perfect day was to hurt President Bush, kill the popular talk show host [Oprah Winfrey], and harm executives of Coca-Cola and Wal-Mart."

He's been suspended from school indefinitely and his case is under investigation by the Secret Service who say that they'll investigate it in the same way whether the person is 13 or 33. The child's actions would normally constitute a felony. Are the school district and Secret Service overreacting in a post-Columbine environment as some say? Or is this totally justified as threats of this nature need to be taken seriously?

protest literature and theories of sexuality

2006-02-01T23:53:00.000-05:00

An anonymous course shopper in the open thread below had asked for recommendations for Lit and Arts cores, and I suggested LitArts A-86: American Protest Literature from Tom Paine to Tupac, which I took last spring. For the final project in the class, we had the option of creating our own works of protest literature. This was mine.

It's a portrait of my roommate posing as the Virgin Mary masturbating, intended to provoke thought about the valuation and/or devaluation of sexual self-knowledge in our society, particularly with regard to women. I wanted to portray female masturbation as a positive, celebratory act, and I wanted to challenge viewers to question the concept of sexual purity that the Madonna image often symbolizes. Does our society consider non-reproductive sexuality compatible with spirituality and religiosity? Do we encourage women to explore and enjoy their own bodies outside of contexts in which they are performing for heterosexual men? Even though it does not overtly deny the Madonna's "virginity," does the portrait alter the viewer's conception of Mary's chastity and virtue? Is the picture offensive? If so, how and why?

Just thought I'd put it out there as a plug for Protest Lit--I had fun in the class and it got me thinking. Of course, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the portrait, too.

Also, if you're at all interested in studying these issues in an academic course, you should definitely shop WGS 1003: Theories of Sexuality, taught by visiting professor Judith Halberstam, one of the country's foremost experts on sexuality and masculinity. She's a big deal. I attended the class today and it was marvelous.

Good luck shopping!

open thread: good classes?

2006-02-01T08:01:00.000-05:00

Not limited to spring semester--which courses and/or professors have given you a kick in the pants and made you feel lucky to attend this school? In the fall, Robin D. G. Kelley's course on Black Intellectuals overflowed with shoppers; which superstars are generating buzz this time? Share the wealth, people.

blackwater

2006-02-01T00:40:00.000-05:00

Offering his predictions Monday night on what Bush would and should talk about in the State of the Union, Hardball guest Reverend Al Sharpton named the Iraq war and Katrina relief as the top two topics that people want the President to address, and address well. Hearing the Reverend pronounce this potent combination reminded me of one commonality the two topics share, a commonality that I only learned about within the last week: Blackwater.

I missed this element of the Hurricane Katrina aftermath in the news, so I'm posting about it in case some of you did, too. A friend of mine who drove down to volunteer in the relief efforts recently told me of his experiences in New Orleans and his encounters with the Blackwater private security forces, mercenaries typically found engaging in combat overseas, but who were hired by the Department of Homeland Security and the Louisiana state government to protect private property after the gulf coast flooding. They protected the property--but what about the people? (more in expanded post)

For me, Kanye West’s notorious accusations take on a new dimension in light of the order in which various kinds of ‘relief’ reached the decimated areas and devastated people. From The Nation:

One might ask, given the enormous presence in New Orleans of National Guard, US Army, US Border Patrol, local police from around the country and practically every other government agency with badges, why private security companies are needed, particularly to guard federal projects. "It strikes me…that that may not be the best use of money," said Illinois Senator Barack Obama.

Indeed. If speed is the measure of urgency, then rather than protecting and providing immediate emergency for victims, it seems the Department of Homeland Security made guarding private property its top priority. According to The Nation, Blackwater troops arrived on the scene before any other government-commissioned relief organizations, and they were soon joined by other mercenary groups, including Israeli military fighters hired by individuals to secure their property by suppressing criminal activity, through lethal force if necessary. From an article featured at Democracynow.org:

Blackwater mercenaries are some of the most feared professional killers in the world, and they are accustomed to operating without worry of legal consequences. Their presence on the streets of New Orleans should be a cause for serious concern to the remaining residents of the city and raises alarming questions about why the government would allow men trained to kill with impunity in places like Iraq and Afghanistan to operate here. Some of the men patrolling the streets of New Orleans returned from Iraq as recently as 2 weeks ago.

Unfortunately, as my friend learned through firsthand experience, the odds of being judged on-sight to be a victim seeking aid in a home versus a criminal seeking to break into a home can be affected by the color of one's skin. The same kind of racial bias that leads to a higher conviction rate for minority defendants than for their white counterparts can also lead to a higher likelihood of targeting people of color when enforcing Bush’s philosophy of “zero tolerance for people breaking the law.”

An interview in The Nation indicates that the private troops did not carry machine guns merely as a preventative scare tactic, but did in fact use them against civilians. While the security forces described below were hired by an individual named Quinn, not by the government, it is not outrageous to assume that the hired hands in Blackwater conducted themselves similarly:

A possible deadly incident involving…hired guns underscores the dangers of private forces policing American streets. On his second night in New Orleans, Quinn’s security chief, Michael Montgomery, who said he worked for an Alabama company called Bodyguard and Tactical Security (BATS), was with a heavily armed security detail en route to pick up one of Quinn’s associates and escort him through the chaotic city. Montgomery told me they came under fire from "black gangbangers" on an overpass near the poor Ninth Ward neighborhood. "At the time, I was on the phone with my business partner," he recalls. "I dropped the phone and returned fire."

Montgomery says he and his men were armed with AR-15s and Glocks and that they unleashed a barrage of bullets in the general direction of the alleged shooters on the overpass. "After that, all I heard was moaning and screaming, and the shooting stopped. That was it. Enough said."

During the aftermath, many noted and criticized the tendency of media coverage to racialize the crime occurring in some parts of the flood-stricken areas. Watching the news, my friend half-joked, one got the impression that there were armies of Black crack addicts banding together to terrorize, rape, and pillage innocent flood victims. While there's no denying that some opportunistic violence did occur, the exclusive focus on those relatively marginal instances not only reinforced racist stereotypes of the savage criminality of Black men, it also obscured the commission of government-sponsored violence and intimidation taking place in the area at the exact same time.

In addition to demanding, as Reverend Sharpton and many Americans are, a concrete plan to rebuild New Orleans, a plan that reflects proper respect for residents of all races and classes, we must also continue to question the Bush administration’s decision to sponsor, as The Washington Post characterizes it, “an unusual domestic assignment for a set of companies that has chiefly developed in global hot spots where war, not nature, has chiefly undermined the rule of law.”

SOTU open thread

2006-01-31T18:52:00.000-05:00

The State of the Union is tonight (starts at 9 pm ET). What are you hoping for/predicting (if you're reading this pre-SOTU)? What did you think (if you're reading this post-SOTU). [insert lame joke about "live blogging" here]

further evidence for things already known

2006-01-31T16:50:00.000-05:00

This is a pretty stunning and clear cut example of Fox News becoming an extension of the Bush Administration's PR campaign.

Don't Be Evil

2006-01-30T05:53:00.000-05:00

Speaking of stifiling information, Google has just launched its Google.cn version to be used in China. While the company proudly declares that its "mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful," Google has made the decision to censor the results produced on Google.cn by searches of various "sensitive terms," (and not-so-sensitive sites like bacardi.com) such as "democracy," "human rights," "falun gong," "Tibet" or "Taiwan". Until now, Google could be accessed by those in China via servers based in California, but its content was filtered by the Chinese government's internet filters, also known as "the great firewall of China". China employs 30,000 police officers to monitor the internet full-time. With regards to this very criticized decision, in an interview with co-founder Brin, Reuters quotes him as saying, "I didn't think I would come to this conclusion -- but eventually I came to the conclusion that more information is better, even if it is not as full as we would like to see." (more in expanded post)

But while Google has said that it is simply blocking sensitive information, searches of these "sensitive" terms direct users to government-run propaganda sites that disseminate incorrect or misleading information, and only the official government's stance on these issues. As many have noted, their half-truth "justification" is eerily Orwellian. Strangely enough, all this came less than one week after Google refused a US Department of Justice supoena which requested the company provide every website address produced and search term used on Google between June and July 2005. A Times article sums it up:

The government was looking to assess the prevalence on the internet of what it calls HTM — harmful to minor — not child pornography, but pornography that children can accidentally access. It turned out that AOL, Microsoft and Yahoo! had all already complied with similar requests. [...] It is an incredibly worrying sign, not least because it shows the way governments might come to use search engines as a form of privatised surveillance.

Google has an extraordinary amount of information about its users. It logs all the searches made on it and stores this information indefinitely. Because every computer has a unique IP (internet protocol) address, every visit to every website can be traced back to the computer making it [...]. (Shi Tao, the Chinese journalist, was given 10 years in jail last April for “leaking state secrets” after Yahoo! in Hong Kong handed over information linking his IP address and his e-mail to the Chinese authorities.) Users of Google’s Gmail service, who are already having their e-mails scanned to place targeted ads, have given the company their identity, a full record of all their searches and copies of all their e-mails, stored indefinitely. [...] As the lawsuit makes clear, all this information is potentially vulnerable to subpoena.

While it is in some ways comforting news that Google has refused to comply, it's sadly most likely to hide trade secrets. These two events, though they may seem contradictory, were both money-driven decisions. People freaked out when they found out their surfing might no longer be untouchable and anonymous; Google's shares dropped 8.5% when the news of the subpoena came out (that means they're worth $20 billion less now than they did a while ago). Call me naive, but I, and many Google fans, had held out hope that in this money-driven world, the "users-first"-minded Google would show that ultimately humanity could triumph. But the potential to caplitalize on China's enormous population trumped the warm fuzzies. Even for a company whose motto is "don't be evil," when it comes to cashing in on a billion people's internet use, complying with a government whose ideals are directly contradictory to its founding vision, whose secretive practices have exacerbated world problems and whose demands require the obfuscation of truth, the definition of "evil" is bendable.

The Truth

2006-01-30T00:38:00.000-05:00

Today as I continued my recent obsession with Middle Eastern politics I came across a very eye-popping interview from the Daily Ummat, the second-largest newspaper in Pakistan. After going to the site for the Daily Ummat my inability to read Urdu prevented me from searching their online archives for the interview. It was conducted in the weeks after the September 11th Attacks and, in it, Osama bin Laden denies responsibility for the events of that day. The fact that this interview was the first granted by bin Laden after September 11th and was NOT AT ALL covered by major U.S. news outlets and publications should cause one to wonder why when, during the fall of 2001, just about every newspaper in the country was focused on this man and his organization.

If you all get a chance, I ardently encourage you to visit three websites on this issue:

1) 911Review.Com: A Resource for Understanding the 9/11/01 Attack

2) ThePowerHour.Com: A radio show that focuses on "subjects that inform and educate people every day to the real challenges that face this country".

3) 911InPlaneSite.Com: A completely fact-based movie that the world generally and the U.S. people more specifically absolutely MUST see.

political science, part II: this ain't a game

2006-01-29T20:10:00.000-05:00

According to a Washington Post article today (which mentions the Bush admin v. NASA scientist tension I talked about in the post below this one), while many leading climatologists are becoming increasingly convinced that a "tipping point" in global warming is quickly approaching, after which these climate changes resulting from human activity will be impossible to slow or reverse, there is still some controversey over how concerned we should be about it.

Some scientists, including President Bush's chief science adviser, John H. Marburger III, emphasize there is still much uncertainty about when abrupt global warming might occur. "There's no agreement on what it is that constitutes a dangerous climate change," said Marburger, adding that the U.S. government spends $2 billion a year on researching this and other climate change questions. "We know things like this are possible, but we don't have enough information to quantify the level of risk."

Setting aside for the moment my feelings on why we should be concerned with environmental protections even in the absence of crisis, it seems to me that if we don't know exactly how dangerous or imminent "abrupt global warming" might be, but we do believe that once it happens we may be helpless to stop it, then maybe we should take a cue from the Boy Scouts and be prepared. Behave as though the worst-case scenario is looming. (more in expanded post)

The article notes that some, like Britain, seem to be adopting the prudent path, having already reduced its emissions by 14% since 1990 and aiming to cut them by 60% by 2050. Of course, we can't gauge worldwide progress by the efforts of one or a few nations; this is a serious problem for everyone. Controversey abounds on the best way of holding everyone accountable to pulling their weight. But whether we favor independent goal-setting, international agreements, or, as some economists have suggested, privatizing emmissions rights worldwide, we need to recognize the urgency of the situation. As Stanford University climatologist Stephen H. Schneider explains in the article, the urgency is greater for some than for others:

The small island nation of Kiribati is made up of 33 small atolls, none of which is more than 6.5 feet above the South Pacific, and it is only a matter of time before the entire country is submerged by the rising sea.

"For Kiribati, the tipping point has already occurred," Schneider said. "As far as they're concerned, it's tipped, but they have no economic clout in the world."

political science

2006-01-28T14:31:00.000-05:00

The Bush administration's attempts to stifle environmental science information made the front page of the New York Times today:

The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

Didn't they get the memo? Evangelicals are now in favor of reducing humans' degradations of the world's ecosystems. The administrators might be getting their main man in trouble with some of his base. (more in expanded post)

I find this part of it especially ludicrous and indicative of a dangerous prevailing mentality:

Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at the space agency, said there was no effort to silence Dr. Hansen. "That's not the way we operate here at NASA," he said. "We promote openness and we speak with the facts."

Mr. Acosta said the restrictions on Dr. Hansen applied to all National Aeronautics and Space Administration personnel whom the public could perceive as speaking for the agency. He added that government scientists were free to discuss scientific findings, but that policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesmen.

So scientists are only allowed to report the 'facts' of the problem, not suggest practical potential remedies? To behave as though science were absolutely separate from politics is not only laughable, given, for instance, recent political fights over teaching intelligent design in schools, it also effectively reduces scientists to opinion-less workhorses, whose only job is to report on 'the facts,' never to interpret them. This is the kind of thinking that had contributed to the Pentagon's hold over universities' science departments across the nation, a situation that developed during World War II when the government first began to collaborate with universities which helped with designing weapons technology.

Einstein once observed, "It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity." He was speaking to the same trend of separating science and politics rhetorically and ideologically while at the same time purposely moving them ever closer so that science is militarized and used as a tool to fulfill only certain political ends.

It's especially important that we question this trend here at Harvard, given that the university's capitulation to the Pentagon's threat of revoking funding (the whole ROTC deal) reflects just how dependent our science research departments have become on the government's military. Additionally, we need to try to reverse the efforts to paint scientists as mere fact-finding robots by insisting on ethical/political education for the scientists being trained here (not indoctrinary ethical education; just something like along the lines of History of Science classes).

HAMAS

2006-01-27T19:53:00.000-05:00

I'm not sure how many of you all have been following (or are aware of) the situtation in Palestine right now but, two days ago, Hamas captured a majority of seats in the national (if that word can accurately describes present-day Palestine) parliamentary elections. The fact that Hamas is currently recognized as a terrorist organization by the U.S. government, the E.U., and others makes the situation between Israel, Palestine, and the West really volatile right now. Seeing as how the U.S.-led "Coalition of the Willing" invaded Afghanistan and Iraq partly on the premesis of these nations harboring "terrorists" what will they do now to Palestine that is, to them, run by terrorists? Anyone have thoughts and what the course of action for the U.S. and others might be? What type of governments Hamas will look to erect? Why the Prime Minister and his cabinet immediately resigned?

Has Ariel Sharon woken up from his coma yet? Talk about receiving bad news...

King George

2006-01-27T17:07:00.000-05:00

A great piece from Slate was sent out over Dems-talk. For those of you who aren't on it, I figured I'd post it here. The thesis paragraph responds to the contention that the issue is simply one of national security vs. civil liberties:

Would that so little were at stake. In fact, the Senate hearings on NSA domestic espionage set to begin next month will confront fundamental questions about the balance of power within our system. Even if one assumes that every unknown instance of warrant-less spying by the NSA were justified on security grounds, the arguments issuing from the White House threaten the concept of checks and balances as it has been understood in America for the last 218 years. Simply put, Bush and his lawyers contend that the president's national security powers are unlimited. And since the war on terror is currently scheduled to run indefinitely, the executive supremacy they're asserting won't be a temporary condition.

I recommend the whole thing, but it strikes me that we're living in pretty extraordinary times. Of course, I'm just a youngster, maybe things are always this interesting...

guns don't shoot, people do!

2006-01-27T16:33:00.000-05:00

Via quenchzine:

This is what makes it hard to be proud to be a Virginian.

This state congressman accidentally discharged his firearm but lucky for everyone else in the state capital, he also happenned to have a bulletproof vest hanging from the door which absorbed it.

Brought to you by the state that upholds adults' rights to bear arms in public schools.

Such a weird incident. Good catch quench!

state of the union parody

2006-01-27T15:09:00.000-05:00

via crooks and liars. Check it out.

elites and the military

2006-01-26T13:47:00.000-05:00

If you want to understand why some people in this country so dislike elites (like Ivy Leaguers, for instance), listen to Hugh Hewitt's interview of LATimes columnist Joel Stein. Stein wrote a controversial piece earlier in the week in which he argued that supporting the troops while opposing the war is hypocritical. Hewitt appropriately disagrees strongly, but what's more interesting is that he essentially argues that Stein has no right to an opinion: he doesn't know anyone in the military and doesn't appear to know anything about the military. I'm not one to agree with right-wing talk show hosts, but if you're going to write in a national newspaper that you don't support the troops shouldn't you at least know how many there are?

Summers Loves Little Girls

2006-01-26T03:27:00.000-05:00

In what is clearly an attempt to say something almost antithetical to what he stated last year about females (that caused the huge flurry) President Summers recently said that educating girls is "the single most important investment that can be made in the developing world," at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland. Is that before or after poisoning them by dumping huge amounts of toxic waste from the industrialized world into their environments, Larry? I wonder...

updates

2006-01-25T17:51:00.000-05:00

I've just updated the "ongoing discussions" section of the side bar, definitely check them all out, there's some phenomenal stuff there.

Also, I've updated the "Harvard links" section, adding two new blogs and taking off one. I've added Gratitude Orange, an excellent blog kept by Kyle de Beausset. Kyle has been discussing general world politics and his experiences back home in Guatemala helping the redevelopment after massive flooding brought on by Hurricane Stan. I've also added Red Ivy, the Harvard GOP's new blog that kicked off earlier this month and seems off to an interesting, albeit sporadic, start. Finally, I've taken down the link to Team Zebra, because they haven't written in over a month. I'll definitely let you know if they get back in the game.

I hope you're enjoying your intersession! Also, read the post right below this one and the columns it links to.

how outrage proves essential

2006-01-25T12:10:00.000-05:00

It's a shame when good writing gets lost in the shuffle of the social calendar: many people are too busy celebrating the end of finals or already jet-setting to their intersession destinations to pick up the Crimson and see what a couple of insightful columnists had to share.

Henry Seton, famed mastermind of the Big Question weekly discussion group, attempts to jolt us out of our end-of-civilization fatalism by reminding us that we'll never fundamentally change a world that we accept at face value:

Blind optimism is perhaps the surest route to true pessimism; hope alone will leave us, in the end, with mere hopelessness. But an educated, critical hope is essential to transforming our world, and if we relinquish it, we relinquish our humanity as well. There are simply too many untested feasibilities, possibilities for a more just world, for us to simply accept the present as our infinite future.

The U.S. has often been called an 'experiment,' and while we may abhor some of the calculations and manipulations involved in establishing our nation and developing and maintaining its power and dominance, we can still salvage some small bit of happy strength from the legacy of "educated, critical hope" that served the rag-tag confederacy through its tumultuous beginnings. (more in expanded post)

The experiences of white people (primarily wealthy white men) in that particular (and peculiar) colonial history have helped to teach us that critical hope for change doesn't come from simply assessing the world and imagining that it can be better. The kind of hope we need in order to change the status quo is a hope born not only of imagination, but of outrage. We need to be truly outraged with poverty and injustice before we will take real, creative, courageous steps toward changes we envision.

However, as Henry points out, outrage is sedated when we "take cowardly comfort in the fiction of our own powerlessness." I think that outrage, especially regarding injustice, is also especially sedated at Harvard for three other reasons.

One, because people believe that they have independently earned the privilege this education affords them, so in theory it's possible for any other bright, motivated person to earn it, too. It's more difficult to be outraged with a status quo which one has mastered to a large degree (in other words, of which one has been a beneficiary). Not impossible, but more difficult.

Two, because people at Harvard are often so consumed with bedazzlement at the vastness of knowledge and theories of the way the world works that we forget to always apply the knowledge critically to our world and ourselves. We may think that this step will come later, when we are more expert in our field. We forget that we have the right--and the responsibility--to be outraged now, to begin envisioning now, knowing that we have more questions than answers, but struggling nonetheless.

And three, because, unlike in the days of the Boston Tea Party, or even today in certain parts of Boston, we at Harvard today lack a clear opponent toward which to be outraged. It's all well and good to be incensed by poverty and injustice, but it's a lot easier to maintain that resentment if there's someone to blame for it (at least that's the way it works for most of us in this culture). And the thing is, if there were any opponent to rail against, it would be ourselves--or, I should say, the projections of ourselves in a decade or more. We are (at least we're told we are) "tomorrow's leaders;" we are the elite. And if we don't begin cultivating outrage and educated, critical hope now, we are doomed to be the adumbration of merely another installment of tepid leaders sitting atop the hierarchical heap, failing people even as we brilliantly navigate the political slaloms laid out for us. We are not yet sufficiently outraged.

Well, I take that back--at least some of us are. Giving Harvard University its semester report card for performance in social responsibility, a critically hopeful Mike GW had this to say:

So [the fall semester] was the best of times, and it was the worst of times. Among the worst, because some administrators still don’t get that they’re running an open-minded university, not a business or a branch of the government. Among the best, because students are actually paying attention and holding people in power accountable.

Mike outlines some of the major tests of social responsibility Harvard has faced since September, including "Dignity and respect for workers," "Civil liberties and student privacy," and "Diversity and nondiscrimination." Check it out, agree, disagree, or both. May something in it ruffle one or two of your feathers.

a picture is worth...

2006-01-25T01:29:00.000-05:00

How do you get the attention of the media in a society of short attention spans and theatrical politics? Make a good picture. In case you can't tell, the person at the podium in the back center of the picture is Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, defending the Administration's domestic spying today in a speech at Georgetown Law School. From the NYTs, and you can see a few more pictures here.

the freedom to choose health: abortion in national news

2006-01-24T21:15:00.000-05:00

(note: i avoided using the words "woman" and "mother" to refer to pregnant patients in this piece out of respect for the fact that not all people who can become pregnant identify as women or mothers. just something to think about.)

Ryan Thoreson has some good analysis on the recent Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood ruling over at demapples.com, so instead of rephrasing what he's said, I'll just urge you to check out his thoughts.

But despite the seemingly heartening outcome he highlights, choice advocates shouldn't celebrate prematurely. While justices ruled unanimously--yes, unanimously, on an abortion case--that a New Hampshire law requiring parental notification and a waiting period for minors seeking abortion services must include an exception for cases in which the minor's health is in jeopardy, they did not, as they have in past instances, declare the entire law unconstitutional because it lacked such an exception. Instead, they sent it back to the Lower Court to determine whether legislators actually intended to omit an emergency medical clause from the law.

What is the significance of this difference? Well, it may serve to make Alito seem less immediately threatening to reproductive choice issues as the confirmation vote approaches. (more in expanded post)

As a result of the Ayotte ruling, the court may decline to accept other abortion restriction cases that don’t include health exceptions, instead sending them back to be reviewed. This delay takes the bite out of choice advocates’ warnings that, if confirmed, anti-Roe Alito will have the opportunity to vote on abortion-related cases during his first year on the bench. It is anticipated that three such abortion restriction cases will be pending in the coming months (two have already made their way up to the top), and will be decided only after O’Connor is out of the picture. One of them, Gonzales v. Carhart, tests the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which Congress passed despite the Supreme Court's unfavorable ruling on a similar Nebraska state law. The ACLU, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and others have already come out in opposition to the ban.

Few political catch-phrases irk me more than "partial-birth abortion," a term fabricated by anti-choice factions in order to conjure images of infants halfway through vaginal delivery (or as Bush put it when he signed the Ban Act into law, "children who are inches away from birth"). What irks me even more is that it’s often the sole phrase used in the media to refer to actual medical procedures of a certain kind. In the words of the immortal Jersey Slugger, "Grrr."

Let us transcend the rhetoric. The medical names for the procedures in question are intact dilation and extraction (commonly called D&X) and dilation and evacuation (a.k.a. D&E), and they are not performed in the midst of delivery contractions, but typically during the second or (rarely) early third trimester of pregnancy. (Third trimester abortions are performed only when the life or health of the patient is at grave risk, or when the fetus is not viable.) Late-term abortions are very rare (90% of abortions take place in the first trimester), and are most often wanted pregnancies in which serious and unfortunate complications have arisen. And guess what--the need for these procedures is reduced if patients have reliable access to comprehensive prenatal care. That's right: effective, affordable/universal health care could reduce demand for abortions. Ah, pipe dreams.

Supporters of the ban argue that the D&X procedure is not the only option available to patients who choose to terminate their pregnancies in later stages, so it should be nixed in favor of less 'gruesome' options. They're partly right--D&X isn't the only choice for patients and their doctors. Thing is, it appears to be the safest option in most cases: the primary alternative, a hysterotomy (not to be confused with a hysterectomy), is a major operation, akin to a caesarian section ("C-section"). Despite a dearth of information available on the relative safety of certain abortion procedures (curious--you'd think it might be an important thing to study), the available evidence was sufficient to convince the District Court of New Jersey that a hysterotomy carries a greater risk of health complications than intact dilation and extraction, and dilation and evacuation.

As with any medical treatment decisions, the first priority should be the health and well being of the patient, and the decision should be made not by politicians, but by patients and their medical practitioners who have the experience to be able to make appropriate judgments.

So, with respect to the ‘partial birth abortion’ issue, I have two simple requests:

Congress, please pass laws that promote citizens' health and safety rather than imperil them. I'd be much obliged. Soon, we may not be able to rely on the Court to protect us.

And journalists, hedging statements by referring to a D&X abortion only as “a late-term procedure that critics call ‘partial birth’ abortion” doesn’t count as being objective. If you’re going to use the inaccurate, pop-culture term, at least give us the medical name as well. Actually, in the interest of fairness, I should say that I realize that the language of most ‘partial-birth abortion’ bans that have been enacted is so vague that it can apply to procedures other than D&Es and D&Xs; because of the way the laws are phrased, it’s difficult to pin down precisely what the term does and does not include. So maybe you are trying to play it safe, sticking to the precise(ly imprecise) political terminology. But that doesn’t help the rest of us to be any more informed…so bring on the nuance! Bring on the complexity! We can take it.

Exodus of Jobs

2006-01-23T12:36:00.000-05:00

Ford announced today that it's closing another slew of factories throughout North America, mostly in the U.S. Does anyone know what exactly Ford is trying to do with this move? The claim is that this "would make the company's North American division profitable" over the next two years. Hidden effects should not be overlooked, however. Rising unemployment directly contributes to rises in crime. When people don't have jobs and their prospects of attaining them in the near future are scarce alternative methods of income generation are entertained. People have to eat.

Blame big business. Either the working class population in the U.S. will give them cheap labor for factories and service-industry positions that will perpetuate their familial and communal poverty or even these meager jobs will be taken away (by shipping jobs overseas or making advances in technology that make human labor expendable) so that people resort to crime and have their labor exploited for far less through the prison industrial complex. To quote Blondie

One way or another I'm gonna find ya,
I'm gonna getcha getcha getcha getcha,
One way or another I'm gonna win ya,
I'm gonna getcha getcha getcha getcha.

This is the song Corporate America sings to the U.S. and, increasingly, world population everyday.

And Another One!

2006-01-22T23:42:00.000-05:00

Bolivia, South America's poorest nation, now has its first indigenous leader since the Spanish conquest over 500 years ago in Evo Morales, leader of the Bolivian political party Movement for Socialism. That's a LONNNNG wait for an indigenous leader. Once again, the U.S. government is fearful of his reform agenda as Al-Jazeera cites him as wanting to "end discrimination and inequality". What an evil man...sic the CIA on him! Has anyone noticed that this is simply not in the interest of any U.S. President or Congress in policy though they have often given the notion lip service? Think about it...Ending inequality would have to include ending capitalism (I am still waiting to hear an argument defending capitalism as just or leading to equality) as a means to bringing about equality. Does that mean socialism? Communism? Anarchism? What do you all think?

World on Fire

2006-01-22T16:27:00.000-05:00

In the midst of exams and similar stresses, it's always good to get some perspective. Here is one of my favourite videos for inspiration.

lunchtime video!

2006-01-22T12:21:00.000-05:00

I know I've probably encourage people to watch this speech before, and I know many of you probably already have, but Barack Obama's appearance on Meet the Press this morning reminded me of it so I'm bringing it up again. Whether you've seen it or not, whether you consider yourself a Democrat or not, whether you like him or not, watch Obama's speech to the Democratic Convention in 2004. I'm going to have a few thoughts later today about why Obama is important not simply because of his political talent and charisma.

Harajuku Girls

2006-01-21T21:02:00.000-05:00

So Gwen Stefani has these Harajuku girls. They are four Japanese women hired by Gwen to be her posse/shadows. They go everywhere with her, appearing on the red carpet, in her music videos, her album cover, and are mentioned in almost every song on her solo album, including a song she wrote about them (called...Harajuku Girls).

Okay. I guess if you're a popstar celebrity you can do whatever you want and make yourself a posse. But this is where it gets weird and kind of creepy. These Harajuku girls (Harajuku is a district in Tokyo reknowned for many things, in part the flamboyant styles of the locals) are rumoured to be under a contract where they are only allowed to speak Japanese in public, even though people say they're just regular Americans who speak perfect English. And when I say Gwen "has," I really do mean has, because she has renamed them Love, Angel, Music and Baby, after her clothing line (l.a.m.b., which is being marketed towards the Harajuku district) and solo album. MiHi Ahn for Salon.com (or try this link) does a great job of explaining what is going on, but there is a fair bit of controversy over whether this is an instance of negative feishization, if the widespread coverage of the Harajuku girls is positve press, or if it's just one of those weird things that will end up paving the way to general acceptance of minority cultures (as Margaret Cho muses). (more in expanded post)

At first glance, Gwen Stefani's praise of the Harajuku girls may seem to be a positive sign of appreciation for a different culture:

Harajuku Girls you got the wicked style
I like the way that you are, I am your biggest fan
You're looking so distinctive like D.N.A., like nothing I've
ever seen in the U.S.A.
Your underground culture, visual grammar
The language of your clothing is something to encounter
A Ping-Pong match between eastern and western (from Harajuku Girls)

But what does not sit well with me, and a great many others (visit the "Free the Gwenihana Four" blog), is that the Harajuku girls that Gwen drags around with her are her ideas of what Harajuku girls are. The photo above is a great example of this--look at their makeup. The tiny circle of lipstick on the four girls is reminiscent of an antiquated Asian/geisha fashion; they also are all wearing the same (albeit weird) thing. What is supposed to be so unique about the Harajuku district is that individuality rules. There are no trends or lines of fashion that are to be followed except to do the unexpected, although the inspiration tends to be goth or punk. Gwen strips her pseudo-Harajuku girls of the trait she apparently finds so inspiring.

For those who might disagree about Gwen's attitude towards her Harajuku posse, if you listen closely to "Rich Girl," this is what she says:

if I was [sic] a wealthy girl
I'd get me four Harajuku girls to
Inspire me and they'd come to my rescue
I'd dress them wicked, I'd give them names
Love, Angel, Music, Baby

uh...which is what she did. What is tricky is that the whole phenomenon of Harajuku style is one that is superficial and in itself fetishy--also known as Japanese Baroque, it combines elements of gothic, goth-lolita and punk style into a postmodern pastiche of clothing. So appreciation of this intrinsically fetishy style may have to itself border on fetishization. That of course is only true if the Harajuku style were represented accurately, which it completely isn't (schoolgirl uniforms do not fall under goth or punk, but they do happen to be an Asian image stereotype). Unfortunately, it's pretty clear that Gwen just got herself a set of live dress-up dolls, who are a negative portrayal of Asians in the way they play into the meek, cutesy, giggling and silent Asian girl stereotype. No, it's not racism. Yes, it's still not cool.

Queer Results

2006-01-21T17:22:00.000-05:00

According to this New York Times article a new reality show that was supposed to air on ABC may have been shelved do to its positive portrayal of a gay couple (that won the reality show) and the believed backlash that would follow from the religious right. Purportedly ABC was scared to air the show since they felt that support for their quasi-religious The Chronicles of Narnia would be withdrawn from this base. Another example of capitalism trumping moral fortitude (if true).

During the course of the series being shot the gay couple's neighbors who have been initially described as "quite homophobic Christians" come to love the gay couple and their child next door. Love for one's neighbor despite them living a lifestyle that you may not approve of? Now that's not Christian at all...

lunchtime video!

2006-01-21T15:04:00.000-05:00

Today's lunchtime video is Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman laying out the Republican strategy for victory in the 2006 elections. It seemed to me to be a kind of State of the Union for the Republican Party. You can find it here and at C-Span.

What's fascinating about the speech is that it was done publicly and therefore for a wider audience than simply the RNC members and GOP consultants. In that way, Rove appears to be inventing a new kind of political speech: simultaneously a blueprint for political victory and a stump speech in its own right. Of course, because it's public and he's speaking to an audience wider than simply that room, you have to approach with cynicism the idea that this is truly and simply their game plan. It is, obviously, only that which they felt comfortable making public and a little hot rhetoric to boot.

It seems to me that Rove is trying to do three things here, if not more. (more in expanded post)

First, he's trying to remind the GOP that even in bad times they are powerful and have brilliant people who can write an alternative narrative and message to the one that they're currently having to deal with. The section at the beginning where he reminds them where they came from in the last 40 years and what they've accomplished is a perfect example of that, as is the message he lays out (and what it obviously ignores). Second, he's making a statement about their confidence in his own legal standing that they hope will calm reporters down. He is technically still under investigation by Fitzgerald's special prosecution of the Plame Affair and because he was willing to do this speech they must feel confident that he won't be indicted. If he were indicted, the Democrats could simply spend the rest of the cycle reminding the voters that their opponents are working from a game plan written by an indicted man. I doubt they're dumb enough to risk that. Third, the speech is an indication of how the GOP wants to approach the '06 cycle, not simply in the message that Rove lays out, but in its timing. In terms of laying out a public message, this is really early. The elections aren't until November, the intense campaigning won't really start until the summer (TV ads, etc.) but the GOP knows that it needs to start to change the narrative (which has been pushing the comparisons to the '94 Republican Revolution, and talking about the Dems winning big by promising to clean up Washington) soon. They also want to draw the Dems out and make the political battle more extended, probably because they feel in the long run that they're safer in a open political battle than in a set of simmering DC controversies. It will be interesting to see how long the Democrats wait to really rev up their message machine (and how good the message is...).

Alas, all of this is amateur guess-work. What do you think?

Kennedy/Owl controversy coverage

2006-01-20T14:55:00.000-05:00

In a fascinating turn of events, Kennedy's membership in the Owl Club has gone from a one day retaliation over the Alito/CAP controversy in one article in the Washington Times into a full-blown aspect of the Right's anti-Kennedy noise machine. The advertisement picture on the right is all over conservative online media (Powerline, GOPUsa (thanks Dewey!), RightWingNews, the Rocky Mountain News etc.) and links to this article. Right wing bloggers continue to write about the issue, even going so far as to attack the NYTs for not reporting on it considering the fervor with which they covered Martha Burk's efforts to pressure Augusta National (home of the Master's, an important PGA golf tournament) to allow women to join. A quick search on technorati (kind of google for blogs) shows 926 results, most if not all of which appear to be referring to this particular controversy. Probably more importantly, mainstream coverage has gone beyond the blogs and Limbaughs of the world and also includes right-wing newspapers like the Boston Herald and the NY Post, as well as more objective papers like the the LA Times and many others.

What do you think? Is there now a bipartisan national consensus? Is it fair?

Believe it or not, I generally agree with the Crimson's Staff Position.

hyperfun!

2006-01-20T13:56:00.000-05:00

I just wanted to say congratulations to the Crimson for learning to use hyperlinks in their articles. It's especially cool when they either link to themselves or to the University of Cincinnati.

In all seriousness, hyperlinks are a great tool for sourcing and add depth to an article or opinion piece. Glad to see the Crimson is joining the info age (or whatever it's called) even if it is a little haphazard at first.

lunchtime video!

2006-01-20T13:48:00.000-05:00

Today's lunchtime video should act as a reminder to those of us who consider ourselves liberal, radical, leftist, Democrats, democrats etc.: despite popular conservative myths, we do not control the political media. Social liberals control much of the rest of the media (Hollywood, MTV, the values in much of the major network productions, etc.) but the political right is really good at this. Prepare to be upset.

He's BAAaack!

2006-01-19T16:31:00.000-05:00

Apparently a new audio clip from Osama bin Laden has surfaced and been aired on Al-Jazeera, the CNN of the Middle East. On the tape he warns of an attack in the U.S. soon and also, a bit surprisingly, proposes a truce to the ongoing war in Iraq and that in Afghanistan. In addition to this he talks about Bush giving misinformation to the U.S. public and the unpopularity of the wars that Bush brought about in his "War on Terror". I'm not even going to get into the skepticism that one should harbor in regards to the true story behind the September 11th Attacks, but what do people think about the fact that, after nearly four and a half years, the Bush administration with all of its military, financial, and political resources has still not been able to find arguably the most wanted person in recent world history? Eighteen Pakistani civilians can be killed without a peep from the U.S. government with a "precise" missle technology though they can't locate the whereabouts of this one individual. Is his technology and territorial expertise that beyond the U.S. government's? Who is he paying to keep himself safe that the U.S. can't pay more to turn him over? Why is the $234 billion "War on Terror" not focused on catching the person who purportedly started this war and supposedly controls those behind it perpetuation on the Islamic side?

The U.S. public and its political leaders support war because they don't have to deal with its hellish reality domestically. If Los Angeles or Washington, D.C. was turned into Tel Aviv or Baghdad for just ONE day there would be immeasurably more restraint in bringing that reality to millions of others throughout the world every single day for their entire lives.

ongoing discussions

2006-01-19T15:55:00.000-05:00

The ongoing discussions column has been updated. Feel free to use this thread to start any discussion or mention anything that you wish was being said/heard/listened to.