Free Dartmouth

Bill O'Reilly's off his rocker again

2009-07-28T22:06:00.001-04:00

According to O'Reilly, Canadians have higher life expectancy than Americans because there are 10 times more Americans, so Americans have 10 times as many accidents. Genius.

Legality of the Honduran Coup

2009-06-30T20:14:00.003-04:00

The Honduran constitution is a pretty strange document. Check out this paragraph from wikipedia on the subject. It says that any citizen who tries to change the term limits article of the constitution can be immediately stripped of public office, and eventually even stripped of citizenship. So maybe the coup organizers are on solid legal ground.

President Manuel Zelaya intended to hold a "nonbinding" public referendum on June 28, on whether to call a National Assembly to rewrite the constitution, to take place concurrently with this year's elections. Zelaya's opponents claimed that his intention was to allow his own re-election. Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution, which forbids any former chief executive from being re-elected President, states that any citizen who proposes reforming said article, and any others who support such a person directly or indirectly, are to immediately "cease carrying out" any public office.[12] The Constitution, however, establishes no process for impeaching or removing a president.[citation needed] Furthermore Article 42, Section 5 of the Constitution states that citizenship is lost for "inciting, promoting or supporting the continuation or the reelection of the President of the Republic." According to the same article, revoking citizenship for this reason requires a court sentence and then a government order ("acuerdo gubernativo").[12]

Limiting a president to one term seems kind of extreme to me. In a way, it can be empowering, because the president need not worry about running again. So they can start their presidency off immediately by doing what they want. It also is a bit anti-democratic, because it curbs the people's will. But then again, with the sordid history of latin lifetime dictatorships, maybe it's wise to prevent the president from becoming to comfortable with his position.

The Curious Case of Microsoft Button

2009-03-04T22:53:00.003-05:00

According to a Bloomberg exclusive from today, the 'Starter' version of Windows 7, their cheapest option, will only allow the user to run 3 programs at a time. So now, if you are browsing the internet, reading your outlook mail, and running word, you'll have to stop doing one of those things if you want to run Excel.

This reminds me of the DOS days before Windows 95 when you could only be doing one thing at a time. Does Microsoft really want to return to those days?

Maybe after releasing Windows XP, Microsoft caught 'the curious case of benjamin button', and ever since have been evolving backwards. Vista was like Windows 98, now they're re-release DOS, and for the grand finale (drumroll please...)

The Abacus!

Limited Features

To push customers to pricier versions of Windows 7, Microsoft is limiting the features of the cheaper edition. The most basic, called Starter Edition, can only run three programs at a time. -bloomberg 3/5/09

The Scene at Dartmouth

2008-11-11T21:35:00.001-05:00

Moments after the victory speech:

For more, read here.

Obama's Original Sin

2008-03-02T14:55:00.003-05:00

I just noticed that when Obama was born (1961), his birth was actually illegal in 22 states.

I'm not sure whether I should be impressed by how far we've come or depressed by how far our parents hadn't.

Bush Announces The Discovery of a New Model Muslim State Called The U.A.E.

2008-01-14T10:17:00.000-05:00

(plans underway to rename it new texaco)

"The United Arab Emirates has shown the world a model Muslim state that is tolerant toward its people and other faiths, said US President George W. Bush in his speech at the Emirates Palace Hotel in Abu Dhabi yesterday." -Bush

Let's do a little survey of the properties of this state that might make it a model for other nations:

Political System: Hereditary Dictatorship
Demographics: 15% of country are citizens
Labor: See other 85%
Human Rights: None (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates)
Homosexuality: Officially none. Punishable by death
Budget: Flows through dictator's personal bank account

Sounds like Bush's model American state, doesn't it?

A hypothetical torture scenario

2007-09-26T22:54:00.000-04:00

We had the ticking time bomb scenario. Every candidate seems to be against have a *specific policy* where the President would have a signing statement ahead of time that pardoned the torturer ahead of time. Notice that this does rule out torture, just the official condoning of torture, at least a policy ahead of time. Obama even said he would make the determination at the time. I am heartened that every candidate spoke against torture.

Dartmouth Debate

2007-09-26T22:36:00.001-04:00

Any reactions to the Presidential Debate?

Presidential Pong

2007-09-20T16:22:00.000-04:00

Based on the video game pong.

Polydongs

2007-09-15T10:03:00.000-04:00

There has been a little buzz around this offensive (if non-sensical) cartoon in the Central Connecticut State University paper, the Recorder. I spent a lot of time looking for the actual strip. I am still not sure if the idea was to be offensive, to start a dialog - to encourage racism? I do wonder at what point, though, it's not more offensive to the Latino community how shitty a job we do educating their children or representing them in government, or whatever - compared to what a few drunk dull-witted whities (I'm guessing) at some random college do to get a rise. So, as I said when a certain Dutch cartoon ruffled the feathers of a group of people whose brethren's genocide in Darfur got (from the same people), barely a notice - fine, be offended, take action, but really, where's the outrage for the stuff that really matters?

Girl on Girl Action

2007-08-28T22:07:00.000-04:00

Okay, so the consecration of Ms. Tracy Lind, (talks to God, likes chicks), could cause a schism, and I'm torn about the impact. See, our side of the church rocks about 1/3 of the ca$h that runs the worldwide church, but with far fewer members, so if we take our balls (and our ball on ball action) and go home, that leaves the Episco Disco in, say, everywhere else, up the poor creek. Poorer creek. Which is fine - a bunch of bigoted and angry fire-churches in Africa don't likey the gay people, have fun without roofs on your church. The truth is, hate-mongering and God go together like dick and... well, that's to taste - either way, I have no problem in being apart from these Evangelical-like homophobe backwards freaks.

The bigger question is whether the complicated aid networks that the Episcopal Church USA sponsor in various places - as a truly progressive church they don't mix missionary with service - things like AIDS outreach, Malaria prevention, etc. are in jeopardy because of their partner churches abroad. My guess is that the schism won't happen anyway - it kind of requires too much inertia - but that there will be another like, signing statement on the side of our church that says in some weird, technical way that we recognize that some Anglicans might have differing readings on scripture and that we deeply respect their beliefs. This is what you get in a church where even God is kind of relative. (Religious scholars, and historians of me, see, this is where I get my God from. Or, used to. Even flamingly liberal churches still go for the inane idea that God is basically a bored guy who wants some lovin'. I'd rather take my chances believing in Craigslist.

The Vietnam Specter

2007-08-26T23:55:00.000-04:00

"One unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps,' and 'killing fields,'" Bush said

After years of willfully neglecting this comparison, Bush finally offers it to the American people unsolicited. But how can he talk of the possible cost of American withdrawal without also mentioning the sunk cost of American intervention?

The consensus seems to be that only a politician stupid enough to start an unnecessary war could ever be resolute enough to finish it, so Bush has a reluctant backing even among democrats, who don't seem willing to put up much resistence to the surge.

Only democrat candidate Mike Gravel (not to mention Kucinich) has taken a stand on this issue, stating unequivocally since '71 that American troops in Vietnam 'died in vain'. In the youtube debates, he was confronted on this issue by a vietnam vet, and held his ground, while virtually every other candidates danced around the question. Many were willing to state that US soldiers were dying unnecessarily, but were unwilling to make the equivalent statement that they were 'dying in vain'. That's pathetic. Gravel was powerful in his respond that the only thing more tragic than American soldiers dying in vain, was the idea of more American soldiers dying in vain. Hence a pullout, and a return to the politics of reality.

Mike Gravel is the only one with the guts to stand up to the national consensus, which is so hopelessly skewed by blind patriotism that it refuses to see reason.

We need a new leader with the freshness to reverse current policies without looking like a hypocrit, but also with enough street cred in the deep south, where politics and other critical mental functions are distort by the heat.

We're G-rated!

2007-08-24T23:29:00.000-04:00

(Well, until Jared posts at least.)

Henceforth, Debaathification=Rebaathification

2007-07-16T22:04:00.000-04:00

A new "Debaathification Bill" Bush has been working on has recently been all over Bush and Snow's speeches: "We are working on a deBaathification bill and it will be presented later." But the actual purpose of the bill is to reverse the old deBaathification policy set in place under former Iraq Czar Paul Bremer in 2003:

"On May 16, the top U.S. civilian administrator, L. Paul Bremer (search), issued a decree barring top-ranking Baath Party members from any public position, a process now referred to as deBaathification -- whether in universities, hospitals or minor government posts." (link)

The new Debaathification Bill, if passed, would allow them back in government. This doesn't seem like a bad idea considering these are the only people with experience governing over a pre-civil war Iraq. Just don't call it debaathification. More credible sources are calling it "reversal of debaathification", or "an amendment to the debaathification bill". Personally, I like "rebaathification". It really captures the zen-like circularity of GW's approach to governing.

Take Back The Blog

2007-04-24T22:28:00.000-04:00

Free Dartmouth got hacked. Again. Here's my attempt to reclaim it.

The US Attorney Scandal: Bush Just Doesn't Get It

2007-04-23T12:06:00.000-04:00

You may have seen the President’s (very brief) speech and press conference from the Oval Office this morning – a presentation from General Petraeus, a brief pep talk on Iraq and two questions from the press corps. The second question was about AG Alberto Gonzales’s Senate Judiciary Committee testimony last week concerning the firings of 8 U.S. attorneys last week. The President’s answer proved, once again, that he lives in a bubble and just plain doesn’t get it.

Following the disastrous testimony, just about everyone in politics knew the Attorney General was finished. My guess is picking the date he leaves is the most popular DC parlor game right now. Gonzales lost almost every ally he has left – except for one. Bush said, "The attorney general went up and gave a very candid assessment, and answered every question he could possibly answer — honestly answer — in a way that increased my confidence in his ability to do the job.” INCREASED? This hearing killed Gonzales, and yet it INCREASED Bush’s confidence in him? If you didn’t catch the hearing, read the following and ask yourself if that makes any sense.

Gonzales’s testimony was a disaster. Not only did he fail to clear up inconsistencies in prior statements, he made more, using the phrase “I don’t recall,” or something to its effect, over 70 times. He could not remember talking to the President about the U.S. attorney scandal. He couldn’t remember if he ever discussed firing special investigator Patrick Fitzgerald. He couldn’t remember where the idea of firing the attorneys originated. While he insisted he remembered that he remembered deciding to fire the U.S. attorneys, he could not recall when or where the decision was made.
Leahy: “Well, how can you be sure you made the decision?”
Gonzales: “Senator, I recall making the decision from this — I recall making the decision.”
Leahy: “When?”
An exasperated Gonzales: “Senator. I don’t recall when the decision was made.”

The Attorney General also said, "At the end of the day I know I did not do anything improper." In other words, I have no clue what I did, and neither do you, but I know it was all ok, so what’s the big deal? *Ahem.*

At another point, Gonzales said, “While reasonable people might decide things differently, my decision to ask for the resignations of these U.S. attorneys is justified.” Yes, sir, it was – it was a stupid decision, but one that falls within the powers of your office. Tell me, however: was your decision to lie about the resignations justified? Was telling us it WASN’T your decision when it clearly was justified? Was telling us the White House wasn’t involved when it was justified? Was telling us the firings were performance-based when they were actually political justified? This isn’t about the initial action anymore, it’s about the lies, and the incompetent Gonzales just doesn’t get it. Senator Lindsay Graham’s (R-SC) zinger was the best of the day: “At the end of the day, you said something that struck me: that sometimes it just came down to these were not the right people at the right time. If I applied that standard to you, what would you say?" Gonzales replied by talking about things unrelated to the U.S. attorney firings.

Overall, Gonzales came across as unprepared, incompetent, defensive, and downright arrogant. The hearing resulted in new criticisms and new calls for his resignation (like the one from Sen. Tom Coburn, who believes all doctors who perform abortions should get the death penalty).

And yet, the President says his confidence is Gonzales is even stronger because of the testimony. He also said, "As the hearings went forward, it was clear the attorney general broke no law, there's no wrongdoing.” Claiming it’s only wrong if it’s illegal is a pet peeve of mine. Clinton’s affairs weren’t illegal, but they were wrong, and Bush would say so. What a hypocrite: Gonzales lied to the press, and he lied to lawmakers in one-on-one meetings. That’s wrong, plain and simple. He may not have done anything illegal, but he did do something unethical. He lied. And if he didn’t lie, he’s even more incompetent than Rumsfeld ever was. Either way, this scandal is dragging down morale at the Justice Department, and Gonzales has lost the confidence of just about every one on Capitol Hill, including Republican Senators John Sununu, Gordon Smith, Tom Coburn, and apparently, Lindsay Graham, Arlen Specter, Chuck Grassley, and Jeff Sessions.

Eisenhower had a rule: loyalty to the nation was more important than personal loyalty. If only Bush were that wise. You don’t have to break the law to lose effectiveness, and you don’t have to break the law in order to justify resignation. Gonzales is hurting the administration and the country, but given his arrogant insistence upon personal loyalty, Bush just doesn’t get it.

Related Links:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/19/AR2007041902935.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/20/washington/20gonzales.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fG%2fGonzales%2c%20Alberto%20R%2e&oref=slogin

Kurt Vonnegut

2007-04-12T20:43:00.000-04:00

I wrote a quick eulogy for Kurt Vonnegut at my own blog here. He will be very, very missed. :_(

Joe Biden on New Orleans

2007-03-01T09:01:00.000-05:00

Crossposted from my Katrina recovery blog, which includes pictures:

I met with Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) earlier this week. Biden is the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and my candidate for president in 2008. I asked him about rebuilding New Orleans, and am pleased to report that he demonstrated a much better understanding of the issue than any of the other presidential candidates I’ve yet asked (I'm in NH, so get to personally see and meet the candidates). Joe Biden actually understands the ongoing situation and, unlike other candidates, has some policy suggestions about how to deal with those realities. (I've also reviewed Obama, Edwards, and Dodd on the subject.)

Biden made it very clear that he understands where things are in New Orleans today, lamenting houses that are “still literally in the streets” in the Lower Ninth Ward (which isn’t quite true, but I would call houses on top of houses and motorboats in yards close enough!). His family has close ties to Hurricane Katrina, giving him a special understanding of the issue’s importance and magnitude. His daughter graduated from Tulane a few years ago, and helped relocate thousands of storm refugees. One son led a National Guard unit in New Orleans for a month after Katrina, and the other son went to Thibodeaux immediately after the storm to help with relief efforts.

The Senator demonstrated an excellent grasp of the Gulf Coast big picture. The problem with recovery, he said, is not a lack of federal funding. The problem is bureaucracy, which he called “a rat’s nest.” The money has been allocated, but it isn’t getting to its ultimate destination. I was thrilled to hear him say this – that’s EXACTLY the problem with most Katrina recovery, particularly with the Road Home program.

The Senator had plenty of criticism for local leaders and politicians, including Democrats. The local officials aren’t cooperating with the state or the feds, and the feds aren’t cooperating with the state, he said. As President, he would cut aside the red tape to make sure money reached its destination, and he would tell Mayor Nagin to come up with an actual plan for rebuilding the city (as opposed to the farce that is UNOP), or he would revoke the federal grants. “We need to force decisions!” Biden said. Obviously, Nagin wouldn’t risk losing the money – if faced with that threat, things would get real better, real fast.

Biden brought up the city’s exploding crime, something he’s familiar with as Chairman of a Senate subcommittee on crime. He lamented the pre-storm corruption in the NOPD (which exists post-storm, as well), and said the Bush administration has drastically cut funding for local police departments (he had a figure, but I’ve forgotten it). These funding cuts affected New Orleans, and Biden implied that he would again make law enforcement a budget priority. This makes sense – he was the author of 1994’s Violent Crime Control Act, which put thousands of cops on the street.

The Senator did admit that he is unfamiliar with specific recovery bills currently winding their way through Congress, and with the specific program failures (like FEMA policies or Road Home). I can’t say I blame him – he’s the leader in the fight against Bush’s Iraq troop surge, so he’s a little preoccupied with other issues. I appreciate, however, his willingness to say “I don’t know.” Politicians who will actually choke those words out are a rare and wonderful breed. His honesty was refreshing, as was his grasp of the overall situation and problem and his specific proposals (red tape, crime). Yes, he lacked a few specifics and it's outside of his Committee assignments, and yes, I wish he'd make it a higher profile issue on the campaign trail and his website. That's why I don't give him a full A, but an A-/B+ is still a darn good grade.

Candidates on NOLA so far (I’ll blog more as I learn more):
Biden: A-/B+ (I call that a good grade!)
Obama: C+
Edwards: C-/D+
Dodd: D-

Nixonian

2007-02-21T09:06:00.000-05:00

And we thought the parallels with Nixon were eerily similar before:

"Vice President Dick Cheney said on Wednesday the United States wants to finish its mission in Iraq and "return with honor," despite the war's growing unpopularity at home and doubts among U.S. allies. "

It can't be good politics to sound that much like Tricky Dick, can it?

Tel Aviv Rabbis Forbid Land Sale To Non-Jews

2007-02-20T23:36:00.000-05:00

Another underreported example of Israeli apartheid (see previous posting on Israeli marriage law)

"Important rabbinical leaders published an announcement this week stating that it is forbidden to sell apartments to Arabs." (link)

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire

2007-02-13T23:20:00.000-05:00

Doug Feith blows me away...
Wow.
Watch this interview with Fox News Sunday. I do believe we have found ourselves the biggest liar in the history of man... I mean, I'm in Hanover, he's in DC, and the fire alarms in my dorm are going off because of the smoke from his pants.
Wow.

Excerpts (watch the video):
Chris Wallace: "the briefing was titled "Iraq and Al Qaeda Making the Case," and here are some of the highlights from your PowerPoint presentation. "Intelligence indicates cooperation in all categories, mature symbiotic relationship." "Some indications of possible Iraq coordination with Al Qaeda specifically related to 9/11." And you said an alleged meeting between 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi agent in Prague in April 2001 was a known contact. Mr. Feith, all of that — all of that was wrong, wasn't it?"
Feith: "No, not at all. There was substantial intelligence. I mean, evidence is a legal term not really appropriate here. There was a lot of information out there. Intelligence is very sketchy, and it's always open to interpretation."

"What the people in the Pentagon were doing was right. It was good government."

WALLACE: You say this wasn't wrong. Respectfully, sir, the Pentagon inspector general says parts of your analysis were not supported by available — let me finish — by available intelligence, and let me continue.
Take a look at this if you will. The 9/11 commission said, "We have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda ever developed into a collaborative, operational relationship."
The 9/11 commission also concluded, "The available evidence does not support the original Czech report of an Atta-Ani meeting."
Mr. Feith, the Pentagon inspector general says some of your intelligence was not supported by the evidence that came from the intelligence community. The 9/11 commission said a number of your conclusions were wrong. And the Senate Intelligence Committee also said it was wrong.
FEITH: Nobody ever claimed that what the 9/11 commission said was — the case was wrong. In other words, we didn't dispute the — the 9/11 commission report said there was no...
WALLACE: But they disputed you, sir.
FEITH: No, they didn't. Nobody in my office ever said there was an operational relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. It's just not correct. I mean, words matter. And people are throwing around loose allegations, vague allegations, based on not reading the words carefully.
WALLACE: Mr. Feith, I'm just taking comments from your PowerPoint. You said some indications of possible Iraqi coordination with Al Qaeda specifically related to 9/11. You said that the Atta-Ani meeting in Prague in 2001 was a known contact.
FEITH: The people who did that briefing were taking the position that the intelligence community took originally. The CIA later changed its views on that meeting after the time relevant here.

Iraqi 'Police' Abduct Iranian Diplomat In Iraq

2007-02-07T00:21:00.000-05:00

This is getting pretty scant coverage in US media. CBS had something though. Sounds like the US might have been behind it. Another era of republicanism another era of 'disappearances' (see reagan, pinochet, kissinger, etc...)

Details of the kidnapping remain murky, but one government official said it began when gunmen wearing Iraqi army uniforms blocked Sharafi's car in the Karradah district, forced him into one of their two vehicles and sped away.Iraqi police then opened fire, disabling the second vehicle and arresting the four gunmen inside, the official said.Police took the four to a police station. The next day, Iraqis in uniform appeared there, showed government badges and demanded the four suspects _ ostensibly to transfer them to another lockup, the official said.The authorities complied, and the men disappeared. Spokesmen of both the Interior Ministry and the Defense Ministry, which together control Iraqi security forces, said they had no information and no idea where the suspects went.Shiite lawmakers said they believed Sharafi was detained in an intelligence operation carried out by the Iraqi Special Operations Command, an elite unit under the direct supervision of the U.S. military. (link)
Update: To contextualize, just two weeks ago, the Bush Administration authorized US troops to "kill Iranian agents in Iraq" (link)

Senator Biden's Gaffe

2007-02-02T17:18:00.000-05:00

In the comments thread to this post, Nathan and I have a back and forth.

Molly Ivins, 62, R.I.P.

2007-01-31T21:55:00.000-05:00

I think I want to cry.

Molly Ivins made it easier to be a Texan when Armey, DeLay, and W ran amok.

You will be missed, Ms. Ivins!

What John Edwards Didn't Say Today at Dartmouth

2007-01-31T21:15:00.000-05:00

Presidential candidate and former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) spoke at Dartmouth College today. Presidential candidate and former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) spoke at Dartmouth College today. The speech will eventually be on C-Span's Road to the White House . He delivered some of the best rhetoric I’ve heard from any candidate, but when you get right down to it, he really didn’t have much actual substance at all. This was the third time I’ve seen him speak in person, and it was the worst speech of the three.

Edwards knows the problems, but not the answers
He did a great job explaining the problem in Darfur – but didn’t tell us what he’d actually do to stop or, at least lessen, the genocide as President.

He did a great job highlighting the horrors of India’s caste system – but didn’t tell us what he’d actually do to change India as President.

He did a good job explaining the need for universal health care – but didn’t tell us what his actual plan involves. Single payer? Multi-payer? (He did, to be fair, say details were coming very soon.)

He said we need to stop enabling Iraq – but didn’t tell us what that would take. He said we must talk with Syria and Iran, but he didn’t say anything about whether or not he’d talk to Maliki or other Iraqi leaders, and what he would say to them if he did.

This was just like his campaign kick-off in New Orleans’ Lower Ninth Ward. Thank you, Senator, for highlighting the ignored Gulf Coast crisis; that really is a service given the media’s neglect – but now would you please tell us what you’ll do to remedy the current Road Home Program and the FEMA housing messes, and how you’ll prevent such incompetence in the future?

What little substance Edwards did offer was in response to a question about predatory lending and changing the structures that produce poverty – he has ideas about interest rates, “work boxes,” and housing vouchers. (Unfortunately, he only mentioned the vital issue of New Orleans in passing, which I found very disappointing, especially coming from him.) What I’m wondering is, where was this substance in ’04, the first time you ran for President? And why isn’t there more? Did it really take you this long to develop just this much?

Hypocrisy
I hate to say it, but hypocrisy was on display, as well. Edwards likes to paint himself as a man of the people, and began his remarks with your typical, “When politicians do this, they don’t really mean it.” But in answer to a question about voting in support of coal mining in West Virginia, he essentially said he was trading votes with Sen. Robert Byrd. Now, I have no problem with vote trading – it’s what makes the Senate work. But if you partake in, don’t act like you’re not a typical politician and expect us to believe you! At least be honest!

That wasn’t the only hypocrisy we saw, though the other two examples were smaller. Edwards bragged about the anti-poverty college program he started and his stances on education, all while appearing at a college, but the first several questions he took were all from older audience members. Was he pandering to the CSPAN and wider NH audiences? Fine, there’s nothing wrong with that, but don’t play up your college stances immediately before passing up the chance to talk to students. Pick one or the other. (On another note, sources tell me that the folks who actually work at his anti-poverty center resent his involvement – they’re grateful he started it and brings in money, but they feel his involvement is inconsistent and heavy-handed.) Edwards also said, on the subject of gay marriage, that he hates to think he might use his own personal experiences to influence policy decisions – but don’t I remember something about economic discussions and the line “son of a mill worker”?

It’s Not All Bad
Not everything I have to say about John Edwards is negative. He did give us some refreshing candor as to his GLBT stances – not everyone in the audience liked what he had to say about the issue, but he said it anyway, and discussed some inner personal turmoil. And I am so thrilled he is out there pushing these issues – poverty, climate change, and reconciliation with the populations of other countries JFK-style are crucial. He actually mentioned poverty in INDIA as part of his stump speech! (Now if only I could get him to respect the issue of Native American poverty…) Nobody talks about these subjects, so thank God Edwards is pushing the debate. But knowing what to talk about is only a good start: it’s not enough to win the White House. Former Sen. Mike Gravel (D-AK) (who’s also running, but who I’ll also not vote for) was right: most politicians will do a wonderful job telling you what the problem is, but if you pay close attention, they really don’t offer any hard solutions. John Edwards would make a wonderful Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and I’d love to have him back in the Senate, but he must not become President.

Thankfully, there are some candidates out there who do offer concrete ideas and solutions – candidates like Joe Biden, the author of the Violence Against Woman Act and the only Democratic contender with an actual plan for Iraq.

UPDATE: A New Hampshire newspaper, albeit not a local one to the Hanover area, had

SA controversy

2007-01-25T21:18:00.000-05:00

In case you're not aware, Andrew Seal at the little green blog has been writing about an attempt to impeach the SA president.

Texas theme parties

2007-01-25T21:15:00.000-05:00

Outrage Over Texas College MLK Day Party: Event featured Aunt Jemima, gang apparel, fried chicken, malt liquor

Ted Stevens Rocks My World

2007-01-24T23:15:00.000-05:00

Found this on MyDD:

On Another Greek Note

2007-01-19T18:39:00.000-05:00

TDX blitzed out the following party announcement today, simultaneously mocking its own reputation, soon-to-be-impeached SA President Tim Andreadis,

"Campus,

Look, I know there's some bad things being said about me right now. I now some guy named Tim is going around saying that I objectify women and that you shouldn't come around anymore. I know this looks bad, but baby I swear he's lying.

I'm not trying to get into your pants, I'm trying to get into an insightful conversation that stimulates the mind. I'm not checking out your butt, I'm humbly bowing my head in your presence. I'm not inviting you back to my room to make out, I'm trying to find someone who enjoys reading Robert Frost late night as much as I do.

I don't know who this Tim guy is, but he's the one you should watch out for. From what I hear, he's all about back-stabbing people, one of the things that he claims goes on between us. But that's besides the point. This isn't about Tim, it's about us. Anyways, I'm having some people over tonight and I was hoping you'd stop by. I understand if you don't believe me, but I'll keep "Robert Frost's Greatest Hits" bookmarked just in case.

-TDX Tonight 11-3 Kegs"

Dana Walker '07 blitzed the following:

"Hi! I'm sweet frat guy. I'm going to assert my super sweetness by mocking the objectification of women and by especially mocking one of the only leaders on our campus who cares enough to make light of this huge problem that I don't deign to recognize or care about.

Mainly, I'm going to make fun of the objectification of women because I know that my brothers and I do shit like this, but I'm too much of a spineless coward to confront them and stop this. This is largely because I don't want to deviate and stop conforming because then I might be ostracized. And everyone knows that being ostracized is obviously a lot worse than rape and sexual assault. DUH.

So instead I'm going to write this cute little story and allude to the fucked up shit that happens in my house and in other houses, without actually taking responsibility or taking it seriously."

UPDATE: TDX canceled the party and apologized.

So much for the slow kill by the S.L.I.

2007-01-17T12:10:00.000-05:00

Zete to be rerecognized in a few years after a "dark" period.

Review President Resigns; is Shocked-- Shocked! -- About What Review Prints

2007-01-11T15:32:00.000-05:00

In 1990, a quote from Hitler's Mein Kampf appeared in the Review. The Review's senior staff said they were not responsible for its insertion. The Review's President resigned then as well:

“I cannot allow the Review to ruin my life any further,” C. Tyler White declared soon after he resigned as President of the Review, “The official Review response, which I co-signed and helped distribute, avoids the main thrust of the issue. It does not emphasize our sorrow in this dreadful act of malice, nor does it claim responsibility for letting it reach newsprint…. The editor-in-chief has failed in his job, and now we must wear the albatross of anti-Semitism because he won’t take responsibility for the issue’s contents.”

ow in 2007, the President of the Dartmouth Review is resigning over the recent cover of the Review. In this controversy, Reviewers seem to be saying the offending material was approved by the editor-in-chief, but not other senior staff. The Dartmouth is reporting:

Kevin Hudak '07 will resign from his post as president of The Dartmouth Review, he announced at a staff meeting Monday. His decision comes as a result of the cover on the newspaper's Nov. 28 issue, according to sources involved with The Review. The cover, which triggered a rally outside Dartmouth Hall that attracted national news coverage, depicts a Native American holding a knife and scalp under the headline "The Natives are Getting Restless!"

In 2024, another Review President will resign in protest and forever solve all that is wrong with the Review.

It's not that cliches are wrong

2006-12-14T01:12:00.000-05:00

Some editors at the Dartmouth Review write:

There are no “racists” or people who “hate” at The Dartmouth Review. Such terms are the clichés of unearned, but desperately desired, moral superiority.

In other words: How dare those liberals try to say what we really think? But our side knows what the liberals really think. It's not that cliches are wrong, always: It is that our cliched view of the other side is right, and their view, based on what we do, is wrong because they cannot see into our hearts. Or something like that.

Review M.O.

2006-12-12T22:32:00.000-05:00

Review Editor Linsalata writes:

“Obviously we really were not intending to maliciously go out of our way to say, ‘How many people can we piss off?’”

Yes, it's obvious that they don't go out of their way to piss off people. After all, pissing off people has been the way of the Review for decades.

As The Iraqi (Insurgents) Stand Up, We Will Stand Down

2006-12-10T10:42:00.000-05:00

"As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down", they said. Sounds nice on paper, but what happens if as the Iraqis stand up, they sell their American weapons to the insurgents, who stand up? We're finding out the hard way.

We have our NRA-controlled congress to thank in part for this failure to prevent American issued weapons from falling into the wrong hands. Until recently, the US was not even keeping track of the serial numbers of weapons it shipped to Iraq, meaning there are an estimated 370,000 weapons the US has shipped for which there is no record. Many of these unmarked guns are probably being used by insurgents to kill American. I'm sure this really helped our local gun manufacturers, who had to ship out loads of new weapons to replace the weapons that were 'lost'. According to the NYT article, 4% of the weapons the US has sent for Iraqi soldiers were lost before they even reached the Iraqi soldiers. On top of that, the smugglers say their primary source of weapons is actually from Iraqi soldiers who already received the weapons, meaning that at the very least 10-15% of the weapons paid for by the US have ended up on the Iraqi black market.

Whatever genius it was that crafted this policy that leaves zero paper trail or accountabilty for lost weapons could only have been inspired by the NRA. The failure to even record gun serial numbers is reminiscent of John Ashcroft's dogged insistence to deny the FBI the power to use gun purchase records to aid in the hunt for the 911 terrorists, even while he was prepared to compromise almost every other American privacy, right down to the books we check out from the library. If it weren't for the US's ridiculously loose gun control policy, I wonder how many fewer american soldiers and Iraqis would be dead.

The unfortunate reality of how many of the guns bought with US taxpayer dollars are being used by insurgents to kill American soldiers brings into question whether it's really constructive to be funding the arming and training of a huge new Iraqi army to replace US forces. If so many of the weapons we give our 'allies' in Iraq are going to end up in the hands of insurgents, perhaps the entire approach of picking favorites and then arming them to the teeth is not in our best interest. Maybe the less weapons we dump into Iraq, the less violence there will be. This may sound naive. But the alternative of expecting weapons given to Iraqis to be used against insurgents rather than against american soldiers seems pretty naive too -- especially considering that the only thing Iraqis seem to be able to agree on according to polls is that they want the US out of Iraq.

Interfaith Marriage Is Illegal In Israel?

2006-12-09T00:53:00.000-05:00

Talk about creating second class citizens... Apparently it is illegal for jews to marry non-jews in Israel, just like it used to be illegal for blacks to marry whites in the US. Israel only recognizes those born to a jewish mother as jewish, while they recognize the 'right of return' to Israel for anyone who is at least 1/4 racially jewish, or has converted to judaism (although they're currently considering legislation to deny converts the right of return). This means there are 300000 Israeli jews who can't get married in their own country.

Admittedly, the analogy to past interracial marriage bans in the US is imperfect, because one can technically convert to Judaism while one cannot (usually) change skin color. However, conversion is supposedly quite difficult, and subject to rabbinical judgement. What's more, the economist argues in this week's issue that the motive for the ban on converts' right of return is probably to deny converts the opportunity to marry Israeli jews, and dilute the culture and bloodline.

There are already 300,000 Israeli jews (about 6% of the jewish population of Israel) who have qualified for citizenship through the right of return, but are denied all marriage rights, and have to go to Cyprus or some other country if they want to a reconignize marriage. Some are supposedly even converting to Islam so they can marry under the more lenient Sharia law in Israel. (Imagine that: Sharia law more lenient!)

Why deny converts the right of return? The fear seems to be that their numbers will continue to swell, increasing the scale of the injustice that denies so many Israeli jews the right to marry, eventually allowing them to wrest control over marriage from religious authorities, ultimately leading to a more secular country. In other words, marriage is 'under assault'. Sound familiar?

"In all the free world people can get a civil marriage. This is impossible in Israel. But civil marriages carried out abroad are recognised here – it's insane," -Zamira Segev, coordinator of the Forum for Freedom of Choice in Marriage.

Sounds a bit like what the US is going through now with gay marriage, doesn't it?

I'd link to the economist article, but unfortunately, you need a membership to access it. However, there's a reuters piece here that goes over some of the fact around the issue of interfaith marriage in Israel.

A common response to this sort of criticism of the state of Israel is to ask why the critic doesn't focus more attention on horrible human rights violations in the Islamic states of the Middle East. This point has some merit, but if you took a poll, I think you'd find a much greater awareness among americans about Islamic human rights violations than you would about Israeli human rights violations. Ask an American about Palestinian terrorism, they'll nod their head indignantly. Ask them about Palestinian dispossession, or Israeli second class citizens, and all you'll get is perplexity.

The "Regret" of the Review's editor

2006-12-07T21:55:00.000-05:00

The Review says about its recent racist cover depicting a scalping: "But placed in the context of the reaction it elicited, the extent of the reaction was wholly unanticipated."
What does that sentence even mean?

Not All Kerry's Quotes Were Botched Jokes

2006-12-05T00:36:00.000-05:00

It's a darn shame the New York Times now charges you to read its columnists online. I mean, that's a real rip. But, if you do pay for Times Select, or if you can grab a copy of Monday's Times, take a look at Paul Krugman. It's not one of his all time greats, but its a great zinger at the end:

"(Mr. Bush) has never been willing to own up to mistakes, however trivial. If he were to accept the failure of his adventure in Iraq, he would be admitting, at least implicitly, to having made the mother of all mistakes.

So Mr. Bush will keep sending other men's children off to fight his war. And he'll always insist that Iraq would have been a great victory if only his successors had shared his steely determination...

Here's a question for those who might be tempted, yet again, to shy away from a confrontation with Mr. Bush over Iraq: How do you ask a man to be the last to die for a bully's ego?"

Will the Review adopt the Kramer Defense?

2006-12-01T17:03:00.000-05:00

The Dartmouth Review has a racist cover with a big picture of Indian holding up a scalp and the line "The Natives are Getting Restless".

I suspect that one of the defenses from the Review is that they are not racist because they just wanted to shock and provoke. Do Reviewers really think that 'we just wanted to shock and provoke' automatically excuses racist statements? Do they really want to endorse the Kramer defense and claim 'We are like Kramer too'?

For a different, provocative perpective on Kramer, see BitchPhD's post entitled "Michael Richards, Role Model"

Lott is back!

2006-11-23T00:58:00.000-05:00

"Trent Lott selected as Senate Minority Whip, because if there's one thing that Trent Lott likes, it's whipping minorities" -Fark

Greatest Gloat Ever

2006-11-21T00:43:00.000-05:00

More Tom Toles. I thought the August cartoon he's referencing was pretty bad-ass, but this is even better. Click to enlarge it and read the text if this is too small:

I Love Tom Toles

2006-11-13T00:00:00.000-05:00

Summers, too.

Why Was Rumsfeld's Resignation Delayed Until After The Election?

2006-11-09T01:14:00.000-05:00

...and how many americans have died for it?

I apologize if ridiculing Bush for Rumsfeld's untimely resignation seems hackneyed by now, but it's just too disturbing to ignore: My question is how anyone can see the timing of the resignation (or the conviction of saddam for that matter) as anything less than politically motivated. Just a few days ago, Bush said himself that Rumsfeld would resign under no circumstances. But the man who professes most often not to pay attention to polls claims to have rethought his position on Rumsfeld. Most of the country has been begging for Rumsfeld's resignation for years now over the failure in Iraq, which Bob Woodward and countless others argue is largely attributable to Rumsfeld's unwillingness to listen to military professionals in framing military policy. Bush has made it clear that the decision to replace Rumsfeld was made some time before the election, but that it was postponed so as not to effect the election.

I fully support Bush's decision to finally accept reality and fire the people who really deserve it, but I want to know why it wasn't done sooner; in the interest of our troops on the ground, and the war on terror, isn't it best to fire people as soon as it becomes apparent that they are incompetent, rather than waiting until it's politically expedient to do so? Anything less is just plain irresponsible, and a shirk of the man's duty as war time president. I am more disgusted by this then I've been at anything Bush has done since he invaded Iraq in the first place!

Recriminations

2006-11-08T04:14:00.000-05:00

From the big conservative blog, redstate.com:

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out again that the voters did not reject conservatism in this election -- they rejected Bill Kristol's fanciful "Big Government Conservatism," which had as much to do with conservatism as horse manure does with apple pies.

It is time to go back to our first principles. We can argue about what those are, but it seems they are more National Review principles than Weekly Standard principles.

The Revenge of Macaca!

2006-11-08T02:16:00.000-05:00

MSNBC says: Talent Concedes Missouri
If Montana holds dem...

Tester ahead

2006-11-08T02:07:00.000-05:00

51-47 with 60%+ in

If VA and MO are democratic, that's the Senate, going to the Dems (unless the Joe factor comes in and he switches).

McCaskill Claims Victory in Missouri

2006-11-08T02:04:00.000-05:00

Sounds like a victory speech by McCaskill.

Murtha

2006-11-08T01:35:00.000-05:00

Jared: Jack Murtha is on MSNBC. He's answering a question from Chris Matthews on supoena power on the causes of the Iraq war. He's saying that we're going to have through the whole thing.

Murtha says he is very close to having the votes to be majority leader (depending on who wins).

Ford Concedes

2006-11-08T01:23:00.000-05:00

Ford is speaking now in what I assume is a concession speech.

There's a better way to conduct affairs, "There's a better way for us to conduct campaigns", a better way to lead.

I say to my opponent: congratulations.
"I love my country more than I love this process"
As debasing as this process can be...
A hunger on the part of the American people for something better and much more dignified than something we have given them over the last several years.

It's so easy to get mad at these things
Quotes Ephesians 6:12
We wrestle not against flesh and blood but against princes (?) and principalities.

Well, can we assume it is down to VA?

Funny Feeling

2006-11-08T01:14:00.001-05:00

We're not IN power - this wouldn't be fair to say. But at the end of the day, we're finally in something. Not just the House - we have some major Governorships that will be especially relevant as the Presidential elections shape up. Beyond that, we have a morale boost that might actually translate into a kick-start into actually, well, running things. Maybe I'll wake up and hear that we have the Senate, but either way, we have the one thing that matters:

Subpoena Power Motherfucka

Montana

2006-11-08T01:14:00.000-05:00

Tester leads right now with 38% of the precincts in:
"MT-SEN Tester (D): 53% Burns (R): 45% Jones: 2% n/a 38% 01:01 am EST"

MO

2006-11-08T00:55:00.000-05:00

Things are looking better in Missouri, says TPM:

With 76% reporting, Democrat Claire McCaskill has emerged with a very narrrow lead over Sen Jim Talent. Most of the late vote in Missouri breaks for the Democrat, so you would expect to see McCaskill stretching that lead as the night wears on. But no guarantees.

Update from TPM:

Late Update: CNN was reporting on its website a very narrow McCaskill lead, but the latest numbers--with just 71% reporting--show Talent up by 3 percentage points.

MSNBC has McCaskill headquarters cheering because McCaskill is out in front, as urban votes come in. But SW MO is still to come in (they had to xerox ballots).

Tenn. and Va.

2006-11-08T00:41:00.000-05:00

It looks like Tennessee is being called for the Republicans by MSNBC... I think... not sure... I don't think Chris Matthews is sure either... But now it is on the board as Republican. I wonder if they are not taking into account absentee, etc.

Allen is now saying: "The election continues...." Looks like a recount. "We're still counting votes." Sounds like he is worried. (When Republicans talk about accurately counting the vote, or being fair, they are not ahead)

Breaking news: 33000 votes uncounted in Fairfax county, a suburban area. Chris Matthews: Look good for Webb.

Update: they are saying Corker, the Republican, is the apparent winner. This is based on the math of counting all the votes. But Corker is not yet the "projected winner". Yet Ford will speak soon. MSNBC seems to be writing his obituary, talking about that racist ad.

Update:
Mike Crowley on TNR says:

"WE WON":

Jim Webb declares victory. I'd like to see a Bushie associated with the 2000 recount who cries foul over that.

TPM says:

Dem Senate candidate Jim Webb on CNN declaring victory before his supporters: "I apppreciated what Senator Allen not long ago said when he came on the news and said, `We all need to respect the process in this country, the Democratic process.' We all go out, we vote, we argue, we vote, but also I'd like to say the votes are in.

"And we won."

Webb is leading 49.43%-49.36% with 99.47% precincts reporting.

Update from Volokh:

1:52am:

With 99.69% of the precincts in, the Webb lead is growing even faster than my crude model is predicting. Webb's lead is now 4,700 votes, but my model (see below) is now prtedicting an eventual 5,700 vote margin for Webb. It will probably be nontrivially more.

New Hampshire goes Democratic

2006-11-08T00:29:00.000-05:00

Jacob Levy writes:

In my original home state of New Hampshire, which was utterly solidly Republican while I was growing up, not only have Democratic challengers defeated Republican incumbents in both U.S. House seats; not only has the State Senate flipped from a 16-8 Republican majority to a 14-10 Democratic majority; but Democrats have won the (400-strong) state House of Representatives ... for the first time since 1911. I never expected to see it.

Combined with the defeats of Lincoln Chafee and Nancy Johnson, and the return of a Democrat to the Massachusetts governor's mansion for the first time in 16 years, New England has now consolidated as firmly Democratic (or, as in Bernie Sanders' case, points left), much as in 1994 the South consolidated as solidly Republican.

House goes Democratic

2006-11-07T23:23:00.000-05:00

Or so CNN projects...

Bass Concedes

2006-11-07T22:56:00.000-05:00

Hanover has a new congressman: Paul Hodes.

Update: Apparently, the Democrats also picked up New Hampshire's other congressional district as well.

Will the Greens costs Dems Control of the Senate?

2006-11-07T22:07:00.000-05:00

The Green party vote might be as large as Allen's victory in Virginia, if Webb loses.

But Northern Virginia is not in yet.

Update: Looks like this (Virginia) will go to a recount. But around midnight, Webb is slightly ahead (3000 votes with 99% reporting)

On the other hand, MO is not looking too good for the Dems. Neither is Tenn. at the moment. Montana, I think, will go to Tester, but that would leave the Dems one short (barring a miracle in Arizona).

3 down, 3 to go from Dems in the Senate

2006-11-07T21:47:00.000-05:00

Maryland and New Jersey remain Democratic. These were where the Democrats were most vulnerable.

Rhode Island, Ohio, and Penn. have switched Democratic.

Joe Lieberman has beaten Lamont, it seems. So assuming (assuming) he keeps his "promise" to caucus with the Democrats, the Democrats need 3 more seats to gain control of the Senate.

Montana, Missouri, and Virginia are the most likely pick-ups, and the Democrats would need all 3. Tennessee is a more unlikely prospect. A more unlikely pick-up is Arizona.

We shall see.

But this is Freakin' Idaho!

2006-11-06T17:41:00.000-05:00

If you've been following the midterms closely, you know that Idaho's First District has become competitive. This has thrilled many analysts, and excited me - when not at Dartmouth, I live in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, part of the Panhandle and in the First District. And to think I spent all summer commuting to Spokane, WA just so I could work for a competitive race! It feel so weird to say this, and I didn't see this coming even six weeks ago - Idaho is one of three states where Bush's approval rating has never dipped below 50% - but I do predict that Democrat Larry Grant will actually win.

I'm going out on a limb here. Only two national experts that I'm aware of, Chuck Todd and Larry Sabato, have predicted Grant will win. But he's leading the Republican, Bill Sali, in the latest poll (last week) from the Idaho Statesman (Lewiston, ID, I think), 38-34. The previous poll, from Mason Dixon in late October, had Sali winning, 39-37. An early October poll from another group also had Sali up 49-43, so momentum is clearly in Grant's favor.

Why is this happening? Has the national wave actually reached Idaho? Not really. It is true that many of my friends have soured on the war in Iraq, and yes, Boise is an urban area. But Bush's approval rating is still over 50%, and this is still a district dominated by Mormons and evangelicals. No, this is one "all politics is local" race the Democrats are actually winning in: it's all about the candidates. The Republican party, despite visits from Hastert, Mehlman, and Cheney and money from the National Right to Life PAC and the Club for Growth, has been unable to coalesce around the nominee. He won the six-way primary with roughly a quarter of the vote. Former Republican Speaker of the state House Bruce Newcomb told the Statesman about Sali, "That idiot is just an absolute idiot. He doesn'tÂ?t have one ounce of empathy in his whole fricking body. And you can put that in your paper." The uberconservative second place primary finisher said of Sali, "I would not and do not and cannot endorse a liar for Congress." The moderate third place finisher (it was a close 1-2-3) said, "In the campaign he proved himself dishonest and deceitful, and he;d be an embarrassment to Idaho." U.S. Congressman Mike Simpson (R-ID-02), while still House Speaker, once threatened to throw Sali out his third-floor office window. Other House Republicans complained about Simpson's statement, suggesting the third-floor wasn't high enough, and that Sali should be taken up to the fourth floor. (Simpson now endorses Sali.) These colleagues have called him an "opportunist," "disruptive," and "a bully." And several important Idaho GOP fundraisers have started a group called Republicans for Grant.

Why all the hatred? Well, aside from his uber-conservative views (even for Idaho) and his abrasive style, Sali has repeatedly insisted that there is a link between abortions and breast cancer, both in Congressional debates and during legislative session. He's a complete moron; he has suffered "brain fade" and memory loss since an 1988 car wreck, defending himself by saying, "Much of the time in the Legislature, critical-thinking skills are not necessarily needed."

Idaho voters are libertarian and uberconservative, but they're not stupid. As the polls show, they may not want to vote for a Democrat, but they know Sali's an abrasive idiot, and they know having a member of the majority party in their Congressional delegation (since Dems will take the House) will help the state. Most local newspapers have endorsed Grant, citing his moderate positions and business background, along with the controversy around Sali. If the GOP fields a good candidate in 2008, I doubt Grant will last more than a term - LaRocco only lasted two back in the early '90s. But the western wave of Democrats (Salazar, Tester, Schweizer) continues, and I do think he'll still get that term or two, defeating Sali. Even the Democratic candidate for Governor might win. It's just that great a year for us!

On Good Intentions and Responsibility

2006-11-06T17:28:00.000-05:00

Ygelias is interesting here.

Final Midterm Predictions

2006-11-05T20:45:00.000-05:00

The expert's final predictions are in. Take heart, fellow liberals and Democrats. It's unanimous: the Democrats will take the House by a large margin, and have a legitimate shot at taken the Senate.

Rothenberg Political Report: Dems take 34-40 House seats, 5-7 Senate seats.

Cook Political Report: 20 - 35 seats, but their House expert, Amy Walter, calls that a "a cautious prediction" - a conservative estimate. No Senate predictions.

U. Virginia's Larry Sabato of the Crystal Ball: 27 House seats, 6 Senate seats.

Chuck Todd of the National Journal's Hotline: 18 House seats, or 35+ - either a small takeover, or a huge wave, no middle ground. His co-host, John Murcurio, agrees. Hotline Senate predictions come Tuesday.

My own predictions: 25-35 House seats, probably around 30. 5 Senate seats, but I'm betting on 4-5, not a takeover. On the Senate side, I think we will win Ohio, Pennsylvania, Montana, Virginia, and Missouri. The Republicans will hold Rhode Island and Tennessee, just as we'll hold New Jersey and Maryland. If I'm wrong, it's most likely on Rhode Island and Missouri. You may have seen the new Mason Dixon polls that came out today, which explain my RI and TN predictions (this is the second of three polls showing Corker with a double-digit lead in TN, and I think incumbent/maverick advantages will kick in for Chafee).

I do have one regret: I think we missed a big opportunity in Nevada. It wasn't until a month or two ago that Republican incumbent Sen. John Ensign finally reached the 50% mark in polling, so he was vulnerable. The Democratic candidate, Jack Carter, had name recognition, given that his peanut farmer daddy's first name is Jimmy. We know Nevada is willing to elect Democrats, given that it's the home of Harry Reid and that it has a close gubernatorial race. And, with potential Democratic presidential candidates now traipsing through the state, fundraising shouldn't have been too hard. Why Schumer and the national media ignored this race, I'll never know.

I'll be watching Tuesday's results with the Karen Carter campaign in downtown New Orleans. Bottoms up! And word to the future - given who's retiring and which seats are up in 2008, if we don't get the Senate now, it's probably ours in two years anyway. Huzzah!

Dartmouth Constitution and Petition Amendments rejected

2006-11-02T15:46:00.000-05:00

It looks like half the alumni voted one way, and the other half another way. It's virtually a 50/50 split. From an email just received:

Fellow Alumni,

The proposed new constitution for the Association of Alumni of Dartmouth College failed to achieve the level of support necessary for passage in all-media voting that ended October 31.

A total of 12,729 alumni (51 percent) rejected the proposal, while 12,041 alumni (49 percent) voted for it. None of the proposed petition amendments to the current Association constitution received more than 53 percent approval. Approval by two-thirds of alumni voting was required to pass any constitutional amendments. Accordingly, Dartmouth's current system of alumni governance remains unchanged.

Thirty-eight percent of eligible alumni (24,834) participated in the vote, a record turnout of which we can all be proud.

Voting results for the additional four petition amendments to the current constitution are:

Amendment #2: Article VI (Order of Business)
12,074 voted to accept (51%), 11,587 voted to reject (49%)

Amendment #3: Article III (Meetings)
12,338 voted to accept (52%), 11,273 voted to reject (48%)

Amendment #4: Article VII (Amendments)
11,572 voted to accept (50%), 11,719 voted to reject (50%)

Amendment #5: Article IV (Officers)
12,533 voted to accept (53%), 10,931 voted to reject (47%)

For a complete description of each amendment, please visit http://www.voxthevote.org.

The Association would like to thank the members of the Alumni Governance Task Force who worked to create this proposal and bring it forward for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Stanley A. Colla Jr. '66 Tu'86

Secretary-Treasurer
Association of Alumni of Dartmouth College

2006-10-31T01:32:00.000-05:00

Marriage, he said, is a “sacred” relationship — “like I had, before I got divorced.” -Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Crist (link).

That's straight from the elephant's mouth, in the florida governor's race. Was this soundbite planned, or just a freudian slip? I'm sure there are quite a few hetero men looking for someone to blame for their wives' divorcing them. For Crist to illogically link the gay marriage issue to the personal tragedy of his own divorce almost parodies conservative opposition to gay marriage. But it might just be on the back of the minds of voters who are bitter about their own marital failures.

Speaking of racism

2006-10-24T22:17:00.000-04:00

Per the AP:

"Though poor and minority neighborhoods suffered the brunt of Katrina's fury, residents living in white neighborhoods have been three times as likely as homeowners in black neighborhoods to seek state help in resolving insurance disputes, according to an Associated Press computer analysis.

The analysis of Louisiana's insurance complaints settled in the first year after Katrina highlights a cold, hard truth exposed by Katrina's winds and waters: People of color and modest means, who often need the most help after a major disaster, are disconnected from the government institutions that can provide it, or distrustful of those in power."

I've put up a couple of posts looking at good and bad news across the city on my New Orleans blog. Yes, I'm shameless.

The Republican National Committee Runs Racist Ad

2006-10-24T19:42:00.000-04:00

Not a Senate candidate. Not a house candidate. But the NATIONAL PARTY is funding this racist ad against African-American Harold Ford in the Tennesse Senate race. Former Republican Senator William Cohen gives his view here.

A November Surprise

2006-10-21T19:04:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz's column brought this to my attention. From the Nation's Tom Engelhardt:

"A possible death-sentence for Saddam and his top lieutenants on November 5? Now, shouldn't that raise a few eyebrows somewhere? If you happen to have a calendar close at hand, pull it over and take a quick look. That verdict would then come, curiously enough, just two days before the midterm elections. It's the sort of thing that--you would think--that any reporter with knowledge of the US election cycle (no less of how Karl Rove has worked these last years) would at least note in an article. But no, you can search high and low without finding a reference to this in the mainstream media."

Is this an on-purpose Rovian conspiracy? I dunno. Maybe not, but it is something we should be aware of.

Weldon's Retort

2006-10-19T18:03:00.000-04:00

Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) says of the recently announced FBI investigation into his and his daughter's shady corrupt dealings: "The timing of this situation is deeply concerning. The left wing liberal attack machine has a coordinated effort to smear me and my family in a desperate attempt to steal this seat."

Coordinated left wing liberal attack? Dude, it's the freakin' FBI! There's a a Republican FBI Director, a Republican Attorney General, and a Republican President. A plurality if not majority of FBI agents are Mormon. Coordinated left wing liberal attack?!?

Weldon is either deluding himself and ignoring the facts, or he's a liar - this all in addition to apparently being corrupt. This kind of person, Republican or Democrat (though it's no suprise he's a Republican), should have no place in the historic, hallowed halls of the United States Capitol (yes, I am that guy who stands at the Capitol fence gazing for hours after dark on DC nights, thinking Sorkin-esque thoughts about democracy - but Weldon obviously isn't).

Santorum and the "Eye of Mordor"

2006-10-18T22:18:00.000-04:00

This is not from The Onion, though I almost can't believe it:

Embattled U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum said America has avoided a second terrorist attack for five years because the “Eye of Mordor” has been drawn to Iraq instead.

Santorum used the analogy from one of his favorite books, J.R.R. Tolkien's 1950s fantasy classic “Lord of the Rings,” to put an increasingly unpopular war in Iraq into terms any school kid could easily understand.

“As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else,” Santorum said, describing the tool the evil Lord Sauron used in search of the magical ring that would consolidate his power over Middle-earth.

“It's being drawn to Iraq and it's not being drawn to the U.S.,” Santorum continued. “You know what? I want to keep it on Iraq. I don't want the Eye to come back here to the United States.”

In an interview with the Bucks County Courier Times editorial board late last week, the 12-year Republican senator from Pennsylvania said he's “a big "Lord of the Rings' fan.” He's read the first of the series, “The Hobbit” to his six children.

Shame

2006-10-17T23:39:00.000-04:00

So sad.

Krugman and One-Letter Politics

2006-10-16T12:20:00.000-04:00

Krugman - you'll only get this if you're Times Select or read the paper - writes today about the importance to both parties of which party wins the election. Most importantly, he writes,

The really important reason may be summed up in two words: subpoena power.

He points out that there are sympathetic Republicans - mavericks like McCain, who some Democrats might consider voting for. But McCain's compromise, while much touted, let the "President" define torture on his own terms. What about Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, endorsed by the Sierra Club? As others have pointed out, Republicans are absolutists, and while Democrats actually consider each question on its merits, Republicans are seldom intelligent or brave enough to do so. If Chafee wants to personally save every owl, great, but has he even once stood up against Cheney's back-room dealings with energy companies? Has he even once questioned Bush's policy of supporting technology that doesn't exist to solve our energy needs, rather than supporting promising technology that actually works?

But all that being said, as Krugman so clearly frames it, it's about subpoena power, and if we take even one chamber, it's worth it.

Don't just vote - make sure all your friends do, too.

More Corrupt Republicans

2006-10-14T19:04:00.001-04:00

Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA), already in a tough re-election fight, is being investigated by the FBI.

Two Louisiana Politicians

2006-10-14T17:30:00.000-04:00

I just posted this on my personal blog, The Wayward Episcopalian: Nathan in New Orleans. Since it's political in nature, I thought I'd share it here:

A Brief Word on Louisiana Politics

Good news: The Louisiana Democrats have refused to endorse U.S. Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) in his bid for a ninth term! If you've not heard of Rep. Jefferson, he's being investigated for bribery charges. He hasn't been indicted yet, but the Feds did find $100k he'd been paid stashed in his freezer. Now, as folks who know me can attest, I'm a staunch Democrat, but I can't stand idealogues or corrupt crooks, no matter what party they're from. I really hope Jefferson is kicked out off Congress, and this helps the odds of that. The state party has endorsed state Rep. Karen Carter instead. In Louisiana, the General Election and primary are the same thing, so both will appear on the ballot. If no candidate gets 51% of the vote, the top two advance to a run-off. With the state party backing Carter, it's doubtful Jefferson can reach 51%, so my hope is that Carter beats him and proceeds to a runoff with a Republican. It would be wonderful if the Dems took back the House, and even better if the most corrupt Congressmen were kicked out.

While I'm on the subject of Louisiana politics, let me say that if I were a Louisiana voter - which I'm not - I'd probably vote Republican for Governor in '07. And if I lived in Metairie, Slidell, or the North Shore, I'd probably vote Republican for Congress this year. First-term Congressman Bobby Jindal (R-LA) has done a heckuva job for Louisiana. When I asked Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) in a Dartmouth Free Press interview who the best Republicans to work with are, he immediately mentioned Jindal. When the 35-year old and former Rhodes Scholar Jindal ran for Governor in 2003 (he lost to Democrat Kathleen Blanco, 52-48, and is considered a leading candidate for the '07 race), he was endorsed by New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, a Democrat. He's been the most active member of the Louisiana Congressional delegation in helping residents deal with FEMA claims and other constituent services, often picking up the slack for other offices (Jefferson's office refers such FEMA problems to Jindal's). I disagree with Jindal on a number of issues - he received an unfortunate American Conservatives Union rating of 100 in 2005 - but many of those issues would matter less if he were a Governor. I won't say Blanco's done a terrible job, but Jindal is exactly the kind of person we need more of in American politics, especially in Louisiana.

You can read about Jindal's proposed revisions for FEMA here, or about his bio here and here.

On Madonna Here and There

2006-10-14T10:20:00.000-04:00

Karen Finley weighs in on Madonna adopting a young Malawi boy:

The Material Girl has transformed into Material Mother. The public viewing, the gaze of mother MADONNA, giving the African toddler a "better life" is the new, politically correct, version of maternal colonialism.

As my friends know, I'm deaf in my right ear because when I was one, two, and three, I was in an orphanage in Colombia where repeated untreated ear infections left my ear drum permanently damaged. In fact, one of the reasons I become physically sick with the Horatio Alger (Jr.) bullshit idea that with pluck and determination, anyone can be anything, is that I spend every day of my life facing the fact that everything that I earned, from my Ivy League degrees to my current assets and comfortable lifestyle, would have been a distant dream had I not been adopted by them, here. If I were there, no matter how hard I worked, how plucky I was, I would not be here - whatever value judgment you have on here or there, my peaceful, affluent life, their civil war, poverty, and drugs. Even if you call it valid (the life I would have there), you cannot pretend that I, through my choices, my will, or even my effort, could have achieved what I have here, over there.

Now, for the colonial argument to work, we have to accept the possibility that being there is just as valid as being here. The problem is that it's not a logical comparison - my parents didn't adopt me out of Colombian culture, history, or anything - they adopted me into their lives. Had my parents in Colombia been highly educated, wealthy, loving people, this would have been colonialism. Had they been just loving, this would have classism. But take away all these factors and you have a scrawny kid who has no parents, and two loving parents who couldn't conceive a child of their own. This isn't colonialism, it's the best possible solution.

But - and I hate to talk about celebrities as if their actions mattered in some special way - Finley's attentions are valid in that Madonna is a symbol of our cultural beliefs. (She is also shrill and obnoxious to refer to Madonna as the Material Mother, as if it was fair or constructive to compare her maternality to a persona she cultivated 20 years ago.) Is Madonna's saving of the boy colonialism? Women have babies to keep men, get out of the house, because of some inexplicable malaise, because they just feel they should, and mostly, frankly, by mistake. If Madonna's justification were just for publicity, that would scarcely be a colonial problem. The colonial problem is whether Madonna believes that the Malawi life, the life there is less valid than the life here. If she didn't, she'd do something colonialist - she'd set up a school to teach the Malawi kids to read Shakespeare and throw away their spears. No one seemed to mind that Oprah did just this, talking in her magazine and in interviews about the cloths used to make the girls' dresses: "they're what I'd happily have in my own home."

Madonna isn't making sure the Malawi children wear the right blend of cotton and polyester - she's taking one who needs a home into a home that has love to spare. If the child grows up to be a "mall rat" as Ms. Finley fears, or if he becomes active in politics and social justice, or if he just sits at home and rocks the PlayStation, good. If she loves him, and cares for him, good. If we vetoed all child-rearing that would lead to shallow children, we'd lose most of Long Island, California, and major swaths of exurbia. In the worst light, Madonna might be grand-standing, she might be making up for her mother's death (Ms. Finley, you JERK calling that out), or she might just feel moved about the plight of so many of African children without parents because of AIDS and other African health disasters and want to do raise awareness and bring one child into her home. She might just have felt the inexplicable yearning for a child. Whatever it is, it's not fair or reasonable to call it Colonialism.

Maybe you don't care for Madonna personally - as if you know her or something - or maybe you think the recent spate of celebrity adoptions is just bad because they're trying to make a point - whatever you believe, there are thousands upon thousands of scrawny little kids out there with no one to care for them, and most of them will grow up in poorly run, abuse-prone orphanages at best or starve to death alone at worst. Can't we at least give her and everyone else who adopts the benefit of the doubt and just the least bit liberal, progressive respect because she looked at the sea of children in desperate need and, just like the man with the star-fish, said, At least I can help this one.

Lynndie England interview in Marie Claire

2006-10-13T22:27:00.000-04:00

"She's the face of the atrocities at Abu Ghraib. Now serving 36 months in military prison, Lynndie England breaks her silence about what happened in Iraq, and how it all started with falling for the wrong man."

Shays: Abu Ghraib not torture, but "sex ring"

2006-10-13T22:23:00.000-04:00

"Moderate" Connecticut Republican Congressman Chris Shays says:

Now I’ve seen what happened in Abu Ghraib, and Abu Ghraib was not torture. It was outrageous, outrageous involvement of National Guard troops from Maryland who were involved in a sex ring and they took pictures of soldiers who were naked.

Rove pressured Foley to run again

2006-10-13T22:18:00.000-04:00

See this New Republic article.

Talking to the Bush

2006-10-13T22:16:00.000-04:00

A Madison Ave exec. does a Democratic ad.

Democrats on Iraq

2006-10-13T14:16:00.000-04:00

Who says no Democrat has a coherent plan for Iraq?

You've probably heard of Joe Biden's plan for the country, which includes carving it up into three autonomous provinces with one national government. He published the five-point plan with Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. It's been praised by various Congressional candidates, New Mexico Governor and potential presidential candidate Bill Richardson, Madeline Albright, John Warner, and even, gack, Bill O'Lielly.

Why do I rehash all this? To mention that Biden and Gelb rolld out a website for the plan today: http://www.planforiraq.com/

Say it isn't so!

2006-10-13T10:54:00.000-04:00

Air America is filing for bankruptcy?

Thoughts on Mark Warner's Droput and Future

2006-10-12T22:47:00.000-04:00

As you've no doubt heard by now, former Virginia Governor Mark Warner has stunningly announced he will not seek the '08 Democratic presidential nomination. I myself am particularly surprised, as I thought Warner had about a 1/3 shot at actually winning.

Although Biden is my first hope and Feingold my second for the nomination, I do wish Warner had stayed in the race, for two reasons. First, this opens the door to other candidates competing for the anti-Hilary mantle, particularly Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN). The Washington Post's Chris Cilliza writes, "Bayh and Warner shared much of the same ideological territory -- moderate, consensus builders elected in red states. ...Warner's ascent came at the expense of Bayh, who found much of the air sucked out of his candidacy. No longer. Party insiders say that there was a major behind-the-scenes fight for donors and activists between Bayh and Warner." While I may disagree with some of Warner's policies, I've met him twice, and I find him to be genuine and trustworthy. Bayh, not so much. While I've only met him once, he seems slick, telling people what he thinks they want to hear, making it up as he goes (we briefly discussed poverty). His voting record is also suspicious - he's drifted to the left the last couple years, despite a previous moderate record and a moderate reputation. He has the moderate credentials locked up for a General Election run; is he now abusing his powers as a Senator to lock up liberal primary credentials, as well? (WP's Cilliza also looks at what this means for John Edwards.) The second reason I hate to see Warner go is his ability to unite the country. How the heck does a Democrat leave office in Virginia with an 80% approval rating? Even though I wouldn't have supported his nomination bid, I'll still say, the country needs a uniter at this point, and Warner was the best person to fit that particularly bill.

So, what's next for Mark Warner? He did explicitly say he's not ruling out a future run for office, and at 51, he's still relatively young. My first thought was that he'd make a behind-the-scenes bid for Vice President when the time comes, but while possible, I'm not so sure it's likely. The AP reports, "In the end, Warner exited the race even before he had officially entered it, fearing the impact of a full-blown campaign on his wife, Lisa Collis, and his daughters, age 12, 15 and 16." A full-blown campaign for VP wouldn't have much of a different impact on his family than a campaign for the top job would - fewer character attacks, perhaps, but the same keeps-you-away-from-home schedule. A Cabinet post, assuming a Democrat wins in '08, is another possibility, but I don't think it's a likely one, either - while it would fit with Warner's comments about wanting to stay in the fight to improve our country, it's not in keeping with his political tendencies. The man ran for the Senate and came close to winning, he was elected Governor in a close campaign, he helped elect Tim Kaine in a close campaign, he's traveled the country stumping for a number of candidates, and now he's focusing on the Webb-Allen race (thank God). According to the National Journal's Hotline, "Warner's travel schedule was intense -- nearly 86 public events in the past nine months and more than 200 private meetings -- and it would only become more grueling. 'He loved all that and he loved the grind. He's a political animal,' said Monica Dixon, Warner's chief policy adviser." What in that says Cabinet post?

All things considered, I think the likeliest of events is that Warner will run for an open VA Senate seat in 2008. Sen. John Warner (R), now 79, is not only getting older, but his term as Chairman (soon to be Ranking Member?) of the Armed Forces Committee is about to end. Another Hotline post speculates that he won't want to serve another six years in the Senate, watching someone else "chair the committee he sought for two decades." So chances are we'll have an open seat in Virginia, and given Allen's current close race, Kaine's presence in the Governor's Mansion, the close '04 results (Bush won with just 52%), the growing blueness of Northern Virginia, and Warner's popularity, it will certainly be a competitive seat.

The job would be perfect for Warner. We know it's up his alley - he ran against the other Warner in the seat's last race, 1998. It would keep him involved influencing in the nation's course, something he has said he would like to do. And it would set him up perfectly for another presidential bid - one he might be more interested in, since his youngest child will be 22 and presumably out of the house by 2016. Time on either the Armed Services or Foreign Relations Committee would give him foreign experience he currently lacks. The term would end in time to retire and focus on campaigning for the 2016 election, when he'll be 61, or he could wait another four years and run at 67 at the end of his second Senate term, in 2020.

There are two other possibilities. The first is honest-to-god retirement, but that's no fun to speculate about, so I'm going to ignore it. :-p The second is another run for the Governor's mansion in 2009 (Virginia bans consecutive terms, but not multiple terms). The job is his for the asking, given his 80% approval rating, the popular Rep. Tom Davis (R)'s interest in the Senate seat, the lack of obvious Kaine heirs, and the relative anonymity of the potential GOP nominees. Hotline's take: "An '09 GOV run, however, would mean a term that wouldn't begin until January of 2010. Warner, therefore, would have to start getting back to Des Moines and Manchester (and Vegas?) by the end of his first year back in the mansion. ...Would Virginians tolerate Warner returning for Richmond for a cup of coffee before heading out the door for another Harkin Steak Fry just months later? Timing is everything in politics, and it probably wouldn't work in this scenario if Warner has his eye on a WH run in 2012. But... he'd not yet be 60 when leaving office in 2014."

I think the Senate race is most likely, but one thing's for sure: this changes the way I view presidential nomination contests. Perhaps some, even most, of the potential candidates actually mean it when they say they haven't decided yet whether or not to run for office. Yes, it's possible Warner is bowing out with plans to step back in later having seemed above the fray, whether now or later, but let's not be cynical. That level of planning is unlikely. Anything can change over the next few years in politics, which Warner knows, so it would be silly to lay such a detailed and risky foundation now for something so far off in the future.

Free Speech Wha?

2006-10-11T21:21:00.000-04:00

From Slashdot and the shoot first state, a woman sues a former client for defamation after the latter posted negative comments about her on field-appropriate message boards. The field? The plaintiff ran a service that dealt with private schools for troubled kids - the defendent, "who had to leave her home for several months because of Hurricane Katrina, couldn't afford an attorney and didn't show up for the trial" had enlisted her services to get her sons out of a school her ex-husband had put them in. Unsatisfied, the defendent posted messages warning other parents in a similar situation away from the plaintiff.

Ironically, the plaintiff had been a defendant in a similar case.

What's appalling about the case is not that the woman pursued the case even when the defendent couldn't show up with counsel. The defendent, who couldn't even afford counsel (probably blowing all her money on frivilous things, like reparing her storm-damaged house). It's not even so awful that the plaintiff knew and admitted that she was just making a point, knowing that the plaintiff couldn't even afford transport to the trial. What's appalling is that the plaintiff didn't specify damages - the jury awarded her 11 million dollars without prodding. Of course, beyond all that, the world knows that calling a business person who you think wronged you "crook," "con-artist" and "fraud" online could cost you $11,300,000.

Which reminds me, SAAB, your cars suck, and your service is a fraud.

Why pro-immigration advocates should be happy about a wall on the border

2006-10-11T12:40:00.000-04:00

Matthew Yglesias makes the case in a post entitled"If We Build It, Will People Stop Paying Attention?":

On the other hand, like Tyler Cowen I can't help but wonder if a large, ineffective wall might be the best possible outcome for pro-immigration people at this point. It wouldn't really work, but it would sharply diminish political pressure to "do something" about immigration. Meanwhile, as a liberal I don't really have a problem with the idea of an enormous wasteful construction project. It's like a WPA-style jobs programs. And, of course, all the building trades work just north of the border will probably attract a lot of immigrants.

Whistling past the graveyard

2006-10-11T12:06:00.000-04:00

Conservatives are mad! Apparently, one of the reasons they are mad is because Denny Hastert can't do P.R. That's the real problem! But it is a doozy... I mean, holding a press conference in front of a cemetary when people are calling for your resignation? It must be a clever ploy to show that Hastert is so clueless he couldn't have known what was going on in the page program.

Moron of the Day

2006-10-11T09:47:00.000-04:00

From The Dartmouth:

"In the real world, if you don't have the balls to report [sexual assault], there's no case," Task Force member Will Rollins '07 said. He later apologized for appearing "insensitive."

A Bio of El Baradei

2006-10-10T00:55:00.000-04:00

I recently came across this bio of El Baradei in an NYU law magazine that sheds some light on the current nuclear standoff with Iran, as well as the past standoff with Iraq. Some excerpts are posted below, with my commentary:

"The [NPT] treaty provided that the IAEA could inspect a signatory’s nuclear facilities, but only those the signatory declared, leaving open the possibility of clandestine facilities...In the years since, the IAEA has added an "additional protocol" to its earlier safeguards agreements that gives the organization’s inspectors enhanced access to nuclear facilities. Thus far, 107 countries have signed the protocol, but only 74 have ratified it. (In late 2005, after the IAEA rebuked Iran for not cooperating sufficiently with inspections, Tehran announced that it would no longer act as if bound by the protocol, which it had signed but not ratified.) Efforts to strengthen the non-proliferation regime also failed at the latest five-year review conference of the NPT, which was held in New York in May 2005.

I include this because a lot of people I've spoken to about this issue, and a lot of commentators on TV, seem confused what the NPT actually says, and argue unreasonably that Iran has violated it by seeking a nuclear program. The problem is that 1) The 3rd pillar of NPT is the right of all signatory states to seek nuclear power for peaceful purposes. 2) Iran is accused of having violated NPT in 2002 by having clandestine, uninspected nuclear programs, but according to the above passage, a loophole in NPT exists that allowed clandestine, uninspected facilities. 3) An attempt was made to close this loophole through additional protocols, but a relatively small number of states ratified this protocol, and Iran was not one of them. Thus an clandestine facilities that might have been found in 2002 did not violate any international treaty. Iran is in violation of the latest UN Security resolution passed in July, but resolution had no basis in international law.

"Another is by upholding the original vision at the heart of the NPT. That is, [El Baredei] has continued to call for those NPT signatories that have nuclear weapons to adhere to the treaty’s "bargain," which requires them to reduce their arsenals and pursue the abolition of nuclear weapons, and in return, states that do not possess the weapons already, don’t develop them...Although the political elites of the nuclear powers have long rolled their collective eyes at this quid pro quo, ElBaradei has never tired of invoking it and prodding the countries that pay much of his agency’s budget—and provide it with a large amount of the intelligence that is essential to its work—to do their bit. At times he has voiced this in an acid tone, likening the nuclearweapons states to those who "continue to dangle a cigarette from their mouth and tell everybody else not to smoke." In particular, recent moves in the United States to develop a new generation of nuclear warheads have elicited his outrage. "How can the U.S., on the one and, say every country should give up their nuclear weapons and on the other develop these bunker-buster mininukes?" he asks."

Good question. Who's the most obvious violator of NPT? George W. is. With his mininukes, he's the only world leader besides Kim Jong Il, with an openly stated policy of trying to expand his nuclear arsenal. The worst thing about Bush is that he makes ideological warhawks like Il, Ahmadinejjad, and Chavez sound reasonable to the rest of the world in comparison. It's so easy for the latter two to drum up popular support in latin america and the ME when Bush is making every straw man argument they could ever need.

"One continuing concern was Iraq’s nuclearweapons program, which the IAEA inspectors believed had been fully dismantled before they were thrown out of the country in 1998. "We were pretty confident that Iraq’s nuclear program had been accounted for," Samore explains. "The only issue was the IAEA wanting to declare that the file was closed, and they wanted to shift to longterm monitoring. We didn’t want them to do that because it would add to pressure to lift sanctions." With inspectors unable to regain entry into Iraq, the issue of keeping the "nuclear file" open was not a very contentious one."

It has long baffled me, conservatives' claim that "everyone" thought Iraq had nukes, despite such clear statements to the contrary by those at the IAEA. But beyond that, this quote reveals one of the causes of confusion: IAEA officials were intentionally overstating Iraq's nuclear threat, because according to them, if they hadn't, there would have been no choice but to withdraw them, their job of disarming Iraq having been finished. In other words they lied, just to keep UN inspections going, and prevent Iraq from trying to rearm. A noble cause, no doubt, but it was precisely these lies that were twisted back at the American public by the Bush Administration later, when they were looking to construct a revisionist history of contemporary expert opinion on whether there were WMD in Iraq, and to what extent Saddam's regime had complied with inspections.

"After the tense diplomacy of late 2002, Hussein allowed teams of U.N. and IAEA inspectors to return to Iraq to search for signs of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. As everyone remembers, the inspectors found nothing to change the IAEA’s conclusion that Iraq had no nuclear-weapons program. On March 7, 2003, ElBaradei reported in sober terms to the U.N. Security Council that on the basis of inspections at 141 suspected sites, there was "no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear-weapon program in Iraq." In addition, IAEA researchers argued—as many within the U.S. intelligence community did secretly as well—that the aluminum tubes were for conventional battlefield rocket production. IAEA personnel also established that the documents that purported to show that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium in Niger were forgeries."

If only everyone did remember...

House clerk's departure's timing very suspicious

2006-10-07T16:35:00.000-04:00

Remember how Congressman Smirkus (sp?) of the page board said he hadn't needed to tell any other members of the page board about the Foley e-mails? Because he and the clerk took care of it? It turns out that the clerk departed a few days after that event in an unusual manner:

Pages apparently saw Trandahl as a strict disciplinarian. In one instant-message exchange obtained by The Post, a former page, on his way to his first annual reunion in Washington, told Foley in January 2003 that "everyone is going to be pretty wasted a lot of the time in dc."

He then added, "well we dont have the [expletive] clerk to fire us anymore. . . . we didnt like trandahl that much . . . he isnt a nice guy . . . and he gets really scarey when he is mad."

Trandahl's departure came within days of his confrontation with Foley over e-mails that the congressman had sent a former page. House aides say the circumstances of Trandahl's exit were oddly quiet. The departure of a staff member of long standing, especially one as important as the House clerk, is usually marked with considerable fanfare, said Scott Lilly, a former Democratic staff director of the House Appropriations Committee. Debate is suspended in mid-afternoon to accommodate a stream of testimonials from lawmakers.

Trandahl's departure was marked by a one-minute salute from Shimkus and a brief insert into the Congressional Record.

"My one-hour Special Order changed to a five-minute Special Order, now to a one-minute," Shimkus said. "I just want to say thank you for the work you have done."

Lilly said: "He seemed to suddenly disappear in a puff of smoke."

Trandahl, now the executive director of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, has not returned repeated phone calls and e-mails.

Congressional aides point to another factor that links Trandahl to the Foley matter. A member of the board of the national gay rights group Human Rights Campaign, Trandahl is openly homosexual and personally close to the now-disgraced former lawmaker, who announced through his lawyer this week that he is gay.

Columbia Minuteman event

2006-10-06T12:50:00.000-04:00

Following up on Jared's post below, can I just say that I found it funny that minutemen were complaining about protester behavior. Their entire group is one big protest, and many explicitly favor being vigilantes.

Here's is Columbia University's response to protestors rushing the stage at Minuteman event.

National Review's Blog has this post, which provides a link to how students feel about the administration possibly using the Facebook to investigate who the protestors were. According to the Spectator:

As of late Thursday night, 13 Columbia students and alumni had joined a Facebook group titled, "YES, I was there when Gilchrist was rushed faster than CUFT's Quarterback."

PredatorGate Cont'd.

2006-10-06T12:00:00.000-04:00

Hastert says the buck stops here...

... but he's still not coming clean.

If you missed it, here was Tom Reynolds, the head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, at a press conference to answer questions about Foley and his role in the scandal However, he brings a bunch of kids so he can avoid answering questions.

And earlier Bob Harris noted how Hastert pulled out the national security card when talking to Rush Limbaugh about Predatorgate:

Those all sound implausible, yes, but we’re already down to “you’re either with the year-long party-loyalty protection of a man who actually interrupted a vote in Congress to engage in cybersex with a minor, or you’re with the terrorists.”

Our Brethren (and Sistren) at Columbia...

2006-10-06T10:08:00.000-04:00

Protestors Rush Minutemen - News

I wish I'd been there!

Sausage-Fest

2006-10-06T00:46:00.000-04:00

I just want to put this out there: We have not had a post from a woman on the 'Blog since 5/17/05 and that was about female orgasms. Certainly no complaints, but I'd like to hear from our the learned liberal ladies every so. You know, we could talk? Maybe get a coffee. Look, we've changed. No!

Seriously, we know we did you wrong, baby. But we love you! We won't do like that again, we swear. Come on back to your DFP. Nobody loves you like we do, honey. You know all we want is some o' that sweet progressive sauce. We jus' wanna, youknowhammsayin' - consider your thoughts on the progressive political landscape. Come back, it'll be different. We'll ask for directions when we're lost. And... you know - we'll just cuddle. Come back, babe!

That's right, aww yeah.

The Wall

2006-10-05T20:54:00.000-04:00

Wow. Mark Foley. What a shitshow. After all, if having sex with a 22-year-old consenting intern is an impeachable offense, then asking a 16-year-old page to measure his penis is a political apocalypse.

But not all Republicans are ashamed of the scandal. The Wall Street Journal has figured out that this is actually a victory for conservatives. You see, this scandal proves that Republicans have been right all along: all gays *are* child-raping predators! Consider this line on today's WSJ editorial page:

Republican leaders "failed to protect the children in their trust," intoned Parson Pelosi, last seen on this issue voting to revoke the Boy Scouts' charter for its ban on gay scoutmasters.

And if I hadn't thrown out Monday's WSJ in disgust, I would've been able to quote back another great line. In that one, the WSJ argued that if Republicans had tried to kick out Foley earlier for making sexual comments to minors, Democrats would have defended Foley's sexual orientation.

So here's a question: is the Wall Street Jorunal editorial board staffed by bigots or just assholes? Discuss amongst yourselves.

PS--great job on the blog redesign.

A New Forum for Dartmouth Discussion

2006-10-05T14:28:00.000-04:00

I just stumbled across this online discussion board, which, as its name suggests, focuses on discussion and debate about current Dartmouth-related issues.

It seems as though the site's creators are strongly opposed to the new Constitution (and post quite frequently), a position not shared by most Free Pressers. However, since the site is theoretically open to all (with registration), as long as they allow the free exchange of ideas, I think the politics of the site's creators are less important than, say, on a blog, where the moderators control the conversation.

Of course, current and former Free Pressers are still heartily encouraged to use this (newly redesigned) blog as a forum for discussion, and all readers are urged to give feedback using the comments feature at the bottom of each post.

www.dartmouthviews.org

The first I was really aware...

2006-10-05T05:06:00.000-04:00

Hastert says,

The first I was really aware of this was last Friday, when it happened...

When confronted with the possibility that Tom Reynolds, (R - NY) had told him, he claims that he doesn't remember, but that if he had, Reynolds must have brought it in with a stack.

Old news, right? So is Bob Livingston. Forget who he is? Check this.

I'm assuming you've just finished the article, and you realize that Hastert came in as Speaker when Bob was found to have had marital infidelities - smack in the middle of the Clinton impeachment joke. That's right - that means that our boy Dennis came in to replace a fallen conservative. But he also came in on the language-gymnastics of Clinton. Now, he's exercising his own, and his departure will probably be caused by, yes, another fallen conservative.

my somber republican lament

2006-10-05T02:19:00.000-04:00

I'm frankly starting to feel sorry for republican bloggers. It seems as if Bob Woodward, Mark Foley, Iraq, and Sherrod Brown have collectively ripped the rugged from under them.

Woodward's latest book has relently exposed their countless lies, one of the most common of which was that the "mission accomplished" banner had been put up independently by members of the navy after Bush's deft aircraft carrier landing. Woodward quotes rumsfeld as saying that "mission accomplished" was originally in Bush's speech until Rumsfeld pressured for it to be removed, but even his pressure failed to get the banner from being taken down. Basically every republican-aligned blogger has egg on his face for this, for arguing the "mission accomplished" slogan had nothing to do with Bush or his notion of the contemporary situation in Iraq.

Congressman Foley has utterly emasculated the republican party, by turning it from the party of god to the party of pedophilia. Anyone who even remotely claims to adhere to the republican ideology should be calling for the resignation of those behind the pedophilia cover-up, including Hastert and Reynolds (whose chief of staff has already resigned).

On Iraq, woodward cites the statistic that there are 800-900 attacks a week against Iraqi troops. Condi tries to skirt the issue on NPR, by talking about her early experiences with segregation, drawing the parallel: People once believed blacks were inferior and couldn't handle democracy and freedom, and likewise liberals today believe Iraqis can't handle democracy and are better off under Saddam's dictatorship. I'm all for not patronizing Iraqis, but her argument ignores the statistics that have come out recently from several independent sources saying that a majority of Iraqis a) want US troops to leave immediately b) support attacks on US soldiers in Iraq (60%). It really makes my bloods boil that she would dare argue liberals are patronizing Iraqis by calling for a timely withdrawal, while Iraqis' own popular opinion demands the US leave immediately.

Lastly, Congressman Sherrod Brown's been tearing into Senator Dewine in the Ohio senate race this week, in a way that's symbolic of how other races should turn out if the democratic candidate ever had the balls (and/or estrogen) to represent the true democratic opinion.

As one US general recently said, we should withdraw from Iraq "as soon as is practical". You can talk all you want about being soft on terrorism, but at this point, my frank opinion is that our humiliated departure is inevitable, and the longer we stay the more we magnify this humiliation, and the more we galvanize the terrorists. This is not by any means a negative verdict on our troops in the field. It is by every means a negative verdict on the performance and decision making of Donald Rumsfeld, and the entire administration. But there is an alternative to eternal damnation. Word has it, Santa is accepting conservative blogger resignation applications, if you mail them to the following address:

I Am A Damned Mofo
@Northpole.org

If you are sincere, you will be fully forgiven for your sins. Take it from an avowed aethist.

alas

2006-10-05T02:11:00.000-04:00

Sounds like some little script kiddie got hold of jared's login id. These jerks think they're really smart, but really, all 99.99% of em do is download scripts written by genuinely smart people, and run them. There is that .01%, granted, but the rest you can write off as the usualy dictatorial idiots on a power trip. My message to this person: If you have anything to say, say it. If all you want to do is brag and monopolize our forum, take it somewhere else.

Vox the Vote!

2006-10-05T00:50:00.000-04:00

Dancing. Singing. Death-defying leaps. An election as important as this one deserves a promotional stunt this big.

We are being hacked...

2006-10-01T13:15:00.000-04:00

Hacked!

And this is the guy to thank.

(actually, it's his site, and a contest:)

This is the idea:

These are SEO hackers - think telemarketers and Spammers with degrees. Their goal is to get rank - SEO stands for Search Engine Optimization - in Google and other places by getting links to their sites. Google, for instance, bases rank on how many people's sites are linked to yours. So, if you hack, say, a vulnerable 'Blog like ours, you can put as many links to your own nefarious site as you want, and all our page-ranked goodness rubs off on you.

In this case, the contest is actually encouraging black-hat (the kind of shouldhavediedinthelockertheywerestuffedininmiddleschool jerks who do this actually define their levels of badness in D&D/Wizard fantasy terms - no joke) tactics. Black-hat means they can do anything they need to - including, obviously, hacking.

Note that I did NOT type out the link to their site - doing so would, yes, help them with their page rank. However, as a nice, non-hacker, I didn't do any damage to their site. Instead, I notified everyone from Blogger to Google. If I find no resolution within two days, we'll see.

If you come back here and you see, well, not us, alert me and I'll set us back up. In general, if you post here, make sure your password is secure! And if you get phishing in your email, SPAM, or see a hacked site, spend the 20 minutes it takes to track down the source and give them Hell.

2006-09-29T18:17:00.000-04:00

A teammate of Allen's
comes from behind his previous anonymity to say: Allen lies!

2006-09-29T00:42:00.000-04:00

'The issue isn't whether we are the same as the Khmer Rhouge. The issue is, we aren't different enough'

The Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia also used 'waterboarding'.

The title would be a paraphrase by a Kos diarist of Israeli historian Avi Schlaim's statement: "The issue isn't whether we are the same as the Nazis. The issue is, we aren't different enough"

Sullivan has this quote from Republican Senator Specter:

"What this bill would do is take our civilization back 900 years," to before the adoption of the writ of habeas corpus in medieval England, Senator Specter said.

Then why don't you help stop it Senator Spector??? Is something more important. Sullivan says: "Neither party comes out of this looking anything but cowardly, unprincipled and morally bankrupt." Yep. The NYT says:

There is not enough time to fix these bills, especially since the few Republicans who call themselves moderates have been whipped into line, and the Democratic leadership in the Senate seems to have misplaced its spine. If there was ever a moment for a filibuster, this was it.

We don’t blame the Democrats for being frightened. The Republicans have made it clear that they’ll use any opportunity to brand anyone who votes against this bill as a terrorist enabler. But Americans of the future won’t remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration.

They’ll know that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Sullivan talks about tyranny here and here. Sullivan says:

Those of us trying to resist the Bush administration's seizure of permanent emergency powers have so far failed to alert the American public of the immense danger to their basic liberties that this administration represents. Maybe this story in the Washington Post today will help wake America up.

How do I put this in words as clearly as possible. If the U.S. government decides, for reasons of its own, that you are an "illegal enemy combatant," i.e. that you are someone who
"has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States,"
they can detain you without charges indefinitely, granting you no legal recourse except to a military tribunal, and, under the proposed bill, "disappear" and torture you. This is not just restricted to aliens or foreigners, but applies to U.S. citizens as well. It can happen anywhere in the U.S. at any time. We are all at potential risk.

Whatever else this is, it is not a constitutional democracy. It is a thinly-veiled military dictatorship, subject to only one control: the will of the Great Decider. And the war that justifies this astonishing attack on American liberty is permanent, without end. And check the vagueness of the language: "purposefully supported" hostilities. Could that mean mere expression of support for terror? Remember that many completely innocent people have already been incarcerated for years without trial or any chance for a fair hearing on the basis of false rumors or smears or even bounty hunters. Or could it be construed, in the rhetoric of Hannity and O'Reilly, as merely criticizing the Great Decider and thereby being on the side of the terrorists?

All I know is that al Qaeda is winning battles every week now. And they are winning them because their aim of gutting Western liberty is shared by the president of the United States. The fact that we are finding this latest, chilling stuff out now - while this horrifying bill is being rushed into law to help rescue some midterms - is beyond belief. It must be stopped, filibustered, prevented. And anyone who cares about basic constitutional freedom - conservatives above all - should be in the forefront of stopping it.

In the other post, Sullivan says:

Late last night, before nodding off, I wondered, as I often do, whether I'd hyperbolized the threat from the looming detention-torture bill. "Legalizing tyranny" is a very strong phrase and I don't want to cry wolf. In the sense that this president intends to seize random Americans and rush them into black sites and torture them at will, it's hyperbole. But in a deeper sense, I think it's completely accurate. The system we're talking about is to do with wartime. A president in the past has had the option of seizing enemy combatants on a battlefield and detaining them without charge as POWs. There's no threat to liberty there. What's new is that in this war, enemy combatants have been designated as such not just on the battlefield - but anywhere in the world. What's new is that they are no longer entitled to POW status. What's new is that this war is for ever. So any changes are not just for a time-limited emergency but threaten to alter basic balances in constitutional order. What's also new is that torture is now allowed on the down-low, on the president's authority. And what's also new is that an enemy combatant may or may not be an American citizen.

Put all that together and you really do have the danger of taking emergency measures for wartime and transforming a peace-time constitution into an essentially martial system, where every citizen or non-citizen can be apprehended at will and detained without charge. I repeat: this is a huge deal. It really should be a huge deal for conservatives who care about restraining government power. Its vulnerability to abuse is enormous; sanctioned torture, history tells us, never remains hermetically sealed. It always spreads. It eats away at decency and law and civility. If the president sincerely believes that torture is our most potent weapon in this war, and that habeas corpus is a quaint relic from the past, then we are in far greater peril than even the most dire pessimists believe.

I post too much from Sullivan. What's sad is that he is often a fine writer (unlike myself), but what's sad is that those of us on the left have been saying this for years. He doesn't come out too well in this either (though much better than a lot of people on the right).

2006-09-27T11:54:00.000-04:00

Uh Joe
What are you talking about?
A "fuller" release of NIE by Bush as you say is still not a "full" release. It is a "fraction" of it, as the NYT says. What is the infamy here? Explain yourself. Bush has a history of doing this (i.e. the good parts of the NIE favorable to his view we should invade Iraq were released before the war, but not the dissenting opinions. There is no national security justification either (i.e. not giving a full release in the sense of some redactions for names or whatever)). Also, you don't mention the second NIE specifically on Iraq, not the war on terror. Actually, though it is made by the same guys who make the NIE, it's still called a "draft" NIE or something like that, apparently so that the administration won't have to abide by the law that they need to share that info with Congress.

2006-09-27T11:33:00.000-04:00

First Year Issue of Dartmouth Free Press
The issue is here.

In there is an article of mine I wrote on the history of the Dartmouth Review. The editors asked me if they could reprint it from when it was originally published several years ago.

In a new and a very incisive article in that issue, DFP editor Andrew Seal takes up the history of the Review from the time I left off, in 2002, up until the present.

I would have like to have updated it to discuss in more detail some of the incidents I talk about (I've discussed this a bit on this blog). The initial info I have heard was either told to me off the record, or I hear is in that new Dartmouth Review history book, which I do not have a copy of. But I've been so busy with teaching Contemporary Civilizations and other personal matters that doing a good job updating it would have been impossible. So the article is as it was before, except for a few style changes, such as replacing the phrase: "the shit really hit the fan when...")