Larry has had enough

I read today that Lawrence Summers has announced he will step down as President of Harvard. This comes a year or so since his controversial remarks regarding women and science and more recently after the Dean of the Arts & Sciences school resigned amidst charges that Summers forced him out.

Opposition faculty groups came together to demand his resignation and gave a vote of no confidence in the wake of his remarks on women. The ill will multiplied as his presidency progressed and came increasingly at odds with faculty. His real bosses however, are the board at the Harvard Corporation who approved of the way he was running the school and as far as they were concerned, he was accomplishing quite a bit of good. The University became divided on the topic with a very vocal group of profs calling for his ouster while a more quiet group either supported him or didn't care. Students on the other hand, widely support him for his charisma and active role in their affairs.

I was working at HBS when the women in science remarks were made and supported him in a quiet way because I really didn't think he did or said anything wrong. The real reason a lot of the faculty didn't like him is because he ran the place differently than they were used to. He has a very straightforward management style more typical in the private sector or Washington than an academic setting. His ideas to revamp the undergradutate curriculum was met with a fair amount of resistance. With the tenure system and a somewhat insular environment, faculty sometimes get fussy when outsiders try to tell them what to do.

I heard on the radio this morning a couple of quotes from professors involved in the matter. An opposition leader basically called him a dictator who ruled by "fiat" rather than consensus. Then Alan Dershowitz was quoted to say that a minority group of ultra liberal profs are largely the instigators while more reasonable voices are drowned out. I have to agree with the latter opinion. Larry accomplished quite a bit as far as reorganization and campus development but he never quite got along with certain brands of faculty who resented his taking a leadership role when they thought they should have more of a voice.

His job however, was to lead the school forward; he inherited a massive endowment from his predecessor and was charged with using it to make improvements both physically and philosophically. This meant butting heads with faculty at times when they were the holdouts in a system that needed change. Unfortunately, egos were bruised, conventions were bucked and he was seen as imposing values and practices that weren't compatible with Academia when the reality was more that academia wasn't willing to accept that they could do better.

The trouble with Ann coulter

I imagined myself at an Ann Coulter speaking engagement and if offered a chance to ask her a question, what would I ask? I came up with something like this:

Ann, you have recently begun to frame some of your remarks in the "I'm just joking" context as a way to justify some of the more outrageous things you say. For instance, you say you were only joking when you said things like the following:
-(regarding muslims), "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. (9/12/2001)"
-"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.(8/20/2002)"
-"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee,(1/26/2006)"

Given that you're only joking, why should anyone publish your words in serious policy journals? The National Review dropped your column after the first quote above but afterwards you've always managed to find places to publish your rantings. Do you feel that running your column makes a publication more or less reputable a source for serious political thinking?

unintentional funny of the day

From an article on the Red Light District in Amsterdam:

"...said Bob de Maan, spokesman for the "Banana Bar,"

This F-ing weather

Today, February 16th, in Massachussets it is 60 degrees. I just went outside my place of work and noticed that it was actually warmer out in the sunshine than it is inside.

This pisses me off. I like weather and the change of seasons so if it's February, it better be ass-freezing cold with a chance of snow. Instead, the foot or more of snow we got over the weekend is almost completely gone and cars driving by have their windows open.

I expect a little thaw each winter but this is just ridiculous. I paid for a seasons pass at the nearest ski place and I'm wondering if I'll get my money's worth.

Stupid weather.

New comments rule

I changed the settings so comments can now be anonymous. Please comment away. I prefer knowing who you are but whatever it takes to get comments, I'll do it.

Cheney shooting that guy

When I first heard about this, I thought it was kind of funny. Cheney seems to hunt alot but sometimes it seems that maybe he is a little too zealous a hunter. First it was hunting with Scalia, the justice who was hearing a case he was involved in, causing a bit of political fallout for both of them. Now, he's shooting his own party allies. Imagine what would happen if a democrat went along with him?

Then, the event snowballed into an overblown scandal. It turns out sneaky Dick delayed informing the press and the president of what actually happened and in the confusion in the day or so after the accident, we are reminded once again the Veep is truly playing by his own rules. I really don't like his assumption that he need not be accountable for his actions as a vice president but that attitude as a private citizen when someone gets hurt as a result of his negligence is the height of being an arrogant asshole.

The miscommunication made the event more newsworthy than it ever should have been. Attempting to smooth things over, poor Scott McLellan ends up placing blame on the man who was shot invoking the fury of experienced hunters. Public skepticism over the details of the incident are making the rounds of hunting circles and even die-hard republican hunters are unhappy with Cheney's role in the accident and attitude following it.

When an experienced hunter shoots a fellow shooter in what is a tragic but avoidable accident it is ultimately his fault (according to hunting protocol, the one doing the shooting is at fault, the exception being when the guy getting shot was wearing a deer costume). Dick however, apparently can't accept the blame for anything he does as a private citizen or a politician. The NRA is strangely silent on the issue, though they are normall all too happy to point out how guns should properly be used in such situations. If they remain silent, whatever notion of non-partisanship they can claim with a straight face would be blown away like a quail in a burst of machine gun fire.

I thought shooting your self was something the democrats excelled at. The administration was supposed to be the one with control over their communications and message, instead, they bungled it badly, allowing a simple mishap to become a major issue. My advice would be to curtail Cheney's hunting trips lest any more damage come as a result. It's all fun and games until someone loses an office.

UPDATE:
Dead-Eye Dick did finally go in front of a camera and take responsibility so good for him. However, the matter is still clouded by the weak notification and some questions about how much he had to drink that day. The initial press release by the Ranch manager stated that there was no drinking going on but Cheney himself admitted to having a beer at lunch. A popular theory I heard on the radio this morning was that he held off on the notification because he had been drinking and needed to keep that mum. Drinking and handling firearms is another huge no-no for hunters, some consider it worse than drinking and driving.

Olympics

Since the Olympics began, I've been alternatively meaning to watch some events and completely forgetting to do so. I like the winter games more than summer because I like to ski and because of the novelty of many of the events (two man luge?!). However, several factors prevent me from enjoying the coverage and keeping track of what's going on.

The first factor is the over-exposure of figure skating/ice dancing/shiny outfits and bad music on ice. This crap annoys the hell out of me. I understand that these people work hard and have great skill at what they are doing but it just doesn't seem like a proper sport. Anything with a soundtrack, bizarre outfits, makeup and points for artistic merit doesn't pass my criterion for "sport". Unfortunately, it is one of the most popular events so it is on TV more often than not, or at least so it seems. If they would at least eliminate ice dancing, I'd be happy. You don't have normal dancing in the summer games do you? (No really, I'm not sure)

The second factor is the coverage itself. The events that are screened seem to be chosen by the possibility that an American will win. That's all fine and good but it eliminates so much of the action that one might get the impression that there are only a handful of competitors (whoever is in the top running and the nearest American) in the event. I guess this is largely due to the limited amount of time that the network has to cover the games which is legitimate and leads me to wonder why the coverage can't be expanded to other channels.

If the one network isn't able to provide ample coverage, why not spread the love? These are after all the Olympics, traditionally a venue where nations put aside differences in the spirit of celebrating human achievement. Is it too much to ask for the networks to do the same? Let one of the big three cover the games the way we know it, complete with award ceremonies, sappy back stories and too much figure skating while some cable channel covers the competition in a more impartial, complete fashion. Only weirdos like me will watch the second channel so ad revenues won't really be lost. Yeah, I suppose the whole lack of moneymaking will be a shortfall in that plan so...hopefully the internet will provide a solution in the future with cheaper means of broadcasting events for those who want to see them rather than dictating who sees what. Ahh, the internet, solving all of lifes problems, how did we ever do without it?

Overheard:

"...gather the men, women and children, kill them all and bury them..."
-A snippet of conversation between one older man to another, chatting on a ski trail as I skied past. I don't think it was Dick Cheney but you never know, he seems to be in the killing mood lately.

Those damn cartoons, follow-up

This cartoon nonsense won't go away. I feel compelled to think about it a little more. By the way, if you haven't seen them, click here (if you dare!!!)

This whole thing has certainly heated up the islamic world vs. west conflict quite a bit and its impact is varied. Many Western newspapers and reprinting the cartoons to prove that they have the right to do so and that they will not be intimidated. Others, notably the NY Times, refuses to, citing a desire not to offend and safety reasons. I understand these reasons but at a certain point, the cartoons themselves are news and are worth viewing in this light. An Egyptian paper apparently printed back in the fall with practically no scandal or notice. It wasn't until a certain oil rich monarchy and its extremist clerics riled up the muslim world that all this crap started. If the Egyptians would reprint them, how offensive can they possibly be? As for safety reasons, if a western institution were to curtail its behavior every time a group of muslim assholes threatened violence, we'd be bowing to their will. Before you know it, our women will be veiled, the men will be bearded and no more pork. If the prospect of losing bacon won't motivate you, I don't know what will.

Apart from hitting each and every protester with the mighty club of sanity until they realize what morons they are, I don't know what else we can do except pressuring our newspapers to take a stand against cultural censorship. Sensitivity is fine and proper but enough is enough, if they aren't sensitive enough to not kill innocents in the name of their God, then that god is fair game as far as mild insults go.

Screw 'em if they can't take a joke.

Bush Flip Flops

June, 2002:
"Q — could the attacks have been stopped?

THE PRESIDENT: I’ve seen no evidence today that said this country could have prevented the attack."

SOTU, 2006:
"It is said that prior to the attacks of September the 11th, our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy. … So to prevent another attack — based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute — I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program…"

Hat tip to thinkprogress.com.

Maybe if he and his people had been paying attention and using the means available to them, they could have disrupted (if not prevented) the 9/11 attack. So now, with the over-reaching surveillance program, is he overcompensating?

Rubber ball off a brick wall: the ID/creationist movement

I just came up with a regular entry theme: "Rubber ball off a brick wall," an attempt to penetrate the mind block people are often so willing to erect in order to avoid reason and rationality.

The first focus will be on the proponents of teaching crationism and intelligent design in public schools. First a quick definition of terms:
-Creationism, the scripture-based belief that the physical universe, including our earth and all its physical features and various species, in their current form, were created in 6 days by god a few thousand years ago.
-Evolution, the theory propounded by Charles Darwin in the late 19th century which, using scientific observation and experimentation, posits that life evolved over millions of years from single cell organisms to the complex organisms we are today.
-Intelligent design, the idea that a force with supreme powers (but not necessarily "god") initiated the process of evolution by providing a spark of life.

First came Creationism which objected to the theory of evolution. It was argued that the theory, though based on physical evidence and scientific method, couldn't be correct because the bible said otherwise. At first they rejected the notion of evolution and fought to prevent it from being taught at all (Scopes trial). Eventually, evolution became accepted as a legitimate theory and became a part of science curriculum in schools. So then the creationists sought to force public schools to put the creation story on par with the theory of evolution in the classroom. The courts interjected and said no, that's a violation of the church/state separation. The creationists grumled, prayed and went home.

A few years later, after having put the bibles out of sight and learned to use scientific terminology, the creationist reappeared as proponents of "intelligent design". The new argument was that the theory of evolution wasn't sound enough to be taught in the classroom without an alternative. The theory they had in mind as an alternative was that evolution was instigated by an unknown and unseen designer. It wasn't necessarily g-o-d, but something kinda like that. Life, they argued, is too complex to have occurred out of nothing, therefore it must have had help by this mysterious benefactor.

This alternative to the purely scientific theory of evolution was proposed and went to court where once again, it was denied a place in the science curriculum because, well, it isn't science, it's an attempt to attach god to evolution.

The ID theory is however taught and believed by a number of people in private schools and home-schooling communities. These are largely religious people who nevertheless are rational enough to accept the findings of science for what they are, observations of the natural world derived from careful experimentation. They are entitled to put their faith in god as a supplement to that which science cannot fully explain. I have no problem with this as long as they stick to private belief rather than try to force it into public education. These are the somewhat rational people.

Then there are the blowhard christian conservatives who read the bible literally and decry even the slightest hint of secularism in their life or anyone elses. These are the people who wish, quite literally, for a religious state to take power in the US. Knowing that the bible isn't a historical or scientific text and that "because god said so" isn't a valid argument, they seek to refute evolution with their own pseudo science which tries to exploit aspects of evolution that are unsolved or unclear. There are numerous organizations which provide resources for "arguing" with evolution. There is even a creation museum with exhibitions on how man domesticated the dinosaurs and tourguides of the grand canyon with creation-based theories on its formation. These people are not stupid, they know how to convince others to join their beliefs. Recent polls indicate that 55% of americans believe that god created man in his present form.

What gets me most worked up is that if people cannot integrate their religious belief with secular science, they probably cannot do so with secular law or life in general. The efforts to erect the ten commandments in every courtoom, re-enact school prayer and the furor over the so-called "war on christmas" are examples of their overreaching in other segments of life. They have built a wall of faith, ignorance and desire for power that isn't easy to penetrate. The rubber ball of reason bounces off it with a ping.

Advice to muslims who are planning a demonstration

If you happen to be a muslim person living in any part of the world and you find yourself suddenly enraged, piqued, or moved in some way to take to the streets to demonstrate against the latest insult from the infidels, I have some advice for you.

-Before going out to the effigy shop to buy something to burn, before loading your AK and donning your mask, before grabbing your portable portrait of your favorite fanatic/cleric/dictator/martyr to hold and adore, answer this question: Will this rally improve my life or just make me and my fellow demonstrators feel better about our retched lives for a few hours?

-In adopting a stance that projects hatred and intolerance to millions of people in Israel, Europe and the Americas, will I be benefiting my society or making us look like a group of angry, self destructing imbeciles undeserving of the millions of dollars of aid that said peoples send us?

-If a group of my fellow followers of Mohammed plow airplanes into buildings full of people, killing thousands, will my celebration in the street convince those who were attacked that this was an aberration of my faith or an essential part of it?

-And finally, if the ruthless dictator/corrupt clerical regime or local thugs rally me to demonstrate against foreign enemies, is there any chance they are doing so to displace the blame for their failures as rulers?

The Nation with the (Black) Golden Arm

So apparently we're addicted to oil and the solution is to eat more corn or grass or something. Old Georgie made a toothless call to eliminate our reliance on oil in the SOTU and hopes no one realizes how empty the promise is. Mere words are not policy, that requires action to compel the forces involved. In this case more extreme actions than asking pretty please will be needed to change the American auto industry's focus on the immediate future to the long term.

This is something I've been saying for years: since fossil fuels are a finite resource, now is the time to develop the next generation of energy production. When we get to the point where oil cannot fuel our economy, we better have improved our technology to the point where we won't even notice it's no longer there. Getting to that level of technology takes a hell of a lot r & d and whichever nation can accomplish it first is going to be in a position of power. That said, the US transportation industries should devote more of its resources to becoming leaders in alternative fuel technology in order to reclaim its position as leaders in the worldwide industry.

Given the relative gas prices due to direct taxes and income differences, Europe and Asia have more incentive to develop this sort of stuff before us. While we drive our SUVs around the corner to get a loaf of bread, they are driving smaller little cars when necessary and walking, taking mass transit or whatever when possible. They are the ones who are taxing petroleum use to create a demand for more efficient engines. They are the ones who will beat us to it unless we create incentives for our industries to change. Given Exxon Mobil's record profits and their cozy relations with Detroit, we are in deep doo doo.

I wrote a version of this in an opinion paper about 5 years ago when the Kyoto Protocol was the big issue of the day. Some snooty business type(it was published by a biz school student paper) wrote back that I didn't know what I was talking about, and that it's not practical due to economics, markets, blah blah blah. He tried to pass me off as some tree hugging opponent of business. He had was thinking short term, I was talking long term. Which nicely demonstrated my point, the people who are in a position to initiate this sort of development are looking at either their bottom line for the next few years or at the next election cycle.

The best thing to happen to the US auto industry was the energy crisis of the 70's when oil shortages compelled the development of more fuel efficient engines, more practical cars and a general awareness of the finite nature of petroleum. At first it sucked--the cars were very small and kinda crappy compared to the boats and muscle cars we were used to. eventually, the technology caught up and we were driving large, comfortable vehicles that were faster and more powerful as the pre-crisis models but twice as efficient. We had developed technology to maintain our standards of comfort and performance. Then we got complacent, mileage improvements hit a peak and the average national mpg declined as development of mileage imporvements gave way to giving soccer moms more room and power than they'll ever need. We had forgotten that there may not always be a cheap, plentiful supply of gas. It took 9/11, Iraq and 60 bucks a barrel to open our eyes again.

Which brings us back to the SOTU. George did good to mention the problem but it was little more than a headfake. Without real incentives to change, we won't. Without the Federal gov't providing those incentives or worse, a new energy crisis driven by external factors, we're going to continue cranking the heat up to the mid 70's, driving stupidly large cars and sooner or later we'll find ourselves a has-been world power.

Muslims worldwide react to the Danish newspaper cartoon

So a Danish newspaper publishes a series of cartoons portraying the prophet Mohammed and muslims in general as terrorist boobs. The editor ran the cartoons intentionally to make the point that he can because he lives in a free society. He intentionally wanted to start a ruckus to prove the point that many muslims are as intolerant of the societies they wish to destroy because they find them intolerant of their culture.

The predictable response occured in Islamoland and in Islamic communities in Europe: riots, Danish flags being burned in the streets, tourists threatened, etc. The Danes, as a government, stand by the freedom of the press and don't bow to the ridiculous demands to apologize. In Norway and France, the cartoons are republished along with some new ones, including one where figures from all the major religions are lampooned at once under the headline: "Yes, we have the right to caricature God." Next thing you know the EU office (I have no idea what that means) in Gaza is surrounded by assholes with AKs and masks shutting down the building and writing "closed until an apology is sent to Muslims." The building at the time, and normally, is staffed mostly by Palestinians. The douchebags with guns then left a vague threat that unless apologies were issued by the offending nations in 48 hours, something was going to happen.

I'll tell you what will happen if no apology is issued, the right of free people will be preserved and the retrogression inherent in this element of Islamic society will take another giant step backwards to the dark ages. An elected official in the Hamas party in Palestine had this to say: "No one can say a bad word about our prophet." Oh yeah, Fuck him (sorry, 'Him') and the camel he rode in on. He's your prophet, not mine. Besides, if he really is (was?) a prophet of an all powerful god, he'll get over it.

Oops, Did I just intentionally badmouth a mesenger of God? Yup. Did I mean it? Not really, but then again it would take faith for it to mean anything. Is it my right as a citizen of a nation that, despite its problems has a hell of a lot more going for it than one that is recently been taken over by known criminals? Betchyerass it is.

Who do you think is the better for it, me or the woman whose government's primary goal is the elimination of it's neighbors while nearly half the population is unemployed? I say if Muslims want to get upset about the blasphemy, get upset about the very same people who are threatening to attack innocent civilians of other nations because of what was printed in a newspaper. Get upset about the blasphemers who kill innocents in the name of allah. Get upset over the distortion of the koran that fuel the hatred and self punishing policies of nations that, in the name of their sacred faith have policies aimed at the destruction of other peoples. Get upset over the fact that the more you get upset over this meaningless bullshit, the further you get from the holy message, the good works and side of your faith that cringes in embarrasment whenever crap like this occurs.

Imagine if the Islamic world noticed the cartoons and ignored it. Whatever malice and so called blasphemy existed behind them would be negated by proving them irrelevant.

UPDATE: I hadn't noticed the unusual timing of the protests vs. the release of the cartoons, for commentary on that see this.

Welcome

Hello,
This is my first post in a blog that I don't think many people will ever read since there are many other blogs on this theme written by people with more knowledge on the topics and greater resources to devote to them. I have started it as a way to vent my frustrations at the world, at politics, at the stupidity and irrational nature that seems to becoming more and more prevalent in civilization.

I call this "sitting in the aisle" as a symbol of my generally centrist nature and my lack of interest in taking an active role in politics. If the nation is split into left and right factions, the aisle would be the lonely area in between. It's much better in the middle--you can take what you like from either side without having to support the lunatic fringes members of your party. By sitting in the aisle rather than in a seat on either side, I indicate my lack of active membership. The way I see it, it's much more fun to laugh, scowl and bitch than to try to make a living of it.

I have another blog that focuses on food, wine and beer that I love. It fulfils that side of me but at times I'll read the paper, watch the news or just be wandering around life when something will be screaming out for comment. That's where this will come in. I may focus on politics, entertainment or sports or maybe just rant like an old man. It's my frickin' blog, I'll do with it what I want.

That said, let's get into it shall we?