A good laugh from the Michigan Review

The Michigan Review has just published their final issue of the semester. I just started reading it, but the first thing that caught my eye is this bit of patent nonsense in Brian McNally's piece on the signing of a petition supporting Intelligent Design by three UM engineering professors. But before I get to that, the article is worth a little discussion. The headline of the article is quite misleading because McNally only mentions the professors in passing, not supplying their names or disciplines (do we really care if, say, a computer science professor disagrees with evolution), and instead goes on to talk about Dr. Gerald Schroeder, an apparently renowned authority on intelligent design. Because I was actually interested in knowing how this was relevant to me, a UM engineering student, I looked up the "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" website and found the signatories who are faculty members. If you're interested:

• Ronald Larson, Professor and Chair of Chemical Engineering
• Ken Ludema, Professor Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering
• Phillip Savage, Professor of Chemical Engineering
• Roland Hirsch, Ph.D., Analytical Chemistry (not engineering, but he is the only other UM faculty member on the list)

The weight you give to those signatures is at your own discretion, but I'm certainly not going to go to a mechanical engineer for an opinion on evolution.

The thing I really wanted to point out, however, is this nugget:

Dr. Schroeder is only one of many intellectuals that are part of the rising tide questioning the science of evolution being taught in text books, where political agendas often create an environment stifling dissension and serious debate.

I'm sorry, but aren't political agendas that try to stifle the teaching of evolution, a far more widely accepted and scientifically grounded theory the only reason why this debate has reached the heights that it has? Looks like he's got his causation upside down.

Gun giveaway?

This is completely insane. The UM College Libertarians are going to be giving away a free gun to make a point about the 2nd Amendment. From a post on the umstudents LiveJournal community:

On Monday, April 3, the University of Michigan College Libertarians will be holding a gun giveaway at 8:00 PM in the Pendleton Room of the Michigan Union. One lucky winner from the crowd will win a handgun for their own personal protection. The College Libertarians are sponsoring this event to promote the right to keep and bear arms and raise awareness of gunrights issues on the University of Michigan campus. Before the giveaway,Michael Thiede, President of Michigan Gun Owners, will be giving a speechon firearms ownership and the importance of safe gun handling.

The College Libertarians invites all interested community members to attend for their chance to win!

I don't see why a student in a town as safe as Ann Arbor could need a gun to protect themselves. Yes, there have been a few violent crimes recently, but I have to believe that the rate of incidence is incredibly low compared to that of most cities of similar size. And I think that because violent crime on campus is so uncommon, the incidents this year have received more attention than they would otherwise deserve. Most of the crimes here are simple breaking and entering. So are the Libertarians suggesting that you should take a gun to the bar on a Saturday night? Or do they think it's appropriate to pull a gun on someone who's poking around in your house because you neglected to lock the door? Obviously they are aiming for principle here, but you have to consider the practical dangers of giving a gun to an irresponsible kid in a relatively safe urban area where guns are likely few and far between.

Like I said, completely insane.

New issue of the Michigan Independent today

Today the March/April issue of the Michigan Independent was distributed on the Diag. It's one of the best issues we've produced yet (layout by yours truly and my partner Mollie). You can read individual articles here or download the entire issue in PDF format here. I'm going to have to advocate the latter so everyone can appreciate the lovely design.

The highlight of the issue, in my opinion, is James Manganello's terrific analysis of the ridiculously low level of debate that plagued the Kerry campaign filtered through the historical lens of William Lloyd Garrison.

But Kerry is not solely to blame for this sheepishness. Presidential candidates are surrounded by the police of right-saying: political speeches aim not to critically evaluate the state of the nation, but to be as inoffensive as possible to as many people as possible. Imagine the consequences if Kerry had, indeed, substituted for his lawn-sign tale Garrison’s insightful critique:

“The wealth [Strike One-rich Democratic donors], the enterprise [Strike Two-corporations and the American capitalist ethic], the literature [Strike Three-news media: see the fall of How­ard Dean], the politics [Strike Four-this is, after all, a man running for president], the religion of the land [Strike Five-re­member those four million Evangelicals? How about the 53% of Americans who believe “God created man exactly how the Bible describes it”?], are all com­bined…”

With such a statement, Kerry would have slaughtered, in one fell swoop, any hopes for the presidency he may have had.

Other important articles include Becca Rueble and Amy Gordon's investigation of Facebook and Adri Miller's primer on the SOLE (Students Organizing for Labor and Economic Equality) campaign for making Michigan merchandise SweatFree. SOLE is going to be a big deal on campus soon, so listen up.

Bandwagon activists

I found the end of the article about student activists in today’s Daily to be rather ridiculous.

Even individual activists are bound, at least to some degree, to swim with the current; students are only powerful in groups, and it’s much more effective to join existing campaigns than create new ones. When Brandvain arrived at the University, he was interested in social justice, and he knew about the benefits of fair trade. But why did he join the fair trade coffee movement, when tea farmers could also benefit from fair trade deals? A movement for coffee already existed. Why’d he choose to fight against Coke? Because “even though there are a thousand things wrong with Pepsi,” he realized there was already a movement against Coke: “It doesn’t make sense for me to splinter and work on my own thing. There’s value in working together.”

While I understand the logic, that basically plays right into the image of a clueless college liberal who just wants to be part of something bigger. Pretty fucking insulting if you ask me. The article effectively concludes that the visibility of activism on campus is derived from the horde mentality of kids who have just flown the coop. The fact that students, you know, genuinely care about the specific movments in which they participate is clearly of secondary concern.

Mary Sue Coleman on universal health care

I wish I would have known about this forum on health care reform last night. The article, from today’s Daily, is a little trite, and perpetuates some misconceptions about government funded health care being “free”, but it’s nice to know that the University is willing to throw its weight behind the reform movement. And of course, the dissent is always good for a laugh:

“Government has proven that they can’t handle the simplest things,” said Seymour Kroll, an Ann Arbor resident. “Now we’re talking about universal medical coverage.”

The best news I’ve heard in a long time

I just came across this New York Times article that says some new research is making an avian flu epidemic slightly less imminent.

The reason, the researchers propose, is that the cells bearing the type of receptor the avian virus is known to favor are clustered in the deepest branches of the human respiratory tract, keeping it from spreading by coughs and sneezes. Human flu viruses typically infect cells in the upper respiratory tract.

The avian virus would need to accumulate many mutations in its genetic material before it could become a pandemic strain, said Yoshihiro Kawaoka, a virologist at the University of Tokyo and the University of Wisconsin.

According to a University of Wisconsin news release approved by Dr. Kawaoka, “The finding suggests that scientists and public health agencies worldwide may have more time to prepare for an eventual pandemic.”

I’ve been scaring the crap out of everyone I know lately with my bird flu fearmongering. I try to do it in a joking manner, but I’m not really joking. This makes me feel better, but it’s important to note that this is among the first research from respected institutions that suggests that a pandemic isn’t imminent. We still need to be prepared, because it’s still way, way more likely than, like, any other disaster we could possibly anticipate.

Courtesy of Caitlin, the University’s page on flu preparation.

What is UM doing to prepare for avian flu? Together, University Health Service, University Housing, UM Health System, other campus units and the Washtenaw County Health Department plan for contagious disease prevention and response, including pandemic influenza.

I, for one, feel safer knowing that some “planning” is going on.