Free Dartmouth
 
  home  
  join
11/15/2003 10:57:00 PM | Brad Plumer

And the winner: Blanco.

Too early to write off the South just yet.



11/15/2003 03:07:00 PM | Brad Plumer

More important news: Well, day old news, I guess, but Gary Kasparov is losing to yet another computer chess program in a four-game match. Kasparov has a loss and a draw, while the virtual reality program "X3D Fritz" has a win and a draw. Fritz had previously trounced Big Blue, the computer who handed grandmaster Kasparov his only professional defeat back in 1997. Charles Krauthammer wrote an incisive analysis of the event for the Weekly Standard back then, which is still worth reading.

All this brings to mind the epic Karpov-Kasparov matches in the 1980s. In 1987, when Kasparov proved himself the greatest player in the world, Economist had this to say about the politics of the match:

This being chess, politics have played almost as big a part in the contest as the two Soviet grandmasters. The 24-year-old Mr Kasparov projects openness and even rebelliousness against authority. His supporters in the West say he is more in tune with Mr Gorbachev's new Russia than his brilliant but dour 36-year-old rival. At the end of the match, Mr Kasparov spoke to journalists about glasnost, perestroika and shaking up chess's ruling international body, FIDE; Mr Karpov did not give a press conference at all.
If you can find it, Martin Amis wrote a brilliant little essay a while back about the specter of communism hanging over those matches. Kasparov was more than up to the challenge. Alas, as Pejman Yousefzadeh notes, it's possible that Kasparov is no longer the right man to defend the honor of mankind.



11/14/2003 08:32:00 PM | Timothy

The Note on Dean and the Confederate Flag:
Dean was asked about the flag issue at a town hall meeting in Hampton, New Hampshire. Dean acknowledged that it was a mistake to use that particular phrasing.

"I should not have use the words 'Confederate flag.' That is a racist symbol. We understand that. We don't need to get into that.. it's a very sensitive symbol. The main message … which most people got … is about two things. First, we need to bring Southern whites into this party or we're not going to win elections anymore … . The second issue is about race in general."




11/14/2003 08:29:00 PM | Timothy

From The Note on Kerry:
The questioner referenced Kerry's Wednesday appearance on Manchester's WGIR, but Kerry insisted he had not said those words:

Questioner: "Senator, yesterday you said, ah, that you think your rival, Howard Dean, is unelectable; how come?" Kerry: "I don't think I said that … ". A moment later, the second questioner took a shot: Questioner: "Senator, you said that you didn't say that Howard Dean was unelectable … on a radio show what I have you saying was, 'Howard Dean will not be able to beat George Bush. I believe that very strongly. Sounds like a synonym (for unelectable) to me."

Kerry: "Well, it's a synonym. I'll accept that. But I didn't say he was unelectable. I said I don't think he'll be able to beat George Bush."

And, finally, the Senator voluntarily returned to the subject for clarification … sort of:
Kerry: "Can I just say in answer to the question earlier on the terminology, I wasn't trying to be cute, I just didn't use the word 'unelectable'. So, when you said that to me, I didn't realize, you know, that I do remember saying that, you know, I think it's hard to beat George Bush. That's all."




11/14/2003 06:37:00 PM | Timothy

The Other Flag Issue
That's why it's so disappointing that Clark told a group of veterans yesterday that he supports a constitutional amendment to ban burning of the American flag. You could see President Bush trying to make this an issue in the campaign. (His father used it to impugn Michael Dukaksis's patriotism in 1988.) But Clark, of all the candidates, is perfectly insulated against attacks on his patriotism. Which means his support for the amendment must be genuine, not merely tactical. And that is genuinely scary. (TNR)
And I was liking Clark's talk of a new American patriotism. But if this is what it means, forget it.



11/14/2003 10:17:00 AM | Anonymous

Big Brother strikes again!
From today's NYT.

Sure wouldn't want the truth getting out there. No, no, can't have that.



11/13/2003 10:19:00 PM | Timothy

Can't Reviewers take a joke?
From The New York Times, May 13, 1992:
Late last month, six staff members of The Harvard Lampoon humor magazine loaded 2,000 copies of their latest spoof into a Range Rover and drove two hours north to Hanover, N.H.

Their destination: Dartmouth College, which was rocked a year and a half ago by charges of anti-Semitism after student staff members on the ultraconservative Dartmouth Review inserted a passage from Hitler's "Mein Kampf" in the Review's masthead.

Their mission: to distribute a look-alike takeoff of the Review titled "Spring Fashion Issue," featuring photos of Adolf Hitler posing in the woods in preppy garb and articles mimicking the conservative themes, the personal attacks and the inflammatory style for which the Review has become known.

Inside the parody issue, the Dartmouth president, James Freedman, is assailed as a "poo-poo head," the Democratic Party is characterized as the party of the elderly kept alive by "Medicaire," and fictitious editorial writers apologize for publishing passages of "Mein Kampf" but hail its "rhetorical flair unsurpassed in German literature since Nietzsche."

All in all it seemed like a chummy Ivy League prank -- until a Review reporter caught the Lampooners in a dorm, replacing real issues with the spoofs, and called the police. "They were nose to nose," said Bob McEwen, head of campus security.
...
Kenneth Weissman, the Review's editor in chief, then asked the Dartmouth administration to condemn the parody for its play on fascist themes, a request that was denied because Harvard, not Dartmouth students, were the instigators, said Alex Huppe, a Dartmouth spokesman. Mr. Huppe pointed out that the Review itself had once published a cartoon of President Freedman dressed like Hitler on its cover.
...
Mr. Weissman said he had called the police because the Lampoon staff members "were removing legitimate issues of the Review" from dormitories. In an open letter posted around the campus, he charged the Lampoon with "falsely representing" the Review.
Oh come on, no reasonable person could possibly think the Review would put Hitler in preppy garb.



11/13/2003 08:05:00 PM | Timothy

It Depends on what the meaning of "State of Affairs" and "Unprecedented" is...
Andrew Grossman, former editor of the Dartmouth Review, says this about Democratic filibustering of judicial nominees:
Democrat senators’ holds and promised filibusters block another dozen or so nominees. This state of affairs is unprecedented: never before has the Senate denied a judicial nominee a simple up-or-down vote with a filibuster. (No, Abe Fortas’s 1968 nomination to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court doesn’t count; President Johnson, sensing that Fortas would lose an eventual vote to bipartisan opposition, withdrew Fortas’s nomination after four months and one lost cloture vote.)
Well, I guess the Democrats will have to stop filibustering, and go with precedent: just continue voting against cloture!

(I'm waiting for someone to defend the absurd argument a first vote against cloture is consitutional but by some legal and metaphysical magic each additional vote against cloture is unconstitutional. Bonus Points: Defend that position using Bush's favored judicial philosophy of strict constructionalism)


A Filibuster Framed for Fox
Hah! How pathetic are the Republicans? Here's from a GOP memo read by a Democratic Senator on the floor of the house:
It is important to double your efforts to get your boss to S-230 on time. Fox News channel is really excited about the marathon. Britt [sic] Hume at 6 would love to open the door to all our 51 Senators walking on to the floor. The producer wants to know, will we walk in exactly at 6:02 when the show starts so we can get it live to open Britt Hume's show? Or, if not, can we give them an exact time for the walk-in start?



11/13/2003 12:33:00 AM | Brad Plumer

Poor form: Graham Roth obviously has a history of sending thoughtless blitzes, but this blitz, posted by Emmett, really takes the cake:

--- Forwarded message from Graham Roth ---

>Date: 12 Nov 2003 16:51:33 EST
>From: Graham Roth
>Subject: this probably goes without saying


Hi, my friend Sue forwarded me a blitz to this list about the confederate flag posters going up around campus.

I only recognize a few names. If you don't know me, I'm the Editor of the Free Press and I spent the summer working on Howard Dean's campaign. I'm one of the co-chairs of Generation Dean at Dartmouth.

As you probably guessed, we did not put up those posters.

I'd appreciate it if you help out by taking down any that you come across.
Edit: Commenters have pointed out that the posters explicitly claimed to be sponsored by the Young Dems. I didn't notice that at all when I saw the posters (it's in tiny print at the bottom), and that, to me, changes everything. The blitz, of course, made it seem like they were taken down for being immature, and maybe that was the primary reason (which is deplorable), but ultimately it was justified. So Graham, I apologize for the attack. It was overhasty and I should have asked you about it first.

That said, if the poster had only sported the "Generation Dean" logo on top, the tear-downs would have been unwarranted. Yes, it's a bit misleading, but so what? How do you feel about posters that attack or parody McDonald's using their logo (like this one?). What if someone put up a parody poster attacking Bush using the "official" Bush-Cheney 2004 logo? What about this website? Should we burn t-shirts that parody the college social norms campaign ("the average student drinks 10-11-12 drinks" etc.)? After all, someone might mistakenly think that the college is sponsoring these ads, huh?



11/09/2003 06:37:00 PM | Brad Plumer

More ninnies: Last week Republicans unearthed a memo written by Democrats in the Senate Select Committee that revealed shocking aims: to push for an investigation into administration wrongdoing. Sean Hannity called it "politicized" intelligence. Rick Santorum threatened to shove all those damn Democrats off the committee. Bill Frist decided to freeze further investigation of prewar intelligence in Iraq, at least until the Democrats said they were sorry.

Apparently none of them bothered to do what Kevin Drum did and actually read the memo. And it turns out, the memo's harmless. Entirely harmless. Basically it comes down to two facts: the Republicans are trying to shift the focus of the investigation away from the administration, and the Democrats want a wider, more persistent inquiry to figure out why intelligence was wrong. Um, pardon, but isn't that exactly why we have a Senate Intelligence Committee? To, uh, investigate? Why are Republicans fuming and carping so much?

Jay Nordlinger should issue a retraction for this old OpinionJournal piece. Would "real men" ever moan and whine like this? Hm?



11/09/2003 06:03:00 PM | Brad Plumer

Whiners and their whining whines... Bill O'Reilly's new beef: writers and publishers. Apparently, Terry McAuliffe and the DNC are peddling their... their... b-b-books (!) on members and contributors, and perhaps even paying people to write liberal books. O'Reilly aghast:

Now the danger is that DNC Chief Terry McAuliffe is using and paying professional hit men to demean and denigrate political opponents. That's exactly what President Nixon did when he used the plumber's union to harass his opponents.
Books are intimidating like plumber's unions are intimidating? Wah--? It's time to ask: when did conservatives become such ninnies? O'Reilly is fine with Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter, but when liberals start striking back he squeals out "smear book!," "smear book!" Reminds me of all that "poor Rush Limbaugh" talk. Incidentally, O'Reilly won't name a single liberal book he has a problem with. Then again, that might require him to back up his attacks.

Ooh, for more sob stories, read this piece where O'Reilly complains that he's misunderstood. The poor guy can't understand why everyone calls him an ideologue. Quick hint: when you start sniveling on and on about "hurtful" liberal books-- heck, when you try to suppress "hurtful" books with frivolous law suits-- you get branded an ideologue real quick. Now stop crying.



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.