The Dartmouth Observer

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.