Big Brother
"Can I Get Some Privacy?" was the first article I turned to in the March/April issue. I applaud Stanford researchers Jonathan Mayer and John C. Mitchell for their work investigating the current and future commercial uses of personal data.
But as the author of a novel in which the president seeks to abolish cash and establish a compulsory government credit card (The Patriot Conspiracy), I'm actually more concerned about what an empowered government could do with modern communication technology. In the hands of the government, computer applications could turn out to be the drones of personal privacy.
Whether liberal or conservative, we should all be concerned with what the government does with our information.
Carole Howard Tremblay, '65
Vaudreuil, Quebec
Sight and Sound
The March/April article by Rachel Kolb, "Seeing at the Speed of Sound," was marvelous. Besides being a beautifully written account of communicating without hearing, it told me how to talk and not talk to a lip-reader. And best of all was her attitude about talking to people who can hear. She takes it as the greatest compliment when they don't realize she is deaf, because it is a result of the hard-won skill that enables her to understand them. Those of us who, with great effort, succeed in speaking the language of others—others who are unwilling to learn our language—can share in Kolb's well-earned pride.
Michael Perrone, '70
Davis, California
I would like to say thank you very much to Rachel Kolb for her article. I was amazed at her ability to describe how her thinking process operates. To me it seemed very similar to my first time listening to a foreign language, as all of us foreign Stanford graduates did at least once, except that it is much more difficult for her. I was also impressed by her kindness towards other people, especially the ones who think that what she has to do is easy.
It would be nice if she could give us more of her insights. It really did brighten my day to see so much human understanding.
Thierry Arlandis, MS '95
Clermont-Ferrand, France
I found [the article] to be most accurate and descriptive of people with hearing difficulties. I lost much of my hearing when I was 2 years old from a virus and high fever. There were no medicines then to help with the disease. My first grade teacher did not know how to deal with a child with hearing difficulties. I recall my experience in attempting to hear the various sounds my teacher was teaching us in phonics. I could not hear the "s" sound and thus could not produce a clear "s"; my "s" came out as a "sh." She punished me for not giving a good "s."
Lipreading has been difficult, as Rachel Kolb so accurately describes. I was always tired and my eyes sore after attending classes and lectures.
Thank you for the excellent description of people's experiences with hearing difficulties.
Alvin D. Luke, MA '58
Boise, Idaho
Reversed Image
I enjoyed Jack Fischer's article, "Possessed by Place" (March/April), on Binh Danh's photographic processes. I was initially surprised to see Lost Arrow Spire to the west of Yosemite Falls. Then it dawned on me that a daguerrotype produces a laterally reversed image.
The Danh family's aversion to camping struck a familiar chord. My late father, Allan J. Gherini, MD '47, responded to an invitation to go camping by noting that he had slept in the dirt for four years in the South Pacific as Uncle Sam's guest and did not intend to do so again. I imagine Danh's father had the same sentiment after surviving refugee camps.
Keep up the good work.
Stuart Gherini, MD '74
Sacramento, California
Biochar's Footprint
I wonder if your editors place certain articles of low intellectual merit in the publication as a test of us readers? Of special note in March/April was a stylish article from Colorado where biochar is used to reclaim and reforest areas "ruined" by mining ("Rising from the Ashes," Planet Cardinal). Note that biochar is nothing more than a charcoal process, like coke ovens in a steel mill—yes, the same ones that helped cause all kinds of bad air quality in Pittsburgh, Pa.
The claim is that aside from boosting the water-retention capacity of the soil, it is also eco-friendly because it absorbs CO2, whereas compost adds it to the environment. Not mentioned is that the target soil to reclaim is dead soil coming from deep under the topsoil in which plants grow, and therefore much more additive is required to support plant growth. But no matter, let's plunge onward.
Three issues not discussed in the article and left to the readers' intellectual whims:
1) Plants "eat" CO2, so why remove it from the area you want plants to grow?
2) Biochar is mixed with compost before application in order to stimulate plant growth.
3) There is no mention of the total carbon footprint of producing biochar (recall coke ovens in Pittsburgh?) except that production needs to be closer to the use site to lower CO2 emissions.
Missing from these typical "green" discussions is analysis of the total CO2 footprint that must include the emissions created during production. Is critical thinking a thing of the past at Stanford, or just the magazine?
Alford Frost, BS '80, MS '81
Sacramento, California
After Newtown
The interview in which Joseph McNamara proselytizes for restrictions on gun ownership omits several points ("What's to Be Done After Newtown?" Farm Report, March/April). 1) When restrictions in Chicago and Washington, D.C., were struck down, violent crime decreased; 2) England, with some of the harshest gun restrictions in the EU, has one of the highest crime rates in the EU; 3) Few gun-related crimes in the United States are committed with lawfully owned guns; and 4) McNamara dances around the fact that the prior ban on "assault weapons" did not decrease crime. It's also telling that he fails to address the straightforward language of the Second Amendment barring infringement of the right to bear arms, and offers not a shred of evidence to prove that his proposed restrictions would have a positive outcome sufficient to overcome the Constitution.
David Altschul, MA '76
Nashville, Tennessee
I appreciated the information and ideas in Joseph McNamara's recent interview. Right after that awful carnage on young students, I suggested to President Hennessy that he very seriously consider that the Board of Trustees divest all investments in gun and bullet manufacturers and the large national chain stores, like Walmart, that continue to sell guns unabated. President Hennessy thought it a worthy suggestion, and I hope he will act swiftly. Many more have died since Newtown.
I believe Stanford can and must exert a moral leadership on the issue of gun violence in America.
Thomas K. Seligman, '65
Freidenrich Director Emeritus Cantor Arts Center
San Francisco, California
The town where I live is next door to Newtown. Many people here were affected directly or once removed by the massacre at the Sandy Hook school. So I appreciate the views of Joseph McNamara on gun control, most particularly his remark that "the other side is really quite skilled at masking the real issue" by abstracting the definition of an assault weapon.
The critical thing is not to get distracted by side issues like definitions, or even social issues, like the need for better mental health screening/detection/care. Focusing on these topics has a way of draining vital energy from the immediate problem at hand. As McNamara intimates, the "other side" has a lot riding on piling on the distractions. Once there are enforceable laws in place there will be time to deal with wider, more diffuse issues like mental health and "no buy" lists.
The only thing sure to keep semiautomatic weapons out of the hands of angry, despairing people is unavailability. The endless deliberations that will take place about identifying guys with guns and anger management problems, chronic unemployment, chronic dissatisfaction, PTSD, perceived injustice, paranoia, drug and/or alcohol problems and the like, and whether or not to seize them and force them to undergo mental health screenings—these will be a nightmare of distraction from gaining some intelligent control over weapons of mass murder.
We cannot control the thoughts and emotions of other people. We can look at ourselves and identify our own anger, fear, resentment and sorrow. When we can see these feelings clearly they no longer have power over our thoughts and actions. We can develop wisdom and we can act intelligently, with clear intent. Let's do this, whether or not we keep guns in our homes.
Lisa Volckhausen McCann, MA '65
Redding Ridge, Connecticut
I must be getting old. When I attended Stanford the teaching side of the house was very opinionated and made sure they voiced their opinions to the student side. Nevertheless, those teaching instilled a reverence for argumentation, which is understandable since the only alternative to argumentation is violence, when dealing with differences.
The fact that Stanford appears to completely ignore the most fundamental principles of argumentation is quite surprising to me. Has Stanford turned into a fascist camp, dictating what we are to think (with the always present threat of violence, excuse me, laws) rather than a center of enlightenment where people can explore truth via argumentation?
Arguments have at least two sides; this article presents only one. Humorously, the argument is made completely fallacious by setting up and knocking down red herrings (printed in red, oh my!). The stasis of the argument is vague and appears to shift without justification.
What is unfortunate is that this slaughter of innocents is being exploited by the federal government/media to open up the Bill of Rights to change without due process. (The Constitution is rather clear on how to change the Constitution.) This is not a precedent a liberal such as myself welcomes, and is a worthy topic of debate among alumni. In addition, it appears to an elder like me that violence (road rage, cyber crime, drug violence) is at an unprecedented high level in the United States. If true, why? Another point of discussion should be the explosion of laws in this country, not directed at criminal activity, but directed at enforcing one group's opinion of rightness over another's. Is freedom dying the death of an incomprehensible number of laws?
Has my Stanford, the bastion of liberalism, fallen?
Joseph F. Iaquinto, MS '71
Leesburg, Virginia
Coping with Technology
I thoroughly enjoyed Christine Ghatan's article on today's rapid changes in technology and communication ("Unplanned Obsolescence," End Note, January/February). I note that she has chosen medicine as her career, and given the world we are expecting children to cope with (including those rapid changes in technology), I would say that healing the sick is a profession that will never become obsolete. We now have a generation of children who are suffering from developmental disorders, autistic spectrum disorders, neurological disorders, learning disorders, autoimmune disorders, behavior disorders, anger management disorders, conduct disorders, sensory disorders, speech and language disorders, stress disorders, digestive disorders, as well as depression, anxiety, multiple food allergies, asthma, and seizures in numbers unknown throughout human history. We have kindergartners in our town on cocktails of mood-altering drugs that have never even been tested on children—just to get them through the school day. Even though technology is changing at the speed of light, the human body has evolved at a snail's pace over eons, and some of those bodies and minds simply cannot cope with all the changes.
This year my daughter's elementary school announced that iPads would be replacing books and traditional teaching, since the human teacher was not as efficient as the video screen. When my daughter brought her iPad home, I measured the amount of microwave radiation emitted by this brave new teaching device and found that it pulsed radiation at levels that exceeded 100,000,000 times background, even when not accessing the Internet. When I brought this to the attention of the school, I was told, "Well, this is our world." I am seeing more and more toddlers playing on iPads in shopping carts, and of course, virtually every kid at the local elementary school (except mine) whips out his or her cell phone when leaving school.
So, Dr. Ghatan, your knowledge of the latest electronic fad might be outdated, but as electronics create more and more disorders in the human beings who use them, your work will be in ever greater demand and will never become obsolete.
Joan Matthews, '72, MA '75
Northbrook, Illinois
The following letters did not appear in the print version of Stanford.
Hear, Hear
I have rarely learned so much about other worlds, language and myself from a piece so brief and beautifully written (“Seeing at the Speed of Sound,” March/April). It is as great a credit to Rachel Kolb as she is to Stanford. OK, and the magazine, too.
Henry O. Whiteside, MA ’65, PhD ’68
Salt Lake City, Utah
Thank you for the perceptive article. It’s a tribute to Rachel Kolb’s talent as a writer that, although my own hearing is extremely acute, I could identify with her story about the frustrations and triumphs of communicating with people different than ourselves, something of enormous importance right now. Although I speak Spanish well enough to ask directions to the post office, I struggled trying to speak to our host in Guatemala of his hopes for the future in that violence-torn land, yet was rewarded with a sense of connection, and a feeling we understood what the other was trying to say, if not the words. I remembered the feeling of isolation in Finland, a country with a language so different from ours that without a translator I was completely cut off. But when I needed to make a transaction at a bank, by a combination of signs, exclamations, written numbers, raised eyebrows and laughter, the clerk was able to get me what I needed because she wanted to understand me and help. And [Kolb’s] story of her friend from Singapore brought back the first days in one of my fundamental engineering classes. It was imperative we learn the material, but for four days, we students looked at each other in despair, unable to understand the Chinese instructor’s heavily accented English. We were lucky; our ears and brains adapted, just as [Kolb’s] eyes and brain have adapted to reading lips, and it was one of the best taught classes of my college career.
I had a retinal detachment in my left eye some time ago. Fortunately, it has completely healed, and the area of blindness resulting from the scar tissue is tiny. The incredible surprise was, that blind spot is in the upper right of my vision, and the scar is in the lower left. Just like a telescope, the lens of our eyes upends and reverses images, but somewhere in our infancy, our brain figures out that our mother is not suspended from the ceiling but standing on the floor, and forever after corrects the image for us. From long practice, [Kolb’s] brain is obviously doing the same thing with lips, and now her implant’s input. Just like everyone else, only her brain is even more clever.
I applaud her refusal to be isolated by difficulties, and find her effort at that most human of characteristics, sharing thoughts, inspirational. When you say something true, it is universally applicable. I hope the knowledge that she did a wonderful job at it in her article makes her smile and smile.
Patrice Christensen Dick, ’74
Castle Rock, Washington
Rachel Kolb is gifted with high intelligence, deep insight and a rare gift of expression, combining humanistic charisma and clarity. I suspect her field of study is an excellent fit and that she’ll go very far, indeed.
Ed Kreusser, MD ’68
Corvallis, Oregon
Big Tobacco’s Problem
Thanks for your great article, “Smoking Out an Industry’s Tricks” (Farm Report, March/April). As the instigator of two national public education campaigns to get people to stop smoking, the Great American Smokeout and Take a New Year’s Resolution to Stop Smoking, I am quite aware that big tobacco is after your kids to start smoking at an early age. Tobacco companies have a big problem. Their products kill about 1,200 of their customers every day, or about 440,000 people a year across the United States. In order to overcome this shrinking population of cigarette smokers, parents beware: Big tobacco is after your kids, with 4,000 kids becoming addicted to tobacco products every day in the United States.
As a pharmacy grad student at Stanford in 1956, working on cancer research, I understood the addiction problem with nicotine and the problem of quitting. It’s time that parents, teachers, health care professionals and other adults work together to get our young people through the early period in their lives where they do become addicted and remain customers forever of big tobacco.
Fred S. Mayer, Gr. '56
San Rafael, California
What the President Can Do
In answer to “What’s To Be Done After Newtown?” (Farm Report, March/April), [this is] what President Clinton could have done in ’94, as advised by states’ attorneys general:
Call DoD, FBI, CIA directors in and say: Inform all your weapons vendors that
1) All invoices, orders, contracts and proposals are frozen, contingent upon each vendor:
a) certifying under federal inspection that no weapons with any trigger-activated, spent-cartridge ejection, or fresh cartridge loading, are being designed or sold by the vendor into civilian channels;
b) removing all previously manufactured weapons designated above from all civilian sales channels, subject to federal inspection, including dealers of any kind.
2) Once each vendor has completed a and b, each must then destroy each recovered weapon, or repurpose its components to federal products, subject to federal inspection and certification.
When directives 1 and 2 are fully complied with, a vendor may resume any
federal weapons business frozen in directive 1, subject to periodic review of all above conditions.
President Clinton didn’t do it. President Obama could have done it after Aurora, but didn’t. He could have done it after Sandy Hook, but didn’t. He could do it tomorrow.
And Congress can pass all presently proposed legislation, because the members of groups like the NRA are in majority [support] of their key points.
The problem is, since the late ’70s NRA coup when [current] CEO Wayne LaPierre joined, the NRA has become a lobbying and marketing arm of American gun companies. LaPierre doesn’t want to lose his $1 million-plus salary gotten from dealers for each gun sold; from gun ranges that require NRA membership; and more than one third from gun manufacturers in payment for lobbying for the right to kill us and our kids without being subject to liability—the only U.S. industry allowed that cheat (by the Bush administration).
There is no civilian need for any firearm to have a trigger-activated cartridge load or eject. The Second Amendment doesn’t allow bazookas, machine guns etc., as the Supreme Court has ruled. The Second Amendment doesn’t even allow anything but ownership of muskets, if one believes Justice Scalia’s words that the Constitution should “be read as the words were understood at the time.”
Fortunately, NRA leadership is a dying clique. Americans are taking back our rights—the first being the right to life.
Alex Cannara, Engr. ’66, MS ’74, PhD ’76
Menlo Park, California
Class Acts
I found the article about Ephraim Engleman, the last remaining member of the Class of 1933, very interesting (“The Last of a Class,” January/February). His is a talented and ethical family. One of his sons, Edgar Engleman, the head of the Stanford blood bank, is an unsung hero of the AIDS epidemic. When I was first in medical school, before blood testing for HIV was available, Dr. Engleman refused to allow any blood not surrogate-tested to be transfused at Stanford. To do this, he had to go against the entire blood banking industry, which was still deeply in denial about how AIDS is transmitted. He was criticized but he didn’t back down. Because of his bravery, no cases of AIDS were ever transmitted by transfusion at Stanford. Young medical students now do not learn about him and his courageous decision, but I deeply admire him. He deserves to be celebrated.
Marjorie McCracken, MD ’85
Menlo Park, California
What’s in a Name
It’s thrilling to see how much the composition of the Stanford community has evolved even since the ’80s, which don’t really seem all that long ago to some of us. As I scanned the names listed on a page thanking class volunteers for their reunion-year efforts (January/February), I was struck by the juxtaposition of the first names of the reunion volunteers from the class of 1982 compared to those from the class of 2007.
From 1982: Laura, Lars, Lydia, Rich, Kellie, Carol, Claire, Julia, Karen.
From 2007: Vivek, Neftalem, Alessandra, Tania, Lucia, Mohamed-Faris, Elizabeth, Njideka, Adrienne, Oluwaferanmi, Kathryn, Dontae, Kenneth, Vernorris, Valeria.
These simple lists, while admittedly shallow in and of themselves, exemplify the true inclusiveness of the global Stanford community that I am proud to participate in.
Brad Porteus, MBA ’97
Singapore
No Easy Answers
I appreciated the quality responses to “Who Needs the Humanities at ‘Start-Up U’?” (November/December). I agree with Stafford Smith’s assessment of “what is to be done about the chronic dim luster of the humanities in Stanford’s academic constellation? Probably not much” (“Humanities Reconsidered,” Letters, January/February). It appears the University has asked the humanities departments to justify their coursework, considering the perceived need for our graduate students to find employment in upper tiers of business (especially Silicon Valley) in these competitive times.
While some humanities students may be concerned about a degree that does not lead to a good job, a number of first-year students are excited to learn how great minds have wrestled with basic principles (justice, equality, freedom, self-expression) since ancient times. These studies do not lead to precise answers. They lead students along paths of abstract thinking, looking for patterns that may be applied in various areas of endeavor, preparing undergraduates to seek gainful employment in a great variety of jobs.
Meanwhile, the romance of the early start-ups has morphed into a battle of the Titans, each fighting for advantages over their competitors (e.g., the patent wars). Any graduate humanities student who wants to join their ranks is free to offer his or her talents to their service. But I am pulling for someone who earns a bachelor of humanities, with an emphasis developed along the way. I would be most impressed by a person with two years of humanities studies; one year of studies in a selected field (e.g., teaching credential, dance, journalism, fine arts, finance, music composition, etc.); and one year as an intern in a chosen area—design, teacher, nonprofit agency, performance, assistant to a college dean, public service organization, writer, legislative assistant. The list is endless. And so are the opportunities.
Richard M. Janopaul, BA ’53, JD ’55
Yukon, Oklahoma
Who needs the humanities? As someone who teaches at a liberal arts college, I continually wrestle with the question of how to assess the value of education in the humanities, especially given the expense of higher education. After a recent exchange with a colleague from which I came away dissatisfied with our efforts, I recalled a long-ago conversation with a taxi driver who did a much better job. As he drove me from San Francisco Airport to the Stanford campus, he asked what I was studying. I wasn’t sure how to answer because I had crafted an interdisciplinary major in the humanities honors program and that seemed hard to explain. So I just said, “humanities” thinking he’d probably be unimpressed. His response was, “That’s good! We need more humanity!”
Carol Chetkovich, ’70
Oakland, California
