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, August 09, 2003


Just a link and a question. (WMD)

InstaPundit reports that WMD have been found in Iraq, but Bush is keeping it under wraps so that he can make a big political event of it in mid-September - thereby embarassing all the naysayers. Thoughts?


Posted by Jonathan, 9:07 PM -

Since the Liberal Media hasn't made it as big a deal as Koby Bryant
And since Fox News won't notice, here is an article about how there is still no evidence that those trailers had anything to do with chemical weapons and, more importantly, that the Defence Intelligence Agency has identified them clearly as Iraqi informants had said - they were for making weather balloons.

As for all those people who said, "How can you deny, with these trailers, how dangerous Iraq truly [was]?" - I again ask, "How can you deny, with these trailers, uranium, and a general policy of exaggeration, how dangerous, dishonest, and pathetic the "president" and his administration truly are?


Posted by Jared, 2:06 AM -

Civil Liberties in peril
Tom Tomorrow links to this NY Times article:
A federal judge in Manhattan criticized police officials yesterday for the way demonstrators against the war in Iraq were interrogated earlier this year, and he made clear that civil liberties lawyers could seek to hold the city in contempt of court in the future if the police violate people's rights.
The judge, Charles S. Haight Jr. of Federal District Court, who recently eased court-ordered rules on police surveillance of political groups, made his comments after hearing evidence that the police had asked the protesters their views on the war, whether they hated President Bush, if they had traveled to Africa or the Middle East, and what might be different if Al Gore were president.



Posted by Timothy, 2:02 AM -

Friday, August 08, 2003


Bush and WMD More here, here and here.


Posted by Timothy, 9:57 PM -

Civic discourse if far more important than civil discourse
Fred Barnes is a piece of shit. As much as I'd like to think the comments section of FreeDartmouth affects the future course of America, this gang on the conservative side are the real threat to civic discourse in America. And yes, I mean that many on the right are far, far, far, far worse: too often, they have no sense of shame at all. They are so delusional they still think Al Gore, but not George Bush, is a huge serial exaggerator. Some more excerpts from Gore's speech:
Robust debate in a democracy will almost always involve occasional rhetorical excesses and leaps of faith, and we're all used to that. I've even been guilty of it myself on occasion. But there is a big difference between that and a systematic effort to manipulate facts in service to a totalistic ideology that is felt to be more important than the mandates of basic honesty.
Unfortunately, I think it is no longer possible to avoid the conclusion that what the country is dealing with in the Bush Presidency is the latter. That is really the nub of the problem -- the common source for most of the false impressions that have been frustrating the normal and healthy workings of our democracy.
Americans have always believed that we the people have a right to know the truth and that the truth will set us free. The very idea of self-government depends upon honest and open debate as the preferred method for pursuing the truth -- and a shared respect for the Rule of Reason as the best way to establish the truth.
The Bush Administration routinely shows disrespect for that whole basic process, and I think it's partly because they feel as if they already know the truth and aren't very curious to learn about any facts that might contradict it. They and the members of groups that belong to their ideological coalition are true believers in each other's agendas.
...
And as for honor and integrity, let me say this: we know what that was all about, but hear me well, not as a candidate for any office, but as an American citizen who loves my country:
For eight years, the Clinton-Gore Administration gave this nation honest budget numbers; an economic plan with integrity that rescued the nation from debt and stagnation; honest advocacy for the environment; real compassion for the poor; a strengthening of our military -- as recently proven -- and a foreign policy whose purposes were elevated, candidly presented and courageously pursued, in the face of scorched-earth tactics by the opposition. That is also a form of honor and integrity, and not every administration in recent memory has displayed it. So I would say to those who have found the issue of honor and integrity so useful as a political tool, that the people are also looking for these virtues in the execution of public policy on their behalf, and will judge whether they are present or absent.


Posted by Timothy, 5:50 PM -

Oh yes, and the beard: Now that we've officially declared it Al Gore Night on Freedartmouth, let's all take a peek at The First Church of Al Gore's Beard. The site revisits the Hayes-Tilden election in order to prophesize that a grizzly Gore cannot, in fact, run for president:

The Almighty Congress was forced to intervene, and they struck a compromise. Rutherford B. Hayes would be allowed to serve as President anyway, but only if he was the last man with a beard to do so.
Strictly speaking, the post-Hayes James A. Garfield also had a heavy beard, but then again, look what happened to him.


Posted by Brad Plumer, 1:03 AM -

Thursday, August 07, 2003


Impressive: I agree with TAPPED on this one: Gore's speech to MoveOn rocked. None of the other Democratic candidates have even come close to this level of sophistication and clear thinking. Can anyone imagine Dean turning his shrill "Bush lied!" mantra into something this fluid and reasonable?

The way we went to war in Iraq illustrates this larger problem. Normally, we Americans lay the facts on the table, talk through the choices before us and make a decision. But that didn't really happen with this war -- not the way it should have. And as a result, too many of our soldiers are paying the highest price, for the strategic miscalculations, serious misjudgments, and historic mistakes that have put them and our nation in harm's way.
He also touches on the economy, energy policy and 9/11. The whole thing is worth reading, and at the end of the speech Gore reiterates his promise not to run again, but vows to endorse a candidate "later in the political cycle." Given that he basically just chastised Lieberman's "anti-Bush criticism" stance, I'm guessing he'll throw his support behind Dean (assuming, of course, that Dean and Lieberman are the two likely finalists). I just wish Dean could take a break from firebreathing once in a while, and give a speech this substantial.

Update: Kevin Drum dissents (indirectly), arguing that Dean doesn't need to be as focused and as detailed as Gore or Edwards:

I have just the opposite take on this. Detailed policy proposals from candidates are close to useless, I think. After all, circumstances change, brilliant policies get turned to mush as they pass through Congress, and — let's be honest here — plenty of policy proposals from candidates are just sops to interest groups. It's hard to tell which ones are really priorities and which ones are just being served up pro forma.
Interesting. He might well have a point.


Posted by Brad Plumer, 11:08 PM -

The Original Blogger: This is hillarious but I think Bob Graham is right. With hundreds of notebooks detailing every minute of his adult life, he might be the ultimate campaign blogger. Is his blog worth reading? (I report, you decide)

Update: Maybe I like the energy of DraftGore site better, here.


Posted by Kumar, 10:26 PM -

New USA Today Poll: In a new national poll, good news for Dean and bad news for Lieberman and Kerry. Unfortunately the poll did not do name ID or favorability ratings, but Kerry's 4 point drop in 10 days in surprising. Maybe Kos is right, Dean and Kerry appeal to similar constituencies and so Dean's rise is Kerry's fall. (Although it seems that a number of Democratic leaners not liking any candidate shot up. Maybe those leaving Lieberman aren't switching to another Democrat. That could be a problem for whoever the nominee is. Unless ofcourse, they are waiting for Clark or Biden to jump in.)

August 6 (Jul 27)
Lieberman 17 (20)
Gephardt 14 (14)
Dean 14 (10)
Kerry 12 (16)
Edwards 6 (6)
Braun 5 (5)
Graham 5 (5)
Sharpton 4 (5)
Kucinich 2 (2)
None 6 (3)
No Opinion 12 (13)
(Poll here, via the Dean blog)


Posted by Kumar, 10:17 PM -

Bush Quotes
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has a long list of quotes from Bush and Bush Administration officials about Iraq's WMD capabilities. (via The Hamster)


Posted by Timothy, 7:39 PM -

Harvey Milk
Daily Kos defends Harvey Milk High School, noting it is an expansion of a 1984 program for troubled gay kids at risk of violence or worse. Bank of Knowledge attacks the program, and also links to The Hamster (one comment there responds to the separate but equal problem: "I disagree. Most gays and lesbians face brutal treatment in schools, and most schools except on the east and west coast look the other ways. I figure most of the kids at these schools have suffered severe harassment before in school. If 5% or 10% of the population really is gay, lesbian, or bisexual, one school isn't going to take them out of the mainstream, but it may create a haven for those who need it."
This blogger says we should have tolerance programs in all schools, and also links to this LiveJournal posting:
The new LGBT highschool in NY is not just a public institution. It turns out that it's gotten major grants from private sources, and the city is only providing partial funding. Just like they do for religious schools. It seems to burn some people up that this school is getting tax dollars, but I don't see them using the same soapbox to protest that Catholic schools get state and federal funding.
There was an article in The Dartmouth as well.


Posted by Timothy, 5:38 PM -

Wednesday, August 06, 2003


Conason on why Bush won't declassify the info on the Saudis in the 9/11 report:
The problem is that the Bush administration—as well as the President’s family and its associates—is scarcely able to assess the merits with any degree of objectivity. After all, if they reveal damaging information about the Saudis, what might the Saudis reveal about them?
For more than three decades, Saudi Arabia has sought to influence American politicians, often through investment in American business. While they have occasionally sought out Democrats, they are far more comfortable with Republicans—and in particular, with Bush Republicans. At the moment, for example, the kingdom’s defense attorney in a lawsuit brought by families of 9/11 victims happens to be James Baker, that ultimate Bushie whose résumé includes stints as Secretary of State and Treasury. (Mr. Baker’s last big court case was Bush v. Gore.)
Commercial connections between the Saudis and the Bushes extend from limited-partner investments in George W.’s failed oil ventures more than 20 years ago to the Carlyle Group, a mighty merchant bank that currently employs Mr. Baker, former President George Herbert Walker Bush and a host of lesser family vassals. Saudi money has also figured in several of the most significant political scandals of the postwar era, notably the Iran-contra affair and the Bank of Credit and Commerce International blowup. Whatever the Saudis might say about any of those matters is probably better left unsaid—not only to protect state secrets, but also for the sake of Bush senior, the former C.I.A. director and suspected Iran-contra conspirator. The U.S. government knows many unflattering stories about the Saudi rulers. Unfortunately, they know many and perhaps worse about ours. The preference for silence and secrecy is understandably mutual.
Update: Andrew Grossman emails to say:
The redacted 9/11 report pages don't actually deal with the Saudi rulers. They deal with Saudi businessmen. Now, to be fair, some of them may be in the ruling family (there are about 40k members of the ruling family), but we're not talking about anyone highly-placed. That's why the Saudi government wants these pages released.
I tend to wonder if the Saudi involvement is being overhyped (I'm not really trusting vague speculation about intelligence these days). But I did think it was interesting analysis/speculation on Conason's part: G.W. Bush could have a motive not to sour relations with the Saudis because of info they might have on the Bush family. But the possibility of motive does not necessarily make it true, as conspiracy theorists don't seem to get.




Posted by Timothy, 6:27 PM -

Cato Institute Slams Bush (via dailykos)
The Bush administration's newly released budget projections reveal an anticipated budget deficit of $450 billion for the current fiscal year, up another $151 billion since February. Supporters and critics of the administration are tripping over themselves to blame the deficit on tax cuts, the war, and a slow economy. But the fact is we have mounting deficits because George W. Bush is the most gratuitous big spender to occupy the White House since Jimmy Carter. One could say that he has become the "Mother of All Big Spenders."[...]
That the nation's budgetary situation continues to deteriorate is because the administration's fiscal policy has been decidedly more about politics than policy [...]
Such blatant political maneuvering can only be described as Clintonian.
But perhaps we are being unfair to former President Clinton.
After all, in inflation-adjusted terms, Clinton had overseen a total spending increase of only 3.5 percent at the same point in his administration. More importantly, after his first three years in office, non-defense discretionary spending actually went down by 0.7 percent. This is contrasted by Bush's three-year total spending increase of 15.6 percent and a 20.8 percent explosion in non-defense discretionary spending.
I'm sure about this, but does that mean discretionary spending has increased more than defense expendatures? In any case, it is clear that this is not due to the war on terror. And from a libertarian think-tank.


Posted by Timothy, 4:38 PM -

Professor Kang Writes on NK in NYT: Here.

In doing some research for Professor Kang this term, I have gotten a chance to talk to him about NK a little bit. I think Professor Kang makes a number of interesting points: 1) that NK's major desire is US security gaurantee (which I guess explains why they consider only the US relevant negotiation partners) and 2) that hoping for a NK collapse as US policy is fraught with danger, considering that both US-Sk troops from the south, and Chineese troops from the north would be forced to flood NK, creating the chance of war possible.

I do have some questions though (which I will be sure to bring up with him). First, given that international agreements and promises get broken all the time, why would a security guarantee from US really make NK feel that much safer? Its not like we are going to move our 30,000 troops from the South or force capability from Japan. Most of the US combat power, in case of a North-South war, is supposed to arrive in the two months following the war. So, why does a US committment not to attack really change the dynamic? (A interesting sidenote is to wonder why the North fears a full invasion so much, considering that more than a million SK civilians might die in the first week of such a war. Then again, a year ago the idea on an Iraq war seemed a stretch too.)

Second, couldn't other explanations for NK's actions exist other than "their goal is a secuity gaurantee." Could they be stalling for large amounts of international aid, holding the world a nuclear hostage? If the goal was a security gaurantee, why were they accepting the 1994 protocol and developing nukes covertly? The way to get the US to follow through on its 1994 promise to actually give a gaurantee might have been to threaten a resumption of the nuclear program, and in face of US defiance, restart it until the US agreed. Why keep the program covert?


Posted by Kumar, 2:04 AM -

An Important Victory
Not only for the gay community and my church, but for the courage to stand up for people's rights no matter what - this may set a much more positive tone.

After being called back this afternoon, 62 of 107 diocesan bishops voted to approve the bishop-elect, V. Gene Robinson.


Posted by Jared, 12:00 AM -

Tuesday, August 05, 2003


Reactions to the AFL-CIO Debate

A pretty good debate, here's my opinion on how I thought people did, I'd be interested to hear the reactions of anyone else who watched:

Good

Sharpton: Al did a great job tonight, really fired people up and was very entertaining. He may be irrelevant, but the man is an amazing speaker. He also said that if Lieberman is the centrist in the race, then he is the conservative. Pretty funny stuff.

Dean: Did a very good job, seemed to sort of transcend the bickering at times. He also seemed to me to give far more in terms of specific policy implementations than some of other candidates did. Definitely came off as the front runner that he is at this point.

Edwards: Did a pretty good job I thought. He seemed to be talking fairly vaguely for large stretches of time, but he was very personable and likable. Better than I expected.

Bad

Gephardt: Given that labor is supposed to be his stronghold, he seemed fairly flat and didn't get people too excited. He wasn't awful, but for a labor-hosted debate, he definitely needed to do better.

Kucinich: Denny only had one setting and that was yelling full blare. He fired up the crowd at times certainly, but he seemed like he was screaming the whole time, and didn't come off as someone who is running for president.

Kerry: Kerry was just kinda there. He seemed semi-catatonic and it sounded like he needed some chamomile tea or something for his throat, his voice sounded terrible. What he had to say was alright, but he sounded like he was dying or something.

Moseley Braun: She didn't seem like she had prepared what she was going to say very well at times. Kind of stumbled and was pretty boring. Not terrible, but too exciting either.

Ugly

Graham: He seemed bored, didn't have anything very interesting to say and only drew applause when he made hollow jabs at Bush or talked about Iraq. A one-trick pony.

Lieberman: Lieberman looked as though he had been assigned to defend certain positions whether he wanted to or not. Not only did he come off as hopelessly centrist, he also looked like he didn't always believe what he was saying. When he got asked about school vouchers, he had this look like " oh man, I have to defend school vouchers?". Lieberman's is fast sinking ship that just took on a bit more water tonight.


Posted by scott anderson, 10:38 PM -

Moral Clarity
Conservatives have no trouble condemning Bakara for anti-semitism, but don't have the same 'moral clarity' when it comes to Mel Gibson's script of The Passion. It is interesting to compare the excuses.

UPDATE: The link above only works for subscribers. Against my better judgment, I'm posting this link to the full story.


Posted by Timothy, 6:11 PM -

TDR and Free Speech With the impressive activity going on in the comments section of FreeDartmouth, it has occured to me that our colleagues over at Dartlog, while avidly posting comments over here, seem quite reluctant to allow comments on their own blog. With the Review's purported interest in free speech, (Emmett's continual hot air on the matter comes to mind) I wonder why the boys over there are holding back. Dare one suggest that they're worried about actually having to defend their views on their own turf? The Observer certainly didn't shy away. In the interests of unfettered political dialogue at Dartmouth, I urge Dartlog to reconsider its current policy.


Posted by Laura, 5:44 PM -

So is kidnapping how we've suddenly improved our intelligence in Iraq?
Calpundit links this Wash. Post story:
Col. David Hogg, commander of the 2nd Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division, said tougher methods are being used to gather the intelligence. On Wednesday night, he said, his troops picked up the wife and daughter of an Iraqi lieutenant general. They left a note: "If you want your family released, turn yourself in." Such tactics are justified, he said, because, "It's an intelligence operation with detainees, and these people have info." They would have been released in due course, he added later.
Calpundit says:"At first we're led to believe that we're gaining ground in Iraq due to a simple shift in tactics, but a few days later we learn that what this really means is that we're kidnapping families and holding them hostage in order to increase the "quality and quantity of intelligence." Calpundit also links to on this being a war crime.


Posted by Timothy, 5:43 PM -

Love, not war... is evil? Andrew Sullivan has a point:

Leaving the sacraments would be a huge blow to the soul; but the pope just called the love I have for my boyfriend "evil." That's a word he couldn't bring himself to use about Saddam Hussein.
Meanwhile, Sullivan struggles with his feelings for Howard Dean. He mentions the usual concerns that Dean is weak on foreign policy. Personally, I think Andrew has nothing to worry about, as long as we don't uncover any pictures of Dean acting like a giddy 6 year old in a tank:



Or staring down the business end of an M-16, ala Al Gore:



Posted by Brad Plumer, 4:37 PM -

Monday, August 04, 2003


Play nice: George Will has a few thoughts on the growing incivility in American politics. As evidence he cites the Texas Fugitives, the recent House rumpus, the Gray Davis debacle, and the very idea of a filibuster. To quote:

Life has been called a series of habits disturbed by a few thoughts. Civil society is kept civil by certain habits of restraint. Inflammatory political ideas can overturn habits, sometimes for the better, usually not. But no discernible ideas, at least none that are more than appetites tarted up as ideas, account for the vandalism by political overreachers of both parties.
No mention of the FreeDartmouth comment sections, but I'm sure it must have just slipped his mind.


Posted by Brad Plumer, 5:40 PM -

Why would they censor this cartoon? (Via Tapped)



Posted by Kumar, 2:40 PM -

Just when you thought it couldn't possibly get worse...

Powell and Armitage leave State in Bush 3.0 (if God frowns upon us and it occurs) to be replaced with...Condoleeza "Skeeza" (thaks to Amiri Baraka) Rice and Paul Wolfowitz.


Posted by Jonathan, 1:36 PM -

Racism...

Here are some interesting graphs about various racial groups' perceptions of other racial groups. Look at the scale on the side...at first it seems that African Americans are the most suspicious of other races, but if you look carefully it turns out that more Asian Americans were critical of other races (particularly African Americans) than were whites, Latinos and blacks. Of course, the category "Asian American" is frustratingly large and imprecise, but it's an interesting finding nonetheless. The charts seem to indicate that, despite perceptions that we are moving beyond racist stereotyping, people continue to be deeply suspicious of other races. Of course, all minority groups studied found white people the easist to get along with, even though African Americans seemingly were the most tolerant of other races.


Posted by Laura, 11:47 AM -

Sunday, August 03, 2003


Rock the vote: What's the best way to increase voter turnout? Arizona legislators think that if voters were eligible for a $1 million lottery prize, they'd flock to the polls more often. The details are here. John Mcclain of Political State Report thinks that the proposal is a waste of money. Personally, I think it probably would increase voter turnout, but do we really want large election day crowds whose sole motivation is an easy cash prize? That's not democracy; that's a feeding frenzy. But then again, it's never been tried before, and it is an innovative idea...


Posted by Brad Plumer, 6:13 PM -

Someone's getting antsy: Joel Bleifuss reports that the Republican National Committee is sending threatening letters to any and all television stations that go so far as to air a Democratic National Committee ad. The ad (which can be found here) demands accountability from President Bush for his statements on Iraq. Caroline Hunter, a Republican Party lawyer, has dashed off the following letter to offending stations:

It has come to our attention that your station will begin airing false and misleading advertisements. … The Democratic National Committee … has no right to willfully spread false information in a deliberate attempt to mislead the American people. … As an FCC licensee you have a responsibility to … avoid deliberate misrepresentations of the facts. Such obligations must be taken seriously. This letter puts you on notice that the information contained in the above-cited advertisement is false and misleading; therefore, you are obligated to refrain from airing this advertisement.
That's right, "obliged to refrain." Apparently Hunter is unaware that distortion of news has been ruled perfectly legal. In fact, it was Rupert Murdoch himself who won this case. The First Amendment cuts both ways, folks...


Posted by Brad Plumer, 5:54 PM -

Re: In Defense of Baraka
John Nash said a lot of crazy things about Jewish conspiracies while mentally ill. Maybe he wasn't anti-semetic, but his statements sure were and I would be unlikely to say he was "certainly not" anti-semetic, not knowing more. I can't read Mr. Baraka's heart (as republicans like to say) and haven't read his poem. But if someone said to me that the Israeli government knew about 9-11, did nothing to stop the deaths of thousands, and told only their ethnic brethran to stay home from work, I'd say what the hell are you doing saying something so anti-semetic?

No, not all accusations against Israel are anti-semetic. Calling the new citizenship law racist is not anti-semetic. But saying that Israel was willing to let thousands of Americans die, and asserting that it told 4000 Jews to stay home from work? And having NO reason at all for asserting that as fact, and evidence to contradict it? That's blood libel.


Posted by Timothy, 5:39 PM -

Another look at Argentina: The Washington Post has a great story today on Wall Street's role in the collapse of Argentina. It's a fascinating article, and certainly a harsh indictment of the excesses of globalization:

An extensive review of the conduct of financial market players in Argentina reveals Wall Street's complicity in those events. Investment bankers, analysts and bond traders served their own interests when they pumped up euphoria about the country's prospects, with disastrous results.

Big securities firms reaped nearly $1 billion in fees from underwriting Argentine government bonds during the decade 1991-2001, and those firms' analysts were generally the ones producing the most bullish and influential reports on the country. Similar conflicts of interest involving analysts' research have come to light in other flameouts of the "bubble" era, such as Enron Corp. and WorldCom Inc. In Argentina's case, though, the injured party was not a group of stockholders or 401(k) owners, it was South America's second-largest country.
Paul Krugman comments, arguing that investors in Argentina were blinded by conservative economic ideologies. On the other hand, Brad DeLong contends that the Argentinian government was just as responsible as Wall Street for the crisis. It's an interesting discussion, to say the least.


Posted by Brad Plumer, 5:24 PM -
Powered by Blogger

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