Posted by Kate,
10:58 PM
-
Why do poor people hate Howard Dean? Ruy Texeira analyzes the last few polls on Democratic candidates and reaches a few conclusions about the upcoming Dean/Clark dogfight:
While Clark receives more support than Dean among both men and women, his margin over Dean among women is just 3 points (16 percent to 13 percent), but an impressive 12 points among men (29 percent to 17 percent). He also beats Dean in every region of the country, but especially in the south (25 percent to 8 percent). Also intriguing is how well he does among low income voters (those earning less than $20,000 a year), clobbering Dean by 26 percent to 5 percent. In fact, Clark bests Dean in every income group up to $75,000. Above $75,000, Dean edges Clark, 26 percent to 25 percent.
In terms of ideology, Dean beats Clark among liberals, 24 percent to 18 percent, but Clark wins moderates by 24 percent to 11 percent and conservatives by 23 percent to 7 percent. The general picture, then, is that Clark does especially well, relative to Dean, among the very groups where Democrats have been having the most problems. That suggests to Public Opinion Watch that the emerging Clark candidacy deserves very serious consideration indeed.
What's wrong with poor people? Don't they know what's good for them? Why aren't they taking their medicine? Someone better tell them that Dean's running a populist campaign, and quick...
Posted by Brad Plumer,
2:12 PM
-
The OIC Conference
Malaysia's President Mahatir delivered a rather controversial speech yesterday to the leaders of the worlds Muslim-majority countries:
He told the leaders of the Islamic world that 1.3 billion Muslims could not be "defeated by a few million Jews".
"This tiny [Jewish] community has become a world power. We cannot fight them through brawn alone. We must use our brains as well," he said. (BBC)
Malaysia's (admittedly government controlled) New Straits Times gives the reactions of other leaders at the summit:
Several organizations criticized Dr Mahathir, claiming that he was calling on the Muslims to wage war against the Jews.
The various Muslim leaders who came to his defense had attended the summit opening and heard his speech.
Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said criticism that Dr Mahathir was anti-Semitic was actually a well-calculated Western propaganda... Khatami said anti-Semitism was in reality a product of the West, adding that Muslims were not antiSemitic or anti-Jew but were merely standing up against the injustices waged on them. "Anti-Semitism is produced by the West. "In Germany and other parts of Europe, the Jews were under the most extreme anti-Semitism violence. "Muslims are today made to pay for the crimes of the Western world against the Jews... Khatami said Dr Mahathir had made a clarion call for Muslims to unite and avoid indulging in any form of violence which would only be self-incriminating. (NST)
While I think we can dismiss much of Mahatir's senile mumblings about Jews creating communism, socialism, and democracy all for the sole purpose of ruling the world (the OIC needs to get better spokespeople...) what are the reactions to Khatami's comments that much of Islamic anti-semetic sentiment results from the west forcibly exporting their responsibility to the Jewish community onto the arab world?
And does anyone else think that the noise created by the British, American, German and Australian governments, as well as the EU presidency is obscuring the OIC conference's larger messages and adding to the west's stereotype of the Muslim world? Despite what a quick read of international headlines might have you believe, the foreign ministers concentrated on trade between Muslim countries, the development of consortia for scientists and academics, etc. In fact, Mahatir's opening speech devoted more time to criticizing Islamic radicalism and fundamentalists as one of the major groups that have led to the "regression" of the Muslim world (full text here).
Posted by Nikhil,
5:58 AM
-
Friday, October 17, 2003 Kill Bill
A fun and irreverent film about slicing people apart with swords. I thought it was humorous and slick. There was even a scalping which should appeal to some of you "traditionalists."
Upon exiting the theater Brad and I were confronted with an irate Buckholz in the alley behind the nugget theater. Of course, he hated it with an enthusiasm that could only be described as impassioned. My question: Does this guy like anything?
The general leading the hunt for Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein has publicly declared that the Christian God is "bigger" than Allah, who is a false "idol", and believes the war on terrorism is a fight with Satan, it emerged yesterday....
Best of all, here's what the general said of George W. Bush is a recent speech:
"Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him. He's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this."
Erza Klein over at Not Geniuses has made comments that make me think he does not understand the points Calpundit makes about the nature of state powers over Indians. (Though Calpundit might be a bit too catagorical.) I suspect a few comments to this post will also demonstrate a lack of knowledge of Native Americans and federal law, which that is pretty common. More here....
This knowledge of case law is from a class I took 5 years ago at Dartmouth, but here's my recollection of the situation: In 1987, the Cabazon Supreme Court decision said the tribes had a right to gamble based on their existing sovereignty, where states permit any form of gambling (including church bingo or the like). Congress said something to the effect of.. hmmm... this could get out of control. So they passed the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act that set up more barriers for tribes to get Casinos, and crucially gave the states a voice in the process (States could always simply ban all forms of gambling entirely). But IRGA was meant to be a compromise. States were not meant to extort large sums of money, but were required to negotiate in good faith. Of course, many governors basically refused to do this. Many tribes also offered 'revenue-sharing' to move the process along, but there was federal supervision here too. IGRA had a provision that allowed tribes to sue states for not negotiating in good faith. Unfortunately, in the Seminole decision in the mid 1990s, the Supreme Court said that the 11th amendment (the text of which never mentions Indian tribes) doesn't allow IGRA to make it so Indian tribes can sue states, unless states voluntarily waive their sovereign immunity. So in part because tribes cannot enforce the rights they have under IGRA (and had before from the 1987 Supreme Court decision), states can make even more demands on tribes because of their increased bargaining power. This is because federal law originally gave them only a voice; but the Supreme Court knocked out one part of a federally imposed framework of negotiation, turning that voice into a veto. Anyway, I say all this to show how federal law usually controls Indian policy; how Indian sovereignty is recognized as continuing (unless Congress acts or some other court limitations); and yet how a federal law allowed states to play hardball to get money and other concessions despite the basic intent of the law. (For those who don't know, my primary research interest in political theory involves indigenous sovereignty.)
Posted by Timothy,
6:55 PM
-
Speaking of TNR It seems Sullivan deserves a Dowd Award for the way he distorted Maureen Dowd, at least according to this blogger...
But his apology is confusing to me. He has this specifically to say:
I noted that many Christian executives adore money above all else, and in the 20-minute reality of blog composition, that seemed to me, writing it, fairness and fair spreading of blame. But accusing a Christian of adoring money above all else does not engage any history of ugly stereotypes. Accuse a Jewish person of this and you invoke a thousand years of stereotypes about that which Jews have specific historical reasons to fear. What I wrote here was simply wrong, and for being wrong, I apologize.
Ok, that's makes sense. But he first says: "I'm ready to defend all the thoughts in that paragraph. But how could I have done such a poor job of expressing them? " But what thoughts was he trying to express? Easterbrook's main remorse comes from poor writing (due partly to the nature of blogs). But at least to this reader, the writing in his apology isn't entirely clear either.
Racism and anti-semitism are not yes or no issues. I really don't quite get why people are ignoring the fact that Easterbrook didn't really apologize for what he did wrong - he apologized for a side issue which compounded the issue. the fact that he stands by the thoughts emphatically makes it all the more troubling.
See more by Atrios here, which is worth reading, compounding the problems with Easterbrook's 'apology' by noting that Easterbrook is assuming Eisner and company are practicing Jews when we only know they are ethnically Jewish.
What troubles me about Easterbrook's remarks isn't that I think that Easterbrook is anti-Semitic in any deliberate or conscious fashion. It's that I think they indicate the way in which anti-Semitic ideas have infiltrated popular discourse in recent years to the point that one needn't be an anti-Semite to start parroting them without realizing it. I think that's the import of Leon Wieseltier's comments, quoted in the article, about Easterbrook not being an anti-Semite but his remarks being "objectively anti-Semitic." (This further comment from Virginia Postrel underscores that point.) I'm afraid that some people want to make Easterbrook the issue here because it's easier and more comfortable than thinking through the implications of that phenomenon.
...behind Bill Clinton. Drugs, rape, scandal - meet the REAL Bill Clinton. Did I mention he's a Republican? That's funny, because the Fox News article doesn't mention that either...nor does Emmett, when he blogs about it on Dartlog. Funny how when a Dem does something like this, it proves the "moral hollow" to be found in liberals...
Last night's poll is complete and the results are in: the Moose has been voted an unsatisfactory mascot by 56% of Dartmouth students. Therefore, the members of SA**, as the elected leaders of the student body, have unilaterally chosen a new mascot. From now on, our sports teams will be known as
THE DARTMOUTH KEGS!
Our focus group decided that the keg is an ideal mascot, symbolizing community and sustainable use of resources, both ideals of the Dartmouth way of life. Kegs do not personify any race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation. And kegs reference Dartmouth's formidable social history while at the same time celebrating its intellectual tradition. The Dartmouth Keg is a keg of whatever you want it to be.
We expect this mascot will be well-received. Attached is a free Dartmouth Kegs desktop for your computer, and you can expect to see our new costumed mascot, Keggy, at next week's Homecoming game.
GO KEGS!
**Where "SA" is an abbreviation of "Jack O'Lantern."
“It’s very hard for me to go home and explain that we have to give $20 billion to a country sitting on $1 trillion worth of oil,” said one loan supporter, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
This seems like a very good idea to me. With $87 billion before the House and Senate, I'd like to see more of this happen for the money sent specifically for reconstruction, while the money that is needed for military support gets to where it needs to go.
Posted by Kate,
1:09 AM
-
On se poigne le cul avec l'affaire mascot!
I'm a little confused by this blitz sent out by Mascot Search:
This mascot project started with you, the student body. Now you have to decide whether you want the moose or whether Dartmouth should remain without a mascot. In this last phase of student polling, we would like to hear where you now stand. Whether or not we adopt a mascot, we will remain the Dartmouth Big Green (our official nickname).
As I recall, the project started because the Student Assembly wanted to show clearly that the Dartmouth Injun' was not our mascot because, in fact, we had no official mascot. They provided an edited/censored list of mascot possibilities on which the student body votes. There was no clear favourite. And now SA assembly wants to know whether we want a masscot at all. Rightly or wrongly, doesn't this leave SA back at square 1, with no official mascot and Dartmouth Injun' lovers parading their shirts at football games? Tell me I'm missing something here!
Posted by Timothy,
10:27 PM
-
Re: Free Speech Claims The comments on the post Free Speech Claims by Karsten went over 100. Nic's wish came true, but I at least cannot read comment 101. So the comment thread can continue here. I may summarize some of the arguments here later, but I've been arguing on freedom of association is not absolute.
Posted by Timothy,
9:44 PM
-
Oops So I'm checking out CNN's profile of Wesley Clark, which lists his stance on a number of issues. Reading down the list, I get this: " Do not mix intelligence, policy; conduct thorough reviews." Hmm. Doesn't sound very promising to me. (The sentence refers to his position on intelligence agencies)
Posted by Laura,
4:16 PM
-
Economics: Earlier today, Howard Dean unveiled his economic plan for America to a crowd at Georgetown University. Here is the text of his speech. And here is the Plan for Restoring the American Dream.
On the subject of campaign economics, The NYTimes reports on fundraising and spending to date.
DFP 4.3 has set off for the wild blue yonder of the mighty World Wide Web. Inside are adventures abound, including Jody Williams on land mines, Mike Gadsden '07 on the thrill of streaking, and John Edwards on being sketchy. She voyages with a saucy crew of movie & book reviews, Dems on campus, Russian artists, war profiteers, and music fans rallying for OutKast while railing against pirates (RRRRRR!).
Tho' ye landlubbers shall have to wait 'till tomorrow for the print version.
Posted by Nick,
2:46 PM
-
One vote margins: Cool Washington Post article on the arm-twisting and deal-making that goes on during close votes in the House. I've always wondered if Congressmen ever get intimidated-- I mean actually physically or verbally intimidated-- into casting certain votes. Just like I wonder if some members of the Bush administration get their way by sheer force of personality. Does Rumsfeld start screaming and swearing? Does Cheney ever call Powell a little puss? Does Karl Rove swear he has photos of Scooter Libby in a thong? Honestly, how do certain officials become more influential than others?
Posted by Brad Plumer,
2:22 AM
-
George Bush, environmental activist: Interesting LA Times column by Gregg Easterbrook (of "even the liberal New Republic..." fame), making the case for Bush's environmental record. Or at least making the case that Bush isn't really turning the world into a filthy cesspool and giving all our kids asthma (as Joe Lieberman claims). Honestly, the whole thing's worth reading, but the highlights are:
Air pollution continues to decline under Bush. Water pollution and toxic emissions are declining. Forests are expanding.
That infamous logging solution to forest fires is not catastrophic. The major decisions will be left to local Forest Service managers.
Bush has implemented three major environmental reforms for which he has received zero credit: reformulation of diesel fuel (despite protests from Big Oil), stricter emission standards for diesel trucks (despite protests from Dennis Hastert), and emissions standards on a range of previously unregulated vehicles. Easterbrook: "Taken together, Bush's three dramatic anti-pollution decisions should lead to the biggest pollution reduction since the 1991 Clean Air Act amendments."
Of course, no one's claiming that the Democrats couldn't do better. No doubt President Lieberman could jack those emission rates down even further, and put in some real fuel-economy requirements for SUVs. But it also seems important (in theory) to understand exactly what Bush has done, what the current environmental situation is, and exactly what sort of drastic reforms are really needed.
So assuming Easterbrook is right (and he might not be, I'm not an expert on this topic), then this brings up a question. Should the Dems continue their over-the-top railing against Bush's environmental record? It might help them win the election, but it also obscures the current state of affairs, contributes to our culture of fear and ignorance, and, as Easterbrook argues, might even discourage Bush from taking any further steps to help the environment. Isn't that just as important as Dean's latest poll numbers?
Posted by Brad Plumer,
1:47 AM
-
Sic Semper Cubbies
What a heartbreaking loss. And really, who wants to see the MARLINS in the Series? Their players certainly shouldn't; they'll all be sold off like parts from a stolen car, like in '97.
It will be a shame if the Red Sox "big win" is against the Marlins. Assuming the Red Sox don't succumb to their own curse today.
Posted by Jonathan,
1:12 AM
-
Wednesday, October 15, 2003 Explain this to me like I'm a five-year-old..
Senator Edwards came to Dartmouth yesterday, and said that he would "support the troops" by voting against the $87 billion proposal for money to rebuild Iraq. I don't take issue with candidates like Dean and Sharpton who have consistently not supported the war, but Edward, in fact, voted FOR the war resolution. So he voted for us to go to war, now he wants to not pay for rebuilding after it? Back in April when we took Baghdad, Edwards said: "It is in America’s national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors, because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner. Such an Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world." All right, but doesn't staying power need to be funded?
And (for those of you who were there yesterday) correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Edwards take issue with the US pulling out of Afghanistan without properly rebuilding it?
Posted by Timothy,
8:15 PM
-
And screw you if your state's Primary is after March 10
Terry McCauliffe just told Lou Dobbs on CNN that he expects the Democrats to pick a candidate by the March 10 primary. While this is almost certainly a logistical reality, it doesn't seem right for the chairman of the national party to completely write off the millions of people (like me) who have to wait until after March to cast a primary vote. Why don't we just have a national primary???? (after Iowa and NH of course.)
Posted by Dan,
6:30 PM
-
Courts and teaching your children Spanish Here.
And where was Barbour when this picture was taken? Why, at the Black Hawk Barbecue and Political Rally, held on July 19 to raise money for — wink wink, nudge nudge — "private academy" school buses.
Still not clear on what the problem is? The BHBPR is sponsored by the fine gentlemen of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a bunch of well-known racist neanderthals based out of Missouri. I think most of my readers are probably aware of the CCC's handiwork, but in case you aren't you might want to visit their website and browse around. You can start with "In Defense of Racism," and then head over to "the TRUTH about Martin Luther King," and then finish up with "Angry White Female" and a report from the Mississippi chapter about how Abraham Lincoln was an imperialist warmonger.
And yet, as ArchPundit points out, Barbour is pretending that he is shocked — shocked! — to find out the CCC was behind this shindig and doesn't even know who these CCC characters are. Give me a break. I am well aware that most Republicans aren't racist and are sick and tired of hearing from Democrats about the Southern Strategy and "codewords" and how their party panders to racists. I don't blame them. But here's the deal: if you want us to stop accusing the GOP of pandering to racists then stop pandering to racists, dammit. Send a loud message that a guy who represented your entire party for four years has no business hanging around with the human effluvia who make up organizations like the CCC and then pretending he has no idea what they were all about.
From Monday's D comes this overstated piece on the free speech question at Dartmouth. The writer, obviously taken with the arguments of FIRE's Harvey Silverglate who spoke here last week, calls on the College to "repeal its speech codes or admit that it does not value academic freedom."
Today, Henry Shi '03 makes a few good points here.
Pals blew up a car carrying American diplomats in Gaza. Seems like they aimed specifically at the them. Bad news for the Pals. Good news for Halliburton, who will now probably get to send units to help build the wall around the West Bank.
Game: Play anticipate Jared's comments! Post comments and see who can get the closest to emulating his "unique" style.
Posted by Jonathan,
9:49 AM
-
Tuesday, October 14, 2003 Mocking the Death Penalty
I suppose there aren't really too many limits on what is considered an "unacceptable" halloween costume, but I found this particularly offensive. I can't believe people would actually mock the death penalty in this way. Even more incredible -- they're specifically marketing it for teens!?
What's next -- dress up as an Al Queda pilot? Pass the word - don't buy from "Buycostumes.com".
Advertised as "Dead Man Walking Teen"
Posted by Dan,
11:05 PM
-
Clark comeback: The past few weeks have not been kind to Clark, but this month he's on the warpath, coming out with a series of policy proposals. From early signs, he's got some pretty good ideas:
Today, Clark will announce his plan to establish a "Civilian Reserve," comprising everyday Americans using their "unique skills" to tackle an assortment of community-based problems -- from specific tasks like repairing a crumbling school or a neighbor's tornado-ravaged home to broad, less tangible goals such as "securing the homeland."
The Civilian Reserve would work with -- but not replace -- the nation's armed forces in dealing with any number of local emergencies. The campaign did not release any more details on today's proposal, except to say that it would use technology to help identify and mobilize people so that their skills are applied most effectively.
I liked this idea when it was called Americorps, and apparently Clark did too. He's appointed Eli Segal, founder of Americorps, to head up his community-service platform. Still, this seems like a sound centrist idea: liberals love fixing up communities (don't they?) and conservatives prefer volunteer-type solutions to community problems (don't they? at least when it's not called Americorps?). Nick Confessore thinks that Bush is very vulnerable on his Americorps record, and Clark "is smart to take him on." Nifty.
Posted by Brad Plumer,
5:07 PM
-
Here it comes:CNN reports that the Supreme Court will hear the Pledge of Allegiance case. Justice Antonin Scalia will recuse himself from the hearing, presumably because he's taken a public stand against the Ninth Circuit decision to strike the words "under God" from the pledge. Does that mean the case will end in a 4-4 tie? Will Clarence Thomas get confused when it comes time to vote? Oh my.
Personally, I hope the Ninth Circuit decision gets struck down and the pledge remains unchanged, for a couple of reasons. First, Michael Newdow is a ninny and if his daughter is really adversely affected by the words "under God," he should lock her up in a closet and keep her fragile ears safe from all stimuli and naughty suggestions. But that's just the visceral reaction. You could probably convince me that the Pledge is in fact unconstitutional. Fine.
But more importantly, what would anyone gain from upholding the Ninth Court decision? Odds are, with Bush appointees on their way to the Supreme Court, the "under God" pledge is going to stick around for some time anyways. Right now, victory for liberal atheists will only mean an uproar from religious conservatives, and an ugly one at that. The decision is going to be announced next year, right around election time, and if the pledge gets hacked, we're going to be barraged all day and all night with God-fearing moral guardians whining on and on about the assault on American values. An anti-pledge decision could drive hordes of religious activists to the voting booths, motivate Republicans to push harder for their court appointees, and polarize the country even further. It's really not a fight worth having, certainly not over an issue this small. America is not going to become a theocracy because of two little words. So here's hoping for a reversal, and a moratorium on mock atheist outrage.
Posted by Brad Plumer,
4:32 PM
-
Point of confusion: A couple days ago Janos posted that he and I, along with a handful of other students, had met Dartmouth alum and member of the Republican Congressional leadership Rob Portman. Janos mentioned, despite disagreeing with him on numerous political issues, that he thought Portman seemed like a good guy. I've got to agree. In any case, I've been perusing his old campaign website, and he talks about leading the fight in Congress against unfunded mandates:
Rob has also been a leader in the fight to prevent unfunded federal mandates -- costly requirements imposed by Congress on state and local governments and the private sector that represent a "hidden tax" on consumers, workers and businesses. His landmark legislation to stop unfunded federal mandates on state and local governments was enacted into law in 1995. For his work on unfunded mandates, he was honored by the National League of Cities, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the National Association of Counties, who named Rob "Legislator of the Year."
But if he was successful back in 1995, how have we gotten stuck with No Child Left Behind, which Rep. Portman supported? No Child Left Behind sounds like just the sort of thing that Portman used to pride himself on fighting against. It has caused state and local taxes to rise all over the country. Was there legislation between 1995 and 2001 that made it possible, or were there loop-holes in Portman's 1995 bill? Lord knows this blog's readership is intelligent, so somebody must be able to unravel this mystery.
Posted by Graham,
3:25 PM
-
Take me home country voters...
For years WV has been a strong Democratic state but Bush captured the vote in 2000 largely based around the gun issues.
If Dean holds all of Gore's states and can bring in either New Hampshire, West Virginia, or Nevada its all over. He may not ever be able to win in Mississippi or Alabama but it may not matter.
Blue States 4eva
Posted by Jordan,
1:49 PM
-
"Nuclear Family" Takes on a Whole New Meaning Take that, family values.
Posted by Laura,
10:39 AM
-
Monday, October 13, 2003 Don't just repeal Bush Tax Cuts, Raise Taxes Higher! Which candidate is saying this? Joe Lieberman!
Democrat Joe Lieberman, hoping to jump-start his presidential campaign with a fresh attack on White House policy, is promising to ensure that upper-income Americans pay more taxes than they did before President Bush's record-breaking tax cuts. As part of what the Connecticut senator calls a major tax reform package, he also would adjust income tax rates to lower the burden on middle-class Americans, many of whom already received cuts under Bush's policies.
Remember that Anti-Drug commercial way back during the Super Bowl? You know the one that everyone hated and mocked for months. A 16-year-old girl finds out she's pregnant while a soft-spoken narrator asserts that marijuana led to her pregnancy.
Keeping to the usual trend of sensationalist, scare-tactic Anti-Drug commercials, it turns out that they misrepresented that too. Marijuana actually LOWERS the chances of pregnancy, as reported in this Reuters article. So theoretically, I suppose that smoking marijuana would be a great idea if you DON'T want a kid.
Useful news for Dartmouth's progressive community.
Most call-to-action emails are too predictable for my liking, but this one caught my eye.
Today, obesity experts and child advocates sent a letter to Gary Knell, president of Sesame Workshop, asking him not to show "sponsorship messages" for McDonald's before or after Sesame Street, a popular children's TV program on PBS. [...]
It is understandable why McDonald's would seek access to Sesame Street's audience of impressionable young children. But why [the Workshop] would deliver these children to the corporation is another question.
The "commercial-free" days of PBS are long gone, but I thought the network tried to limit promotional messages around kids shows. Without having seen the spot, my guess is that it's a "feel-good" brand moment rather than a product pitch.
I'm no AdBuster or Culture Jammer, but this 'funding venture' crosses the line.
Posted by Karsten Barde,
12:10 PM
-
Sunday, October 12, 2003 Astroturf Alert Paul Heintz pointed me in the direction of this story. Soldiers seem to be sending form letters home from Iraq to local papers.
This brings to mind last winter's GOPTeamleader.com astroturf embarrassment that hit papers and magazines all over this country. Here's a reminder about how that went down, in Atlanta at least. Tom Tomorrow has extensive coverage of how Time Magazine ran some of the form letters by accident, although I lack the time required to sift through his archives.
Posted by Graham,
4:09 PM
-
Kalb Lays Down the Law
