Author Archives: Benjamin

Arguing Against the Orthodoxy

Posted on by
Reply

What I found most interesting about Professor Mertha’s talk last week was his unique stance: while the general consensus is that China is set to surpass the United States as the world’s economic power, Professor Mertha argues that this may not necessarily be the case. In examining China’s relationship with Cambodia, Prof. Mertha has discovered great inefficiencies and a general lack of efficacy in China’s bureaucracy. Upon uncovering top secret Chinese government documents, Prof. Mertha realized how difficult it is for China– a massive country– to maintain and run an accordingly massive bureaucracy. Often when thinking to China, we cite the quantifiable: GDP indicators, the one-child policy. These data points drive us to the common conclusion that China will surpass the US– “When China Rules the World” by Martin Jacques is a perfect example. But beyond (and behind) these numbers exist other issues with which the cumbersome Chinese bureaucracy is tasked: working conditions, foreign investment, etc. In many cases, Prof. Mertha points out, only the quantifiable is accomplished; anything else that can be easily brushed aside or hidden is not prioritized.

Last summer, the NYT published a long piece on China’s investment in Ecuador. A running theme of the article was that in investing in Ecuador, China was “exporting its worst practices.” This amounted to poor working conditions and lack of concern for the environment, among other issues. Where China’s flaws are perhaps most evident are the foreign countries in which China involves itself– Prof Mertha’s research speaks directly to this point.

Yes to Sleep and No to Stress

Posted on by
Reply

The focus of last week’s talk was managing stress– they key point, perhaps, was sleep. A few years ago, a sleep expert gave a talk at my high school. Over a number of years, he had performed a comprehensive study of optimal levels of sleep for high school and college-aged students. He found that 9.25 hours– 9 hours and 15 minutes– is ideal. Anything short of that mark, he said, is unhealthy. The professionals from Gannett echoed this number, and I can attest to what they recommend. Since hearing the talk (and seeing the data) a number of years ago, I have made it my mission to sleep 9.25 hours each night. My friends of course have criticized me– both for sleeping for what they consider an absurd amount of time, and for being so precise (and nerdy) about how I sleep. Of course, there are other methods for managing stress, but the simple fact of the matter is that without sleep, even rudimentary and quotidian tasks become difficult.

As we enter the final stretch of the year, I urge all of my peers to exchange the last hour of late-night studying (or Netflix) for an hour of sleep. You will notice the difference.

What’s the Dirt?

Posted on by
2

I found Dr. Solomon’s talk last week entirely fascinating— never before had I thought of soil as something other than dirt, let alone as much as a potential tool for reducing global warming. I will admit that as a humanities student, I was lost in some of the finer biologic details of Dr. Solomon’s talk, but the biggest takeaway— that carbon can be redistributed from the air to the soil— was eye-opening. I left wondering if there is a solution to this dilemma, a viable way of transferring carbon from the sky to the ground.

In reality, there is not much for me to say here besides the fact that I left with both a greater interest in and an appreciation for the study of soil. As stated before, I am not sure how much I— as a student of literature and political science— can add to this very discussion, but is great to see the breadth of study that Cornell offers.

Balancing Act

Posted on by
Reply

Last week, Coach Tanasoiu’s talk exposed me to the extraordinary commitment that student-athletes at Cornell face. Perhaps his most telling analogy was that his players are both training to be army rangers and studying to be doctors. How, one might ask, is Coach Tanasoiu able to keep his players motivated, healthy and productive in the face of such adversity? Coach Tanasoiu argued that the adversity that the players face– long days from the classroom to the court– in fact force the players to play, to study, and to live in the most efficient and productive ways possible. Time, he said, is our most valuable asset.

Thinking to my life as a student at Cornell, I have tried to apply Coach Tanasoiu’s advice, to be wary of time and to use time selectively. His talk was not only inspiring but awakening. I realized that I can achieve all my academic goals– all I have to do is push myself.

Language That Writes the DREAM

Posted on by
Reply

What I found most interesting about Esmeralda’s talk last Wednesday was the discussion on how the language used to describe DREAMers– youth who grew up in the US and who identify as American despite being completely undocumented– forms our opinions on the group. Esmeralda first identified some problematic wording: one statement described the youth has having been brought to the U.S. “by no fault of their own.” While this emphasis on guilt does induce some level of sympathy for the youth, it also blames their parents for bringing them to the U.S. This raises the question: can their parents be blamed for trying to create a better life for there children? Most would say no, but the language surrounding the DREAM Act did in fact imply the opposite. Another interesting dichotomy is that between illegal and undocumented: while “illegal” implies a clear wrongdoing, “undocumented” has an ambiguous quality that does not assign blame. The issue here as perhaps as linguistic as it is political; it is always enlightening to consider the very words that make up our debates.

The Cook Stove Dilemma

Posted on by
Reply

Last week, Professor Blalock described the issues that arise in the adoption of new technology. In East Africa, traditional cookstoves burn inefficiently, causing not only environmental problems, but grave health and lung problems to those around the stoves. The problems with the stoves are clear, and given modern technology, the solutions to these problems should be equally achievable. However, this has not been the case: the traditional stoves, which burn wood and are constructed of rocks, are more or less free. In rural areas, fuel– firewood– is either fetched for free, or, in urban areas, charcoal is purchased at low prices. A new stove, which costs not only to purchase, but to also maintain, is therefore a tough sell. Even considering the health benefits of the new stoves, nearly all of the people in the study elected to continue (or return to) using the traditional stoves.

One can point to a number of reasons for this aversion to replacing the traditional stoves with new and more efficient technology. The explanation that I found most interesting was that of collective action: if everyone were to adopt the new stove technology, the environment and community would be healthier. But, since each individual incurs a cost, many elect not to adopt the new technology. Therefore, one might reason, it is best not to buy the stove because its individual purchase and use will have negligible impact. The analogue to our society is the adoption of a Prius, or any electric car. The group identified a number of issues: range, size, style, etc. The same goes for the stove– the new technology could simply not be used as flexibly as the traditional stove, there was possibly some stigma, and moreover, the traditional stoves are free, or cost next to nothing. The lesson seems to be that unless everyone is on board, no one (or at least a negligible number of people) will be.

Perhaps the solution to this problem is not market-based, but rather policy-based. I wonder if the governments of these countries, with aid, could possibly undertake a large-scale stove adoption program.

New Frontiers Presented by Cornell Tech

Posted on by
Reply

Last Wednesday, Prof. Adam Shwartz presented on Cornell Tech, Cornell’s new graduate program in technology. Interestingly, the program will find its permanent home next summer on Roosevelt Island, far from Ithaca– but connected (by gondola) with what one might argue is the start-up capital of the country– Manhattan. The purpose, explained Shwartz, is to adapt to a quickly evolving and technologically oriented world: just ten years ago, Shwartz pointed out, we had no iPhones, no Facebook and a much more limited use of any such devices or programs. Our world has changed irrevocably (for the better) in the last decade. The issue now is keeping up.

Thinking back Ezra Cornell’s oft-cited “any person, any study,” Cornell Tech’s purpose and vision fits precisely within the University’s history; yet, its location, outside of Ithaca, offers a new dilemma: must the University be constrained to one physical location? Of course, one can justifiably say that in 2016, the answer is no: technology brings the two campuses together. But while communication can be shared, culture, perhaps, cannot. The biggest question in my mind, therefore, is that of the relationship between Cornell and its new satellite. How will the two communities interact? What, at Cornell Tech, will be open to undergraduates? What, in Ithaca, will be available to Cornell Tech students? When presented with questions of this nature, Prof. Shwartz, hinting at how the last decade has so unpredictably unfolded, gave a simple shrug of the shoulders, and a somewhat unsatisfying “We will see.”

Contemplating Environmentalism and Humor

Posted on by
Reply

Prior to Dr. Sachs’s talk last Wednesday, I had never thought using humor to help disseminate a environmentalist message (or concern.) But, growing up in a highly liberal and educated area, I was often exposed to many of the stereotypes that Sachs’s citations poked fun at– the judgmental neighbor from Modern Family, the misguided and emotional activists from West Wing, etc. Growing up and caring about the environment myself, I always found the pretentiousness of many other environmentalists off-putting. Much of the jargon surrounding the environmental movement implies an air of exclusivity and superiority: Solar panels (quite expensive), Prius, Tesla (flashy Prius), LEED Platinum renovation, Toms shoes, Whole Foods, etc. Point being: in our society, it is quite difficult to separate pure environmentalism and conservation from environmentally-focused consumption, which is for the most part prohibitively expensive. The deep irony exists that at face value, environmentalism cares about all, yet in practicality, as it stands today in the US, environmentalism caters only to a few.

Dr. Sachs argued that comedy can be a useful measure to improve environmentalism’s standing in public discourse. While I believe this could be true, I do not think Dr. Sachs went far enough: more than just comedy, some serious self-awareness is necessary. In my mind, this is lacking most from the environmentalist message, and if environmentalists wish to be successful in their outreach, they need to find ways to become more mainstream politically, culturally, and above all else, socio-economically.

Timelessness of Melancholy

Posted on by
Reply

What struck me most about Sara Schlemm’s talk is the continuity of melancholy as theme in Western literature and art. The talk started with an etymological dissection melancholy, bringing us to a discussion of its Ancient Greek root, melankholia, which consists of melan (black) and kholé (bile.) From here we talked about the connection with ancient Humorism and the idea that depression stemmed directly from excess amounts of black bile— or melankholia. From here we moved forward to Shakespeare, and finally to the film Vertigo. Thus we moved from the 2nd century—with Hippocrates and Galen—  to the 17th with our discussion of Hamlet, and finally the 20th with our quick viewing of Vertigo.

What I find amazing— and perhaps also depressing in and of itself— is that this idea of melancholy as a deep, persistent sadness has not only existed and been experienced throughout humanity, but that it has been known so widely as to be represented so prominently in our literature. Considering melancholy’s extensive history, I am hard pressed to find another equally specific idea that has been examined and reexamined over the last 2000 years.

Examining– and Mapping– Love

Posted on by
Reply

In his talk last Thursday, Dr. Alvarez brought up some interesting techniques on representing and depicting love in literature, especially in spoken word poetry. One technique that I found most interesting was tying love to place through the use of language: that is, using a local patois, dialect or language to spur memories of place.

In his poems about his childhood neighborhood in Los Angeles, Dr. Alvarez was quick to interject phrases in Spanish, culturally transporting the listeners to Huntington Park. We talked about why this is effective. One woman present at the talk noted how this use of Spanish, however brief, brought back childhood memories of buying cake in the same neighborhood. Hearing him speak these words– as opposed to silently reading them– made the work sensory, all the more real. Coupled with his vivid descriptions and imagery, I could not only visualize the neighborhood, but I could hear it. The use of language placed the poem, rendering it much more evocative.

As a sidenote, there is also an interesting political dimension of using dialect in literature. I am unsure if Dr. Alvarez intended a political meaning with his use of Spanish– it seemed to be more stylistic and reminiscent– but a political dimension is certainly possible. Thinking back to P.P. Pasolini’s use of Roman dialect in his secondo dopoguerra (period after WWII; literally the second “afterwar”) novels, I brought up both the authenticity evoked by and political value of his use of dialect. The careful use of language or dialect, in short, helps us to map and liven our memories: this is clear in Dr. Alvarez’s poetry.