Reason, not Rhetoric
To the Editor: Michael Mello's passionate rhetoric criticizing Chris Hedges lacks the logical reasoning expected of a Vermont Law School professor's editorial.
To the Editor: Michael Mello's passionate rhetoric criticizing Chris Hedges lacks the logical reasoning expected of a Vermont Law School professor's editorial.
A Divisive Stance Hillel has taken a dangerous stance by adopting the statement, "Wherever we stand, we stand with Israel," for it is irresponsible for a religious organization to support unequivocally a government's actions. Hillel's misguided decision is further complicated by the questionable process leading up to the advertisement's submission to The Dartmouth.
To the Editor: Every since President George Bush uttered the phrase "axis of evil," morally self-righteous commentators, politicians and so-called intellectuals lambasted the President for being too simplistic.
To the Editor: With such political luminaries as Ehud Barak and Desmond Tutu and the brilliant Maya Angelou all descending on Dartmouth during one term, I find it hard to fathom that Anil Antony needs to have another politically or socially renowned figure give the commencement address (The Dartmouth, May 16, "The Fred Rogers Folly"). Regardless of their political or social stature, I highly doubt that Condoleezza Rice, Jim Lehrer, Daniel Patrick Moynihan or President Bush are capable of giving an interesting speech that is not simply recycled from one event to another, and littered with the proverbial 60 quotations from Bartlett's.
The 21st century is off to a pretty bad start already, and the decision by Dean of Residential Life Martin Redman to ban door-to-door delivery of publications has not made things better.
In the interest of social science, I attended "Star Wars Episode II," notepad in hand, to observe the behavior of the masses and try to draw some conclusions about both the movie itself and the status it has achieved as a cultural phenomenon. Now I realize that this isn't the film review page, but for something as representative of popular culture as "Star Wars," it doesn't matter.
Only a small fraction of the Jews at Dartmouth (by Jews I mean those of you who checked the little box as a freshman) attended this past Hillel meeting, and it is important that we are very clear on the discussion and the vote that transpired. A resolution was put on the table at the last meeting to take out the ad that appeared on May 17 in The Dartmouth.
To the Editor: It has been published on May 15 ("Hillel votes to take pro-Israel stance") that I voted against Hillel's advertisement in The Dartmouth: "Wherever we stand, we stand with Israel." Those who know me will know the following to be true: wherever my feet may stand, my sentiments stand wholly for Israel, for its right to exist peacefully, for its continuance as the homeland of the Jewish people, for its beauty as a nation both in spirit and in aesthetic.
To the Editor: Chris Curran '03 makes the case in his May 20 Op-Ed titled "The Right Thing for the Right Wing" that President Bush in particular, and the Republican party in general, should become more accepting and protective of homosexuals.
To the Editor: I was extremely disheartened to read the May 15 article "Hillel votes to take pro-Israel stance." For the Jewish population, at least as represented on this campus, to take such an intolerant view is indicative of why the larger conflict remains unresolved. "Wherever we stand, we stand with Israel" is not a statement against peace but it is a statement that inhibits it.
By Mohamad Bydon '01 To the Editor: I want to commend David Kerem '05 for his well-written piece "Hedging Our Bets." At the same time, I want to point out that much of the information he uses to discredit Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges comes from HonestReporting.com and CAMERA, two admittedly pro-Israel media watchdogs.
About halfway through Christopher Hedges' lecture last week at Dartmouth Hall -- somewhere around the time he compared the Palestinians of today with the slaves of the antebellum American South, which is to say after he accused Israel of "ethnic cleansing" (his phrase) but before he compared Israel's policies to South Africa during apartheid and after he characterized Israel's creation as a "crime" and the state itself "racist" -- a horrible thought popped uninvited into my head.
To the Editor: Regarding Anil Antony's May 16 column, "The Fred Rogers Folly," I would just say "Ouch!" Poor Anil.
I remember when we were kids and electronic entertainment was simple. You had a Nintendo at home.
Apparently I'm as clueless as an embarrassed adolescent, a child who hasn't yet realized the world around her.
It was just too good to last. The civil dialogue on the war against terrorism we had in this country for the past eight months has all but disintegrated, and both sides are to blame.
Complying with popular culture's media demands for carnal indulgence over content, People Magazine recently announced the 50 Most Beautiful People for this year, once again proving that for most people, articles with even allusions to sex really are more interesting than discussions of the major players during international crises. For the 19th year in a row I wasn't listed.
Midterm elections in 2002 and the presidential election of 2004 loom large for President George W.
Katie Bell's May 10 article "Profs. allow students to set their own grades," presents professor Darryl Caterine's pedagogical methods in an inaccurate light. Ms. Bell suggests that Caterine is an unusual professor, because in his dissatisfaction with Dartmouth's grading system, he allows students to evaluate themselves.
If you're holding this column in your hands, the words you are reading are already dead. And when I say dead, I mean there's a salad fork sticking out of it the size of post-coke addiction Matthew Perry.