Response to Affirmative Action critics

Well, the school year is over and I've already graduated, but the tough task of Daily Columnists doesn't end there - I just found some responses to my Affirmative Action column which I would like to address. First of all, I realize that men are 49% of the population - that's why I called them a minority, mostly ironically.

Secondly, the stats I mentioned are not incomparable, but if you need more data, I will gladly provide it. If you go school by school and look at the admission data, you will find a trend slightly higher acceptance rates (3 to 4 percent) for men than women. This may not seem like much, but when Northwestern receives 25,000 applications in a year, that amounts to up to a thousand women who were denied only because of their gender. Check the facts for yourself:

http://www.ugadm.northwestern.edu/commondata/2007-08/c.htm
http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Institutional_Research/documents/Brown_CDS07_08.pdf
http://www.yale.edu/oir/cds.pdf

If you don't think it should be called Affirmative Action, fine - come up with a more negative name, because it seems to me to be a pretty hideous practice. As to the equal-gender environment argument, I couldn't open a sports bar and deny service to women because it made my male patrons uncomfortable, could I? Why then should we allow the same from collegiate admissions?

Last trivia

São Paulo, Brazil. Note that if we counted squatters in the urban agglomeration, Mexico City might edge it out, but since that's not in the Southern Hemisphere, that shouldn't have fooled anyone.

Trivia again

The answer: Funnyman Jackie Gleason. Some joke, huh?

Trivia for the week

And I'm back. The answer to this question was the original Super Mario Brothers for the Nintendo Entertainment System (note that I'm excluding PC games - otherwise I believe "The Sims" wins out).

Peace (changed my mind).

Addendum #2 and Trivia

Sorry it's taking me so long to get around to this, but I am now adding info to column #2. I was a little surprised that this didn't yield a single piece of hate mail for me even though I bashed John Kennedy and Barack Obama in a single blow - I guess Academia isn't the haven of liberalism it used to be.

I did have one friend e-mail me to point out that there are points over which reasonable people can disagree in regard to NAFTA. I'll certainly grant that point, but I don't believe that any of Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric in Ohio stemmed from these concerns so much as a desire to pander to the pro-protectionist demographic. To be fair, Hillary also attacked free trade in Ohio, although I doubt whether she would be foolish enough to actually go through with her threats. Obama, like Kennedy, might actually go through with his bad promises.

The answer to this week's question, as those of you who were at Pub Trivia last night know, is Java, edging out Honshu by 21 million people.

War. (I feel that 'Peace' is an overused closing line for blog posts these days)

Our Generation's Greatest Strength/Weakness

I have to say that our generation's great strength is our snazzy fashion sense. Seriously, I think we're the first generation in a long time that won't have to look back and cringe when we see old photos of ourselves. Think of the '80s with their scrunchies, neon and shoulder pads. Then there's the awfulness of the '90s grunge movement.

I once had a black t-shirt with a cat on it that I wore with plaid black-and-white SKORTS. Insane, I know, but we've all gotten better.

Our greatest weakness must then be that we suffer Bai Ling to live. 

The Fug Girls are right. She's got heinous fashion sense. And if her pictures are the only ones that survive the nuclear meltdown or next Ice Age, then we're all in for some heavy mocking from the future.

Our Generation's Strengths Vis-à-vis Despair

I was thinking about the division of our generation's identity in relation to global problems. On one hand we've got an extraordinary messed up world to deal with and the scope of the problems are overwhelming in their complexity and numbers. Yet, when I look around on campus, I see little to sour my belief in human ingenuity and much to bolster my optimism.

To my eye, environmental issues are the most threatening challenges facing us and future generations. Studying them is something of an exercise in zen-defeatism. The literature reads like a manual to disaster. I've become a connoisseur of the openings to books about the environmental. They all open in the same way - a one or two page wrestling match between author and issues that attempts to condense apocalyptic evidence into a manifesto of imminent destruction. They all pretty much say the same thing - that we're screwed. Of course, most academics are of the more optimistic type, and they follow their doomsdaying with brilliant suggestions for prescription and proscription... but their initial stomach-punching introductions leave me with a sinking feeling even through the most hopeful of articles: Why haven't the solutions been implemented? What has gone wrong?

Those questions have no easy answers, but it's easy to weigh ourselves down in the non-answer of apathy or lack of political will. Discouragement abounds in activists. A professor told me once that "if you're protesting you're inherently a loser." This is true. But so much the sweeter is winning after you've tasted defeat. Something has changed on campus recently in relation to environmental issues. With the establishment of a green residence next year, the expansion of on campus recycling, and the overwhelmingly positive response of administrators to student efforts to spearhead environmental initiatives, it seems clear that the University has hit its tipping point. Last year I would have been skeptical of NU's commitment to the environment, but this year I am sure that it is strong.

And what did it take to finally hit our green stride? A combination of things - years of little-noticed pressure from within the administration, building student support, and finally the efforts of a few dedicated student activists to galvanize green sentiments into useful political clout. The initiatives that we're seeing now are the tip of the iceberg, with a complex set of committees, actions, and individuals floating beneath the surface. Locally, change is coming from top, bottom, and all points in between.

So - our generation's biggest strength and weakness? Our weakness is defeatism - if we take our raison d' etre as improving the state of the world and humankind, the problems are overwhelming, and it's easy to just sit back and be comfortable. Or strength is our ability to look locally at the positive political changes, positive coalitions, and positive attitudes that prevail - and then to take action on the basis of that hope.

Answers to Trivia Questions

Acceptable Answers to the trivia quiz:

1) Retsina is a resinated white wine from Greece. Though its historical connection to Greece goes back 3,000 years, its association with Greek nationalism is a relatively newer phenomenon.

2) General George Marshall (also Secretary of State and Defense) was the only general to have won the Nobel Peace Prize, for his namesake Marshall Plan (so called because Harry Truman didn't think that the 'Truman Plan' would ever get off the ground).

3) The most common answers are the Babylonian names Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednago, but you get bonus points if you remembered their Hebrew names: Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah.

Response to Question #1

I originally posted this as a comment - apologies.

I think our greatest strength is the enormous boost in flexibility and intellectual development we're able to cultivate due to the increases in standards of living we've enjoyed as well as the age of information in general. Our greatest weakness is that in the midst of such potential, we are more self-centered than ever - we choose to use our gifts insofar only as they increase our own comforts, and then we are quite happy to waste the rest of our time watching television programs which, as our parents once told us, are actually quite mindless. Previous generations did not have the long lifespan we expect, and perhaps that made them treasure more fully the time they had.

The iGeneration

What do you think is the greatest fault and greatest strength of our generation?



According to the Almighty Wikipedia, there are several names by which those of us born during the years from 1983 to 1994 are called - Generation Y, the Echo Boomers, the Millennials. My favorite, personally, is the "iGeneration." Our generation is defined by our consumption of the instantaneous. We are attracted to products that advertise ease of communication and instant gratification. We can download movies in minutes, songs in seconds and make plans for the evening faster than you can say T9. Our generation is defined by an über-connectivity that has made us the most educated, communicative, and technologically-savvy generation ever.

And if you don't mind minimizing your Facebook chat for a minute, I'd like to explain why this connectivity encompasses both the greatest strength and the greatest downfall of the iGeneration.

Our creative drive, aided by an infinity of outlets, defines us as a generation. We are a generation that does not feel bound by institution or traditional societal structure. Because of exponentially-advancing technology, we can do whatever we want with out lives, within the law of course. Growing up with the Internet at our hands has enabled us to become experts in arguably the greatest movement in our society today. Businesses are getting younger. Baby boomers are retiring. And the most skilled people in the working world are no longer the most experienced. The old saying goes "you can't teach an old dog new tricks." Well we are the puppies, and the tricks we know are changing the world. Whether it be grassroots campaign fundraising, getting the word out about major issues like the environment or Darfur or the Jena 6, or producing the next viral video hit - our generation is doing alot more than previous generations have had the opportunity to do at our age. Our creative minds are behind a lot of the change happening in an increasingly globalized society.

But I also think that the creative, sky-is-the-limit mindset is having some negative effects on our generation too. We are at a point in our lives where we want to free ourselves from the binds of childhood and escape the traditions of older generations that have "held us down" for so long. Our generation has developed a certain arrogance that has branched off from that natural feeling of growing up - where we know we are instigating change, and we don't really feel like the values of our parents or grandparents really apply anymore. We seek easier, more convenient methods of moral exercise, just like we do with all other aspects of our lives.

My worry is that, if our generation tends to buck tradition in favor of convenience, we will forget where we came from. It is easy in an increasingly interconnected society to pretend like where our parents and grandparents came from isn't really relevant anymore, but we have to have perspective. We may be the best-educated, most technologically-savvy generation ever, but we must have a respect for those who came before us, and understand that it was the work of previous generations that led us to where we are today.

1st Weekly Question

What do you think is the greatest fault and greatest strength of our generation?

Welcome to Spring Quarter '08

Hi Blog readers,

I'm the Forum editor this quarter and I wanted to introduce you to a few new things we're doing on Forum this quarter. Each week there will be a question up for our columnists to answer. They will each pontificate about the world for a while, and you get to enjoy all of their crazy thoughts. This is also where they will be responding to any comments they feel compelled to respond to or elaborating on their columns so check often!

:)
Talia Alberts

Addendum to Column #1

Now that I am finally up and posting on the blog, I will try to start adding the extra information that wouldn't fit on each column I've written so far.

This is the addendum for my first column on Nobuo Uematsu - I think some School of Music students rightly thought I didn't substantiate my claim that his works are similar to compositions by Verdi and Mussourgsky. What I originally wrote was that the opera "Draco and Maria" from Final Fantasy VI seemed highly reminiscent of the style and tone of a Verdi opera, and that Sephiroth's theme, "One-Winged Angel," from Final Fantasy VII, could almost be a note-for-note recasting of Mussourgsky's "Night on Bald Mountain" - I am referring especially to slurred tritones in the French Horn part on both pieces. Since I perceived those pieces to be among Uematsu's most popular works, I think I was justified in saying what I did. I'm sorry I couldn't be more specific, but apparently space is limited in the newspaper business. I will be adding more information for other columns shortly.

Will Purple Really Go Green?

My column this week gives an overview of efforts to make Northwestern more green. Going into this, I was expecting to find a profile of environmental failure. My long list of grievances included a belief that dorms threw away recyclables, that off-campus students had no recycling and that tons of food waste was not being reused. It turns out there are a number of positive efforts towards greening NU. Because I couldn’t include everything in a 500 word column, I would like to embellish on the good, clear up some myths about the bad and examine the things that are still ugly. It would be wise to read the column first.

The (Nearly) Good:

There are positive changes around campus, but most of them are not meeting their potential. For instance, there are “how to conserve water” stickers above various public sinks, but not all of them. Food waste is not composted from dining halls, but Campus Kitchens picks some leftovers and distributes them to the homeless. Waste vegetable oil is not yet fueling our shuttles, but it is purchased through Mahoney, a company that reuses the oil as animal feed.

Juliee Calihane, head of recycling at NU Facilities Management, has seen it all before. She has been working on improving recycling for over ten years and believes the ball is finally rolling not because of a change in administration, but because of a change in culture. “Attention to sustainability ebbs and flows, but these days, you can’t go a day without hearing about global warming,” she said. “We still need a lot of cultural change here before we become a progressive environmental institution.”

Whatever the reasons for the excitement, Jesse Sleamaker, cochair of SEED, is grateful that the administration has been more receptive. “The passions of the people in the administrations lie with the students. When students are proactive, it takes on a great deal of weight,” he said. Though he is thrilled NU is finally doing something about outdoor recycling, he said, “If Julie [Cahillane] hadn’t been working on it for ten years, I doubt we would have been able to push it through.”

Students in ESW are excited to finish up the shuttle project soon. Project Leads Tom Ledolter and Aaron Greco were part of the team that created the oil filtration system, engineered the duel-fuel engine and continue to work out the kinks. “We’re very optimistic the shuttle project could be done soon,” Ledolter said. ESW was also working on a sustainable shuttle stop to go between Norris and the library. Imagine a solar-fueled, heated shelter made from recycled material to keep you warm while you wait for the shuttle on a winter night. It sounds lovely, but the university has prevented it because they don’t find it aesthetically pleasing. Someone please compare Norris University Center to a picture of this shelter (http://msgroups.mccormick.northwestern.edu/esw/localshuttlestop.htm) and decide which is more “aesthetically pleasing.”

Finally, ECO deserves more credit for their grassroots efforts. Co-chair Benjamin Singer was part of the creation of NU’s newest green group and has worked hard to green Hillel and NU as a whole. ECO has an internal division in charge of making green improvements within Hillel. You might know them for their external division which placed recycling bins for batteries and ink cartridges in Norris. “We recognize there is a lack of resources for students to dispose of these items,” Singer said, “but it would be hypocritical to encourage sustainability and then not give people a way to follow through.” Singer is excited about his group’s impact, but would love to see NU take more of a lead. “They are supposed to set a forward-thinking example, but I’m frustrated at the perceived lack of effort,” Singer said.

The (Not-So) Bad:

For years, the buzz around the dorms has been that the big blue bins end up right back in the trash dumpsters. That is not entirely true. The recyclables in the dorms are actually put in proper bins and recycled, according the Julie Cahillane, the head of recycling through NU Facilities Management. “We work with the custodial staffs in all dorms to make sure we recycle as much as possible,” she said. That should put some minds at ease.

The Ugly:

In a 2004 statement by President Henry Bienen, he said, “Sustainability is an important global issue and [Northwestern University Administrators] are committed to taking appropriate steps to minimize Northwestern’s impact on the environment.” Then in 2007, the students voted that “sustainability” was their second highest priority. Simultaneously, NU purchased enough Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) to provide 40,000 megawatt hours annually for the next four years.

This is an important step towards sustainability, but it doesn’t prove that NU is committed. That would happen if the university began to address tangible, far-reaching projects that are being left to student catalysts. Unfortunately, each of these student groups indicated some degree of fighting the university to get their initiatives pushed through. Simple things like improving outdoor recycling units took a small group of people several years of grappling with bureaucracy before the changes finally got approved. But even with this improvement, there will still be over 2,600 off-campus students with little or no place to recycle. RECs certainly make a positive impact, but it’s time the university begin promoting tangible, practical improvements as well.

There’s no reason we shouldn’t create a Department of Sustainability. Everything could be centralized here, so student efforts would be less fragmented. We could move beyond the obvious and even start funding some serious forward-thinking changes. Tom Ledolter would love to see a community garden plot for growing vegetables for the dining halls, coupled with a composting project for food waste. Julie Cahillane would like abundant and user-friendly recycling across campus. Ben Singer would like to see NU capture its obvious surplus of wind in a windfarm on the Lakefill, an addition that would generate reusable energy while beautifying campus. They all want to see a decrease in student apathy.

It will be a while before we’re fertilizing the Shakespeare garden with the leftovers from Sergeant Dining Hall, but I think change is on the horizon. It looks like purple is nearly ready to go green.

1. In England it is illegal to present An Inconvenient Truth in classrooms as a scientific documentary. True

The film must be presented as “a political work.” Along with this Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

The inaccuracies are:

· The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

· The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

· The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.

· The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.

· The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

· The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

· The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

· The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

· The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim. (Source)

2. There is a scientific consensus that man made global warming is happening. False

Scientific consensus is a pretty strong word. Considering a recent U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works report (found here), it seems that the scientific community is very far from any sort of consensus. I STRONGLY urge everyone to read over as much as they can. The report lists 400 prominent world scientists from two dozen countries. Among the many places these scientists hail from are the UN IPCC, MIT, Harvard, Princeton, NASA, the NOAA, and the Environmental Protection Agency, just to name a few.

The report includes the name and position of every scientist, along with written statements regarding their disagreement with the global warming scenario’s being described by the global alarmists such as Al Gore, who equated those that do not agree with him to people who think the world is flat. After reading the credentials and statements of those listed in the Senate report, do you really think that this is a fair presumption?

Furthermore a 2004 Gallup survey indicated that only 17% of the members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society thought the warming of the 20th century was the result of an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

3. Carbon dioxide is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the earth’s atmosphere. False

Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the earth’s atmosphere. It composes somewhere around 70% of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, but when clouds are taken into consideration (clouds are essentially water droplets), it accounts for as much as 90% of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. CO2 is somewhere between 4-8%.

4. The U.S., China, France, India, and Germany combined, are the biggest greenhouse gas emitters on the planet. False

I could have phrased the question to be “Mankind as a whole is the biggest greenhouse gas emitter on the planet” and it still would have been false. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA) reports that 98% of total global greenhouse gas emissions are natural; only 2% are from man-made sources. Considering water vapor is the most prominent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, it should come as no surprise that the ocean is the biggest culprit, closely followed by decaying plant life and volcanoes.

5. From 1940 to 1975, as Carbon dioxide emissions increased rapidly, the average global temperature increased. False

The earth actually cooled from 1940 to 1975 despite the exponential growth of carbon dioxide emissions. Refer to question number 19 on Global Cooling for a more detailed explanation.

6. The Vostok Core and all deep-core ice samples taken since have verified that changes in Carbon dioxide have caused changes in global temperature over the last 650,000 years, as shown in "An Inconvenient Truth". False

While the Vostok Core and all subsequent deep-core ice samples have shown a correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature over the last 650,000 years, they actually show that changes in global temperature cause a change in CO2 levels, and not the other way around. The CO2 levels correlate with the global temperature with an 800-2000 year lag. This is because the ocean is a vast reservoir of CO2. When the earth is warmed by more intense solar activity from the sun the ocean produces more CO2, and when the intensity dies down and the ocean cools, it absorbs more CO2. The reason Carbon dioxide levels correlate about 800-2000 years after temperature changes is that the ocean is so large that it takes centuries to heat or cool.
A compilation of Al Gore’s presentation in An Inconvenient Truth with a subsequent discussion by scientists discussing the ice sample can be found here.

7. Using 10,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago, and 700 years ago as reference points, the current global temperature is higher than it was at each of these times. False

The global temperature is currently lower than it was at any of these times. The most well known of these three periods is The Medieval warm period which was 700 years ago, a time when Greenland was not only green, but fertile and flourishing as well.

An explanation of these time period global temperature differences can be found here with a detailed description and analysis. Though I encourage a full viewing of the lecture, jump 2 minutes and 56 seconds into it to see the explanation of number 4.

8. The polar bear population has been in decline for the last 50 years. False

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations ‘may now be near historic highs.’

The following two excerpts are taken from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works report cited in question 1. (click for report)

Award-winning quaternary geologist Dr. Olafur Ingolfsson, a professor from the University of Iceland who has conducted extensive expeditions and field research in the both the Arctic and Antarctic, chilled fears that the iconic polar bear is threatened by global warming. Ingolfsson was awarded the prestigious "Antarctic Service Medal of the United States" by the National Science Foundation. "We have this specimen that confirms the polar bear was a morphologically distinct species at least 100,000 years ago, and this basically means that the polar bear has already survived one interglacial period," Ingolfsson said according to a December 10, 2007 article in the BBC. The article explained, "And what's interesting about that is that the Eeemian - the last interglacial - was much warmer than the Holocene (the present)."

Canadian biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor, the director of wildlife research with the Arctic government of Nunavut, dismissed these fears of global warming devastating polar bears. "Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present," Taylor said in 2006, noting that Canada is home to two-thirds of the world's polar bears. He added, "It is just silly to predict the demise of polar bears in 25 years based on media-assisted hysteria."

9. Since 1976 the total ice coverage of the Antarctic and Artic has increased. True

While the Artic has lost about 800,000 sq km of ice coverage Antartica has gained 1.8 million sq km. This accounts for a total net gain of 1 million sq. km of ice coverage.

This information can be found at the Cryosphere and at the National Snow and Ice Data Center

10. A major driver of climate change is variability in solar effects, such as sunspot cycles, the sun's magnetic field and solar particles. True

The second half of this video focuses on this idea, but this should not really be disputed because if you think the sun’s intensity does not affect the climate, we have much bigger problems than global warming.

11. The rate that the global temperature is increasing (measured degree change per century) is unprecedented in the Holocene (the interglacial period we are now in). False

To be considered unprecedented, or more specifically, statistically significant the degree change per century for the Holocene would have to be greater than 2.5 degrees Celsius in either direction. This is explained 1 minute and 30 seconds into this lecture given by Professor Bob Carter.

12. The calving of a glacier is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the retreat of a glacier. False

The calving of a glacier is a normally occurring phenomenon, but it is a result of the advance, not the retreat of a glacier. This is best described by Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

13. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is a pollutant. False

Though many attempt to label atmospheric CO2 as a pollutant, it is actually known as an essential trace gas. These gasses, when increased in abundance, provide a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere. As Steven Malloy points out here:

Estimates vary, but somewhere around 15% seems to be the common number cited for the increase in global food crop yields due to aerial fertilization with increased carbon dioxide since 1950. This increase has both helped avoid a Malthusian disaster and preserved or returned enormous tracts of marginal land as wildlife habitat, land that would otherwise have had to be put under the plow in an attempt to feed the growing global population.

Commercial growers deliberately generate CO2 and increase its levels in agricultural greenhouses to between 700ppmv and 1,000ppmv to increase productivity and improve the water efficiency of food crops far beyond those in the somewhat carbon-starved open atmosphere. CO2 feeds the forests, grows more usable lumber in timber lots meaning there is less pressure to cut old growth or push into "natural" wildlife habitat, makes plants more water efficient helping to beat back the encroaching deserts in Africa and Asia and generally increases bio-productivity.”

14. The greenhouse effect works by modulating convection, in the same way that a real greenhouse works. False

Taken from here: The term "greenhouse effect" is unfortunate since it results in a false impression of the activity of so-called "greenhouse gases." An actual greenhouse works as a physical barrier to convection (the transfer of heat by currents in a fluid) while the atmosphere really facilitates convection so the impression of actual greenhouse-like activity in the Earth's atmosphere is incorrect.

This does seem to cause some confusion so, to highlight the distinction between actual greenhouses and Earth's inaccurately named greenhouse effect simply note that greenhouse temperatures are maintained by controlling the mixing air inside and outside the greenhouse (if it's too warm in the greenhouse you open a top and bottom window and let convective action displace warmed air with cool) while Earth's atmosphere is surrounded by the near-vacuum of space.

So, real greenhouses work mainly by modulating convection while the 'greenhouse effect' works by modulating radiation.

15. For 27 of the last 50 years, globally-averaged temperatures have declined while CO2 emissions have increased. True

This is due partly because of the cooling period from 1940-1975. This is discussed further here.

16. The temperature effect of carbon dioxide is logarithmic, meaning carbon dioxide has a diminishing effect on temperature. True

This is due to the properties of CO2. The logarithmic affect is displayed here, an analysis of it can be found here. This is probably one of the most important pieces of information about CO2.

17. Global Cooling was considered to be a looming threat in the 1970’s. True

In February of 1973 Science Digest reported that “the world’s climatologists are agreed” that we “must prepare for the next ice age.” On September 14, 1975 the New York Times published that the “recent cooling may mark the return to another ice age.” Newsweek in their April 28^th 1975 issue agreed that meteorologists “are almost unanimous that catastrophic famines might result from this global cooling.” Science Magazine and Christian Science monitor also published similar articles. Time on May 21^st, 1975 reported “A major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable” now that it is “well established” that the Northern Hemisphere’s climate “has been getting cooler since the 40’s.” All of this was based on a study that suggested that the global temperature had dropped off 1.4 degrees Celsius.

You can dig these up in a newspaper database search but here are a few links to the articles: Time Newsweek Business and Media (has overview of Global Cooling coverage).

18. The current atmospheric levels of CO2 are unprecedented. False

CO2 levels have been significantly higher and lower than what they are now. Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson spelled it out very nicely in a testimony in front of the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Discussing Dance Marathon

In the wake of several responses to my Firing Squad about Dance Marathon, I wanted to clarify a few things.

First, I don't have any doubts about the immensely positive impact that DM has had on many charities throughout the years. DM has undoubtedly "made a difference," to use the cliche.

Second, I do not dislike DM in principle. It manages to bring a relatively large portion of the campus together — this year, 750 students are dancing, in addition to a myriad of production and planning crew. I have several friends and acquaintances in DM, and I appreciate the hundreds of hours they work to make DM happen each year. And it's pretty cool when you get inside. The production — the lighting, sets, food, music, etc. are top notch — not to mention all the lead-up work that comes before the actual marathon. Canning and events such as the DM Date Auction are very visible and effective fund-raising tools every year. I am glad I danced in DM my freshman year, and I'm lucky to have had the opportunity to photograph it extensively the following year.

But, I don't think that it is perfect. Nothing is. And I feel that criticism of DM gets shoved under the rug. I know plenty of people have criticisms and dislikes about it. I've discussed them on several occasions. But when voiced publicly, one risks being labeled un-giving, lazy or un-empathetic (towards children, no less!).

I think it's unfortunate that such a generally positive organization on our campus is so uncomfortable with occasional criticism and debate.

Fact checking the Jena Six

For Cody Kittle's column and Jesse X. Yang's letter about the Jena Six, the Forum desk spent close to two hours trying to figure out the underlying facts of the case.

The Jena Six is inherently a controversial issue, and we tried to validate every fact of the case that the writers cited. This proved to be a momentously difficult task. Different details of the case are flung across the far corners of the internet – both on reliable sources such as the Washington Post and on obviously slanted activist Web sites. There is no single place where every facet of the situation can be located, and it seemed almost every bit of evidence was directly contradicted somewhere else.

Regardless of one's opinion about the Jena Six, the only clear truth arising from the story is that the whole truth will probably never be known. Does that mean we should not care about and not debate complex issues such as this? No. It just reinforces the need to do the best one can to understand and foster intelligent debate instead of mere hearsay and rumor-mongering.

My first real letter!

A few weeks ago I wrote on the issue of gay marriage in the upcoming presidential election, and more broadly, gay rights in general. Today, the Forum editor tells me I've got a real, tangible letter addressed to me, a thick envelope with my name scrawled on it. After joking that it was probably anthrax or a bomb, I cracked it open and found inside...a bunch of pamphlets for Homosexuals Anonymous. An organization that, as their website claims, is "a fellowship of men and women, who through their common emotional experience, have chosen to help each other live in freedom from homosexuality."

Needless to say I found this profoundly hilarious and flaunted it around the Daily offices. According to the website, they're almost ten grand in debt since apparently, being homophobic doesn't pay the bills. Oh well.

One more thing...

I just got this email from Mr. Yang. I found it to serve as some comic relief in this debacle and also an example of what a little clarification can do to a difference of opinion. I have also corrected the gender references in my blog.

Mr. Kittle,
I respect your blog response except for your huge lack of research in an aspect I find to be very important. I am not in fact a Miss Yang. I am a Mr. Yang. Next time, I hope you check your facts. Otherwise, I respect your opinion.
--
Jesse X. Yang

Myths of the Jena 6

What a scathing letter from Jesse Yang.

I would have loved to address some of the other media myths that have been spread by people like Yang but because I am limited to only 500 words in my column, I'll deal with the rest now.

First of all it should be noted that Yang has no sources in her guest column. With that said let us tear her points apart one by one. I'm going to reference an article written by the associate editor of the Jena Times entitled "Media Myths about the Jena 6." He is the only reporter who has been covering the incidents in Jena since the begining and his wife is a teacher at the highschool. He has more insight than I or Mr. Yang into the matter. A link to the article can be found here.

"A day after black students asked to sit under a tree known to be "whites only," three nooses hung from that same tree. I will let the reader decide whether he can believe this to be a harmless prank gone horribly wrong. Those students who hung the nooses were only given an in-school suspension."

"Myth 1: The Whites-Only Tree. There has never been a "whites-only" tree at Jena High School. Students of all races sat underneath this tree. When a student asked during an assembly at the start of school last year if anyone could sit under the tree, it evoked laughter from everyone present – blacks and whites. As reported by students in the assembly, the question was asked to make a joke and to drag out the assembly and avoid class."

"Myth 2: Nooses a Signal to Black Students. An investigation by school officials, police, and an FBI agent revealed the true motivation behind the placing of two nooses in the tree the day after the assembly. According to the expulsion committee, the crudely constructed nooses were not aimed at black students. Instead, they were understood to be a prank by three white students aimed at their fellow white friends, members of the school rodeo team. (The students apparently got the idea from watching episodes of "Lonesome Dove.") The committee further concluded that the three young teens had no knowledge that nooses symbolize the terrible legacy of the lynchings of countless blacks in American history. When informed of this history by school officials, they became visibly remorseful because they had many black friends. Another myth concerns their punishment, which was not a three-day suspension, but rather nine days at an alternative facility followed by two weeks of in-school suspension, Saturday detentions, attendance at Discipline Court, and evaluation by licensed mental-health professionals. The students who hung the nooses have not publicly come forward to give their version of events."

Note the independent investigations from the school, the police, the FBI, and the distrcit attorney.
Also note that it was way more than an in school suspension and that there were two nooses (Yang cannot even grasp the basic facts).




"Two months later, a black student by the name of Robert Bailey walked into a mostly white dance hall and was attacked by six to seven white men, at least one of whom had a beer bottle. Only one of those white students would be charged with battery and given probation."

"Myth 5: The Fair Barn Party Incident. On Dec. 1, 2006, a private party – not an all-white party as reported – was held at the local community center called the Fair Barn. Robert Bailey Jr., soon to be one of the Jena 6, came to the party with others seeking admittance.

When they were denied entrance by the renter of the facility, a white male named Justin Sloan (not a Jena High student) at the party attacked Bailey and hit him in the face with his fist. This is reported in witness statements to police, including the victim, Robert Bailey, Jr.
Months later, Bailey contended he was hit in the head with a beer bottle and required stitches. No medical records show this ever occurred. Mr. Sloan was prosecuted for simple battery, which according to Louisiana law, is the proper charge for hitting someone with a fist."

Note that medical records did not match Robert Bailey Jr.'s statement about the beer bottle. Nor did witness statements to police.
The attacker was also treated properly, given the punishment for hitting someone with a fist.



"Two days later, Bailey is confronted by one of the white students at a gas station. After having an unloaded shotgun pulled on him by the white student, Bailey and two friends are able to wrestle the gun away. Bailey was charged with theft of a firearm."

Myth 6: The "Gotta-Go" Grocery Incident. On Dec. 2, 2006, Bailey and two other black Jena High students were involved in an altercation at this local convenience store, stemming from the incident that occurred the night before. The three were accused by police of jumping a white man as he entered the store and stealing a shotgun from him. The two parties gave conflicting statements to police. However, two unrelated eye witnesses of the event gave statements that corresponded with that of the white male.


"Even if a truly awful person is wrongly convicted of murder, shouldn't we as a society still fight for their freedom despite our reservations? Thus, we of the NU Coalition to Free the Jena Six feel that these young men have already been punished enough for their actions (expulsion from school and one year's jail time already) and that they deserve to finally be rid of this ordeal."

This is a ridiculous statement. If an awful person is convicted of a crime they did commit, then they should be prosecuted for the crime. It is a contradiction to say you do not condone the Jena 6's actions but then to suggest that their freedom should be fought for.

I'd like to thank everyone who sent emails in support of what one person called "the pursuit of truth." People need to free their egos from false information and pursue truth to the best of their ability.

On Tuesday's column regarding film violence

I got blasted with some righteous hate mail on my column about film violence, which actually made me sit back and go, "Wow." I would have been content with a simple "Smokin' Aces ruled, asshole" or "You're a moron, moron" but this guy really went all out...so I guess I'm going to respond.

When I read this column today, I was enflamed with the particular rage one feels when one encounters unrelenting stupidity. Mr. Gordan, you have demonstrated that you clearly have no conceptual grasp of film criticism or film theory. In this commentator's opinion, your argument is either non-existent or so vaguely defined that it becomes apparent that you lack any sort of intellectual aptitude.

This guy has a pretty great grasp on hyperbole. I'd be impressed if I wasn't supposed to be offended.

For instance, you say that "when "The Departed" won best picture, maybe serious filmmakers subconsciously realized that over-the-top violence had gone as far it could go" and that "they would have to get smaller and more serious". This claim lacks any sort of logical coherence; it is unbecoming that you choose to represent Northwestern University in this way. For starters, when a film wins best picture at the Oscars, or if it receives any sort of critical and/or commercial success, 99 times out of 100 it will then be emulated by other filmmakers. I could list numerous examples, but I am sure someone such as yourself, so well enlightened in the study of film history, needs no such citation.

The problem with your point is that you bring up film history, citing that "when a film wins best picture at the Oscars...it will then be emulated by other filmmakers," when a) I did not point to a general trend of best picture winners not influencing subsequent films and b) I never indicated The Departed was an influential movie. It's a remake of a few other movies that is also a remake of other Scorsese movies - I'm sorry, but I don't see what world you're living in that The Departed will be a massively influential film, considering that it didn't break any new ground and could be argued as a reiteration/hodge-podge of several films that had come before. So that's the problem with your argument on that. I am not doubting that critically acclaimed movies influence other filmmakers. In fact, I directly brought up one that did: Pulp Fiction. So your attack is both baseless (you're insulting me for something I never said) and to me, incorrect (since I don't think The Departed will have any lasting influence - it was merely the most acceptable film in a weak year).

Furthermore, I could elaborate on the fact that your claim that a particular genre or niche "had gone as far it could go" is incessantly problematic in that anyone with an understanding of film history, or of the history of storytelling itself, knows that such patterns in narrative and style never reach some define destination point. Rather, they are constantly altered and adjusted to tell the same stories in different ways. One could merely look to the recently released "Cloverfield" to know what I am talking about. I could elaborate more, but I am sure a film connoisseur such as yourself knows precisely what I have in mind.

I suppose I could have a "at this point in time" to the end of the quote you pulled out there. Yes, I realize that media is largely cyclical. Westerns used to be big, then people stopped liking them, then people started liking them again. I would think up more examples, but I am a film idiot, like you imply - it is better for you to assume that I don't know anything. However, consider that a) I was talking about 2007 and b) I did not predict the future. Had I said something like, "Exploitative violence has gone as far as it can go forever, until the end of time" then you would be right in calling me an idiot. But come on, point out a 2007 film that was shock value and over-the-top and tell me it didn't suck. It is very probable that we will see a revival on the sensationalist films I talk about in the future...which is fine with me, because it hasn't happened yet.

Moving on to, perhaps, even more troubling areas of your elevated prose, one must evaluate each of your examples. In critiquing the cinema of "mindless violence", you cite a film that is nearly 10 years old, an obscure film that faded from public consciousness a month after it was released, and a highly acclaimed film/set of films by one of the most heralded directors of the last two decades. By doing so, you select a sample of three films from the last 10 years that, I assume, is intended to prove your point (whatever that may be). Disregarding the fact that this was a highly arbitrary system of choosing your sample, may I ask if these were the best three examples you could come up with? You choose not to talk about films such as the "Saw", "Hostel", and "The Hills Have Eyes" series. Citing these blood-drenched spectacles (so-called 'torture-porn') would have actually credited your column with a sliver of validity. What a shame.

Critic, are you a magician? Do you keep all of your thoughts in a magic stone bowl, where you can pluck and pick from your memories like strands of cotton candy? Critic, I do not attend Hogwarts, and when looking for examples, I tossed out three that immediately came to me because I wasn't grasping for straws - those are THREE films among many that fit the point. I brought up Kill Bill, the Boondock Saints, and Smokin' Aces. Smokin' Aces sucked. We can accept that. As for obscure, do you forget that it played at NU last year in Norris Center? Or maybe you don't go to Northwestern, I don't know. But it played here, (possibly) sold out (since it was free), and a lot of people I know saw it. It was an example a chunk of the NU student body would be familiar with. The Boondock Saints sucked too, but it fits my point - it was a rehash of Tarantino-style filmmaking, and it has not faded from public consciousness. One of my friends' roommates had a poster of it in his room. My roommate has a poster of it in our room. We quabble about this sometimes. As for Kill Bill...come on, even a film wizard like you could see that a) all of the violence is mainly for shock (the Crazy 88 gorefest being the most prominent example) and b) it is a straight rip-off of a ton of other movies (which discredits it as offering anything more than mindless action). It rips off Lady Snowbird (or whatever the name of the film the fight with Lucy Liu cops from), A Fistful of Dollars, basically whatever Tarantino wanted to rip off. Did you think I chose Kill Bill because it offended me with its blood? Please, if you can argue that as an original/intellectually worthwhile movie, then I salute you. But I've strayed from my point.

I could have brought up Shoot 'Em Up (I can't believe I didn't). I could have brought up Equilibrium (actually, that movie was kind of badass. Never mind). I could have brought up Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever. Why didn't I? Well, because either they didn't come to mind at the time, or I didn't want to fill up the column by namedropping films. Do you know how bad multiple quotation marks look in a newspaper column? They look bad. I don't need to come up with a billion examples to support an argument that is fundamentally sound in my mind.

Lastly, one must examine your arguments against Tim Burton's "Sweeney Todd" picture. You say that, if the film were to win Best Picture, it would be a "step backward" (I've already said how such linear thinking is of a sophomoric quality). The violence is "exploitative", you say. A snuff film, one of your intellect, might claim. Such claims would be incalcuably idiotic and have no bearing in reality.

Aha! Now it is you who is the idiot! I never said that Sweeney Todd would be a step backward - in fact, I said it would be a step forward towards the exploitative violence that has been pervasive in film since Pulp Fiction. It is you who are interpreting my words the wrong way.

Consider the evidence: "Todd" contains, at most, three to four minutes of bloodshed. That's out of a running time of about two hours - a sizably small percentage (you don't have to calculate it; I know you're a journalism major - or a journalist, if someone of your renown would prefer). Secondly, much of the violence is presented in a realistic manner - just look at Todd's initial murder of Sacha Baron Cohen's character, the killing of the homeless woman, and Todd's own death. For the stylized deaths, they reflect the bizarre psychology of the main lead - witness the climactic killing of the corrupt judge, in which Todd, and the blood itself, seem to relish in the unholy beauty of the scene. Contrast this with the death of the seemingly insignificant woman who is, in actuality, someone of extreme importance - that death is presented in a coldly nonchalant (you would say that it "came out of nowhere") manner. The violence and blood, therefore, actually have a significant stake in the telling of the narrative. I know it may take a little while for your brain to comprehend such creative thinking, so I will stop there.

Oh puh-lease. Todd's death is realistic? A little kid perfectly slashes his throat and Todd falls into a perfect pose, bleeding from the neck over his dead wife. Killing of the homeless woman? Again, Todd perfectly slices her neck, bright red blood perfectly seeps down in an even flow, and she falls down. That is about as realistic as you making an argument that doesn't assume a bunch of crap. I suppose I should have specified that I was talking about that ridiculous montage in which Todd kills a dozen or so people in the same manner while singing (or something, I forget since I was trying not to vomit) - endless shots of people getting stabbed in the neck, people shooting blood out of their neck, people falling down, over and over again! That is a ridiculous scene. It is over-the-top and stupid. I will never agree with you that four minutes of people getting killed in the same manner is either important or meaningful.

As for the themes behind it, I concede that your point could be right, but the violence of Sweeney Todd is not why I hated the movie. That is an argument for another day.

In laying out these arguments against you, I hope you have learned something. While I don't have a stake in your personal enlightment, I sincerely hope you do not punish the readers of this publication with your unadulterated word vomit any longer. The line "we will see if violence can be violent again" is incredibly negligent in light of a higher education.

If anything, please return to writing of how you spent your winter break at Taco Bell. That, at least, was unoffensive drivel.

At this point, that is the very best you can aspire to.

The only thing I've learned is that I can't make any generalizations without some wacko making a bunch of assumptions and generally coming across as a jackass. Hopefully I'll see you at Taco Bell in the future, but don't think you'll be getting any change from me, you crazy ranting homeless man you.

Minor note: On a different level, it is impossible to take someone who insists on being a violent ass seriously at all. If my column was really that offensive to you, then I am amazed - offensive things to me are finding out the Westboro Baptist Church plans on picketing Heath Ledger's funeral, or finding an turd in the communal shower. If you're willing to make judgments about my life so quickly, then I'm going to make the same stretch and assume that you don't have much going on in your life if this is the sort of stuff that pisses you off. I would have been more contemplative had you not revealed yourself to be a zealot, so unfortunately all I can do is offer a rebuttal and dismiss you as irrelevant.

On the "evolutionary process" and passing judgements

Yet again I have received some unwarranted criticism for my column Fears of prescribing perfection. A certain “critic” wrote the following:

This column is not very well thought out. How do drugs speed up the evolutionary process? If anything, it causes a bit of devolution. People with defective genes are able to live quite well in society and pass on those genes, and then more and more people have that defect. For example, eyesight. I have the worst eyesight. In nature, I wouldn't be able to find food or survive. In our society, I can have glasses or get laser eye surgery because of medical breakthroughs. I pass on my poor eyesight to my kids and they are blind as bats too.
Also, who are you to decide what makes somebody an 'individual' versus... oh I don't know... suffering? You as an outsider might think, that depressed person doesn't need medication, that's just the way they are, blah blah... to that person, their depression isn't them, it gets in the way of who they are.

The critics first point is referencing the following line,“Though a more capable human race would certainly be more productive, is it really the purpose or place for man to speed up the evolutionary process?” The idea here, that “critic” missed, is that the evolutionary process is a process which produces more capable humans. With this contextual definition, evolution implies generations stronger, smarter, and more productive than previous ones. In a world without drugs this development of the human race is a slow process, one that would take millennia to correct a human problem such as poor eyesight. What is implied here is that this evolutionary process of correcting human problems can be replaced by man made remedies to fix the problems. Though the genetic composition of humans may not change with drugs, the actual performance of humans will, making the genes obsolete. Thus, in a very clear sense, man can speed up the evolutionary process, the process of improving the capabilities of humans, simply by finding ways to master genetic deficiencies and the human blueprint.

Though the critic has a very interesting point, it is meant for a different piece, perhaps something examining the long term effects on the human genome due to the ability of mankind to alleviate disorders and diseases that would normally be fatal. But in the context of my column it is perfectly thought out, if one is willing to read into the context of the phrase “evolutionary process.”

Furthermore the “critic” goes on to criticize my statement that “As we slowly are able to smooth out the inadequacies of ourselves, we will all become more of the same person.” The “critic” finds this to be critical of people who take drugs to alleviate suffering asking “who are you to decide what makes somebody an individual versus…oh I don’t know…suffering?”

First of all, I don’t say what makes someone an individual. Instead I address the idea of “individuality” within society. The idea is very simple, as people are more able to better themselves, they will all approach some kind of standard of perfection. The perfect height, a perfect memory, perfect skin complexion, perfect anything, defined by society’s options. It is a mere observation which I do claim to be possible “extrapolated dystopian thinking.” None the less, taken as food for thought, it can be a provocative idea to ponder. If you read a previous blog entry I wrote, I discuss a few examples of people having disorders or disabilities, but being happy with them, and seeing themselves in no other way. These people viewed their disorders as essential to their own individuality.

The “critics” reference to depression is an interesting case as well. There have been many famous artists, singers, and writers who suffered from depression and probably would not have produced the works that they did, had they not been under emotional strain. I’m not saying that it’s better for people to be depressed, just that the elimination of any defining trait within society might have unintended costs. I think it also is effective for some people to embrace any disorders they have and learn how to channel them into positive work. The Jet Blue CEO is just one example. All it requires is encouragement in one's self and the drive to not feel pressured into conforming to societal standards. Individuals however are free to choose how they deal with their own problems and it is not the place of others to pass judgment on their decisions for every situatoin is different. I do think it is important to examine how overall societal trends may effect society itself.

The presumption that I am in anyway passing judgment on people who take medications to alleviate suffering is completely misguided. Obviously it is not the case; I made it perfectly clear that I took prescription drugs to cure the illness which brought me into the possession of the sleeping pills. It would be morally pretentious and hypocritical for me to judge anyone else that tries to alleviate suffering in their life with medications. I am confused of where the “critic” derived this thought from, I clearly state that the “trend in society to fix disorders” is a “noble goal.”

I hope this clears up both how drugs can be seen as a means to improving the “evolutionary process.” Perhaps all that was needed to understand my wording was a more open, more contextual definition. Furthermore I hope that the “critic” reads more into my words instead of letting his/her personal emotions cloud rational reading abilities. Perhaps "critic" forgot to wear his glasses when reading the column.

On ADHD and the Illusion of Insensitivity

I was disturbed to read an online comment written by an "LC" for my column The Fear of Prescribing Perfection accusing me of being insensitive. The comment read as follows:

Could have been an interesting article, but I have to wonder, do you even know what ADHD is? Simple hyperactivity? Way way off. I just couldn't get past that ADHD comment to enjoy your article, because having graduated recently and currently working as a counselor in a psychiatric hospital, I have seen some very severe cases of ADHD and I can tell you it's a very real disorder and incredibly difficult for its sufferers to cope with. Do your research next time before you make such an incredibly insensitive and scientifically incorrect remark. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've never taken a psych or bio class.

First off I'd like to clear up for LC and anyone else confused that I fully acknowledge ADHD as a disorder. No where did I state otherwise. The line LC was offended by was "In our parents generation hyperactivity was a way of life; now it is ADHD and fully curable." The first part of the statement is true, Attention Deficit Disorder was added to the DSM-III, a 1980 edition, hardly the time of our parents growing up. ADHD did not appear until the DSM-IV in 1994. It was described with three different groupings, mainly inattentive; mainly hyperactive-impulsive; and both in combination. This is where I derived my equating of hyperactivity with ADHD. I am only given the chance to write 500 words, so brevity is necessary sometimes at the expense of clarity. In a longer more accurate version that would be accepted by people such as LC, I should have included the word inattentive along with hyperactivity. I claimed that ADHD was curable in that it is something that can be largely controlled. Ritalin does the trick. As a personal anecdote I can say that my cousin had a severe case of ADHD growing up, and after being prescribed 80mg of Ritalin her grades and life turned around in many ways.

Furthermore, LC, is confusing my mere observation with criticism. The following line is what summarizes my overall idea:

What our generation cannot forget as we gain better mastery for the "genetic machines" that we are is that our abilities, our mental capabilities, and even our disorders define who we are. As we slowly are able to smooth out the inadequacies of ourselves, we will all become more of the same person.

I do not doubt that individuals with ADHD suffer and have trouble coping with their disorders. Nor do I doubt that people with erectile dysfunction or even dare I say restless leg syndrome have trouble coping with their disorders. The point was that everyone has some kind of personal trait or disorder that they have trouble coping with; my examples were memory and height. I am a tall person and have been told how lucky I am to be tall by many short people who have found it at least slightly harder to be short. Studies also have shown that height in adolescent years correlates very well with later success in life. If being short is hard for some people to cope with and disadvantageous, is it out of the question to label it a disorder. Drug companies would surely love to, so would people who do not want to be short anymore. In regards to memory, we all know people with great memories and people with bad memories, and just like height a similar situation could arise. Despite this, height and memory are essentially defining traits that make us all unique, and if trends continue there is no guarantee that this individuality will be preserved.

Now think about ADHD or something even more severe like Down syndrome. Parents of children with Down syndrome would like to have it no other way because they find unique joy in the way their children are. George Will, the father of a down syndrome child and Washington Post columnist, expressed this feeling in a column entitled Eugenics by Abortion, Is perfection an entitlement? in 2005(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51671-2005Apr13.html). Down syndrome children surely have many problems that regular people do not have to deal with, but that makes them who they are, and parents like George Will would have their children no other way, nor would they let society make them think their children are anything less than divine.

ADHD may be bad for some people, but it may also be worse for some people to lose those defining qualities. The CEO and founder of Jet Blue discovered he had ADD and claimed that ADD was in fact responsible to to his success in the business. It was what had given him the unique insight he needed for making Jet Blue company that it is. (http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2002/2002-10-08-jetblue-ceo.htm).

Overall though I have passed no judgment on people who take pills to fix disorders, rather I question the role of prescribing perfection in our society. So LC, I must tell you that you have me all wrong. I am sorry for offending you but I stand by my words 100%. I hope this clears up any confusion.

Give our Generation a Little More Credit

Meredith Laito’s claim in American Idol: The Presidency that young voters care more about “who would be best at a cocktail party” than who would be a better President is seriously flawed. The easiest way to debunk these claims is to look at the Republican presidential candidates. Ron Paul, the 72 year old Texas congressman, has 73,944 facebook supporters, more than any other Republican candidate. Paul derives the majority of his support from college students and voters under thirty.

But why? He’s not “attractive” like Mitt Romney or “likable” like Mike Huckabee. Instead he is the most popular candidate with young voters because of his strong consistent ideologies, something far more important to young voters than looks.

Obama’s popularity among 18-29 year olds is not based on his cocktail party abilities, but is instead rooted in his strong ideology of transcending partisan politics. I believe that if Hillary and Barrack were running against each other for a seat in the senate, it would be no contest; Hillary would easily win. But the oval office requires a unique set of skills far different from those of Congress. What Obama’s supporters believe is that he has something that experience cannot bring, something that makes him a catalyst for change in a year where people are desperate to escape the political status quo.

In comparing charisma and experience, let us remember 1960 when the race for the democratic nomination was between John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, the far more experienced senate majority leader who was serving in Congress before Kennedy had even finished his freshman year at Harvard. Did experience or charisma end up making the better president?

So before we snap to the conclusion that Obama derives his support from the youth by being the better looking candidate, not the better candidate, let’s remember good old Ron Paul, recognize talent outside the scope of experience, and give our generation a little bit more credit.

Online cartoons and conflicts of interest

We have read your comments about the unreadable cartoons online. Abe, the Web editor and myself are working on the problem. Our Web site is set up somewhat unconventionally, and due to circumstances we cannot control, fixing that problem is more difficult than we expected.

But we are not ignoring it. I was abroad last quarter, and I couldn't read the cartoons either, so I know how frustrating those tiny drawings are. Thanks for your patience. We will keep you updated.

--

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with our stance on the DU situation, I want to be clear that we take possible conflicts of interest very seriously at the Daily. Anyone who has a personal relationship to a story (including the DU story) is removed from the process of writing or editing it. Using DU as an example, anyone who has a grudge against the fraternity or, conversely, someone who is a member of the fraternity would not take part in coverage of the story at all. This is standard Daily policy for all of our content, and it is enforced on a regular basis.