Our friends at The Claremont Insider point to how far the Stark family fruit has fallen from the tree in two recent blog posts.
Apparently Jeff Stark, son of our former college president, Jack Stark, has been going to Russ Warner for Congress events. The perennial also-ran Russ Warner is running against CMC's only congressman, David Dreier. Dreier is a golden boy, though I do confess that I think he's been there for far too long and we could have used a little tea party here to encourage him to retire. Thirty years in Washington does strike me as twenty years too long, though I am grateful for all the congressman has done for the reputation of our fine institution.
Nevertheless, if true, this political involvement by the Starks is something of a heart break, but not, it seems, an unexpected one. The Starks have been trending left for awhile. Aly Stark CMC '11 is rumored to be left wing here on campus, which is why, at least, I encourage you to vote "no" on the $95 million bond initiative she's trying to sell Claremont voters. Her father is a school board member, incidentally. The city, by the way, hasn't even paid off the $30 million one from before. Even the Rose Institute got in in the selling, which is a bit too bad because you'd think they would have known better.
Perhaps all this is a reason in and of itself to end legacy admissions...
Lest I be seen as anti-Stark, I confess that I am a great admirer of our former President Jack Stark for reasons I alluded to in a December 2007 blog post which I have reproduced here.
As Professor Massoud tells it, one Mormon student was planning to transfer because of how rowdy (read: perpetually drunk) his floor mates are. When he told Professor Massoud, Professor Massoud met with the students' parents and encouraged him to stay in the school. He did.I spent three years living in Stark Hall and was grateful for every minute.
At that time, Stark Hall was being built and finished. He convinced President Stark that if the dorm was going to have his name, wouldn't he want it also be substance-free?
Stark agreed and they began implementing the Stark policy, though it wasn't easy. Apparently, many people didn't want Stark to be substance-free because by making it that way, they were openly admitting that Claremont McKenna had a drinking problem. Fortunately Professor Massoud won that fight.
Update: Aly Stark came up to me in the computer lab while I was working and accused me of "poor journalism" when I wrote this post that said she was "notoriously" left wing. Fair enough. I strike it from the record and add that she is "rumored to be." I don't think I really need to add that qualification -- how many conservatives, right-leaning people, or, for that matter, independent people do you know of who are angling for more public spending at this time? As a one-time renter in this town and handyman for a homeowner or two, somebody's got to pay for those bond initiatives and it's clear to me that now is not the proper time.
10 comments:
Anyone up for a game of Spot the Contradiction?
A blog that advertises itself as a forum for free thought laments the decline of a prominent local family because they support some fresh blood to replace a politician whose been in power for three decades.
And the following is not so much a contradiction, but more just an example of appalling journalism skills:
1. A member of the Stark family supports a Democratic candidate for Congress
2. Charles Johnson disagree with Democrats on a number of issues and by extension, Russ Warner, as a matter of principle and not necessarily anything he may know about him from the minimal amount of research he's done
3. This means that regardless of the many positive things that the Stark family has accomplished in this town, a family that has been described as highly visible leaders in the community for decades has now "fallen from the tree".
Let's take another look at the logic you've so skillfully employed:
1. Charles Johnson thinks that "we could have used a little tea party"
2. I disagree with the tea party and quite honestly, see many of their actions as attempts to set America back by a century
3. It is safe for me to assume by extension that Charles subscribes to many of the same backwards ideologies as the Tea Party as well as many other ideas I don't feel like dignifying with a mention.
By the way, I do agree with you on one thing in this post. I too am a great admirer of Jack Stark. He did great things for this college and I get the impression from locals that he and his family have an enormous presence in the town of Claremont.
But here's a small piece of advice for the future: If you are a great admirer of somebody, there are probably better ways to respect him than by publicizing the actions of his son in a purely negative light and criticizing his entire family in a public venue. It's not that it violates the First Amendment or anything. You have every right to insult the Stark family if you disagree with Russ Warner and the Starks are kinda sorta distantly associated with him. It's just bad etiquette and it makes you look like an asshole.
Not to get into too much of a meta-debate about why I posted this, but the Starks are what's known around town as honorary members of the Claremont 400. Their conduct is fair game and yes, I do celebrate free thought, but backing someone other than the hometown boy is also worth mentioning, as is supporting a measure that is bankrupting the local town.
Oh, and by the way, I do know quite a bit about Russ Warner. (I have even shaken his hand!)
I am a supporter of the tea party and you are right. They do want to set us back several hundred years politically -- which means we'd be honoring the Constitution once more.
Tea Party = a bunch of fear-mongering flat-earth nonsense
"I am a supporter of the tea party and you are right. They do want to set us back several hundred years politically -- which means we'd be honoring the Constitution once more."
Truly terrifying.
Just throwing this out there: As an American, I love the Constitution and what it stands for. It was revolutionary and has paved the way for extraordinary things to happen.
That being said, I'm not entirely sure what it means in a practical sense to go back to "honoring the Constitution once more". I'm going to overlook the obvious fact that the Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves if our country's political systems hadn't evolved in the past 220 years.
It is a gross oversimplification of the Consitutional Convention to talk about it as though every delegate subscribed to some uniform, coherent ideology. There was a reason it took so long to write the Constitution: there was a lot of disagreement on how this country should be governed. Hence the reason we already had political parties during Washington's presidency. Back then (Jefferson and Hamilton), just as today (we've got the Democrats under Obama and Republicans under Romney, McConnell, Boehner, etc., then some crazies way out there to the right that we'll refer to as the Tea Party), there are very intelligent and well informed people who have different ideas, and in my humble opinion, that is part of what makes this country so great: intellectual debate that advances progress and allows the best/most effective ideas to rise to the top.
Part 2:
Probably the most brilliant element of our Constitution is that is a dynamic and living document open for interpretation. Our government was structured in a way where it could evolve and improve itself while still following the values and framework that are crucial to the functioning of our government and to our lives as free American citizens. The Founding Fathers knew that the country would evolve, and in a brand new country populated by immigrants, they probably predicted that the demographics would change continuously for generations. Technology would change, the masses would become more educated, and with those changes, our priorities would shift as well. There is no way that some of the smartest people ever to lead our country could have imagined or could ever want a country that operated EXACTLY the same way two centuries after it was founded.
Show me some practical steps that would comprise a movement back to the Consitution. It seems that if you pick out the elements of our Constitution that are truly crucial to the well-being of our nation, both parties universally uphold those values(although some Presidents are very liberally interpreting the limits of executive power). Explain to me how the Constitution is not being honored today and how we can return to giving it the honor and respect it deserves. Until then, suggesting that we go back to honoring the Constitution is a lot like religious fundamentalists who suggest that we go back to respecting the values that Jesus stood for. It's a cheap and easy answer that makes for a great sound bite but has no substance to it. His principles and the principles of the Constitution are universal and can be followed in changing times. To follow the teachings of Jesus or the teachings of the Founding Fathers does not in any way require a return to their time.
Do I think that we should love our neighbors as we love ourselves? Yes. Do I think that we should care for the sick and needy? Absolutely. Do I want to go back to a time when laws were often oppresive, not entirely logical, and the world was a much more confusing and violent place? Hell no. I want to honor the principles of Jesus, but I know that there's a perfectly good way to do so without taking the world back to his time. (Disclaimer: I am not a Christian. He just made for a very good example of the point I'm trying to get across.)
Same thing with the Constitution. Do I support three branches of government, a strong legal framework and powerful judicial system, and a system of checks and balances? Of course. Do I believe in state's rights? Yes. Should we go back to a time when only wealthy and educated white men had a voice in our democracy and we lacked the progress we've made and the knowledge we've gained from all the hindsight we have today? If you say yes to that answer, then please explain to me the point of the last 200 years.
Probably the most brilliant element of our Constitution is that is a dynamic and living document open for interpretation. Our government was structured in a way where it could evolve and improve itself while still following the values and framework that are crucial to the functioning of our government and to our lives as free American citizens. The Founding Fathers knew that the country would evolve, and in a brand new country populated by immigrants, they probably predicted that the demographics would change continuously for generations. Technology would change, the masses would become more educated, and with those changes, our priorities would shift as well. There is no way that some of the smartest people ever to lead our country could have imagined or could ever want a country that operated EXACTLY the same way two centuries after it was founded.
Show me some practical steps that would comprise a movement back to the Consitution. It seems that if you pick out the elements of our Constitution that are truly crucial to the well-being of our nation, both parties universally uphold those values(although some Presidents are very liberally interpreting the limits of executive power). Explain to me how the Constitution is not being honored today and how we can return to giving it the honor and respect it deserves. Until then, suggesting that we go back to honoring the Constitution is a lot like religious fundamentalists who suggest that we go back to respecting the values that Jesus stood for. It's a cheap and easy answer that makes for a great sound bite but has no substance to it. His principles and the principles of the Constitution are universal and can be followed in changing times. To follow the teachings of Jesus or the teachings of the Founding Fathers does not in any way require a return to their time.
Do I think that we should love our neighbors as we love ourselves? Yes. Do I think that we should care for the sick and needy? Absolutely. Do I want to go back to a time when laws were often oppresive, not entirely logical, and the world was a much more confusing and violent place? Hell no. I want to honor the principles of Jesus, but I know that there's a perfectly good way to do so without taking the world back to his time. (Disclaimer: I am not a Christian. He just made for a very good example of the point I'm trying to get across.)
Same thing with the Constitution. Do I support three branches of government, a strong legal framework and powerful judicial system, and a system of checks and balances? Of course. Do I believe in state's rights? Yes. Should we go back to a time when only wealthy and educated white men had a voice in our democracy and we lacked the progress we've made and the knowledge we've gained from all the hindsight we have today? If you say yes to that answer, then please explain to me the point of the last 200 years.
At Anonymous,
Your reading of the constitution is way too progressive with all of its emphasis on evolution. We have a very clear mechanism for change -- amendment.
Amendments are used to provide more rights or to provide older rights to more people. While they've had effects on some parts of the government like income taxes or the number of terms a President can serve, they really have had few direct effects on the actual structure of the government. The Articles of the Constitution lay out the framework for the government. The Articles have not changed since they were written. Most changes in the government are due to changes in the interpretation of those articles. Although today's government is very different from the government of 100 years ago, which was quite different from the government at the country's founding, all are still completely Constitutional. The only difference was how people in power interpreted the rules and how roles shifted as times changed.
The whole point of what I was trying to say in my earlier posts is that:
1. It doesn't really mean much to say "go back to honoring the Constitution" since we do so already. The Constitution left enough wiggle room for us to make quite a few changes to the government without violating the framework outlined in 1789.
2. Is going back to the Constitution, if there is such a way to do so, necessarily a good thing?
This piece of journalism is a piece of crap. The author of the first comment said it well, but let me put it more bluntly, this gossip piece is beneath the Claremont Conservative. Don't justify your actions by a "this is noteworthy because the Stark Family is part of the Claremont 400" retort. Recognize that you are now part of the TMZ crowd and either get back to what you do best, giving an honest conservative persepective on news relatining to Claremont, or rename your blog as the Claremont Tattler or the Inland Empire Enquirer.
Post a Comment