Alan Shusterman

I received some very sad news yesterday, Corwin Hansch, a retired chemistry professor at Pomona College, had passed away after a long bout with pneumonia. I was hired by Pomona in 1985 to “replace” Corwin, and because he was only going into semi-retirement*, I co-taught the organic chemistry laboratory with him for several years. Ultimately, we became research collaborators. Corwin guided my path in many ways. Sometimes by offering direct advice, but usually by being an excellent listener and by working behind the scenes to advance my career (usually in ways that I would only discover later on). There are so many stories to tell about him, but I’ll just say that he was everything a young, inexperienced assistant professor could hope to find: a mentor, a model, a colleague, and a friend. Rest easy, Corwin.

*This meant that he still came to work every day, taught a wonderful undergraduate course in medicinal chemistry that I sat in on (in addition to the lab section of organic chemistry that he also taught), maintained a research lab stocked with permanent research associates and a steady stream of visiting scientists, drove out to UCLA every Saturday to look at journals in their library, and published even more frequently than before since he no longer had full-time teaching/committee responsibilities.

LA Times obituary, May 23, 2011, C&E News obituary, June 6, 2011 (p. 50)

Much of the international news coverage of Japan’s earthquake/tsunami tragedy has shifted in recent days. Instead of telling us more about those who have lost their loved ones and homes, attention is being focused on the problems associated with the Fukushima nuclear power plants.

While most people seem convinced that the unfolding Fukushima disaster proves conclusively that nuclear power is an unthinkable option, some are drawing the opposite conclusion. Prof. George Monbiot, a well-known environmentalist and long-time nuclear opponent in the UK, is persuaded that the scale of the Fukushima disasters actually proves the superiority of nuclear power to fossil fuels. Read his Guardian column (“Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power” March 29, 2011) on nuclear power here and listen to his same-day interview here with NPR’s All Things Considered. You can also read opposing views in the Guardian here (“Weighing up the cost of nuclear power, March 29, 2011).

One thing is clear: world-wide demand for energy is increasing. Those who would prefer a nuclear-free future must articulate an energy path that meets this demand without nuclear power, and simultaneously rapidly reduces reliance on fossil fuels, and does not harm humans and/or the environment. This is not a simple matter. Monbiot maintains that nuclear v. coal/gas is the only realistic choice for the near future. He correctly notes that we seem to have a “perspective” problem, allowing ourselves to be transfixed over (so far) minor radiation releases while forgetting the large number of coal miners who are killed in mining accidents every year.

And, may I ask, why do we find it so hard to reduce power consumption?

From “Quotables: The Fifth Precept”, Tricycle, Fall 2010, p. 75

‘In the ´70s, when we wandered up the hill to Kopan Monastery in Nepal
in various states of drug- and alcohol-induced intoxication, we would
ask Lama Yeshe, “What do you think about drugs, alcohol, and meditation?
They make us more relaxed so it’s easier to watch our breath, and our
visualizations are so much more vivid when we’re stoned.”

Lama, looking at us with an expression that was quizzically serious,
would say, “You don’t need drugs, dear. You’re already hallucinating.”

Then, when we stopped laughing, he explained that intoxicants and
meditation don’t go together. “Intoxicants take you away from reality;
meditation takes you toward reality. Which do you want? You are already
intoxicated by ignorance, anger, and attachment and suffer as a result.
Why do you want to take more intoxicants?”‘

–Bhikshuni Thubten Chodron author, Tibetan Buddhist nun, and founder of Sravasti Avvey

“I never put down my gadgets; I stay connected 24-7, and I preferably
enjoy responding to messages in public spaces, where people can see me
frenetically responding to people who need me. Collectively, all my
observations here confirm my self-importance, and that, after all, is
the importance of staying connected 24-7.

Silence frightens me . .
. the monastics, the mystics, those comfortable with silence . . .
perhaps they are onto something about what truly matters in life.

Nah . . .”

This was the first comment on a weekend story, “Working Constantly, Thanks to Technology” (NY Times, Feb 5, 2011). I don’t know if anyone really works constantly. I know I don’t. But I do know this: When my work device is also my leisure device, I’ve got a problem. And when this device weighs just a pound or two and boasts incredible storage and high-speed connectivity, I’m just digging myself in deeper. “Leaving work at the office” was something my Dad could do almost effortlessly, but I don’t know if today’s Dads can disconnect so easily.

The following text is taken from, “The King We Need,” an article written by Charles R. Johnson and posted at Shambhala SunSpace on April 4, 2010. Click here to read the full entry.

“The great problem facing modern man is that the means by which we live have outdistanced the spiritual ends for which we live.”  — Martin Luther King, Jr.

When most of us think about that American apostle of nonviolence and peace, Martin Luther King, Jr., even some who marched beside him in demonstrations nearly fifty years ago, we do so with an almost deliberate forgetfulness and precious little understanding of the specific “content of character” (to borrow one of King’s most famous phrases) displayed by a man who insisted in his sermon “Three Dimensions of a Complete Life” that, “Somewhere along the way, we must learn that there is nothing greater than to do something for others.”

Despite the overwhelming presence of this man in our lives, King in his magnificent fullness-as this nation’s Socratic “gadfly of the state” and our most prominent moral philosopher of the second half of the twentieth century-is strangely absent. Too many of us, especially those born after his assassination thirty-seven years ago, see him only in the oversimplified terms of race-as an eloquent, segregation-era “voice of his people,” frequently and falsely compared in political conversations with his very different (and philosophically antithetical) contemporary, Malcolm X, whose daughter’s observation in the 1980’s about her father’s popularity applies equally as well to King: “He’s getting attention, but I think he’s misunderstood… Young people are inspired by pieces of him instead of the entire man.”

…

The ten points of the “Commitment Blank,” a kind of Decalogue signed by
members of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and their
followers during the electrifying Birmingham campaign:
Continue reading →

Prof. Allan Bard, a highly respected chemist, scientist, author, and teacher at the University of Texas, recently contributed an editorial titled “It’s Not the Money, Stupid!” to the American Chemical Society’s weekly magazine C&E News (Oct. 11, 2010). He begins with:

“The culture of academic research has shifted over
the past 50 years from research evaluation based on teaching,
creativity, and productivity to one based simply on the amount of money
(often now called “resources”) raised. A number of factors have played a
role in this change: the “business model” for universities, an
increased willingness to accept greed as a virtue in our society and as a
measure of success, and a desire for an easy “objective” measure of
something that is otherwise difficult to quantify.

As a result, we have reached the point where faculty members are
judged more by the amount of research funds they have raised, primarily
from government agencies, than by the accomplishments that flow from the
funding. Obtaining high levels of funding is considered not only
desirable, but absolutely necessary, and I’ve been party to tenure
discussions that have centered on this (for example, on the need for
“scoring two major grants”) rather than on the quality of work.”

To my surprise, these comments have raised more than a few hackles and C&E News felt compelled to present both sides in a “Point/Counterpoint” (Dec. 13, 2010). Which raises the question, what is expected from academic scientists?
Continue reading →

In 1995 Richard Holbrooke, a man that I had never heard of before, became one of my personal heroes. Why? Because he had played an instrumental role in achieving what everyone had said was impossible: negotiating the Dayton Peace Accords and bringing an end to the war in Bosnia.

For over 3 years in the early 1990’s, Americans had wrung their hands in disbelief as Serbians, Croatians, and Bosnians waged war in the Balkans. Our experts repeatedly told us that peace was too much to hope for, that “Balkans” was just another word for unending warfare, and that the U.S. shouldn’t get involved in this area. “You may not like it, but you’ll have to get used to it because this is what those people do. It is what they have always done” was the conventional wisdom. Mr. Holbrooke, a career diplomat in the State Department, thought otherwise and the innocent citizens who had been caught up in this bloody and seemingly unending conflict can thank him for the peace they enjoy today.

Mr. Holbrooke died Monday while undergoing emergency surgery to repair a torn aorta. He had been serving as the U.S. government’s special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and he had returned to Washington DC to report on his work when he suddenly became ill. In an age where politicians can get elected by running against “Washington bureaucrats,” we would do well to remember this lifelong servant of the public good. The world is a better place because of Richard Holbrooke.

It was time to celebrate, get my picture taken. For the next few days at least, my boys are tops.