Corrections
An article Tuesday about MIT’s Rhodes Scholarship winners incorrectly claimed that MIT broke its record for the most Rhodes Scholars in a given year. MIT did not break that record this year, but this year’s three winners did break the record for the most MIT Rhodes Scholars from the U.S. in a year.
An Idea for Afghanistan: The Ownership Society Principle
How do you turn a rebellious liberal into a risk-averse conservative?
Letters to the Editor
As I am sure you are aware, the University of East Anglia’s computer system was hacked and many e-mails by prominent weather researchers have been published. Some of these are extremely disturbing. They appear to document collusion among leaders in the field to alter and then withhold raw data and to stonewall Freedom of Information requests regarding analytical methods. Anecdotal reports of moving weather stations to lower altitudes in California and Japan are also emerging. Most disturbing, these e-mails appear to document a concerted effort to undermine the peer review process.
Dining Reform Set to Repeat History
Dining at MIT has a long and contentious history of student distaste and quarrels with administrators. In lieu of these past protests, what’s surprising now is just how little discussion is occurring over current proposals.
Copenhagen Needs Obama
On December 7, world leaders will descend on Copenhagen for the United Nations Climate Change Conference to determine the future of planet Earth. Or at least they should. So far only 65 national leaders have actually committed to attending the talks. Notable absentees include president Hu Jintao of China and Barack Obama. These politicians, by waiting until the last moment to commit to attending the conference, hope to be portrayed in the media as the saviors of the planet, as the deal clinchers for a sustainable future. Unfortunately, they will be disappointed. Not only will the world not be saved in Copenhagen, because there will not be a treaty to sign, but also there is only one man who can truly salvage the process and play the hero: Barack Obama.
Questioning Capitalism
Why does anyone still question capitalism as the basic engine for economic growth? From what used to be the Soviet Union to China, capitalism has gained recognition as the best way to achieve broad-based economic success. However, individuals like Alexi Goranov, who wrote an article for the November 20 issue of <i>The Tech</i> (“Capitalism and Functioning Democracy Are At Odds”), believe that capitalism is inherently flawed. This is ignorance.
Corrections
An opinion piece last Friday by Alexi Goranov titled “Capitalism and Functioning Democracy Are at Odds” incorrectly stated “A study by IMS Health estimated that the new healthcare bill will bring the drug industry an increase in sales by $137 billion over the next four years.” In a letter to <i>The Tech</i>, Gary J. Gatyas, Jr., a communications director at IMS Health, wrote that the $137 billion increase from the April to the October 2009 forecasts is not all attributable to current healthcare reforms. Goranov cited a November 12, 2009 piece from “Democracy Now!” that, according to IMS Health, misinterpreted the organization’s report. According to Gatyas, “The direct impact of current U.S. healthcare reform measures embedded in the IMS forecast is less than one percent of projected total industry sales through 2013.”
Electronic Communication And Life Histories
Do you think that social networking tools like Facebook and MySpace are eliminating the need for real social interaction? I was doing an Internet survey the other day that was about interactions with close friends — something along the lines of, “list your top five friends, and then list the last way you communicated with them.” For me, few of my closest friends live in the same city as me, so my answers largely involved some form of electronic communication — e-mail, instant messaging, text messaging and others.
Capitalism and Functioning Democracy Are at Odds
The fundamental debate is whether the right to increases in capital and property supersedes the right to equality, i.e. the right to equal access to labor and life. If the two rights are considered absolute they cannot coexist; one destroys the other (per “What is Property” by French anarchist Joseph-Pierre Proudhon).
Corrections
The solution for the sudoku in Tuesday’s issue was incorrect. The correct solution is printed here, to the right.
Are You There Chris? It’s Us, Students.
In August 2008 the newly-appointed Dean for Student Life Chris Colombo told <i>The Tech</i> that “there is a process where the conversation goes both ways” in regards to student life policy. However, this vital communication pipeline has been ineffectual or broken down in a number of areas since Dean Colombo took office last year.
Letters to the Editor
Lobby 7 is already a beautiful architectural space, to which the apparently empty plinths (waiting for the viewer’s imagination, or the viewer’s person, to fill them in) contribute greatly. Putting in statues, even classical ones in keeping with the Roman feeling of the lobby, would detract from the effect; worse yet would be inserting artwork so trendily contemporary as to turn one of the main entrances to the Institute into a permanent display of one decade’s taste.
UA Update
Senate met on Monday, November 16. Additions to Summer/Fall 2009 Finance Board Appeals were passed, and 41 U.A.S. 6.3: Fresh Fund Allocations allocated money from the Fresh Fund to many newly-recognized student groups. The 2013, 2012, and 2011 Class Council budgets were also approved by Senate. 41 U.A.S. 6.4: Re-Charging the Enrollment Committee, a bill to re-charge the UA Committee on Enrollment in light of the likely increase in enrollment, was passed. Two bills regarding the procedure to nominate a student to a position on an Institute Committee, 41 U.A.S. 6.1: Applicability of Nominations Committee Process and 41 U.A.S. 6.2: Nomination Process for Ex Officio Members of Institute Committees, were presented, but both will be voted on at later meetings. Finally, summaries of the past three years of Senate prepared by the UA History Committee were approved.
MIT’s Obligation to the Hyatt’s Workers
Recently, I was jogging near my dorm when I passed a group of people holding bunches of red helium balloons that read, “Boycott Hyatt.” Curious, I approached a protester and asked him why he wanted to boycott the Hyatt Regency Cambridge, a hotel next to Tang Hall patronized by MIT visitors, parents, and scientific meetings.
Letters to the Editor
I was excited to read a letter written to <i>The Tech</i> on November 3rd by Rachel Sealfon, “Where are the College Democrats.” It is a question I and many other members of the College Democrats of Massachusetts have asked. MIT is world-renowned for being on the forefront of political action and social thought in our nation, so why is it that there is no organized group of College Democrats on campus? I worked last year as the Student Coordinator for the Obama campaign in Massachusetts, and saw firsthand the amazing work that “MIT for Obama” accomplished. Leaders of that group, like Catherine Havasi ’03 and Shankar Mukherji G, were able to register hundreds of MIT students from “Obama swing states” to vote in that state, where their vote could make a difference. Imagine the work an organized and established group could do on behalf of the re-election campaigns of Governor Patrick, President Obama, and many other progressives. So here is my challenge: the Executive Board of the College Democrats of Massachusetts will sit down with anyone interested in starting a MIT College Democrats chapter, anytime, anyplace. Feel free to contact me, (508) 241-6200 or <i>johnsonp@macollegedems.org</i>.
The Empty Plinths of Lobby 7
As one who is particularly fascinated by the synergistic relation between people and architecture (how architecture affects people and how people interpret and affect architecture), I find the plinths in Lobby Seven to be one of the most endearing and defining aspects of MIT. What many may not know is that William Welles Bosworth, the architect of MIT’s main academic buildings, also intended to erect a three-story statue of Minerva in front of Building 10. However, such an enormous idol was vetoed by Richard Maclaurin, President of MIT, during its transition from Boston to Cambridge, and it soon became a running joke between the two (Bosworth was adamant about the Minerva, but President Maclaurin would have none of it). As such, when one enters Killian Court nowadays, he or she is greeted by the overwhelming mass of the buildings themselves, topped by the imposing dome of Barker Library —much more representative symbols of the Institute than a literal and figural (not to mention gargantuan) representation of wisdom.
A Defense of Capitalism
In his November 6 column in <i>The Tech</i>, entitled “Who Does Capitalism Really Work For?,” Alexi Goranov argues that, given the current economic and social state of America, it is clear that there must be an overhaul of the system. Greedy corporations and those in the upper echelon of the economic ladder have stopped at nothing to profit at the expense of America’s working class. The system has rewarded the few while failing to provide for the majority of Americans. Therefore, it is our responsibility to initiate a new, democratic way of doing things, one that puts people before money.
Letters to the Editor
The recently filed will of Jeffry Picower, who granted 50 million dollars to MIT (2001 to 2005) to fund the Picower Institute for Learning and Memory, specifies that much of his remaining assets be placed in a new charitable foundation devoted largely to funding medical research. What will be receiving attention at the MIT Treasurer’s office no doubt is that the will directs that the new foundation in its first year grant MIT an additional 25 million dollars for the Picower Institute for Learning and Memory. It is now known from court filings in the Madoff case that Jeffry Picower received over 7 billion “net” in phony profits from the Madoff Ponzi, and that this constitutes the bulk of his wealth. So I ask:
To Research or Not to Research?
“We need more research!” This was the rallying call of climate scientist and MIT alum David Keith ’91 at the Geoengineering Symposium held at MIT just over a week ago. This is, of course, the scientist’s traditional response when challenged, but when considering research in geoengineering, the risk is that we may be damned if we do and damned if we don’t.