A professor at the University of Kansas was beaten by two assailants, who cited derisive comments about creationism and intelligent design as their motive for attacking the prof.
Wow.
Okay, the professor made some inappropriate comments—he said in an inter-campus email that a course he planned on teaching in the spring, titled "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies," would be "nice slap in their big fat face."
But, he got the shit kicked out of him for that remark. That's not only excessive, that's downright terrifying. I realize that this action is not indicative of the fundamentalist movement, yadda yadda yadda, but I'll be really interested to hear Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell's stern condemnations of this incident.
Wait, given Robertson's comments about God's plans for Dover, PA, he's probably going to either quietly applaud or silently smile about this one. Give those pagans some good old fashioned Christian lovin'!!
December 8, 2005
December 7, 2005
Malchow vs. the English Language #442
Malchow is miffed at the selection of the following sentence for Slate's Bushism of the Day:
Malchow calls this tautology one of Bush's "poignant and most succinct arguments."
Exactly. A statement with virtually no semantic value outside of its own circular logic is a poignant and succinct argument in the mind of a conservative. Thank you, Joe Malchow, for summing up conservative ideology for us.
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."—Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005Okay, in case you're not following along at home, the word "illegally" and the predicate "violate the law" are redundant when placed in the same sentence, and sort of silly when they are placed directly next to one another.
Malchow calls this tautology one of Bush's "poignant and most succinct arguments."
Exactly. A statement with virtually no semantic value outside of its own circular logic is a poignant and succinct argument in the mind of a conservative. Thank you, Joe Malchow, for summing up conservative ideology for us.
Malchow vs. the English Language #442
Malchow is miffed at the selection of the following sentence for Slate's Bushism of the Day:
Malchow calls this tautology one of Bush's "poignant and most succinct arguments."
Exactly. A statement with virtually no semantic value outside of its own circular logic is a poignant and succinct argument in the mind of a conservative. Thank you, Joe Malchow, for summing up conservative ideology for us.
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."—Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005Okay, in case you're not following along at home, the word "illegally" and the predicate "violate the law" are redundant when placed in the same sentence, and sort of silly when they are placed directly next to one another.
Malchow calls this tautology one of Bush's "poignant and most succinct arguments."
Exactly. A statement with virtually no semantic value outside of its own circular logic is a poignant and succinct argument in the mind of a conservative. Thank you, Joe Malchow, for summing up conservative ideology for us.
Have You Driven a Ford Lately?
AmericaBlog is doing a great job covering the Ford Motor Company's cowardly cave-in to pressure by the American Family Association, which had threatened to boycott "in protest of what the AFA calls an “enthusiastic” support of the gay rights agenda."
I wasn't planning on buying a Ford this year, but if I were, by God...
This picture is so over-used. I'm sorry.
What's so funny about Quarks, Chromosomes, and Chi-Squares?
Nick Kristof had a great editorial yesterday about America's disturbing lack of real scientific understanding. (The piece is behind the Times Select wall, so if you have access great, you've probably already read it, and if you don't, well, linking to it won't help. Sorry)
He cites a variety of statistics:
I'm just kidding, but it is important to realize that scientific ignorance is not just Kansas's problem or Kentucky's problem or the flyover zone's problem. It's a national problem.
Kristof suggests an origin that has little to do with bad teaching or even the anti-intellectualism rampant in America. He thinks that the problem is a cultural arrogance toward science that says, We can get by on the humanities—we don't need to know science because that's what scientists are for; we need to know poetry in order to live with other people.
"There's an even larger challenge than anti-intellectualism. And that's the skewed intellectualism of those who believe that a person can become sophisticated on a diet of poetry, philosophy and history, unleavened by statistics or chromosomes. That's the hubris of the humanities."
Kristof speaks of leavening, but leavening is precisely the view of science he's arguing against—that it's supplemental to the humanities. I would argue that science and math should be the bread itself.
Now excuse me, I have to finish a paper on the georgic elements of Milton's Paradise Regained. But I'm planning on reading some Richard Dawkins this winter, so I'm still cool.
He cites a variety of statistics:
- 1/5 of Americans believe in a geocentric solar system
- only 2/5 believe in evolution
- 13% know what a molecule is
- only about half know for sure that humans didn't live with dinosaurs (which, given that Jurassic Park made $570,020,947 domestically—IMDb—means a hell of a lot of people didn't get the point of the movie)
I'm just kidding, but it is important to realize that scientific ignorance is not just Kansas's problem or Kentucky's problem or the flyover zone's problem. It's a national problem.
Kristof suggests an origin that has little to do with bad teaching or even the anti-intellectualism rampant in America. He thinks that the problem is a cultural arrogance toward science that says, We can get by on the humanities—we don't need to know science because that's what scientists are for; we need to know poetry in order to live with other people.
"There's an even larger challenge than anti-intellectualism. And that's the skewed intellectualism of those who believe that a person can become sophisticated on a diet of poetry, philosophy and history, unleavened by statistics or chromosomes. That's the hubris of the humanities."
Kristof speaks of leavening, but leavening is precisely the view of science he's arguing against—that it's supplemental to the humanities. I would argue that science and math should be the bread itself.
Now excuse me, I have to finish a paper on the georgic elements of Milton's Paradise Regained. But I'm planning on reading some Richard Dawkins this winter, so I'm still cool.
Aslan is Jesus??
I never knew...
Actually, this Salon article argues, pace Christian scholar and learned fairy tale analyst John Goldthwaite, that C.S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia series (the first of which will be released this weekend as a film) is bad, bad, bad theology.
First, it subscribes to a Manichaean worldview—"the idea that standing opposed to God's good creation is another, separate and equal, or nearly equal, creation given over to evil."
Secondly, it seeks to improve on God's creation by imagining a whole new—and vastly more perfectible—world. It appears that not only do Christians know better than science, but some know better than God!
Thirdly, Lewis believed that his Chronicles of Narnia could do a better job telling Christ's story than the Gospels did. "Lewis wrote that he wanted 'The Chronicles of Narnia' to take the parables of the New Testament and cast them 'into an imaginary world, stripping them of their stained-glass and Sunday School associations,' hoping that this would make them 'appear in their real potency.' "
Of course, arrogance, hubris, and stark dualisms are antithetical to today's American Christianity.
This movie's going to do so poorly at the box office, I'll feel sorry for Aslan. And by poorly, I mean insanely well. And by feeling sorry for Aslan, I mean I feel sorry for America's aesthetic standards. Have you seen the trailer? The computer animation—which is essentially the entire movie—looks like crap.
Actually, this Salon article argues, pace Christian scholar and learned fairy tale analyst John Goldthwaite, that C.S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia series (the first of which will be released this weekend as a film) is bad, bad, bad theology. First, it subscribes to a Manichaean worldview—"the idea that standing opposed to God's good creation is another, separate and equal, or nearly equal, creation given over to evil."
Secondly, it seeks to improve on God's creation by imagining a whole new—and vastly more perfectible—world. It appears that not only do Christians know better than science, but some know better than God!
Thirdly, Lewis believed that his Chronicles of Narnia could do a better job telling Christ's story than the Gospels did. "Lewis wrote that he wanted 'The Chronicles of Narnia' to take the parables of the New Testament and cast them 'into an imaginary world, stripping them of their stained-glass and Sunday School associations,' hoping that this would make them 'appear in their real potency.' "
Of course, arrogance, hubris, and stark dualisms are antithetical to today's American Christianity.
This movie's going to do so poorly at the box office, I'll feel sorry for Aslan. And by poorly, I mean insanely well. And by feeling sorry for Aslan, I mean I feel sorry for America's aesthetic standards. Have you seen the trailer? The computer animation—which is essentially the entire movie—looks like crap.
December 6, 2005
"Hillary '08: She'll Blow You Away!"
Arianna Huffington posts a leaked copy of a very intriguing memo from the Hillary "campaign." It is nothing less than her extra-special Red State Strategy.
Among her more insightful measures is this (comic) gem:
Among her more insightful measures is this (comic) gem:
Defense of the Second Amendment Act: HRC [Hillary Rodham Clinton] introduces bill to make possession of a concealed weapon mandatory when voting or getting driver’s license. Have banner (and Ted Nugent) ready for announcement: “Hillary ’08: She’ll blow You Away”. Question: is it legal for HRC to wear a holster and revolver on the floor of the Senate? If so, which plays better: waist, shoulder, or strapped to calf?Hillary is getting a lot of liberal backlash about her flag-burning amendment, and if she pulls another few tricks like that, she'll find she doesn't have a chance of getting the Dem nom. She simply can't win a Dem primary if she's courting "NASCAR dads" at the same time. On the bright side, she's doing very well as a magnet for conservative vitriol, sort of like a lead blocker in football.
News Flash: Comedy Central = "Secular Central"
Bill O'Reilly, in his crusade to prevent "militant secularists" from de-Christianizing Christmas (better look at the White House, Bill) despite an overwhelming dearth of evidence, has started picking on Jon Stewart and the Daily Show.
Using a clip from last year, O'Reilly claims that Jon Stewart is at the forefront of the war on Christmas that is occurring this year. (that's really being in the avant-garde, no?)
Christians—what can you say? They love being the majority, but they just adore being persecuted.
Using a clip from last year, O'Reilly claims that Jon Stewart is at the forefront of the war on Christmas that is occurring this year. (that's really being in the avant-garde, no?)
There you go. Jon Stewart, "Secular Central." Oh, I'm sorry, Comedy Central -- and I like Stewart, but we know what he's doing over there. And it's not just Stewart. You know, 90 percent of -- quote/unquote -- "entertainers" are secular progressives. [Laughs] OK, we're up for the fight. We're up for it, man.The humor of the offending clip ("Christmas: It's the only religious holiday that's also a federal holiday. That way, Christians can go to their services and everyone else can stay home and reflect on the true meaning of separation of church and state.") was, of course, lost on O'Reilly.
Christians—what can you say? They love being the majority, but they just adore being persecuted.
"Hey Dubya, Your Brother's So Fat, He Pulled an Entire Election Out of His Ass"
That's not actually what Fidel Castro said, but he did call Jebby "the fat little brother in Florida" in a speech at the University of Havana. He continued
That's a double chin that would frighten even a hurricane.
And Castro should know about health--he's lived longer than God, at this point.
"Forgive me for using the term 'fat little brother.' It is not a criticism, rather a suggestion that he do some exercises and go on a diet, don't you think? I'm doing this for the gentleman's health."
That's a double chin that would frighten even a hurricane.
And Castro should know about health--he's lived longer than God, at this point.
10 Ways of Looking at a War
A great, comprehensive list of common arguments made for the Iraq War and their well thought out rebuttals from the always-great Salon.com.
A must read, for either side of the debate.
A must read, for either side of the debate.
I-Owe-a you nothing, New Hampshire
This weekend, the DNC will be looking to rearrange the whole primary calendar, possibly inserting a few caucuses between Iowa's caucus and New Hampshire's primary.
However, as Huffington Post reports, the DNC may not be able to get its way. IA and NH have, essentially, solidified their position in such a way that it would be fatal to any Presidential candidate to pay less attention to them. (Cf. Wesley Clark last year)
I'm personally in favor of letting NH keep its early primary and not pushing it too far forward, but the lack of diversity in NH is worrisome. However, I'm not sure if NH's results are normally seen as a way of reflecting which candidate has the broadest base, but which candidate runs a good campaign.
Sure, some campaigns will connect better with all the white folks in the Granite State, but its independent identity ("Live Free or Die") means that it rarely will just jump on a bandwagon--you actually have to run hard in NH if you want to win.
However, as Huffington Post reports, the DNC may not be able to get its way. IA and NH have, essentially, solidified their position in such a way that it would be fatal to any Presidential candidate to pay less attention to them. (Cf. Wesley Clark last year)
I'm personally in favor of letting NH keep its early primary and not pushing it too far forward, but the lack of diversity in NH is worrisome. However, I'm not sure if NH's results are normally seen as a way of reflecting which candidate has the broadest base, but which candidate runs a good campaign.
Sure, some campaigns will connect better with all the white folks in the Granite State, but its independent identity ("Live Free or Die") means that it rarely will just jump on a bandwagon--you actually have to run hard in NH if you want to win.
December 5, 2005
Wacky Wikis
The New York Times ran an interesting article on Wikipedia yesterday with the following disturbing anecdote:
For instance, the article on Mr. Seigenthaler makes him seem like a pretty unremarkable man--the two things NYT highlights are his age and his involvement with some smallish newspaper. But if you read his Wikipedia biography (which I assume has been fact-checked, probably even by Mr. Seigenthaler himself), you find out that he's possibly one of the most interesting guys you've never heard anything about. You wouldn't know that from the Times.
But the open-source nature of Wikipedia (which is actually a lot less open source than, say, a web of conversation-based gossip) does demand some guidelines. Here's the bare bones of some rules I can think of (and a fuller list is here:
1. Read primarily for the links.
2. Read for general interest.
3. Don't read in order to form a personal view of something. Don't base an opinion of the merits of stem-cell research based on a Wikipedia article, for instance.
4. Read to familiarize yourself with the names and events of a topic you're working on.
5. The "what links here" function on the left-hand sidebar is nice, as is the history of edits.
6. Just because Wikipedia is online does not mean common sense is useless. Use common sense, just like anything else.
According to Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, John Seigenthaler Sr. is 78 years old and the former editor of The Tennessean in Nashville. But is that information, or anything else in Mr. Seigenthaler's biography, true?A lot of people are worried about Wikipedia's capacity for spreading misinformation, either by someone acting intentionally, as is likely in this case, or unintentionally. It's certainly a reasonable fear, but a bit excessive. The thing is, even a news source we assume is trustworthy (well, most of us, anyway) like the New York Times can't be held in absolute trust; it has periodic inaccuracies, omissions and large gaps in what is covered.
The question arises because Mr. Seigenthaler recently read about himself on Wikipedia and was shocked to learn that he "was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John and his brother Bobby."
For instance, the article on Mr. Seigenthaler makes him seem like a pretty unremarkable man--the two things NYT highlights are his age and his involvement with some smallish newspaper. But if you read his Wikipedia biography (which I assume has been fact-checked, probably even by Mr. Seigenthaler himself), you find out that he's possibly one of the most interesting guys you've never heard anything about. You wouldn't know that from the Times.
But the open-source nature of Wikipedia (which is actually a lot less open source than, say, a web of conversation-based gossip) does demand some guidelines. Here's the bare bones of some rules I can think of (and a fuller list is here:
1. Read primarily for the links.
2. Read for general interest.
3. Don't read in order to form a personal view of something. Don't base an opinion of the merits of stem-cell research based on a Wikipedia article, for instance.
4. Read to familiarize yourself with the names and events of a topic you're working on.
5. The "what links here" function on the left-hand sidebar is nice, as is the history of edits.
6. Just because Wikipedia is online does not mean common sense is useless. Use common sense, just like anything else.
It's a Wonderful War...
I'm probably posting too much on this whole "war on Christmas" thing, but it's really pissed me off. Granted, most things Fox News persons do for attention pisses me off, but this has taken it to some new, extreme level.
Not only is Fox News incredibly, unbelievably hypocritical about this whole "happy holidays takes the Christ out of Christmas" bullshit (compare this to this) but this post shows pretty conclusively that this whole "war on Christmas" meme has a long and ignoble history.
Among its targets: Jews, commies, and the UN.
Spread thexenophobia paranoia Christmas cheer, everyone. Buy a Fox News "holiday ornament."
Not only is Fox News incredibly, unbelievably hypocritical about this whole "happy holidays takes the Christ out of Christmas" bullshit (compare this to this) but this post shows pretty conclusively that this whole "war on Christmas" meme has a long and ignoble history.
Among its targets: Jews, commies, and the UN.
Spread the
This Is Bullshit
I dunno if you're reading the rap blogs but apparently some war profiteer Military-Industrial guy blew 10 million big ones on a party which was nominally for the purpose of celebrating his daughter's Bat Mitzvah.
I say "nominally" because the headliners were Aerosmith and Tom Petty; Kenny G also made an appearance. No 13-year-old wants to see that shit. Aerosmith is just a fucking ride at Disney World these days.
Also performing was The Rappin' Republican himself, Curtis Jackson. Although according to The New York Daily News he kept it as real as possible under the circumstances:
"Fitty and his posse smelled like an open bottle of Hennessy," a witness told told me, adding that when the departing rapper prepared to enter his limo in the loading dock, a naked woman was spotted inside."
The main problem here isn't that the dude, David H. Brooks, is a man-child but mainly that his company (DHB Industries) made a lot of money selling bulletproof vests to the Army that ended up being really shitty and getting recalled. Who knows how much blood this asshole's got on his hands.
I'm sorry, Aerosmith and Fifty, but there are some instances where you really should turn down a lot of money, even if you really want it. This is one of them.
I say "nominally" because the headliners were Aerosmith and Tom Petty; Kenny G also made an appearance. No 13-year-old wants to see that shit. Aerosmith is just a fucking ride at Disney World these days.
Also performing was The Rappin' Republican himself, Curtis Jackson. Although according to The New York Daily News he kept it as real as possible under the circumstances:
"Fitty and his posse smelled like an open bottle of Hennessy," a witness told told me, adding that when the departing rapper prepared to enter his limo in the loading dock, a naked woman was spotted inside."
The main problem here isn't that the dude, David H. Brooks, is a man-child but mainly that his company (DHB Industries) made a lot of money selling bulletproof vests to the Army that ended up being really shitty and getting recalled. Who knows how much blood this asshole's got on his hands.
I'm sorry, Aerosmith and Fifty, but there are some instances where you really should turn down a lot of money, even if you really want it. This is one of them.
December 4, 2005
Must-See TV
Al Sharpton is working on a sit-com idea, called "Al in the Family."
I sooooooooo wish Al Sharpton could be my dad.
December 3, 2005
Donald Wildmon Unwittingly Summarizes the Conservative Ethos in a Single Sentence
Asked whether "putting the Christ back in Christmas" would alienate people who aren't actually Christian, but are pretty much co-opted into the holiday by consumer culture:
"'Tough luck,' said Donald Wildmon, chairman of the American Family Association. "This is an overwhelmingly Christian country." (from the ABC article in Seal's post below)
Nice. If only Donald Wildmon had been around Selma in 1955 ("Tough noogies. This country is overwhelmingly white").
I'd like to wish all of you Christians out there a merry Christmas season. To all the rest of you, you are darksided and I'll leave you to your Gorgayles, Phsycticks, Tarot Card readin' and Buddha Flags.
"'Tough luck,' said Donald Wildmon, chairman of the American Family Association. "This is an overwhelmingly Christian country." (from the ABC article in Seal's post below)
Nice. If only Donald Wildmon had been around Selma in 1955 ("Tough noogies. This country is overwhelmingly white").
I'd like to wish all of you Christians out there a merry Christmas season. To all the rest of you, you are darksided and I'll leave you to your Gorgayles, Phsycticks, Tarot Card readin' and Buddha Flags.
What's in a Name?
Ok, apparently I've been engaged in a war on Christmas and I didn't even know it. I'd like to apologize to everyone who has been offended whenever I smiled and wished someone a "Happy Holidays" or a "I hope you have a good winter break" or simply did not use the word "Christmas" compulsively during the period of Nov. 15-Dec. 26 any time during the past few years. Because apparently, such behavior is "Grinch-like" and "anti-Christian" and militantly secularist. I'd just like to say I'm sorry and I'm glad I live in a Christian state where people that I don't even like can try to make me feel bad for using a word that has traditionally been associated with feelings of affability and open-heartedness.
In fact, I'm going to write Bill O'Reilly and tell him that he obviously has the Christmas spirit in him because he clearly has a whole fucking Christmas tree shoved up his falafel-loving ass.
Then I'd like to write Jerry Falwell a letter thanking him for turning Christmas into a crusade and thereby taking the attention off whatever spirit of kindness may have crept into people's hearts and replacing it with division and fractiousness.
"The fact is," Falwell said, "we've gone on the offense now. We've put them on the defense. We're kicking their butts and they're unhappy."
Christmas, ladies and gentlemen, a season of butt-kicking and making people unhappy.
Wait, can't you save that for Judgment Day, because I hear it's just around the corner. Ha! Made you look.
December 2, 2005
More on Bad Sex (Writing)
The winner was announced today--food critic Giles Coren, author of Winkler, which is not, I think, a reference to the Fonz. Coren came out ahead of the likes of Salman Rushdie, Marlon Brando (posthumous nomination, of course), Gabriel Garcia Marquez (can't find the accents on these damn British keyboards, sorry), Paul Theroux, and John Updike.
I'm far too Catholic to post the entire thing here, but here's what probably clinched it:
I'm far too Catholic to post the entire thing here, but here's what probably clinched it:
as she grabbed at his dick, which was leaping around like a shower dropped in an empty bath, she scratched his back deeply with the nails of both hands and he shot three more times, in thick stripes on her chest. Like Zorro.Like Zorro indeed.
A Case for Open Borders
Brad Plumer has a crack at making a case for opening our borders (with Mexico at least, I'm guessing) entirely.
Plumer's actually had a few good posts in the past few days--I've been meaning to catch up. You all should too.
Plumer's actually had a few good posts in the past few days--I've been meaning to catch up. You all should too.
Gossip's Fun
Barbara Bush--bitterly belligerent over son's blundering buddies' bungling.
"Should be interesting to watch the role of the First Mother in the coming couple of months. Watch for a lot to change right after the State of the Union address, I've been told."
December 1, 2005
AGTF Machinations? Not so fast
Dartlog weighed in today on the AGTF's updated justification of their policy concerning minority representation on the Alumni Council (or is it the Alumni Assembly? I honestly can't keep these things straight).
Dartlog's Nat Ward characterizes the defense as "rather nonsensical" and breaks it up into four sections: affirmative action, fear of offending minorities, minority participation, and fundraising. Let me stress that these are Nat's category break-downs and are not present in a natural form in the AGTF's post.
For the first two, I think I made a halfway decent argument giving reasons why the proposed changes will likely not have severe anti-democratic effects. I don't feel the argument from "patent unfairness" holds much water if it can't offer specific practical reasons why that "patent unfairness" will actually result in a greater burden on the workings of democracy in the Alumni Council/Assembly. Taking up the other two points, I'll argue why the AGTF's plan might work in increasing participation and fundraising.
Adding a representative to the Alumni Council, as I've said before, will not have a huge impact, I think, on the way things are decided, but it may have a significant impact on the way people involve themselves with the College. If, as a general alum and not a representative, you have two or more people who represent you on the Council, you have double the chances of getting your opinion seriously considered by someone who has voting power. This does not necessarily mean that you will be much more likely to have twice the number of people voting for your ideas, but it certainly does mean you may have twice the number of people listening to you. Think of it as the broadening of a funnel's mouth, without a significant broadening of its spout. The capacity of the funnel's intake is thereby increased, though it's output (at least as a function of time) is not greatly magnified.
So what you now have is a lot more opinion, participation, passion, and energy going into the Alumni Council but, I would argue, few or no changes on the inside of the Council that would be destructive to democratic functions. The Review throws around the term "corporatist" as if it were the antonym of democratic--the US Congress depends enormously on our affiliations to various sorts of groups, the lobbies of different companies, etc. just to function, and, despite people like Duke Cunningham, I'd say American democracy functions alright. The difference is that here the corporatism would be institutionalized, but I'm unconvinced that this will be the doom of democracy at Dartmouth.
Adding representatives would not just be a way to increase (or create) the perception that Dartmouth cares about the opinions of minorities, it would be a way to actually encourage them to get involved.
The question that must be asked, of course, is "why just minorities? Who wouldn't benefit from extra representation?" Well, Bill Hutchinson expressed his belief in an LGB comment that there is simply more room for growth there. Minority participation, he says, is low not only because of a perception problem that minority participation is more or less unwanted, but also because the main way many interact with other Dartmouth alums is through their affiliated group, not through class ties. Therefore, increasing the ability of affiliated groups to actually involve and encounter their members will have a direct correlation with the number of people who will begin or increase their participation. There simply is not (yet, at least) the demand nor the conditions among other interest groups--such as sports teams--for increased participation. However, starting with affiliated groups might indeed start the DOC or the men's hockey team or whatever to demand representation, energize their members, and get new people involved. If this be controversy, let us make the most of it!
There are important reasons to disagree with the AGTF, I allow--I'm just trying to give the best argument why the AGTF's plan might work. (The fundraising point would work out much the same, ideally--more representatives --> larger funnel mouth --> more $). The argument, it must be stressed, is not that this plan or idea is perfect or even great. It's simply a strategy to get more people involved, and it may not work. But unless it seriously harms the way our College is governed, it's worth some serious thought.
Dartlog's Nat Ward characterizes the defense as "rather nonsensical" and breaks it up into four sections: affirmative action, fear of offending minorities, minority participation, and fundraising. Let me stress that these are Nat's category break-downs and are not present in a natural form in the AGTF's post.
For the first two, I think I made a halfway decent argument giving reasons why the proposed changes will likely not have severe anti-democratic effects. I don't feel the argument from "patent unfairness" holds much water if it can't offer specific practical reasons why that "patent unfairness" will actually result in a greater burden on the workings of democracy in the Alumni Council/Assembly. Taking up the other two points, I'll argue why the AGTF's plan might work in increasing participation and fundraising.
Adding a representative to the Alumni Council, as I've said before, will not have a huge impact, I think, on the way things are decided, but it may have a significant impact on the way people involve themselves with the College. If, as a general alum and not a representative, you have two or more people who represent you on the Council, you have double the chances of getting your opinion seriously considered by someone who has voting power. This does not necessarily mean that you will be much more likely to have twice the number of people voting for your ideas, but it certainly does mean you may have twice the number of people listening to you. Think of it as the broadening of a funnel's mouth, without a significant broadening of its spout. The capacity of the funnel's intake is thereby increased, though it's output (at least as a function of time) is not greatly magnified.
So what you now have is a lot more opinion, participation, passion, and energy going into the Alumni Council but, I would argue, few or no changes on the inside of the Council that would be destructive to democratic functions. The Review throws around the term "corporatist" as if it were the antonym of democratic--the US Congress depends enormously on our affiliations to various sorts of groups, the lobbies of different companies, etc. just to function, and, despite people like Duke Cunningham, I'd say American democracy functions alright. The difference is that here the corporatism would be institutionalized, but I'm unconvinced that this will be the doom of democracy at Dartmouth.
Adding representatives would not just be a way to increase (or create) the perception that Dartmouth cares about the opinions of minorities, it would be a way to actually encourage them to get involved.
The question that must be asked, of course, is "why just minorities? Who wouldn't benefit from extra representation?" Well, Bill Hutchinson expressed his belief in an LGB comment that there is simply more room for growth there. Minority participation, he says, is low not only because of a perception problem that minority participation is more or less unwanted, but also because the main way many interact with other Dartmouth alums is through their affiliated group, not through class ties. Therefore, increasing the ability of affiliated groups to actually involve and encounter their members will have a direct correlation with the number of people who will begin or increase their participation. There simply is not (yet, at least) the demand nor the conditions among other interest groups--such as sports teams--for increased participation. However, starting with affiliated groups might indeed start the DOC or the men's hockey team or whatever to demand representation, energize their members, and get new people involved. If this be controversy, let us make the most of it!
There are important reasons to disagree with the AGTF, I allow--I'm just trying to give the best argument why the AGTF's plan might work. (The fundraising point would work out much the same, ideally--more representatives --> larger funnel mouth --> more $). The argument, it must be stressed, is not that this plan or idea is perfect or even great. It's simply a strategy to get more people involved, and it may not work. But unless it seriously harms the way our College is governed, it's worth some serious thought.
40 Million
That's how many people, approximately, are currently infected with HIV.
20 million have died of AIDS-related illnesses.
Today is World AIDS Day and December is AIDS Awareness Month.
Go here for more information and for ideas of how you can help.
20 million have died of AIDS-related illnesses.
Today is World AIDS Day and December is AIDS Awareness Month.
Go here for more information and for ideas of how you can help.
Rumors of our imminent withdrawal were greatly exaggerated
I'm a little behind reporting on it, but here's a great takedown of the new non-plan Bush proposes as the way out of Iraq.
When was the last time a United States strategy proposal was this self-evidently nothing but a public relations ploy?
Bush seems intent on doing little more than constructing a Maginot line of obliviousness and taking potshots at his critics from behind it. I'll bet the response to Murtha's proposal has more man-hours behind it than the drafting of this shitty document.
Bush always likes to broaden the Iraq War into the global war on terror, but what he never recognizes is that the war in Iraq limits our options everywhere else. We have limited forces and limited material to spend; if Iraq has become a central concern to winning the war on terror, it is because we have made it so.
When was the last time a United States strategy proposal was this self-evidently nothing but a public relations ploy?
Bush seems intent on doing little more than constructing a Maginot line of obliviousness and taking potshots at his critics from behind it. I'll bet the response to Murtha's proposal has more man-hours behind it than the drafting of this shitty document.
Bush always likes to broaden the Iraq War into the global war on terror, but what he never recognizes is that the war in Iraq limits our options everywhere else. We have limited forces and limited material to spend; if Iraq has become a central concern to winning the war on terror, it is because we have made it so.
November 30, 2005
Malchow defends bad sex
Joe posted on the Bad Sex in Fiction Awards today and ended up by defending the pruriently puritanical Tom Wolfe's infamous sex scene from the lavishly lusterless I Am Charlotte Simmons.
The scene in question is a date rape scene, clinically but lasciviously described. Here's part of the actual scene:
a) the scene was well-written, in which case his sexual aesthetics are whack.
b) the scene was hot, in which case, given the context of a date rape, his sexual ethics are whack.
c) the scene was meant to be both poorly-written and sexually disgusting, in which case he must just not be able to read, given that the title of the award is "Bad Sex in Fiction." 'Poorly-written' and 'sexually disgusting,' intentional or not, are two key characteristics of bad sex in fiction. Wolfe wins.
Connor has asked this question before, but Joe justifies it on a daily basis:
"Can Joe Malchow read words?"
The scene in question is a date rape scene, clinically but lasciviously described. Here's part of the actual scene:
Slither slither slither slither went the tongue, but the hand that was what she tried to concentrate on, the hand, since it has the entire terrain of her torso to explore and not just the otorhinolaryngological caverns.Since Joe believes "the judges [...] failed to understand the writing," I presume he means one of three things:
Oh God, it was not just at the border where the flesh of the breast joins the pectoral sheath of the chest no, the hand was cupping her entire right - Now! She must say 'No, Hoyt' and talk to him like a dog...
a) the scene was well-written, in which case his sexual aesthetics are whack.
b) the scene was hot, in which case, given the context of a date rape, his sexual ethics are whack.
c) the scene was meant to be both poorly-written and sexually disgusting, in which case he must just not be able to read, given that the title of the award is "Bad Sex in Fiction." 'Poorly-written' and 'sexually disgusting,' intentional or not, are two key characteristics of bad sex in fiction. Wolfe wins.
Connor has asked this question before, but Joe justifies it on a daily basis:
"Can Joe Malchow read words?"
From an Official Unofficial Leak
I just received a tip from someone inside the President's office who's apparently discontented with the way things have been going.
"The President has gone too far when he contemplates taking such liberties with a news agency, hostile though it may be to his projects," they explain. "I am aghast that the President even contemplated such a rash and likely counterproductive action. Just because the news agency in question has opposed many of his efforts does not give him any kind of clearance to go about committing atrocities like this. The freedom of the press must be protected, so I'm passing this on to you."
The source sent this to me as an html file (apparently it is accessible online only to administrators with the proper clearance), so I posted it off my allotted space on the Dartmouth servers.
The names have been removed to protect the guilty.
Link removed.
"The President has gone too far when he contemplates taking such liberties with a news agency, hostile though it may be to his projects," they explain. "I am aghast that the President even contemplated such a rash and likely counterproductive action. Just because the news agency in question has opposed many of his efforts does not give him any kind of clearance to go about committing atrocities like this. The freedom of the press must be protected, so I'm passing this on to you."
The source sent this to me as an html file (apparently it is accessible online only to administrators with the proper clearance), so I posted it off my allotted space on the Dartmouth servers.
The names have been removed to protect the guilty.
Link removed.
The lengths that they will go to...
Conservative news site Newsmax has the following editorial up: "John McCain: Torture Worked on Me." Here are some of the highlights:
Sen. John McCain is leading the charge against so-called "torture" techniques allegedly used by U.S. interrogators, insisting that practices like sleep deprivation and withholding medical attention... simply don't work to persuade terrorist suspects to give accurate information.I dare anyone to defend this editorial.
Nearly forty years ago, however... some of the same techniques were used on him. And - as McCain has publicly admitted at least twice - the torture worked! [...]
That McCain broke under torture doesn't make him any less of an American hero. But it does prove he's wrong to claim that harsh interrogation techniques simply don't work.
November 29, 2005
Hmm
I don't know why Andrew Sullivan just heard about "Bush Was Right" today, as that shit's been old hat 'round these parts for nigh on a week or so.
What I do know is that he linked to some Berkeley guy hosting the whole thing. Gold.
A completely non-lyrical analysis:
1) The guitar lick at the beginning is suggestive of "nanny nanny boo boo." This may be intentional, but then again it may not be.
2) The cadence at the end of the chorus is really irritating.
3) The melody has four notes in it, and after four bars they feel like they should change something, so they just get the other guy to sing the same thing up a minor third and go up the scale from there.
3) This part about Ted Kennedy really reminds me of late 90s pop-punk records, like Newfound Glory and what have you. Listen to his voice, it totally changes in timbre for this part, like he's really trying to emo it out.
4) On for the last eight or so they totally bit the drums from Fall Out Boy's "Sugar, We're Going Down." I kind of like that song but it's still pretty lame to be biting from fucking Fall Out Boy.
5) It's only 2:37 long, counting like 15 seconds of I chord at the end.
Bottom line: pillaging top 40 radio for song ideas to make their stupid civics-paper song is a pretty Karl Rove idea, in that it is
1) smart enough to fool most people
2) still, holistically, pretty stupid ("class warfare," the Swift Boat Veterans for truth, etc)
3) really irrevocably dorky.
And obviously we can't be biting shit from those darkies with their hip-pop and their breakdancing and the whatnot, despite the fact that 50 probably would have laced them with a verse.
G-Unot
Fuck 50
What I do know is that he linked to some Berkeley guy hosting the whole thing. Gold.
A completely non-lyrical analysis:
1) The guitar lick at the beginning is suggestive of "nanny nanny boo boo." This may be intentional, but then again it may not be.
2) The cadence at the end of the chorus is really irritating.
3) The melody has four notes in it, and after four bars they feel like they should change something, so they just get the other guy to sing the same thing up a minor third and go up the scale from there.
3) This part about Ted Kennedy really reminds me of late 90s pop-punk records, like Newfound Glory and what have you. Listen to his voice, it totally changes in timbre for this part, like he's really trying to emo it out.
4) On for the last eight or so they totally bit the drums from Fall Out Boy's "Sugar, We're Going Down." I kind of like that song but it's still pretty lame to be biting from fucking Fall Out Boy.
5) It's only 2:37 long, counting like 15 seconds of I chord at the end.
Bottom line: pillaging top 40 radio for song ideas to make their stupid civics-paper song is a pretty Karl Rove idea, in that it is
1) smart enough to fool most people
2) still, holistically, pretty stupid ("class warfare," the Swift Boat Veterans for truth, etc)
3) really irrevocably dorky.
And obviously we can't be biting shit from those darkies with their hip-pop and their breakdancing and the whatnot, despite the fact that 50 probably would have laced them with a verse.
G-Unot
Fuck 50
More on the Vatican's Stance against Gays
William Saletan has a particularly informative article in Slate today, and Andrew Sullivan has some particularly insightful comments on it.
Saletan argues that it has been Ratzinger's mission to broaden and expand the Church's position from "hate the sin, love the sinner" to "damn 'em both." Sullivan sums it up beautifully:
Creepy huh? It's sad, but I miss the kinder, gentler conservatism of JPII already.
Saletan argues that it has been Ratzinger's mission to broaden and expand the Church's position from "hate the sin, love the sinner" to "damn 'em both." Sullivan sums it up beautifully:
In the past, the gay individual who remained chaste could attain Christian perfection, his orientation was not in itself sinful, gay men and women were worthy of respect and made in the image of God. Under Benedict, homosexuality itself is morally disordered; even chaste homosexuals are a threat to "priestly life"; homosexuals, whatever they do, are threats to society and the Church; the great gay priests of the past, including Mychal Judge or Henri Nouwen, have "no social value." This is not about hating sin and loving the sinner any more; it's about hating a segment of humankind, segregating them out for moral censure, and banishing them from moral discourse. It's about taking the fundamental message of the Gospels and inverting it.I originally thought that this was a public relations thing, a tacit bait and switch, equating homosexual priests with child molesters, and therefore it might be rectified in a few years when the ridiculousness of the actual doctrine proved itself in even lower seminary classes and even more severe priest shortages. (A far better way of addressing the real problem would have been a thorough house-cleaning of all the Cardinals who shielded pedophile priests, but like that was going to happen--Boston's Cardinal Law has an important post in the Vatican itself now, I hear.) But Saletan's article shows definitively that this has been a personal crusade of Ratzinger's throughout his rise to power.
Creepy huh? It's sad, but I miss the kinder, gentler conservatism of JPII already.
Destabilizing Society
The Vatican posted its edict against homosexual seminarians today. I haven't been able to find an online copy of the actual document, but I'll keep looking.
In the Reuters news release, we get some interesting comments about homosexuality as the Catholic Church sees it:
If the "reality...shared by a man and a woman engaged in matrimonial life" is so fucking great--in fact the supreme sexual reality (as odd as that sounds)--why don't priests marry? O, I know, they're married to the Church... but the Church is an awfully frigid sexual partner, I'm afraid.
If heterosexual matrimony is the norm to which all faithful are intended to conform, why do we have dozens and dozens of Catholic saints whose greatest accomplishment was their virginity (e.g. Sts. Agatha, Lucy, Agnes, Cecilia, Catherine, and Anastasia the Younger, Maria Goretti)? Why was Jesus single? How about our "ever-virgin Mary"--her matrimonial reality was not a sexual reality (must suck for Joseph). If marriage is so terrific, why did Jesus call many of his disciples away from it? Why does the Church suffer divorce to be an option? Why does Paul say, "[H]e who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better" (I Corinthians 7:38)?
You know what? Celibacy as a sexual norm is societally destabilizing. Celibacy is a sexual tendency, not an identity. It is firmly against the "conjugal life [and] the life of the family."
Whether you're fucking a guy or not, being not married has the same basic knock against it--you're not producing kids, and if that's the pinnacle of Catholic sexuality, then celibacy is effectively no different in its deviation from that norm than homosexuality. The emphasis on married life as equal or better than celibacy as a sexual norm or ideal is relatively new, most likely created, I think, to justify the hatred for homosexuality.
Talk about hypocrisy.
In the Reuters news release, we get some interesting comments about homosexuality as the Catholic Church sees it:
"[H]omosexuality risk[s] "destabilizing people and society", ha[s] no social or moral value and c[an] never match the importance of the relationship between a man and a woman...I just have one question--if matrimony--heterosexual matrimony--is so all-important, if it is the 'complete and mature' form of sexuality, why do we have celibate priests?
homosexuality is "against conjugal life, the life of the family, and priestly life"...
"In no case is this form of sexuality a sexual alternative, or even less, a reality that is equivalent to that which is shared by a man and a woman engaged in matrimonial life"...
It said homosexuality was "a sexual tendency and not an identity" and repeated the Church's stand against allowing gays to marry or to adopt children. It also called homosexuality "an incomplete and immature part of human sexuality"
If the "reality...shared by a man and a woman engaged in matrimonial life" is so fucking great--in fact the supreme sexual reality (as odd as that sounds)--why don't priests marry? O, I know, they're married to the Church... but the Church is an awfully frigid sexual partner, I'm afraid.
If heterosexual matrimony is the norm to which all faithful are intended to conform, why do we have dozens and dozens of Catholic saints whose greatest accomplishment was their virginity (e.g. Sts. Agatha, Lucy, Agnes, Cecilia, Catherine, and Anastasia the Younger, Maria Goretti)? Why was Jesus single? How about our "ever-virgin Mary"--her matrimonial reality was not a sexual reality (must suck for Joseph). If marriage is so terrific, why did Jesus call many of his disciples away from it? Why does the Church suffer divorce to be an option? Why does Paul say, "[H]e who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better" (I Corinthians 7:38)?
You know what? Celibacy as a sexual norm is societally destabilizing. Celibacy is a sexual tendency, not an identity. It is firmly against the "conjugal life [and] the life of the family."
Whether you're fucking a guy or not, being not married has the same basic knock against it--you're not producing kids, and if that's the pinnacle of Catholic sexuality, then celibacy is effectively no different in its deviation from that norm than homosexuality. The emphasis on married life as equal or better than celibacy as a sexual norm or ideal is relatively new, most likely created, I think, to justify the hatred for homosexuality.
Talk about hypocrisy.
Where'd the Spin Go?
I think--I'm not sure--but this could be a first for PowerLine: a post that just says, "A Republican screwed up." I'm not convinced, though, that cases like the Duke's help Dems out at all. These scandals can easily be portrayed--much like the Abu Ghraib catastrophe--as the work of morally compromised individuals. This is apparently what Republicans are pushing for in the media coverage--and perhaps getting--as Josh Marshall pointed out, the original AP story on Duke Cunningham did not link him to the Republican Party (though later it was updated).
What I think needs to be the strategy used is one that focuses on a lack of leadership from the top--don't even waste time talking about Duke Cunningham--focus on the fact that there is not enough party discipline to keep these politicians from debasing themselves with bribes, money laundering, sordid campaign shenanigans, etc. A well-led party keeps that stuff from occurring; a poorly led party lets it run free.
However, if you do want to momentarily browse through an itemized list of Republicans in varying depths of shit, click here.
French comic to stop American imperialism
Asterix's newest adventure: stop the invaders from "Tadsylwien" (anagram for "Walt Disney"), led by the sinister "Hubs" (anagram for you-know-who), whose justification for invading Gaul is a search for the Gauls' "stockpile of lethal weapons." Amusing, yes, but precisely the type of childish hostility that conservatives mock.
However, the rest of the article is fascinating in its description of the process of tranlsating the rich and varied puns in the Asterix comics.
Go Georgie, It's Your Birthday
50 shows his love for Bush in a GQ interview.
"50 Cent and Kanye West are the only ones selected to be GQ's "Men of the Year" who have no false modesty about it — both of the hip-hop stars justify their big egos in the mag's pages. But they also have more on their minds than just themselves. Like George W. Bush, for one. 50 thinks the president is "incredible ... a gangsta." "I wanna meet George Bush, just shake his hand and tell him how much of me I see in him," 50 told GQ. If the rapper's felony conviction didn't prevent him from voting, 50 said he would have voted for Bush. [...] Kanye says after giving us entertainment, his next goal is to give us "inspiration." 50's next goal? He wants to market a condom."
November 28, 2005
Reviewer's Folly
The author of the Review editorial "Steward's Folly" (is it Ellis or Glabe?--the website is annoying in that it doesn't give the byline for editorials) makes an interesting argument about the possibility of expert opinion without the benefit of experience.
I have some minor philosophical quibbles about this argument but I'll let them go. What really interests me is the application of this argument to the administration's justification for amassing and protecting their power--that they know what's best for the College because they are working in it. I'm especially interested in the language the author uses to describe who gives the administration power and whom they are representing.
Let me just say this. The word "student" (nor any of its synonyms) does not appear once in the editorial. Here are the relevant quotes:
According to the Review, the administration is only legitimate if it regards its original power as coming from the alumni. This is a Declaration of Ambivalence toward the students--the alumni's wishes are the single most important criterion in establishing the legitimacy of and evaluating the performance of the administration. Students are irrelevant. In fact, by their own admission "any power...may be exercised" when the alumni are properly consulted.
This kind of thinking might work for determining the future of the swim team, but I'm afraid it can seriously destructive if it is pursued blindly into more vital matters such as curriculum, student life, and student safety. There are some decisions in any society made by experts without wide democratic review, and some of them will be important ones. This is a fact of governance, not a fancy. It is, in fact, part of the consent Locke speaks of as the original of political power--it lies at the heart of the judicial system, and, ironically, at the doorstep of the Oval Office War Room.
I have some minor philosophical quibbles about this argument but I'll let them go. What really interests me is the application of this argument to the administration's justification for amassing and protecting their power--that they know what's best for the College because they are working in it. I'm especially interested in the language the author uses to describe who gives the administration power and whom they are representing.
Let me just say this. The word "student" (nor any of its synonyms) does not appear once in the editorial. Here are the relevant quotes:
We are stewards they [the administration and the liberal old guard of alumni] say, not representatives, and more democracy will force the board to cater to alumni special interests at the expense of the big picture—one to which faculty, administrators, and the ever-ambiguous "future of Dartmouth College" all contribute brushstrokes. And as stewards, they say, they are the only ones capable of seeing that future. This is the reason the ancien regime of alumni are working so hard to make it more difficult for petition candidates to succeed.Not one word regarding how much say students--who also might be considered (and in my mind more legitimately considered) "the people"--should have in this glorious democratic Revolution. Who is the Review writing for? The answer should be, by now, obvious.
[...]
[T]he Lone Pine Revolution [...] is legitima[te and...] seeks to restore rather than reinvent. Moreover, as a course in the American founding would remind us (if such a course were offered at Dartmouth), legitimate power— though it may be invested in leaders in a representative government—is ultimately derived from the people.
Where this fact is ignored, whether it be at Dartmouth or in a two-bit banana republic, all power rests on an unsteady foundation; where it is well regarded, any power, even the extreme power of sending young to men into battle, may be exercised. At Dartmouth, the "people" are in large part the alumni, and, until their wishes are heeded, the College’s stewards serve no one but themselves.
According to the Review, the administration is only legitimate if it regards its original power as coming from the alumni. This is a Declaration of Ambivalence toward the students--the alumni's wishes are the single most important criterion in establishing the legitimacy of and evaluating the performance of the administration. Students are irrelevant. In fact, by their own admission "any power...may be exercised" when the alumni are properly consulted.
This kind of thinking might work for determining the future of the swim team, but I'm afraid it can seriously destructive if it is pursued blindly into more vital matters such as curriculum, student life, and student safety. There are some decisions in any society made by experts without wide democratic review, and some of them will be important ones. This is a fact of governance, not a fancy. It is, in fact, part of the consent Locke speaks of as the original of political power--it lies at the heart of the judicial system, and, ironically, at the doorstep of the Oval Office War Room.
Nothing to see here
It appears the Review came out awhile ago and I missed seeing the online edition. Not much of a loss from the looks of it--the diligence of the staff apparently couldn't get around a lack of content.
The most earth-shattering coverage comes in the announcement that a Jewish fraternity is being considered. Any victory for the Greeks is a victory for the Review, right? Good writing, though, by Kale Bongers.
Good writing again by Scott Glabe tackling the curious case of Venezuelan politics, but it seems a curious focus for a Review article, especially given their statement (in this issue) that "we steer clear of... foreign policy." I personally would have liked to know a lot more about the plans of this Human Rights Foundation for campus events. Could this turn out to be one of the hand-holding, "otherawareness-raising-groups" groups the Review abhors?
Dan Linsalata's article on the McKinsey "probe" is informative, but hardly insightful. I wish there had been some real speculation on why the administration is finally addressing the administration's metastasis and in such a hurry. The best we get is that there was pressure from the Trustee Board. Oh. Really? Bombshell.
I'm not implying anything, but the editorial on divestment has a sentence that strangely repeats a claim that I made over at Vox in Sox, that "[t]raditionally, academia was the preserve of those who wanted to change the world indirectly; they used the pen’s might rather than the sword’s to influence others." I'd like to think that maybe my thoughts made some sense for once to the Reviewers, but they probably came up with the notion of indirect influence as a primarily academic pursuit independently.
Regardless, the editorial ends up saying that divestment was a bad thing because it could commit us to making all of our investment decisions based on moral criteria. I hardly need to point out the alarmism there. The problem with reductiones ad absurdum is that most cases never reach an absurd point except in theory.
The Steward's Folly editorial takes some unpacking, mostly because the author relies on a multitude of referential pronouns whose antecedents are unclear, or in regular speech, I'm not sure what specifically he's referring to half the time. I'll comment on this piece later today.
Finally, there are a myriad of typographical errors in the online versions of the articles--I am unsure if these typos are absent in the paper copies, but it signals a bit of a rush job at any rate.
The most earth-shattering coverage comes in the announcement that a Jewish fraternity is being considered. Any victory for the Greeks is a victory for the Review, right? Good writing, though, by Kale Bongers.
Good writing again by Scott Glabe tackling the curious case of Venezuelan politics, but it seems a curious focus for a Review article, especially given their statement (in this issue) that "we steer clear of... foreign policy." I personally would have liked to know a lot more about the plans of this Human Rights Foundation for campus events. Could this turn out to be one of the hand-holding, "otherawareness-raising-groups" groups the Review abhors?
Dan Linsalata's article on the McKinsey "probe" is informative, but hardly insightful. I wish there had been some real speculation on why the administration is finally addressing the administration's metastasis and in such a hurry. The best we get is that there was pressure from the Trustee Board. Oh. Really? Bombshell.
I'm not implying anything, but the editorial on divestment has a sentence that strangely repeats a claim that I made over at Vox in Sox, that "[t]raditionally, academia was the preserve of those who wanted to change the world indirectly; they used the pen’s might rather than the sword’s to influence others." I'd like to think that maybe my thoughts made some sense for once to the Reviewers, but they probably came up with the notion of indirect influence as a primarily academic pursuit independently.
Regardless, the editorial ends up saying that divestment was a bad thing because it could commit us to making all of our investment decisions based on moral criteria. I hardly need to point out the alarmism there. The problem with reductiones ad absurdum is that most cases never reach an absurd point except in theory.
The Steward's Folly editorial takes some unpacking, mostly because the author relies on a multitude of referential pronouns whose antecedents are unclear, or in regular speech, I'm not sure what specifically he's referring to half the time. I'll comment on this piece later today.
Finally, there are a myriad of typographical errors in the online versions of the articles--I am unsure if these typos are absent in the paper copies, but it signals a bit of a rush job at any rate.
November 27, 2005
The ACLU is Gully
"A 14-year-old rapper who was arrested and then suspended for two years by The Riverside Beaver County School District in Pennsylvania for posting his battle raps on the internet has been awarded a $90,000 settlement over his expulsion from school."
"Latour, who said he considers Eminem, Necro and D-Block as his main influences, said he hails from a small town where people don’t understand Hip-Hop music."
I don't know whether or not I can support this. Homey is obviously not guilty of any wrongdoing under American law, but he is really bad at rapping and he uses synth-trumpets like a motherfucker.
I don't know if a school can reasonably be expected to educate someone who considers Eminem, Necro and D-Block his main influences. This kid is one step away from facepaint and a Faygo Cola. Expel him.
"Latour, who said he considers Eminem, Necro and D-Block as his main influences, said he hails from a small town where people don’t understand Hip-Hop music."
I don't know whether or not I can support this. Homey is obviously not guilty of any wrongdoing under American law, but he is really bad at rapping and he uses synth-trumpets like a motherfucker.
I don't know if a school can reasonably be expected to educate someone who considers Eminem, Necro and D-Block his main influences. This kid is one step away from facepaint and a Faygo Cola. Expel him.
Indian Head Op-Ed
With all the bustle around Thanksgiving, I forgot to post my op-ed in response to Jon Wisniewski's op-ed defending the Indian Head mascot as I had promised.
His argument is so bad, even the Review distanced themselves from it, so I feel like it would probably be a bit of overkill to continue to attack it at this point, but the Dartmouth stopped publishing before I could get my response in.
I've posted the op-ed over at Vox in Sox so I don't clutter up this page (though my column is actually quite short).
His argument is so bad, even the Review distanced themselves from it, so I feel like it would probably be a bit of overkill to continue to attack it at this point, but the Dartmouth stopped publishing before I could get my response in.
I've posted the op-ed over at Vox in Sox so I don't clutter up this page (though my column is actually quite short).
That's some thinking, there
I love counterintuitive thinking, almost for its own sake--I think it provokes serious questioning and thought much better than even the most lucid and intelligent explications of conventional wisdom.
So here are three articles that proceed from rather counterintuitive premises:
One caveat about that last article: The article doesn't even attempt to touch the troubling detail that Woodward didn't just keep his mouth shut about his knowledge but took proactive steps to mislead the public about matters relevant to the investigation.
So here are three articles that proceed from rather counterintuitive premises:
- The purpose of intellectual property law is not to prevent copyright infringement.
- Not having a singular, focal/vocal leader is helping (or could help) Dems.
- Bob Woodward was right in not snitching on his sources.
One caveat about that last article: The article doesn't even attempt to touch the troubling detail that Woodward didn't just keep his mouth shut about his knowledge but took proactive steps to mislead the public about matters relevant to the investigation.
Alito: a Reviewer in Spirit?
A NYT article from today's paper gives a very intriguing look into Sam Alito's ties to a radically conservative alumni activist group--the Concerned Alumni of Princeton. The article lays bare the ridiculous extremism of their radically conservative positions--e.g. they opposed the institution of more inclusive residential college-based eating halls because the plan put forward was "intended to create racial harmony"--and questions what this means for Alito's nomination and what it reveals about his politics (and, I would like to ask, what it means about his character).
I don't really think this "revelation" tells us anything that we didn't already know about Alito--he's a conservative, and not of a moderate vintage.
My mind was made up anyway when I learned that he went back on his promise (multiple times) to recuse himself on cases wherein he had a conflict of interest. All the arguments for the man depend on his ability to suspend his own political leanings enough to deliver a judgment that is unbiased and intellectually honest. The man's not even honest even when testifying before the Senate, how can he be counted on to be truly impartial and not blinded by his obviously extremist sympathies?
But what really interests me about this NYT article is that it really begs the question--does the Concerned Alumni of Princeton sound very different from Dartmouth's own conservative discontents/malcontents? Perhaps the Princeton cabal are a bit more vociferous, but the charges they made against Princeton are not very different from the charges I've heard levelled against the Dartmouth administration. In addition, Review alums Dinesh D'Souza and Laura Ingraham, the article says, actually became the editors of the group's magazine--Prospect.
Kinda makes you wonder (anachronistically?), if Alito had gone to Dartmouth, would he have been a Reviewer?
I don't really think this "revelation" tells us anything that we didn't already know about Alito--he's a conservative, and not of a moderate vintage.
My mind was made up anyway when I learned that he went back on his promise (multiple times) to recuse himself on cases wherein he had a conflict of interest. All the arguments for the man depend on his ability to suspend his own political leanings enough to deliver a judgment that is unbiased and intellectually honest. The man's not even honest even when testifying before the Senate, how can he be counted on to be truly impartial and not blinded by his obviously extremist sympathies?
But what really interests me about this NYT article is that it really begs the question--does the Concerned Alumni of Princeton sound very different from Dartmouth's own conservative discontents/malcontents? Perhaps the Princeton cabal are a bit more vociferous, but the charges they made against Princeton are not very different from the charges I've heard levelled against the Dartmouth administration. In addition, Review alums Dinesh D'Souza and Laura Ingraham, the article says, actually became the editors of the group's magazine--Prospect.
Kinda makes you wonder (anachronistically?), if Alito had gone to Dartmouth, would he have been a Reviewer?
War--What is it good for?
WaPo had a fascinating article yesterday about the possible positive effects war may have on some soldiers--testing them, trying them, and making them stronger. The article quotes a Dartmouth Med School prof, Matthew J. Friedman, who is also the director of the National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. He says, "If you think about all of the heroes and heroines in cultures across the world . . . all of them, in one sense or another, faced some sort of a dragon...The transformation from that encounter has been celebrated from antiquity." He also said that
research on the issue has not been that extensive and that the "deleterious" effects of trauma have received the most attention.Food for thought, anyway.
But that is changing. "The whole field, in the last four years, has shifted to a certain extent [to focus on] resilience, on human potential," he said.
November 26, 2005
About Abramoff
Great Wall Street Journal article on the upcoming Abramoff scandalacious explosion:
Other links of note:
Prosecutors in the department's public integrity and fraud divisions -- separate units that report to the assistant attorney general for the criminal division -- are looking into Mr. Abramoff's interactions with former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, Rep. Bob Ney (R., Ohio), Rep. John Doolittle (R., Calif.) and Sen. Conrad Burns (R., Mont.), according to several people close to the investigation. Messrs. DeLay and Ney have retained criminal defense lawyers. Spokespeople for Messrs. Doolittle and Burns said they haven't hired lawyers.Messrs.? WTF?
Other links of note:
- Baltimore's light poles are stolen. Huh?
- Filming on Pirates of the Carribean stopped when real pirates attack
- Apparently, neocons have talked about bombing al-Jazeera before
November 25, 2005
Turkey Time
I trust you all had marvelous Thanksgivings--mine, in fact, was "marvellous," being in the UK and all. It's snowing here for the first time this morning, which is rather quaint.
Some news from yesterday:
Some news from yesterday:
- Trouble up north: Canadian PM faces a no-confidence vote soon. Tell me, why don't we have a parliamentary system?
- Rap kills: French MP believes rap fueled the riots. Kanye West has been noticeably silent on the matter.
- Brownie will do a heckuva job in his new emergency planning business, I'm sure.
- The London Times Online reports Bush will pull 60000 troops out of Iraq next year. Wow.
November 24, 2005
O'Reilly: Timetable Time
"[T]here must be a time limit. Mr. Bush and his crew have to understand that American blood and treasure are not unlimited. It is not undermining the war to suggest giving the Iraqis a realistic private timetable to defend themselves."
O'Reilly's reasoning is, in part, that "get[ting] out of Iraq as quickly as possible without allowing the terrorists a victory" (which, notably, is not the same thing as us getting a victory) will prevent "politicians trying to get elected using the chaos of war." Just who do you think O'Reilly's calling out here? The column makes clear what O'Reilly cares about--keeping Democrats out of power. Who wants to manipulate the war for political purposes again, Bill?
Also, anyone want to comment on his claim that basic training for a US soldier takes six weeks, so why the hell should the Iraqi soldiers be this far behind? Does basic training take only six weeks, or isn't there more training after that? Maybe not two years, but we normally don't try to run basic training in a war zone either.
Despite all this, O'Reilly is calling for a timetable. Is that big news? I wouldn't call it Kronkite coming out against Vietnam, but it's something.
O'Reilly's reasoning is, in part, that "get[ting] out of Iraq as quickly as possible without allowing the terrorists a victory" (which, notably, is not the same thing as us getting a victory) will prevent "politicians trying to get elected using the chaos of war." Just who do you think O'Reilly's calling out here? The column makes clear what O'Reilly cares about--keeping Democrats out of power. Who wants to manipulate the war for political purposes again, Bill?
Also, anyone want to comment on his claim that basic training for a US soldier takes six weeks, so why the hell should the Iraqi soldiers be this far behind? Does basic training take only six weeks, or isn't there more training after that? Maybe not two years, but we normally don't try to run basic training in a war zone either.
Despite all this, O'Reilly is calling for a timetable. Is that big news? I wouldn't call it Kronkite coming out against Vietnam, but it's something.
November 23, 2005
PowerLine revealed as partisan hacks
The Volokh Conspiracy has the shocking evidence.
It's kind of a fun thread--I find that the Volokh readers are among the most intelligent of any blog's, and they almost all think PowerLine's credibility has tanked since Bush's election.
Seriously, I read PowerLine (or Malkin) just because I want to read what the most virulent anti-liberals are spewing, not because I want to get any intelligent thought out of my reading.
PowerLine is run by Dartmouth grads. Perhaps that's something we shouldn't spread around--they give Dartmouth a bad image.
Of course, they might say the same about LGB. If they read it.
It's kind of a fun thread--I find that the Volokh readers are among the most intelligent of any blog's, and they almost all think PowerLine's credibility has tanked since Bush's election.
Seriously, I read PowerLine (or Malkin) just because I want to read what the most virulent anti-liberals are spewing, not because I want to get any intelligent thought out of my reading.
PowerLine is run by Dartmouth grads. Perhaps that's something we shouldn't spread around--they give Dartmouth a bad image.
Of course, they might say the same about LGB. If they read it.
Two New Bloggers
Little Green Blog has added two new bloggers to its "staff"--Srikanth Batchu and Varun Jain, both '07s. They tell me they may not post much--or at least not too much for right now--but when they do, make sure to read their stuff. It'll assuredly be insightful.
Have a great Thanksgiving.
Have a great Thanksgiving.
Rent: Not Paying Dues
Fascinating article in Slate about a writer whose early 90s novel seems to have been the inspiration (along with La Boheme) for the musical Rent (now a major motion picture blah blah blah). The author--Sarah Schulman--really got used, it seems--her novel was partially autobiographical and her part was really downplayed when the author of Rent took a hold of it. The article contains a terrific interview with her about the state of the theater, gay/lesbian culture, and intellectual property rights.
I'm probably one of those "bourgeois bohemians" David Brooks talks about, so I'm actually really quite excited about seeing the film version of Rent, despite the bad reviews it's been getting.
I'm probably one of those "bourgeois bohemians" David Brooks talks about, so I'm actually really quite excited about seeing the film version of Rent, despite the bad reviews it's been getting.
Today's Iraq post
I've run across a lot of good Iraq-related articles and posts, so I'll just string them altogether here.
- Bush was informed ten days after that Iraq could not be proven to have any links to 9/11. (This article is quite long, but it is incredibly thorough in analyzing the administration's systematic manipulation and cherry-picking of intelligence to justify the Iraq war.)
- Transcript of a panel discussion of the basis for and future of the Iraq War. This post is only notable for who was on the panel: Arlen Specter, Rick Santorum, Evan Bayh, Alan Dershowitz, Richard Clarke, Pat Buchanan, Chris Matthews. There is an incredible consensus among these men on a variety of points, despite the political diversity of the group.
- Condoleezza Rice talks withdrawal. "I suspect that American forces are not going to be needed in the numbers that they're there for all that much longer..."
- Juan Cole has more on the alleged Bush plan to bomb Al-Jazeera's office. Britain, on the other hand, is cracking down severely on any news source that reveals more details of the memo, threatening serious legal action. That says to me that there is certainly something in the memo that Britain and Bush don't want us to see.
One thing I want to point out--it disgusts me that Al-Jazeera showed the films of beheadings on their channel. I don't have any reason to believe that they are actively aiding the Iraqi insurgents or Al Qaeda, and I doubt Bush does either. Bottom line is, there are other ways to eliminate threats than bombing news centers in a country that is friendly to us (Qatar).
John Kerry, Foreman
Kerry was not only chosen for jury duty, was not only selected for the jury, but was also elected by his fellow jurors to be foreman. All this despite the publicity that putting Kerry in the jury box must have caused, not to mention Kerry's own prosecutorial experience. 
Why would a lawyer put Kerry in the jury? The defense playing for a mistrial? The case doesn't seem particularly extraordinary--it "involved two men who sued the city for injuries suffered in a 2000 car accident involving a school principal"--so a mistrial would be unlikely, right?
Anyway, he apparently performed admirably, convincing one woman who voted for Bush last year that she made the wrong choice.
The plaintiffs, whom Kerry decided against, probably wish John Edwards were in the jury box instead.
John Kerry, are you wearing lipstick in this picture?
Why would a lawyer put Kerry in the jury? The defense playing for a mistrial? The case doesn't seem particularly extraordinary--it "involved two men who sued the city for injuries suffered in a 2000 car accident involving a school principal"--so a mistrial would be unlikely, right?
Anyway, he apparently performed admirably, convincing one woman who voted for Bush last year that she made the wrong choice.
The plaintiffs, whom Kerry decided against, probably wish John Edwards were in the jury box instead.
John Kerry, are you wearing lipstick in this picture?
November 22, 2005
Vatican: No Actively Gay Men May Be Ordained
The Vatican will release documents next Tuesday that outline requirements concerning the orientation and habits of seminarians who seek to be ordained as priests.
The Vatican restricts men from entering the priesthood who a) "practice homosexuality," b) "present deeply rooted homosexual tendencies" or c) "support so-called gay culture."
I'm perfectly fine with part a as long as it is meant to understand that you don't engage in homosexual sex acts. Priests are intended to be celibate and that means no sex of any kind. The rules are the same for gay or straight priests in this regard.
Part b? How is that going to be checked? Psychological evaluations? Interviews with everyone the seminarian has ever known? And how does one know that this will be effective in screening anyone? Priests are to be priests for life--people often change dynamically, and I'm sure being a priest will change a person deeply over the course of many years. And what is a tendency? Is it directly related to behavior? Is it just some latent impulse that may be strong, but fought against very effectively? If so, I say that's a pretty ridiculous standard--I would say I have deeply rooted heterosexual tendencies, but I wouldn't go around screwing all my female parishioners if I became a priest.
Part c is the one I really have a problem with because it does not just extend over who can be a priest and who can't be, but also extends over what a priest can do. By this rule, a straight priest who is involved in a gay-straight alliance in college may not be able to be ordained. I support gay culture and I would tell that to a bishop. Would that get me kicked out of the seminary? That's absurd.
A pdf of the Italian news release that has been authorized by a member of the Vatican is here. If you read Italian, have at it. I made some sense of it, but only after I had read the English news reports.
On a lighter note, Andrew Sullivan calls attention to the Pope's haute couture fashion sense. Then again, if you look this sinister, you probably need Prada shoes and Gucci sunglasses.
The Vatican restricts men from entering the priesthood who a) "practice homosexuality," b) "present deeply rooted homosexual tendencies" or c) "support so-called gay culture."
I'm perfectly fine with part a as long as it is meant to understand that you don't engage in homosexual sex acts. Priests are intended to be celibate and that means no sex of any kind. The rules are the same for gay or straight priests in this regard.
Part b? How is that going to be checked? Psychological evaluations? Interviews with everyone the seminarian has ever known? And how does one know that this will be effective in screening anyone? Priests are to be priests for life--people often change dynamically, and I'm sure being a priest will change a person deeply over the course of many years. And what is a tendency? Is it directly related to behavior? Is it just some latent impulse that may be strong, but fought against very effectively? If so, I say that's a pretty ridiculous standard--I would say I have deeply rooted heterosexual tendencies, but I wouldn't go around screwing all my female parishioners if I became a priest.
Part c is the one I really have a problem with because it does not just extend over who can be a priest and who can't be, but also extends over what a priest can do. By this rule, a straight priest who is involved in a gay-straight alliance in college may not be able to be ordained. I support gay culture and I would tell that to a bishop. Would that get me kicked out of the seminary? That's absurd.
A pdf of the Italian news release that has been authorized by a member of the Vatican is here. If you read Italian, have at it. I made some sense of it, but only after I had read the English news reports.
On a lighter note, Andrew Sullivan calls attention to the Pope's haute couture fashion sense. Then again, if you look this sinister, you probably need Prada shoes and Gucci sunglasses.
Mike Lord has a blog
East Wheelock Community Director Mike Lord has a blog, Zorknapp's Random Musings.
But, Dartmouth is only "a pretty decent college?" What gives, Mike?
Born in New Jersey, living in New Hampshire, Mike Lord, aka Zorknapp, is married to a wonderful Sue, is working at a pretty decent college, in the field of Residential Life, and loves life, much like the Chicken Lady. Read about his exciting goings on here, and be enthralled by the excitement! Don't let a day pass without checking in, for you'll never know what you're missing!Totally.
But, Dartmouth is only "a pretty decent college?" What gives, Mike?
New DFP issue online
Here.
Lots of content, including Niral's recap of the divestment proceedings and my piece on "Why Liberals Rule Academia and Why Conservatives Never Will."
Also good reads: Shinen Wong takes Harvey Mansfield's arguments for manliness apart and Nichola Tucker shows that there actually are things to do in White River Junction.
Lots of content, including Niral's recap of the divestment proceedings and my piece on "Why Liberals Rule Academia and Why Conservatives Never Will."
Also good reads: Shinen Wong takes Harvey Mansfield's arguments for manliness apart and Nichola Tucker shows that there actually are things to do in White River Junction.
Final Word on White Phosphorus
The Pentagon has referred to White Phosphorus as a chemical weapon. The context? Saddam Hussein used it against the Kurds. Full reporting here on ThinkProgress.
Other news:
Bush planned to bomb Al-Jazeera's offices. Regardless of its politics, Al-Jazeera is not a military target. No news station is, at least without proof that it is undeniably harboring or facilitating enemy activities and even then, there are lots more options to eliminating that activity than destroying the entire news center. Also, the targeted center was in Qatar.
Jean Schmidt's Marine--the one she "quoted" when attacking Rep. Murtha--Colonel Danny Bubp denies that he specifically mentioned John Murtha and states that he would never call a fellow Marine a coward.
6,644 people are still missing in the aftermath of Hurrican Katrina.
Today is the anniversary of JFK's assassination.
Other news:
Bush planned to bomb Al-Jazeera's offices. Regardless of its politics, Al-Jazeera is not a military target. No news station is, at least without proof that it is undeniably harboring or facilitating enemy activities and even then, there are lots more options to eliminating that activity than destroying the entire news center. Also, the targeted center was in Qatar.
Jean Schmidt's Marine--the one she "quoted" when attacking Rep. Murtha--Colonel Danny Bubp denies that he specifically mentioned John Murtha and states that he would never call a fellow Marine a coward.
6,644 people are still missing in the aftermath of Hurrican Katrina.
Today is the anniversary of JFK's assassination.
Indian Head Mascot Defended in the D
Jon Wisniewski's op-ed in yesterday's D is ridiculous. Just read it; there is no sense in it at all. I would attack it fully here, but I just sent in a response to the D, so I'll hold off until I can just link that.
I just want to say that this is the new form of racism--the argument that it is we liberals who are doing all the discriminating and that identity politics is the only form of discrimination current in our pluralistic democracy. If everyone would just focus on individuals and not worry so much about race or creed or color, everything would be fine. The core argument is that fighting discrimination actively by fighting prejudice is a fight that has been won--now we can move on to just being individuals together. This is vile, unsubstantiated, and cruelly deceptive.
It is undeniably true that identity politics has caused a lot of problems, probably a lot of harm. I am unconvinced that it has done more harm than good--I think it is safe to say that America today is genuinely more equal than it ever has been. But the fight against prejudice (note how Wisniewski uses the term "discrimination" rather than "prejudice") is long from over.
America's greatest historical moments have all occurred while fighting against prejudice; all its darkest moments have occurred while ignoring it. Let not this moment be a dark one for America.
I just want to say that this is the new form of racism--the argument that it is we liberals who are doing all the discriminating and that identity politics is the only form of discrimination current in our pluralistic democracy. If everyone would just focus on individuals and not worry so much about race or creed or color, everything would be fine. The core argument is that fighting discrimination actively by fighting prejudice is a fight that has been won--now we can move on to just being individuals together. This is vile, unsubstantiated, and cruelly deceptive.
It is undeniably true that identity politics has caused a lot of problems, probably a lot of harm. I am unconvinced that it has done more harm than good--I think it is safe to say that America today is genuinely more equal than it ever has been. But the fight against prejudice (note how Wisniewski uses the term "discrimination" rather than "prejudice") is long from over.
America's greatest historical moments have all occurred while fighting against prejudice; all its darkest moments have occurred while ignoring it. Let not this moment be a dark one for America.
November 21, 2005
See, It's Not Just Us Crazy Dems Part II
Iraqi leaders call for a withdrawal plan.
Also, Cenk Uygur of The Huffington Post rubbishes the idea that we can prevent the insurgents from "out-waiting" our departure. His reason: they live there.
Yes, there are foreign terrorists operating within Iraq, but there are many more hostile Iraqis in Iraq, and short of mass deportation (to where?) or total extermination (which would be both impossible and immoral), we're not going to be able to clear Iraq of possible insurgents no matter when we leave. That is, as long as we do plan on leaving eventually.
In a final statement, read by Arab League chief Amre Moussa, host of the three-day summit, they called for ``the withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces."Even Rumsfeld is dragging his feet about his support for the war, saying "I didn't advocate invasion...I wasn't asked." Well, it's a little troubling that nobody thought to ask the Secretary of Defense his opinion of invading another country, but that claim is also totally false, as you can see by reading the article I linked. Nevertheless, that Rumsfeld feels the need to distance himself from the decision to go to war is telling.
Also, Cenk Uygur of The Huffington Post rubbishes the idea that we can prevent the insurgents from "out-waiting" our departure. His reason: they live there.
Yes, there are foreign terrorists operating within Iraq, but there are many more hostile Iraqis in Iraq, and short of mass deportation (to where?) or total extermination (which would be both impossible and immoral), we're not going to be able to clear Iraq of possible insurgents no matter when we leave. That is, as long as we do plan on leaving eventually.
Straw Poll
DailyKos is hosting a Dem straw poll. As of this moment, Clark holds a fairly large lead. Interesting.
Click over, vote, or just check out the choices.
Click over, vote, or just check out the choices.
The Cornell American is the Most Gulliest College Paper that There is
"Why has Martin Luther King Day become a popular national holiday while Lee-Jackson Day is relegated to the fringes of societal celebrations? Why are Americans so willing to honor a civil rights leader like King, but recoil at the idea of celebrating the lives of two other great men, Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson?" - Tristen Cramer in the Cornell American, 11/4/05.
Gully.
"I currently write for The Dartmouth Review, an independent conservative newspaper that comments on the College and criticizes the administration when it fouls up. Now that I’ve made myself the lackey of the Review, I’ve gotten all kinds of cool kick backs, like money, internships, invites to private social events, etc. So back in September, my editor blitzed me and asked if I would like to go to Delaware for an editor’s conference in October. I certainly felt honored and immediately answered in the affirmative." - Mike Russell in the Dartmouth Review, 11/4/05.
Not gully.
The Cornell American is mothafucking gangsta. They are not afraid to say all kinds of racist shit. They are not afraid to title an article "The Color of Cornell's Crime - Unmasking the Face of Ithacompton."
"What exactly are 'common sense' precautions?" they say in that article. "What 'people' should we be aware are around us? The unspoken answer to these questions (as well as the proverbial 800-pound gorilla in the middle of the room) is this: watch out for gangs of black thugs."
My challenge to the Cornell American is this: up the ante a little. Let's forgo the subtlety. Instead of thinking up little witticisms like "Ithacompton," go ahead and title your article "YOUR GOING TO GIT ROBBED BY NIGGERS!!!!!!!!!!!" Go ahead and step up. Let's cut the shit.
Some more quotes to rock your shit:
"Many mistakenly believe that Islam is primarily a peaceful religion adversely soiled by extreme fundamentalism but warm-hearted and affectionate at its core. Au contraire, Islam is in itself fundamentalist and has replaced the Communist movement as a threat against the West...A more logical first step would be to halt the issuance of student visas granted to any person applying for admission to an American institution of study from a primarily Islamic country." - John Manetta, human rock of ignorance, 11/03/04.
"As can be seen on the Student Activities Office website the Gay-Straight Alliance (are any straight people in this?), Greeks United (support group for gays whose last names end in –ous), Haven (for exploring diverse “sexual and gender identities”), LBQ (support group for gay, bisexual, and transgender “girls”), Outreach (support group for gay, bisexual, and transgender “guys”), and ZAP! (educates students about gender identity) all receive S.A. byline funding." - Eric Shive, likely the possessor of a huge penis, 3/16/05.
They also have a contributor named Preston Postlethwaite. For reals. His article is called "Upstate's Moscow?" I'm not going to link that shit. Find it yourself.
Can we be real for a minute? Matriculation at Cornell is a gamble. You're betting that four years will pass before you want to off yourself as opposed to the reverse. Nobody stays at Cornell for five years. If you can make it three and a half years without killing yourself, you're not going to push your fucking luck. These guys are just coping with the (near)suicidal depression the only way they know how. I'm not going to hate. Keep at it, Cornell American; if writing that article about how the Darkies and the Divvil start with the same letter keeps your from jumping off that clocktower, publish that baby.
Propers to momo for pointing me to the page.
Gully.
"I currently write for The Dartmouth Review, an independent conservative newspaper that comments on the College and criticizes the administration when it fouls up. Now that I’ve made myself the lackey of the Review, I’ve gotten all kinds of cool kick backs, like money, internships, invites to private social events, etc. So back in September, my editor blitzed me and asked if I would like to go to Delaware for an editor’s conference in October. I certainly felt honored and immediately answered in the affirmative." - Mike Russell in the Dartmouth Review, 11/4/05.
Not gully.
The Cornell American is mothafucking gangsta. They are not afraid to say all kinds of racist shit. They are not afraid to title an article "The Color of Cornell's Crime - Unmasking the Face of Ithacompton."
"What exactly are 'common sense' precautions?" they say in that article. "What 'people' should we be aware are around us? The unspoken answer to these questions (as well as the proverbial 800-pound gorilla in the middle of the room) is this: watch out for gangs of black thugs."
My challenge to the Cornell American is this: up the ante a little. Let's forgo the subtlety. Instead of thinking up little witticisms like "Ithacompton," go ahead and title your article "YOUR GOING TO GIT ROBBED BY NIGGERS!!!!!!!!!!!" Go ahead and step up. Let's cut the shit.
Some more quotes to rock your shit:
"Many mistakenly believe that Islam is primarily a peaceful religion adversely soiled by extreme fundamentalism but warm-hearted and affectionate at its core. Au contraire, Islam is in itself fundamentalist and has replaced the Communist movement as a threat against the West...A more logical first step would be to halt the issuance of student visas granted to any person applying for admission to an American institution of study from a primarily Islamic country." - John Manetta, human rock of ignorance, 11/03/04.
"As can be seen on the Student Activities Office website the Gay-Straight Alliance (are any straight people in this?), Greeks United (support group for gays whose last names end in –ous), Haven (for exploring diverse “sexual and gender identities”), LBQ (support group for gay, bisexual, and transgender “girls”), Outreach (support group for gay, bisexual, and transgender “guys”), and ZAP! (educates students about gender identity) all receive S.A. byline funding." - Eric Shive, likely the possessor of a huge penis, 3/16/05.
They also have a contributor named Preston Postlethwaite. For reals. His article is called "Upstate's Moscow?" I'm not going to link that shit. Find it yourself.
Can we be real for a minute? Matriculation at Cornell is a gamble. You're betting that four years will pass before you want to off yourself as opposed to the reverse. Nobody stays at Cornell for five years. If you can make it three and a half years without killing yourself, you're not going to push your fucking luck. These guys are just coping with the (near)suicidal depression the only way they know how. I'm not going to hate. Keep at it, Cornell American; if writing that article about how the Darkies and the Divvil start with the same letter keeps your from jumping off that clocktower, publish that baby.
Propers to momo for pointing me to the page.
That depends on what your definition of "unique" is
CIA chief Porter Goss says that "[t]he CIA's interrogation methods are "unique" but don't involve torture." (via CNN)
If that is so, they won't be needing that exemption from the McCain anti-torture bill, which prohibits "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment," will they? So we can just go ahead and approve that bill, right Mr. Goss?
Also: Compare Powell's former aide Larry Wilkerson: "There's no question in my mind that we did. There's no question in my mind that we may be still doing it...There's no question in my mind where the philosophical guidance and the flexibility in order to do so originated -- in the vice president of the United States' office... His implementer in this case was [Defense Secretary] Donald Rumsfeld and the Defense Department." (CNN)
If that is so, they won't be needing that exemption from the McCain anti-torture bill, which prohibits "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment," will they? So we can just go ahead and approve that bill, right Mr. Goss?
Also: Compare Powell's former aide Larry Wilkerson: "There's no question in my mind that we did. There's no question in my mind that we may be still doing it...There's no question in my mind where the philosophical guidance and the flexibility in order to do so originated -- in the vice president of the United States' office... His implementer in this case was [Defense Secretary] Donald Rumsfeld and the Defense Department." (CNN)
The C-word
I doubt when Dartmouth professor Bernie Gert wrote his book Common Morality: Deciding What to Do, he thought it would lead to this, a mini-treatise on the morality of infant circumcision, on a blog titled "The Circumcision Controversy", no less.
I was not aware there was a controversy. My eyes are now opened.
Note: I ran across this site via a Dartmouth technorati search.
I was not aware there was a controversy. My eyes are now opened.
Note: I ran across this site via a Dartmouth technorati search.
Bernie Sanders on the New Wal-Mart Film
Bernie Sanders, the badass representative from Vermont, writes about Robert Greenwald's new film on Wal-Mart. I won't get to see the movie until I'm home (in the states) at least, but I'm excited about seeing it eventually.
Bernie talks about how Greenwald's approach to distributing--through house parties and the Internet--is a positive step toward eliciting real political action rather than simply idle furor. Good call.
More on media: From the BBC, "Developing countries are considering proposals to set up a news agency to counter the perceived domination and bias of the Western media."
Bernie talks about how Greenwald's approach to distributing--through house parties and the Internet--is a positive step toward eliciting real political action rather than simply idle furor. Good call.
More on media: From the BBC, "Developing countries are considering proposals to set up a news agency to counter the perceived domination and bias of the Western media."
November 20, 2005
If only this is true
Blogs are on fire with the news that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, mastermind of the Iraqi resistance effort, has been killed. That link is from the Jerusalem Post, but AP has picked it up here.
If this is true, then we may have just punched out a large hole at the end of the tunnel and can finally see some light.
Edit: Reuters has more here on Yahoo news.
Edit: Juan Cole and George have convinced me that Zarqawi's death may not be as great a tactical advantage as I had thought. However, if our troops' morale is as important to the war as the administration seems to think it is (well, conflicting signals--get them some damn armor, Rumsfeld!), then this can only help. Nevertheless, the government has been denying the likelihood that Zarqawi was killed.
If this is true, then we may have just punched out a large hole at the end of the tunnel and can finally see some light.
Edit: Reuters has more here on Yahoo news.
Edit: Juan Cole and George have convinced me that Zarqawi's death may not be as great a tactical advantage as I had thought. However, if our troops' morale is as important to the war as the administration seems to think it is (well, conflicting signals--get them some damn armor, Rumsfeld!), then this can only help. Nevertheless, the government has been denying the likelihood that Zarqawi was killed.
Dartmouth related story
From India Times.
This is a true life anecdote about Albert Einstein, and his theory of relativity.Makes me wonder if there are any pictures from that lecture...
After having propounded his famous theory, Albert Einstein would tour the various Universities in the United States, delivering lectures wherever he went. He was always accompanied by his faithful chauffer, Harry, who would attend each of these lectures while seated in the back row! One fine day, after Einstein had finished a lecture and was coming out of the auditorium into his vehicle, Harry addresses him and says, "Professor Einstein, I've heard your lecture on Relativity so many times, that if I were ever given the opportunity, I would be able to deliver it to perfection myself!"
"Very well," replied Einstein, "I'm going to Dartmouth next week. They don't know me there. You can deliver the lecture as Einstein, and I'll take your place as Harry!"
And so it went to be... Harry delivered the lecture to perfection, without a word out of place, while Einstein sat in the back row playing "chauffer", and enjoying a snooze for a change.
Just as Harry was descending from the podium, however, one of the research assistants intercepted him, and began to ask him a question on the theory of relativity.... one that involved a lot of complex calculations and equations. Harry replied to the assistant "The answer to this question is very simple! In fact, it's so simple, that I'm going to let my chauffer answer it!"
Selling the War
Even if you are unreservedly supportive of the Iraq War, I think it is difficult to argue with an observation that is pretty easy to make: Bush is doing a really bad job selling it.
So in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation, I’ll offer what it would take to get me to sign on wholeheartedly and without question.
First, I’d need to see an easily delineable position on what Iraq will look like when we can leave. Bush provides, “As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.” But does this mean that we’re simply going to hang around until things are calm enough that we can chalk up a victory? What kind of yardstick is Bush using to measure when Iraqis are standing up? A functional democracy? Is France a functional democracy? Is Germany? Is Israel? Is Afghanistan? What exactly is a functional democracy? Asking for specific goals in this vein is not defeatist talk, it’s not surrender talk, it’s not withdrawal talk. It’s practical talk.
Secondly, I’d like to hear a little bit more about why it’s so all-important that we set up this functional democracy in Iraq. More specifically, I’d like to hear why fighting this war in Iraq for as long as it takes is the best way to stabilize the Middle East. Bush likes to point to Libya giving up its nukes, the Lebanon Cedar Revolution, elections in Iraq, contested elections in Egypt, etc. as examples of democracy’s growth in the Middle East. Fine, but he has never shown that other actions by the US—ones that didn’t cost lives, resources, and our nation’s international image—couldn’t have produced these results. If he could show definitively that fighting it out in Iraq is the only option we have and the only option we ever had that could advance the cause of democracy in the Middle East, I’d have a lot of my doubts assuaged.
At the very least, I’d like to hear a forthright justification of the war that goes like this: “Our involvement in Iraq is now so deep and the country so unstable that we have no moral option but to stay.” I think as a country we can talk about our moral obligations rationally—we can decide if the moral duty to Iraqis outweighs the moral duties we have to our own citizens. But even that debate puts us right back where we started—what are our goals—when will our moral duties be discharged and how much will we lose in the meantime? This question has not been broached in a single address I have read or read about other than to say, “We’ll leave when we (i.e. Bush) decide it’s time to leave.”
Bush should be held accountable for his pre-war actions, but at this point, we need to figure out how to end this war--in victory or in the best defeat we can. And we can't do that without asking some hard questions.
Asking for a firm statement of what it is principally we intend to accomplish in Iraq is not a request for immediate withdrawal. Asking that we have a better strategy than “waiting for something to come along” is not unpatriotic. Asking that the administration make some actual plans instead of “staying the course” is not political partisanship. Because the course is not steady, the plans are ethereal and insubstantial, our goals undefined and perhaps indefinable, and the strategy is blind. This is not the way to sell the war, and it’s a horrible way to run one.
Edit: Here's a great post outlining what it should take for everyone to agree staying is a viable option. Definitely worth a read.
So in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation, I’ll offer what it would take to get me to sign on wholeheartedly and without question.
First, I’d need to see an easily delineable position on what Iraq will look like when we can leave. Bush provides, “As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.” But does this mean that we’re simply going to hang around until things are calm enough that we can chalk up a victory? What kind of yardstick is Bush using to measure when Iraqis are standing up? A functional democracy? Is France a functional democracy? Is Germany? Is Israel? Is Afghanistan? What exactly is a functional democracy? Asking for specific goals in this vein is not defeatist talk, it’s not surrender talk, it’s not withdrawal talk. It’s practical talk.
Secondly, I’d like to hear a little bit more about why it’s so all-important that we set up this functional democracy in Iraq. More specifically, I’d like to hear why fighting this war in Iraq for as long as it takes is the best way to stabilize the Middle East. Bush likes to point to Libya giving up its nukes, the Lebanon Cedar Revolution, elections in Iraq, contested elections in Egypt, etc. as examples of democracy’s growth in the Middle East. Fine, but he has never shown that other actions by the US—ones that didn’t cost lives, resources, and our nation’s international image—couldn’t have produced these results. If he could show definitively that fighting it out in Iraq is the only option we have and the only option we ever had that could advance the cause of democracy in the Middle East, I’d have a lot of my doubts assuaged.
At the very least, I’d like to hear a forthright justification of the war that goes like this: “Our involvement in Iraq is now so deep and the country so unstable that we have no moral option but to stay.” I think as a country we can talk about our moral obligations rationally—we can decide if the moral duty to Iraqis outweighs the moral duties we have to our own citizens. But even that debate puts us right back where we started—what are our goals—when will our moral duties be discharged and how much will we lose in the meantime? This question has not been broached in a single address I have read or read about other than to say, “We’ll leave when we (i.e. Bush) decide it’s time to leave.”
Bush should be held accountable for his pre-war actions, but at this point, we need to figure out how to end this war--in victory or in the best defeat we can. And we can't do that without asking some hard questions.
Asking for a firm statement of what it is principally we intend to accomplish in Iraq is not a request for immediate withdrawal. Asking that we have a better strategy than “waiting for something to come along” is not unpatriotic. Asking that the administration make some actual plans instead of “staying the course” is not political partisanship. Because the course is not steady, the plans are ethereal and insubstantial, our goals undefined and perhaps indefinable, and the strategy is blind. This is not the way to sell the war, and it’s a horrible way to run one.
Edit: Here's a great post outlining what it should take for everyone to agree staying is a viable option. Definitely worth a read.
How incredibly typical...
PowerLine: "The Democrats aren't paying attention, but the war in Iraq is steadily being won."
Their proof: Jordanian newspapers, run by al-Zarqawi's relatives, have severed ties with him for his bombings in Jordan. "[A]nyone who carried out such violence in the kingdom does not enjoy its protection," it says.
Let me repeat what PowerLine claims this means: "the war in Iraq is steadily being won."
Here's a map of the Middle East:
If you failed first grade geography, Jordan and Iraq are separate countries on this map.
Does it say anything about our success in Iraq that Jordanian people are refusing to offer succor to Zarqawi, but only did so because he attacked Jordan itself? These people didn't cut ties with him because he was killing Americans. They cut ties with him because he killed Jordanians. I'm not going to pull out a world map here because I assume my readers can tell that Jordan and the USA are separate countries as well.
Yes, this is a global war on terror. But it is one that needs to be analyzed correctly, and PowerLine's post is one of the best examples I have ever seen of attributing causality when there is absolutely no basis for it. That kind of thinking is not only ridiculous, it is foolish and dangerous. I thought a Dartmouth education (PowerLine is run by Dartmouth grads) taught better logical reasoning than that.
Their proof: Jordanian newspapers, run by al-Zarqawi's relatives, have severed ties with him for his bombings in Jordan. "[A]nyone who carried out such violence in the kingdom does not enjoy its protection," it says.
Let me repeat what PowerLine claims this means: "the war in Iraq is steadily being won."
Here's a map of the Middle East:
If you failed first grade geography, Jordan and Iraq are separate countries on this map.
Does it say anything about our success in Iraq that Jordanian people are refusing to offer succor to Zarqawi, but only did so because he attacked Jordan itself? These people didn't cut ties with him because he was killing Americans. They cut ties with him because he killed Jordanians. I'm not going to pull out a world map here because I assume my readers can tell that Jordan and the USA are separate countries as well.
Yes, this is a global war on terror. But it is one that needs to be analyzed correctly, and PowerLine's post is one of the best examples I have ever seen of attributing causality when there is absolutely no basis for it. That kind of thinking is not only ridiculous, it is foolish and dangerous. I thought a Dartmouth education (PowerLine is run by Dartmouth grads) taught better logical reasoning than that.
Dartmouth Has a Rhodes Scholar
Congratulations to Alison Crocker '06, Rhodes Scholar elect for 2006.
November 19, 2005
And you thought SLI was bad...
Colgate and many other schools impose heavy restrictions on Greek life.
"In the old Greek system, there were too many wasted educational moments."--Adam Weinberg, Colgate's dean.
And possibly too many educational wasted moments.
"In the old Greek system, there were too many wasted educational moments."--Adam Weinberg, Colgate's dean.
And possibly too many educational wasted moments.
Republicans: Big Supporters of Avian Flu
Congress Republicans block Avian Flu Pandemic Funding.
"Conservative Republicans in the House insisted that an emergency U.S. effort to stockpile vaccines and anti-viral drugs that could be effective against the deadly flu would have to be paid for by cutting other government programs."
"Conservative Republicans in the House insisted that an emergency U.S. effort to stockpile vaccines and anti-viral drugs that could be effective against the deadly flu would have to be paid for by cutting other government programs."
It's not just us crazy Dems
Rumsfeld given Iraq withdrawal plan by General George Casey, the top US commander in Iraq.
In the next few days, we're probably going to "find out" that Casey has long been a radical leftist, best friends with Al Franken, has a suspect military service record, and voted for Al Gore in the 2000 election. And if none of those statements are true, they likely will be once the Rove smear machine is through.
How many times must a reasonable person say, 'this war's going badly' before Republican leadership faces the facts?
Does this embolden terrorists? Actually, who is the White House really worried about emboldening--the terrorists or the doves?
In the next few days, we're probably going to "find out" that Casey has long been a radical leftist, best friends with Al Franken, has a suspect military service record, and voted for Al Gore in the 2000 election. And if none of those statements are true, they likely will be once the Rove smear machine is through.
How many times must a reasonable person say, 'this war's going badly' before Republican leadership faces the facts?
Does this embolden terrorists? Actually, who is the White House really worried about emboldening--the terrorists or the doves?
Iraq and Sunk Costs
I am not an advocate of immediate withdrawal from Iraq, but the argument from inertia--that we belong there because we are there or because the costs we have incurred so far would be a high price to just give up--is irrational. It's called the sunk cost fallacy (great Slate article about this here).
I believe, as does Brad Plumer in an excellent post, that there are strong moral reasons to remain in Iraq, but I would say that at this point it's a high-risk tactical gamble--I think we are unlikely to achieve our aims satisfactorily. As a sometimes consequentialist, I think the partiality for American lives over Iraqi lives that is the basis of calls for immediate withdrawal is wrong-headed and morally unreasonable. If our withdrawal results in an overall larger loss of life and debasement of life--any lives--than does our continued presence, I cannot justify going.
However, backward-looking reasons should not be the ones justifying our presence; they are irrational, harmful, and dangerous. If we plan our foreign policy around things we cannot change, we will not be able to change anything, or at least will not be able to change anything for the better.
I believe, as does Brad Plumer in an excellent post, that there are strong moral reasons to remain in Iraq, but I would say that at this point it's a high-risk tactical gamble--I think we are unlikely to achieve our aims satisfactorily. As a sometimes consequentialist, I think the partiality for American lives over Iraqi lives that is the basis of calls for immediate withdrawal is wrong-headed and morally unreasonable. If our withdrawal results in an overall larger loss of life and debasement of life--any lives--than does our continued presence, I cannot justify going.
However, backward-looking reasons should not be the ones justifying our presence; they are irrational, harmful, and dangerous. If we plan our foreign policy around things we cannot change, we will not be able to change anything, or at least will not be able to change anything for the better.
November 18, 2005
The Smear Is On
Here
and
here.
These bastards (and bitches too) will stop at nothing to prevent criticism of the war's execution. Rep. Murtha will probably be under a lot of heat; the good news is, I'm sure he can stand it.
Also, this DailyKos post pretty much sums up what I've been thinking.
and
here.
These bastards (and bitches too) will stop at nothing to prevent criticism of the war's execution. Rep. Murtha will probably be under a lot of heat; the good news is, I'm sure he can stand it.
Also, this DailyKos post pretty much sums up what I've been thinking.
Wait a minute here...
When Harry Reid pulled the Senate behind closed doors to attempt to break the stonewalling measures of the Republicans, conbloggers cried out against the move as a hackish politically driven piece of partisanry.
But are they saying anything about the Republicans' strategy to force the issue on Iraq withdrawal so that Democratic reps will have to make a tough decision rapidly? No, didn't think so.
Seriously, this hurts the debate a lot more than it helps--it forces reps to vote without all that much knowledge--we have really no idea what Bush and his generals have planned (and maybe they don't have anything planned) to increase Iraqi forces' independence, and voting without information is certainly to be avoided.
O, I forgot. Cons don't want to have a debate on our presence in Iraq and they certainly don't seem to care about finding out whether staying there is a good idea. They just care about staying in office.
But are they saying anything about the Republicans' strategy to force the issue on Iraq withdrawal so that Democratic reps will have to make a tough decision rapidly? No, didn't think so.
Seriously, this hurts the debate a lot more than it helps--it forces reps to vote without all that much knowledge--we have really no idea what Bush and his generals have planned (and maybe they don't have anything planned) to increase Iraqi forces' independence, and voting without information is certainly to be avoided.
O, I forgot. Cons don't want to have a debate on our presence in Iraq and they certainly don't seem to care about finding out whether staying there is a good idea. They just care about staying in office.
Not a good sign
It's probably not a good sign if Donald Rumsfeld "ha[s] second thoughts" about going to an international security conference because he worries about being charged with war crimes.
It's probably not a good sign that the US "withdrew its signature from a treaty on the International Criminal Court (ICC) -- the world's first permanent forum for trying war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and crimes of aggression -- for fear American citizens could be targeted."
It's probably not a good sign that the US is refusing to let UN inspectors have unfettered access to the facilities at Gitmo.
(from Reuters and The Guardian)
It's probably not a good sign that the US "withdrew its signature from a treaty on the International Criminal Court (ICC) -- the world's first permanent forum for trying war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and crimes of aggression -- for fear American citizens could be targeted."
It's probably not a good sign that the US is refusing to let UN inspectors have unfettered access to the facilities at Gitmo.
(from Reuters and The Guardian)
Thou broughtest us into the Net; thou laidst affliction upon our loins.
Well, the Internet conference in Tunis (why Tunis?) is wrapping up, and it appears the challenge to America's domination of Net governance has been turned aside for now.
I ran across this interview with Lawrence Lessig the other day and forgot to post about it. It's a very good interview; Lessig is certainly the guy to talk to about control of the Internet. It punctures many of the misconceptions about dividing control of the net, but still makes a case that America is better suited to making the decisions for now.
Bonus points if you can identify the quote in the title without Googling.
I ran across this interview with Lawrence Lessig the other day and forgot to post about it. It's a very good interview; Lessig is certainly the guy to talk to about control of the Internet. It punctures many of the misconceptions about dividing control of the net, but still makes a case that America is better suited to making the decisions for now.
Bonus points if you can identify the quote in the title without Googling.
All too common criticisms
These are some of the criticisms I've been seeing of Congressmen who are (or have been) questioning the administration's competency and the feasibility of pursuing this war further. For the most part, they are both baseless and base, misleading and harmful. But most just fail to recognize the simple fact that those responding to the war critics must take some responsibility for the failure of the war thus far.
1) Criticism of the administration is hurting the war effort.
2) Murtha, who cannot be properly called a coward as he's a war veteran, is opportunistic in his support or opposition of the war (as are the other Dems). (This is actually the argument that Joe Malchow makes. I'm willing to put up with tedious expositions, inflated language, and lame arguments from Joe, but this really takes the cake.)
3) Murtha's speech isn't really news, as he's been an opponent of the war for a long time.
4) The American public simply does not have the political will or resolve to continue a hard but necessary war.
5) Dems' support of the war undermines their criticism of it now.
1) Criticism of the administration is hurting the war effort.
Wait, who has hurt the war effort the most? The people who say we should get the hell out of there or the people who put our soldiers into a war without any real plans to get them out? What the remaining hawks should really say, "Please shut up; the administration is doing its best to overextend, undersupport, and underplan the military and its operations. We got this one all by ourselves.
2) Murtha, who cannot be properly called a coward as he's a war veteran, is opportunistic in his support or opposition of the war (as are the other Dems). (This is actually the argument that Joe Malchow makes. I'm willing to put up with tedious expositions, inflated language, and lame arguments from Joe, but this really takes the cake.)
I just love how critical thinking is now synonymous with partisanship and opportunism. This also means that the vast majority of Americans are opportunistic, as they now disapprove of Bush's handling of the war. O, I forgot. Changing one's mind in the presence of facts is flip-flopping and a sign of weakness and a horrible horrible thing. Good thing our President doesn't do that, because we could be in a real shithole if he did.
3) Murtha's speech isn't really news, as he's been an opponent of the war for a long time.
Wow, this is really a last-ditch effort to wave away Murtha's speech. So now, conbloggers know so much about the war, they also know what's news and what's not. I think this is the point where these wackos start reaching for the earplugs and start humming the Marine hymn to themselves and keep on trucking, saying "no problems here, folks." Face the fucking music, right-wingers.
4) The American public simply does not have the political will or resolve to continue a hard but necessary war.
So much for the power residing in the people and other democratic ideals. Besides, it's a hell of a lot easier to say something like this than actually present a convincing case that invading Iraq was anything but a gigantic mistake. Actually, let me rephrase that. Invading Iraq was not the big mistake; letting a bunch of morons blind to anything but their own ideological worldview execute this war was.
5) Dems' support of the war undermines their criticism of it now.
As Trey Ellis said, "We said it was okay to load the gun; we didn't ask to be shot in the foot.
Web Crawl
Good links:
- Top Thirty Facts about Chuck Norris: my favorite: "Chuck Norris is not hung like a horse... horses are hung like Chuck Norris"
- Yiddish curses: a collection of sites
- More con rockers: These guys are much worse than the aforementioned Right Brothers
- Why are conservatives frequently sycophantic? The world may never know.
- Online absolution: Bringing the saving power of God's forgiveness to a computer screen near you.
- A larger article on religion on the web.
- A libertarian interpretation of Harry Potter.
November 17, 2005
O'Reilly's Blacklist
"Bill O'Reilly recently put the city of San Francisco on notice:'If Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it.'
O'Reilly insisted that this statement was "not controversial" and blamed the uproar on "far left Internet smear sites."
Then O'Reilly promised to publish a blacklist to publicly intimidate his "enemies":
'I'm glad the smear sites made a big deal out of it. Now we can all know who was with the anti-military Internet crowd. We'll post the names of all who support the smear merchants on billoreilly.com.'"
(from HuffingtonPost)
Huffington suggests that we all voluntarily put our names on O'Reilly's little black list. I put my name down.
Also, I'm glad that anti-O'Reilly is now equivalent to "anti-military." Makes it so much easier to identify who's also anti-irrationality.
Pong and Its Discontents
This blogger, after reading the D's recent "The Story of Pong" feature, calls all of us Dartmouth students audacious asshats. See, we disdain Beirut, and he really likes it. "[W]ith their love of Beer Pong, Dartmouth kids have irrationally lost sight of the whole point of drinking games in the first place - trying to get as fucked up as possible as quickly as possible." The author complains about the length of time it takes to complete a game of pong (45 mins, he says--clearly he's never played with anyone very good) compared to Beirut, which takes 10 or so. Seriously kills a buzz, waiting that long.
Does he have a point? Fuck no.
I do have a theory though about why pong is preferred to beirut--it separates the men from the boys (to use a loaded metaphor) more efficiently. You can walk up to your first game of Beirut and, with good hand-eye coordination, play well. Pong requires experience, practice, and skill. This means that frat boys sit at the top of a natural hierarchy, and that's where they like to be. No one wants to get embarassed on their own turf.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)