Main

June 12, 2011

Dartmouth

Conan O'Brien, in his Commencement address to the class of 2011 today:

No, Dartmouth, you must stand tall. Raise your heads high and feel proud.

Because if Harvard, Yale, and Princeton are your self-involved, vain, name-dropping older brothers, you are the cool, sexually confident, lacrosse playing younger sibling who knows how to throw a party and looks good in a down vest. Brown, of course, is your lesbian sister who never leaves her room. And Penn, Columbia, and Cornell—well, frankly, who gives a shit.

March 11, 2010

Reason to miss Dartmouth #345436

(wait for it.. about 2 minutes in...)

May 17, 2007

Somethin' Good to Eat!

So I know I graduated almost a year ago already but I still do graphic design for the Farm to Dartmouth project 'cause I'm cool like that - and they're havin' this kickass local foods expo today and I made the poster and it's way sweet so you should totally check it out.

March 30, 2007

Friday, from The D

From The D's Overheard column:

'08 Kappa: The work is for my black feminism class.
'08 Psi U: That's crazy. Can I take a white masculinity class?
'08 Kappa: It's called econ 1.

---

Also, it's Trustee election time at Dartmouth, for which The D musters little enthusiasm:

Each candidate was the favorite of at least one member of the board, but only Alderson garnered a green light from each member. Our struggles in finding a consensus are not a reflection that we disagree about the direction of the College or what a trustee should be, but rather that all of the candidates espouse similar views -- perhaps evidence that there's not much divisiveness about the future of the College after all.

The Little Green Blog has some further commentary on Alderson, the more controversial Smith, and how the voting process works.

Aside from Smith, about whom I've read more than enough, does anyone have any interesting thoughts on the other candidates? Their websites look good but don't say much. I'm talking to Sustainable Dartmouth to see if they'll ask some targeted sustainability questions and gauge their support for environmental initiatives on campus. I'll post the answers here if that happens.

February 14, 2007

Dartmouth in February

I can't believe you bastards get a snow day.

The Chubbernet graybeards are in fine form on the listserv this morning - recalling the last time Dartmouth had a snow day, in 1978:

That was the winter I had a job out at CRREL north of Hanover. Not having a car, I used to ski to work via the golf course. I started out on the golf course that morning, but gave up breaking trail after a while and made my way over to Rte. 10/Lyme Rd. There were no cars out so I just skied down the main highway. What a memorable storm!

January 31, 2007

So Dartmouth

This actually happens at Dartmouth after classes get out.

Jacko, y'all rock.

(via IvyGate)

January 16, 2007

Haterade

So I missed the initial blowup about this, but there's some drama drama happening over in Dartmouth-land and Seal's on the case. He's taking some major heat for it, but sticking to his guns. Bravo dude.

November 2, 2006

Blah.

Thank goodness for Seal. I did not have the energy today to mock the D's op-ed page, but he did.

I'm zapped today because I just sat through a 3-hour meeting so excruciatingly inefficient and dull that it took all I had to stay awake and blinking in my seat. Oh my Lord, the bureaucracy.

October 20, 2006

Homecoming, Round Two

Bailey left a comment on my Homecoming entry a few days back that I think I ought to address, because she made a good point.

Not to be a party-pooper, but do you really think this:

"hurling shouts at the freshmen, who by tradition must run laps around the fire"

is the part of homecoming we should be perpetuating? homecoming as a freshman for me was the first time I realized that the upperclassmen weren't so excited to see me. The taunts are worse than "worst class ever" (although several of my residents were still hurt by this seemingly gentle threat - "why don't they like us, bailey? are we bad compared to other classes?") - i heard a lot of swearing and threats (as if "touch the fire" isn't really a threat). I'm sorry to go off on this, but this "tradition" is something that I really hate about Dartmouth - we threaten others because we've been threatened.

I have really mixed feelings about the taunting that happens during Homecoming. My own personal memories of it are not traumatic, but I have several friends who boycotted the entire affair because they found it offensive, and if I were looking at this kind of a situation at any other school, I would almost certainly find a tradition of screaming at freshmen as they run around a huge dangerous bonfire contemptible.

I never really felt comfortable shouting at freshmen myself - I took part in the American Nightmare incident, but only because it was clear that the AN was taking it with good humor, and that we weren't threatening him. Then why am I ambivalent about whether others do it? It's not a positive tradition, it's a mean one.

Something that Dartmouth as seems to struggle with is positive traditions - there are plenty on a smaller scale within organizations and clubs, but as an institution as a whole, there's almost nothing through which all of Dartmouth can come together ... except for those events like the Homecoming bonfire that are a relic of pre-coeducation days, of pea-green freshmen and beanie caps and the senior fence and a whole complex set of social hierarchy hoops through which the wealthy white men of Dartmouth jumped. Coming together through a trying experience is by no means the only way to come together - but it's how a lot of Dartmouth's traditions came about.

I think Dartmouth is still figuring itself out post-1972 - what ties us together here? Can we, as a contemporary institution that purports to be diverse and tolerant, have a unified (not uniform) identity? Should we even try for that? Then what kinds of traditions are worth having? What's the point?

This is why I write fondly about Homecoming - it's one of the closest things we have to a unifying tradition, something that everyone can go through - even though I know full well that not everyone does, and that many find it unpleasant or worse. I don't really know what the answer is here; I don't know that it's possible to police the bonfire tightly enough to squelch insults, and I don't know where the line between acceptable and unacceptable should be drawn. But it's clear that the current model is far from perfect - to say the least. Thanks, B, for making that point, because I should've used a little more thought and care rather than rushing to idealize and wax nostalgic.

October 18, 2006

Ha ha, he got THE BOOT

Some Dartmouth kid wrote an op-ed today complaining about parking at Dartmouth.

My first experience with the parking dictators occurred when I was unloading my car and moving into my dorm room as a sophomore. In no less than 20 minutes, I was given a $50 ticket by Parking Operations. Fortunately, I was planning to park in the town parking garage and could avoid paying the ticket by not registering my car with the school. This game continued throughout my sophomore year, as I did everything I could to avoid receiving more tickets from the College.

Fast forward to Sophomore Summer. I was paying $200 to park at a fraternity halfway across campus because the best Dartmouth could offer its students was an open lot two-thirds of a mile from the Green. I had built up about $200 in parking fines over the past few terms -- keep in mind that's only four parking tickets -- and had driven my car to the Tucker Foundation to pick up mentors so that we could drive to our program in West Lebanon. You can imagine my surprise when, after being inside the building for less than 10 minutes, I came out to find my car booted in the visitor's parking spot.

Translation: I am not sly enough to park on campus without getting dinged repeatedly for parking violations. Also, a 10-minute walk to get my car is OH SO TERRIBLY HEINOUS WHAT A CRIME AGAINST OVERPRIVILEGED WHINERS EVERYWHERE.

Now. I definitely got 2 parking tickets over 4 years at school, both for parking in the Mid-Mass lot. Never got The Boot. Never registered my car, as I lived off campus and parked at my house. I'll agree that Dartmouth's parking policies are a little bit ridiculous, but whinging about it without seeming to have put a moment's thought into why the parking situation might be as it is (and there are good reasons, as anyone who has spoken to College employees knows) sure makes somebody look like an idiot.

October 16, 2006

Homecoming

It's homecoming week here in Ontario. I know because the cashiers at Red Apple Grocery were having a vigorous debate over that most important of topics, Homecoming King:

Blonde Cashier: Matt's got it in the bag.
Brunette Grocery Bagger: I don't know about that.
Blonde Cashier 2 Lines Down: What about Nick?
Brunette Grocery Bagger: I really like Josh.
Blonde Cashier: But Matt is so hot!

I live like 3 blocks from the high school. I should totally go and take pictures. Maybe I will. I should at least watch for a while from behind the fence with the other itinerants and night wanderers.

However, no high school Homecoming has one of these:

Massive pagan ceremony? Nope, just Dartmouth homecoming. It was this past weekend. I loved standing awkwardly before that massive bonfire, roasting one half of my body while the other half froze, hurling shouts at the freshmen, who by tradition must run laps around the fire - this year's '10s supposedly ran 110 laps. Few run the full allotment. It's a big bonfire. Besides, they get tired of the upperclassmen's hazing after a while (Touch the fire! Worst class ever! etc).

My class had the best bonfire ever: it started SNOWING right as we, a herd of 1,000, rounded the corner onto Main Street and broke into a full stampede for the fire. I don't really remember all the details of circling the fire, getting pummeled and knocked around, trying vainly to hold onto the hands of my friends, and that damn kid in a chicken suit (was it a chicken suit?), but I sure do remember looking up and seeing those myriad snowflakes float down and land on everyone's shoulders and wool-capped heads, lit only by the massive orange glow of one helluva bonfire.

One of my favorite memories of bonfire is shouting - screaming, really - AMERICAN NIGHTMARE!!!!!!!!!!!! at one of the '09s during that fall's run. I don't really remember all of the details of just why exactly this was done. But it was sure a lot of fun. And don't worry, the so-dubbed American Nightmare took it in good stride and even waved and smiled at us after a while.

My other favorite memory is roasting marshmallows on the massive pile of coals left to smolder into the night. My friend Ben built a 10-foot-long stick out of several ski poles - the necessary length to reach the coals, as those suckers give off a lot of heat for a long time. It's kind of gotten to the point that I can't remember exactly which pile of smoking coals was from which year. But I'm pretty sure I trekked out to stand by them each fall. I do remember that time with the coconut rum. More in the 'memorable' than 'pleasant' category, that one. Oops.

Alright, enough indulgent reminiscing for me. Hope those of you who were there had a fabulous homecoming!

October 10, 2006

Elitism Trounced

Got some proof this morning that there are some funny AND smart "ultra-liberal elitists" at Dartmouth, thanks to two contributing op-ed writers who thrash that terrible elitism piece that I ragged on last week.

From Syam (who's a friend of mine):

On the subject of Iowa, my home state, I hate it, along with all other states in the Midwest, the South and the West. Actually, I will just say it: we ultra-liberal types hate America, and everything about it. As Monsieur Moore (since we hate America, we never use the word "Mister") suggests, we hate America's culture, heritage and history. Second -generation immigrants like myself even hate that this country accepted our parents with open arms. Yes, in our Satan-worshipping, South-bashing, English-pastry-eating gatherings, patriotism is in fact "derided as a kind of propaganda." Monsieur Moore did, however, fail to mention that we also beat up small children who wear red, white or blue clothing. [...]

Often, people from both sides of the political spectrum attempt to paint one side into a ridiculous caricature that really represents no one or almost no one. This sort of caricaturing generates apparition-issues that do nothing to further serious political debate. It warms my heart to know that Moore chose not to construct the threat of a phantom political faction; instead, he highlighted a real liberal-elitist movement that we hope gains in popularity and eventually upends the American political system and way of life.

I wish Monsieur Moore all the best, and please do not be offended if you happen upon us while we drink the blood of a slaughtered patriot.

And from a MALS grad student, who seems pretty cool himself:

With 500 words in The Dartmouth, Moore neither explains the merits of his ideas nor lists the failings of his opponents'. He defines away opposition by portraying ideas as the only American option. "Reverence for God and religion, love for America... are not partisan issues," he writes. "All people dedicated to what America stands for hold these truths self-evident and inalienable."

Only two organizations in the last 50 years have presumed to define "American:" the INS and the House Un-American Activities Committee. Moore even includes reverence for our Constitution and love for America in his list of "basic human values." Does "human" include Canadians?

Also, I Facebooked the kid who wrote the original piece. Mr. RA-RA-Red-States-Pass-Me-the-Blind-Patriotism is from a chichi Connecticut town with a three-digit per capita income. He also seems into fetishizing the South (well, the white male country singers of the South). Weird.

October 6, 2006

More Idiotry

Did this reallly get published? Oh, yes it did. Thanks, The Dartmouth!

You see, doughnuts, pastries, cakes, French fries, fast food and many other tasty delectables contain something called trans fatty acids. Through the marvels of modern medicine, it is now clear to us that these fats are peculiarly bad for us. As a result, the New York City health department is attempting to rule that all of the city's 24,600 food servers must stop using this most offensive ingredient because, according to Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden, there are tasty alternatives that are far better for us.

What he means to say is that those tasty delectables contain variations on partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, which contains trans fatty acids. All of those tasty delectables can be made just as easily with other fats like butter, lard, corn oil, soybean oil, or, if you must, fully hydrogenated vegetable oils. It is not peculiar that they are bad for us, dude - particularly bad, yes, peculiarly bad, no.

Unfortunately, there exists a large enough number of people whose reaction to a trans fat ban is "well, people shouldn't be fat, so…" to ensure that it is not tramped out as the bizarre, Orwellian thought control that it is. Enough people think of smoking bans in restaurants and say, "damn, I really hate inhaling that crap," and fail to take note of the lack of the gun to their head when they walk into said restaurants. We have become hypnotized by the idea of a nanny state who will do all our hard work for us and have tossed our lofty forefathers' ideals to the lions. Whatever happened to the pursuit of happiness? Last I checked, that great document did not conclude, "except for fatties."

Since when are firearms allowed in restaurants? Also: is the right to eat a doughnut made with partially hydrogenated vegetable an inalienable right covered under the pursuit of happiness? I don't know about that.

Seriously - does the D just let its op-ed contributors run rampant without any quality control? (Answer: yes.) I'm all for talking about trans fats and whether or not to ban them (Answer: yes.). But this dude has obviously spent very little time actually researching his topic and a whole lot of time thinking of variations on the nonsensical metaphor "It's like a Noah Riner speech just exploded all over my life."

Because the author hasn't actually done much research on trans fats, he mistakes what would be a ban on a harmful substance for what he thinks to be a ban on a perfectly acceptable preference. There is no mimimum acceptable allowance for trans fats - they're just straight-up bad for you. We're not talking about fat in general, here; a little fat is important in your diet and if you choose to eat too much of it, well, that's your choice, and I won't stop you. And everybody knows that I love me some baked goods. But this ban would be more akin to banning carcinogenic preservatives or toxic ingredients than banning bad-for-you baked goods. If it were to happen, the ban would merely require a shift in the kind of oils/shortenings that producers use. Wendy's has actually already voluntarily shifted to corn/soy oil instead of vegetable oil, with no major financial hurdles and no consumer complaints - there's no difference in taste.

Also, the title: "The Western Tradition of Trans Fat." LOL.

Did Somebody Say Elitism?

Just to make it clear that stupid people are everywhere, even in the Ivy League, I give you this: a Dartmouth sophomore's treatise on elitism. In case you have difficulty wading through the dense intellectual subject matter, I've provided a convenient translation, written from the original op-ed author's point of view.

(Thanks to Seal for originally pointing a ridiculing finger this kid's way. And he's right - this op-ed goes way beyond stereotypes and straight into the realm of total absurdity.)

Most of us here at Dartmouth have only closely observed two presidential elections in our lives, plus a few midterms. But as we gear up for some big political events this fall, the recurrent theme of ideological elitism is unfailingly making its return into politics. From my observations, especially on college campuses such as ours, the real root of ultraliberal elitism is the misconception that this elitism is, in fact, intellectualism.

I bet if I introduce my half-baked rant with a vague reference to current events it'll seem topical. It doesn't really matter what "big political events" are happening this fall - whatever inference the reader makes here is fine by me. Of course, I'm way more interested in what I've observed in my mundane day-to-day life at Dartmouth - and it's really quite remarkable. I've glimpsed the deep, dark root of elitism, and it lives and grows stronger by the day, fed by the bleeding hearts of a thousand intellectual ultraliberals. What a discovery!

The misperception that certain political positions are the intellectually respected ones has infected the very core of the political culture on our beloved campus as surely as it has infected the country at large. More than anything it seems to be an ethic of self-righteousness that transcends any individual issue. It is an approach that looks down on certain people and their positions, and high-handedly labels them as culturally inferior and intellectually ignorant. This approach is not academic, nor is it even partisan in nature. Positions are not argued empirically or even logically and it is rare for hard facts to make an appearance. Americans are intelligent people of faith and good judgment, revere our Constitution and love America. Others in this country dismiss these basic human values and try to endow their own radical opinions with what they would have us believe is an inherent superiority.

God, everyone looks down on my political positions - surely this must be because they see themselves as superior intellectual beings (those elitists!), not because I am willfully ignorant and write in an overly bombastic and convoluted manner so as to conceal the fact that I have put little to no effort into thoughtfully making an argument or starting a discussion.

Also - I bet if I hide the actual impetus for my writing this piece in the second paragraph, no one will notice. See, those damn ultraliberals are so self-righteous about how they care about human rights, and justice, and the environment, and generally making the world a better place. Every time I hear them talking, I get a little twinge of guilt that I have yet to act outside of my own self-interest. That really gets on my nerves. Rather than examine this feeling, it's SO much easier to just get defensive and start calling for hard facts to be delivered at my doorstep. I can't be bothered to look them up; obvi the liberals don't. Surely you don't expect me to give you any examples.

It is a basic human value, whatever that means, to revere the Constitution. Those who do not believe that Americans are ALL intelligent people of faith and good judgement are Others. I bet they're not even proud to be citizens. If they're citizens at all.

Religion is generally the number one target. The very mention that one has faith in God or a belief in the Bible makes some people quite uncomfortable. Quite regularly in colloquial and even academic banter, religion is derided as primitive and its existence relegated to "hicks and religious fanatics in the South." Atheism is the only acceptable intellectual option for those elitists who seem to view a religious believer walking on a public sidewalk as violating the iron curtain between state and church.

I feel very uncomfortable around nonreligious people.

The second target of elites masquerading as intellectuals is America itself. It is the elite pseudo-intellectual norm to subject America to a constant barrage of criticism and condemnation, regarding not only policy but culture and heritage as well. Patriotism is derided as a kind of propaganda. These elites, in the phony name of academics, are unwilling to express love for our country and generally will not concede that America is the greatest country in the world. If indeed a liberal elitist can be prodded into such a statement, they attempt to maintain their "intellectual" façade by quickly qualifying, often with retractors about cultural relativity.

Clearly anyone who criticizes America has no love for this country. Can you believe that they won't concede that America is the greatest country in the world? Such a statement never ever needs qualifiers, people.

Many elitists believe, as one politician let slip when he said that people could not be trusted to spend tax refunds wisely, that they are better able to help people than people themselves. This is elitism at its most vile, but many on the extreme end of the political spectrum take it as an intellectual badge of honor to call the average person stupid or the masses ignorant. This position rationalizes a wide range of condescending policies across the social and economic boards as intellectual necessities to fix the economy or protect people from themselves.

There's no honor in questioning the intelligence of the average person. But liberals are totally fair game.

Reverence for God and religion, love for America, and respect for the intelligence of the American people are not partisan issues. All people dedicated to what American stands for hold these truths self-evident and inalienable. Indeed, positions from all angles of the political spectrum are acceptable when based on economic merit, constitutional principles and the like. What is troubling is that these standards are ignored in the community of extreme-liberal elites, replaced by a faulty system of stigmatization used to denigrate American values.

Because man, ain't no politicians talking about God, religion, love for America, or respect for the American people these days. It's all hatin', all the time. I would totally debate with someone if they had ideas in keeping with my interpretation of economics, the Constitution, and, well, other stuff like that. But they don't, those extreme-liberal elite bastards. They ignore my ideological standards! What the hell!

As these misguided extremists flock to bookstores to purchase Noam Chomsky's latest screed on America, because Hugo Chavez recently plugged it at the UN, the fact remains that their views are radically elitist and blatantly anti-intellectual. And I think that the further both parties can distance themselves from this elitist mindset so far from the mainstream, the better they will do this fall, in 2008 and beyond.

I have never read any Noam Chomsky. Also, I never really got around to explaining what I meant by "intellectual", or why truly intellectual ideas are the best kind to have, or just how my own ideas are intellectual, even though that seems to be something I revere, just like the Constitution. Nor did I account for my relentless assertion of the inherent, unquestionable superiority of my own values - but I'm sure my readers will get it. Besides, I'll close with a charitable recommendation for those crazies: if they just get back into the mainstream, they'll do well this fall!

(You can read the original piece sans my commentary here.)

September 17, 2006

Keeper of the Dogs

Classic Dartmouth. I came across this the other day while reading something else from the D; it was published sometime this summer.

Jennings, AD's "Keeper of the Dogs," said his job is not very stressful because of the house's dog door; all he has to do is supply the food and water and the dogs can exercise without him.

Jennings said his job is not difficult, but AD member Phil Rehayem '08 recently caught the puppy chewing an unwrapped condom.

"The kid clearly knows what's up," Rehayem said of [the puppy].

(article here)