Update: I wouldn't mention this, but CNN just went on a long riff about how Reagan gave a great speech on the anniversary of D-Day. Seems they forgot to mention how, despite loud protests, Reagan saw fit to visit Bitburg Cemetary, where S.S. troops were also buried (Ed Rollins writes that the excuse was that Reagan gave his word to Kohl because Kohl said the visit was very important). Anyway, someone will scream in response: how can you say this on Reagan's death? The man lived a long life. His death was not tragic or unexpected. Basically I do not like the American tradition where only nice words are said about someone who has died. English obituaries on my understanding, assess a person's life, and can be scathing. No one needs be as 'rude' as the English, and I think there isn't a point to meaningless attacks on the dead. But when other's praise of the dead on a specific event wrongly glosses over such controversy, I think it merits mentioning, at least here on a small blog.
Posted by Timothy,
6:08 PM
-
Friday, June 04, 2004 Bullshit from The New Criterion A piece in The New Criterion says:
...we watched the press dither about how best to describe the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners. “Humiliation”—probably the most accurate term—made a brief appearance. But it was quickly retired because it didn’t make the perpetrators look bad enough. The lackluster “mistreatment” made a brief showing, as did “abuse,” especially in the phrase “sadistic abuse.” But after a few weeks the clear favorite was “torture.” After all, everyone knows Saddam tortured hundreds of thousands of people. So when a handful of low-lifes mistreat their charges, the media calls it torture, thus insinuating the desired moral equivalence between Saddam’s thugs and the U.S. army.
Let's leave aside the likely factual error I have put in bold above (I doubt they can prove the media had bent over backwards to use the harshest words possible. I have seen too many television shows refering to the 'prisoner abuse' scandal to believe that 'abuse' made only a 'brief showing'. ). How in the world can the TNC say that humiliation is "probably the most accurate term"? Christ. I'm sick of right-wing idiots who cry 'moral equilivence' only to show they have no sense of decency or show they cannot use their power of judgment.
Posted by Timothy,
10:48 PM
-
Nathan Newman on Al Jazeera
Don't withhold information you know happened. Al Jazeera passed that test. The US networks failed. It was Al Jazeera that showed the results of US bombing-- the dead and crippled-- and the deaths of Americans themselves once they invaded. And they showed US soldiers threatening families as they went door to door.
They also showed the other side, the US military side, where they were willing to broadcast statements by the US government as to why everything was happening. As one top US official admits in the documentary, Al Jazeera was willing to broadcase almost any statement they gave them.
Yet Al Jazeera was accused of being deceptive. Because it didn't censor images unflattering to the US. Images that the US media, as if they were state-controlled media, dutifully refused to run as part of the war effort. Who served truth?
Al Jazeera, whatever their bias, at least ran information from both sides of the argument. The roots of torture at Abu Ghraib can be seen in this documentary, as US reporters refused to ask tough questions and instead became stenographers for Donald Rumsfeld. (link)
Gazzaniga's decision comes in the wake of a contentious faculty vote last week against his leadership.... In his e-mail, Wright acknowledged the differences among faculty members that led to Gazzaniga's resignation and vowed to help heal them.
It would helpful to know what those differences were.
Update: Hmmm... I first heard of this through a blitz entitled "eDartmouth Special Report", received by me at 5:55. According thedartmouth.com, their story went up at 5:48 p.m. Dartlog had a post up on the story at 4:21. The letter from Wright is posted here. But I had only linked to story in The Dartmouth because it said it was special! (also, here's an old D article, via an old dartlog posting. Grossman's D.C. grudge theory is at the bottom of the comments).
Posted by Timothy,
5:57 PM
-
Wednesday, June 02, 2004 It's Only Just Begun
Today Trustee Rodgers claims in another lengthy op/ed in The Dartmouth that this will be his last letter to the editor defending himself against charges of racism. I doubt it.
He is obviously a man who thrives on the feeling of being unpopular (like some other folks I know, who just published an enormous interview with him--not yet available online). That's fine by me. What he needs to understand, though, is that the majority of students, faculty, administrators and Trustees, if not alumni, support the College's efforts to: a) provide a safe and supportive environment for all students here; b) improve opportunities for members of underprivileged groups to attend Dartmouth; and c) "to come together as a community and to begin to engage in a critical, respectful examination of our assumptions about race" (from President Wright's 2002 convocation address).
We are prepared to keep vigilance against his "color-blind" agenda, whether through correspondence to The D, to his place of employment, to his BlitzMail account, or otherwise. We agree with Professor Wilder that the "absence of color is not merit; [it is] segregation," and that's not what we want for our College. How Rodgers chooses to respond is up to him.
Posted by Karsten Barde,
12:35 PM
-
Sunday, May 30, 2004 For Your Amusement
Eric Idle started circulating his newest song abouts the web about a week ago. It's juvenile, but it's also got a great rhythm and a strong, moral message. Listen to it here.
Here’s a little song I wrote the other day while I was out duck hunting with a judge… It’s a new song, it’s dedicated to the FCC and if they broadcast it, it will cost a quarter of a million dollars.
