Free Dartmouth
 
  home  
  join
1/25/2003 09:15:00 PM | Timothy

Kausfiles.com defends ANSWER!

Incomplete answer: ANSWER, one of groups sponsoring recent antiwar marches, seems to be associated with an old, hard left organization -- the Workers World Party (WWP) -- that supports various odious Communist and anti-American dictatorships. The issue is well-ventilated by Instapundit, David Corn, Lileks, and Michael Kelly (in his recent column, "Marching with Stalinists"). The WWP's role reflects badly on the marchers. On the other hand, I remember that during the Vietnam War, the biggest antiwar marches were organized by Trotskyists. That didn't automatically make the marches wrong, or make the war a wise use of American power. The people who showed up on the Mall to protest against Vietnam weren't Trotskysists and they didn't become Trotskyists -- and everyone knew that. The Trots just did the work, while they diluted their message to attract a big mainstream crowd. In the end, the mainstream anti-war marchers were using them, rather than the other way around. Similarly, if millions of American one day join ANSWER's demos, that won't mean they've become Stalinist cadres. It will mean the Iraq war has serious opposition. ... [What if the organizers were Nazis or the Klan?-ed. I'd feel different. So sue me.]


1/25/2003 06:27:00 PM | Timothy

Greens 2004

Karsten and other greens... what do you think of the possibility of Cynthia McKinney running as a Green in 2004? She's been misquoted on some things, but she doesn't exactly, how shall we say, have the best relationship with Jews. Does that matter? What will this mean for progressive and green politics?

Also:

Q: How many Karsten Bardes does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Two. One to change it, and to tell you that if you had used the environmentally friendly solar powered lightbulbs that last three years, we would not be in this mess.


1/25/2003 06:25:00 PM | Timothy

lightbulb jokes...

Q: How many Kumar Gargs does it take to change a light bulb?

A: None. His Kumaressence lights up the room, of course!


1/25/2003 06:07:00 PM | Timothy

another lightbulb joke

Q: How many Andrew Grossmans does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Isn't that the maid's job?


1/25/2003 02:49:00 AM | Timothy

Lightbulb jokes

Q: How many Brad Plumers does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Re: How many?.
Way &@% too many with those damn union rules! But you need light to eat them babies. Yum.


Q: How many Jon Eisenmans does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Just one, of course. I'm an individual. But if you say how good I am at changing the light bulb, I'll get a big head.


Q: How many John Stevensons does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Well, as I told the New York Times, 'light' is a social construction that we must move beyond, so we can have a truly blind society. However, that young reporter misquoted me saying that all one need to do to aquaint oneself with the lightbulb is go up and say 'Hi! We're not so different!' I wish she had mentioned my pontification against those postmodern luminous critics who say the lightbulb must be placed in the context of the Third World labor that produces it: these radical academics do not understand the pleasure derived from enjoyment of The Work. For me, lightbulbs truly are my only lovers.


Q: How many Tim Waligores does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Huh? I didn't hear what you said, but I'm sure it has something to do with the latest story on how Republicans have been racially offensive... Here's the link (via leftwing blogger).

UPDATE: The New Republic has more on this. But rather than just give you the link to the article, I'm going to quote a large section of it, burying all the recent FreeDartmouth discussion on changing lightbulbs (jokes inspired by Ted Barlow, more to come later, I hope by myself and others).


Q: How many Emmett Hogans does it take the change a light bulb?

A: Tim, I'm tired of you liberals not realizing how dangerous it would be for Saddam to acquire weapons of mass illumination. Pathetic. Do we really need a smoking bulb?! Whatever those mamby-pamby French say, lightbulb inspections are NOT working. Bush is ABSOLUTELY right that we should invade the closet and smash the bulb! (see instapundit ad nasuem)


1/24/2003 09:22:00 PM | Timothy

CNN lies

cnnlies.blogspot.com has some interesting stuff about the timing of the revelations about Scott Ritter.


1/24/2003 06:14:00 PM | Brad Plumer

McDonald's 1, Fat People 0

Almost forgot... it looks like the obesity suit was tossed a few days ago. Not sure how I feel about that. Have to admit, an extended and public lawsuit might have done quite a bit to educate the public on the necessity of listening to ol' Aristotle.

(P.S. As you can tell I just learned to post images, and like a trained monkey with tin foil, I'm really excited. So please forgive the gratuitous Big Mac...)


1/24/2003 05:27:00 PM | Brad Plumer

And of course, the good news...

Well, at least Thacker resigned. Now we can go back to pretending that Bush might someday take seriously the war against AIDS.


1/24/2003 05:13:00 PM | Brad Plumer

Hypocrites

Time for the French to get off the pedestal and worry about their own moral standards.

Disgusting.


1/24/2003 04:27:00 PM | Brad Plumer

I want YOU...

In the Washington Monthly, Charles Moskos and Paul Glastris ask, "Now do you believe we need a draft?" They lay out a strong case for setting up mandatory military service. I'd be curious to know how this works for other countries (Sweden, Israel, Finland, etc.)

Here's another article by a retired colonel, questioning the effectiveness of America's current standing army.

Obviously we can still safely predict a drubbing of the Iraqi army, but there's no question that the austere standards of the US military have eroded over the years. Time was, during the Vietnam War, you had to endure continuous combat for one year before earning a Combat Infantry Badge. In the past few wars (Grenada, Bosnia, Panama), any soldier could get one for being under fire. The professed "quality" of our combat veterans is overrated, and in general the Armed Forces seem to rely nowadays on sophisticated weapons rather than strict personnel training, as Col. Hackworth mentions.

So would a draft fix these problems? More importantly, would you enter the draft? Would you fight in a war to which you objected, or dodge the draft and flee to Canada?

Personally, I oppose this war against Iraq (not in principle, but as things stand currently), but if the US needed more servicemen and instituted a draft, I would certainly go when my number was called (I can explain my reasons if anyone cares to continue this conversation). Does this make me a sucker? An idiot? A blind supporter of a corrupt regime? Don't citizens have certain responsibilities towards their country, regardless of their political leanings?


1/24/2003 03:53:00 PM | Brad Plumer

Stymied!

Peter Beinart has a few questions for those opposed to affirmative action.

1. Have you denounced other identity-based preferences in college admissions? (geographical preferences, etc.)
2. Do you believe in color-blindness across the board?
3. Have you denounced the affirmative action in your own party? (this one a special treat for Republicans)

It would be interesting to see how, say, Mr. Stevenson and Mr. Kung respond. These questions are by no means easy to answer.

And lest the affirmative action zealots grow too smug, I have a question for them too. What, exactly do you plan to achieve by affirmative action? I assume that affirmative action will be lifted eventually, as making it permanent would be tantamount to arguing that minorities will never make it on their own. Well, when do you want to lift affirmative action? When we have a 30% minority rate in higher education? 40%? 25%? What if we repeal affirmative action and the minority numbers drop again, below "satisfactory" percentages? Will you cry "institutional racism!" and re-implement affirmative action? Doesn't that turn affirmative action into a virtual quota system? Who are you to say when we have attained the "proper" proportion of minorities in higher education?


1/24/2003 03:27:00 PM | Timothy

Scott Ritter update

Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter says of the recent revelation of his arrest in 2001: the timing was suspicious, as he is a leading opponent of war in Iraq. Make what you want of Ritter's suspicions, but they certainly seem more plausible than Andrew Kallmann's earnest musings on The Dartmouth Observer about whether Ritter's opposition to the war can be explained by blackmail.


1/24/2003 03:11:00 PM | Timothy

Bogus Bug-Chasing story

Rolling Stone had an article on gay men who 'chase the bug' wanting to be infecting with HIV. Sean Hannity cited it on Fox News. Too bad for him and Jerry Falwell that most of the claims have fallen apart so soon after the article's publication. But I wouldn't be suprised if there were a lot of murmering about how HIV people don't 'deserve' to have treatment and funding should go elsewhere. Sheesh.


1/24/2003 01:38:00 AM | Timothy

Time Corrects itself

Time magazine says its story about Bush reinstating a practice honoring Confederates in "wrong".



1/23/2003 08:52:00 PM | Timothy

Paul Krugman tells Howard Kurtz about the myth of the 'liberal' media

"Probably a majority of reporters are registered Democrats or vote Democratic," he says. "But a heavy majority of editors are Republican. The corporations that control most media are Republican. There are operations like Fox News which are unabashedly part of the Republican enterprise and operations like CNN which are carefully evenhanded. The Times is actually -- it's clear the editorial page is mildly liberal and most of the staff must be mildly liberal. But in reporting on issues, most of the time it bends over backwards to find two sides to every story. There's an organized machine on the right. There really is a lot of money and professional right-wingers out there to influence the media. There's nothing comparable on the left." more


1/23/2003 06:04:00 PM | Timothy

Re: Still Hunting Reds

Kumar: You say that some of the questions for American citizenship are understandable while others are not. Which ones? I assume you think the Nazi question and the persecuting particular social groups questions should be on there. It seems the only one you would take off would be the one about communism. I can understand drawing some distinctions between communism and Nazism. But what is the difference between the two that you see such that you think that one should be on the form, but the other should not? This question echoes a question I asked earlier in our ANSWER discussion. I'm curious to your (and other's) possible justifications, because it is not self-evident.


1/23/2003 06:00:00 PM | Timothy

Whoever said the boyscouts were nazis...

"Parents of more than 100 Danish scouts were outraged over a game of tag at a scout camp in which children acted as Jews wearing yellow Stars of David and tried to escape from adults pretending to be Nazis." more (via drudge)


1/22/2003 07:33:00 PM | Timothy

White Westerners volunteer to be human shields in Iraq

My, my, this is for real? (via John Ellis)

LONDON (Reuters) - A first wave of mainly Western volunteers will leave London this weekend on a convoy bound for Iraq to act as "human shields" at key sites and populous areas in case of a U.S.-led war on Baghdad. "The potential for white Western body parts flying around with the Iraqi ones should make them think again about this imperialist oil war," organizer Ken Nichols, a former U.S. marine in the 1991 Gulf War, told Reuters. His "We the People" organization will be sending off a first group of 50 human shields from the London mayor's City Hall building Saturday, part of a series of departures organizers say will involve hundreds, possibly thousands, of volunteers. more


1/22/2003 07:24:00 PM | Timothy

If a leftist said something like this, Emmett Hogan would be hoppin' mad

Fox News' Bill O'Rielly writes: "Eminem may be the 'people's choice,' but he is as harmful to America as any al Qaeda fanatic."
(via Andrew Sullivan)

UPDATE: Emmett Hogan emailed me to say I should add: "You're right. I would be." Asked whether he was mad at O'Reilly: "Yer damn skippy I'm mad, it's one of the dumbest things he's ever said. That's PRECISELY the sort of thing -- moral equivalency -- that I condemn among the loony Left. It's ridiculous!"


Plus: Fox News Channel To Air Weekend Show Featuring Pat Sajak and (via medianews.org)
1/22/2003 07:12:00 PM | Timothy

U.S. says X-men are not human?

I am not kidding you, a U.S. Court decided whether the X-men were human or not. It was over a tariff dispute over X-men action figures could be classified as human dolls or not. The irony according to Daniel Weiner:

The most incredible aspect of this whole sordid affair is that the U.S. Government defended the X-Men's humanity, while Marvel stabbed them in their non-human backs.human or not.


1/22/2003 01:28:00 AM | Timothy

At least no one wore 'blackface' at Chi Gam

Should Texas A&M students be punished for holding an off-campus ghetto party?


1/21/2003 11:14:00 PM | Timothy

HeeHee

check this out: bet CNN wasn't too happy!


1/21/2003 09:09:00 PM | Timothy

A (short) ANSWER to Karsten

Karsten is quite right that ANSWER had the organizational skills, NOT the people power I mistakenly wrote, and for that reason they ran the anti-war protests in D.C. The numbers of people who care about the Iraq issue show how that it not a narrow movement. I said "It's so sad that it seems that only a group like A.N.S.W.E.R. has the people power on the left to organize something like this." I seems Karsten agrees with this, but I'm still posing a question of why it is that only ANSWER was able to do this? Why are they outorganizing other groups (there will be another protest in NYC in Feb. by a different group, one that was part of the action sponsoring the ANSWER led protest in D.C.)

Karsten says: "Every political activist has her flaws; in the case of this organization and its ties to the World Workers Party, I daresay it is foolishness and sentimentality, rather than "murderous" intent, which is responsible for their problematic political affilliations." OK, but if you foolishly associate with a group that cheers "murderous" actions when does this cross the line from sentimentality to stupidity? What would you say if a group of people went to rally held by the KKK in order to protest affirmative action? I agree that most organizations on the left are usually (if not loony) decent and not over this line. But why do activists, say in ANSWER, have to associate with the WWP in order to accomplish their goals? Why is this the only way to do this or the only way it has been done? I don't know the complete answer: I think this is a problem to be solved. More later, back to my paper, but I think you would like to check out this and other stuff.


1/21/2003 09:00:00 PM | Timothy

An ANSWER to Justin

Here is a report by David Corn of The Nation, writing in L.A. Weekly on an anti-war protest in D.C. run by ANSWER (he was the first person to really catch how ANSWER was being a front for the Workers World Party):

This was no accident, for the demonstration was essentially organized by the Workers World Party, a small political sect that years ago split from the Socialist Workers Party to support the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956. The party advocates socialist revolution and abolishing private property. It is a fan of Fidel Castro?s regime in Cuba, and it hails North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il for preserving his country?s ?socialist system,? which, according to the party?s newspaper, has kept North Korea ?from falling under the sway of the transnational banks and corporations that dictate to most of the world.? The WWP has campaigned against the war-crimes trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. A recent Workers World editorial declared, ?Iraq has done absolutely nothing wrong.?

Officially, the organizer of the Washington demonstration was International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism). But ANSWER is run by WWP activists, to such an extent that it seems fair to dub it a WWP front. Several key ANSWER officials ? including spokesperson Brian Becker ? are WWP members. Many local offices for ANSWER?s protest were housed in WWP offices. Earlier this year, when ANSWER conducted a press briefing, at least five of the 13 speakers were WWP activists. They were each identified, though, in other ways, including as members of the International Action Center.


Justin complains that the site I linked to had crimes that could be attributable to the U.S. government. If Justin wants to say ANSWER is as bad as the government they condemn, fine. If he wants to call Rumfeld-lovers and the Bushies hypocrites, fine. But hypocrites can also be pointing out your own hypocrisy. Furthermore, I hope Justin will realize the original reports on ANSWER came from David Corn of The Nation. If he doesn't feel he has to answer to right-wing bloggers, how does he answer lefties like him and Eric Alterman?

He says one could also say we are just as responsible if we don't violently overthrow the same U.S. if we stand by. But there is a difference between passively sitting by (or at least only acting non-violently) as your government enacts bad policies, and actively participating and associating yourself with certain groups (by the way, why are you against revolution, Justin?). Justin says: "This being the case, is it really fair to blame ANSWER protestors for opposing the overthrow of certain horrendous regimes in response to the crimes those regimes committed?" For shame. I get sick of people defending the purity of the United States. I do not draw a moral equivilance between say, the United States and North Korea. However fucked up the last election was, we still live in a basically sound democracy. And to the extent we do not (esp. John Ashcroft's actions), we have the capacity to reform and we must.

Justin says: "I can assure you all, none of ANSWER's protestors think Saddam is a particularly good leader, or holds power legitimately (of course there's always the occasional nutbag exception)." He can assure us?? Where is he getting this from? I trust Justin is right that most of the protesters don't like Saddam, but ANSWER and WWP avoids condemning Saddam (see David Corn above). I'm not trying to smear all the protesters at all. Even the warbloggers are not trying to do this: they assume the good intentions of most protestors, but ask why those who know what ANSWER is about decide to attend a rally led by them.

Justin speaks of the 'past evils' of organizations. Huh? The reports on WWP and ANSWER are not just talking about past actions. And it is not like the WWP has repented or anyway changed their views. Oddly, Justin cites evidence by Ramsey Clark, without mentioning that Ramsey founded another WWP offshoot and defended people like Milosevic. If this is the best Justin has got against the United States, this is pretty sad. Again, David Corn, who also talks about how ANSWER thinks just inspections ARE war:

The IAC, another WWP offshoot, was a key partner with ANSWER in promoting the protest. It was founded by Ramsey Clark, attorney general for President Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s. For years, Clark has been on a bizarre political odyssey, much of the time in sync with the Workers World Party. As an attorney, he has represented Lyndon LaRouche, the leader of a political cult. He has defended Serbian war criminal Radovan Karadzic and Pastor Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, who was accused of participating in the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. Clark is also a member of the International Committee To Defend Slobodan Milosevic. The international war-crimes tribunal, he explains, ?is war by other means? ? that is, a tool of the West to crush those who stand in the way of U.S. imperialism, like Milosevic. A critic of the ongoing sanctions against Iraq, Clark has appeared on talking-head shows and refused to concede any wrongdoing on Saddam?s part. There is no reason to send weapons inspectors to Iraq, he told CNN?s Wolf Blitzer: ?After 12 years of brutalization with sanctions and bombing they?d like to be a country again. They?d like to have sovereignty again. They?d like to be left alone.?
It is not redbaiting to note the WWP?s not-too-hidden hand in the nascent anti-war movement. It explains the tone and message of Saturday?s rally. Take the question of inspections. According to Workers World, at a party conference in September, Sara Flounders, a WWP activist, reported war opponents were using the slogan ?inspections, not war.? Flounders, the paper says, ?pointed out that ?inspections ARE war? in another form,? and that she had ?prepared party activists to struggle within the movement on this question.? Translation: The WWP would do whatever it could to smother the ?inspections, not war? cry.





Justin says: "But I don't see why the leftist should feel any more inclined to do this than, say, the Bush-wacker "patriot", whose defense of war descends from a heritage of equally awful atrocities."

Again, I laugh. If Justin thinks leftists should be as unthinking as a Bush-wacker 'patriot' go ahead! I'm asking for arguments to show why we on the left are BETTER than them, or at least not as bad. I'm not interested on being on the same moral level as a Bush-wacker 'patriot' (assuming I know what Justin means by that). The challenge was this: can you consistently condemn those on the right who use things like the Southern Strategy and still associate with groups like ANSWER? Now, mind you, I'm not saying you never march in a rally with them (no one can control everyone who you march with), but they were the main organizers here. There are some decent answers, but let's separate out two responses: one is to deny how bad ANSWER is. I'm not going to just 'trust' Justin on that unless he comes up some evidence. The other is to say that the cause of war overrides this, and ANSWER won't really benefit much anyway. Justin's logic leaves us without the ability to draw appropriate moral distinctions. If we have to accept some 'evils' first acknowledge it is evil, provide a justification for it, and don't excuse yourself by saying that the very people you criticize are just as bad, immoral, and unthinking. I am calling for those on the left to show not that they are pure in all respects, but at least that they are superior in their intellectual consistency.

Justin says: "Otherwise we'll have conservatives accusing welfare advocates of socialism, liberals accusing conservatives of slavery." Justin has come close to nailing it on the head (though overstating it). I will not give up the right to accuse conservatives of pandering to neo-confederates and people like John Ashcroft who praise Jefferson Davis in Southern Partisan. Do you want to? So is the Left as culpable as the Right for associating with unsavories? I don't think so (And I want people's thoughts on whether communist=Nazi), but I want to point out the nature of ANSWER so people realize this and it doesn't become this way. ANSWER stands for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. End Racism? We are not going to do that by giving up our right to call the Trent Lotts of the world to account. I relish those conversations and I welcome judgment by both sides.



1/21/2003 07:53:00 PM | Timothy

What else is Ritter inspecting?

Andrew Kallmann is going to love this crap (via drudge):

More Details in Former Weapons Inspector's Arrest
Channel Six News has learned that Colonie Police arrested former UN Weapons Inspector and Delmar resident Scott Ritter two years ago as part of an Internet sex sting operation. Sources say Ritter was charged in June of 2001 for trying to lure a 16 year-old girl he met online to a Burger King. But that 16-year old girl was really a Colonie Police investigator. Sources say Ritter was charged with a misdemeanor, but the case was adjourned in contemplation of dismissal and a judge sealed the record. Ritter searched Iraq for weapons in the years following the Gulf War. More recently, he's been speaking out against President Bush's policies on Iraq and has been a frequent contributor on national and local newscasts, including Channel 6 News.

UPDATE: Andrew Kallmann on The Dartmouth Observer says that if the news above "were true, it would beg the question: was he blackmailed? is that the explanation for his strange behavior and bizarre flip-flops?"

Huh? What would be the motivation for THE POLICE to blackmail Scott Ritter? Maybe that town has some pro-Iraq cops, right?! Or is Kallmann implying some leftist anti-war cabal has been hanging out in statutory rape rings so it can find people to blackmail? Strange way to 'advance the cause!' (Or perhaps Pat Buchanan fans were involved? Uh huh...)




1/21/2003 02:29:00 AM | Justin

I was not at this protest, but I've been to past anti-war protests in DC, and feel compelled to respond to your posting, Tim.

Reading your link to the site that accuses ANSWER of being Stalinist and Milosevic apologists , I was struck by how similar the propaganda at these sites was to the propaganda put out by the very radical leftist groups they criticize: Images of terrible suffering without the least bit of explanation or context; Fingers pointing vaguely at scapegoats without much explanation. This is also the picture of the Gulf War you'll get from certain other sources: US War Crimes

It isn't too hard to come up with a few examples of US actions that can be painted every bit as horribly as these sites paint the actions of leftist governments: Images of hundreds of thousands of dissidents detained or killed in Guatamala, Chile, El Salvador, all at the hands of US backed death squads. Most of these terrible atrocities were justified by the need to hold back the tide of communism, even when that tide had democratic roots, as in the Congo, and Chile.

If you follow the "if you went to this March, then you supported these atrocities" logic of the link Tim has posted, then we're all at least as guilty of our own government's crimes as these marchers are of the crimes ANSWER has allegedly supported. After all, why weren't we all breaking down our own government's walls when it was funding Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden in the 80's and early 90's? Not doing so, we stand indirectly responsible for the gassing of Kurds and Iranians, for the reign of terror perpetrated by Bin Laden's fundamentalist henchmen against the more humane Soviet-supported government of Afghanistan.

Of course, some of us may have opposed our government's actions at the time, but how many of us actually advocated its forceful overthrow? Not very many, I'm guessing. (Rest assured, I didn't either, and don't suggest anyone else should.) This being the case, is it really fair to blame ANSWER protestors for opposing the overthrow of certain horrendous regimes in response to the crimes those regimes committed?

I can assure you all, none of ANSWER's protestors think Saddam is a particularly good leader, or holds power legitimately (of course there's always the occasional nutbag exception). The most commonly held opinion among the anti-war crowd appears to be that US retribution could very well do more damage to the Iraqi people than Saddam himself could. Such claims are not without precedent, considering that the number of Kuwaiti's killed in the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was in the hundreds, while the number of Iraqis killed in the US retaliatory invasion of Iraq was in the hundred of thousands.Ramsey Clarke quotes from Amnesty International on this

What really torpedos the one-sided argument presented by the site that accuses ANSWER of war criminal apology though is its attribution of blame for Kurdish massacres to ANSWER. During the 80's, it was the US who armed Saddam Hussein, knowing full well that he was using chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranians -- not the people of ANSWER, or anyone they supported. Can't it be argued much more convincingly that citizens who, tacitly or actively, supported the US government are indirectly responsible for the massacre of the Kurds?

Instead, this website chooses to place the blame on ANSWER for opposing the 90's sanctions regime (a rather tenuous connection to the massacre of the Kurds over 5 years earlier) which has actually killed hundreds of times more than the Kurdish massacre cited. Those intrigued by Eric Alterman's contention that anti-Vietnam war protestors actually prolonged the Vietnam War would do well to ponder how Saddam Hussein's control over Iraq has only been solidified by U.S. sanctions. Unintended consequences aren't just a malady of the left.

Maybe Tim is right that we should all be more aware of the past evils of the organizations of which we're apart of, at least so that we can prevent our organizations from following those paths again. But I don't see why the leftist should feel any more inclined to do this than, say, the Bush-wacker "patriot", whose defense of war descends from a heritage of equally awful atrocities. (Note that I put patriot in quotes, as I don't think the concept of patriotism really has anything to do with blindly accepting the miliary policies of one's government).

Rather than branding each other with the moral burder of past misjudgements of organizations we're loosely allied with, it seems more appropriate and relevant to confine the debate to the failing of a group's current perspective. Otherwise we'll have conservatives accusing welfare advocates of socialism, liberals accusing conservatives of slavery. On second thought, maybe that's what we already have... Oh well.


1/21/2003 12:00:00 AM | Karsten Barde

Thanks to Tim for encouraging what I think is an important discussion.

Tim wrote:
I wanted to open up a discussion of what is acceptable in your mind for groups to sponsor and/or condone. First, for those of you who went down the anti-war protests in D.C. how did you feel that A.N.S.W.E.R. was behind it and how do you respond to accusations that by doing this you attended a march organized by Stalinist and Milosevic apologists and in effect supported them?...

...It's so sad that it seems that only a group like A.N.S.W.E.R. has the people power on the left to organize something like this.

I hope the marchers will take the opportunity to respond. I did not march in San Francisco, as others from Fresno did, but I was extremely happy to hear of the sizable turnout there and in Washington, D.C. I disavow revolutionary ideology, but I am also disgusted by those on the left who throw out the baby with the bath water when it comes to the International A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition and the actions they have coordinated. Tim mentioned people power, but it's not membership that the group has--it is fervor and committment and organizing skill: the willingness to protest in the street even in the face of insurmountable odds, cold weather and countless naysayers. A.N.S.W.E.R. makes it possible for more moderate Americans to come together and make important political statements. Every political activist has her flaws; in the case of this organization and its ties to the World Workers Party, I daresay it is foolishness and sentimentality, rather than "murderous" intent, which is responsible for their problematic political affilliations. BTW, can someone please explain to me the practical differences between those we call Stalinists, Marxists, revolutionary socialists, Maoists or authoritarian leftists? Obviously, each term carries with it considerable stigma, and I'd like to know if anyone these days actually uses them for their descriptive properties rather than simply for their pejorative connotations.


1/20/2003 05:15:00 PM | Timothy

Iraq protests, A.N.S.W.E.R, Stalinists, Greens, and the Politics of 'Neutrality'

OK, I wanted to open up a discussion of what is acceptable in your mind for groups to sponsor and/or condone. First, for those of you who went down the anti-war protests in D.C. how did you feel that A.N.S.W.E.R. was behind it and how do you respond to accusations that by doing this you attended a march organized by Stalinist and Milosevic apologists and in effect supported them? I know, no one from Dartmouth (I assume!) supports Stalinism, but you wouldn't have attended a rally led by the KKK no matter what the cause, right? See Eric Alterman on ANSWER (also Neal Pollock, funny satire.).

Now, I have always been wary of claims that those who equate support with communist principles are no different than Nazis, but A.N.S.W.E.R. is one of those organizations that seems to me should clearly be condemned. What do you all see as the difference? It's so sad that it seems that only a group like A.N.S.W.E.R. has the people power* on the left to organize something like this.

Meanwhile, "Bush may have rebuked Lott for his praise of Strom Thurmond, but the President recently revived a practice of paying homage to an even greater champion of the Confederacy". If Republicans winking to neo-confederationists is wrong (and it is), why is OK to associate with A.N.S.W.E.R.?

By the way, I want to say I'm glad the Greens are the group who organized the protest: they are so much better and reasonable of a 'radical' group than we could hope for. They are some of the most decent individuals I know, and I'm not challenging anyone's integrity in this post, but await their intellectual justification. (Though I must mention the Greens did help Bush get elected, are niave in their vision of purity and electoral politics, depended on the support of people whose principles didn't fit clearly with them--- ie. they were a smaller version of a catch-all party for the left that was 'cool' that year, and have many young students who join because it seems different, cool (and energizing), which the democrats need to turn around!)

*Update: Karsten is right (above) that it is organizational skills, not people power that ANSWER has. I put the related post on Israel in sponsorship of activities in the post below...


1/20/2003 04:16:00 PM | Timothy

AGORA and Israel

Since Dartmouth was subsidizing the buses for protesters to go to D.C., I want to fit this into another issue about the college and college centers sponsoring and funding events and speakers with 'controversial' topics. So, I want to hark back to last April when AGORA, the Rockefeller Center student dicussion group, felt the need to apologize for sending out a notice about an Israeli governmental speaker who was going to speak at Dartmouth. This is utterly silly, as I'll explain below, but first the original unedited email, screaming capital letters and all:


>From: AGORA
>Subject: About the DiPac Event
>To: (Recipient list suppressed)

I would like to apologize for misusing this email list to blitz
about the event that DiPac sponsored earlier today (Wednesday). I
had temporarily forgotten that Barak and the region he represents
is a very sensitive subject and that there is vocal opposition on
the two sides of the conflict.

ROCKY WAS NOT IN ANY WAY ENDORSING THE DIPAC EVENT AS OUR POINT OF
VIEW. THE CENTER IS NON-PARTISAN AND NUETRAL. MOREOVER, THE SAID
EVENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR DISTINGUSIHED 1930 FELLOW
LECTURER, EHUD BARAK.

Emailing you that announcement from a Rocky account was an unwise
course of action because it would seem that we endorsed the event.
I apologize for following in the footsteps of the World Affairs
Council and blitzing you about this event. It was a lapse in
judgment on my part.

Agora Intern, John A. Stevenson


The part in screaming capital letters is unobjectionable (aside from the screaming caps), but it shows how tragically hilarious the rest of the apology is. The Rockefeller Center can bring Ehud Barak as a speaker (a distinguished 1930 Fellow lecturer, no less), but it can't foward on an email that other groups are sponsoring a speech by an Isreali governmental official who never held as high as office as Prime Minister of Israel?!? Oh, please. Does anyone see the blatant contradiction in this 'apology'? Though the Rockefeller Center is non-partisan, it rightly brings in figures of differing partisan persuasions and sponsors speeches on many 'sensitive' topics. It is perfectly reasonable to pass along other messages about political events on campus. It is absurd not to do so because "there is vocal opposition on the two sides of the conflict."

If you follow the logic of AGORA's apology, this means that every other notice sent out by AGORA is DEEMED BY ROCKY to be an event that is uncontroversal, 'neutral and non-partisan.' Even if you want to argue that Dartmouth should not be spending money to invite offensive speakers (say, an ex-gay talking about conversion therapy) does AGORA as an official Rocky student group mean to say an Israeli governmental official is in that category and beyond the pale? Does AGORA really want to judge what events by outside groups are too controversial and have too vocal of opposition?

Though the apology is silly on it's face (and offensive to logic, among other things), let's take a look at the original 'offending'
email:


>Date: 24 Apr 2002 16:26:52 EDT
>From: AGORA
>Subject: Update
>To: (Recipient list suppressed)

Since Ehud Barak is a Rocky Guest in a few weeks, I wanted to send
out an annoucement that you might find interesting. This event is
sponsored by DIPAC and Hillel.

The Dartmouth Israel Public Affairs Committee and Hillel are proud
to present:

*****************************************
Nimrod Barkan, Senior Policy Advisor to the Director General of
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel.

*20 Year Veteran of the Israeli Foreign Ministry
*Former Minister of Public Affairs at the Israeli Embassy in
Washington, D.C.

Speaking on:

"The War on Terrorism: The Israeli Front"

This Wednesday, April 24th
7:00pm
Dartmouth Hall room 105 (basement auditorium)

*******************************************


It is pretty clear to me that AGORA is just fowarding a speaker's event that may be interesting to its members. But I know this as a former Rocky intern: we often fowarded on blitzes like that (though sparingly to prevent clogging of email boxes) from non-Rocky groups like World Affairs Council and the like. It seems perfectly reasonable. No where does it say the event is sponsored by Rocky or AGORA. But if Rocky is concerned about the potential for confusuion, all AGORA should have done is clarify its customary policy that it sometimes forwards notices of events that it does not sponsor (unless it wants to say it will never foward such messages).

Rocky certainly does not feel that bringing Ehud Barak is an endorsement of all of his views. (Someone could make the argument that Barak shoudn't haven't been invited at all, or at least as a distinguished speaker. I would not agree, but that argument need not be inconsistent in the manner of the AGORA apology). I remember many interesting events, like a visit from Ralph Reed and Laura Ingraham, which were interesting precisely because the speaker was 'controversial' and we could question them (though my favorite Rocky event will always be the first one I went to, with the inspiring and politically unorthodox Ted Halstead). Was AGORA really saying that it shouldn't have sent this message at all because it was too controversial?

I doubt this illogic is the meaning that AGORA intended. Too bad that in trying to clarify their intent and be 'neutral' AGORA
sounds incoherant (or worse, biased, which is what they hoped to avoid).The next time AGORA sends out a message apologizing for its thoughtlessness, it might want to think first.

(Some of you may think their an inconsistency on my part between this post and the one above (I divided them because it was so long. But to show that, you have make some additional assumptions and arguments I'm not sure I would agree with. So I first challenge you to say how you would reconcile these things and adopt any principled stand on sponsorship and association.)

Inspections

Oh, Sarma, I thought you might find this comic to your liking.


1/20/2003 12:50:00 PM | Brad Plumer

Quick note

Mr. Sarma, I think you misinterpreted my post, though maybe the error was mine.

In 1998, the UN claimed to have destroyed nearly ALL of Iraq's "special operational warheads." I assumed that the warheads just found would follow under that category-- if my warhead categorization is askew, let me know, and I apologize, naturally. The point of my last post was that the 1992-98 inspectors did not find everything. They thought they had destroyed all of the special warheads, and lo, 16 have just popped up. Why didn't the inspectors verify that these missiles had been destroyed the last time around? What else might they have missed? If you read my post you will note that I NEVER said that this discovery was a valid pretext for war. But the fact that the last inspectors missed some rather significant weapons weakens your (original) claim that inspections alone will ensure Iraq's disarmament.

Oh, and I also never claimed to have clinching proof that Iraq is smuggling chemical warheads. I was questioning your faith in inspectors and American intelligence. That's all. In the future I will refrain from defending positions I do not hold, as this blog is already time-consuming enough. :)


1/20/2003 03:26:00 AM | Justin

RE: Iraq and previous inspections… (in response to Brad's posting)

Brad, I appreciate the thoroughness of your response, and I will try to give it a full response in a few days. But for now, let me just point out one thing you brought up which I see as an unfair half-truth:

You made reference to "special operation warheads" in your posting, later designating them "chemical weapons". You neglected to mention that these recently discovered "chemical warheads" did not actually contain any illicit chemicals, nor were any chemicals actually found by inspectors. The UN resolutions on Iraq only ruled that Iraq must declare and relinquish all chemical, bioligical, nuclear, and long-range (with a range of over 150 km) weapon. Unless traces of chemicals intended for these weapons can be found, it seems that Iraqi possession of these 122 mm long, short-range warheads does not violate any UN resolutions.

In the words of former weapons inspector David Albright, the discovery would represent a violation "if Iraq knew that these warheads existed and they are for chemical weapons." Inspectors will "have to test to see if there are any traces of chemical weapons in the warheads and in the bunkers where they were found, and they will have to talk to the Iraqis," Albright continued.

I can see you arguing that it isn't necessary to find any traces of chemicals intended for these weapons as long as it can be proven that these warheads were altered for use with chemical weapons. However, if Iraq's claims that the warheads were imported in 1988 prove true, then it is not enough to simply show that the weapons had been altered, because it was no secret that Iraq possessed chemical weapons/warheads in 1988. This is why I think that either traces of the chemicals must be found, or proof that the warheads were altered recently, in order for this new intelligence to qualify as proof that Iraq still has a chemical weapons program.

It seems like your jumping the gun a bit with your claims that this is clinching proof that Iraq is "smuggling chemical warheads". In its current form, it seems like nothing but a nice pro-war media headline. We've yet to see whether there's actually much substance behind it.

I'll try to address the other issues you brought up soon.

Regards,

Justin


1/19/2003 05:35:00 PM | Timothy

Smoke up

As a smoker in NYC, I say: way to go, Rolling Stones.


1/19/2003 04:38:00 PM | Timothy

The Dartmouth has no fact-checkers

Mark Yohalem writes a column in The Dartmouth where he claims that "Democratic primaries are not foreign to race-baiting -- it was, after all, Al Gore who created the infamous Willie Horton ad in an effort to defeat Michael Dukakis in the Massachusetts primary."

Wow. What a distortion. Al Gore never "created the infamous Willie Horton ad." What does Mark Yohalem think? That George Bush saw the ad and just re-ran it during the general election? Al Gore certainly brought up during a primary debate how Michael Dukakis allowed a man named Willie Horton on a prison furlough. But Gore did not mention the race of Horton and Gore never ran a television ad about Horton. Bush supporters, on the other hand knew what hard-core racist appeals were when they ran an ad with a closeup of Horton's face in such a way that Bush's 'tough on crime' message has very clear racial message. Even Lee Atwater (the Karl Rove for Bush the elder) later said he regretted the Willie Horton ad. Whatever Gore did (and I worked for Bill Bradley, so I know most of the lines against him), he didn't create the infamous Willie Horton ad. I would hope The Dartmouth would run a correction, but don't count on it.

Oh one more example in the pathetic lack of fact-checking in Yohalem's article. He claims that there was a "lack of outspoken Democratic criticism" of Amiri Baraka. Amiri Baraka was attacked vociferiously by the Governor of New Jersey, who asked him to resign as New Jersey's poet lauriate. When Baraka refused to resign, the legislature tried to the eliminate the post.

I may have time later to say more about Yohalem's mistakes and the flaws in the view he is trying to push, but perhaps I'll wait until a column similar to his comes along, one that is not a tragic demonstration of the manner in which reactionary fact-distorters have undermined open, honest, and TRUTHFUL discussion of race relations in America.


Dartmouth
The Free Press
Alums for Social Change
The Green Magazine
The Dartmouth
Dartmouth Observer
Dartmouth Review
Dartlog
Inner Office
The Little Green Blog
Welton Chang's Blog
Vox in Sox
MN Publius (Matthew Martin)
Netblitz
Dartmouth Official News

Other Blogs
Ampersand
Atrios
Arts & Letters
Altercation
Body and Soul
Blog For America
Brad DeLong
Brad Plumer
CalPundit
Campus Nonsense
Clarksphere
Crooked Timber
Cursor
Daily Kos
Dean Nation
Dan Drezner
The Front Line
Instapundit
Interesting Times
Is That Legal?
Talking Points Memo
Lady-Likely
Lawrence Lessig
Lean Left
Left2Right
Legal Theory
Matthew Yglesias
Ms. Musings
MWO
Nathan Newman
New Republic's &c.
Not Geniuses
Ornicus
Oxblog
Pandagon
Political State Report
Political Theory Daily Review
Queer Day
Roger Ailes
SCOTUS blog
Talk Left
TAPPED
Tacitus
This Modern World
Tough Democrat
Untelevised
Volokh Conspiracy
Washington Note
X. & Overboard

Magazines, Newspapers and Journals
Boston Globe Ideas
Boston Review
Chronicle of Higher Education
Common Dreams
Dissent
In These Times
Mother Jones
New York Review of Books
New York Times
Salon
Slate
The American Prospect
The Nation
The New Republic
The Progressive
Tikkun
Tom Paine
Village Voice
Washington Monthly

Capitol Hill Media
ABC's The Note
American Journalism Review
Columbia Journalism Review
CQ
Daily Howler
Donkey Rising
The Hill
Medianews
National Journal
NJ Hotline
NJ Wake-up call
NJ Early Bird
NJ Weekly
Political Wire
Roll Call
Spinsanity

Search
Search the DFP

www.blogwise.com
Powered by Blogger

The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth College or the Dartmouth Free Press.