I have a problem with the whole situation of India and Pakistan having nukes in the first place. You see, I've been reading Chomsky's Year 501 - the Conquest Continues, and his whole thesis is that the US and other strong nations continually subjugate the weaker countries. Economically when possible, militarily when necessary. Hence G7, hence security council, WTO, etc. If something in the world isn't to our liking, we interfere - state sovereignty be damned.

So I ask you, how the hell did they let India and Pakistan succeed in their nuclear buildup? Is the West losing its power so much that it's unwilling and unable to find a pretext for denying two third-world nations nuclear capability? Or were those in power somehow uncertain that India and Pakistan going nuclear would be detrimental to "stability" (which is what we want) and end up threatening us or our interests somehow.

Now, I assume the great Chomsky isn't lurking here, so hopefully some of his fans can enlighten me. It's not our style to allow 3rd world nations to have nuclear power, so how did it happen? Is there some interest for the West in having nuclear tension on the Indian subcontinent? Of course, the whole mess is our fault in the first place, post-colonian border drafting and all, but really, what's the deal?

Basically, my question boils down to this: is what's happening in the interest of the west (say the way Iran/Iraq conflict was) or is this an example of how things go wrong when the west shrugs off the white man's burden and lets the third run their own lives?

 
So, you hate fraternities. You point out the kids that died from drinking too much at frat parties. You can't possibly be wrong, can you? I am not in a frat and my life would probably be not much different if frats were outlawed. However, I don't think it's up to you or anyone to limit my choices. If I wanted to join a frat, I don't want to be limited by the fact that some people have taken that to an irresponsible degree. Same reason, by the way, that I support the 2nd ammendment but don't own a gun.

You're right, a lot of kids at college age are immature and vulnerable. However, I most are not. And you can't institutionalize the idea that ALL college kids are like that because SOME are. In the end, if your kid is immature and unprepared for living on their own, the parents should keep them living at home and commuting. If the parents judged their kid to be ready to make the choices of living on his own, I don't see why the University should intervene. As a parent, you have the ability to control where your kid goes to school because you're paying for it. If the kid makes enough on his own to cover tuition, he's probably mature to handle a drinking situation, too.

Don't get me wrong. I feel bad for the kid who died, and I totally understand where your sentiment is coming from. I just don't like the idea of making the rules to safeguard the irresponsible at the expense of the freedom of everyone else. Even as my school allows frats, they're trying to go to a dry campus - and I hate it. I hate the increased police presence on campus, too. It doesn't directly affect me, but it creates an atmosphere where students are just kids, who need to be protected from themselves.

My friend Tom, an exchange student from England, was amazed at our system. They don't have a Greek system over there (there's no tradition of it) but they don't have a practice of restricting students in any way. By the time you're at the university, you're an adult. That's why they can form clubs like "cigar smoking society" and "the ravers club" (they use student activity fees to organize trips to raves) I don't see that flying in the States (my school, at least.) And that's a bad thing. By the time you enter college, you're 18. 18 is OLD, my friend. In other countries you're an adult at 16. It's bad enough that students are treated like children in college, we don't need MORE of it like you suggest.