Crimes

This according to Thomas Bartlett and Elyse Ashburn at the Chronicle of Higher Education:

It appears that Mr. Cho may have been planning the massacre for more than a month. According to the Associated Press, he went to a Roanoke, Va., gun shop five weeks ago and walked out with a Glock 19 handgun and 50 rounds of ammunition. Mr. Cho also used a .22-caliber handgun in the slayings.

This according to Andrea Hopkins and Patricia Zengerle at Reuters:

The gunman who went on a rampage at Virginia Tech had been confronted by university police in 2005 over complaints he was bothering women students and was sent to a mental health facility because of worries he was suicidal, police said on Wednesday.

And they let this guy have a gun!

This according to the Economist:

IT IS surely an American oddity that, after the worst mass shooting in the country’s history, some are already saying that such horrors would be less likely if only guns were easier to own and carry. Americans love firearms.

Can we speak of a culture of violence?

This according to a Reuters report from Baghdad:

Car bombs killed nearly 170 people in Baghdad on Wednesday in the deadliest attacks in the city since U.S. and Iraqi forces launched a security crackdown aimed at halting the country's slide into sectarian civil war.

And our president wants more fire power to... what? ... fight fire with fire? Oooh boy, we see how well that works!

Nota Bene (full disclosure): the author of this post was once a member of the NRA, at the age of 13, while attending a military academy in Virginia! I have shot weapons at paper and clay targets. I wish never to aim one at a human being. I own none. My membership to the NRA has long since expired.

Trickling rejection

The academic rejection letters trickle in, day by day. I mentioned a couple days ago that I had received the official letter from Joe Krowicki at [Lake View U.]. A few others have been crossing my transom.

Today brought three more:

The expected disappointment:

Dear Dr. Dad,

On behalf of [Research Center] at [Big West Private], I would like to thank you for your interest in our junior faculty position. It was a pleasure to review your supplementary materials with the members of the search committee. However, I regret to inform you...

Please accept our wishes for much success in your career, and thank you for your interest in [Big West Private].

Sincerely,
Larry Strope

The impersonal send-off:

Dear Dr. Dad:

I am writing with regard to your application for X at Y. The Search Committee has completed its review of the submitted credentials, and I am sorry to report that your application is no longer under consideration for this position. The Committee was very impressed with the quality of the applications submitted. The selection of candidates from the overall field was not an easy task...

Sincerely,
[Name], Dean

And, the heart-warming heartbreak (to be noted alongside the recent letter Trillwing presented):

Dear Articulate [Middle Name] Dad:

Thank you for your application for the Assistant Professor of [Subfield 1] at [University].

In most faculty searches, the university receives from one hundred to four hundred applications. Nearly all applicants are qualified by academic training and degree program, so the task of each search committee is a daunting one. Our hiring process calls for the committee to present ten to twenty files to the dean for review and ultimately to recommend a small number of candidates, normally three, for campus interviews.

We are painfully aware that many excellent candidates exist in what are sometimes very crowded fields. I can assure you that your application was read with attention and evaluated carefully. In this case, however, you were not among those finalists for the position who were invited to campus. One of those finalists has now been offered and has accepted the position.

The search committee and I thank you for your interest in [University]. We wish you the best in your effort to find an appropriate and attractive faculty appointment.

Sincerely,
[Name], Academic Vice President

The pain does not diminish.This last letter hit me the hardest. Such a fine pool of qualified and talented candidates. What a stupid waste for society to not use those talents. And why am I here? Why do I still torture myself, with almostness?

A dangerous and destructive legacy

So what will we leave behind?

Years ago, a cousin of mine, PhD in Economics, presented the theory that the aim of the neo-cons in Washington was to bankrupt the U.S. government, thus destroying its abilities to support domestic programs, while enriching the military-industrial complex.

Destroyer in Chief yesterday announced his plans to vociferously argue for a shift in priorities for the U.S. budget, austerity at home, and billions upon billions of dollars for war. Defense spending they call it. It's not defense (though certainly some of it may be). Let's call it what it is: "military expenditures".

And what is the response from those we intend to fight? The Taliban promise a surge of their own, a spring offensive of suicide bombings in Afghanistan. And what of Iraq? A U.S. general on the ground warns that their last ditch effort to secure Bagdhad with American human sandbags will take time. Indeed!

Such a legacy to leave behind. Endless War with a Hydra, now that is pure genius! I've learned in raising my children that it's important to connect the correcting behaviors I engage in with an intended end result. Merely bashing at loggerheads results in continued escalation with no end in sight. What is our intention in fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq? Because unless we know that, we have no way of heading towards it.

Put another way, you can't defeat hatred and violence if what you have to offer in return is only more hatred and violence. It's like fighting yeast with sugar, or drought with salt.

I do not defend the fanatics who would encourage suicide bombings, or worse engage in them. They are barbarians. No way to slice it that makes killing one's own, and killing others a prosperous enterprise. But what are we offering in return?

Why not redeploy our U.S. combat troops in Iraq mostly to secure the borders. No one in or out of Iraq, until the violence, the daily suicide bombings, the utter destruction, subsides. Because, while Iraq may continue in unabated chaos, the greater fear at the moment is that a rapid withdrawal by the U.S. would result in a far more effective breeding ground for exporting terrorists around the world. Why not also put our full commitment behind infrastructure building. Isn't that why we have an Army Corps of Engineers? $100 billion more? For what. Damn it, there are ways to spend money that actually bring positive results.

The issue is this: the lack of foresight and planning on the part of the Bush administration in entering Iraq, overthrowing the government, with considering any of the previous work that had studied the likely consequences, and preparing for what might follow, has resulted in unprecedented chaos. But the past is the past. It's the future that we must create. We can not simply exit, because we are in large part responsible for the mess. It may not in fact be truly salvageable at this point. We need to face that. But we need to do what we can to work toward an end result. Where are we heading?

Commute the commute

Yesterday, returning home from my language class, I spent 30 minutes driving the distance from campus to the highway on-ramp. Yes, really. We're talking about 1-2 miles tops! As I sat in traffic (wishing I had Ianqui beside me to snap a photo, because I just know she would have loved it), a fellow jogged by, with a simple yellow t-shirt, the bold letters clearly custom made on the cheap:

I HATE CARS

was all it read. At that moment, I wanted to abandon my vehicle, chase him down and hug him. I hated cars too.

I listened during the infuriating drive (two and a half hours before I stopped the engine in my driveway), to NPR covering the UN Report on climate change. And I thought to myself just what the hell am I doing here? Granted, I could in fact (most weeks) take public transport, but that would guarantee a minimum of two hours each way, with a transfer to another bus, assuming they keep schedule, which I seriously doubt. Meaning, I could be stranded halfway there. Not like the public transport in the Old World.

Okay, I confess to another thing: I am pretty good in this language, pretty good at understanding what is said to me, pretty good at making myself understood, and pretty good at making sense of what I read... well, with the assistance of a good dictionary and a reference grammar. I'm actually pretty awful when it comes to producing the right grammatical construct. Admittedly, I studied the language for all of 8 weeks, a decade ago at a summer workshop. I've been to the country several times, including 10 months as a Fulbrighter.

This class is for me, not for a requirement, for the instructor, nor for credit; it's for me to improve my skills, period. Point being: the commute, to sit through an hour and a half of hand-holding and impatience, simply doesn't sit well with me. Of course, I've paid for the class, so I suppose I can propose that we communicate via email re: my independent project (which is actually relevant to my dissertation-to-book project). Whatever, I don't think I can sit through that traffic again, knowing that I'd rather be spending Friday evening having a relaxing dinner with my family, contributing less to global warming and pollution. I am working nearly every day with the language, so I expect that my skills will necessarily improve.

I think this might be for the best.

James Robert Orville

The sign read:

Broke
Hungry

A bearded middle-aged man, with sallow eyes, and beady pupils, knit cap on his head, cracked hands, dirty finger nails, stood at the traffic light. I couldn't look at him much. Only a small container of goldfish cracker crumbs lay on the tray-table in the front of our van. Not worth handing over. I prefer not to give money. No telling where it will end up.

The light was red. He stood just feet away. He is a human being, I thought. I rolled down the window, and asked if he'd eat a burger. He was numb, stumblingly incomprehending. I asked again, and said I'd get him a burger and bring it back. He mumbled something about putting a lot of arsenic on it.

I drove on, to Staples to buy some colored printer paper for flyers for my [longitudinal project] (damn it, I'm going to get subjects one way or another!). I looked for Nutrigrain bars at the store. Perhaps something he could store in his pockets would be better. Nothing but candy and pretzels.

I drove to the Jack in the Box, and bought a breakfast sandwich, drove down the block, parked. I grabbed an audio recorder, and the sandwich bag, then walked to the corner. Hey, buddy, buddy... take a break, I brought you a sandwich. He nearly dashed into traffic before I warned of oncoming cars.

He walked, and sat with me on a bus bench. I asked if I could record him. Let's just say that part of my research entails listening to people talk. Why not do a kindness and get some potential research done at the same time. He wasn't so dumbfounded and wary this time. I suppose it's like unexpectedly hearing a language you speak; though you understand the words, you're not sure you heard aright. He replied to my inquiry: I wrote a poem... back in 1992, in a cemetery in Denver. Want to hear it.

I listened, and recorded. Much road noise. Don't know if the recording will give me much. I sat for 14 minutes, watching him shake while he ate. His breath smelled of stale alcohol. But, he was human. A bit worse for the wear, for sure. Didn't learn much about him, not enough to fill out the story of why he went from earning $980/week driving trucks and working on a farm in Iowa to subsisting on 80 cents a day (and I wasn't pan-handling... I'd find it under soda machines and the like).

He said: thanks for the sandwich.

I shook his hand and replied: Everyone deserves to eat, buddy, everyone deserves to eat.

And I meant it.

Make it so

Reuters yesterday reported on hearings before the U.S. Congress.

Two choice citations:

"I think the constitutional scheme does give Congress broad authority to terminate a war," said Bradford Berenson, a Washington lawyer who was a White House associate counsel under Bush from 2001 to 2003.

"It is ultimately Congress that decides the size, scope and duration of the use of military force," said Walter Dellinger, former acting solicitor general -- the government's chief advocate before the Supreme Court -- in 1996-97, and an assistant attorney general three years before that.

Ted Koppel's opinion piece on NPR this morning calls into question the honesty on both sides of the debate. Perhaps, as he intimates the world (or more precisely, "the oil-rich Persian Gulf" in Koppel's words) is a more dangerous place today than it was before our invasion, and perhaps a hasty retreat would not in the end change that fact. But time moves in one direction. The question is not what we might or should have done, but what to do from now. I am neither in a position to affect nor know that proper course, but elected officials are.

On the one hand, I'd like to see the decision-making ripped unceremoniously from the administration, yet that would create a dangerous precedent. In real times of crisis, decisions need to be made rapidly and clearly, rather than by committee. That is the role of our President. Yet, this one? I don't trust him. I don't respect him. I feel the world is today a far worse place than the one it was when he took office, and in large part because of his disastrous decisions. Perhaps the best thing would be to impeach him if cause enough could be found (but first Dick Cheney, who's arguably far more dangerous as a leader)... but is that really practicable? Would it really solve anything today and tomorrow? Would it possibly set yet another bad precedent, and perhaps worse enmire this nation into wasted effort, which better could be spent on positive action?

These dilemmae, sad to say, are the result of democracy. Conspiracy theories of stolen elections aside, I credit the majority of the American voting public with failure, in electing (or at least re-electing) this awful team of morons to lead our nation and the world into the maelstrom.

So, I say to the congress, take the reins as best you can, not precipitously, nor callously, nor carelessly. But take the reins out of the hands of those who steer our cart, and find a direction that works. You have been entrusted with great power. Use it, wisely and good.

What was I saying about priorities?

A couple of days ago, I suggested a new national goal.

Last night Texas Yahoo, still proud of his C average in college, proved once again the current lack of interest in higher education in America. The loyal opposition's response? Nothing to write home about.

From Inside Higher Ed:

Higher education is rarely front and center in presidential State of the Union addresses — but rarely is it invisible, either, as it was Tuesday night in President Bush’s seventh such speech. In a speech heavy on foreign affairs, he did not mention any college programs or efforts or in any way refer to higher education. The closest he came to an issue relevant to colleges was a plea to Congress to cut back on the earmarks, or directed grants, that lawmakers love to give to their constituents, and for which many postsecondary institutions line up. The president’s references to education focused on his signature K-12 program, No Child Left Behind, which is up for renewal in Congress this year. College officials hoping for some nod from the president toward a hoped-for Pell Grant increase may wonder if his neglect of higher education portends what will happen in Congress in the coming year — with the No Child Left Behind reauthorization eclipsing higher education issues, including efforts to carry out the recommendations of the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education. (For what it’s worth, the only higher education-specific statement in Sen. Jim Webb’s Democratic response to the State of the Union address was a reference to “off the chart” college tuition prices, in a list of reasons why Americans are struggling economically.

Just to clarify, the principal reason tuition rates are high is because of the low level of support from the government. The funds must come from somewhere. When I was an officer of my graduate student union, dealing with our periodic renegociation of health insurance, I remember having to bring this home to graduate students who wished to add new coverage, and to avoid raising the deductible, both of which were opposed by the administration. Why? If more was spent on insurance, less would be available for fellowships. More coverage, fewer recipients.

Bear in mind, I am a person who finished my bachelor's degree with more than $40,000 worth of student loans. One great tragedy of the present Bush fiasco was the stepping back from the great program of Direct Student Loans, started under Clinton, returning to the brazen government subsidies of private lenders, wasting tax dollars to support private profits, at the expense of taxpayer and students. But, while I am aware of a move in Europe toward the "American model" of higher education, I wish to point out that requiring their students to pay a few hundred dollars in tuition is a far cry from the burdens of American students and families. The answer, however, is not to decry the cost of tuition, as if it were the fault of institutions of higher learning, but simply to raise the level of support from the government, increasing not only Pell Grant funding, but adding billions of dollars of support for graduate student and faculty grants, for new infrastructure, for increased hiring, for technology, for staff. Again, I ask, what are our priorities?

A new national goal (after war)

Okay, let's say (with great optimism) that we are on the tail-end of the recent push to war in American politics. Let's assume that the end of our military involvement in Iraq is in sight. Let's believe that the obscenity of military expenditures we've seen over the past especially six years is winding down.

I spoke with my wife this evening. She says she's in a hotel suite big enough for ten. How odd I think that our government (her career is, in some round about but rather tangible way, supported by government agencies) and economy has so much money to lavish on engineers, yet there is unceasing lament over the cost of higher education, such that an announcement from Princeton that it will not raise tuition is hailed but briefly as momentous.

Remember 1999? President Bill Clinton was pushing for more cops on the streets, and pledging federal funds to do it. What would happen to this country, and the world, if a president with vision (work with me here) would propose a goal to increase the number of professors in the country by 100,000, or let's be bold... why not set a goal to double the number of college and university professors over the next 20 years? I mean, honestly, the $6 billion that Clinton pledged for increasing the police force is a drop in the bucket next to what Texas Yahoo has spent on ensuring that those who hated us before hate us even more. What are our priorities?

A totally off the wall proposal

Think Fulbright.
Think Teach for America.
Think global post-docs.

Why are there so many highly qualified, energetic, enthusiastic, intelligent PhDs wallowing away, frittering their talents? Why will so many of us wind up throwing away those strengths rather than sharing them in teaching and research?

Are there not needs for faculty, scholars, and researchers at universities around the globe? Sure, Fulbright offers grants for scholars, researchers, and faculty, but from my experience, these are opportunities reserved for (or highly preferenced towards) the already affiliated.

But just what could we do with a program that placed recent post-docs within their fields at universities around the world, for one year or two or three year stints? I think a great deal of good.

Why do I not look forward to Saddam's execution?

Why?

First, it is quite simple. I take no delight in murder or revenge. They are the marks of animals, not human beings.

As Percy Shelley wrote, in The Mask of Anarchy:

...What is Freedom?--ye can tell
That which slavery is, too well--
For its very name has grown
To an echo of your own.

... 'Tis to be a slave in soul
And to hold no strong control
Over your own wills, but be
All that others make of ye.

...Then it is to feel revenge
Fiercely thirsting to exchange
Blood for blood--and wrong for wrong--
Do not thus when ye are strong.

Simple enough advice. A measure of strength, I believe.

Murder is barbarism. The death penalty is unbecoming a modern world. Execution is barbaric; it reflects on the victors far more than the victims.

Second, assuming Saddam is guilty of even a portion of what he has been accused (which I have little reason to doubt), the least, the very least, that a civilized nation, a civilized court could offer is a fair trial, which I have little reason to believe his was. The closure that a fair trial, a fair finding of guilty, a harsh but civilized penalty that reflects the nature of the society in which it is issued rather than the bestial properties of the accused.

Pity that. And pity that the animals who led my great nation to war, to exchange barbarism for barbarism, violence for violence, blood for blood, wrong for wrong, who ensnared the innocent in the midst of that, who caused the deaths of thousands upon thousands, who destroyed a portion of our youth, poisoning their lives with death and murder still have not acknowledged their mistakes, their deceit for God-knows-what purpose to attack the tyrant of a nation, indeed that nation itself, in exchange for an attack on our soil which had nothing to do with them.

I grieve for my world, and hope that humanity will return for my children's sake.

America to rejoin the world of civilized diplomacy?

John Bolton resigns his post at the UN.

Can we celebrate yet?