March 08, 2006
Old Projects, New Projects, Now Projects and Why Bloggers Kinda Suck.
I am still planning on writing about what I know about the whole vote of no-confidence thing if it's not soooo last week for everyone. I was going to write on Friday but between crashing my car (no one hurt, car not coming back...) and dinner things got kinda tight.
My sister and I are totally working on a webpage together, it's gonna be awesome. I'll be killing this thing (probably) once the site is up and running.
Also if haven't made this clear yet Slate.com is the finest online publication, and a good contender for best publication anywhere, period. On Monday they're going to be trying a neat new experiment (something they seem to be doing a lot of lately to good effect) of a real-time serialized novel called The Unbinding by Walter Kirn (whose best bio exists in the previous link).
Other neat things Slate is doing that you might have missed:
Slate audio book club - The first book is Joan Didion's The Year of Magical Thinking (nybooks review).
Slate on NPR - Just like it sounds, download them as podcasts too.
Today's Pictures - An addition to the 'Today's' selections from Slate. These are photos pulled from the Magnum archives sometimes with the photographers talking about their work over a slideshow.
Slate is rapidly becoming the only website you'll ever need.
Lastly, I'm not huge fan of Wal-Mart (less of a critic than many but just barely) so this article didn't surprise me about Wal-Mart but the bloggers. I'll admit I'm not very surprised, the attribution that doesn't take place is always appalling. In general I like blogging, I like bloggers, I think that on the whole it is a good thing. That said I don't think bloggers are or should be journalists or should recieve the protections journalists do. It is exactly practices like those in the article that prove my point. Journalists, as maligned as they are, simply produce a better, more consistant and forthright product than many bloggers are capable or care to put out. There are institutional reasons for this (journalists lose their jobs sometimes for poor behavior, bloggers don't) which really cannot be changed.
March 03, 2006
No Confidence. How we got here Part 1.
Hopefully today (Friday) The Observer will help explain what has happened with the No Confidence vote. This doesn't mean they'll let us all know the result (it passed) but why the vote was initiated. For those of you who answered 'because Krauss wanted attention' I've got bad news for you, you're crazy wrong.
Over the last two days I've spent a good five hours talking with members and chairs (the current and a former) of the Faculty Senate Budget Committee (FSBC). This has brought me great insight into how we got to the (largely unknown) situation the university is in today. Unfortunately it's also late. I'm going to hope The Observer gets it right. If they don't I'll be back with some documents, my notes and some analysis to explain.
Exciting, no?
March 01, 2006
USG Referendums and No Confidence.
Tonight I attended my first ever USG meeting. I was alerted by a friend that USG was contemplating passing a resolution in which they urged the faculty senate to vote against the 'no confidence' (against Hundert) proposal. While this was proposed by some very competent individuals I oppose(d) the referendum because I both don't feel USG should be directing the faculty senate and don't think USG was informed enough to be making any recommendation.
The vast majority of undergraduates don't know what this is about, there has been little information given by any side about their motives. This is part of the problem and why this vote is taking place. This will hopefully become more clear over the coming days when the vote takes place and the administration responds.
Allow me to stress the following:
Firstly, this is not simply grandstanding on the part of Professor Kraus. I think the Plain Dealer article from last Thursday (I believe) made it clear this was about demonstrating the unhappiness of many parts of the university with the administration. A 'No Confidence' vote cannot be called by a single individual.
Secondly, a successful no confidence vote will not remove President Hundert. From what I understand even if every faculty member voted for the 'No Confidence' vote (which cannot take place Thursday because only arts and sciences are voting) President Hundert would remain. Only a decision by the board of trustees can remove the president in a way that I am unclear on now.
Thirdly, I am really of no opinion as to what I think should happen in this situation. While I think Hundert has screwed up I'm unsure to what degree. Additionally I don't think the intent of the No Confidence vote is to say 'we want you out of here' (which is probably unreasonable) so much as to say 'you have to listen to us' (which is basically always reasonable).
The Extended Entry contains the text of the resolution that did not pass regarding the no confidence vote. I've re-typed it in which may have introduced some gramatical or other errors.
-Brief Update-
This post (specifically the portion by David Gasser) pointed out to me that something was passed which encouraged the faculty senate to postpone their vote (somehow...) and engage the undergraduate body in a 'dialogue' about the issue. The resolution that was passed was a heavily amended version of what we see in the extended entry (so amended as to totaly alter the intent of the resolution).
Continue reading "USG Referendums and No Confidence."
February 25, 2006
My Gil got Mantera'd
Holy livin' christ. Great show tonight, lots of fun even if I have some unfortunate business to attend to now.
Looking forward to some more party tomorrow, after some work of course, hope to see you there. Now I sleep.
February 23, 2006
Robert Wright
BTW I'm down to die for Robert Wright's chain.
If you're at all interested in current events or bloggers then you need to check this out:
meaningoflife.tv
bloggingheads.tv
Robert Wright - wikipedia
website for one of his books.
Iraq's Civil War
Some of you may have noticed that Iraq is in a civil war.
(It's strangely comforting to know that I'm not alone in thinking this)
Is there really any point in denying this anymore? No one seems to talk about it. There is plenty of discussion about 'how to keep Iraq from sliding into civil war' but who are we kidding? Iraq is in its civil war but, ssshhh, don't tell anyone.
Now, I'll admit, this is strange because the vast majority of attacks are still directed toward US and other occupation forces. However it's attacks like the one from the 22nd (2), which I find perhaps one of the most tragic to date, that suggest Iraqis are simply using US forces for target practice in gearing up for the important struggle, the one against each other.
I think this attack may be, as much as I hate to use this now cliche phrase, the tipping point. This is because I've just begun to understand how important that shrine was within the religious system.
First a little background
As we're all vaguely aware there are at least two main divisions of Islam, Sunni and Shi'a. The division between the two religions deals roughly with who should be the head of Islam. Way back in the day, when the prophet Muhammad died, a bunch of Muslim big wigs all got together and tried to decide who was the new leader. The split was between Muhammad's father-in-law (who was acting as a kind of transitional leader) and Muhammad's son-in-law. The big wigs decided to go with the flow and let Muhammad's Father-in-law, Abu Bakr, take the reigns.
Problem being that, as with all religious decisions, those who disagreed weren't just going to wait around for the next election (following the improper leader would be heresy and they'd end up damned), they rejected Abu Bakr's authority (and the two that followed, I'm still reading about the rest) and broke off. The ones that broke off we now know as Shi'a.
How the Mosque fits in.
The Shi'a had their own leaders these are known as the Caliphs. There were 12 of them. When the 11th died his son (the 12th) promptly disappeared, it is believed that he was recalled to heaven by God and would return. The Caliphs led Shi'a islam and two of them, the 10th and 11th, are buried at the al-Askari shrine. The al-Askari shrine is the one that was largely destroyed yesterday. Lastly, when the 12th Caliph returns from kickin' it with God he will be returning to the al-Askari shrine.
So now we kind of understand how this might be a big deal, it's kind of like blowing up Jesus' intergalactic helicopter pad.
Why?
So why blow up the dome? There are likely two reasons, first it's just a really great way to stir things up. An insurgency bent on getting the US out of the middle east (and potentially starting a holy war of the end times variety) would be greatly helped by an enormous, exceedingly brutal, civil war.
Secondly, it has to do with the return of that 12th caliph. You see when the 12th Caliph returns he's not coming back for cake and coffee. The 12th Caliph is returning to, in the mind of (at least some) Shi'a, cleanse the world. This will likely entail killing all the Sunni (who are heretics which is worse than being a non-believer) and converting as much of the rest of the planet as possible; the rest of the planet will naturally be killed.
So now it all starts coming together, this is one of them thar 'pre-emptive strikes'. Difference being this may be a pre-emptive strike not just for a holy war but for the holy war.
Sunshine, smilin' at me
oh, nothin' but blue skies
Do I see.
February 19, 2006
Harvard revelations
I'm at the model UN conference for Harvard and learned something neat tonight that I had suspected but was glad to get from the horses mouth (or rather, a crowd response). At the conference a lot of students from Venezuela attend and at the delegate dance they get a DJ who also hails from Venezuela (but is local to Boston now I believe). They do this because the Venezuelan kids riot if the music isn't right, this happened like four years ago apparently.
The interesting tidbit was when the DJ had a shout out to the Venezuelan kids, he followed up with 'We have to get rid of Chavez!' and got a similarly big response. I loved it, it was amazing, a really nice confirmation of the things I've been reading about for the last year. Theoretically I knew this all, the kids who are attending university in Venezuela (especially universities capable of sending students on international jaunts) are the children of the upper classes who dislike Chavez.
I'd meant to talk to more of the Venezuelans but sometimes these things don't really work out you know? There's another day left, maybe I'll get some more info.
Lastly I met someone from Cuba, they were real nice and put up with listening to me talk about the little I know.