Oh, whats he gone and done now?

Not good.

Apparently the lipstick-pig quote is an established rural metaphor, but of all the metaphors to choose, this was not the one. Since the RNC, the Democrat ticket has been in all-out-defensive mode, and the two ill-established impromptu speakers have performed as only a red-stater dared hope. I don't believe that Obama is necessarily sexist; rather, he has forgotten Orwell's dictum that common metaphors should be dispensed with. Surely a man as brilliant as The One could have concocted a different, benign metaphor, like "You can put a hat on a cow, but it's still a cow!" But he didn't, and time will tell why. If I had to guess, it's because he's under actual pressure. McCain was supposed to be the fall guy. He would lose, The One would be elected President of the Globe, and the seas would recede, the peoples of the world would beat their swords into ploughshares, and [insert calamity here] would be averted by the power of His will. But McCain decided to fight. And just as the Junior Senator from New York was able to pressure the One into telling remarkable tales of the fifty-seven states and the "bitter Americans who cling to their guns and religion," so now the Republican ticket, coming from the deepest canyons of nowhere, compels the same. We shall see how the Lord Messiah and the Chief Apostle hold up face to face with the two people driving them completely mad.

Guilty As Sin

In The Flat Hat today, it seems that a mere apparent cover-up of a small amount of meaningless graft by the former SA President can be solved by a (thus far non-forthcoming) apology. I of course refer to the scandal now embroiling 404 Jamestown Road involving SA VP Zach Pilchen's THEFT (since he made no intention of paying it back unless he got caught) of $140 of the PEOPLE'S MONEY. (Aside: ALL GOVERNMENT FUNDS ARE THE PEOPLE'S MONEY, whether they were collected as tax (mandatory student fees) or independently raised. The people (students) are the government (SA). Thus any holdings of the government are holdings of the people. End aside) No, in the eyes of the sages at the allegedly non-political FH, mere "reflection" on his fitness will suffice. Wrong answer. The Japanese have a ritual in which disgraced public figures come before the press, deliver a public apology, bow, and resign in shame. This seems appropriate for Mr. Pilchen, who never had confusion with the debit card before April, but then mysteriously managed to give himself at least seven illicit liquidity advances between April and God-knows-when. And then not tell anyone about it. And apparently "misplace" the receipts. Of course, TFH's editors are far more ethically concerned than Pilchen himself, who has (thus far) neither made restitution (source: TFH) nor apologized, preferring to "gauge student response" before coming clean. Shame on him. Shame on us for electing him and Hopkins (who may be innocent of any wrongdoing, BTW) with a 50 per cent margin. But we can't possibly be faulted, since no hardworking Obama supporter could possibly engage in graft that would have made Spiro Agnew (Nixon's VP for the historically illiterate) sure he had a new protege.

FP/YC Ruling:
Straight Red, Life ban.


UPDATE: He resigned effective 1730 9/02. Source: VIO

If I could reply to Obama's text,,,

Biden? ROFLMAO! Thanks. Really.

In Re: "Diversity"

We thought the (morbidly obese) ghost of Gene Nichol and his libelous resignation email were buried. As the DOG Street Journal (am I paying WAY too much attention to these guys? Slow [WM] news summer...) continues to teach us, neither is at rest. In their latest "Tribe Vibe," the scions at DSJ turned their attention to "diversity" [note: "Diversity" is set in quotes since I refer not to real diversity of thought, outlook, and values, but to "diversity" of skin color, sex, or choice of sex partner]. Rather than repeat and critique the author point by point, I will attempt to present a centre-right view on the failures of "diversity" engineering, and a sketch of a collegiate society with actual diversity.
"Diversity" engineering's logical conclusion was displayed for all at the University of Delaware last fall. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Academia (FIRE) exposed a residence life orientation program that condemned all whites as racist (ignoring THE MERE POSSIBILITY of other races being racist), berated heterosexuals, and interrogated freshmen concerning their personal habits. When "diversity" must be achieved at the expense of free thought, what has society gained? A tapestry of totalitarians instead of an all-Aryan staffel? The author of the DSJ piece notes, "People seem so often to painstakingly edit their thoughts to produce overly P.C. responses, leaving only wisps of speakers’ true intentions and eliminating any actual frankness from the discourse," citing Nichol's Parting Libel as proof. Why might this be so? Is it not because those with dissenting views (on anything) sit among a 70 percent plurality (referring to Hopkins' election number)? Seventy percent is a greater percentage of support than Slobodan Milosevic, Robert Mugabe, and Franjo Tudjman claimed in their rigged elections. We're not quite at Saddam numbers yet, but who honestly believes that when "diversity" means nothing more than a rainbow of people saying the same thing, the silent pressure to conform renders thought police unnecessary?
"But wait!" says the liberal sycophant. "We hosted the anti-diversity speaker last year-we had dialogue and we [left-liberals] won." That wasn't dialogue either. That was an attempt by a (singular) (woefully misguided) conservative to commit ideological "shock-and-awe," and the plan failed. Instead of shocking the liberals into abandoning their long-held position, the tactic emboldened those who believe that conservatives are evil racists bent on a Restoration of Bull Connor and Orval Falbus (both Democrat governors of Southern states in the '60s). Bringing a Bosnian Serb (to those who know the Balkans, "Bosnian Serb" and "nationalist" are a redundancy when used in that order) to discuss race relations is like bringing the High Inquisitor of Spain (from 1500) to discuss interrogation techniques. This is not how to have a productive conversation.
But is it productive to have the Junior Senator from Illinois' (/Second Coming of Christ's/Twelfth
Imam's/Bodhisatva's/etc) version of the "national conversation on race" at our College? No, but that is what we now have. And I daresay even the DSJ author knows in his gut that that "conversation" isn't right somehow. This would explain his regret of "overly P.C. responses." What exactly that phrase means to him, I do not know. As for what it means to me, that is clear. It means not criticizing certain persons for their CONDUCT because of the fear of being called a racist/xenophobe/misogynist/fascist. It means that if you're not a "victim group," shut the fuck up and let us (diversity educators) do the talking. It means that you best parrot the party line lest you face the "bias response team." If you think that this is fearmongering, I would suggest you Google "University of Delaware residence life controversy" (third link is from FIRE) and "Dartmouth Professor Sues Students" to illustrate two examples of what can happen if free expression is not protected and peer pressure is used to compel obedience.
So where ought we go? How do we achieve diversity rather than "diversity?" We must protect the freedom of expression for all first. If officialdom can compel obedience to a party line, they do not need the seventy willing percent to enforce compliance (although they help). Second, each must be diplomatic in respect to alternative views. This doesn't mean that you accept or agree with the view-it means that no epithets ("hyper-conservative," perhaps, Mr. Nelson? Or maybe "hysterical xenophobe," FH?) are tossed and the matter can be put behind friends when the time comes (its hard, but it does happen-I speak from experience).
But what of interracial relations in this calm and civilized new world? We will learn them in the best of bad ways, by fucking up and learning from it. But the fuckups will be free to be corrected against any individual, not only "whites" [sidebar: "White," "Black," "Asian-Pacific Islander," etc. are absolutely arbitrary demarcations of difference. In early (pre 1900) US history, it used to be that one was classified by his nation of ancestry: Anglo, Irish, German, Italian, etc. Then Jim Crow-era "colored" and "white" replaced those, and the current racial system replaced that in the 1960s. One hopes one day "race" will go the way of slavery, with the recognition that although we have heritage (ALL OF US, not just some races/cultural groups) we are all firstly, secondly, and thirdly, Americans. end sidebar]. We will live together and get along, as most hoped that we would long ago, since no "race" owes "debt" to another and each individual must carry his weight. The free market ought to force this (if it were permitted) by bringing "the races" together in common cause, in which open racism would cause certain failure. In this regard, I would argue that I have learned more about getting along with people of different races from working in fast food than from the Office of Multicultural Affairs. If only that sort of experience were allowed. Let me now celebrate finishing this long post with a cup of tea (an Asian cultivation blended by Britons) while listening to rock and roll (derived from an African musical tradition through jazz by Americans and Britons) while reading the world news (from everywhere). You dont think that free trade will help any, no?

After the Brandy

http://dogstreetjournal.com/story/4165

Dear me. It's hard to find exactly where to start with this article. The DSJ (who reads that? just curious...) have been running a series of (truly asinine) "Tribe Vibe" pieces for consumption by freshmen. So, after talking about such harmless things as the (grossly overstated) academic mentality of WM students and a-capella groups, the sages at the DSJ decided, "Hey! You know what would be a great idea? Talk about religion!" The writer (predictably) concentrated on the "diversity" of religious expression and how much WM needs a "dialogue" on religious affairs. She, in so doing, says the following:

• Nichol tried to talk about religion, and the conversation exploded in our faces.

• Now, the few who still care are left speculating about the long-term impact of the Wren cross issue, be it actually religious or merely political.

Oh my. Gene Nichol and the Wren Cross, diluted for the unwashed newcomers. And placed in a discussion about campus religious expression to boot! But let us examine the central claim, which is (loosely) that Nichol sought "dialogue" about the place of religion at WM. The fact that the central piece of evidence is the Committee on Religion in a Public University (hereforward CRPU) suggests that this is misleading if not false. Nichol arbitrarily decided to remove the cross. The consummate Democrat used the undemocratic power of fiat rule to assert his own view of the Establishment Clause on an all-too-willing campus populace. Had he convened CRPU beforehand, he would have come across much more favorably to those who disagreed with the decision. The result might have been tolerable to most (including the alumni who bankroll many major capital expenditures) without cutting the wounds the initial removal opened. If anything, Nichol taught us how NOT to talk about religion. He taught us NOT to act hastily without considering alternative views and attempting to reach a livable solution.

But instead of concerning herself solely with honoring the man of one mind and enumerating the various religious communities in the Williamsburg area, the author has chosen to lecture the "us" (i.e. not her) on the need for "dialogue" as if it will "bring us together." Religion is a touchy subject, like politics. There is a reason the proverb my mother taught me long ago was phrased "don't talk about politics OR RELIGION until after the brandy" (the implication being that the next morning no one would remember the hurt feelings of the night before). It isn't that Hindus, Muslims, Protestants, Catholics, and Jews cannot be friends. It isn't that each cannot practice his own faith with his fellow believers (he should). What is is that any matter of religion will arouse passions, and any addressing of religious matters or policy must be undertaken with THE GREATEST POSSIBLE DELICACY. It is NOT true, as the DSJ author posits, that "If anyone in the world should be able to discuss religion, it should be us." We are college students. We don't know everything. We sure as hell don't know how to deal with different religious groups in a way that does not seem to favor one or another (such an arrangement is probably nonexistent). Silent aggreements of tuus cuique (to each his own) are certainly better than a forced "dialogue" that would likely consist of the same banal ecumenism that has afflicted the Roman Church since Vatican II, with "diversity seminars" and ecumenical celebrations at the major festivals (Eid, Easter, Passover, and the like). Does this really "Bridge the Gap Between Us"? No. What the community must do, if it must do anything, is commit itself to Free Expression of faith (or lack thereof), each according to the dictates of his own conscience. I think we do that pretty well already. So let's save the "dialogue" for Last Call.

The Freedom Agenda

The Republican Party is doomed. John McCain isn't, but the Republican Party is doomed. It has no unifying philosophy, no will to fight for anything (with the glaring exception of continued military presence in Iraq), and no intellectual strength to convince the public that it is right. The principal cause of the party's electoral success in the last few election cycles (2006 naturally excepted) will shortly become an Achilles' heel. That principal cause was pandering at all levels of the party to socially conservative Evangelical Christians. Pandering to this interest group has created the not unjustified belief that the Democratic Party is the party of individual liberty. To conservatives, this is obviously false, but to the uninitiated, who is more obviously the defender of liberty, the party of free choice in the bedroom or the party of anti-gay marriage constitutional amendments? The party of rights of the accused or the party of "Chuck Norris Facts?" This conundrum demands that the Republicans redefine themselves not as carbon-copies of the Democrats but as unqualified defenders of freedom.



The following issues could define a "Freedom Agenda:"

1. Freedom to Earn: This plank is classical 1898 Republicanism: Lower taxes. All taxes. Not just income taxes.


2. Freedom to Worship (or not): Keep government out of matters of metaphysics. Let people, not judges, decide whether or not "In God we Trust" and "under God" are acceptable to 21st-century sensibilities. Accept their judgements.


3. Freedom to Broadcast: The FCC is nothing more than legalized censorship. Get rid of it. Tell the Parents Television Council to go to Hell along with the Fairness Doctrine. End the "public airwaves" nonsense.


4. Freedom to Surf (the Web): Keep internet commerce free of taxes. Legalize internet gaming.


5. Freedom to Trade: Enact free trade with all allies, such as Colombia. Educate the American people on the benefits of trade.


6. Freedom to Drill: Drill for oil in ANWR and the outer continental shelf. Educate the American people on new technologies that reduce risk to ecosystems and the benefits of increased domestic oil supplies.


7. Freedom to Drive: End CAFE standards. Let the free market determine the primacy of fuel economy in American automobiles. Raise speed limits where prudent.


8. Freedom to Eat: Fried food is banned at the Democrat National Convention (I shit you not). Barack Obama says we can't eat as much as we please. Let the people make their own lifestyle choices. Let them also accept the consequences.
9. Freedom to Smoke: Let the people who choose to smoke tobacco smoke. Call for national dialogue on the legal status of marijuana.
10. Freedom to Drink: End further restriction on the alcohol industry. Reconsider legal age 21.
11. Freedom to Choose: Appoint federal judges who will return abortion law to the legislatures of the states. Accept the judgements of each individual state with respect to itself.
12. Freedom Abroad: Foster, by use of hard (military) and soft (nonmilitary) power, growth of democratic states and institutions across the world.

In the coming months I will elaborate on these as I see fit.

Not a Catastrophe

So Matt Beato has now lost the race for City Council. I will now determine what this means, what this doesn't mean, what I would like to have, and what I don't know.

What This Means

• The Three-Person Rule will remain unresolved: Councilman Freiling, who supports reform of the rule, won re-election by wide margins. However, former mayor Granger lost narrowly to highly anti-reform candidate Judy Knudson. This means that the rule will remain in limbo for the next couple of years at least, as the council will be divided among pro-reform and anti-reform elements who will not view the rule as central to their governance.
• City noise regulations will favor non-students: The turnout by non-students was high enough to counter any student bloc vote, and thus rulings will still be made in favor of the more numerous non-students.
• Limousines and identity politics are not the best response to perceived marginalization in city politics: Forgetting the sheer waste of student funds that providing stretch limousines was (student activities vans do the same job for much less), it is now clear that an identity-based campaign for a council seat is insufficient. Regardless of the number of students registered, the citizens of Williamsburg will have a plurality of votes. Thus, putting forward a student candidate heavily dependent on the fickle student turnout profile (see limousines) is not going to be a winning formula unless the candidate is capable of appealing to citizen voters on the issues on which they move their votes: property taxes and schools. Perhaps Sievers was more able to do this in 2006 when he ran, or he may have had a larger proportion of anti-incumbent voters than Beato in this cycle. This election shows that the 157-vote defeat in an election without student votes that Sievers sustained was a fluke, as Beato lost by a larger margin in an election with more favorable demographics.

What This Doesn't Mean:

• The City Council can ignore student concerns: They can't for the same reason they couldn't before the election: We can vote still. Depending on the turnout model one uses, anywhere from 30-60 percent of registered student voters turned out. For young voters in any non-presidential election, these figures are actually rather high! As student political thinking matures (go figure first go-round we'd screw it up), if these turnouts remain the same students will be able to carry the balance in some races. What this election shows is that students cannot elect a candidate. Students can and ought to, however, enter coalitions with candidates friendly to their interests. This can get student opinion on Council, as was the case with Freiling.

What I'd Like to Have:

• An exit poll! It would make all this speculating a whole lot more certain. As it stands, nobody really knows anything, not even how many students voted. After-the-fact surveys, especially those conducted by the annoying folks at Rock the Vote (STOP TEXTING ME GODDAMNIT), will surely be subject to social desirability bias, distorting crucial findings which would affect future student political action strategies.
• Specifically, information on under-voting: Compared to the 2006 City Council elections, there were 1907 "whole ballots" (total votes/seats available) in the '08 race versus 1748 "whole ballots" in '06. Did students go to the polls for Beato alone, or only two candidates? Surely some did, but how many? For whom did they vote? Could this practice have gifted Knudson a seat? Wanna-be Michael Barones need to know!

What I Don't Know

• What the loss does to the Flat Hat: The paper had been a big booster of the Beato candidacy and likely will blame low student turnout (which I do not believe was the case) for the defeat. Will this affect readership?
• What the deal with the limos was: When I take up my position with the Informer in the fall, I intend to rip Valerie Hopkins et al. a new one for spending my money on limousines to get out the vote for Beato. That is, of course, for another day.
• What Beato does now: Other than sitting on the Soil and Water Conservation board (it's easy to win when no one runs!), it is unclear what Beato will do in wake of the defeat, as he had previously resigned his position as SA Senate Chairman. I do not know if he holds a Senate seat still.

Coming Soon to an Ivory Tower Near You!

It seems that Mr. Jefferson's alma mater is not the only elite university with a vacant leadership post. In response to their presidential search (no doubt less acrimonious than ours), Dartmouth freshman Jordan Osserman had this to say: "Straight white men need not apply." If you want to torture yourself with the full identity-politics manifesto, here it is.
http://thedartmouth.com/2008/04/30/opinion/osserman/

A few observations. First, I believe it goes without saying that if anyone had written "Lesbian Chicano transgendered need not apply" the writer would be marksteyned (see post from 4/29). That is, he would be, if he were allowed to keep his life. It seems that all sexual orientations, races, and gender identies are equal, but some are more equal than others. Second, this is coming to William and Mary. All is quiet on the presidential selection front now, but as the deadline on Reveley's caretaker period approaches, surely we will see "enlightened" calls for certain people to take over at the Brafferton. The oddsmakers (me) have it at 5/1 that similar sentiments to Mr. Osserman's will be published by someone, perhaps in the DOG Street Journal (does anybody actually read that?).
Third and most importantly, let me call Mr. Osserman's sentiments what they are: absolutely fucking racist. It is patently shocking that so-called liberals, in the name of "progress," insist on clinging (if I may coin a phrase) to the same racial caste system used by Bull Connor and Jefferson Davis. If we are ever to move beyond "race" into true "multiculturalism" (for lack of a better word) it's about damn time we realize that culture doesn't fit into neat racial or ethnic categories. Why is it that two first-generation Americans, one Czech and one French, one whose parents fled Communism or Nazism and one whose parents freely emigrated, are classified as "Caucasian" with your humble correspondent, an at-least-fifth generation American whose ties to the "old country" are purely artificial? Why is it that a first-generation American whose parents immigrated from China classified as "Asian" with a third-generation American whose ancestors came from Japan before 1941? I could do this calculus for every "racial" group, but that would be excessive; the absurdity is demonstrated. Likewise, it is absurd to assume that only an "oppressed minority" can end "oppression." I cannot speak for Dartmouth. Perhaps they burn crosses and huddle in white sheets in the Ivy League. But from what I've seen at W&M, the "races" get along much better than anybody gives them credit for. Don't be the fool who cries "opression" every day of the week. You might look absurd, to say nothing of the fact that no one will listen when you're really being opressed.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=dOOTKA0aGI0

Modern Dictionary of Political Discourse, No. 1

Note: This is the first of a periodic series. And yes, these aren't real words.

marksteyn (vt)-to silence speech, especially of a conservative, on grounds of being "offensive to a group." Etymology-eponym from Mark Steyn, Canadian commentator brought before Canadian Human Rights Commissions for statements critical of Islamic terrorism on grounds of being anti-Muslim. Usage-as any transitive verb, i.e. "The bias response team marksteyned the student who criticized Obama's immigration plan."

obamanation (n)-small portion of East and West coasts enamored with Barack Obama, plus college campuses everywhere. Etymology-Obama+nation. Usage: "Yes, British consulate? I am seeking asylum from the obamanation, can you help me?"

Fair Play/Yellow Card: Blowout Edition

In the spirit of The Flat Hat's "Cheers and Jeers" feature, this edition of Fair Play/Yellow Card will be cumulative!

Fair Play

• Taylor Reveley-Without question, his forward-looking, pragmatic governance in the wake of Gene Nichol's (never heard of that guy) resignation has put the College in a better position for next year than any dared hope.


• Matt Beato-The dare-I-say-likely Councilman has run an aboveboard campaign, committed to moderate policy in both student-city relations and general city governance. If he wins, one hopes that his term will be defined by care and moderation, in addition to the signature achievement that reform of the absurd three-person law would be.


• Tribe Basketball-res ipsa loquitur.


• Tribe Women's Soccer, Women's Track, Women's Tennis-for bringing athletic glory (and some silverware) to the College while no one watched.

Yellow Card

• The Flat Hat-for showing a committment to journalistic excellence commensurate with rewriting and reproducing press releases. Journalism isn't class-you can ask questions, even of people you like, and a hundred people DON'T issue sighs of dread.


• The Virginia Informer-for incredibly biased coverage of almost everything. Even though controversy is the paper's raison d'etre, I cannot say I've read anything positive about an administrator in this paper. It is right to criticize error, but it is also right to commend proper actions.
  
• All the folks who wore T-shirts reading "If Nichol isn't welcome here then neither am I"-see you next fall.

Straight Red

• Artists-whether it is Aliza Shvarts' heaven-knows-what sort of bullshit at Yale or the dude in Guatemala starving dogs to death, it seems that putting anti-Bush words to pretty good music or depicting various nudes just isn't hardcore enough for them these days. Look, I'm all for free expression, but a simple code of behavior is necessary right now. Perhaps "Do not kill, do not rape, do not steal" would be a start.

And now, the first annual Robbie Savage award for being an all-around wanker and stuff:

• Gene Ray Nichol-could his actions in wake of his non-renewal have been any worse? Not content simply to resign, he issued an email blaming politics for his termination and inciting protest among his "Tribespeople" (my quote). Although I myself was neutral, and would have accepted the BOV's decision either way, by the end of the week I couldn't help telling Nichol to not let the door hit his arse on the way out. That, and Reveley's exceptional performance in the special legislative session puts your claims to absolute shame. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Fair Play/Yellow Card: Now Biweekly!

There's been a lot of good, solid, fucking up by the Estates General this week, so here are the midweek's bookings.

Fair Play:

1. The BOV-denied green fee action. Well done.

Yellow Card:

1. The Flat Hat-for the hit piece on John Foubert. The founder of One-in-Four was attacked in a very poorly written front-page-below-the-fold article on Tuesday that did not address the supposed reason for writing it. The piece was written in a backhanded attempt to discredit Foubert and secure support for the SA's mixed gender sexual assault prevention program.


2. The SA-spent your money on the Lips female sexuality magazine. Now, I don't suppose I could get funding for W*nker, the single male bachelor's sexuality magazine. Not that I would try or anything; I'm just trying to illustrate the absurdity of the thing. Your absurdly high student fees at work.
   

Sent Off: Second Bookable Offence

1. The Flat Hat-the Friday issue was unmitigated shit. Whether it was the unusually asinine Confusion Corner column, the pejorative use of the term "conservative" in their staff editorial, or the self-congratulatory "pat on the back" to readers of Mr. Pieprenbring's column, this Friday's issue earned a vote of no confidence from your haughty correspondent. In punishment for your week of FAIL, humanity fines you Z$100 (<$.01).

Straight Red

1. The "Sadler Celebration": My God, ten people sitting in a circle handling themselves would be less of a circle-jerk than the five minutes of that I sat through. Had Sadler been the center of attention, had the emcee not spent his time massaging the egos of the student organizations, had Sadler given a rally-the-troops, my-god-this-is-a-great-place-thanks-for-the-memories speech (which he might have, later, after all 150 spectators not participating left in disgust), there might have been the dignity I expected. Had the "parade of banners" consisted of the banner-carriers escorting Sadler on his ceremonial walk around campus, it may have had dignity. But it didn't. Madame President Hopkins, since you are the captain of the SA's ship, humanity holds you responsible for the EPIC FAIL in the amount of Z$200 (<$.01).

Fair Play/Yellow Card: Week of April 14

First in a new periodic series.

Fair Play:

1. The Flat Hat: Max Fischer may still be on staff for another month, but the editorial page has taken a much more responsible, moderate tone, in keeping with its position as the newspaper of record on campus. One wonders how long such movements will last in an election year, but this is a good change while it lasts.
2. Interim President Reveley: I would hope that the eventual permanent President of the College is paying attention to Mr. Reveley's style of leadership. Rather than using his position to advance a divisive liberal social agenda, Mr. Reveley has concerned himself with the mundane matters of earning College professors necessary raises, lessening financial losses in uncertain economic times, and ending the row over Nichol (who's he anyway?).

Yellow Card:

1. Senator Barack Obama: The emperor's new clothes, uplifting rhetoric and speechification in this case, could not save the Junior Senator from Illinois from himself this weekend when he implied that those not voting for "hope" and "change" were a bunch of bigoted protectionist gun-toting rednecks. If this is "Change we can believe in" I'll settle for carrying a lit lamp in daylight in search of an honest man.
2. The Bias Response Team: It seems that investigating political harassment is either too difficult or not "edgy" enough to warrant their attention. Perhaps this suggests they shouldn't exist.

The Inexorable March of Liberty, No. 1

The last feudal system in Europe was abolished this week. Was that headline from 1840? No, it was from 2008; the United Kingdom-controlled Channel Island of Sark, population 600, was this very week granted a legislature chosen by universal suffrage. Other than being on the front page of Wikipedia, what does this mean for the rest of the world? Probably not much, as stability and rule of law have existed there for a long time. Indeed, the constitutional changes were made to bring the Channel Islands into compliance with EU policy. But it does show that yes, despite 200 years of cynicism, attempts at utopia (i.e. Communism and Fascism), and ethnic clusterfucks in the Balkans and Third World, the West still believes that representative democracy is the only legitimate system of government. Of course dictators like Mugabe, Hu Jintao, al-Bashir (dictator of Sudan), Ahmadinejad, and Kin Jong-Il will not bat an eye at a mandatory reform in a dependency of 600 motor-vehicle-free souls. It's nice to think that they would, though.

So THIS Is Tolerance?

http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-local_wmvandalism_0402apr02,0,2636527.story

Read that. Let it sink in.

Seeing as I'm sure you didn't, allow me to summarize what is reported. Former Virginia Informer editor Joe Luppino-Esposito's door was vandalized with references to his efforts to have Nichol removed. There is only one of two explanations, and either would say someting absolutely terrible about the state of the WM community.

1. Mr. Luppino-Esposito set this up. If this is the case, Mr. Luppino-Esposito does not deserve to call himself a WM student, a Republican, or a conservative. He would be dragging WM's name through the dirt without cause in an attempt at shameful publicity. He would deserve to be expelled. False "hate crimes" detract from the justified outrage at legitimate hate incidents. I have more trust in Mr. Luppino-Esposito than to believe that this is the likelier case.

2. This was committed by someone else, either as a prank or as an act of political intimidation. If this is true (which I wholeheartedly suspect) it is the worst crime that no one will give half a damn about. All would rightly be up in arms if anti-homosexual slogans or graffiti were painted or smeared on the door of the Lambda Alliance president-why are we not righteously indignant that the most prominent campus conservative has been so threatened? Why doesn't anybody know about this? Is it because the campus is monolithically liberal? Dare I broach the obvious?
Say what you want about Mr. Luppino-Esposito. I say that he overextends his influence, is cocky to an extent that puts Christiano Ronaldo to shame, and has a massive case of hubris. However, no one, regardless of any category into which he may fall, regardless of any personal wrongs he may have committed, regardless of any circumstance, should be so violated. If this is a simple prank gone to Hell, which I pray it is, it is still vandalism, which is still, I believe, a crime. It is still distasteful as fuck. It still deserves to be fully condemned. The silence is deafening.
But what if it isn't a prank gone to Hell? What if more sinister forces are at work? Then this shows the most under-considered (not sure if that's a word) form of "category-based" intimidation-intimidation based on political viewpoint. Look, liberals, libertarians, conservatives, socialists, communists, and greens will have PERFECTLY FUCKING LEGITIMATE disagreements about stuff. That goon squads should never be able to fuck up the property or person of those with whom you disagree is something to which EVERYONE of EVERY PERSUASION should agree. This shouldn't be a suggestion-it is the founding principle of democracy. Intimidation is not the means by which to convey a message. Silencing the opposition is a tactic of tyrants. I would ask whomever considers intimidation a legitimate means of conveying your message to look at the flag and motto of Virginia: "Sic Semper Tyrannis"-Thus Always to Tyrants. If you cannot compete in an open marketplace of ideas, YOUR IDEAS ARE WRONG. Tyranny is never the anwer, whether against a Tory or the leader of Lambda.

Apologize for the shit writing, I'm a little worked up.

"NO!" on March 20

Been a long time.

Today marks the beginning of my Quixotic campaign to defeat the "green fee" that will be imposed by referendum March 20. The issue that motivates my advocacy is not "global warming denial" or "hating the planet" but rather a love of freedom and skepticism of bureaucracy. The fee would create a new environmental office and a "green endowment" in addition to retrofitting academic buildings and residence halls with energy monitoring tools. I do not believe that a school as deeply in financial uncertainty as ours needs a new bureaucracy. I do not believe that any endowment, green or otherwise, should be funded by mandatory student fees. This is only the beginning of my criticism; more will follow in the coming days.

I will now criticize the arguments the proponents expound in presenting their tax as inoffensive:

1. The fee is 1% of the mandatory student fee: This statistic is true. However, there is no guarantee that the fee, once created, will not increase. It seems from the proponents' own website that, at least in the beginning, there will be some unfunded proposals. This seems to suggest that there will be a revenue shortfall: in the present financial situation of the College, this suggests that the fee will only grow. The proposal is counting on the "green endowment" covering the shortfall. This counts on a critical uncertainty; namely, that governments will, in a time of economic recession and possible stagflation, continue to subsidize environmentalist projects to the degree they do at present. This seems unlikely, as calls for immediate relief would drown out calls for "sustainability." These subsidies are the lifeblood of the environmental firms in which the endowment would presumably invest: if they cease, the firms will cease, and the cover of the shortfall will cease.
2. There is massive support: Also true. However, there is currently no one willing to stand in dissent, for "Who hates the planet?" There is only one side of the debate that has spoken, and that side has defined terms, so it makes sense that a vast majority would support such fees. However, tyranny of the majority is tyranny all the same. Add in the 800-pound gorilla of SEAC, and, well, maybe it's garden-variety tyranny after all. Unfortunately, some organizations that might stand up to such clear earmarking and (student) government waste seem to be content to stand silent.

Again, this is not to say that if the SA or the administration belives that recycling or energy efficiency (on campus) can be improved by their action that they should do nothing. Both of these are noble goals, but nothing is free. In addition to nothing being free, things tend to cost more when implemented than when estimated. I would much rather see the administration doing its job than the students compelled to surrender their wallets at a referendum. Let the people in charge set the fees, not the students.

Oh, and if the referendum does fail, I will demand a recount (apologies to the late William F. Buckley).

Sober Reflections

So the immense one is no more. As protesting strains of the Alma Mater drown out the drunken revelry in The Virginia Informer's offices, it ought not pain one to step back and consider what today hath wrought. For many (such as myself), tomorrow will mean business as usual. For others, passion will drive them out of class to defend the man they call "Our Gene." It is my hope that the sides may be at peace, in agreement on one thing if none other; namely, that although our disagreements may be deep, we are one College.

Tonight the College is divided. Unwise procedures and surreptitious offers by the Board of Visitors have served only to widen these rifts. Nichol himself has also stirred the fire by not refusing to go quietly (understandably) into the good night. It shall serve to consider what truly has brought us to this crossroads, and where peace was lost.
I am told all this began with a cross. A cross, the symbol of my Lord Jesus Christ, who came to bring "[upon] Earth peace, good will among men" (KJV, Luke 2:4) is the epicenter of discord. I personally did not agree with the (now former) President's decision to remove the cross from perpetual display, but I could understand why he made his decision. W&M is, after all, a state institution. When the Committee on Religion in a Public University made their decision regarding the glass case, I had the utmost respect for their compromise. Many, on both sides, did not share this sentiment. Amongst all this was the issue of the Sex Workers' Art Show. I have said that I feel that the SWAS was immoral. However, my morality is not, and ought not to dictate, civil law. I disagree passionately with the decision to provide public funds to the Show, but this was not Nichol's doing. I will here say that Nichol was correct in not banning the performances. As performed, I am confident that the Show violated no civil code, and therefore it was free expression. If any must be held culpable, Zach Pilchen is the President who ought to answer for the $1500 in funds, but I suspect the opponents of the Show have chosen weak prey, rather than the person responsible for poor stewardship of the public purse.

Who hath wrought such discord on the College? There is sufficient blame for everyone. Nichol is culpable for his non-transparent handling of the Cross controversy. The Virginia Informer and its editor-in-chief Joe Luppino-Esposito are culpable for turning a generally civil (I hope-I wasn't here) debate over the proper place of religious imagery on public property (a debate that occurs all over the country) into a national mass hysteria. As a Republican, I would like to thank them for setting the party back forty years on this campus. The State Republican Party is to blame for making this a partisan political issue. Nichol supporters are to blame for their obstinence. Alumni are to blame for putting the alleged sins of one man over the inherent greatness of this College. I and those silent few (they exist, surely?) like myself are to blame for our silence, for is not all that is necessary for discord to prevail that peaceable men do nothing (para. from Edmund Burke)? When the Committee on Religion in a Public University issued their compromise edict, the window for compromise had already passed.

But even then these terrible events were not certain. Nichol relinquished most of his day-to-day duties in the fall, rendering himself an emaciated figurehead: Surely this would satisfy the bloodhounds? Nay, they chose to double down, claiming for themselves the power to make as well as unmake Presidents. I say they have the "victory disease," and tonight's revelry will likely be paid in a situation worse (for them, and and perhaps me) than was before. The next President (of the College, Deo volente not the country) will be a liberal Democrat. He or she will not be encumbered by Nichol's baggage and wise from his failings. JLE graduates after this semester; it will be those who will take his place on the center-right who will pay for his hubris. I pray that I have erred, but I doubt that is the case.

So where do we go from here? God only knows. My gut (which told me Nichol would survive the present crisis, FWIW) tells me the furor will subside, and, while it lasts, those caught up in it will only exercise their rights and not infringe those of others. It would be foolish to let the present discord obscure those things we hold in common. The basketball team has an outside shot at The College's first CAA title ever. Those who were so terribly distressed by the cross did not leave. Those who say now "If Nichol isn't welcome here than neither am I" have surely not sent in transfer applications en masse. Something ties us to this place. Be it friends, history, business, or climate, something ties each of us to the Tribe. We will persevere. The College has survived a Revolution, a Civil War, and 1968. The present row pales before those crises. It would serve all well to be considerate of the side opposite their own, and it would especially serve the BOV well to be open in the selection process. We have been handed an opportunity-an opportunity to discard our enmity, lay down our words of war, and build a better College, whether in Gene's honor or in spite of the former President. For Gene, I hardly knew ye, but I wish you fair winds and following seas (just not too fair). For The Informer, I wish you turn away from the Sun before it melts your wings. For us all, I wish the present row to end swiftly, and the College to be one again.

Peace, and Hark upon the Gale.

Oddsmakers

Odds on possible outcomes from the day's events:



10-1: Joe Luppino-Esposito (editor of The Informer) is found by a rampaging mob, tarred, and feathered



5-9: More people attend the Nichol rally than alcoholic beverages are consumed at Informer victory party



Just make the check out to me now: Nichol returns as anything but a law professor



3-2: Barack Obama mentions this in his VA primary victory speech



10-1: Mike Huckabee mentions this in his concession speech



250-1: People who said "If Nichol's not welcome here than neither am I" don't come back next semester

2-1: The strike lasts three days or less

10-1: The strike lasts up to a week

15-1: Up to a month

Are you fucking kidding me-1: The strike gets Nichol reinstated

No Line (certain): This will all get blown out of proportion



No Line (also certain): The College will go on

W&M Controversy, Distilled to English Football Songs

I will now attempt to encapsulate the positions of the principal actors in the College's present controversies in English football songs. Here goes.

SNBR:
We'll be having a party when Nichol's gone,
We'll be having a party when Nichol's gone,
We'll be having a party when Nichol's gone,
We'll be having a party when Nichol's gone!
etc. ad infinitum

The Student Assembly:
Ten men went to bed (Yay!) went to bed with Oakley,
Nine men eight men seven men six men five men four men
three men two men one man (and we'll pay and call it art) went
to bed with Oakley!

The Virginia Informer:
If you hate Nichol stand up,
If you hate Nichol stand up,
If you hate Nichol stand up,
etc. ad infinitum

The Flat Hat: (to The Informer)
You werent around! (You werent around!)
Four years ago! (Four years ago!)
You werent around four years ago,
So just shut up and let us do our jobs,
And get good ol' Gene re-newed.

The House of Delegates:
Vi-si-tors, woaoh,
Vi-si-tors, woaoh,
We'll laugh ourselves to bits,
And then give you the shits!

Most Everybody Else to the House:
Hu-go, whover you may be,
You won't ax Nichol and you won't stop me,
I said fuck off and I meant just that-
Don't laugh at me you two-faced twat!

IHeartNichol
You are my Nichol,
My only Nichol,
My glorious leader,
Enlightened saviour,
Words just can't tell you
How much I love him,
Oh please don't take my Nichol away!

Overly simplistic, yes, but a good indicator of group opinion, no?

Musings of a "Hysterical Xenophobe"

Why in God's name did The Flat Hat feel it necessary to endorse primary candidates? First off, given the paper's open hostility to anything right of Ted Kennedy (hereforward and forever known as TK), why would they bother endorsing in the Republican race? As if Republicans are going to change their votes because a rather left-of-centre editorial staff endorsed a candidate? If anything, they'll vote for the other guy. Now, the endorsement of Barack H. Obama was predictable (I suspect the same in early November), and since I would wager most who bother to read the Flat Hat op-eds are practicing libs, it may shift a vote or two. But the one thing I have against Obama's candidacy is that it is dishonest. The National Journal found Obama the most liberal Senator in the Senate over the past year (rating: 95). He is left of Hillary, TK, Feingold, Webb, all of them, but the media let him come off a centrist. Obama is not a centrist, he just plays one on TV. "Post-partisanship" in Obama's world is really more along the lines of "We are all Keynesians now" (BTW, that quote is from Nixon) than "Let's disagree with civility."

Oh, one more thing: I'm glad to see that The Flat Hat is committed to ending stereotyping. Really, I am.

Basketball home vs. Hofstra-this one's a must win, plain and simple.

Welcome, Philosophy, Disclaimers

Hello!



I am in the Class of 2011 at W&M and have decided to spend my precious time on this for a simple reason: the current voices of the College student body are terribly polarizing. Nobody has any intellectual honesty concerning the major issues facing the College. Whether the culprit is the oft (justly) maligned Virginia Informer's jihad against President Nichol, or The Flat Hat's immutable party-line defense of seemingly everything the Administration decides, everything is polarized. This is not to say that I have no opinions: I freely here admit that I am a libertarian-leaning Republican in politics and am judiciously ambivalent towards Nichol. The goal of this blog is to do as the title suggests: spectate, and comment on the passing scene. No sacred cows are kept here: I will, to the best of my ability, call things as I see them.

That said, let the scene be set out:

Since bullet format is ridiculously easy, I will use it to make a few observations on the present state.

• How 'bout them Giants? (rather self-explanatory)
• Stewards of the Public Purse? So the SA finds it wise to spend $1500 on inviting former strippers et al to campus. I (unlike the Informer) will not pass judgement against Nichol here-he is an agent of the state, and had he denied the organizers the opportunity to put on their show it would have been an act of censorship. I find the "Sex Workers' Art Show" distasteful and immoral, but unless it is in explicit violation of obscenity laws, the state has no business censoring it. However, (I suspect) the SA did not have to fund the thing. I freely admit I am completely unfamiliar with SA budget intricacies, but it seems that the show could have survived on its own gate receipts, without explicit approval by the SA. Sex of all things should not need a public subsidy. But I suppose when 70 year-olds with decades of public service don't understand the proper limited role of government, it would be too much to expect the same of 20 year-olds.
• Nichol. I think he gets a lot of shite he doesn't deserve. I think he also gets a lot of praise he doesn't deserve. As a "leader of students," Nichol excels. However, his knack for creating controversy has put the College in an awkward financial position that cannot be denied. The jihad calling for his axing seems to reach a new low every other week, and the clear overplaying of the Informer's hand will cost the College's center-right dearly in the ensuing greater hyperpolarization (see below). However, the "If President Nichol doesn't belong here, neither do I" sentiment is equally asinine, as it reflects the personality cult that has developed on the College's left about Nichol. Personally, I think he deserves a short renewal, as I think the reaction to the Cross episode chastened him sufficiently (as evidenced by the power-sharing arrangement with Provost Feiss).
• The Virginia Informer (editorial board). Before I join the chorus condemning these folks, let me first say this: they really deserve a lot of credit. It is not easy to stand athwart two thirds of the College's opinion, much less speak out, and more than that, they accept no public funds for their work. The problem with these guys is ancient, timeless, and will affect others long after they are doing productive work: hubris. Yes, the same fault for which they condemn Nichol afflicts them too. It often seems as if they feel that some vast silent majority supports them. From the ground, it appears they are wrong. If anything, the prudent course in the Nichol saga would be to declare victory (Nichol stands with far less power than he initially had) and retake their watchdog post without the anti-Nichol baggage. However, I guess prudence never sold a newspaper.

Long post. Hopefully next time's will be shorter.