Saturday, May 10, 2008

Learn How to be a Progressive Blooger

Rocky, right now.

>Date: 10 May 2008 17:33:54 -0400
>From: Dartmouth Free Press
>Reply-To: DFP
>Subject: Orient & Progressive Blogging Now!
>To: (Recipient list suppressed)

The second half of the Dartmouth Coalition for Progress's Activism Skills Training will be starting now, with dinner from the Orient and Laura Clawson, Daily Kos Frontpage Contributer, on progressive blooging, journalism, and media utilization.

Luke Watson, Outreach Director for Paul Hodes, will also be speaking on lobbying skills.

Rocky 2


Anonymous said...

Would this be the same Laura who wrote the "VRWC at Dartmouth" post on DailyKos a short while back?

W. Aubin said...

Most likely, but my searches aren't yielding a confirmation. Still, it's worth a read if anyone wants a chuckle (or, alternatively, if you're a supporter of Dartmouth Undead, it's a worthwhile, thoughtful treatise on the dangerous trends created by the Hanover Institute and a variety of other shady cabals).

DartBored said...

Relax. It's just a test run for the Alumni Council meeting next weekend.

Anonymous said...

Female Admirer says:

Dartbored, Will you marry me? I love you!

DartBored said...

Please post photo.

Anonymous said...

Kos is a joke. It's for people who want to commiserate with like-minded people and vent.

cause said...

Sounds like Power Line.

4:42 said...

No argument here. At least Kos isn't running in the AoA election.

anony.mous said...

Why does Heddaya think Zak Moore's post is a good rebuttal to Ackerman's column?

As I have written...

1. The lawsuit is about the charter, the board's resolutions, and whether alumni can change those things in a contract. It has no direct connection to student complaints about class size, it is about corporate governance procedures.

2. Churchill could have ended the Battle of Britain in nine seconds too. I timed it.

3. The lawsuit has nothing to do with "democracy" or "the right to vote." Todd Zywicki himself said the fight is about getting rid of the secular feminists. Steve Smith apparently believes in intelligent design, and Alexander Mooney suggested the legislature turn back the clock on the 2003 amendment that reduced government regulation, and Martin Boles spoke to Opus Dei on lawyer's ethics. Turning back the clock is what this coven wants to do, and it would make a good campaign slogan for them.

Anonymous said...

No idea why Heddaya thinks it's good or even a rebuttal.

M. Heddaya said...

From American Heritage:
Rebuttal: A reply intended to show fault in an opponent's argument.

Whether or not you agree with me is independent of whether or not the Dartblog post is a rebuttal.

Anonymous said...

But not a "good" one. If it was intended to show fault, it failed.

Anonymous said...

Ackerman's second paragraph says that Dartmouth is doing well. Her claims are: (1) median class size is down from 10 years ago, (2) faculty size is up from 10 years ago, (3) professors and students have the resources they need, and (4) the College continues to bring in good students and professors.

Moore's response is that (1) government and economics classes are oversubscribed and (2) the bureaucracy is growing faster than the faculty. In some sense they're talking past each other, but I suppose that counts as a rebuttal.

Ackerman's second paragraph questions the motivations of the people behind the lawsuit, in light of their desire to deplete the College's resources and Zywicki's statement that the goal is to "tak[e] the academy back."

Moore's response is that the lawsuit could be stopped if the College would only surrender. That's a laughably weak response. Any lawsuit can be stopped by giving into the plaintiff's demands, but that doesn't mean that all lawsuits are beyond reproach. The people behind the lawsuits have their arguments, but it's not wrong to suggest that there's something odd about claiming that you're suing the College to do what's best for it. I'm not sure what Zywicki means by "taking the academy back" or where that quote comes from, but Ackerman isn't wrong to question the motivations of the petition candidates. Ackerman's not the only one creeped out by the fact that many of the petition candidates and people working on their campaigns happen to be politically conservative, and that the last few campaigns have looked like the sliminess we're used to seeing from national politicians. One of Zywicki's first speeches as a trustee encouraged people to give money to George Mason law school instead of Dartmouth and called Freedman "truly evil." Ackerman isn't the only one who wonders if Zywicki's out to impress his friends at the Heritage Foundation rather than to make Dartmouth better off. "The lawsuit could be stopped in 9 seconds!" isn't a response to that.

Finally, there's the "turn back the clock" bit. "Turning back the clock" is a useless piece of rhetoric, both in Ackerman's op-ed and Moore's response, so I suppose that just about anything passes for a rebuttal there. Liberals like to accuse conservatives of "turning back the clock" to some horrible past where anyone other than a male WASP was some form of property and witches were burned at the stake. I suppose it's equally disingenuous and thus a fair rebuttal for Moore to claim that the Trustees are out to "turn back the clock" to when Dartmouth was supposedly ruled by "principles of kings and dictators who would appoint themselves and their cronies."

From reading the Dartmouth blogs, the average Dartmouth student who's interested in the parity controversy is more than capable of making a decent argument to support either side. Moore's piece is so bad that I have to wonder why Dartlog flagged it as a "good rebuttal."

haha said...

Anonymous: Who are you and why do you have so much time on your hands? Even if you do win that the rebuttal isn't "good," you're still the overall loser: you've dedicated entire paragraphs to responding to a one sentence post.

Anonymous said...

I'm your mom. You never call, write or visit, so I pass time on the internets reading Dartmouth blogs.