Day: July 24, 2014

Ivy League Zombies

Ivy League Zombies

Ivy League Zombies — William Deresiewicz has a fascinating article at NewRepublic.com regarding the type of people our elite education system our producing.

“Our system of elite education manufactures young people who are smart and talented and driven, yes, but also anxious, timid, and lost, with little intellectual curiosity and a stunted sense of purpose: trapped in a bubble of privilege, heading meekly in the same direction, great at what they’re doing but with no idea why they’re doing it,” he says.

By elite education system, he means places like the Ivies and Stanford along with what feeds them which he describes as: the private and affluent public high schools; the ever-growing industry of tutors and consultants and test-prep courses; the admissions process itself, squatting like a dragon at the entrance to adulthood; the brand-name graduate schools and employment opportunities that come after the B.A.; and the parents and communities.

He mentions a young woman who wrote to him about her boyfriend at Yale who she describes as someone who spent his time reading and writing short stores before attending college. She told him that after three years he is painfully insecure, worrying about things my public-educated friends don’t give a second thought to, like the stigma of eating lunch alone and whether he’s “networking” enough. No one but me knows he fakes being well-read by thumbing through the first and last chapters of any book he hears about and obsessively devouring reviews in lieu of the real thing.

Deresiewicz said that obscure religious colleges “that no one has ever heard of on the coasts” often provide a better education.

On a quasi-related note Professor James Tour of Rice University, one of the 10 most cited chemists in the world and a pioneer in nanotechnology,  described his experiences after expressing skepticism about Darwinian evolution:

Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.” These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I’ve sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, “Do you understand this?”And if they’re afraid to say “Yes,” they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it.

I was once brought in by the Dean of the Department, many years ago, and he was a chemist. He was kind of concerned about some things. I said, “Let me ask you something. You’re a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?” We have no idea, we have no idea. I said, “Isn’t it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we can’t go out there and talk about this?”

If those who train our future leaders our cowards and our future leaders are trained to be cowards, this country is in trouble.

Ivy League Zombies

Avoid Ukraine Conflict

By Chris Freind

Stay away. Far, far away.

Unless America wants to see the powder keg of Europe ignited once again — and it’s not a stretch to say that actively opposing Russia in its conflict with Ukraine could potentially start World War III — it will steer clear of that region. Avoiding another global war (this time with nuclear weapons) should be reason enough, but here’s another one: It’s not our fight.

Right now, it is a limited brawl between those two nations, and, despite the spin that Russia is the bad guy, it is not at all clear who is “right.” Either way, those powerful nations dominate that region; we don’t. To march in as a self-righteous superpower thinking we can “fix” the problem is arrogant, naïve — and dangerous.

Let’s analyze the situation:

1. Malaysia Airlines: They have now lost two 777s in the past couple of months. It’s enough to bankrupt any airline. In a span of four months, Malaysian Airlines planes have been involved in two of the worst airline tragedies in decades.

In the first incident, the jury remains out on just what happened to the missing Flight 370. While some conspiracy theories are absurd, others cannot be so easily dismissed. One thing is certain: The problems that have dogged the Malaysian government and Malaysia Airlines officials was on full display after Flight 370’s disappearance. A few months later, most experts believe Flight 17 was blown out of the sky by a surface-to-air missile. The tragedy over the Ukraine took place even after airlines had been repeatedly warned since April to avoid flying over that conflicted region. The Malaysian jet failed to heed that warning.

2. Apparently the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” has been lost on many American leaders clamoring for more action against the pro-Russian rebels and Russia itself. Last time we checked, it remains unclear who fired the missile, especially since the Ukraine military operates the exact same SA-11 system.

And it’s not unprecedented for missiles to be fired at the wrong targets. Iraq killed 37 sailors on the USS Stark in 1987 when one of its airplane missiles mistakenly hit the Navy frigate. Similarly, the American cruiser Vincennes mistakenly shot down an Iranian airliner, killing nearly 300 people in 1988. We can’t have it both ways, stating that the Malaysian jet was unmistakably a passenger jet, yet excusing how one of the world’s most sophisticated radar systems (AEGIS) thought a jumbo jet was a small, attacking fighter. Our credibility on the world stage is at stake, so let’s think before we speak.

3. The question of which country the predominantly Russian-speaking people of Crimea want to be aligned with is not new; these ethnic and nationality issues don’t just transcend borders, but time, with allegiances going back hundreds, even thousands, of years. We are a nation barely over 200 years old, with absolutely no concept of how far back, and how strong, these European ties are. To think we can provide the solution is naivete at its worst.

We used the same approach for engaging Iraq and Afghanistan. How’s that working out for us?

4. Here a news flash: The Cold War is over. For those warmongers who missed it, perhaps we should declare victory again and move on, and out, of Europe. It’s been pointed out here before it’s time for America to stop policing the world, and start its exodus from Europe. Only four NATO countries meet their paltry requirement for defense spending, yet the U.S. always exceeds its obligation to pick up the slack. If the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is anybody’s business, it’s Europe’s. It falls entirely within their sphere of influence, so let them deal with it.

That’s not to advocate isolationism, as it is in America’s interest to have a global presence. But an aggressive and all-too-often misguided interventionist foreign policy (one advocated by both parties) leaves the perception of the U.S. as imperialistic aggressors, which creates exponentially more problems down the road. Time to stop expending blood and treasure in foreign lands while our protectees default on their end of the bargain, leaving us holding an empty bag.

5. We haven’t done too well choosing sides in other regional conflicts. We backed the Libyan rebels (the largest foreign force in Iraq to fight the U.S., by the way) who overthrew Moammar Gadhafi, after which 10,000 surface-to-air missiles disappeared and the Benghazi tragedy occurred. Bet the ranch neither would have happened had Gadhafi remained in power.

We are backing the Syrian rebels, who are unquestionably more radical and anti-American than the government of Bashar Assad; the Iraqi government we helped install is worthless; and Afghani President Hamid Karzai is astonishingly ungrateful. Instead of meddling in foreign affairs so much, maybe it’s time to focus on the people who should matter most: Americans. In America.

6. You know we’ve reached a low point when politicians bash the other side just to score cheap political points for some perceived gain, especially when doing so risks an expanded armed conflict in Europe, potentially putting American lives on the line.

For those hammering President Obama (with some even blaming him for the Malaysian shoot-down), one question: What exactly do you want him to do? Send “advisers” to the Ukraine, which always leads to more troops? Send more Navy ships to the region? Arm the Ukraine to the hilt? All will antagonize Russian leader Vladimir Putin and cause him to escalate the crisis. We cannot win a war there. Period. Since the outcome doesn’t affect us, let’s wait this one out on the sidelines.

As far as sanctions, good luck standing alone. Western Europe chose not to become energy independent, or at least dependent on friendly nations like Canada and the U.S. (which could be energy independent but is not). So it must rely on the Middle East, and even more so, Russia, for its lifeblood: natural gas. Watch for them to cheat on, or rescind, any sanctions.

Putin’s economy is sliding, but his people are rallying behind him and he is holding the better cards. Let Europe figure this one out.

Russia is not the superpower it once was, but it is still a powerful player that must be respected (after all, it’s the only ticket to our space station, but that’s another story). Warmongers’ cries of “appeasement” notwithstanding, playing “chicken-Kiev” with Russia is not sound foreign policy. It’s a recipe for disaster.

 

Avoid Ukraine Conflict