Saturday, February 22, 2003 The Web Never Lies You gotta check out this website. Using some fancy set of algorithms, it searches the web for any info about people, places and things. It's kinda hit or miss, of course, which is where the humor comes in.
Some results:
THE DARTMOUTH REVIEW is... great for igniting fires on those cold winter nights "famous for its mockery of blacks not the main subject of our conversation anathema on campus
THE DARTMOUTH FREE PRESS is... always a welcome gift--but the week in review
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE is... terminated by withdrawal truly old school a short drive away
update: "dartmouth observer is published twice a semester during the academic year by the university news and public information office"
Posted by Karsten Barde,
9:26 PM
-
Friday, February 21, 2003 What's a poor budget to do? Mr. Waligore writes: "I would appreciate Brad telling me where he got that budget link (ie. was it what the President originally proposed), and how any of the evidence he presents contradicts anything Krugman said."
Sir, believe me, no one was more surprised than me when I discovered that a fascist state like the US allows public access to its Office of Management and Budget. What I linked to was the Bush budget transmitted to Congress on February 3rd. Under the State Department section of the budget, you will note that the figures I quote for Afghanistan appear in various forms. You can find more exact figures here (go to page 3).
But wait, there's more! I also managed to access the State Department website, which contains a transcript of Colin Powell's budget testimony before the House on February 13th. He claims that the 2004 budget has $657 million earmarked for Afghanistan. Sir, I am no economist, but $657 million sounds like a whole lot more than the zero figure Krugman claimed. QED.
As for Tom White, I will concede. Leopold's account is, indeed, more convincing. And you should know that my facts are always negotiable. It is the burden I bear for being a moron. :)
Update: I think I discovered the confusion. Go to the State Department budget for South Asia. For some reason, the document says that the 2003 request was zero dollars. Regardless, Krugman was explicitly talking about the 2004 budget (the one that just went before Congress), which certainly has plenty of money allocated for Afghanistan. Either there's a typo in the current budget, or the screwup occurred last year? Interesting...
New update: Okay, I figured it out. Go to the actual FY 2003 budget for South Asia. It says that funding levels "have yet to be determined." In other words, the controversy occurred last year, and it wasn't that Bush never earmarked money for Afghanistan, it was that they were still trying to figure out how much to spend (eventually Afghanistan got about $300 million). Done and done. Krugman's wrong. Have a nice weekend.
Posted by Kumar,
5:06 PM
-
Brad Plumer: Pro-Stupidity Apologist? Brad says "Krugman's wrong. About Afghanistan, at least." Huh? Krugman claimed that the administration originally budgeted no money this year for Afghanistan, and that Congressional officials had to add $300 mil in. I would appreciate Brad telling me where he got that budget link (ie. was it what the President originally proposed), and how any of the evidence he presents contradicts anything Krugman said.
By the way, Brad is too harsh on Krugman with the Tom White story. I could indict Brad for pathetically citing a newsmax story that is way over the top (as well as a National Review story), but I know he could have found better sources to say pretty much the same thing, but they would have involved more subtlety in the case of the Tom White story. Tom White didn't deny writing the memo to cover up losses when he was at Enron: he said he couldn't "recall" writing something close to that memo. Uh-huh. Here's the original two articles by Krugman and the 'exclusive' by Jason Leopold before Salon took down his article. And according to Leopold, Krugman felt after the two columns had been printed and the controversy erupted, he had independently verified that White had sent the email by talking to Leopold's sources, but Times editors reneged on their promises to allow him to print a column in defense of Leopold; Instead, a reporter for The New York Times printed the source (who was meant to remain confidential), who had received the email from White; Krugman was forced to print a correction (to be a man and take a bullet for the team) one that didn't say he was wrong, but that he hadn't 'substantiated' it, so it shouldn't have been printed. There are other issues with Leopold (I can't find links that work, but see the national review article), but Brad is far too quick to blame Krugman on this one. Brad is when he says when Krugman "gets into his anti-Bush mode, his facts become negotiable." Consider the scope of that indictment (about every Krugman column is anti-Bush) it seems Brad's facts are negotiable too. Perhaps I am too quick in saying that: but no quicker than Brad is).
Posted by Timothy,
4:56 PM
-
Another vision of postwar Iraq
Washington Post reports. This story directly contradicts Krugman's claim that only a few Iraqi leaders would be replaced. And at any rate, lest we think that keeping a few Baathists around is automatically a bad thing, remember that Hamid Karzai is a former member of the Taliban, and that many postwar Japanese politicians were remnants from the military government. Et cetera.
Another key quote: "The administration is particularly keen on averting interference by other regional powers." Let's hope this is actually true. I'd still like to see definite plans as to how this will all come together.
Posted by Brad Plumer,
2:15 PM
-
re: do you trust 'em?
Krugman's wrong. About Afghanistan, at least.
Sources: one (2004 Budget for International Affairs, providing Afghanistan with $150 million economic support, $150 million military financing, $100 million antiterrorism), and two (State Department budget)
But then again, Krugman's been wrong before (when he falsely claimed that Bush took a $12 million gift as governor). Oh yes, and the Tom White story. (er, disclaimer: normally I like Krugman and what he has to say. But when he gets into his anti-Bush mode, his facts become negotiable).
Posted by Brad Plumer,
11:38 AM
-
In the D Today Our own Clint Hendler is mentioned in this D piece on the history of campus anti-war activity.
Posted by Karsten Barde,
11:10 AM
-
The Ships of Fools?
I've been sitting on this one for a couple of days now, waiting to see if it got picked up by a few other news organizations--it, of course, didn't. I awoke to hear about it during a Morning Edition newsbreak, where they sourced thier story to the Independent.
In a very hazily sourced article, the Independent claims that "US and British intelligence" are tracking three "mystery ships" that left Iraq the week the inspections started, and are thought to be carrying a great deal of verbotten Iraqi weapons material. They printed a follow-up the next day disclosing that the issue is going to get a good airing in Westminster next week.
If I'd read it most other places I wouldn't give it an ounce of credit. Although the Indy often has a shoot from the hip reputation--they had to print a good deal of retractions after their Jenin coverage--I think they'd be even less apt to spread what is effectively a pro-war story. If true, I've got to hand it to Saddam's planners. It's a damn good idea.
But it's a pretty perfect "big lie" too--can't produce sufficent evidence of Saddam's weapons on the ground? Well, they must be somewhere else--why not outside of his own country? In boats that no one really can locate.
Remember: Governments lie when they want to go to war.
Posted by Clint,
11:10 AM
-
do you trust 'em? they forgot about Afghanistan. can we trust bush and his cronies to build peace and democracy out of the ashes of war in Iraq?
Posted by Graham,
10:09 AM
-
Thursday, February 20, 2003 Ripe for Parody
Airtoons.com has long been one of my favorite websites. The schtick is simple: take airline safety cards that by design have no words, and add waggish punch lines. The site stayed up through the post September 11th period--but then it disappeared for almost half a year as the owner claimed to be doing maintenance and updating. Containedinthissentencearemyfavorites.
So, in the last few days I've come across a lot of links to the biggest accomplishment yet of the Homeland Security Department--as Tom Tomorrow said "Maybe if we wait another year, they'll have promotional keychains, too." It's a series of pamphlets that have been layed out, airline safety card style, that describe the ideal course of action in the event of biological, nuclear, radiation, and chemical threats. There is one for generic explosions too.
Well, they struck me as apt material for Airtooning. Lucky for us airtoons.com has come out of exile, and done the deed. Check 'em out. They start here and go through to the end.
Posted by Clint,
8:46 PM
-
U.S. invasion of Iraq A roundup of different views at Slate.
Posted by Timothy,
7:57 PM
-
Pro-life Kucinich becomes "pro-choice" to run for President (sorry, Erik) U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich opened a long-shot bid for the White House yesterday by altering one of his long-standing positions, promising Iowa Democrats he would be "pro-choice" on the question of abortion. Kucinich, starting his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination in a state that will host the first major contest of the 2004 presidential race, said in answer to a question that "as president, I would protect that right [to abortion], and I would also make sure that appointees to the Supreme Court protected that right." -full article here (via Nathan Newman, who has more links)
Posted by Timothy,
7:42 PM
-
Gary Hart on Iraq Hart had harsh words for current American policy toward Iraq, telling the Forward that "some senior American officials are on record as advocating" a plan for a long-term military presence in the nation that amounts to "an imperial design." "The president should account to the American people more clearly who will go with us, what military force we will use, how much it will cost... and how many American and Iraqi casualties there will be," Hart said. "On a desk in the Pentagon there are casualty estimates. The president is obligated to share those. The worst thing that could happen is that public support will erode, which is what happened in Vietnam." (from an article in The Foward about trouble Hart has run into recently)
Posted by Timothy,
7:28 PM
-
Axis of Weasel It is beyond me why conservatives complain about unthinking anti-Americanism and say Bush is unfairly called a stupid cowboy, and then attack the French and Germans as the 'axis of weasel' and other petty insults. Check out these two sites: axisofweasel.com and axisofweasels.com. UPDATE: Apparently the British are also insulting the French.
This is in response to the inclusion of Yugoslavia on a list of countries the U.S. bombed in the last century (but, it is implied below, did not result in a democratic government). I would like to point out that if the United States and NATO had not bombed Serbia, Serbia would not likely be democratic today. Milosevic would still probably rule over Kosovo, ethnically cleansed of Kosovars, rather than sitting in The Hague being tried for war crimes. Milosevic was not ousted directly after the war, but it is clear it wouldn't have happened without NATO military action ousting Serbia from Kosovo (this is not entirely to the credit of Serbians, as many were upset he lost the wars in Kosovo and Bosnia, rather than that he fought them at all, and the atrocious manner in which he and his minions did 'fight'). So considering that the bombing of Yugoslavia liberated Kosovo, and led too long after to the overthrow of Milosevic, I have no idea why the 1999 bombing would be seem as ineffective in helping democracy. If this was meant to be jokey, it was a bad joke. Such blanket statements that 'zero' of U.S. bombings do any good discredits the intelligent points attempted, which Laura tries to rescue, by making those claims themselves seem ludicrious.
But this doesn't mean, of course, that all (or most) U.S. bombings or military actions result in democratic regimes. Peter Beinart has some interesting comments on how liberal hawks might be betrayed by Gulf War II if the overthrow of Saddam does not lead to a thriving Iraqi democracy. (There are indications that Turkey might be permitted to put troops in Northern Iraq: so much for this being a war to help the Kurds! If Saddam is replaced with another, milder dictator, or if federalism is not allowed, Kurds might lose the autonomy they have now with Saddam in power!) Unfortunately, the motivations of the Bush Administration do matter for this war as they are key to seeing what will happen in the aftermath of any war. (And the evidence in Afghanistan is not good that Bush and company care the effort, attention, and money, it takes for reconstruction.)
Posted by Timothy,
6:34 PM
-
No, Jared, I didn't know that Israel had its entire destruction coming Apparently for Jared, if you support the entire destruction of Israel through killing civilians, you are a "leading an underground effort for a displaced people." I think there are many reasons to be upset about the arrest of the Professor at FSU and I am skeptical of the evidence (Even Emmett Hogan at Freedom and Individual Rights in Education had problems with the process of the professor's dismissal from the university!) But according to the article Jared linked to, the professor is accussed of being part of a group that wants to destroy Israel. I wouldn't be suprised if the evidence is specious. But Jared praised the professor if he was part of this group. The group doesn't sound like they want a 2 state solution: they want to drive Israel back to the sea. You can't even try to justify their suicide bombing by saying they are only attacking people in the West Bank. The group wants to destroy Israel completely. If Jared supports that, well... If Jared meant something like the frustration on the part of the palestinians is understandable, that still gives you no reason to praise any member of a group that advocates, and tries to achieve through murderous means, the full scale displacement of another group.
Posted by Timothy,
6:13 PM
-
Re: A Reader Responds to Katie I feel a tad guilty now for posting Katie's question for The D, since I think it was meant more as a provocative joke than a serious comment on the democratic possibilities for post-war Iraq. However, in her defense I will say that despite the varying motivations of various bombings in the past century, the point still stands: unilateral U.S. intervention does not have a good track record for promoting democracy. Particularly in light of my other recent post, regarding the lack of support the administration plans to offer Iraq after the war, it seems even less likely that democratic institutions will develop there after a U.S. invasion.
Finally, in regards to Afghanistan not being on the list, if anything, its inclusion would strengthen Katie's point. I got this from Reuters: Few in Afghanistan believe the regional warlords, who control much of the country after the fall of the fundamentalist Taliban regime in 2001, will give up arms easily. Despite the U.S. (and other countries) pouring money in Afghanistan, the outlook for democracy there is hardly optimistic, although unquestionably preferable to life under the Taliban.
Posted by Laura,
4:53 PM
-
Professor Arrested What do people think about this? As you know, I think Israel pretty much has it coming, but more abstractly, this is a man who's leading an underground effort for a displaced people. Is he deserving of such dramatic punishment, especially based on such specious evidence?
Posted by Jared,
4:30 PM
-
Actually Not to stroke on behalf of Nick, but the real Jacko was itself pretty damn intellectual.
I am 1400 Nubile Iraqi Virgins
Posted by Jared,
4:12 PM
-
The Dartmouth vs. The Dartmovth (The Jacko Parody) A student working on the D told a professor they were friendly with that a mock D was being put out. The interested Professor picked up a copy and wrote to the student that he was really suprised at the intellectual sophistication of the humor. It took some time before the student realized that the Professor had not picked up the Jacko but the actual D from yesterday! With headlines such as "Dean: Mich. case is 'really big deal'" and "Sununu discusses Iraq war, desks", I can see why he was confused.
Posted by Kumar,
3:33 PM
-
A Reader Responds to Katie
Regarding Katie Greenwood's question, I think the answer is at least four:
Korea - Surely there would be no democratic South Korea without US intervention in the Korean War. It's true that there were terrible governments is South Korea for quite some time, but today's free and clearly independent South Korea is the direct result of our intervention.
Grenada, Panama and Yugoslavia.
One could easily argue Nicaragua - without American pressure the Sandinista government would never have agreed to elections (which they mistakenly thought they would win).
Also, it's hardly fair to blame us for the lack of democracy when we lost (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, China, Cuba) or stopped too soon (Iraq).
Some of the other entries on the list involve places where we were avenging attacks on us, but had no intention of ousting the local government (Libya 1986, Sudan 1998, Afghanistan 1998). Of course, two of these were Clinton shooting missiles at tents (or pharmaceutical factories). The other really does seem to have altered Ghaddafi's behavior.
Oh, why isn't Afghanistan 2002 on the list?
Stan Horowitz Falls Church, VA
Posted by Kumar,
1:54 PM
-
Good to Know In the event of war with Iraq, Ari Flesicher has assured the American people that, unlike in Afghanistan, the cost of rebuilding Iraq will be left to the Iraqi people. Iraq is so wealthy, after all. I suppose all the children dying from starvation and lack of basic medicine will bring Iraq into the modern era after America so valiantly bombs their cities.
Posted by Laura,
12:42 PM
-
Does Overturning Roe v. Wade help the Democrats? Jeffrey Rosen's New Republic article raises some interesting questions. I happen to disagree with his conclusion but I'm curious what others think.
Posted by Dan,
12:16 PM
-
Good Odds? Katie Greenwood wrote this question in response to The D's Iraqi War survey: And finally, TheD, here's a question of my own for you: Below is a list of the countries that the U.S. has bombed since the end of World War II, compiled by historian William Blum. In how many of these instances did a democratic government, respectful of human rights, occur as a direct result?
China 1945-46 Korea 1950-53 China 1950-53 Guatemala 1954 Indonesia 1958 Cuba 1959-60 Guatemala 1960 Vietnam 1961-73 Congo 1964 Peru 1965 Laos 1964-73 Cambodia 1969-70 Guatemala 1967-69 El Salvador 1980s Nicaragua 1980s Grenada 1983 Libya 1986 Panama 1989 Iraq 1991-99 Sudan 1998 Afghanistan 1998 Yugoslavia 1999
Choose one of the following:
(a) 0 (b) zero (c) none (d) not a one (e) a whole number between -1 and +1
Thanks, Katie!
Posted by Laura,
10:33 AM
-
Re: Pink Oxfords Tim, no well-dressed man should avoid coral-hued shirts. That's not my point. In fact, I was recently devastated to find out that my mother had thrown away a favorite pink Pierre Cardin: she said it had become threadbare. (What would you expect from a shirt I bought second-hand to begin with?) Salmon is a sharp color pour les hommes, no doubt.
I simply enjoyed seeing someone else point out the delicious irony of preppy-dressing drug-using rightwingers.
Posted by Karsten Barde,
1:37 AM
-
Re: Pink Oxfords Karsten- I have a pink dress shirt from L.L.bean, which I wear quite frequently!
You have to see it to believe it. (The post is called "80's fashion".) The resemblances to TDR are eerie.
update: This is one of my favorite Review pieces (really!) of all time. Evidence of further similarities between Joe Blow mentioned here and Review staff, however, cannot be found online.
Posted by Karsten Barde,
12:48 AM
-
Cosmic Relief WARNING: corny jokes ahead... Forty years ago President John F. Kennedy promised to have a man on the moon by the end of the 1960s. Well, we have far exceeded that. Thanks to the so-called Patriot Act, George Bush can have a man on Uranus by the end of the week!
And -- say what you will -- President Bush has made great strides on behalf of minority representation. Never before have we had a President who was looking out for a smaller minority...
I have been to the heights of levity, and I have seen people all over the world dancing together in the universal dance of fool realization ... The Hokey Pokey. I want you to hold this vision with me: all of the world leaders at the United Nations beginning their sessions with the Hokey Pokey. What if Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat put their whole selves in in? That would be commitment. And then pulled their whole selves out. That is detachment. Then they turn themselves around, which is transformation. And that, my friends, is what it is all about! more here
Posted by Karsten Barde,
12:26 AM
-
Wednesday, February 19, 2003 Blog Alert Funny Kumar should post about a blog directory. I just discovered a funny and thoughtful feminist blog that is definitely worth checking out. She also creates her own (very funny!) cartoons.
Posted by Laura,
11:32 PM
-
Looking for Lefty Blogs? Well, there is a directory of them. This directory is good, but slow to update, because he personally visits all submissions and determines whether to add them. Free Dartmouth should be there soon (Let's hope).
Posted by Kumar,
10:08 PM
-
NYPD Blue After the city refused to give anti-war marchers a permit, cops with shades and leather jackets mounted on horseback were trying to herd the crowd. One protester shouted: "This is a peace rally!" The cop on horseback angrily responded: "Why don't you go downtown and look at the hole in the ground." New York's finest.
Posted by Timothy,
9:01 PM
-
Tinkering with free speech A high school student in Michigan was told to take off a t-shirt reading "international terrorist" beside a picture of George Bush. He went home instead. School officials said they were afraid of passions being inflamed (at a school where the majority of students were Arab-American, though I would think that would make it less likely to be offensive, if the composition of the student body has any effect at all).
The've also got a few other actors I've never heard of--Amy Brenneman and Tyne Daly--as well as Def Jam records founder Russel Simmons, Mos Def, and both Ben & Jerry. I vote for Garofalo and Talbert as the best of the bunch--with Sarandon and Peck as the runners up.
Posted by Clint,
2:34 PM
-
On The Revolutionary Possibilities of Poetry Here's a great article on the resurgence of interest in poetry in the past few years. I'm reminded of my English 29 professor (very conservative guy) who decried the lack of politics in contemporary poetry: some of the greatest poetry in English, i.e. Pope and Dryden, has been explicitly political in nature, and incredibly influential in its time. This quote from the Voice article was particularly enjoyable, I thought: "so often these days, left and right are more like up and down in zero gravity, liable to flip-flop if you tilt your head." Too true, too true.
Posted by Laura,
2:07 PM
-
Insinuations at Dartlog Alex Talcott just posted this over at Dartlog:
"End Discrimination Now" I just saw a girl putting up a poster in the Hop. She has beef with the American Red Cross for not accepting blood donations from men who have engaged in homosexual sex since 1977.
I just saw a squirrel outside my window. I wouldn't post anything about it unless I had some opinion on it. If Talcott is noting his observation because he supports an end to discrimination (like, theoretically, anyone who champions the rights of the individual would), then kudos. If he is noting it because he thinks it is 1) a silly thing for the girl to be doing or 2) disagrees with it, then I would ask 1) what's silly about it and 2) why he disagrees with the notion that any consenting adult should be allowed to give blood. They check it all for bloodborne disease, anyway.
Posted by Jonathan,
1:47 PM
-
Mini-Nukes I actually kind of like the idea of harnessing the brute strength of a nuclear explosion with mini-nukes that would bury fallout underground and prevent Hiroshima-like horrors in the surrounding area -- shifting away from city-annihilation nuclear strategy, albeit at the expense of cool mushroom-cloud footage in future History Channel docutainment.
It's more than a little disturbing that an American watchdog group reported this and our media haven't noticed it yet...
Posted by Nic,
1:31 PM
-
from a guy who knows better than any of us unless you've been to war as both a soldier and journalist. check out this article by Sydney Schanberg.
Posted by Graham,
12:44 PM
-
Kiss the Cook Bringing one's own portable gas grill on vacation to the Bahamas is a bit strange, but then again, look at the other places this guy likes to visit...[link]
Posted by Jonathan,
11:51 AM
-
Oh, Come On Whatever you think of the French or moronic Chirac (shut up other countries, shut up!), this is too much.
Posted by Jonathan,
11:46 AM
-
Tuesday, February 18, 2003 On Tim's "Iranian backed troops" post... Again ignoring the moral issues and principles, just how do we propose to put a General in charge of Iraq when organized factions with armed troops all want to fill any post-Saddam power vaccum? And if the good Ayatollah gets his way, aren't we creating another exploitative government? And one that, if it decides not to do our bidding, could be just as 'dangerous'?
Posted by Nikhil,
10:18 PM
-
Google Buys Blogger Looky-here! This page contains the low-down, plus links to blog commentary.
Posted by Karsten Barde,
8:39 PM
-
When you can't hold our neighbor to the north... Canada won't participate in any non-U.N. sanctioned attack on Iraq.
Posted by Timothy,
7:44 PM
-
Of course, the U.N. should not prevent countries acting unilaterally to protect their security... Iranian backed troops are in Northern Iraq.
Posted by Timothy,
7:37 PM
-
Lies from the last war How the last Bush administration lied about some of their justifications in the last showdown with Iraq. These are the same people in charge now. To the extent the case for war depends on trusting the administration, I'm not buying. Libertarian blogger Julian Sanchez writes:
That's when my friend pointed me to an ABC News report on the declassification of documents related to something called Operation Northwoods, apparently old news in lefty circles for a while now. I hadn't heard about it. What I hadn't heard is that, in the 60s, top American military brass -- not a couple lone wackos, top brass -- developed a plan to instigate war with Cuba by killing Americans using terrorist tactics and then blaming Castro for it. Let me repeat that for the hard-of-reading. The Pentagon had plans, documents declassified only recently, after 40 years, to launch terrorist attacks against the U.S. as a pretext for war. This is not a conspiracy theory; it is a matter of public record. What most of us do still recall, though it's not brought up all that often, is that in order to gain Saudi permission to use the country as a staging ground, Bush I totally fabricated satellite photos showing Iraqi troops massing on the border. I also needed to be reminded that Saint Colin Powell, paragon of credibility, was implicated, at least tangentially, in the Iran-Contra coverup by the Independent Counsel.... Well, now I don't know. The problem, of course, is that things like Northwoods, or the Gulf of Tonkin lie, typically come out well after the fact, so that we don't get the same degree of outrage and skepticism we might have seen had they been revealed at the time. And the fatal problem with thinking along these lines is, of course, that an effective cover-up actually covers things up: you can't expect to find contemporaneous evidence...
Posted by Timothy,
6:37 PM
-
Also, If anybody out there has been paying serious attention to media conglomeration over the last few years, my big research paper depends on knowing who has sold what to whom, when -- especially within the past five years. If anybody knows of a watchdog or some web site that has this charted out, I'd not only be grateful, but hopefully get back to you with evidence of corporate conflicts of interest proven with hard facts and real numbers.** **well, if statistics count.
Posted by Nic,
2:50 PM
-
Free Speech, Market Failure, and Conglomeration As long as everybody's thinkinig about "Shutting America Up" nowadays, I think it's worthwhile for anybody who enjoys reading to take a look at Mark Crispin Miller's 1996 essay "The Publishing Industry," which distills the history of publishing house absorbtion into multimedia conglomerates into a few pages, and explains in horrific anecdotal detail the way the reach and market share of these companies not only kills controversial, insightful books while letting poorly written center-right schlock flood the market; and more importantly, the way these publishing houses protect themselves from criticism with a system of collusive blackballing that make Hearst or Ashcroft look like friggin' Voltaire. I can't do the hip blogger thing and post a link to it, because as far as I know the essay is not online, but it's in a solid little book called Conglomerates and the Media, edited by Erik Barnouw. Dartmouth's copy is going to be in 109 for another week or two if you want to borrow.
Posted by Nic,
2:48 PM
-
Monday, February 17, 2003 Urban Warfare is no Easy Task This old Op-ed by the pre-eminent scholar, Barry Posen, states a untalked of reality: war, whether good or bad, will certainly not be easy.
Posted by Kumar,
10:48 PM
-
The lead line from one of CNN's current top stories: BRUSSELS, Belgium (CNN) -- A European Union communiqué calls for Iraq's "full and effective disarmament" and says U.N. weapons inspections cannot continue indefinitely without Iraq's cooperation, but that war should be a last resort.
You'd think that after five millenium of it, people would realize.
Posted by Nikhil,
10:31 PM
-
Cutting Edge Journalism Just a few days after the DFP goes to print, the NYT publishes an article on legacy admissions in higher education. I think it's no coincidence that our latest Word on the Street focuses on the same issue. And who says this wasn't a timely topic?
Posted by Kumar,
2:23 PM
-
Fox News Realpolitik It's a brilliant idea. Buy a full page ad on the back cover of The Nation, thanking America for making Fox News the top rated news network. The result: a whole lot of angry readers who thought they could escape the face of Bill O'Reilly by shutting off their TV.
"All of us have heard this term 'preventive war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time...I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing." --President Dwight Eisenhower, 1953, upon being presented with plans to wage preventive war to disarm Stalin's Soviet Union
"Our position is that whatever grievances a nation may have, however objectionable it finds the status quo, aggressive warfare is an illegal means for settling those grievances or for altering those conditions." --Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, the American prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, in his opening statement to the tribunal
Posted by Graham,
12:49 PM
-
Other Dartmouth Blogs Dartmouth students are writing fascinating, although sometimes boring, accounts of their lives as they go through their life here. Enjoy the read.
Posted by Kumar,
11:12 AM
-
Is Saddam Deterrable? Two of the most renowned thinkers in International Relations seem to think so.
Posted by Kumar,
11:11 AM
-
Sunday, February 16, 2003 The Psychology of Blair Even if one seriously thinks that Bush is driven to war by politics, oil or a daddy complex, what exactly is driving Britain's Tony Blair. His own party, his people, his European friends are all against him. Isn't this the politician accused of following the political wind even more than Bill? What drives Blair?
Posted by Kumar,
11:56 PM
-
Debunking The Iraq/Nazi Germany Link For everyone who goes red in the face when anti-war activists are compared to the pre-World War II "appeasers" (i.e. Neville Chamberlain), here's a great refutation. Yay liberal Brits!
Posted by Laura,
10:18 PM
-
Boot and Rally The International Herald Tribune, by way of The New York Times, reports:
Ms. Rice denied reports that the administration was "rattled" by the size of antiwar protests over the weekend, but conceded that the divisions among allies were serious, saying, "The world needs to pull itself back together here."
Now, without judging whether the "world" is "right" or "wrong," it seems to me that in fact, the world has "pulled itself together" - just not behind the Bush hawks. If I were POTUS, I'd be pretty rattled right now. In fact, I would be seriously thinking about alternative ways to force Iraq's disarmament, especially because using troops to attack WMD assets last time was much less effective than using other resources to do so. Seems like we will do less to disarm Saddam by having soldiers try it than we might through some other means. I wonder if anyone has been giving any thought to that - the dichotomy seems to be between war and more time for inspections. The latter doesn't seem to address the problem, and the former seems to be overkill. We need the mysterious "Third Way" : )
Posted by Jonathan,
6:06 PM
-
Oh, the shock... Interesting NYTimes article on how the recent anti-war protests demonstrate the will of the people versus the will of their goverments. Spain, it notes, who signed one of the recent letters in support of the US and its "policy" saw more than a million people marching in Madrid alone.
Posted by Jared,
5:02 PM
-
Signs at the NYC Anti-War Rally (sent to me by a friend) Drunken frat boy drives country into ditch. Bush/Cheney: Malice in Blunderland Who would Jesus bomb? War begins with 'Dubya'. Bush is proof that empty warheads can be dangerous. Let's bomb Texas, they have oil too. How did our oil get under their sand? If you can't pronounce it, don't bomb it. Daddy, can I start the war now? 1000 points of light and one dim bulb. Sacrifice our SUV's, not our children. Preemptive impeachment. No George, I said Mac Attack. Frodo has failed, Bush has the ring. Look, I'll pay more for gas! He is a moron and a bully. t's the stupid economy. Draft Richard Perle. Draft dodgers shouldn't start wars. War is sweet to those who haven't tasted it (Erasmus). Pillow fights only. Our grief [over 9/11] is not a cry for war. Different Bush, same shit. Stop the Bushit. Just war/just oil. You don't have to like Bush to love America. Bushes are for pissing on. Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld: the asses of evil. $1 billion a day to kill people -- what a bargain. Consume -- Consume -- Bomb -- Bomb -- Consume -- Consume What's the difference between me & God? He might forgive Bush, but I won't. Smush Bush. It's time to trim the Bush. Pro-lifers: Wake from Bush's propaganda spell -- war kills innocent children. Don't make me come back here [to a peace rally] again. Disarm Bush too. Big brother isn't coming -- he's already here. Empires fall. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind (Gandhi). Impeach the squatters. Mainstream white guys for peace Hans Blix -- look over here. Let Exxon send their own troops. Curious, George? -- get a clue. Destroy Florida. [It could happen again] There's a terrorist behind every Bush. How many bodies per mile? SUV owners roll over for terrorism. We can't afford to rule the world. War is so 20th century! 9-11-01: 15 Saudis, 0 Iraqis. Don't waive your rights while waving your flag. Leave Desert Storm to the desert. Drop Bush not bombs. Sacrifice our SUVs, not our children. Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity. Bush is to Christianity as Osama is to Islam. I asked for universal health care and all I got was this lousy stealth bomber. America's problems won't be solved in Iraq. War is not a family value. Colorfully dressed drag queen carrying a sign that says: I am the bomb. Picture of the peace symbol: back by popular demand. A picture of Bush with a red-stained upper lip: Got blood?
