<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/platform.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d11969108\x26blogName\x3dCambridge+Common\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://cambridgecommon.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://cambridgecommon.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-508380183434548642', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Saturday, May 28, 2005

watch this

Everyone who cares about politics, especially liberal politics, must watch this Frontline on Karl Rove right now. The whole 50-minutes is on that website, and it will fascinate, depress and inspire you. American politics is a dirty, important business, and no one more depressingly represents that than Karl Rove.

CONGRATULATIONS! Another semester done. Have an amazing summer. Posted by Hello

Friday, May 27, 2005

the end of the veep mess

A letter in the Crimson from Faraz Munaim on the veep mess that I hope begins to put this all to rest.

Thursday, May 26, 2005


from The Onion: "Bush Gets Caught In One Of His Own Terror Traps" Posted by Hello

three interesting videos

Amnesty International blasts the US for Gitmo, compares them to Soviet gulags and the disappearing peoples in South American dictatorships. Video here.

Hardball has an interesting (although over-simplified) history of the religious right in the last 40 years and Frist's modern day problems. Video here.

60 Minutes did a piece on the failures of abstinence programs, and the ways the Bush Administration is giving money to what are essentially evangelizing programs. Link here, video at bottom of page.

Enjoy, congratulations if you're done! I am not. Damn you Pinker and your last day final!

Bulworth v.Terminator

Warren Beatty seems to be testing the waters for a run for Governor against the Ahnold. Either that or he's just trying to knock him down a few more pegs so he's a softer target for Angelides. For those of you who don't know, the current Democratic challenger to my Governor is Phil Angelides, the California State Treasurer and father of a Quincy House Junior. Smart man, would be a good Governor. What he couldn't do, however, is pull off the amazingly funny and pointed hit on Schwarzenegger that Beatty did last week speaking at a UC Berkeley grad school graduation:
"cut down the photo ops, the fake events, the fake issues, the fake crowds, the scapegoats, the 'language problems,' the broken promises, the 'Minutemen,' the prevarications and put some sunlight on some taxes.(more in expanded post)
"It's become time to define a Schwarzenegger Republican . A Schwarzenegger Republican is a Bush Republican who says he's a Schwarzenegger Republican," Beatty said. "Can't we accept that devotion to the building of the body politic is more complex and a little more sensitive than devotion to body-building?"
Witheringng! I love it. Beatty's a smart guy and an experienced political operative. Who knows whether or not he'd be a good Governor, but I wouldn't mind a few more of those speeches...

Wednesday, May 25, 2005

zing!

Keith Olbermann, who I still remember fondly growing up as the head anchor of Sports Center, nails White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan (watch the video here). While I obviously like Olbermann because of his fairly clear liberal bias, that bias also allows him to cut through a lot of the WH's truth-twisting because he's willing to go against the GOP talking points.

Mr. Olbermann then does a great job of respectfully interviewing a pastor who believes, and put up on his church sign, that the Koran should be flushed down a toilet. His damning proof that it is not the word of God and the Christian Bible is: the Koran says Jesus was born under a palm tree, the Bible says he was born in a manger. Wow, brilliant logic. I think Olbermann does a great job in pointing to the problem of fundamentalism and absolutism like this in his questioning (watch the video here).

I do miss Olbermann on Sports Center, but I love what he's doing at MSNBC.

hmmm...

Well, for the first time Cambridge Common is actually in the Crimson, not just making fun of it or questioning it's factual basis. Nothing much new, just a fairly reasonable accounting of this whole ridiculous Veep controversy. God knows it was a slow news day if something CC was involved in was the lead story. They're really desperate in these slow days of finals (newsflash: students sit in library, take exams). While I think it's good that they wrote about it to clear the air, it seems like there are other things that could have been the lead story that are maybe a little more important:
- Harvard continues to be one of the only Ivy League schools without a Women's Center.
- Harvard continues to sub-contract every possible worker so that they don't have to pay for benefits like medical insurance for their children.
- Harvard continues to invest in companies with holdings in the Sudan.
Oh, I could go on and on. And that's just here at Harvard. Who else has something important that would have been a more appropriate lead story than some lying UC member trying to malign good people?

Monday, May 23, 2005

reasonable people win

Who would have thunk it? The nuclear bomb that would have gone off on the floor of the Senate tomorrow has been diffused by 14 (really twelve with two jumping on when they knew it would happen) Senators working across the aisle. Basically, by agreeing to vote for cloture (end a filibuster) on three nominees- Rogers, Owen and Bryor - and agreeing not to support the nuclear option to end judicial filibusters, this group has apparently ended the entire thing. While this isn't ideal (these judges are pretty far right), it's an important compromise (see the text here) to maintain the filibuster in principle and reduce its abuse. In terms of politics it looks like Frist is the big loser, McCain is the big winner, and the Democrats are a wash.
(some VIDEO LINKS in expanded post)

Alright, first you can watch the press conference (parts one, two and three). It's a haphazard but nice little thing with each Senator speaking for a few sentences. You can also watch Frist try to save face on the floor of the Senate. When I was watching all I could think is "who advised him to do this? He looks desperate!" You can also watch Leader Reid's press conference and speech on the floor. Both are measured but happy.

the conservative divide(s)

It's coming. For years now, the coalition that is the Republican Party has been held together with shrewd politicking and calls for solidarity in the face of the supposed evils of liberalism: moral relativism, pacifism and elitism (or as I like to call them: tolerance, respect for human life and intelligence). The GOP is rampant with contradictions: top-down federalized social conservatism v. bottom-up federalist communitarianism; big government militarism v. small government libertarianism; cautious, isolationism foreign policy v. robust, preemptive idealism; lower taxes on the rich v. um... wait they agree on that. While the Democratic Party is equally internally contradictory, our contradictions have been more pronounced at the top, while the GOP has pretty much kept things together. In the national leadership to this point, all of those different strands have blended into a pro-war, pro-market, anti-tax Goliath that talks up social conservatism in election years, and mostly ignore it in reality. (more in expanded post)

But the fault lines are starting to show. Social (very) conservatives, who claim ownership over George W. because they (wrongly) claim they got him reelected, are cashing in their favor cards. The want Schiavo, they want judges, and they place their goals in the apocalyptic terms of Christians versus the World. But they may be overplaying their hand (I love bad metaphors). In USA Today (yesterday), Trent Lott has to defend his Christian cred to the Christian Right's new leader, James Dobson:
"James Dobson: Who does he think he is, questioning my conservative credentials?" Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said in an interview. Dobson, head of the conservative group Focus on the Family, criticized Lott for his efforts to forge a compromise in the fight over the judges. Lott is still angry. "Some of his language and conduct is quite un-Christian, and I don't appreciate it," the senator said.
When Trent Lott is at odds with the right wing of the Republican Party, you know other people are squirming. And the fact that 6 GOP Senators may (let's hope) jump ship to maintain the filibuster in the face of incredible pressure from the base and the White House doesn't speak well.

Then you have Pat Buchanan who, while all put kicked out of GOP in 2000, is declaring conservatism dead,and a war a-brewin over the remains:
"The conservative movement has passed into history," says the one-time White House aide, three-time presidential candidate, commentator and magazine publisher. "It doesn't exist anymore as a unifying force," he says in an interview with The Washington Times. "There are still a lot of people who are conservative, but the movement is now broken up, crumbled, dismantled."
It hard to ignore his claim that he lost the culture war, when you see that folks like these are going to be going to dinner with Bush:
“I’m honored to be invited to this event,” Kulkis said. “Republicans bill themselves as the pro-business party. Well, you won’t find a group of people more pro-business than pornographers. We contributed over $10 billion to the national economy last year.”

Cognitive dissonance anyone? And best of all, a Presidential campaign is coming up! How many times do you think Frist or Santorum will hint that McCain is un-Christian?

Sunday, May 22, 2005

a thought from the Editor on UC debating

I've learned multiple lessons this week, and I thought I'd share one of them with you (rather than trying to pass my classes). Since Ian's resignation, Clay's election and Lurie's column, it's been hard not to be involved. Accusations thrown left and right at people who I care about, accusations thrown back, libel, not libel, conspiracy, not conspiracy, coup and cabal, blah blah blah. It's intoxicating, frustrating and in the end, not very important. I'm not going to get into who's right and wrong, I think most people know my take on that at this point. But what is abundantly clear to me is how perceived injustices (however legitimate), whether it's Ian's resignation or Lurie's accusations, can turn into such poisonous debates where no one's motives go unquestioned, no one's integrity remains intact and no one wins. That's the sad thing, after something like this, there's simply no way for anyone to step away clean and happy, confident in some self-righteous victory. We're all guilty of taking our politics and ourselves too seriously, and we're the only people who care.
(more in expanded post)

I'm not trying to say that the UC, or the journalistic practices at the Crimson are unimportant. They're not, both affect thousands of lives in small, but occasionally significant ways. But, regardless of who is right, who benefits from Lurie's OpEd or my post impuning it? We will both claim to personal knowledge of Truth (which hopefully in time will be further established), and point to "the people's right to know," "to be represented," etc. etc. But the people don't give a shit. They just want a hundred a fifty bucks for a dinner they're throwing and an occasional cheap movie. None of them care about the bickering, the politicking, or any of our accusations. As my roommate's girlfriend said, in the end, it's just "entertaining breakfast reading."

So, if everyone wants to keep debating, attacking each other and whatnot, I guess that's your perogative. I, for one, am tired, and need to try to pass Kloppenberg's class.

Good luck on your finals,
The Editor

Saturday, May 21, 2005


Awwwkward! Posted by Hello

not QUITE libelous (maybe?)

I don't yet have time to write up a good response to Mr. Lurie's astoundingly dishonest OpEd in the Crimson today about the recent VP controversy at the UC, but Cambridge Common readers should know one important thing about it: there was an extensive conversation at the Crimson last night about whether or not it was technically libelous, and whether they could print it. The Crimson's President had to get involved, they had to call a lawyer and they apparently had to rework the piece multiple times so that the dishonest language would not subject the paper to a lawsuit. From dictionary.com:
Libel:1. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation. 2. The act of presenting such material to the public.
I'm not sure that there could be a more clear tacit recognition that the paper was knowingly printing something untrue than the fact that they were worried about getting sued over it.

filibustering with excitement!

Well, here goes nothing! The nuclear bomb is set to go off Tuesday, when Senate Republican's have scheduled a cloture vote to end debate, which would begin the filibuster and result in a series of "interpretations" by the chair (which would be Cheney) that would, if the GOP has the votes, end with a majority sustaining the chairs ruling and effectually ending the filibuster on judicial nominees. The Times has a good article on what the inside politicking regarding compromises, vote counts and public relations is looking like.

Throughout all of this madness, I've been following the Democrat's side of the argument at dembloggers.com, a video blog that has posted various Democrat's speeches from the floor. My favorites have been Chucky Schumer (parts one and two) and an angry Ted Kennedy (parts one and two). If you're bored come next week, I'm sure demblogger will be a fun place to watch it all unfold (on the Dems side, at least). If anyone knows somewhere (other than c-span) with clips of the Republican speeches, let me know!

bored? so are they!

For anyone who's been wondering what all those soldiers have been doing over there in Iraq all this time, an amazing, joyful, strange example.

Friday, May 20, 2005

a lazy continuation

Because I am far too tired to come up with another line of inquiry (or entertaining thought) right now, let's extend the previous one. The question at hand is: why is it that the two top people at each of these five organizations, the leaders of the "establishment", are all white and mostly male and (so far as I know) all straight?

We seem to have hit a snag, in that it has been pointed out that my sample (10 people, one year) is so small that it is statistically insignificant. Unfortunately, seeing as how this is a blog and not a newspaper, I have no plans to start doing actual reporting to try to expand my sample. In fact, in the face of the social science naysayers, I'm going to stick by my claim. Problems may differ from organization to organization, and for different reasons, but it still seems to me that "the establishment" is overwhelmingly white, male and straight. I guess, if we really wanted to start to tackle problems and get into "real" analysis, we could pick one and start to disaggregate the numbers and point to real solutions. Who wants to start?

A fair and balanced screen grab from Fox News. Posted by Hello

Wednesday, May 18, 2005


In celebration of those CC readers (and contributors) who are currently being huge nerds and waiting for the beginning of the end of Star Wars. You know who you are, let me know how it is... Posted by Hello

A long, loaded question

Alright, so while I hate the idiotic assumptions that people often associate with the simplistic construction I'm about to make, I'm going to do it anyway. Let's say there is an "establishment" in the political community of Harvard. Obviously, that "establishment" has to start with the student government and the student newspaper. But it would seem logical to add to that list the Institute of Politics, the Harvard Democrats and the Harvard Republicans. One might disagree, but let's simply say that those 5 organization represent what we'll call that political "establishment" of Harvard. I use the term "establishment" not in the pejorative sense that an occasionally anti-establishment type like myself might, but simply to say that the role of those institutions is established and none of them are trying to "subvert the dominant paradigm" as one facebook group puts it. This, I contend, is the establishment.

So here's the loaded question: why is it that the two top people at each of these five organizations, the leaders of the "establishment", are all white and mostly male and (so far as I know) all straight?(more in expanded post)

Now, before you try to answer that question let me warn you of a few things: I am friends with the leaders of all five of those groups, and I followed (and even participated in some of) their elections. In all five cases, out of the people running for the offices I believe that they were each undoubtedly the most qualified candidates. But, of the ten Presidents and Vice Presidents (or comparable second in command at the Crimson, the Managing Editor), only two are woman and all are white and all are straight. So, rather than asking why it is that people elected these 10 in particular over others (I would argue it's because they were the best suited people who ran for the job), it might be more interesting to ask: why were there not more women, more people who are not straight, and people of color in positions where they could have been qualified?

Now, I admit, I'm conflating a lot of different problems in very different groups. For instance, the opponents of those who were elected in the cases of both the GOP and the IOP were either both women or led by a woman (all four of whom who had significant institutional qualifications). The question of female representation seems in many ways to be a fundamentally different one than that of ethno-racial diversity. Heteronormativity (sorry, big word: it means structures or behaviors that assume heterosexuality) seems to be even more difficult to address in some senses. In addition, while both the President and Vice President of the UC are white men (in both the old and new form of the Glazer administration), the Council itself is actually a fairly representative body in terms of women and people of color (I don't know about sexuality), largely because of proactive work done to encourage underrepresented groups to participate. Maybe in the case of the UC, then, if that representativeness continues future candidates will have the qualifications regardless of their gender, race, sexuality, etc. But, I see little evidence of that kind of effort or diversity in the ranks at any of the other four groups: the Dems, the GOP, the IOP or the Crimson.

Why is it that until the last year in the UC, and continually in each of these other four establishment groups, whites, straight people, and men continue to dominate at what is supposed to be such a liberal and tolerant institution?

Two more caveats before you start to answer this question or consider it. First, the biggest mistake I think people make in the process of answering these questions is playing the blame game. The language of blame seems inadequate in the sense that those who benefit now should be "blamed" for the problem. That does not, however, mean that they are not a part of it and have responsibilities to do something. Second caveat, I do not think that people should consider this problem and, if you agree with it simply say "ok, next time I'll vote for a woman/a person of color/someone not straight etc." Support of someone who wouldn't otherwise be considered may occasionally be necessary to correct such problems (see: affirmative action), but it seems like a wholly inadequate response to what might be more complicated causes. Alright, that's my long, loaded question.

Who's got answers?

filibuster stage is set

The Dems seem to be doing a great job of setting the stage as Frist begins. They're starting the whole thing by making offers to confirm other people, to try to work things out, etc. It makes it clear that Frist is forcing this, whether you agree with him or not. Watch the video!

Tuesday, May 17, 2005

a little local stuff

While we often forget it, we do live in a state with its own fascinating and important politics. With the spirit of getting us thinking, three story summaries from a great MA political blog Blue Mass. Group:
A story in the Herald that, to me, sums up very nicely what's at stake in the gay marriage debate.
  • Two men in their 70s: "This has given us peace of mind. The legal benefits are so important at this stage in life. Now if something happens, we can be involved in decisions about health and death and inheritance."
  • Two middle-aged professionals with two adopted sons: "the first year of marriage has meant better benefits on a family health plan and a sense of belonging in [their] Jamaica Plain community."
  • And some interesting statistics:
    • More than 6,100 marriage licenses have been issued to same-sex couples in Massachusetts.
    • Approximately 32 percent of female same-sex couples have children, compared to about 15 percent of male couples.
    • Roughly 36 percent of the 17,000 gay couples in Massachusetts have married.
(more in expanded post)
Gerry Leone, former First Assistant US Attorney to Michael Sullivan, has taken a private sector job so that he can run for Middlesex DA (which he could not do if he were still a US Attorney). Leone has a long and successful track record as a prosecutor and will be a strong DA candidate (I confess some puzzlement as to why being Middlesex DA is so preferable to him than being First Assistant US Attorney, but he obviously thinks it is). I also confess some puzzlement as to why Jarrett Barrios is determined to quit his Senate seat to run in a crowded field for Middlesex DA, but there's no accounting for taste.

There are murmurings here and there that US Rep. Michael Capuano has not ruled out running for Governor after all, despite his earlier statement that he wasn't interested (which followed a rather public flirtation with the idea). Anybody have the inside scoop?
It's a good blog, I recommend it for locals dems/liberals.

Monday, May 16, 2005

the latest on the Downing Street Memo

One reader has already complained, but I'm not going to stop writing about this story until it's no longer important. We've been following it since before anyone was writing about it widely, and will follow it until everyone stops doing so.

It is, after weeks and weeks, finally getting cable news coverage. Watch this very well done piece and interview by Keith Olbermann.

Krugman picked it up today, and took it to a more general liberal argument (and a comparison to Vietnam that I think is kind of silly, but that's beside the point).

And, as one reader already pointed out, the Crimson ran an OpEd about it.

Is there any cohesive conservative response at this point? I've yet to see one written or said, which to me points to two things: 1. the administration is hoping that this will go away and knows that if it responds it will become a huge story (I don't think it's going away guys) and 2. they don't have a good enough argument to quickly but the whole thing to rest.

today's column: "A conversation with an activist"

My last column of the year, "A conversation with an activist" is in today's Crimson. You can read it here. I'd love to know what people think, so comment away.

What's the matter people? Cat got your tongue? Share your thoughts!

ALSO: I know this is annoying, but Cambridge Common is celebrating 3000 visitors today! That's keeping our general pace of 1000 a week. Thanks for reading!

Sunday, May 15, 2005

open thread

Because Jamal and I have been fairly busy this weekend, I figured I'd open the floor up to you, the reader, with a question: what was the biggest political story at Harvard this year? Obviously, Harvard politics is a big category, that includes a few dozen types of organizations, a relationship with local, national and international politics, and a unique dialogue about it all. So when people look back and say "what will we remember about politics at Harvard during the 04/05 school year?" what will the answers by?

the story gains legs

A few weeks ago, it was a non-story. "More of the same!" the White House said. "Just another liberal attack!" They dismissed it, but it wouldn't go away. A congressman got a letter together demanding an explanation. Bloggers started to push the story hard. But the dismissals continued. This guy on Crossfire said "We had an election on this in November, and the President was reelected, so who cares?" On this old CC post, one reader said it was "revisionist history" and claimed that since it was from the British, so "who could trust it anyway?" (eliciting a long, hilarious and strange response) But unfortunately for all of those people, the story has gained legs, because it is not more of the same, it is not British intelligence (it's the summary of a meeting) and it is not going away. Like the war or not, a lot of us want a damn explanation.

Learn about The Downing Street Memo here.

Wanna see Senator McCain lamely dodge the question? Click here.

Friday, May 13, 2005

gay watch!

Enjoy this segment: Gay Watch, on Spokane Mayor James West. Stewart: "How many times do the anti-gay force guys have to get caught in gay trysts before everyone realizes, they're all gay?"

touche, ed board

Today, the Ed Board proves that my calls that it was "grasping for legitimacy and respectability" were a little overwrought. I don't retract my previous statements about the Nichols debate, but clearly they've got enough smart and hard working people that they're still producing good, thoughtful and important work. Today's OpEd on direct elections to the UC was right on, not only in its discussion of the issue, but in it's targeting of the problem: the ambitions of current UC members are holding this back because they worry it threatens them in their seats. This one is a must read for people interested in UC reform.

UPDATE: from reading debate on this issue and talking to people I no longer think that many reps are voting on this out of pure self-interest. It may be true, but I have no evidence of it and there are many other good reasons. I definitely recommend Jamal's post, it's very thought-provoking.

Thursday, May 12, 2005

new VP

As I'm sure many Cambridge Common readers already know, the UC elected Clay Capp to be its Vice President today. It was a complicated affair, and I'm sure there are a lot of people who will want to discuss a lot of different angles of this. I am very intimately involved in the whole thing (Clay is a close friend, Glazer is my roommate, I ran their campaign in December), so I've yet to really figure out what it is I'd like to say about it at this point. While I process it all, congratulations Clay (who occassionally contributes to CC), I am confident that you will be a great Vice President.

By the way, the Crimson has a web update article here.

awww, childhood!

I suspect that many of us remember The Chronicles of Narnia fondly from our childhoods. I can still remember my dad reading them all to my brother and me. In December, Disney will be releasing the first full-length film. The teaser trailer has just been released, enjoy!

Wednesday, May 11, 2005

Crimson Ed Board: revisionists grasp for an argument, legitimacy

It is quite rare indeed that you can actually watch an organization or group of people so thoroughly grasping for whatever legitimacy or respectability they once had on an issue as clearly as you can from reading today's Crimson editorial on the UC VP's resignation. Having endorsed what is now widely understood to be a disastrously bad Vice Presidency, the Ed Board is trying to rewrite history so that people won't figure out the truth: the Crimson made a huge mistake endorsing Ian and is trying desperately to save face. For anyone who knows anything about UC politics or what has happened in the last six months, the OpEd was silly, dishonest and dumb. Good lord, where do I even begin? I guess I'll just start at the beginning.(more in expanded post)

The premise of the entire article is, well, wrong. The whole thing is premised around the idea that the problem was one of interpersonal conflicts of style and personality:
The decision by Ian W. Nichols ’06 to resign on Sunday as Undergraduate Council (UC) Vice President was the best possible outcome for both the UC and the student body at large. As expected, Nichols turned out to be a contrarian Vice President, with a vision for the Council that did not line up with what the rest of the UC Executive Board had in mind.
I'm sorry, what exactly was his alternative vision? Why is this the first time anyone is hearing about it? When, do tell, exactly was there this clash of visions and styles? I've never, ever, heard of there being conflicts of opinion on the Exec Board or the UC of this type. Hell, I'm not sure Ian went to enough Exec Board meetings for that to even happen.

Next, as Jamal has pointed out at the end of what is undoubtedly the most hilarious string in Cambridge Common's long and illustrious three week history, is the idea that "UC representatives should remember that the student body voted a split ticket into power for a reason." Maybe I'm the only one, but to the best of my memory Ian won by 50 votes out of 4000, yes 50, because the Crimson endorsed him! As Jamal also points out, I'm not sure the Crimson wants to get into the conversation of why exactly the Crimson endorsed him.

Finally, the huge extent to which the Crimson skims over the issue of Ian's gross negligence and lack of effort points directly to the way that they are trying to save face to the student body who remembers that they endorsed him in December. Only three sentences in a five paragraph OpEd address the actual source of conflict and the reason that he resigned: his complete and utter lack of effort. The first two sentences, toward the beginning of the OpEd:
He failed to communicate effectively or forge common ground with his peer officers on the UC, and he missed Springfest, an event organized in the past by the Vice President and an event for which Nichols himself voted to allocate funds.
This is laughably dishonest and incorrect. It's not only "traditionally organized" by the veep, Ian agreed to organize it. The idea that him promising to be the lead organizer of an event that cost students tens of thousands of dollars, then neither organizing nor attending it, should be criticized in the context of "tradition" or that "he voted for funding" intentionally skims over the more painful, obvious reality.

If the Crimson were honest with its readers and really wanted to regain whatever legitimacy it once had on the issue of UC politics it should have said: "We endorsed Ian in December under unprecedented circumstances thinking he was something he was not. We made a huge mistake that we now regret, let's hope that whoever is elected as the replacement vice president does a better job than Ian did." But, unsurprisingly, they didn't say that. Instead, they tried to revise history and obscure the fact that they made a huge, embarrassing mistake.

three for one: the daily show, cable news and blogs

That's right reader, you get all three in this post! (don't get too excited)

The Daily Show has a hilarious bit on how cable news has started to do segments on "the blogosphere" with people reading off of other people's blogs. Everyone in the mainstream media is still trying to get a handle on what this whole "blog" thing is about, and in the process they continually look like huge asses. Hilarious.

Tuesday, May 10, 2005

filibusta-move

(I am way too proud of that subject, cause it's really not actually funny)

In honor of the Dems great 25 hour filibuster in front of the Science Center (I'm sure it'll be in tomorrow's Crimson, you can check out updates on demapples), a few thoughts.

First, a video clip from 1994 from CBS news on the filibuster to give some context.

As Jamal and I have previously discussed and eventually agreed, neither side in this fight is really in the right. What the Dems did today and yesterday, while in support of what I think are overly obstructionist efforts, do show exactly what the filibuster SHOULD BE: an act of public defiance that subjects the individual to public scrutiny and pressure, allowing the fate of the issue to be decided in the realm of public opinion. I don't know enough about the Senate to know how to get it back to that, but as you learn in the CBS clip, it's really gotten out of hand.

links and random stuff

Over the last few days of light blogging, I've been collecting links of random and entertaining things. I thought to myself earlier today: "you'll never post all of it, just delete the stuff." But, because I'm totally brilliant like that, I figure I can just put all of these random links and things on ONE POST! I know, amazing. So, without further ado:

Arriana Huffington, stealing Cambridge Common's idea, has launched the mother of all blogs: the Huffington Post. This thing has got it all: a bazillion different VIPs blogging (from Hollywood celebs to former Presidential candidates to comedians and professional talking heads), a news section that attempts to balance out Drudge's "breaking news" red headlight thing, and a massive group blog where it all comes together. Interesting, ambitious stuff. (more in expanded post)

Next, a few things about the religious right. First, an AMAZING clip of Pat Robertson that does more to show the true motivations and mentalities of him and some members of his wing of the party than anything I've ever seen. Also, a fascinating story about a religious leader kicking out members of his congregation because they voted for John Kerry. Finally on the religious thing, a great article(registration required, email me if you aren't registered and want to read it) in the New Republic about the Frist Filibuster thing:
Frist's cry of religious bigotry is particularly ironic: What could be more religiously bigoted than claiming that anyone who disagrees with you must not be a true person of faith? How audacious--and repugnant--of Frist to claim that his political constituents have a monopoly on devotion to God. Many Senate Democrats are themselves devout Christians. And Democrats routinely win the votes of about half the nation's Catholics, over half of its religious Jews, and nearly one-third of its evangelical Christians.
The last, and best: a random guy is traveling the country having dinner with strangers. He sees the project as artwork that brings up the importance of conversation, the individual and meeting people. Robert Putnam eat your heart out!

Monday, May 09, 2005

2000 visits

Cambridge Common has hit another meaningful (why? I have no idea) mark: 2000 unique visits. Not bad for only two weeks. Thank you for reading, thank you even more if you have contributed your thoughts to our dialogue. I have had numerous conversations with friends and acquaintances in the real world about conversations we've had in this world, so hopefully we are, in whatever small way, contributing to campus dialogue.

A question for you, the reader: what would you like to hear more about? What lines of discussion have most interested you? Most bored you? What do you wish was covered that isn't?

You know what to do (hint: hit the comment link below).

Sunday, May 08, 2005

breaking news (no, seriously)

Ian Nichols, the Vice President of the Undergraduate Council, has just resigned. The Crimson has a short article. I am as biased about the situation as it gets. My roommate is the Pres. and I ran the campaign for him and Clay (who writes for CC) in the fall. I have watched as Ian continually shirked his duties, leaving them for other members of the UC leadership to take on, burdening what were already tremendously busy lives. He was put in charge of running Springfest, and not only did he not take part in the organization, he was on vacation and out of touch for the entire weekend.

More on this later, but for now, let us just celebrate that we will be getting an actual vice president in the next week.

Saturday, May 07, 2005

and again

Well, it's looking like the only think I like to do more than post video clips of the daily show is bring up old conversations that never happened in hopes of making them happen.

WHY THE HELL DOESN'T ANYBODY CARE ABOUT THE CURRICULAR REVIEW?

That's the question I'm asking. People say they care, but they don't know anything about it, and aren't interested in having input in any meaningful way. Deans come to talk in houses and almost no one shows up. Outside of people I know at the Crimson or on the UC, no one even knows what's going on. And no, it's not a lack of information, the Crimson has actually done a pretty good job on this one. So what's up people? That's what this commenter wanted to know, that's what I want to know.

Friday, May 06, 2005

sometimes, I honestly don't know what to say...

A quick question: if you were told that a British memo was leaked that said that Bush had already decided to invade Iraq as early as July of 2002, knew that the WMD case was less threatening than North Korea, Lybia and Iran, and was having the intelligence and analysis molded to fit their case for war, do you think it would be news? Regardless of whether you thought the war was otherwise justifiable, would this be problematic for you?

Another question: Did you know that exactly that memo came out last Friday? It was finally picked up yesterday in the American press, but has gotten virtually no visibility. Anyone have any answers to any of my questions?

alright, one more

Last video clip before the weekend. This is a Daily Show clip on Laura Bush's suprise starring role at the recent White House Correspondance Dinner. This is probably the most vulgar thing I've ever seen the Daily Show do, but it's also quite funny. Enjoy!

Thursday, May 05, 2005

video extravaganza!

Alright, I know I'm on a bit of a video kick right now, apologies. It's just easier than actually reading stuff and thinking about stuff (I've got plenty of that with my 4 papers to write), so stop bugging me and enjoy the procrastination.

First, a video of Bright Eyes on Leno night before last singing his new song: "When the President Talks to God." Fiery stuff, good song. Maybe the closest thing to an intelligent protest song I've heard in a while. (you can read the lyrics here)

Second, Ann Coulter gives Harvard a shoutout, saying that of the dumbshit liberals who ask her dumbshit questions (and hate America!), Harvard students ask some of the smartest. Awww, thanks Ann!

Finally, a hilarious clip from Bill Maher on Jeff Ganon. Enjoy!

contrast and compare: democracy?

Remember those papers in high school where you were told to "contrast and compare" two different things? The Daily Show does a little "contrast and compare" on the British versus the American style of "town hall meetings." Man, is sure feels good to live in a staged democracy! Also, you can watch Samantha Bee (of the Daily Show, of course) interview Frank Luntz and make her own Town Hall meeting in an amazing clip a few weeks ago here.

UPDATE: You can watch the full clip (with some before and after the shorter version I posted) here.

HUPD Police Log 5.2.05

Well loyal readers, after last week's spectacular installment regarding our friend the "alleged self-fondler," this week's post is a little light. I guess after a report like that, there's nowhere to go but down. But fear not friends! As always, you're in for a smile, courtesy of the Harvard University Police Log. (see expanded post)
April 26:

8:17 a.m.—A report of a stolen home plate led an officer to a baseball field in Allston. The officer found that, in addition to the theft, a few sand bags and a tarp had been dumped onto the field.
An actual report about a stolen home plate? Sometimes, they make my job too easy...


(Even though the Police Log provides us with a hilarious insight into the dark underworld of Harvard crime, here at Police Blog we always appreciate the work and dedication of the HUPD officers)

Wednesday, May 04, 2005

there must be a God!

Do you know why? Because the Daily Show is going to have a spin-off talk show, parodying O'Reilly, Chris Matthews, Sean Hannity et al., staring Stephen Colbert. Colbert is hilariously deadpan (check out his coverage of Justice Sunday), even in the Times article:
A print reporter should have probably known better than to try to extract from Mr. Stewart and Mr. Colbert actual details of what the new show will be.

For example, when asked if he planned to be a guest on the program, Mr. Stewart snapped, "I don't stoop to start-ups." A moment later, suspecting that he had been too harsh toward his mentee, Mr. Stewart softened, saying he would consider an appearance "if the show gets its footing."

When told of Mr. Stewart's resistance, Mr. Colbert said his boss should consider himself unwelcome. (more in expanded post)
"His shadow is dark enough," Mr. Colbert said. "I don't want to ask the source of darkness for help. I'm not interested in that same liberal claptrap. That meow, meow, meow, ironic detachment."

"We're going to deal with truth on my program," Mr. Colbert said. "We're going to catch the world in the headlights of my justice."
Wow. I may cry with happiness.

curricular review: philosophy or anti-philosophy?

The Crimson had a great staff ed on the Curricular Review this morning. In it, they discussed the problems that the faculty committees are having agreeing on any sort of general framework for an education philosophy (one professor told me that on the committee there were as many different education philosophies as there were people, maybe more). Rather than pushing to reach any consensus, they recommended a more pragmatic approach: go tangible, start with what works instead of an abstract philosophy:
...instead of convening more committees, the Faculty and the administration should look at what types of classes already work best. There is no tried-and-true rule for what these classes look like, but for the most part they are broadly based, foundational courses that mix approaches to knowledge with important theories and their applications.
(more in expanded post)
Clear examples of these types of courses are Moral Reasoning 22: “Justice,” Science B-62: “The Human Mind,” and Historical Study A-12: “International Conflict and Cooperation in the Modern World.” In “Justice,” students read the works of a variety of philosophers and then apply these theories to modern day controversies and debates. “The Human Mind” introduces students to the main theories of psychology and then delves into some of the more interesting problems and controversies about human action, taking students through basic genetics, biology, and neuroscience along the way. Historical Study A-12 mixes political history with theory, using each component to complement the other through case studies. All three of these courses are highly regarded by students for both the knowledge and the analytic tools that they teach.
I'm partially persuaded by their approach, and their call to action instead of continuing the debate that will not lead anywhere. However, I'm not sure there wouldn't be something healthy about having a longer, continued debate-even if no consensus could reasonably be found-about what kind of philosophy should drive the Harvard College education. I think very few of us are particularly thoughtful about our education. We complain about the core, but mostly we just go on our way, find our area of interest and go to work. But this process can shake us loose from that unthoughtful tendency. Even if the process isn't necessarily going to lead anywhere, might there be value in the process?

Tuesday, May 03, 2005

What's the Matter with Kansas?

Hello eveyone. In the current issue of the New York Review of Books -- a great periodical for nerds both literary and political -- there is an article by the guy who wrote What's the Matter with Kansas? I think everyone is pretty familiar with Thomas Frank's main argument in the book, but the article is still worth reading becasue of the way frank relates his thesis to the election of '04. Maybe this hits closer to home for those of us from red states, but I still think this is an issue of crucial importance for all of use to be thinking and talking about. Frank explains the frames of the parties thusly: (more in expanded post)
A newcomer to American politics, after observing this strategy in action in 2004, would have been justified in believing that the Democrats were the party in power, so complacent did they seem and so unwilling were they to criticize the actual occupant of the White House. Republicans, meanwhile, were playing another game entirely. The hallmark of a "backlash conservative" is that he or she approaches politics not as a defender of the existing order or as a genteel aristocrat but as an average working person offended by the arrogance of the (liberal) upper class. The sensibility was perfectly caught during the campaign by onetime Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer, who explained it to The New York Times like this: "JoeSix-Pack doesn't understand why the world and his culture are changing and why he doesn't have a say in it." These are powerful words, the sort of phrase that could once have been a slogan of the fighting, egalitarian left. Today, though, it was conservatives who claimed to be fighting for the little guy, assailing the powerful, and shrieking in outrage at the direction in which the world is irresistibly sliding.
I guess none of this is particularly new, but I think that another way of stating the same ideas is perhaps more provocative: conservatives are better at sounding like liberals than liberals are. And that is why a lot of people vote for them. (By liberal here I simply mean advancing the interests of and empowering and enfranchising individual people who are not currently so empowered, which is by and large what Democratic policies do and Republican ones don't, despite the rhetoric). When President Bush can successfully masquerade as the protector of the people and make Kerry seem hopelessly aloof and cold, it must mean that policy doesn't matter at all in elections, but that rhetoric (broadly defined) means everything -- and that liberal rhetoric wins. And this means two things: we liberals have to turn the debate into a policy debate, because then we win. And it means that we have do much better about making our rhetoric/packaging/image/whatever more aligned and indicative of what policies they are promoting. Frank has a brilliant example:
It didn't matter that the accusations angrily advanced by the "Swifties" (as they are fondly known on the right) crumbled under the slightest scrutiny, just as it didn't matter that the principal members of the Bush administration had actively avoided service in Vietnam while Kerry had volunteered for it, and just as it didn't matter that the Pentagon under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had botched the nation's current military effort and even sent insufficiently armored soldiers into action. The backlash narrative is more powerful than mere facts, and according to this central mythology conservatives are always hardworking patriots who love their country and are persecuted for it, while liberals, who are either high-born weaklings or eggheads hypnotized by some fancy idea, are always ready to sell their nation out at a moment's notice.
Given that, there is a hard road to hoe in order to redefine the Democratic Party, but an essential one. Also, Thomas Frank is going to be speaking in the Kirkland House JCR on Thursday afternoon at 6:45. Hopefully see y'all there. Anybody have any thoughts on this? Let's rock some comments!

a lesson in liberalism from the labour party

For liberals who are wondering how it is that you express liberal beliefs and values in an intellectual, principled, and new sounding way, I have seen no better example than this advertisement for the Labour Party. Granted, they have publicly funded TV time, and subsequently much longer and more thoughtful ads, but it's interesting to watch these ads and think about the success Labour has had in packaging themselves as pro-business and pro-government at the same time. You can watch other real Labour Ads (as opposed to the great fake ones Jamal posted on Saturday) here.

So, in case you don't read international news, Britain's general elections are this week, and it's going to be an interesting day. It looks like Labour will win, but it may be closer than many liberals would like. For a funny take on British public opinion, I recommend this poll. (more in expanded post)

Also, there's a great article in today's NYTs about liberal strategists and organizers (notably my old boss at both the Dean Campaign and the DNC Karen Hicks) going over to Britain to work for Tony Blair and the Labour Party. It's an interesting piece.

blogs at Harvard...

So, since the idea of the blogosphere (or whatever the hell you want to call it) is to expand the dialogue, I was wondering if people knew of other political (or other forms of non-diary commentary) blogs at Harvard. For starters, I have two: the College Democrats Official Blog, which is basically a series of posted articles on national politics with a paragraph or two of thoughts, and Bikinipolitics.com, a conservative blog kept by a fellow junior political junkie.

Any others?

Monday, May 02, 2005

Princeton's Filibuster

For almost a week now, students at Princeton have taken up filibustering, the old parliamentary technique of prolonged speechmaking, as a way to protest Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's threat to end the filibuster, which has often been used by Democrats to block confirmations of Bush's court nominees. And they haven't been doing it just anywhere, but directly in front of the $25mil student center that Frist's family donated to his alma mater.

Check out the webcam footage on the website here (they're still going!), today's WaPo coverage here, and listen to Rep. Rush Holt's own speech, delivered yesterday. And here's the WaPo's general coverage of the issue.

Sounds like a hot way to move things at a place not normally known for campus activism. Unlike my own bodyguard-thwarted attempt to get to Frist this summer, I think this may have some effect on that old tyme Princtonian, even if it just makes him cry into his checkbook.

I know they're trying to spread this to other campuses too. What do people think about this? Should the Dems and other groups follow suit? Will they?

blogging as synthesis

Blogging is widely misunderstood. For many, a blog is one of two things: 1. a weird personal journal that includes things like "my mood today" and bad romantic poetry or 2. a place for partisan or ideological propaganda and community a la the Dean campaign. Both of those things exist, but the most socially important blogs are more interesting and thoughtful than that. As I wrote in my welcome to readers, Cambridge Common is trying to be a place for people to learn about what's going on in our community and exchange some ideas. Blogs of this types are places for synthesis: we try to bring together different information sources, ways of thinking, people, arguments, perspectives into some sort of coherent dialogue. So far, there are have a couple successful instances of just that (the racism conversation below for instance). (more in expanded post)

What blogging is not is a replacement for mainstream media. Whether on campus, nationally or internationally, the rise of the "blogosphere" has been viewed with envy or suspicion, as if blogs are trying to overtake mainstream media as the arbiters of social or political truth, the producers of reporting, or the guides of dialogue. This conception, while understandable, is widely off-basis.

One of the primary tenants of blogging is the self-conscious realization that the blogger is but one voice, and that commenters and members of a blogging community are in a conversation. The blog is an aspiring democratic tool for dialogue, for engaging mainstream media to improve, deepen and broaden context. Blogging, in this sense, is an inherently alternative source of information. Someone (in our case The Crimson) has to be doing the real journalistic work that produces common knowledge to be considered, augmented, criticized or supported. Blogs, with few exceptions, cannot do that. The hope of a blog like this is that it begins to construct a conversation that's occurring on campus by linking sources together, different forms of commentary, different ideas, different communities. Blogging is the act of trying to create synthesis by being an antithesis, pushing the thesis beyond its own previous conceptions and being pushed back in turn. You can't really have synthesis, however, without something that represents thesis.

Sunday, May 01, 2005

let's try this again

After going to a Town Hall discussion on race and ethnic groups at Harvard, and racism etc. in general, I posted this last week:
A friend of mine asked me a question last night at the town hall meeting on race and Harvard organizations that got me thinking: "when was the last time you saw a group of white people working together to end racism? I honestly didn't know. But why is that? Shouldn't all of us be just as concerned, me as someone who benifits from a racist system, as someone of color who is hurt by it? Shouldn't white people care? I recommend this OpEd from yesterday and I'd love to hear what you think (whether you're a whitie like me or not...)
To be frank, I'm pretty suprised that only two people cared to engage in the conversation, so with the hope that others will, I'd like to ask again: who's responsible for combating racism AND do they live up to that responsibility?