Hey kids, if anyone actually reads what I write…

I’ve been literally racking my brain trying to write a both diplomatic and honest opinion piece on this upcoming election. Seeing as my editor has already posted his opinions, however, I think it is only fair for me to write a quick blurb to, well, balance out our personal opinions.

Joined by my editor, I met with both candidates for roughly an hour and a half, each. I really think both candidates listened to the questions Armin and I asked them and responded honestly. They really were both engaged in our conversations. However, with Alidad, I found that I was asking more questions and addressing more topics he really hadn’t thought about before our interview. I think this is because he is more of a technocrat and, well, George is just a “power to the people” type of dude.

Side note: George has also been my friend for a while now, whereas Alidad and I just became acquainted because I reached out to him for an interview.

George’s main concern regarding the past failings of student councils was the hunger strikers and the fact that they were willing to put their bodies on their line for a cause that was by no means worth starving over.  FYI, KIDS: The Core Curriculum is ALWAYS being reviewed by both students and faculty–ANY students and faculty willing to try to revise it can do so.

Read the rest of this entry »

Things have been pretty quiet at Columbia lately. But what about Colombia? This past week, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez confirmed every neocon’s worst suspicions about him and threatened war against U.S.-allied Colombia. The ostensible cassus belli would have been the Colombian military’s incursion into Ecuador, although regional power politics probably had as much to do with this past week’s standoff. The crisis and subsequent military mobilization ended a few days ago, but not before the Commentariat got a couple Columbian scholars of Latin American politics to chime in via email.

“In the short run, the Venezuela-Colombia-Ecuador flare-up exposes deeply felt but pretty arbitrary symbols. Even a one-mile cross border incursion by Colombia violates a sacred image of territorial sovereignty (hence all the Latin American support.) On the other hand, Ecuador’s hosting and Venezuela’s financing of groups dedicated to violent overthrow of the Colombian regime, is considered normal, even virtuous. The US does it, too. On its merits, the protests will flare out quickly once the ‘right things’ have been said.

In a longer perspective, it exposes the tragic reality of Colombia. The FARC has lost almost all of its claim to promoting virtue with a new political program. It has for several decades survived with the resources  of a quasi-territorial sub-state facing a weak government, besieged by paramilitary factions. These resources have included the profits from drug exports to the US, but other entities in Columbia ‘enjoy’ those, too. This border crisis now suggests that ‘guerillas’ like FARC are increasingly surviving as a useful tool in Chavez’s anti-US campaign. a lot would change for the better if oil prices took a steep dive undercutting Chavez, or the US found a way to reverse its steep loss of moral authority. Neither seems likely at the moment.”

-Douglas Chalmers, Professor Emeritus of Political Science

Read the rest of this entry »

Proving that an appeal to fear will trump a call to our highest virtues, Hillary Clinton pulled off career-saving victories in Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas last night. While she gained a net 17 delegates (three times the total of tiny Rhode Island), she demonstrated that her ship has not sunk entirely. After last night’s primaries, Barack Obama is still the clear mathematical leader, but HRC isn’t to be counted out. Heaven help the Democratic party!

After dinner, the owner of a nearby Dominican restaurant explained why he is for Hillary:

1. Barack’s middle name is Hussein. “Hoo-sain, Hoo-sain,” he repeated. Clearly, he must be receiving contributions from Islamic terrorists.
2. The economy was in tatters when William Jefferson Clinton took over from George Bush, who started a war in Iraq. Now that another Bush started a war in Iraq and the economy is roiling, the only person capable of solving the problem is another Clinton.

This sort of choose-your-own-adventure, street corner politics is akin to spotting aliens on the back of a $20 bill. Absurd, right? Masonic conspiracy theories and hidden councils of the illuminati seem ridiculous, but only because we go to school with them–and they ain’t such bad blokes. Clearly, the issues don’t matter. Swiftboating and Internet rumors are a much better way to decide the fate of the free world.

The real winner is John McCain, who locked up his party’s nomination with a four-state sweep. While Hillary and Barack continue trashing each other until the Democratic Convention in June, Mad Mac can have more Sedona barbecues and build a war chest while “the kids” fight it out over Pennsylvania. The outcome is sure to be a bitterly-divided Democratic party and legions of disenchanted independents. With that to look forward to, I can only say Democracy is great, if it works in my favor.

While Hilary Clinton asserts her Second Amendment bona fides, reminding the public that she once shot a duck in Arkansas, her rival, B. Hussein Obama is distancing himself from firepower.

In his answers to the 1998 Illinois State Legislative National Political Awareness Test, Obama said he favored a ban on “the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.” 

By definition, this would include all pistols ever made, from .22 target pistols used in the Olympics to rarely-fired pistols kept in nightstands and sock drawers for the defense of families, and every pistol in between. Obama’s strident stand would also ban all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, whatever their previously legal purpose.

To recap, Obama wants to ban all guns except the ones sportingly displayed in Pirates of the Caribbean by the strapping protagonist played by Johnny Depp.

Read the rest of this entry »

File this under rant:

In the past 45 minutes I’ve witnessed several people’s lame attempts not to acknowledge me in passing. As it occurs I can see the thought process at work. “Hmm… am I going to say ‘hi’ to this person? He dated so and so, or so and so doesn’t like her, so… nope.”

Once you’ve decided not to say “hi” there are the trusty standbys, such as pulling the cell phone out at the last second, looking at a crack or absentmindedly picking your nose, all of which allow one to pass in silence. They all work, but they all piss me off.

I’m not saying I’m the best at this. I know a lot of people on campus and as often as not I’m totally spacing out as I go about my business. There are also several people I would just rather not acknowledge, but as the son of an African immigrant, the worst offense you can commit is not saying hello when you see someone. It’s almost as if you deny someone their humanity when you don’t greet them, which is why it vexes me when it happens. I’m an egomaniac and I want everyone to acknowledge and admire me at all times.

One of the things that makes college so great is living close to your best friends. One of the things that can make it a drag is that your least favorite people are also in close proximity. In the ever-shifting landscape of collegiate alliances, betrayals and casual hookups it can be hard to known whom you should be friendly with. As a general rule, unless you have beef, you’re obligated to a simple gesture. If you recognize someone, you say hello to them or at least acknowledge that you see them. This goes for former classmates (discussion sections especially), members of organizations or teams you were a part of, and Facebook friends. If you don’t want to say hi to someone, don’t have them as a part of your online life. When people I know don’t say hi to me, I cull them from Facebook. I don’t want to deem anyone a “friend” who would ignore me in real life.

The matter of dating complicates the picture a little bit. Is it alright to say hi to friends of your ex? There shouldn’t be a problem–you’re both human beings. You both know something about each other. Even if the breakup was my fault, I still believe it is important to show a little courtesy. I look even worse if I can’t make eye contact with someone just cuz I broke up with their friend. Let’s stop taking ourselves so seriously!

Despite our rushed, stressed out, overachieving lives, we’re not the only people in them. Sometimes we wish folks would miraculously disappear and save us the trouble. If you know someone and haven’t got a problem, at least say hello. You might brighten someone’s day if you do, and ruin it if you don’t. Now that you’ve read my rant you’re free to ignore it.

THIS MEANS WAR! Only no it doesn’t. Sure, this could have to do with the Blue and White’s inferiority complex vis a vis Spectator, while this very post’s existence (the one you’re reading right now, that is) could have to do with the Spectator’s inferiority complex vis a vis the Blue and White. Fair interpretations both, but surely there’s a more condescending explanation for the presumed inter-publication bitterness. And the explanation is this:

The B&W and Spec are now at the point where they don’t need to get along and where their product is greatly improved by their not getting along. Consider this a micro-level manifestation of Joseph Schumpeter’s “creative destruction”–the two pubs often define themselves in opposition to their rival, and scamper after whatever journalistic territory their opponent hasn’t siezed. Both publications have been relatively good at this: the Bwog is a more zeitgeist-y, more accessible version of Spec, while the Eye is a more topical version of the Blue and White’s print wing.

Implicit in Philip’s writeup is that the B&W has already conquered the online frontier–that the Spec would never invite Dahlia Lithwick to speak, because the Spec will never break out of its increasingly-constricting formal limitations, or the mindset that goes along with it. There’s the mocking suggestion that Lithwick doesn’t have anything to say to a publication as tone-deaf as Spec. Maybe I’m reading too much into this. Or maybe the cycle of “creative destruction”–which, I’d suggest, is good for both rags–is as healthy as ever.

THIS MEANS WAR! At least, insomuch as a “blockade” of an “enemy territory” constitutes “war.” David Judd seems to think so, and he might not be wrong about that. But he’s wrong about a number of other things.

Forgetting, for a moment, that Judd strategically leaves out the fact that Israel was invaded by ten Arab nations after the Arab rejection of the partition plan, or that his phrasing suggests that Israel was the military aggressor in 1948–even forget that the referenced massacre of Palestinian civilians on a Gazan beach might have been Hamas’s fault–why the repetition of the transparently misleading “collective punishment” canard?

UNRWA’s own New York representative confirmed that there is rampant weapons smuggling into Gaza; meanwhile, Israel’s 2006 incursions into Gaza came after militants tunneled into Israel and kidnapped an IDF corporal. Those who have been following the Gaza crisis from the beginning also know that it’s internecine fighting between Palestinians–and not rocket attacks on the home front–that are the most cause for anxiety on the Israeli side.

Israel’s Gaza policy is unduly harsh, and the decision not to give the Palestinians a seaport and an airport after the disengagement has proven disastrous. But it’s foolhardy to treat Israeli actions as completely morally exculpatory, no matter how misguided they might be. Gaza–and the Middle East in general–is more complex than Judd’s factually selective, post-colonial black-and-white treatment gives it credit for.

I guess the House of Representatives is banking on the fact Al-Qaeda doesn’t get cable because we wouldn’t want the terrorists to get a hold of this fascinating tidbit…

Nancy Pelosi is an idiot.

Read the rest of this entry »

The frothing jambalaya of ethnic hatred that is the central Balkans was further stirred this week, when the mostly-Albanian province of Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia. Although Kosovo is relatively small, its independence could set off a new wave of violence in a historically violent part of the world–lest we forgot, Kosovo is particularly close to the Serbian heart, and was the site of both anti-Albanian and anti-Serb pogroms during the Serbian invasion of the late 90s. Throw in Russian and American power politics, and the tinderbox of Europe’s tinderbox looks set to explode.

Complicated stuff. Fortunately we go to Columbia, which employs literally dozens of experts on Eastern Europe–experts who will, if bothered, comment on such matters of global and regional import. So the Commentariat nagged (or rather, emailed) some Harriman professors with a few basic questions: what does Kosovar indepence mean for the region? What are the chances of violence? And what kind of a role do Russia, the US and the EU have to play? Their responses:

“The potential for violence is great; for enduring tension within  the Balkans - and between Europe and Russia - greater still. But though we can argue about how we got to this point, the way forward is much clearer: the onus is now squarely on the Europeans to take the initiative and to show greater sympathy for the Serbian position. Tadic’s victory in the Serbian presidential elections earlier this month showed that the country is banking on a European future.  Europe must respond by relaxing the conditions for Serbian accession to the EU and making the Serbs feel more welcomed and less like pariahs.”

-Mark Mazower, History professor

“Kosovo’s declaration of independence was long awaited and feared by some in the international community.  Three out for European Union members are expected to recognize Kosovar statehood rather quickly, as is the United States.  But countries with national minorities that are pressing for autonomy — or more — are expected to abstain for the moment or decline.  These include, for example, Spain, which has already refused to do so, and Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, Slovakia, and Cyprus.  Russia, too, will refuse to go along.  With the EU taking over the UN mission to Kosovo, and with a large minority of ethnic
Albanians living in nearby Macedonia, EU unity and policy will be tested.”

-John Micgiel, Associate Professor of International and Public affairs; Executive Director of the East Central European Center

“I don’t expect violence (except for perhaps local incidents), but tensions will increase, both in the Balkans and among the US, EU, and Russia (and also within the EU, which is not united on this issue).  In a sense this is odd since none of these countries has a direct interest at stake.  But it is caught up in both historical rivalries (Russia has always backed Serbia & the US/NATO supported the regions it was oppressing) and in the current frictions between the US and Russia.  Were it not for the latter factor, the US and Russia could have worked out a compromise and forced it on Serbia and Kosovo.

Where this will go is hard to tell.  The Russians may use this as a reason or excuse to give more support or even recognition to the break-away segments of Georgia, and it is sure to complication US-Russian relations.  The fact that the EU was neither able to unite nor to take a leading role is a further indication of the weakness of it as a political organization.”

-Robert Jervis, Adlai E. Stevenson Professor of International Affairs

Thursday night’s panel discussion about the current situation in the Gaza Strip had all the trappings of a typically-Columbian ideological pep rally. There was the title, for one thing, since you can’t really go to an event called “Gaza: The World’s Biggest Prison?” and expect any persuasive argument to the contrary. Never mind that the “world’s biggest” label suggets the kind of competitive victimhood that defenders of Palestinian rights have roundly condemned (since to some, Zionism is predicated on competitive victimhood), or that the term “prison” is abstract enough to include Turkmenistan, Eastern Chad, Belarus or a whole host of hellholes much larger than the tiny Gaza Strip.

But balance and intellectual consistency are trifling matters when held against the abject barbarism of the Zionist entity, and the Nadia Abu al-Haj moderated event aspired to the kind of mindless intellectual backpatting we’ve grown all too accustomed to at Columbia, whether at a theory-drenched Comp Lit and Society junket or one of the Earth Institute’s glorified infomercials on sustainable development (as proof: Nadia Abu al-Haj moderated). Happily, it failed.

But it didn’t fail to attract a huge anti-Israel cheering section. I’ve been to scores of lectures and discussions at Columbia, but none that was as crowded as this one–about 150 people (including profs. Robbins and Saliba, dozens of MEALAC, SIPA and Anthro grad students, and two prominent members of the national media)squeezed into Hamilton 703, while another hundred were turned away at the door. I attribute this to the discussion’s pep rally character–while there were a couple dozen Hillelniks sprinkled throughout the crowd, the overwhelming majority of attendees were there to hear the panelists trash the Jewish state within the isolated safety of the anti-Israel ivory tower. In the minutes before the panel kicked off, the overflowing lecture hall was the perfect anti-Israel photo-op. And indeed, Palestinian activist and sustainable development PhD student Saifedan Ammous was right in the front of the room, taking pictures of the crowd.

As mentioned above, it wasn’t one. UNRWA diplomat Andrew Whitley proved that the United Nations is more a part of the problem in Gaza than the solution. Israeli “historian” Idith Zertal thoroughly embarrassed herself. And Rashid Khalidi provoked outrage when he had the audacity to suggest that Hamas shouldn’t be firing rockets at Israeli civilians.

Read the rest of this entry »

Since they apparently have nothing better to do, NASA decided to broadcast Beatles song, Across the Universe, to the North Star last week. However, some scientists have rebuked NASA’s hasty intergalactic broadcast raising concerns that such activities may be misinterpreted by aliens as a battle cry. The last thing our little planet needs is an intergalactic crisis and Professor Barrie Jones of Open University explains that:

“the chances are slight, but the consequences would be huge — the end of life on Earth… if they have the technology to cross interstellar space to reach us, they will be so much in advance of us humans that there is nothing we could do to resist them.”

Barrie raises a good frickin’ point. But if they could cross interstellar space, wouldn’t they have kicked our pathetic asses off the planet anyway? Would they even bother since we’d be seen as pathetic relative to them? It’d be like a bashing a little kid. But would they even care to have a basic honor system that discourages them from beating up a minor? Oh, god damn aliens and the number of questions they leave unanswered! Well, I’ll have those aliens know that the basic knowledge I acquired in Frontiers of Science gives me the confidence to say that they won’t be hearing our battle cry any time soon.