There and Back Again Deflating the Kenyon Bubble
Jon Green | page 8
the
Kenyon Observer January 16, 2013
Kenyon’s Oldest Undergraduate Political and Cultural Magazine
Kenyon Observer the
January 16, 2013
The Kenyon Observer January 16, 2013
5 From the Editors Cover Story jon green
8 There and Back Again
Deflating the Kenyon Bubble gabriel rom
6 Quentin Unchained jacob weiner
10 In Favor of the Implementation of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles megan shaw
12 Rejecting the Known
America is Having the Wrong Debate Over Climate Change marcela colmenares
14 Too Sick to Govern
Hugo Chavez Battles Cancer and the Venezuelan Constitution ryan mach
The Last Word
Cover Art by Nick Nazmi
Editors-in-Chief Jon Green and Gabriel Rom Managing Editor Megan Shaw Online Editor Yoni Wilkenfeld Featured Contributors Marcela Colmenares, Jon Green, Gabriel Rom, Megan Shaw and Jacob Weiner Content Editors Sofia Mandel, Tess Waggoner and Yoni Wilkenfeld Layout/Design Sofia Mandel Illustrations Peter Falls, Nick Nazmi and Ethan Primason Faculty Advisor Professor Fred Baumann The Kenyon Observer is a student-run publication that is distributed biweekly on the campus of Kenyon College. The opinions expressed within this publication belong only to the writers and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Observer staff or that of Kenyon College. The Kenyon Observer will accept submissions and lettersto-the-editor, but reserves the right to edit for length and clarity. All submissions must be received at least a week prior to publication. Submit to tko@kenyon.edu
Quotes Compiled by Megan Shaw
5
FROM THE EDITORS
Dear Prospective Reader: The Kenyon Observer is pleased to return to campus for another semester. From the campaign trail at home to constitutional crises abroad, our time away from the Hill provided ample opportunities for debate and criticism. In this issue, Gabriel Rom deconstructs Django Unchained, Jon Green uses his time spent on the Obama campaign to dismiss the notion of the “Kenyon Bubble,� Jake Weiner defends the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in combat, Megan Shaw calls for action on climate change and Marcela Colmenares critiques the ongoing constitutional crisis in Venezuela surrounding the health of Hugo Chavez. We invite any and all members of the Kenyon community to engage with the arguments presented here. As always, it is our hope that a serious discussion of political and cultural issues on local, national and global levels will provoke contemplation and conversation beyond our pages. We invite members of the Kenyon community to submit letters and full-length submissions, both in response to our content and on other topics of interest. Jon Green and Gabriel Rom Editors-In-Chief
6 GABRIEL ROM
Quentin Unchained Warning: this article contains spoilers
a remake of Sergio Corbucci’s 1967 original Django), it also strongly alludes to the blaxploitation genre Quentin Tarantino has become a spinner of histor- popular during the same era. Tarantino fuses together ical catharsis. Django Unchained, in which a renegade the two influences seamlessly, creating a movie that slave kills (and kills and kills) white slaver owners, seems not to want to be taken seriously but nevertheallows an impossible narrative to exist with panache, less tries to say something profound about slavery, cinematic grandeur and deep moral ambiguity. Taran- race and racism. tino plays fast and loose with genre, audience expecDjango’s retribution against the institution of tation, and what is deemed as acceptable taste. His slavery not only has few historical precedents (Nat cheekiness is one of his most laudable qualities. Yet Turner comparisons are iffy at best) it also inverts when Tarantino self-consciously applies his cinematic cinematic precedent by allowing the role of reckonstyle to history, he demeans and infantilizes the ex- ing to be placed in black, rather than white, hands. perience of black slavery by turning it into a winking Dr. Schutlz must die before Django can fully destroy pulp-infused shoot-em-up. It’s a his wife’s captors. In one sense payoff that is too cynical to let this this seems unremarkable. Southern clever movie stand on its own. The blacks were the victims of slaveeminent literary critic Lionel Trillowners, just as European Jews were ing once said that “in irony there the victims of the Nazis. Given is a kind of malice”. By looking at the plot of Tarantino’s previous both slavery and justice in nevermovie, Inglorious Basterds, it is just too-serious terms, what is meant narrative convention in Tarantino’s to be entertaining and fantastical cathartic universe to give history’s becomes malicious. victims the role of judge, jury and Django Unchained is split into two executioner. Yet in another sense, parts. The first hour is set in the the role of a black man as distribuAmerican West where Django (Jator of justice harkens back to the mie Foxx) is rescued by an erudite long out-of-vogue style of blaxGerman, Dr. Schultz (Christoph ploitation movies. Waltz) who also happens to be a Critical appraisal on blaxploitaIllustration by Ethan Primason bounty hunter. The two quickly tion is divided between those who become friends and then the killing begins in earnest. see the genre as an amalgamation of thinly-veiled racOne after another, Southern whites go down by the ist tropes, and those who see it as a problematic yet barrel of Schultz and Django’s guns. The cinematog- important integration of black empowerment into a raphy of the old west and deep south is astounding, historically white business. Either way, by engaging the Southern accents are charming and the dress is with a hunted-as-hunter narrative, Tarantino forces perfect. The movie has the trappings of history but himself into the middle of cinematic race relations. none of its substance. The arch-villain of the movie, Calvin Candie While Django Unchained is an homage to the Spa- (Leonardo Decaprio), is introduced to us as a conghetti Westerns of the 1960s and 70s (the movie is noisseur of Mandingo fighting. Django pretends to
“Politics is too serious a matter to be left to politicians.” Charles de Gaulle
7
be a knowledgeable scout of the sport in order infiltrate Candie’s plantation and get close to his wife, who is Candie’s slave. The sport is a figment of Hollywood’s imagination, a dramatized stand-in for other, real, abominations of slavery. Indeed, the role Mandingos play in Django Unchained is a reference to the 1975 Dino De Laurentiis movie and blaxploitation classic of the same name. Some of the scenes of violence, like a slave being mauled alive by dogs, serve as visceral reminders of the sadistic terror that existed during the era of slavery — terror that arguably did not truly abate until the 1960s. Can we then, in some perverted sense, call this movie an educational experience — a reminder, however stylized, of our racial past? When I left the movie theater I couldn’t believe that I had never learned about Mandingo fighting — a sport in which two slaves fight each other to the death for the entertainment of the slave owner. I soon discovered that Mandingo fighting was a fiction which Tarantino used as a shocking vehicle to drive the plot forward. In an admittedly hilarious scene, a bumbling Jonah Hill, of Superbad fame, dons a Ku Klux Klan hood and exclaims in a shticky hick accent, “I can’t see fucking shit outta these damn eyeholes!” It is a good thing that American pop culture has gotten to the point where the Ku Klux Klan has become so emasculated and passé that chubby dude-comedy actors can impersonate them. Tarantino helps strip the KKK of their power and terror in a way that an honest or “serious” narrative could never achieve. And yet the movie fluctuates from whimsical detachment to very real (and occasionally historical) depictions of slave-brutality. Can Django Unchained both break ground in America’s conversation of its racial past and also be absurdly silly? The ubiquitous use of the word “nigger” in Django has shrouded the movie in controversy that Tarantino surely does not mind. The word has an important power when used in its vile original context, but when it’s featured against a score of Rick Ross and Norah Jones (and dialogue exchanges like “I count six bullets nigga...I count two guns nigga”) the word morphs from naively racist to self-consciously edgy. When asked about his usage of the word, Tarantino responded, “that’s just part and parcel of dealing truthfully with this story, with this environment, with this land.” Tarantino uses history to justify his usage of the word “nigger” yet he neglects history when he thinks it gets in the way of entertainment. The fact that his justification has no consistency points more
to a sniveling Tarantino ego-stroke than “periodpiece dialogue.” As the movie descends into its second act in which Django must retrieve his wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), from the villainous Candie (the name of his plantation is Candyland), Django’s retribution takes center stage. With steely eyes and pointed barbs Django soon becomes a swift dispenser of justice, simmering in righteous rage until he shoots himself out of Candyland. Any moral nuance loses out to retributive pornography. When Ms. Laura, Calvin Candie’s sister, was literally blown off the screen, the audience at my showing erupted with cheers. The laughter had an undertone of social righteousness — that by laughing at the absurd death of a caricatured white supremacist, we boost our progressive racial credentials ever-soslightly. But that’s no fault of the audience. Capitalizing on white guilt and the itch for popcorn revenge is exactly what Tarantino was after. Tarantino’s muses are our own bloody desires for historical justice that many of us might feel in our private moments. Sometimes we want to neglect due process and high-minded justice, and just watch bad men burn. Seeing uncomplicated justice in its righteous glory allows us act out what history’s villains really deserved, and there is no better place to live out this fantasy than at the movies. But, by indulging in historical spectacle and fantasy, the audience loses a connection to racial reality. First the Holocaust and now slavery. Like Schultz himself, Tarantino is a bounty-hunter who, with style and precision, obliterates what is sacred, in order to make a buck and give the people what they want. Tarantino wants to combine moral seriousness with spectacle and style — a dance between shtick and solemnity, dying slaves and the horns of Ennio Morricone. The tension seems characteristic of modern pop culture that wants to get close, but not too close, to the heart of contentious issues, Tarantino takes joy in making seriousness toxic (in one scene of bloodshed Django actually winks at the camera). But we pay a price when outrageous entertainment uses historical tragedy as its fodder. Our apathy is massaged and our connection to reality slowly hacked away at. The great African-American author Ralph Ellison voiced his dissent to “hollywood movie ectoplasms” when he affirmed that “I am a man of substance, of flesh and bone, fiber and liquids — and I might even be said to possess a mind.” Can Django say the same? TKO
“The movies make reality irrelevant” James Baldwin
8 JON GREEN
There and Back Again DEFLATING THE KENYON BUBBLE When classes began last fall I was nowhere to be tion other than, “this area is a mess — go fix it.” As I found. I had left Kenyon to work on the Obama cam- found out, that meant moving from my defined skill paign in my hometown of Charlottesville, Virginia as set, to training and managing staffers who were in a field organizer, in line with the plan I had kept in the position I had held the day before. Entering data, the back of my mind since my senior year of high calling volunteers and registering voters immediately school when I was an intern on the 2008 campaign. became scrutinizing spreadsheets, running offices The funny thing about campaigns is that, no mat- and soothing local party leaders. But, with no spare ter how organized they look, they are all a chaotic time and no learning curve, things were moving too jumble of moving fast for me to realize parts and changing that I should have plans. On August been freaking out. 29th I received a As it turned out, I phone call asking me was able to swim in to become one of the pool I had been those moving parts proverbially thrown by taking a small into, and you know promotion and movthe rest. ing to Hampton, But this story acVirginia to become tually begins much that area’s deputy earlier, in the sumregional field direcmer following my tor. Had President freshman year. I Obama not been spent that summer holding a rally in my tramping through turf the next day, I the deepest parts would have been in of central Virginia Image Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons the car the following looking to find votes morning. In light of the circumstances, I waited until for Tom Perriello. Tom was an underdog fighting for September 1st. underdogs; the kind of politician everyone says they I should have felt considerably less-than-prepared want. It would have been hard to do the same work to live up to the standards that I would be held to for anyone else, but I felt like I needed to do it for by those both above and below me. Being the first him. So when my summer fellowship turned into a of only three deputy regional field directors in the job offer, I won an argument with my parents and state (for perspective, the campaign divided Virginia told the Dean’s office that I wouldn’t be back for into twenty-one regions), I had no set job descrip- the fall.
“We know what we are, but know not what we may be.” William Shakespeare
9
Those four months were more work than I knew was possible. Friday nights were reserved for data entry; Saturday mornings were for training canvassers. Evenings were spent on the phone; lunch was spent hunched over a computer reviewing lists. When we didn’t have the time to go out and buy food our volunteers took pity and cooked for us. Sleep deprivation turned into laughter and stress turned into adrenaline. We were expected to lose by twenty percent; we lost by three. If it hadn’t been worth it, we wouldn’t have cried. Returning to Kenyon was welcome and fun, but awkward. Having dropped off the face of the earth as far as Kenyon’s tight-knit social network was concerned, the traditional “Hey” on Middle Path was instead an “Oh my God, I thought you transferred!” Having taken a semester off, I wasn’t quite a sophomore but definitely didn’t feel like a freshman; either way it always took me a minute or two to explain when I’d be graduating. The most notable difference, though, was the change of pace: talking and writing on the campaign happened in short bursts, moving sentence by sentence. Communicating at Kenyon required more deliberation but came with less pressure, allowing it to move paragraph by paragraph. Quick and concise responses to hot-button issues which became robotic after their third use gave way to the acceptance, even expectation, of error and spontaneity in seminar. One-pagers that packed volumes of policy into a se-
“T he
funny
thing
about
campaigns is that , no mat ter
how
organized
they
look , they are all a cha otic jumple of moving parts and changing plans ” ries of bullet points were replaced by papers longer than the documents they cited. On the campaign I was expected to think on my feet; at Kenyon I was expected to think for myself. But after dropping everything for my congressman in 2010, taking another semester off for the Obama campaign was a no-brainer. I gave the Dean’s office, and my friends, a little extra advance notice
and returned home last May expecting to re-live my experience from two years before. One of my biggest observations from my time away from Kenyon has been how silly it is to consid-
“H aving
dropped
off
the
face of the earth as far as
K enyon ’ s network
tight - knit social was
concerned ,
the traditional
“ hey ”
on
M iddle P ath was instead an “O h my G od , I thought you transferred !” er myself “ready” for anything. Two campaigns have left me with three separate groups of friends, memories and experiences, each wholly independent of both themselves and my life here at Kenyon. What ties them together, aside from being in Democratic politics, is that I felt equally underprepared with each step I took. No matter how qualified we are and no matter how “ready” we rightfully should be, every new thing we do is, well, new. Like most Kenyon students, I came to college feeling totally unprepared and without a path forward set in stone. I should not have been surprised that leaving brought a similar set of circumstances. At Kenyon you can score points in a conversation by talking about “the bubble” and how far removed we are from wherever we go next. We find it healthy to check our egos against our naïveté and to remind ourselves that life at Kenyon is phony and easy compared to the so-called “real world.” But each of my experiences away from Kenyon, in the supposed “real world,” were bubbles in and of themselves, none of which left me confident for my “graduation” into a new role. Sooner or later we are all going to leave Kenyon and dive headfirst into a job we don’t know how to do. While Kenyon doesn’t prepare you for that experience, neither does an employer. My time away from Kenyon on campaigns has taught me many things, but most importantly it has taught me to be ready to not be ready. TKO
“The greater our knowledge increases, the more our ignorance unfolds.” JFK
10 JACOB WEINER
In Favor of the Implementation of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles I aim to argue not only that the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) is morally permissible, but that militaries are morally obligated to employ UAV technology if it is available. The crux of my argument, as supported by the writings of Bradley Jay Strawser, an Assistant Professor at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, is simple: “If a war is just, we are obligated to protect the just warfighters engaging in it.” The antecedent “if a war is just” may trouble those who are eager to disparage the use of UAVs in contemporary conf licts, for they may wish to assert that the use of UAVs by the U.S. military and CIA has violated the principles of just war. However, it is critical to remember that any act perpetrated as part of an unjust war is inherently unjust, regardless of the sort of military technology used to commit it. If the assassination of, say, American citizen and Al-Qaeda operative Anwar al-Aulaqi in Yemen is part of an unjust conf lict, then that assassination is unjust regardless of whether it was executed by a UAV, an F-22 bomber, or gunfire from infantry troops. In other words, in order to have a discussion of the moral permissibility of any sort of military technology, we must assume, from the outset, that the conf lict in which the technology is being employed is just; otherwise, the whole discussion is moot, and a commentary on the moral standing of a conf lict or an act or war, rather than of UAVs. The morality of a particular conf lict or act of war does not factor into a debate about the moral permissibility of drones generally. In order to discuss the morality of any sort of military technology, it is essential to assume consensus about the moral standing of an act of war; the question of whether a military technology is morally permissible can occur only after agreement has been reached that a conf lict or act of war is just. For that reason, I will attempt to say what sorts of conf licts or military acts are justified.
I will use certain terms pertaining to a discussion of the ethics of war, sometimes called “just war theory.” These include “jus ad bello,” which is concerned with the conditions under which it is acceptable to enter into a military conf lict, and “jus in bello,” which is concerned with determining what sorts of military acts, within a conf lict, are justified. My argument that military commanders have a moral obligation to employ UAVs follows from the idea that “it is wrong to command someone to take on unnecessary potentially lethal risks in an effort to carry out a just action for some good. It is wrong to command someone to take on unnecessary lethal risks in the commission of a just act, so long as there is no strong, countervailing reason to do so. A failure to employ UAV technology, which removes warriors from the immediate danger of a war theater, clearly constitutes ordering a warrior to take on unnecessary lethal risk. The same argument is applied to the use of robotic bomb disposal technology, rather than “hands-on” bomb disposal. Given this premise, the burden of proof falls on those who would argue against the use of UAVs; opponents of UAVs must justify why warriors should take on unnecessary risk. One objection to the use of UAVs is that remotely controlled weapons systems might reduce a soldier’s capacity to discriminate between legitimate and nonlegitimate targets, or between combatants and noncombatants. I agree whole-heartedly that “if using a UAV in place of an inhabited weapon platform in any way whatsoever decreases the ability to adhere to jus in bello principles, then a UAV should not be used.” If a particular technology reduces a warrior’s capacity to behave justly in a theater of war, the use of that technology, no matter how much it might improve the safety of the warrior, cannot be justified. A reduced capacity to behave justly represents one of the aforementioned “strong, countervailing reasons”
“A tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” C.S. Lewis
11
not to employ a military technology that would reduce the risk to soldiers in a just conf lict. Strawser asserts that it is a warrior’s duty to take upon himself additional risks “in order to better shield innocents from harm.” However, it seems unlikely that UAVs actually lead to a greater likelihood of non-combatant deaths; there is significant evidence that the opposite is the case. Strawser, citing a 2010 study by Matthew Fricker and Avery Plaw, reports that in Pakistan between 2004 and 2007 “UAV strikes were far better at non-combatant discrimination than all other methods used used for engaging Taliban fighters in the region.” The study reveals that UAVs had a 17-to-1 ratio of combatant-to-civilian deaths, as compared to a 4-to-1 ratio for Pakistan Special Weapons and Tactics Teams and 3-to-1 for the Pakistan Army. This evidence strongly suggests that UAVs are, in fact, far better than inhabited weapons systems at discriminating between combatant and non-combatant targets. Another argument posited by critics of UAVs is that UAVs have a tendency to cause cognitive dissonance in their operators; that the spatial distance between the operator and the theater of combat causes a dangerous sense of unreality for the operator that could cause him or her to take unjust or inappropriate actions and could lead to post traumatic stress disorder. In response to the first concern Strawser posits that “the temptation for the warfighter to commit jus in bello violations would actually lessen, perhaps significantly so, once the warfighter is not at risk.” Warfighters are far more likely to behave justly in combat if they do not feel the pressure of their own lives being in danger. Furthermore, since UAV operations are carried out through video and telecommunications, they allow for greater oversight and accountability; a UAV operator’s actions can be overseen and guided in real time by multiple individuals, allowing, for instance, for an operator to seek approval from multiple superiors before making a lethal decision. This level of accountability and scrutiny is unprecedented in warfare, and would presumably lead to more level-headed, just decisions on the part of soldiers. It seems reasonable to assume that the psychiatric risks associated with UAV operation are significantly lesser than those associated with inhabited weapons systems. Another objection I will address is the idea that UAVs dangerously reduce the jus ad bello threshold; that UAVs reduce the risks of going to war so significantly that, if we implement them, we are much more likely to enter into unjust wars in the future. This objection faces a host of problems. First of all,
the same argument can be made against any sort of military technology that creates any degree of combat asymmetry whatsoever; by the same logic, we ought to cease the use of bulletproof vests and helmets because they make us more likely to enter into unjust conf licts. Following this sort of logic, Strawser says, “militaries should intentionally reduce military capa-
“T his of
objection faces a host
problems ... by
the
same
logic , we ought to cease the use of bulletproof vests and helmets because they make us more likely to enter into unjust conflicts ” bilities in order to make war more costly to them”. While there is no inherent problem in this sort of thinking, it is not really a commentary on the moral permissibility of UAVs, but on the very existence of militaries and military technology; as such, it does not strike at my central claim, which is that we have a moral obligation to protect our just warfighters to the greatest degree possible without limiting their capacity to perform in combat or their capacity to behave justly, and that UAVs do precisely that. What’s more, this reasoning operates according to a very strange moral epistemology, for it essentially asserts that we should behave unjustly in the present (by ordering our warriors to take unnecessary risks) in order to potentially prevent ourselves from behaving unjustly in the future (by entering into unjust conf licts). This reasoning is problematic because it denies a moral certainty (not using UAVs to protect our warriors is certainly wrong) in favor of a moral uncertainty (it is uncertain that using UAVs will cause us to enter in unjust conf licts in the future). Of course, the moral weight of entering into an unjust conf lict is significantly greater than the weight of endangering a soldier, but the odds of our entering into future unjust conf licts because of our present use of UAVs seem impossible to calculate. Therefore, we cannot invoke the uncertain (and incalculable) possibility of future injustice to rationalize behaving unjustly in the present. TKO This piece borrows heavily from the ideas presented in Bradley Jay Strawser’s 2010 article “Moral Predators: The Duty to Employ Uninhabited Aerial Vehicles,” which was published in the Journal of Military Ethics.
“One wanders to the left and to the right. Both are in error, but are seduced by different delusions.” Horace
12 MEGAN SHAW
Rejecting the Known AMERICA IS HAVING THE WRONG DEBATE OVER CLIMATE CHANGE Driving down I-695 with my friend over winter break, we noticed something strange: The snow that had been predicted for the day had transformed into a thick, eerie layer of fog with fat raindrops, which were now rolling down the windshield of the car. I glanced up at the rearview mirror, which displayed the external temperature — it was January 12th and it was 58 degrees in Baltimore. I commented on the unusual nature of the weather, and how strangely warm it had been lately. “Global warming,” my friend joked, laughing a little. Though one warm winter day is hardly indicative of undeniable massive global climate change, the changes in weather patterns over the past few years have been somewhat staggering. We’ve all seen that picture of a polar bear floating away in a river of what was once a polar ice cap, clinging to the last bit of ice, or have listened to a commercial or lecture on the effects of human-caused greenhouse gases (GHGs). Artists like Prince have sung about the depletion of the ozone layer, and every election cycle since 1996, the Green Party of the United States has offered up a presidential candidate who runs on the platform of environmental protection. However, despite the widespread information about climate change available to the average American citizen, serious intervention to prevent catastrophic environmental disaster has faced many obstacles. In a 2011 study done by George Mason University, of a sample of nearly 500 prominent climate scientists, 97 percent acknowledged an increase in the earth’s average temperature in the past hundred years, only 5 percent did not agree with the assessment that climate change was at least partially induced by human behavior, and 85 percent believed that the effects of global warning could cause moderate to great danger. Ice is melting, sea levels are rising and species are dying, yet discussion of global warming and climate change remains deeply partisan. Conservative voices such as Rush Limbaugh and Stuart Varney brush off claims of global warming by pointing to examples of colder weather, such as the recent snow in Jerusalem.
Despite the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reporting that the summer of 2012 was the third-warmest on record for the continental United States, Fox News anchor David Asman claimed, in response to a question concerning climate change, that “it’s getting colder.” In 2011, every Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted down an amendment that stated the existence of global warming, regardless of whether or not it is man-made. This is absurd, flying in the face of all available evidence collected over the past century. There is no debate to be had about whether or not climate change is a real problem; the real debate should be what we are going to do to solve it. With natural catastrophes such as Hurricane Sandy, the matter of climate change has been put on the forefront of many Americans’ minds, especially those living on the East Coast, and in other areas seriously affected by this and other recent natural disasters. With an estimated death toll around 150 people, $20 billion in property damage and millions of people left without electricity for weeks, climate change has taken on a very real, tragic face. And, while sources such as Scientific American concede that global warming is not the direct cause of “superstorms” like Hurricane Sandy, they do have evidence supporting the claim that climate change is making such storms bigger. In the aftermath of Sandy’s catastrophic effects, climate change is once again on America’s brain. The New York Times reports that a Siena College poll finds that 69 percent of New York voters believe that Hurricane Sandy “demonstrate[s] global climate change rather than representing isolated weather events.” People are beginning to talk seriously about what role the government needs to have in climate change intervention, and how humans can reduce their negative effect on the Earth. And, as demonstrated in the recent poll of New Yorkers, or even a bad joke on the Baltimore Beltway, global warming is again part of our active consciousness. Now, with this consciousness, hopefully we will find ourselves capable of doing something about it. TKO
“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” Winston Churchill
13
Nite Bites Café
Peirce Pub Sunday - Thursday 10pm-1am Delivery: 740-427-6300 Menu: facebook.com/nitebitescafe
“Nite Bites … A little Taste of Kenyon” TKO
Comments? Complaints? Differing opinions? TKO
Get your voice in print by submitting a Letter to the Editors or full-length article to TKO@kenyon.edu
14 MARCELA COLMENARES
Too Sick to Govern HUGO CHAVEZ BATTLES CANCER AND THE VENEZUELAN CONSTITUTION
The Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, has President Maduro as the revolution’s leader in case he been in Cuba for a month, potentially on his death- was no longer able to govern. In doing so, he avoided bed. Only Vice President Nicolas Maduro, his closest an intense struggle for leadership within his own parfriends and family have been able to speak to him. ty. In spite of his disease, reportedly cancer, the presOther countries may be able to function under these ident was supposed to return to Venezuela on January conditions, but Venezuela in particular relies on the 10th for his swearing in. January 10th has come and presence of its executive. Since 1999 Chavez has been gone, and the Venezuelan people have not even rethe one and only leader of his socialist-Bolivarian ceived a picture of their president. Uncertainty and revolution. Big or small, few rumors rule the country and ther countr ies m ay be the media. decisions can be made without Chavez’s approval. More- able Chavez’s failure to attend to function under over, the Venezuelan people his swearing in has provoked have become accustomed these conditions but en an intense debate over the into Chavez maintaining an terpretation of two articles of overwhelming media pres- ezuela in particular relies the Venezuelan constitution. ence; the leader holds the on the presence of its ex record for one of the longest Article 231: The president speeches ever given, which ecutive elect will assume the office of lasted eight hours. Chavez, President of the Republic the like many populist and charismatic leaders, has creat10th of January in the first year of his constitutional ed a revolution, and government, that revolve around period, by swearing before the National Assembly. If him. by any unexpected reason the President of the Republic Despite his awareness of the deadly disease that could not assume office before the National Assembly, threatens his life, Hugo Chavez won re-election in he will do it before the Supreme Court of Justice. October. In what has probably been the wisest decision made by Chavez in recent memory, he used his Article 233: There will be an absolute presidential ablast speech before he left for Cuba to designate Vice sence in case of: death, resignation, a dismissal decreed
“O
,
V
-
.”
“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” Winston Churchill
15
by judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice, or the President’s permanent physical or mental disability certified by a medical board designated by the Supreme Court of Justice and with approval of the National Assembly...When the absolute absence of the President elect happens before assuming office, a new universal, direct and secret suffrage will proceed, within the following consecutive thirty days. While the election and the swearing in of the new President takes place, the National Assembly President will take charge of the Presidency of the Republic… Many of Chavez’s opponents argue that he should be temporarily replaced by Diosdado Cabello, the unicameral National Assembly president and former military man, and that a medical board should study Chavez’s case and determine if he will actually be available to fulfill his duties. They argue that just because Article 231 allows the president to be sworn in at an alternate location (the Supreme Court of Justice) does not mean that they can be inaugurated on an alternate day. Pro-Chavez government officials and the majority of the National Assembly, on the other hand, have declared that Chavez’s swearing in will be postponed until whenever the president is in condition to come back, and that he will be sworn in before the SCJ. Moreover, the SCJ has declared that a medical board is out of order because there is no reason for it to believe that the president is “incapacitated,” since on December 8th he formally requested permission for a temporary absence in order to undergo treatment in Cuba. The SCJ’s decision has sparked a heated debate over whether or not their actions were constitutional. The debate hinges on the definition of permanent absence. While the opposition believes that Chavez’s disease has disabled him permanently, the SCJ and the majority of the “red” National Assembly consider it a temporary absence, which, according to Article 234, could be prolonged to ninety consecutive days. On the top of that, after those ninety days the majority of the National Assembly has the authority to extend the temporary absence for another ninety days. Finally, the SCJ has gone to great lengths to shield the public from information concerning Chavez’s health, presenting him as an ordinary citizen whose private life should be kept private. The government’s actions have turned a medical issue into a partisan issue, as the vast majority of the National Assembly supports Chavez and the SCJ is not an independent body. As was the case when Chavez introduced permanent presidential reelection
via two consecutive referendums, Venezuela’s constitution and broken institutions have stood in the way of common sense and good governance. Under present circumstances, Chavez could theoretically remain in power without being inaugurated for months on end without having to explain himself to the Venezuelan people. This is irresponsible and unacceptable. The president is too sick to face the Venezuelan
“T he SCJ has gone to great lengths to shield the public from information concern ing
C havez ’ s
health ,
pre -
senting him as an ordinary citzen
whose
private
life
should be kept private .” people; the people should demand that he undergo a medical review to determine if he is fit to govern. In a country that is both dominated by the ruling majority and burdened by a constitution that does not provide decent checks and balances or guarantees for the rights of opposing groups, this is unlikely to happen. The SCJ’s failure to create a medical board is unacceptable for a variety of reasons. First, whether he likes it or not, Chavez is a public figure who does not enjoy the same right to privacy that ordinary citizens do. Second, Chavez has a long history of temporary absences associated with this illness; how many temporary absences have to meld together before they become one whole permanent absence? In the last sixteen months, Chavez has been forced to take at least five temporary absences in order to undergo treatment in Cuba. Finally, apart from Chavez’s testimonies, there is no way of confirming his actual medical condition; not a single medical report has been released to the government from the Cuban team that is treating the president. For all these reasons, the rejection by the SCJ of a medical board is unacceptable. But lately, Venezuelan anger has failed to translate into action. The Venezuelan opposition has grown far too accustomed to this kind of nonsense; instead of making the public squares tremble with their rage, Venezuelans have sat idly by, content to tweet their grievances. The Venezuelan people owe it to themselves to demand a sensible solution to Chavez’s clear inability to govern. TKO
“Governments never learn. Only people learn.” Milton Friedman
RYAN MACH
The Last Word A few weeks ago, I was humiliated and utterly disturbed by an experience at Wal-Mart. Our arms filled with bags of pretzels and bargain-bin DVDs, my friend and I were casually discussing Absalom, Absalom! while our cashier rang us up. As I was finally approaching the devastating conclusion to my critique of Faulkner’s moral ambivalence, our discussion was rudely interrupted. “Are the two of you boys English majors,” asked our cashier, removing the protective casing from National Treasure: Book of Secrets. As many of you know, I am a very patient, tolerant person, so I refrained from acknowledging the intellectual cock block that had just occurred and politely nodded. “My son, he wants to be an English major,” the insolent worm continued. “Always has loved books. But what I always ask him is, ‘what do you want to do with an English degree?’ You can be a teacher or something I guess, but, I don’t know — it just doesn’t strike me as the most useful kind of education I suppose.” Naturally, I was devastated, even violated. This cashier, this beast of an individual, stripped me of my very identity and humiliated me in front of a peer. To approach someone like me, unassuming, gentle, and attractive, and assert that my very life’s work is meaningless — I would have thought such an action unfathomable. But there I was, powerless to do anything but watch silently as my groceries were bagged, mocked all the while by the smiling face pinned to my tormentor’s apron. After taking a few Xanax and calling my mom, I got a grip and began to think: Why would somebody I don’t even know want to insult the passions I choose to pursue? Why would someone try to cast even a shadow of a doubt over the very bright future to which I am entitled? I realized that the solution to this problem was one that had gotten me through so many tough times in my past: the fact that I’m smarter than almost everyone I meet. So many people don’t understand how intelligent and, therefore, how important I am because they are so confused by my brilliance that they try to tear it down. Just as my classmates in high school would physically wedgie me with their ape-like appendages, the cretin at Wal-Mart had metaphorically wedgied me with doubt in an attempt to make me fit into her rudimentary understanding of the world. My first reaction to this discovery was indignation and anger, a desire to go back to that Wal-Mart and tear my assailant down in front of the entire super-store with a barrage of pithy barbs and withering logic. I would fight ignorance with eloquence and put one in the tally for the educated and make it perfectly clear that us privileged, educated, young people aren’t going to take this abuse any longer. But something stopped me: was this really the right thing to do? If I’m truly as exceptional as I believe myself to be, why did I feel so threatened by that cashier’s remarks? If I really deserve my comfortable position in the social hierarchy, shouldn’t my ambition, determination, and work ethic speak for themselves? All of a sudden, I realized that I had made a terrible mistake and it became clear what I had to do. I returned to the Wal-Mart a few days ago, proudly striding through the automatic doors alone and unafraid. My eyes scanned the rows of checkout lines before me, settling on the very same aisle where just a few weeks ago I had been so embarrassed. As I approached that line, it came to me that I had never even bothered to learn my cashier’s name. I watched as the person who had made me feel so small quietly and without complaint completed a menial task for the thousandth time, a task which someone like me would be loath to do even once. I looked at the name tag pinned under Wal-Mart’s grinning face on that frayed and work-worn apron. “Sandy,” I said aloud, smiling and walking towards the manager’s office. When the manager of the Wal-Mart asked if there was anything he could do for me, I replied, “Sir, your employee Sandy verbally assaulted me last month and I insist that she be terminated immediately without severance pay.” As soon as my complaint had been formally filed, Sandy was fired within days. I must admit, I was proud of myself that day. What better way to demonstrate my point by using cunning and intelligence to remove Sandy from the workforce? Not only did I make the Wal-Mart safer for smart, well-meaning people like myself, I proved how important I am by displaying my power. This way, my cashier might understand how good of an investment a liberal arts education is. Perhaps, against all odds, she’ll realize how useful an English degree can really be, and realize that she should work harder at her next job if she wants to get one for her son. I’m so proud that my actions could have such an effect, and I encourage all my readers to do something similar—if not for me, then for the children. Because those two things may be our only hope. TKO