The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) - Page 253

Alex · 09-26-2007, 06:50 AM

I'm of the opinion that if Columbia (or some segment thereof) would like to hear him speak and he's willing, that is fine.

What I find interesting, though, is a certain contrast. Last week, Lawrence Summers, former Harvard president and former Secretary of Treasury, was scheduled to give a speech to the University of California board of regents.

An invitation that was rescinded in response to a petition by women's groups offended by a single comment the man once made (that genetic predispositions might play a role in achievement differential at the highest ends of math, science, and engineering).

Obviously, these are different institutions and it can't be a direct comparison of hypocrisy. But my problem with the general claim of "academic freedom," or "exposure to all ideas" is that as a composite community, it is an idea to intermittently held to by academia.

So, yes, Columbia did the right thing. I even think the president's introduction was inappropriate (in timing, not in content). But I'm bothered that when controversies of this sort arise that universities and colleges so rarely seem to do the right thing, especially if the controversial speaker is from the right end of the political spectrum.

Moonliner · 09-26-2007, 06:55 AM

Universities are not government agencies. They don't need to be consistent or even fair in their decision on speakers. What they need to be is free to decided for themselves who/what should be heard on their campus. If we the people do not agree with their choices then we get to vent about it, withhold our alumni checks, not send our kids there, etc....

Ghoulish Delight · 09-26-2007, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Universities are not government agencies. They don't need to be consistent or even fair in their decision on speakers. What they need to be is free to decided for themselves who/what should be heard on their campus. If we the people do not agree with their choices then we get to vent about it, withhold our alumni checks, not send our kids there, etc....

I don't suggest that anyone who attempted to prevent him from speaking did anything unconstitutional. But I disagree with the spirit of their protest none-the-less. I understand that a private entity is perfectly entitled to block whomever they feel from using their forum to speak, however as an educational institution I fell universities should hold (not be held to, hold) a higher standard of freedom of expression.

The fact that the prevailing sentiment not just in and around the university, but in the press coverage, is that he shouldn't have been heard bugs me. I see it as yet another symptom of the current fear-driven morality. I'm of the opinion that the message of the first amendment is that words shouldn't be feared, that allowing anyone their voice is of prime importance to freedom. And I find it the height of irony that people were decrying him for his human rights violations while trying to deny him an opportunity to exercise one of his own basic rights. Again, I know it's not unconstitutional, and everyone involved would have been within their rights to deny him. But "allowed to" and "should" are two different things, and trying to silence him sends,in my opinion, the wrong message about who we are as a country.

Akin to my feelings on the "preemptive strike" doctrine. While we're under no obligation to extend our constitutional ideals of "innocent until proven guilty" to the world, when our message is that those ideals are the best way to promote freedom, we should do everything we can to uphold those ideals in everything we do, whether we're obligated to or not.

Alex · 09-26-2007, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Universities are not government agencies. They don't need to be consistent or even fair in their decision on speakers.

Most large universities (such as the University of California) are government agencies. But you're still right.

However, that also means that they can't honestly claim that letting one controversial speaker speak is a matter of intellectual or academic freedom, or offered in the spirit of exposing people to different ideas while denying others the venue because of similar controversy. They should just say "we find these ideas more acceptable to us so we give them more of a platform" if that is the case. Or "Berkeley feminist groups are politically more powerful in the UC system than Jewish groups at Columbia" or whatever the various real reasons are.

The shame I feel for universities is that they ever cave to blocking speakers (and they do it all the time) because some group doesn't like what the speaker will say. Or, even worse, has said some time in the past.

scaeagles · 09-26-2007, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Universities are not government agencies. They don't need to be consistent or even fair in their decision on speakers. What they need to be is free to decided for themselves who/what should be heard on their campus. If we the people do not agree with their choices then we get to vent about it, withhold our alumni checks, not send our kids there, etc....

Interestingly, this is how it will play out. No one stopped him from speaking or tried to use some legal means to prevent him from being heard.

I've heard it theorized that the reason for the rather scathing introduciton was because of repurcussions from wealthy alumni who said they were going to withhold further contributions should he be allowed a forum from which to speak at Columbia.

I'm still mixed on the whole thing. The man proved himself to be an idiot (for example, about the holocaust, he wanted to know where the dead bodies were, and the more publicized gay comments), but he also gained a huge deal of stature in the Middle East because he dared to go into the "lion's den", as I've read.

Snowflake · 09-27-2007, 04:18 PM

Yet in another series of verbal gaffes, I felt the need to post it here, though minor, still humerous.

scaeagles · 09-28-2007, 06:35 AM

A few random thoughts -

Situations like Burma make it more and more evident to me that it probably isn't possible for populations that want freedom and/or democracy to get it. Dictators are too brutal and the technological differences in combat capabilities and weaponry make forcable revolution impossible. It is no longer like it was in the mid to late 1700s, when farmers were almost as well armed as the British military.

I find it humorous that in the MSNBC debate none of the candidates (or at least front running candidates) would commit to having all troops out of iraq even in 5 years. "We don't know what the situation will be", yet some, such as Obama, are campaigning on bring the troops home now and how we shouldn't be there and how it is completely hopeless to try. Is this not inconsistent? Hillary and Kucinich (sp?) seem to be the only consistent ones on the issues, though completely opposite.

Representative Dingle wants to add a 50 cent gas tax to combat global warming. I still don't get the whole carbon scare, when only 3.4% or carbon in the atmosphere is produced by man, and carbon represents only about 6% of the overall greenhouse gas. 3.4% of 6% is only .2% of greenhouse gas.

Alex · 09-28-2007, 07:33 AM

First, the base numbers in final sentence appear to be made up but have taken root among the popular press for those opposed to the idea of man made global warming. The correct number is not 3.4% but between 9% and 30%.

Also, the underlying assumption that all greenhouse gasses are the same is patently false. Not mentioned by you, but the claim that generally goes along with the 3.4% number is that water vapor comprises 95% of greenhouse gasses and since 99.9999% of that is natural no other cause can be seen as significant.

However, adding 1 million tons of water vapor to the air and 1 million tons of carbon do not have the same effect. Because water vapor does not cause global warming, it maintains it. Carbon dioxide, however, causes it. The amount of water vapor in the air is primarily a result of average global temperature and if too much gets in for a given temperature it will precipitate out and if too little more will evaporate and by this mechanism helps maintain the status quo.

But when something else forces an increase in warming the water vapor will adjust and help maintain that new equilibrium.

So, put a million tons more water in the air and you get a short term rise, some extra rain and then things settle back down. Put a million more tons of carbon (obviously these numbers are just made up for demonstration) and you get an increase in temperature, more evaporation, and a new equilibrium temperature.

I won't assume that you took your numbers directly from the Fox News Junk Science column that sprouted this easily debunked idea across the internets but rather hopefully from a more reputable source that simply repeated it.

This is kind of like a claim that turning down the gas flame under your water heater won't make your bath cooler because 99% of the heat in the system at any given time is contained within tank water.

Also implicit in your post is that a large gas tax would only fight carbon emissions. It would do that directly by presumably reducing demand for gasoline (though I bet it wouldn't really) but ignores the fact that the government then has billions of dollars it can direct to fighting other pressures producing global climate change.

I'm skeptical of many of the grander claims made in the global warming argument, but both sides need to base claims on something demonstrably legitimate and I think the moderate voices of doom do a much better job of that on this particular issue.

scaeagles · 09-28-2007, 07:47 AM

OK - let's split the 9% and 30% and go with 19.5%.

6% of 19.5% is still only just over 1% of all greenhouse gases. Looking at carbon only, if we cut that by half to 10%, which would be an incredibly huge (and likely impossbile) undertaking, we still hardly touch the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

I find the whole concept of fighting global warming to be ridiculous, as I see global warming as not man caused and therefore not able to be remedied by man. Historically there have been major warming periods far before man burned his first fossil fuel.

scaeagles · 09-28-2007, 07:51 AM

Another random thought....

El Presidente of Mexico met with the Govs. of AZ and CA, and basically said because immigration (he didn't say illegal immigration, but that is what he was referring to) is inevitable that we in the US need to allow for it by modifying our policies.

I have a better idea. Why doesn't El Presidente of Mexico fix the rampant corruption in his own country that assists in depressing the economic conditions there so that there isn't a need for his citizens to invade our country?

09-26-2007, 06:50 AM	#2521
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I'm of the opinion that if Columbia (or some segment thereof) would like to hear him speak and he's willing, that is fine. What I find interesting, though, is a certain contrast. Last week, Lawrence Summers, former Harvard president and former Secretary of Treasury, was scheduled to give a speech to the University of California board of regents. An invitation that was rescinded in response to a petition by women's groups offended by a single comment the man once made (that genetic predispositions might play a role in achievement differential at the highest ends of math, science, and engineering). Obviously, these are different institutions and it can't be a direct comparison of hypocrisy. But my problem with the general claim of "academic freedom," or "exposure to all ideas" is that as a composite community, it is an idea to intermittently held to by academia. So, yes, Columbia did the right thing. I even think the president's introduction was inappropriate (in timing, not in content). But I'm bothered that when controversies of this sort arise that universities and colleges so rarely seem to do the right thing, especially if the controversial speaker is from the right end of the political spectrum.
	Submit to Quotes

09-26-2007, 06:55 AM	#2522
Moonliner 8/30/14 - Disneyland -10k or Bust. Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 9,022	Universities are not government agencies. They don't need to be consistent or even fair in their decision on speakers. What they need to be is free to decided for themselves who/what should be heard on their campus. If we the people do not agree with their choices then we get to vent about it, withhold our alumni checks, not send our kids there, etc.... __________________ - Taking it one step at a time.
	Submit to Quotes

09-27-2007, 04:18 PM	#2526
Snowflake lost in the fog Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: San Francisco Posts: 7,831	Yet in another series of verbal gaffes, I felt the need to post it here, though minor, still humerous. __________________ Be yourself; everyone else is already taken. - Oscar Wilde
	Submit to Quotes

09-28-2007, 06:35 AM	#2527
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	A few random thoughts - Situations like Burma make it more and more evident to me that it probably isn't possible for populations that want freedom and/or democracy to get it. Dictators are too brutal and the technological differences in combat capabilities and weaponry make forcable revolution impossible. It is no longer like it was in the mid to late 1700s, when farmers were almost as well armed as the British military. I find it humorous that in the MSNBC debate none of the candidates (or at least front running candidates) would commit to having all troops out of iraq even in 5 years. "We don't know what the situation will be", yet some, such as Obama, are campaigning on bring the troops home now and how we shouldn't be there and how it is completely hopeless to try. Is this not inconsistent? Hillary and Kucinich (sp?) seem to be the only consistent ones on the issues, though completely opposite. Representative Dingle wants to add a 50 cent gas tax to combat global warming. I still don't get the whole carbon scare, when only 3.4% or carbon in the atmosphere is produced by man, and carbon represents only about 6% of the overall greenhouse gas. 3.4% of 6% is only .2% of greenhouse gas.
	Submit to Quotes

09-28-2007, 07:33 AM	#2528
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	First, the base numbers in final sentence appear to be made up but have taken root among the popular press for those opposed to the idea of man made global warming. The correct number is not 3.4% but between 9% and 30%. Also, the underlying assumption that all greenhouse gasses are the same is patently false. Not mentioned by you, but the claim that generally goes along with the 3.4% number is that water vapor comprises 95% of greenhouse gasses and since 99.9999% of that is natural no other cause can be seen as significant. However, adding 1 million tons of water vapor to the air and 1 million tons of carbon do not have the same effect. Because water vapor does not cause global warming, it maintains it. Carbon dioxide, however, causes it. The amount of water vapor in the air is primarily a result of average global temperature and if too much gets in for a given temperature it will precipitate out and if too little more will evaporate and by this mechanism helps maintain the status quo. But when something else forces an increase in warming the water vapor will adjust and help maintain that new equilibrium. So, put a million tons more water in the air and you get a short term rise, some extra rain and then things settle back down. Put a million more tons of carbon (obviously these numbers are just made up for demonstration) and you get an increase in temperature, more evaporation, and a new equilibrium temperature. I won't assume that you took your numbers directly from the Fox News Junk Science column that sprouted this easily debunked idea across the internets but rather hopefully from a more reputable source that simply repeated it. This is kind of like a claim that turning down the gas flame under your water heater won't make your bath cooler because 99% of the heat in the system at any given time is contained within tank water. Also implicit in your post is that a large gas tax would only fight carbon emissions. It would do that directly by presumably reducing demand for gasoline (though I bet it wouldn't really) but ignores the fact that the government then has billions of dollars it can direct to fighting other pressures producing global climate change. I'm skeptical of many of the grander claims made in the global warming argument, but both sides need to base claims on something demonstrably legitimate and I think the moderate voices of doom do a much better job of that on this particular issue.
	Submit to Quotes

09-28-2007, 07:47 AM	#2529
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	OK - let's split the 9% and 30% and go with 19.5%. 6% of 19.5% is still only just over 1% of all greenhouse gases. Looking at carbon only, if we cut that by half to 10%, which would be an incredibly huge (and likely impossbile) undertaking, we still hardly touch the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. I find the whole concept of fighting global warming to be ridiculous, as I see global warming as not man caused and therefore not able to be remedied by man. Historically there have been major warming periods far before man burned his first fossil fuel. Last edited by scaeagles : 09-28-2007 at 07:53 AM.
	Submit to Quotes

09-28-2007, 07:51 AM	#2530
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Another random thought.... El Presidente of Mexico met with the Govs. of AZ and CA, and basically said because immigration (he didn't say illegal immigration, but that is what he was referring to) is inevitable that we in the US need to allow for it by modifying our policies. I have a better idea. Why doesn't El Presidente of Mexico fix the rampant corruption in his own country that assists in depressing the economic conditions there so that there isn't a need for his citizens to invade our country?
	Submit to Quotes