Saturday, August 16, 2003 Does Emmett downplay Arnold's Nazi connections?!? Emmett Hogan complains about Bustamante's college membership in MEChA, and says (emphasis added): "At least it was only Schwarzenegger's father who was a Nazi." How about Arnold's own repeated consorting Nazi Kurt Waldheim? Waldheim used to head the U.N. and became President of Austria, Arnold's native country. In the mid-80s, it was found out that Waldheim had earlier been wanted by the U.N for war crimes:
Waldheim had always maintained that he had served in the Wehrmacht only briefly and that after being wounded early in the war, he had returned to Vienna to attend law school. In fact, Waldheim had resumed military service after recuperating from his injury and had been an intelligence officer in Germany's Army Group E when it committed mass murder in the Kozara region of western Bosnia. (Waldheim's name appears on the Wehrmacht's "honor list" of those responsible for the atrocity.) In 1944, Waldheim had reviewed and approved a packet of anti-Semitic propaganda leaflets to be dropped behind Russian lines, one of which ended, "enough of the Jewish war, kill the Jews, come over." After the war, Waldheim was wanted for war crimes by the War Crimes Commission of the United Nations, the very organization he would later head.
My friends don't want me to mention Kurt's name, because of all the recent Nazi stuff and the U.N. controversy, but I love him and Maria does too, and so thank you, Kurt.
Tim Noah says that Arnold's recent attempts to say his toast was 'stupid' belie a long pattern of association: "Schwarzenegger was seen sitting beside Waldheim as recently as 1998, when the two attended the second inauguration of Waldheim's successor as president."
Yet all Emmett asks is: "Will the Next California Governor Be a Secessionist?" First, Emmett links to the blogger Tacitus, who specifically says he doesn't think Bustamante aims to be head of an independent enclave. Tacitus is much more smart, saying Bustamante should be held to account for his past connections, if Arnold is going to be as well.
Do any blog readers actually know anything about MECha? We have a group here at Dartmouth according to the blitz directory. I mean, not that I don't trust conservative bloggers to always be right about race, but I'm just curious what MEChA's defense is against being compared to Nazis and the KKK...
Update: UPenn's MEChA links to this manifesto which says: "Chicanismo simply embodies an ancient truth: that a person is never closer to his/her true self as when he/she is close to his/her community."
I personally didn't like that type of sentiment when I read Charles Taylor talking about Hegel. But just as Taylor (the Canadian philosopher, not the Liberian dictator) is for a pluralistic, non-racial, non-exclusive Quebec AND is clearly a communitarian, I don't see Hegelian type sentiments as on their face necessarily being racist. Someone has got to know more than ignorant me... Unai, where are you? He'd surely appreciate the irony that I can't spend all my time looking into this, as I must now return to reading John Rawls...
Has anyone stopped for a second and taken notice of just how ridiculously undemocratic the California recall process is? All the news media seems to be focusing on whether the idea of a recall itself, or the signature gathering procedure, was legit. No one seems to mind that the election is going to be structured so that the active governor needs 50% of the vote to win, while anyone else only needs 10%. That means Gray Davis could get 39% more votes than anyone else and still be ousted! What's more, there's nothing to stop whoever wins from getting recalled immediately, if they haven't won with 50% of the vote. (well, nothing except their opponents lacking the money to gather the signatures)
I was sure such a skewed electoral process would be unconstitutional, but apparently not in principle, according to this legal article: link.
This recall almost makes the way Saddam Hussein was elected look "fair and balanced".
Posted by Justin Sarma,
7:54 PM
-
A useful task for the "Blabberforce"
Actually, two of them. First, please ensure that word of your existence doesn't spread to the colleges and universities whose pomp you wish Dartmouth to emulate; that would only make us a laughingstock. Secondly, since Jesse Roisin on Dartlog posts a blitz referencing the Dartmouth Club of New York (In Residence at the Yale Club), I'm reminded of something that really irritates me. Why are we in residence at the Yale Club? Come on. You blabbering blabberers want to do something? Get us our own building in New York. Put a nice one in Washington, too. Currently it's written as if we exist as a club in New York only on the good graces of Yale.
Awhile back, Eric Muller blogged on this case, in which a man was questioned by the FBI for leaving a piece of "suspicious" reading behind in a coffee shop. Apparently one of our loyal comrades (read: "patriotic" Americans) phoned the FBI due to the nature of the article the man was reading. What was this article? A diatribe against Fox News. Apparently it's making a terrorist threat to state that:
Fox News is an oxymoron and Cheech and Chong would have made a more credible team of war correspondents than Geraldo Rivera and Ollie North.
Posted by Jonathan,
1:06 PM
-
Send em to Guantanamo
Was it another terrorist attack or another power company attack that turned out all our lights? I'm of the impression we may have sent the wrong people to Guantanamo. Maybe the indicted Enron executives should have been send down there, and tortured until they spilled all the beans about any plans their less indicted colleagues might have had for future attacks on Americans. Or better yet, we could have sent the energy deregulationists at the Dartmouth Review. That would have sent a good message to potential pillagers, and we might have even gotten more useful information out of them.
Of course, this is all spiteful speculation, and we'll have to wait another 10 years until everything is declassified to find out what really happened Thursday. But I say, send em to Guantanamo and ask questions later.
Unless Congress and President Bush take quick action when Congress returns after Labor Day, the uniformed Americans in Iraq and the 9,000 in Afghanistan will lose a pay increase approved last April of $75 a month in "imminent danger pay" and $150 a month in "family separation allowances."The Defense Department supports the cuts, saying its budget can't sustain the higher payments amid a host of other priorities.
Our soldiers don't seem to be in the nation's 'priorities'. What are our nation's priorities? Remember what O'Reilly says about the tax cuts bursting the budget: they earned their money. Apparently soldiers haven't earned it though. Shameful.
Posted by Timothy,
5:51 PM
-
Oh, and who changed the Blog's name? I'm so impressed.
Posted by Jared,
5:29 PM
-
From Fox News, No Less Cute bit on how the third world [is Iraq Third World? Oh well, either way] sees our power failure. I would only argue that the biggest deal was the media's take on the whole thing. At least in NYC, people were quite level-headed.
Posted by Jared,
5:27 PM
-
From the Realm of the Obvious
It's like the Seinfeld where the black-and-white cookie makes Jerry sick. In this case, you just don't mix black lung with white lung, I suppose.
Posted by Jonathan,
4:44 PM
-
Thursday, August 14, 2003 Clinton Lost the South? Interesting analysis by the editor of the Almanac of American Politics as to the trends of politics in 1990s. Really interesting are his stats that show that the South was voting pretty Democratic even at the beginning of this decade. But in 1994, Clinton lost the South. In 1996, when anti-Gingrich wave allowed Clinton to win, the South stayed Republican. Very interesting. Key passage below.
That enables us to write a brief psephological history of the last decade from the presidential and House voting figures. The 1994 election shows us that Bill Clinton was widely unpopular -- unpopular enough to squander his party's historic advantage in House elections in his native South. The 1996 election showed that Clinton and Democrats rallied, but unevenly. Republicans retained their strong standing in the South, where Clinton got 46% and House Democrats 45%. Clinton and Democrats did better in the Heartland, but were still stuck under 50%, with Clinton at 47% and House Democrats at 48%. They did better in the Coast, where voters in large metropolitan areas reacted against Newt Gingrich and Christian conservatives. There, Clinton won 54% and House Democrats 53%. In the impeachment year of 1998, Clinton's job rating was higher than in 1996 and his personal ratings lower, but there seems to have been no difference in his overall standing. [LINK]
Posted by Kumar,
9:03 PM
-
Racial Privacy Initiative and the Recall I hadn’t heard of this ballot question,which will accompany the recall election in October. Briefly, it seems,
’The Racial Privacy Initiative’ would prevent state entities from sorting people by race…no government agency would be allowed to ask for details of race, ethnicity, color, or national origin on job applications. And the state could not use such data to classify people involved in public education, public contracting, or public employment.
It’s backed by Ward Connerly, and pundits are speculating that the recall turnout could have a significant impact on whether or not this is passed in proposition-happy California. An interesting twist: Schwarzenegger opposed Prop 187 in ’94---and faced some criticism from immigrant groups for doing so---will he take any stance on this question? And if so, will it alienate more conservative party elements or groups impacted by a “yes” vote (minorities, I would think).
Posted by Jon,
2:50 PM
-
Interesting Point About the NYT Dartmouth Blitz Article: The article discusses the unique email culture of Dartmouth. One interesting thing. The article asserts that cell phones are losing out to blitz at Dartmouth. Is that true? The common complaint I have heard among upper-classmen is of the young 05s and 06s using cell phones all over campus. The D even wrote an article about it. Could the opposite be true? Just as Dartmouth's Mac culture, is Dartmouth blitz culture slowly losing to the mainstream?
(This article a year ago in the D posits that cell phone use is high because students like to call long distance. With free long distance, that incentive would obviously change. Also, a boring op-ed of a Dartmouth student struggling with why they dislike cell phones at Dartmouth so much. Another boring one,a funnier one)
Posted by Kumar,
1:14 AM
-
Dartmouth makes the NYT Again
This time, we're being lauded, once more, for our technology. Right on. [Link]
Posted by Jonathan,
12:19 AM
-
Wednesday, August 13, 2003 Why Arnold won't win Micheal Tomasky of The American Prospect makes a very good case for why Bustamante is going to pull this one out. It's full of great analysis, but here's the laugh line.
The Time magazine poll -- in which he led Gov. Gray Davis by 19 points and Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante by 10 -- was widely perceived as showing his strength. In fact, it showed exactly the opposite. Schwarzenegger is probably among the two dozen most famous people in the world. A lieutenant governor is a lieutenant governor; he can drive himself to the video store and stare at the shelves for 45 minutes without a soul noticing.
Posted by Clint,
7:23 PM
-
Stupidity and Scum This blogger cannot seem to tell that freedartmouth is group blog, not merely written "by a College Student" as the blogger writes (oddly, our official description of our blog-- as a forum for 'thinkers and activists'-- is also quoted in the blogger's post). I know I am getting all snarky about this. This blog also linked to websites purporting to have pictures of Kobe Bryant's accuser and there's some scumbag comments. The blogger wrote of linking to the picture: "I have mixed feelings on posting this, but it seems to me that if his name is public then her's should be also." Later postings (which I see no need to link to) said "I posted a link to a site with pictures in this previous post. They later took the pictures down, when it became apparent that the girl in the pictures was not the accuser. They still have her name and address there - assuming that is even correct." A further post gave "A link to another site that has pictures that are supposed to be of Kobe Bryant's accuser." You'd think someone with "mixed feelings" about posting the first link might have learned a lesson.
Posted by Timothy,
1:25 AM
-
Tuesday, August 12, 2003 What's so interesting? Emmett Hogan says about the California recall:
This leads to a very interesting observation: three of the top four candidates are Republicans. (True, true, Ueberroth is running as an independent. And second place really belongs to "not sure," with 26%.)
Huh? This seems kind of a stupid observation. There's only one major Democrat running, hence only one Democrat in the top four. Is it somehow better to have more Republicans to split the vote? It is not like you get to add up the votes. (and I wouldn't be suprised if more Democrats than Republicans belong to 'not sure', as it is a Democratic governor being recalled. Of course, a truckload of Democrats don't like Davis either, as they see him as too conservative and not progressive enough. That last 'interesting observation' might have taken a bit of the edge off Alex Talcott's comments here, even if I basically have no problems with the rightness of insulting Huffington.
Posted by Timothy,
11:50 PM
-
Co-education (Or, nope, sorry Talcott, part II) Alex Talcott of dartlog says: "Yes, we were the last Ivy League school to go coed." Maybe those Review boys would like to make that a point of pride. But Columbia College didn't go co-educational until 1982, 10 years after Dartmouth did. Of course, unlike Dartmouth, Columbia University had Banard College, which was (and still is) a separate women's college. I say this as someone who was an undergrad at Dartmouth, and is now a graduate student at Columbia.
I believe President Bush was the one who elevated the EPA administrator to a Cabinent-level position. Not that Bush would ever be given credit for such a move.
I'm not sure who was the first, but I know Clinton did so as well. According to the site Politics1
All heads of the various federal departments (State, Treasury, HHS, Justice, etc.) -- but NOT the heads of federal agencies -- are automatically accorded Cabinet rank. Thus, the Attorney General, Secretary of Commerce, etc., are all members of the President's Cabinet. Additionally, the President may grant Cabinet rank status to other high-ranking Administration officials. To date, President Bush has officially extended this status to the White House Chief of Staff, the EPA Director, the OMB Director, the US Trade Representative, and the "Drug Czar" (ONDCP Director).
Clinton extended similar privileges to similar officials, including the administrator of the EPA.
Posted by Jonathan,
10:26 PM
-
Fear and Loathing Continued The inestimable Janos Marton, everyone's favorite Chi-Gam, Panarchist, two term SA President and John Kerry rep, has started his own personal blog. So far, it's an entertaining little read. The blog's motto? "crazy adventures surviving the war on terror". Belly up to the bar, kids.
Posted by Clint,
9:31 PM
-
Speaking of the Onion....
Republicans Introduce Economic Equality Bill For Fun Of Shooting It Down WASHINGTON, DC—Republicans in the House of Representatives proposed H.R. 2093: the Economic Equality Initiative, with the express purpose of shooting it down "just for kicks" Tuesday. "H.R. 2093 will level the economic playing field, spreading the wealth among the rich and poor," said Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-TX), visibly fighting back snickers. "We must pass this bill to stop the fat cats from getting fatter while the average Joe struggles to make ends meet. Also, I'm the Queen of Bavaria." Following 10 minutes of uproarious laughter, the congressmen stepped out of the chamber to smoke cigars lit with a bill that would allocate $115 million to clean up hazardous waste sites.
Posted by janos,
7:12 PM
-
The Onion's Take on Gene Robinson (a.k.a. The Gay Bishop)
As for the Wali post below, Volokh blogs in legalese about the suit. Unfortunately, the site's down right now, and I can't find the article link. However, it's current, so check out volokh.com periodically and you'll see it. Or wait for someone to post an update. Maybe me.
Posted by Jonathan,
6:18 PM
-
Freedom of Speech for me, but not for thee....
Fox News Channel has sued liberal humorist Al Franken and the Penguin Group to stop them from using the phrase "fair and balanced" in the title of his upcoming book. Filed Monday in Manhattan, the trademark infringement lawsuit seeks a court order forcing Penguin to rename the book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right." It also asks for unspecified damages. (Wapo)
What idiots. And Franken is getting a lot of publicity from this suit. Fox News is either doing this because they want to make it clear to other publishers that making fun of Fox will result in costly lawsuits, and/or because O'Reilly is in hissy fit because the style of Franken's mocks O'Reilly's book cover. From the New York Times
They argue that Fox has trademarked "Fair and Balanced" to describe its news coverage and that Mr. Franken's use of the phrase would "blur and tarnish" it. "Franken is neither a journalist nor a television news personality," according to the complaint. "He is not a well-respected voice in American politics; rather, he appears to be shrill and unstable. His views lack any serious depth or insight." Efforts yesterday to reach Mr. Franken, whose 1996 book, "Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot" was a best seller, were unsuccessful, as he was said to be traveling. Lawyers for Fox who filed the complaint also take issue with Mr. Franken's book cover because it "mimics the look and style" of two books written by Bill O'Reilly, a prominent Fox News personality. Mr. O'Reilly is also pictured on the cover, just beneath the word "Lies." The court papers refer to Mr. Franken, who is a former "Saturday Night Live" writer and performer, as a "parasite" who hopes to use Fox's reputation to confuse the public and boost sales of his book. Mr. Franken is also accused of verbally attacking Mr. O'Reilly and other Fox personalities on at least two occasions, and of being "either intoxicated or deranged" as he flew into a rage at a press correspondents' dinner in April 2003. Mr. Franken has not filed a response in court to the suit.
What thin-skinned morons. Fox News' credibility is gone. (well, as if it ever had any...)
UPDATE: Eschaton, the group blog headed by Atrios is now titled "Eschaton - Fair and Balanced " MORE: In comments, Emmett says he agrees with me! Something tells me he won't buy the book. But Atrios says the book has now skyrocketted to #1 on Amazon, moving even past Tom Clancy! How fitting. And look how many blogs have added "fair and balanced" to their taglines! Neal Pollock says Friday is 'fair and balanced' Friday: use the phrase as much as possible!
ALSO: Ornicus links to Franken dressing down O'Reilly. Start the video at 40:00. And keep watching for Molly Ivins, assisting O'Reilly and then giving great sound bites about Iraq.
Posted by Timothy,
6:13 PM
-
And then there were ten
In the strongest signal yet that retired U.S. Army General Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander, is planning to join the Democratic presidential race, he told volunteers last week to step up their efforts and prepare for an announcement on Labor Day.
Posted by Clint,
11:58 AM
-
Monday, August 11, 2003 DJ Koose (aka Rep. Dennis Kucinich) Is on the loose with his own grassroots dance song. It's much better produced than Dean's, but the MC has a pretty uncool voice. The lyrics are pretty good at some points, and downright embarassing at others; "He knows that NAFTA/We didn't hafta/Only one who'll stop us from getting the shafta".
Posted by Clint,
10:34 PM
-
Another religion question I think the heated thread below raises another interesting question. I’ve met many members of the Catholic Church who are disenchanted with certain aspects of the Church (the exclusion of women from the priesthood, the unwillingness to celebrate marriage of homosexuals…also policy towards birth control). What I find interesting are the disparate reactions: some choose to dissociate themselves from the Church, others choose to continue attending mass while engaging in practices supposedly prohibited by the Church or openly disagreeing with certain policies. What if the Church does, at some point, ordain women? Presumably some officials and members of the church will leave, claiming to found a more authentic Church—(witness the Anglican/Episcopalian situation) What is the appropriate response? Do you remain faithful to the institution (Vatican) or do you remain faithful to your conviction that is at odds with their proclamation? Just curious.
Posted by Clint,
7:03 PM
-
How to make an easy $500
No, not by being a telemarketer, by suing one! In the spirit of our tort-happy Party, I give you all this trinket [How To Make A Telemarketer Cry (or, Suing Bozos for Fun & Profit)]. Any of you residing in DC will be especially interested. It was mentioned in an article buried in the Sunday Source section of the Post. I've gotten calls from some of the "services" mentioned, and I'm waiting for more so I can make $500 and play lawyer. All in a day's work. Amen.
Posted by Jonathan,
2:22 AM
-
Sunday, August 10, 2003 Tu quoque, religion-baiters
If Democrats opposing Pryor's appointment to the 11th Circuit are anti-Catholic, were the Republicans opposing Ginsburg and Breyer's appointments to the Supreme Court anti-Jewish (Reform, specifically)? An interesting argument in today's Washington Post.
Posted by Jonathan,
4:11 PM
-
And Franklin Graham thinks Islamic fundos are crazy.
"Monrovians headed to church, even during bouts of fighting. One exception: a prayer meeting last month before a captive audience at the soccer stadium where 40,000 refugees had sought shelter. An American evangelist whom Taylor calls his person minister beseeched the badly underfed refugees to fast." (The Washington Post)
Well, maybe Graham's right, but like our fearless leader said (I mean George W., not Jesus H.), 'get the speck out of your own eye first' (that's my paraphrase, thanks).
