Moral and Intellectual Bankruptcy: Defined
I apologize in advance for violating the “funny” requirement of this page. But as a veteran, as an American, as a fucking human being, I’m so pissed off about this.
SAFW Says:
I’m sure this guy will feel the wrath of Columbia shortly. His C.V. just isn’t impressive enough to excuse these kinds of comments.
In other news, isn’t it fun to see what PHP can do with open tags? Go italics! Of course if anyone else responds, no one will get it.
Thad Says:
I think I waited long enough to confuse Sam. It’s not actually a php function. The Moveable Type blog software has a perl setting that allows me to include the first x number of characters from a comment. Unfortunately, when html tags are used, the ending comment is often cropped out.
How did I get around this? Knowing that only the first twenty characters show up, I split the italicized Editor’s Note into two parts, so the tags would be properly closed. Hopefully MT will add an option to strip tags from that comment preview in a future release.
Daniel Says:
As someone who holds opinions that differ from the vast majority of the Columbia student community, I find myself in a constant struggle: do I reveal my true feelings about a subject and risk reprisal from my fellow peers, or do I keep my thoughts to myself? Over the past two years I have become accustomed to this position, and I fully understand that being in a minority naturally puts me on the defensive. Nothing I will discuss here has anything to do with the political climate found within Columbia?s student population. What worries me more is the political climate found within Columbia?s teaching population. Professor Nicholas de Genova?s recent remarks at the anti-war teach-in have led me to ask a two questions: what does Columbia do to insure that Professors maintain a respectful separation between their political views and their work as teachers, and which methods and standards does Columbia use to judge Professors? work within the social sciences?
I am a fervent supporter of free speech, and therefore have no objection to Prof. de Genova voicing his opinions. However, the manner and content of de Genova?s speeches have caused me to call into question his personal and professional standards of morality. As a Professor in the Cultural Anthropology department, it is de Genova?s job to teach us about the treasure trove of humanity; yet, by saying that he would like to see ?a million Mogadishus,? Prof. de Genova is calling for the intentional, brutal torture and murder of fellow human beings. With this statement, Prof. de Genova has cashed in his last pieces of moral currency. He is so much in the grip of moral relativism that he does not seem to possess any moral standards. As a student, I now find it hard to respect anything he would have to say in the future as a Professor in the classroom. Yes, Columbia is acting appropriately by allowing Prof. de Genova to speak, and by not reprimanding him for his statements. However, it is my right as a student to be taught properly. I now want to know what Columbia does as an academic institution to protect my rights by insuring that the teachers here meet the standards of objectivity, proof and evidence. It is my opinion that in the private sphere, Prof. de Genova does not meet these standards, and it follows that he may not adhere to these standards in his professional life as well. Although I have no proof that Prof. de Genova acts unprofessionally in the classroom, his statements warrant a further investigation of his scholastic activities.
The social sciences differ fundamentally from the natural sciences. Because fields such as Cultural Anthropology deal with more intangible, immeasurable concepts than do such fields as Physics, it is much harder for an institution to guarantee the political impartiality of any work or teaching that is taking place in those fields. In fact, Cultural Anthropology is notoriously reliant upon the honesty and impartiality of those scholars collecting and interpreting data that is to be compiled, written-up, and taught; one only needs to look at the misadventures of Margaret Meade, one of the founders of the field, for proof of this. Because Prof. de Genova is active in a field where his personal politics and his teachings could be very hard to separate it is important to look at what his work and classes are like. Is dissent allowed in his classroom? Are Prof. de Genova?s academic observations so colored by his personal passions that they become unreliable?
I do not wish to accuse Prof. de Genova of academic fraud. I merely wish to know the standards the University uses to evaluate his work. I would be a lot more comfortable about Prof. de Genova?s position here if I knew that his work were evaluated in such a way to ensure that these particular passions don’t taint his conclusions. The University is not obligated to take action against Prof. de Genova. They are required to insure that he leaves his political views at home when he comes on campus to teach.
Levine Says:
Because Einstein was Jewish Hitler declared that relativity was anti-fascist and therefore outlawed. They then proceded to have anti-relativity rallies in the name of fascism. Oh, and Bush continues to deny that global climate change is happening. Otherwise this is why as a general rule the pursuit of the objectivity of science is superior to the subjectivity of liberal arts. Of course, thats rather a subjective statement, isn’t it?
In coding:
if(yourSubject.IsSubjective==true)
then
mySubject.IsSuperior();
SAFW Says:
This set of statements lifted from Bush’s speech June 11, 2001 lays out many of the important factors surrounding one of science’s most politically polarized issues:
“First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming. It has risen by .6 degrees Celsius over the past 100 years. There was a warming trend from the 1890s to the 1940s. Cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s. And then sharply rising temperatures from the 1970s to today.
There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming. Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase may be due to human activity.
The Academy’s report also tells us that we do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on warming. We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the future. We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our actions could impact it.
For example, our useful efforts to reduce sulfur emissions may have actually increased warming, because sulfate particles reflect sunlight, bouncing it back into space. Finally, no one can say with any certainty what constitutes a dangerous level of warming, and therefore what level must be avoided. ”
All things considered, it would be a nice gesture to the international community to see an alternative to Kyoto reccomended…
Levine Says:
An interesting observation made in a class of mine yesterday: Current levels of C02 emmissions (6 Gigatons of C, 22 of CO2) will in the next century put 600 GT of carbon in the air as a minimum. Lets assume that we keep increasing and call it 2000GT for arguments sake (BTW, historically each century involves a 10 fold increase). Assuming that 1/3-1/2 of this is absorbed by the oceans which naturally retain parity with the atmosphere the oceans’ pH level will change dramatically. A change of .3 pH (equivalent to 1300GT spread evenly throughout the whole ocean) would reduce coral growth by 30-40%. But coral reefs are already only at equilibrium. So a 30-40% reduction in growth is a death sentence. This does not even incorporate climate change. Oh, and the coral reefs are roughly the ocean equivalent of the rainforest. So start planning some trips to the Carribean now, because paradise will not last.
The fundamental problem with Bush’s approach is that it demands that the details be exactly correct. No computer model has yet to accomplish that. But macroscopic analysis of the planet makes it patently obvious that we are doing serious damage. Which, however, does not mean that we need to save any owls, stop driving one car versus another or otherwise change certain minor details. Energy is energy and if we continue to use the hydrocarbon we will continue to produce certain effects.
Some figures:
Levels of C02 in the atmosphere:
Pre-industrial: 280 parts per million
1900: 300 ppm
Currently: 370 ppm
Annual increase: 1.7-1.8ppm (note: 3ppm=6GT, 1.2 goes into the ocean)
1990 levels by 2050: 450ppm
More likely peak: 550ppm
My final thought is that ice ages only take 70 years to begin. This change in cycle might happen when the increase in temperatures over the poles equalizes the temperature differences on Earth. This might cause ocean currents to stop flowing. Like the Gulf Stream. The amounts of heat flowing around the world by the oceans are massive. If they stop we get an ice age. If Europe starts getting colder start investing in an ice age.
Think big.
Thad Says:
I’m just a caveman. I don’t know anything about your fancy picture boxes and motorized horses…but “historically each century involves a 10 fold increase” seems a little fishy.
Would that involve the last century and this century as your historic data points? Is Pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million to current levels of 370 ppm a ten fold increase?
Like I said, I’m just a caveman…but it sounds like Bush isn’t the only one using fuzzy math.
When the meteorologists can get tomorrow’s weather forecast right, then maybe I’ll listen to their predictions about 50 years from now.
p.s.