Proposition: Despite the fact his post on this occassion is relatively coherent, Tim Waligore should stick to condemning people for the content of their posts, as I think he has long ago forfeited his claims to be the arbiter of coherency. I challenge him to dispute that claim.
Stupid bullshit aside (although, per Waligore vis-a-vis my last post, you might think this is all stupid bullshit), let me address Tim's points.
1. Waligore: "why, after Laura encourages more women to join FreeDarmouth, does Jon respond with the post: "And women Wonder Why Men Grumble About Feminism"?"
Pardon; I guess my posting about feminism would've been better if offered completely ex nihilo. Although Waligore will later in his post (and thus later in this post) belittle me for it, I agreed with the notion that women should post more often. Reason? Having spent the better part of 4 years somehow involved in orchestrating policy and domestic/foreign affairs discussion forums, I confidently assert that generally women are disgustingly underrepresented in these sorts of forums. It isn't just the blogging world. I could speculate as to why this is, but come to think of it, several of the forums themselves covered that issue. Fortunately, more women showed up for these, so any assertions that I might make wouldn't be completely unburdened of some women's opinions, but I will refrain from delving further at this point. I don't need to qualify myself somehow to have this discussion. Anyway - Waligore sees nothing to complain about in the post I referenced because there is almost nothing to complain about. In fact, I only harped upon a rather jocular and harmless statement by Miss Dellatorre. Ah, but there's the rub. I don't think it's harmless. Even if, in jest, I stereotyped female views as "amateur", qualifying the amateurism with a gender, I would be open to the same rebuttal. My expression would've been an equally small part of the post, if it only comprised a sentence, but I would expect, rightly, to take heat for it. That is my problem with feminism. It can address things that men, typically wrongheadly, think are harmless and merely "in jest" - that are in fact detrimental to the female gender - yet many people can't resist the extra rhetorical flourish in returning small barbs of the same caliber at men.
2. Waligore: "Laura was not even saying FreeDartmouth should do anything: she was just encouraging individual women to blog! I could claim the stupidity of Jon's post is why people don't always take seriously men who complain about feminism. If Jon has a bone to pick with feminism, he shouldn't discredit himself by attacking any complaint noticing the involvement (or lack thereof) of women."
See my previous point. I agreed that more women should post. This was never an issue. Don't make it one now in your blustering.
3. Waligore: "Jon's worldview: "So it isn't as if women are being denied their chance to post by those pontificating men." "
Correct. But that is not relevant to the substance of my post, besides that I was clarifying it as fact, something Waligore does again, himself, by writing:
"I hadn't realized that was Laura's complaint. Hmm... Laura knows Kumar and I aren't censoring the posts and not inviting women on purpose."
4. Waligore: "She just wants more women than her to participate. I would have thought that Jon would applaud Laura's pro-active call to arms rather than trying to analyze the in-depth mechanisms by which women end up not blogging. "
See pretty much every previous point I've offered so far. I concur. Perhaps my applause was not loud enough for Waligore's taste. Tim, if you're in Manhattan, open your window and listen hard, I'm clapping like a madman right now in Hanover. As for anal analysis of points, Tim, my friend, you've just done the same to me (and I sure as Hell am doing it to you now)! Per the second half of Tim's point, I actually would like to see Laura's analysis of that. But the point of my post still stands.
5. Waligore: "Save your whining about feminist diatribes for when Laura or someone else really gets going about feminism. No one said the female opinion in inherently in opposition to the opinions of males"
Don't worry, I have plenty of diatribes. No one explicitly said it, but as all you lefty PoMo types should realize, it isn't always what's explicit that counts ; )
6. Waligore: "Jon's argument seems to be that women have nothing distinctive to add, like a socialist or Brad Plumer might. Women's views don't always correspond to men's (Jon must grumble everytime the gender voting gap comes up), or at least it is stupid to assume they must."
I know very well that Tim knows enough about logic (even if he thinks I don't) to realize I didn't actually suggest this. It is easier for him to offer it this way for the sake of argument, so I will now have to clarify it. My argument is that women don't a priori have anything to add, just because they are women, just as Brad Plumer or a socialist doesn't necessarily have anything novel to add just because one is Brad Plumer or a socialist. Of course, if you follow Tim's lead and brush aside my complaint that implicitly, albeit likely in jest, the Dellatorre post to which I was responding seems to set up a false dichotomy between male and female viewpoints, then you would assume, as Waligore does, that I am making a universal claim about the viewpoints of some group. However, given the false dichotomy, my claim, as clarified above, seems to directly and concisely address the issue here. Consequently, I would agree with Tim's assessment that "it is stupid to assume [that women's views] must [correspond to men's]." Right. It's also stupid to assume that they musn't, which is what the false dichotomy, without clarification, demands. Again, I realize that this was unintentional and offered jokingly, but I could say the same about the rigor with which I treated it in my original post, and we see the lengthy response that drew.
7. Waligore: "I might as well have stopped if I wanted to read anything worthwhile. You weren't bound to respond that way because you were a white male: I and many other certainly did not. Don't blame your silliness on all men. "
I certainly thought my comment about Bush's baked beans was worthwhile, but maybe that's because that dog saying "roll that beautiful bean footage" gets me every time. Again, we're in agreement. I wasn't bound to respond that way because I am a white man. That's why I cynically suggested that I would laugh off such responses.
8. Waligore: "Jon's probably upset about some 'feminist' viewpoint that wasn't even expressed. If doubt Jon thinks gender is utterly irrelevant to anything at all, but if he does I hope that he'd welcome to additional of more voices, some of whom (whether women or men) I suspect (but do not know) would disagree with him on that point. "
Well, now you should clearly understand what my post was about. You're right, I don't think gender is utterly irrelevant to anything at all, thanks. And I did particularly welcome your voice on this, Tim. At least with you I know there will be something worth responding to, with a nice witty repartee, and without descent into childish crying and completely ad hominem attacks. It's always a pleasure, Mr. Waligore, and I will look forward to any response you might offer here, although I doubt I can offer a larger epistle in reply to it.
Posted by Jonathan,
11:17 PM
-
The Spectrum Tim mentioned different perspectives "from left to center-left." I, for one, am distrustful of those who claim that their views represent the center or moderate position. Do claims to the center come from the fear to take a firm position? Is it simply a rhetorical position to bolster ones own argument with allusions to populism? Can someone, maybe someone who would claim this label, explain what a center-left platform might look like? I am well aware of the so-called "New Democrats" down in DC. That's not really what I'm asking about? The political right has developed an extreme set of circumstances-- shrinking health coverage, underfunded schools, environmental deregulation, imperialistic foreign, xenophobia. What is a moderate response to these (along with many other) counterpoints in the ongoing debate? If you call yourself a member of the center-left, how do you distinguish yourself from the left?
Posted by Graham,
10:50 PM
-
Sand or Trees Here's an interesting case for us environmentalists,. Do you favor the trees that constitute a national forest and have been there for more than 100 years, or the sand dunes that formerly occupied the area.
Posted by scott anderson,
10:48 PM
-
Women and blogging Proposition: Jon Eisenman is losing it. Otherwise why, after Laura encourages more women to join FreeDarmouth, does Jon respond with the post: "And women Wonder Why Men Grumble About Feminism"?
This male poster didn't see anything to complain about, so I can only chastise Jon for stereotyping all men by assuming we would all resort to his type of incoherent grumbling.
Laura was not even saying FreeDartmouth should do anything: she was just encouraging individual women to blog! I could claim the stupidity of Jon's post is why people don't always take seriously men who complain about feminism. If Jon has a bone to pick with feminism, he shouldn't discredit himself by attacking any complaint noticing the involvement (or lack thereof) of women.
Jon's worldview: "So it isn't as if women are being denied their chance to post by those pontificating men." I hadn't realized that was Laura's complaint. Hmm... Laura knows Kumar and I aren't censoring the posts and not inviting women on purpose. She just wants more women than her to participate. I would have thought that Jon would applaud Laura's pro-active call to arms rather than trying to analyze the in-depth mechanisms by which women end up not blogging.
Jon babbles on: "Villifying males (or just placing their opinions as inherently in opposition to whatever the "female opinion" happens to be) is just overkill. Example: I agree with the female's opinion that more females should post on the blog." Huh? Save your whining about feminist diatribes for when Laura or someone else really gets going about feminism. No one said the female opinion in inherently in opposition to the opinions of males (certainly not liberal males, heh;). We have different perspectives here from left to center-left, and, it seems sometimes, from intelligent to stupid. I for one think there are a lot of distinctive voices from the other half of the human population, even if it doesn't add a distinctively 'female' perspective.
Jon's argument seems to be that women have nothing distinctive to add, like a socialist or Brad Plumer might. Women's views don't always correspond to men's (Jon must grumble everytime the gender voting gap comes up), or at least it is stupid to assume they must.
"Or, I suppose, you could stop reading at the subject line and come up with some confusing response about why I was bound to reply as such, being a white male and all."
I might as well have stopped if I wanted to read anything worthwhile. You weren't bound to respond that way because you were a white male: I and many other certainly did not. Don't blame your silliness on all men.
Finally, Jon says oh-so-cleverly: "By the way, absent a female Pope, don't you think the term 'pontificate' is gender biased?"
Well, Jon, if everyone Laura is referring to (regular Dartmouth bloggers besides herself) has been male, it is hardly a problem to use a word that refers only to males, is it? That's my silly response to Jon's silliness.
Jon's probably upset about some 'feminist' viewpoint that wasn't even expressed. If doubt Jon thinks gender is utterly irrelevant to anything at all, but if he does I hope that he'd welcome to additional of more voices, some of whom (whether women or men) I suspect (but do not know) would disagree with him on that point.
Posted by Timothy,
9:27 PM
-
Bush, the Economist, and Civil Liberties "IN 1962 the apartheid regime in South Africa, no respecter of civil liberties, picked up a suspected terrorist leader who had just returned from training in bomb-making and guerrilla warfare in Ethiopia. It marked the start of 27 years in jail, but Nelson Mandela was given access to lawyers and his prosecutors had to follow rules of due process. Last year, the world's foremost democracy, the United States, detained one of its own citizens, Jose Padilla, at Chicago airport as a witness to a grand-jury probe and then categorised the so-called dirty bomber as an “enemy combatant”—which, according to the government, gives it the right to hold him indefinitely, with no access to a lawyer and minimal judicial review": Article Here
Posted by Nikhil,
3:59 PM
-
Mike Savage MSNBC's cancellation of Donahue (it's highest rated show) and hiring of Mike Savage clearly shows the rampant liberal media bias that is plaguing our nation. I for one am glad we have a conservative for once to combat all of those nasty liberal commentators like ... and .... Come to think of it, can anyone name a prominent liberal TV pundit?
Posted by scott anderson,
1:42 PM
-
Do I have to Change my AIM nickname? Bigot Mike Savage is being added to the roster of MSNBC.
Posted by Timothy,
2:57 AM
-
"Does Dr Seuss promote the gay agenda?" This site puts foward the case.
Posted by Timothy,
2:53 AM
-
Too True Biology is destiny. That's all I could think while watching George W. Bush deliver his State of the Union speech this week. No, I'm not talking about the fact that there's no way in hell this guy would have been elected mayor of Scranton, much less leader of the free world, if he'd been born into a less exalted family. Read more, here.
Posted by Kumar,
12:02 AM
-
Friday, March 07, 2003 Japanese Internment Check out this blog for the furor over N.C. Senator John Edwards criticizing Rep. Howard Coble, another member of his state's congressional delegation, for saying that the Japanese were put in internment camps for their own protection:
Howard Coble is a congressman who represents North Carolina's Sixth District (including Greensboro and High Point). He is also the chair of the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. A month ago, Coble was asked on a radio call-in program whether he supported the internment of Arab Americans. He said he did not, but then volunteered that he agreed with FDR's decision to put Japanese Americans in internment camps during World War II. He explained that they were interned "for their own safety" and also because there were undoubtedly some Japanese Americans who intended to do the U.S. harm. When it was pointed out to him that his theory of the internment was discredited claptrap, he insisted that he was just "stating historical fact." He ultimately said that he did not mean to offend anyone, and agreed that the internment was very cruel and looks like a mistake from today's perspective, but was justified at the time.
I think somebody should invite the poster of this personal ad to join Laura's ranks. A friend and I are trying to figure out if this is a joke or if this woman is for real.
Hi everyone. I'm off campus and wondering if anyone went to the Community Hour on Israel. I know the discussion of Israel and how it relates to Jewish identity has been going on on campus for over a year now, and I'm wondering if anyone has thoughts. It is an issue I have thought about, and struggled with, a lot, and I wish a discussion like this had been organized sooner. I was interested in The D's coverage of the story, particularly the last paragraph: "Other members of the Jewish community, many of whom felt they had been purposely circumvented in the creation of the panel -- Hillel played no role in its organization -- felt that it was somewhat redundant, as Hillel had already come to consensus on a Mission Statement that was acceptable to its pluralistic nature, and that the panel was trying to make a larger issue out of something that was no longer contentious."
Thoughts? Maybe this was a way to broaden the discussion? And I wonder why something like this didn't happen sooner in some respects.
Posted by f,
10:47 AM
-
And Women Wonder Why Men Grumble About Feminism
C'mon liberal women: I know you're out there. Get onto blogger and start giving these male amateur pontificators a little flack.
I fail to see what one's gender has to do with the savvy of one's pontification. By the way, absent a female Pope, don't you think the term "pontificate" is gender biased?
Villifying males (or just placing their opinions as inherently in opposition to whatever the "female opinion" happens to be) is just overkill. Example: I agree with the female's opinion that more females should post on the blog.
Or, I suppose, you could stop reading at the subject line and come up with some confusing response about why I was bound to reply as such, being a white male and all.
And now, back to writing about slash-and-burn tactics for filmmaking.
Oh yeah, Bush's speech tonight...you hear a better Bush speech everytime that guy Jay Bush and his talking dog do baked bean commercials. They are certainly more persuasive. And Bush's Baked Beans are damn good. Especially the Bold and Spicy ones. Perhaps the grumbling of which I spoke is merely due to overconsumption of said canned good.
Addendum: There are (if I counted right) 10 females that accepted the invitation to blog here, and 4 with outstanding invitations. So it isn't as if women are being denied their chance to post by those pontificating men. Indeed, Laura, they are "out there," so perhaps the "supposedly" before "multicultural and feminist" isn't necessary. The blog is those things - not supposedly - better off leaning on the women irrespective of what the guys are doing (pretty much why I posted this, but I also resent being called an amateur pontificator...I am an expert at pontificating, even if it is "unburdened by knowledge" as a certain associate of ours frequently notes of everyone but himself). Speaking of non-posters, though, there is an even greater proportion of registered men who never post than there are women!
Posted by Jonathan,
3:18 AM
-
Be Ready: Preparing Makes Sense The Department of Homeland Security has created a website to prepare Americans for possible terrorist attacks. The site is complete with a variety of ambiguous visuals reminiscent of airplane emergency instruction pamphlets. For amusing commentary, go here.
Posted by Meredith,
2:13 AM
-
Where Have All The Women Bloggers Gone? I've been meaning to rant about the clear masculine bias of political blogging for awhile now. Dartmouth blogging is particularly egregious. There have been no women posters at Dartlog or the Observer in months (and before then, I was the only woman on the Observer roster). Here at FreeDartmouth, where we're supposedly all multicultural and feminist, I'm still the only woman posting, except for a rare post from Rachel Osterman or Neha Narula. It's getting a little lonely, I have to say. C'mon liberal women: I know you're out there. Get onto blogger and start giving these male amateur pontificators a little flack. And if you need inspiration, read Trish Wilson's blog. So far, it's the best feminist blog I've come across.
Posted by Laura,
1:09 AM
-
Female Anti-Feminism For Fun and Profit This stuff is hilarious and disturbing. Excerpted from "Uncovering The Right On Campus". It's really not too difficult for us here at Dartmouth, of course.
Posted by Laura,
1:08 AM
-
More Politics and Poetry Check this site out for regularly updated, high-quality anti-war poetry.
Posted by Laura,
12:54 AM
-
Thursday, March 06, 2003 War Timing: Five Days? Government Professor at Dartmouth and author of Behavioral Origins of War Allan Stam predicts five days for bombing/war to start in Iraq. In a conversation I had with him today, he told me that from his thinking, the Pentagon planned for Turkey's potential for non-cooperation and their actions should not delay matters. We shall see how this cookie will ultimately crumble.
Posted by Kumar,
11:24 PM
-
The Dean/Bradley Factor How much resemblance does Howard Dean bear to Bill Bradley? Having worked for Bradley in the last campaign, these similarities both excite me and put me off. Bradley got the label of liberal for being bold(er) on Health Care, but he was a fiscal moderate. Dr. Dean is pushing even bolder steps in health care, and if anything he's been even more strident than Bradley in praising balanced budgets. In many respects, Bradley was not that different from Gore on a lot of issues (as say Gephardt ver. 2000 might have been), yet Bradley still acquired the liberal 'label' and got the support of idealistic college students. But he didn't get any of the party faithful, though he did get some prominent endorsements from mavericks. Dean seems to be matching this sort of mold, recruiting and exciting activists and college students. Bradley had (or at least was seen as having) integrity. I do not get any special sense of integrity from Dean (not that I would, or that he doesn't have integrity, I just don't know....) But I think the anti-war stance is the current substitute for this... (of course, it's an anti-unilateral war stance... if we had any chance of getting U.N. approval Dean might face some tough choices...) Unfortunately, such a stance doesn't bring the big fundraising bucks (or does it?) that Bradley's work on tax policy and connections to the business community did. Dean's stance on the war may help him in peacenik Iowa, but I am not sure how much it will help him in New Hampshire, where Bradley gained sympathy from independents (and would have benefitted so much more if McCain wasn't in the picture). Will people 'trust' Dr. Dean? I don't see any reason not too, but I'm just wondering what other attractions he might bring to the table.
Can Dean win? My perception is that Dean has three things widely (if that) known about him. He's Dr. Dean for health care, he's against (unilateral) war, and he signed the civil unions bill in Vermont. Will someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see him as being that liberal beyond those things and these issues are why he's perceived as the 'liberal' and why activists and students might line up behind him. (Now I know, he's clearly going full throttle for abortion rights, and is talking a louder game than the other candidates.) Because he's pro-guns and pro-balanced budget (and only pro-civil unions on a state level, not pro-gay marriage), some people think this might benefit him. But I worry the other three things will wash away any 'benefit' those brings from being seen as not a liberal (though I suppose of all issues, guns really excite people). Is this combination of can Dean hold it together during the primaries, assuming he gets a boost? I don't know how i feel about Dean using Wellstone's line that he's from the democratic wing of the democratic party. It seems he should do well in New Hampshire. But is this the type of idealism that people will find it worth it to work hard for?
Bradley wasn't seen as an effective counter-puncher and as the kind of person who would meet everyone at an event. Dean, however, seems more promising at going on the attack. Gore's political operatives apparently didn't play clean (for example, all the Bradley signs on the Hanover-Lebanon road were torn down the night before the election, and one Gore operative recently bragged about how during the primary he had volunteers drive their cars in a Bradley-stronghold on election day in order to clog traffic and deter voters. Gore supporters at one rally even made fun of Bob Kerrey's handicap!!). And he has a multi-person field. The 'front-runner' is Kerry- anyone here have opinions? Kerry has gained a lot of former Gore people. I remember after the general election esp. in 2000, I felt sort of dispondent, because Gore had lost New Hampshire by only a few (Nader!) votes. Part of me regretted not having really worked for Gore in the primaries. So, pro-Dean dudes (or those observing the attitudes of college students): is Dean a good combination of (a) worth the idealism in terms of his own stances (b) has enough of a chance to win the primaries and (c) would actually be a good candidate that the Dems would want to put against Bush (I worry that if we have a sacrificial lamb, it shouldn't be a liberal). Anyway, that's some candidate ramblings...
Posted by Timothy,
10:39 PM
-
More Blogs of Dartmouth Note The first is by John Teti, Class of 2003, former-President of The Dartmouth, here. The second by Bill Brawley, Director of Computer Services Communications, Dartmouth College, here.
Update: Upon closer inspection, it seems that Teti has not updated his blog in more than a year. So sad.
Posted by Kumar,
10:15 PM
-
Re: Dean in Blogosphere For those wondering, here is the link to the referent post at dean2004.com. The blogger calls us "a refreshing mix of enthusiasm and skepticism." Not too shabby.
Posted by Clint,
7:09 PM
-
North Campus I saw this on LoudMouth, Dartmouth's fashion blog. It's a rendering of what North Campus, which Dartmouth if it ever gets out of its budget slump, will build. I don't know about you all think but it looks really beautiful to me.
Posted by Kumar,
6:32 PM
-
Dean in Blogosphere It seems that hundreds of Howard Dean fans are going from his new blog to Free Dartmouth. I wanted to welcome them to our progressive utopia and also return the favor and link to them.
Posted by Kumar,
4:27 PM
-
Is this "True"? Sorry to throw that postmodern ringer at you, but Fox News is reporting that CBS hired a voice actor named Steve Winfield to record Saddam's dubbed English responses to Dan Rather's questions during their recent interview.
CBS chose to pay a white guy, whose own accent is presumably not very Arab sounding, to provide Saddam's voice. Like most viewers, I assumed the voice we were hearing was the voice of a translator reading their own translation.
It would be offensive if news organizations paid actors to do French accents for Chirac interviews, or Chinese accents for Zhu Rongi interviews. Yes, we may hear an accent when a translator reads their own words, but it is their natural accent--and I think in most translations the preferred method is to have a translator who speaks the primary text language as their native tongue do the translating, the presumption being that understanding the primary text is more important than producing a polished translation.
So why would CBS do this? Does this demonize Saddam by reinforcing his otherness? Are they assuming that viewers need the aural key of an Arab accent; otherwise the translation will come across as "fake"? Does this make the interview "entertainment" and not "news"? Would news organizations pay someone to fake French or Chinese accents? How false of a representation is this?
Posted by Clint,
3:31 PM
-
On Conservative Nostalgia Grinsell wrote: Clint, you've stirred the ire now. You should be glad. To be called a ninety year-old from those who hold the political opinions of ninety year-olds is no small accomplishment.
Laugh. Republicans are old? Who replaced the deceased Paul Wellstone? Who ran for senator for the Democrats in New Jersey after the original runner dropped out? The 1970's called, they want their senators back.
Allen G. Harvey Jr Dartmouth College, NH
Posted by Letter to,
2:42 PM
-
On China Taking Over North Korea For what it's worth, the notion of China invading North Korea "under the guise of giving it assistance" is not unprecedented. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries Japan, China and Russia all had troops in Korea with a similar rationale. After defeating both China and Russia, Japan was able to pressure the Emperor of Korea to agree to the incorporation of Korea into Japan, where it remained until 1945.
It would be fine with me for China to take over North Korea. Our friends the South Koreans might be less enthusiastic.
Stan Horowitz Falls Church, VA
Posted by Letter to,
2:34 PM
-
Tim LaHaye and the U.N. Jon mentioned a rather mild quote by fundamentalist Tim LaHaye. For those of you who don't know, he is the author of the popular 'Left Behind' series of books in which the Rapture occurs (all good Christians ascend to Heavan) and every one else is 'left behind' waiting for the seven years before the apocalype. In this story, the Secretary-General of the United Nations is the anti-Christ. (By the way, Kirk Cameron from growing pains starred a movie version of 'Left Behind')
Posted by Timothy,
12:40 PM
-
Democracy in Action From The Washington Post:
"What is preferable, to have totalitarian countries that agree with the United States or democratic ones that disagree?" said Emin Sirin, a lawmaker who sits on the foreign relations committee and voted against the U.S. troops. "I prefer the second choice, and I would hope Americans would, too."
The ruling Justice and Development Party has said it may try again to win approval for the U.S. deployment, which is critical to the Pentagon's plans to open a northern front against Iraq. Prospects for passage appeared to improve today as the influential chief of the Turkish military, Gen. Hilmi Ozkok, broke the army's long silence and endorsed the U.S. request.
But even as the general spoke, people across Turkey continued to celebrate Saturday's defeat, by three votes, of the government-endorsed plan. Although polls show that more than 90 percent of the public opposes a war, many Turks had expected parliament to ignore their wishes. When the opposite happened, even the nation's disappointed leaders described it as a victory for democratic values in Turkey.
"This definitely shows that we are a democracy," said Melike Senyurt, 49, a housewife doing her grocery shopping. "We know this, but now the United States knows it, too. . . . I am especially proud because our parliament stood up to America." [link to article]
America values Democracy less than it values reality television. Protesters and a doubting public (just in this country)? Ignored. Opposition from our allies, the two most pilloried (Germany and France) also the two that have arrested the most Al Qaeda operatives in the "War on Terrorism" that they are now being accused ot obstructing...we ignore them too. Not only that, we cast dispersions at them for exercising their right to vote/veto us in the Security Council, and then claim that the UN will be irrelevant if it does not follow the US. Unfortunately (and the conservatives that like to feel that America should run the world rejoice in this), Bush is right on that - we give the UN its teeth. Therefore, if I were any other nation in the world, I would say "fuck the US," leave the UN, start another organization, and give it teeth. Make it do what we stop the UN from doing, i.e., being representative of interests other than America's. Our government needs to learn the meaning of honor. Honor means when you're signatory to a treaty (like, oh, say, the UN Charter), you abide by it, not seek to undermine it at every turn. Then again, when our President gives time to listen to popular fundo author Tim LaHaye (see Krugman in the NYTimes, Dec 17 of last year), a man who thinks that:
humanists (whom he defines as everyone but Bible believers) have been “planted” in strategic places in the United Nations, they teach children in public schools “to read the words scientific humanism as soon as they are old enough to read,” and 275,000 humanists control the American government, education, and media
is it any surprise that he holds the UN in such high regard?
(You can find this quotation in LaHaye's The Battle of the Mind, not written plainly in one of his new, popular fiction novels; I quote it from George Marsden 1981: 111-112)
End of rant.
Posted by Jonathan,
1:16 AM
-
Wednesday, March 05, 2003 Hypocrits Remember how one of the main rhetorical talking points for invading Iraq was to help the poor Kurds, who have been gassed by Saddam? Well, if the Turks would have let us use their country to invade Iraq, the Bushies were publically prepared to sell out the Kurds to Turkey, which has been oppressing them on the other side of the border.The Kurds in Northern Iraq have had a burgening automous zone in Northern Iraq since the end of the Gulf War, but in the name of saving them, we'd allow Turkish troops to come into Northern Iraq. "We must crush Kurdish democracy to save it!" I wonder why anyone ever questions the Adminstration's motives...
Posted by Timothy,
7:49 PM
-
Ahem...Sore Losers...Cough-cough! Those nice fellas over at Dartlog are working overtime to keep us in the loop. This time, the good news is about a prof just hired in the Geography Department and Women's and Gender Studies Program.
From Asst. Dean of Student Life, Nora Yasumura: Laura [Liu] is finishing her Ph.D. from Rutgers University where she has been studying labor organizing in New York City's Chinatowns. I am confident that Laura will be a wonderful addition to our academic community.
Go here to see the complete post. As a Geography major, I say welcome to the Big Green, Ms. Liu. Can't wait to hear more about your research.
Posted by Neha,
2:44 PM
-
International Options: The Church Since U.N. resolutions will apparently have no effect on this government, maybe the Pope could place an interdict upon this realm.
Posted by Nikhil,
11:34 AM
-
This should be no surprise.
My policy recommendation for all the piddling nations of the world: secede from the United Nations. The United States just whipped out a big (uncircumcised - we are administered by Philistines) johnson and urinated on the Charter.
Posted by Jonathan,
10:20 AM
-
Speak of the devil...
And while we're talking about the Guardian, check out their latest piece on North Korea. Blah blah blah, until the very end:
China is said to be considering military intervention in North Korea under the guise of giving it assistance.
Some politicians in Beijing believe such action may become necessary to get rid of the hardline officers around Kim Jong-il, according to sources in Tokyo.
Um, what? What? First off, how does China invade "under the guise of giving it assistance"? Sounds wild. But more importantly, the US really might be best served by pawning the whole crisis off on China, and let our adversaries worry about each other. Then again, I much prefer the sound of peaceful solution (links to a great in-depth article in Foreign Affairs. As does Howard Dean, I hear.
Jake Tapper comments on US spying in his latest at Salon.com (it's a premium article, so just watch an advert and get a day pass to read it). A couple of highlights. First, he answers my earlier question as to whether such tactics are unprecedented:
"This is standard procedure," says David Phillips, a former senior advisor to both the State Department and the U.N.'s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "There's nothing atypical about monitoring the comings and goings of foreign diplomats in order to assess their likely behavior in diplomatic form."
And furthermore:
"Everybody spies on everybody at the U.N.," one former State Department official reiterated to Salon under condition of anonymity. "You can call it spying or you can call it vote getting, but when you're conducting a get-out-the-vote drive -- which is what this is -- you try to get information any way you can." Americans are hardly the worst offenders of this sort of information gathering, the official went on, noting that "any businessman knows not to discuss his trade deals when he's traveling on Air France."
The other question, of course, is why this memo ever leaked out in the first place. For which Tapper quotes another expert:
To former NSA analyst Madsen, the leak indicates that there are some looking to sink the ship -- the battleship to Iraq, at least. In "British intelligence there are clearly those who are just as upset with [British Prime Minister Tony] Blair as there are members of the CIA and our own intelligence forces who are upset with Bush," Madsen said.
Um, yes. That's troublesome, from any point of view. Hey, I'm all for telling the French to go to hell, but when our own allies are leaking information and attempting sabotage, it's time to reconsider our approach to making friends across the globe.
Posted by Brad Plumer,
1:57 AM
-
Tuesday, March 04, 2003 Donald Rumsfeld on the B.B.C. DD: When you - when you - sorry. When you visited Iraq and negotiated with Saddam Hussein, when America wanted Saddam Hussein for its own purposes, America took Iraq off the list of terrorist states and, indeed, supplied it with the wherewithal to make the chemical weapons they're now trying to remove.
DR: I've read that type of thing, but I don't know where you get your information, and I don't believe it's correct. They may have been taken off. I was a private businessman. I was asked for a few months to assist after the 241 Marines were killed in Beirut, Lebanon. And I did meet with Saddam Hussein. I did not give him or sell him or bring him any chemical weapons or any biological weapons, as some of the European press likes to print. It's just factually not true.
Since when is the Washington Post a European newspaper? The post reports that: "The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy."
Apart from the obvious, 2 things are disturbing about this:
1 - ""Fundamentally, the policy was justified," argues David Newton, a former U.S. ambassador to Baghdad" -- If people close to the state department think this way, how much can we trust them to astutely, democratically and safely build up a new Iraq?
2 - While the official NATO C.V. is quiet about the period "from 1985 to 1990 [when] he was in private business" (with WIlliam Blair & Co.) A number of newspapers report (as of today, in many cases) "that It was Donald Rumsfeld. Along with other members of the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, the man who now serves as defense secretary for another Bush administration aided and abetted Iraq at the time when it was developing and using weapons of mass destruction."
Posted by Nikhil,
8:42 PM
-
Prison and Religion An incident at the 1,340-population prison in Tallahassee, Fla., shows just how fast such religious passion can turn confrontational. A handful of inmates formed a pagan religious group several years ago, worshipping the sun and moon, holding elaborate rituals at the vernal and autumnal equinox. They requested a round wooden altar, a sword, and naked women to dance in the moonlight. Prison officials -- predictably, perhaps -- refused to provide the sword or the women. But they agreed to the altar and directed the prisoners in wood shop to build it. As it turned out, the inmates building the altar were fundamentalist Christians. Appalled by the pagan ritual, they did a Bible in the altar's base. After several ceremonies, the pagans discovered the Bible. A confrontation erupted. Prison officials stress that only a small percentage of inmates latch onto unconventional religions or those that threaten security. Still, the Federal Bureau of Prisons' files are stuffed with requests and pamphlets from dozens of offbeat religions and would-be religions. They range from Asatru, a Viking-based faith whose newsletter is called The Runestone, to the Church of Universal Brotherhood, whose rituals include sitting cross-legged and naked in front of a mirror and chanting, "I am in charge of my head." From The Recorder, Feb. 18, 1993.
Posted by Timothy,
8:08 PM
-
Davao airport bomb kills 20 Another 144 are injured, many seriously, in what police in the Philippines suspect could be the work of separatist rebels
Singapore's Straits Times reports that the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) who have been behind a number of terrorist actions in the Phillippines are probably behind this too. There comes a point where analyzing so many terrorist attacks in the same way again and again is superfluous but:
1 - Spend the billions of dollars on tracking down terrorists, including those in your allied countries. 2 - Do something about friggin' North Korea. What does Kim Jong Il have to do to get some attention around here? He sent fighter jets out to escort a U.S. Radar plan in international airspace, Iraqi jets would have been shot down for that and then it would have been used as an argument for war, not GW's proposed "formal protest." The North Koreans are far closer to being able to use and sell weapons of mass destruction; and are infact physically closer to MILF as well as J.I.
Why are we attacking the non-fundementalist -- a man who gives Christmas speeches to his Christian community (I realize its a political ploy as propoganda to the outside world, but how many Osamas put on that kind of propoganda?).
EDIT U.S. Special forces are in mindanao (the Island) but in small numbers and with nothing close to the commitment that Iraq would take -- and probably to an extent already has.
Posted by Nikhil,
7:56 PM
-
Best Reason Yet To Support The War!
Posted by Jonathan,
5:40 PM
-
Remember: There is no mainstream opposition to this war. Only Communists, Anarchists, Greens, Noam Chomsky and former presidents of stock exchanges would question our leaders.
This wack job claims he's also an Air Force academy graduate and a retired Lt. Colonel.
Posted by Clint,
3:24 PM
-
Lysistrata I was there Karsten, as was Graham Roth. By my count it was over 60 people attended the Hanover reading, which was staged by the Classics Department, and was one of over a thousand worldwide. As per usual with arts events at Dartmouth, most viewers were community members. The play is a riot, mostly because it is chock full of wink-winking double entendres. Quite possibly the funniest part was getting to see Prof. Tatum give his lines in a Southern accent, while holding an enormous elongated balloon in a sensitive position. This proping was universal among the male readers.
Posted by Clint,
2:59 PM
-
Moveon.org One under noticed aspect of the peace movement is the prominent role that MoveOn has taken. It's an interesting evolution for a group that was founded by a bunch of wealthy Californians to protest the Clinton impeachment.
Placing civilians near military targets is expressly forbidden by the Fourth Geneva Accords, and in the eyes of the law, all blame for resultant casualties will fall squarely on Iraqi, not American, shoulders. Yet both Mr. Hussein and the Taliban still see this tactic as a viable means of dissuading US military strikes. All the details in this interesting post over at Sgt. Stryker's blog. Enjoy.
Update: Well, maybe America won't get off scot-free. Human Rights Watch tells the Pentagon to walk on tiptoes when it comes to human shields. Here's Air Force Magazine on how that affects military strategy, including an interesting history of air strike decisions.
Over on Dartlog, regarding the prank (regardless of the prank's merits), Emmett writes:
It'll be a few more bong rounds before the Freepers even get around to reading about it -- on Dartlog, of course.
I don't know how many of you had the pleasure of spending time with Mssrs. Waligore and Hogan at Panarchy, but on this author, who had the occassion to partake in such activities with the two of them, the irony is not lost.
Posted by Jonathan,
2:31 AM
-
Haven't they(NYT) heard? With its most recent breaking story, these Review editors are poised to really rise in the world. NYT mentions the old Reviewers who made it: You have to feel a certain sympathy for all those Yale and Dartmouth grads at National Review and The American Spectator who feel obliged to eschew chardonnay and latte in favor of Budweiser and Maxwell House. One way or the other, modern politics makes fashion victims of us all.
Posted by Kumar,
12:43 AM
-
Monday, March 03, 2003 Dartlog: Most gullible blog this side of the Connecticut As I'm sure you've all noticed, dartlog has developed a tendency to post mass blitzes without commentary as a way of snidely, well, commenting. It's cute.
Well, someone over at Why War sent out a gem of a prank blitz with a repressed recipient list to a few select dartloggers. The blitz concerns a false occupation of Parkhurst to pressure the school to take a position against a possible war with Iraq.
Posted by Clint,
10:50 PM
-
Thanks to Turkey... ...we may not have a war 'till after spring break. The Independent is reporting that Bush will have to wait at least another month in order to get his contigency plans in order for northern Iraq.
Posted by Clint,
9:41 PM
-
A Free Dartmouth Blogger Writes in the Boston Globe Our own Rachel Osterman wrote yesterday in the Boston Globe about how the unique importance of the New Hampshire primary is elevating the profiles of political students to unexpected levels. Here.
To those who think that Dean doesn't know why he stands where he does, here's the link for the Dean-News Hour interview. If this isn't a defense of positions, I don't know what is.
Posted by Anthony,
9:00 PM
-
A perfect companion to my most recent DFP article It is not often that one can combine the outrageous sensibilities of Richie Jay Nussbaum (whose service is Red Hot) with the analysis of one Clint Hendler (whose knowledge of British war dissent is Red Hot).
Posted by Clint,
7:50 PM
-
Al Gore, Florida Republicans, and Amit's Blog
Last thing's first: Amit's blog is sweet. Its lack of self-importance is something that many of us could afford to observe.
And first thing: As for Gore and the recount, being honest is helpful. Whether or not Gore would've won the recount is unclear depending on the methodology used to do the recounting, and the areas in which the recounting was done. The better argument is to point to something like the legal flim flammery the Bush team employed vis-a-vis overseas and military ballots (See New York Times, Sunday July 15, 2001, Barstow and Van Natta, Jr.). Also relevant, look into the accusations brought against Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN) re: the forwarding of contact information of military personnel (Buyer was on the House Armed Services Committee). Buyer was vindicated, a member of his staff was denounced. End of story. Should it've been? By the way, I know that those wishing to read the NYTimes article will either need access to Lexis-Nexis or pay to get it from the Times archives (or go to a library). If paying or going to a library are out of the question for those interested, contact me to view my copy.
Posted by Jonathan,
6:04 PM
-
Securing our Borders From the NYT:Shortly after noon on Friday, Feb. 7, the nation's secretary of homeland security, Tom Ridge, announced that the nation had been placed on "high risk" of terrorist attacks. As he issued his dire warning, almost nobody in Washington knew that eight hours earlier, a team of heavily armed security agents of a hostile foreign government had landed on American soil. Luckily, the four men were not terrorists. They were defecting Cubans, agents of the Cuban coast guard, who arrived in Key West, Fla., aboard a 30-foot government patrol boat, the Cuban flag still flapping from the mast. Carrying two AK-47 rifles and full clips of ammunition, they docked their boat before dawn at the marina of the local Hyatt hotel, a short distance from the United States Coast Guard station. Undetected, the Cubans, still in their camouflage uniforms and black boots, marched into the middle of the sultry Florida resort town looking for someone to surrender to. The ability of a large, armed foreign patrol boat to enter American waters and dock is under investigation by the Coast Guard...
Posted by Kumar,
5:53 PM
-
I hate to break it to you... Graham, your argument about the center being a stupid aim - given the example of Gore - is inane. Gore won the fucking election, not just in terms of people, winning the second highest number of votes in the history of the US, but unless you buy the Supreme Court's argument that a recount was a waste of time, it's understood that such would have easily won the vote for Gore, he won the EC as well. The person on the left, besides helping Bush win, lost ridiculously.
And, I think Joe Lieberman is a piece of crap, more slimey than Kerry's thought out arguments. As for Dean, his accomplishment of leading an extremely liberal state to do some liberal things is hardly worth touting.
Posted by Jared,
3:59 PM
-
A Fashionable Dartmouth Blog Amit Anand, who only days ago was expounding the ills of blogging, has joined up with 9 friends to create Dartmouth's first fashion police. On their blog, they hope to help the world -- one badly-dressed terrorist at a time.
Posted by Kumar,
3:00 PM
-
The Next President People have been tossing around some good arguments this morning. Let me add a few. Howard Dean does have a real chance. Every time he speaks, his support grows. He is more willing than many other Democrats to meet the pResident head on. He can explain where he stands better than I can though, so follow this link. To say that he is willing to break eggs but not cook the omelet discounts his record as Governor of Vermont for over a decade. Certainly, he delivers a fiery speech, but he's proven that he knows how to back it up. And he is standing up as a civil rights candidate, which is crucial in these trying Ashcroftian times.
I don't despise John Kerry. But I am disappointed with him on the Iraq issue. I've heard everyone from Kerry to Hilary Clinton try to justify their support for Bush's "war" resolution as an attempt to steer him towards the UN. That doesn't really add up. If you want to see where Kerry stands on Iraq and other foreign policy read this speech that he gave at Georgetown, from his own website. I think this qualifies as an attempt to play both sides.
And to Jared-- saying that a real liberal will never win is a self-defeating mentality and will assure Bush's second term. If you really believe that liberals have no place in presidential politics, follow this link and join the team. In a nation where well below 50% vote, a race to the center is exactly the wrong way to campaign (remember Al Gore?). A winning candidate mobilizes their base and gets people excited to come to the polls. That's why Bush was successful (to be fair, he wasn't successful, but he made it close enough for the supreme court to get the chance to steal it for him), while he was busy selling people his boldfaced lie of compassionate conservatism, he was also mobilizing the religious right and the rest of his hardcore right wing followers. Gore, on the other hand, distanced himself from Bill Clinton, and tried to sell himself as a moderate. In the process, he lost a large portion of the liberal electorate. If one candidate is able to mobilize all the liberals and bring them to polls on election day, they'll be the next President. Combine those liberal values with a solid fiscal record as a Governor, and you've got viability. Dean might not have started with the national network of Kerry or Lieberman, but he's gaining momentum every day.
and now the meeting (ran this by Kumar first) Dartmouth for Dean tonight, Silsby 213, 7 PM get in now to plan for the spring
Posted by Graham,
2:31 PM
-
Martin Sheen & War Apparently, according to Sheen via CNN, NBC executives are wary of his anti-war stance. Never thought I'd have respect for the guy.
Yeah, Nic, that was cute when it popped up on the Inner Office two weeks ago.
Sure. You could go and make a tape of five or six protestors out of hundreds of thousands, several whom are obviously non-native English speakers, and paint their silly comments as representative of the millions who demonstrated around the world on February 15. I'm sure you couldn't find five or six inarticulate and unknowledgeable war supporters counter-demonstrating to interview and similarly pigeonhole. Maybe counter demonstrators who couldn't even spell Sadam [sic], thought that the man himself piloted a plane into the World Trade Center, or killed thousands of American puppies with his own jackboots.
But, I'll agree: It was funny in an Errol Morris kind of way.
Posted by Nic,
1:05 PM
-
If you're bored... Check out Dean's Blog.
Posted by Jared,
12:13 PM
-
To Janos: I agree and disagree
I think that if Dean were in Hell, on fire and the like, he still wouldn't be a hot candidate. I think Janos' reasons are only partly there. Dean's a firecracker - a child of Manhatten breeding whose liberal views seem to come as a consequence of his ambitions. He's a process man - he's got little to no articlulated reasons for his politics, just politics that have got him where he is. He has good views, though - better, I would argue, than Kerry's. He's right, but I don't think he's so sure why. I think I've most heard him described as the kind of guy who likes breaking the eggs more than eating the omelet. I don't think he has a chance and I can't decide whether that's a bad thing.
He can't win because our nation is so close to center, that a real liberal will never win. Fox News is America's # Propaganda source, and even when the economy turns bad and our boys are coming home in bags and people realize the folly of the Bush "presidency", the American public will still have terror on its mind. More importantly, they'll have the idea that gay people really aren't the same as the rest of us. That affirmative action just don't make sense. That taxes are bad bad bad. The afterglow of the conservative movement in the media will last out what will probably be Bush's second term, and for good reason. The people who are being royally fucked by Bush right now are being told who to blame in advance, as preparation. In 6 years, a lot of people will be a lot richer because of Bush, but it will take the rest of the country awhile to realize how much poorer the country is as a result. So, no, a liberal who's not so clear on what he thinks - another Yale guy, what's up with that? - has no chance.
On the other hand, Janos, you once again demonstrate that your love in principal for Kerry is clouding your views. Yes, it may be time to remove Saddam, though anyone of clear mind would argue that there a few other people, notably a few with actual weapons, who should also go. But Kerry's vote for war gave Bush the authority to go in unilaterally. I wrote Kerry a letter about it and got a nice response that was total crap. I think it's great the Kerry's a veteran, but that, in my mind, only makes it harder to believe that he's for a war, especially one run by Reagan's spawn. I don't like Kerry that much - I'd vote for him against Bush - but, really, he's a guy who's thought the stuff out, and has come to conclusions with which I disagree. As for the comparison with Carter, that's ironic. Dean loved Carter, who, lest we forget, before being a noted statesman, was a mediocre President. In fact, Dean argued that his early running for the Presidency was based on Carter's advice. Does he have a network? Of course not, he doesn't have a chance in Hell. But, that doesn't make Kerry any better as a candidate.
This kind of thing suggests that Americans should be launching their own jihad to take back America. Moralizers have hijacked our rights at all levels of government!
Posted by Jonathan,
11:51 AM
-
Dean = Complete Zero
Hi Tim. So Howard Dean is anti-war. Too bad he can't even articulate why before a partisan crowd of Vermont liberals at the Hopkins Center. If "We cant go to war unilaterally, and the American people know that" is the best he can do, he'll get knocked out real quick. As Nick just pointed out, there are very solid reasons to be anti-war, but Dean doesn't seem interested in pursuing them. This whole anti-war stance may in fact just be a gig to gain momentum with liberals so that he still has a chance in the primary 9 months after the war's over. Comparisons to Clinton and Carter are way misguided- Carter was plotting his presidential run very far in advance. On the eve of the 1974 elections, the Carter team called every losing Democratic candidate and offered them a chance to work for the Carter team in '76. Does Dean have a nationwide network? And Clinton may have been governor of Arkansas, but he's also the most charismatic Democrat we've had since Ted Kennedy killed that babysitter. Oh yeah, and I'm tired of hearing pundits say Kerry's 'waffling' on the Iraq issue. So he voted for it. It was gonna pass any way, and he's been in favor of removing Saddam since '98. He's against a unilateral war, and its leaders like him who are pushing Bush to find allies in a war that is going to happen any way, thus preserving at least a little bit of international integrity for the US. I personally think its clearly the time to remove Hussein and end this terrible regime, although its most unfortunate that it happens to be at a time when a President who ignores and breaks international treaties is in power cutting taxes steeply right before an expensive war and rebuilding project, flanked by a VP who will make sure to get rich off this somehow, and a State Department full of constitution-violating Reaganites. Still , at the end of the day there have been stranger bedfellows than Democrats and Republicans when the cause is right . Oh yeah, and Howard Dean, sucks when the minute you vacate your office it goes Republican. Whata legacy.
Posted by janos,
6:22 AM
-
Read it! If you do not read Josh Marshall's talkingpointsmemo.com, you should. He's got good stuff on how Bush is messing up all our alliances with the way he's been so bull headed about the war (and he's a reluctant liberal hawk). By the way, who thinks Howard Dean is A) on fire! B) doesn't have a chance in hell (I suppose both could be true if he was in hell....)
Here's an editorial sent to me by an "I can't believe I'm a hawk" friend who sits well to the left of me on every other issue: the article.
The article raises many points about which anti-war arguments are valid and which aren't. The bad arguments:
(1) "No Blood For Oil." If we wanted Iraq's fucking oil that badly, we would have jumped on the oil-for-"food" bandwagon with France and Russia a long time ago. Those UN sanctions that starve so many Iraqis aren't working for a reason. (2) "The Iraqi people don't want to be liberated." Iraqi exiles are certainly a biased sample of Iraqi opinion, but the Eastern Europeans generally think this is invasion is a good idea, and they would know -- I'm inclined to believe the Iraqis would love to have a regime change. (3) "Many, many Iraqis would die." If we discounted the number that Saddam and the UN sanctions will kill between them for present value, I think war comes out as the humanitarian option on the utilitarian scale most people on this blog probably use. (4) "Bush is such an asshole." Yes, he's an idiot and has not diplomatic skill whatsoever. But that's not relevant. (5) "Why didn't we just not put Saddam in place 20 years ago?" Unless you have a time machine, this is not a useful question. (6) "Are we going to go liberate all of the other oppressed countries of the world?" No, but Iraq's flat, open desert is particularly well-suited to the Abrams tank and air-to-ground fighting. No Vietnam jungle there. Might as well do what we can.
Still-valid anti-war arguments:
(1) "Fuck the Iraqi people -- this war is going to cost billions of dollars and waste innumerable diplomatic favors owed us by our allies." Selfish, but very true. (2) "Invading another country for these reasons with only ambiguous UN support sets a bad precedent." True. (3) "Wait -- What happened to catching Osama? Isn't this Iraq thing just a distraction?" I wonder this myself.
Posted by Nic,
2:28 AM
-
A Challenge to Our Bloggers
I know many of you are master researchers. Read this article from the Washington City Paper, and then see if you can find the section of the Washington Post web site that it references.
Posted by Jonathan,
1:53 AM
-
Actually (re: Ann Coulter)
Bush did have a higher SAT verbal score than Bradley [link]. Nevertheless, following that link should also negate the point Coulter was probably trying to make, in that Bradley ended up a Rhodes scholar and Bush took a "Gentleman's C."
By the way, I think calling Ann Coulter "Goebbels with tits" is quite possibly one of the most brilliant character assessments I've ever heard made of anyone.
Garg, while I've nothing to say about your habit of posting blitzes, I can't imagine you seriously expect to brook discussion on this last one. Why don't you start a science section in The Free Press and run DUJS out of town, too?
Posted by Jonathan,
1:07 AM
-
Sunday, March 02, 2003 Back to My Old Habits I am posting boring blitzes again. This one only because it is Free Press competition. We can cover law, really we can. What niche are they really planning to fill?
Date: 14 Jan 2003 22:05:34 EST From: Daniel Webster Legal Society Reply-To: DWLS@Dartmouth.edu Subject: Law Journal
Hi DWLS members! The DWLS is going to try to start some sort of law publication this term. This publication is going to publish articles written by students about law related issues. We are now opening submissions to anything law related. (We can't promise to publish everything though). If you would like to submit something, either blitz it to this account or give a copy to any of the interns (Meg Thering, Josh Marcuse, Matt Raymer). Please submit stuff!
From, Meg, Josh, and Matt
Posted by Kumar,
11:47 PM
-
Put up or Shut up That's what the Iraqi government told the approximate 200 "human shields" in Iraq -- British citizens who went to Iraq to stand at key sites that were likely to be bombed. Iraq told them they had to actually go to these high risk sites or leave the country. The human shields are leaving. Here.
Posted by Kumar,
9:03 PM
-
Operation Oil-Lusting Squirrel? Reading through this afternoon's posting extravaganza, I noticed a reference to "Operation Anaconda," and couldn't help laughing over the ridiculous name. Besides being silly, it also brought back to mind that awful movie "Anaconda" made a few years back. Coincidence? I think not.
For a random generator of hilarious and sometimes surprisingly insightful military ops names, check out this site.
Posted by Graham,
6:43 PM
-
Did Dean push the article? Probably so Tim... Check out Dartmouth alum Jake Tapper's recent Salon.cominterview with Kucinich.
A rival's campaign has brought an April 1972 Cleveland Magazine article to my attention in which you are accused of using racial politics.
Regardless of who dug it up, it is there. Now as to whether or not this is significant is another, much longer, post. I'm disappointed with the revelation, but I don't think it is as big of a deal as some have labeled it.
Posted by Clint,
6:23 PM
-
Kucinich: the great white hope? Uh oh. Read this article! (I got this from talkingpointsmemo.com's posts linking to that report on the ugly past of Kucinich. Nathan Newman has some dubious defenses of Kucinich. Think this is the work of Dean? Naw, probably just some Cleaveland people)
Posted by Timothy,
5:55 PM
-
HaHaHa Ted Barlow says: I didn't see it so I don't know, but apparently Ann Coulter had a priceless moment on Bill Maher's new show. At one point, she said that Bush's SAT scores were great, "twice as good as Bill Bradley's" Bill Maher looked at her and said "You just make shit up, don't you?"
Posted by Timothy,
5:17 PM
-
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed captured
Pakistan picks up the chief planner and third-highest ranking member of al-Qaeda. This picture, of course, shows Mohammed before we turn him over to the Syrians.
Time Magazine has this to say on the arrest, outlining Mohammed's place in al-Qaeda and just how much he might be able to reveal. For those wondering what cozy accomodations await him in Damascus, go here.
Anyways, we know that the Free Press is pro-torture, but what do you guys think? Anyone going to lose any sleep over Mohammed taking a nice warm lye bath? Hmmm? And I've heard pragmatic arguments that torture both is and is not a useful interrogation technique. Anyone have any thoughts/facts to bear?
Even before Congress begins debating President Bush's tax cut plan, Republican tax-writing aides have inserted a generous new provision for major corporations and their shareholders that some fear could open the legislation to a tidal wave of loopholes.
Maybe this would bother me less if corporations actually paid their damn taxes. Luckily, more stringent measures are in place to make sure the working poor stop their tax dodging. That will teach 'em.
Great article on the varieties of "slippery slope" arguments by Professor Volokh. SS arguments are not in themselves universally valid, but the reasoning behind a slippery slope is often useful and compelling. The long version (also worth reading) is over here.
Posted by Brad Plumer,
3:10 PM
-
Mi dictatorship es su dictatorship. Kim Jong Il may have offered asylum to Saddam.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I just might be pro-Dean. Here's a good piece situating Dean among his Democrat peers. And naturally, here's the Dean 2004 blog.
Clint, interesting link, but there are a couple of possible problems with that article:
First, as far as I'm aware, the NSA is supposed to gather information from a variety of sources. That's why it was created. Most countries have similar intelligence organizations, and they're all spying on the United States. Is the NSA using new, unprecedented tactics to gather information about other Security Council members? (Nowhere are wiretaps or intercepted e-mails mentioned in the memo itself, so how did the Observer deduce these particular methods?) Are they doing anything overtly illegal? Should the NSA be prohibited from gathering information on particular countries or organizations? Do other countries observe these prohibitions?
Second, as I mentioned before, this is how the Security Council operates. You get votes and the resolution passes. Why isn't anyone concerned about flaws in the structure of the Security Council? I thought this was the liberal stance: if something doesn't work, you regulate, you pass explicit laws to make it work better. Any suggestions?
Posted by Brad Plumer,
2:48 PM
-
Ari the Evader gets his Comeuppance This has flying around for a while already, but it is well worth watching.
Ari Fleischer, White House Press secretary, declares that suggesting that nations serving on the Security Council are being bought off to support an Iraq war is "not an acceptable proposition." The reporters laugh him off out of the room. (Forward the player to about the 29:00 minute mark)
Howard Dean has impressed me since he's been governor of Vermont. But what really grabbed me was an interview with him on News Hour. During the whole chat with Gwyn, he did not invoke rhetoric once nor avoided a single question. He's honest! He has logical positions on issues. But what is most exciting is the likelyhood that he will actually win the Democratic leadership. He's a good, intelligent man and did very well for Vermont (speaking as an outsider). All that's left now is to convince voters that platforms and positions are more important than, well, anything else.
Another point. Don't be mad at Mr. Dean for only doing a fundraiser; I'm sure he'll be back to talk to students later. Right now he needs funds for his campaign so that he can come and talk to eager minds such as ourselves.
Posted by Anthony,
2:38 PM
-
Thank you Jared Putting Kiesling's letter up on the blog was a great thing to do. The former diplomat's letter brings many problems to light. Bush is cashing in nearly a century of American good faith. He treats our allies like members of a gang, not as a real coalition. If they don't fall in line lock-step to do as his "5-4" administration says, they are "anti-american." Bush's diplomacy is one of intimidation and bribes, as demonstrated by the Turkey debacle. Real allies share in policy making. Our new "allies" just nod yes and hop on board, lest they be shunned by the most powerful industrial complex in the world. There are many reasons that I believe that seeking a war in Iraq is wrong, but I'll stick to Kiesling's letter. He notes many of our allies are not convinced by our case for war. We should never be in a position to need to make a case for war. War should be a last resort. When it is needed, it should be obvious. Bush is undermining not only international peace, but for better or worse, if we continue down this path of bullying based on political motives and fundamental distortions of the facts to spin domestic and some international opinion, he will cause American hegemony to whither away. One of the key distortions that Kiesling mentions is the connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. This has not been proven. There is however, substantial evidence, that bin laden hates Saddam's government and has in fact, called for its ouster. Nonetheless, under the guidance of the pResident we are quickly positioning ourselves to validate our status as a mutual enemy that is aggressive enough to warrant an alliance between two groups otherwise in opposition--Al Qaeda an international terror network that desires a pan-islamic Middle East free of "infidel regimes" and the Ba'ath party, led by Saddam, which is comparatively secular. With that in mind, an invasion of Iraq is certainly not in America's best interest. Certainly we, as a nation, were better able to deal with the threat that Al Qaeda presents when we had allies. (that link is about a specific news story, but it mentions a list of our allies in operation anaconda, including canada, FRANCE, and GERMANY) This war will likely help terrorism grow, and disrupt our ability to fight it.
Bush's drive to war is costing America dearly. We may not fully be able to determine our diplomatic losses for some time. But I'll bet in the near future we'll wish we still had some of our old allies. It's not difficult to imagine a situation where we need a real friend and wish that Bulgaria was still France.
Posted by Graham,
2:22 PM
-
The NSA: UN wiretappers The Observer, the Sunday version of the World's Greatest English Language Newspaper, has obtained a memorandum written by a senior NSA official, circulated both internally and to a presumably British counterpart. The memo calls on agents to step up their monitoring of the UN delegations that sit on the Security Council, in order to provide "information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining results favorable to US goals..."
Posted by Clint,
2:18 PM
-
Chemical Weapons in Iraq... ...to be used by United States forces.
Posted by Clint,
2:01 PM
-
Justin, you're so wrong. That is, in saying that this is over the top - it's brilliant and I think the more people who see it, the better. from the NYTimes.
U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation
The following is the text of John Brady Kiesling's letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Mr. Kiesling is a career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan. Dear Mr. Secretary: I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal. It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer. The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America’s most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security. The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo? We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead. We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has “oderint dum metuant” really become our motto? I urge you to listen to America’s friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet? Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America’s ability to defend its interests. I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.
North Campus 
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed captured