I could not but notice the indignation on Dartlog over Dartmouth's apparent failure to lower the American flag to half-staff for Memorial Day. This gave me an idea.
In recognition of The Dartmouth Review's steadfast passion for patriotism and free speech, I challenge a Review staff member to burn an American flag.
May 31, 2005
"Stations of the Cross"
This article from the Columbia Journalism Review will tell you more than you ever wanted to know (or confront) about evangelical Christian media in America. Some highlights:
I'm assuming most of the cons who read this blog are not the Jesus-con type. This is a question I've wondered about before: how does it feel to be an "enlightened" Ivy League conservative aligned with this kind of extremism, helping advance its agenda? Especially if you're a Republican of some faith other than Christianity. Are the "benefits" of the alliance worth it, or do you worry these wackos might just exterminate all you infidels once they can? To put it less hyperbolically, don't you think their power, which you're both facilitating and increasingly beholden to, is getting out of control? And don't just ascribe their ascendence to market forces and simple demand -- the Right has disproportionately yielded to lobbying by Christian fundamentalists, creating a frightening snowball effect. In short, what in Christ's fucking name are you thinking?
Over the last decade, Christian TV networks have added tens of millions of homes to their distribution lists by leaping onto satellite and cable systems. The number of religious radio stations — the vast majority of which are evangelical — has grown by about 85 percent since 1998 alone. They now outnumber rock, classical, hip-hop, R&B, soul, and jazz stations combined.
...
“News provides the crossover between religious and secular, and it bridges the age gap,” [Pat Robertson] explains. Robertson continues to see news and current affairs as a means to an end. “If you buy a diamond from Tiffany’s the setting is very important,” he says. “To us, the jewel is the message of Jesus Christ. We see news as a setting for what’s most important.”
...
Many Christian broadcasters attribute the success of their news operations to the biblical perspective that underpins their reporting in a world made wobbly by terrorist threats and moral relativism. “We don’t just tell them what the news is,” explains Wright of the NRB. “We tell them what it means. And that’s appealing to people, especially in moments of cultural instability.”
...
The turmoil gripping the Middle East has proven to be a particularly appealing topic for shows like the International Intelligence Briefing and Prophecy in the News, which interpret world events — be it the rise of the European Union or the Asian tsunami — in light of biblical prophecy. This approach tends to cast events that flow from controversial human choices as the natural and inevitable march of destiny. Prophecy-focused shows suggest that the war in Iraq was foretold in the Bible, for instance.
...
In the months that followed the Roosevelt Room gathering, the NRB [National Religious Broadcasters] executive committee continued to meet periodically with senior White House staff members. On occasion, Bush himself attended. And monthly NRB-White House conference calls were established to give rank-and-file NRB members a direct line to the Oval Office.
George W. Bush also attended NRB’s 2003 convention and gave a speech, much of it dedicated to promoting the looming war in Iraq. At the event, the NRB passed a resolution to “honor” the president. Though the NRB is a tax-exempt organization, and thus banned from backing a particular candidate, the document resembled an endorsement. The final line read, “We recognize in all of the above that God has appointed President George W. Bush to leadership at this critical period in our nation’s history, and give Him thanks.”
I'm assuming most of the cons who read this blog are not the Jesus-con type. This is a question I've wondered about before: how does it feel to be an "enlightened" Ivy League conservative aligned with this kind of extremism, helping advance its agenda? Especially if you're a Republican of some faith other than Christianity. Are the "benefits" of the alliance worth it, or do you worry these wackos might just exterminate all you infidels once they can? To put it less hyperbolically, don't you think their power, which you're both facilitating and increasingly beholden to, is getting out of control? And don't just ascribe their ascendence to market forces and simple demand -- the Right has disproportionately yielded to lobbying by Christian fundamentalists, creating a frightening snowball effect. In short, what in Christ's fucking name are you thinking?
May 28, 2005
The Robinson-Zywicki Agenda
Cons, no need to read this one; most of you are already well aware of what, behind all the distorted rhetoric, you were fighting for in the last Dartmouth Trustee election. Whom I hope this post reaches are a few fairly moderate Dartmouth students and alumni out there who might not understand that there is indeed a battle being waged for American universities, that the only thing preventing it from being an all-out war is a strategic quietness by the aggressor in this war, the intellectual Right. For example, I once had a conversation with Colin Barry, president of The Dartmouth, about the petition candidates while the contest was still in its early stages. Though the D's editorials made it clear that Colin and the other editors at the D did not support Zywicki and Robinson, Colin was very skeptical when I explained how Dartmouth was target # 1 in the crosshairs of the cons' War on Liberal Thought. I could tell he thought I was being a little tooo conspiratorial.
What will it take for people to realize just how subtly ruthless the Right is in its quest for domination of this nation at all levels and in all forms, and how a movement like the Robinson-Zywicki petition campaign -- cloaked in empty language of "Intellectual Diversity," "Liberal Bias," and " of "Free Speech" -- is in reality the culminating action of a massive operation focused on gaining power and wiping out most of the progressive gains this country has made in the 20th century?
Don't believe me? Go read this NYT article about the Olin Foundation (Notice the eerily uninformative website), perhaps the driving force behind the intellectual operations branch of the neo-conservative army. They are the "philanthropists" behind the Hoover Institution, the Heritage Foundation, the New Criterion, the Federalist Society, the economics departments at Harvard, Yale, and Chicago, The Closing of the American Mind, The End of History, the Dartmouth Review, and, essentially, the Robinson-Zywicki Trustee victory:
As for ideas, Mr. Piereson has a new one. He is hoping to start an initiative to counter liberal influence in academia. Liberal academics "don't like American capitalism, American culture, and they don't like American history - they see it as a history of oppression," he said. "There are some people who are prepared to spend large sums of money to address this problem."
The Olin Foundation, about to close down and make way for newer foundations of its kind, has provided $380 million dollars to fund the grass-roots Con Revolution of our time. And now we at Dartmouth can say we're reaping the benefits.
What will it take for people to realize just how subtly ruthless the Right is in its quest for domination of this nation at all levels and in all forms, and how a movement like the Robinson-Zywicki petition campaign -- cloaked in empty language of "Intellectual Diversity," "Liberal Bias," and " of "Free Speech" -- is in reality the culminating action of a massive operation focused on gaining power and wiping out most of the progressive gains this country has made in the 20th century?
Don't believe me? Go read this NYT article about the Olin Foundation (Notice the eerily uninformative website), perhaps the driving force behind the intellectual operations branch of the neo-conservative army. They are the "philanthropists" behind the Hoover Institution, the Heritage Foundation, the New Criterion, the Federalist Society, the economics departments at Harvard, Yale, and Chicago, The Closing of the American Mind, The End of History, the Dartmouth Review, and, essentially, the Robinson-Zywicki Trustee victory:
As for ideas, Mr. Piereson has a new one. He is hoping to start an initiative to counter liberal influence in academia. Liberal academics "don't like American capitalism, American culture, and they don't like American history - they see it as a history of oppression," he said. "There are some people who are prepared to spend large sums of money to address this problem."
The Olin Foundation, about to close down and make way for newer foundations of its kind, has provided $380 million dollars to fund the grass-roots Con Revolution of our time. And now we at Dartmouth can say we're reaping the benefits.
Wesley Clark in 2008?
Via the new Dartmouth Young Dems blog and Kos, here's a story from Carpetbagger about someone I had almost forgotten about as a potential 2008 Democratic presidential nominee. My thoughts on Clark? I railed on him pretty hard during the 2004 primary, being skeptical of his commitment to Democratic values, and finding him a deficient public speaker. Nor was I terribly impressed by the supporters he had at Dartmouth, to be honest, as many of them struck me as fairweather Democrats who would never discuss beliefs or positions but only "electability." I did have one good conversation at 5 Olde with an older, impassioned supporter of his here in Hanover (I think this gentleman was one of his campaign organizers around here, anyone know who I'm talking about?) who kept saying Howard Dean would take Democrats "straight to the fucking grave." I could see his point but respectfully disagreed with his opinion in terms of both good policy and good politics.
Though I remain unconvinced of his political ability and I'm pretty sure he holds fundamentally different ideas than I do on a lot of important issues, I'd have nothing against a Clark run in 2008 and would expect a better, more developed, more substantive candidacy from him. On the one hand the guy is a former Republican, but on the other it's pretty nice seeing a con-vert to all that is just and liberal in this world.
Though I remain unconvinced of his political ability and I'm pretty sure he holds fundamentally different ideas than I do on a lot of important issues, I'd have nothing against a Clark run in 2008 and would expect a better, more developed, more substantive candidacy from him. On the one hand the guy is a former Republican, but on the other it's pretty nice seeing a con-vert to all that is just and liberal in this world.
May 26, 2005
ACIR Public Forum Today
The ACIR will hold a public forum today, from 4:00-6:00pm in the Faculty Lounge of the Hop, to discuss, among other things, divestment from Sudan.
The ACIR must render a decision by the end of the term regarding divestment, in order for the Investment Committee and Board of Trustees to review and approve the decision as soon as possible. (Genocide is one of those timely matters where expediency is appreciated.)
The more students come to the meeting, the better the discussion and debate will be, and the more likely something conclusive comes out of today's event.
More importantly, if enough of you show up, this could be the last you have to hear from me about divestment.
The ACIR must render a decision by the end of the term regarding divestment, in order for the Investment Committee and Board of Trustees to review and approve the decision as soon as possible. (Genocide is one of those timely matters where expediency is appreciated.)
The more students come to the meeting, the better the discussion and debate will be, and the more likely something conclusive comes out of today's event.
More importantly, if enough of you show up, this could be the last you have to hear from me about divestment.
May 25, 2005
In search of kindred blogs
So I am vaguely trying to find some good liberal blogs at other Ivy League colleges and colleges in general. Blogs that are active, i.e. have been posted on in the past few weeks. Here's what I got so far, basically by Googling "[school name] democrats blog" or "[school name] liberal blog", an admittedly primitive method:
Princeton Progressive Review
Dem Apples: Harvard College Democrats
Lion and the Donkey: Columbia Democrats
Get More Ass: Brown Democrats
That's about it. There are some that looked cool but seem to be defunct (Bulldog Blue). As you can see, the above blogs are all tied to organizations, which is fine, but I'm hoping to find some independent blogs, too, like ours. Does anyone know of any? Is blogging just bigger at Dartmouth?
Princeton Progressive Review
Dem Apples: Harvard College Democrats
Lion and the Donkey: Columbia Democrats
Get More Ass: Brown Democrats
That's about it. There are some that looked cool but seem to be defunct (Bulldog Blue). As you can see, the above blogs are all tied to organizations, which is fine, but I'm hoping to find some independent blogs, too, like ours. Does anyone know of any? Is blogging just bigger at Dartmouth?
May 24, 2005
Malchow Chortles at Genocide
Yesterday, Joe Malchow decided to jump on the conservative bandwagon of criticizing divestment (and activism in general). Malchow does an excellent job of proving his complete and utter ignorance, and even manages to throw in a bit of condescension. Congratulations. You, sir, are an asshole.
I have a terrible habit of smirking to myself at the flavor-of-the-month liberal causes.
Joe, you moron, this isn't a liberal cause. Stopping a genocide isn't a liberal cause. The members of the DAG are not exclusively liberal. Sen. Brownback (R-KS) has been a louder voice than Sen. Corzine (D-NJ), his democratic co-sponsor of the Darfur Accountability Act. What in god's name are you talking about? Tibet is a flavor of the month cause? Oh yes, I forgot about last December, when Dartmouth Tibetans got all up in arms about that occupation, mass murder, and cultural extinction thing thats been raging since 1959. The Save Tibet movement is as strong as it has ever been, seeking govermental pressure and relief for refugees. Hybrid cars? Who the fuck is wearing armbands (I presume you mean wristbands) about hybrid cars?
Like hybrid cars and Tibet, I can't help but presume in the back of my mind that the latest armband-birthing craze is going to disappear when the WB comes up with the next teenage drama.
Aside from the fact that the above sentence is shit, gramatically speaking, do you seriously believe that? That is incredibly insulting to the thousands of students and activists everywhere who work tirelessly and effectively towards causes. Participation in the DAG only wanes during exam periods, not during episodes of the OC. You're like an old man warning kids about the dangers of "the MTV." You don't know what activism is, you don't know what activists do.
But lets get to the point.
1) The UN should be doing something. Why won't it? Not because it hasn't officially declared genocide - that act is a legal term that would force the UN to take action, but will most likely be decided afterwards. The UN has put resolutions forth (1556 and 1564). They won't actually intervene because China would veto it (75% of Sudan's oil is exported to China), and because Khartoum refuses any non-African peacekeepers. The UN has proved vital in providing food aid, although if levels aren't increased, another 3-4 million will die by the end of the year.
Because the UN can not take action yet, the onus falls on individual nations. The US imposed sanctions on Sudan in 1997, and has provided food aid. The US has pitched in with the EU, which is funding the majority of the African Union peacekeeping effort. This effort has so far been ineffectual because of low numbers of troops, insufficient equipment, and a restricted mandate. We can only hope more states will take action, providing aid and perhaps even military resources for the AU or the creation of a no-fly zone.
Activism regarding Darfur is intended to help provide increasing levels of aid through NGOs, and to compel the government as well as the UN to take action.
2. The DAG wore armbands for a while, hoping to raise awareness (and yes you cynical jackass, people did take time to ask me what it was about), but primarily to raise money. The money we have raised, along with various other campuses, is a pretty significant amount, and it will be sent to the African Union. More importantly, when an NGO raises that much money, governments take notice. Bush pledged $50 million to the AU recently.
3. The DAG did not move on from awareness to divestment, and we never held one useless candlelight vigil as far as I know. The group (if you've read any of the articles or posts on us) is comprised of several sub-groups. One of these was the Responsible Investment group, which became the Divestment group.
Lets move on to Divestment, because although there are valid arguments against it, you only have misconceptions.
1. The decision to divest has absolutely no financial impact on the endowment. If it did, we wouldn't advocate divestment, and the school wouldn't choose to do it. While these are "fiscally sound" investments, conditions in Sudan could change that very quickly. They are such a minute portion of the endowment that they could easily be shifted to other, equally if not more lucrative stocks. Furthermore, we don't what the hell we're invested in at any given moment. Eight investors individually manage a certain amount of money, constantly altering our holdings. At the end of every quarter, the investment office publishes a snapshot of current holdings, for public view. One moment we may have stock in PetroChina, and then we don't the next day. There is no negative consequence for Dartmouth. The endowment is not affected. These small holdings are sold, another stock is bought. Simple.
2. There are 93 corporations operating in Sudan. Dartmouth holds stock in Siemens, Bayer, Alcatel, and Volkswagen. Dartmouth has no holdings in what we have labeled Category One companies (oil and military suppliers). What we are actually asking is that Dartmouth restrict future investment in any of these other firms. We are recognizing that Bayer provides vital and life-sustaining services (as do another 14 companies), and we have no desire for Dartmouth to divest from this company. A letter from the Dartmouth Investment Office stating that the school is blocking investment in this corporation until they can be assured the corporation is not complicit forces the firm to make a statement on their operations and publicly acknowledge the situation, and creates negative press for the corporation. When Talisman divested from Sudan, its share price had been driven down significantly by this negative attention.
3. Also, its idiotic to think that every minute fluctuation in the endowment translates to a decision regarding financial aid or hiring practices. The market goes up, the market goes down, the endowment changes every day. Financial decisions are based on long-term goals and projections of the endowment. The day we wait for some mutual fund to accrue an extra dollar before we decide to restock the paper in a Greenprint center is the day I get the fuck out of Hanover.
4. That is a ding for the College and- even a blip on the international political radar?
Wrong. I disproved the first part of this. And besides, I think investment in corporations that enable genocide is a moral blight on the college's record that outweighs the unlikely event of a minor (one-tenth of one percent) financial consequence. The second? Dartmouth played a large role in the expansion of the South African divestment movement. In the year or two following our decision to divest, a slew of college campuses, and more importantly, state pension funds chose to divest. It's all about precedent for these things. Harvard decided PetroChina was a morally untenable investment. This makes it easier for the ACIR to "divest." Illinois made the decision just this week. Thats $1.2 billion in corporations active in Sudan. When NJ does it, that's nearly $5 billion. Calpers? $7.5 billion. That's more than a blip.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I welcome valid criticism, but if you don't know what you're talking about, and can't offer a better solution, then shut the fuck up.
I have a terrible habit of smirking to myself at the flavor-of-the-month liberal causes.
Joe, you moron, this isn't a liberal cause. Stopping a genocide isn't a liberal cause. The members of the DAG are not exclusively liberal. Sen. Brownback (R-KS) has been a louder voice than Sen. Corzine (D-NJ), his democratic co-sponsor of the Darfur Accountability Act. What in god's name are you talking about? Tibet is a flavor of the month cause? Oh yes, I forgot about last December, when Dartmouth Tibetans got all up in arms about that occupation, mass murder, and cultural extinction thing thats been raging since 1959. The Save Tibet movement is as strong as it has ever been, seeking govermental pressure and relief for refugees. Hybrid cars? Who the fuck is wearing armbands (I presume you mean wristbands) about hybrid cars?
Like hybrid cars and Tibet, I can't help but presume in the back of my mind that the latest armband-birthing craze is going to disappear when the WB comes up with the next teenage drama.
Aside from the fact that the above sentence is shit, gramatically speaking, do you seriously believe that? That is incredibly insulting to the thousands of students and activists everywhere who work tirelessly and effectively towards causes. Participation in the DAG only wanes during exam periods, not during episodes of the OC. You're like an old man warning kids about the dangers of "the MTV." You don't know what activism is, you don't know what activists do.
But lets get to the point.
1) The UN should be doing something. Why won't it? Not because it hasn't officially declared genocide - that act is a legal term that would force the UN to take action, but will most likely be decided afterwards. The UN has put resolutions forth (1556 and 1564). They won't actually intervene because China would veto it (75% of Sudan's oil is exported to China), and because Khartoum refuses any non-African peacekeepers. The UN has proved vital in providing food aid, although if levels aren't increased, another 3-4 million will die by the end of the year.
Because the UN can not take action yet, the onus falls on individual nations. The US imposed sanctions on Sudan in 1997, and has provided food aid. The US has pitched in with the EU, which is funding the majority of the African Union peacekeeping effort. This effort has so far been ineffectual because of low numbers of troops, insufficient equipment, and a restricted mandate. We can only hope more states will take action, providing aid and perhaps even military resources for the AU or the creation of a no-fly zone.
Activism regarding Darfur is intended to help provide increasing levels of aid through NGOs, and to compel the government as well as the UN to take action.
2. The DAG wore armbands for a while, hoping to raise awareness (and yes you cynical jackass, people did take time to ask me what it was about), but primarily to raise money. The money we have raised, along with various other campuses, is a pretty significant amount, and it will be sent to the African Union. More importantly, when an NGO raises that much money, governments take notice. Bush pledged $50 million to the AU recently.
3. The DAG did not move on from awareness to divestment, and we never held one useless candlelight vigil as far as I know. The group (if you've read any of the articles or posts on us) is comprised of several sub-groups. One of these was the Responsible Investment group, which became the Divestment group.
Lets move on to Divestment, because although there are valid arguments against it, you only have misconceptions.
1. The decision to divest has absolutely no financial impact on the endowment. If it did, we wouldn't advocate divestment, and the school wouldn't choose to do it. While these are "fiscally sound" investments, conditions in Sudan could change that very quickly. They are such a minute portion of the endowment that they could easily be shifted to other, equally if not more lucrative stocks. Furthermore, we don't what the hell we're invested in at any given moment. Eight investors individually manage a certain amount of money, constantly altering our holdings. At the end of every quarter, the investment office publishes a snapshot of current holdings, for public view. One moment we may have stock in PetroChina, and then we don't the next day. There is no negative consequence for Dartmouth. The endowment is not affected. These small holdings are sold, another stock is bought. Simple.
2. There are 93 corporations operating in Sudan. Dartmouth holds stock in Siemens, Bayer, Alcatel, and Volkswagen. Dartmouth has no holdings in what we have labeled Category One companies (oil and military suppliers). What we are actually asking is that Dartmouth restrict future investment in any of these other firms. We are recognizing that Bayer provides vital and life-sustaining services (as do another 14 companies), and we have no desire for Dartmouth to divest from this company. A letter from the Dartmouth Investment Office stating that the school is blocking investment in this corporation until they can be assured the corporation is not complicit forces the firm to make a statement on their operations and publicly acknowledge the situation, and creates negative press for the corporation. When Talisman divested from Sudan, its share price had been driven down significantly by this negative attention.
3. Also, its idiotic to think that every minute fluctuation in the endowment translates to a decision regarding financial aid or hiring practices. The market goes up, the market goes down, the endowment changes every day. Financial decisions are based on long-term goals and projections of the endowment. The day we wait for some mutual fund to accrue an extra dollar before we decide to restock the paper in a Greenprint center is the day I get the fuck out of Hanover.
4. That is a ding for the College and- even a blip on the international political radar?
Wrong. I disproved the first part of this. And besides, I think investment in corporations that enable genocide is a moral blight on the college's record that outweighs the unlikely event of a minor (one-tenth of one percent) financial consequence. The second? Dartmouth played a large role in the expansion of the South African divestment movement. In the year or two following our decision to divest, a slew of college campuses, and more importantly, state pension funds chose to divest. It's all about precedent for these things. Harvard decided PetroChina was a morally untenable investment. This makes it easier for the ACIR to "divest." Illinois made the decision just this week. Thats $1.2 billion in corporations active in Sudan. When NJ does it, that's nearly $5 billion. Calpers? $7.5 billion. That's more than a blip.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I welcome valid criticism, but if you don't know what you're talking about, and can't offer a better solution, then shut the fuck up.
May 23, 2005
The Darfur Action Group: Where it's at
So I couldn't help notice Nick Desai's incessant equivocating (some here, more here) over at Dartlog and in TDR about whether the Darfur Action Group is a worthwhile endeavor or not. I quote some of his stances:
This leads me to my opinion of 'activism.' Yes, I do basically oppose it, as it manifests itself on college campuses. I suppose activism came about because people for centuries thought there was nothing they could do to change their government. And certainly rights of assembly and petition are among the most powerful tools of a free society. But 'activism' I consider a different bird from political action. It's largely symbolic. Linking arms, making signs, jumping up and down, chanting, making your voice heard.
Why do I say it wouldn't effect change, specifically in Darfur? I see it as something of a prisoner's dilemma. That is, if all the 'players' (investors) participate, that is the best outcome. There's some leverage. However, if only Dartmouth divests and no one else (or just a few other colleges), then companies will not care, nor will Khartoum or the janjaweed, and Dartmouth will have participated in a futile yet expensive gesture. (I always thought Thoreau looked ridiculous sitting in that jail-- it seemed more like self-indulgence than true protest to me.) You could argue that your divestment will inspire others. People make this argument aboutvoting. One person says, 'I'm not gonna vote. My vote won't count-- it's one of millions.' The second says, 'What if everyone said what you say? Where would we be then??? It's, like, democracy would be shackled.' And he's right. But the decisions in divestment are not simultaneous. If we had 'divestment day,' it just might, especially if others received word that companies would divest. To be effective, it must be a group effort.
So we're to conclude from this line of reasoning that...trying to accomplish divestment is just not worth it--? I would hate to see how effective Nick Desai would be at spearheading action against genocide.
Maybe in another two or three years, when all the rape and murder is complete, he'll have finished expounding his subtle position on the subject.
So here's my reaction to seeing anyone associated with TDR play the voice of moral clarity at such dire moments:
Have you read about that little example of actvism at Dartmouth a few years ago, the one that spoke out again South African Apartheid? Wow, those Revewiers were certainly on the right side with their actions there.
The Review is the institution that once literally led the demolition of the efforts of a large and passionate group of Dartmouth students who were actively trying to contribute to helping end Apartheid through divestment by Dartmouth. The effort of the anti-Apartheid students eventually succeeded and had a big impact in getting going a movement, of awareness and action, across college campuses nationwide, and then beyond colleges. No thanks to The Review. (But go check out this 2004 gem of a post in which R. Bennett Samuel revels in a grammatical ambiguity that makes Reviewers seem like they were the ones fighting the good cause. Right-o!)
Or was that shantytown destruction in the middle of the Green actually a brilliant and meaningful artistic happening by those reticent creative spirits at TDR? They did, after all, destroy it in the name of aesthetics, citing it as an eyesore. And now they, of all people, actually complain in their op-eds of "moral relativism," with their history behind them?
There's a word for this: hypocritical. And despicable. Reviewers who even care: Get off your intellectual high-horse, which is more or less paralyzed when it comes to doing anything productive to end this genocide, and join the movement that's actually getting things done.
This leads me to my opinion of 'activism.' Yes, I do basically oppose it, as it manifests itself on college campuses. I suppose activism came about because people for centuries thought there was nothing they could do to change their government. And certainly rights of assembly and petition are among the most powerful tools of a free society. But 'activism' I consider a different bird from political action. It's largely symbolic. Linking arms, making signs, jumping up and down, chanting, making your voice heard.
Why do I say it wouldn't effect change, specifically in Darfur? I see it as something of a prisoner's dilemma. That is, if all the 'players' (investors) participate, that is the best outcome. There's some leverage. However, if only Dartmouth divests and no one else (or just a few other colleges), then companies will not care, nor will Khartoum or the janjaweed, and Dartmouth will have participated in a futile yet expensive gesture. (I always thought Thoreau looked ridiculous sitting in that jail-- it seemed more like self-indulgence than true protest to me.) You could argue that your divestment will inspire others. People make this argument aboutvoting. One person says, 'I'm not gonna vote. My vote won't count-- it's one of millions.' The second says, 'What if everyone said what you say? Where would we be then??? It's, like, democracy would be shackled.' And he's right. But the decisions in divestment are not simultaneous. If we had 'divestment day,' it just might, especially if others received word that companies would divest. To be effective, it must be a group effort.
So we're to conclude from this line of reasoning that...trying to accomplish divestment is just not worth it--? I would hate to see how effective Nick Desai would be at spearheading action against genocide.
Maybe in another two or three years, when all the rape and murder is complete, he'll have finished expounding his subtle position on the subject.
So here's my reaction to seeing anyone associated with TDR play the voice of moral clarity at such dire moments:
Have you read about that little example of actvism at Dartmouth a few years ago, the one that spoke out again South African Apartheid? Wow, those Revewiers were certainly on the right side with their actions there.
The Review is the institution that once literally led the demolition of the efforts of a large and passionate group of Dartmouth students who were actively trying to contribute to helping end Apartheid through divestment by Dartmouth. The effort of the anti-Apartheid students eventually succeeded and had a big impact in getting going a movement, of awareness and action, across college campuses nationwide, and then beyond colleges. No thanks to The Review. (But go check out this 2004 gem of a post in which R. Bennett Samuel revels in a grammatical ambiguity that makes Reviewers seem like they were the ones fighting the good cause. Right-o!)
Or was that shantytown destruction in the middle of the Green actually a brilliant and meaningful artistic happening by those reticent creative spirits at TDR? They did, after all, destroy it in the name of aesthetics, citing it as an eyesore. And now they, of all people, actually complain in their op-eds of "moral relativism," with their history behind them?
There's a word for this: hypocritical. And despicable. Reviewers who even care: Get off your intellectual high-horse, which is more or less paralyzed when it comes to doing anything productive to end this genocide, and join the movement that's actually getting things done.
A Massive Shift
I'm slowly putting together in my mind some arguments about changing political alignment and labels in America. The number of articles and essays that have been written lately about the Republicans (as abandoning their traditional platform, or as not actually being conservative) and the Democrats (as being reactionary, or hijacked by special interests), and the role of Progressives (whatever they are) in all of this point towards some dilemma or contention in American politics. As I put all this together, I'm kind of stuck on a question that a Professor recently asked me.
Margaret Thatcher could slam down a copy of some Hayek book and say "this is what we stand for." For conservatives, Friedman and Hayek define much of their philosophy.
Is there a leftist/liberal/progressive equivalent?
I'm inclined to say that the nature of the left is antithetical to adopting a doctrine. I'm also going to admit I'm not that well-read.
Margaret Thatcher could slam down a copy of some Hayek book and say "this is what we stand for." For conservatives, Friedman and Hayek define much of their philosophy.
Is there a leftist/liberal/progressive equivalent?
I'm inclined to say that the nature of the left is antithetical to adopting a doctrine. I'm also going to admit I'm not that well-read.
May 21, 2005
What I have learned from our polls
What I have learned from our polls so far is this: you're mostly a bunch of Review-reading, Ramuntos-eating cons who are barely redeemed by your marginal preferences for this blog over Joe's Dartblog and for Gerhard Schroeder over Tony Blair. Glad I know that now. Go lock yourselves inside Zete, which you guys also like, or something.
May 20, 2005
Food for thought
The senior class having enjoyed a festive night of lobster and drink tonight, I thought it apposite to link to this David Foster Wallace article on mass lobster consumption, "Consider the Lobster" (PDF), which was published in Gourmet magazine. Among other things, DFW informs us how lobsters were considered disgusting fare, unfit even for prisoners, until the 19th century, and he poses the great moral question, "Is it all right to boil a sentient creature alive just for our gustatory pleasure?"
Enjoy.
May 19, 2005
Considering Discussing further Consideration
After months of exhausting and mind-numbing research, the Darfur Action Group has put together a comprehensive argument for divestment. It is briefly outlined on my Free Dartmouth post.
Divestment is being pursued through the bureaucratic framework for these things. Unfortunately, that means things are a bit slow. After repeated discussions and presentations to the ACIR (Adivsory Committee on Investor Responsibility), some members are prepared to reccomend divesting from highly complicit oil companies (i.e. PetroChina) and military suppliers. Unfortunately, other members are insistent on gathering additional information (that could not possibly change the reality of the situation enough to make these specific investments ethical), and so all I got today was a pledge to discuss considering the possibilities of considering further discussion on the matter.
However, the committee is likely to make some decision by the end of the term. Decisions made by the ACIR are only reccomendations, however, and so they will then have to be approved by the Investment Committee and then the Board of Trustees. The problem? The Trustees meet in June and then over the summer. The Investment Committee meets in September.
Still, there is hope. Dartmouth could quite possibly lead the way, pushing other colleges and institutions on the brink of divestment to make that final leap. Already, Harvard has divested from PetroChina, and yesterday Illinois officially began the process of divesting its $1.2 billion in public pension funds invested in these companies.
There will be a public forum with the ACIR next Thursday, at 4pm, in the Faculty Lounge in the Hop.
Divestment is being pursued through the bureaucratic framework for these things. Unfortunately, that means things are a bit slow. After repeated discussions and presentations to the ACIR (Adivsory Committee on Investor Responsibility), some members are prepared to reccomend divesting from highly complicit oil companies (i.e. PetroChina) and military suppliers. Unfortunately, other members are insistent on gathering additional information (that could not possibly change the reality of the situation enough to make these specific investments ethical), and so all I got today was a pledge to discuss considering the possibilities of considering further discussion on the matter.
However, the committee is likely to make some decision by the end of the term. Decisions made by the ACIR are only reccomendations, however, and so they will then have to be approved by the Investment Committee and then the Board of Trustees. The problem? The Trustees meet in June and then over the summer. The Investment Committee meets in September.
Still, there is hope. Dartmouth could quite possibly lead the way, pushing other colleges and institutions on the brink of divestment to make that final leap. Already, Harvard has divested from PetroChina, and yesterday Illinois officially began the process of divesting its $1.2 billion in public pension funds invested in these companies.
There will be a public forum with the ACIR next Thursday, at 4pm, in the Faculty Lounge in the Hop.
May 18, 2005
Lecture on Adorno tomorrow
Tomorrow the Jewsish Studies program is holding a lecture by renowned scholar Martin Jay on Theodor Adorno:
Martin Jay, University of California, Berkeley:
"Taking on the Stigma of Inauthenticity: Adorno's Critique of Genuineness"
Underwritten by the Mary and William Barnet II 1934 Family Fund
4:00 p.m., Rockefeller 2
Regardless of your views on Marxist, neo-Marxist, or post-Marxist thought -- and Adorno does not fit neatly into any of these categories, perhaps being better described also in relation to Hegel -- this should be a fascinating event. Riding the line between dialectical thought and its poststructrualist critiques, Adorno is one of the most complex and profound thinkers of the 20th century, especially when it comes to aesthetics. I use him in my thesis on Beckett, for whom he expressed a deep intellectual admiration.
See you there.
Martin Jay, University of California, Berkeley:
"Taking on the Stigma of Inauthenticity: Adorno's Critique of Genuineness"
Underwritten by the Mary and William Barnet II 1934 Family Fund
4:00 p.m., Rockefeller 2
Regardless of your views on Marxist, neo-Marxist, or post-Marxist thought -- and Adorno does not fit neatly into any of these categories, perhaps being better described also in relation to Hegel -- this should be a fascinating event. Riding the line between dialectical thought and its poststructrualist critiques, Adorno is one of the most complex and profound thinkers of the 20th century, especially when it comes to aesthetics. I use him in my thesis on Beckett, for whom he expressed a deep intellectual admiration.
See you there.
Norman Mailer's got a hunch
Rathergate and now the Newsweek affair. Two disastrous cases of misinformation from sources assumed to be credible.
Misinformation, or counter-intelligence? Norman Mailer probes the question on the Huffington Post:
Misinformation, or counter-intelligence? Norman Mailer probes the question on the Huffington Post:
At the age of eighty-two I do not wish to revive old paranoia, but Lenin did leave us one valuable notion, one, at any rate. It was "Whom?" When you cannot understand a curious matter, ask yourself, "Whom? Whom does this benefit?" Dare I suggest that our Right has just gained a good deal by way of this matter?
May 17, 2005
Con Rock
In keeping with the recent spirit of this blog, I thought I'd do some investigative work into the evils being done by Cons in my particular area of expertise: music.
It didn't take long to dig up some disgusting abuses of the arts in this country by the current administration. Thats right, awful Con rock FINANCED and SUPPORTED BY our Federal Government. And despite all of the dollars being poured into these musical acts I have never heard a single god damn one of them. Its a pretty disturbing realization of the inadequacies of our beaucracy when record label payola outstrips our own mighty iron-fisted federal institution, and we get, say, "The Killers," on every fucking radio dial in the nation, while the labors of "Sixteen Beat" go completely unrecognized. But at least "The Killers" aren't Cons. And if they are they're too busy banging chicks and mainlining horse to bother me much (and at least doing it on their own dime.) Whatever.
Fuck you cons! And your paltry overfunded attempts at rock and roll! I'll stick with the MC5.
It didn't take long to dig up some disgusting abuses of the arts in this country by the current administration. Thats right, awful Con rock FINANCED and SUPPORTED BY our Federal Government. And despite all of the dollars being poured into these musical acts I have never heard a single god damn one of them. Its a pretty disturbing realization of the inadequacies of our beaucracy when record label payola outstrips our own mighty iron-fisted federal institution, and we get, say, "The Killers," on every fucking radio dial in the nation, while the labors of "Sixteen Beat" go completely unrecognized. But at least "The Killers" aren't Cons. And if they are they're too busy banging chicks and mainlining horse to bother me much (and at least doing it on their own dime.) Whatever.
Fuck you cons! And your paltry overfunded attempts at rock and roll! I'll stick with the MC5.
The corrupt world of poetry contests
In honor of the Dartmouth English department's recent creative writing awards ceremonies, here is an altogether strange tale, from The Chronicle of Higher Education, of a man on a crusade to expose all the fraud in academia's poetry contests, and of the subsequent backlash against him. (Be forewarned, the last line of the article reads, "Everyone it seems is looking for justice -- and not the poetic kind.") Our own Bennat Berger just won an award for his short stories from Dartmouth. Bennat, what do you have to say for yourself?
May 16, 2005
Lancet Study considerations
Silly hypothetical question: Is a person responsible for the death of someone he starves to death?
I have a few more things to say about the Lancet Study in light of Joe Malchow's offhand dismissal of it. Malchow seems to have concluded that the study is somehow worthless because, "While the Lancet Study does take the difference in pre- and post-war deaths, it is still wrong in terms of magnitude. It still counts deaths not related to war violence."
This is a) a misleading characterization of the study, and b) making what is in principle a completely absurd, inhumane argument about how a nation that beings a war and invades a country should be held responsible for the civilian deaths it causes.
(a) What the Lancet Study demonstrates through its well-established scientific methodology is an estimate of the deaths due to the US invasion of Iraq, whatever form those deaths took. That means deaths related to war violence but not necessairly directly related. Just thinking through the study's methodology, explained in an earlier post, for a second will make this clear. It does not just measure the number of Iraqi civilians who die from being shot, bombed, or otherwise destroyed immediately by US forces. It measures all kinds of deaths from disease, malnutrition, etc., that are the inevitable side-effects of war. It's a logistical reality that many cons like Rumsfeld would not even care to include under "collateral damage," since those who die under collateral damage are those who die only directly from being accidentally bombed or shot, presumably.
Just image if any region in the US were devastated as parts of Iraq have been. As is, without such a devastation, there are large numbers of people who are in need of healthcare, food, shelter, etc, and most of whom manage to scrape by thanks to many services that are provided to such people. Now take the logistical damage that would happen: cut off some water, power, overcrowd the hospitals and soup kitchens and shelters, and think about what would happen. Now imagine this scenario in a nation like Iraq, with a fraction of the resources the US has.
The Lancet Study has a few problems with it, mainly problems of scale or sample size. It happened to include Fallujah in its sample, where the damage wreaked by a prolonged and heavy assault probably skewed the results slightly. But this study still deserves to be taken seriously, and provides a good estimate of the real magnitude of civilian death in Iraq. Having looked critically at the major studies of the death toll, I believe a good estimate of the total deaths caused by the invasion is in the range of 50,000 to 100,000, with 75,000 as the most likely, and, I think, conservative number.
(b) I just don't get it: people seem to be criticizing the Lancet Study for its very fundamental, and fundamentally humane, purpose: to figure out how many people the war has actually killed. Do these critics believe that if one person starves another, no one is responsible because no shots dealt the deathblow? Would they also argue that the embargo on Iraq was not resonsible for any deaths? (Try on the order of hundreds of thousands after looking at some evidence here and here.)
I have a few more things to say about the Lancet Study in light of Joe Malchow's offhand dismissal of it. Malchow seems to have concluded that the study is somehow worthless because, "While the Lancet Study does take the difference in pre- and post-war deaths, it is still wrong in terms of magnitude. It still counts deaths not related to war violence."
This is a) a misleading characterization of the study, and b) making what is in principle a completely absurd, inhumane argument about how a nation that beings a war and invades a country should be held responsible for the civilian deaths it causes.
(a) What the Lancet Study demonstrates through its well-established scientific methodology is an estimate of the deaths due to the US invasion of Iraq, whatever form those deaths took. That means deaths related to war violence but not necessairly directly related. Just thinking through the study's methodology, explained in an earlier post, for a second will make this clear. It does not just measure the number of Iraqi civilians who die from being shot, bombed, or otherwise destroyed immediately by US forces. It measures all kinds of deaths from disease, malnutrition, etc., that are the inevitable side-effects of war. It's a logistical reality that many cons like Rumsfeld would not even care to include under "collateral damage," since those who die under collateral damage are those who die only directly from being accidentally bombed or shot, presumably.
Just image if any region in the US were devastated as parts of Iraq have been. As is, without such a devastation, there are large numbers of people who are in need of healthcare, food, shelter, etc, and most of whom manage to scrape by thanks to many services that are provided to such people. Now take the logistical damage that would happen: cut off some water, power, overcrowd the hospitals and soup kitchens and shelters, and think about what would happen. Now imagine this scenario in a nation like Iraq, with a fraction of the resources the US has.
The Lancet Study has a few problems with it, mainly problems of scale or sample size. It happened to include Fallujah in its sample, where the damage wreaked by a prolonged and heavy assault probably skewed the results slightly. But this study still deserves to be taken seriously, and provides a good estimate of the real magnitude of civilian death in Iraq. Having looked critically at the major studies of the death toll, I believe a good estimate of the total deaths caused by the invasion is in the range of 50,000 to 100,000, with 75,000 as the most likely, and, I think, conservative number.
(b) I just don't get it: people seem to be criticizing the Lancet Study for its very fundamental, and fundamentally humane, purpose: to figure out how many people the war has actually killed. Do these critics believe that if one person starves another, no one is responsible because no shots dealt the deathblow? Would they also argue that the embargo on Iraq was not resonsible for any deaths? (Try on the order of hundreds of thousands after looking at some evidence here and here.)
Dartblog responds, still wrong
Joe Malchow has an update addressing an email he recveived which pointed him to my post below. Malchow gets the link to this post wrong, and also seems oblivious to his initial error, or at least cursorily dismissive of the error, as he remarks,
John Tepperman e-mails in, directing my attention to this post- "Dartblog Distorts Lancet Study"- and adds, "Ouch." Not quite.
While the Lancet Study does take the difference in pre- and post-war deaths, it is still wrong in terms of magnitude. It still counts deaths not related to war violence.
Yes, quite. You can't just shift the terms of your criticism away from the obviously false characterization you made originally, to a fact about the Lancet Study that is well known. Furtermore, the Lancet Study is excellent and interesting precisely because of the latter fact: its methodology is a scientific attempt to track the total civilian deaths caused by the US invasion, not just the number of civilians killed directly by US bombs and bullets. This straightforward numerical analysis is used universally by economists, statisticians, etc. to identify the ceteris paribus effect of an event on a population.
I can't begin to describe how disturbing this kind of quick and uninformed dismissal of the possibility -- statistical likelihood, really -- of about 75,000 more dead Iraqis is. This is the extent of how so many of the people who "support the War in Iraq" actually care about Iraqi people.
Again, I hope Mr. Malchow will respond to this post and re-evaluate the facts.
John Tepperman e-mails in, directing my attention to this post- "Dartblog Distorts Lancet Study"- and adds, "Ouch." Not quite.
While the Lancet Study does take the difference in pre- and post-war deaths, it is still wrong in terms of magnitude. It still counts deaths not related to war violence.
Yes, quite. You can't just shift the terms of your criticism away from the obviously false characterization you made originally, to a fact about the Lancet Study that is well known. Furtermore, the Lancet Study is excellent and interesting precisely because of the latter fact: its methodology is a scientific attempt to track the total civilian deaths caused by the US invasion, not just the number of civilians killed directly by US bombs and bullets. This straightforward numerical analysis is used universally by economists, statisticians, etc. to identify the ceteris paribus effect of an event on a population.
I can't begin to describe how disturbing this kind of quick and uninformed dismissal of the possibility -- statistical likelihood, really -- of about 75,000 more dead Iraqis is. This is the extent of how so many of the people who "support the War in Iraq" actually care about Iraqi people.
Again, I hope Mr. Malchow will respond to this post and re-evaluate the facts.
May 15, 2005
Dartblog distorts Lancet Study
This is probably the most offensive example of an indisputable distortion of truth I have found yet on Joe's Dartblog. It needs to be set straight.
Joe Malchow asks, "How Many Iraqi War Deaths?" He mentions the Lancet Study, which estimated that the US invasion of Iraq caused 100,000 deaths (actually, between around 5000 and 200,000 was their estimate, with the likeliest number thus being 100,000 -- the Lancet Study is an admittedly imprecise study but could well still be accurate). Joe completely misconstrues the Lancet Study by misconstruing another person's (accurate) construal of the Lancet Study on Volokh. Jim Lindgren, the poster on Volokh, rightly points out that "The 98,000 figure covers deaths from all sources (including accidents and disease), while the new ILCS study's 24,000 estimate excludes deaths from non-War related sources of death, such as accidents or disease." He also is correct that "For example, the Lancet study distinguishes between the 14.6 month period before the War and the 17.8 months after the War."
Malchow then writes that
The number comes from the Lancet Study, which reported that 98,000 Iraqi non-militants had been killed. That is incorrect, as Jim Lindgren reminds us. What Lancet actually found was that 98,000 Iraqis had died since Operation Iraqi Freedom began. In a country of 25 million, that isn't hard to believe. The 98,000 includes asthma, cancer, accidents, car crashes, heart attacks, old age, suicide... The 98,000 includes everything.
Not at all. The Lancet study, as the Volokh post recognized, took the number of deaths in Iraq from a 14.6-month period before the war, and the number of deaths from the 17.8-month period after the war, and subtracted the former from the latter to estimate the number of deaths due to the Iraq war. The change in death rate, essentially, NOT just the total number of deaths after the Iraq war. No one in their right mind would ever propose or lie about the latter as a method for for estimating the death toll in Iraq. Only Malchow seems to be under this illusion about the Lancet Study.
Go check it out for yourself. Here is the Lancet Study in PDF, and a summary of it from The Washington Post.
I sincerely hope Mr. Malchow will issue a correction on his blog and remove the offending post.
Joe Malchow asks, "How Many Iraqi War Deaths?" He mentions the Lancet Study, which estimated that the US invasion of Iraq caused 100,000 deaths (actually, between around 5000 and 200,000 was their estimate, with the likeliest number thus being 100,000 -- the Lancet Study is an admittedly imprecise study but could well still be accurate). Joe completely misconstrues the Lancet Study by misconstruing another person's (accurate) construal of the Lancet Study on Volokh. Jim Lindgren, the poster on Volokh, rightly points out that "The 98,000 figure covers deaths from all sources (including accidents and disease), while the new ILCS study's 24,000 estimate excludes deaths from non-War related sources of death, such as accidents or disease." He also is correct that "For example, the Lancet study distinguishes between the 14.6 month period before the War and the 17.8 months after the War."
Malchow then writes that
The number comes from the Lancet Study, which reported that 98,000 Iraqi non-militants had been killed. That is incorrect, as Jim Lindgren reminds us. What Lancet actually found was that 98,000 Iraqis had died since Operation Iraqi Freedom began. In a country of 25 million, that isn't hard to believe. The 98,000 includes asthma, cancer, accidents, car crashes, heart attacks, old age, suicide... The 98,000 includes everything.
Not at all. The Lancet study, as the Volokh post recognized, took the number of deaths in Iraq from a 14.6-month period before the war, and the number of deaths from the 17.8-month period after the war, and subtracted the former from the latter to estimate the number of deaths due to the Iraq war. The change in death rate, essentially, NOT just the total number of deaths after the Iraq war. No one in their right mind would ever propose or lie about the latter as a method for for estimating the death toll in Iraq. Only Malchow seems to be under this illusion about the Lancet Study.
Go check it out for yourself. Here is the Lancet Study in PDF, and a summary of it from The Washington Post.
I sincerely hope Mr. Malchow will issue a correction on his blog and remove the offending post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)