Craig Boge '07, far left, and supporters (mostly fellow Grove residents) were captivated by the game, watching in the Grove Lasuen lounge.

The results of Craig Boge's first round of the Jeopardy College Championship are in: he kicked ass. The final tally was $18,800 for Craig, our Stanford representative, $6,500 for Brady from Yale, and $13,500 for Haley from Nebraska. Before the Final Jeopardy question, which Craig answered incorrectly, the tally was even more dramatic: $19,400 for Craig, $9,000 for Brady, and $8,000 for Haley.

The Final Jeopardy clue was, "He's the character mentioned in the first line of Atlas Shrugged." Craig answered, "Who is Atlas?" The correct answer, which only Haley got right, was "Who is John Galt?"

Despite losing money on the last question, Craig dominated much of the game, answering (correctly) many questions in a row. After the filming of the round, Craig says that Alex Trebek turned to him and said, "You took no prisoners."

For winning this game, Craig is guaranteed at least $10,000. Tune in next Wednesday, May 9th at 7PM on ABC for his second game!

After his victory in the first round of the Jeopardy College Championship against students from Yale and Nebraska, Craig took some time to respond to a few interview questions via e-mail:

Blog for Stanford: What was it like to watch yourself on national television? Did anything in particular stick out to you?

Craig Boge: It's so weird, because you know what's going to happen and in some cases where you know you said something stupid or mixed things up (like the Picture of Dorian Gray question) and you just wait for the groans from everyone else.

BFS: How did your friends and family react to your victory in the first round?

CB: My family kidded me a little about my response on the computer model picture (It was an IBM, I said Apple), but mostly they were very proud. Branden [Grove dormmate], who made the trip down, also said congrats and seemed proud, but they herded us off to the back room to get our stuff so we didn't chat long.

Everyone at Grove erupted once Double Jeopardy! ended, since I had clinched the game. That was weird, because it's not something people can do in the audience for a specific person. Hearing the roar was just awesome.

Sociology Chair Karen Cook has been elected to the National Academy of Sciences.

According to the Chronicle of Higher Education she is one of the 9 women elected to this very prestigious body this year. The Chronicle states the 9 women elected represents the lowest number of women elected to the NAS in the last six years, and that a total of 72 members and 18 foreign associates were elected this year.

Last Wednesday, MySpace and the creator of Survivor announced a new American Idol-style interactive political reality TV show/internet hybrid that will select a candidate for the 2008 Presidential campaign. Naturally, it's going to be called Independent.

More press coverage here and here.

Here's what we know: the "primary," so to speak, will take place on the internet, where hundreds of self-anointed candidates will submit video to enter and compete via specialized pages on MySpace.com. Web voters will then narrow the slate down to 100 (or so) candidates, who will then appear on national television (presumably on Fox, although the creators haven't secured a deal yet), where they will debate every week, followed by more voting (both on- and offline) and feedback from web users, who will also determine the topics to be debated. The winner of the show will receive $1 million toward his or her actual Presidential campaign (or, if the winner is too young for President, toward some lesser public office, or charity).

Depending on how the show is designed and received, it has the potential to be extremely disruptive to our political system, involving a generation of young viewers in a political process they can understand and really feel a part of. The base of legitimacy this might lend to the winning candidate (or perhaps some runners up!) could be very powerful, to say the least.

No doubt, depending on how the show is designed, it has the potential to put our political system to shame. A whole hour every week on primetime TV devoted to political discourse among actual candidates? Wow. A common forum on the internet for voters to hash out what's most important to them and give feedback to candidates who are actually listening? Holy cow! A no-party system where candidates don't have extreme elements to cater to? Keep in mind that the party primary system we have today means that primary candidates have to run to the center of their party in order to be elected their party's Presidential nominee, which means each candidate ends up being far away from the center of America's political preferences as a whole. With no party primary, this show could eliminate that bias and force candidates to run for and be accountable to the center.

Though this doesn't quite surprise me, President Emeritus of Stanford, Donald Kennedy, found that students taught Creationism in high school are not critical thinkers. Creationism is based upon faith, which rewards lack of thought and evidence - two qualities that are absolutely necessary for scientific reasoning. You can read more about the finding here.

It baffles me how many of my fellow Americans subscribe to this type of faith. As the Washington Times stated in a June 9, 2006 article: "A Gallup Poll reveals that 46 percent think God created man in his present form sometime in the past 10,000 years, while 36 percent say man developed over millions of years from lesser life forms, but God guided the process." This is just frightening. Why are so many people such lazy thinkers? To me, that's exactly what faith entails. It's easy to blindly accept something as true - reasoning it out is a whole different story.

Last week, Stanford Law School professor and Net activist Lawrence Lessig (who also founded Creative Commons and Stanford's Center for Internet and Society) wrote an open letter to the chairs of the Republican National Convention (RNC) and Democratic National Convention (DNC), asking that video footage from party presidential debates able to be "shared, re-used, and freely blogged about without the uploader of the video being deemed a lawbreaker."

Lessig, along with 75 other Internet VIPs such as Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia, Craig Newmark of Craigslist and Ariana Huffington of The Huffington Post, is now joined by big-timers from both sides of the Red-Blue divide.

Republican bloggers like Matt Margolis, who operates "Blogs for Bush" have sent letters to the chair of their National Convention. Recently, presidential hopefuls John Edwards and Barack Obama, too, have shown their support for free distribution of debate content.

Scandal was born after MSNBC's live internet stream of the Democratic presidential debates last week. MSNBC claimed that no footage could be distributed on the Internet and that no one was allowed to use excerpts after May 26, 2007, and could not archive them, either. Outrage in the online community sparked Lessig's letter, and now has taken a prominent role in discussion of the debates.

As Obama points out in his letter to DNC Chair Howard Dean, open video access engages youth (I, for one, watched the debates online) and promotes a political dialogue in the form of bloggers, et al.

Ten reasons YOU should get one or several copies of the Stanford Soundtrack Vol. 6:

1. The music is great.
2. 20 tracks from the best Stanford bands and musicians.
3. The packaging is totally awesome, and you know you want it on your shelf.
4. Did I mention it's free?
5. Take some home to friends and family -- it's the coolest Stanford souvenir you'll find on campus.
6. It's volume six, which means, if you have any of the past volumes (volumes one-five), you should complete your collection.
7. You might have missed the Soundtrack CD Release party, but you can party to this CD.
8. Your friends are either on the Soundtrack, or, if you are at all the kind of cool Stanford student I assume you to be, you have probably seen some of the bands play at campus parties, or at the CoHo or Moonbeans.
9. You love music.
10. You love Stanford.

You can pick up your free copy from the CoHo, or from the unofficial SOCA warehouse, the SICA office -- in Roble Gym, first office on your right after you enter.

Don't miss out, folks. The very awesome exhibit in the art gallery ends tomorrow, Sunday. Hours for Sunday are 1-5pm (and it's free as always). Check it out!

It has been said, "The purpose of art is to lay bare the questions that have been buried by the answers." . . . In this exhibition, LIES, the students seem to have pulled out all of the stops. Norms give way to surprises, often baiting us with wit, mischeif and humor -- expanding our horizons along with their own.

Click to view more images from the gallery!

According to the Wall Street Journal law blog, the former "Chief Education Director" of AutoAdmit.com, which bills itself as "The most prestigious college discussion board in the world," has had an offer of employment withdrawn.

For those of you not familiar with the scandal, the Washington Post published an exposé of harrassment (registration may be required) of female law students perpetuated by anonymous posters to this board in an unmoderated law student discussion forum on March 7. Names and other identifying information of the students harrassed were published on the board and not taken down.

Genderfuk.

Do I look like a slut? Uh huh.

This is a compilation of all of the videos we could scrounge together of the night's performances. Enjoy. :)

More event pictures here.

One thing you'll find published about Stanford is the impressive diversity of the undergraduate population. But one of the little secrets about Stanford is that the graduate population is significantly less diverse, as the chart above demonstrates. If you're interested in learning more there will be a town hall forum at the GCC:

What: Graduate Diversity Town Hall Forum, Discussion of Implicit Bias
When: May 10, 2007 @ 5:30pm
Where: Graduate Community Center (750 Escondido Road), Havana Room
Free Pizza will be provided, all are welcome!

The Stanford Daily today printed an editorial with the headline, "ASSU Senators: Grow Up." Apparently, the editors thought better of that very provocative headline, and so the title of the online version appears as "A united ASSU Senate?"

The editors begin by saying that they were "disappointed to see divisive contention rear its ugly head again" in divided voting for Senate Chair and Deputy Chair (after such a close contest for ASSU Executive), but they then note that "beyond the hype of factionalism, senators who are endorsed by either [the Students of Color Coalition or the Review] expressed similar goals in their respective platforms."

The disturbing thing about this editorial is that the Daily is chiefly responsible for creating -- and maintaining -- this "hype of factionalism." The reporter assigned to cover the ASSU, Andrea Fuller, is widely rumored to dislike the Senate and apparently allows that to be reflected in her reporting.

Two possible examples of this stick out in my head. The first is the collapsing of the "divide" into two camps: SOCC-endorsed, and Review-endorsed. This is clearly inappropriate and was a characterization rejected by the Senators in the very 3-hour meeting the Daily loves to flaunt around as the epitome of breakdown in the Senate. The Review-endorsed candidates were endorsed also by the Stanford Democrats, the Band, the Queer-Straight Alliance, and others. Given the conservative Review's poor reputation on campus, its endorsement was nothing to be proud of. In fact, Senator Patrick Cordova, in his appeal to become Senate Chair, declared himself a Democrat and said that he applied for the Review endorsement to get help with fliering. Ultimately, the only people who can accurately be lumped into any sort of "Review" category are the two Senators that actually write for and run the paper: Luukas Ilves and Stuart Baimel. A small contingent, indeed.

To its credit, the Daily has occasionally noted that the labels don't really fit, but it still consistently falls back on those labels because of its desire to hype up the great "divide."

A second example of the hyping is the double-printing and mis-attribution of a quote by Senator Jonathan Kass on the 3-hour meeting. When he asked to change his vote for Deputy Chair, the ensuing uncertainty of the situation led him to call the situation a "circus," but the Daily reported him in its second printing of the quote as saying that the Senate was a "circus." In the second issue where the quote was printed, it was set apart from the text and printed in large type.

After nearly an academic year in the making, The Stanford Daily has entered into a collaborative relationship with KZSU News and the Stanford Cardinal Broadcasting Network (SCBN). As of today, the content from KZSU News and SCBN's broadcasts will be hosted on the Stanford Daily's website, where they can be streamed.

The relationship has coalesced to provide a multi-media hub that brings together Stanford's existing media resources for a richer experience that covers more of the campus. Additionally, the relationship includes training of Daily staff in multi-media production by KZSU and SCBN. Look out for audio and media production from the Stanford Daily itself.

Now getting involved with either the Daily, KZSU, and SCBN, can potentially mean working within all three mediums and with all three media outlets.

Below are segments from the campus radio news show, the Stanford Current, from the 5/7 broadcast on KZSU 90.1 FM.

Included in the segments is "Your World This Week," headlines from the Stanford bubble and beyond.

Also, check out an audio essay by senior Brent Perez. He'll explore the viability of wind energy to kick our addiction to oil.

And lastly, heavyweight reporter Mohammad Ali reports on a visit on campus by Dr. Uri Davis. He spoke at an event called Apartheid Israel: Possibilities for the Struggle Within, sponsored by Students Confronting Apartheid by Israel (SCAI).

You can listen to the entire broadcast here.

I love photography. There is something about capturing real life that is so beautiful and exciting to me: a flash frame of life, frozen on film forever.

A while back, I found a photo slideshow from this guy named George Lange. He does portraits and they are amazing. They make you just want to run out with your camera and start snapping away.

George Lange 2006 Photo Flipbook

Inspired, I made my own slideshow. I call mine Stanford Portraits - they are all pictures I took one day in White Plaza earlier this year with some green posterboard. It was a lot of fun: I asked people to do a regular shot and then a silly shot. I love the results.

Stanford Portraits

You may not know this, but housed at a Safeway or Molly Stones near you is a new Ben & Jerry's ice cream flavor named after late night talk show host Stephen Clobert of the Colbert Report. A fan of the late night show, I decided to try "Stephen Colbert's Americone Dream" ice cream to see if I liked it.

(yes, this is the actual carton I tried)

So, I've always felt like I had a good sense of the arts events on campus, due to my involvement with SOCA, Art Affair, the art and music departments, my friends and various classes I've taken across the breadth of the University during my undergrad, but recently, as I am moderating a comprehensive arts & entertainment calendar this school year, I have discovered I had NO IDEA how many film events, screenings, festivals, auditions and productions take place on campus each year.

After doing a little investigative work, and looking back through the calendar for the year, pinging the Stanford Film Society list, and sifting through websites and events, I've put together a (hopefully) complete list of the festivals and regular screenings that take place on campus this year - next year, who knows?

Film Festivals:

• Stanford Student Film Festival (spring)
• Reel Black Film Festival (spring)
• Pumpkin Pie Film Festival (winter)
• Spinning Wheel Film Festival (winter)
• UNAFF (fall)
• Reel to Reel (short films by MFAs)
• Arab Film Festival (fall)

Film Series Screenings:

• Greek - Iranian - Turkish - Romanian film series at Bechtel
• French Silent Film Series (Hosted by David Giovacchini, Stanford University Libraries. Sponsored by the French and Italian Department, Stanford University.)
• Middle East Film Series (Hosted by David Giovacchini, Middle East Collection, Stanford University Libraries. Sponsored by the Abbasi Program in Islamic Studies, and the Middle East Collection of the Stanford University Libraries.)
• Japanese Film Series
• Weekly Screenings from Stanford Newtype
• French and German film series at Bechtel
• Spanish Film Series on Thursday nights, in the History Corner (Sponsored by Iberia Association)
• Flicks, of course.

I love the idea of a Stanford blog. The students here have such a diversity of opinions, and exciting thoughts and issues are constantly circulating through our community. I truly believe that the rise of the 'blog' has been one of the most exciting things to happen to internet, and that it can be the perfect medium for facilitating this discussion. However, I'm also dismayed that this blog has been more of an alternative Stanford Daily, with many of the posts just rehashing yesterday's news. I call upon all of my fellow bloggers to write about the things that make them feel uncomfortable. Upload posts that incite discussion, and get all of us thinking. Bring out the issues that lie just beneath the surface of everyday life that we are too timid to talk about. The last thing I want is for this blog to be a nice news forum, where people write about benign and, frankly, boring topics. Let's make the Stanford Blog something special. Let's make it something that people are excited to check out.

What an abyss of uncertainty, whenever the mind feels overtaken by itself; when it, the seeker, is at the same time the dark region through which it must go seeking and where all its equipment will avail it nothing. […] It is face to face with something which does not yet exist, which it alone can make actual, which it alone can bring into the light of day. Marcel Proust, Swann’s Way, History 136B

Look at that beautiful piece of literature I read today for a class. Gorgeous. Reading it got me thinking: across various Departments and Programs in the University, students read a vast canon of literature. How often do you read something so great-- so transcendent-- that you dog-ear it, underline it, highlight it...and then share it with your roommate? Wouldn't it be great if you could share it with even more people?

Now, instead of reading spam in your inbox, you can enjoy some good writing in a weekly email containing a short snippet that was read in a Stanford class this month. Add yourself by sending an email with “Subscribe me!” in the subject line to ALineofLit@gmail.com.

Also, when you’re reading a text for class and you come across a passage you like, send it to us. We take the one we like best and send it out for everyone to enjoy each week or so.

For those of you familiar, this idea is similar to The Paragraph of the Day. The big difference is that all our texts referenced are currently being read at Stanford! It’s a nice way to wake up in the morning--with a piece of great writing sitting in your inbox…so don’t forget to sign up and to submit your favorite prose today!

As we were all studying, sleeping, and wasting time watching random Youtube videos late last night, something insidious was afoot. Beginning around 1:00am this morning, a serial spammer hit the Unofficial Stanford Blog, posting spam in the comment sections of nearly all the blog entries for the month of May.

The issue of serial spammers is not new to campus. When the Stanford Daily first launched a comment section on their website this academic year, it was hit with similar problems. To combat the problem, the Daily installed software that detected spam entries and deleted them.

The Stanford Blog also has a mechanism to prevent serial spamming. Posting members are given the option to manage their entries, including comments. However, a spammer's post is published before a poster has a chance to edit(delete) it. The Stanford Blog should have an option that doesn't allow comments to be published unless approved by the poster of the entry.

The spam filter built in to MovableType, which is the blog software Stanford provides to student groups seeking to create their own blogs, catches a good 75% of the spam we receive every day from evil spam robots who flood our Comments system with links to increase their ranking in Google search results. Over the past three weeks, for example, the filter caught 497 spam comments.

However, this isn't good enough, and until now, we've been manually deleting the spam that slips through the filter. At one point, the volume of spamming was so high that our database broke and I had to re-install the entire blog (remember the "routine maintenance" post?). Luckily, this time, we moved to an industrial-strength database so that the Blog won't break, no matter how much pressure the SpamBots apply.

Given Anthony's prodding, we're stepping up the effort further. After scouring the internet, I believe we've found a suitable plugin that requires human verification for commenting, but that I think won't overburden our users with mental (or visual) gymnastics. It's called TinyTuring, and all it requires is that you type in the first letter of the sentence it provides you with before posting a comment.

We've installed it on the Blog, so give it a try and let us know if you experience any problems with it. On this end, we'll be waiting to see if any spam comments slip through. We're three hours into using this plugin and so far... no spam.

Woot.

Last round, I used the word "dominated" to describe Craig's opponents in the Jeopardy College Championship. This round, I would call them "obliterated." After a somewhat slow start, Craig pulled ahead before the game's second half, and then stayed ahead until Final Jeopardy, where his opponents risked everything to beat him. Unfortunately for them, they both failed to answer the final question correctly and ended up with almost nothing. Craig bet $8,222, answered correctly, and ended up with $22,222.

Final Jeopardy question: "In an Ibsen play, Nora tells her husband that she's been like one of these to him, just as she was to her father." Correct answer: "What is a doll?"

Final scores:
Craig Boge (Stanford) - $22,222
Pete (Michigan) - $200
Dean (Northwestern) - $0

Tune in both tomorrow and Friday at 7 on ABC to watch Craig in the Jeopardy College Championship Finals!

Woohooo!!!!!!

According to The Stanford Dems Poll everyone loves Obama, except perhaps me and one or two others. (Note: I happily consider myself a Stanford Dem.) But I'm not impressed. For that matter, I'm not as impressed with any of the presumed front runners as I am with some of the ignored candidates. Perhaps that makes me cynical. Who knows. But if you're like me and are tired of hearing only about the top three candidates, C-E-O, then you should check out Bill Richardson's new YouTube video:

I found what looks like an absolutely hilarious parody of those old Saturday morning cartoon shows we used to watch. Although some of the comments claim it was actually shown on Nickelodeon. It is so much more random and funny because it is a big joke. Featuring a 12 year old boy and his magic dog, Jake. It's totally worth 8 minutes of your life and it's a way better adventure than the infamous Candy Mountain.

13

After the first game of the Jeopardy College Championship Finals, Craig Boge trails UCLA's Cliff by the small sum of $2,100. At one point, Craig fell behind by over $10,000, but made an aggressive push, answered the Final Jeopardy question correctly, and ended up a strong second going into the final game of the championship, which airs today at 7PM on ABC.

The final jeopardy question: "This term still had 'work' on the end when Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn, 2 of its creators, used it in a key 1974 paper." The correct answer: "What is the internet?"

Craig wagered $5,100 to finish with $16,000. Cliff of UCLA finished the first round with $18,000 after answering the Final Jeopardy question incorrectly, while Notre Dame's Christine is pretty much out of the game with only $3,200.

As before, our lounge (Grove Lasuen) was packed with anxious housemates and other supporters, who cheered loudly as it became clear that Cliff did not have the correct answer to the Final Jeopardy question, helping move Craig almost to parity. The suspense is killing us, but we're already so proud of Craig! He's assured at least second place!

I recently posted on diversity of the graduate student population at Stanford. A recent editorial in Nature Medicine discusses this a little more (my emphasis):

The typical American lab is peopled almost entirely with white scientists. That's not reflective of society at large. A shake-up of the way minorities are recruited, trained and promoted could give minority representation in science the boost it so badly needs.

In 2000, the US population was 75% white, 12% black and 12% Hispanic. But the proportion of minorities that completed biology PhDs between 1993 and 2002 did not match these numbers: only 2.6% of new PhDs were black and only 3.7% were Hispanic. The proportion of tenure-track biology faculty in 2002 was even more disparate: 89% white, 1% black and 2% Hispanic.

These disturbing statistics tell only part of the story. According to first-person accounts, because minorities are often the only one of their ethnicity in their lab or department—perhaps even in their institution—they often feel isolated from their co-workers. Because they lack colleagues from their own ethnic group, they may feel unable to effect institutional changes to address the unique challenges they face.

This article in the New York Times really makes you rethink obesity. Researchers found that fat people who lost weight looked like skinny people, but were metabolically more like starving people. They also found that people who were adopted had fat levels closer to their biological parents than their adopted ones, disproving that environment is the main factor in obesity. The reverse was true too: they had skinny people stuff themselves to gain weight, and it took months to gain 20 lbs. And as soon as they were off the fat diet, they quickly lost weight.

Makes you think twice about muttering under your breath when you see an overweight person eating at McDonalds. They can't really help it.

Realizing he wouldn't be able to bet enough to pull in a first-place victory, Craig Boge '07 went out in style, wagering $2007 in Final Jeopardy "for all the seniors," ending the second round with $27,007. For finishing the championship in second, he walks home with a healthy $50,000.

We couldn't be prouder.

It was a marvelous evening, made for the history books! (aka Facebook)

Inside the rotunda room, facing the grand staircase and the dance floor.

Sam Altman '07 is the 22-year old co-founder of Loopt, a location-based social networking mobile application that allows users to see where their friends are. Sam gives us a peek into the fascinating and incubative world of a Silicon Valley startup that's gaining a lot of momentum.

MP3 File | Subscribe via iTunes | Add to del.icio.us

"Oh yea, it's enlightening" said Sam when reflecting on the process of creating Loopt. Loopt arose from a need to find where your friends are over the cellphone. The most common question asked in a conversation is, "Where are you?" Loopt addresses this and seeks to develop a cool mobile and online service that helps you connect with your friends.

In this interview, we talked to Sam in the Loopt Palo Alto office about how he and the Loopt co-founders developed the service, what's ticking in the mobile industry, how to not get a case of vitamin deficiency, and why working for a startup might be one of the most exciting propositions out there. He was recently named one of the Best Young Entrepreneurs in Technology by Businessweek.

- Min and JULIO.

This evening, BSU's Blackfest hosted rapper Lupe Fiasco at Roble Field.

Lupe played for about 50 minutes and sang some of his best-known songs such as "Kick Push" and "I Gotcha." He opened with Kanye West's "Touch the Sky," a track on which he is originally featured. Other hits from today were "Sunshine" and "Daydream."

The crowd at Roble Field.

Lupe, a native of Chicago, Illinois, had his debut album Food & Liquor nominated for 3 Grammy Awards in 2006.

Students lined up in orange suits and black garbage bags on the steps of MemAud before Alan Dershowitz's speech tonight to highlight his support for torture in "ticking time bomb" scenarios. Stanford Amnesty members were also on-hand with informational fliers and a video camera, taking footage for our upcoming video on student reactions to America's use of torture.

This is probably the most dramatic student demonstration related to America's use of torture since it became a prominent issue post-9/11.

Hoover Tower provided a menacing backdrop, as usual.

I don't know if you people are familiar with the webcomic xkcd, but it is amazing. It's describes itself as a "A webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language." In general it features stick figures and has a lot of math/programming jokes and romantic ideas. Two of my favorite ones, neither of which are really techie.

Philosophy

Click through to read the second one (WAY BETTER)

Below are segments from the campus radio news show, the Stanford Current, from the 5/14 broadcast on KZSU 90.1 FM.

Included in the segments is "Your World This Week," headlines from the Stanford bubble and beyond.

Following that is an interview with Josh Wolf, who recently spent 226 days in federal prison for refusing to comply with a subpoena for his unpublished footage of a demonstration. He'll discuss his experience and the need for a federal shield law.

And then there's Question of the Week with Alyssa Battistoni, where we ask Stanford students a question of campus interest. This week's question: Is the ASSU dividing into political parties, and does it matter?

And lastly, Assistant News Director Micah Cratty reports on a town hall-style debate and discussion on the issue of troop withdrawal from Iraq that took place last week.

You can listen to the entire broadcast here.

The conference Feminicide = Sanctioned Murder: Race, Gender and Violence in Global Context will examine the murders and disappearances of women in Mexico, Guatemala and Canada that are occurring on an epidemic scale, and interrogate closely the gender, class, sexual and ethnoracial components of this violence against women. The aim and purpose of the conference is to stop the violence and map out ways to bring about justice.

Distinguished participants include Elena Poniatowska, one of Mexico’s most eminent writers, whose innovative writing advocates for women and the poor in their struggle for social and economic justice, and Lydia Cacho, who recently received the 2007 Ginetta Sagan Award for Women and Children's Rights from Amnesty International for exposing a net of pederasts linked to the government and big business, and for creating a shelter for the children, victims of trafficking and abuse in Cancún, Mexico.

The conference, presented by Chicana and Chicano Studies of The Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity at Stanford University, brings together the most knowledgeable experts on the subject of feminicide in recent years, including mothers of murdered and disappeared women, activists, academics, writers and journalists, human rights lawyers, artists and filmmakers.

I'm having somewhat of an identity crisis here: Who am I?

At this moment, as I add content to this site, what -- at the most fundamental level -- am I doing? Am I doing "reporting?" If so, what kind?

I am at an event right now at Cubberley Auditorium featuring Bill Keller, Executive Editor of the New York Times; Gary Pruitt, CEO of the McClatchy Company; Marissa Mayer, Vice President at Google; and Harry Chandler of the L.A. Times. It is moderated by Joel Brinkley, a visiting professor in the Department of Communication.

The talk is called "Pressing Times: Can Newspapers Survive in the New World of Journalism?" Among other things, the three of them have jumped between various terms for people who write in this medium right here: we are alternately bloggers, at other times citizen journalists.

Keller was critical of bloggers, saying that we could never equal professional journalists for various reasons; Keller even implied that bloggers uniformly do not fact-check. Chandler, meanwhile, continually used the phrase "citizen journalists" as if to lend us more credibility as a part of the fabric of journalism today.

So, ultimately, what is the role of a blogger? Do you think that you, as a blogger, are more or less credible than a reporter for McClatchy or the New York Times? Or are we not even comparable -- are we totally different things entirely? If you're not a blogger yourself, what do you think when you read a blog: can you trust our reporting -- are we really a subsection of journalist (citizen journalist) as Chandler said?

What exactly does blogger vs. citizen journalist mean and imply? I know for sure that no one from the L.A. Times could cover this event the way I am now, but perhaps they wouldn't ever want to.

I'm not sure what to think, but I'd love to hear your opinion.

Following up on the Daily's criticism of John McCain today, I thought I would add my own two cents, and put it a little more bluntly: he's a douchebag. Or perhaps "sell-out" is a better word. Even Jon Stewart, who once genuinely admired the Senator, seems to have lost faith. Frankly, it's easier to be a sell-out when no one believed in you to begin with, but when you trumpet your credentials as a "maverick," and then cozy up to agents of intolerance, people start calling you things like, well, douchebag. Strolling through an Iraqi market with 100 bodyguards to show people how "safe" Iraq has become doesn't help, either.

For some reason, I was able to get over these and other douchebaggy things that McCain has done since deciding that he no longer has any integrity. But his professed ignorance at a recent town hall as to whether or not condoms help stop the spread of HIV really got me angry. How can a man who claims to be an internationalist (and marches to Stanford to promote himself as one) not know whether condoms can help stop the transmission of HIV? How can he not know whether condoms should be a crucial part of the fight against AIDS in Africa?

Of course, the truth is, he does know, and he's being completely disingenuous. Now that he has decided to chuck his integrity out the window and court Christian fundamentalists, he has to pretend he's ignorant.

Because they certainly are. And if you're going to court voters, you've got to tell them what they want to hear, and leave them in the dark about the truth. In the 2000 election, I thought McCain showed real integrity. In 2008, McCain is just showing us how to get elected.

As we head into the final stretches of the quarter we find ourselves working feverishly on midterms, papers, problem sets and final projects. And at the very same time we're checking our facebook news feed to see who updated their profile picture and refreshing our email for new smells in the girl's bathroom.

What ends up happening is that hours will pass and a few paragraphs get written. If this happens to you, and I know it happens to me all the time, I've got an easy solution:

Block out everything and focusing for 5 minutes.

Sit down and get cracking and don't let yourself check your email for the full 5 minutes and you'll get your work done in no time. If it sounds too easy, that's because it is.

If you really focus for 5 minutes, you'll get into the groove and will end up working for 10 or 20 minutes before you actually end up checking your email. Sometimes you just need to fool yourself into working hard and it will happen. Don't believe me? Try it for yourself.

Stop reading this and focus on your work for 5 minutes. And then come back and tell me what happened. I dare you.

Maybe I'm the only one who finds this cool, but perhaps you didn't know that when you're on the Stanford network, you needn't type in the suffix ".stanford.edu" for web addresses. To visit us here at The Unofficial Stanford Blog, for example, you just need to type in blog. This got me thinking about the various websites we visit all the time. So I figured I'd make a list of them, including one or two you might not know about, and a few that are just darn useful:

axess: Grades, adding and dropping courses, P.O. Box renewal-- it's all here.

StanfordYou:Once you log-in here, you can set up things like forwarding your email via "autoresponder," create an email alias and other stuff. Useful site.

stanfordwho: Directory. You can even do a reverse look-up by email address so you can go and facebook stalk that person who always spams the dorm list. Logging-in gives you access to tons of info, such as home addresses and alternate aliases.

draw: Not needed this year anymore, but this is the ASSU Draw guide with a page for each residence on campus with photos of common spaces and student rooms, the cut-off number from the previous year, approximate room sizes in square feet, number of rooms (singles, doubles, triples, etc) and tons of other information. It's a good draw guide, especially to get an overview of each house (can't start too early for next year's draw!)

daily: The Stanford Daily online. From off campus daily.stanford.edu works but www.stanforddaily.com is always available too.

campusmap: A newly-revised campus map, whereby you can search by building name or number (where is Building 550, anyways?). Zooms in and helps you get oriented.

coursework: The classic, the resource for getting all of your e-course materials, checking those pesky midterm scores (just hours after the test ended).

coursework-pilot: Check out the new coursework, still in its pilot version here. It is much spiffier and beyond its nicer user interface it also has some new features such as an easier way for students and teachers to exchange a paper in a "drop box" for drafts and revision. Neat-o! (Note: unless you're currently in a class which is using the pilot version, you won't be able to do much in the new one; I'm not sure you can even log in...)

syllabus: A repository of course syllabi. Though it is not too populated right now, the goal will be to alleviate the shopping period at the beginning of each quarter since beforehand one would hopefully be able to check out the syllabus for the course and cross it off your list right then and there!

webmail: The classic. Go check that email during class!

As of yesterday: http://www.stanford.edu

The Harvard Crimson is reporting that after 4 years of deliberation, Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences today voted 168 to 14 in favor of a new general education curriculum emphasizing "the real-world applications of a liberal arts education."

The article goes on to say:

Under the new general education requirements, students will be required to take courses in eight categories, including "Aesthetic and Interpretive Understanding," "Culture and Belief," "Empirical and Mathematical Reasoning," "Ethical Reasoning," "Science of Living Systems," "Science of the Physical Universe," "Societies of the World" and "the United States and the World."

Hmm. Let's see here.

"Empirical and Mathematical Reasoning" DB: Math Rip-off.

"Ethical Reasoning" Yeah we got that. The exact same thing.

"Science of Living Systems" NatSci, anyone?

"Science of the Physical Universe" Sounds a lot like our EngrAppSci (courses fulfilling that requirement here).

"The United States and the World" They just mushed together American Cultures (AmerCul) and The Global Community (GlobalCom). Nice try, Harvard.

What's most pathetic about this sad excuse for thievery is in what they left out, not what they included. Of our Education for Citizenship GERs, Harvard notably forgot to "borrow" our Gender Studies requirement. This is one of the most important ones, I think. Fulfilling an American Cultures GER, for example, doesn't require the average (American) student to broaden her metaphorical horizons as much as taking a course on, say, feminist history, or another such course which "address[es] gender conceptions, roles, and relations" (Registrar's Office).

God, Harvard's lame.

Gosh, two entries about Harvard in one day. This one's big, though, too.

Yesterday, the Washington Post ran an ad from 56 members of the 1982 Harvard Law School class, of which Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was a member, chastising him for his "failure to stand for the rule of law" by "sweeping aside the Geneva Conventions in order to justify torture," "reading Habeas Corpus out of our Constitutional protections," "claiming inherent power to wiretap American citizens without warrants," and for dismissing "the troubling firings of numerous U.S. Attorneys, and their replacement with others more 'loyal' to the President's policies, as merely 'an overblown personnel matter.'" This follows a recent class reunion, which was disrupted by student protesters dressed much like ours a few days ago.

The letter also comes during a series of hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee on the US attorney dismissals. In addition, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty announced yesterday that he would resign.

Check it out.

Carly Fiorina is the former CEO of HP and former executive at AT&T and Lucent Technologies. No stranger to controversy, Carly discusses some of the key decisions and learnings in her career and personal life, trends in technology and innovation, and her plans for the future.

MP3 File | Subscribe via iTunes | Add to del.icio.us

Min Li Chan '06 and Min Liu '06 catch up with the resilient Carly Fiorina at her alma mater, Stanford University, as she shares her thoughts on what matters to her and why in the technology sector, her high-profile time at HP, and her autobiography, Tough Choices.

Carly studied medieval history and philosophy at Stanford, spent almost 20 years in AT&T and Lucent Technologies, and assumed CEO and Chairman of the Board for Hewlett-Packard from 1999-2005. She was named one of the most powerful people in business by Fortune and Forbes.

After a meteoric and controversial career, Carly reflects on what was done right, what technology promises, the importance of innovation, people, and a customer-driven focus, as well as making mistakes and correcting course in this day and age.

- Min Li Chan and Min Liu

My wife and I, journalists from Alaska, are making a short, non-commercial documentary video about bicycling on the Stanford campus -- the sheer beauty of it, the rush, the joys and pitfalls, and the collisions.
If you've been in a crash on your bike, whether solo or with others, we'd like to interview you. If you're agreeable, please contact Peter at pico100@stanford.edu or Kathleen at kjmccoy@stanford.edu, or call 1.650.494.1361.

We're also interested in talking to Stanford musicians who'd be interested in writing and playing original music for the project.
Hope to hear from you!
Peter Porco

If you were lucky enough to be hanging out around Tresidder on the Old Union side today around Noon-thirty, you may have noticed several very naked looking palm trees, all trussed up, flying through the air via a HUGE crane, off of a long semi truck bed and into the Old Union courtyard. I guess we are going to get a tropical villa as a student union... maybe we can dress them up in funny outfits for the grand opening in the fall. (who's with me?!)

Since I'm a scientist, I figured I should at least post a little about some of the science that goes on at Stanford. Today's inaugural installment is about Folding at Home. I'm a little biased because the faculty member is part of my PhD program and one of my best friends was a graduate student in his lab. But the concept is really cool and simple: use distributed computing to perform biological computations to study protein folding that were previously inaccessible.

If you're not a biologist you might be wondering why we should care about protein folding. There is some fundamental biological principles that we can learn, but there are important clinical implications. Each gene has information that encodes a specific protein. In order for proteins to perform their proper function, they adopt a very specific three dimensional structure. That is, they "fold" to a specific shape that allows them to carry out their job. When proteins "misfold", they can't carry out their function and this can lead to serious problems. By understanding what goes wrong, we can begin to figure out how to go about fixing problems.

You can find out more at the Folding at Home website. You can help out the effort by downloading the software which runs in the background while you're sleeping or out having a drink.

Update: If you want to contribute to my F@H team, I'm number 72156. I just started it a few days ago so I'm way behind.

Okay, I know we're going to get flack for posting about the palm trees (two entries in one day!). I know... lame. But whatev, it makes me happy.

Megan's post shows the palm trees being trucked over to Old Union. So I wanted to show you a picture of one newly-planted. Here you go:

Okay, I know, "shut up about the palm trees already!" But does it occur to anyone else besides me that when the palm trees are first planted like this, they look sort of like troll dolls? I mean, seriously.

(Oh my gosh, I'm going to get so much flack.)

As everyone on this campus has no doubt noticed by now, Google.com looks a bit different as of yesterday. At a three-hour press conference webcast live, Google announced that it was taking "critical first steps toward a universal search model that will offer users a more integrated and comprehensive way to search for and view information online." This means that we'll be seeing more cross-product integration within Google's bread-and-butter search results, so that when searching for "an inconvenient truth," you'll get the movie trailer right in the search results where you can watch it without leaving the results page. Similarly, blog search results, news stories, maps, and other pieces of Google technology will be integrated fluidly into the search results, as Google deems necessary.

It is definitely an improvement to have Google serve up related content, like video or news, even though users haven't explicitly asked for it, and to integrate it into the results, rather than impose it always at the top, as it used to be with the Google "OneBox." It is also exciting to think about what could be next, if these are only the "critical first steps."

However, a few of their design choices seem counterintuitive. Already, people are complaining about the decision to move the vertical search options on the Google homepage to the top, away from the search box, like it used to be. The constant extra mousing required is simply a strain on users.

Also puzzling is that the vertical search options bar at the top is duplicated in search results pages below the search box. Apparently, this is to emphasize those product categories with significant results in addition to the general results, but the emphasis is a killer for users' trains of thought. If you search for "Justin Timberlake" and decide you want to see News results for him, you have to choose between two News links, which wastes time (as user testing should have revealed).

Everywhere Al Gore goes, people implore him to run for President. "We have dug ourselves into a 20-ft. hole, and we need somebody who knows how to build a ladder. Al's the guy," says Steve Jobs of Apple. "Like many others, I have tried my best to convince him. So far, no luck."

"It happens all the time," says Tipper Gore. "Everybody wants to take him for a walk in the woods. He won't go. He's not doing it!"

Jessica Usborne, an audience member at one of Gore's talks, stood up and asked The Question. "Given the urgency of global warming, shouldn't you not only educate people but also help implement the changes that will be necessary—by running for President?"

Gore understands deeply the damage done to America's institutions and reputation by the Bush Administration, and has faith that the American public sphere that has permitted Bush to ride roughshod over our Constitution will be restored gradually by the Internet, regardless of who the next several Presidents will be. But there's nothing like a true leader, and I believe there is no one more up to the huge challenges facing the next President than Al Gore.

I wish he would run. Not Hillary. Not Obama.

Al Gore.

I know this is a little early, but recently, I've been thinking about how many different avenues exist for selling/buying stuff at Stanford. I wanted to run down the options students have.

Craigslist
SUPost
Facebook Marketplace
ULoop
Techtain

Come take a look....

PoliSci majors rejoice.

Mike McFaul is one of Stanford's top scholars and one of its most engaging teachers. I had him for a Stanford in Washington seminar on America's democracy promotion strategy, and I swear... the man treated our ideas and arguments like they were interesting no matter how many times he'd heard similar arguments before. But his skills as a teacher and discussion leader -- and all of the incredible personal experiences he shared with us from the halls of power (the Pentagon, the Orange Revolution, Russia) -- made that class something I looked forward to eagerly and grieved when it was over.

Can't wait to hear what he'll have to say.

Everyone needs to see this BBC video clip about the shady election process in Florida during the 2000 elections. It is sickening how manipulative Bush and the gang were, and how racist sentiments and attitudes still subtly pervade our society.

An interesting story to read, on the subtlety of modern racism, is "Gold Coast" by James Alan McPherson. I encourage everyone to read it.

Even college presidents are getting fed up with U.S. News and World Report's annual college rankings.

According to the Washington Post, a letter from 12 college presidents including Dickinson College President William G. Durden called the rankings "misleading" and "not in the interest of prospective students in finding a college or university that is well suited to their education beyond high school."

In particular, a lot of the criticism has centered around the U.S. News' "peer reputation" survey, which asks school administrators to rank other schools in their region, often as many as 150, according to the Washington Post. Schools can rank from 1 to 5, or answer "don't know."

Ultimately, lots of buzz is going around the college administrator circuit hoping to offer as little information as necessary to U.S. News for its annual rankings. Just give them data they could get anyways such as enrollment and transfer rates, degrees conferred and financial aid, some advocate.

In the end, I agree with Robert J. Massa, vice president for enrollment and college relations at Dickinson College, who asks, "Why should we help U.S. News sell magazines?" That is, after all, all they want to do.

Word on the street is that the Black Student Union has been selected by the ASSU as 2007 Voluntary Student Organization of the Year, while sociology and political science professor Larry Diamond has been selected the 2007 Teacher of the Year. An honorable mention for Teacher of the Year goes to Jeff Koseff, professor of civil and environmental engineering.

It's not clear yet what the ASSU will choose to highlight about this year's recipients, but in the case of Diamond and Koseff, at least, their public and high-profile roles in perhaps the two most important issues on students' minds -- Iraq and the environment -- surely played a role. Professor Diamond is widely regarded as one of the foremost experts on democracy and Iraq, while Professor Koseff directs Stanford's Woods Institute for the Environment. I'm not familiar with Professor Koseff, but know from personal experience that Professor Diamond is quite deserving of the award, being an excellent teacher, an inspiring scholar, a willing participant in student events and campus dialogue, and an advocate for students he respects.

Congrats!

After receiving an e-mail from the illustrious Larry Diamond imploring his students to complete the Campus Climate Survey, which he helped design as a part of the mental health task force, I decided to do my duty as a citizen, interrupt my writing of a 15-page paper in the middle of the night, and put precious mental energy, time, and care into thoughtfully completing the survey.

As I filled out the survey, I found myself appreciating the creativity of the survey design, and felt a certain sense of relief in filling out the answers -- thinking that, finally, I was getting an opportunity to help this clueless University figure out what is causing students to suffer unnecessary psychological, psychosomatic, and direct physical harm from the stress they experience in every day life.

But then the survey lost my responses, telling me only that an "error" had occurred. Shocked and in disbelief, I tried to go back to retrieve my answers, but was locked out by the survey, which told me "our records indicate that you've already completed the survey." No, I definitely had not.

Pissed off and stressed out, I sent a flame e-mail (sorry) to Rabbi Patricia Karlin-Neumann, one of two contacts listed for the survey, and then figuratively (because I was sitting in the CoHo) banged my head against the wall for several minutes. Imagine if I were already suicidal.

I saw this poster a few days leading up to Exotic Erotic, the party held on Friday, May 18th at 680 Lomita. The unofficial rules of the party are: men are allowed to wear only one piece of clothing, women are allowed two pieces. Most people just come showing off a lot of skin. The party is legendary and many people outside of Stanford have heard of the party - which goes a long way to diffusing the "Stanford kids don't know how to party" attitude.

So I was quite surprised to see these posters literally EVERYWHERE. The picture shows a swimsuit model edited with Photoshop to look like she had been beaten up. The text reads: "3 women are murdered everyday by their husbands or boyfriends. How do _I_ disrespect women? Boycott Exotic Erotic"

For this I have to say:
1) Women who go to Exotic DECIDE for themselves to dress scantily or not.
2) Going to Exotic Erotic (as a male) does not disrespect women
3) Staring at women with little clothing on does not make me more likely to kill them.

Every so often I’m going to review an eco-friendly cleaning technique for those of us who live in apartments and do have to clean them occasionally.

But first, how I was literally reduced to an eco-friendly method -

When you get married, inevitably the issue of a just division of chores arises, especially when one of you has a lower tolerance for dirt than the other. In my case, I’m the one who grew up with the belief that the bathroom sink should be routinely wiped down. In a trade-off for laundry (which I despise), vacuuming, and putting the dishes away my job is to clean the bathroom and the kitchen.

The problem – I live in married couples housing, in apartments in which some designer, in a fit of brilliance, decided that the bathrooms didn’t need ventilation. Lack of ventilation in the bathroom, especially when combined with the cheap vinyl shower curtain housing provides, is the perfect growing place for mold.

Every time someone asks me about Stanford graduate school, particularly in the biosciences where I have some knowledge, I always comment on the high concentration of talent. Compared to many other top research intensive schools, Stanford is small. This influences the top ranking Stanford Medical school can obtain in the UNSAWR list. This is something that School of Medicine Dean Philip Pizzo has been discussing for quite a while. For those interested, here's a little blurb from one of his recent newsletters:

In looking at the data for this year, where we are once again ranked #7, it is clear that the only thing holding us from a higher rank in this survey is the total amount of NIH funding. We are lower than any other school in the top 10 in total NIH funding - which is really a function of our smaller faculty size compared to peers. Since total NIH funding weighs heavily in the scoring, we are truly impacted by that category.

In contrast, we are highest in NIH funding per faculty member (a better surrogate for quality). However, since this has a lower weight, it is offset by total NIH funding. Accordingly there is a ceiling that we are not able to break through.

This short little video conveys a great deal of information in a very short time span (4.5 minutes). It discusses how the internet and web 2.0 is changing the way we interact and the way content can be displayed. Very informative, innovative and at times profound. Take a look.

If you've ventured to "the other side" of Campus Drive to the Med School (SoM), you've probably noticed some construction going on. The SoM is working on a little something called The Learning and Knowledge Center, or LKC. The vision of the LKC, according to the website, is to be "A New Model of Medical Education for a New Era in Medicine".

Several years ago I was involved in focus groups and committees to discuss how the LKC (which at the time was called "SMILE") could and should impact graduate students in the medical sciences. It's actually been rather exciting to see this endeavor progress from a vague concept to an actual design plan. If you want to see what medical education and research in the future is going to look like, make sure to check out the LKC. It's really cool! (The image above is a picture of what the area currently occupied by the Fairchild Buildings on Campus Drive--the two buildings between Beckman Center and the Clark Center--will look like in several years.)

The New York Times today ran a short article on a fabulous new book released a couple of months ago by the University of Chicago Press. It features 220 color photographs of deep ocean species, some found as far as four and a half miles under water. They will blow your mind.

Check out photos from The Deep on the book's website, or click on the image below.

Freaky as hell.

After blogging about Harvard's co-option of our GER system and the criticisms of the U.S. News and World Report's annual college rankings, I heard back from both President Hennessy and the Chronicle of Higher Education.

What follows is a recap of what each of them said.

Hennessy said in an email to me that he likes our blog, which is totally awesome. Regarding my stance that Harvard basically stole our pre-existing GERs, The Prez said, "We all learn from one another and imitation is a complement!"

Hennessy also concurred (that's right, the President of Stanford University and I see eye-to-eye) that the college rankings are detrimental, calling them, "a disservice."

As for the Chronicle of Higher Education, they informed me of a packet of articles they released just this morning-- I know, fresh off the press-- analyzing the entire college ranking phenomenon. They too found methodological flaws. Lots of 'em.

Read on if you'd like to hear more about President Hennessy's reaction to and the damning report from the Chronicle of Higher Education on college rankings.

At around 11:30 this morning, eleven students from the Stanford Sweat-Free Coalition began a sit-in in President Hennessy's office to protest what they call "Stanford's inaction on sweatshops."

As of 3:30pm this afternoon, all the students were still sitting there, accompanied by moral supporters outside the office building.

According to an article on the San Francisco Chronicle's website, University officials today said they "agreed" with the students' point and were "working on a plan to ensure Stanford gear is produced in responsible factories."

According to the group's website, the students have been prevented from using the private bathrooms in the Office: "The cops are going upstairs to pee, while we are forced to hold it. They told us that there are public toilets outside, but we cannot be let back in. We are prepared to pee in our pants."

Did this officer get to pee inside?

Emails circulated on various Stanford lists say Sweat Free's schedule for the rest of the day includes a Solidarity Rally at 4:30pm in the Main Quad and a "Sweat-Free Teach-In" at 6pm in Bldg. 240.

Two of their signs:

Materials for a protest

Update: The eleven arrested students were brought to the Stanford police station, processed and immediately released. The official reason for their detention was reportedly trespassing. A group representative said that everyone is doing okay. Also, the Facebook group expressing outrage at the arrests has 98 members as of 11:20pm; Hershey Avula, ASSU President, is listed as a group admin.

After the raucous Sweat-Free rally and sit-in held today, eleven students were apparently arrested by the Stanford police. The campaign website, which featured a live blog with entries and photos throughout the day, says nothing about why the students were arrested, or whether or not they are actually being held. Nonetheless, the students sound outraged about the way they were treated by the administration and the police today, emphasizing repeatedly that they were not allowed to use the bathroom during the sit-in at the President's office, even though they would have been barred re-entry should they have attempted to venture outside of Building 10 for other facilities.

A Facebook group protesting the arrests was created less than an hour ago and already has about 28 members. In addition, a vigil for garment workers will be held at 8PM in White Plaza.

Um, did anyone in the administration think arresting students was going to help with the PR damage control effort?

Students turned out in droves to support the rally earlier today, which was meant to secure guarantees from the administration that Stanford clothing would not be produced using sweatshop labor.

In another strange twist of events, the short SF Chronicle article on the student rally seems strangely fixated on the fact that a few of the students were naked, noting "The naked protesters were a bit shy, and several were covering their private parts." Mkayyy...

This Sweat-Free rally follows closely on the heels of the Stanford Labor Action Coalition's Living Wage campaign, which resulted in significant concessions and a substantial press response from the University.

What is the explanation for the dramatic uptick in student activism? Interestingly, activism on campus seems increasingly oriented toward making Stanford a model citizen on the world stage. Recent examples include not only these two labor-focused issues, but additionally the successful Darfur divestment campaign, the Confronting Apartheid by Israel divestment campaign, and the broad campus sustainability movement that, among other things, is trying to get the University to commit to capping and reducing its emissions of carbon dioxide. Add that to recent publicity about the University's cooperation with groups of decidedly evil people, like ExxonMobile (see here, here, here, and here) and the tobacco industry, and the Stanford administration just doesn't seem to be providing the kind of moral leadership our students (and alumni and faculty, as the case may be) expect.

The Raw Story has the clip, where Lisa asks, "How can Fox News be so conservative when the Fox Network keeps airing raunchy shows? They don't fit together." Check it out:

In other news, a recent study at Indiana University found that Fox News host Bill O’Reilly calls “a person or a group a derogatory name once every 6.8 seconds, on average, or nearly nine times every minute during the editorials that open his program each night.” Think Progress has other highlights from the study.

School. Sex. DRAMA. That's the premise of a new homegrown YouTube satire on what it's like to be Black at Stanford. Check out the ingenious pilot episode, posted on May 7th:

Want to see what happens next? Episode 2 is just a click away (Part I and Part II). I hope to have more on the show and the people behind it soon. Stay tuned. :)

I found this - Terra-cycle sued by Scotts for trademark infringement - via the consumerist

I'm still figuring out how something that bills itself as "worm-poop" will be confused for miraclegro

I think that one of the best things about the American legal system is that it is accessible - anyone can sue anyone. This means that if I have a grievance against someone, and I can't get them to respond, I have a form of redress. When people talk about "reforming the legal system in the U.S. because its so messed up" and bring up "bogus lawsuits" [many of which are dismissed or wrongly characterized as frivolous in media descriptions] I worry that if we cut off access to the legal system for normal citizens, we will end up with the legal system being used as a bludgeoning tool by massive corporations [like it seems this lawsuit is an example of]. We already have cost as a barrier to the legal system, and I worry that some of the “reforms” being floated around will mean that individuals will have little recourse when they are wronged by large corporations [such as defective products or other negligence].

anyways - something I worry about and an issue that I think there is a lot of disinformation about

Wes Clark (whom I support for President even though he's not an official candidate) will be giving a lecture on campus today at 7:30 in Room 200 of the Hewlett Teaching Center. I don't know exactly what he'll be talking about today specifically, but he has been discussing for many years now about ways the US should be working internationally to build its legitimacy.

I was able to meet Wes Clark earlier this year and can say he's very knowledgeable in a variety of areas: he's edited books on military history and taught economics at West Point. He's also quite engaging. It will be worth attending if you want a more thorough discussion than we're getting from the current crop of presidential candidates.

I should also point out that, back in December of 2003, Stanford hosted John Kerry while he was trailing most of the Democratic candidates and then Kerry went on to win the nomination. I always tell people that it was his appearance at Stanford which launched Kerry to the Democratic nomination. We might see the same with Wes Clark.

A few weeks back, I wrote about two students, Madalina Seghete and Tyler G. Hicks-Wright, two members of a d.school team involved in creating an eBay Firefox toolbar. Well guess what, they landed themselves on Slashdot and got eBay's COO talking (see article).

While they're still iterating and improving their Firefox project, the d.school class, CIA-KGB has kicked into high gear with a final project for Global Giving.

Global Giving is a non-profit organization that allows individuals or companies to pick and fundraise for "high-impact, grassroots social and economic projects around the world."

Why is CIA-KGB involved? Because they can make Global Giving better. For example, once an individual donates, there is no feedback loop to see who else has donated and which part of the world people are donating from.

"We're helping Global Giving increase their donations and the number of people who donate by giving passonate people tools to spread the word about the projects they care about," says Tyler.

Mada and Tyler's team has created a wonderful website, Global Giving CHAMPIONS, that's oriented around the idea of Global Giving leadership. They realize that in order to gain momentum for raising money for these projects, there has to be leaders who can get others excited. Tyler says, "It gives people a place for their project where they can inform others about their project, show progress towards their goals, and give recognition to the people who have helped them."

Well, I'm convinced. Since I started my championing (less than 24 hours ago), I've gotten mobility from others (it shows up on my page), and I am aware of the people who are impacting this project already. It's a motivating experience because it allows leaders to see that their influence has impact. And it allows leaders to form a tight group of individuals who are aligned behind a project. The feedback is instant, the community is tight, and mobility is gained. What a wonderful aspect for Global Giving.

Well, why wait? Start now by becoming a champion. Or if you like mine, on helping 20 highland off-grid Peruvian communities get cool community-based electricity systems, help me out! Your name will appear 15 minutes after you donate. :)

So everyone and their mother now know about the Stanford Imposter and the crazy ridiculous situation that has transpired at Stanford. Well, except my mother that is, I didn't tell her because she would start freaking out about my safety, a fruitless exercise of stress. Anyways, the Daily article is an impressive piece of investigative journalism and of course the Stanford administraton has little to say about the matter.

I find that there has been a wide range of reactions to the story. Most people are just shocked that this could happen and I'm sure it has started at least 20% of all conversations among Stanford undergrads today. The story was even listed on Reddit, a widely used social bookmarking site. There are already 4 Facebook groups: including "I want Azia Kim as my roommate" and "Let Azia Stay".

The comments on the Daily article though, are the MOST intriguing.

via Feministing, ktvu.com, and cbs5.com -

A 17 year old was allegedly gang-raped at a college party while drunk. Several female witnesses broke down a door to intervened, rescue her, and get her medical attention. The Santa Clara DA, however, states that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute her alleged attackers (not even for statutory rape).

I need a better answer than "insufficient evidence" - if the DA can't truly prosecute this case he needs to explain what exactly is insufficient about the evidence.

I'm sick and disgusted!

It is interesting that it was three female soccer players who felt empowered enough and felt that they had a duty to stand up for the poor girl. No one else intervened.

If people need something to protest - take this on, it's a cause much more salient to women's rights in this county than the public safety patrolled exotic erotic

Last night, Wesley Clark speculated that the issue that defines our generation will be the way we deal with economic inequality. Do we accept the growing disparity as the natural evolution of society and do nothing or do we enact policies to combat this disparity. I tend to agree and would even extend this to whether or not we accept dramatic inequalities on a global scale.

I won't go into my views, but point you to a study over at the Economic Mobility Project. (Via Kevin Drum.) As you can see from the chart above, men in their 30s are doing less well, in an absolute sense, then their father's generation. If you read the report, you'll see we aren't doing so well in terms of relative mobility.

The question is, how are we going to address this issue--if we are going to address it at all? I'm fond of talking about the powerful, transformative potential of our generation (those under thirty) and believe we can deal with it if we choose to and make it a priority. But will we?

I had to put that in caps just to emphasize how EXCITING all this stuff is about the Stanford IMPOSTER. Actually, my caps lock key was stuck. But anywho.

Someone named Paul just sent us this picture, so I figured I should post it (annotation is his):

Wait, are you sure she's not the only imposter in this picture? How about that guy in the back? Third from the left? Sketch.

Anyway, I can't tell you how much I felt like I was in the back country of Red America when I picked up the Daily the other day to read about that IMPOSTER who began her CON just before orientation last year. I kept imagining what sorts of catchy subtitles one could make up to accompany the sensational headline. "IMPOSTER CAUGHT: GO BACK TO CHINA" or how about "IMPOSTER CAUGHT: REJECT COULDN'T ACCEPT THE FACT THAT SHE'S A REJECT." I mean, Jesus, have a little sensitivity.

It was like watching Fox News. Or like watching Republicans talk about building a fence on the Mexican border. Sort of trashy.

The results for the housing draw have been posted. Statistics for this year are available online. Previous years' statistics are available here, although the link to the 2006 statistics is currently broken and sends you to the 2007 statistics; a copy of the Google cache of the 2006 results is here.

Nothing quite as shocking as last year's Toyon drawing unpreferred seems to have happened. Toyon drew around 1600 or so, still shockingly low for juniors or seniors who remember when Toyon was very hard to get into but at least juniors aren't being assigned there. Also, it looks like co-ops like Columbae are getting filled with people who want to live there, as opposed to last year when people who hadn't ranked it were put there.

San Francisco suffered a huge zombie outbreak yesterday evening. Sources report that among the many victims were subway passengers, Scientologists, and iMacs.

More from LaughingSquid.com and Declan McCullagh. The flash mob was a creation of the friendly folks at eatbrains.com.

From CNet: It may be worth noting that the Westfield Mall and Disney security tried to bar the zombies from entering, but Apple store security did not. In fact, salespeople were jostling one another for a position where they could take the best photo of the zombies (or themselves with the zombies, or their brains being eaten by the zombies).

Former peace activists.

Last week, we logged our highest volume of visitors ever. The cool thing: this week, we received no special press coverage, executed no special fliering campaign, sent out no e-mails, held no special events, and basically just kept blogging away amid the many exciting things happening here on campus and in the world. Yep, this is real growth, folks. Very exciting.

Check it out:

Update from the Chronicle of Higher Education (5/30/2007): "Teaching hospitals that stood to lose at least $1.8-billion in Medicaid funds from a regulatory change proposed last week received a one-year reprieve on Friday in budget legislation approved by Congress." (article in the CHE is by K. Mangan)

Hopefully the AMA, AAMC, and others will make their voices heard on the issues.-EB

=========================================================================
From the Federal Register May 23, 2007:
This proposed rule would clarify that costs and payments associated with Graduate Medical Education programs are not expenditures for medical assistance that are federally reimbursable under the Medicaid program

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), US Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) have released a new rule proposal which would disallow Graduate Medical Education (GME) as an expenditure that is federal reimbursable by Medicaid.

Medicaid is a federally and state funded program designed to provide a safety net to low income parents, children, seniors, and individuals with disabilities.

"So what?" you may be asking.

Many medical schools and hospitals, including Stanford Med School and Stanford Hospital, are dependent on direct and indirect federal reimbursement of graduate medical education (the training of interns and residents) from both Medicaid and Medicare to help pay for the costs of running a teaching facility.

I recently caught wind of an interesting story at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. As part of the school's advanced degree graduation procedings, the administration chose to give an honorary doctorate in public service to Andrew Card, President Bush's former Chief of Staff (2000-2006). This decision was not received well by many at the school, resulting in student protests and an online petition with well over 1000 signatures, including 200+ faculty members. Nevertheless, the university still presented the degree, and the video below shows the response.

Now, I have seen my fair share of protests. I mean, if you live in California long enough, you will. I honestly can't say I've been much of a fan of protests in the past. Still, I was struck by the proceedings at UMass. I'm not quite sure what it is, though. Perhaps it's the striking unanimity with which people progressed, one faculty member after another with anti-Card signs. Perhaps it's the anger I sensed in the crowd's boos and catcalls. Maybe, instead, it's the realization that we are in a new wave of activism in our generation.

While Generation Y was long decried for its apathy, we seem more willing to recognize and fight injustice. In a time where thousands of Americans have died fighting a war based on unsubstantiated claims, it's only fitting that we would be more conscious. On our campus alone, protests are becoming more extreme, more poignant, and more frequent. And, I've taken notice and find myself more sympathetic now. So, to those who protest: keep fighting the good fight, and you might just see me there one day.

I came across this BBC article called "Cruelty in the Kitchen" on how some animals are ok to eat (Whales in Japan, and Dog in Vietnam) and others are not ok (In the US/Europe, eating whale and dog meat would be unthinkable).

The author discusses how people argue that whales are endangered species (but not all of them are, and Japan didn't make them that way, Europe and America did). He also discusses how many people think killing whales with harpoons is cruel.

But what's not cruel about slicing the beaks off chickens minutes after they are born, or keeping sows in 2" by 7" gestation crates for their entire lives? Why is it ok to eat chicken and pork but not whale and pig? I would eat any animal given the right circumstance.

Let me be clear. I love eating meat. A tasty steak makes my mouth water and I'm sure I've eaten hundreds of pounds of meat in my lifetime. But I won't eat it anymore. It's wrong.

If you think kicking a stray dog in ribs or breaking the neck of a stray cat is wrong; you must realize you do the same thing every time you eat meat that is not locally produced. You are supporting an industry that does horrendous things to living, feeling creatures.

I received this in my inbox from VP Mondaire Jones the other day. You should try to make it if you have any thoughts about how the OSA (or the upcoming new Old Union) could be better:

I normally write blog posts about topics which relate directly to Stanford: our Folding@Home project, the sit-in this week, U.S. News college rankings. But today, I have a piece of advice which pertains not only to Stanford readers, but to everyone out there.

No matter how much you liked Pirates of the Caribbean I (or even Pirates II), DO NOT-- I CAUTION YOU AGAIN-- DO NOT SEE the newest installment, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. It's awful.

Clearly, lots of people were idiots like me and went to see this enormous, three-hour waste of time. (The New York Times is reporting worldwide $400 million worth of tickets were sold, in six days).

I promise you, those are three hours of your life you will never get back. Peter Travers of Rolling Stone mentions one positive: "Producer Jerry Bruckheimer does deserve a shoutout: It takes a kind of genius to sucker audiences into repeatedly buying the same party tricks."

And there was so much wrong with this movie beyond rehashed versions of the first two movies-- I don't know where to start. The plot was weak. And confusing. Actually, I'm pretty sure that even if I could have understood it, it still would have been bad. Gene Seymour writing for Newsday says, "It won't matter whether you've seen the first two Pirates movies or not. You'll still be confused."

I saw the movie at a 12:30am showing. We didn't get back to campus until 4am. We all walked out of that theater exhausted, bored and confused. "Ha! Christian," you might smirk, "That is surely why you did not enjoy the film!"

No. I spoke to a friend who say the movie at 4:30 in the afternoon and felt similarly. People who went into our showing with pirate hats and eye patches (who also gave out a hearty "yarrrrrrr!' with the opening credits) left the theater dispirited, like someone had taken all the air of their lungs.

And sorta, Orlando Bloom and Co. did just that. Despite the stirring theme song of the movie series (you know, the one that goes dun-dun-dun-dun...dun-dun-dun-dun), the chemistry, the script, something was very off.

The end is what sucked the most. I won't ruin it for you, in case you too are set on wasting $10, but let me say that it is one of those endings you simply don't want to buy into. As they're setting it up, you think to yourself, "Oh, they'll never let this happen..." You think (you hope, perhaps) it's one of those things where they'll come up with some ridiculous and unbelievable way to get out of it-- but at least the awful and seemingly-inevitable doesn't happen. Except in this piece of junk, it actually does! There is even a sappy beach make-out scene with Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley which instead of being romantic or hot, is, honestly, just awkward.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't go into this film expecting theatre (-re intended). I wasn't expecting a transcendental experience, something to sweep me away with its intricate characters or subtle artistry. I was expecting a swash-buckling pirate adventure movie. I was expecting airbrushed actors and skylines, awesome CGI battles and witty one-liners. I didn't even get all of that.

Honestly, just save yourself some time-- and unfulfilled expectation-- by watching the trailer.

"No words to describe it. Poetry! They should have sent a poet."

Last night around 10pm, on my way home from the library I encountered two firetrucks, a horde of firemen, and a public safety officer blocking the end of escondido (yes my camera isn't good at night pictures).

When I asked the public safety officer checking under cars what was going on he said that a car had been damaged.

When I first saw this scene, I worried that a car had finally hit one of the bicylists who take life and limb in hand by biking in the dark san lights, helmet, reflective clothing, and who in disregard of the laws of physics do things like bike down the middle of the road or run stop signs (hint: the car is heavier than the bike). I can't tell you the number of times at night I've caught the glint of the wheel reflector of a bike and hit the brakes to see a fast moving dark blur jut in front of me through a crossing. It's just a matter of time until we see a death.

Thankfully this wasn't it.

Today's Daily front cover prominently features a very interesting story about Azia Kim's involvement in ROTC, but the biggest news of the day--that Stanford is joining the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC) and the Fair Labor Association (FLA)--received no notice on the news pages, and was relegated to a long op-ed by President Hennessy.

The WRC is a consortium of colleges pledging to ensure sweatshop labor is not used to produce licensed apparel with their logos, with a governing board split evenly among university administrators, representatives of United Students Against Sweatshops, and human and labor rights experts. Their website has a list of useful FAQs. (One thing to note, in particular, is that the WRC requires participating colleges to pay 1% of their gross licensing revenues up to a maximum of $50,000. I'd be curious to know how much that would end up being for Stanford.) The FLA, by contrast, is an organization with more corporate influence; according to its website, it's a "multi-stakeholder coalition" of corporations, universities, and NGOs. Hennessy makes a good point in his op-ed that an optimal solution would have both labor activists and corporations working together in one organization; I imagine that either side would be very distrustful of an organization dominated by the other side.

Notably, Hennessy said that Stanford will not join the DSP, or Designated Suppliers Program, an additional program of the WRC that takes a significantly more activist role in ensuring sweatfree labor. In this program, universities are obligated to shift their licensed apparel (over a several year period) into factories which primarily produce college apparel. The argument is that doing so ensures that the colleges will have significant negotiating power. (Technically, the DSP will allow factories in which less than 50% of the apparel is from colleges, so long as the rest of the apparel comes from makers that will abide by the DSP's standards, but that seems unlikely.)

I walked around the outside of the new Old Union building this afternoon after the fences started coming down. Even though the sprinklers in the courtyard were obnoxiously at full blast, the sun was shining on the building and on the palm trees... and as I turned around to look out of the courtyard, through the arches, and onto the fountain in White Plaza, I realized, "I've been missing out on this view for four years." For most of my Stanford career, Old Union held almost no meaning for me. Now, as I graduate, I am excited about all that it can be for the students who will still be here next year and for those who will just be arriving for the first time. A real student union!

It's about time.

Watch Troy tour Old Union (from his Unions Blog):

Hey everyone,

So, a lot of people have been asking us to post profiles of some of the Stanford bloggers, obviously because of our witty, accessible writing. While we didn't want to impose a mandatory rule, several bloggers responded to our call for profiles.

Right now, we've got 13 of our 40+ bloggers -- and they've included portraits, websites, and tons of YouTube videos. Come and say hi.

Blogger Profiles!

--Jason Shen and Christian Tom (2007-2008 Co-Presidents)

The Daily ran an article today on last night's ASSU Senate meeting with the headline, "Senate meeting mired in debate."

Um, isn't the ASSU Senate a deliberative body?

Maybe I'm downplaying the contention too much, but it seems to me that the actual news from the meeting was that, in fact, the new airport shuttle program to SFO and San Jose airports has been passed overwhelmingly by the Senate. This is an incredible cost-saving opportunity for students, in my opinion, and is something that I think puts our student government in a pretty good light. Nice work, guys.

In the last couple of weeks the Daily has featured opinion columns by Darren Franich complaining about the presence of public safety at campus parties and public safety’s attempt to enforce compliance with federal and state drinking laws.

Before blaming a draconian administration for such heavy handed measures, students should be aware about the federal Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act.

In order to be eligible for federal funding a school “must certify that it has adopted and implemented a program to prevent the unlawful possession, use, or distribution of illicit drugs and alcohol by students and employees” (Drug-Free Schools and Campuses, Vol. 55, No. 159, Part II, 55 FR 33580, Thursday, August 16, 1990). In other words Stanford is required by federal law to document (“certify”) that it is has and is enforcing a program (“adopted and implemented a program”) which prevents students from under-aged drinking or use of illicit drugs.

TED Talks today released an amazing and passionate talk by famed Silicon Valley venture capitalist John Doerr today. In it, he discusses his efforts and those of his company to understand where we are and where we need to be in order to solve the climate crisis. Prognosis: Terrible. At the end of the presentation, he's so choked up, he can't speak.

This is a fantastic video, and a powerful call to action. Share it with friends!

"Policy is paramount." California has capped emissions. "But it's not enough."

All technical blogs are abuzz with the news. As Microsoft is putting it, "Surface Computing has arrived". You can find a complete demo with some incredible videos here.

It might seem like a big coffee table with a fancy top, but its in fact a powerful computer equipped with dozens of sensors and cameras monitoring the surface and running a schmoozed up version of Windows Vista. The project was secretly under development since 2001 under the code name "Milan". Its priced in the $5000 to $10,000 range for now and is being targeted at the Hotel industry and other large corporate customers.

I have been staring at the screen this morning, changing a word here and there, but basically blocked.

Things I have done to try to unblock myself:

• used OCLC to see if there were more books I could get on my topic
  
• washed the dishes
  
• made myself a pot of tea
  
• started cleaning the stove top
  
• while I'm at it I might as well start to clean the gap under the stove top and above the oven
  
• clean several of the metal thingies that you put under the burners with baking soda (can't remember what they're called)
  
• consider whether or not I should do some more data analysis (maybe construct another image, graph, or chart)
  
• post here
  

grr

Max Levchin was co-founder and CTO of Paypal and is currently founder and CEO of Slide and Chairman of Yelp.

In this interview Max shares some stories from the early days at PayPal, and provides his views on entrepreneurship. Definitely note his thoughts on Paypal alums.

It's taken me two days to watch all of the interview segments, but in the end: Wow. You would think there might be some hostility between the two men, legends of Microsoft and Apple, respectively. Humorously enough, the only thing that Bill Gates seemed peeved about in all their thirty-year history together, was the new "I'm a Mac and I'm a PC" ad campaign. In reference to 'PC guy,' Gates quipped, "His mother loves him."

See CNet for a good, brief summary of the interaction. The All Things Digital website, of course, also has the full set of video segments.

Here's a recap video:

Did you know that you can have your car towed in Palo Alto if you do not drive it at least 5/10 of a mile in a 72 hour period? Even if it is in front of your own home. I'll post more on this tomorrow. I'm infuriated and prefer to have a nice sleep--after a glass (or two) of wine--before posting anything. Grrr!