Voting is a Responsibility in a Democratic Society
To the Editor: It is not often that a column or article in The Dartmouth sufficiently angers me to publicly pen a response.
To the Editor: It is not often that a column or article in The Dartmouth sufficiently angers me to publicly pen a response.
This is an analysis of that class of people called the "Know-Everythings." We all recognize this sort; these are the people who would rather die than admit that they are ever ignorant in any way. They take a particular delight in referring to the neuroethnomusicology of New Guinean tribes, to Nigerian poets with whose names the four corners of the globe would ring had their brilliant careers not been cut short in Biafra and to obscure European film journals. (Here we at Dartmouth can really one-up the competition: "But of course you know Wenders' comments in the April '73 Cahiers du Cinema?" "Oh come now, darling, don't you know he recanted all that in the Spring '95 Cahiers du Dartma?") But mere accumulation of knowledge for superficial purposes is not the Know-Everythings only distinguishing feature.
In the next several weeks these pages will feature an enormous amount of material on the impending presidential elections.
I was sitting in Food Court the other day when a male friend of mine walked in and sat down across from me.
A Saturday afternoon in Hanover, New Hampshire. The air is crisp and fresh. The sun is out, washing over your face.
I know that you're probably expecting some querulous harangue in this week's column, but if you are, prepare to be relieved.
To the Editor: On behalf of the Zeta Chapter of Psi Upsilon Fraternity, we would like to point out an error in the October 10 issue of The Dartmouth.
Does anyone out there have a good reason to vote? All year, we've been deluged with campaign propaganda and slogans like "Choose or Lose." They all somehow conclude that voting is a good thing since we have the power to do so.
It seems to me that the average American has been transformed into the "last man," as predicted by Nietzsche, a German philosopher.
Since the College dropped the Indian symbol in the 1970s, the Dartmouth community has been in need of a replacement mascot.
Here we go again. America is barreling toward another Congressional election funded largely by special interests, many of whom don't even live here.
Alex: Gee Mallory, I see you've been putting in your quality time at the mall. Mallory: Yeah?
I have a plea for my fellow students. It is a result of a lesson I learned this week from a helpful professor, Paul Gaffney, who is the new chair of the drama department.
A few days ago, I was having lunch in Collis with my friend Natalie. Usually our conversations ramble on at a breakneck pace, but this particular lunch date seemed sluggish.
To the Editor: In response to both Tuesday's editorial and the letter to the editor from Alison Hodges which suggested a local sorority rush lottery, I would like to set the record straight on the debate over local and national rush rules and the logistics of a rush lottery. First and foremost let it be established that the 28 Coed Fraternity Sorority Council organizations, and perhaps to an even greater degree the six Panhellenic sororities, work together in as many different contexts as are feasible at Dartmouth.
What look, you say? I mean THE look. You all know what I'm taking about. It's that moment when you and that certain someone are face to face; you're in close proximity in a dimly lit room or some similarly amorous environment.
In the past two years or so, I've heard many of my peers use several phrases which seem very characteristic of the times we live in.
Ok," said one of the Aquinas House chaplains. "The next question I'm going to ask you is, what is it about you that makes you unique?" My mind drew a blank.
After a frantic dinner at Home Plate one night last week my friends and I ran down the steps of Thayer to the women's rest room at the bottom level.
In "The Age of the Obvious," [The Dartmouth, Oct. 10] Abiola Lapite '98, an esteemed columnist, raises some very valid points, the kind of which may go fairly unnoticed from now on, since the preoccupation of these pages will decidedly lean towards the impending presidential elections. Let me point out from the outset that I neither agree nor disagree with the main thesis of his column, namely, that society has become inexorably mundane in its perceptions of love, specifically, romantic love.