Saturday, December 21, 2002Guns don't killPeople don't either. Movies do."STUDY FINDS THAT YOUNG TEENS ARE EXPOSED TO TOO MANY VIOLENT MOVIES" A pretty lousy title for this article on a collaborative study by the Norris Cotton Cancer Center at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Dartmouth Medical School and Dartmouth College. Apparently this study is both quantitative and qualitative. It determined exposure to movies and authoritatively declared what is "too many"? Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by alex at 6:44 PM (0 comments) XXXmas is fast approachingA collegiate gift ideaFull post and comments below the fold. Posted by alex at 6:18 PM (0 comments) Friday, December 20, 2002One last seasonIvyLeagueSports.com's men's and women's swimming previewsFull post and comments below the fold. Posted by alex at 2:45 PM (0 comments) Re: Lott to Step DownThis is not terrible. Frist will be a better leader, is more in line with the President's agenda, and isn't tarnished and comprimised as Lott would have been.Think about how much easier this would have been had Lott resigned his post (but not seat) a week ago. The key thing now is to push this entire episode out of the public mind. It's really too bad that Lott didn't step down early yesterday. Still, as I wrote earlier, "Thank you, Colin Powell." Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by Andrew Grossman at 1:17 PM (0 comments) Lott to Step DownThis is terrible.On the up-side, it looks like Bill Frist will replace him. Frist is great. The Tennesseean is the only doctor in the Senate, he's young, and has no segregationist skeletons. He'll be good. Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by Emmett at 11:08 AM (0 comments) Si Vis Pacem...Blair tells his troops in the field to prepare for war.Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by Emmett at 10:03 AM (0 comments) Excellent Piece on ConservatismI am importing an article by Roger Scruton in Opinion Journal. It was posted on the Dartmouth Observer by John Stevenson. The article is a wonderfully articulate distillation of the Kirkean (that is, Russell Kirk's) view of conservatism: conservatism is a temperament; conservatism is the rejection of ideology; conservatism sets itself against the secular utopians; etc. etc.Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by Emmett at 9:59 AM (0 comments) Thursday, December 19, 2002Thank you, Colin Powel"Material breach."Who's this Lott guy I was hearing so much about the other day? Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by Andrew Grossman at 10:44 PM (0 comments) Re: Must Have Missed a StoryThis is amazing. Paging Henry Miller...Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by Emmett at 4:46 PM (0 comments) Re: Must have missed a storyA reader writes in to explain:In response to Emmett's puzzlement over the posting on Senator Burns' website, it probably is a response to Bob Herbert's editorial in the NY Times today, which recalls an incident from 1994 in which Burns, when asked by a constituent what it was like to live in DC with "all those niggers", responded with "it's a hell of a challenge."Sigh, these really are lynching times. (Just to be preemptive for the idiots: I apologize for my tasteless and hurtful remarks, etc., etc.) Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by Andrew Grossman at 4:31 PM (0 comments) Re: Sound FamiliarAm I the only person on the planet defending Lott? (Pat Buchanan and other loonies aside...)Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by Emmett at 4:12 PM (0 comments) Sound Familiar?A letter in the Corner regarding young conservatives, thought it was a pretty apt description of TDR:Let me give you some "word on the street" anecdotal evidence to back up your article. I happen to know lots of conservatives and libertarians that span the range of thought. I don't know how to categorize them all - your phrases "neocons," "traditional cons," and "paleocons." - are confusing as hell to me. But, trust me, all of the various "tribes" are well represented. And, I will tell you, that the people who were quickest and most pissed off - were those like me: people who would describe themselves as "Goldwater Libertarians". We're in our late 20's to mid 30's, we adore the Founding Fathers, Reagan, Thatcher, Welasa, Friedman, Hayek, and especially bad asses like Barry Goldwater. We read NRO, and CATO, and many of us would like to work for the Institute for Justice. We're well educated from Ivy League schools, who know what the good years for cabernet are, but would rather drink cold Old Milwaukee longnecks. We're the ones who called and emailed each other, seething with anger, after watching any of one of Lott's public buffoonery to bemoan his asininities. We're also the folks who threw stuff at the TV every time some Republican, or pseudo conservative, tried to defend his remarks. Yeah, we're mad that every jerk in America is cashing in on this. But, we're more furious at Lott for hijacking the ideas we think are morally right, and are willing to fight for. And, to a man [sorry, not a lot of women in this group - which probably means something?] - not a single one of us has ever, ever, ever, been a liberal, before coming over to conservatism - in whatever form you might want to call it. Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by Ryan at 3:49 PM (0 comments) Why isn't my GPA higher?The Registrar has posted fall term median grades. The bottom three departments on the chart alphabetically:02F SPAN-001-01 18 A- 02F SPAN-001-02 22 B 02F SPAN-001-03 18 B+ 02F SPAN-001-04 14 A- 02F SPAN-002-01 17 A- 02F SPAN-002-02 16 A- 02F SPAN-002-03 21 A- 02F SPAN-002-04 21 B+ 02F SPAN-002-05 16 A- 02F SPAN-002-06 15 A- 02F SPAN-003-01 22 B+ 02F SPAN-003-02 17 A- 02F SPAN-003-03 22 A- 02F SPAN-009-01 20 B+ 02F SPAN-009-02 28 A- 02F SPAN-009-03 20 A-/B + 02F SPAN-030-01 17 A- 02F SPAN-037-01 19 A- 02F SPAN-056-01 13 A- 02F SPAN-058-01 11 A- 02F SPAN-079-01 18 A- 02F SPEE-027-01 16 A- 02F THEA-018-01 26 A 02F THEA-030-01 15 A- 02F THEA-030-02 16 A 02F THEA-040-01 19 A 02F THEA-045-01 11 A- 02F WGST-010-01 21 A 02F WGST-025-01 15 A 02F WGST-030-01 70 A- 02F WGST-032-01 13 B+ 02F WGST-035-01 38 A 02F WGST-037-01 63 A- 02F WGST-043-01 24 A 02F WGST-047-01 16 A Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by alex at 3:35 PM (0 comments) Post-Senate CareerFear not, Senator Lott! If you lose your job, you'll be able to find new work no problem. Here are a few suggestions from Free Republic...Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by Emmett at 11:45 AM (0 comments) Must Have Missed a StoryCan anyone out there explain this?Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by Emmett at 11:36 AM (0 comments) More Dem HyprocisyYou'd think they'd get tired of being hypocrites... Here's a piece on the Lott imbroglio by Walter Williams, a very smart fellow.Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by Emmett at 10:27 AM (0 comments) Wednesday, December 18, 2002Daschle to Run? Dems to Donnybrook?Roll Call is reporting that Tom Daschle is leaning towards running for president, and that Senator Christopher Dodd (CT) is launching a stealthy challenge to the heir presumptive, Senator Harry Reid (NV). This is a two-fer: it seems that Daschle's seat might be vacated (Thune in 2004?), and it also seems that there may be a bloody battle for Dem leadership.Other gossip: Ted Kennedy's Christmas party antics (when he's sober, at least) include dressing up as Ben Affleck and mocking John Kerry (alas, this has since been cancelled); Jim Jeffords apparently has come out in defense of Trent Lott; and Minnesota's seatwarmer senator, Dean Barkley, claims that he and basketball player Charles Barkley "have the same size butt." Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by Emmett at 3:09 PM (0 comments) I was just going to post that!Can't wait to have our Review articles and conversations come back to haunt us while on the campaign trail.Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by alex at 3:00 PM (0 comments) More Dem Hypocrisy on RaceJohn Kerry, presidential wanna-be, is the Salome of today's politics: he's demanding Trent Lott's head on a platter. Oopsie. Turns out he is guilty of racial insensitivity himself.Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by Emmett at 2:41 PM (0 comments) Say "Know" to War (via Instapundit) Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by Andrew Grossman at 12:46 PM (0 comments) Dems' Hypocrisy on RaceQuod erat demonstratum.Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by Emmett at 12:41 PM (0 comments) Chuck Schumer in Trouble?I never thought it would be possible, but there's a glimmer of hope that Chuck Schumer might be ousted in 2004. A new Marist poll has him trailing Giuliani, with only 37% to Rudy's 58% (and only 5% undecided). But would Rudy run? Or would he rather stand again for mayor of New York in 2005?In any event, Schumer's favorable rating is a rather anemic 53% -- about where Hillary's is, I believe. This suggests that it's not just the Rudy Factor. How would Pataki fare against Schumer? It may be too early to tell, but New York seems promising as a potential GOP pickup. Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by Emmett at 12:20 PM (0 comments) FunnyDown with the Snowman patriarchy!Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by Emmett at 11:20 AM (0 comments) Tuesday, December 17, 2002More on Michigan"The Diversity Fraud" by Bruce Thornton at FrontPageMagazine.com.Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by alex at 2:38 PM (0 comments) State Department Report on IraqAppalling...No wait, wait, let me guess... It's the sanctions, right? America's the bad guy here, right? Right? Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by Emmett at 12:06 PM (0 comments) Lott on BETHere, and video clips here.Plus, The New York Times actually listened to Andrew Sullivan, for once. Too bad it was on how conservatives have been leading the charge against Lott. Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by Emmett at 11:05 AM (0 comments) ApologiPaloozaI love Scrappleface.I love this, too. Fo' shizzle! Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by Emmett at 10:59 AM (0 comments) Bush Plans to Deploy Missile Defense in 2004Wah-Hoo-Wah for Star Wars!Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by Emmett at 10:53 AM (0 comments) More on CanadiaHere's a ludicrous site on Canada's hate crimes law. Check out the FAQ section, which contains this gem:I've been hearing a lot on the news lately about hate crime. Is it against the law to dislike someone? Of course not. Canadians want the right to express their likes and dislikes. However, hate involves more than bad feelings. Hate can lead to violence, and that is why the law sometimes steps in. As long as people attack others because of their skin colour, place of birth, or worship choices, no one will really be free. This site is careful to point out that, by hate crimes, they do not simply mean mandated punishment guidelines for crimes motivated by hate; rather, they mean punishment for the hate itself. Amazingly, this site says that Canadian law distinguishes three types of hate crimes: advocating genocide, publicly inciting hatred and wilfully promoting hatred. These "crimes" also carry jail time (up to five years for "advocating genocide"). Here's another gem: Some people were handing out hate leaflets in the parking lot of the neighbourhood shopping centre. What should I do the next time it happens? Don't confront them. You may want to take a pamphlet to show the police. Contact your local police force right away and tell them what happened. And another: Is it against the law to advocate genocide using e-mail? Yes, it is. What should I do when I see hateful messages on the Internet? First, write down the web location (also known as the URL) of the web site containing the hateful message. The web location, or URL, is the address that usually begins "http://www." Then, contact your local police force right away and tell them about what you saw. And check out the "Magic 8-Ball" tone of this one: Someone in Australia posted this hateful Web Page. How does the law regard that? The law is not sure on how to handle hate that is spread in Canada through Internet sites located outside of Canada. "My sources say shut up." Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by Emmett at 10:41 AM (0 comments) More Evidence that Canada SucksSasha Volokh has posted some interesting articles on censorship, Canuck-style. Apparently, the nutty ravings about Hitler of a "First Peoples" elder, David Ahenakew, do not merit protection in Saskatchewan. Here ya go!Here's more on Canada's tepid commitment to free speech. Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by Emmett at 10:28 AM (0 comments) InterestingFrom Jonah Goldberg in the Corner:"Tim Russert this morning explained that if Lott resigns from the Senate this year, the Governor only gets to appoint a 90-day replacement until a special election. If he resigns from the Senate next year, i.e. next month, then the governor's appointment is permanent through the next general election." Aren't constitutional quirks fun? Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by Ryan at 10:27 AM (0 comments) AshcroftThe Ashcroft thing is an argument for getting this done with as soon as possible. The longer the Lott story is dragged out, the more pain it will cause. End it now and people will soon forget about it, especially with Christmas next week. There's a fairly short memory in politics so the sooner this is over with, the better for the Republicans it will be. Everyday Lott stays in power and in the news, the more likely it is that people will be snooping around old issues of Southern Partisan.Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by Ryan at 10:24 AM (0 comments) ClarkNo, Trent Lott is not the conservative I want to go to the mat for on race. There's no question he's been boneheaded in the past, boneheaded now, and he'll be boneheaded again in the future. Perhaps now is the time to silently and covertly, a few months from now (maybe in 2004), have Lott "resign" his post. But under no circumstances can we give the impression that the Left can bring down a Senate majority leader for silly little comments like that. Pickering would be nothing compared to that. If we hand them that victory, we may as well all go home.Of course the Dems will make this a campaign issue. All we have to do is make their racial McCarthyism (Lott, Pickering) and their racial hypocrisy (Jackson, Sharpton, Byrd) a campaign issue as well. Conservatives need to stand up for Lott -- not doing so risks way, way too much. Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by Emmett at 10:22 AM (0 comments) Speaking of RacismHere's a great piece on the University of Michigan's racist admissions policy from Beth Henary, of The Weekly Standard.Also, Terry Eastland on the matter. Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by Emmett at 10:17 AM (0 comments) EmmettI think last night's performance on BET was pretty much proof of why Lott has to go. Saying he supports affirmative action, excuse me? Whether this is or is not racial McCarthyism is an open question, but a Lott resignation will end it much more quickly. If he sticks around, it will only be continous pain for the next few years. On top of handing liberals a campaign issue to bring up at every possible instance, which you know they will, Lott will be forced to go into full force CYA mode, selling out the whole Republican agenda. Futhermore, is Lott really the conservative you want to go to the mat for on the race issue? Aside from his comments at the Strom centennial, everyday some other detail comes out about his past that only hurt the Republican cause, many of them fairly accurate in being described as "segregationist." Do I think he's a segregationist today? No. Do I think he was once one? Yes. Were those feelings due to living in a particular time and place? Certainly. Does that context in any way insulate from attacks by Democrats? No, they will use any rationale possible to paint him as a segregationist in his heart today. For that reason, he will be forced to concede and compromise on every issue that comes before the Senate. Say Judge Pickering comes up again. He is eminently qualified for his position but was the subject of an intense racial witchhunt in the last confirmation process. Even with the majority now, do you think a GOP under Lott would have the capital to fight for his nomination? This would even be a drag on issues like welfare reform renewal. Lott's already lacking leadership abilities will be almost entirely wiped out. He gots to go.Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by Ryan at 10:14 AM (0 comments) CassandraIf we give Lefties an inch on race, they'll take a mile. It seems their reaching already. Joshua Micah Marshall, whose Talking Points Memo blog has been vigorously peddling the Trent Lott Is A Racist line, is now setting his sights on Ashcroft the Racist. That's right, he's dredging up that interview Ashcroft gave to Southern Partisan. So they'll even fight old fights if they think the climate helps them. Again, this is why the GOP has to stand up for Lott -- whatever one may think of him as majority leader, allowing him to be crucified in this manner is very, very destructive.Da capo: Trent Lott: I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either. John Ashcroft: Your magazine also helps set the record straight. You've got a heritage of doing that, of defending Southern Patriots like Lee, Jackson, and Davis. Traditionalists must do more. I've got to do more. We've all got to stand up and speak in this respect, or else we'll be taught that these people were giving their lives, subcribing their sacred fortunes and their honor to some perverted agenda. This is racism? PS -- Marshall is also commenting that Lott's mea culpa (or should I say mea culpa maxima omnifaria -- can someone check my Latin?) on BET included an admission that the senator now "absolutely" supports affirmative action. They can't be allowed to do these things with impunity; now the head Republican in the Senate and an otherwise stalwart conservative "absolutely" supports affirmative action. Hey, maybe he is a racist, after all. Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by Emmett at 10:03 AM (0 comments) Fear Not, Talcottwww.jimlarimore.com is still available!Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by Emmett at 9:40 AM (0 comments) Monday, December 16, 2002I don't know why I didn't think of this earlierI e-mailed a friend at the Cornell Freedom Project, URL www.hunterrawlings.com, about whether he was going to get a new URL in honor of Cornell's new president, Jeffrey Lehman, an alumnus and current dean of the University of Michigan Law School. He's already got it: www.jeffreylehman.com refreshes to the CFP site.I was thinking about doing this, having www.jameswright.com refresh to the Review's website. But it's kind of taken. Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by alex at 7:26 PM (0 comments) At Barrett's requestThe David Brooks articleFull post and comments below the fold. Posted by alex at 7:10 PM (0 comments) 1) It's very clear around the Hill that Lott is a goner as of Jan. 6th. Larry, I'd like to make a new mixology for you in Lott's honor.2)Someone post David Brooks' new Weekly Standard article--12/23/02...TDR reference in his long article on hooking up, Yalies, and meritocratic ladder system ... "I did run across many conservative students, who dont seem fundamentally alienated from their peers. I'm happy to report that many of the smarter students one meets have some conservative opinions, especially about the UN and such things. You would not call them movement conservatives, however, many said they are privately embarassed by confortational conservatives such as David Horowitz and publications like the Dartmouth Review." way to be Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by barrett at 4:36 PM (0 comments) EmmettLott is not who we should want as a leader, as a matter of substance and appearance. We'd all be better served if he remain in the Senate (avoiding his seat being filled by a Democrat Governor) but not as Majority Leader (personally, I like Nickles). We can't afford to have Lott standing next to W very much. And, unlike Cardinal Law, he should make this decision expeditiously.Re: the racial McCarthyism (I like Horowitz too), Hume, Watts, the National Review, et. al, are not wrong to be distancing themselves. This is not the issue to be crying racial McCarthyism; we'll save save that for affirmative action, reparations, etc. Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by alex at 4:17 PM (0 comments) Kennewick ManAn amazing story, that some of you might be familiar with. Several anthropologists suggest that the ancestors of Native Americans may have driven out older populations -- some, perhaps, even from Europe.Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by Emmett at 3:28 PM (0 comments) From PunditWatchHere's a gem about the Sunday morning talk shows, where the prime-time pillorying of Trent Lott continues:Brit Hume of Fox, noting that Lott will continue his �apology tour� on Monday with an appearance on Black Entertainment Television, suggested additional events: �On Tuesday, crawl on broken glass; on Wednesday, lie on a bed of hot coals; on Thursday, submit to a public flogging.� J. C. Watts said Lott could crawl across Mississippi on hands and knees and critics still wouldn�t think it was enough. Hummel, this little matter of racial McCarthyism is much more important that Lott's merits as majority leader. The Left cannot be allowed to win this. Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by Emmett at 2:16 PM (0 comments) Sunday, December 15, 2002Letters to a Young ConservativeGeorge Packer, in The Nation, shockingly pans TDR alum Dinesh D'Souza's new book Letters to a Young Conservative. One particularly choice quote: "one can imagine an intelligent conservative like David Brooks begging liberals to find their voices so that conservatism doesn't stiffen like the liberalism to which D'Souza and his pals at Dartmouth delivered a few swift kicks on the eve of the Reagan revolution."The Nation really seems to have missed the point on this one. The book doesn't seem to have been meant as to meet the sort of standard Packer argues it misses. Something like Lionel Trilling's The Liberal Imagination isn't a fair point of comparison but of a different genre altogether. The mismatch is obvious and just makes The Nation look silly and the review utterly uncredible. Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by Andrew Grossman at 10:54 PM (0 comments) No Gore in '04Today, Gore made his first smart presidential campaign decision ever -- he announced that he will not run for president in 2004. No doubt he wants to set himself up as the savior of the Democratic party and the country in 2008 (by taking a page from Nixon's book). It's a bit of a gamble... But it might pay off for him. Gore's decision increases the odds that Bush will win re-election in 2004, but it also means that we might elect a President Gore in 2008, depending on who the Republicans can field (and on about a billion other factors). Very interesting news...Full post and comments below the fold. Posted by Emmett at 5:24 PM (0 comments) |
Dartlog ToolsHanover NewsDartmouth LinksNota BeneArticles of note—culled from the Internet by TDR. A hyperrealist's defense? Thanksgiving: Adam Kirsch landed on his feet. Grim. How important is the libretto? Nothing thrills a classical music crowd more than a new piece of music that doesn't make them physically ill. Advertisement  Dartmouth BlogsFavorites
Advertisement |
|
Copyright © 1996-2009 The Dartmouth Review |
|