Slate has a great feature this week that combines the thoughts of many scholars, students, public policy figures, college presidents, and so forth on the nature and future of colleges and university in America. The question asked by the segment "Reform School" is simple, but clearly provides a variety of opinions: What should students be studying in college?
Anthony Appiah's column is definitely my "favorite"--he suggests more statistics courses and more study abroad. It's a simple piece, but remarkably clear-headed. And he uses the word "desuetude."
Steven Pinker's is also good. It focuses on, unsurprisingly, science education. But his key suggestion is that courses be grouped based on content rather than on department.
Heck, all the columns are intelligent and insightful. Read them all.
November 17, 2005
Christopher Hitchens: A Brilliant Sophist
Clever as always. If you want to read an excellent piece arguing that liberal/Democrat claims that Bush lied, misled, or misrepresented the truth, read this.
If you would like an admittedly weak rebuttal, read on. I don't know as much about American involvement in Iraq as Hitchens, but I do know a snow job when I see one.
Hitch's column is approximately this: Democrat support for military action against Saddam has been inconsistent in the period 1998-2005. Dems supported a bill advising the removal of Saddam in 1998 but remained reticent about the use of military force. In 2002, they voted for the use of military force without specifying the removal of Saddam. To Hitchens, it is on this contradiction that "the remainder of the case depends." I have no idea what this means.
I assume Hitchens is trying to suggest that Democrats are and have been just plain confused about what the right and proper action with regards to Iraq is, and that this inconsistency undermines any attempt to take a strong position against the war now.
However, as Hitchens implicitly allows, this inconsistency is melted away if, as it is claimed, Bush & Co. duped Dems into supporting the war by feeding them faulty intelligence or, alternatively, Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress played all of us for fools, as others have claimed.
Hitchens brushes off the first option with the by now standard line "Congress saw the same intelligence sources before the war." He attacks the second option--that Chalabi pulled the wool over the entire Western intelligence community--by "proving" its improbability.
Hitchens attempts to split the options--that Bush lied/misled and that we were duped by Chalabi--with Occam's Razor, but the whole point is that these strands may be woven together. Hitchens approaches the liberal case as if it were an either/or when it is in fact a both/and. Bush or whoever directed intelligence to "find" certain evidence, and Chalabi and the INC assisted. Hitchens takes the benign motives of the intelligence community as fact, or attributes to them a success rate of finding out the "right" information that history simply does not support. For these reasons, his argument is brilliant, but totally incorrect.
Hitchens has one logical out, which he does not take--he could say that a combination of the two above options is even less probable than either one occurring individually, and since he has made the case against at least one of the options, it follows that the idea that Bush and Chalabi were in cahoots to hoodwink America is preposterous.
I would just like to point out a few other unlikely or really bizarre things:
a) Ahmed Chalabi has more shit on him than a scarab beetle and yet he is welcomed to the US with open arms.
b) The claim that Congress saw all the data available to the President. I seriously doubt the President saw all the data available to the President, and I would assume the President typically has access to more intelligence than your average Congressman. Question is, what intelligence was not seen? And why?
c) Oil companies establish new world records for profits in a time of incredibly immense unrest in the Middle East. Not saying anything, just saying it looks strange.
d) These direct contradictions of fact don't matter.
e) Neither do these.
f) This.
If you would like an admittedly weak rebuttal, read on. I don't know as much about American involvement in Iraq as Hitchens, but I do know a snow job when I see one.
Hitch's column is approximately this: Democrat support for military action against Saddam has been inconsistent in the period 1998-2005. Dems supported a bill advising the removal of Saddam in 1998 but remained reticent about the use of military force. In 2002, they voted for the use of military force without specifying the removal of Saddam. To Hitchens, it is on this contradiction that "the remainder of the case depends." I have no idea what this means.
I assume Hitchens is trying to suggest that Democrats are and have been just plain confused about what the right and proper action with regards to Iraq is, and that this inconsistency undermines any attempt to take a strong position against the war now.
However, as Hitchens implicitly allows, this inconsistency is melted away if, as it is claimed, Bush & Co. duped Dems into supporting the war by feeding them faulty intelligence or, alternatively, Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress played all of us for fools, as others have claimed.
Hitchens brushes off the first option with the by now standard line "Congress saw the same intelligence sources before the war." He attacks the second option--that Chalabi pulled the wool over the entire Western intelligence community--by "proving" its improbability.
Hitchens attempts to split the options--that Bush lied/misled and that we were duped by Chalabi--with Occam's Razor, but the whole point is that these strands may be woven together. Hitchens approaches the liberal case as if it were an either/or when it is in fact a both/and. Bush or whoever directed intelligence to "find" certain evidence, and Chalabi and the INC assisted. Hitchens takes the benign motives of the intelligence community as fact, or attributes to them a success rate of finding out the "right" information that history simply does not support. For these reasons, his argument is brilliant, but totally incorrect.
Hitchens has one logical out, which he does not take--he could say that a combination of the two above options is even less probable than either one occurring individually, and since he has made the case against at least one of the options, it follows that the idea that Bush and Chalabi were in cahoots to hoodwink America is preposterous.
I would just like to point out a few other unlikely or really bizarre things:
a) Ahmed Chalabi has more shit on him than a scarab beetle and yet he is welcomed to the US with open arms.
b) The claim that Congress saw all the data available to the President. I seriously doubt the President saw all the data available to the President, and I would assume the President typically has access to more intelligence than your average Congressman. Question is, what intelligence was not seen? And why?
c) Oil companies establish new world records for profits in a time of incredibly immense unrest in the Middle East. Not saying anything, just saying it looks strange.
d) These direct contradictions of fact don't matter.
e) Neither do these.
f) This.
November 16, 2005
Patriotism--the last refuge for scoundrels... and bad musicians
Introducting The Right Brothers singing "Bush Was Right."
Whatever.
This is not a parody--check out the link for a preview of the actual song and links to the groups behind the Right Brothers.
Freedom in Afghanistan, say goodbye TalibanThey want to get their song on TRL and are trying to enlist conservatives to pressure MTv to air it. And "If they DON’T - then we’ll hit the media in a BIG way, showing how MTV plays left-wing videos while CENSORING conservative videos!"
Free elections in Iraq, Saddam Hussein locked up
Osama’s staying underground, Al Qaida now is finding out
America won’t turn and run once the fighting has begun
Don’t you know that all this means…
Bush was right! Bush was right!
Whatever.
This is not a parody--check out the link for a preview of the actual song and links to the groups behind the Right Brothers.
When Austen fans attack...
Members of the Jane Austen Society of America are displeased with the new version of Pride & Prejudice, starring my future wife, Keira Knightley, as well as a hell of a supporting cast and some random British dude as Darcy (Matthew MacFadyen). They say that Keira's posture is improper for Elizabeth's character, MacFadyen ain't no thing next to Colin Firth, the dialogue is limpid or "lame," and there's too much feckin' sex in the ruddy film.
The director, Joe Wright, has been quoted as telling them to "jump in a lake."
I've seen the film actually in a sneak preview here in Glasgow. I liked it a great deal, though for reasons other than for those I liked the book. The characters are not exactly faithful to the book. They are both simpler and rounder, and often less satirized (or satirical). MacFadyen is fairly weak, I felt, but Keira can take any posture she desires. The dialogue is not crisp, but it is not artificial. And I didn't notice any sexual imagery, but then again I'm Catholic.
Go see the movie.
More on Minority Representation
A commenter made me realize that I didn't do a very good job explaining why Joe Malchow is wrong to complain about double minority representation on the Alumni Association.
Joe is wrong because he identifies the wrong problems (discrimination, which--in the non-pejorative sense--is a necessary process of any selection/election, and double votes, which is an unlikely eventuality and can be easily and non-controversially prevented). The real problem is double representation--some people maybe represented with two (or three) votes. Those people are going to be minorities.
But how much will double representation really affect the democratic operations of governing Dartmouth? Not much, I think.
Take the recent decision to divest. How would guaranteed minority representation really have affected that decision? It would if there were an African affiliated group perhaps. But that is one group. They'd have to convince everyone else of their case just as they would if they were not from Africa. And does anyone really think that just because a Peruvian-affiliated group is also composed of "minorities" they will vote with the African group automatically? That seems dubious. It is unlikely that minority representatives will vote as a bloc just for the sake of screwing white males over 50.
Alternatively, maybe it would be suggested that minorities simply can't be impartial about a situation like the Darfur divestment that touches on (one) minority's interest. Maybe they can't be trusted to handle money from people that aren't like them--they'll just give it away to the NAACP or something. I hardly think I need to point out the prejudice in that idea. It would be ridiculous if it weren't so noxious.
My point is not to say "this is perfectly proportionate representation." It's not.
But does a little disproportionate representation matter for Dartmouth? (It's an entirely different ballgame for states or nations.) This is not reverse apartheid or something.
Seriously, how will democratic principles be affected in practice at Dartmouth? Joe just gives theory; I should think that conservatives who are so used to pointing out the discrepancies between practice and theory in the pursuit of Marxism or other quasi-liberal idealisms would not fall into this trap.
Joe is wrong because he identifies the wrong problems (discrimination, which--in the non-pejorative sense--is a necessary process of any selection/election, and double votes, which is an unlikely eventuality and can be easily and non-controversially prevented). The real problem is double representation--some people maybe represented with two (or three) votes. Those people are going to be minorities.
But how much will double representation really affect the democratic operations of governing Dartmouth? Not much, I think.
Take the recent decision to divest. How would guaranteed minority representation really have affected that decision? It would if there were an African affiliated group perhaps. But that is one group. They'd have to convince everyone else of their case just as they would if they were not from Africa. And does anyone really think that just because a Peruvian-affiliated group is also composed of "minorities" they will vote with the African group automatically? That seems dubious. It is unlikely that minority representatives will vote as a bloc just for the sake of screwing white males over 50.
Alternatively, maybe it would be suggested that minorities simply can't be impartial about a situation like the Darfur divestment that touches on (one) minority's interest. Maybe they can't be trusted to handle money from people that aren't like them--they'll just give it away to the NAACP or something. I hardly think I need to point out the prejudice in that idea. It would be ridiculous if it weren't so noxious.
My point is not to say "this is perfectly proportionate representation." It's not.
But does a little disproportionate representation matter for Dartmouth? (It's an entirely different ballgame for states or nations.) This is not reverse apartheid or something.
Seriously, how will democratic principles be affected in practice at Dartmouth? Joe just gives theory; I should think that conservatives who are so used to pointing out the discrepancies between practice and theory in the pursuit of Marxism or other quasi-liberal idealisms would not fall into this trap.
19 Senators Who Should be on America's Shit List
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Conrad (D-ND)
DeMint (R-SC)
Graham (R-SC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Leahy (D-VT)
McCain (R-AZ)
Sessions (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
These are the Senators who voted against Senate amendment 2518 to the military appropriations bill. The amendment provided for some executive accountability for the prosecution of the war in Iraq in the form of semi-regular reports about the progress of the war.
The Democrats on this list are likely voting against to voice their objection to the exclusion of their proposed addition of "a flexible timetable for a possible American pullout from Iraq." (CNN)
Regardless, this is progress of some sort, albeit very insufficient progress, and should have been supported by all Senators. If one of your Senators is on this list, you know what to do. Call the bastards.
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Conrad (D-ND)
DeMint (R-SC)
Graham (R-SC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Leahy (D-VT)
McCain (R-AZ)
Sessions (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
These are the Senators who voted against Senate amendment 2518 to the military appropriations bill. The amendment provided for some executive accountability for the prosecution of the war in Iraq in the form of semi-regular reports about the progress of the war.
The Democrats on this list are likely voting against to voice their objection to the exclusion of their proposed addition of "a flexible timetable for a possible American pullout from Iraq." (CNN)
Regardless, this is progress of some sort, albeit very insufficient progress, and should have been supported by all Senators. If one of your Senators is on this list, you know what to do. Call the bastards.
Religious States and State Religions
Brad Plumer has an excellent post arguing that Europe is not really that much less God-fearing than our own beloved States--they don't go to church, but a vast majority of them have strong religious beliefs. I guess some believers on this side of the pond would say that private spirituality means nothing without public action, but I would respectfully disagree and so would most sociologists, psychologists, and philosophers of religion.
Plumer argues through sociologist (and priest and novelist) Andrew Greeley that the competitive nature of American religion makes it more likely for people to publicly worship, whereas state monopolies on religion in Europe ossify those churches. Good argument, I think.
Also, Rick Santorum has retracted an earlier statement he made about intelligent design and is now against teaching it in classrooms. Pat Robertson informs Little Green Blog that it won't surprise him if Santorum gets a nasty case of botulism for his apostasy.
(via Josh Marshall)
Two notes: Santorum is, of course, a Senator from the state where the big evolution/ID showdown is taking place--Dover. He is also Catholic, and the Catholic Church recently threw its support behind evolution in a rare sign of awareness that it's not 1200 AD.
Plumer argues through sociologist (and priest and novelist) Andrew Greeley that the competitive nature of American religion makes it more likely for people to publicly worship, whereas state monopolies on religion in Europe ossify those churches. Good argument, I think.
Also, Rick Santorum has retracted an earlier statement he made about intelligent design and is now against teaching it in classrooms. Pat Robertson informs Little Green Blog that it won't surprise him if Santorum gets a nasty case of botulism for his apostasy.
(via Josh Marshall)
Two notes: Santorum is, of course, a Senator from the state where the big evolution/ID showdown is taking place--Dover. He is also Catholic, and the Catholic Church recently threw its support behind evolution in a rare sign of awareness that it's not 1200 AD.
November 15, 2005
This can't be real
iBelieve, the hottest accessory for Christians who want to make an even bigger statement with their iPod.
Steve Jobs could not be reached for comment.
Steve Jobs could not be reached for comment.
Bush Plagiarizes Dartmouth Student
Or rather, his speech-writers did.
Link.
This is old news, though somehow I managed to stumble onto it today. And regardless, it's both frightening and hilarious.
Maybe Bush's speech-writers actually left a long time ago.
More on Bush's lousy speeches: David Kusnet of The New Republic calls Bush's Veteran's Day speech the worst of his, or almost any other's, presidency.
Link.
This is old news, though somehow I managed to stumble onto it today. And regardless, it's both frightening and hilarious.
Maybe Bush's speech-writers actually left a long time ago.
More on Bush's lousy speeches: David Kusnet of The New Republic calls Bush's Veteran's Day speech the worst of his, or almost any other's, presidency.
Minority Representation on the Alumni Association
Joe Malchow cries "foul" when he discovers that the new alumni constitution drafted by the Alumni Governance Task Force makes a provision whereby certain alumni might be able to have two votes on the Alumni Association.
The basics of the situation are that under a certain provision that establishes a way for "[a]ny group of 100 or more Dartmouth alumni who share a common bond based on self-identified information that they are members of a group of historically marginalized alumni [...] and who desire to affiliate with each other as a sub-group of the Association of Alumni" to set up a formal group which will be represented by two members on the Alumni Association. It dawns upon Joe that it is technically possible for one of these two people to also have been elected as the class representative--and therefore they will have two votes, Baker-Berry will collapse, all the Keystone will run dry, and the Dartmouth football team will start winning again as it's the end of the fucking world!!! Aaargh!!! Honestly, is this really such a big deal?
Instead of stopping at what would be a reasonable suggestion--that a clause be added to prevent any member of the AA from representing two groups--Malchow goes for the whole hog, bellowing "discrimination." Joe clearly does not care about fixing this loophole--he only wants to keep minorities from forming groups which will be represented on the AA. A reasonable person would realize that any person who does represent two groups will have been selected/elected by those two groups and therefore likely is a good-faith choice on the part of both groups. I don't understand in this case why democracy should not be allowed to take its course. Is the job so demanding that no fairly-elected person could fairly represent the opinions of the Pacific Islander group and the Class of '92? Where's the beef?
The beef is: Joe Malchow doesn't care about minority people.
But should we? That is, are the specific allowances for the representation of minorities on the Association proper and legitimate or are they discriminatory? The only practical reason to ask this question is if it is likely that this measure would derail proper decision-making on the Association by the construction of a non-representative system. I don't think this is the case.
Well, first of all, I think Joe is subject to a little bit of paranoia. Who is to say that all these minority groups will vote together? If everyone on the AA were white, would it be readily assumed that they would all vote together? Also, this presumes that there is in fact a national correlation to college politics--that there are definitely "left" positions and definitely "right" positions to Dartmouth politics and that minorities will typically align on the left. I am still unconvinced that Dartmouth issues cleave this neatly or at all. Finally, this presumes that the representatives of minority groups would not be competent arbiters or taken holistically would not be as competent as an Association made up of mostly non-minority persons elected by a body of mostly non-minority persons. I'm not even going to bother rebutting that. I have enough faith in the Dartmouth education that I assume most people who graduate are reasonably competent.
Those are (some of) the practical reasons. But Joe's argument is anything but practical. Instead, he says, "In short, the requirements are, as my correspondent writes, “exclusive and discriminatory.” It is wrong on its face."
"Wrong on its face?" Is it really? Well, what do the terms "exclusive" and "discriminatory" actually mean? Simply that there are qualifications for the positions which others can't fill. Is that a bad thing "on its face?" Is it a bad thing "on its face" that Presidents must be 35 and non-naturalized US citizens? Those are "exclusive and discriminatory" restrictions. But they are positive. For Joe, race is entirely different--it is entirely negative.
The problem is clearly not actual discrimination--that is the most necessary part of any democratic process--I discriminatorily chose Kerry over Bush in the last election. The problem is whether to let minority groups have a guaranteed place in the governance of the College. I think my opinion on that matter is no secret, so I won't elaborate here.
But the point is, Joe's argument that this is wrong because it's discriminatory or because it might give someone two votes falls flat-- "on its face."
The basics of the situation are that under a certain provision that establishes a way for "[a]ny group of 100 or more Dartmouth alumni who share a common bond based on self-identified information that they are members of a group of historically marginalized alumni [...] and who desire to affiliate with each other as a sub-group of the Association of Alumni" to set up a formal group which will be represented by two members on the Alumni Association. It dawns upon Joe that it is technically possible for one of these two people to also have been elected as the class representative--and therefore they will have two votes, Baker-Berry will collapse, all the Keystone will run dry, and the Dartmouth football team will start winning again as it's the end of the fucking world!!! Aaargh!!! Honestly, is this really such a big deal?
Instead of stopping at what would be a reasonable suggestion--that a clause be added to prevent any member of the AA from representing two groups--Malchow goes for the whole hog, bellowing "discrimination." Joe clearly does not care about fixing this loophole--he only wants to keep minorities from forming groups which will be represented on the AA. A reasonable person would realize that any person who does represent two groups will have been selected/elected by those two groups and therefore likely is a good-faith choice on the part of both groups. I don't understand in this case why democracy should not be allowed to take its course. Is the job so demanding that no fairly-elected person could fairly represent the opinions of the Pacific Islander group and the Class of '92? Where's the beef?
The beef is: Joe Malchow doesn't care about minority people.
But should we? That is, are the specific allowances for the representation of minorities on the Association proper and legitimate or are they discriminatory? The only practical reason to ask this question is if it is likely that this measure would derail proper decision-making on the Association by the construction of a non-representative system. I don't think this is the case.
Well, first of all, I think Joe is subject to a little bit of paranoia. Who is to say that all these minority groups will vote together? If everyone on the AA were white, would it be readily assumed that they would all vote together? Also, this presumes that there is in fact a national correlation to college politics--that there are definitely "left" positions and definitely "right" positions to Dartmouth politics and that minorities will typically align on the left. I am still unconvinced that Dartmouth issues cleave this neatly or at all. Finally, this presumes that the representatives of minority groups would not be competent arbiters or taken holistically would not be as competent as an Association made up of mostly non-minority persons elected by a body of mostly non-minority persons. I'm not even going to bother rebutting that. I have enough faith in the Dartmouth education that I assume most people who graduate are reasonably competent.
Those are (some of) the practical reasons. But Joe's argument is anything but practical. Instead, he says, "In short, the requirements are, as my correspondent writes, “exclusive and discriminatory.” It is wrong on its face."
"Wrong on its face?" Is it really? Well, what do the terms "exclusive" and "discriminatory" actually mean? Simply that there are qualifications for the positions which others can't fill. Is that a bad thing "on its face?" Is it a bad thing "on its face" that Presidents must be 35 and non-naturalized US citizens? Those are "exclusive and discriminatory" restrictions. But they are positive. For Joe, race is entirely different--it is entirely negative.
The problem is clearly not actual discrimination--that is the most necessary part of any democratic process--I discriminatorily chose Kerry over Bush in the last election. The problem is whether to let minority groups have a guaranteed place in the governance of the College. I think my opinion on that matter is no secret, so I won't elaborate here.
But the point is, Joe's argument that this is wrong because it's discriminatory or because it might give someone two votes falls flat-- "on its face."
Joe just don't know
I post a lot on divestment, but I just can't help myself, so here's the truth to the latest bit of uninformed speculation to be vomited onto Dartblog.
1. As anyone who is familiar with divestment and the arguments that have been put forward understands that economic consequences are only generated by a massive nationwide divestment movement. While a boycott may be a more effective method of getting a corporation's attention, its just not a feasible strategy with oil companies, especially when their product is not sold in the US.
2. The ACIR recommendation was to divest from companies substantially and directly complicit in the genocide. Subsequent research revealed six companies fit this description. This list is subject to change pending new information. We are not currently invested in any of them, although the Investment Office can confirm we have been invested in at least one of these in the recent past.
3. Malchow says, "Regardless, they strike me as not-very-attractive investments for conservative institutional investors like Dartmouth."If you don't know what you're talking about, please try not to open your mouth, or type, as the case may be. Again, at least one of these companies has been viewed as lucrative in the recent past. Much of the investment in Sudan comes via emerging market index funds, which many institutional investors, from universities to state pension funds, are currently invested in. We hire investors out of the same applicant pool they do, so our investment practices are not significantly different.
4. Malchow then attempts to say that standard protocol was violated during divestment proceedings. See point 3 regarding ignorance. Here's how it works (and did work in this instance): The ACIR makes non-binding recommendations to the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees Investment Committee reviews these recommendations, and then brings them to the general Board for a vote. In this case, ACIR made a reccomendation on June 2nd. At the June Trustees meeting, this was referred to the investment committee. By August, ACIR produced a lengthy report summarizing its findings and research, including six different recommendations for possible action to be taken by the Trustees, ranging from the "neither retain nor acquire" position the Trustees voted for, to complete inaction. In the week before the Trustees meeting, their own investment committee reviewed these findings, and Saturday, the Trustees voted to approve.
5. While much is being made about the fact that Dartmouth has not actually withdrawn any funds, this decision is far more advanced than Harvard's or Stanford's. By creating a category responsive to changing conditions, Dartmouth's policy still fits the main goal of not investing in complicit corporations. Instead of choosing 1 or 4 companies to target, Dartmouth can continually decide on predetermined criteria when to re-invest, when to divest, and when to avoid acquisition.
6. Malchow's last leg is that, even if we did divest, we will still acquire these companies through mutual funds or other indirect means. Nope. This is going to be part of the difficulty the Investment Office will have drafting a satisfactory strategy, but this certain mutual funds will be ruled out.
In conclusion, Malchow is wrong, whether by willful ignorance or disingenuous speculation.
1. As anyone who is familiar with divestment and the arguments that have been put forward understands that economic consequences are only generated by a massive nationwide divestment movement. While a boycott may be a more effective method of getting a corporation's attention, its just not a feasible strategy with oil companies, especially when their product is not sold in the US.
2. The ACIR recommendation was to divest from companies substantially and directly complicit in the genocide. Subsequent research revealed six companies fit this description. This list is subject to change pending new information. We are not currently invested in any of them, although the Investment Office can confirm we have been invested in at least one of these in the recent past.
3. Malchow says, "Regardless, they strike me as not-very-attractive investments for conservative institutional investors like Dartmouth."If you don't know what you're talking about, please try not to open your mouth, or type, as the case may be. Again, at least one of these companies has been viewed as lucrative in the recent past. Much of the investment in Sudan comes via emerging market index funds, which many institutional investors, from universities to state pension funds, are currently invested in. We hire investors out of the same applicant pool they do, so our investment practices are not significantly different.
4. Malchow then attempts to say that standard protocol was violated during divestment proceedings. See point 3 regarding ignorance. Here's how it works (and did work in this instance): The ACIR makes non-binding recommendations to the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees Investment Committee reviews these recommendations, and then brings them to the general Board for a vote. In this case, ACIR made a reccomendation on June 2nd. At the June Trustees meeting, this was referred to the investment committee. By August, ACIR produced a lengthy report summarizing its findings and research, including six different recommendations for possible action to be taken by the Trustees, ranging from the "neither retain nor acquire" position the Trustees voted for, to complete inaction. In the week before the Trustees meeting, their own investment committee reviewed these findings, and Saturday, the Trustees voted to approve.
5. While much is being made about the fact that Dartmouth has not actually withdrawn any funds, this decision is far more advanced than Harvard's or Stanford's. By creating a category responsive to changing conditions, Dartmouth's policy still fits the main goal of not investing in complicit corporations. Instead of choosing 1 or 4 companies to target, Dartmouth can continually decide on predetermined criteria when to re-invest, when to divest, and when to avoid acquisition.
6. Malchow's last leg is that, even if we did divest, we will still acquire these companies through mutual funds or other indirect means. Nope. This is going to be part of the difficulty the Investment Office will have drafting a satisfactory strategy, but this certain mutual funds will be ruled out.
In conclusion, Malchow is wrong, whether by willful ignorance or disingenuous speculation.
The Tide Turns?
Or a political ploy to disarm Democratic criticism of Iraq for the 2006 elections? Either way, it's a sign Bush has nearly totally lost his Congressional support.
Senate Republicans Pushing for a Plan on Ending the War in Iraq.
Senate Republicans Pushing for a Plan on Ending the War in Iraq.
November 14, 2005
Congress Tells FDA to Stop Being So Damn Politically Driven
Well, maybe Congress shouldn't be reprimanding the FDA for catering to interest groups, but someone sure should.
Congress's investigative arm today criticized the FDA for its rejection of the "morning-after pill" Plan B.
Congress's investigative arm today criticized the FDA for its rejection of the "morning-after pill" Plan B.
The Government Accountability Office also said in its 57-page report that there were questions about whether top officials of the F.D.A. made the decision to reject the application for over-the-counter sales of the drug, which is opposed by some religious conservatives, even before its own advisory committee had issued its recommendation on the matter.This reminded me of a great comic I saw recently. I actually have linked to it previously, but this time it has greater relevance.
November 13, 2005
Dartmouth Divests!
The Trustees voted to comply with the ACIR's findings regarding divestment from corporations that directly and substantially facilitate the genocide in Sudan. As of now, this category includes six oil companies whose revenues sustain the Khartoum regime.
Divestment will be considered in the upcoming weeks by serveral other colleges and states as well, including Amherst, Brown, the UC system, and the Mass. State Legislature.
Divestment will be considered in the upcoming weeks by serveral other colleges and states as well, including Amherst, Brown, the UC system, and the Mass. State Legislature.
Can't Find a Betterman
Eddie Vedder says the next Pearl Jam album will be "easily the best stuff we've done."
Not all that hard to top Riot Act, but I'll be amazed to get a better album than Vs.
Vedder also says, "It's very aggressive, because again, it's kind of a product of what it's like to be an American these days. It's pretty aggressive, especially when you turn it loud."
Translation: Bush fucking sucks and we're pissed about it.
Also: I'm in London currently. The Queen says hi.
Not all that hard to top Riot Act, but I'll be amazed to get a better album than Vs.
Vedder also says, "It's very aggressive, because again, it's kind of a product of what it's like to be an American these days. It's pretty aggressive, especially when you turn it loud."
Translation: Bush fucking sucks and we're pissed about it.
Also: I'm in London currently. The Queen says hi.
Hey Anonymous Asshole
Remember when Seal posted about the white phosphorus and you stepped to him with some bullshit about "oh no, God forbid the military use actual weapons in actual military conflicts?"
Well, why don't you click on this link and look at what, exactly, white phosphorus does to human bodies? I imagine you'll be momentarily disturbed, but the massive self-assuredness engine in your limbic brain which apparently drives your entire psyche should kick in a few seconds after that, and you'll be okay again, warm and smug (get it?) in your little cocoon of arrogance and self-righteousness.
If any people possessing a basic empathy infrastructure click on that link, though, watch it. They're hard to look at and I can't make it past the first page.
Well, why don't you click on this link and look at what, exactly, white phosphorus does to human bodies? I imagine you'll be momentarily disturbed, but the massive self-assuredness engine in your limbic brain which apparently drives your entire psyche should kick in a few seconds after that, and you'll be okay again, warm and smug (get it?) in your little cocoon of arrogance and self-righteousness.
If any people possessing a basic empathy infrastructure click on that link, though, watch it. They're hard to look at and I can't make it past the first page.
November 12, 2005
Bush speaks, lies
You may have heard that Bush made a speech the other day about Iraq. Turns out he was saying the Thing which is not.
November 11, 2005
The Devil / Bare Feet
So I followed that link in Seal's post with the Fox News polls and whatnot, and I started clicking around to check out their other polls because that's how I roll while working at the library. Anyway there's a poll here about Americans' beliefs as far as basic metaphysical cosmology, and the results are pretty predictable. There's a couple fun ones in there, though. I liked these:
Men are more likely than women to believe in vampires (6 percent vs. 2 percent).
People under age 30 are about twice as likely as those over age 65 to believe in ghosts.
Almost everyone that believes in hell also believes in heaven (97 percent), but not everyone that believes in heaven also believes in hell (82 percent).
Wait, almost everyone who believes in hell believes in heaven? Even accounting for the margin or error, there's probably one or two respondents with a pretty bleak outlook on things generally. Also, if Dartmouth is in keeping with national trends, there are around 120 or so undergrad boys who believe seriously in vampires.
Anyway, the second part of the story here is that I was image searching on Google to find one of those Family Circus cartoons with dead grandpa up in heaven, you know? But they didn't have any that weren't doctored. I noticed that this one
was hosted by a site called barefooters.org, which is run by people who (suprisingly)
are apparently not foot fetishists, but merely a breed of reverse obsessive-compulsives. They host stories about walking around places normal people go (diners, workplaces, libraries, bars, etc) without shoes on. My favorite is this one.
Men are more likely than women to believe in vampires (6 percent vs. 2 percent).
People under age 30 are about twice as likely as those over age 65 to believe in ghosts.
Almost everyone that believes in hell also believes in heaven (97 percent), but not everyone that believes in heaven also believes in hell (82 percent).
Wait, almost everyone who believes in hell believes in heaven? Even accounting for the margin or error, there's probably one or two respondents with a pretty bleak outlook on things generally. Also, if Dartmouth is in keeping with national trends, there are around 120 or so undergrad boys who believe seriously in vampires.
Anyway, the second part of the story here is that I was image searching on Google to find one of those Family Circus cartoons with dead grandpa up in heaven, you know? But they didn't have any that weren't doctored. I noticed that this one
was hosted by a site called barefooters.org, which is run by people who (suprisingly)
are apparently not foot fetishists, but merely a breed of reverse obsessive-compulsives. They host stories about walking around places normal people go (diners, workplaces, libraries, bars, etc) without shoes on. My favorite is this one.
Alito Dishonesty
A story is breaking that makes me seriously question Sam Alito's moral competence for impartial adjudication.
Basically, in his Senate confirmation hearings he listed 3 situations where he would recuse himself from ruling, but he has actually ruled on cases that fall under all 3 categories. (They are discussed in this WaPo article--the two in the headline are cases involving Vanguard and SmithBarney with whom Alito had financial dealings--he had mutual funds in Vanguard and SmithBarney is his mutual fund. The third situation was any case involving his sister's law firm.)
Now he is saying that when he testified under oath when he would recuse himself, he was being "unduly restrictive." A judge that thinks keeping his word and telling the truth are "unduly restrictive" is not a good judge, not a capable judge, and not one that should be sitting on the Supreme Court.
Basically, in his Senate confirmation hearings he listed 3 situations where he would recuse himself from ruling, but he has actually ruled on cases that fall under all 3 categories. (They are discussed in this WaPo article--the two in the headline are cases involving Vanguard and SmithBarney with whom Alito had financial dealings--he had mutual funds in Vanguard and SmithBarney is his mutual fund. The third situation was any case involving his sister's law firm.)
Now he is saying that when he testified under oath when he would recuse himself, he was being "unduly restrictive." A judge that thinks keeping his word and telling the truth are "unduly restrictive" is not a good judge, not a capable judge, and not one that should be sitting on the Supreme Court.
Finally, some good news
about Dartmouth profs. We get copious reports of what is going wrong, so here's a counterexample.
Govy prof Lisa Baldez takes the lead on a publication on Gender and Politics.
I'm not a govy major, but I think it's reasonable for me to say that this is a burgeoning field (or subfield) and one that is likely to get more and more legitimacy as issues like gay marriage and abortion continue to dominate the political divisions of our times.
Let's hope Baldez is sticking around for awhile.
Govy prof Lisa Baldez takes the lead on a publication on Gender and Politics.
I'm not a govy major, but I think it's reasonable for me to say that this is a burgeoning field (or subfield) and one that is likely to get more and more legitimacy as issues like gay marriage and abortion continue to dominate the political divisions of our times.
Let's hope Baldez is sticking around for awhile.
You going to "excoriate" this one, Joe?
Joe Malchow had a conniption fit a little over a week ago when a CBS poll put George Bush at a 35% approval rating. Seems Republicans weren't represented well enough. Well maybe it just doesn't matter these days who is polled--nearly everyone thinks Bush sucks.
FOX NEWS polls Bush @ a 36% approval rating.
Fox News did, I assume, poll a reasonable number of Republicans.
Seriously, how low can Bush go? I don't think he'll ever quite hit this number, but I remember seeing a poll that put Dick Cheney at 19% approval rating. That must be the percentage of Americans that will mindlessly support Bush or his affiliates no matter what.
(via Daily Kos)
FOX NEWS polls Bush @ a 36% approval rating.
Fox News did, I assume, poll a reasonable number of Republicans.
Seriously, how low can Bush go? I don't think he'll ever quite hit this number, but I remember seeing a poll that put Dick Cheney at 19% approval rating. That must be the percentage of Americans that will mindlessly support Bush or his affiliates no matter what.
(via Daily Kos)
November 10, 2005
More on the Paris Riots
Lots of people have been linking to this, but Juan Cole's piece on the subject is pretty damn key.
Lots of conservatives hate and deride Juan Cole, and this pretty much shows why--he sees right through them.
Lots of conservatives hate and deride Juan Cole, and this pretty much shows why--he sees right through them.
White Phosphorus Not Deadly Enough; We'll Just Have to Do Better
Paraphrase of Joe's argument refuting the contention that the use of white phosphorus was an employment of chemical weapons:
If we really wanted to kill us some civilians, we'd have showered real shit on thosetowelheads potential terrorists non-combatants. White phosphorus can't kill very many people at one time; therefore it's just dandy to use against living human beings that are not actively engaged in military activities.
2 points:
a) A chemical weapon is not necessarily a weapon of mass destruction. It is a weapon that employs chemical processes to "kill, injure or incapacitate the enemy." Lethalness is not the only criterion for classifying something a chemical weapon; there are significant moral reasons to avoid the use of things that cause non-lethal harm but are nevertheless physically and psychologically harmful. The army bragged about the psychological effects of this weapon and likely employed it partially for this purpose.
b) Joe is correct in saying that WP is not strong enough in most cases to kill and that with proper medical treatment will likely have no serious long-term effects. But proper medical treatment was extremely unlikely in this situation. Joe is also correct in saying that the United States is not party to any agreement that has expressly banned the use of WP. But that hardly makes it advisable or its use necessary.
The point is, the United States military used a chemical weapon that is on the borderline of legality when it didn't need to. The extent of the actual damage done is secondary to the fact that the United States is taking morally questionable actions repeatedly and without regard to international standards. That is not leadership. War is hell, but hell is not a destination we as a nation should be heading toward nor a locale we should be comfortable in.
If we really wanted to kill us some civilians, we'd have showered real shit on those
2 points:
a) A chemical weapon is not necessarily a weapon of mass destruction. It is a weapon that employs chemical processes to "kill, injure or incapacitate the enemy." Lethalness is not the only criterion for classifying something a chemical weapon; there are significant moral reasons to avoid the use of things that cause non-lethal harm but are nevertheless physically and psychologically harmful. The army bragged about the psychological effects of this weapon and likely employed it partially for this purpose.
b) Joe is correct in saying that WP is not strong enough in most cases to kill and that with proper medical treatment will likely have no serious long-term effects. But proper medical treatment was extremely unlikely in this situation. Joe is also correct in saying that the United States is not party to any agreement that has expressly banned the use of WP. But that hardly makes it advisable or its use necessary.
The point is, the United States military used a chemical weapon that is on the borderline of legality when it didn't need to. The extent of the actual damage done is secondary to the fact that the United States is taking morally questionable actions repeatedly and without regard to international standards. That is not leadership. War is hell, but hell is not a destination we as a nation should be heading toward nor a locale we should be comfortable in.
Criticism of the Greek System
I swear we didn't coordinate this, but Niral and I both wrote letters to the editor regarding Sarah del Nido's criticism of the Greek system.
Niral affirms the positive aspects of the support system present in Greek life and asks that future criticism of Greeks and the Greek system be less inclined to leap into hyperbole but rather focused on thorough research and clear-headed dialogue.
My op-ed is reacting more to the responses to del Nido of the past few days (here in particular, but here and here as well). My argument is that criticism--even of a politically correct nature--should not be shut out by being kept off the opinion pages or out of common discussion. My request is not that all Dartmouth students adhere to some rigid PC standard and constantly question their every action and motive. But I am requesting that when people do criticize our methods and motives, we don't attempt to shut them out by labelling them as "radical political correctness maniacs."
Unfortunately, the page editor deleted one clause that I think makes a fairly large difference. The beginning of the fifth paragraph reads:
Niral affirms the positive aspects of the support system present in Greek life and asks that future criticism of Greeks and the Greek system be less inclined to leap into hyperbole but rather focused on thorough research and clear-headed dialogue.
My op-ed is reacting more to the responses to del Nido of the past few days (here in particular, but here and here as well). My argument is that criticism--even of a politically correct nature--should not be shut out by being kept off the opinion pages or out of common discussion. My request is not that all Dartmouth students adhere to some rigid PC standard and constantly question their every action and motive. But I am requesting that when people do criticize our methods and motives, we don't attempt to shut them out by labelling them as "radical political correctness maniacs."
Unfortunately, the page editor deleted one clause that I think makes a fairly large difference. The beginning of the fifth paragraph reads:
I am not saying here that racism is rampant, classism common and sexism standard. I am saying that we cannot know anything about the presence, effects or extent of prejudice or inequality if we demonize our chastisers and pillory those who try to investigate our faults.I am not, in fact, so definite in my opinion of whether racism, classism, sexism, etc. are prevalent. I think it is not nearly as dire a situation as del Nido may believe, but it is far more present than many of us would like to recognize. My original sentence was far more agnostic:
I am not saying here that racism is rampant, classism common, and sexism standard—I hold my own opinion on that subject, but I will not burden you with it here.I actually hope someone writes in to challenge my "opinion" as it was printed--that is a conversation I hope is undertaken, not whether a "white trash" party is horrendously offensive or just in bad taste.
This is bad
US used white phosphorus on Fallujah.
White phosphorus is commonly understood to be a chemical weapon given its ugly propensity to burn flesh on contact and therefore killing or maiming those affected by it.
This claim--that white phosphorus was used in the siege of Fallujah--is indisputable given that the Army has already bragged about doing so.
White phosphorus is commonly understood to be a chemical weapon given its ugly propensity to burn flesh on contact and therefore killing or maiming those affected by it.
This claim--that white phosphorus was used in the siege of Fallujah--is indisputable given that the Army has already bragged about doing so.
White Phosphorous. WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired “shake and bake” missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out.The United States uses chemical weapons and torture methods in a war started on premises its leaders very likely knew were false.
November 9, 2005
And More Reviewery
Seal was right that TDR put out a pretty good issue this month, but there's still a lot of shit in there for which we should make fun of them. Enumerated:
1) Not one but two letters from College alumni who no longer hold any reasonable biological claim to life (Jack Cunningham '53, Jay Evans '49). Jack's letter says "I was also impressed by the letter to the editor written by Sarah Chaudry '07. Is this an example of how 'special' the new generation of classes are, of the results of diversification, or of the 'civilizing effect' on Dartmouth students by the presence of women on campus?" Probably he didn't actually write that per se, but I imagine he did babble "GOTDAMN RETARD TOWELHEAD BROADS" repeatedly while gesturing toward the letters page of the last issue with his colostomy bag, and his manservants did the best they could to transcribe it into letter form.
2) [removed].
3) All sorts of masturbatory self-calls. This is where they get to show off that fly '20s wit that gets those flapper hos all crunk up in this bitch.
4) An "Indian Shirts for Women!" ad that features three pictures of the only reasonably attractive girl that will talk to them looking awkward and doing this weird thing with a bow tie that's like is this supposed to be sexy, I don't know? The best part is the ad is clearly supposed to be a pastiche of a bunch of people wearing the shirts, but it's just the one girl doing the same thing over and over, facial expressions varying slightly from "sneer" to "smile-sneer." You seriously have to see this shit, it's hilarious. It's not on their website, but I'll scan it if I can.
5) Some absurdly overeager '09 kid writing about his travel misadventures missing a plane to Delaware. He missed a plane! Can you believe it? The best part is that the kid talks about his "pea-green ignorance" and allows that lecherous nerd Kale Bongers to kick him off a bed when there's not enough space in their hotel. "By the way," he says, "Kale's an '07 so you know what's next..."
Kid, you look like you weigh more than 95 pounds. Fuck that. You can kick Kale Bongers's ass. This isn't 1959, and nobody really gives a shit about your graduating class anymore. You been talking too much to Jack Cunningham. Next time Kale Bongers gives you any shit, you kick him in the fucking face.
6) And finally, a cover by that guy who used to draw the unintelligible non-superhero superhero comic strip for the D. But no more Col. James A. Donovan '39! Remember that guy? He'd draw those cartoons of like 3 old people standing around with one young black guy, and everybody's mouth is open and you can't tell who's talking, and the caption is something like "That ride has been decisively pimped." It baffled me for years; see, I THINK it's racist, but I don't even get it!
To their credit they got ahold of Carol Szurkowski '09, who is apparently pretty talented and knows what's up. She hasn't gone through Buckley's Magic Writing camp yet, so she doesn't even sound like a dandy from the 19th century. Thug on, Carol Szurkowski '09. Thug on.
1) Not one but two letters from College alumni who no longer hold any reasonable biological claim to life (Jack Cunningham '53, Jay Evans '49). Jack's letter says "I was also impressed by the letter to the editor written by Sarah Chaudry '07. Is this an example of how 'special' the new generation of classes are, of the results of diversification, or of the 'civilizing effect' on Dartmouth students by the presence of women on campus?" Probably he didn't actually write that per se, but I imagine he did babble "GOTDAMN RETARD TOWELHEAD BROADS" repeatedly while gesturing toward the letters page of the last issue with his colostomy bag, and his manservants did the best they could to transcribe it into letter form.
2) [removed].
3) All sorts of masturbatory self-calls. This is where they get to show off that fly '20s wit that gets those flapper hos all crunk up in this bitch.
4) An "Indian Shirts for Women!" ad that features three pictures of the only reasonably attractive girl that will talk to them looking awkward and doing this weird thing with a bow tie that's like is this supposed to be sexy, I don't know? The best part is the ad is clearly supposed to be a pastiche of a bunch of people wearing the shirts, but it's just the one girl doing the same thing over and over, facial expressions varying slightly from "sneer" to "smile-sneer." You seriously have to see this shit, it's hilarious. It's not on their website, but I'll scan it if I can.
5) Some absurdly overeager '09 kid writing about his travel misadventures missing a plane to Delaware. He missed a plane! Can you believe it? The best part is that the kid talks about his "pea-green ignorance" and allows that lecherous nerd Kale Bongers to kick him off a bed when there's not enough space in their hotel. "By the way," he says, "Kale's an '07 so you know what's next..."
Kid, you look like you weigh more than 95 pounds. Fuck that. You can kick Kale Bongers's ass. This isn't 1959, and nobody really gives a shit about your graduating class anymore. You been talking too much to Jack Cunningham. Next time Kale Bongers gives you any shit, you kick him in the fucking face.
6) And finally, a cover by that guy who used to draw the unintelligible non-superhero superhero comic strip for the D. But no more Col. James A. Donovan '39! Remember that guy? He'd draw those cartoons of like 3 old people standing around with one young black guy, and everybody's mouth is open and you can't tell who's talking, and the caption is something like "That ride has been decisively pimped." It baffled me for years; see, I THINK it's racist, but I don't even get it!
To their credit they got ahold of Carol Szurkowski '09, who is apparently pretty talented and knows what's up. She hasn't gone through Buckley's Magic Writing camp yet, so she doesn't even sound like a dandy from the 19th century. Thug on, Carol Szurkowski '09. Thug on.
First thing we do, let's outlaw all marriages
As Mother Jones has pointed out, those gay-hating Texans may have just passed a resolution that prevents the state from marrying anyone--gay, straight, or Texan.
Here is the actual text, and here is the relevant part:
Hair-splitting? Yeah, but everything's bigger in Texas.
Here is the actual text, and here is the relevant part:
Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.Clearly this is intended to mean that the state will not endorse new forms of marriage that are not between one man and one woman, but, ummm... that word "identical" seems to me to say that the state can't recognize "marriage" itself either. Marriage is after all identical to marriage.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
Hair-splitting? Yeah, but everything's bigger in Texas.
Also
If you are the sort of person who actually wants to know why riots are happening in France, you are probably the sort of person who should read this Afro-French chick's blog. It's been passed around a lot but it's quality.
"What is taking place in France today has been brewing for the past 30 years. People and especially young people who are constantly and incessantly faced with racism and marginalistion in their daily lives whether on the streets of the US, Europe, Palestine, apartheid South Africa, or Bolivia will eventually take to the streets. The riots are the outcome of a culmination of experiences and incidents over a period of time, they are not simply happening in a vacuum of nothingness."
Comin' straight from the underground
"What is taking place in France today has been brewing for the past 30 years. People and especially young people who are constantly and incessantly faced with racism and marginalistion in their daily lives whether on the streets of the US, Europe, Palestine, apartheid South Africa, or Bolivia will eventually take to the streets. The riots are the outcome of a culmination of experiences and incidents over a period of time, they are not simply happening in a vacuum of nothingness."
Comin' straight from the underground
The Agenda Gap is My Bitch
I think I might actually post this as a comment over on their page, too, just to show them how I'm the shit.
Now, this is sort of a problem, because Mike Herman used to go out with a friend of mine, and he's actually a pretty nice guy. So this all falls under the heading of "Mike, I like you, but." It's not like he's Glabe or somebody, where I feel completely comfortable throwing around words like "dogfucker."
That being said.
I'm not going to do that blog shit where you basically post a chatlog, cause I hate that, but there is some back-and-forth you should be aware of.
Anyway Seal gets on their page and is like "Yo d00d that guy was totally like giving an objective opinion and is right."
And Mike Herman goes No way bro like "to assert, without argument, that the Bush administration's actions were 'criminal' is clearly politicizing what was supposed to be a frank policy discussion on intelligence."
But before that he says "I am more than willing to agree with the statement that the Bush administration's statements in the run up to the invasion of Iraq were misleading, even false."
There's a law against that, homeskillet. US Code 18.1.19.371-Conspiracy. It says:
Section 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense
against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any
agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of
such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy,
each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
five years, or both.
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object
of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such
conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for
such misdemeanor.
Even if you don't treat the war deaths as a crime, they lied to appropriate US funds, and that shit can defitely be reasonably interpreted as criminal from an OBJECTIVE standpoint. Hence the discourse becomes a LEGAL discourse.
Let's say I rob a bank to get money for MoveOn or some shit. I did it for political ends, but if you are talking about whether I should go to jail or not, you're not talking about whether I was right to support MoveOn. You're talking about whether I could legally rob the bank. This is the legal discourse as opposed to the political.
Was Bush right in making war on Iraq? Some say yes, some say no- political. Did he break the law in doing it- legal.
Ergo, when homeboy said Bush was a criminal, he did that because he could back it up. Unlike some of us, Whatshisface is both educated and interested in the truth. Fuck it, I can say Truth.
As for Laurence Silberman, co-chairman of the Silberman-Robb Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, "I can remember" a time when Laurence Silberman (co-chairman of the Silberman-Robb Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction) wasn't a sycophantic horsefucker who is unfit to breathe the same air as my perceptive ass. Wait, no I can't! Get the fuck out, Laurence Silberman!
Now, this is sort of a problem, because Mike Herman used to go out with a friend of mine, and he's actually a pretty nice guy. So this all falls under the heading of "Mike, I like you, but." It's not like he's Glabe or somebody, where I feel completely comfortable throwing around words like "dogfucker."
That being said.
I'm not going to do that blog shit where you basically post a chatlog, cause I hate that, but there is some back-and-forth you should be aware of.
Anyway Seal gets on their page and is like "Yo d00d that guy was totally like giving an objective opinion and is right."
And Mike Herman goes No way bro like "to assert, without argument, that the Bush administration's actions were 'criminal' is clearly politicizing what was supposed to be a frank policy discussion on intelligence."
But before that he says "I am more than willing to agree with the statement that the Bush administration's statements in the run up to the invasion of Iraq were misleading, even false."
There's a law against that, homeskillet. US Code 18.1.19.371-Conspiracy. It says:
Section 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense
against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any
agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of
such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy,
each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
five years, or both.
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object
of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such
conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for
such misdemeanor.
Even if you don't treat the war deaths as a crime, they lied to appropriate US funds, and that shit can defitely be reasonably interpreted as criminal from an OBJECTIVE standpoint. Hence the discourse becomes a LEGAL discourse.
Let's say I rob a bank to get money for MoveOn or some shit. I did it for political ends, but if you are talking about whether I should go to jail or not, you're not talking about whether I was right to support MoveOn. You're talking about whether I could legally rob the bank. This is the legal discourse as opposed to the political.
Was Bush right in making war on Iraq? Some say yes, some say no- political. Did he break the law in doing it- legal.
Ergo, when homeboy said Bush was a criminal, he did that because he could back it up. Unlike some of us, Whatshisface is both educated and interested in the truth. Fuck it, I can say Truth.
As for Laurence Silberman, co-chairman of the Silberman-Robb Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, "I can remember" a time when Laurence Silberman (co-chairman of the Silberman-Robb Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction) wasn't a sycophantic horsefucker who is unfit to breathe the same air as my perceptive ass. Wait, no I can't! Get the fuck out, Laurence Silberman!
I wonder what the Review will say about this?
Dartmouth hires McKinsey to assess its efficiency.
Well, that's a good thing, definitely, but something Barry Scherr said makes me wonder if the Dartmouth administration won't get supersized rather than downsized:
Well, that's a good thing, definitely, but something Barry Scherr said makes me wonder if the Dartmouth administration won't get supersized rather than downsized:
"We hope to get some ideas for going forward as to what areas we might need to provide additional support to in terms of priority," Scherr said. "Our concern right now is to take a look and see if everything is located as effectively as it could be in terms of reporting structures and interactions with other offices."It would be unusual for an administrator to say that he's instituting a culling operation, but this isn't exactly your normal statement of "we're bringing in efficiency experts to see if we can streamline things around the office. Meet the Bobs."
O those annoying liberal professors
Michael Herman joins the herd of critics that would keep all liberal sentiments off the lips of professors. Problem is, some liberal sentiments may be factual statements or even professional opinions.
He complains that Ned Lebow, in a panel discussion on "The Future of U.S. Intelligence and National Security," (which Malchow confuses with the torture debate--telling, isn't it?) politicized the debate by saying, "What they have committed is not an intelligence failure but a fundamentally criminal act." Some doofus probably on Bush's payroll said in reply, "I can remember a time at Dartmouth when college professors -- government professors -- didn't make political speeches."
I can remember a time when a professional opinion wasn't always a political speech. Ned Lebow is not only one of the best scholars in the Govy department, he is also probably one of the most informed professors in America on US intelligence, and he just may have been speaking as an expert, stating not a politicized fear but what may indeed prove to be true--that the administration purposely falsified or accepted evidence understood to be falsified and peddled it to the American people to further its agenda. This isn't politically driven criticism, it's analysis.
And speaking of politicized fear-mongering, check out the quote at the end of the D article: "While America is now the world's only superpower, there is no certainty that this will be an American century as the last one surely was," [John] McLaughlin said. That is an attempt at a scare tactic--a prophecy and not an analysis.
Point is, just because there are political implications to a statement doesn't make it a political tirade. Get over yourselves, people. Sometimes there are such things as objective facts or objective claims, even in politics.
He complains that Ned Lebow, in a panel discussion on "The Future of U.S. Intelligence and National Security," (which Malchow confuses with the torture debate--telling, isn't it?) politicized the debate by saying, "What they have committed is not an intelligence failure but a fundamentally criminal act." Some doofus probably on Bush's payroll said in reply, "I can remember a time at Dartmouth when college professors -- government professors -- didn't make political speeches."
I can remember a time when a professional opinion wasn't always a political speech. Ned Lebow is not only one of the best scholars in the Govy department, he is also probably one of the most informed professors in America on US intelligence, and he just may have been speaking as an expert, stating not a politicized fear but what may indeed prove to be true--that the administration purposely falsified or accepted evidence understood to be falsified and peddled it to the American people to further its agenda. This isn't politically driven criticism, it's analysis.
And speaking of politicized fear-mongering, check out the quote at the end of the D article: "While America is now the world's only superpower, there is no certainty that this will be an American century as the last one surely was," [John] McLaughlin said. That is an attempt at a scare tactic--a prophecy and not an analysis.
Point is, just because there are political implications to a statement doesn't make it a political tirade. Get over yourselves, people. Sometimes there are such things as objective facts or objective claims, even in politics.
November 8, 2005
A referendum?
The popular tag in the media has been that this year's gubernatorial races are a referendum on Bush's presidency, especially in Virginia.
Well, with most precincts reporting, Democrat Jon Corzine has beaten Republican Doug Forrester in New Jersey, 54% to 43%.
In Virginia, Democrat Tim Kaine has beaten Republican Jerry Kilgore, 51% to 47%.
Both races were damn ugly and damn expensive, but the low-ethics award definitely goes to Kilgore, who sucks, and probably has no political future. (Actually, the no future thing probably applies to Forrester as well).
The Governator is expecting his 4 ballot proposals to get rejected.
On the other hand, the democrats as expected, didn't win New York, as moderate Republican Bloomberg was re-elected.
Also, Texas chose to ban gay marriage, which was also expected. Uh, way to go Texas? These things are somewhat irrelevant, because eventually gay marriage will go to the supreme court and this shit will get overturned. Also, the intelligent design people won some kind of victory. Also irrelevant. I mean, they can feel like they won something, but its not like any more people believe their shit than before.
So, anyway, I'm ambivalent about most of this, including New Jersey (because I don't particularly like Corzine), and am happy about Virginia. I just thought you'd like to know.
Edit (Andrew): Advocates of intelligent design were soundly defeated in Dover, PA (the site of the ongoing "Scopes II" trial. Yay science.
Well, with most precincts reporting, Democrat Jon Corzine has beaten Republican Doug Forrester in New Jersey, 54% to 43%.
In Virginia, Democrat Tim Kaine has beaten Republican Jerry Kilgore, 51% to 47%.
Both races were damn ugly and damn expensive, but the low-ethics award definitely goes to Kilgore, who sucks, and probably has no political future. (Actually, the no future thing probably applies to Forrester as well).
The Governator is expecting his 4 ballot proposals to get rejected.
On the other hand, the democrats as expected, didn't win New York, as moderate Republican Bloomberg was re-elected.
Also, Texas chose to ban gay marriage, which was also expected. Uh, way to go Texas? These things are somewhat irrelevant, because eventually gay marriage will go to the supreme court and this shit will get overturned. Also, the intelligent design people won some kind of victory. Also irrelevant. I mean, they can feel like they won something, but its not like any more people believe their shit than before.
So, anyway, I'm ambivalent about most of this, including New Jersey (because I don't particularly like Corzine), and am happy about Virginia. I just thought you'd like to know.
Edit (Andrew): Advocates of intelligent design were soundly defeated in Dover, PA (the site of the ongoing "Scopes II" trial. Yay science.
Vatican to Intelligent Design: Get a Life
Benedict says, "Didn't you get the memo? We're moving into the 19th century, dumbasses."
No seriously, for the first time in awhile, I'm proud to be a Catholic on a contentious theological issue.
Vatican says God thinks evolution's a great idea.
Even more encouraging is that, in affirming evolution, the Vatican purposely pointed to its mistakes with Galileo. Given that the Vatican doesn't "make" mistakes, that's cool.
Update: Unfortunately, though, Kansas has just passed new standards that use language that specifically attempt to discredit evolution. And don't forget about the Pennsylvania case where a judge will "rule soon in a lawsuit against a school district policy that requires science teachers to say that evolution is unproven."
Umm. Put me and a copy of Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery on the stand we'll take care of this whole "unproven=uncertain" bullshit right away. (read the Popper link for an explanation)
No seriously, for the first time in awhile, I'm proud to be a Catholic on a contentious theological issue.
Vatican says God thinks evolution's a great idea.
Even more encouraging is that, in affirming evolution, the Vatican purposely pointed to its mistakes with Galileo. Given that the Vatican doesn't "make" mistakes, that's cool.
Update: Unfortunately, though, Kansas has just passed new standards that use language that specifically attempt to discredit evolution. And don't forget about the Pennsylvania case where a judge will "rule soon in a lawsuit against a school district policy that requires science teachers to say that evolution is unproven."
Umm. Put me and a copy of Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery on the stand we'll take care of this whole "unproven=uncertain" bullshit right away. (read the Popper link for an explanation)
My Favorite Part
of the Pat Buchanan article Seal cited was when Pat said
"These newcomers worship a different God and practice a faith historically hostile to Christianity, a traditionalist faith that is rising again and recoils violently from a secular culture saturated in sex."
Traditionalist religious fanatics? Recoiling from secular culture, saturated in sex? Does this sound familiar to anybody?
"America is locked in a cultural war for the soul of our country," he writes on his web site. We've got "filthy art financed by our tax dollars. Television steeped in raw sex and romanticized violence. Movies that mock religious faith. Rock concerts that extol lust and cop-killing." So wait, this isn't the war between us and the brown ones; I guess this is the one between the Good Christians and everybody else. Fuck him for demonizing Muslim extremists when they do the same shit that he's trying to do. They want to roll things back to 1250, and he wants to roll them back to 1850- the only difference is in degree.
You know what? I'll say it. I love culture when it's steeped in sex, because sex is pure and visceral and gorgeous. I love movies that mock religious faith, because religious faith is for the most part pretty stupid. And I would listen to songs that extol cop-killing if most of them weren't by Ice-T, who sucks. Buchanan's railings against secularists, Muslims, and anybody else seem to be purely the result of his frustrations that we're not all content with fucking Leave it to Beaver anymore.
Fuck off, Pat. Fuck off back to your potlucks and your Wal-Marts and your Megachurches. Me, and the rest of blue-state America, are going to enjoy art and sex and difference, and it isn't our empire that will be brought down from within.
"These newcomers worship a different God and practice a faith historically hostile to Christianity, a traditionalist faith that is rising again and recoils violently from a secular culture saturated in sex."
Traditionalist religious fanatics? Recoiling from secular culture, saturated in sex? Does this sound familiar to anybody?
"America is locked in a cultural war for the soul of our country," he writes on his web site. We've got "filthy art financed by our tax dollars. Television steeped in raw sex and romanticized violence. Movies that mock religious faith. Rock concerts that extol lust and cop-killing." So wait, this isn't the war between us and the brown ones; I guess this is the one between the Good Christians and everybody else. Fuck him for demonizing Muslim extremists when they do the same shit that he's trying to do. They want to roll things back to 1250, and he wants to roll them back to 1850- the only difference is in degree.
You know what? I'll say it. I love culture when it's steeped in sex, because sex is pure and visceral and gorgeous. I love movies that mock religious faith, because religious faith is for the most part pretty stupid. And I would listen to songs that extol cop-killing if most of them weren't by Ice-T, who sucks. Buchanan's railings against secularists, Muslims, and anybody else seem to be purely the result of his frustrations that we're not all content with fucking Leave it to Beaver anymore.
Fuck off, Pat. Fuck off back to your potlucks and your Wal-Marts and your Megachurches. Me, and the rest of blue-state America, are going to enjoy art and sex and difference, and it isn't our empire that will be brought down from within.
Paris Intifada meme = Xenophobic Reduction
WaPo blog link
Joe seems to forget that in most of the world (and in the minds and pens of many Americans), it is America that is criticized for its consistency in resorting to violence. America isn't really on the moral high ground here, and xenophobic attempts to claim it are caustically wrongheaded and counterproductive--the attitude that the rioters are merely displaced potential jihadists is likely to be a self-fulfilling prophecy if no effort is made to actually address the sources of the violence.
Perhaps I don't know what "liberal tolerance" is, because this ain't it. The French "integration" policies amount to no more than feigned tolerance--segregation rather than acceptance, isolation rather than empowerment. The French model of "integration" was abandonment with a smile. Intolerance and exclusion is not the opposite of this mock tolerance--actual concern and dialogue is. Better ways of integration through self-empowerment are needed, not new ways of alienating through exclusion.
Edit: One more article advocating what amounts to forcible assimilationism, from Pat Buchanan. He contrasts Arabs in Europe with blacks in America--'we sure assimilated those negroes and look how well that's turned out' is the force of his argument. Interestingly enough, the man never mentions the minor historical detail of slavery. He ends with "Colonization of the mother countries by subject peoples is the last chapter in the history of empires—and the next chapter in the history of the West—that is now coming to a close." He opens with a comparison to Rome and the barbarians. The really scary thing is that this type of rhetoric has traction in a lot of the West (including on Joe Malchow's blog). Buchanan's penultimate paragraph raises the specter of the influx of Mexicans and Hispanics.
Point of contrast: if assimilationism is so great, why don't conservatives shut the hell up about liberal bias on campuses. Try fucking assimilating for a change if you think it's such a smashing good idea!
"End of the Western Empire"--I think I just threw up a little bit in my mouth.
Further edit: As a friend points out over email, Buchanan's claims that blacks "[while] not integrated fully into our economy or society... had been assimilated into American culture" by the 1950s mean that he is entirely ignorant of American cultural history, of African-American cultural history, and of history history. This entirely elides the uniqueness and distinctness of African-American Christianity, music, comedy, and even dialect. It also elides the more militant aspects of the Civil Rights movement, glossing over the real turmoil as if the 1950s and 1960s were a period of gradual change. Where the fuck was he in the 60s?
The explosion of violence in France has taken place after four years of "zero-tolerance" law enforcement policies of France's two leading conservatives, Prime Minister Dominique Villepin and Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy. Their strategy has included measures that U.S. conservatives would probably look on with favor, including tighter visa controls, curfews, and police checkpoints in crime-ridden neighborhoods...I don't mean to stop at saying, "Look--It's conservatives screwing up again." My point is to counter opinions like Joe Malchow's that want to put this all on liberal tolerance of other cultures and more importantly on the inherent nature of Islam. Joe says, "I've no clue, no lead as to what to make of all this. I do, however, know that even more permissiveness on the part of the West for an ideology that is pretty consistent in its resort to violence is not the answer."
The problem is that some Americans assume all French politicians must be social liberals because a solid majority of the country opposed the Iraq war. But Sarkozy is among the most pro-American of French politicians. Villepin, Sarkozy's boss and rival for leadership of the French right, is remembered by Americans as the voice of French opposition to the invasion of Iraq. But in domestic politics, he is on the right. Villepin implemented many of the "zero tolerance" policies when he served as Interior Minister in 2004.
Joe seems to forget that in most of the world (and in the minds and pens of many Americans), it is America that is criticized for its consistency in resorting to violence. America isn't really on the moral high ground here, and xenophobic attempts to claim it are caustically wrongheaded and counterproductive--the attitude that the rioters are merely displaced potential jihadists is likely to be a self-fulfilling prophecy if no effort is made to actually address the sources of the violence.
Perhaps I don't know what "liberal tolerance" is, because this ain't it. The French "integration" policies amount to no more than feigned tolerance--segregation rather than acceptance, isolation rather than empowerment. The French model of "integration" was abandonment with a smile. Intolerance and exclusion is not the opposite of this mock tolerance--actual concern and dialogue is. Better ways of integration through self-empowerment are needed, not new ways of alienating through exclusion.
Edit: One more article advocating what amounts to forcible assimilationism, from Pat Buchanan. He contrasts Arabs in Europe with blacks in America--'we sure assimilated those negroes and look how well that's turned out' is the force of his argument. Interestingly enough, the man never mentions the minor historical detail of slavery. He ends with "Colonization of the mother countries by subject peoples is the last chapter in the history of empires—and the next chapter in the history of the West—that is now coming to a close." He opens with a comparison to Rome and the barbarians. The really scary thing is that this type of rhetoric has traction in a lot of the West (including on Joe Malchow's blog). Buchanan's penultimate paragraph raises the specter of the influx of Mexicans and Hispanics.
Point of contrast: if assimilationism is so great, why don't conservatives shut the hell up about liberal bias on campuses. Try fucking assimilating for a change if you think it's such a smashing good idea!
"End of the Western Empire"--I think I just threw up a little bit in my mouth.
Further edit: As a friend points out over email, Buchanan's claims that blacks "[while] not integrated fully into our economy or society... had been assimilated into American culture" by the 1950s mean that he is entirely ignorant of American cultural history, of African-American cultural history, and of history history. This entirely elides the uniqueness and distinctness of African-American Christianity, music, comedy, and even dialect. It also elides the more militant aspects of the Civil Rights movement, glossing over the real turmoil as if the 1950s and 1960s were a period of gradual change. Where the fuck was he in the 60s?
Finance Committee Investigator Attacked
"Emilia DiSanto, chief investigator for Finance Committee Chairman, Sen. Chuck Grassley, was accosted outside her home last Wednesday evening and beaten repeatedly with a baseball bat...Investigators seem to believe that the attack was related to her work on the hill." (Talking Points Memo)
The Hill gingerly makes a connection to the fact that Grassley is investigating Jack Abramoff, who is already tied up in a murder investigation.
The Hill gingerly makes a connection to the fact that Grassley is investigating Jack Abramoff, who is already tied up in a murder investigation.
Review Reviewed III
Damn good issue. Honestly.
The reporting on the Appleton-Folt fiasco and on the Hanover-Norwich talks about Tubestock and the analyses of the Homecoming Alumni elections and of Dartmouth's drinking culture are all well-written and well-thought out.
The worst I can say is that the Review seems to have all of a sudden found a new tack to criticize Jim Wright, one that misleads more than it helps.
Basically, it has been the Review's bread and butter to criticize Wright's policies as if they are a cohesive package designed to rip Dartmouth's traditions to shreds and leave us a second-rate research institution--a pinewood Harvard, without frats, without manliness, without a focus on the undergraduate experience, without school pride.
But now, in this issue's editorial, a sea change has apparently occurred in the Review's understanding of Jim Wright's psychology--rather than a calculating menace to our hallowed traditions, he's the "devil you don't know."
Well holy shit, I would think that after writing about him extensively for what is it--seven years?--they might have gotten to "know" him a bit. Rather than the bane of all beer-drinking and the king of keg-condemning, he's now a man without priorities and without a vision.
The point they should have made was not that Wright, Folt, and Grenoble lack a clear set of priorities, but that their priorities are wrongly arranged. The fact that students' (and their donor-parents') complaints are prized above academic freedom and intellectual honesty is the problem, not Wright's putative vacillations. The Folt-Appleton deal is not evidence that the administration is trying to "please everyone;" it is manifest evidence that they are trying to please the wrong people. There was no effort "to please everyone," for it is the lack of effort to "please" or even consult with Appleton that is the ugly heart of the matter.
There is a definite policy--alumni pressure (or just plain $$$) trumps all. It is strange that the Review advocates so strongly for alumni pressure--perhaps the change in direction of their criticism of Wright is merely a way to avoid saying that alumni need to butt out a bit.
The point is not that Wright's policies are ad hoc but that they are in hock to money and therefore share little with professors or students.
This new attack on Wright et al. is confusing in its inconsistency with previous criticisms, incorrect in its logic, and leads us farther away from the problem rather than closer to it.
The reporting on the Appleton-Folt fiasco and on the Hanover-Norwich talks about Tubestock and the analyses of the Homecoming Alumni elections and of Dartmouth's drinking culture are all well-written and well-thought out.
The worst I can say is that the Review seems to have all of a sudden found a new tack to criticize Jim Wright, one that misleads more than it helps.
Basically, it has been the Review's bread and butter to criticize Wright's policies as if they are a cohesive package designed to rip Dartmouth's traditions to shreds and leave us a second-rate research institution--a pinewood Harvard, without frats, without manliness, without a focus on the undergraduate experience, without school pride.
But now, in this issue's editorial, a sea change has apparently occurred in the Review's understanding of Jim Wright's psychology--rather than a calculating menace to our hallowed traditions, he's the "devil you don't know."
Well holy shit, I would think that after writing about him extensively for what is it--seven years?--they might have gotten to "know" him a bit. Rather than the bane of all beer-drinking and the king of keg-condemning, he's now a man without priorities and without a vision.
Lacking a core vision for the College, Wright resorts instead to attempting to be all things to all people, never makes a tough decision unless forced to, and reverses course whenever convenient according to the currents of campus politics.Is he really attempting to please everyone, cuz I thought the Review was kinda pissed off at him, and not (until this issue) at his flip-floppery, but at those very policies that he has most proudly advanced.
The point they should have made was not that Wright, Folt, and Grenoble lack a clear set of priorities, but that their priorities are wrongly arranged. The fact that students' (and their donor-parents') complaints are prized above academic freedom and intellectual honesty is the problem, not Wright's putative vacillations. The Folt-Appleton deal is not evidence that the administration is trying to "please everyone;" it is manifest evidence that they are trying to please the wrong people. There was no effort "to please everyone," for it is the lack of effort to "please" or even consult with Appleton that is the ugly heart of the matter.
There is a definite policy--alumni pressure (or just plain $$$) trumps all. It is strange that the Review advocates so strongly for alumni pressure--perhaps the change in direction of their criticism of Wright is merely a way to avoid saying that alumni need to butt out a bit.
The point is not that Wright's policies are ad hoc but that they are in hock to money and therefore share little with professors or students.
This new attack on Wright et al. is confusing in its inconsistency with previous criticisms, incorrect in its logic, and leads us farther away from the problem rather than closer to it.
November 7, 2005
DFP 6.4--Bitches, Fetishes, and John Edwards
- We Have Not Yet Overcome: In Memory of Rosa Parks
- They Call Them "Bitches": Discussing Sexual Assault in Frat Basements
- John Edwards: Interview and Info on Project Opportunity
- You Don't Need a Weatherman...: Effects of Bad Environmental Policy
- Alone in a Sandstorm: Dahr Jamail in Iraq
- Loose Lips Libby: Worse Than Watergate?
- Refugees in Morocco: An Under-Reported Crisis
- Embracing the F-Word: Women's Rights Battles Left to Fight
- Fear and Fetish: Some Sexual Taboos Explored
- Commonshare 6.4
Edit: The Jamail interview is a must-read about what's really going on in Iraq, and I'm not just saying that because it's written by fellow LGBlogger Niral Shah.
Please ignore the torture victim behind the curtain...
Just in case you didn't get the actual text of what Bush said today (which is being stuffed into headlines as "We do not torture."), here it is in its larger context (emphasis added):
Our country is at war, and our government has the obligation to protect the American people. The executive branch has the obligation to protect the American people; the legislative branch has the obligation to protect the American people. And we are aggressively doing that. We are finding terrorists and bringing them to justice. We are gathering information about where the terrorists may be hiding. We are trying to disrupt their plots and plans. Anything we do to that effort, to that end, in this effort, any activity we conduct, is within the law. We do not torture.
Pining for a Revolution
Daniel Belkin has an op-ed in today's issue of The Dartmouth that trips over itself a bit, but comes out and says that casting the Trustee elections, the Homecoming debacle, etc. in terms of a tug-o-war of left and right is a little overplayed, though not entirely discountable.
I said similar things earlier this fall, but I want to extend what I had to say, which was primarily directed to a liberal audience, as this will be:
If this is an attempted coup by right wing reactionaries, it's not difficult to uncover the subterfuge--work with these "insurgents" and the constituency they represent to actually meet their needs. If they try to push us to the wall, fight like hell. Our values are well worth fighting for, but it is too early to declare them in imminent danger.
I believe that the petition trustees may have caught a bit of a 'take back the college' wave that is essentially conservative, but the platforms of the candidates have not been ideologically anathema to anything we say we stand for, with the possible exception of some background noise about identity politics. But that is a topic we should engage with "them" on--we have the moral as well as the pragmatic high ground, I believe.
We should beware the Greeks bearing gifts, but we should also pay attention to the Cassandras telling us our ways just aren't good enough.
I said similar things earlier this fall, but I want to extend what I had to say, which was primarily directed to a liberal audience, as this will be:
If this is an attempted coup by right wing reactionaries, it's not difficult to uncover the subterfuge--work with these "insurgents" and the constituency they represent to actually meet their needs. If they try to push us to the wall, fight like hell. Our values are well worth fighting for, but it is too early to declare them in imminent danger.
I believe that the petition trustees may have caught a bit of a 'take back the college' wave that is essentially conservative, but the platforms of the candidates have not been ideologically anathema to anything we say we stand for, with the possible exception of some background noise about identity politics. But that is a topic we should engage with "them" on--we have the moral as well as the pragmatic high ground, I believe.
We should beware the Greeks bearing gifts, but we should also pay attention to the Cassandras telling us our ways just aren't good enough.
Virginia, New Jersey--VOTE!
If you have a vote in the states of Virginia or New Jersey, for G-d's sake, vote.
New Jersey:
Polls: Corzine leads 52-45%, picking up two points since the last poll, but his opponent, Doug Forrester picked up seven (38-->45%).
Virginia:
Polls:
Rasmussen: Kaine (D) 49%
Kilgore (R) 46%
Margin of Error 3%
Shenanigans (Republican):
Endorsement:
WaPo: "Mr. Kaine offers a path forward, while Mr. Kilgore represents a return to the past."
(Hat tip for all links to DailyKos)
Elections tomorrow.
Or, if you don't really like politics, you can submit your idea here for the new New Jersey state slogan.
"Perfect together" apparently is getting a little too hot with all this crazy talk of dudes marrying each other.
Update: Corzine 50 - Forrester 44 ; Kaine 52 - Kilgore 43
New Jersey:
Polls: Corzine leads 52-45%, picking up two points since the last poll, but his opponent, Doug Forrester picked up seven (38-->45%).
Virginia:
Polls:
Rasmussen: Kaine (D) 49%
Kilgore (R) 46%
Margin of Error 3%
Shenanigans (Republican):
- Fake "Democratic Voter Guide" paid for by Kilgore to encourage progressive voters to vote for independent Potts
- Disingenuous automatic calls claiming to be from the Kaine campaign but really from Kilgore's camp
Endorsement:
WaPo: "Mr. Kaine offers a path forward, while Mr. Kilgore represents a return to the past."
(Hat tip for all links to DailyKos)
Elections tomorrow.
Or, if you don't really like politics, you can submit your idea here for the new New Jersey state slogan.
"Perfect together" apparently is getting a little too hot with all this crazy talk of dudes marrying each other.
Update: Corzine 50 - Forrester 44 ; Kaine 52 - Kilgore 43
Tornado Alley
In the latest of "worst [insert natural disaster] since [considerable time ago]," my beloved home state of Indiana (and parts of Kentucky) has been hit by a vicious tornado, killing 22 people and injuring more than two hundred others.
One of the most tasteless jokes I've ever heard involved trailer parks' magnetic ability to call down tornados--"God's way of cleaning out the trash" I think was the gist. I'd like to say that's just a sick sense of humor at work, but I think that, as in many people's reactions to the devastation of the poor in New Orleans, a sickening amount of people's first reaction is "Well, they shouldn't have been living in a trailer. Don't they know better than that?" or "Dumbasses should have known to get the hell out before the storm."
This tornado did hit a trailer park and that was where most of the deaths occurred. I haven't seen any reactions like those I described above, but I'll bet some people are thinking something along those lines. It's the same kind of thinking that would cut off all welfare and tell people "to get a fucking job." It's the type of thinking that utterly fails to recognize that sometimes, those in the tornado's path or in Katrina's path have nowhere to go or at least nowhere they think they can go. And there are reasons why people live in trailer parks, and few of them are voluntary ones or matters of taste.
Natural disasters do not affect people equally. They hurt those most vulnerable the most deeply. Laughing at that ugly fact or satisfying ourselves by explaining it all away in terms of the victims' stupidity, indolence, or bad luck is not constructive. I would say it is morally repugnant.
One of the most tasteless jokes I've ever heard involved trailer parks' magnetic ability to call down tornados--"God's way of cleaning out the trash" I think was the gist. I'd like to say that's just a sick sense of humor at work, but I think that, as in many people's reactions to the devastation of the poor in New Orleans, a sickening amount of people's first reaction is "Well, they shouldn't have been living in a trailer. Don't they know better than that?" or "Dumbasses should have known to get the hell out before the storm."
This tornado did hit a trailer park and that was where most of the deaths occurred. I haven't seen any reactions like those I described above, but I'll bet some people are thinking something along those lines. It's the same kind of thinking that would cut off all welfare and tell people "to get a fucking job." It's the type of thinking that utterly fails to recognize that sometimes, those in the tornado's path or in Katrina's path have nowhere to go or at least nowhere they think they can go. And there are reasons why people live in trailer parks, and few of them are voluntary ones or matters of taste.
Natural disasters do not affect people equally. They hurt those most vulnerable the most deeply. Laughing at that ugly fact or satisfying ourselves by explaining it all away in terms of the victims' stupidity, indolence, or bad luck is not constructive. I would say it is morally repugnant.
Viva Las Vegas; Mueran Los Dedos
This is from a few days ago, but I just read it (as I've just gotten home from Dublin).
"I'm saying maybe you put them [graffiti "artists"] on TV and cut off a thumb," the mayor said. "That may be the right thing to do."Wow, and they only break the thumbs of pool sharks. Rough.
November 6, 2005
Bush and Chavez on Social Justice
CNN reports that President Bush, in Brazil, urged the government of President Lula to back and encourage democracy. Georgey, using rhetoric especially tailored for Latin America, stated that to ensure social justice, nations must choose between two visions. One is a "vision of hope," based in representative government. The other is anti-democratic and fear-based, "blaming others for their own failures to provide for the people."
Clearly, this is a dig at Chavez, and Castro too, although he's increasingly irrelevant with each passing day. The rhetoric is amusing because Chavez too calls for a need for nations to choose between competing visions. In the mind of Chavez, and many South Americans, nations must choose between a vision of hope that protects people from the failings of the market, provides essential services and unlimited opportunity to all people - essentially, democratic market socialism. The other option is the government of fear and desperation, the grim world of imperialistic capitalism that prides itself on efficiency and ignores the terrors of the externality.
Both of these men, whether railing at each other, the UN, or the nefarious and vague sources of "evil" out in the world, are prone to absurd hyperbole. I find it remarkable that, while villainizing each other, they both seem to make damn good points. Chavez isn't quite the dictator the western media has made him out to be. He is heavy-handed, however, and despite the popular support he now enjoys, not all of his suspect actions can be justified by post-coup necessity to enforce security measures. On that note, capitalism isn't quite the bitch Chavez makes it out to be. A little more democracy, a little more fairness mixed in with economic growth - its not much to ask.
It is appropriate that Bush made this speech with Lula by his side. The Worker's Party, current scandals aside, came to power through a network of small grassroots-level political organization that effectively engaged diverse segments of the public and galvanized effective political action. It puts American democracy to shame in that sense, and this is a much better version of democracy to be trumpeted and spread abroad. Simultaneously, Lula has been trying to move the ruling coalition towards much needed anti-poverty reforms and programs.
In my opinion, Chavez and Bush both need to chill the fuck out, and start looking around, past their yes-men and past their ideology, if they really have any interest in this social justice business.
Clearly, this is a dig at Chavez, and Castro too, although he's increasingly irrelevant with each passing day. The rhetoric is amusing because Chavez too calls for a need for nations to choose between competing visions. In the mind of Chavez, and many South Americans, nations must choose between a vision of hope that protects people from the failings of the market, provides essential services and unlimited opportunity to all people - essentially, democratic market socialism. The other option is the government of fear and desperation, the grim world of imperialistic capitalism that prides itself on efficiency and ignores the terrors of the externality.Both of these men, whether railing at each other, the UN, or the nefarious and vague sources of "evil" out in the world, are prone to absurd hyperbole. I find it remarkable that, while villainizing each other, they both seem to make damn good points. Chavez isn't quite the dictator the western media has made him out to be. He is heavy-handed, however, and despite the popular support he now enjoys, not all of his suspect actions can be justified by post-coup necessity to enforce security measures. On that note, capitalism isn't quite the bitch Chavez makes it out to be. A little more democracy, a little more fairness mixed in with economic growth - its not much to ask.
It is appropriate that Bush made this speech with Lula by his side. The Worker's Party, current scandals aside, came to power through a network of small grassroots-level political organization that effectively engaged diverse segments of the public and galvanized effective political action. It puts American democracy to shame in that sense, and this is a much better version of democracy to be trumpeted and spread abroad. Simultaneously, Lula has been trying to move the ruling coalition towards much needed anti-poverty reforms and programs.In my opinion, Chavez and Bush both need to chill the fuck out, and start looking around, past their yes-men and past their ideology, if they really have any interest in this social justice business.
November 5, 2005
Paris
I don't know why this is buried so far down on the NYT today.
African and Arab Parisians have been rioting for a few days now and it's starting to spread. Obviously riots are always bad, but when you have an immigration policy as bad as France's, you're kind of asking for it. Plus the cops in France are mad racist. Hell, I don't think it's a stretch to say that most white people in France are mad racist.
I realize this is gallows humor, but isn't the modern race riot kind of an American export? Li'l ironic in a country that tries so hard to keep out English and McDonalds...
African and Arab Parisians have been rioting for a few days now and it's starting to spread. Obviously riots are always bad, but when you have an immigration policy as bad as France's, you're kind of asking for it. Plus the cops in France are mad racist. Hell, I don't think it's a stretch to say that most white people in France are mad racist.
I realize this is gallows humor, but isn't the modern race riot kind of an American export? Li'l ironic in a country that tries so hard to keep out English and McDonalds...
This is About Trade
While the most violent of the protesting occurred miles from where Bush was speaking or staying, there is no way he could have remained sheltered from reality this time. As he advocated the Free Trade of the Americas plan, popular opinion in the region was behind Hugo Chavez, who called the location of the protests the economic plan's tomb.
In addition to about 30,000 peaceful demonstrators, some kicked in store windows and set small fires on the street, doing minor property damage for the most part, causing no injuries.
The seething contempt for Bush is in no small part a result of the decision to go to war in Iraq, but in Argentina, much of this was also a rejection of greater American influence in the economic sphere. As South American leaders have been meeting to develop a regional trade bloc of their own, President Kirchner of Argentina has been demanding that the IMF undergo deep structural reform, and "change that direction which took it from being a lender for development to a creditor demanding privileges."
Little was achieved at the summit, and meanwhile, Bush was asked four times at the press conference about Turd Blossom (Rove). Bush refused comment.
November 4, 2005
No Oil for Pork
So the Senate voted to open up Alaska to drilling, and then basically outlawed the exportation of any oil extracted therefrom.
I suppose as an environmentally conscious liberal I'm supposed to be indignant about this and calling my Senators from Ireland, but my real concern is that, pragmatically, it doesn't make much sense.
If it will have little real effect on prices, if the productivity will not reach its peak for 10 years, then the real benefits are to the construction companies who will be building the facilities, not to the American public. In addition, this will likely take some public pressure (not that there was much anyway) off Bush and the oil companies to develop alternative sources of energy. "Just wait for the ANWR oil," they'll say.
Yeah, and some real estate just opened up on the Brooklyn Bridge.
I suppose as an environmentally conscious liberal I'm supposed to be indignant about this and calling my Senators from Ireland, but my real concern is that, pragmatically, it doesn't make much sense.
But no oil is likely to flow from ANWR for 10 years and peak production of about 1 million barrels a day isn't expected until about 2025, according to the Energy Department. Currently, the United States used about 20 million barrels of oil a day. Environmentalists have cited a report by DOE's Energy Information Administration that concluded that ANWR oil would only slightly affect gasoline prices and marginally lower the growth of imports by 2025, when imported oil would account for 64 percent of U.S. demand instead of 68 percent without ANWR's oil.Basically, I think this is more about pork than oil.
If it will have little real effect on prices, if the productivity will not reach its peak for 10 years, then the real benefits are to the construction companies who will be building the facilities, not to the American public. In addition, this will likely take some public pressure (not that there was much anyway) off Bush and the oil companies to develop alternative sources of energy. "Just wait for the ANWR oil," they'll say.
Yeah, and some real estate just opened up on the Brooklyn Bridge.
November 3, 2005
No Country for Old Men
I'm heading to Ireland for the weekend, but I may get a chance to do a post or two from there.
In the meantime, I'll satisfy the "Republicans are stupid" category for the next few days with this utter demolition of Michelle Malkin's credibility as a 'journalist'
And here are some badass poll numbers.
Public believes CIA leak more serious than Watergate, Iran Contra, or Monica Lewinsky/Watergate
and
If it becomes clear Alito would vote to reverse Roe v. Wade, Americans would not want the Senate to confirm him, by 53% to 37%.
O, and Bush is now at 35% approval rating according to CBS.
In the meantime, I'll satisfy the "Republicans are stupid" category for the next few days with this utter demolition of Michelle Malkin's credibility as a 'journalist'
And here are some badass poll numbers.
Public believes CIA leak more serious than Watergate, Iran Contra, or Monica Lewinsky/Watergate
and
If it becomes clear Alito would vote to reverse Roe v. Wade, Americans would not want the Senate to confirm him, by 53% to 37%.
O, and Bush is now at 35% approval rating according to CBS.
November 2, 2005
Notre Dame: We Like Our Coaches Weis
A little sports blogging...Last year, Notre Dame fired head coach Tyrone Willingham after his third year of coaching.
This year, after seven games, Charlie Weis, God love him, gets a 10 (ten!) year extension, reportedly worth $30-40M. The Irish are 5-2, their wins coming at the expense of teams that are a combined 17-24.
In his first eight games, Willingham lost none and beat Maryland, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State, Stanford, Pittsburgh, Air Force and Florida State. (Air Force didn't suck back then.)
I'm glad Charlie Weis is coaching at Notre Dame. He's an alum, he's a terrific guy, he rallies the Notre Dame faithful, and he has one of those horrible former offensive linemen haircuts. He's a football genius and he bleeds blue and gold. What more could you want?
Maybe some equity. Some integrity. Some fairness from the college of Our Lady. Being from Indiana, I remember the feeling from the beginning of Willingham's tenure was that he just didn't fit in to the Notre Dame mystique. And that was in large part due to the fact that he was a coolly reserved black man. Coaches at Notre Dame don't look like that. Willingham was never given a real chance despite his successes. Charlie Weis has been given more than a chance; he's been given a goldplated surety for maybe as long as he wants to be in this coaching gig. If that's not discrimination, what is?
More analysis here, from ESPN
Mile High City
Speaking of drugs, I figured I'd pick up this story and make the same shitty pun everyone else is.
Voters in Denver approved a measure to legalize posession of "small amounts" of marijuana for adults. So, if you're over 21, then you can have up to an ounce on you. (In other news, an ounce of pot is apparently a small amount now. It is, I guess, the largest amount one can posess and still claim for personal use.)
Aside from the pros and cons, or whatever supposed larger social consequences this will have, its not technically legalized, its just the lowest enforcement priority now. So people won't get in trouble if they're caught with the stuff. They still can't smoke on the street or anything, and they aren't shielded from federal prosecution by the city ordinance.
Voters in Denver approved a measure to legalize posession of "small amounts" of marijuana for adults. So, if you're over 21, then you can have up to an ounce on you. (In other news, an ounce of pot is apparently a small amount now. It is, I guess, the largest amount one can posess and still claim for personal use.)
Aside from the pros and cons, or whatever supposed larger social consequences this will have, its not technically legalized, its just the lowest enforcement priority now. So people won't get in trouble if they're caught with the stuff. They still can't smoke on the street or anything, and they aren't shielded from federal prosecution by the city ordinance.
Weedman for Governor
I got my absentee ballot in the mail today. The race was supposed to be close, and I would prefer Corzine (I guess) over Forrester, so I figured it was my civic duty to vote and shit. Now that Corzine has pulled ahead by a bit, I decided to take a look at the rest of the slate for Governor.
Corzine: Worth $300 million, bought his office, running on a pretty standard moderate Democrat platform.
Forrester: Moderate Republican obsessed with property tax-relief and married to his stupid 30%-in-3 years plan.
Now, here are the good ones, and some choice quotes from their platforms:
Jeff Pawlowski: Libertarian, More guns, gay marriage, legal pot, low taxes, no eminent domain use.
Michael Latigona: Independent "One New Jersey" Party. This man might honestly be retarded. Essentially, he vows to do whatever the majority wants, on any issue. "Whether or not I personally believe in an specific issue is irrelevant. If I believe that we should have red cars, but 50.1% of New Jerseyans believe there should be blue cars, then I MUST sign legislation supporting blue cars. However, it will also be my job to ensure the constitutional protections of those who wanted the red cars as well."
Constantino Rozzo: Democratic Socialist standard platform. Universal single payer healthcare, public works projects for job opportunities, more progressive income tax, worker's rights, third party politics, and the best part (besides the healthcare bit), state-owned auto insurance company.
Matt Thieke: Green party, boring usual stuff.
Hector Castillo: This independent claims to be the "Education, not Corruption" candidate, placing him in clear opposition to the Corrupt Anti-education candidates. His platform, which is pro-needle exchange and anti-gay marriage, is better described as "cleaner druggies, angry homos."
Angela Lariscy: Socialist Workers - might also be retarded. Point 4 of her 7 point platform? "Quit boycotting Cuba." Wow. Articulate.
Now we're getting to my two favorites.
Edward Forchion aka NJWeedMan: Compares illegalized pot to living under islamofascism, and wants freedom to practice the religion of Rastafari. He's trying to spark a reefer revolution. Sweet.
Wes Bell: Independent, COMPLETELY INSANE. His platform, in a nutshell, is fire hacks, abolish the D.E.P., and don't sell the highways to Chinamen.
Corzine: Worth $300 million, bought his office, running on a pretty standard moderate Democrat platform.
Forrester: Moderate Republican obsessed with property tax-relief and married to his stupid 30%-in-3 years plan.
Now, here are the good ones, and some choice quotes from their platforms:
Jeff Pawlowski: Libertarian, More guns, gay marriage, legal pot, low taxes, no eminent domain use.
Michael Latigona: Independent "One New Jersey" Party. This man might honestly be retarded. Essentially, he vows to do whatever the majority wants, on any issue. "Whether or not I personally believe in an specific issue is irrelevant. If I believe that we should have red cars, but 50.1% of New Jerseyans believe there should be blue cars, then I MUST sign legislation supporting blue cars. However, it will also be my job to ensure the constitutional protections of those who wanted the red cars as well."
Constantino Rozzo: Democratic Socialist standard platform. Universal single payer healthcare, public works projects for job opportunities, more progressive income tax, worker's rights, third party politics, and the best part (besides the healthcare bit), state-owned auto insurance company.
Matt Thieke: Green party, boring usual stuff.
Hector Castillo: This independent claims to be the "Education, not Corruption" candidate, placing him in clear opposition to the Corrupt Anti-education candidates. His platform, which is pro-needle exchange and anti-gay marriage, is better described as "cleaner druggies, angry homos."
Angela Lariscy: Socialist Workers - might also be retarded. Point 4 of her 7 point platform? "Quit boycotting Cuba." Wow. Articulate.
Now we're getting to my two favorites.
Edward Forchion aka NJWeedMan: Compares illegalized pot to living under islamofascism, and wants freedom to practice the religion of Rastafari. He's trying to spark a reefer revolution. Sweet.
Wes Bell: Independent, COMPLETELY INSANE. His platform, in a nutshell, is fire hacks, abolish the D.E.P., and don't sell the highways to Chinamen.
Fiddy
You might not have seen this if you don't read the rap blogs.
Bol called it a new low for hip-hop.
-------------------------------
Rapper 50 CENT has lashed out at fellow hip-hop star KANYE WEST for accusing US President GEORGE W BUSH of racism in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
The IN DA CLUB star believes human intervention could not have prevented the effects of the hurricane, which killed over a thousand people in the US gulf states in August (05), and sees no point in reprimanding the President for something which was beyond his control.
He says, "The New Orleans disaster was meant to happen. It was an act of God.
"I think people responded to it the best way they can.
"What KANYE WEST was saying, I don't know where that came from."
-------------------------------
To summarize for the uninformed: 50 was mad at Kanye a while ago because Late Registration came out the same day as whatever Tony Yayo's album was called, and everybody bought Late Reg, because it was good, whereas Tony Yayo's album was really bad. Therefore Tony Yayo didn't do any numbers and he's going to have to go back to hustling coke, and so he'll probably go to jail again, which in turn will give him more material to write new, equally bad rap albums about.
So 50 said something about how he created the climate in which Kanye got so huge and was thus responsible for Kanye's success, and that was really stupid and everybody ignored him, Kanye included. 50 Cent cannot stand to be ignored. So that's why he's saying shit about Kanye, but I don't understand why it had to be this. Not only is this mad ill-informed, it's also really untimely. Kanye said that shit months ago.
I'm probably not going to buy any more 50 Cent paraphrenalia, not that I would anyway.
Bol called it a new low for hip-hop.
-------------------------------
Rapper 50 CENT has lashed out at fellow hip-hop star KANYE WEST for accusing US President GEORGE W BUSH of racism in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
The IN DA CLUB star believes human intervention could not have prevented the effects of the hurricane, which killed over a thousand people in the US gulf states in August (05), and sees no point in reprimanding the President for something which was beyond his control.
He says, "The New Orleans disaster was meant to happen. It was an act of God.
"I think people responded to it the best way they can.
"What KANYE WEST was saying, I don't know where that came from."
-------------------------------
To summarize for the uninformed: 50 was mad at Kanye a while ago because Late Registration came out the same day as whatever Tony Yayo's album was called, and everybody bought Late Reg, because it was good, whereas Tony Yayo's album was really bad. Therefore Tony Yayo didn't do any numbers and he's going to have to go back to hustling coke, and so he'll probably go to jail again, which in turn will give him more material to write new, equally bad rap albums about.
So 50 said something about how he created the climate in which Kanye got so huge and was thus responsible for Kanye's success, and that was really stupid and everybody ignored him, Kanye included. 50 Cent cannot stand to be ignored. So that's why he's saying shit about Kanye, but I don't understand why it had to be this. Not only is this mad ill-informed, it's also really untimely. Kanye said that shit months ago.
I'm probably not going to buy any more 50 Cent paraphrenalia, not that I would anyway.
The Dowd-ager Queen
Slate now has its own take on Maureen Dowd's epic length "Are Men Necessary?" Basically, the author Katie Roiphe says, Maureen Dowd's half-journalism, half-caricature snarkiness has no place in an arena so seriously complicated as sexual politics. Roiphe takes issue with the title of the piece, saying its sensationalism is exactly what feminism--and women in general--doesn't need. Now, I recognize that I'm not a woman, but the title struck me as absolutely perfect, though now I guess it was just too clever.
"Are Men Necessary?" is a question that asks precisely those self-reflective questions Roiphe demands--it asks 'are men necessary for us (women) to dupe ourselves into believing in a new fantasy of homogeneity?' As Connor so rightly pointed out, the conclusion--and thus the message of the text--has nothing to do with men.
The fault, dear Katie, is not in our bras, but in ourselves.
CIA Gulags
By now many of you will have heard the increasing coverage of the prison camp system that was established early in the War on Terror to detain and "interrogate" suspects.
The existence of these camps was more or less known about--or at least the Gitmo one and Abu Ghraib--but the systematicity of the program was not. The torturing practices of the CIA were brought to the nation's attention once more when Cheney tried to get the new Senate bill outlawing inhumane treatment of detainees amended to exempt the CIA from the provisions therein.
I have nothing to say except that this is not just a potential security issue, but a genuine moral crisis for the nation. And crisis is not too strong a word.
The existence of these camps was more or less known about--or at least the Gitmo one and Abu Ghraib--but the systematicity of the program was not. The torturing practices of the CIA were brought to the nation's attention once more when Cheney tried to get the new Senate bill outlawing inhumane treatment of detainees amended to exempt the CIA from the provisions therein.
I have nothing to say except that this is not just a potential security issue, but a genuine moral crisis for the nation. And crisis is not too strong a word.
Democracy uber alles
I read Joe Asch's latest missive to the Dartmouth community in today's D, in which he says the following: "In fact, this lengthy constitution resembles Europe's recently rejected constitution much more than the inspired document that guides the United States of America."
I'm struck by an impertinent and pretty naive (but sincere) question:
Why should Dartmouth be governed on the American model of democracy?
I mean, I like democracy. I like the American model of democracy--for America. I think that, with some modifications along the way, the American model of democracy set forth in the Constitution serves America pretty well.
But does that mean it will serve Dartmouth well? Using "American democracy" as a cultural value and not as a pragmatic assessment of the best possible mode of governing is a bad argument. Dartmouth is historically, organizationally, teleologically, ontologically, epistemologically, aesthetically (okay, I'm just being an asshole here) and culturally different. Should it really be governed in the same way?
The European constitution was bad because it didn't meet the needs and desires of the people it was to govern, not because it differed from the American model. More democracy--more "American democracy"--simply should not be the end pursued everywhere.
I'm struck by an impertinent and pretty naive (but sincere) question:
Why should Dartmouth be governed on the American model of democracy?
I mean, I like democracy. I like the American model of democracy--for America. I think that, with some modifications along the way, the American model of democracy set forth in the Constitution serves America pretty well.
But does that mean it will serve Dartmouth well? Using "American democracy" as a cultural value and not as a pragmatic assessment of the best possible mode of governing is a bad argument. Dartmouth is historically, organizationally, teleologically, ontologically, epistemologically, aesthetically (okay, I'm just being an asshole here) and culturally different. Should it really be governed in the same way?
The European constitution was bad because it didn't meet the needs and desires of the people it was to govern, not because it differed from the American model. More democracy--more "American democracy"--simply should not be the end pursued everywhere.
Some support for 'Scalito'
Yahoo News has an interesting article rounding up the liberal support for Alito. Primarily it is restricted to his colleagues or former clerks, so some personal bias is likely at play.
If Alan Dershowitz and Laurence Tribe get behind Alito's nomination, I'll feel a lot better, but I think there's enough other evidence to give Alito a second look.
But I have a fairly open mind about Alito. (I tend to have a fairly open mind about anyone who is demonstrably brilliant.) The reasons I outlined earlier for skepticism about his nomination are primarily not about Alito himself, but about the effects his nomination will have on national politics and the power of interest groups.
As for whether he will overturn Roe, it is important to realize that personal opposition to abortion and disagreement with the way that Roe was decided does not entail a total rejection of the legality of the practice of abortion. I have not read his opinion on Planned Parenthood v. Casey, but there is reason to believe it's not as disastrously ideological as has been thought. This is an excellent analysis by, of all things, an Irish blogger. (I'm adding her to my Bloglines subscription list.)
PowerLine (this is likely the first and last time I will be linking to them in approval) has a very convincing reading of 'that strip-search decision' that significantly diminishes the idea that Alito is a cruel and evil judge.
I'm not saying that there aren't significant questions about Alito, primarily in the areas of federal control and executive dominance, but I think it's worth taking a look at the possibility that Bush could still have done far worse.
I do, however, have to oppose the Alito nomination on the grounds that he's a Princeton graduate. Nothing good comes out of Princeton; at least F. Scott Fitzgerald had the sense to leave before he graduated.
If Alan Dershowitz and Laurence Tribe get behind Alito's nomination, I'll feel a lot better, but I think there's enough other evidence to give Alito a second look.
But I have a fairly open mind about Alito. (I tend to have a fairly open mind about anyone who is demonstrably brilliant.) The reasons I outlined earlier for skepticism about his nomination are primarily not about Alito himself, but about the effects his nomination will have on national politics and the power of interest groups.
As for whether he will overturn Roe, it is important to realize that personal opposition to abortion and disagreement with the way that Roe was decided does not entail a total rejection of the legality of the practice of abortion. I have not read his opinion on Planned Parenthood v. Casey, but there is reason to believe it's not as disastrously ideological as has been thought. This is an excellent analysis by, of all things, an Irish blogger. (I'm adding her to my Bloglines subscription list.)
PowerLine (this is likely the first and last time I will be linking to them in approval) has a very convincing reading of 'that strip-search decision' that significantly diminishes the idea that Alito is a cruel and evil judge.
I'm not saying that there aren't significant questions about Alito, primarily in the areas of federal control and executive dominance, but I think it's worth taking a look at the possibility that Bush could still have done far worse.
I do, however, have to oppose the Alito nomination on the grounds that he's a Princeton graduate. Nothing good comes out of Princeton; at least F. Scott Fitzgerald had the sense to leave before he graduated.
November 1, 2005
Dartmouth Dashboard
I've blogged a lot today, but this is a really notable thing to post about.
Chris Boone has started something called "Viewpoints: Alternative Perspectives of Dartmouth." He calls it a "Dartmouth-focused Dashboard." It compiles Dartmouth related news, pictures, blogs and weather on one page.
The design is pretty clean and looks user-friendly. Give it a whirl.
Chris Boone has started something called "Viewpoints: Alternative Perspectives of Dartmouth." He calls it a "Dartmouth-focused Dashboard." It compiles Dartmouth related news, pictures, blogs and weather on one page.
The design is pretty clean and looks user-friendly. Give it a whirl.
Wait, Harry Reid did something bold and intelligent?
Don't make me spill my beer!
Lighthorse Harry Reid (as hence he shall be known on this blog) has just closed the doors of the Senate until he 'gets some answers, goddammit' (Not a real quote) about the pre-war intelligence on the phantom WMDs that we've never seemed to get around to investigating properly.
Well, one thing has been found already: relevance.
Keep practicing that stern look, Harry.
Lighthorse Harry Reid (as hence he shall be known on this blog) has just closed the doors of the Senate until he 'gets some answers, goddammit' (Not a real quote) about the pre-war intelligence on the phantom WMDs that we've never seemed to get around to investigating properly.
Well, one thing has been found already: relevance.
Keep practicing that stern look, Harry.
If I pun on "Alito," will Matt Drudge think I'm being a racist?
Michael Herman of the Agenda Gap has the facts on Alito covered if you're into facts. If you're into a little free-form thinking, read on.
The foremost problem I see with Alito is not that his confirmation will put Roe (or stare decisis for that matter) at risk. That is a grave concern, at least for the fact that Bush has undermined our infrastructure through tax cuts and the war to the point where I'm not sure government agencies could take on the additional burden of successfully providing alternatives to abortion. This will likely result in church or religious groups taking over the counseling of the women who will need these services.
As a young kid, I actually helped my mother work in one of these religious advocacy centers. I can tell you, it's not much more than a bunch of caring but ultimately impractical middle-aged women with little experience in any of the fields that would be required for the psychological, medical, or legal (not to mention financial) problems they will attempt to help with. This is not a good situation, but it is not even the worst part about the Alito nomination.
The biggest problem is that it has now put the Supreme Court definitively, demonstrably, and possibly irrevocably at the mercy of interest groups and placed the emphasis of the Justice's duty not on his or her thought, reasoning, or contemplation, but on how he or she ultimately votes. Karl Rove has made national elections little more than vote-counting exercises, this nomination does the same thing for the Supreme Court.
It is clear that Alito was nominated as a way of appeasing a wing of a party, and even if he wasn't, all of America thinks that. The expectations on every future judicial nominee will focus on how that candidate will vote, not on how they will think. I think that is nothing short of the destruction of the Court as a unique institution, separate and distinct from Congress and the Executive.
It also strengthens the power of interest groups everywhere--not just radical Christian wingnuts, but any group that can get loud enough on either side of the political spectrum now has a precedent, ironically, to hang its hat on. Getting a President elected is one thing, but putting an ass in a lifetime position of enormous influence, that's something different. And something wrong and very, very frightening.
The foremost problem I see with Alito is not that his confirmation will put Roe (or stare decisis for that matter) at risk. That is a grave concern, at least for the fact that Bush has undermined our infrastructure through tax cuts and the war to the point where I'm not sure government agencies could take on the additional burden of successfully providing alternatives to abortion. This will likely result in church or religious groups taking over the counseling of the women who will need these services.
As a young kid, I actually helped my mother work in one of these religious advocacy centers. I can tell you, it's not much more than a bunch of caring but ultimately impractical middle-aged women with little experience in any of the fields that would be required for the psychological, medical, or legal (not to mention financial) problems they will attempt to help with. This is not a good situation, but it is not even the worst part about the Alito nomination.
The biggest problem is that it has now put the Supreme Court definitively, demonstrably, and possibly irrevocably at the mercy of interest groups and placed the emphasis of the Justice's duty not on his or her thought, reasoning, or contemplation, but on how he or she ultimately votes. Karl Rove has made national elections little more than vote-counting exercises, this nomination does the same thing for the Supreme Court.
It is clear that Alito was nominated as a way of appeasing a wing of a party, and even if he wasn't, all of America thinks that. The expectations on every future judicial nominee will focus on how that candidate will vote, not on how they will think. I think that is nothing short of the destruction of the Court as a unique institution, separate and distinct from Congress and the Executive.
It also strengthens the power of interest groups everywhere--not just radical Christian wingnuts, but any group that can get loud enough on either side of the political spectrum now has a precedent, ironically, to hang its hat on. Getting a President elected is one thing, but putting an ass in a lifetime position of enormous influence, that's something different. And something wrong and very, very frightening.
Delany
Some author guy came to talk yesterday about AIDS, homosexual issues, literature. The D reported on it. They said the following:
"Delany estimated that he has had anywhere between 5,800 and 7,000 encounters of unprotected receptive oral sex with different men, many of whom were complete strangers.
'I enjoy a certain kind of pleasure,' Delany said. 'I gamble in getting it.'
Delany used his explicit stories to illustrate the need for further studies of how AIDS is transmitted.
Delany, whose identity as an African-American gay man has defined his life's work, criticized what he called an "appalling" lack of studies addressing AIDS transmission. He warned that because these studies tend to be based on speculative accounts of sexual behavior, more research must be done to improve accuracy."
Now, I'm about as pro-sex (and, for that matter, pro-gay) as an awkward straight boy can be. But getting head from 7000 dudes in one lifetime should be regarded at completely unacceptable behavior. At that point, you:disease::bees:flowers. You're telling me you're going to check the sexual histories of 7000 men, "some" of whom are "complete strangers?" Bullshit!
If the gay community doesn't take a strong stance against this kind of nonsense, they're undermining their legitimate claims to mainstream acceptability. Homeboy should have condemned his own actions as selfish and irresponsible, and the Stonewall Fund and whomever else should have echoed in turn.
"Sex is an appetite, so people are going to gamble," he said. "The tests simply have to be done."
Yeah, well, I have appetites too, but somehow I've managed not to have unprotected oral sex with thousands of people. This is because I'm not an ignorant, selfish motherfucker, and I am aware that my life is not the only one I'm "gambling" with.
"Delany estimated that he has had anywhere between 5,800 and 7,000 encounters of unprotected receptive oral sex with different men, many of whom were complete strangers.
'I enjoy a certain kind of pleasure,' Delany said. 'I gamble in getting it.'
Delany used his explicit stories to illustrate the need for further studies of how AIDS is transmitted.
Delany, whose identity as an African-American gay man has defined his life's work, criticized what he called an "appalling" lack of studies addressing AIDS transmission. He warned that because these studies tend to be based on speculative accounts of sexual behavior, more research must be done to improve accuracy."
Now, I'm about as pro-sex (and, for that matter, pro-gay) as an awkward straight boy can be. But getting head from 7000 dudes in one lifetime should be regarded at completely unacceptable behavior. At that point, you:disease::bees:flowers. You're telling me you're going to check the sexual histories of 7000 men, "some" of whom are "complete strangers?" Bullshit!
If the gay community doesn't take a strong stance against this kind of nonsense, they're undermining their legitimate claims to mainstream acceptability. Homeboy should have condemned his own actions as selfish and irresponsible, and the Stonewall Fund and whomever else should have echoed in turn.
"Sex is an appetite, so people are going to gamble," he said. "The tests simply have to be done."
Yeah, well, I have appetites too, but somehow I've managed not to have unprotected oral sex with thousands of people. This is because I'm not an ignorant, selfish motherfucker, and I am aware that my life is not the only one I'm "gambling" with.
The Green Mountain Boys
I just found this on the Valley News website. It is a feature on the sons (and daughters?) of Vermont who have lost their lives in Iraq.
Vermont bears a particularly heavy portion of the burden, though. Vermont has:
But the main point this drives home is how devastating these deaths are to any community, but particularly one as small and tightly knit as most Vermont towns. My thoughts are obviously with these families and all those affected. Regardless of the war's justifications, it is, as all wars are, a personal tragedy to many.
Vermont bears a particularly heavy portion of the burden, though. Vermont has:
· The highest death rate of any state among soldiers and Marines deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan between March 1, 2003, and October 31, 2004: 5.6 per 1,000 troops. That's more than three times the national average and more than four times higher than New Hampshire's rate. Only the District of Columbia had a higher death rate.Obviously disturbing statistics, though the cause of the disproportionate rates is ultimately unknown, though the Valley News seems to have some good conjectures.
· The highest number of deaths when measured against state population. As of Jan. 8, Vermont had 1.64 military deaths per 100,000 residents, more than three times the national average. New Hampshire, meanwhile, ranked 27th with .49 deaths per 100,000 residents.
· The second highest nonfatal injuries per capita: 5.91 per 100,000 residents, compared to the national average of 2.82 per 100,000. As of Jan. 8, Arkansas had the highest injury rate (6.43 per 100,000 residents) and New Hampshire had the fifth highest injury rate, 4.53 per 100,000.
But the main point this drives home is how devastating these deaths are to any community, but particularly one as small and tightly knit as most Vermont towns. My thoughts are obviously with these families and all those affected. Regardless of the war's justifications, it is, as all wars are, a personal tragedy to many.
Caligam Dartmouthemque cano...
Joe Malchow provides a very convincing example of why blogging should not aspire to be poetic.
??
Apologies to Vergil for the brutalization of his work for my title.
The Green, just a handful of mornings fore was overrun with frost and the entire town of Hanover with fog so thick the green spire atop Baker could not be seen from Robinson Hall. I was out at my usual time--6:30 or so--and could not resist allowing myself to think that this drastic and mercurial weather was just analogy to the political revolution as plainly afoot as the white ice on the grass.Also, where did your indefinite articles go--"Dartmouth...is but meek stranger..."
If it is not a revolution that changes the direction of Dartmouth's academic mission, it is one that changes the system whereby that direction is decided. In either event, it comes unhaltingly and surely, and it comes to the cost of what has been popularly termed "the establishment."
But Dartmouth, as I have said, is but meek stranger to widespread and unified alumni discontent. And rhetoric, like the fog, has confused a lot of people.
??
Apologies to Vergil for the brutalization of his work for my title.
As if we didn't already know
how little actual lives matter to the anti-sex-at-all-costs Right.
A new HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) immunization has been recently developed. It has been proven to be virtually 100% effective, thus greatly reducing the risk of cervical cancer, of which the leading cause is HPV. The recommendation is to make such a vaccine mandatory.
HPV is a sexually transmitted disease, so in the twisted minds of these people that means that inoculating women and girls against it will promote sex.
A new HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) immunization has been recently developed. It has been proven to be virtually 100% effective, thus greatly reducing the risk of cervical cancer, of which the leading cause is HPV. The recommendation is to make such a vaccine mandatory.
HPV is a sexually transmitted disease, so in the twisted minds of these people that means that inoculating women and girls against it will promote sex.
"I've talked to some who have said, 'This is going to sabotage our abstinence message,' " said Gene Rudd, associate executive director of the Christian Medical and Dental Associations.(via Atrios)
[...]
Cervical cancer strikes more than 10,000 U.S. women each year, killing more than 3,700.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)