Gourmet at Dartmouth
With the arrival of summer, everyone's mood seems to change. Even here at Dartmouth, classes cannot dim the excitement of warm weather.
With the arrival of summer, everyone's mood seems to change. Even here at Dartmouth, classes cannot dim the excitement of warm weather.
To the Editor: The editorial column "Planet Hollywood" (July 19) criticizes the "decadent and materialistic" society we live in and the unworthy attention given to celebrities.
To the Editor: The Hanover Police should be commended for apprehending the six illegal immigrant workers last week ("Officers Find Six Illegal Construction Workers," July 21), but the College's attempt to pin the blame for their presence solely on the subcontractor seems to me a flimsy excuse for poor oversight. If the College is truly against the hiring of illegals for work on its own construction projects, it should consider performing more rigorous checks of those construction firms that it contracts, rather than simply claiming ignorance and deflecting the blame once such workers are found. Ultimately it is the responsibility of the federal government to enforce labor laws, but if the College turns a blind eye to the hiring practices of those it contracts, there is little to prevent such a situation from occurring again.
To the Editor: Professor Green is quite right about the importance of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act ("Professor Advises Senate on Stem Cells," July 21). Although a narrow window of opportunity, allowing funding for only frozen embryos already slated for destruction, it is still a substantial step forward. All of us know a person with an incurable illness or injury -- an estimated one hundred million Americans have such chronic conditions -- people like my son, paralyzed in a football accident, almost eleven years ago. California passed a small law named after our son, the Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research Act.
Let's have a fair look at our nation's most recent foray into something teetering on the edge of becoming what I might term, at least in these PG-13 rated pages, a fiasco.
To the Editor: We are so saddened by the senseless killing of Meleia Willis-Starbuck '07 ("Willis-Starbuck murdered in off-campus shooting," July 19), such a wonderful Berkeley High School (2003) and Dartmouth College student. We sold our home at 2235 Browning Street near Bancroft Way in west Berkeley to the Willis-Starbucks in 1999.
To the Editor: In a recent article, "Students Adopt Five Children, Remain Abroad," (June 30) the adopters of five underprivileged children are lauded for their efforts in making the orphan children's lives better... for three months. As an undergrad and participant of the Templeton READS program, where Dartmouth students acted as mentors to underprivelaged children, I found the D-Plan mentoring to be highly superficial and barely effective.
To the Editor: Student Assembly's decision not to fund this summer's Consent Day reflects a policy rooted in clear precedent, not in the irresponsibility described by Dempewolf's accusatory and poorly researched column ("Blitz vs.
You know who I haven't seen walking around campus for a long time? President James Wright. This surprises me because, quite honestly, he is a large human being.
To the Editor: There's a correction to be made in your Federer article ("Federer at Wimbledon: No Sampras," July 14"): Federer never lost to Goran at Wimbledon.
President Wright is responsible for changing our campus' thoughts, opinions and actions regarding issues that affect our personal lives.
Despite the opportunity to establish themselves as powerful aristocrats, America's Founding Fathers rejected gentries and instilled the infant nation with republican principles.
To the Editor: Baird Hull's article ("Federer at Wimbledon: No Sampras," July 12) is very well written, but deserves a few clarifications. Hull's concludes that Roger Federer's dominance "come[s] at a time when the competition is far less tough" and that "Federer has emerged as the king of a new breed of baseliners who cannot take advantage of the grass as in days past." However, I am not conviced.
A federal judge's decision to jail New York Times investigative reporter Judith Miller has emerged as an issue of considerable controversy over the past week.
I agree with Brent Clayton's assertion that "the men of Dartmouth are gone" ("Why No One Rages Anymore," July 12). Like Clayton, I don't very much care for this "new population of males either." Some of them are just too effeminate for my tastes.
The men of Dartmouth are gone. In their place, the College has been gradually filled with an entirely new population of males -- a population that nonchalantly drinks soy milk and orders egg white breakfast wraps; a population that religiously watches TV shows like "The OC;" a population that spends whole evenings updating their thefacebook.com profiles; a population that admits to having emotions.
To the Editor: Mr. Sinai makes some interesting points in his column ("Off the Bench and Into the Fire," July 7), sounding very much like a self-satisfied Republican who is surprised and upset to learn that, despite his presidential candidate's 51 percent victory, there are still people who disagree with him. Mr. Sinai seems shocked that the Democrats in the Senate plan to "browbeat any candidate right of center" and says that this is "not what the American people should reasonably expect given last November's results." Odd.
To the Editor: In his Thursday column ("Off the Bench and Into the Fire," July 7), Mr. Sinai wrote the following in regard to the upcoming senatorial battle over the next Supreme Court Justice: "If voters consistently elect Republican presidents and senators, they can logically expect conservative judges to take the bench.
The retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor from the Supreme Court has presented President Bush with a situation so contentious as to make John Bolton seem as non-controversial as Ned Flanders -- mustache, glasses and all. Why?
In response to Kathryn Gilbert's criticism of a fellow student's take on the recent War and Peace Center's Middle East Panel ("Deserving of More Nuanced Debate," June 30), I felt more compelled than usual to comment on yet another bout of bickering, courtesy of the op-ed page. First things first: if anyone is shrill, it's Ms. Gilbert in her repetitious insistence that government policy is too nuanced to be defined as either good or bad.