The Dartmouth Observer

Commentary on politics, history, culture, and literature by two Dartmouth graduates and their buddies

WHO WE ARE

Chien Wen Kung graduated from Dartmouth College in 2004 and majored in History and English. He is currently a civil servant in Singapore. Someday, he hopes to pursue a PhD in History.

John Stevenson graduated from Dartmouth College in 2005 with a BA in Government and War and Peace Studies. He is currently a PhD candidate in the Department of Political Science at the University of Chicago. He hopes to pursue a career in teaching and research.

Kwame A. Holmes did not graduate from Dartmouth. However, after graduating from Florida A+M University in 2003, he began a doctorate in history at the University of Illinois--Urbana Champaign. Having moved to Chicago to write a dissertation on Black-Gay-Urban life in Washington D.C., he attached himself to the leg of John Stevenson and is thrilled to sporadically blog on the Dartmouth Observer. Feel free to email him comments, criticisms, spelling/grammar suggestions.

BLOGS/WEBSITES WE READ

The American Scene
Arts & Letters Daily
Agenda Gap
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Becker and Posner
Belgravia Dispatch
Black Prof
The Corner
Demosthenes
Daniel Drezner
Five Rupees
Free Dartmouth
Galley Slaves
Instapundit
Mickey Kaus
The Little Green Blog
Left2Right
Joe Malchow
Josh Marshall
OxBlog
Bradford Plumer
Political Theory Daily Info
Andrew Samwick
Right Reason
Andrew Seal
Andrew Sullivan
Supreme Court Blog
Tapped
Tech Central Station
UChicago Law Faculty Blog
Volokh Conspiracy
Washington Monthly
Winds of Change
Matthew Yglesias

ARCHIVES

  • July 2002
  • August 2002
  • September 2002
  • October 2002
  • November 2002
  • December 2002
  • January 2003
  • February 2003
  • March 2003
  • April 2003
  • May 2003
  • June 2003
  • July 2003
  • August 2003
  • September 2003
  • October 2003
  • November 2003
  • December 2003
  • January 2004
  • February 2004
  • March 2004
  • April 2004
  • May 2004
  • June 2004
  • July 2004
  • August 2004
  • September 2004
  • October 2004
  • November 2004
  • December 2004
  • January 2005
  • February 2005
  • March 2005
  • April 2005
  • May 2005
  • June 2005
  • July 2005
  • August 2005
  • September 2005
  • October 2005
  • November 2005
  • December 2005
  • January 2006
  • February 2006
  • March 2006
  • April 2006
  • May 2006
  • June 2006
  • July 2006
  • August 2006
  • September 2006
  • November 2006
  • December 2006
  • January 2007
  • February 2007
  • September 2007
  • October 2007
  • December 2007
  • February 2008
  • March 2008
  • April 2008
  • May 2008
  • June 2008
  • November 2008
  • November 2010


    • BOOKS WE'RE READING

    CW's Books



    John's Books



    STUFF

    Site Feed

    This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

    Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com Listed on BlogShares
    Tuesday, October 01, 2002
     
    I don't want to hear John Stevenson in the future say liberals cry racist too often if he going to talk about the "amount of racist speech on thought prevalent on campus this term, included but not limited to the upcoming visits of Evelyn and Cornel and the President's Convocation Speech..." (I wouldn't have said the same had his only example been the New Jersey Poet laureate) I'm not sure what to make of conservatives adopting the victim mentality and cries of racisms they typically associate with the left after all these years when conservatives have complained these tactics are unfair. Does it not seem hypocritical?



    Check this out on Israel (via altercation).



    As for what I have to say about The Nation, it will still be worth reading my article later expected later this month (if they get around to editing it)! I think Hitchens was tolerated (or accepted) very well at the magazine in the sense that he was allowed to say whatever he wanted, as that last column attests to. I don't think the top people wanted him to leave, so it is not like the public spats reported in the media at other opinion magazines in the nineties, some of which involved displeasure with editors who have praised Hitchens. Hitchens has chosen not to associate himself with the magazine: that says something about him and his view of the magazine, but what does it say about the magazine and their view of Hitchens? They clearly are sad to see him leave, though I'm sure some readers are happy with it. The Nation is not so obsessed with being anti-Ashcroft over the war on terrorism that they would refuse to print Hitchens. Considering columnist Eric Alterman was also pro-war in afghanistan, it hardly seems clear to me the decided bent of The Nation. I think the Nation rightly takes a more ecuminical view. If Hitchens think those views are too outlandish, well, it's his choice with who he should associate with: after all, being ecuminical means bringing different viewpoints together, and if you no longer see the point of that... I think it is more Hitchens that has changed than The Nation. But I think it is a testament to The Nation that however far Hitchens 'strayed' and adopted different, and usually typically conservative viewpoints, it wasn't a question whether they would keep him on. There are few publications with that amount of integrity.



    Posted by Timothy at 4:36 PM |

    HOME