It gives me great pleasure to inform you that you can now register for an account and leave comments on posts. The registration system is not yet as developed as I'd like it to be. As it is now, you will have to let me know if you have problems, such as forgetting your password or bugs of any kind that I have yet to discover. Thank you, everyone, for being so patient while I crank everything out.

Coming soon:

• Edit your profile!
• Log in through Facebook!
• Flag comments for abuse!

Notice:

Sadly, it may take up to an hour for you to receive your confirmation email. I'm still looking into the problem. Be sure to also check your spam folder. I apologize for the inconvenience.

From Part X on, I could not shake a great sense of disappointment that this book was not going in the direction I thought it would. It hardly needs to go in any particular direction. I don't believe that this book, or any, is supposed to be written in any specific way.

One feature that preoccupied me during this journey was all of the descriptions of great violence, particularly violence done towards woman and children. This is a theme throughout the book that we readers are warned about in the story's first epigraph and the theme does not relent. I could not help but to see the systems that Iris was compelled to participate in as parallel to the Sakiel-Norn sacrifices, which were also socially-mandated. Iris's coercion and that of the sacrificed virgins came across as strongly related stories, as if one was an allegory of the other. Upon realizing, however, that Alex Thomas's stories were immense exaggerations of historical events, that his stories took far more literary license than I first thought, I could not help but to feel that I had been duped.

Of course, upon retrospection, I can more readily observe that reaction and not get so swept up by it. Of course, so many of the expectations are coming from me, not that the writer doesn't have a hand in what they are preparing for me to interpret, but it is I who does the interpreting, of course. And so, surely I'll have very different interpretations than other readers and the writer.

The kind of parallel relation I saw in Thomas's stories of virgin sacrifices and Iris sacrificing herself to Richard is surely seen by others. Men readily give their first daughter to be sacrificed to the Temple and Iris's father, though reluctantly, also gives her daughter to Richard to save what little of his company and reputation remain. Iris is de-virginized by Richard, an act that is described in what I would think most readers would consider horrific terms—that is, terms that evoke horror for us, which I partially quoted in the previous post.

The horror that Richard brings to Iris is also realized by Laura, and slowly revealed to us. The events that led to Laura's suicide are very slowly, painfully, and reluctantly revealed, which mirrors Iris's experience unfolding these events while she lived with Winifred and Richard. It is clear that they tried to obstruct the truth from her in order to cover for Richard's…perversity, we'll say.

They cover up the real reason for Laura's stay at Bella Vista in a believable way, so that just like Iris, I too was initially greatly disappointed in Laura. But my disappointment continued even up to Iris's discovery of a message Laura wrote that took me some time to interpret:

Avilion, no. No. No. Sunnyside. No. Xanadu, no. No. Queen Mary, no no. New York, no. Avilion. No at first.

Water Nixie, X. "Besotted."

Tornoto again. X.

X. X. X. X.

O.

And so, as I'm sure so many other readers picked up, this would appear to be some kind of record of the times when Richard accosted Laura, where she was quite resistant at first but then gave into him.

Is Laura truly so helpless? Would we have done the same thing in her situation? Well, I guess that kind of inquiry may not be too helpful, because people are so vastly different that I suppose we can already assume that if Laura was a different person she would have done something different. So, let's take Laura as she's been described to us. Yes, Laura is a character in a story, but as Iris consistently reminds us, these things really do happen. People are really like this. And so, I discuss such people.

When I read Laura's message, I can't help but to wonder if other women agree that these are slightly better times for people who may be in Laura's kind of distress. There are simply more jobs available now than there were in the 40s, even with the recession and job-losses. When Laura inspires Iris to get some crap job with her, like waiting, I can't help but to view that as a better scenario than… you know… literally getting fucked. Crap jobs are indeed shit, but if the alternative is to get raped on a regular basis… I can't help but to see Laura's waffle house aspirations as slightly more noble than grinning and bearing it… Now, I know Iris had no idea what was happening, and I understand that she trusted that Richard would keep his word and not take everything of the Chase legacy for his own. Why couldn't Laura tell her what was happening?

Because she was sure she'd ruin everything. She was sure that many a bridge would be burned. I suppose that Laura was mostly afraid of upsetting Iris… she would ruin her… um… yeah, it's actually not too clear to me… Laura was already convinced that they were in a crap-deal with Richard. I am sure that Iris's reluctance to believe Mr. Erskine's perversity made Laura hesitant as well. But didn't Iris eventually believe her? And didn't Reenie believe her pretty much immediately? But Reenie was under the care of Richard. Maybe Laura didn't want to ruin all of that. But the thing is that Reenie and her husband eventually got themselves fired from Richard's service for neglecting to do their tasks. It is unclear whether or not they intended to stay under Richard's care in the first place. Well, what a perfect trap… of Laura's own design. Surely Laura was not under the impression that Iris was content with Richard, but maybe Laura did not want to so independently wrench her sister from her… comfort… She did not want to be the catalyst of their downfall. However, I can't help but to see that they were doomed from the beginning.

The thing is that women DO NOT have to grin and bear it, as we all know, I'm sure. Iris clearly sees this truth in her sex with Alex Thomas, which is totally consensual at this point, unlike the time when he accosted her in the Avilion attic. I am slightly thrown off by this, by the way… if not totally thrown off. I bet anything that if we engaged Iris today and asked her how she perceived being attacked at that time compared to now, Iris would not characterize that attack as an attack. That is, she would not maintain that she wanted nothing to do with that interaction. She does want the antagonistic interaction, but in a safer environment, I suppose you could say. She wants such antagonism with him in a scenario where she is assured that he does not want to do her in and where the bashing and perversity is performed by someone who she syncs up with more mentally. They are sparring, as I spoke of earlier.

And so, if her first sex had been with Alex, it probably would have still hurt and there would still have been blood, and now that I think of it, there would have still been some grinning and bearing, all taking place in a setting in which she feels safer. The pain is more pleasurable. His assholery is confined, although there's plenty of play as far as how perverse he may act or speak during sex, how dirty the whole enterprise is, the revenge in the form of sex that occurs due to the antagonism between Alex Thomas and Richard. Hot stuff…

What I'm getting at here is that it more and more looks like one may not be able to so easily point to specific sexual acts and define them as rape, or perversion, etc. It appears that we have to gather the context of the situation. One woman's rape is another's bliss. My, can things get tricky out there…

Imagine if Iris was very much turned on by the reluctance, disgust, and vessel-like confinement that her husband subjected her to. Imagine if she was convinced that this is the way it's supposed to be. Could we then consider such acts as forms of enormity?

Well, consider the sado-masochists. Consider people who willingly undergo enslavement. They do exist. And I'm not just talking about sexual enslavement. Now clearly, there is a strong disparity between the people who are actually enslaved and the people who actually appreciate enslavement. As an über-perceptive Southerner in the hilarious documentary Sherman's March once explained, If you want to be a slave, then be a slave! True that, but the good lady misses the point of the Civil War in that it was more to settle the issue of whether or not it should be lawful to force people into slavery, that is, create conditions so that escape is difficult and sic the entire federal apparatus upon you if you do manage to escape.

And so, I am compelled to view the type of sex Iris has with Richard as bad and the type she has with Alex Thomas as good, even though both sexual scenarios are rife with deplorable aspects. It is her content perspective with Alex Thomas that makes me side more with her there, though I can't really side too strongly with her. I feel she has made a grave mistake… but he seems like a good guy. Aren't we all subject to impulses? They shouldn't define us as a person. However, I doubt he would characterize what he did as particularly bad, and I doubt Iris would either, at this point anyway.

This story really has me thinking… as all good stories do. And so, kudos to Atwood for continuing to pump out excellent literature that forces you to gather your thoughts and determine what you think about all of this.

Now, that I've said all that, let me just share a few words regarding The Handmaid's Tale:

I found that book to be a very fantastical and, I'm sorry to say, misguided perception of the most pressing issues of freedom that the US deals with. It is pure fantasy to imagine the US becoming a Christian North Korea. There is nowhere near an organized enough of a mass in this country to coup us into handmaid heaven. Atwood's atheism could not be more propagandized. Surely the good writer sees that we are more apt to destroy others than ourselves. On top of that, we are a very prude nation. Sex, when publicly expressed, is pretty much always obscene, except in very narrow circumstances— caveats that were hard fought for, let me tell you. To see this country as on any realistic path of delegating sex to a public service can only be seen as a very imaginative scenario. Truly unreal and pure fantasy.

I basically see that book as Atwood plopping the perils of very closed societies like North Korea or Iran (for a more religious-based totalitarian comparison) right on to US society. I can see that she has taken great care to make this move, as all of the good writer's work is clearly the product of careful attention and patient study, but in doing so she too readily equates the religious fervor that led to Iran's revolution to the religious fervor one finds in the US.

If Pat Robertson and co. had their way, not even they would advocate a social system that mirrors that of Islamists. The extreme religious right gets their way a lot of the time in the form of much legislation and social norms, but there is far too much resistance from liberals and even conservatives who value our freedoms (i.e. not making it illegal for women to dress in a way so-and-so considers provocative) so that the red burka of the handmaids would not have a snowflake's chance in heck to rear its ugly head in our legal system.

To account for this, Atwood portrays a story where unknown assailants forcibly take over the government. I insist that there is no force in the country that is so organized. Now, there are surely groups here who long to see an order for this country where oppression in the guise of religious adherence would run rampant if they were in charge, but just look at our independent militias. They are not exactly what you would call intimidating. Even if a group of militiamen forced their way into government offices, they would be immediately repelled by the feds, national guard, etc. and the offending group would be forever branded as a “terrorist organization”. I am not sure what force or spirit would convince the US's security apparatuses to stand down in the face of armed religious fanatics, or armed fanatics of any kind.

Now again, many in the world already see us as the armed religious fanatics, imposing our will at missile-point. That is the true manifestation of our evil empire. We do make examples out of people by way of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, etc., but this is popularly viewed as deplorable. A resurgence of interest in those times has sparked investigations, especially with all of this Wikileak-mania. I'm not so zealous as to go ahead and attribute the Arab Spring to Bradley Manning's bravery, an idea that is gaining some steam, but we can safely say that with more and more info being made available, people are starting to realize that they are not alone.

There are intense divisions in this country, but totalitarianism is far from claiming a victory here. We are eons, if not parallel universes, away from turning into the US described in The Handmaid's Tale.

Recently, Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert, wrote a post on his blog called Pegs and Holes where he laments about how what men want is very opposed to what women want and that the natural inclinations of men are more frequently vilified than those of women. His essay ends by outlining an apocalyptic scenario where society may prefer men to be chemically castrated, if the vilification continues. Unfortunately, he does not give much evidence or detail regarding his points. This is very unfortunate because I agree with some of what he's saying, but I'm wary about even saying that, given the vagueness of his statements.

The post has created quite a firestorm. First of all, if you visit his site, you'll see that the comment thread has been thoroughly spam-bombed. Some of the comments suggest that the bulk of the negative flak is being organized by other sites. Nevertheless, he has upset many people.

Again, I agree with very little of what Adams wrote. Let me begin by quoting part of a response from a Salon.com writer:

By virtue of our hormones, body mass and cultural conditioning, we can make generalizations about behavior based on gender, and we can give the human sex drive its due as a driving force to be reckoned with. …That does not now, nor will it ever, presume that men are natural born rapists, or that to behave in an unrapey manner leads to "unfulfilled urges" and "unhappiness".

Mary Elizabeth Williams, Scott Adams' defense of rape mentality

It deeply pains me to admit that it does appear that men have a natural tendency to rape. Although not succumbing to such urges will leave those urges unfulfilled, this will not necessarily bring about unhappiness. It's painful to admit this because I'd rather consider people in general to be predisposed to doing good and there being simply a handful of bad people. Instead, all people have the capacity to do both great and terrible things. Luckily, we can affect our direction and avoid convincing ourselves that we can only be pleased by others' suffering.

By rape, I mean engage in sexual activity with someone against their will. To me, this is the most sensible definition of the word. Unfortunately, there is a more general definition, though one that its users tend to be hesitant to admit: sex that is disapproved of (i.e. statutory rape). If we are talking about the first definition, then yes, like to murder and to rob, there is a universal tendency to have sexual relations with another where the other convincingly expresses to their listeners that they do not share the passion and that they are in fact being accosted. This is not a desire alien to women, but it is possible that men experience this “urge” on a grander scale.

Where things initially get confusing is how sex is surrounded by taboos, and is itself tinged with forbiddance. And so, when one engages in sexual activity with another: when the guy's watching a movie with the girl on a couch and they're about a foot away and they've been going out to a few places a week now for maybe like a couple weeks and maybe he might lean over and make a move and see what happens… But in doing so he is stepping on all sorts of peoples' toes. Maybe he should ask her what he'd think if he'd kiss her first? Maybe this would ruin the mood? Regardless, he leans over and it's either acceptance or rejection, but regardless there will surely be ambivalence, as there already is on both their parts. And this kiss could be very improper indeed or maybe just the right thing. Or maybe both.

At that point, it would seem that the guy is obligated to either engage or disengage depending on how the girl receives the kiss. However, what if he kisses and she shies away. Should he try again? Should he stop? Should he set a limit on the number of his advances and what clearly appear to be her rejections? Perhaps on hearing the word “Stop” or any other negative he should refrain. And so he does, because he's a gentleman.

Now, imagine the scenario where she does say “Stop” and/or “No” and he continues. Imagine that they then eventually mutually embrace. I want to separate this from the incident where he continues but she maintains her disinterest and, eventually, disgust and now it would seem he is coercing her. In the scenario where they eventually mutually embrace, many a taboo had to be bravely jaunted over, if not outright hacked through—on both the guy and girl's part. The guy consistently fears that he may be coercing her the entire time and the girl consistently fears that she is similarly being coerced. This is a very dangerous game, and it is one we are expected to play.

In a sense, men and women are expected to spar. For a guy, in this case anyway, victory would be a kiss that is answered in kind, or, at the very least, one that is answered without rejection, which would imply consent. This consent could be verified upon their conversation, as acts can be deceiving… but so can words. Victory could also be a kiss for the girl, but at the beginning, for all the guy knows a kiss could actually result in a loss for her. This cannot be known until he goes for it, and in doing so he is offending many different people, including possibly her. He cannot afford to think about this at the time, but these thoughts will continue to confound any sure sense he has of what would be the “best” way to express his affection. Only after going for it will he discover if he has indeed offended her, where he will then be obliged to completely retract—any raging waters of passion that may have been suddenly released will need to be just as suddenly stopped back up. So, if she is offended, not only is he ashamed of his natural urges, but he will have to consider that what he wanted was wrong, perhaps fundamentally so. Surely, he'll come to realize that what he wanted wasn't wrong in all cases, it was just that she is not that into him. But should he assume that he will never be into him? Should he change his tactics? Should he continue to pursue her?

The guy and girl are sparring because, I assume, that they are of good sport and neither of them wishes for the other to suffer a total defeat in any sense. But consider the very act of sex. Is sex not the ultimate end of a kiss? Would it just be coincidence that he is thinking about sex while they kiss? Is there not some kind of cause and effect relationship to kissing and sex? Are such thoughts totally inappropriate? Or are they expected? Who would have the ultimate say in the consent of the two partners? Would that consent rest among the individuals? Would others' disapproval of the sexual nature in which the two engage each other trump any consent that we could reasonably surmise from the partners? Who should judge this ultimately? Sex experts? The individuals themselves?

Now, I agree that as nice as kisses are, they are not contracts. My point is that when it comes to men, women, and affection, confrontation is inevitable— confrontation with all sorts of people and ideas. Sex alone is an act of violence, is it not? When a woman has sex for the first time, she must expect to be stabbed: that is, her flesh will be penetrated and there will be blood. In any other scenario, this is interpreted as a violent act. As far as sex, this sort of act is necessary. Consider the character Iris from Margaret Atwood's The Blind Assassin when she describes her first sexual experience with her husband: a wealthy man whom she did not want to marry but did so out of pity for her father's fledgling clothes-button empire:

I didn't know what to expect; my only informant had been Reenie [Iris's nanny/mentor growing up], who had led me to believe that whatever would happen would be unpleasant and most likely painful, and in this I was not deceived… Grin and bear it had been her words. She'd said there would be some blood, and there was. (But she hadn't said why. That part was a complete surprise)

The situation for Iris is unbearable because she does not want to be there. The character Iris describes being raped by a man she must consider her husband. If she was with someone she actually trusted and loved, she might be more willing/compelled to have sex. But wouldn't she still have to undergo violence? Surely, she still would have been surprised (and I would think unpleasantly so) after bleeding, but would she have viewed it more positively? If she did view it more positively, would she then not be given to just a little masochism?

It would seem that men are then expected to be assailants of a controlled kind of violence, where the guy and girl are more in sync— where they are sparring for a win or a loss rather than fighting to truly defeat the other.

Now, again, when we see someone violently accosted and they clearly want nothing to do with the sex acts they insist are being forced upon them, we can denounce such acts of rape as we do murder or theft. From here, though, we should not claim that we don't understand why anyone would ever do such things. We all experience passion to little and great extents and the key is not to get too carried away, although I acknowledge that some people are irreconcilable. We all understand revenge. We all understand masochism and its appeal. We can all be, and are, pray to urges of the most horrible sort, but it is our responsibility not to act upon them. Although we can be convinced that doing something of great detriment to others can be can be a useful way of expressing ourselves, there are other mediums where harm may still be done, where people can still be forced to endure your actions. I'm talking about artistic mediums, of course.

Regarding Adams' zebra/lion metaphor, we can assume that the lion eats the zebra for food and destroys the zebra in the process. Although the assailant in a rape could indeed have the life-sustaining act of procreation in mind, the primary goal of such coercion is to express dominance. Unfortunately, the lion cannot be brought to any awareness that it should avoid ripping other animals apart. There are slightly more humane ways to kill animals for food. Since we are aware of others' suffering and know that we can't sacrifice another's pleasure solely so that we can enjoy ours, we are obligated to go about things with more modesty. We can always spend more money on food if we want to find the brands where manufacturers are less sadistic with the animals they sacrifice for us— but of course that gets tricky as well.

Certainly, we all have different thresholds for brutality. I don't think Adams' lion analogy is a good one because a very different dynamic is at work for why animals eat each other. There are carnal similarities, instinctual ones, sure. In the end, we should aim not to do violence to each other. There will continue to be debate about what circumstances warrant violence. But if you even take that couple on the couch again, there are people who would find that setting alone quote jarring. My very existence as a person who doesn't respect the Sabbath, who flagrantly ignores certain dietary and dress laws, etc. brings great offense to some people. Sitting with a person of the opposite sex at certain hours without certain others present can be very offensive to some. And so, you must pick your battles.

In Outside magazine's article “Greg Mortenson Speaks”, the interviewee addresses some of his critcs' claims, but he doesn't do so too thoroughly. He does admit to Three Cups of Tea containing some embellishments created by editors during the writing process, which he insists he protested. He maintains that he accidentally stumbled into Korphe after not being able to keep up with his K2 crew. He claims that he actually got separated from his team twice and that it was on the second incident that he stumbled into Korphe. He clarifies, however, that this was not an overnight stay, contrary to what he recounts in his book, nor did he promise to build them a school at that time. Mortenson says that he went to Korphe a second time in 1994 (the time that 60 Minutes/Krakauer said he visited Korphe for the first time), and it was then that he both promised and did establish a school.

Sadly, neither Mortenson nor the interviewer take the time to address more specific accusations Krakauer makes. (Before I get on with this, I want to apologize for not being able to cite page numbers. I grabbed the Kindle version of Jon Krakauer's essay [which, oddly is the only way to obtain his essay and they force you to donate to charity to obtain it] and it appears to have disposed of such ancient methods of reference). For one, the alternate telling of Mortenson's post-K2 adventures are provided to Krakauer by numerous sources. One of Mortenson's climbing partners, Scott Darsney, told Krakauer that when they left that expedition, Darsney assured me, Mortenson didn't know Korphe existed. Darsney did have more to say about his interview with Krakauer. He does directly respond to things that Krakauer says he told him with the intent of clearing up what Darsney feels were miscommunications between him and Krakauer. Darsney also disassociates himself from some of the conclusions that Krakauer reached from their conversation.

The most damning evidence of Mortenson's deceit regarding his Korphe story, however, are two major pieces of evidence that I would not be surprised if it took Mortenson some time to respond to. For one, Krakauer refers to an essay Mortenson wrote for the American Himalayan Foundation newsletter, where Mortenson essentially tells the beginning of his Three Cups of Tea story, but the setting is a village called Khane instead of Korphe. On top of that, footnote 2 of Krakauer's essay references a memo Mortenson sent to Jean Hoerni [Mortenson's first and biggest donor] and the AHF board of directors in March 1995 that listed specific reasons for moving the Central Asia Institute's first school's location from Khane to Korphe. Khane is not mentioned in the quotation of the memo, but it explicitly refers to MOVING THE PROJECT SITE TO KORPHE [emphasis in source]. Mortenson must address this evidence.

On top of that, Krakauer lifts the veil off of a series of what I suppose you could call “little white lies” strewn throughout the book. One of the most interesting ones, where I can see some room for misunderstanding that can only portray Mortenson as something of an ignorant fellow, is an account in Three Cups of Tea in September of 2000 when Mortenson claims he heard that Mother Theresa died which prompted him to make a side trip while in Calcutta to visit her grave. Maybe he did this, but Krakauer makes clear that Mother Theresa died in 1997. So either this event did not happen, or Mortenson did make such a trip but was mistakenly informed that Mother Theresa died in 2000 when she really died three years earlier. And so now, of course, I'm quite curious to know if any average reader would gather from Mortenson's account in his book that he really thought Mother Theresa died that year, or if he was actually talking about just having been informed she died (even though it happened years earlier) and then visited her deathbed, provided that her body is indeed so preserved.

Mortenson also claimed to have met the late and former king of Afghanistan, more formally known as Zaher (or Zahir) Shah on a commercial flight from Afghanistan to Kabul, Pakistan. He gives a very detailed and heart-warming account, in Three Cups of Tea, of their encounter. However, Krakauer was able to get a hold of Mostapha Zaher, the successor and grandson of Zaher Shah, who sent a message back to him saying in no uncertain terms:

I wish to categorically state, and in no uncertain terms, that my late grandfather had NEVER taken the mentioned flight PIA 737 from Islamabad to Kabul during the Holy Month Ramadhan of 2003. As a matter of fact, he has NEVER traveled on any PIA flights from 1973 to 2007, the year of his passing away [emphasis by Zaher]. The information provided by the person [Mortenson] is simply not factual.

Before Greg Mortenson even talks about the whole Taliban abduction story again, he will definitely want to specifically respond to these accusations. He has to say whether or not he wrote that AHF newsletter article and why he won't talk about, or at the very least denies, he ever made the Korphe promise to Khane. Also, if he could clear up the myriad other claims of falsehood Krakauer attributes to Mortenson's recollection of events, that would really show that he's listening to the criticism and he's responding to it directly so as to clarify things once and for all.

I'd like to comment a little more about Darsney's interview and email. First off, his email is curiously titled: Three Cups of Tea Is Not Diminished by One Cup of WikiLeaks. I'm not sure what WikiLeaks has to do with any of this…

At one point, Darsney writes:

If Jon Krakauer and some of Greg's detractors had taken the time to have three or more cups of tea with Greg and others–instead of one cup of tea with a select few who would discredit him–they would have found some minor problems and transgressions. But to the extent to call it all “lies” and “fraud”? No way. They would have come to very different conclusions. It takes a lot longer than one journalistic research cycle to have three cups of tea with someone.

The problem is that Krakauer totally tried to talk to Mortenson before he released his essay and even before the 60 Minutes exposé. The issue his critics claimed they ran into, and they provide some documentation, was Mortenson's classic stonewalling, that is acting like he'd actually like to engage with them, but when the time comes he's nowhere to be found. Hell, we all do this to an extent, but they made clear that they were going to make very serious claims against him and his organization and they wanted to give him the chance to talk. Mortenson, bizarrely, claims that Krakauer only once sent a message to him and lied about trying to get a hold of him for so long. Mortenson, also claims that 60 Minutes acted similarly. The truth is that Mortenson had plenty of time to meet with these people, and I think the factual record will reveal their attempts to contact him, as numerous people cite Mortenson's stonewalling as a constant issue. In fact, the people who left his Institute, whom Krakauer interviewed, consistently cite this tendency of his, particularly when they tried to bring up the Institute's financial practices to him.

On top of that, Darsney repeats a false claim that Mortenson in his limited statements has been very eager to disseminate. They claim that Mortenson's detractors are trying to cast his entire organization as a sham. No, this is merely a line of rhetoric that is exploding from tabloid headlines, but it is nothing that Krakauer or 60 Minutes tries to advocate. I doubt Mortenson has even read Krakauer's essay yet, to tell you the truth… if he did, or if Darsney paid attention to it, they'd realize that they are trying to not stain CAI's reputation. Krakauer is clear, though, about how upset he is of Mortenson's deceits and what appears to be intentional ignoring of financial regulations for charities. Krakauer says in his essay that he himself had donated over $70,000 to the CAI, and so it is somewhat personal.

Luckily, Darsney does have this to say:

On the other hand, in light of these events, it is only fair that Greg be willing and available to have one cup of tea–if not more–with his naysayers as well. If Greg is unwilling or unable, then the court of public opinion may not be very understanding.

Mortenson absolutely must sit down with his critics, or at least other popular publications, and directly respond to the accusations. Again, I'd focus on Krakauer's essay because it provides the most evidence.

Also from Darsney's email:

Yes, I did say to Jon Krakauer that Greg didn't go to Korphe until 1994. However, on our way out, Greg got lost a second time somewhere between the Biafo glacier region and Askole. About half a day later, Greg finally showed up in Askole saying he'd made a major wrong turn. He'd ended up in a village on the wrong side of the Braldu River. It's certainly plausible that this was Korphe.

It is quite strange that Darsney would tell Krakauer with such certitude that Mortenson had not even heard of Korphe until 1994, and then insist in this email that it's possible, or plausible anyway, he may have ended up there before they met him in Askole. I can't help but to think, however, that in the moment Darsney told Krakauer this, that Darsney was relying on other encounters, perhaps future ones with Mortenson, that betrayed that he was unaware of the village Korphe until Mortenson went there in 1994. Hopefully, time and more honesty will tell…

One more interesting quote from Darsney's email:

If you are a stickler for minutiae, strict detail, and exact accountability, all of this may be troubling for you, and perhaps some extra oversight and introspection will be good and welcomed by Greg and the Central Asia Institute.

Yeah, if you happen to be one of those people who actually cares about facts and detail, the information you are taking in about Greg Mortenson may totally shock you in a bad way. The thing is, Krakauer and 60 Minutes make clear that numerous CAI employees were diligently trying to apply basic financial over watch to their institute's coffers, but their executive director regularly sabotaged their efforts. And so, yes… accountability…

Please also take a look at an Outside magazine blog post by Grayson Schaffer where he points out other grave issues with Mortenson's revised Korphe story and with Mortenson's claims to have climbed Himalayan mountains. Also, Schaffer talks about how Krakauer expressed to a certain Pakistan guide based in Colorado via email how Mortenson's revised visit to Korphe may not be so plausible.

I'll try to keep updated about this. By the way, thank you everyone for your patience with this site…

The essay in question:

Krakauer, Jon (2011). Three Cups of Deceit: How Greg Mortenson, Humanitarian Hero, Lost His Way (Kindle Single) (Kindle Locations 1189-1195). Byliner. Kindle Edition.

If you know the movie Expelled, then you are probably also aware of the site Expelled Exposed, created by the NCSE. However, you may not be aware of the site “Expelled Exposed” Exposed! I had been waiting for some time for a rebuttal to the claims from Expelled Exposed, and apparently such a thing has been around since 2008. Interestingly, the rebuttal comes from the Discovery Institute and not from the producers of the movie. However, some of the scientists featured in the movie have written their own rebuttals.

“Expelled Exposed” Exposed! is quite the multi-part effort to demonstrate that the NCSE’s site is riddled with inaccuracies. The EEE’s site’s introduction sets the tone for the type of argument they will engage in:

As John West observed in response, “The basic thrust of [“Expelled Exposed”] seems to be the preposterous claim that pro-ID scientists never, ever face harassment, intimidation, or persecution. Not ever! Scientists who claim otherwise—such as biologist Richard Sternberg, astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, and Baylor University engineering professor Robert Marks—must be cry-babies or worse. The NCSE’s approach is otherwise known as ’blaming the victim.’”

And so their rebuttal begins with a very inaccurate statement summarizing what the NCSE had to say about the movie. Expelled Exposed only focuses on the instances of persecution presented by the movie, concluding that the scientists in the film weren’t let go by their respective institutions solely because of their beliefs, but because of the quality of their work. They don’t discuss the plight of other ID-proponents, who may or may not have a more legitimate case regarding discrimination because of their religious beliefs. In response to the movie’s claim, via Ben Stein, that Intelligent design was being suppressed in a systematic and ruthless fashion, they say Intelligent design has not produced any research to suppress, [i]ntelligent design is scientifically unproductive, and [t]he issue is not the suppression of ID, but the lack of warrant for its scientific claims. For some time, the ID movement has confused such scientific scrutiny with persecution.

Much of the DI’s rebuttal is contained in an article that primarily responds to an article by Michael Shermer in Scientific American. Sadly, Casey Luskin, the writer of the DI article, frequently mischaracterizes Shermer’s criticisms, leaving his core complaints unaddressed.

There is a great amount to discuss pertaining to the information both sides present. I will begin by presenting information regarding the issue of Richard von Sternberg’s “expulsion” from the Smithsonian.

The Article in Question

A few of Dr. Sternberg’s collegues at the Smithsonian had several issues with his conduct there. The animosity against him came to a head with his decision as managing editor of the PBSW to include a paper by Stephen C. Meyer of the DI entitled The order of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. The paper clearly advocates Intelligent Design, which upset many of the journal’s readers and the BSW. According to the Society (as Expelled Exposed reports), they were also upset because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history. Sternberg disputes that the paper’s topic was outside of the scope of the journal (see the section titled Scope of the paper and the Proceedings on the page where he discusses the Smithsonian Controversy on his website).

The Society was also displeased about his handling of the paper’s review process. According to Expelled Exposed, the Society found that the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. Sternberg explains his method of review by saying, Since systematics and evolutionary theory are among my primary areas of interest and expertise (as mentioned above, I hold two PhDs in different aspects of evolutionary biology), and there was no associate editor with equivalent qualifications, I took direct editorial responsibility for the paper. According to Ed Brayton, co-founder of the popular science blog Panda’s Thumb, Sternberg was not the most qualified to review the paper. In his comments on Sternberg’s experiences at the Smithsonian, he claims:

Systematics (the study of taxonomy) is the subject of the PBSW and it is the subject of Sternberg’s expertise, but it is not the subject of Meyer’s paper. The primary subject of the paper is the Cambrian explosion and, ostensibly, bioinformatics as it pertains to the origin of the higher phyla. This is not the focus of Sternberg’s research, nor does it have much of anything to do with systematics other than an obligatory discussion of how many phyla and sub-phyla originated during the Cambrian. The most appropriate reviewers, then, would be paleontologists. Among the associate editors at the time (and still today) was Gale Bishop, an expert in invertebrate paleontology. There were three other specialists on invertebrates among the associate editors as well, including current PBSW editor Stephen Gardiner, Christopher Boyko and Janet Reid, all specialists in invertebrate zoology (the Cambrian fauna was almost entirely made up of invertebrates). Yet Sternberg felt no need to let any of those people, all more qualified than him on the subject, even look at the paper, or even make them aware of its existence. He may not have been under any formal obligation to send the article to someone with a specialty in Cambrian paleontology, but that is both the professional and the ethical thing to do.

It appears Sternberg did get the paper peer-reviewed, but both he and Dr. Roy McDiarmid, the president of the BSW refuse to identify the reviewers. Sternberg has this to say about them:

After the initial positive conversation with my Council member colleague, I sent the paper out for review to four experts. Three reviewers responded and were willing to review the paper; all are experts in relevant aspects of evolutionary and molecular biology and hold full-time faculty positions in major research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, another at a major North American public university, a third on a well-known overseas research faculty. There was substantial feedback from reviewers to the author, resulting in significant changes to the paper. The reviewers did not necessarily agree with Dr. Meyer’s arguments or his conclusion but all found the paper meritorious and concluded that it warranted publication. The reviewers felt that the issues raised by Meyer were worthy of scientific debate. I too disagreed with many aspects of the Meyer paper but I agreed with their overall assessment and accepted the paper for publication. Thus, four well-qualified biologists with five PhDs in relevant disciplines were of the professional opinion that the paper was worthy of publication.

In an email by Roy McDiarmid (which can be found in the appendix to a report about this issue conducted by the staff of former Rep. Mark Souder), he expresses overall acceptance but a few reservations about the peer-review process.

I have seen the review file and comments from 3 reviewers on the Meyer paper. All three with some differences among the comments recommended or suggested publication. I was surprised but concluded that there was not inappropriate behavior vs a vis the review process. Whether one would consider the reviews appropriate is another issue...

In an email from Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the NCSE, to Dr. McDiarmid she notes that the BSW has not talked much about the peer reviewers because the situation is more difficult to deal with [than addressing the appropriateness of the article’s content and its scientific quality], given the circumstances. It is not clear what she means by the circumstances but the email suggests that she’s referring to McDiarmid’s overall reluctance to divulge their identities. Scott clearly believes that the reluctance to name them belies the fact that Sternberg choose inappropriate reviewers, an issue she refers to as the elephant in the room. This strongly suggests that the peer-reviewers were probably proponents of ID.

Sternberg’s Time at the Smithsonian

Sternberg describes his position at the Smithsonian Institute as such:

I became managing editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington in December 2001 when the position was offered to me by the Council of the Biological Society of Washington (BSW). At the time I was finishing a post-doctoral fellowship at the Smithsonian’s Museum of Natural History and entering on a new job at GenBank at the National Institutes of Health. In my position at NIH I am assigned to spend 50% of my time working as an curator of the NCBI DNA database and 50% of my time as doing research as a Research Associate at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History. I worked as managing editor of the Proceedings as an adjunct position to my research at the Smithsonian.

Expelled Exposed points out some interesting facts regarding his position there and eventual exit:

• Sternberg was the voluntary, unpaid editor of PBSW
• He gave is resignation notice six months before the Meyer article was published
• After the Meyer article was published, he remained an employee of NIH and his unpaid position at the Smithsonian was extended in 2006, although he has not shown up there in years.

This is where things get most interesting. Essentially, Sternberg claims that he was asked to return his keys, kicked out of his office, and was suddenly limited in his access to specimens. An email from his supervisor at the time, John Coddington, explains fairly thoroughly why those events took place. The email is entitled “Fwd:Re:Key” and can be found on page 48 of the Souder staff report appendix.

Coddington informed Sternberg in July 2004 about the merging of the Invertebrate and Vertebrate Zoology administrative offices and new scientists arriving at the institution which would result in relocating 17 people, including Sternberg. According to Coddington, [Sternberg] agreed on 29 July to move as soon as the Department had prepared the new Research Associate space, and further indicated that [he] wished to switch from [Invertebrate Zoology] to [Vertebrate Zoology]. Coddington also volunteered to act as Sternberg’s sponsor since his original one passed away soon after Sternberg’s appointment and [n]o other lnvertebrate Zoology research scientist offered to sponsor [him].

At the time, the Smithsonian was upgrading and streamlining various security measures which required scientists to exchange keys they were originally given for ID badges that would allow them to access only what they needed, since some keys that Sternberg in particular originally owned granted unnecessary access to much of the institution instead of to just what the researchers needed. So Coddington asked Sternberg to give him a description of the work he set out to do as well as what specimens and literature he would need to access in order to appropriate him with the proper keys. Somehow, this turned into the Smithsonian demanding him to turn in his keys, as if they were trying to prevent him from accessing what he needed.

On Nov. 1st, Sternberg informed Coddington that he was changing his research focus and so he would be vacating his new office. Coddington told him that as a result, the institution would need to reshelve any of the specimens left in his office after he left, which they did. Coddington also makes mention of more than 50 overdue library books of Sternberg’s as well as numerous specimens from other institutions that Sternberg failed to properly check in with the Smithsonian.

In January of 2005, the Smithsonian decided to recombine the Invertebrate and Vertebrate Departments, and so all of the working scientists previously in the merged department were reallocated to either one of the separate departments. Sternberg, as he requested, was assigned to Vertebrate Zoology and the chair of the department kindly offered to sponsor him. Coddington makes it clear that come 2007, Sternberg must seek renewal of his appointment if he wished to stay there. He adds, I apologize for the administrative changes, but I assure you it has absolutely nothing to do with you personally. In February 2005, Sternberg finally emails the person with whom he must replace his keys. According to a letter from Deputy Secretary and Chief Operation Officer Sheila Burke to former Rep. Souder and Sen. Rick Santorum, in May 2006, he had yet to actually return them.

The correspondence between Sheila Burke and the congressmen is perhaps the most telling in regard to the reluctance of ID-proponents to understand the lack of scientific merit of their theory. In their letter to Burke, they express disdain for the Smithsonian Institution’s bureaucratic stonewalling and lack of responsiveness in correcting what were clear actions of hostility and discrimination against Dr. Sternberg for his scientific viewpoints. They accuse the Smithsonian of not enforcing their anti-discrimination policies, citing their misrepresentations of Sternberg’s experience as evidence and claiming that there was no genuine [their emphasis] effort on the part of Museum management to ensure that Dr. Sternberg [was] treated fairly and protected from discrimination and hostility for his scientific viewpoints.

In the words of Ms. Burke:

Dr. von Sternberg was associated with a controversial viewpoint, and other scientists reacted in strong disagreement to the expression of that viewpoint. While the tone of the disagreement between scholars may seem harsh, disagreement does not equal discrimination.

I encourage you to read the Congressional staff report appendix which documents the private correspondence between Sternberg’s colleagues and his superiors, as it is quite informative and quite amusing. Clearly, his colleagues were very displeased with his consistent disregard for Smithsonian Institute policy, which culminated in his pushing a pro-ID paper through a journal that he knew would not have made it if he actually shared it with appropriate reviewers, particularly non-ID proponents and experienced paleontologists that worked on the journal. Their emails describe how this was not the first time he attempted to do such a thing. Also, some of his colleagues became increasingly agitated with him the more they looked into his history of participating in the Baraminology Study Group, a group which subscribes to the Young Earth position that the world is a few thousand years old— a claim refuted by science— namely in the existence of fossils and rocks that date millions of years back, if not further. Sternberg and his congressional supporters insist on characterizing such criticism as discrimination. However, Burke is correct when she differentiates unfriendly disagreement with discrimination. As they and Eugenie Scott frequently point out, Sternberg is free to believe in ID/creationism, but the moment he tries to impose these views in the scientific realm, he becomes guilty of trying to fuse religious beliefs with scientific observation, and the two are very different ways of understanding the world. The Expelled Exposed site has a well written essay that more specifically describes what Intelligent Design proponents could do in order to demonstrate the scientific nature of their theory and how they have yet to do so.

Here are just a few key points to consider in what they have to say about Intelligent Design:

• If mainstream science declines to accept intelligent design, it is the fault of the intelligent design advocates, who have not performed the research and theory-building demanded of everyone in the scientific enterprise.
• Ultimately, intelligent design’s lack of success in science departments is the fault of the flawed and unscientific nature of intelligent design itself, not the result of bias in the scientific community.
• The fundamental problem with intelligent design as science is that intelligent design claims cannot be tested. Scientific testing requires that there be some set of phenomena which are incompatible with your idea. No observation could possibly be incompatible with a claim that an “intelligent agent“ (whom everyone recognizes as God) acted to, say, introduce information into a system. Untestable claims are not scientific claims.
• scientists commonly speak of the “design” of structures in an informal sense of “parts working together to produce a function,” as the “design” of the elongated wrist bones of a deer, which produces a leg capable of fast running. The study of structure and function is common in medical and other biological research; there is much utility in finding out how something works. This work can be done— and ordinarily is done— without making any assumptions of “design” in the intelligent design sense: that there needs to be a guiding hand purposefully assembling those parts.
• Recognizing similarities between a machine and a biological structure does not prove that both structures are designed, only that there is a successful solution to a shared problem; there may be multiple solutions to a problem, from either an engineering or a biological perspective.
• Teaching about intelligent design in higher education institutions is not forbidden, or censured, and in fact, new courses are added every year. Indeed, the intelligent design-promoting web site ResearchIntelligentDesign.org proudly lists ”100+ universities and colleges” that officially include ”intelligent design in their lesson plans”. These courses generally examine intelligent design objectively and in an appropriate context, and their instructors do so openly. So intelligent design has, in fact, entered academia, although not quite in the fashion its advocates might prefer. What they seek, of course, is for intelligent design to be accepted as a valid scientific alternative to evolution. They have failed to make a convincing case for it, yet they seem to believe that they have an entitlement to a place in academia.

Again, I encourage you to read the entire essay, as it makes a very clear case for the work that Intelligent Design proponents have ahead of them if they would like to demonstrate the scientific nature of their theory. So, it appears that Sternberg’s case was sensationalized by Expelled as well as the people defending his case, in particular Rep. Souder and Sen. Santorum— whose findings are echoed by the Discovery Institute’s essays. Even though scientists frequently challenge evolutionary and Darwinist theories, ID proponents act as if this doesn’t occur. In customary fashion, the proponents of Intelligent Design confuse disagreement with discrimination. Somehow, it is difficult for them to understand that religious views are not scientific approaches. Recognizing a biological structure or design is not the same as recognizing a supernatural force. The Discovery Institute, however, will continue to try to confuse people about this and they have had some success.