David Spencer Nelson – The Stanford Daily https://stanforddaily.com Breaking news from the Farm since 1892 Mon, 13 Feb 2012 06:32:44 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.3 https://stanforddaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/cropped-DailyIcon-CardinalRed.png?w=32 David Spencer Nelson – The Stanford Daily https://stanforddaily.com 32 32 204779320 The Mixed Messages of Modernism: I’d say https://stanforddaily.com/2012/02/03/the-mixed-messages-of-modernism-id-say/ https://stanforddaily.com/2012/02/03/the-mixed-messages-of-modernism-id-say/#comments Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:27:54 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1058025 Some of the unconventional behavior is justified: it brings out more substance at the cost of less space, oftentimes. It can be distracting and irritating, too. But the use of “I” in serious opinions writing, I take profound umbrage with.

The post The Mixed Messages of Modernism: I’d say appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The Mixed Messages of Modernism: I'd sayThis is my last column, for a while at least, and one of the last in Vol. 240 of The Daily. I thought it would be fitting to provide some commentary about just why I have done my best to avoid saying “I.”

 

Using the third person is a long-held journalistic convention. But like many conventions, it can be broken, and nowhere are journalistic norms more often flaunted than in opinions sections. Dispassion and objectivity are not required, and sometimes license is taken to defy Strunk, White and the AP guidelines. Some of the unconventional behavior is justified: it brings out more substance at the cost of less space, oftentimes. It can be distracting and irritating, too. But the use of “I” in serious opinions writing, I take profound umbrage with.

 

“I” serves as a consistent reminder of the person writing the column. Like a brushstroke on a painting, it calls out the human origin of the ideas discussed. That, in my opinion, distracts and detracts from a column’s purpose and potential.

 

If anything, I’d rather distance my opinions from who I am. I would like to let an opinion stand on its own. When I write, I am not trying to make my opinion known. The intention behind the action is not expressive. I am hoping to make a solidly constructed opinion known, so others can make a judgment on it. The more I can absent myself from that process, the better. If I wanted everyone to know what I thought and do that alone, I could bring a soapbox to White Plaza, stand on it and yell. But I do not want the origin of the opinion to be a significant fact, nor do I want the manner of delivery to be intrusive. It is my hope that readers will encounter the work on their own terms, taking it as though it were an idea pulled from the air. The degree of separation between my column and myself might seem vaguely absurd, but it does have purpose.

 

Nothing in my life has ever made me as frustrated as the sentence, “You only say that because you’re…” When writing about the value of club sports, the knee-jerk reaction on the part of those in opposition is to say that I am, in fact, a club sports player and could not be expected to say anything else. That, however, is a blatant misstep. When people speak, it is a reflexive defense to typecast them, to disparage their opinions on account of who they are and to assume that their opinions are formed merely as direct reactions to one circumstance or another. When this happens, caricatures replace serious belief and personal diatribes take the place of dialogue. I find that the ad hominem attack lies at the basis of much theoretical agreement. When the mouth is disagreeable, many find its product likewise distasteful. The absence of “I” forces a reader to assail my arguments, not my person.

 

But the ultimate reason why I don’t use “I” is that “I” is unimportant. If my self were influential in how you evaluate my arguments, you would be failing us both (unless you suspected me of factual inaccuracy). What does “I” add? A face and a reputation, to be sure. But never should those things figure into your stance toward an opinion or argument. I would never want someone to believe in my arguments by force of who I am. That is mimicry, not thought.

 

In writing this, I have tried “I” on for size and found that it adds nothing. Perhaps it makes a piece more personable and relatable, but it is never my intention to provide that sort of personal satisfaction. Fiction writers traffic in the currency of personal fulfillment, but it is for opinions writers to help clarify and introduce new means of looking at the world and its problems. To be sure, this does not mean that dryness need be the order of the day. Columnists should have passion for their subjects but imbue their writing with fervor instead of declaring their sympathies. Columnists should strive for persuasion, not commiseration, not to express passion, but to help others to direct their own.

 

Looking to get to know Spencer on a more…personal level? Then why not email him at dsnelson “at” stanford “dot” edu?

 

The post The Mixed Messages of Modernism: I’d say appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2012/02/03/the-mixed-messages-of-modernism-id-say/feed/ 1 1058025
The Mixed Messages of Modernism: Piracy in Perspective https://stanforddaily.com/2012/01/27/the-mixed-messages-of-modernism-piracy-in-perspective/ https://stanforddaily.com/2012/01/27/the-mixed-messages-of-modernism-piracy-in-perspective/#respond Fri, 27 Jan 2012 08:27:49 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1055857 The battle between Congress and our loyal search engines, stalking-enablers and information-providers was styled like this: entrepreneurs against the entertainment titans, providers of absurd salaries to equally absurd figures like the Kardashians; a battle of the new and just versus the old and stubborn.

The post The Mixed Messages of Modernism: Piracy in Perspective appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The Mixed Messages of Modernism: Piracy in PerspectiveThe intricacies of law – those giant red books that law students tote around, or the very phrase “tort reform” – are about as interesting to most people as 1920s Hungarian silent film. The Stop Online Piracy (SOPA) and Protect IP (PIPA) Acts brought to the fore today’s most meaningful legal issue. Many websites (Google, Facebook and Reddit, among others) responded forcefully, in part for their own survival, to the prospect of increased regulation. Wikipedia’s daylong blackout, the most prominent of the protests, embodied the passionate assault on SOPA and PIPA. The Internet’s users and providers, as disunited and disorganized as they are, managed to string together a strong, collective response.

 

The battle between Congress and our loyal search engines, stalking-enablers and information-providers was styled like this: entrepreneurs against the entertainment titans, providers of absurd salaries to equally absurd figures like the Kardashians; a battle of the new and just versus the old and stubborn.

 

It’s true that the entertainment industry is off. It’s a massive business. It makes enormous sums. Its stars are paid in millions, often for doing little more than showing a cameraman their lavish lifestyle. I find myself wondering why certain celebrities are famous. Sometimes even trusty Wikipedia can’t provide a solid answer. Those who criticize Wall Street for absurd pay scales can find ready targets on the silver screen. Finding its enemy, the Web unleashed its anger with ferocity. They claimed it to be a defense of freedom. To some extent, they had the right to. Linking to illegal content probably should not be made illegal.

 

The content, however, remains a problem. Piracy is rarely discussed as an ethical issue, but it is one. It was created by people who rely on its purchase for income and who have the right to expect it. As commercialism has crept into art and the markets for music, movies and TV grown, the personal connections we held with rock stars and actors have diminished. No longer would one feel bad for shortchanging an artist, a producer or a studio. Thinking in the short term, it does not pain me when Justin Bieber loses income or when Steven Spielberg’s movies lose a small part of their attendance. They will make millions with or without my patronage.

 

Many take umbrage with the proliferation of artists who achieve fame merely on their ability to appeal, if only providing modest pleasure, to the widest audiences and therefore be more profitable. That perceived lack of intrinsic value often provides the little justification Web users need to download relentlessly – why should they have to pay for things whose prices are driven up in pursuit of profits, and whose worth is so little? Some, not concerned with the quality of the work but with the motivations of its producers, simply feel no obligation to pay. The Free Culture movement and others believe that copyright laws simply detract from our culture and our freedoms. Most, however, take the motivations and manners of the entertainment industry to be an unspoken justification for piracy.

 

The practice of piracy has perhaps made the entertainment industry the monolith it is. The distortion of the market that is caused by people downloading instead of buying contributes to that as well. In legal consumption, consumers wield immense power. In buying products, consumers lend approval, funds and encouragement for future projects. Downloading content forfeits that power. It absents consumers from economic dialogue. It is a comfort that the market for media is so large that mere scale prevents this from largely distorting social interests.

 

But on the margins, those actions can push smaller producers, especially of niche content, out of the market. Producers lose their incentive to produce up-and-coming artists. New genres and artistic adventure are reduced when companies realize that being adventurous in their actions is much less economically rational than producing typical content for guaranteed markets. Our public culture becomes vapid and boring because monetary concerns overpower artistic ones, in large part due to the reduced overall market.

 

The piracy market is just like any other illegal one: black, off the grid, and difficult to analyze or track. As such, its contribution to society’s tastes is greatly diminished. The overall consumer base is reduced. The content produced, the choices in creative thought require greater consideration of the commercial element. Maximally profitable content will be pushed to the front, diminishing the diversity and adventurousness of our media. So maybe we, as conscious consumers, should change our habits and realize the effect they have on culture, which we hope to entertain us for years to come.

 

Spencer knows you wouldn’t download a car, but would you download his column? Let him know at dsnelson “at” stanford “dot” edu.

The post The Mixed Messages of Modernism: Piracy in Perspective appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2012/01/27/the-mixed-messages-of-modernism-piracy-in-perspective/feed/ 0 1055857
The Mixed Messages of Modernism: Let apathy ring? https://stanforddaily.com/2012/01/20/the-mixed-messages-of-modernism-let-apathy-ring/ https://stanforddaily.com/2012/01/20/the-mixed-messages-of-modernism-let-apathy-ring/#respond Fri, 20 Jan 2012 10:38:39 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1054935 There’s nothing quite like a professor’s opinion to end a debate. Replacing your own thoughts with the comfortable ability to endorse something that seems respectable, even if foreign, is easy and natural. So professors rarely make their opinions known in discussion, if only to prevent section from becoming lousy with students parroting them back until the debate devolves into unthinking stagnancy.

The post The Mixed Messages of Modernism: Let apathy ring? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The Mixed Messages of Modernism: Let apathy ring?There’s nothing quite like a professor’s opinion to end a debate. Replacing your own thoughts with the comfortable ability to endorse something that seems respectable, even if foreign, is easy and natural. So professors rarely make their opinions known in discussion, if only to prevent section from becoming lousy with students parroting them back until the debate devolves into unthinking stagnancy.

 

Liberal arts colleges and universities alike swear by their unbiased fostering of considered and careful thought, but most, through their professors and administrations, lend tacit or active sponsorship to a single creed. There’s little mystery as to what ideas leading universities endorse. I have no bone to pick with this consensus. But the development of this tacit agreement in academia may have cost it exactly what it hoped to stir up: active campus debates and political action.

 

The resolution of controversy is the most appropriate use of the able mind. In college we are given the opportunity to wade deeply and forcefully into it. We have outlets for expression of varieties political, artistic and social. Yet it somehow seems as though that place has been superseded. “Occupy the Future” and its ilk of University-encouraged action do more to hamstring students attempting to form political movements than help them. Many students are left with a troubling picture of political life on campus, and begin to feel a lament creeping up. We no longer have agency, as could and was delivered through university indifference. Rather, we are provided with the sense of a child being nudged by his or her parent towards better ideas, which does much to stifle our zeal for action. Where there was once the opportunity to revel in the independence of our thought, there is only a nagging sense of obligation.

 

Not only does the attitude, real or merely perceived, of our surroundings change the actions of normal supporters, it muffles their opposition. The similarity between opinions voiced on campus is almost choir-like in its exactitude, when material things are said at all. Especially on social matters, dialogue uniformly falls to one side, and the other is ridiculed in absentia. The dissidents are present yet confine themselves to their own company. Those whose opinions don’t line up feel the pressure of knowing where campus authorities’ judgment will fall. As a result, the possibility of an enlivening clash and debate is much reduced. Those who felt as though there was a moral duty owed to act are dissuaded by the absence of a fray to dive into.

 

It is those professors who brought about academia’s consensus who are most disappointed by its direction. Political fervor has largely been by pre-professional drive. In that, we have lost something integral to that experience which we call college. Rather than being heady, our collegiate life is focused around drive and persistence in the place of an intellectual experience. Nowhere is this more evident than in our extracurricular pursuits.

 

The meat of our actions expresses our drive but not our intelligence and shows our desire to be good people but neglects our need to be thinking people. We have shied away from being decisive in our beliefs. We would rather serve the community than seek to improve or criticize it with our minds. It is hard to call our extracurricular commitments fickle, as transparent as they may often seem. While they may be motivated by a simple sense of duty or the need for a well-ornamented resume, I would not call any of our community service clubs misguided on those grounds. But on another I certainly could. The most prominent feature of Stanford’s extracurricular activities is their completely uncontroversial nature; our campus’ most active commitment is to avoiding that which our professors want us to greet head-on.

 

I believe that universities may create better citizens today than they did yesterday. Stanford does nothing if not remind students that they are duty-bound to the society that makes their achievements possible. Anyone who remembers convocation can remember the public and community service mantra. I can’t speak to how effective they are in that regard. I can say, however, that this may be replacing a culture of thinking with a utilitarian culture that values thought so it can improve itself, but not materially change.

 

It says more than most would like to notice about Stanford’s student body that the strongest political response comes from its faculty and administration, not its students. Our most prominent political expression or involvement is an anemic protest in Meyer, and the University-organized events were twice as visible. I believe wholeheartedly that we students are capable of creating lively and passionate discourse, as well as action, on campus. I also believe that we can accomplish this far better independently than the University’s prodding can stir us to.

 

What better action can you take than emailing Spencer at dsnelson “at” stanford “dot” edu?

The post The Mixed Messages of Modernism: Let apathy ring? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2012/01/20/the-mixed-messages-of-modernism-let-apathy-ring/feed/ 0 1054935
The Mixed Messages of Modernism: A musical double standard https://stanforddaily.com/2012/01/13/the-mixed-messages-of-modernism-a-musical-double-standard/ https://stanforddaily.com/2012/01/13/the-mixed-messages-of-modernism-a-musical-double-standard/#respond Fri, 13 Jan 2012 08:27:20 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1054226 A wide array of statements we term insensitive or coarse is thought to reflect so strongly on the character of their speakers that they are put beyond public redemption. But consider the music that will be ringing in bars and clubs across the country this Friday night. That we should delight in lyrics so blatantly wrongheaded when upholding a culture so sensitive it often oppresses controversial debate is so ridiculous it defies explanation.

The post The Mixed Messages of Modernism: A musical double standard appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>

The Mixed Messages of Modernism: A musical double standard I value free speech. Reading otherwise-controversial ideas rarely bothers me, but I struggle to read The Atlantic because its tone is so moralizing. In my days at school, especially among those who term themselves “socially aware,” I have not found that mindset a common one. Instead, I have met an army of white knights, always at the ready to descend with righteous anger on those who say the wrong thing, and others who are less impassioned but share the sentiment.

 

Attitudes towards speech heavily favor the shaming, if not censorship, of certain varieties of speech. Saying something insensitive, whether true and to the point or not, is universally decried. Oftentimes, this is a reasonable reaction. Most would rather write something bland, boring and uninformative than offend someone else — even if just by challenging their beliefs. The consequences are by no means limited to mere social shaming. They reach deep into personal, professional and public life.

 

When gaffes of that sort are made in the public and private spheres, reactions are harsh and swift. When words reflecting attitudes of unadulterated selfishness, a desire for needless excess or a cavalier attitude towards violence come up in conversation, people shake their heads in disappointment. Many see it as necessary that politicians resign after faux pas that imply wrongheaded values. A wide array of statements we term insensitive or coarse is thought to reflect so strongly on the character of their speakers that they are put beyond public redemption. But consider the music that will be ringing in bars and clubs across the country this Friday night. That we should delight in lyrics so blatantly wrongheaded when upholding a culture so sensitive it often oppresses controversial debate is so ridiculous it defies explanation.

 

At parties and at home, about a third of the soundtrack of the budding ‘10s is comprised of music whose lyrics not only make no pretense to being moral, but actively glorify actions that alarm even the most apathetic among us. Which is really strange in this day and age. Everything is analyzed for undertones of malice and immorality. What is found lacking is harshly critiqued. Yet the role of drugs, violence and inhumane behavior in music has never been so large as it is today. Yes, they’ve always been a part of our music, but no one would guess what “Day Tripper” is about (the immaculately clean Paul McCartney is singing about a prostitute). “Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds” is riddled with drug references, but never do Ringo, John or George declare their love for codeine syrup and a host of serious drugs. Never do they give violence and manipulation a clear endorsement.

 

What is at the core of this double standard, that allows the veneration of casual immorality and insensitivity in one realm and not in every other? I could never pretend to know. It does, however, seem doubly absurd that this realm of clemency be music — the chosen form of entertainment, consolation and information about the adult world for teens, tweens and age groups too young to have a hip moniker.

 

This is not to say our music needs to change and I certainly do not advocate censorship. I will continue listening to the same things I always do. I merely want to point out how ludicrous it is that in a world where a police officer’s sexist, dumb, but apologized-for sentence at a 10-person public safety seminar at a law school in Toronto spurred an international movement, we not only abide by but encourage, admire and promote words reflecting much worse attitudes. We’ll pounce on statements that show the slightest signs of poor judgment, and do nothing but bob our heads while violence and carelessness are elevated onto our most prominent stages. We believe in free speech, but we also viciously attack that speech we deem unacceptable; then why is music exempt from our scrutiny?

 

The realization of our own inconsistency forces us to ask questions of the sincerity of our values. While I know plenty of Stanford students who won’t stomach a single word out of line, perhaps rightfully so, none of them takes issue with the music that inundates our airwaves. Neither do I, really. But it seems truly absurd that we can campaign against innumerable social ills and then give them tacit sponsorship by popularizing artists who make it central to their work. It’s not a problem I can properly address. But it certainly seems to have some hefty implications about our endorsement of our values and our beliefs about the media we let define our culture.

 

Is Tyler, the Creator not your ideal music? Let Spencer know at dsnelson “at” stanford “dot” edu.

The post The Mixed Messages of Modernism: A musical double standard appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2012/01/13/the-mixed-messages-of-modernism-a-musical-double-standard/feed/ 0 1054226
The Mixed Messages of Modernism: The Stanford experience https://stanforddaily.com/2011/11/18/the-mixed-messages-of-modernism-the-stanford-experience/ https://stanforddaily.com/2011/11/18/the-mixed-messages-of-modernism-the-stanford-experience/#respond Fri, 18 Nov 2011 08:27:26 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1051906 Before we arrived here, we all heard the obligatory generalities about college. The stories are even more enthusiastic when it comes to Stanford grads. “It was insane. I did so much. I learned so much. I met so many great people. I’ll never forget this one time...”

The post The Mixed Messages of Modernism: The Stanford experience appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The Mixed Messages of Modernism: The Stanford experienceBefore we arrived here, we all heard the obligatory generalities about college. The stories are even more enthusiastic when it comes to Stanford grads. “It was insane. I did so much. I learned so much. I met so many great people. I’ll never forget this one time…”

 

While Stanford and your freshman dorm will try to make you enmesh yourself in the life of our campus, it is easy to withdraw from social life and sleepwalk toward a degree. While it is true of high school that you will have a certain number of formative experiences whether you try or not, Stanford gives us the freedom not to have a college experience. Only here could it be easier to lock yourself up and study than to give into temptation and party the quarters away (simply because of how centralized the social scene is.) Stanford loads on enough work to consume most of your waking hours as you labor away, and many do. Many consider that option to be the most filial thing to do. A high GPA means that your parents’ wish for you to be successful in school and beyond is satisfied. That is true, but only in a limited way, and few would think so narrowly. It is tempting to deny the endeavors that will never make it onto a resume their due value, but performing them is what makes college more valuable than a mere degree.

 

As tempting and expected as it may be, you should never let your schooling get in the way of your education. Your happiness and the breadth of your learning are priorities that can’t be set aside in the name of success, or else the fullness of your experience and self will be sacrificed.

 

We should not be trying only to succeed academically in the long term and excel professionally in the short term. There are far more important things to seek than being better adjusted to work and managing a GPA. College’s greatest impact is not in the classroom. The cultivation Stanford offers here only begins in the classroom. Denying yourself nights and days of leisure means denying yourself important self-cultivation. Classes can be taken and retaken later in life at community colleges. Lectures can be heard on YouTube and lessons read from textbooks. It is the fusion of academic and social life and the communal experience of developing maturity that makes the college experience. No one comes here fully set in his or her ways. It is the chance to share the experience of deciding what is important to us and will shape our lives; this provides the education that is truly unique to the college environment.

 

Your schooling can do all this, too, but only when we take an interest in it beyond its career utility. I always surprised myself by how little I can learn in a class if I am not interested. There have been college classes that I took with such apathy that I couldn’t remember anything about them the quarter after. Translating schooling from factual knowledge to internalized learning isn’t a matter of course — it requires a special variety of effort.

 

It’s often said in a derisory way that college is the last time in life where you can just screw around. But many mistake not spending time in study for avoiding edification. Stanford students are obviously masterful at delaying gratification, but we can do so at the expense of much of life’s quality. The value of your classes is partly wasted when the material isn’t fodder for a nighttime debate, when it’s not internalized in the everyday. The investment in college is partly wasted when one spends too much time justifying the payment on your room and board (that was a really roundabout way of saying “staying inside.”) A successful career is a waste if it’s not accompanied by something good or pleasurable. I believe this wholeheartedly.

 

As much as our campus seems to push you to go out for clubs and plan your quarters to help build a resume, I advise a different regimen. Go do something intentionally useless and enjoyable. There’s nothing like a break, so seize the day to not seize the day and you may find you’ve achieved more than one can when chained to a desk.

 

First step to seize the day: email Spencer at dsnelson “at” stanford “dot” edu.

The post The Mixed Messages of Modernism: The Stanford experience appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2011/11/18/the-mixed-messages-of-modernism-the-stanford-experience/feed/ 0 1051906
The Mixed Messages of Modernism: Caused to act https://stanforddaily.com/2011/11/11/the-mixed-messages-of-modernism-caused-to-act/ https://stanforddaily.com/2011/11/11/the-mixed-messages-of-modernism-caused-to-act/#respond Fri, 11 Nov 2011 08:27:31 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1051654 Over the last two centuries, science has progressed to the point where, if something can’t be explained, we have faith that it is simply a matter of time until it is. Science has made us healthier and more secure. It has given us ground-shaking new media. We often forget that there was a time when the best possible means of understanding distant happenings was either an engraving or word of mouth. Now we can now transport actual sensory information across tremendous distances instantaneously. Science has made us, more than ever before, in control and in the know. It has been an empowering force; no longer do we need to cower in fear of inexplicable misfortunes.

The post The Mixed Messages of Modernism: Caused to act appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The Mixed Messages of Modernism: Caused to actOver the last two centuries, science has progressed to the point where, if something can’t be explained, we have faith that it is simply a matter of time until it is. Science has made us healthier and more secure. It has given us ground-shaking new media. We often forget that there was a time when the best possible means of understanding distant happenings was either an engraving or word of mouth. Now we can now transport actual sensory information across tremendous distances instantaneously. Science has made us, more than ever before, in control and in the know. It has been an empowering force; no longer do we need to cower in fear of inexplicable misfortunes.

We now have a readily explainable world. Not much of what we know has taken anything irretrievable out of human life. Perhaps with the gain of so many explanations, we have lost much of the mystery of the inexplicable. But primarily, science has liberated us from the unknown and given us a comfortable security: an empowerment, to be sure. The two disciplines, however, have taken from us this sense of empowerment and replaced it with resignation. Sociology and psychology have taken from us something of immediate gravity: the ownership and understanding of self. No longer can we decide. We can only be caused.

A science of man has been constructed such that our emotions and motivations well from places inaccessible to us. Whether we seek to explain by means of neural connections or subconscious happenings, neither affords the holder any special access to him or her inner self. We are forced to believe that a psychologist can better access us than we can. And even then, it is not from within ourselves that many of our actions stem, but from the webs of influences sociologists seek to discover. Our performance on tests can be reduced or enhanced by the threat of stereotype. We are incredibly suggestible, whether we know it or not.

Worse still, as we have come to understand man better, we have relinquished our access to the heights of goodness and achievement. Our acts of altruism can now be understood to be as selfish as taking the last slice of pizza. Our successes and failures can both be written off as institutional rather than individual outputs.

Our individuality, too, seems at risk. Prone to fits of passion and depression, Goethe? You may be bipolar. Ever eager to fight, Achilles? Maybe your testosterone is elevated — a pituitary tumor, perhaps? His psychiatrist may well tell him he’s sublimating a desire for his father’s love into a quest to prove himself. Either way, we cannot say the desire to battle was truly his. It did not originate in his conscious mind; he has not chosen it. He is not really free to decide. His unique traits, from his friendliness to his aggression, aren’t his own but his subconscious’, his society’s, his hormones’ and his neurons’ connections. His characteristics arise from predetermined causes. He cannot simply be strong or friendly, but must be caused to be so. He is hardly more responsible for his actions than he is responsible for his autonomic heartbeat.

It is a triumph of science that we can say we believe in a universally caused universe, that there are no actions without causes. However, it is also a terrible thing, as now we humans are also caused, and our actions originate in those causes and not in ourselves. The role of the conscious mind has been minimized and the meaningful actions of our lives have been removed from its control. It seems obvious to say that there is nothing about human action that exempts it from the laws of science, but its implications are less immediate. When we truly consider the pitfalls of a causally governed world, we realize that the essential truths that inform our everyday thinking are wrong. Free will, in the sense that we can make decisions independent of causes, may be fundamentally illusory. Agency may be mythical.

This realization doesn’t make it any less useful for us to consider our lives as primarily subject to our own agency. People who believe they own their lives are far more likely to succeed in them. Stanford-ites will know, but outside of our very driven realm, that way of thinking has become rare. In politics as well, we resist ever believing in the free exercise of agency on the part of our population. Every failure and success has a social cause, so much so that the responsibility of people is diminished to nothing. So, I say, have the courage to shape your own life, own it and own your actions. Own your characteristics and shortcomings, bad and good alike. While we may be caused, we have no way of knowing what those causes are, nor the destined outcome. The existence of such causes alone does not justify relinquishing the drive to make one’s life as good as it can be.

Come on, show Spencer you have some free will. Email him at dsnelson “at” stanford “dot” edu.

The post The Mixed Messages of Modernism: Caused to act appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2011/11/11/the-mixed-messages-of-modernism-caused-to-act/feed/ 0 1051654
The Mixed Messages of Modernism: Grand old problem in the GOP https://stanforddaily.com/2011/11/04/the-mixed-messages-of-modernism-grand-old-problem-in-the-gop/ https://stanforddaily.com/2011/11/04/the-mixed-messages-of-modernism-grand-old-problem-in-the-gop/#comments Fri, 04 Nov 2011 07:27:39 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1051480 It’s very difficult to imagine any of these people could be elected after the scrutiny of a national campaign, even if the opposition were much weaker than the dynamic Obama. It’s even harder to think about a realistic scenario where any of the three could pilot the United States through the economic and diplomatic complexities of the upcoming ‘10s with any more subtlety than a sledgehammer. Though that seems a widely known fact, they are still very popular. I cannot help but ask why.

The post The Mixed Messages of Modernism: Grand old problem in the GOP appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The Mixed Messages of Modernism: Grand old problem in the GOPThe field of Republican candidates for president makes many intellectual conservatives uncomfortable. Of the four Republican frontrunners, three are either woefully underqualified or proposing unrealistic policies and radically weighty social goals. Texas Governor Rick Perry is a radical of extremely marginal substance, so much so that he is trying to avoid presidential debates. (He said, “I’m a doer, not a talker,” in a recent campaign ad. Incidentally talking is part of the whole president gig.) Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann appears to be far more of a personality than a politician and is obviously pandering, just like Perry, to the electorate with simple, folksy rhetoric without intellectual backing. Former businessman Herman Cain is attempting to play off running a pizza company as valid experiential credentials for the highest office in our nation. It’s very difficult to imagine any of these people could be elected after the scrutiny of a national campaign, even if the opposition were much weaker than the dynamic Obama. It’s even harder to think about a realistic scenario where any of the three could pilot the United States through the economic and diplomatic complexities of the upcoming ‘10s with any more subtlety than a sledgehammer. Though that seems a widely known fact, they are still very popular. I cannot help but ask why.

The widespread lack of confidence in these three, who have at one time or another sped to the front of the polls, reflects a lack of belief in the conservative media and electorate. The tactics that are appealing to journalists and voters are the cheapest kind. Talk about small-town Main Street and vague cliches of patriotism are swaying hearts and minds instead of promises and policies. The talk is of frustration and the battle to take back Washington, not what doing so would achieve. Perhaps this was born out of a desire to be more accessible, but it has come to the point where substance is gradually being eliminated. The contest of proving who is most truly American has reached a point where any serious display of intellectual vigor is a serious image problem. But it has become stylish to be a joke, at least to discerning eyes, and electorally unadvisable to be a serious candidate.

A real question: How can one be an intellectual conservative in America? Even outside of the presidential race, most prominent Republicans become so by advocating policies very few people here at Stanford would endorse (think Peter King). There is no viable third-party option and there seems to be no realistic way to stop this simplifying trend, considering what appeals to the electorate. If I am to believe that all of this rhetoric will be transformed into reason after candidates are elected, I still have a problem. I cannot be convinced that it is wise to entrust someone with so much power who is so suggestible or, alternatively, so manipulative of his or her constituency. Either motivation seems unsuitable of POTUS.

The problem isn’t localized to the Republican Party. Last year’s campaign was won in large part by a one-word platform: “change.” That is not to say Obama’s campaign was baseless, but it appealed to voters on a basic level. It lured voters with the aesthetic of progress, but not progress itself.

I have a great deal of respect for the one Republican campaign that I feel, in my limited interaction with news media, continues to press its cause on substantive levels: that of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Romney talks in concrete terms about changing the way America’s entitlement systems work —  a highly unpopular topic. When confronted by folksiness in debates, he is insistently boring. The truth is, policy questions should have boring responses. Yet every candidate insists on couching everything in the nondescript terminology of folksiness. They’re either attempting to be very appealing, or so accessible that the line between communication and entertainment is blurred.

I, personally, would prefer a shamelessly boring campaign of very expected haircuts, so long as that lack of vibrancy allowed the important specificities to shine through. Our politics are far too superficial. We need something better if we are going to actually improve our country. We have an electorate that is continually impassioned but ignorant of the substance of issues — something we cannot afford in the 21st century. I hope there is some way the cycle can be broken.

Spencer would love to know your thoughts on 2012, so email him at dsnelson “at” stanford “dot” edu.

The post The Mixed Messages of Modernism: Grand old problem in the GOP appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2011/11/04/the-mixed-messages-of-modernism-grand-old-problem-in-the-gop/feed/ 2 1051480
The Mixed Messages of Modernism: Empty museums: an explanation https://stanforddaily.com/2011/10/28/the-mixed-messages-of-modernism-empty-museums-an-explanation/ https://stanforddaily.com/2011/10/28/the-mixed-messages-of-modernism-empty-museums-an-explanation/#comments Fri, 28 Oct 2011 07:27:10 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1051189 In the ‘60s, the question “what is art?” was answered by a chorus of “anything.” Since then, our culture has paid a high price. I gave up going to see anything made after 1917 when I saw a toilet bowl in the Whitney Museum. There was an American Standard toilet in one of America’s most renowned modern art museums. I was told it was a thought piece. Personally, I thought there was very little there. In September, I decided to go back. I saw vintage video games and machinery made to do odd things. I had an N64. I’ve already seen them in action.

The post The Mixed Messages of Modernism: Empty museums: an explanation appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The Mixed Messages of Modernism: Empty museums: an explanationIn the ‘60s, the question “what is art?” was answered by a chorus of “anything.” Since then, our culture has paid a high price. I gave up going to see anything made after 1917 when I saw a toilet bowl in the Whitney Museum. There was an American Standard toilet in one of America’s most renowned modern art museums. I was told it was a thought piece. Personally, I thought there was very little there. In September, I decided to go back. I saw vintage video games and machinery made to do odd things. I had an N64. I’ve already seen them in action.

I agree that all art and all beauty are subjectively defined. It doesn’t seem possible to contest that. But the common working definition of art as anything that provokes thought is the reason why no one really cares about it anymore. Everything can provoke some thought. Whether that thought is meaningful is an entirely different question.

The wilder, more “daring” varieties of visual art we see in our leading contemporary museums are generally trite — too obscure to have any profound meaning. Often it is simply too self-referential. It can only be comprehended by a small subset of people who have studied it all their lives. Even then, its ambition is limited and the work uninteresting. Other works are too expected. There is a battery of art, especially performance art, which just attempts to shock the viewer with the risque. It doesn’t challenge him or her to think differently. It does test the strength of the stomach, however. Pieces waver between easily comprehensible or totally random. Saying it provides food for thought doesn’t redeem its specialness — I could ponder the miracle of a mop without paying admission.

So what do we have in contemporary visual art? Aesthetic appeal has largely been done away with, save by a few artists like Bridget Riley, Tom Hunter and Gregory Crewdson. Otherwise, there’s little beauty or entertainment to be had. Entertainment and visual art have been separate for some time. If it isn’t amusing on a basic level or beautiful to our subjective minds, how can we engage with it? The intellectual level is rarely that rich. Defamiliarization is the main way people try to get at it. But rarely is the message more complex than a “dude, how weird are toilets, man?” It may have been interesting 50 years ago to look at a fork outside of its normal habitat, but it no longer achieves any goal. That doesn’t stop anyone from trying. I find no means to appreciate this art. I do not find the insight, the immersion or the catharsis other creative works give me. I only see trivialities and novelties.

There are obviously works that break these trends. Hockney, Freud and Richter are among those few names that make astonishingly great pieces, and I would suggest a quick Googling to those who despair of contemporary art. But I do feel as though the culture of art and art criticism in America is intentionally inaccessible and, also intentionally, seeks to move away from any measure of understandable value. I appreciate an art that seeks to be intrinsically powerful and entirely inexplicable, but not at the cost of all enjoyment. The desire to be inexplicable and the will to be random have destroyed art. It makes art an exercise in competitive randomness. Who can be more esoteric? Who can boggle the audience more? Art becomes a contest of hipness that continues well after the audience has left the theater. Artists merely try to prove their individuality with their work, and the work becomes of little interest to anyone but their circle. This makes audiences, already alienated by obscurity, dislike the culture surrounding the artist, too.

But now it becomes necessary to turn my eye to myself. As a disclaimer, my assessment of what is worthwhile is just as subjective as a definition of art. However, I will say my findings about contemporary art’s inaccessibility are commonly shared. Have I merely become too used to the Internet and TV to get at the core of these different forms of expression? I will say that art experienced in person is totally different than that on screen. Pictures of architectural feats have very different effects than the buildings themselves. The same holds true of painting and other visual arts. Could it not stand to reason that, because we interact with art usually through a screen rather than in person, the impact and general perception of art is diminished? Or have I been made of incapable of understanding something invaluable? These are valid questions that I cannot answer; but I’d still be really happy if this were posted on Reddit.

Because you can’t give Spencer an upvote, why not email him at dsnelson@stanford.edu?

The post The Mixed Messages of Modernism: Empty museums: an explanation appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2011/10/28/the-mixed-messages-of-modernism-empty-museums-an-explanation/feed/ 3 1051189
The Mixed Messages of Modernism: Occupational hazards https://stanforddaily.com/2011/10/21/the-mixed-messages-of-modernism-occupational-hazards/ https://stanforddaily.com/2011/10/21/the-mixed-messages-of-modernism-occupational-hazards/#comments Fri, 21 Oct 2011 07:28:12 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1050983 Occupy Wall Street (OWS) has built its ideology on a historical fallacy. If we believe its folksy altruism, that small businesses that limited their ambition to small markets and derided the desire to move forward gave America its wealth, we deceive ourselves. Occupy Wall Street has to come to terms with the fact that the utopia that they believe predated the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, and whose weakening required that act initially was not responsible for creating the middle class it so dearly wants. America, in large part, owes its success to its biggest businesses.

The post The Mixed Messages of Modernism: Occupational hazards appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The Mixed Messages of Modernism: Occupational hazardsOccupy Wall Street (OWS) has built its ideology on a historical fallacy. If we believe its folksy altruism, that small businesses that limited their ambition to small markets and derided the desire to move forward gave America its wealth, we deceive ourselves. Occupy Wall Street has to come to terms with the fact that the utopia that they believe predated the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, and whose weakening required that act initially was not responsible for creating the middle class it so dearly wants. America, in large part, owes its success to its biggest businesses.

Corporate greed, fat cats and other caricatures of cigar-smoking, tuxedo-clad bankers are hardly the root cause of the financial crisis. They have always been paid handsomely, and the fact that most of our financial institutions remained solvent and have paid back the loans they received further speaks to the high ability that merits their pay. They work 80+ hour weeks. They give themselves over to their work. It is sensible that their commitment and competency, especially considering the risks involved, be reflected in their pay. We can say they are greedy, but we need people with this kind of dedication to do high-level work. If they weren’t paid so highly, fewer and less-qualified people would consent to the sacrifice of their 20s, their weekends and their sleep for finance.

The financial institutions that OWS hates made the highest level of home ownership ever in the United States possible. But if we are going to go about assigning blame, we have to understand that<\p>–<\p>at the most basic level<\p>–<\p>irresponsible individuals are the problem. People took mortgages they could not afford on the chance that their circumstances would improve or their houses would increase in value. They made ambitious gambles that failed, and that’s why foreclosures are at record rates. Homes are not being foreclosed so fat cats have a place to store their Fabergé egg collections. Even banks do not want homes in this depressed housing market. Homes are being foreclosed because people took out loans that they could not pay back. You can blame financial institutions for providing them, but for the last ten years the federal government has done whatever it can to try to get banks to lend to less appealing borrowers. The intent was good. The effect was catastrophic, and the banks have not been better off for it.

If we want to look for institutional problems that allowed underqualified borrowers into the system, we can easily see that the government, not private institutions, spurred such behavior. Looking into research by Edward Pinto, the former chief credit officer of Fannie Mae, we gain some perspective. As cited in a recent Wall Street Journal column by Peter Wallison, Pinto concludes that of the nearly 50 percent of mortgages that were deemed “subprime” (the borrower had poor or no credit history), Fannie, Freddie and other government agencies held 70 percent. The fact that the federal government mandated 55 percent (in 2007) of the mortgages they issued by these agencies be given to people with less than ideal credit, a gradual 25 percent increase over the 30 percent required in 1992, explains the huge numbers of loans to under qualified borrowers. The government even extended this mandate to private industry, when the Community Reinvestment Act of 1995 required banks and savings and loan associations to make a certain proportion of their loans to borrowers of lesser income. The fact remains that, though derivatives allowed aggressive speculation on these loans, the sheer amount of bad debt alone was enough to bring the system down. Derivatives and speculation on them merely spread the hurt.

As for the consistent complaint that the government bailed out the corporations but left the little guy in the lurch, I suggest a quick reconsideration. Who would have lost their deposits, their savings and their access to credit for recovery if the big banks had failed? The little guy. “Main Street.” Saving the big banks is fundamentally helpful for small business and normal people. Had they toppled, America would be in straits direr than we can imagine. The idea that the federal government has shirked its moral obligation to its people by saving the banks instead is ludicrous.

What is most troubling to me about OWS is that it reflects Americans’ tendency to accept theories with little evidence but great import without scrutiny. It seems altogether paranoid to me to think that 1 percent of Americans have, through lobbyists and other outrageously immoral means, commandeered our country. We have an independent media, with only one of the major television news outlets at risk of being called biased towards that 1 percent. We have extremely powerful and wealthy unions to counter the influence of lobbyists and there are dairy lobbyists, farming lobbyists and lobbyists from industries other than the “evil” oil industry. They all have a right to be heard, just as we citizens have a right to counteract their influence with our vote and our power to assemble en masse. Instead of doing what amounts to little more than a public demonstration of frustration, we could campaign for and donate to congressmen and congresswomen who pledge not to deal with lobbyists. It is not rational to find an unmistakably bad situation, chafe at the circumstances it leaves you in and throw a stone at the nearest possible blameworthy object. It is not productive and it does not, fundamentally, address the problems that caused the bad situation in the first place.

Spencer would like to hear your thoughts on this issue, so email him at dsnelson “at” stanford “dot” edu.

The post The Mixed Messages of Modernism: Occupational hazards appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2011/10/21/the-mixed-messages-of-modernism-occupational-hazards/feed/ 2 1050983
The Mixed Messages of Modernism: A problem in policy https://stanforddaily.com/2011/10/14/the-mixed-messages-of-modernism-a-problem-in-policy/ https://stanforddaily.com/2011/10/14/the-mixed-messages-of-modernism-a-problem-in-policy/#respond Fri, 14 Oct 2011 18:24:31 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1050775 In every case it seems unfair to hold the hosts of parties culpable for the mistakes of their guests when it comes to alcohol. It is after all, a drug that takes time to have an effect, affects people in different and non-obvious ways, and often is consumed in a setting that makes it difficult to keep track of any given person’s intake. It seems harsh indeed, in light of these realities, that fraternities are generally held responsible for people who act irresponsibly with alcohol.

The post The Mixed Messages of Modernism: A problem in policy appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The Mixed Messages of Modernism: A problem in policyImagine that a man drinks a few too many at a friend’s place, then goes to a bar around the corner. When he passes by the door, he’s fine so far as anyone who hasn’t been with him can tell. The alcohol has yet to make its mark. His BAC would probably be nothing too alarming. Imagine further that a bartender gives him a drink while he seems relatively sober. Then he returns a little later, still seeming within his bounds, and the bartender, who obviously has difficulty perceiving a total stranger’s mental state, a difficulty compounded by the blaring music, darkness of the room and sheer mass of people who need to be tended to, gives him another drink. Then, imagine that this man needs to go to the hospital for alcohol poisoning — is this the fault of the bartender, or of the bouncer? Could they really do more than they did?

Imagine someone comes to your house after “pre-gaming,” helps themselves to a drink from your refrigerator, and then after some time the alcohol catches up with her and she is sick. Are you responsible for having failed to monitor her intake, even though there is no way you could have known how much she had drank before she arrived? Imagine someone doesn’t pregame at all, but has her friends go and get drinks for him from the bar all night. A bartender only directly serves him one drink. If he were hospitalized, would we say the blame rests on the shoulders of the server, or of the guest who did not know her limits and the friends who did not care to impose them?

In every case it seems unfair to hold the hosts of parties culpable for the mistakes of their guests when it comes to alcohol. It is after all, a drug that takes time to have an effect, affects people in different and non-obvious ways, and often is consumed in a setting that makes it difficult to keep track of any given person’s intake. It seems harsh indeed, in light of these realities, that fraternities are generally held responsible for people who act irresponsibly with alcohol. Everyone knows that at an all-campus party, the sheer weight of the crowd makes alcohol a difficult commodity to come by. It is very hard to reach anything close to dangerous level of drunkenness by what is provided there alone. It is generally because of pre-gaming, something which hosts are hard-pressed to estimate, that unfortunate events occur. Pre-gaming is something fraternities can do little about and can know little about, yet it makes all the difference.

It is important to keep in mind that this is not written in an excusatory spirit. It is important for fraternities to make sure that alcohol, when consumed at their events, is consumed responsibly and safely. However, when we remember the above and add to that the difficulty of having nearly 2,000 new students who have had varying levels of exposure to alcohol, we must recognize the difficulty of doing so. Fraternities who take pride in themselves take great care to prevent accidents, protect their guests and foster a positive environment for everyone to enjoy themselves in. Negligence of this variety is fortunately rare, but confusion, chance and complex situations for laxness are unfortunately common.

The policies of the University discourage fraternities from providing a resource of broad and widely acknowledgeable value: they offer an open place for everyone to come and relax. While this may be lost on freshmen, surely sophomores and upperclassmen recognize that after freshman year, campus life becomes much more fractious. People socialize with the same groups and the mixing of circles, an integral part of what makes freshman year so exciting, slows to a grind. Dorm parties must control their attendance and are spread primarily through the same channels to the same people. As we move forward, we limit our social circles. We go deeper into our major, taking classes with smaller range of appeal. We spend less time with new dormmates and more time with old friends. We have fraternities to thank for providing what counterbalance they can to that circumscribing trend. Fraternity parties offer students the opportunity to gather en masse. They are the social equivalent of a football game — all are brought together in a loose environment and are given the freedom to make friends, explore and engage with others who they would otherwise not meet.

Fraternities are punished very harshly for mistakes, but the fact remains that punishing someone for something that is out of their control — and that they are direly trying to assess and correct — does not address, much less ameliorate, the problem at hand. Punishing fraternities like this only dissuades them from opening their doors to our campus. It sponsors an exclusion based not in a desire to be exclusive, but a desire to be safe and maintain their good standing. Stanford’s fraternities make a larger effort than any I know of to keep their parties open to the public, to provide as much as they can to the student body and to sponsor an environment that is both enjoyable and healthful. The fact remains, however, that our fraternities are held accountable for matters out of their hands with very high consequences.

Spencer reminds you to party hard, but party responsibly. Get some more party tips from him at dsnelson@stanford.edu.

The post The Mixed Messages of Modernism: A problem in policy appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2011/10/14/the-mixed-messages-of-modernism-a-problem-in-policy/feed/ 0 1050775
The Mixed Messages of Modernism: ASSU–you’re doing it wrong https://stanforddaily.com/2011/10/07/the-mixed-messages-of-modernism-asss-youre-doing-it-wrong/ https://stanforddaily.com/2011/10/07/the-mixed-messages-of-modernism-asss-youre-doing-it-wrong/#comments Fri, 07 Oct 2011 07:28:29 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1050476 The ASSU has never seemed to be a very serious organization; a close look at this year’s version (2.0? really?) reveals an inauspicious picture.

The post The Mixed Messages of Modernism: ASSU–you’re doing it wrong appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The Mixed Messages of Modernism: ASSU--you're doing it wrong

Corrections: In this opinions column, “The Mixed Messages of Modernism: ASSU–you’re doing it wrong” (Oct. 7), The Daily originally incorrectly reported that the ASSU Senate is entirely unpaid. In fact, the Senate’s Chair and Deputy Chair, as well as the Chair of the Appropriations Committee, all receive stipends. The Daily also incorrectly reported that the ASSU Press Officer is a paid position. The position is unpaid.

The ASSU has never seemed to be a very serious organization; a close look at this year’s version (2.0? really?) reveals an inauspicious picture. Unless you feel that an ASSU Twitter feed and Facebook account amount to much, the new team seems to have little in store for us other than a stock of cliches about entrepreneurship. I assume this is par for the course. Most student governments have few duties outside of party planning, and the depth of their rhetoric often matches the depth of their responsibility. Anytime someone promises to use “entrepreneurial culture, your academic expertise, Silicon Valley’s technology, and the grassroots leadership style” to improve my quality of life, I am naturally skeptical of their ability to do so and, very honestly, I would not care.

It would not bother me in the slightest that their platform uses the word entrepreneurship five times in as many paragraphs, and references both Silicon Valley and innovation twice. It would not bother me that the student government an enormously silly and undefined chair of entrepreneurship. It would not bother me that 90 percent of the things discussed on Stanford 2.0’s website are outside of the power of the ASSU and extremely unlikely to be affected at all. None of this would even cross my mind as an issue of substance were it not for the fact the executive and its cabinet are going to cost the student body a combined $38,000 (including a paid “press officer” who comments on articles on The Unofficial Stanford Blog). Considering the wealth of other and better things that funds could be spent on and the apparent wrongheadedness of the current executive, I am seriously disinclined to give my support or even my silence. Also, keep in mind that senators are entirely unpaid. While the compensation budget for cabinet consultants balloons (why?), they are left behind.

The TUSB article was right to call out the current executive on its hubris, but after a certain point hubris goes beyond arrogance into the realm of the entirely stupid. Its blueprints for improving campus are little more than startup jargon and unsubstantiated word vomit. Precious little of it is actionable, most of it is way beyond the scope of the ASSU and all of it is worded in such a manner as to misrepresent distant possibilities as probable outcomes. Entrepreneurship and innovation are both catchphrases for the creation and implementation of new ideas. This, however, is not a plan or a strategy, but a broad philosophy that speaks of openness. We can have openness to ideas, but as yet we have no ideas. Precious little real planning has been done, but innovation has been trumped to ridiculous heights. Perhaps you could say it is too early to judge. When I saw this morning that the ASSU executives both received summer stipends of nearly $3,000, and then looked at their blueprints (presumably the product of a summer of hard work), I was legitimately appalled. Add this to the fact that the executive has the largest amount of discretionary funding ever, and there is much reason to worry.

It further shocked me when I opened The Daily on Wednesday morning to see that what the ASSU had accomplished last night was to pass resolutions regarding the California DREAM Act and a letter to Jerry Brown about SB185. It seems to me that this is indicative of an executive with endless ambition and no sense of what it can or should do. No one is deluded enough to believe that the ASSU has political clout, but there is extreme hubris in claiming to represent the political views of a campus that has elected you to improve their quality of life–not pursue your own crusades against leader X, for cause Y or demanding measure Z. Who would’ve thought that we were electing a representative to the state and federal government when we ticked a ballot box? I say this as not as someone who is angered by the views taken, but only by the taking of views.

The ASSU has real issues to address and important goals to strive for. We are one of few undergraduate student bodies without any substantive power in the faculty senate. With campaigning and effort, the ASSU could actually become a significant force on campus. There have been noticeable declines in the quality of dining halls since the introduction of Arrillaga Dining Commons. There is a sexual assault judicial system on campus that, in its jury advice, says that “acting persuasive and logical” is a sign of guilt. But lo, its concentration lies in designing apps, improving the sleekness of its website banners and making sure we have an ample number of Twitter updates to keep our feeds flowing. Senators and students alike should demand more of the executive, because we currently have a shambolic array of cliches arranged on a sleek Apple-esque background to guide us.

Many thanks to the surname-less Kristi of The Unofficial Stanford Blog for bringing these issues to the fore.

The post The Mixed Messages of Modernism: ASSU–you’re doing it wrong appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2011/10/07/the-mixed-messages-of-modernism-asss-youre-doing-it-wrong/feed/ 4 1050476
The Mixed Messages of Modernism: Negotiating the bubble https://stanforddaily.com/2011/09/30/the-mixed-messages-of-modernism-negotiating-the-bubble/ https://stanforddaily.com/2011/09/30/the-mixed-messages-of-modernism-negotiating-the-bubble/#comments Fri, 30 Sep 2011 07:28:52 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1050277 It is not a bad thing that Stanford is a very liberal place. This is true of most colleges and often signals a healthy amount of empathy and involvement. Perhaps it could even be said that the left-leaning nature of our campus serves to show that we recognize the troubles many face outside of our lovely bubble. What’s bad, though, is letting the absence of another side let introspection, reflection and refinement of one’s own views fall by the wayside.

The post The Mixed Messages of Modernism: Negotiating the bubble appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The Mixed Messages of Modernism: Negotiating the bubbleThink globally. Be open. Be tolerant of other views. Don’t be dismissive; engage with the material and the opinions of others. Freshmen are fed a steady diet of happy cliches during NSO. However, each is as dishonest and fundamentally illiberal as the last. What they entail is not a sponsorship of thought and a formation of substantiated opinions but a shaming of critical judgment of sympathetic positions, one that reserves real ire only for the straw men made up of the beliefs of the ever-absent American conservative.

It is not a bad thing that Stanford is a very liberal place. This is true of most colleges and often signals a healthy amount of empathy and involvement. Perhaps it could even be said that the left-leaning nature of our campus serves to show that we recognize the troubles many face outside of our lovely bubble. What’s bad, though, is letting the absence of another side let introspection, reflection and refinement of one’s own views fall by the wayside.

Faith in liberalism’s moral foundations is bad for the same reason any unquestioned faith is bad, and doubly so in a college environment. Faith does not brook questioning and improvement. Faith does not change with study and does not bend to debate. Absolute faith is antithetical to any serious college’s mission.

But with liberalism, this faith is more insidious, more insistent, because it seems to agree with our upbringings that praise empathy, that value the teary moments of Christmas comedies where the wealthier family gives up its extra presents to the poor because it recognizes the importance of altruism, of minimizing class distinctions and doing whatever possible with one’s excess to minimize the shortfalls of others. We find all of these things to be good. They agree with our sympathies, our most hopeful views of people being fundamentally good and industrious, rarely sidetracked from realizing these traits as anything but social problems for which they cannot be held in the slightest responsible. We feel bad and inhumane for betraying our faith in people, for not ameliorating poor living conditions where they exist. But the fact of the matter is that politics and philosophy have necessities to bend to, and the solutions (and lingering assumptions) of MGM-produced worlds don’t work or hold true.

Nowhere is this more evident than in America’s entitlement spending. Entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security) comprise the majority of the federal government’s spending. Mandatory spending on entitlements and the servicing of our debt are forecasted to exceed total government revenue sometime around 2024. If the entire U.S. Military was jettisoned, every federal employee fired and every expenditure on roads, education and culture cut, we would still be running a deficit. Entitlements, arguably the most humane and sympathetic part of government spending, will quite literally cannibalize the United States if they are not addressed. If the federal government increases taxation in step with the necessary increases in entitlement spending, the economy will eventually cease to grow at an adequate pace to keep up. Regardless of whether it feels right, cuts in care and social aid will happen, and our liberal sympathies will be put through the gauntlet of reality. We will be forced to pick and choose who gets what money, confronting fiscal realities and assigning value in our judgments of who deserves funds the most.

While many seek to avoid these questions or shift responsibility for widespread social failings onto the shoulders of the government, I have to ask: is there a point where people and the culture they create are to blame (and the only thing that can create change)? Arguments that hinge on personal responsibility are decried as brutal and misguided, but rarely does any of our campus discourse confront these serious problems with anything more than a slogan for a response. Now it’s come to a head. We can either bankrupt ourselves by blindly continuing on our path or try, in some way, to fix the problems that cause such difficult spending situations. But the standard Stanford path of calling for more funding, more attention and more sympathy has become a dead end.

There are legitimate moral questions that lie at the base of these arguments, and they are not so simple as their caricaturized depictions often suggest. Rarely does the difference in policy amount solely to succumbing to corporate greed or stating, “I’ll keep my money, you keep yours.” Stanford happily accepts such simplistic clichés from its political opposition, but it will give proper and charitable analysis to cultures far removed from our own, even if they propagate views contrary to our most basic moral tenets. It’s time to bring our intelligence into play in the home court instead of letting the emotional pull of our party allegiances, our desire never to contradict our liberal “Christmas spirit” and basic sympathies to prevent serious, rational discussion.

Do you agree that this is a change we can believe in? Email Spencer at dsnelson(at)stanford.edu and let him know your thoughts.

The post The Mixed Messages of Modernism: Negotiating the bubble appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2011/09/30/the-mixed-messages-of-modernism-negotiating-the-bubble/feed/ 3 1050277