A forum for independent, progressive, and liberal thinkers and activists from Dartmouth College.

Civilian casualties update
Dartmouth

The Free Press
Dartmouth Alums for Social Change
The Green Magazine
The Dartmouth
Dartmouth Observer
Dartmouth Review
Dartlog
Inner Office
The Little Green Blog
Welton Chang's Blog
Vox in Sox
MN Publius (Matthew Martin)
Netblitz
Dartmouth Official News

Other Blogs

Ampersand
Atrios
Arts & Letters
Altercation
Body and Soul
Blog For America
Brad DeLong
Brad Plumer
CalPundit
Campus Nonsense
Clarksphere
Crooked Timber
Cursor
Daily Kos
Dean Nation
Dan Drezner
The Front Line
Instapundit
Interesting Times
Is That Legal?
Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo
Lady-Likely
Lawrence Lessig
Lean Left
Left2Right
Legal Theory
Matthew Yglesias
Ms. Musings
MWO
Nathan Newman
New Republic's &c.
Not Geniuses
Ornicus
Oxblog
Pandagon
Political State Report
Political Theory Daily Review
Queer Day
Roger Ailes
SCOTUS blog
Talk Left
TAPPED
Tacitus
This Modern World
Tough Democrat
Untelevised
Volokh Conspiracy
Washington Note
X. & Overboard

Magazines, Newspapers and Journals

Boston Globe Ideas
Boston Review
Chronicle of Higher Education
Common Dreams
Dissent
In These Times
Mother Jones
New York Review of Books
New York Times
Salon
Slate
The American Prospect
The Nation
The New Republic
The Progressive
Tikkun
Tom Paine
Village Voice
Washington Monthly

Capitol Hill Media

ABC's The Note
American Journalism Review
Columbia Journalism Review
CQ
Daily Howler
Donkey Rising
The Hill
Medianews
National Journal
NJ Hotline
NJ Wake-up call
NJ Early Bird
NJ Weekly
Political Wire
Roll Call
Spinsanity

Search Search the DFP

www.blogwise.com

Feedback by blogBack
 
 
  contact the freedartmouth

Saturday, March 15, 2003


America: Another Reason to Wince

Not only do they search your baggage, they leave helpful comments! (From CNN)


Posted by Jonathan, 10:25 PM -

Culture, Academia, the World: A site slightly less ambitious than the Dartmouth Observer in trying to talk about culture, politics, the arts and everything else, but you can't fault them for trying. (Here)


Posted by Kumar, 8:57 PM -

A Blogger in Iraq: This is fascinating blog, by a reporter who is planning on wandering around Kurdish Iraq during the coming war, filing stories on his laptop. (Here)


Posted by Kumar, 8:51 PM -

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


Posted by Timothy, 5:40 PM -

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


Posted by Timothy, 5:35 PM -

(Post removed on account of my inability to read)


Posted by Timothy, 5:17 PM -

This is Heartening

Eric Muller reports this good news on the whole "freedom" food issue.


Posted by Jonathan, 3:40 PM -

Partial Birth Abortion: The Real Story
Here is an excellent piece from Alas, A Blog that offers a little perspective on the whole "partial birth abortion" controversy. Jon, I will be considering your post while enjoying some Guinness and celebrating St. Patrick's Day in Ireland. Hm. On second thought, maybe I'll wait till I get back to Dartmouth for that! Have an excellent break, all.


Posted by Laura, 3:27 AM -

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




Posted by Timothy, 1:58 AM -

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


Posted by Timothy, 1:51 AM -

Friday, March 14, 2003


For Laura, Wherever This May Find Her

During the course of some research I've been working on for some time, I've found many individuals trying to escape the label of "crazy fundamentalist" by proposing "coherent philosophical and scientific objections" to the "dogma of evolution." Nevertheless, sometimes these individuals slip and let out some opinions better left to the crazy fundos of which said individuals claim to be non-representative. For instance, Phillip E. Johnson writes, concerning the play Inherit the Wind:

"Rachel tells Bert that she has decided to start thinking for herself, which in the context of the play seems to mean that she will accept Bert's way of thinking instead of her father's (I can't help wondering whether her new independence of mind will have unexpected consequences, and whether Bert will ever have any second thought about having encouraged it.)" (Defeating Darwinism, 28)

Well, I guess this really ought to be enough of a slight to provoke comment by any egalitarian, let alone a committed feminist. But I would be remiss if I didn't add this tidbit:

"With the divorce revolution came the sexual revolution, as the death of God and the availability of contraceptives seemed to make chastity obsolete. Hard on the heels of the sexual revolution came the feminist revolution, with a radical wing that explicitly rejected the traditional family model that had previously been regarded as the backbone of society. Feminism demanded an unrestricted right to abortion, which the Supreme Court duly read into the Consitution and imposed on a reluctant nation." (ibid. 104)

We'll leave aside what Johnson has to say about homosexuals. Now, one might easily brush this aside with a "duh," and claim it is just the rant of a "crazy fundamentalist." But these people are writing bestsellers, giving campus tours that pack auditoriums (a few of them have been here), and getting their viewpoints heard in various schools around the country (there's even a rather decent textbook called Of Pandas and People that they've written; disturbingly, it has better science than the textbook used in my high school). This is not some isolated phenomenon. I would say it reaches a larger audience than the Promise Keepers, chronicled in the last issue of the DFP. These Intelligent Design Theorist-authors, while giving "unbiased" (in the Fox News sense) critiques of metaphysical naturalism and the dogma of Darwinism, often tag on their own conservative viewpoints, like the ones outlined here. This is a lot more virulent then some of the gender issues that have come up on the blog as of late, so I thought I'd toss it out and see if it can generate some good response.


Posted by Jonathan, 11:42 PM -

Bush Country

Actually, I would guess that the Dixie Chick is actually a Texan, whereas Bush is from Connecticut and plays at being a Texan.


Posted by Jonathan, 11:11 PM -

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Read the extraneous debris here.


Posted by Richie Jay, 11:00 PM -

NYT: Anti-Populist? On the heel of the Free Press' populism issue, this article raises an interesting point: should the NYT brag that its readers are more educated and richer than the average bloke.


Posted by Kumar, 10:35 PM -

The Review loves Tommy Lee Woon!: Oh, I meant the Stanford Review, who voted our new Dean of Pluralism, when he used to be at Stanford, man of the year. (Here)


Posted by Kumar, 10:31 PM -

Forgery

Well, it seems now perhaps the possibility that "someone" within our country forged the Niger-link documents, which is to me a more plausible explanation than to say that the CIA was "duped." If we forged it, the trustworthiness of our government is at stake (ha ha ha) if they don't investigate. Brief conjecture inspired by this, from Reuters (via NYT).


Posted by Jonathan, 6:50 PM -

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


Posted by Timothy,
6:10 PM -

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


Posted by Timothy, 5:53 PM -

Another "What are you Politically" Test: Shorter, and tells you which American political party you should be in. I'm a good old FDR Democrat. What are you? Take the test, here.


Posted by Kumar, 5:12 PM -

Tips on Liberal Writing: The other side has some ideas, here.


Posted by Kumar, 3:00 PM -

Tim, the "Whip-Smart Intern": Free Dartmouth blogger Tim Waligore's article in the Nation magazine on alternative campus publication has been referenced many places on the Net. Here is a rather amusing critique.


Posted by Kumar, 2:01 AM -

Thursday, March 13, 2003


Pardon Moi?

Freedom fries, freedom toast, vets' corpses. What? Oh, just some nutcase Congresswoman from Florida proposing that the government pay to exhume and return to the US American soldiers buried in France because "I, along with many other Americans, do not feel that the French government appreciates the sacrifices men and women in uniform have made to defend the freedom that the French enjoy today." [Link to CNN for more]

Elsewhere on the site, someone opines: "Are they going to change French kiss to freedom kiss?"


Posted by Jonathan, 10:01 PM -

The Gender Issue: The new Free Press is online, here. In it, fellow Free Dartmouth bloggers Clint Hendler, Graham Roth, Laura Dellatorre, Jared Allesandroni and T. Wood Grinsell have written. Enjoy. It is (alas) my last Free Press as its valiant Editor-in-Chief. Free Dartmouth blogger Clint Hendler has been elected to the Editor-in-Chief position, as well Free Dartmouth blogger Graham Roth to the position of Executive Editor. Congratulations to both.


Posted by Kumar, 7:27 PM -

Blood-For-Oil: It seems that those who criticise anti-war protestors frequently cite the blood for oil" posters/arguments as a clear example that the peace community is unthinking, knee-jerk, and thoroughly unwilling to consider the idea that the war may be one for security or humanitarian causes. In addition, they point out the absurdity, far fetchedness and conspiracy natureof the idea that Bush is colluding with the oil companies and therefore starting this war. The most blatant quote: ..."[Going to war with Iraq] is clearly a decision that is motivated by George W. Bush's desire to please the arms and oil industries in the United States of America." -- Nelson Mandela, September, 2002 (From here. )

Is this criticism fair? Is the "no blood for oil" argument a non-sensical one? Here a couple of reasons why it should not be dismissed out of hand. While the Bush Administration may certainly be driven by a post-9/11 desire for security, top Administration officials, as well those that in its intellectual ranks at publications have provided other important reasons why going to war might be good. First, that a nuclear Saddam would threaten his neighbors and de-stabilize the region. (Why do we care? Because that region is the Middle East which provides the US and the world with a significant chunk of its cheap energy). Second, that a liberated Iraq will start a chain reaction in the Middle East of democratization and a resolution of the Israel-Palestine issue. (Hidden Logic: We can't go against autocratic regimes like Saudi Arabia while we rely on them for oil. Iraq, as a dutiful US ally and oil provider, will "free" us from these other regimes, allowing to take the Middle East on a new path. Also, that this is way we gain energy independence from the old Middle East, while still sustaining our SUV lifestyles). Third, that post-occupation and rebuilding of Iraq will not cost us a great deal because we will finance it with Iraq's oil fields. (The cost for the last Gulf war was over 100 billion I believe. Its nice when someone else can foot the bill.)

In all likelihood, this Iraq war could never risen in political resonance without 9/11, Saddam's continued efforts at development of weapons of mass destruction, and the unwavering determination of the Bush Administration to have this war. Oil, however, was certainly a reason why this war is considered worth fighting. For some additional reading, look to Ohio Congressman, now running for President and new Free Press Editor-in-Chief Clint Hendler's favorite, Kucinich's thoughts on war (here), also our favorite Nation Magazine (here), and finally the thoughts of the much more interesting and edgy New Republic (here).


Posted by Kumar, 2:19 PM -

Roy Orbison Isn't the Only One Crying
I weep for our country. CNN's latest QuickVote, at the time I viewed it, shows in response to the question: "Do you back the symbolic message the House sent to France by changing "french fries" to "freedom fries"? "

51% support the change (111165 votes)
49% oppose (107273 votes)

What happened to you, America?


Posted by Jonathan, 2:14 AM -

Yet The Republicans Drone On
That drone that is supposed to fly around and dump biochem goop on people? Check it out (Washington Post). The thing is a toy airplane with a big wingspan. The sort of RC device the Iraqis seem to be using to fly it would be ineffective out of line of sight. This thing isn't a Predator.

Oh, here's a fascinating tidbit. The local Army recruiter called me the other day. Dunno why. I would personally rather join the Air Force. Always wanted to fly. Anyway. He asked me if I'd ever thought about joining the Army, since I would get an officer's commission with a three year service commitment if I signed up after graduating. I told him I'd thought of joining the military before (true) but I had my doubts about making such a commitment now. Among other reasons, I cited my reluctance to die in Iraq fighting Mr. Bush's War. His reply? 'Understandable, but realistically, by the time you finish training, that will be over.' Ambitious, aren't we? Still, I could do Intel (so he says), and to you I would then be "Lieutenant Eisenman." I like the sound of that.


Posted by Jonathan, 2:09 AM -

Arranged Marriage in the 21st Century: You are an up and coming Indian professional. You want to settle down, get married, have a wife with fair skin, a pretty face, a college degree in something useful, and be from a good family. But alas, dating is so time consuming and who needs the hassle. Why not just to the top Indian matrimonial site in the world, where your perfect bridal match awaits. Here. (I know Nickil and Amit are intrigued. Any other takers? Btw, no good reason to ask me why I came across this site.)


Posted by Kumar, 1:36 AM -

You Know You Want To (Part 2, Earlier Post is Acting Up): CNN article is here.


Posted by Kumar, 1:02 AM -

You Know You Want To. Everyone Is Doing It
To the Amit Anands of the world that have labelled the blogging a nerd activity, CNN has a different take: blogging is the new and hip thing to do. No guilt, all politics, all fun (or procastination from real work, whatever you want to call it).


Posted by Kumar,
12:53 AM -

Condi Rice in 2008?
Her fan blog is already up. Here. (Although I have heard rumors that Bush is choosing to stick with Cheney for the 2004 run, rather than go with Rice, specifically because he wants to leave 2008 potentially open for Jeb. Scary thought. I will try to track down the rumor and provide more later.)


Posted by Kumar, 12:44 AM -

Scandalous at Dartmouth?
The Dartmouth Contemporary had a center-fold in its last issue centered around the theme of love. The center-fold was of middle-aged white woman staring forward, her front chest fully exposed, with tatoos all over her arms and also on her back. A couple of Contemporary editors found the nudity of the center-fold too risque, and atleast a few other editors thought the center-fold would atleast stir up some controversy. Even the printer, upon seeing the centerfold, hesitated and asked if the Contemporary had the woman's permisssion (which they did). The actual campus response: no scandal, no controversy, not even an email to Contemporary account complaining (my sources tell me). I wonder why no discussion was stirred up. Is it because we are college kids, exposed to nudity and violence in many of our media and entertainment? If so, what kind of centerfold would shock? What are lines you can't cross even on this campus (on the sex/nudity topic)? Thoughts?


Posted by Kumar, 12:32 AM -

The McCain Phenomenon
So what happened to all that talk of McCain's dark horse challenge to Bush? Is he still up to it? Josh Stern, the leader of Young Democrats, is still dreaming of a Leiberman-McCain ticket for the Democrats! National Journal is claiming that Bob Graham could be the "McCain" of 2004. Here. The idea that "peaking too early," having too much early media exposure is bad, is being thrown around everywhere (including this National Journal article). Given that candidates have to raise money in these key months, I wonder if this idea really plays out.


Posted by Kumar, 12:22 AM -

Wednesday, March 12, 2003


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


Posted by Jared, 10:28 PM -

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

Also: Mike Kinsley writes about Moran in Slate.


Posted by Timothy, 10:16 PM -

Scary Seafood
For all you half-hearted fish-eating vegetarians out there (and I include myself in that category): here's a good reason to give up the fish and seafood along with the chicken and beef.
Also, I'm curious: does anyone have any strong views on animal rights and vegetarianism as a political stance? From a pure health standpoint, I think it makes a lot of sense. I am a tad suspicious of the PETA activists though. Seems like there are many things that are more important than stopping people from wearing fur coats. Is there a middle ground?


Posted by Laura, 9:45 PM -

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

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

Read More Here.


Posted by Richie Jay, 7:36 PM -

Bush and White House Team to Strip in Support of War
This is so funny I had to include the whole thing:
Today at 2PM on the White House Lawn, President George W. Bush and his team stripped for the cameras as they spelled out the words "Regime Change".
Said National Security Agency Head Condoleeza Rice as she stood stark naked while waiting for the photographer to set up, "We kept reading in the newspapers about all these nude protests for peace and all the publicity they generated and we thought, 'Hey, if stripping makes people more aware of your ideas and policy stances, then why shouldn't it work for us too?"
Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld helped make up the letter "C" in "Change". Both were enthusiastic about the idea. Said Powell, "In Iraq, you wouldn't see this happening. Freedom is a word that the Iraqi people are not allowed to know. By stripping for the liberation of Iraq, we are committing ourselves to granting the Iraqi people that freedom while enjoying the freedom of being one with nature."
Added President Bush, "We stand before God as he brought us into this world. There can be no shame in our stance."
Vice President Cheney complained, saying that he wished they could have waited until May to make this point. "It would have been a lot warmer. What with the shrinkage and all, I was a bit reluctant to do this. But, I think it sends the right message."
Only Attorney General John Ashcroft refused to participate, saying that seeing boobies would cause him to go "straight to hell".
Somehow, I don't think a picture of this would be as popular as all those other ones with the naked ladies.


Posted by Laura, 5:25 PM -

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

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

MORE INFO: An article on mtv.com


Posted by Richie Jay, 4:52 PM -

Best Republican Idea Yet

Straight on the heels of 'Freedom Fries', Rep. Dan Foley (R-NM) wants national alien day. This plan, at least, has some thought behind it: tourism for New Mexico.
A bill has been put forward in the United States to designate a day to honour space aliens.
Dan Foley, a Republican from Roswell, New Mexico, the area where some say aliens landed, proposed an "Extra-terrestrial Culture Day" every second Thursday in February.
Mr Foley asked for the bill "in recognition of the many visitations, sightings, unexplained mysteries and technological advances... of alien beings" in New Mexico.
The legislation aims to "enhance relationships among all the citizens of the cosmos, known and unknown," he added

National space alien day, never again will I accuse a republican of closing their mind to any of the world's possibilities.


Posted by Nikhil, 10:54 AM -

Tuesday, March 11, 2003


In response to Chien Wen's Comment on Jared's "Freedom Fries" Post (and other things):
you have compared a rare rally sign to something that actual members of congress think is a good idea and made official in a government-run space. this comparison is absurd.
Reps. Jones and Ney have wasted the time and effort of the legislative branch of the government and briefly reduced it to trivial name calling. Calling France a "so-called ally" discounts their notable contributions to the ongoing efforts in Afghanistan and their (and Germany too) arrests of numerous terrorists. In the article linked from Jared's post there is a comment from Tom Delay about France backing down from the war on terror. If you are so concerned about "the stupidity of it all" you might be irked by the way the republicans (sadly they aren't alone on this) are trying to associate our pending invasion of Iraq with the war on terror. The two are separate. Bush does the nation a great disservice by beating the 9/11 drum in the name of invading Iraq. Something that can't be said enough but seems to fall of deaf ears too frequently: there isn't any evidence tying Saddam or any part of the Iraqi regime to the 9/11/01 attacks.
If anybody is truly created a new isolationism, it is our own goverment in the form of diplomatic/policy making isolationism, coupled with military belligerence.

and here is a question: there has been a lot of talk about Iraqi civilians who will be killed in an American invasion. I've also spoken with a few people about how the portrayal of the war in the news, especially after our own troops start dying, will likely stir up more support for the war. Now, let me make something abundantly clear, I support our troops. If they must go, I bid them good luck, safety and hopefully a quick return home. So here's my question: how many American lives is it worth to the war-mongers reading this post to bring about regime change in Iraq? Gulf War I, "Desert Storm" killed over 100 of our troops and that is remembered as an easy war. This war will not be about self defense. As it is being pushed by Bush and friends, it is a strategic act of aggression to reshape the political contours of the middle east. How many American lives will you trade for this? and if any of our dear readers are of the "moral obligation" camp how come you're not in uniform? I say support our troops, keep them safe and don't use them if it isn't necessary.
So seriously, war-heads: How many American lives are you willing to cash in to fight a war that need not be fought?


Posted by Graham, 11:25 PM -

Outrage of the Week
Until very recently, it was common practice for med school students to practice giving gynecological exams on anesthetized women going in for surgery. These women did not consent to be guinea pigs for the sake of a few apprentice doctors, and were never informed of what was to happen to them. Here's a partiularly horrendous quote from the article that describes this barbaric practice:
Anesthetized women are the perfect subjects, doctors said, because they are relaxed, and unable to feel the sometimes painful mistakes that novice examiners make.
Can you imagine men undergoing analogous treatment? Just one of many examples of the medical profession's sexist tendencies.


Posted by Laura, 8:28 PM -

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

Where do you stand?


Posted by Richie Jay, 7:43 PM -

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


Posted by Jared, 5:35 PM -

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


Posted by Jared, 10:41 AM -

Girls Love Beef!

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

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


Posted by Richie Jay, 8:46 AM -

Democrats Stand Against The President!

"The American taxpayer must make up his mind now that we have given the President power to carry on undeclared wars all over the world. He is probably going to have his taxes doubled and the national debt will be $100,000,000,000 instead of $65,000,000,000 if the war lasts for any length of time.

- U.S. Sen. Burton K. Wheeler (D-MT)

Finally! Democrats are standing up to Bush!

Shit, my mistake. This guy is standing against FDR on the Lend-Lease plan in 1941. Even though the guy is a conservative Democrat (Wheeler), at least he stood up for something. And come on, some of you that have no idea about the size of the national debt or who the Hell the current MT Senators are (Burns (R) and Baucus (D) ) bought it. : )


Posted by Jonathan, 2:53 AM -

Sudden Thought

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


Posted by janos, 1:50 AM -

Monday, March 10, 2003


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


Posted by Timothy, 8:05 PM -

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



Posted by Timothy, 7:54 PM -

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


Posted by Timothy, 7:32 PM -

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


Posted by Timothy, 6:55 PM -

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

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

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


Posted by Richie Jay, 8:42 AM -

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

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

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

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

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


Posted by Justin Sarma, 2:35 AM -

A ditty, if you will

If You're Happy And You Know It Bomb Iraq
by John Robbins

If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are Saudi,
And your alibi is shoddy,
And your tastes remain quite gaudy,
Bomb Iraq.

If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
If you think that SUVs,
Are the best thing since sliced cheese,
And your father you must please,
Bomb Iraq.

If the globe is quickly warming, bomb Iraq.
If the poor will soon be storming, bomb Iraq.
We assert that might makes right,
Burning oil is a delight,
For the empire we will fight,
Bomb Iraq.

If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think that someone's dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.

If corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding that ain’t easy,
And your manhood’s getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq.

Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
For our might now knows no borders, bomb Iraq.
Disagree? We’ll call it treason,
It's the make war not love season,
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.

[Link to the place I got this]



Posted by Jonathan, 12:30 AM -

Sunday, March 09, 2003


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


Posted by Jared, 7:40 PM -

A Final Clarification

Although the latest response to my post takes the time to call my argument "hopelessly befuddled," it then takes a facile approach to my post, neglecting the conclusion to harp on the details. Fair enough. Take me to task on whatever you'd like. I would just point out a few things in this, my final post on the matter, as I believe that since I first offered an opinion, and definitely since I've clarified that opinion (thanks to Tim Waligore for his comments here and via blitz), it has gone unanswered save blustery responses that tend toward the personal.

First, I have been taken out of context here by Laura Dellatorre (italics are hers, quotation is mine):
But, he's suspicious of appealing to a specific group to post more simply because of their gender:
"My argument is that women don't a priori have anything to add, just because they are women."

A cursory glance reveals that while I would affirm this (and I thank Miss Dellatorre for her affirmation that I have made "a fair argument"), the context from which it was taken is not that of my original posting. Rather, it was a reply to Tim Waligore's assertion that I believe "women have nothing distinctive to add."

So now I will offer, for the last time, and in the clearest terms I know how, my original point.
1) More women need to post
2) This fact is irrelevant of the quality or quantity of male posters; it is a fact based on the paucity of female posters, given the nature of the forum - not on the "abundance" of male posters.
3) To address a concern communicated privately on this matter, even if there were roughly equal numbers of posters, and someone suggested more women ought to post, the logic of my argument does not demand reply affirming or denying the quality of such a request. It is a fair request, so long as it is not made in conjunction with...
4) Irrelevant remarks regarding male posters
5) Extrapolating from this specific instantiation - necessary for keeping this whole debate from looking absurd (which it has become, since my interlocutors have not taken the opportunity to understand the reasoning of my posts): the reason that some people malign all feminism is because some feminists can't resist the opportunity to introduce irrelevant remarks that the same group of "some people" find offensive. This is independent of what has occurred here, since as I once lengthily noted, I am, to say the least, ambivalent about the notion of crusading against offensiveness. Rather, it was an explanation, as the title of the post said, of why "Men Grumble About Feminism." Perhaps it was a mistake not to qualify the title with "some," but I thought - and has been affirmed by Tim with his voice sympathetic to feminism - that since it is clear that not all men disregard feminism writ large, surely no one would make an issue of that. My subsequent personal conversation with Tim shows that this is in fact what occurred. For that misunderstanding, I apologize. However, I believe if you think about it, the point that I've elucidated here is probably a good reason why you will find many men who say "I am all for equality" and yet scorn the term "feminism." These people have been turned off by the fact that some people are making it seem that men and women are playing a zero-sum game, in which for women to finally acheive equality, it is necessary at all turns to deride men, or in some cases, reference "how the guys have it" as the incentive for progress. I think it would be remarkably facile to insist that there be more women in science and engineering just because men overwhelmingly hold those positions. It would be better to say that women shouldn't be discouraged socially (as they have been) from holding those positions if that's what they want to do. But that is tangential. Coming back to the specific instance at hand, I think I have sufficiently noted that, as Laura has stated, "an extremely mild feminist stance" does not seem even "remotely controversial." If my reply was meant merely to address this post, this would be a lot of wasted time. It isn't worth this sort of conversation. However, as I intended, the goal was a springboard to a larger conversation. While that conversation may have been in the context of "Boy, Eisenman is stupid" rather than, "let's see where this goes," it has allowed (albeit in a rather poor sense) for the exposition of ideas I'd hoped (rather than the notable failure of any real commentary when last I posted something, written as a question, on a topic dealing with women).


Posted by Jonathan, 7:32 PM -

Amateur Pontificators Gone Wild
What the hell happened? I make a rather innocuous post encouraging more women to join the blogpsphere and I get shot down (I think, anyway: it's hard to make much sense of his position based on his posts) by Jon Eisenman, whose incredible grasp of logic makes him utterly incoherent. Here's what I understand of this hopelessly befuddled argument. Jon wants more women to post. He tells Tim:
I agreed that more women should post. This was never an issue.

But, he's suspicious of appealing to a specific group to post more simply because of their gender:

My argument is that women don't a priori have anything to add, just because they are women.

That is a fair argument, Jon. What I don't understand is the vitriol with which you responded initially, especially with that blindly critical title: "And Women Wonder Why Men Grumble About Feminism". I was taking an extremely mild feminist stance perhaps, but hardly anything that is even remotely controversial. If you want to argue that women are not innately different then men, and therefore should not be explicitly encouraged to participate, that's fair. I am not adopting some essentialist line about biological sex difference (a la Emmett Hogan and a host of other conservatives).

However, look at organizations, governments, and political movements which did not or do not include women. By and large, they have a track record of ignoring women's concerns and favoring men, which almost always harms women. In a society which is still racist and sexist and classist in many ways, diversity is crucial in ensuring that everyone's concerns are heard. I'm not calling on women to post to FreeDartmouth simply to ensure that the universal "feminine" voice is heard. I am saying that women, because we have all grown up in a society which treats men and women very differently, need to be heard as well as men. Women do have different viewpoints because of their gender socialization and the different challenges that they face simply because they are women in a largely male-dominated society. This is changing, yes, but it is still there.

To ignore this is to go the way of those "moderates" on the Dartmouth Observer: oblivious to the social injustices that remain while waxing optimistically about the colorblind meritocracy. Interestingly, the only times issues of gender have come up on the Observer have been when I posted about them. John Stevenson (dare I point out that he is African American?) and Chien Wen Kung (also a racial minority, Asian) talk about race all the time. I suggest that this has something to do with their own racial status. Of course, according to them, no one should care about race in the first place. Well, the fact remains that in a social order where white and male is the default, those who are most interested, articulate and determined to talk about race and sex discrimination are generally those who are forced by their own non-default race and gender to think hard about these issues.

Does that mean that colorblind, sexblind societies couldn't or shouldn't exist? No, but for the millionth time, we have not yet reached that point. When we do I will be happy to agree with Jon and ignore the gender of FreeDartmouth posters. Until then, grumble away Jon. You seem to enjoy it.


Posted by Laura, 6:54 PM -

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


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


Posted by Timothy, 4:25 AM -

Mandela, Terrorists, Emails

This is a blitz (email) exchange between John C. Buckholz and I regarding my last post:

"the fundamental difference is that nelson mandela posed no threat to south african citizens, infrastructure, economy, public health, et al."
actually, he was arrested primarily for bombing electric pylons which is a threat to infrastructure. i dont fully agree with the article, but I do think it has some very strong points and I do think that sacrificin freedom as a purported defense of freedom is a little hard to digest.


"grand central station"
more time to organize :D. i'm not saying that the guy shouldn't be arrested & jailed for a long period of time, i'm saying that legal aid ought to be able to supply him with a lawyer.

"whatever I think these people ought to have fair representation but your blog is a huge fan of moral relativism whether or not we pushed them there, the people who attacked my city and my country represent evil. equating nelson mandela with an al qaeda operative (though I understand the point) just doesn't hold water"
the equation was made by the economist, it's not strong but i dont think it's as weak as your making it out to be. its simply that this time we (i'm from singapore, at the moment my school (i went to an interntional school there) is under specific threat from Jemmah Islama, an al qaida linked terrorist group so i'm going to assume we're on the same side) are the enemy and we believe that they are wrong. now they may be bastards but so were the people who tied the african american man to a pickup truck in east texas last year, they still got a trial.


"also, this is like saying that peter tosh was arrested by the jamaican police because he was a singer there's context"
yes, and for Al Qaida there is context here too. Now you and I don't agree with it but its worth keeping in mind that if Pepin hadn't won the battle at Poitiers we may well be thinking diferrent. DONT GET ME WRONG I AM NOT DEFENDING AL QAIDA IN ANY WAY, but context is very subjective which is why it plays a part in sentencing, for example, but not the actual determinance of guilt in a judicial process (except in manslaughter, etc, where what the context needs to include is well tested by time, tradition, and almost universal agreement.)
(next blitz)
agreed, though, that Mandela is a far better person than any al qaida operative in my esitmation, and most people's really.


Posted by Nikhil, 2:48 AM -

For the Blood-for-Oil Hypochondriacs Amongst You

For those of you whose opposition toward the impending war rests solely on the fact you think it is the result of some grand blood-for-oil conspiracy, and those of you who like folk/protest music, check out the latest from Billy Bragg. Bragg paired with Wilco for some good shit in the past, if that helps contextualize him. The song actually isn't half bad, notwithstanding the chorus's univocal attribution of the war to oil prices. The other verses actually help flesh out more reasons to oppose it for the ill-informed hippy in you (as if anyone who reads this is ill-informed).

Bragg's web site


Posted by Jonathan, 2:02 AM -

Male Ego

Tim, you're taking an instantiation of the principle of my argument as being the main thing. The quality of my blogging or "male blogging" is irrelevant. The point is that it doesn't help anything to "harmlessly" belittle males, even if it is only at the expense of egos - people surely don't like to have their own hurt - to advance the cause of women. And that is done too often. Does this make many men (and conservative women, a la "Goebbels-with-tits") retch at the very mention of the word "feminism?" Yep. And that's my point, one that should be abundantly clear after my last post. However, rather than accept this simplicity, you took the use of the word "amateur" over the underlying principle that the gender-qualification was superfluous (which you are pretty much affirming in your latest reply) as your point of response. Tim writes:

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

I hope in the brief note above, I've relieved you of that rather ridiculous, and knowing that you're smarter than that, contrived misconception. It's clear that I am joking, and it's very clear what I was actually arguing (more so from the fact I just laid it out again). And, incidentally, Tim, should you find some reason to indict me on this nonsense again, I don't find "amateur," "novice," or "beginner" to be particularly insulting terms.

Anyway, while it's nice that you've again taken a position - that we're all amateurs here - it's pretty irrelevant to the point. Certainly more irrelevant than you accuse me of being in taking the opportunity to bring up the issue in the first place.


Posted by Jonathan, 1:54 AM -

Professional Male Egos

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

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


Posted by Timothy, 1:25 AM -

All Our Enemies Are Terrorists: Surprise!

More conflation, in the media, perpetuated by our government, that anyone who attacks any American is a terrorist. How does attacking invading-and-occupying soldiers constitute terrorism? [link]

...terrorist fighters may blend in with the Iraqi civilian population to get close enough to conduct strikes against allied troops during an invasion, officials said. Or they may attack American forces trying to stabilize Iraq after a war. - Excerpted from above-linked article


Posted by Jonathan, 1:05 AM -
Powered by Blogger

The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth College or the Dartmouth Free Press.