James Baker speaks to journalists during a media breakfast meeting in Dubai, on Sunday. Baker is visiting Dubai as a senior partner of international law firm ” Baker Botts” which has opened an office in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. (AP Photo/Nousha Salimi).

When the University announced James Baker III as its choice for this year’s commencement, some cheered for a political bigwig, a few groaned in dismay, and still others wondered who he was and why people were creating such a stir. I wasn’t thrilled about the choice.

What I find important to note about Baker doesn’t center on alleged anti-Semitic remarks or anti-Israel positions. Rather, I’m much more concerned about his shady dealings in the Middle East with countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

A little background on Baker: He’s a former Secretary of State under President George W.H. Bush, the cochair of the Iraq Study Group, the current Special Presidential Envoy on Iraqi debt, and a senior partner at Baker Botts, a prestigious Houston law firm.

So what’s the problem? A little conflict of interest, that’s all. Baker’s job as presidential envoy is to persuade countries to forgive Iraqi debt. Unfortunately, he’s also working on the other side of the fence, for the merchant bank and defense contractor the Carlyle Group, of which Baker is senior counselor and an equity partner. According to The Nation, in October 2004, secret documents obtained by that magazine revealed that the Carlyle Group struck a deal with the Kuwaiti government that would transfer $57 billion dollars in unpaid Iraqi debt from the Kuwaitis to a foundation run by a consortium, of which The Carlyle Group would be a member. In exchange, the consortium would work to persuade world leaders that Iraq should “maximize” its debt to Kuwait , which would then get the money after 10-15 years. And of course, the consortium would make a handsome profit in commission from this deal.

This conflict of interest is no small matter: Baker’s position in the Carlyle Group directly contradicts his role in the U.S. government. Baker should be dissuading countries from increasing Iraqi debt, not doing the very opposite.

Another issue that I find unsettling is Baker’s role as senior partner of Baker Botts. The firm appears to have some questionable clients. For instance, in 2002, families of 9/11 victims sued Saudi Arabian princes. The princes, the Saudi defense minister, Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz
Al-Saud, and his brother, Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, the governor of Riyadh, ultimately chose Baker Botts to defend them in the lawsuit.

The fact that Baker’s firm chose to represent Saudi interests, instead of American ones, is unnerving. Moreover, according to an April 2003 Newsweek article, Baker Botts lawyers openly admitted during the course of the trial that the Saudis have authorized regular payments of about $266,000 a year (for the past 16 years) to the International Islamic Relief Organization, a charity that U.S. federal agents raided because they suspected it was associated with giving funds to terrorist groups.

Yesterday’s DP editorial praised the University’s selection of James Baker III as commencement speaker, stating that “Baker is not just a big name — but a timely one as well.” This reasoning is flawed — could we not have selected a different big and timely name without such murky credentials attached?

There are many valid criticisms of Baker, but these associations with groups working against American interests seem to be the most troubling. He will undoubtedly serve as an inspiration to graduates who want to accede to public service, but I hope that they’ll take his good qualities, and leave his sketchy accolades aside.

It was the first exciting month of my freshman year, September 2005. A group of us had ventured to Boston. We were happily exploring the city, enjoying the New England fall for a weekend. looking for a place for dinner. My friend announced, “Let’s eat here–they have wireless.”

I stared at him. “We’ve been gone two days. You can’t leave your email that long?”

“You don’t get it,” he breathlessly answered, as Gmail appeared on the screen.

A year and a half later, I get it. I’ve fallen victim to Internet Addiction Disorder. I admit it. I check my email every five minutes, my mouse is permanently damaged from constantly clicking “refresh.” Technology has supplanted every other deity in my daily prayers.

I’ll concede, my addiction is probably not the healthiest thing and I’m not alone. Two Canadian gentlemen have figured out a way to help millions worldwide go cold turkey: Shutdown Day 2007.

Shutdown Day 2007 is exactly what it sounds like: a day (March 24, to be exact) when people will turn off their computers and spend time doing what it is they do when they’re not happily zooming through web pages (assuming they have other hobbies, of course).

The point of Shutdown Day, the founders say, is to get back to the basics: talking to your family, going for a walk, and all other natural activities that went out of style in the 60s when you weren’t supposed to trust people over 30.

So far, 21,343 people have pledged to shut down. 3,086 have said they just can’t do it. I’m going to try, but I can’t guarantee anything.

And for those skeptics who wonder what to do with a turned-off laptop, check out this promotional vid from Shutdown Day founders:

Between Britney’s nauseating exploits and Fergie’s monotonal efforts (seriously, someone get that girl a beat), I couldn’t take it anymore. Was there no decent music to be had that could provide a laugh along with the artist, instead of at their expense?

I was at the zenith of my despair, jonesing for a quick dose of music and comedy that could justify further procrastination (boredatvanpelt just didn’t cut it anymore; it seemed that conversation focused solely on the exchange of sexual favors, which was no doubt scintillating for the parties involved, but unfortunately quite dull for everyone else).

Luckily, a friend came to my rescue and forwarded me a link about a band called Flight of the Conchords, a duo from New Zealand. Their music is witty and actually merits the way-too-ubiquitous LOL label. Having gotten their start at Edinburgh Fringe Festival, they’ve since been featured on HBO’s One Night Stand, and now they’re filming their own HBO show.

Check them out: “Business Time” is fabulous, as is “Jenny,” and “Hiphopopotamus vs. Rhymenoceros” will make you want a Kiwi accent (or only want to date people who do).

This painting, Radiator Building- Night, New York by Georgia O’Keefe is being sold by Fisk University. (Fisk University)

I love art. Raised on a steady diet of Cassatts and Renoirs, I’ve always had fond regard for the Impressionists. Then, upon discovering Dali, I realized that perhaps surrealism is just as enticing. Modern art has sadly never struck my fancy, but regardless, I’ve always considered myself a devoted art fan.

Even so, there are times when I realize that other concerns should take precedence. Drastically improving a university qualifies.

The president of Fisk University is doing just that. A historically black institution without a major endowment, Fisk University is home to Georgia O’Keefe pieces as well as a 101-item Arthur Stieglitz Collection given by O’ Keefe to the university as a gift from her husband’s estate.

In order to increase its endowment, fund a new building, establish three endowed chairs, and revamp the art gallery, Fisk has proposed selling one of O’Keefe’s paintings as well as one of Marsden Hartley’s, both items in the original collection bequeathed by O’Keefe to the university.

This proposal was greeted with horror and lawsuits from the Georgia O’ Keefe Museum. The museum tried to block the sale, claiming that it would diminish the value of the collection and effectively dishonor the donor’s wishes.

I understand that a donor’s wishes should be considered when making such a decision. Yet when it comes down to choosing between looking at a piece of art hang flaccidly on the wall, or using money from its sale to replenish an endowment, I think the choice is pretty clear. Fisk is right.

University and museum agendas may fundamentally differ. And to that end, the job of the university is to ensure its own survival–even if it means parting with a critically-acclaimed masterpiece.

U.S. Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Karen Hughes, center, visits the Templo Mayor archeological site in Mexico City. Hughes is in charge of the “War of Ideas” initiative at the State Department. (AP Photo/Eduardo Verdugo)

As college students, we are constantly bombarded by various adages, ranging from Ben Franklin’s advice to go to bed early to Career Services’ suggestion that we include our middle initial on our resumes to appear more impressive.

One maxim stands out from the rest. “The pen is mightier than the sword” &mdash a mandate with which everyone is familiar and journalists especially take to heart.

Here at Penn, we are surrounded by warriors of the scholarly variety, who use keyboards as their tanks and do their fighting via JSTOR. Clearly, they side with the pen. Yet at a time when military might seems to be eating up most of the federal budget, the sword side has been vying for supremacy.

Proponents of the sword argue that the pen’s power is clearly obsolete–after all, writing an editorial seems to do little to stop the Sunni insurgency in Iraq. The president’s recently-proposed 2008 budget reflects this view. President Bush has requested over $145 billion for the War on Terror, most of which will be spent on military endeavors.

At the end of the proposed budget, however, there’s a section entitled “Winning the War of Ideas.” The War of Ideas is considered “outreach to Muslim audiences” using television, expanded education, and cultural exchanges.

Sounds like a great way to engage Muslims globally; understanding culture should be paramount in this war. Yet the budget only requests a measly $50 million for fiscal year 2008 (which confusingly begins in June 2007) to accomplish these goals.

$50 million? That’s 1/2900th of the overall budget- a clear demonstration that the sword has taken precedence over the pen.

But this type of thinking is dangerous: if we forget that cultural exchanges are an important part of this war, we will be represented in the Muslim world as savage conquerors, desperate to homogenize any culture with which we come into contact.

Perhaps the federal government should take a leaf out of universities’ books. The International Professor Exchange is a program began by the University of North Carolina Wilmington. Professors can log onto the site and post their credentials in an attempt to switch positions with a prof from another country. Besides the usual places like Canada and the EU, there are posts from Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and even Pakistan. If the private sector can help engender transatlantic relations, the government should be able to as well.

It’s imperative that we begin the diplomacy aspect of this war that we have forsaken in the past. Reaching out to Muslims and promoting understanding between Islam and the West is crucial to winning this war and preventing others. If Samuel Huntington was right in predicting a “clash of civilizations,” it’s clear that the time is now to minimize its effects.

The only way to do that is to increase the budget for the War of Ideas–and affirm the pen’s victory over the sword, once more.

It was bound to happen sooner or later.

In fact, part of me is surprised that it hadn’t happened earlier. I guess I’m a real Philadelphian now: I was mugged for the first time on Saturday.

When I told my friends, no one was too shocked. Concerned, sure, but astonished? No. If you move to Philadelphia, the common sentiment goes, you have to expect this sort of thing.

It went down like this: On Saturday at around 1:30 p.m., I was wandering around north Third street in Northern Liberties, (for Septa users, past Spring Garden), trying to locate the homes of some people I was supposed to interview (for the DP, no less). With me were a DP photographer, a note pad, my cell phone, and my wallet. Note to self: Never appear to seem lost in a neighborhood you don’t know.

After fumbling with the directions, we set off to find the houses. Out of nowhere, a man came running at us with a gun pointed at our heads. Unfortunately, his face was covered by a black ski mask. “Give me your money!” he yelled, as I backed away slowly. He didn’t seem to notice my presence, opting to concentrate on getting the contents of Matt’s wallet. Surprisingly, he didn’t ask me for anything, nor did he grab Matt’s expensive camera. Within thirty seconds, he snatched thirty dollars and ran down the street.

After calling the cops and filing a report, we continued with the interviews, physically unscathed. But I couldn’t stop thinking about what had just occurred. According to crime statistics obtained from the Philadelphia Police Department , there were around 10,000 robberies reported in 2005, so I know mugging is commonplace. What does fascinate me, however, is the method by which it’s accomplished.

When I study abroad in Europe next year, I know there will be a high chance of getting pick pocketed. Yet somehow it seems to be a dignified sort of robbery, if you will, one that actually contains a fair amount of finesse. A glided movement into your pocket without your knowing, a graceful extraction of your wallet, and bam, he’s gone while you’re figuring out what train stop you should get off at.

Here, however, we have the added variable of guns. Whether using them is a demonstration of power or just an easier way to get victims to comply, I’m not sure. What I do think is interesting is the perceptions associated with it. Guns add an entirely new element of fear to a situation that’s already scary enough.

So I suppose I’m wrangling over a few questions: are muggings in American and Europe fundamentally different, or just executed in various ways? Does the absence of a gun make the situation less scary?

While I don’t know the answers to these questions, I do know that this experience won’t prevent me from heading into unsafe areas and fulfilling my role as a journalist. I will, however, be sure to bring a brave DP photographer along.

One of the bad guys. (AP Photo/Donna McWilliam)

If you read the DP yesterday, chances are you’re thrilled about Penn’s 21.6 percent endowment growth to $5.3 billion (maybe this will help reclaim our previous U.S. News and World Report ranking).

The article describes how the endowment ballooned, stating that University officials “attribute about half of the endowment’s growth to a 12.5 percent return on investments last year.”

Unfortunately for us, we don’t get to learn what those investments are, because Penn has a standard policy of not releasing information about the companies in which the Trustee Board decides to invest.

While I understand the reasoning behind not releasing such information, I find it crucial to delve into some of the investments Penn might have, because of potentially-harmful links they may have to dubious companies.

The dubious companies in question are those that get their oil from the Middle East. Texoco, Shell, and Exxon are all examples of companies that trade oil for dollars, resulting in what Thomas Friedman calls “petro-states,” or countries that use these oil dollars to better entrap their subjects under authoritarian regimes. Some of these petro-states, like Saudia Arabia and Iran, have direct links to terrorism, whether they fund it through telethons soliciting money for the families of suicide bombers, or whether they fund radical madrassas that preach hatred against the West.

To combat the petrodollar cycle, one group has come up with a brilliant plan: establish gas stations that only get their oil from countries outside the Middle East (mostly Canada and the U.S.)

The Terror-Free Oil Initiative opened its first gas station last week in Omaha, Nebraska. It also made headlines when it turned down a check from Citigroup, which offered to help finance the fledgling company. Why turn down such a generous offer? Citigroup’s second largest shareholder is radical Saudi financier Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the same man who donated $27 million to the aforementioned Saudi telethon. he’s also the same man who offered a ten million dollar check to NYC after 9/11 and which was turned down by the then mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani.

Penn is faced with an interesting choice. Last year, advocates for action to combat the genocide in Darfur pressured the administration into declaring a symbolic divestment from companies that operate in Sudan. I believe the administration should also divest from companies that prop up petro-states — either symbolically or, if Penn does have investments in those states, actually.

According to Executive Vice President Craig Carnaroli, the decision to divest isn’t an easy one — and in this situation, he doesn’t think the issue would qualify in the eyes of the Penn community as “substantial social injury,” one of the main criteria for divestment.

The answer, however, is clear. If Penn wants to fulfill the objectives of its global compact, it should act now. If we have investments in companies that do business in the Middle East, we should divest. If we don’t invest in those companies, we should publicly state that we don’t — and that we never will.

Awkward.

University faculty who live in the dorms have it good. Because they’re not our parents, they don’t have to deal with knowing where we are at all times, wondering what we’re doing and with whom. And while RA’s are supposed to look after us, let’s face it, a lot of time we end up doing our best partying with them.

Sometimes, however, professors can find themselves in sticky situations years of graduate school just didn’t prepare them for.

Take, for example, the recent letter Jonathan Holloway, master of Calhoun College at Yale University, sent to his young charges, courtesy of Ivygateblog.com
From: Jonathan Holloway

To: All Calhoun Students

Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:10 AM

Subject: Showers Stalls are for Showering

OK, well THIS is the most awkward college-wide e-mail I’ve ever had to send….

The college showers are to be used by individuals for hygenic purposes only. They are not to be used by couples engaged in intimate activity–especially that kind of activity that leaves the showers in a decidedly less hygenic state.

Several times since the start of the spring term some Hounies have come across a couple having the time of their lives in a shower stall. Last night the shower flooded and the bathroom could not be used for over 90 minutes. To the as yet unidentified couple, this may be pleasureable and exciting for you but it is a violation of community standards. Please stop.
I really don’t want to explore this matter any further as I respect your individual privacy. But such continued brazen public displays of affection will only invite public embarrassment. I beg of you, let’s not go there.

JH

The email speaks for itself, but I do wish we had received a similar e-mail from Penn faculty regarding sex against dorm room windows.

This furry rodent, the Marmota monax, commonly known as the groundhog, recieves entirely too much attention at the beginning of February.(www.borealzoo.org)

Early February usually receives an inordinate amount of attention relating to a rodent, when usually-intelligent people leave their happiness for the season in the hands of a creature that looks suspiciously like the shawl my grandmother reserves especially for Rosh Hashana services.

Thankfully this year we have something else to distract us from the tyranny of the groundhog. Today, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases its paper regarding the future of the planet. That’s right, another paper on global warming.

The panel has released four papers on global warming since 1990, but this time it has actually almost come to a perhaps-definite conclusion (maybe). This time, scientists can proudly assert that “it is nearly certain to conclude that there is at least a 90 percent chance that human-caused emissions are the main factor in warming since 1950.” So, in a nutshell, the world’s top scientists are almost pretty much sure they might agree to something that was stated as fact on the first day of Intro to Geology.

I realize that in today’s political climate (no pun intended), it’s a social faux pas to admit that global warming scares you more than a burrito from Taco Bell made with spinach . And even in circles where it’s generally acknowledged that global warming is an issue we should care about, people can’t help but bicker over details (No, your country emitted more than the 12 percent accepted pollutant levels!) But squabbling over the exact degree to which the earth will heat because of human activity (and because of what country) isn’t productive.

Further, as students it seems like we’re even more impotent than the Kyoto Protocol. Penn Facilities website’s latest stats on recycling are from 2005, and details about smart initiatives like a halogen light bulb exchange date back to 2002.

So what’s a student to do? Well, chances are you’ve already been invited to “Lights Out” on Facebook. Today, at 6:55 p.m., over 150,000 people across the world will shut their lights off for five minutes. A small gesture, perhaps, but a symbolic one. If Penn students can team up with students from around the world, together we can make a powerful statement: we may not be scientists, but we know what our parents have done to the earth, and, starting now, we’re going to try to fix it.

That’s a trifle more important than a rodent that predicts the weather for the next six weeks (21 degrees F, feels like 4).

As a proud feminist, I’m always happy to talk about the motives behind a woman’s actions. Whenever I do, some disgruntled man mentions how complex and mysterious women are, to which I earnestly reply, “No, no women are easy to figure out, it’s you guys whom nobody understands.”

But this time, I’m sorry to say, I’m entirely wrong — women are irrational, or at least when it comes to their sexual health. A Penn study that reveals women’s thought processes when deciding whether or not to to get the new HPV vaccine has just been released, and like any guy of my generation, I’m pretty much mystified.

The Annenberg School of Communication-sponsored research suggested that the way the vaccination was framed was a key factor in a woman’s decision to actually get the vaccine. This means that women are deciding whether or not to get a vaccine that could save their lives based on how it’s being presented to them.

When a sample of women read a description of the vaccine as protection against cervical cancer, 63 percent answered that they were likely to get the vaccine. When the vaccine was described, however, as a way to prevent cervical cancer and a sexually-transmitted infection (STI), that number dropped to 43 percent.

43 percent? That’s a ridiculously low number, especially when you consider that in the latter case the respondents were presented with more information: that the vaccine could prevent both cancer and an STI in three doses. What has possessed women to adopt such a blase attitude toward their sexual health?

Researchers said that the drop may indicate a woman’s belief that a vaccine against an STI may be simply unnecessary. Unnecessary? When 20 million people are diagnosed with HPV and 50 percent of the population is projected to acquire it sometime in their lives, it’s clear that this is the most welcome advance in medical care since the polio era.

The only way to fix this problem is to talk about it. Whether through education awareness programs or panel discussions, Penn Women’s Center and the Office of Health Education should team up to prove that even if women’s thought processes seem a tad muddled at the offset, our ultimate decisions reflect crystal-clear thinking.