Of course, redemption would be proof that the media didn't stroke for the icons with which Jon and Shafer find such affinity. It's appropriate that the only redemption you could find is written with the objectivity and depth of a teenage girl's poetry - the mentality of symbol-chasing is about on the same level.
It is, in response to our esteemed New York Times editors, in terms of silly little things like science and logic, a blatant lie. We follow the things that we've been taught to follow. Some of us care about life, some about computers, some about abstract metaphysics. It's not in-born, it's a product of our lives. So, no, no one would even pretend in a more lucid state that our desire to see the stars is any greater than any other, and given the same logic, our quest for science will eventually do something useful like cure diseases, something interesting like building an orgasm in a pill. So?
Space is any more important? We don't stop the world when a few scientists or teachers die, or thousands of poor people in an earthquake. Some people prefer purple prose and icons when they look for what matters, don't they? Well, as thousands of people die every day with noone noticing, as countries dicate and children are abused, weapons are built and dictators like our own "president" give hollow people meaning through these symbols. And you call it noble - the "sheer thrill of exploration and new discoveries". I think there's a lot more that's noble, and there's a lot to be said about people who can't think beyond it.
As if needed, courtesy the Editors of the New York Times:
Our own view is that the sheer magnitude and mystery of the heavens compel humans to explore the worlds that lie outside our earthly experience. Curiosity and the quest for knowledge, programmed by nature in the human race, make it inevitable that humans will continue to venture into space — if not now, then at some point in the future
...
But surely the day will come when humans set foot on a mysterious new world, perhaps Mars, or an asteroid, or a moon circling Jupiter, and who among us would not thrill to see it? We don't pretend that there are any economic or military gains to be had on distant planets, or that it is important to beat, say, the Chinese, should they become a spacefaring power. The overarching reason to venture out beyond this planet is to see what it is like out there, to satisfy our curiosity, to engage in the sheer thrill of exploration and new discoveries.
I guess the precision and eloquence is the reason they write for the New York Times and I write on FreeDartmouth.
Posted by Jonathan,
6:55 PM
-
Re: Parkhurst Blair and Powell
The authors of the plagiarized British report are against the war. Of course.
As former UK Defense Minister Peter Kilfoyle said: "It just adds to the general impression that what we have been treated to is a farrago of half-truths. I am shocked that on such thin evidence that we should be trying to convince the British people that this is a war worth fighting."
Posted by Clint,
5:31 PM
-
In case you didn't believe me...
about our culture of fear. Seems the terror threat is high - because of "credible reports" of people wanting to kick the US' ass. Woah, people don't like America? Shocker #1. Woah, terror level on high right when our "president" is trying to take us into a war and the rest of the world is still like, um, why?? Shocker #2.
I haven't been this blown away since Shafer nonsensically called me Hitler.
I don't drink, but I'm pretty sure it's as much a right to drink as it is to do hard-core drugs. I think we all have that right - only if we understand and are held responsible for the consequences of it. What's the line from the liberals and Shafer?
Posted by Jared,
2:23 PM
-
Friday, February 07, 2003 My Brother the Activist
Posted by Kumar,
5:45 PM
-
COS: Parkhurst Blair and Powell
In his address to the UN this week, Powell had this to say: "I would call my colleagues' attention to the fine paper that the United Kingdom distributed... which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities."
Sure, it's a fine paper--if you over look the fact that more than 20% was cut'n'pasted from the online version of an article by a California grad student. Nearly another third is drawn, albeit not copied, from other publicly available academic papers, including one from 1997. The report had been billed as UK's independent analysis from its own intellegence sources.
Plagiarism is defined as the submission or presentation of work, in any form, that is not a [one's] own, without acknowledgment of the source. ... [A]ny direct quotation must be placed in quotation marks, and the source immediately cited.--From Dartmouth's Academic Honor Principle
According to last year's annual Committee on Standards report at least four Dartmouth students were suspended for plagiarism violations on papers. More broadly, nineteen of twenty students found guilty of violating the Principle were suspended for a term or more. Sixteen were suspended for three terms or longer.
How about suspending Blair and Powell from participating in wars for nine or so months?
(There is a smattering of precedence for this: Reed College at one point found Leonid Brezhnev in violation of their Honor Code--or some such thing--for his betrayal of Communist ideals in the invasion of Afghanistan. A minor apparatchik sent the board a terse response to the effect that the USSR didn't recognize the judgment of Reed's Honor Code board. I've spent some time looking, and it would seem that this bit of lore remembered from my college application days has yet to jump the digital divide. Another freedartmouth first.)
Anyhow, I don't care how hawkish you are. Wars shouldn't be justified by the plagiarized, months old writings of a TA.
Thanks to the world's greatest newspaper, The Guardian.
There is a big difference between the Grand Canyon and the underwater world, Herr Alessandroni. Say what you will with your fancy cogn neuro science / japanese film studies / education combo platter degree, but clearly the innate human curiosity for some results in that lifelong mentality to explore. I know it has for me. Perhaps it's not a coincidence that astronauts often compare their reactions to their first space voyages to the ways of toddlers' explorations. Divers don't get interested in the sea life? Are you a SCUBA diver? That's the entire point! There are always those happy with where they are, and that's perfectly fine. But there are also always going to be those -- historically known as "explorers" -- who are always looking towards the horizon for new worlds. Just because you're of the former type doesn't mean everyone else has to be like you, Mein Herr. If we were all like you, humans would never have left Africa.
I think that curiosity and the need to explore are two sort of different things. Yes, if you're curious you explore things, even places, etc. But, exploration in the manifest destiny way is a different thing - it's a mentality. The toddler Shafer's talking about is just as fascinated by a bit of tape on her finger as she would be on Mars. Of course, it's a bit inane to compare that interest in the world with the apathy of which Timbo speaks.
In fact, any developmental psychologist could tell you that our childhood curiosity is an in-born developmental feature [as is much of our aptitude and thus interest in math and science, which for some is easier than other subjects, in case they don't teach that in CS], and really, whether or not we're curious in the future is much more determined by how much that curiosity was nurtured in the past, and to which end. That is, if our passion for abstract number theory is nurtured, neither apathy nor comfort will stop us. This may seem abstract, but it brings home both of your points - we were passionate about space when we were told to be, and not when no one bothered. Competition will, as Shafer points out, drive that curiosity if we bother [though as far as I know, much of these future plans are more tentative than they seem in Shafer's post] to let it. And, a lot of people who are lucky enough to go SCUBA diving don't really get all that wet over the sealife, a lot of people go to the Grand Canyon and say "eh". It's not in-born that we want to spend so much time and resources in the sky when it's basic logic that a major project on earth to some scientific end would also benefit mankind, develop technology, and sate some people's curiosity.
I for one don't care so much about space right now, not with all the other things that could be looked into, but, whatever. Of course, it's stupid to pretend that I should.
Posted by Jared,
2:11 PM
-
Life imitates lightbulbs
John Edwards is going to host a political meeting at the house of a confederate hero, one who drudge says had the largest amount of slaves in the South. Ei.
I disagree with you that there is no natural curiosity among humans. Have you ever observed toddlers running around houses, staring into the faces of people and pets? Ever gone scuba diving and found yourself fascinated in what sealife would consider a dull underwater event? Ever stared into the night sky and pondered what was going on out there? Ever notice how most people list Discovery channel as one of their favorite cable stations? No, I think our innate curiosity is as strong as ever, however I think most of us are lazy and would rather stick to what's comfortable. Most people would prefer to take the easier path of less science and math rather than working hard since they know that they could have more fun doing other things, they may never achieve those goals, or that those goals won't make them rich. Exploration is more of a passive activity for the majority of us. When the opportunities arise, like when we go camping in the forests or diving underwater, we engage in them actively and happily, but for the rest of the time we stick to the Discovery channel, if even then.
As for returning to the moon, you are wrong. The Chinese aim to have a manned mission by the end of the decade, and several private companies are beginning to venture there (unmanned for the time being) in the next few years (e.g. LunaCorp, TransOrbital). And NASA is setting its sights on Mars with nuclear propulsion.
Some more thoughts for Jon on the space shuttle. First, he's right those who think there has not been too much coverage of the disaster have no reason to not keep talking. But seriously, I am skeptical that there is a universal human need to explore. Those who don't explore may be hurt in the long run, but it is really a hard-wired characteristic of all humans? At least, we project a lot of old Western frontier notions onto the idea of space exploration, making me think some of it is 'cultural' or rather, the result of myth-making. (right about the time Europe began its so-called 'age of discovery' China had boats that could fit ten or hundred times as many people. But internal politics in China made it so they recalled all the ships and never became a world power. I think Eunichs were involved in this somehow..)
I'm not even sure there's a natural curiousity among many Americans today to learn about others on this world. More likely, there are some extraordinary individuals (in all different types of cultures) who feel the itch to explore, and they can inspire the rest of us.
As for me, I'm not big personally on exploration of physical space. I like (maybe too much) my cloistered physical isolation in NYC. I think space journeys CAN tend to inspire us, but that doesn't mean the space launches we are doing now inspire us. We aren't even going back to the moon at this point. I don't think people have been paying attention to space shuttles for quite a while. With the challenger explosion, many people were watching the launch and saw the disaster as it happened. The grief was far more immediate then. Now it is more adopted for many people, I would suspect, though I'm not sure. (Oh, there's so much about Star Trek one could say now, but I'll hold my tongue on Kirk being American, and especially about that sometimes sexist and retro show 'Enterprise.' I'm glad I'm a star wars fan.)
Interesting article in the Times about the "president"'s plan to vaccinate 500,000 health care workers against smallpox. According to the Times,
Public-health and hospital officials concede that they are struggling to find volunteers. Many health workers say they are skeptical that an attack is imminent and fear having a bad reaction to the vaccine or infecting a patient or relative with it.
As far as I've heard, the vaccine isn't dangerous, and it's easy to argue that safer is better. But even the CDC states specifically that there is no reason to believe that smallpox presents an imminent threat.
So, I wonder - again - what do we have to gain as a country by this culture of fear? What are the implications, the nuances of programs like these, sensational non-sensical reactions to chimerical events? It's something like our parents learning to run and hide under their desks in case of a nuclear war. It's sick, really, all these children in the sixties who would have been vaporized while they pathetically attempted to hide under their desks. Maybe even more sick that they were taught this at all - that they had to live with the fear of some impending doom.
So why this culture of fear? Why vaccinate against a mythical plague? Everyone knows that if managed properly, and with any number of agents, huge segments of our population could easily be taken. It's like the desk routine. But now, it seems like maybe people are realizing the idiocy of it. And yet, the "president" pushes it. Why? Well, maybe when you have an invisible, constantly looming enemy, it's easier to ignore the fallacies of the present government. And maybe if we're afraid we'll all turn into flag-waving patriots.
If you ever get bored, look at these frustrating stats about Bush's approval rating, then follow the links back in time. Here's a man who was this functionally illiterate [well, still is] who won on his opponent's weakness and then won not a majority, but the EC only after because the SC upheld his right not to have the ballots recounted while acconting for their flaws, a man who was staring idly as our economic bubble began to burst. Then, a few thousand people die - priorities again - and he's got a 74% approval rating for being there. The media can't touch him anymore, and no one points out the inanity of his FaithBased, Educational, communicative, tax, and diplomatic decisions... well, what happens when people start noticing that he's doing an awful job, that they don't have jobs, and that most of the world hates us? It's almost as if someone were trying to steer us away from that realization. Now, did I mention that there's an unfathomable threat of smallpox looming? Get under your desks...
For Tim's thought. For those of us who disagree, of course it's not excessive : )
And interestingly, if one complains that America is ignorant of the space program until there's tragedy, perhaps it is a good thing that many people who never thought about it before will have the opportunity to be involved now. Even being previously interested in it myself, I've learned something new.
Posted by Jonathan,
1:46 AM
-
Thursday, February 06, 2003 Prime Minister Questioned
I'm watching Prime Minister Blair on C-Span 2 on an interview show where he is getting very tough questions from the interviewer and from articulate people in the audience. They are showing him little deference: after one of Blair's answers, the interviewer sighed like Al Gore. I wish the United States' leaders would be questioned so pointedly. It is sad we apparently do not have this culture of political debate.
Update: Well, watching some of the show, the British are both more civilized and more rude. The interviewers said to Blair: aren't you embarassed to be called America's foreign minister? People are saying you're a poodle. I would love to see Bush be interviewed like that, and see his nimble replies.
Update II: I just found out Atrios has linked to the transcript of the above referenced show. Read it!
To those of you who complain of the excessive media coverage of the columbia disaster and those who disagree: isn't our extended discussion of this as excessive?
Indeed the Columbia disintegration was a tragedy. I care for science and the exploration of our universe, and I understand what a setback this is for our nation's manned space program. Fortunately, the question most people are asking is not "should we continue to send humans into space" but "how can we prevent this from happening again." (coincidentally, it looks like NASA is finally looking to send humans to Mars even in the wake of this disaster). Those fallen seven ought to be honored as heroes for their working to make life better here on Earth (and this was the reason I contacted Jared in the first place, as no one but Jon was responding to his dishonorable post).
As for the media, what would you expect? There's no news like bad news.
I think the whole Columbia debate has gotten off track: the issue isn't whether or not what happened was a tragedy. Of course it was. But the media coverage of the disaster was completely out of proportion, and in keeping with the media sensationalism that's so discouragingly rampant nowadays.
Here are some thoughtful articles (here, here, and here) on the Columbia disaster that are critical of the American (and Isreali) response, without coming off as callous or unfeeling. I think that's what Jared was getting at in his earlier posts (thanks to Arts and Letters Daily).
So everyone, enjoy Carnival and stop insulting each other, please!
For those of you interested in a rebuttal to claims that the Kurds were not gassed by Iraqis at Halabja, check out thesetwo Slate articles.
Posted by Timothy,
5:45 PM
-
I wonder if our readers are as funny as our detractors
Some of you may be reading this site because you recently received a mass blitz (sounds nicer than spam) from us alerting you to our presence. It read as follows:
From: freedartmouth Subject: Re: not getting enough...
liberal talk?
freedartmouth.com
So how about I post a selection of the funniest responses in batches of three for the next week or so.
This will be hillarity in a can, folks.
** not getting enough liberal talk? Is this some sort of joke? Someone on your directorate or staff should do me the honor of not blitzing me this. Waligore, Dellatore, someone.
I mean, as a general courtesy....
Terribly sorry, old chap. We owe you, at the very least, a smoked kipper breakfast.
** Where do I go if i'm getting too much?
Hmm.... have you tried Hell?
** i hate liberals
What a coincidence! Because we hate you too! Really!!! ;-) **
Posted by Clint,
3:47 PM
-
Another Insightful Analysis of Iraq
Posted by Jonathan,
3:32 PM
-
I... ...am not sorry to have defended my argument, nor do apologize if eludicdating a point that some perhaps find "beating a dead horse" is bothersome; I do not offer such critiques of the "value" of the posts of others. Further, if my "points are weak and out of context," I am content to stand on the remark I made in said points about justifying such accusations, and as that has not been done, content to rest on my last post. Oh, aside from noting that Brad's use of the Lord's name in vain offends me deeply : )
Posted by Nikhil,
10:49 AM
-
Whew. Jon, your points are weak and your quotes out of context. Fortunately, the archives are up. And, Brad, you're right, I'm sorry for my part in this. I still stand firm in my stance that our nation was ridiculous about the shuttle blowing up, but, you others have a valid point that it doesn't matter, people are obviously also somewhat concerned about other stuff, that it's hard to pay attention to more abstract ideas like mass starvation and death, and that space exploration is in fact a good idea. My world is rocked with these ideas, and I can't wait to go home and absorb them.
Since Mr. Alessandroni seems so intent on clouding things with rhetoric and denying things that he originally said (relegating them as "unimportant," and "not the point," rather than answering them), let's go line by line.
It could be argued that the very nature of the thought process - being conservative - doesn't allow for dissent. In fact, easily.
Not worth answering. I am only conservative compared to someone who must resort to ad hominem attacks to make an empty point.
Jon, read my post. My gripe wasn't about AIDS, it was about an inability to see beyond the Fox view of the world.
...but in the original
Maybe America likes to define itself by its tragedies because we can't admit to how little we care about each other or the rest of the world. 9,000 people died today of AIDS, and 7 of flying in a space shuttle. This nation loves to pretend that we care so much about human life - but we could do so much more to prevent its loss and it doesn't even cross our minds that we should.
Your post is not essentially about AIDS, yet it is the only example you provide of something "better" to care about. Likewise, I could make the same substitution in my reply. Furthermore, I'm not sure if you believe your post to be about "an inability to see beyond the Fox view of the world," but having never mentioned Fox at all in it, having spent 122 out of 276 words talking about Israel to set up the example you want to make about the US (perhaps your post should be interpreted to be about Israel?) and roughly 8% of your words speaking about AIDS...hell, that's not even important. The point is, it is appropriate to take you up on anything you've said, as my example:
"And yes, while your post may be about "politicizing the issue," if I write a post about the elephant population of the Indian Subcontient and then add the comment "India should launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Pakistan," I should hope that if someone wished to address the latter point, they would not be barred because they did not choose to address why elephants are f*cking rapidly enough to keep up a stable population. (I don't really know if that's the case, it's just an example)"
should make rather clear. Your only response?
Your elephant example is just inane.
Try calling it reductio ad absurdum. It's a technique you often use, yourself, whether you mean to or not. It must've been a rather effective reduction, since rather than address the logic you've just called it "inane" and moved on.
Your argument about no one caring about no one bothering or whatever blathering crap you were aiming to express has nothing to do with my point that our focus is unfortunately misguided.
You're right, it doesn't have much to do with your original post. But it does have much to do with your "withering counterargument" to my post:
made the same case for these people dying for a cause, but for all you argued at the hollowness of my argument, you certainly and no one has really made such an argument for what the cause they supposedly died for was. Scientific? This nation doesn't care about science, and if you talk to all the people who dream of going into space, science or world peace - ironically one of the points made by our peer at Cornell - these are not the reasons.
The only way that makes any point is if you are saying they did not die for any of those causes just because people on the ground "are ignorant" of those causes. Actually, you also discount quite a few without any reason, and yet summarily offer as the a priori reason that:
People want to fly to the stars, and they add reasons later.
Justification please? None of that, though, merely further disqualification without justification:
But you can't talk about higher goals, higher anything, and in fact, it kills me that no one sees the problem with the logic.
Perhaps people have a hard time seeing "a problem with the logic" because there is no problem with the logic. The deduction is sound, can't help it if you have an unjustifiable problem with the premises. Further:
This elite group of people lived a dream, they did what many people have said, i'd like to do that before I die, and the kicker is, they made it. And we're mourning for them. Mourning.
Alright, you're living the dream of many Americans right now - wealthy, Ivy League education, etc., etc. I'll remind people who know you not to mourn you when you go, and instead to worry immediately about some other, more pressing problem.
I never said they didn't have other priorities, just that it sucks that they care so much more about symbols than other, logically unless you have star-envy, more important events.
How do you know? Could it be that these are just:
Your sort of immature wonderings on my opinions of the masses, your inane rhetorical question, maybe...the priorities of those are just as noble.... What crap.
Personally, if I had written it, I would've tried to have a little more tact, but you said it better yourself, I suppose. But let's be more to the point:
I didn't say that they didn't die for a scientific cause
...oh?
no one has really made such an argument for what the cause they supposedly died for was. Scientific? This nation doesn't care about science, and if you talk to all the people who dream of going into space, science or world peace - ironically one of the points made by our peer at Cornell - these are not the reasons.
Now what was it you didn't say (sorry to repeat that quote)? In light of that, I would say that my comment:
"How many people in this country really "care" about AIDS in Africa? Isn't that essentially your gripe? But now you're saying that if no one cares, it doesn't matter? So if no one cares, no one should laud the people that cure it? Why should anyone even bother trying? Because, I mean, "someone," being part of "anyone," shouldn't care, either. "
is certainly sensible and logical. While you may claim it doesn't get to the thematic argument of your original post, it certainly addresses the claim you've made just above, and unless, again, you wish to argue that some of your claims are not available for response, it seems pretty reasonable. But you seem to wish yourself not to be open to reply on some issues on this, your "JaredBlog" and so you've chosen to indicate that any arguments contra-you are made only because the poster is:
Unless I'm so so so angry..., oh, I just can't let it go... oh oh oh.
In fact, until Mr. Alessandroni finds some direct way to address the actual logical criticisms that are on the table, rather than slighting their posters, or what he considers to be their poster's sentimentality, or brushes the posts off as missing "the main point," I am content to cease to address his arguments. They are, as my "friends" at the Review once called me, "shrill and inane." Conservatives together, after all, I suppose. Maybe if I am so conservative, I should ask for a spot on Dartlog. Grossman? Emmett?
Posted by Jonathan,
8:49 AM
-
Archives Are Backl Sorry about that!
It could be argued that the very nature of the thought process - being conservative - doesn't allow for dissent. In fact, easily.
Jon, read my post. My gripe wasn't about AIDS, it was about an inability to see beyond the Fox view of the world. I didn't say that they didn't die for a scientific cause, I said that the reason people care doesn't have anything to do with that. Why are you so angry about my posts against the diefication of these men and women? Your argument about no one caring about no one bothering or whatever blathering crap you were aiming to express has nothing to do with my point that our focus is unfortunately misguided.
These people died living their dream - good. Who cares if they took more risk? Doesn't that mean it should be less likely for a bunch of overly dramatic half-wits to go teary over them? I mean, how is it more tragic that they guy who stood in the empty field got hit by lightning, than the one who was in his car?
Your elephant example is just inane.
And, I never said that my position was unique. You, our friends at the Dartlog, and our peer from Cornell are all happily adding context to my posts, but yes, most societies care about symbols, and demagogues running the country? No, I couldn't imagine that...
The gentleman from Cornell is actually the initial owner of this site, he set it up with Laura, in case you're wondering how he's associated to this Blog. But, as for your dramatic and excessive post, I regret that you won't respond with another, final post on the subject, answering the original question that my post was meant to bring up. Why doesn't it suck that people are so obsessed with symbols?
Your sort of immature wonderings on my opinions of the masses, your inane rhetorical question, maybe...the priorities of those are just as noble.... What crap. I never said they didn't have other priorities, just that it sucks that they care so much more about symbols than other, logically unless you have star-envy, more important events. Either way, get over your astronauts - enjoy the fact that you and your Review friends agree that a few lucky people are much more important than thousands of others, even when you have the advantage of having it on your mind that else may be the case. And, I'm sorry for this personal - I mean ad hominem - slight - I just couldn't get over your bidding of goodnight and then your final negative comparison between ourselves or myself at least and the Reviewers. Bloggers, readers, I bid you goodnight. Unless I'm so so so angry..., oh, I just can't let it go... oh oh oh.
Posted by Jared,
3:03 AM
-
It strikes me as funny that no matter how loathsome some of us are wont to think certain Reviewers, their blog never degenerates into ad hominem slights against its own posters. And liberals wonder why conservatives have coalesced so nicely these past few decades...
You could easily argue that they died for a scientific cause. Just because no one in the country "cares" about science (some do...I do, I know some other people do...but I guess we don't count if you want to libel the ignorant masses, right?), doesn't mean it's not a good cause. How many people in this country really "care" about AIDS in Africa? Isn't that essentially your gripe? But now you're saying that if no one cares, it doesn't matter? So if no one cares, no one should laud the people that cure it? Why should anyone even bother trying? Because, I mean, "someone," being part of "anyone," shouldn't care, either.
You're right, those astronauts did get to live a dream in the process. More power to them. They also lived the dream knowing that statistically, flying in the space shuttle gives you a 1 in 145 chance of experiencing a "catastrophic disaster". Yes, it's less than 1%, but it's still not such good odds. I suppose they risked those odds, selfishly, for a dream, with families at home waiting for them? In perspective, your odds of dying in an airplane disaster are something like 1 in 1.6 million, and even in a car accident are 1 in 6800.
And yes, while your post may be about "politicizing the issue," if I write a post about the elephant population of the Indian Subcontient and then add the comment "India should launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Pakistan," I should hope that if someone wished to address the latter point, they would not be barred because they did not choose to address why elephants are f*cking rapidly enough to keep up a stable population. (I don't really know if that's the case, it's just an example)
It's interesting that you assume that you are unique in coming to the grand realization that everyone else is perhaps paying an irrational amount of attention to this symbolic loss. Apparently our "one-track" media considered it, too. And maybe - just maybe - some of those "Fox News" watchers, while having a rather questionable news source, have some priorities - other than the loss of the space shuttle ("symbols" more broadly) - that they care about...and continued to care about even while the biggest news story going on at the time (what was bigger?) received the most airtime. And possibly - bear with me here - the priorities of those are just as noble as any you could conceive. In fact, if you think it is unlikely that the average American cares about things other than symbols, you may as well abandon hope for the US, because if that is the case, demagogues will run the country ad infinitum.
Incidentally, the gentleman from Cornell - I suspect it is the same one - blitzed me this morning in support of my post. He was unhappy he couldn'tve said it himself. While I was happy my post resonated with him, his inability to post to our blog was not troubling, being as how your original post was in no way personally related to him, nor is he a Dartmouth student. However, I think it is rather juvenile of you, even if you don't name him, to initiate ad hominem attacks against him. I would take more offense at the barbs directed at me, but having known you for some time, I am well aware manners in discourse, if you possess them, are points that are not often shown. Thus, beyond this, expect no more response from me to such comments. Bloggers, readers, I bid you goodnight.
Chien Wen on the Dartmouth Observer has some bad criticisms of Laura. But I don't understand Laura's mocking of the government department's neutrality (the type of argument she uses, about what speaking in a disappationate tone hides, works in many cases, but not here with this department not speaking). Nationwide, all or almost all of the prominent professors of international relations are AGAINST the war in Iraq. Kenneth Waltz, the founder of neorealism, is against it, as is offensive realist John Mearsheimer at U Chicago. These are not simply wishy-washy liberals (Mearsheimer thinks we should do everything to contain China. And don't even try 'IR professors are generally liberal' because IR's dominant theory is realism). I wonder why conservatives at the Dartmouth observer don't call for these professors to be on CNN? Stam is in the minority among his profession. Robert Jervis, Betts, and bunch of other names you read in intro (and advanced) IR are against a war in Iraq. So if you want to talk about 'dispassionate reasoning', how do explain that?
Dartmouth Observer crap Also, it is hard to take conservatives like Vijay and Frank Webb seriously when they call for dispassionate discourse on the Dartmouth observer. I love 'em, but in person they are ideological. And any site whose administrators have Andrew Sullivan-like idiot awards (including one named after a current student) is hardly one that is engaged purely in promoting dispassionate discourse. What really belies the idea that they really have a variety of partisan perspectives is that they constantly assert things as if they were obvious and expect them not to be disputed when they would be controversal in another context. Those awards often present something as idiotic when it's debateable (witness Mr. Stevenson's long post about one award, in which he lifts the ideas of Micheal Walzer, and also 'slanders' Peres by basically calling him anti-Zionist as if that was a matter of clear fact). As for the observer being multi-partisan: that is what their mission statement said now, but they can hardly pretend they didn't once claim otherwise: when I first looked at the observer, John Stevenson was calling for less politics and partisanship. I think they took some of my and Laura's previous criticism of the concept of 'non-partisan' to heart. They should also understand where Laura is coming from now if they even want to pretend to have a site that forsters interesting intellectual exchanges and encourages openness to understanding a wide variety of 'multi-partisan' perspectives. For now, they have mostly a bunch of conservatives adopting this pose of prentiousness dispassionate (and false) intellectualism.
Posted by Timothy,
1:00 AM
-
While Kim Jong Il is one of the people in the world I'd soonest enjoy seeing dead, I still thoroughly enjoy the irony of his comments and the headlines he makes.
I wonder if Ari Fletcher and his N.Korean counterpart know each other...
Behind the humor of it, however, is a threat far more problematic than that of Iraq; the situation more complex with a real U.S. ally and several strong economies & allies (Japan, South Korea) and one that as a result requires far more discussion and analysis. If one were to attatch a glimmer of truth to Kim Jong Il's random claims and threats, he is a far less containable threat and one that appears rather senile and irrational at that.
Regards
Nikhil
Posted by Nikhil,
12:30 AM
-
Wednesday, February 05, 2003 Objective?
I'd like to address the criticism of Laura by Chien Wen Kung. Obviously Kung is being as partisan as ever. The continued rush of conservatives to claim that their positions are "sensible" or "objective" is completely disingenuous. At the Why War? Why Not? discussion, I thought that both Edsforth and Stam provided clear arguments. However, Professor Montegomery's question about the loss of Stam's critical lens when it comes to Iraq points out an important point. Stam claimed to be aware that the reasons that the Bush administration are putting forth to the public could not possibly be their real motives for invading Iraq. He commented that "no serious person thinks that Iraq is a threat to America," or something to that effect. This is probably why VP Dick said back in '01 that "if we go against Saddam Hussein, we lose our rightful place as the good guy." Why? Maybe because as of '98 UNSCOM declared that 95% of Iraq's biological weaponry and the program to produce them had been destroyed. I am sick of the Republican Party using scare tactics for political gain. Why not tell the public what both Prof Stam and Prof Edsforth seemed to agree on. The coming war is not about national security. Because nobody would go for it. For what it's worth, I need to counter professor Stam on one point. At the end of the talk, he said that if we can't think of a better path than war we must support it. He also seemed to believe that war is the only way to move forward from the sanctions, which have failed. First, the sanctions have failed on a variety of levels. Saddam is still in power, Iraqi civilians are being starved to death by the sanctions. Second, war is not the only way to move forwards with the goal of improving conditions in Iraq. Why not write new policy? Why not increase humanitarian aid WITHOUT dropping bombs first? I don't claim to have all the answers. But that doesn't mean that we should bomb a country for our own lack of creativity. The onus should be on those out to kill thousands of people to prove that there are no other options. This march to war was paced by the desire to fight and the delay of finding a reason that the administration could fool enough of the public into believing so that it was politically viable.
Posted by Graham,
11:12 PM
-
In Defense of Free Speech (And Myself)
Chien Wen Kung took issue with my response to Frank Webb's comments on the "Observer" yesterday. He made 5 points in particular, which I will try to address here.
1) For the last time, we're a multi-partisan blog, not a non-partisan blog. And stop using the quote marks around Observer - we're not socially-constructed! Now "Free" Dartmouth on the other hand...
Last I checked, I still have the right to put quote marks around any word that I so choose. It seems that plenty of conservatives on this campus are frustrated by a liberal blog using the word “free”. Guess what guys: conservatives may have tried to appropriate the political ideals of freedom and self-determination for their own ends, but historically it has been those on the left of the spectrum in this country that have defended such ideas. In the 1960s, conservative professors and Presidential administrations tried to censor student speech. It was leftist campus activists who fought for such freedoms as conservatives stood by. And in the 50s, of course, most conservatives were too caught up in McCarthyist communist paranoia to care much either way about free speech. The Free Press gives a damn about freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and if that isn’t already abundantly evident, check out our next issue.
2) Frank has an ideological position - most people do. But I give him credit for trying to be rational and intelligent about it. Would you prefer that he resort to rhetoric and bluster?
Of course Frank has an ideological position: that is to be expected, and I applaud him for taking one at all, considering the apathy that is still pervasive in this country. By claiming that Stam is an intelligent observer, and not upholding a highly partisan and hotly debated issue, however, Webb continues a long tradition of partisanship cloaked with the somehow nobler appeals to reason and scientific detachment.
3) I don't understand your use of the phrase, "oh-so politically-neutral Government department." Was that meant as sarcasm? The link you provide suggests that the Government department as a whole IS neutral, because it does not fund political activism. I can't speak about the individual professors (although Vijay assures me that they're mostly Democrats).
My reason for linking to the article in question was simply to point out that, though the Government Department would not fund anti-war activists because that is not “appropriate,” one of their ranks is happy to engage in a very public campus debate, arguing against the war. Of course that is Stam’s right; I simply think it is interesting that the Government Dept pulled the same neutrality claim that Webb uses when describing Stam’s clearly not neutral position.
4) Laura, you weren't even at the debate. How then can you counter Frank's claim simply by trotting out a quote from Roland Barthes? Would you care to explain Barthes's own ideological position? And yours? While both professors employed rhetoric - Frank should acknowledge this - I have to say I found Stam's argument more convincing. Edsforth spent a lot of time criticizing the Bush administration's policies by bringing up the motivations for the war. But what matters more? Motivations or consequences? What he could not provide, however, was a viable alternative policy towards Iraq. Stam, on the other hand, pointed out the bad record the US has had in the Middle East, but he argued that instead of letting that record persist, the US should rectify it by invading Iraq. Such an invasion would be morally-justified in more ways than one. Edsforth acknowledged the human rights question, but he seemed to have very little to say about how the international community should stop Saddam from committing genocide against his own people.
Here we go again. First of all, in my post I made no comment about the actual content of the debate. I didn't praise Edsworth, nor did I criticize Stam. I criticized Frank for the content of his post, and nothing more. Now, Chien Wen Kung, detached and rational observer, believes that Stam was more convincing. Of course, it is implied, most (who are as rational as Mr. Kung, of course) would come to the same conclusion. Kung doesn’t mention that he was already a supporter of war with Iraq (at least he was the last time we discussed this, a week or so ago). This is precisely why “Observer” will go into quotes in my posts. By laying claim to the neutral eyewitness position, various posters to that blog attempt to pass off their right-leaning opinions as “truths,” which is exactly what Barthes calls the “capital sin” of criticism. I would add, in this case, that it is also the capital sin of blogging.
5) Once again, I'd like to draw your attention to this article, in which Saddam's personal bodyguard spills the beans on Saddam's hidden weapons programme.
Apparently Kung believes that Saddam’s turncoat bodyguard is another completely trustworthy detached bystander. There’s no reason to think that, just perhaps, Mahmoud's “sensational claims” are motivated by a tad more than zeal to protect the West from an evil dictator with plans for nuclear war. Now, in the article Kung links to, it is mentioned that, “Israeli intelligence sources have hinted that the deal with Mahmoud included smuggling his family out of Iraq.” The incentive of escaping a war-threatened country (safely, with one’s family) and connections with an ill-fated Saddam couldn’t possibly have influenced Mahmoud, right? He’s just another “observer”…
Posted by Laura,
8:43 PM
-
Bush's Budget Makes Reagan look Liberal
There's a misperception in the media that Bush is driving up federal deficits by simply pushing his tax cut agenda while leaving federal spending programs relatively untouched. This is completely FALSE. Bush is making massive increases in defense and right-wing conservative agenda items while giving the finger to more traditional anti-poverty programs. Also the whole notion of "giving states flexibility" is TOTAL BULL. That is the Bush administration's code language for cutting states' budgets and then sticking them with the blame for throwing people out of health care and safety net programs.
The Washington Post's Jonathan Weisman writes: "On the spending side, the president would hold most domestic spending outside the military and homeland defense at or below inflation levels." Bush's overall non-defense budget may not be much lower than last year's, but most of the core anti-poverty programs will have to disenroll participants in order to account for inflation.
"New controls would be placed on poverty programs, such as the earned income tax credit, school lunch subsidies and Medicaid, to ensure that billions of dollars in subsidies do not go to people not entitled to them. Two huge entitlement programs -- Medicare and Medicaid -- would be in for changes that would push millions of senior citizens into private-sector managed health plans while giving states far more control over their own health care spending." This one is classic "compassionate conservatism" -- we'll put new "anti-fraud" controls on poverty programs giving kids a lunch for $1 per day, and meanwhile do everything possible to weaken the anti-corporate fraud laws that cost middle class Americans BILLIONS in lost retirement savings.
"'I am absolutely delighted he is doing so much more than people had any right to expect,' said Dan Mitchell, a tax analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation. 'I'm almost to the point where I might smile.'" ...those of us who actually give a crap about people making less than six figures can look forward to plenty of smiles when Bush's domestic policy approval rating plummets.
Number of Iraqis and Americans who, doctors say, might die in the next war: 48,000 to 260,000
Number of additional deaths expected from the civil war within Iraq following an invasion: 20,000
Number of additional deaths expected from "post-war adverse health effects": 200,000
Wait, why should we start a war with Iraq? Oh right, it's the moral obligation of the United States. Glad we got this cleared up.
Posted by Laura,
5:39 PM
-
Hi. Some of you know me, most of you probably do not. Some of you I know, I good many of you I have not had the pleasure to meet. I'm a '05, sophomore, and am worthy of the title (ask me why). Thanks for inviting me here!
Anthony
Posted by Anthony,
4:13 PM
-
The BBC reports that after an appeal by the Mexican government the Int'l Court of Justice has requested that the United States stay the execution of 5 of 51 Mexicans on death row, as they were denied consular help from the Mexican embassy. Is the United State's treatment of foreigners in its courts legal? And would it 'allow' other countries to do the same to its citizens. I think the case of Michael Fay and others show quite strongly that this is not the case.
The United States has shirked its responsibility to international conventions by withdrawing from them (read Kyoto), not signing them or simply ignoring them on the argument that the United States constitution comes first, and that the countries primary loyalties are to its citizens and soldiers and so forth may be compromised by applications of international law.
Somehow I don't buy the argument that the International Court of Justice, the Kyoto Protocol, or the Universal convention on the rights of the child (which every country save Somalia and the United States has ratified) could easily compromise U.S. citizens or the constitution.
Posted by Nikhil,
3:49 PM
-
Just because you can't wrap you little head around something...
Doesn't mean it's okay that you don't try.
Several people have argued about my inherent cynicism about our country because of a recent post on the Challenger - I mean Columbia - tragedy. Right, I italicized tragedy.
It's funny, Jon, I was talking to this kid from Cornell, one of those I'm not racist, but look at the numbers, kill the Arabs kinda guys, and he made the same case for these people dying for a cause, but for all you argued at the hollowness of my argument, you certainly and no one has really made such an argument for what the cause they supposedly died for was. Scientific? This nation doesn't care about science, and if you talk to all the people who dream of going into space, science or world peace - ironically one of the points made by our peer at Cornell - these are not the reasons. People want to fly to the stars, and they add reasons later. Not that this is bad or anything, and in fact, I wanted to be an astronaut when I was a little kid, too. But you can't talk about higher goals, higher anything, and in fact, it kills me that no one sees the problem with the logic. This elite group of people lived a dream, they did what many people have said, i'd like to do that before I die, and the kicker is, they made it. And we're mourning for them. Mourning.
And saying we're obsessed with symbols is not psychoanalysis, it's social commentary. Moses said it, too.
In any case, my post, lest you actually read it, was in reference to the politicizing of the issue, how Israel was like, oh, poor us, and, to quote myself, how we were similarly politicizing. But I reassert, not that we will change, not that we even should, not that anyone else is much better (though most other countries' news sources actually talk about other stuff), not that our country is doomed because of it - just like I said in my original post, it sucks that all we can think about are symbols, and maybe you Fox News don't talk so mean 'bout my couhntray people can actually respond to that - can actually tell me it doesn't suck. I feel like Hitler had a few arguments on the subject.
Posted by Jared,
2:36 PM
-
More Sexual Mores (Or, What The Hell Is Going On Here?)
It's looks like kids aren't the only ones having less sex in America: for various reasons, married people aren't getting much either. Maybe this collective lack of sexual activity is what makes us such a belligerent country: if you can't make love, perhaps you do have to make war...
The Atlantic's assertion in the same article that: "Dr. Phil...has an uncannily precise sense of what American women in the aggregate are thinking about" has also deeply disturbed me. Why does that sort of cliche-reciting Texan speak to America's sensibilites? I think we're in more trouble than we thought.
Posted by Laura,
12:57 PM
-
Posturing Partiality in The Dartmouth
While Stam supported the war for moral reasons, Edsforth stressed his opposition to any military involvement in Iraq.
Stam : Moral Edsforth: Opposed
Let's say it again:
Stam : Moral Edsforth: Just plain old opposed.
It didn't help that the author of this piece could be seen vigorously clapping for Stam--and nearly stone silent for Edsforth.
Posted by Clint,
11:05 AM
-
(Even More) Posturing Impartiality on the Dartmouth "Observer"
I really enjoyed this little bon mot of Frank Webb's I read on the Observer today, regarding the recent Iraq war debate on campus:
Someone should put Stam on CNN so that people can hear this point of view more often, one devoid of rhetoric from either Doves or Hawks and merely a well-thought out analysis of policy.
Stam, of course, was the pro-war advocate from the oh-so-politically-neutral Government Department. Now, the implication is that when Edsworth (his opponent) makes statements against the war, he is using dirty rhetoric to appeal to those gullible (and probably communistic) anti-war activists. When Stam makes his points, however, it is merely "analysis," and totally neutral. I am reminded of a great comment Roland Barthes makes regarding literary criticism, which can be applied here to political analysis(no, he wasn't perfect, but his point here is perfectly articulated):
Ideology is smuggled into the baggage of scientism like contraband merchandise. Criticism is more than discourse in the name of "true" principles. It follows that the capital sin in criticism is not ideology but the silence by which it is masked.
Mr. Webb, please spare us the fatuous appeal to detached rationalism and admit your (rather glaringly obvious) ideological leanings.
Jon and his NyQuil made an indirect point -- that the attention/casualty ratio of the Columbia disaster, relative to the death toll of AIDS, is high not because America is full of uncaring, jaded assholes. It's because human psycology can't wrap its mind around 9,000 quiet deaths mostly on another continent, whereas tragedy that explodes over your head and scatters toxic materials across three states gives one something tangible to think about. Media plays a crucial role in how we absorb tragedy. What was it about September 11th that affected us so much -- the raw death toll, or the images of individual people leaping from skyscrapers, stories of brave things individual firefighters or airline passengers did, and the unending repetition of footage of the towers falling? Or, think about John Hersey's Hiroshima and its effect on us, for a less contemporary example.
Jon and his NyQuil made an indirect point -- that the attention/casualty ratio of the Columbia disaster, relative to the death toll of AIDS, is high not because America is full of uncaring, jaded assholes. It's because human psycology can't wrap its mind around 9,000 quiet deaths mostly on another continent, whereas tragedy that explodes over your head and scatters toxic materials across three states gives one something tangible to think about. Media plays a crucial role in how we absorb tragedy. What was it about September 11th that affected us so much -- the raw death toll, or the images of individual people leaping from skyscrapers, stories of brave things individual firefighters or airline passengers did, and the unending repetition of footage of the towers falling? Or, think about John Hersey's Hiroshima and its effect on us, for a less contemporary example.
For anyone who was planning to attend, it looks like the party was actually tonight in Fuel. Guess the College Republicans (or whoever organized it...the Reagan Fan Club at Dartmouth?) figured they wouldn't get a good showing on February 6th, the actual date of the holiday, because of Winter Carnival festivities.
My nomination for Jon Eisenman's Fantasy Republican Party Party: Former Review editor Laura Ingraham '84 comes back to Dartmouth and goes to Fuel, where she dances with her old flame Dinesh D'souza, quickly gets bored of the whole scene, and flees to the frats to play pong again.
Let's play bookies and each offer some names to show at the Reagan party. Sort of like playing fantasy sports, I guess (I'm big into those). We can call this "Fantasy Republican Party...Party"
Anyone want in?
Posted by Jonathan,
12:43 AM
-
Dulce et decorm est...
Jared Alessandroni Wrote: Maybe America likes to define itself by its tragedies because we can't admit to how little we care about each other or the rest of the world. 9,000 people died today of AIDS, and 7 of flying in a space shuttle. This nation loves to pretend that we care so much about human life - but we could do so much more to prevent its loss and it doesn't even cross our minds that we should. The only human life we notice is symbolic, and when even that explodes in the infinite Texas sky, we fight to pretend it matters.
I've been thinking about these lines an awful lot since I read them, especially because they were pretty much never contested in the replies they garnered. I think Jared skirts the point I would make, instead turning it from a thoughtful observation into a cynical critique of America. It is notable, then, that the same "fight to pretend it matters" has been undertaken in places, like India, as mentioned by Brad (I believe it was). But in all this zeal to psychoanalyze this, perhaps the simple analysis is to say we are upset because these people died for something that many of us, despite in some cases ignorance of the subject, think is noble. Color it however you want, dying miserable and poor of AIDS is not to die for a cause. Proceeding from this, if I may, in way of explanation by analogy: I saved an article from the New York Times Magazine that ran on 2/18/01 entitled "Dr. Matthew's Passion." It's about Ebola, not AIDS, but you'll have to permit me a little leeway. I saved the article because it brought tears to my eyes on reading it. To sum it up, it's about a Ugandan doctor, Western educated, etc. who returned to Uganda and fought an Ebola outbreak in some squalid village hospital. I'm sure you're all familiar enough with Ebola to know that most people that get it die in a rather unpleasant fashion, and in relatively large numbers given the time that the outbreaks last. Anyway, while reading the article, you don't really find yourself moved by the nameless people bleeding to death in said squalid hospital. You don't really find yourself moved until somewhere along the line you realize Dr. Matthew died of Ebola trying to save those suffering of it. The heroes of the AIDS epidemic will be the people that cure it, or those that somehow die trying...never the faceless masses. Slice that however you want, it's just fact. To be visited with the misfortune of disease by either dreadful luck or your own misjudgment is different from dedicating your life to trying to cure the disease in others, or to fight a war (circa 1940, for the last useful one), or to travel to a place of which most of us will only dream (I sure wish I could go) in the name of expanding our knowledge of our World (writ large). On that note, I ask: assuming that rather than disintegrating on re-entry from a scientific mission, a shuttle carrying only a space tourist a la Dennis Tito exploded on the way up. Find someone, other than the guy's family, who would seriously care about it. No good cause = no alarms and no surprises. A particularly rambling post on my part, but the NyQuil is in full effect...also, feel free to blitz if you want the Dr. Matthew article.
Posted by Jonathan,
12:39 AM
-
Tuesday, February 04, 2003 Conservatives Like to Party at Fuel
I was in Collis a few hours ago, and happened to notice one of those white schedules of daily campus events they've got by the Info Desk. Apparently, someone on this campus celebrates "Ronald Reagan Day," (I know, try not to be sick) and the venue of choice is Fuel, the College-run "dance club" in the Collis basement. So, a word to the wise: on February 6 beware of campus conservatives in Collis gettin' down with the aid of Fuel's strobe lighting, all in the name of the "Great Communicator."
At the risk of igniting a thankfully forgotten debate, I can't resist linking to this. Apparently, someone does care about Reagan's astrological forecast. Maybe, deep inside, we all do a little bit. Or maybe not.
I don't think that Bush can be both a hand-puppet and fighting for that in which he believes. I feel like the hand-puppet image is actually less valid than the blind sort of stupid beast that can be trained image.
Brad, I assume you were referring to this WSJ.com "Best of the Web" piece attacking Pelletiere for his take on the gassing of Kurds. They also link to a report, specifically refuting Pelletiere, from Human Rights Watch, certainly a credible source around these parts.
The WSJ ran an op-ed rebutting Pelletiere a few days ago, but I figured anything from the WSJ would be discredited around these parts and didn't bother linking it. My sense of it is that Pelletiere has always been a bit of an oddball. Daniel Pipes has a brief review of the CIA analyst's book on the Iran-Iraq. His account of events just doesn't seem to jibe with ANYONE else's.
Justin linked to an article expressing doubts about whether Saddam Hussein had purposely gassed Kurdish civilians during one massacre, and had asked if there was reason to doubt the writer's account. The only point by point refutation I have seen is this well written New Republic article.
...that Bush is indeed inarticulate, and either lacks the logical capacity to understand his own motivations in rational terms, or the rudimentary verbal ability to explain them to other people. My point was that for whatever reasons, good or bad or just incoherent, Bush is acting on his moral convictions, and not out of self-interest. (Although he may not really understand his own self-interest, either, as long as we're assuming the man's Dick Cheney's hand puppet.)
That's why I mentioned Blair. Tony Blair, on Iraq, is like Bush with syntax and diction.
Posted by Nic,
3:05 PM
-
Nick, I think you meant me...
Don't pick on Brad, and he is morally immature and relatively stupid, for several reasons, not the least of which being that unlike someone who really believes that he should do something, and isn't just riding the tide of his feelings of inadequacy, he can't justify his reasons. He offers no cogent arguments except for the constant repeated speculations that everyone agrees have no firm basis. The immaturity therein lies - if he's so advanced that he has a reason, or even HALF as advanced, that is to say, that he doesn't have a good reason, but has some deeper more sinister plan - too much credit given in my opinion - then he would have some cogent argument, even if it was BS, and it would have at least some background. Even Saddam tells lies to justify, Bush's blind anger isn't half as articulate.
Jared, I'm not sure it's fair to slam Bush for being "morally immature." If you honestly believe he's gambling his approval rating and the last shreds of international respect purely to grab Iraqi oil, fine, but then he's no longer "uncommonly stupid" so much as a diabolical supervillain who has managed to keep his motivations from being leaked to the media while displaying a subtle facade of inarticulate incompetence. More likely, I think, is that Bush is very morally mature by the popular and accurate (I think) Kohlberg scale. Despite the overwhelming disagreement of the majority of the world and at major risk to his own best interest, Bush is pushing for this war (and for most of his other policies) not for mercenary reasons but because he thinks it's the right thing to do. Blair is risking his job for the same reasons. That places Bush in the last stage of moral development -- committment to abstract moral principles over social norms or the opinion of others. Compare this moral sensibility to Clinton's.
Let's say, instead, that moral maturity is sometimes not desirable in a president. To his credit, Bush has consolidated his power in the federal government in pursuit of his vision of the good -- if Bush were infallible, this would be a wonderful thing. The problem is that from his placement of security over civil liberties to his Iraq drum-beating, Bush's vision is neither pragmatic nor right in my own (more correct) moral system. He does not have a "golden core," but he is acting on the assumption that he does.
It's hard to judge a politician from either side on whether they actually believe in something or anything related to their motivations, and in general, if forced to make such a judgment call on someone as uncommonly stupid and morally immature as our "president", I'd vote against his having some mysterious golden core. But the AIDS epidemic is one of the most striking this world has known, and the mere act of addressing it gives me a glimmer of hope not only for him, but for our Nation as a political entity.
Of course, my fear is that Bush will do what he did at the World AIDS conference, safe sex is abstinence, and, no, no condoms for you. The danger of mixing morality and good-intentions is one of the biggest problems with the Faith Based Initiative. Either way, we can hope for the best with Bush.
The Economist never proposed that we should abandon AIDS research. They simply pointed out that, given limited funds, money can sometimes be spent more effectively purchasing cheap malaria nets to benefit 1,000 people vs. buying expensive AIDS drugs to benefit 100 people. But at the same time, yes, you are right. After looking into the numbers a bit, I found out that AIDS *is* in fact the biggest killer in Africa right now at 2 million a year (easily surpassing TB and malaria), and obviously a serious pledge to alleviate this problem is long overdue. My followup question, then, is *where* can the money best be spent? Should we skimp on funding for treatment and make a hard, expensive push for a cure? Should we aim for prevention rather than treatment (birth control, Mr. President)? The current plan seems to emphasize treatment, drugs, etc. Well, who will benefit from this? How many people can this reach? Is this actually going to help out those 42 million orphans in the most effective way possible? Obviously I run the risk of sounding like I don't care about AIDS prevention (not true), but if we're going to spend this much money I'd like to do it in a sensible and effective manner.
As for attitudes towards AIDS, I agree. And unfortunately it still continues. It sickens me that there are people who are afraid to go help out in Africa "because of AIDS" (yes, these people exist!), or afraid to have contact with gay people "because of AIDS." Blah.
Well, at the very least, Bush did seem "genuinely" concerned and ready to break this hesitancy, and ready to recognize that um, we've got ourselves a crisis. Like everyone else, I'll believe it when I see it, but it's encouraging nonetheless...
I'm not going to comment on Bush's new domestic AIDS policy, but like most people, I will applaud him on his SOTU pledge to increase funding for fighting AIDS in Africa. Thanks to The Economist for advocating the "rational" approach to healthcare: how dissappointingly typical. Seems to me that "rationally", an epidemic which is projected to cause 42 million children to be orphaned in Sub-Saharan Africa by 2010 should be a top priority for policy makers the world over. Yes, we should also put money into malaria and cholera treatments, but why can't they go hand and hand? It continues to amaze me that, because the AIDS crisis hit black people and gay men first, it took years for anyone to take it very seriously. Imagine if AIDS had emerged from the Lousiana swamps instead of the African jungle. I bet we'd have a cure by now.
Somewhat off-topic, but what do people think of Bush's new domestic AIDS policies? Are they effective? Could the money be better spent elsewhere? And what about abroad? At least in Africa, it seems like foreign aid could save more lives by attending to small problems, like fighting malaria and cholera (The Economist ran a piece on this over the summer, noting that "rational" health care spending was improving the quality of life in Tanzania). AIDS is an epidemic, yes, and an awful one, but is it really the most pressing issue facing our nation? Or the world? I'm not trying to sound callous at all, but I think it's a question worth asking.
Posted by Brad Plumer,
2:48 AM
-
The connection...
"Brad, what is the heck is this about the 'gay rights' movement?!? I didn't get your connection, and if anything, you'd think awareness of gay and lesbian sex might make us rethink the very concept of virginity and hence, premarital sex."
Yes. (See Laura's post below for the original reference).
Posted by Brad Plumer,
2:37 AM
-
Technicalvirgin.com
Ok, I've resisted, but I am now giving into temptation to link to this site. Beware. But you must check that site out (don't forget the commercials and testimonials) before we can have a truly informed discussion about how the abstinence movement interacts with the Clintonian definition of sex. Kids may be more prudish in that they are less likely to have sex, but we have got to realize how narrowly sex is defined, such that you can be really dirty without that one little thing called 'sex'.
P.S. Brad, what is the heck is this about the 'gay rights' movement?!? I didn't get your connection, and if anything, you'd think awareness of gay and lesbian sex might make us rethink the very concept of virginity and hence, premarital sex.
Egad. I wasn't trying to sound the alarm on teen sex! I was merely trying to show that reports of adolescent frigidity seemed, well, premature. So I typed in "middle school sex" into Google (a favorite pastime these days) and lo, that article appeared. I figured we could discuss the article apart from its potential effect on concerned soccer moms. Apparently not. Well, then check out this, this, and this. Voila. Oral sex is on the upswing. Hopefully one of those links will prove acceptable and convince you of this. Otherwise I'll give up and promise to believe that the nation's children are, indeed, puritans.
Anyways, the adjustment in sexual practices seems like a smart move to me. This way, the kids can have their fun, but still have something to look forward to after marriage. Neh? The influence of gay rights is another interesting theory.
And I don't know how effective those "pathetic" rightwing abstinence harangues actually are. An interesting study conducted in 2000 suggested that schools are teaching real sex education to kids, even in ostensible "abstinence" courses. Hm.
Actually, Jared, I can speak from experience, and you didn't miss much. Nothing ruins the mood like Erlenmeyer flasks rattling in sync with your adolescent thrusting upon the lab table.
I hope this thread of discussion stays publicly visible for days.
I wish I got that kind of play when I was in middle school, especially in science class - it would have been so much more interesting. God, people don't enjoy sex anymore. :(
And, Laura, personal attacks? The dood posted with images of killing thousands of innocent people in a nuclear attack because they have it coming? Someone should personally attack his ass!
Posted by Jared,
12:28 AM
-
Less Pandering Too, While We're At It
I have to go with Jared on the ABC News article: what a piece of sensationalist crap! This sort of alarmist nonsense is one of the reasons I can't watch "news" on TV anymore. The pandering to parents' fears for their children is so blatantly manipulative in that article: "At a middle school outside Baltimore, Md., a couple of 12-year-olds had oral sex in their science class. Their classmates watched, but the teacher didn't see them. (The teacher was suspended and later resigned.) And the kids say it happens at home too, and we parents almost never know." Please. Way to use a random anecdote to freak out "we parents."
I was surprised by this, though: "When I asked the parents what sex was they gave pretty straightforward answers: Any contact with genitals in another person Oral sex or touching genitals" Clearly, more than sexual mores have changed since the 60s. We are also witnessing a redefining of what sex actually is. I think this is a bigger deal than people have made it out to be thus far. Is this the influence of the gay rights movement and a heightening of awareness of different types of sexual relationships? Or is it simply the incredible increase in the open discussion of sex that has changed peoples practices?
In other news, I support Karsten's decision. No need to attack anyone personally, no matter how much you may disagree with them.
As a native of "Dixie" I found the post utterly hillarious--espescially coming from our dear Karsten.
By the way, Scott Anderson was responsible for the recent image shot.
Posted by Clint,
12:00 AM
-
Monday, February 03, 2003 Dixie
Jared, I thought we'd had enough of this by now.
The least defensible part of my post was the use of the word "Dixie" to refer to the original author's reckless (and yes, inhumane) "humor" about dropping the A-bomb on Iraq.
Dixie Chicks? Dixieland Jazz? To which sense of the word Dixie was I making reference? The answer is neither: my use of the word as a pejorative was simply wrong-headed. More importantly, we on the left side of the aisle pride ourselves on avoiding stereotypes and derogatory group speech. I lost sight of this goal and am not prepared to defend my error.
Now, for God's sake, can't we put an end to this self-absorbed discussion?
Posted by Karsten Barde,
11:53 PM
-
For the record:
From the whiteboard of the DFP editorial office:
Posted by scott anderson,
11:49 PM
-
Karsten Karsten Karsten
Calling someone a Dixie Fuck doesn't make you old enough to do anything, but Mr. Gorsche posted something so disgusting I don't think even in private Bush would approve of it, something that alludes to so much hate and so much intolerance that it should be plastered around the school in case someone talks to him by mistake without knowing. And you take all your anger about it back because someone, forget that it might have been anyone, took the post off, not even admitting that it was sick. There are, Karsten, more important things to defend than one-liners, like, one could argue, human decency.
Eh, no one counted back then. :) That article, though, is such crap - ABC News is turning into Fox...
Posted by Jared,
11:34 PM
-
Speech Courses in the Dartmouth Curriculum
From today's D : For the past eight years, Professor Jim Kuypers has been running a one-man show.
As the sole director and professor of Dartmouth's College Office of Speech, Professor Kuypers receives very limited financial support from the College and is only able to offer students four speech courses.
What's the deal with Kuypers? Does his program deserve more funding? Are his courses really as well-liked as this gushing "news" piece argues?
Just asking. I've never taken a Speech class. Tim?
Posted by Karsten Barde,
11:33 PM
-
Good Show Mr. Wilgore! [sic]
I appreciate your support, but I stand by my apology. I'm old enough to know which battles to fight and which bridges to burn. This isn't one of them.
Besides, I can't simultaneously criticize TDR for its cheap shots and unethical practices while flying off the handle myself. There are more important things to defend than angry one-liners. Mr. Gorsche altered his post and so I did the same.
They didn't deserve four apologies. Are you also sorry for being white? They pulled it back - the sick jerk didn't even apologize for being an inhuman bit of crap, and you're like, oh, sorry. God...
Posted by Jared,
10:47 PM
-
Four legs good, two legs bad...
Looks like the purges are getting underway in Zimbabwe.
Posted by Brad Plumer,
10:46 PM
-
I apologize for my recent outburst at a TDR contributor and for being so unforgivably uncivil. Karsten
Posted by Karsten Barde,
6:07 PM
-
More on Dr. Dini
"They've taken prayer out of schools and the Ten Commandments out of courtrooms, so I thought I had an opportunity to make a difference."
I wonder who they are, and where I can send my donations. I mean, really. Interestingly, it seems that the university is, if not supporting, certainly not advocating against Dr. Dini. Nice to see something intelligent come out of Texas.
Just kidding on that last bit - I mean, you make Dells and all (or at least have all the 9 year-old Malaysian girls do it to your specs).
In fact, I'm almost positive my parents had more fun than I do. They told me, and this is the dividing like that I see, Ms. Dellatorre. It's that they talked about their good times, and then caveated it with, but in this day in age.... The honesty with which, or relative honesty, we were educated prevented, for what it's worth, that backlash that they were part of. Our parents generation was fed lies and half-truths about immorality and sex and drugs and such, or else they were just tacitly made to understand that these things were wrong. We were fed half-truths and dressed-up truths. We all saw AIDS, we all saw the junkies, the dead-heads, and the moral judgment that controlled our parents became internal. It wasn't that we would be shunned from society, it was, how could you treat yourself that way? And abstincence? God... the right wing is just pathetic.
Posted by Jared,
12:29 PM
-
Sunday, February 02, 2003 Polluted People
Check out this alarming, though admittedly small study about the levels of various chemical carcinogens in people's bodies. The Environmental Working Group's strongest argument, I think is that chemical companies continue to be able to produce new chemicals and to pollute people's bodies with them, without researching how these chemicals affect the human body over extended periods of time. Let's face it: we are bombarded with artifically produced chemicals throughout our lives. Our meats and vegeatables are fed hormones, our cleaning supplies are loaded with heavy pollutants and carcinogens, and god knows what is in the air we breathe nowadays. I'm not a knowledgable environmentalist (if that isn't already obvious) but I would be very curious to know more about how human bodies are affected over the long term by the various pollutants that we unavoidably are exposed to. At the risk of sounding alarmist, this seems to be a problem whose magnitude will not be realized until serious research is performed...Something that our pro-business administration seems less than interested in pursuing right now. We are too busy planning Iraq war strategies to address the problems in our own homes...An old story, sadly.
There's an interesting Op-Ed in the Friday New York Times written by a former CIA analyst, Stephen C. Pelletiere. Mr Pelletiere questions whether Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 1988 gassing of the Kurds at Halabja. According to Pelletiere, the classified information produced by the US government at the time pointed to Iran's guilt in the gassings(not Iraq's). As Bush appears to have based much of his case for war on Iraq on this issue of Saddam's "gassing of his own people" at Halabja, it seems pretty important to me that we get the story right.
A while ago, Tim posted something which accused the radical left of apologism for Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, and others. I argued that I didn't think we should impulsively write off people who question accepted stories of war crimes and massacres. If true, this is an example of how such stories can be more open to debate than one might think.
I don't actually know very much about this guy Stephen Pelletiere, except that he's been pushing this version of the story since as early as 1990, apparently without much success. If anyone has any information about why this guy shouldn't be trusted, or why his claims should be ignored, as they have been for so long, please share. As an aside, last time, when I posted something by Scott Ritter, someone pointed out that he had charges of pedophilia brought against him, essentially implying that he could not even be trusted with your daughter, let alone the real story of UNSCOM. So I'm curious whether Mr. Pelletiere might not also conveniently turn out to be a pedophile. If anyone can muckrack something like this, I would be quite impressed:)
No seriously, I'd really like to know if there's any good reason why this version of the story should not be believed.
Posted by Justin Sarma,
3:29 PM
-
re: Politics in Tragedy
Jared, I agree, it is ridiculous. But I don't think it's solely an American phenomenon. CNN reports that in India "millions" are grieving for Kalpana Chawla, the first Indian-born women in space. No doubt you could psychoanalyze this a hundred ways: the importance of heroes, the need for public tragedy (just not too much tragedy, mind you), the symbolism of the space program, etc. etc. I'll leave the theoretical urges for quieter moments (there's a thesis topic ready to go), only to note that America is certainly not alone on this.
So I just got a chance to see the print copy of The Nation in which Mr. Waligore's article appears.
The cover is a cute cartoon. The back cover is a full page color ad by that most progressive of news sources, Fox News, thanking "the American People" for making them "the most watched, most trusted news channel."
Someone over in Murdoch land is playing a big trick on us. It reminds me of the pro drug war ad the feds ran in The Nation couple of issues ago.
Well, I supose the joke is on them. Thanks to the forces of conservatism for subisidisng my favorite publication.
Posted by Clint,
1:50 PM
-
Some Sex With Your Politics
A few weeks ago, a professor I know mentioned how "sexually repressed" and "puritanical" our generation was. Somewhat shocked, I asked her what she meant. She described students who considered love poetry to be immoral, and a class she taught in which a student asserted that if one really loves someone, they would not have sex. My first reaction was not to believe it. After all, sex is what pop culture is all about. We're the MTV generation, right? But searching quickly on the web has made me rethink this: as a generation, we seem to be more like a throwback to the conservative 1950s. We trust authority figures, and play by the rules to get ahead within the system. The Alan Guttnacher Institute (highly reliable statistics, despite the political affiliation with Planned Parenthood...even the anti-abortion orgs accept their stats) notes, "[s]ome observers have claimed that the declines [in teenage pregnancy] are the result of increased abstinence." Even searching Google for "teenage sex statistics," the sponsored links are all abstinence sites, which seem to proliferate on the web.
Thinking about Dartmouth in particular, even though the random hook-up is an institution of sorts here, I also know many people (both conservative and left-leaning) who are opposed to most, if not all, pre-marital sex. Now, the question becomes: why are we like this? Is it the AIDS epidemic which has scared us into abstinence? Or is it the Christian right, with its "abstinence only" sex ed? Don't we all sometimes wish for the days of free love and letting it all hang out, despite the obvious pitfalls that ended that lifestyle very quickly? Does anyone ever get the feeling that our parents had more fun than we did? Now that's a scary thought...
It was also disturbing to see Israel play so politically with the death of their astronaut. I do think it's unfortunate that the Iraqi people could look upon this tragedy so harshly, but they are just as ridiculous in their equivocation - that this is God's punishment - as the "administration", the press, and especially Israel have been in talking about their New Nightmare. This has nothing to do with the Holocoaust. This has nothing to do with their struggle against the people whose land they've spent the last half a century taking more and more of. It was a flight where something went wrong, and that's too bad, but it's not right to use this to increase the enmity between nations.
And we're just as bad. We don't care much about science in this country, and no one knew about this latest shuttle mission. But, America Mourns Again. Maybe America is mourning so that Bush can remind us of how spat upon we are, how abused, and we can go in and kill some Iraqis. Maybe America likes to define itself by its tragedies because we can't admit to how little we care about each other or the rest of the world. 9,000 people died today of AIDS, and 7 of flying in a space shuttle. This nation loves to pretend that we care so much about human life - but we could do so much more to prevent its loss and it doesn't even cross our minds that we should. The only human life we notice is symbolic, and when even that explodes in the infinite Texas sky, we fight to pretend it matters.
I was about to chastize Karsten for two things: 1. The use of the word excrescences, barely a word, but even so, incorrectly used and 2. The harsh if not extreme nature of his chiding of our friends on the other side of the political spectrum.
But Ryan Gorche's post is utterly disturbing and it offends me in some way that I could find myself in Novack or sitting at the top of the Hop next to someone who could so obscenely trivialize life, no matter what the tone.
