or a while there, I was criticized as being the ‘vice-president for torture.’ We don’t torture… But the fact is, you can have a fairly robust interrogation program without torture and we need to be able to do that.” So, according to Dick Cheney, waterboarding is not torture —it’s just enhanced interrogation. My question is, if simulated drowning isn’t torture, what else is it? And waterboarding just scratches the surface according to recently declassified memos detailing the brutal interrogation methods undertaken by the CIA when questioning suspected terrorists. Apparently, keeping detainees awake for up to 11 days straight, putting them in small, dark boxes, and at times even releasing insects into the boxes to scare them is not torture. Neither is stripping prisoners naked, using military dogs to scare them, slamming them into walls, or forcing them to stand up for days on end. (For a full list of interrogation techniques, visit http://tinyurl.com/d52gvg).

I, at least, expected to be outraged when the facts about the CIA’s interrogation program came to light. But I didn’t think I would be this revolted by the methods our government authorized during the last eight years. One especially chilling example struck me. In a single month, interrogators water-boarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks,‘3 times, a staggering figure. Take this number into consideration with the supposed “regulations” behind the use of this torture technique, revealed in a recently declassified Office of Legal Counsel memo written by Steven Bradbury. A detainee could undergo two waterboarding “sessions” per day, each lasting up to two hours. During each session, “water may be applied up to six times,” for a period lasting between 10 and 40 seconds. The technique could be used for twelve minutes within a 24 hour period, on up to five days per month. Even if interrogators had performed the maximum of number of applications and waterboarded Mohammed 12 times per day for five days, he would have been waterboarded “only” 60 times. Hence, interrogators tortured Mohammed more than three times what the already outrageous regulations allowed for.

Torture shouldn’t be used AT ALL, and it’s insane to comprehend the degree to which detainees were tortured. Imagine being forced to stay awake for 264 hours, feeling as if you’re drowning‘3 times in a month, or standing up without rest for days on end. If that isn’t torture, what is? Even the United States used to consider waterboarding torture. After World War II during the Tokyo War Crimes Trial, several Japanese soldiers and military officials were convicted of torture, primarily due to testimony from an American soldier who was subjected to waterboarding. And in’47, the U.S. tried and convicted a Japanese officer for waterboarding a civilian. He was sentenced to fifteen years of hard labor. Apparently, waterboarding Americans was worthy of a heavy punishment fifty years ago, but now there is intense pressure to practically ignore these claims? What has happened to this country?

After reading all of this, I thought I could not be anymore dumbfounded by the Bush administration’s actions. But, the story doesn’t end here. Remember that pesky war in Iraq (which, according to recently released government statistics that likely underestimate the violence, has claimed the lives of 110,600 Iraqis)? Remember how we were told that Saddam Hussein’s regime worked with al-Qaeda to carry out the 9/11 attacks, information that turned out to be blatantly false? Allegations have now surfaced revealing that Bush Administration officials authorized harsh interrogation methods in an effort to gain intelligence to support a U. S. invasion of Iraq. According to a former senior U. S. intelligence official who spoke with McClatchy Newspapers, “for most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that [former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed] Chalabi and others had told them were there.”

When this proof proved difficult to find, considering the link did not exist, the Bush administration turned to more aggressive torture techniques; during this period, Abu Zubaydah, a high-ranking al-Qaeda operative, was waterboarded 83 times in August 2002, and Mohammed was waterboarded‘3 times in March 2003. According to the source, “Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s people were told repeatedly, by the CIA . . . and by others, that there wasn’t any reliable intelligence that pointed to operational ties between bin Laden and Saddam, and that no such ties were likely because the two were fundamentally enemies, not allies.” And furthermore, as “the more frustrated [government officials] got in not being able to establish that link . . . there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results.” And thus, the United States of America became a nation that tortures its prisoners. I mean, “enemy combatants,” right?

How effective could these techniques possibly be if Mohammed was waterboarded‘3 times in a single month? How reliable, or coherent, intelligence could be extracted from someone who has not slept in 11 days? Though, this is the argument Bush administration officials, most notably the “vice-president for torture” himself, and Congressional Republicans are making in defense of this utterly inexcusable behavior: We had to torture people! We needed the intelligence! We protected America by torturing! This is nonsense. Intelligence produced by these methods obviously was not reliable, exemplified by the continuous intelligence failures that brought us into the quagmire of Iraq. And even if it was, even if these techniques were effective (when the opposite is true), this behavior would be abhorrent. The supposed leader of the free world should not, under any circumstances, torture people. It’s absolutely unacceptable.

And that brings me to my final point: the most rage-inducing part of this whole catastrophe is the unwillingness, or inability, to do anything about it. Obama has already stated that the CIA operatives who carried out the interrogations will not be prosecuted because they were simply following orders. And the usual array of characters, including Dick Cheney, John McCain, and the Fox News blowhards, are of course fighting tooth and nail to convince us that torture was the only way to protect America. Bullshit. This is simply more distortion, the same garbage that we finally threw out of the White House on January 20th. But, it appears that Senator Leahy’s (D-VT) proposal to establish a Truth Commission to investigate Bush-era offenses is gaining momentum, with Nancy Pelosi endorsing the proposal this week. This Truth Commission must be established. How can we possibly move beyond the travesty of the past eight years without fully understanding what happened, and how it happened? As George Santanaya wrote, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” And this history of torture, secrecy, disregarding the basic human rights of thousands of people, and manipulating intelligence for ideological ends, must never be repeated.

efore Post Secret became so popular and a full-time job, what did you do? Do you plan on continuing to pursue it after Post Secret?

I was a small business owner for 20 years. I sold the business, and now spend 50-60 hrs a week on Post Secret, so it takes up all of my time.

How did Post Secret get started and what was your inspiration for it?

It started as an art project four years ago. The business I had was monotonous, so when I was at work I would think about creative projects to do. I think everyone has a fascination with secrets that is borne in childhood, so one of them was self-addressed postcards. I started handing them out to strangers and inviting them to mail them back to me with a secret on it. They were special to me, and I was shocked how they resonated with other people too There have been over quarter of a billion visitors to the Post Secret website, five Post Secret books, and Post Secret confessions on such topics as life, death and god.

Did you expect anything close to the response you got? How long do you intend to continue the project?

Secrets have always been fascinating to me, but I was shocked that so many other people felt a connection too. My initial goal was to receive 365 postcards in one year, but in the first year I got well over 10,000.

When did you realize how popular Post Secret was getting?

I found out when I stopped printing and passing out postcards, but still was receiving them. The idea had already spread virally across country; people in different states began to buy and create their own postcards. I was getting postmarks from all over.

How has the purpose of Post Secret evolved over time since it started and where do you see it heading in the future?

From the very start, I did not want paid advertising on the website. Instead, I used the popularity of Post Secret to promote suicide prevention, and to help raise funds for suicide prevention. Over the past 4 years, $250,000 has been raised for suicide prevention.

How do you choose the secrets to put on the website or in your books?

One of the proven ways that people can deal with the issues that can lead to suicide is to share feelings of depression and isolation before they wall us in. My hope is when people can release their secret on a postcard, can give it a physical presence, maybe that can spark further action taken on that secret, maybe even action that can make the secret true or false. I like the secrets that surprise me, that are funny, sexual, or hopeful, and I try to arrange them every week in a way that tells a story about us. Sometimes it seems like the secrets are having conversations. I get about 200 every day, they come to my home, and I read them all and keep them all; I think each one is precious. And, there are two art exhibits that tour the country with postcards.

What do you think appeals to people most about Post Secret?

People come to the website initially out of curiosity, but eventually you come across that secret that really speaks to you, that might articulate a secret you’re keeping from yourself, that builds a connection between you and the stranger and the project in general. I think that’s why 1 million people come back to the site every week.

Do you think the secrets people write about are true? Does it matter if they are or not?

I think of the secrets as literature or works of art. Sometimes when you walk into a bookstore, the book that changes your life is the one in the fiction section. So I think when you’re talking about personal revelation, there are different revelations from truth and false[hood]. When we write our secrets we may think of them as true or false, and when we see them on the website we might realize the opposite.

How did you choose the medium of a postcard and why do you think that is important?

I liked the idea of connecting a very old form of communication, postcards, with a very modern form, the blog. I also have had a special relation with postcards all of my life; I think they’re pretty special. They can carry so much more than we imagine.

Have you published any of your own secrets?

There is one of mine in every book.

What is your favorite or most memorable secret?

The most memorable I’ve received was on a Starbucks coffee cup, “I serve decaf to customers that are rude to me.”

Have you received any criticisms of Post Secret?

The only criticism I’ve really heard is from religious people who say that the only person you should share your secrets with is God $mdash; but I haven’t really received any aside from that.

Are you excited to be coming to Dartmouth?

I’m really looking forward to coming to campus. My favorite part is sharing the stories behind the secrets and showing images of postcards that were banned from the books by the publisher. What’s really fascinating for me is that at the end of the talk, young people come up to the microphone and share their own secrets in front of their classmates. It’s not anonymous there. And I’m very pleased to be associated with Active Minds. I wish it had been around when I was in school.

"As a matter of fact, last Friday night, I hugged my wife. You know I’ve been married for 37 years. I hugged my wife. I felt like our love was just a little more meaningful last Friday night because thousands of other Iowa citizens could hug each other and have the state recognize their love for each other,” said Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal this week, after his state passed a law legalizing same-sex marriage. This achievement, a badly needed leap forward in the campaign to expand same-sex marriage rights, arrives against the fallout from Proposition 8.

Somehow, residents of California, home of Haight-Ashbury, former host of the Summer of Love, the first state to enact a medicinal marijuana program, and a state seen by those on the left and right alike as a bastion of liberalism, passed an amendment banning same-sex marriage. Prop 8 stung—a state that voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama last fall and passed a ballot measure to improve the treatment of farm animals, voted to ban same-sex marriage in the very same election.

However, those who thought same-sex marriage would remain a New England anomaly (before this week, same-sex marriage was currently legal only in Massachusetts and Connecticut) received a resounding rebuttal this week when Iowa’s Supreme Court voided the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, thus making it the first state outside of New England to do so. In another stunning series of events, Vermont’s legislature overrode Governor Jim Douglas’s veto of a bill granting same-sex marriage rights, making Vermont the fourth state to have legalized same-sex marriage. Even more inspiring is the fact that Vermont is the first state to legalize same-sex marriage without court intervention; the effort was entirely a populist victory. Proposition 8 may have temporarily put the brakes on same-sex marriage initiatives, but recent victories in Iowa, New Hampshire and Vermont, should give hope to advocates of same-sex marriage.

Historically, Vermont has been at the forefront of the gay rights movement. In 2000, it became the first state to allow same-sex couples to enter into civil unions, giving same-sex couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. While not the first state to legalize gay marriage, Vermont was the first to do so through legislation not mandated by a court ruling. The bill’s success was in doubt when Governor Douglas decided to veto the bill. But after some politicking, the Senate voted 23-5 to override the governor’s veto while the House of Representatives voted 100-49, the exact 2/3 margin needed to enact the bill. On September 1, 2009, the law will officially go into effect, extending equal marital rights to gay couples.

The benefits of state-recognized gay marriage, however, will extend to the entire state of Vermont, gay or otherwise. According to a UCLA study, legalizing same-sex marriage will create 700 new jobs, increase economic activity by $30.6 million, and generate $3.3 million in tax revenue over three years. Based on the experiences in other states that have legalized same-sex marriage, a state like Vermont could expect an increase in the commerce surrounding weddings, engagement parties, and other celebratory events, an economic boost when keeping in perspective the large expense involved in the average wedding. In addition, citizens from out of state would fund an additional economic boost in this respect.

It’s hard to discount the trend towards legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide when the supposed “heartland” of America takes such bold moves toward equality. Legalized gay marriage was to be expected in a liberal state like Vermont, but Iowa? I, at least, did not associate the Midwest with progressive gay rights politics. But Iowa, the predominately white state that gave Obama his first primary victory and helped launch his successful presidential race again acted as a progressive leader by becoming the third state to legalize gay marriage.

On April 3, Iowa’s Supreme Court came to the unanimous conclusion that limiting marriage to heterosexual couples was unconstitutional. What was especially striking about the Court’s decision was its dismissal of one of the most popular arguments used by those opposed to gay marriage: that banning it is necessary to protect children. The court ruled that, “a classification that limits civil marriage to opposite-sex couples is simply not substantially related to the objective of promoting the optimal environment to raise children.”

In a stroke of the pen, the court disassembled the “protect our children!” mantra that conservatives harp on when attacking the fundamental, equal rights of gay people. There is absolutely no evidence that same-sex couples are any less fit to raise children than heterosexual couples. In a system that allows, in the words of the court, “child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent felons” to be married, this argument clearly is just a shallow justification for bigotry. Fortunately, gay marriage is here to stay in Iowa, at least for a while. The only option for opponents of legalized gay marriage is to amend the state’s constitution, an arduous task to say the least.

Recently, New Hampshire has also made important strides towards granting marriage equality. At the end of March, the New Hampshire House of Representatives passed its own same-sex marriage bill by a slim majority,‘6-179. The Senate has not yet taken up the bill, and Governor Lynch, while he has not yet given his opinion on this bill, has stated his opposition to same-sex marriage in the past. Same-sex marriage in New Hampshire remains a murky prospect, especially given the bill’s uncertain prospects in the Senate and its far from veto-proof majority in the House, but this is still an important step towards making same-sex marriage in New Hampshire a reality.

There is plenty of evidence that the move towards expanding same-sex marriage rights will only accelerate in the years to come. As demographics continue to shift, opposition to gay marriage will likely fade away. This is not just a progressive fantasy; the data is clear. In California, voters aged 65 and older voted 61%-39% in favor of Proposition 8. Voters aged‘-29 voted 61%-39% against the ban, a mirror image. Even in Arizona, which also approved a ban on gay marriage in the 2008 election, 52% of voters aged‘-29 voted against the measure. According to Nate Silver of www.fivethirtyeight.com (who did an admirable job analyzing the polls throughout the 2008 election cycle, accurately predicting almost every state), the level of support for gay marriage bans is eroding by 2% a year.

His model is based on the 30 previous attempts to ban gay marriage, including “the year in which the amendment was voted on, the percentage of adults who said religion was an important part of their daily lives, and the percentage of white evangelicals in the state.” Based on this model, he predicted that by 2014, even such “red states” as North Dakota, Nebraska, and South Dakota would vote against a proposed gay marriage ban. And by 2024, the final holdout, Mississippi, would vote against a proposed gay marriage ban. Statistical analysis should always be taken with a grain of salt, but without some serious backlash against gay marriage, which seems even less likely as social conservatism is discredited as an ideology, these trends seem likely to simply continue.

The reason? We just don’t care. By we, I mean our generation, the so-called “future of America.” While I admit that my circle of friends tends to think liberally, it still seems to me that ”protecting the sanctity of marriage” is just not an important issue to our generation. Instead, we wonder why there so much hubbub over “defending marriage” when we need to repair our economy and combat global warming. We wonder why people are getting so upset over the tho
ught that some stranger is marrying some other stranger of the same sex, and research on the subject overwhelmingly supports these sentiments. A recent Pew Forum poll of 35,000 Americans found that 28% of American adults have left the religion in which they were raised, either for another religion or in favor of no religion. A full 25% of Americans aged‘-29 reported they were not affiliated with any religion; this compared to 16.1% among the entire population. Dogmatic religion, and the virulent “defense of marriage” sentiments that tend to accompany it, is on the decline. This should give any progressive hope for the future. To quote Mike Gronstal’s daughter, “You guys don’t understand. You’ve already lost. My generation doesn’t care.”

ere are some words of wisdom from esteemed Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN), who is clearly speaking for we the people. The DFP is not responsible for any nausea or rage elicited by this article.

Climate Change

“And actually, we want this debate because the science is on our side on this one. And the science indicates that human activity is not the cause of all this global warming. And that in fact, nature is the cause, with solar flares, etc.”

Yes, Ms. Bachmann, keep speaking the truth! Those damned scientists and their overwhelming evidence, it’s all clearly bullshit. Those eco-freaks are just trying to take away our Hummers so they can turn us into tree-hugging, drum-circle loving, hippie freaks who live in communes. With polar bears. Or… they are simply trying to save humanity from catastrophe, which overwhelming scientific consensus predicts if greenhouse gas emissions (not solar flares) aren’t curbed.

Taxation

“I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing, and the people—we the people—are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.”

Keep speaking the truth! Those damned liberals are at it again. Clearly, armed revolution is the answer. Eight years simply wasn’t enough time to destroy America. Since that stupid majority of Americans voted Obama into the White House, it’s up to us real Americans to take up our guns, march on Washington, and fight back! Because clearly the best way to safeguard free institutions is to… take them over by force? Sigh. Does she really believe the crap spewing out of her mouth?

Community Service

“It’s under the guise of ‘volunteerism.’ But it’s not volunteers at all. It’s paying people to do work on behalf of government. I believe that there is a very strong chance that we will see that young people will be put into mandatory service. And the real concern is that there are provisions for what I would call re-education camps for young people, where young people have to go and get trained in a philosophy that the government puts forward and then they have to go to work in some of these politically correct forums.”

I can’t even be sarcastic anymore. My face is twitching. In this case, Bachmann was referring to Ted Kennedy’s Serve America Act, the point of which is to increase the number of national community service positions available through AmeriCorps from 75,000 to 250,000, while increasing the educational stipend given out by the program to $5350. Clearly, these re-education camps will brainwash our children and destroy America. She may seem out of touch, but Bachmann is a rising star among conservative Republicans. And that’s just crazy.

relatively young outsider without extensive administrative experience will soon be the president. No, I’m not reliving the last few months of Obamamania; I’m talking about Dartmouth’s next president, an appointment that signals the College’s intention to move in a positive, progressive direction. On July 1, 2009, Jim Yong Kim will officially take over the reins of power and become the 17th president of Dartmouth College. His appointment comes at a potentially defining moment in Dartmouth’s history. He will need to effectively and energetically steer Dartmouth through a recession that is widely expected to continue as far into the future as 2011 or later. His selection comes at a time when some alumni and the College have just emerged from extensive legal wrangling over the future of Dartmouth. Should we preserve traditions or embrace change? How can Dartmouth’s liberal arts, undergraduate focus be maintained alongside growth in its graduate schools and faculty research? How should the College’s entrenched gender, racial, and socioeconomic equality issues be addressed? Kim will have to mediate these and other important debates, quickly immerse himself into Dartmouth’s culture (which, as an anthropologist, should be up his alley), and draw up the policies the College will pursue in the coming years. All in all, a daunting task.

But by every indication, Kim seems uniquely qualified to confront the coming challenges, and expectations for his tenure are high. The Presidential Search Committee chose someone whose refreshingly unconventional path to the presidency and extensive credentials will hopefully make him a pragmatic, effective leader who is able to convey a coherent vision for the College. And his significance as the first Asian-American president and second minority president of an Ivy League institution should not be understated. “I’m thrilled Dr. Kim was selected. He brings a global view of the world to Dartmouth and has done tremendous work with medicine in underdeveloped countries. It takes a strong vision to do so, and I’m excited to work with him,” said Dean of the College Tom Crady.

Kim is a Dartmouth outsider who, uncommonly for a college president, comes from a background of global health instead of purely academia. Some have raised concerns about his lack of administrative experience, but his outsider status could actually prove beneficial. While his resumÉ includes directing the HIV/AIDS department of the World Health Organization and founding Partners in Health rather than working as a college provost or dean, Kim will not likely have much trouble adjusting to his new role. “As a global health practitioner, he had to do creative problem solving and confront political policy challenges—he got the WHO to do a full‘0 on multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis. If he can navigate through the WHO, he should be able to navigate here,” said Dr. Lisa V. Adams, a professor at Dartmouth Medical School and coordinator of the Dickey Center’s Global Health Initiative. Adams also teaches the undergraduate Geography course Global Health and Society.

Kim’s accomplishments in the realm of global health are certainly impressive. He was able to effectively treat MDR-TB, a task viewed by experts as impossible, while working in the slums of Lima, Peru. Kim’s work revolutionized MDR-TB treatment, as 36 countries now use the protocols he developed, and his advocacy helped to reduce the price of the needed drugs by 90 percent. Then, while working at WHO in 2003, Kim spearheaded the 3×5 initiative to increase the number of AIDS patients receiving treatment from 300,000 to 3,000,000 by 2005. The bar was deliberately set almost impossibly high, but one million new patients began receiving treatment due to Kim’s campaign, and universal treatment for AIDS is no longer viewed as an unattainable goal. “He is an accomplished educator, researcher, and problem solver—all talents needed to get through this difficult time,” said Dr. Adams.

Kim’s selection holds special significance for global health advocates on campus. According to Katie Risher ‘10, executive director of the Dartmouth Coalition for Global Health, “I think that the college, having chosen a new president with Kim’s extensive experience and expertise in global health, is showing a shift in values for the college as a whole, which I hope the Dartmouth community will follow and enthusiasm around global health issues will increase.” Kim’s global health accomplishments are laudable, and demand for expanded global health related offerings on campus will no doubt grow. “Students are passionate and optimistic about global health—not jaded. The Global Health Initiative is on an upward trajectory,” said Dr. Adams.

Kim’s appointment is significant for all students, however, not just global health advocates. As the economy continues to worsen, there will likely be a need to continue cutting the budget and restructuring various aspects of the College, and the outcome of these efforts will mold the shape Dartmouth will take hereafter. “It’s encouraging that Dartmouth made such a bold decision. I thought they would find an economic minded person to weather the financial crisis. Picking Kim was bolder, he’s the best person for the academic mission of the college,” said Dr. Adams.

So far, the budget cuts have not greatly affected academics at Dartmouth: while there is an external hiring freeze, no current professors are being terminated. All departments will have to reduce their class offerings, but only minimally. “They protected the Arts and Sciences as best they could,” said Ivy Schweitzer, chair of the Women’s and Gender Studies program. “Growth will slow, not stop.” But, while Schweitzer believes, “no doubt he will strongly support the humanities,” she still hopes that such programs will not stagnate in the face of financial difficulties. For example, “Dartmouth could be the leader in integrating community service based courses into the academic curriculum, in integrating learning and doing, but someone has to articulate it and give it visibility,” said Schweitzer.

Aside from protecting the liberal arts at Dartmouth, Kim has to determine a proper balance between preserving the undergraduate experience and encouraging the growth of Dartmouth’s graduate programs. But Dr. Adams believes this should not be an issue. On the contrary, Kim’s selection may signal an effort by the College to better integrate its undergraduate and graduate programs. “It’s nice that he is a big believer in mentoring, where some of the best education happens.” Dr. Adams believes taking advantage of “the opportunities for immediate mentoring [of undergraduates by graduate students] is critical, and the potential is mind-boggling.” Kim himself continued to teach undergraduate students during his time at Harvard, despite being a member of the Harvard Medical School’s faculty, which is a hopeful sign that Kim may be poised to better connect graduate and undergraduate students. “There are so few services for graduate students and they get so little recognition. Why not integrate them into the College and do more for them as fledgling teachers?” said Schweitzer. She pointed to WGST 59: Inside Out: Prison, Women and Performance as a potential example, in which students traveled to a substance abuse center in Vermont as part of the curriculum. “If we’re teaching students about drug abuse, the natural place to go would be the medical center. Having a graduate student teach about addiction would be very beneficial.” Kim himself has indicated his desire to teach undergraduates at Dartmouth, which is also promising for the future of the College. “I’m confident Kim understands the Dartmouth experience. Dartmou
th is what it is, and there’s a misconception about the liberal arts—there is a strong research component involved. Balancing between undergraduate teaching and research brings a wealth of information to students,” said Dean Crady.

Kim will also have to grapple with issues pertaining to Greek life, including concerns about gender equality, alcohol abuse, and integrating the Alcohol Management Policy (AMP). “Kim will have to look at the level of student life opportunities for women versus men. There are more fraternities than sororities, and more local fraternities than local sororities. Adding more [gender] neutral social space, like the planned ’53 Commons student center, which is on hold because of budget cuts, will help address the needs of women,” said Crady. Others are more critical of the Greek system and believe more substantial changes are needed. “It’s not about one bad apple, it’s the structure that makes it okay. Not enough has been done to make real changes in the atmosphere,” said Schweitzer. Kim will have to consider how he can encourage more equitable gender relations on campus—including more coed social groups and gender-neutral social spaces.

In addition, Kim will have to adjust to a campus in which alcohol use is extremely prevalent. President Wright garnered nationwide publicity for endorsing the Amethyst Initiative, which supports an “informed and unimpeded debate on the 21 year-old drinking age.” While Kim has not given an indication of his stance on the issue, Crady believes there “needs to be a discussion.” Crady described an “increase in problematic behavior” during his time at Grinnell College when the drinking age was raised from’ to 21. But, as he pointed out, “the number of highway deaths did decline. There’s a host of complicated issues, and we shouldn’t take things off the table. That’s not to say we wouldn’t arrive back at the 21 drinking age, though.”

Diversity at Dartmouth also remains an issue, as shown by the recent controversy about an offensive message distributed through the “GGMM” blitzlist. “Dartmouth is relatively diverse, but we have work to do, as seen recently. Diversity is a core value of Dartmouth,” said Crady. Kim’s appointment signals that the College will hopefully actively work on diversity issues. “As the first Asian-American Ivy League President, he has a great opportunity to address some of the big race issues on campus. While his actions will matter more than the appointment itself, we’re absolutely confident that he’ll make Dartmouth an even more welcoming place for everyone,” said a spokesperson for the Korean Students Association. Schweitzer points to “privilege and ignorance” as being responsible for the recent controversy, as well as past race and gender controversies, and a social structure on campus that allows people to “feel outside of the normal conventions of politeness. They don’t have to really know about other people.” Schweitzer is hopeful, though. “Kim is a great spokesperson for the true value of diversity. Different strengths and common interests make Dartmouth better.”

Kim certainly will have his hands full when he assumes his presidential duties. While it’s impossible to predict the future, Kim’s accomplishments show immense strength of leadership, creative thinking, and an ability to deal with seemingly intractable problems. Hopefully these attributes translate into a College president who confronts the College’s issues head on, and who is able to lead Dartmouth through these tumultuous times.

ith the stakes so high we simply cannot afford the same old gridlock and partisan posturing in Washington,” President Obama said, as he arrived in Washington with overwhelming public approval numbers and sweeping majorities in both houses of Congress.

Over and over in his campaign, he called for an end to partisanship and an end to the “politics of cynicism.” A new kind of politics, the beginning of the “politics of hope” would replace this tired way of doing things in Washington and around the country. The lesson of Obama’s first few weeks, however, seems to be that ushering in this new era of politics will require more than just rhetoric and crossed fingers. The Republican Party has made it clear they will not let go of the “politics of cynicism” without a fight: their blatant obstructionism of the American Recovery and Investment Act (aka the stimulus bill) is an especially worrisome indicator of the path the Republican Party is choosing as they adjust to their position as the minority party. They have chosen to be the party of no, the party of stalled and failed policies that is doing its damndest to impede Democrats from achieving their goals. And the reaction of both Obama and Congressional Democrats to the shrill hysteria of the Republican caucus has been completely ineffective at breaking the gridlock: all that has resulted from their posturing and prodding is an incredibly watered-down Senate stimulus bill that will not go far enough in addressing the worst economic crisis in nearly a century.

The first sign that the transition to a “post-partisan” world would not be smooth and instantaneous was the stimulus bill drama in the House of Representatives. Obama made it clear that he wanted the stimulus bill to be passed rapidly and in a bipartisan fashion, and both he and Congressional leaders made an effort to accommodate Republican concerns, despite their minority party status. Inevitably, Republicans took issue with some small components of the stimulus bill; funding for family planning, for example, goes against their socially conservative agenda. Despite the ridiculousness of this display (criticizing a segment of the bill costing far less than one percent of the total cost) the measure was stripped from the bill in an effort to foster a bipartisan atmosphere. The bill was even modified to include more of Republicans’ beloved (but demonstrably ineffective) tax cuts. And Obama went out of his way to placate the Republican caucus, meeting frequently with both Republicans and Democrats at the White House, and even inviting them over for social gatherings.

After all this political wrangling, how did Republicans show their commitment to leaving behind “partisan posturing?” They voted wholesale against the stimulus bill. Not a single Republican member of the House of Representatives voted for the measure. Instead, all we heard was the same sorry rhetoric of the past eight years, like this gem from Republican Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA): “I think we demonstrated here that the kind of bill they put together without any input from us was not a stimulus bill. You can call it a safety net bill, a relief bill. It was a spending bill.” The amount of sheer stupidity in this statement is monumental. By definition, a stimulus bill IS a spending bill. That’s the whole point—government investment to make up for the downturn in private spending so the economy doesn’t permanently shrink, and so that the recession is less painful for American workers. But Republicans showed in this initial display that they are going to continue their policies of obfuscation coupled with loud, unsubstantiated criticism.

The bill that made it through the House still managed to hang onto key provisions—billions of dollars invested in infrastructure spending, extending unemployment benefits, education spending, food stamps, and help for state governments to close their budget gaps. Unfortunately, the obstructionist House Republicans have obstructionist partners in the Senate, and the Senate drama shows that Democrats are all too willing to sacrifice an effective bill at the altar of “bipartisanship.” In an effort to garner the support of THREE “moderate” Republicans, the Senate stimulus bill was watered down until tax cuts made up nearly half of the final draft. In order to accommodate this Republican demand, billions in dollars in spending were cut from other key provisions of the bill in a rushed, haphazard fashion, greatly impacting efforts to maintain educational spending and aid to state governments. A stimulus bill already called inadequate in the face of the accelerating financial crisis by many economists is now a gaunt shadow of its former self. If bipartisanship is going to produce completely impotent solutions to the serious problems facing America, what’s the point of bipartisanship?

Republican obfuscation extends beyond the stimulus bill. For example, House Republicans voted down a bill (already passed by the Senate) written to extend the deadline for the transition from analog to digital TV from February to June (a necessary preparation period to avoid the denial of television access to a number of Americans). Republicans have shown they are willing to vote against even noncontroversial measures. Their strategy for being in the political desert is clearly to become the party of No. Let the Republicans speak for themselves to exemplify this. Rush Limbaugh, who has assumed the unofficial mantle of Republican doctrine, has publicly said he “hopes Obama fails.” Texas representative Pete Sessions said the Republicans should look to the Taliban as a model of insurgency for their political dealings, “Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban. And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person’s entire processes.” Um, what? Republicans have clearly decided it’s in their best interests to disrupt Obama’s goals as much as possible. Rather than presenting reasonable opposition and a willingness to compromise, they are hoping to hamstring Obama and drag him into unpopularity so they can blame the worsening economy on him, rather than on Bush and their eight years of tax cutting, deficit growing, and other disastrous policies. And they are hoping that dragging Obama and the Democrats down will open the door to electoral victories in 2010 and 2012.

The politics and statements of recently elected Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele exemplify this cheap political strategy. He recently said, “[Lawrence Summers, head of the National Economic Council] acts like we have spent the last eight years in the mess we’re currently in. This is about eighteen months old. The reality of it is, Bush inherited a recession. He got us through that recession.” This statement would be laughable if it weren’t made by the de facto national face of the Republican Party. Instead, this disconnect from reality is frightening. Bush turned Clinton-era surpluses into huge deficits, and it is obvious at this point that the “prosperity” and economic gains of the Bush years were illusory at best. Bush-era deregulatory policies unquestionably played a leading role in fomenting this economic crisis. If the Republican Party cannot even understand the causes of this crisis, how can they possibly offer innovative ways of dealing with it? And just to show how devoid of new ideas the Republican Party is (and for a laugh), check out http://sarahpac.com, the website of Sarah Palin’s new political action committee. As Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas points out, the entire site consists of a brief set of generalities and a biography of Sarah Palin. Nothing else. Zero specific policy ideas. And this is the woman who is supposed to reinvigorate the GOP, someone who can’t offer any new ideas on her own websi
te? Instead of taking their 2008 electoral losses as a sign that they need to retool their party, Republicans are instead content to cling to their demonstrably failed policies, even in the face of crisis.

There is clearly a great deal of anger and fear brewing throughout America. The unemployment rate just hit 7.6% (not counting those who have stopped looking for jobs because they can’t find any or those who work part time because they can’t find full time work), the bank bailout money was used to pay billions in bonuses instead of increasing lending, and Washington, D.C. seems to be acting far too slowly and ineffectively in dealing with this crisis. Clearly, reaching out to Republicans is not an effective strategy: they have shown an utter unwillingness to change their tired policies and rhetoric in the face of an unprecedented economic downturn: they simply cling to the mantra of tax cuts as a solution to everything despite the poor outcome of this policy over the past eight years. But, what else can Obama and the Democratic Congressional leadership do? Instead of letting Republicans control the economic discourse and capitalize on economic fears, Obama should make his case to the American people and demonstrate how the stimulus bill is necessary for reinvigorating America. He has shown some promising steps in this direction by leaving Washington and making speeches in Indiana, Florida, and Virginia to drum up support for the measure, hoping that a wave of public approval for his plan will force Republican obstructionists to capitulate. And the stimulus bill is not irreparably damaged: it remains to be seen what will result when the Senate and House bills are reconciled. Obama’s goal of creating a post-partisan Washington is laudable—and perhaps his outreach efforts will pay off in the future. But for now, in the face of such sweeping challenges, capitulating to a minority party that still overwhelmingly opposes any stimulus plan and refuses to reconsider the failed policies of the Bush years will not slow the economic calamity sweeping both America and the world. Obama needs to make the decision about which is more important: save the economy and reinvigorate America, or attempt bipartisanship with a party clearly uninterested in any sort of reasonable compromise?

Posted in UncategorizedComments (0)