Kenyon Observerthe

January 16, 2013

Jon Green | page 8

There and Back AgainDeflating the Kenyon Bubble

Kenyon’s oldest UndergradUate Political and cUltUral Magazine

Kenyon Observerthe

January 16, 2013

The Kenyon ObserverJanuary 16, 2013

From the Editors

Cover Storyjon green

There and Back AgainDeflating the Kenyon Bubble

gabriel rom

Quentin Unchained

jacob weiner

In Favor of the Implementation ofUnmanned Aerial Vehicles

megan shaw

Rejecting the KnownAmerica is Having the Wrong Debate Over Climate Change

marcela colmenares

Too Sick to GovernHugo Chavez Battles Cancer and the Venezuelan Constitution

ryan mach

The Last Word

5

6

10

8

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 opin-ions of the Observer staff or that of Kenyon College.

The Kenyon Observer will accept submissions and letters-to-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

Cover Art by Nick Nazmi Quotes Compiled by Megan Shaw

Editors-in-Chief Jon Green and Gabriel Rom

Managing EditorMegan Shaw

Online EditorYoni Wilkenfeld

Featured Contributors Marcela Colmenares,

Jon Green, Gabriel Rom, Megan Shaw and Jacob Weiner

Content EditorsSofia Mandel, Tess Waggoner and

Yoni Wilkenfeld

Layout/Design Sofia Mandel

IllustrationsPeter Falls, Nick Nazmi and Ethan

Primason

Faculty Advisor Professor Fred Baumann

12

14

5

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 re-sponse to our content and on other topics of interest.

Jon Green and Gabriel RomEditors-In-Chief

FROM THE EDITORS

Warning: this article contains spoilers

Quentin Tarantino has become a spinner of histor-ical catharsis. Django Unchained, in which a renegade slave kills (and kills and kills) white slaver owners, allows an impossible narrative to exist with panache, cinematic grandeur and deep moral ambiguity. Taran-tino plays fast and loose with genre, audience expec-tation, and what is deemed as acceptable taste. His cheekiness is one of his most laudable qualities. Yet when Tarantino self-consciously applies his cinematic style to history, he demeans and infantilizes the ex-perience of black slavery by turning it into a winking pulp-infused shoot-em-up. It’s a payoff that is too cynical to let this clever movie stand on its own. The eminent literary critic Lionel Trill-ing once said that “in irony there is a kind of malice”. By looking at both slavery and justice in never-too-serious terms, what is meant to be entertaining and fantastical becomes malicious.

Django Unchained is split into two parts. The first hour is set in the American West where Django (Ja-mie Foxx) is rescued by an erudite German, Dr. Schultz (Christoph Waltz) who also happens to be a bounty hunter. The two quickly become friends and then the killing begins in earnest. One after another, Southern whites go down by the barrel of Schultz and Django’s guns. The cinematog-raphy of the old west and deep south is astounding, the Southern accents are charming and the dress is perfect. The movie has the trappings of history but none of its substance.

While Django Unchained is an homage to the Spa-ghetti Westerns of the 1960s and 70s (the movie is

a remake of Sergio Corbucci’s 1967 original Django), it also strongly alludes to the blaxploitation genre popular during the same era. Tarantino fuses together the two influences seamlessly, creating a movie that seems not to want to be taken seriously but neverthe-less tries to say something profound about slavery, race and racism.

Django’s retribution against the institution of slavery not only has few historical precedents (Nat Turner comparisons are iffy at best) it also inverts cinematic precedent by allowing the role of reckon-ing to be placed in black, rather than white, hands. Dr. Schutlz must die before Django can fully destroy

his wife’s captors. In one sense this seems unremarkable. Southern blacks were the victims of slave-owners, just as European Jews were the victims of the Nazis. Given the plot of Tarantino’s previous movie, Inglorious Basterds, it is just narrative convention in Tarantino’s cathartic universe to give history’s victims the role of judge, jury and executioner. Yet in another sense, the role of a black man as distribu-tor of justice harkens back to the long out-of-vogue style of blax-ploitation movies.

Critical appraisal on blaxploita-tion is divided between those who

see the genre as an amalgamation of thinly-veiled rac-ist tropes, and those who see it as a problematic yet important integration of black empowerment into a historically white business. Either way, by engaging with a hunted-as-hunter narrative, Tarantino forces himself into the middle of cinematic race relations.

The arch-villain of the movie, Calvin Candie (Leonardo Decaprio), is introduced to us as a con-noisseur of Mandingo fighting. Django pretends to

Quentin Unchained

GABRIEL ROM

6

“Politics is too serious a matter to be left to politicians.” Charles de Gaulle

Illustration by Ethan Primason

7

be a knowledgeable scout of the sport in order in-filtrate 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 blaxploita-tion classic of the same name.

Some of the scenes of violence, like a slave be-ing 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 un-til the 1960s. Can we then, in some perverted sense, call this movie an educational experience — a re-minder, 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 Jo-nah 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 ac-tors can impersonate them. Tarantino helps strip the KKK of their power and terror in a way that an hon-est 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 Taran-tino surely does not mind. The word has an impor-tant 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 “period-piece 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 re-tributive pornography.

When Ms. Laura, Calvin Candie’s sister, was liter-ally blown off the screen, the audience at my show-ing erupted with cheers. The laughter had an under-tone of social righteousness — that by laughing at the absurd death of a caricatured white supremacist, we boost our progressive racial credentials ever-so-slightly. But that’s no fault of the audience. Capital-izing 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 righ-teous 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 los-es a connection to racial reality. First the Holocaust and now slavery. Like Schultz himself, Tarantino is a bounty-hunter who, with style and precision, obliter-ates 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 mod-ern 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 ecto-plasms” when he affirmed that “I am a man of sub-stance, of flesh and bone, fiber and liquids — and I might even be said to possess a mind.” Can Django say the same?

“The movies make reality irrelevant” James Baldwin

TKO

8

JON GREEN

When classes began last fall I was nowhere to be found. I had left Kenyon to work on the Obama cam-paign in my hometown of Charlottesville, Virginia as a field organizer, in line with the plan I had kept in the back of my mind since my senior year of high school when I was an intern on the 2008 campaign.

The funny thing about campaigns is that, no mat-ter how organized they look, they are all a chaotic jumble of moving parts and changing plans. On August 29th I received a phone call asking me to become one of those moving parts by taking a small promotion and mov-ing to Hampton, Virginia to become that area’s deputy regional field direc-tor. Had President Obama not been holding a rally in my turf the next day, I would have been in the car the following morning. In light of the circumstances, I waited until September 1st.

I should have felt considerably less-than-prepared to live up to the standards that I would be held to by those both above and below me. Being the first of only three deputy regional field directors in the state (for perspective, the campaign divided Virginia into twenty-one regions), I had no set job descrip-

tion other than, “this area is a mess — go fix it.” As I found out, that meant moving from my defined skill set, to training and managing staffers who were in the position I had held the day before. Entering data, calling volunteers and registering voters immediately became scrutinizing spreadsheets, running offices and soothing local party leaders. But, with no spare time and no learning curve, things were moving too

fast for me to realize that I should have been freaking out. As it turned out, I was able to swim in the pool I had been proverbially thrown into, and you know the rest.

But this story ac-tually begins much earlier, in the sum-mer following my freshman year. I spent that summer tramping through the deepest parts of central Virginia looking to find votes

for Tom Perriello. Tom was an underdog fighting for underdogs; the kind of politician everyone says they want. It would have been hard to do the same work for anyone else, but I felt like I needed to do it for him. So when my summer fellowship turned into a job offer, I won an argument with my parents and told the Dean’s office that I wouldn’t be back for the fall.

“We know what we are, but know not what we may be.” William Shakespeare

There and Back AgainDEFLATING THE KENYON BUBBLE

Image Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

9

Those four months were more work than I knew was possible. Friday nights were reserved for data entry; Saturday mornings were for training can-vassers. 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 con-cerned, 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 sopho-more 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 sen-tence. Communicating at Kenyon required more de-liberation but came with less pressure, allowing it to move paragraph by paragraph. Quick and concise re-sponses 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-

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 congress-man 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-

er myself “ready” for anything. Two campaigns have left me with three separate groups of friends, mem-ories 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 com-pared 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 “gradua-tion” 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 expe-rience, 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.

“The greater our knowledge increases, the more our ignorance unfolds.” JFK

“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!”

“tHe 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”

TKO

10

JACOB WEINER

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 argu-ment, 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 crit i-cal 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 assas-sination of, say, American citizen and Al-Qaeda op-erative 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 permissibil ity of any sort of military technology, we must assume, from the outset, that the conf lict in which the tech-nology 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 permis-sibil ity of drones generally. In order to discuss the morality of any sort of military technology, it is es-sential 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 af-ter 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 justif ied.

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 justif ied.

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, countervail ing reason to do so. A failure to employ UAV technology, which removes warriors from the immediate danger of a war theater, clear-ly constitutes ordering a warrior to take on unnec-essary 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 non-legitimate targets, or between combatants and non-combatants. I agree whole-heartedly that “if using a UAV in place of an inhabited weapon platform in any way whatsoever decreases the abil ity 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 im-prove the safety of the warrior, cannot be justif ied. A reduced capacity to behave justly represents one of the aforementioned “strong, countervail ing reasons”

“A tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” C.S. Lewis

In Favor of the Implementation of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

11

not to employ a military technology that would re-duce 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 l ikelihood of non-combatant deaths; there is signif icant evidence that the opposite is the case. Strawser, cit ing a 2010 study by Matthew Fricker and Avery Plaw, reports that in Pakistan be-tween 2004 and 2007 “UAV strikes were far better at non-combatant discrimination than all other meth-ods used used for engaging Taliban fighters in the region.” The study reveals that UAVs had a 17-to-1 ratio of combatant-to-civil ian deaths, as compared to a 4-to-1 ratio for Pakistan Special Weapons and Tac-tics 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 discrimi-nating between combatant and non-combatant tar-gets.

Another argument posited by crit ics of UAVs is that UAVs have a tendency to cause cognitive disso-nance in their operators; that the spatial distance be-tween 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 inappropri-ate actions and could lead to post traumatic stress disorder. In response to the f irst concern Strawser posits that “the temptation for the warfighter to com-mit jus in bello violations would actually lessen, per-haps signif icantly so, once the warfighter is not at risk.” Warfighters are far more l ikely 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 tele-communications, they allow for greater oversight and accountabil ity; a UAV operator’s actions can be over-seen and guided in real t ime by multiple individuals, al lowing, for instance, for an operator to seek ap-proval from multiple superiors before making a lethal decision. This level of accountabil ity 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 signif icantly lesser than those associated with inhab-ited 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 sig-nif icantly that, if we implement them, we are much more l ikely 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 be-cause they make us more l ikely to enter into unjust conf licts. Following this sort of logic, Strawser says, “militaries should intentionally reduce military capa-

bil it ies 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 permissibil ity 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 l imiting their capac-ity 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 signif i-cantly greater than the weight of endangering a sol-dier, 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) possibil ity of future injustice to rationalize behaving unjustly in the pres-ent.

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

“tHis objection faces a Host of 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”

TKO

12

MEGAN SHAW

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 de-grees 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 citi-zen, serious intervention to prevent catastrophic envi-ronmental 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 ac-knowledged an increase in the earth’s average tempera-ture 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 per-cent 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 Admin-istration (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 fore-front of many Americans’ minds, especially those liv-ing on the East Coast, and in other areas seriously af-fected 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, cli-mate 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 govern-ment 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 conscious-ness. Now, with this consciousness, hopefully we will find ourselves capable of doing something about it.

“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” Winston Churchill

Rejecting the KnownAMERICA IS HAVING THE WRONGDEBATE OVER CLIMATE CHANGE

TKO

13

TKO

Comments? Complaints? Differing opinions?

Get your voice in print by submitting a Letter to

the Editors or full-length article to TKO@kenyon.edu

TKO

Nite Bites Café Peirce Pub

Sunday - Thursday 10pm-1amDelivery: 740-427-6300

Menu: facebook.com/nitebitescafe“Nite Bites … A little Taste of Kenyon”

14

MARCELA COLMENARES

The Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, has been in Cuba for a month, potentially on his death-bed. Only Vice President Nicolas Maduro, his closest friends and family have been able to speak to him. Other countries may be able to function under these conditions, but Venezuela in particular rel ies on the presence of its executive. Since 1999 Chavez has been the one and only leader of his social ist-Bolivarian revolution. Big or small, few decisions can be made with-out Chavez’s approval. More-over, the Venezuelan people have become accustomed to Chavez maintaining an overwhelming media pres-ence; the leader holds the record for one of the longest speeches ever given, which lasted eight hours. Chavez, l ike many populist and charismatic leaders, has creat-ed a revolution, and government, that revolve around him.

Despite his awareness of the deadly disease that threatens his l ife, Hugo Chavez won re-election in October. In what has probably been the wisest deci-sion made by Chavez in recent memory, he used his last speech before he left for Cuba to designate Vice

President Maduro as the revolution’s leader in case he was no longer able to govern. In doing so, he avoided an intense struggle for leadership within his own par-ty. In spite of his disease, reportedly cancer, the pres-ident was supposed to return to Venezuela on January 10th for his swearing in. January 10th has come and gone, and the Venezuelan people have not even re-ceived a picture of their president. Uncertainty and

rumors rule the country and the media.

Chavez’s failure to attend his swearing in has provoked an intense debate over the in-terpretation of two articles of the Venezuelan constitution.

Article 231: The president elect will assume the off ice of President of the Republic the

10th of January in the f irst year of his constitutional per iod, by swearing before the National Assembly. If by any unexpected reason the President of the Republic could not assume off ice before the National Assembly, he will do it before the Supreme Court of Justice.

Article 233: There will be an absolute presidential ab-sence in case of: death, resignation, a dismissal decreed

“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” Winston Churchill

Too Sick to GovernHUGO CHAVEZ BATTLES CANCER

AND THE VENEZUELAN CONSTITUTION

“otHer coUntries May be able to fUnction Under tHese conditions, bUt ven-ezUela in ParticUlar relies on tHe Presence of its ex-ecUtive.”

15

by judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice, or the President’s permanent physical or mental disability cer-tif ied 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 off ice, a new universal, direct and secret suffrage will proceed, within the fol-lowing 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 fulf il l his duties. They argue that just be-cause 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 ab-sence. 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 major-ity of the National Assembly has the authority to ex-tend 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 cit izen whose private l ife 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 consti-tution and broken institutions have stood in the way of common sense and good governance. Under pres-ent circumstances, Chavez could theoretically remain in power without being inaugurated for months on end without having to explain himself to the Ven-ezuelan people. This is irresponsible and unaccept-able. The president is too sick to face the Venezuelan

people; the people should demand that he undergo a medical review to determine if he is f it to govern. In a country that is both dominated by the ruling major-ity and burdened by a constitution that does not pro-vide 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 un-acceptable for a variety of reasons. First, whether he l ikes it or not, Chavez is a public f igure who does not enjoy the same right to privacy that ordinary cit izens do. Second, Chavez has a long history of temporary absences associated with this i l lness; how many tem-porary 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 f ive temporary absences in order to undergo treatment in Cuba. Finally, apart from Chavez’s tes-timonies, 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 rea-sons, 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 them-selves to demand a sensible solution to Chavez’s clear inabil ity to govern.

“Governments never learn. Only people learn.” Milton Friedman

“tHe scj Has gone to great lengtHs to sHield tHe PUblic froM inforMation concern-ing cHavez’s HealtH, Pre-senting HiM as an ordinary citzen wHose Private life sHoUld be KePt Private.”

TKO

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 smil-ing 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, determina-tion, 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 ac-tions 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

RYAN MACH

The Last Word