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, October 04, 2003


Remember the Summer of the Shark?

Remember how it turned out to be statistically normal, and merely overhyped by the media?

Is this the Autumn of the Tiger Maulings? You decide.

Mauling 1
Mauling 2


Posted by Jonathan, 9:31 PM -

Maureen Dowd = pro-Arnold?

Her column is particularly interesting to me, a Democrat who isn't defecating in his pants over Arnold (I ruined too many pair over Bush already).


Posted by Jonathan, 9:15 PM -

Flood Watch

I wonder if they've yet recommended this (courtesy NYT) as a way to "enhance the Dartmouth name."


Posted by Jonathan, 5:37 PM -

It's good to have a sense of humor about it


Posted by Clint, 9:00 AM -

It's a small peace-loving world
On February 15th of this year, I was walking/being corralled down a New York City side street along with hundreds of thousands of other people. Right next to me at the time was Graham Roth's father, who along with Grahams mother had been nice enough to open their apartment and refrigerator to a small group of Dartmouth students who'd come down to take part in the global demonstration.

Mr. Roth cocked his head to the left and said to me: "See that guy." Who, I asked. "That guy in the gray jacket. He's an actor--he was in Jaws. Whatizname.." I had no clue. I've never seen Jaws all the way through, and the guy looked pretty disheveled and unremarkable. He turned around, and passed back by us, brushing my elbow. "Roy Scheider. That's definitely him." I'd had a New York minor celebrity moment, although I would have had no clue if not for Mr. Roth.

So today's Kucinich Campaign email update contains this blurb:
ROY SCHEIDER ENDORSES DENNIS
Roy Scheider, the popular actor known for many TV and movie roles including "Jaws" and "All That Jazz," has thrown his support behind the Kucinich campaign and has pledged to help. Scheider told us: "Our country has taken 18 steps backward in every area we've made progress. Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate I see who does not speak in half-truths. He tells the whole truth."
Allmovie.com says that his "weather-beaten face, broken nose (due to a teenage injury during a golden gloves preliminaries boxing match), and sensitive eyes give him the look and feel of a tough, world-weary fighter who would rather fight to the death than give up on life." Disheveled kind of fits that description. Apparently he had the lead role in SeaQuest too.


Posted by Clint, 8:03 AM -

Friday, October 03, 2003


PM's Retirement Plans . . .

Our beloved Jean Chretien says he'll be hittin' da spliff.

I think Paul Martin, likely the next prime minister of Canada, should smoke a bowl with the old man before taking his seat in the Big Chair. He's too tense.


Posted by Anthony, 10:37 PM -

Hospital accedes to racist demand
I wonder if Dartmouth Reviewers like Emmett would defend the hospital's actions (since Emmett once spoke ill of non-discrimination laws in Europe).


Posted by Timothy, 5:20 PM -

Our drugs laws aren't racist; it's just reverse privilege
Fox News reports on whether Rush Limbaugh will be charged with illegal use of precription drugs. But we know the maid is under scrutiny. Atrios says:
The more I think about this, the more outraged I get. Sometimes things are just so commonplace and expected that you cease being outraged. There are so many young black men (and others) in jail for decades after getting busted for possession of minute quantities of illegal drugs. If law enforcement has evidence that Limbaugh has been buying illegal prescription drugs for years, then they have an obligation to arrest him. At they very least they can give him the compassionate conservative treatment that Noelle [Bush, daughter of Jeb Bush] got (the compassionate conservative treatment is, of course, simply compassion for conservatives) and get some mandatory treatment.


Posted by Timothy, 5:12 PM -

Despair is [not] for Kids
"Mystic River" is rated R (Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian). It has profanity, abundant violence and existential despair.

From the NYTimes movie review.


Posted by T. Wood, 11:51 AM -

J.M. Coetzee Wins the Nobel
I've only read one of his works, Disgrace, and while I wouldn't describe it as enjoyable (it's rather depressing) I would describe it as excellent.

Perhaps Meredith, our resident South African literature expert, could give us a few words for the occasion.


Posted by Clint, 9:42 AM -

"I can hear you breathing, Paul..." Isn't it a bit worrisome when someone has devoted all of their spare time to Paul Krugman? I've read Luskin's tedious little "Krugman Watch" pieces for NRO, but this-- this is just plain creepy. Even Andrew Sullivan's stalker goes out and gets some fresh air once in awhile.


Posted by Brad Plumer, 3:01 AM -

To Infinity and Beyond: Wesley Clark tries to get in good with the all-important science geek voting bloc:

"I still believe in e=mc², but I can't believe that in all of human history, we'll never ever be able to go beyond the speed of light to reach where we want to go," said Clark. "I happen to believe that mankind can do it.

"I've argued with physicists about it, I've argued with best friends about it. I just have to believe it. It's my only faith-based initiative." Clark's comment prompted laughter and applause from the gathering.
That's right. While lesser candidates drone on about pulling out of NAFTA, Clark has set his sights on the laws of physics. Let's see Howard Dean make that kind of campaign promise.


Posted by Brad Plumer, 2:44 AM -

1975 Arnold says, 'I Admired Hitler’
Asked who his heroes are, he answered, "I admired Hitler, for instance, because he came from being a little man with almost no formal education, up to power. I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for what he did with it."

Read the rest here.

(I love it when Drudge has to post bad things about Republicans). I think we are now seeing the California Democratic establishment doing their best to bring down Arnold with whatever time they have left.

I have to say, I'm fairly impressed.


Posted by Dan, 12:02 AM -

Thursday, October 02, 2003


reverse racism, sexism, etc.

one of the responses to Esser's post was an accusation of reverse sexism. This is something that I personally don't believe in. Sexism, racism, and other isms only go in one direction - from the people with power to the people without it. Women can't be sexist against men or "reverse sexist" because we don't have the cultural/systemic power to do it. (to define power a little more closely it means things like control of money, land, decision-making, political positions, etc.) We can be prejudiced against men and even be cruel or commit acts of bigotry, but we can't be reverse sexist.

The same goes for race. People of color are not "reverse racist," although clearly it's possible for them to be preudiced against whites or other groups of people of color.

There's a good article from the Atlantic Monthly awhile back about why reverse racism is a misnomer...


Posted by Sarah, 11:30 PM -

An apology makes it all better?

Arnold admitted there was truth to the LA Times story in which six women came forward about sexual harassment. And apologized. If this strategy works, I'm moving out of California and giving up all faith in the people to elect public officials.


Posted by Neha, 10:00 PM -

The Chosen People - Compensatin' for Thousands of Years of Bein' Screwed by Screwin' Back Harder
[in reference to the 600 new homes they're puttin' up in Zion]
"We not only have the right to keep building, it is the obligation of the Jewish state to help us build," said Adi Mintz, director general of the Settlers Council, which represents Israelis living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip settlements.
from the NYTIMES.
And these are the winners to whom we give more foreign aid than any other country. Fuck the poor, dying of AIDS, and starving, the people of Israel need our help, because their government spends so much of their money screwing over the Palestinians. At least we have a road map. I could quote some Reviewers who were so proud a bit ago of their "president"'s policy thus - I think there is yet another Itoldyouso in order.


Posted by Jared, 9:04 PM -

What's the point
of The TNR Primary?
I've been checking back there time and again for a while now and it's like, we get it already.
Jon Cohn likes Howard Dean, Franklin Foer really hates him and all of the candidates are lucky if they ever score higher than a C or a D on any issue.
It's odd because lately the print version of TNR has had good commentary on the primary. The website follows a basic pattern though: a candidate says or does something, then a TNR writer complains about how much it sucked.
Who cares?


Posted by Graham, 3:29 PM -

Buckle down! Do you check FreeDartmouth 30 times a day even when there are no new posts? Get up and go check blitz every couple of minutes? Well, what the hell is wrong with you?

(Via Political Theory)


Posted by Brad Plumer, 3:12 PM -

Schwarzenegger's Song
He left the stage to the strains of his new campaign theme song, Twisted Sister's "We're Not Gonna Take It."

Catch the wave in Hampton Beach, NH.


Posted by T. Wood, 9:55 AM -

Hi...
...is the name of the Arabic new magazine being published in part by the State Department aimed at Middle Easterners aged 18-35. I hadn't heard of it until this must-read article, but it sounds like the crappy USA Today style magazines we used to get given for free in middle school--expect for that its lot more dangerous.


Posted by Clint, 9:44 AM -

comment turned post once again... hi sarah. i would love to meet you sometime.

This is from a previous comment from Graham:

--not to attack Mer and intimidate her from participating in this enlightened discourse but...
"women are more level-headed about these things"
and in the same post you talk about a strap on peeing device.--

Don't worry, Graham. Im not intimidated. and i have actually used the strap-on-peeing device. it comes in handy in the woods, and apparently, here on freedartmouth as well.

All I meant by the level-headed comment (whcih, i admit was probably the wrong choice of words because i am rarely level-headed about anything) is exactly what i said-- i dont unabashedly subscribe to one side or the other of a political debate. i prefer to sit back and follow a discussion passively, because i know that if its men arguing, their opinions will most likely not be swayed. however, i certainly see the value in debating-- it strengthen's one's mental agility etc...

however, I think politics are like sports. Here's why: because you guys pick a political team (sometiemes, but not always, as randomly a sports team), and stick with it. A lot of it is about persona-- (especially recently) "i want to be identified with such and such a political candidate etc... and so I think they're right no matter what." Its also a lot like war or religious fundamentalism. but that is a whole other story.

i do think that these political debates you have on freedartmouth could easily be analyzed through the lens of homosocial theory. basically, this forum serves as yet another outlet for males to bond with each other over their two favorite things-- war and females (though females don't come up that much except to make insulting comments about CMB in a thong. on a side note, i hear thongs can be quite liberating, though i dont know from experience).

by war i obviously don't mean war, but i mean this kind of semi-antagonistic banter that goes on. i admire the fact that most of the time it is very intellectual and informative (though, i found it extremely hilarious that the kerry-dean rivalry that so flagrantly showed itself in the last presidential debate was also mirrored in the graham-janos debate here at dartmouth). but this kind of political rivalry is obviously nothing new... a similar kind of male banter is found in the opening scenes of Romeo and Juliet.

To take another tack, at the end of the last presidential debate, some interesting points were raised-- the candidates are basically on the same side of the playing field. I tend to agree with the Kooch and Brother Sharpton on this issue-- just as with the dem candidates, the vast majority of the people who blog on freedartmouth are actually on the same team, and don't really have such radically differing opinions on the larger issues. on a macrocosmic, and slightly sensational scale, michael moore and others have commented on how the bush family and the hussein family are not all that different. nepotism, fundamentalism, etc..--(i can feel it in my bones that i'm going to get slammed for this one). when i read this blog, though, i tend to agree with most things that are said, in some capacity. and maybe the level-headed person lurking somewhere deep inside of me would prefer not to worry my pretty little head over the details.

on another sidenote, i thought that CMB was far and away the most eloquent of the 10 candidates. she thought up her responses on the spot and managed to avoid sounding like a tape recorder mindlessly yet emphatically filling here speeches with political cliches, or like a high school teenager arguing about sports statistics. sadly, perhaps the reason why there are only 632 supporters registered on her website and only 5 supporters in the Leb/Hanover area is because she doesn't look good in a thong. (i dont know how kerry or dean would stack up)

if a candidate isn't loud, in this day and age, they probably won't be heard. yet i agreed with CMB's policies-- universal healthcare, but also an emphasis on the need to finish what we've started in iraq (which the Kooch opposes). why is it that clark, who says he will lay out his economic adgenda in a few weeks, is neck-and-neck with dean, when many people can't even seem to find any concrete facts on his candidacy?

well, that's enough from me for now. i'm sure i'll regret this later in the day.


Posted by Meredith, 8:40 AM -

Your Piece of America is in Your Wallet
The Dean fund-raising network has attracted people like Michele Gray, a stay-at-home mother from central Pennsylvania who went from supporter to solicitor in just a matter of months.

Impressed by a Dean speech, she became a regular on his Web site and started to contribute. She has now donated the maximum $2,000 to the campaign and she is asking the people around her to give what they can. She held a fund-raiser in her home, tracks contributions on a Web page provided by the campaign and has brought at least $5,025 into Dr. Dean's coffers.

"My $2,000 counts as much as George Soros's $2,000 or Ken Lay's $2,000," Ms. Gray said. "I may be just a mom in Pennsylvania, but I can be just as much a participant. That makes me feel powerful. That makes me feel like I'm participating in this country again."
The NYT reports on Dean's fundraising and how successful it is. Dean constantly talks about getting regular Americans involved again. But this? I feel pretty sick right now. This woman only feels as if she is as much of a participant in American politics as the Chairman of Enron Corp. because she donates as much money as he does. It's vile enough when people think that they can't play a part because everything is in the pockets of rich special interests; it's worse when they have to pony up the same amounts as those individuals do to try and take things back.


Posted by Jonathan, 2:11 AM -

Rush Resigns

ESPN is once again safe for football fans, Rush Limbaugh has resigned following racist remarks about Philadelphia Eagles QB Donovan McNabb. Wes Clark, Al Sharpton, and other prominent people in politics and sports had been calling for his resignation which he recently tendered.
Adding to the absurdity is this fallacious statement from Rush in an attempt to defend himself: "All this has become the tempest that it is because I must have been right about something. If I wasn't right, there wouldn't be the cacophony of outrage that has sprung up in the sportswriter community." So, just remember, any time you make people mad, it means that you're right.


Posted by scott anderson, 1:51 AM -

Dam Construction Update

I am shooting for 100 supporters of the response to BuzzFlood before it's published. We're not near that number yet. I urge you, if you agree with the statement, email stoptheflood@alum.dartmouth.org. Several of you have expressed hearty support, and have failed to throw your own weight behind this. It takes nothing more than a blitz.


Posted by Jonathan, 1:48 AM -

Wednesday, October 01, 2003



Response turned post...


This started out as a reponse to Clint's excellent post about "the boys club" - but it evolved into a post of it's own. Bare with me. Or ream me out, whatever, I'm used to it.

As a member of the audience at the debate, I have to say that I was, as usual, sorta bummed about the universally male representation.

I think Buckholz misses the point:
"So you're blaming the males for usurping all the power? Not everything is an instance of hegemony and oppression. If women (womyn?) had been actively excluded, I can see getting upset."

aside from the defensive tone and "womyn" comment (prehaps intended to make proponents of the position that, as Clint so aptly put it, "Something is wrong when what should be a randomish group of 7 includes no women." appear radical and ridiculous.)

It's bad strategy to try and convince a an electorate that's half female to vote for candidates by representing them only from a male point of view. We know sexism is a problem in the larger political arena, when only 10% of the Democratic candidates are female, (yeah, that'd be one, Mosely-Braun.) However, that should encourage the enterprising supporters of the different candidates to at least appear fair on the local level. I don't mean coordinate ("Lieberman, Edwards, Kerry, get a woman to represent you so that we look okay") to look good - I mean be good.

Why aren't women involved in your campaign? If they are, why aren't they stepping up to be the visible part of the campaign? If they are, where can we see them? How about people of color? If you have minimal representation - don't recruit, ask yourself, "what is it about my candidate, my office, my political views, my campaigning method, that is unappealing to women and/or people of color?" And ask yourself, then, "are those things right?" Perhaps the women aren't just apathetic or uninformed, perhaps we are intimidated or disagree with the politics. Maybe you should change those tactics or rethink those politics as a response instead of trying to convince us that we should switch over to your idea, or give in on just that one thing for "the greater good"

What are you doing to make women comfortable and confident in politics? To show that all women involved in politics are not, in fact, "wack?" I'm not saying anyone in particular is doing something wrong - I'm saying if you care about women in politics - you're gonna have to do more than just "not wrong" you're gonna have to be a little pushy and overconcerned about it. Like me.


Posted by Sarah, 1:38 PM -

Thanks for the link August!!
Free Darmouth just got a big plug on XQUZYPHYR & Overboard, which is one of my favorite blogs. And we didn't even fish for it. And I quote:
"...a very informative and useful weblog. It's a wonderful thing, this Free Dartmouth."
That's pretty sweet.


Posted by Clint, 6:57 AM -

A rose by any other name...
Denny, Loose Koose, DJ Koose, DJK, and now the Kooch.

Here's my favorite piece of Kooch Merch.


Posted by Clint, 6:19 AM -

Tuesday, September 30, 2003


A bright star on the conservative horizon?

So Courtney Andree's first post really made me feel secure about the future of our nation's progressives. check it:

Role Playing Dems.
A gem proferred by Janos Marton at last night's Democratic Interns Debate, on his candidate Kerry: ⌠He¨ˆs got a great plan on health care that will cover 27 uninsured Americans. One of the reasons he¨ˆs going to do it is by offering businesses, helping out businesses that can¨ˆt pay for healthcare costs...The federal government is going to cover all healthcare catastrophes over $50,000.¡ö
One can only hope that all 27 will be mobilized to vote your way.
Matt Slain (sic), representing Joe Liberman (sic), played his part to perfection but notably failed to differentiate his role from that of Liberman's (sic) . For all outward signs and appearances, Liberman (sic)was there in the flesh. This behavior may have caused audience concern in regards to Slain's psychological health. Comments regarding "split-personality" disorder were rampant.


I clearly said 27 million, not to mention the misquote and unexplained ellipses she tosses in after. In her future journalistic endavors Courtney ought to bring a tape recorder or ask for a written copy of the text after- but I guess Talcott and Alston can whip her into shape eventually. Oh, and while you're at it, Courtney, its Matt Slaine, not Matt Slain, and Joe Lieberman, not Joe Liberman. He ran for the Vice-Presidency- even as a little high schooler you should have at least learned his name.
God, where are the Hogans and Wilsons of yesteryear? At least they knew how to write.


Posted by janos, 9:36 PM -

I wouldn't have expected anything less
Roth made the most overt attack on another candidate in his conclusion, which singled out Marton and Kerry. ...

"I'd like to respond to Janos; although he doesn't dignify [a response]," he said. "The difference between me and Janos, who's supporting Kerry, is that I'm not up here to apologize for my candidate's positions."
From The D.


Posted by Clint, 9:12 AM -

Oakland: More dangerous than Iraq?
Mr. Kalb, your assertion in this comment thread didn't pass the smell test.

From May 1, the day that "major combat hostilities ceased," to this Monday, 170 US soldiers have died in Iraq. That's about 5 months, or 150 days. That's a rate of 1.13 soldiers dying a day. According to central command, as of September 10, there are 117,000 US troops in Iraq. That means that if you are a soldier in Iraq, your odds of dying on any given day are 1.13 out of 117,000, or about one in 103,540.

As of Thursday September 18, Oakland had 93 murders since the new year. Eight months plus is about 258 days. That makes their rate to date 0.36 murders a day. According to Census numbers Oakland has 372,242 residents. That means that if you are a resident of Oakland your odds of being murdered on any given day are .36 out of 372,242, or one in 1,034,005.

So, that's one in about a hundred thousand versus one in about a million.

Oakland sucks, but Iraq is about 10 times worse.


CAVEATS: Kalb said "that you're about as likely to be shot as a citizen of Oakland, CA as you are to be shot on duty as an American soldier." That's true, because there are US soldiers on duty in plenty of peaceful spot around the world who never face combat. So let's assume he only meant Iraq. Also, the phrase "shot" doesn't have to mean killed, and this would increase the raw numbers dramatically. I expect there are more non lethal shootings in Oakland as a proportion of total shootings than in Iraq, but I don't know. Relatedly, I don't think Kalb really cares whether or not the soldier died as a result of a bomb or a bullet, so I've taken that whole mess to mean "killed by on duty."

Which raises another question. Plenty of soldiers die in Iraq from car crashes etc, and not from anything having to to with guerrillas. Those deaths are in the 170 figure. If someone can find the figure for deaths as a result of enemy action, I'll revise my numbers. But they'd have to show that less than 20 of those deaths were from enemy action to get as bad as Oakland, and that simply isn't the case.

UPDATE: As promised, i'm redoing the numbers, even though I only have a vauge "more than 80" figure to go on. So..

From May 1, the day that "major combat hostilities ceased," to this Monday, "more than 80" US soldiers have died in Iraq. That's about 5 months, or 150 days. That's a rate of .54 soldiers dying a day. According to central command, as of September 10, there are 117,000 US troops in Iraq. That means that if you are a soldier in Iraq, your odds of dying on any given day are .54 out of 117,000, or about one in 216,667.

So Iraq is five times as bad as Oakland.


Posted by Clint, 9:07 AM -

Another Priceless Whitehouse Press Conference moment.
Reporter: ...Attorney General Ashcroft is not speaking with print reporters. Does the President agree with that policy?

McClellan: I don't know what his individual policy is. The Attorney General --

Reporter: He's not speaking with print reporters.

McClellan: The Attorney General has been out --

Reporter: -- he's just talking with TV --

McClellan: The Attorney General has been out talking about some important priorities of this administration and he will continue to do that. I haven't heard --

Reporter: He's not talking to print reporters.

McClellan: Talk to the Attorney General.

Reporter: He won't talk to a print reporter. (Laughter.)


Posted by Clint, 6:11 AM -

Springfield v. Big Pharma
The Mayor of Springfield Massachusetts has asked the board overseeing city pension funds to sell 6 million dollars worth of pharmaceutical stocks. It's essentially a divestment in protest of very high US drug prices versus, say Canada. There's a good Globe article about it. Mayor Michael Albano seems to be a bit of a character (he has a theme song).


Posted by Clint, 6:06 AM -

Hello, boys.
Props to Moseley-Braun: Leading the women's movement one thong at a time.



Posted by Meredith, 1:32 AM -

Monday, September 29, 2003


PONG TOURNEY?

A flurry of post debate events have set the wheels in motion for a tumultous few weeks. Tonight the Kerry campaign formerly challenged the Dean campaign to a Ryder Cup style pong tournament:
Hey guys,
So its been good times having our campaigns battle it out nationally, locally and at Dartmouth, but we still haven't battled in the purest of venues. The Kerry campaign would like to challenge the Dean campaign to a classic pong tournament. The format would be similar to the Ryder Cup, so youd need about 4 girls and 4 guys.
A Saturday would work best- are you guys down?
peace
Janos


The invitation was accepted by Jordan Kovnot, but not before Edwards rep Lis Smith challenged everyone on the blitz list to a tournament, Edwards Vs.
This in turn was taken up by Alston, who will go local and play for the Edwards team, as he is a true Tar Heel, but not before he sent out his own challenge:
Well, you could make the whole endeavor more interesting by including some Bushies...

I see big things ahead.


UPDATE


The D has agreed to field a team in the rapidly expanding tournament, while Lis Smith has cordially noted :
frankly, i'd rather play with a one-eyed midget than a bushie.

tough times, alston


Posted by janos, 11:58 PM -

Father and Son
"I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the names of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."

-- President George H.W. Bush in a 4/29/99 speech.

President George W. Bush "has no plans to ask his staff members whether they played a role in revealing the name of an undercover CIA officer."

-- Washington Post article, 9/29/03. In his own speech to CIA employees, Bush recognized how vitally important the covert nature of their jobs were. (Political Wire)


Posted by Timothy, 6:26 PM -

He would know.
Former Senator Max Cleland of Georgia, a Vietnam Vet and amputee, on the similarities between two mistaken wars. It sounds to me like he regrets voting for the Iraq war resolution. From the Atlanta Journal-Counstitution.
The president of the United States decides to go to war against a nation led by a brutal dictator supported by one-party rule. ...unbeknownst to the American public, the president's own Pentagon advisers have already cooked up a plan to go to war. All they are looking for is an excuse.

Based on faulty intelligence, cherry-picked information is fed to Congress ... Congress buys the bait -- hook, line and sinker -- and passes a resolution ... The war is started ... Initially there is optimism. ...

However, the truth on the ground ... is different ... [soldiers] face increased opposition from a determined enemy. They are surprised by terrorist attacks, village assassinations, increasing casualties and growing anti-American sentiment. They find themselves bogged down in a guerrilla land war... There is no plan B. There is no exit strategy. ...

Welcome to Vietnam, Mr. President. Sorry you didn't go when you had the chance.


Posted by Clint, 10:51 AM -

The boys club
David Hankins --- Bob Graham
Brian Martin --- Wesley Clark
Janos Marton --- John Kerry
Philip Peisch --- John Edwards
Vikash Reddy --- Dick Gephardt
Graham Roth --- Howard Dean
Matthew Slaine --- Joe Lieberman
Taken from a young dems blitz about a mock debate happening tonight. This is depressing. Not a single woman will be representing a candidate at this function. Sarah Ayers worked for Dean this summer. I think Liz Smith worked for Edwards. I forget her name, but I think there is an '06 girl who has been just as strong for Liberman as Matt is. Some of these boys should step aside in the future--or if possible tonight.

Also, of course, no one has stepped forward to rep Mosely-Braun or the good Reverend Al. Nor DJ Koose. Sniff.

The sort of small time politics practiced at Dartmouth are way male, and mostly way white. If this doesn't change now, how can the dems expect to excite people unlike the ones who will be on stage?


Posted by Clint, 9:33 AM -

Sunday, September 28, 2003


When the levee breaks...

The BuzzFloodites have apparently noticed my posts here and made some rather facile remarks in the comments section. Pretty much the only legitimate question that emerges from the bile is "why?" - i.e., "Why are you against BuzzFlood?"

I suppose I can offer an answer to that.

The organization states: "Our goal is to simply point out what's so special about Dartmouth College." To whom? I was always taught it was a virtue not to be self-congratulatory. Besides the fact this seems to be a group constructed to do just that, the College already has an outlet for mentioning factoids like: "the first female Native American in the Marine Corps was a Dartmouth Grad (Class of 2003)." It's called the Office of Public Affairs. If they are behind this group, then I wonder why they've found it necessary to create certified student evangelists to do the job. Everyone who's experienced Dartmouth clearly has their own opinions about it, and most already have wonderful things to say.

The reasoning that was earlier batted around for the popularity of "BuzzFlood" was that it was a way of making HYP-rejects at Dartmouth feel better about themselves. Whether or not that's true (or partially true), I question why people feel it necessary to trumpet the fact that "Professor David Kang recently wrote an op-ed about the North Korean crisis in the New York Times." In fact, as I, the 1 million+ subscribers, and other assorted readers of the Times online and in print already knew, Kang and several other Dartmouth professors are not infrequent contributors to that paper. As you may not have known, professors publish things! Dartmouth professors also appear in such publications as Foreign Affairs, International Security, etc., etc. etc. (and I know the sciences are even better represented). You go to an Ivy League school. People know that. What's the problem?

If you consider larger PR efforts to be akin to placing the College in an "honor roll" among other institutions, this is akin to a group of people who want to brag about every A they make on a test.

But maybe that's a facile way for me to look at it. So I put the question to you, BuzzFlooders. What's your point? What is the importance of trumpeting Dartmouth factoids? It's a means to an end, clearly. What's the end? If you can give me a good answer to that question, I will leave off my criticism of the group. I'm waiting.


Posted by Jonathan, 7:24 PM -

On Edward Said's recent death
Columbia Political Review's The Filibuster has a few interesting links on Said's death.


Posted by Timothy, 6:00 PM -

Patriot Act frequently used on non-terror related crimes
NYT reports.


Posted by Timothy, 5:58 PM -

If you haven't heard this theory about WMDs
Perhaps Saddam was misled by his own scientists as to the extent/existence of Iraq's WMD program. Time writes: "The U.S. was sure Saddam had WMD, but Iraqi scientists tell TIME the weapons were destroyed long before the war"
So, why all the hide and seek if suspect facilities did not contain incriminating evidence? The former Minister of Industry and Minerals, Muyassar Raja Shalah, cites national security: "The U.N.'s accusations about hiding things were true," he says, recalling charges that Iraqis hustled evidence out the back door even as U.N. inspectors entered through the front. "This was Iraq's right, because the U.N. was searching for wmd in a lot of military facilities, and of course we held a lot of military secrets relating to the national security of Iraq in these places. It was impossible to let a foreigner have a look at these secrets." Some analysts suspect that Saddam's game was a sly form of deterrence: keep the U.S. and his neighbors guessing about the extent of his arsenal to prevent a pre-emptive attack....

Saddam's underlings appear to have invented weapons programs and fabricated experiments to keep the funding coming... If Saddam may not have known the true nature of his own arsenal, it is no wonder that Western intelligence services were picking up so many clues about so many weapons systems. But it helps answer one logical argument that the Administration has been making ever since the weapons failed to appear after the war ended: why, if Saddam had nothing to hide, did he endure billions of dollars in sanctions and ultimately prompt his own destruction? Perhaps because even he was mistaken about what was really at stake in this fight. Whether the Iraqis had actual stores of unconventional weapons, Spertzel argues, is beside the point. He finds it credible that Iraq converted many of its weapons factories to civilian uses.


Posted by Timothy, 5:33 PM -

Drezner on CIA-gate
In a post entitled "What Could Cause Me to Switch Parties," Dan Drezner says that if White House are willing to uncover the names of CIA agents on a small issue, what has it been willing to do for large issues?
If it is nevertheless true, however -- an important "if" -- then a Pandora's box gets opened by asking this question: if the White House was willing to commit an overtly illegal act in dealing with such a piddling matter, what lines have they crossed on not-so-piddling matters? In other words, if this turns out to be true, then suddenly do all of the crazy conspiracy theories acquire a thin veneer of surface plausibility?
Atrios summarizes other points:
Josh Marshall points out that of course the administration knows who the leakers were, has known for months, and could and should take action on their own, but for some reason didn't feel that committing felonies disqualified you from serving in top sensitive positions in the US government....also, Marshall picks up on other point which quite a few of you suggested - who the hell told these two White House officials, who may or may not have proper clearance, about Wilson's wife in the first place? This likely goes deeper than two people.
Meanwhile, Instahack says"THE PLAME/WILSON STORY remains, in Roger Simon's words "too complicated" for me to feel I really understand it." Yeah, uh huh. Just like the John Lott story. Instahack isn't consistent in applying this standard of 'too complicated' when he casts summary judgments on other stories.


Posted by Timothy, 5:08 PM -
Powered by Blogger

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