This is Eric Meng ‘08 writing from Peking University, Beijing, China.
I hope everyone’s prayers are with the dead and injured, as well as their families, at Virginia Tech. This has been an indescribably sad case.
According to a Chicago Tribune article, the shooters’ sister is a Princeton graduate. It’s tragic to think about the promising but shattered American dream of this family, who immigrated from Korea and sent their kids to college by running a dry-cleaning business.
I believe the reaction to the killings among students Peking University, besides general reflections on the tragic nature of the event, are also worth noting. Early news reports, many of which were echoed in the Chinese print and television media, seemed to suggest that the killer was a Chinese graduate student studying abroad at Virginia Tech. In fact, this unsubstantiated evidence was a large part of the reason that this case received the media coverage it did here in China.
Students here at Peking University had good reason to believe that the killer could have been a Chinese graduate student. There have in the past been many incidents where mentally unstable Chinese studying abroad have exploded, the most famous being physics PhD student Lu Gang’s killing of five at the University of Iowa in 1991.
Insofar as news is relevant, it is local in nature, and thus besides the universal sympathy for the victims that students here expressed, there have been two themes in early reactions (when the identity of the killer was still believed to be a Chinese national):
1. Concern about visa problems for students applying for visas for programs this fall - a concern made more acute by memories of students putting their dreams on deferment for years as a result of tightened security around 9/11.
2. Reflection on the causes of past incidents involving Chinese students abroad in the United States and other countries. This involves thinking about the pressures that students face, and perhaps cultural problems in coping with difficult situations in a healthy way.
The world is interconnected, especially in times of tragedy like this.
Well the big news today is Obama’s declaration that he will be running. Yet despite the new hope and optimism he brings, and Obama is a fresh voice louder than any other in Washington, I do sense some contradiction. Where is the “audacity of hope” when it comes to Iraq? Consider the following excerpt from his speech:
“It’s time to admit that no amount of American lives can resolve the political disagreement that lies at the heart of someone else’s civil war. That’s why I have a plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008. Letting the Iraqis know that we will not be there forever is our last, best hope to pressure the Sunni and Shia to come to the table and find peace.”
This seems discouraging with the specific time table he has set. Are we not to “worry about someone else’s civil war” given we started it? And given the stakes involved, national security, energy security, etc. Middle East stability, etc. what is more important than resolving this civil war? If we are to believe that the civil war in Iraq cannot be rectified, then it is the very message that Obama brings that is threatened. The first and last sentence appear to be in contradiction.
Nonetheless, his words rule out little about what he will do should he become elected in November of ‘08. Even if he proposes legislation that sets an explicit end date, it may be possible that America will remain mired in Iraq for a much longer time after 2008.
Economics Professor Charged with Wife’s Murder
UPenn Student Opens Fire on Drexel Students
Penn Student Heads Back to Bucks County Jail
Professor Busted for Child Pornography, Sex with Underage Boys
It seems that UPenn is, ironically, not an environment conducive to brotherly love.
If President Putin and the Russian government truly have nothing to do with the death of ex-KGB spy Alexander Litvinenko, why are they refusing to cooperate? I think the Russian government may be afraid of uglier things welling up in this ongoing investigation. It looks like the British are increasingly playing the role of prosecutor and the Russians the role of defendent, all with due cause because it smells like a rat.
Presiden’t Bush’s adament support for John Bolten to continue serving as UN Ambassador appears over. Not that President Bush no longer supports the man, who is widely known for his combative nature, but there is nothing to support after Bolten submitted his resignation. So far there have been a couple of sea-changes for the Bush Administration since midterms, including this and the likelihood for a change of policy in Iraq. In the ongoing fight between Bush’s fantasy world and the real nature of things, we’re witnessing baby steps in the right direction for the first time.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan was here earlier today to give a speech on the topic of nuclear weapons. His message included the need to address nuclear proliferation and called for the major powers to come together and actively reverse the psychology surrounding the desire to possess or further develop such weapons, a mentality that sees only the benefits such weapons will bring, like increased deterrence or safety, and totally ignorant of the costs. There may be benefits, but in the long run they are like wolves in sheeps’ clothing walking amidst a flock. The best solution is to fleece nations of their nuclear possessions, at least start a process that accelerates the reduction of the world’s nuclear arsenal.
Annan has done a terrific job leading the UN over the past 10 or so years and his messages were as clear as the crystal award he was given at the end of the speech. It’s true a clearer message could be sent by the US and other nations in possession of nuclear weapons by explicity de-nuking their stockpiles, but what are the practical ways of doing this? How do we confront the nuclear realities of North Korea and Iran? How should we face the “crisis of confidence” in limiting the spread of nukes while encouraging new nations to sign the Nonproliferation Treaty? It would have been more reassuring if he spent more time on practicalities.
The New Blog and New Website are both up and running. Check back here for new posts!
The infamous lobbyist who was featured on the cover of Time magazine as “the man who bought Washington” is set to begin his nearly six year sentence on November 15. Although Jack Abramoff’s new title – Federal inmate 27593-112 – is decidedly less arresting (pun intended) than the one that Time bestowed, it is doubtful that this influential public figure will fade away and become just another number in America’s prison system. It should come as no surprise that Abramoff’s notoriety exerted a tangible effect on several midterm elections (chief among them, Montana’s senate race) and it is likely that his criminal activities ultimately played a key role in tipping the congressional balance of power. But despite everything that has happened, Abramoff is not without friends in the political sphere. Over 100 prominent political allies wrote to the sentencing judge asking for leniency on Abramoff’s behalf. Their efforts were not in vain as the 5 year 10 month sentence that Abramoff received was the minimum amount permitted under the law. During the upcoming jail time, the ex-lobbyist will likely continue to play an important role in political affairs given that he is expected to testify in more investigations pertaining to federal lobbying. One has to wonder if some politicians are afraid that new information will give rise to further scandals that could play a similar role in 2008.
What a great step Harvard is taking in changing its admissions policy to regular decision only. Dividing the incoming class up into two groups, one early and one regular, makes as much sense as graduating the senior class on two separate occasions when it could all be feasibily done at one time. By having only one admissions deadline, admissions officers can better compare candidates without having committed beforehand to, perhaps, less qualified others. It’s all about opportunity cost anyways and the true cost of the alternative most clearly presents itself when all the alternatives are present at hand.
One benefit the Times’ editorial did not mention is that students who still maintain Harvard as their number one school, those who would have applied early, will have more time to sharpen their applications. They would have started planning to apply to Harvard at an earlier date than others and therefore would have spent more time coming up with reasons why they fit (possibly improving their alumni interviews) and how to better tailor their essays, all things that increase the probability of being admitted. Those die-hard applicants will have an advantage if the January 1st deadline was the same for everybody.
A presidential election too close to call. Rumors of voting irregularities. Mandated recounts while the populace waits to find out who their next leader will be. A court decision issued to determine the winner. Sound vaguely familiar? Although frequently compared to Bush v. Gore and the 2000 election debacle, the fallout from the 2006 Mexican general election is an attention-grabbing event in its own right.
Since the July 2 vote, millions of people have protested conservative candidate Felipe Calderon’s supposed victory. On several occasions, civil unrest threatened to bring business and government to a halt. For many Mexicans, the future remains uncertain as leftist candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador rejected Tuesday’s court decision awarding Mexico’s presidency to the National Action Party (PAN) and many refuse to recognize Calderon’s legitimacy citing apparent corruption in a number of voting districts.
According to a poll conducted by the conservative newspaper Reforma, 65% of individuals surveyed believed fraud occurred and that there should be a full recount. A full recount did not materialize but a partial one did and Calderon appears to have won by just over half a percentage point (.56%).
Whatever misgivings the citizens of Mexico may have, the rest of the world seems to have at least tacitly accepted Calderon as Mexico’s new president. A White House spokesperson issued a statement congratulating the president-elect and said the US looks forward to “broad, deep and productive” relations with the new administration.
One apt and crucial similarity to America’s situation is that, without question, Mexico’s population is divided down the middle. As a result, Calderon’s immediate goals must include defusing the widespread discontent in order to unify the nation. If he cannot quell tensions, a country deeply in need of progress and reform will remain stuck in a political quagmire.
Just another WordPress weblog
RSS 2.0
