Free Dartmouth
 
  home  
  join
3/15/2003 05:40:00 PM | Timothy

More Racists at Conservative Publications: Andrew Sullivan links to this on National Review's The Corner:
REFUGEE POLICY [John Derbyshire]
I am astonished that this story has generated so little comment. Does the U.S.A. actually need 12,000 illiterate African Muslims at this point in time? There are, of course, all sorts of taboos in play here--the immigration taboo, the Muslim taboo, the race taboo, so perhaps I should not be astonished. But can't we at least talk about this? Presumably Americans, a humane and compassionate people, would like to have some kind of refugee policy: but is this the one we want? If there has been any large public debate about this, I missed it.
Sullivan writes that Derbyshire "wonders why Americans aren't outraged at the fact that a group of Africans, persecuted for centuries, now have a chance of freedom in the new world. Derb, that's the meaning of America. After all this time, do you still not get it?"



3/15/2003 05:35:00 PM | Timothy

Hmmm... From Andrew Sullivan's letters page:
I'm out on the street smoking a cigarette and this black dude, wearing a "No War Against Iraq" T-shirt and a bag on his shoulder, comes up to me and asks, "Sir, are you against the war or for the war?" "For the war," I say, at which point he pulls a T-shirt out of his bag that says, "Kick Saddam's Ass!," and tries to sell it to me. I said, "No thanks," and he moved on. Is this a great country or what?



3/15/2003 05:17:00 PM | Timothy

(Post removed on account of my inability to read)



3/15/2003 01:58:00 AM | Timothy

Who needs other kids to threaten you if you're gay, when your teachers will do that instead?
Calpundit links to this press release by the ACLU:
One teacher called a conference with McLaughlin's parents and the principal because she objected to his being open about being gay. During the meeting, the principal concurred that she was opposed to McLaughlin talking at school about being gay.
A different teacher ordered McLaughlin not to discuss his sexual orientation, saying that she found it "sickening," and later called his mother to complain about his homosexuality.
School officials preached their religious views on homosexuality and forced him to read aloud from the Bible in clear violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. This was done as punishment after McLaughlin, who is himself a Christian, disagreed with a teacher for calling him "abnormal" and "unnatural."
In violation of McLaughlin's free speech rights, the school suspended him for two days for telling other students about being made to read the Bible in school. The principal and assistant principal also told McLaughlin that if he told any of his friends why he was suspended, they would recommend that he be expelled.
McLaughlin is not even allowed to participate in typical teenage conversations about crushes. In January he was disciplined for talking between classes with a female friend about a boy they both considered "cute." He was disciplined; his friend was not.





3/15/2003 01:51:00 AM | Timothy

Race and Republicans Part IXVII: More on racists at the Washington Times



3/14/2003 11:00:00 PM | Richie Jay

Don't Mess With Texas
and don't mess with Bush

While on tour in the UK, the Dixie Chicks spoke out against the war effort and specifically against president Bush. In particular, the lead singer of the group reportedly claimed that she was ashamed to say that Bush is a Texan (she, too, is a Texan).

Well, it's important to know your listener demographic. Country stations throughout the south, and especially Texas, are refusing to play Dixie Chicks songs, and former fans are trashing the Chicks' albums and boycotting their music. The Dixie Chicks remain number 1 on the country charts, but this may soon change as a result of the backlash.

My reason for this post actually has little to do with the story itself (despite the fact that I do believe that this is quite blogworthy). Rather, it is to post text from the Reuters story about the whole situation. Here is an example of journalistic integrity reaching a new all-time low (Fox News Channel, of course, excluded):

DALLAS (Reuters) - There are a lot worse things in country music than your wife leaving you or your dog dying. There's stations not playing your music because you done gone and said some things against the president.


Seriously, is there such a thing as news anymore? Or just a bunch of sensationalist crap that harshly generalizes groups and plays upon the stereotypes that we Americans apparently hold so dear. I really don't see the need to make fun of the subject matter of country music or the diction of country-folk (for lack of a more appropriate term) in order to present an otherwise interesting and serious story.

Besides, isn't Reuters supposed to be just neutral news wires (and not in the "Fair and Balanced" sort of neutral way, but rather in the lacking in fluff and extraneous debris, bland and to-the-point sort of way)?

Read the extraneous debris here.



3/14/2003 06:10:00 PM | Timothy

The "liberal" media
A good article on Eric Alterman's new book, Mike Savage, and other stuff...



3/14/2003 05:53:00 PM | Timothy

Rep. Jim Moran: Echoes of Trent Lott?
Some Democrats are criticizing Jim Moran:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Rep. James Moran of Virginia, under fire for saying Jews were behind the buildup toward war with Iraq, should not seek re-election next year, six fellow Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives said on Wednesday. They wrote in a letter to House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California that Moran's comments were "offensive," "ignorant" and "grossly irresponsible," and that if he does seek another term, they would not back him.
The Washington Post reports that Moran has now left quit his leadership post (regional whip is a "leadership post"?):
Embattled U.S. Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D) quit his House leadership post today for making what he called "insensitive" remarks about Jews pushing the nation into war with Iraq. Moran said he gave up his position as a regional Whip for the House Democrats "as a way to demonstrate acceptance of responsibility" for his controversial comments at a March 3 anti-war forum in Reston, when he said, "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this." "I will continue to reach out to the Jewish community and others who were offended by my remarks," Moran said in a statement released by his office. "And I will work tirelessly for all of my constituents in Northern Virginia, as I have done throughout my 13 years in Congress. Most importantly, I will strive to learn from my mistakes and listen to the concerns of my constituents." Moran's repeated apologies for the remarks haven't ended the criticism of him, and several Democrats say they're considering challenging Moran in a primary next year if he runs. Katherine K. Hanley, the Board of Supervisors chairman in Fairfax County, said she is exploring a campaign in Virginia's 8th District, as is state Sen. Leslie L. Byrne (Fairfax), a former member of Congress.
For what it is worth, altercation says Moran was a DINO (Democrat-in-name-only):
The Horse provides the invaluable service in re: James Moran, Government Mule — pointing out that he’s really an “R” kind of Democrat and he always has been. Nevertheless, the inexcusable Sean Hannity and the even less excusable Joe Scarborough (about whom more anon) have been beating the tin drum about Moran and Trent Lott, and how the R’s bravely exiled the former leader to the chairmanship of the Senate Rules Committee — “Sympathy for white supremacists? Sorry, Trent, but you’ll have to have an inferior parking space for a while.” — and why haven’t the D’s done the same with Moran and yadda-di-yadda.
The Horse (a.k.a. Media Whores Online or MWO) says:
All Democrats would be wise to join these six now and publicly ask Rep. Moran to resign or not to run again. Loyalty and the benefit of the doubt are two way streets. Jim "I support impeachment hearings" Moran, who is not only disloyal but corrupt, opportunistic, and, an extreme liability for the Party, has earned neither from his fellow Democrats.



3/12/2003 10:28:00 PM | Jared Alessandroni

The Politics of Meat
I, at least, already hated seafood, so Laura's article just solidified it. Really, it smells, didn't anyone else notice?
Anyway, as for being a vegetarian and being political? I think that's sort of suspect. No doubt not eating meat is very sensible as Laura said in terms of health. As for the impact of meat-eating politically? In fact, the meat production process is quite grim, and, more important for those of us on the left, it's a blatant abuse of resources. The amount of pure food and water required to raise an animal far exceeds that which we eat. In a world that has a limited supply of food and water, this is a definite problem. However, we do in this world have a decent amount of food and water. In fact, we throw away tons of grain a year - thousands of tons - and then our government subsidizes its production rather than giving it to poor nations. So, while it is wasteful, meat eating is not as bad for the world as, say, said subsidization policy. As for the heinous nature of making meat, that for me falls far below the heinous nature of making Nikes.
As for wearing animals, again, I don't think it should be encouraged per-se, but in terms of its impact on the planet and the people therupon, it's far below other much more pressing factors. It is sad that many tropical rain forests are being turned into slash and burned farms and ranches, but while a rainforest can grow in a few hundred years, the damage to our atmosphere because of pollutants, to Alaska because of pipelines, and to our place in the poltical world because of oil dependencies is far far more dire.
I think that, at least for me, a progressive stance in terms of animal rights is that animal testing for all but important medical innovation is unacceptable business practice. Eating meat isn't bad, but a truly conscious person should try to get meat and even produce that's not produced in ex-rainforest. The leather jacket is okay, though not great. The fur coat is wrong, as a symbol as well as a product. We eat the cow, we don't eat the cute furry guy that once was that damn coat. But, in all of the above, it would be a waste of time to attack the person who's wearing or eating the offending product. The smart liberal, I think, should really be working to fight the government and the business practices that make these things wrong. That's my vote, and, I am the most liberal poster here according to that questionable site below.



3/12/2003 10:16:00 PM | Timothy

Anti-Semitism
Josh Marshall writes:
Lest there be any doubt, Congressman Jim Moran's comments really were way beyond the pale. And frankly I think the response has been too muted...
(Moran told a town meeting in his Northern Virginia district that "if it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this" and later suggested that Jewish leaders could get the war called off.) There's been a debate recently over whether it's somehow anti-Semitic to discuss the fact that the president's foreign policy team is heavily weighted with a number of advisors -- a number of them Jewish -- who are big supporters of the Sharon government in Israel and that these advisors have been decisive in pushing the case for war within the administration. (Let's not forget that two of these advisors are Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, who are -- in case you didn't know it -- not members of the tribe.) As Mike Kinsley said recently, "It is the proverbial elephant in the room: Everybody sees it, no one mentions it." Lawrence Kaplan notwithstanding, it's a real issue. (I'll say more about this whole issue later.) I hope our public debate is flexible and astute enough to see that the one thing is entirely unacceptable and the other is completely appropriate.

Also: Mike Kinsley writes about Moran in Slate.



3/12/2003 07:36:00 PM | Richie Jay

UPDATE: Texas Halted at 299
...at least for now

The U.S. Supreme Court put a stay on the execution of Delma Banks just 10 minutes before he was to be killed. Banks would have been Texas' 300th execution since the death penalty was reinstated 25 years ago.

Read More Here.



3/12/2003 04:52:00 PM | Richie Jay

Beastie Boys For Peace
From the magnificent artists who brought us Girls and Intergalactic comes a moving hit for our time: an anti-war song.

Listen here (no auto-play, I promise).

MORE INFO: An article on mtv.com



3/11/2003 07:43:00 PM | Richie Jay

The LEFTOMETER Does Exist!
My political compass:
(Economic) Left/Right: -7.75 (-10 is most left, 10 is most right)
(Social) Authoritarian/Libertarian: -7.74 (-10 is most 'libertarian,' 10 is most 'authoritarian')

Where do you stand?



3/11/2003 05:35:00 PM | Jared Alessandroni

Freedom Fries
And Freedom Toast, it would seem. This is ironic. Apparently freedom is the ability to shun those who disagree with our "president."



3/11/2003 10:41:00 AM | Jared Alessandroni

Awesome Shit
Coming from Will Wheaton of Star Trek fame who's just awesome in a post-modern self-effacing way...
Bitter after being snubbed for membership in the "Axis of Evil," Libya, China, and Syria today announced they had formed the "Axis of Just as Evil," which they said would be more evil than that stupid Iran-Iraq-North Korea axis President Bush warned of in his State of the Union address.
Axis of Evil members, however, immediately dismissed the new axis as having, for starters, a really dumb name. "Right. They are Just as Evil...in their dreams!" declared North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. "Everybody knows we're the best evils... best at being evil...we're the best."
Diplomats from Syria denied they were jealous over being excluded, although they conceded they did ask if they could join the Axis of Evil.
"They told us it was full," said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. "An Axis can't have more than three countries," explained Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "This is not my rule, it's tradition. In World War II you had Germany, Italy, and Japan in the evil Axis. So, you can only have three, and a secret handshake. Ours is wickedly cool."
International reaction to Bush's Axis of Evil declaration was swift, as within minutes, France surrendered.
Elsewhere, peer-conscious nations rushed to gain triumvirate status in what became a game of geopolitical chairs.
Cuba, Sudan, and Serbia said they had formed the "Axis of Somewhat Evil," forcing Somalia to join with Uganda and Myanmar in the "Axis of Occasionally Evil," while Bulgaria,Indonesia and Russia established the "Axis of Not So Much Evil Really As Just Generally Disagreeable."
With the criteria suddenly expanded and all the desirable clubs filling up...Sierra Leone, El Salvador, and Rwanda applied to be called the "Axis of Countries That Aren't the Worst But Certainly Won't Be Asked to Host the Olympics."
Canada, Mexico, and Australia formed the "Axis of Nations That Are Actually Quite Nice But Secretly Have Some Nasty Thoughts About America," while Scotland, New Zealand and Spain established the "Axis of Countries That Be Allowed to Ask Sheep to Wear Lipstick." "That's not a threat, really, just something we like to do," said Scottish Executive First Minister Jack McConnell.
While wondering if the other nations of the world weren't perhaps making fun of him, a cautious Bush granted approval for most axis, although he rejected the establishment of the Axis of Countries Whose Names End in "Guay," accusing one of its members of filing a false application. Officials from Paraguay, Uruguay, and Chadguay denied the charges.
Israel, meanwhile, insisted it didn't want to join any Axis, but privately, world leaders said that's only because no one asked them.



3/11/2003 08:46:00 AM | Richie Jay

Girls Love Beef!

This site, a cleverly disguised product of America's Beef Producers, looks something like a teeny-bopper magazine, but actually is an advertisement for, well, beef. And it's targeted at the teenage girl crowd.

I think I'm going to become sick. Then I think I'm going to become a vegetarian.



3/11/2003 01:50:00 AM | Anonymous

Sudden Thought

When is the last time an incumbent President was not re-elected after coasting through the primaries? It occured to me that Bush the First was challenged by Buchanon on the right, Carter was challenged by Teddy Kennedy on the left, Ford was challenged by Reagan for a number of reasons, LBJ realized he was fucked by the anti-war candidates....And that takes us back to Herbert Hoover. Let's face it, this isn't the Great Depression. I know that I shouldn't use a plethora of examples as a reason to be pessemistic about 2004, but if W can use the primary season as 6 months of free advertising, we might be in a lot of trouble...



3/10/2003 08:05:00 PM | Timothy

Useful Idiots
You got to love it when someone says it is no problem breaking international law, because we did it during the Bay of Pigs and in support of a 1954 coup in Gautamala (done to help out a U.S. Corporation, United Fruit). (We might ask whether our own actions could tell us something about why international institutions have had a hard time being effective... people forget that the U.S. is a pretty unique position right now). Louis Henkin rightly said most nations obey most international law most of the time. This is not explanable merely in terms of pure short term self-interest. Nations do sometimes act against their interests to observe international law or moral principles. Witness Britain's actions against the slave trade in the 19th century. Whether a state will act against their core interests is another story, but it helps to, prior to making assertions, to have actually studied different theories besides realism (and realism itself), rather than pontificate, unencumbered by knowledge. But then again, it's not really much different than professional neo-con punditry, so... Observer posters citing John Mearsheimer should note that he has publically come out against a war in Iraq, as have most of the big name realist scholars in International Relations. I am not going to deny the hegemony of realism in IR, but it is sad when even the premier 'offensive realist' does not support your position on the war, huh?



3/10/2003 07:54:00 PM | Timothy

If it hadn't been for the Lott scandal, we wouldn't be hearing about this...
From Minnesota (via atrios):
Religious leaders and Democrats joined a survivor of the Holocaust in condemning Republican Rep. Arlon Lindner for remarks he made last week questioning whether homosexuals were persecuted by the Nazis. ``I can testify to the fact that homosexuals were indeed persecuted based on their sexuality,'' said Hinda Kibort, 81, an Edina woman who was in German-run labor and concentration camps from 1941 to 1945. ``I was there.''
...
Lindner said he doesn't doubt Kibort's own recollections of Nazi actions, but still questions why, he believes, there has been little attention to homosexual persecution until recent years. He said he expects to be in session on April 9, the date of the Washington trip, and won't be going along. ``They talk about my particular views and so forth,'' he said. ``But I guess I still feel like we've got a First Amendment that applies to everybody.'' Kibort described how homosexuals were forced to wear pink triangles, just as Jews were made to wear the star of David. ``His absolute lack of knowledge concerning Nazi barbarity in World War II is appalling,'' she said. Lindner has introduced a separate bill that would repeal the state human rights amendment that protects gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Minnesotans from discrimination in employment, housing, education and other areas. It also would remove sexual orientation as a protected class in hate crimes laws.




3/10/2003 07:32:00 PM | Timothy

What Strange Justice!
You try to help your kids out by using your position as a stock analyst to change the rating of a company, so a bank will donate a million dollars to an organization that runs a prestigious nursery school, which lets your twins in; but then you get discraced when the scandal becomes public, and NO private school in Manhattan wants to accept your kids, and they may end up going to public school! Oh the indignity!
(And don't tell me I should feel sorry for the kids because they are being punished because of what their father did: they wouldn't even have the opportunity to go to a 'good' school if they hadn't chosen their rich parents so well-- or so poorly in this case).



3/10/2003 06:55:00 PM | Timothy

Howard Dean: moderate?
Meanwhile, the substance of what Dean had to say today probably surprised those who've spent a lot of time lately watching and listening to him speak in Iowa and New Hampshire or before Democratic interest groups. You might have seen Dean at the recent NARAL event, where he brought the audience to its feet by delivering a full-throated defense of partial-birth abortion while other Democrats stepped politely around the subject. You might have caught his recent speech on union issues in Altoona, Iowa, delivered Oprah-style before members of the Iowa Federation of Labor, where he wowed the crowd with an unapologetic condemnation of free trade deals that lack tough labor and environmental standards. And you might have been present for Dean's knock-out performance at the Democratic National Committee winter meeting, where liberal delegates became all weepy and verklempt when the former Vermont governor belted out what has become his signature line: "I am Howard Dean. And I'm here to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." At the very least, you've probably heard that Howard Dean is one of the most antiwar candidates in the race.
All of this has placed Dean on the left edge of the Democratic presidential field. But often it's more reliable to listen to Dean's positions than the fiery rhetoric that surrounds them. Once you do that, as today's interview reminds us, it's easy to see understand how Dean was positioning himself as the Clinton-like moderate of the race before his antiwar speeches started to generate so much enthusiasm among activists in the early nominating states.
Did you know, for instance, that Dean favors a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, the early-'90s fixation of Ross Perot and the Contract with America? I didn't. In addition to flirting with raising the retirement age for Social Security, Dean also wants to do something along the lines of what Clinton proposed in the late '90s for the program: allowing the government to invest funds from Social Security in private equities.
The full article from Ryan Lizza at TNR



3/10/2003 08:42:00 AM | Richie Jay

The Texas Death Machine
Texas is gearing up to execute its 300th prisoner since reinstituting the death penalty 21 years ago. Texas is also on pace to crush its one-year record of 40 lethal injections. Chicago Sun-Times.

There's an all-too-common twist: prisoner 300 may actually be innocent. A black man convicted by an all-white jury in a one-day trial with an ineffective lawyer, no DNA evidence, no eyewitness to the actual crime, no motive, no prior criminal record, and the leading prosecution testimony is from a paid informant with a rap sheet and a plea bargain. A former FBI director, federal judges and prosecutors have filed a brief with the Supreme Court demanding that this execution is stayed immediately. Washington Post.

Let's hope Texas never reaches the 300 execution milestone. It's not something to be proud of.



3/10/2003 02:35:00 AM | Justin

Check out this piece on the recent discovery of forged US evidence on Iraqi weapons programs.

Following the progress of U.S. intelligence on illegal Iraqi weapons, I've begun to detect a certain trend of "facts" having a rather short half-life, once released from the hermetic and ideological sealing of The Bush and Blair Administration's intelligensia: none of their evidence seems able to withstand the least public scrutiny. First it was the theory of aluminum rod importation for use in centrifuges; then it was the embarrassing plagiarism and recasting of old student’s political papers into “proven” British intelligence; now, the Bush Administration has been forced to retreat from its claimed proof of the Iraqi regime’s efforts to procure uranium from Niger, in the wake of the weapons inspectors’ discovery that the documents supplied by the US and British were in fact forgeries. "We fell for it," admits one US government official. Apparently, the giveaways were obvious, with some documents messing up the names and offices of many government officials (mistakes with which Mr. Bush can no doubt sympathize... For that matter, might such name butchering even be evidence of his handywork?).

The real question is how could such blatent inaccuracies make it through the sophisticated truth filtering of US intelligence? The only explanation I can come up with is that they’re looking at the evidence that comes to them through “ideology goggles”, and seeing only whatever is convenient to their own political ends.

I’m concerned that the Bush Administration may have actually surpassed the Iraqi leader in the fine and dangerous art of Lie Proliferation. Why does the Bush Administration continue to spout aluminum tube theories in their rhetoric, after they are discredited by the UN's independent experts? Why does Bush publically accuse Iraq of continuing to *create* Al-Samouds even as Iraq is publically *destroying* them, without bothering to present any evidence supporting their claim to the inspectors for verification? Do they think they can just hurl out unsupported accusations, banking on the notion that they will have sunk into the American mind by the time they are disproven? Could this game actually be working?

If only all these brinksmen -- including Bush, Saddam, Sharon, Milosevic, the whole racquet (we can even add Arafat to emphasize our neutrality) -- who exhibit the tendency to embark suddenly on ill-considered land-grabbing escapades at the expense of the people they represent, could simply be sent to colonize Mars... There they might freely indulge their habits on land that was not already inhabited, and spare us all their personal troubles.



3/09/2003 07:40:00 PM | Jared Alessandroni

From President Carter
An interestingly Christian (Aquinas, to be specific) look of the potential war with Iraq.



3/09/2003 04:25:00 AM | Timothy

Hatemonger President
Krugman writes:
Last week The Economist quoted an American diplomat who warned that if Mexico didn't vote for a U.S. resolution it could "stir up feelings" against Mexicans in the United States. He compared the situation to that of Japanese-Americans who were interned after 1941, and wondered whether Mexico "wants to stir the fires of jingoism during a war."
Incredible stuff, but easy to dismiss as long as the diplomat was unidentified. Then came President Bush's Monday interview with Copley News Service. He alluded to the possibility of reprisals if Mexico didn't vote America's way, saying, "I don't expect there to be significant retribution from the government" ? emphasizing the word "government." He then went on to suggest that there might, however, be a reaction from other quarters, citing "an interesting phenomena taking place here in America about the French . . . a backlash against the French, not stirred up by anybody except the people."
And Mr. Bush then said that if Mexico or other countries oppose the United States, "there will be a certain sense of discipline."
These remarks went virtually unreported by the ever-protective U.S. media, but they created a political firestorm in Mexico. The White House has been frantically backpedaling, claiming that when Mr. Bush talked of "discipline" he wasn't making a threat. But in the context of the rest of the interview, it's clear that he was.


The Dartmouth Review will label Jim Wright a Fascist when he threatens fratboys' god-given right to drink, but conservatives (and the 'liberal media') don't seem to give a crap when Bush threatens Mexicans' lives.



3/09/2003 01:25:00 AM | Timothy

Professional Male Egos

So it seems that all Jon objected to was Laura's reference to "male amateur pontificators." I see blogging as a hobby. Unlike Jon, I do not see the word 'amateur' as a terrible insult like 'novice' or 'beginner' might be. I hadn't understood this difference between Jon and I before his last post. I had assumed Jon was joking when he first said: "but I also resent being called an amateur pontificator...I am an expert at pontificating, even if it is "unburdened by knowledge" as a certain associate of ours frequently notes of everyone but himself:"

But it seems this is the core, or even the sole basis of his complaint! He's grumbling about feminism because Laura didn't call him a professional pontificater? Expert pontificater? Is Jon upset because he thinks Laura insulted men or because he thinks Laura insulted him? Will new women bloggers never be able to catch up because of the experience male bloggers have over them? I do not think that hurting our 'fragile male egos' by not giving Dartmouth bloggers exhulted acclaim and honorifics is deserving of such vitriol towards feminism. My position is that we are all amateurs here, and I have said so to those who styled themselves public intellectuals, however burdened they are. I interpreted Laura's point to be something like: pretty much anyone can do this if they want to, it's not some big skill, so come on and blog!



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.