Friday, August 20, 2004 Journalism at its best Dan Linsalata on dartlog writes:
Debating Nothing In another seminal piece in today's Daily D, guest contributor Patrick Mattimore '72, in an op-ed piece, rants against legacy admissions. Not only does he spend the first half of the article raving against George Bush for some slightly-relevant reason, but he finishes up with inspiring conclusion: "I have no intention of debating the merits of either side's arguments." This statement comes, of course, after a laundry-list of arguments for and against various types of admissions preferences, and still fails to draw a conclusion.
I didn't realize Review bloggers thought it was generally a good journalist practice to cut off sentences and invent periods. The full quote from the D op-ed says (italics mine): "I have no intention of debating the merits of either side's arguments other than to point out my agreement with the president that preferential treatment for legacies has no place in admissions policies supposedly based on merit." The D op-ed's conclusion, while perhaps not brilliant, is simply that if you believe in merit based admissions, then then you should be against legacy admissions. One can make an argument that a conclusion follows from a premise, without taking a position on whether the premise or conclusion is true. (The author might be uncertain whether other factors should matter or is not convinced the idea of merit alone makes sense). I'm not saying this suddenly makes the D piece great writing, but I think we can all agree that there is no sense going overboard and misquoting the D when accurate quotations should work just fine. Why Dan seemed to feel otherwise is beyond me.
Posted by Timothy,
5:58 PM
-
Thursday, August 19, 2004 PM Allawi denies free press in Iraq
Ten uniformed policemen walked into the hotel and demanded that the al-Arabiya, Reuters and AP correspondents go with them. Journalists told them they were not there, but the policemen found and arrested Ahmed al-Salahih, the al-Arabiya correspondent, who the day before had been given a special exemption from the earlier eviction orders. A uniformed lieutenant then told the assembled journalists and hotel staff: "We are going to open fire on this hotel. I'm going to smash it all, kill you all, and I'm going to put four snipers to target anybody who goes out of the hotel. You have brought it upon yourselves". (link: The Australian)
No, the above paragraph is not describing Saddam's evil regime, it's describing the new PM Allawi's regime, although their tactics are growing increasingly similar. TNR recently published a piece analyzing it's coverage before the Iraq war, concluding that their strategic case for war has collapsed, but the moral case remains strong. Doesn't this assume that the new Iraqi strongman will exercise power with greater morality than his predecessor?
Granted, the situation in Najaf may require the use of overwhelming military force, but it appears that Allawi, or someone else in his government, is trying to mount a campaign to eliminate all media coverage in Najaf, which could very well pave the way for the kind of unchecked brutality of which we had assumed only Saddam was capable.
Many of our comment-happy neo-con observers have defended U.S. and Iraqi suppression of free press on the grounds that it incites terrorism, but it may be hard for them to fit Reuters and the AP under the terrorist mantal.
Update: I was a bit doubtful of this story, so I found a second source. The Guardian gives more details: (link) Maybe this is all moot now that a truce appears to be developing, but then again, each time they cross the line, it becomes easier for them to cross it again.
Posted by Justin Sarma,
2:53 AM
-
Tuesday, August 17, 2004 Alan Keyes on Slavery Reparations
Speaking at a news conference at the Hotel InterContinental in Chicago, Republican Keyes added to his now familiar talking points his stance on slavery reparations.
Prompted by a reporter's question, Keyes gave a brief tutorial on Roman history and said that in regard to reparations for slavery, the U.S. should do what the Romans did: "When a city had been devastated [in the Roman empire], for a certain length of time--a generation or two--they exempted the damaged city from taxation."
Keyes proposed that for a generation or two, African-Americans of slave heritage should be exempted from federal taxes--federal because slavery "was an egregious failure on the part of the federal establishment." In calling for the tax relief, Keyes appeared to be reaching out to capture the black vote, something that may prove difficult to do, particularly after his unwelcome reception at the Bud Billiken Day Parade Saturday.
The former ambassador said his plan would give African-Americans "a competitive edge in the labor market," because those exempted would be cheaper to hire than federal tax-paying employees and would "compensate for all those years when your labor was being exploited."
Under Keyes' plan, African-Americans would still have to pay the Social Security tax, because "it's not a tax in the strict sense," said Keyes, calling it instead a payment to support a social insurance program. (Link via Pandagon)
