Alston Ramsay () @ 04/25/2003 21:22: "Particular agenda"? Once again, did you actually read the editorial and article? Let's recap. I used two examples to illustrate my point, the first was prefaced with "for example" and referred to the diversity training on which the Review reported. After, I wrote, "Or what about...," clearly meaning that I was pointing to one more example. I could have pointed to numerous other examples of spending under the Dean of the College area that had not sufferef cuts this year. I didn't say it was a zero sum game and I didn't advocate the elimination of the program, but I did point out the way the College has no qualms about throwing money into social programs when academic ones suffer. (continued due to length).
, Alston Ramsay () @ 04/25/2003 21:22: But had I said it was a zero-sum game--which I didn't--I still say you're incorrect to think the UGA program should receive funding (as much as it currently does) over the library. It's about priorities. Also, while the UGA program may employ part-time 100 or so students, the library employs about 170 adults, for whom this is their livlihood. Still, my point is that funding could be trimmed from the UGA program, as it could from many other areas, without significant impact, unlike the libraries, where every dime counts.
In your rush to find something to criticize, you've completely ignored my point, and, in the process, shown a callous disregard for the College's academic mission.
Since this debate started on the main page, let's finish it there. Please post this one.,
Brad Plumer (http://freedartmouth.com) @ 04/25/2003 21:48: Agree with Mr. Ramsay. We could probably bat around a number of good arguments for the UGA system (for instance, I think "cushy" student jobs are very beneficial to the college, much more than "actual" community jobs), but that wasn't the point of the editorial (or his article, which was very nicely done).
The library is and should be one of the cornerstones of the college, and we should not be scraping off 1/15th of its operating budget until nearly every other college program around has undergone close scrutiny first.
And he's absolutely right, the cuts are ridiculous and damaging. Sanborn is currently a wreck, with books flung carelessly all about the place. And I have yet to find anyone in the math department happy about the impending elimination of Cook. Pitiful.
Posted by Richie Jay,
12:25 AM
-
Friday, April 25, 2003 Response and Response to Response I meant to use the feedback system for this, but it's not working on my puter:
Alston Ramsay:
Well my apologies for the factual inaccuracy with the boarding. That being said, however, you must not have read the editorial, since you completely missed the point. It is not a criticism of the UGA program at all, rather the budget priorities of the college at large. I think the library should be given full funding before the UGA program receives a stipend. What was the matter with $300 a term? And it is my understanding from grads from before four years ago that, at some point, there wasn't a cash stipend.
Read the article on the libraries, and maybe you'll see my point, or understand what I'm referencing. There would still be UGAs if they weren't paid a grand a term. And maybe some of the extra money could preserve some jobs in the library, which is more central to the aims of the College.
Richie Jay:
I understand the contentious issue of budget priorities when cuts are made, and I agree that the libraries deserve adequate funding. However, I am not comfortable with the zero-sum game that pits one specific program versus the library system. Clearly, UGAs are not directly responsible for the current situation with Dartmouth's library system, nor are they the most wasteful recipients of Dartmouth funds. Picking the UGA program for elimination reflects a particular agenda rather than a sincere desire to preserve the libraries, and it distracts from the issue at hand. Even if the half-million figure for UGA pay is accurate, it represents something like 1/7 of 1% of Dartmouth's annual operating costs and provides over 100 current students (about 3% of the currently "R' term student body) with part-time jobs to fund their expensive Dartmouth educations.
But, like I said, I don't see why it's the UGAs vs. the libraries. The argument then comes down to an elimination of a half-million dollars in student wages in order to give the libraries more money (unless you argue that they should be made up elsewhere, in which case there would be $0 saved for additional library use). If I were to argue that we should cut a half-million in student wages from DDS or, what the heck, the library system, I'm sure you would not think of that as a rational means of supporting the libraries.
In today's issue of The Dartmouth Review, Alston Ramsay bashes Dartmouth's spending priorities in this article, specifically the UGA program:
Or what about the increase in Undergraduate Advisor salaries a few years ago? Not only do they receive free board, but they?re given a $1,000 per term , even if they live on senior halls where their duties entail very little. Each year, these salaries cost in the vicinity of $500,000. Students used to become UGAs for no stipend, but the current goal is to attract ?more qualified? candidates. I need not even mention the week-long UGA diversity training.
Rather than argue the merits or dismerits of his points, I'd just like to offer some factual corrections:
1. UGAs are given $1000/term, but they are not given free board (unless he counts orientation week, which is a full $75 perk, or unless I am sorely uninformed).
2. UGAs have never worked for no stipend in my 4 years here. They received an incredibly inadequate $300/term during my freshman year.
3. RAs, the meaner version of UGAs at other schools, generally get free room, often free board, and also a stipend, a package of wages and benefits that is double or triple what Dartmouth UGAs receive. Thus, any foreseeable alternative would likely be more expensive, not cheaper.
Does the UGA program have its flaws? Absolutely. But these criticisms are inaccurate and not constructive.
Posted by Richie Jay,
5:53 PM
-
Santorum and the right to privacy Eric Mueller blogs:
The big question (incredibly) seems to be this: was Santorum actually comparing homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest, and adultery? Of course he was. There. I'm glad I was able to clear that up. See what my linguistics background did for me? Of course, there's a more subtle issue here. Santorum followed the above comments with this statement: "All of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family... And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist, in my opinion, in the United States Constitution." That part of the statement isn't getting as much press as the comparison of homosexuality to incest. It does, I think, provide a touch of context that diminishes the offensiveness of the comparison at least a little bit. As I read it, Santorum was (at least in part) making a point about constitutional law, not about policy: he was saying that what homosexuality, incest, adultery, bigamy, and polygamy all have in common is that claims to practice them free of state control are all rooted in what he sees as the same flawed constitutional theory--namely, that the due process clause protects a fundamental right of privacy that includes those practices. This comparison of homosexuality to bigamy has been made and debated in opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court--including Bowers v. Hardwick and Romer v. Evans. So, if we take Santorum's comment as just a statement of an intellectual position on a question of constitutional law, I think it comes off a touch less badly than the way it's being reported and criticized. Of course, I don't believe for a second that Santorum meant it just as a statement of an intellectual position on a question of constitutional law. Remember, the link that Santorum sees between homosexuality and polygamy is that they're both "antithetical" to the "healthy" family--so there's obviously something other than careful constitutional analysis going on here.
Update: A good collection of Santorum links here and here
Posted by Timothy,
1:55 PM
-
When libertarian law professors blog about lesbians Eugene Volokh says: "As someone once put it, if AIDS shows that God believes homosexuality deserves punishment, then the lower incidence of AIDS among lesbians shows that God must really love lesbians."
Posted by Timothy,
1:48 PM
-
Thursday, April 24, 2003 Colmes Finally Attacks
Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA): "First of all I had to read the transcript to find out exactly what he did say and I think one of the big questions here is this journalist, Lara Jordan, who's a Democrat operative, her husband Jim Jordan is running the Kerry campaign. He also was in charge of the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee. So, you know, ... Jordan herself is pretty suspect" ("Hannity & Colmes," FNC, 4/23). FNC's Colmes: "Now, wait a second. I think that's unfair Congressman. You now want to make an association between the person who did the interviewing because she has an association with a Democrat and not have Rick Santorum take personal responsibility for what he said? ... You want to blame the messenger and that's totally unfair" Kingston: "No, Alan, let me underscore this argument. Let me tell you why that's important because I've read the full transcripts, and what she did, let's just say Mr. Santorum was talking in two or three paragraphs. She took line two, added it line seven, and then put it in line nine." Colmes: "That's not true. I've read the entire transcript too." Kingston: "She did -- Alan, I've got the transcripts right here. She did. She's acting like some interns in college writing a term paper." Colmes: "So, you're now accusing Rick Santorum of being misquoted. Are you saying -- are you saying, Congressman Kingston... Kingston: "It's not fair reporting." Colmes: "Let me ask my question. Are you saying, Congressman, that he said everything's fine, that she -- because she is a Democratic operative -- purposely misquoted him to aid the Democrats and to hurt him because he is a Republican, is that your accusation?" Kingston: "I'm saying that if she didn't do this intentionally she ought to be fired for incompetence because she cut and sliced his sentences." Colmes: "Unbelievable"
SALT LAKE CITY - The leader of one of Utah's largest polygamist sects has objected to Sen. Rick Santorum's comment lumping plural marriage with other practices the Pennsylvania Republican considers to be antifamily. Santorum has been under fire for comparing homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery. Owen Allred, 89, head of the United Apostolic Brethen, based in the Salt Lake City suburb of Bluffdale, agreed with Santorum in part. "He is absolutely right. The people of the United States are doing whatever they can to do away with the sacred rights of marriage," Allred told The Salt Lake Tribune. But Allred said Santorum's inclusion of polygamy in his list tarnishes a religious tradition whose roots are traced to biblical figures such as Abraham, Jacob and Moses - defiling them as "immoral and dirty." (more from the AP)
Posted by Timothy,
7:24 PM
-
Andrew Sullivan on Santorum
It's hard to find the right analogy, but it's not that far from saying that you have nothing against Jews, as long as they go to Church each Sunday. (Which was, of course, the Catholic position for a very long time.) Worse actually. It's like saying that, even if Jews practised their religion at home, in private, they could still be arrested for undermining the social order. Their very persistence in their identity - which harms and could harm no-one else - is a threat. Do you think someone who said that would remain a leading pillar of the Republican Party?
Andrewsullivan.com has a lot of other good stuff on it. But I emphasized the last sentence because this example (whether or not you think this example is analogous to Santorum's statements) shows that we do have things we consider legitimate in our public discourse. I bring this up because some of the commentators on my last post thought I was being dangerous by merely noting the obvious, that simply having a position that is the same as a religious position should not innoculate you from criticism that your view is or should be beyond the pale in politics. Now, it can be dangerous to say that certain views are illegitimate, but it is not itself inheritantly dangerous (the point, if made absolutely as it seemed to be in the comments, is absurd: it cannot be more dangerous for a blogger to criticize a politician's views as out of bounds than for that politician with the power to affect people's lives to enact any view, even trampling people's rights.) Segregationalism is now considered out of bounds for politicians to advocate and that is very important for the progress of our democracy.
Now you can make the argument that if a large number of people think something, the stability of the polity depends on their views being representated. (I don't think Emmett 'I love Mill' Hogan would want to say that majoritarianism should always trump rights, though.) But is it true that a lot of people agree with Santorum? NO, IT IS NOT. Or at least, no more than those who agreed with Trent Lott (and by that I mean what conservatives and liberals accused him of meaning). Of course, a lot of people think homosexual sex is perverted, but it often is not grounded in religious doctrine, or if it is, it is selective outrage and a narrow reading of what 'sodomy' means. I would say that relatively few people think that the state should ban contraceptives, make illegal adultry, ban sex before marriage, as well as make sodomy illegal. Santorum seems to be one of those people, and I think Emmett may be right that he can defend that from a traditional Catholic prospective (or another Christian perspective). But with so many people not practising what they preach, as well as not being willing to tolerate laws that would punish their errancy, it would selective to only enforce such laws on homosexuals, and it would not born of a legitimate religious position to claim that the Bible's views on sex should only be applied to them. In other words, most of the 'we' that Santorum speaks of voting to apply these laws would not want them to be enforced upon themselves and frankly would not put up with laws that consistently applied, though coercive law, a perspective said to be Santorum's. By the way, I do not think Emmett on dartlog is right to say that conservatives should have resisted the Trent Lott affair. I think there are interesting, and sometimes differing, issues in both of these cases. I mean, aren't conservatives the one always claiming that it is different to discriminate on the basis of race than on the basis of sexual orientation? Plus, Lott's comments really could only mean one thing, and it harkened back to an ugly, vile past. No one, and I mean no one, doubts that what Santorum says is very much in the present of the Republican Party. As a political matter, 'bigotry' and 'intolerance' will keep being a watchword. Whether this helps or hurts the Republicans will depend in part on how Americans see the morality of sexual practices and whether they are willing to tolerate and accept them. So strangely Emmett and I in part agree: it can be seen as a moral issue. I see nothing immoral about homosexuality and no reason to prohibit it. But unless I hear arguments otherwise, if you don't go the whole hog and buy into traditional doctrine about everything relating to sex, it is just hypocrisy and pretty much should be an illegitimate perspective. What I am shocked about is that people are speaking out against Santorum, signalling that we are moving closer to a time when that perspective is actually considered illegitimate to the extent that a major party would be embarrassed to have a leader who held those views. We are no where near there yet.
Posted by Timothy,
6:46 PM
-
Quality Journalism, Quality Advertisers Online conservative publication Newsmax.com is running an advertisement for this product. Seriously, what is it?
Posted by Richie Jay,
5:46 PM
-
Santorum AP interview transcript I know it was already linked to, but I just wanted to post this so people could see the context of his remarks.
SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.
AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?
SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.
Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality _
AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.
SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.
AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy -- you don't agree with it?
SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.
"The United States has always supported making the Middle East a region free of weapons of mass destruction."--Ari Fleischer, April 22, 2003
According to this eye-opening MSNBC flash graphic Israel has nuclear weapons ("possibly including neutron bombs" and "reportedly...nuclear landmines"), and is "long believed" to have "offensive" bio-tech research and chemical weapons. Go read it now. (Via Ira Chernus, Via Cursor)
Posted by Clint,
12:18 PM
-
Fun with Greens ****************SWEATSHOPS********************
No one is pro-sweatshop, but perhaps you don't know the details of the issue or what to do about it....
...easy solution: CUT YOUR TAGS!!!
Tag-cutting will be going on all day today (thursday) and through monday, 4/28. What it means is that YOU cut out your tags - specifically from Gap, Old Navy, Banana Republic, J. Crew, Abercrombie, and Tommy Hilfiger clothing - and put them in the receptacles in your dorms. These will be either on your bulletin board or that of the floor above/below you. You can also bring them to Collis anytime tonight 5-8pm.
Then WE send thousands of tags to the CEO of the above companies, along with a letter requesting: 1) That they disclose the locations of all their factories (right now, no one knows exactly where they are operating, which makes it virtually impossible to investigate their labor practices....) 2) That they allow their workers to unionize (a very simple and basic HUMAN RIGHT)
This is not a radical concept. We are not asking you to boycott a store. We are not asking the companies to shut down any factories. We are not even pushing for them to pay a living wage, give vacation times, or give health care to those who get sick due to working conditions. We are just asking for two basic steps that will allow impartial inspections to occur and allow workers to organize (and then make any further demands themselves). This has been a very successful technique in convincing companies to begin to clean up their act. Join the movement. Take 5 minutes to think of the people behind your clothes. Take 5 minutes to do a simple and easy good deed.
Please blitz me or sally newman if you have any questions, if you'd like the names of sweatshop-free companies (that make fun clothes), if you'd like specifics on why we chose these companies, or if you want any other information in general.
*sponsored by the dartmouth college greens
--- You wrote: No one is pro-sweatshop --- end of quote ---
I don't get it. I thought a sweatshop was another word for the gym. I like the gym. What's the problem? Why must Green always fight against good physical health? The government tells me it's important to be healthy, and you guys tell me being in good shape is destroying the rainforest. Damn Ralph Nader, damn him to hell.
Posted by Jonathan,
10:45 AM
-
Wednesday, April 23, 2003 You catch more bees with honey
I forget where I saw this, I think it was from Joseph Nye at the Kennedy school, but I read an interesting article on how our policy of isolating "bad" nations is counter-productive.
Instead of cutting off trade and diplomatic ties to Cuba, N. Korea, Iran, etc. we should recognize these types of nations and sell them hummers and frappucinos. Nothing will piss the mullahs off more than seeing people line up for green cards.
Give them the whiskey and sexy and the democracy will come!
This strategy of engagement seems to be working for China, perhaps the most dangerous non-democracy of all, which we have gotten to adapt market reforms that are linked to US-bound exports..
Posted by sam,
11:32 PM
-
US Preparing to Make More Nukes Though it has not been front page news, according to Jon Wolfsthal, deputy director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a former Energy Department weapons expert, "it would be accurate to say we have restarted the production of nuclear weapons"
Posted by scott anderson,
11:30 PM
-
More Ari Proof that Fox News has lost its last shred of credibility.
Posted by Laura,
10:25 PM
-
The Triumph of the Good over the Right Howard Dean says: "In an interview published yesterday with the Associated Press, Rick Santorum, the third highest ranking Republican in the Senate, compared homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery. I am outraged by Senator Santorum’s remarks." Wow. To be so forward about views of the morality, not merely the tolerance, of homosexuality would have been unheard of 10 or 20 years ago from a major presidential candidate.The best the Republicans can do is say, like Dick Armey, that people should keep their mouths closed and not talk about sex in public. Emmett on dartlog.net must know that simply because a religion endorses a view doesn't automatically make it legitimate, especially in the public political arena. But I'm surprised the political environment is such that Dean and others can say that Santorum's is basically an illegitimate view. It reminds me how years ago I read an article by communitarian Michael Sandel on how homosexual relationships should be recognized as legitimate because the good they promote is similar to hetereosexual ones. Andrew Sullivan has been arguing something basically (not quite, I know) like this. I didn't think either had much chance politically, but I thought they had some compelling pull to them, rather than arguments completely relying on formal notions of rights (for example, the possibility that Hawaii would legalize same-sex marriages to end sex discrimination). Emmett should be scared by this development.
Update: I found this interesting passage in a law review article trying to deduce WWMD (What Would Mill Do?):
Can the liberal state deny marriage licenses to polygamous partners, typically one man and two women? This was once the main argument against same-sex marriage recognition - it would require the state to recognize polygamous ones as well. That is hardly clear. John Stuart Mill believed liberalism to be hostile to laws making polygamy a crime, but disapproved of state recognition of polygamy, on the ground that it has third-party effects harmful to women. n18 In our society, polygamy would make it easier for many women to find husbands, but a modern Millian would doubt that women who share their husbands with other women would find happiness, because the bargaining position of the man within marriage would be so much greater. In fact, this liberal argument against polygamy is one of the best arguments for same-sex marriage. If women had other options, other than marrying men, their bargaining power within male-female marriage would be greater, and wives might actually start getting the equal treatment our society has long claimed that they have.
Posted by Timothy,
8:34 PM
-
Dartmouth cancels China FSP SARS, I'm afraid.
Posted by Clint,
7:44 PM
-
Ari Fleischer, King of Irony I wonder if Ari understands the irony of what he said today about Iran:
"We've made clear to Iran that we would oppose any outside interference in Iraq's road to democracy"
Laura Ingraham, from D.C. writes: Do you have plans to invade France next?
Secretary Card: Laura ---- Good to read your words. Good job at the rally last weekend. Virginia wine is fine with me.
(also: does anyone know if Card is supposed to be addressed as "Secretary"?)
Posted by Clint,
4:19 PM
-
Bush may not make Alabama's ballot This might be an underhanded way of picking up a few votes in '04; on the other hand, playing vote-counting hardball with the Bushies might not be such a great idea.
Posted by Graham,
12:50 PM
-
Attention Santorum: Extend foot, remove from mouth.
Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) is under fire for comments he made in a recent AP interview that some are calling worse than Trent Lott's "accolades for Strom." This is the transcript of the original interview. This is the answer he gave just before he made the comments that got him into trouble:
I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.
If you read the transcript, you see how he just keeps digging himself into a hole. At one point the AP reporter, apparently shocked that Santorum is being so blunt, says, "I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out."
Posted by Dan,
11:45 AM
-
Tuesday, April 22, 2003 US Falsified Evidence?
Blix said weapons inspectors had "no great difficulty" proving documents that passed U.S. and U.K. intelligence were fake. "Who falsifies this?" asked Blix.
Posted by Anthony,
10:26 PM
-
Laughable NYTimes Article that talks about how 1.7 billion has been raised in support of rebuilding Iraq's architecture. We spent more than that just moving in the people who spent a month destroying it, and now we're asking for petty cash to help us rebuild it?
Posted by Jared,
4:32 PM
-
In our name The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is reporting that Camp X-Ray has more than one prisoner under the age of 16. The US started housing prisoners in Guantanamo December, 2001. By my math, that means that these children could have been 14 at the time they were taken into custody.
Posted by Clint,
1:50 PM
-
A Rose By Any Other Name... Emmett over at Dartlog apparently takes endless amusement from the rhetorical question Free Dartmouth From What? I imagine he takes more amusement from the fact he's finally come up with an answer. Ah, but what is contained in a name? After all, we make no presumption as to what is contained in The Inner Orifice.
Posted by Jonathan,
1:15 PM
-
More on warmongering tactics Geoffrey Wheatcroft writes in today's Guardian that by "Combining the techniques of Madison Avenue and of totalitarianism, President George Bush has evaded those truths, and endlessly reiterated the names of Saddam and 9/11 together." The article examines many techniques for justification and seriously challenges each of them. Read it here.
Posted by Graham,
11:40 AM
-
Compassionate Conservativism To be very blunt - and God watch over Paul's soul - I am a 99% improvement over Paul Wellstone. Just about on every issue - Norm Coleman
The missing 1% is honor.
From Time.com's "Verbatim." Can't link right to the quote. Sorry guys.
Posted by Jonathan,
2:43 AM
-
Other pertinent Nazi lessons that did not escape the Fox News Network:
"Why of course the people don't want war....But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship....All you have to do is tell them they're being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." --- Hermann Goring, Nuremburg War Crimes Trial
Posted by Nikhil,
12:46 AM
-
Monday, April 21, 2003 Politicization Given the right's prior complaint of the "politicization" of September 11th, it's a little surprising to see this (on second thought, it's not particularly surprising): "Mr. Bush's advisers said they chose the date so the event [the 2004 Republican National Convention] would flow into the commemorations of the third anniversary of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks"
In other news of the vitality of our democratic traditions, Bush plans on spending $200 million -- In the primaries alone.
Posted by scott anderson,
11:31 PM
-
Indian Heads and Empty Heads Class of 2003,
When your grandchildren ask you about your time at Dartmouth, what will you have to show them?
Now is your chance to order Indian canes before Graduation. Graduation canes date to the mid-1800s, but around 1897, then Freshman Charles Dudley devised the official cane: a noble carving of an Indian Chief, reminding the seniors that Dartmouth was founded to teach Native Americans. Ever since 1899, graduating seniors have proudly marched with Indian canes in hand. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to show off your Dartmouth spirit with style, so act now!
Handcarved by a local New England craftsman, the canes are of the finest quality and workmanship and will stand the test of time. Don't let this tradition pass you by.
Canes are available for $60 by blitzing "IndianCane" before April 25th. Get together with friends and save-- order 5 or more canes and the price falls to $55 per cane, 10 or more and it's $50 per cane. Payment may be made in cash or by personal check.
Now is also your last chance to stock up on Indian T-shirts before graduating-- only $10 more for a T-shirt with your cane order.
Best wishes for the remainder of the term,
Michael Ellis Publisher, The Dartmouth Review
--- You wrote: When your grandchildren ask you about your time at Dartmouth, what will you have to show them? --- end of quote ---
Old copies of a long-defunct paper called The Dartmouth Review? A collectors item! Maybe if you make sure to print an Indian head on the front of your next edition, when I show it to them they can marvel at what sort of troglodytes were at Dartmouth in grandpas generation. Perhaps they will feel the same way about TDR's fascination with the Indian head as most of us (I know many Reviewers, included) feel about seeing ridiculous depictions of African-Americans from the first quarter of the 20th century (and, of course, into the 19th and beyond). How did they not know better then? How do you not know better now?
So I would just like to thank you now, Benevolent Michael J. Ellis of the Benevolent Dartmouth Review, for giving my grandchildren a lesson in what was wrong with us back in 2003, and one they will be able to enjoy heartily.
Pollock's post below reminded me (because its information is included in) an article that ran in Harpers a month or two ago. Read about "The Fellowship" and much, much more here. Please note this is not for the weak of stomach. You may want to tear up your passport after reading this.
Posted by Jonathan,
7:59 PM
-
"al-Zubaidi essentially proclaimed himself mayor"
... it remained unclear where his authority comes from or if it exists at all. No U.S. forces or officials were present at his news conference, held in a sweltering room that was once the coffee shop of the battle-pocked Palestine Hotel.
'I was chosen by tribal leaders and educated people, the doctors of the city and other prominent figures," al-Zubaidi said. "We are not a transitional government. We are an executive committee to run Baghdad.' ...
Al-Zubaidi is a deputy of Ahmad Chalabi...
Chalabi's crew looks better and better. Here's the full AP report.
Posted by Clint,
4:30 PM
-
As long as you live under my roof, you live by my rules...
My parents were pretty flexible about imposing their morality on me while I was briefly living at home after college (for those of you that want more details, you'll just have to wait for the Pollock memoirs). But just imagine what this living situation would be like! Members of Congress living in a house that belongs to the "Fellowship?" (which sounds spooky enough as is). Do you think they have UGAs? Maybe Marty Redman can take over as Congressional Residential Life Director.
Posted by Dan,
3:49 PM
-
Our Little Kumar... is actually an extremely precocious 13-year-old.
Posted by Richie Jay,
2:41 PM
-
Yay Democracy! Er...Wait.
Tens of thousands of Iraqi Muslims took to the streets of Baghdad last week to demand the exit of U.S. and other foreign forces and the establishment of an Islamic state.
Posted by Laura,
12:56 AM
-
Free Pressers It was great seeing all you free pressers this weekend, meeting new friends and old. It was a contrast been the very serious and solid-looking Scott and the always greatly silly Richie Jay. The only real suprise was that the cannibal apologist was much taller and less chatty than I thought he would be (alas, I was not able to talk to much to congratulate him on his not taking shit from dartloggers: he probably had a booty call;). I do have one warning for one nice individual: do not accidently leave on the gas in your apartment. Your roommate may think it has to do with ideological differences or that your ideological differences spring from that same lack of awareness. On different (but not unrelated) note, Andrew Grossman e-mails to tell me about a new techie project Dartlog has set up: Dartblogs. After the pain we've been experiencing with our blogger software (does ANYONE know how to fix freedartmouth's permalinks?), I'm willing to give it a look. As for ideological issues, dartlog (run by the Dartmouth Review) adresses it straight up this way:
Final questions: How much will this cost when you're finished? Will The Dartmouth Review screw around with my account or what?
Nothing and no. Actually, the Review doesn't even have access to your Dartblogs password (it's encrypted), though we can delete postings that are in violation of the law.
Also, I can't be sure, but this seems to somewhat mirror Free Dartmouth's policy about illegal stuff:
What can you write about on Dartblogs? Anything at all. Anything legal to write about, that is (i.e., don't post anything under another's copyright outside of fair use, and forget about kiddie porn).
Ok, Jared, we're waiting for you to get a dartblog so you can make your threats on the President over on their server!
Also, thanks also to the anonymous foley house person who so grasciously (and without knowing it) allowed me to bum a few cigarettes. I'm not sure whether to publically thank my enabler, but you know who you are: it was a good time kicking back on the porch! (That reminds me... time to buy a pack in tax free NH before I go back to Mike "I can smoke in the Bahamas" Bloomberg's tax crazed city.) To my other grascious enablers: thanks for listening on how it is strange seeing something once familar be not a homecoming,you know you have to go for it; keep getting enlightened, glad I could lighten and enlighten for a while with a little free style.
