2008 Woodie Awards
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!
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.
After an extended break, the PPN blog is up and running again! Check back here in the future for updates. Until then, we here at PPN would like to know if you can support our print publication via a subscription. Here is a letter about how you can contribute, from our editor-in-chief Robby Braun. On the other hand, you can also support us by placing an advertisement in the magazine: a brochure with the relevant information can be found here. Thank you for your help!
There’s a brilliant article in the New York Times magazine by Russell Shorto. Entitled “Contra-Contraception,” it outlines the latest front in the Republican’s War on Sexual Freedom. With dozens of new restrictions on abortion in place, and a likely revisiting of Roe v. Wade when the South Dakota abortion ban comes before the court, some conservatives are looking at access to contraception as the next freedom to take away.
A number of steps have already been taken toward this end. “Pharmacist Moral Choice Laws” protect drug store employees who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control or Plan B from disciplinary action. President Bush’s Abstinence-Only education programs rely on lies to scare teenagers away from practicing safe sex. And, the FDA has been packed with religious conservatives who (in addition to lying about the benefits of medical marijuana) have blocked the over-the-counter sale of Plan B.
Lastly, how sick is this?
In addition to providing an information center for the abstinence industry that has blossomed in recent years, [abstinence-only movement leader Leslee Unruh] takes her message directly to kids. Besides “Girls Gone Mild,” she sponsors “Purity Balls,” which fathers attend with their teenage daughters. “We think the relationship between fathers and their daughters is the key,” she told me. At the purity ball, a father gives a “purity ring” to his daughter — a symbol of the promise she makes to maintain her virginity for her future husband. Then, during her marriage ceremony, the daughter gives the ring to her new husband. Abstinence Clearinghouse’s Web site advertises the purity ball as an event “which celebrates your ‘little girl’ and her gift of sexual purity.”
The idea that a girl’s sexual purity is her father’s property until she gives it to her husband is a disgusting notion that smacks of 19th century conceptions of gender. Read the entire article so you won’t be blindsided when Griswold v. Connecticut is revisited by the Roberts court.
Just another WordPress weblog
RSS 2.0
