NYTimes to McCain: Dude, You Can't Write

Forgetting for a second that McCain probably didn't write the thing himself, let's take a look at that Iraq policy op-ed of his that the NY Times refused to publish, in a move that has our favorite libertarian Frances Martel up in arms.

I’m not a John McCain fan by any means, but what glorified liberal rag The New York Times did to him and his editorial today crossed boundaries of objectivity and decency that should not have been crossed.

I think there's another answer, and it's this: McCain, or his speechwriter surrogate, submitted a genuinely unpublishable piece. Take a look for yourself over at the Drudge Report, which I commend for bringing this issue to light--not because I care about self-referential analysis of old media by new media, but because this op-ed is seriously educational, in a bad way.

Full disclosure: I think the surge worked. I thought it would, and I'm glad we did it. I do think we should think about eventually leaving a country we had no business in in the first place. But none of this has anything to do with why McCain's piece was rejected. I doubt it would have been accepted by the Crimson. It's a thinly-disguised attack ad, a shallow and partisan rhetorical stream. Case in point: It mentions Obama ten times. Ten. I'm excluding pronouns. (Examples, and much, much, much more, after the jump...)

Read more »

(FEM)SEX! And Now That I Have Your Attention...

Every semester when someone posts an advertisement for FemSex, a lot of people get their panties in a twist (terrible pun, but I’ve been working on a paper about a depressing short story from Vladimir Nabakov ALL DAY – so bear with me).

As with so many threads that occur over IOP-open a ton of people bicker over the appropriateness of these sorts of events at Harvard. And Paul Davis finds a way to make an asinine comment. And Lizzie Grosso nicely reminds everyone that discussions over IOP-open are meant to be substantial, not just mean. 

One person is appalled that such a class occurs at Harvard because it’s “controversy for the sake of controversy.” While I highly doubt the people responsible for FemSex set out to create something just to be controversial, I guess I understand the confusion people have towards it.  

But Meghan Grizzle wrote about the class for Sally, and I highly recommend her piece. And I think I agree with her that the class doesn't fall under the spectrum of empowerment (though I have never been).

Female Sexuality (FemSex) is a class that started at UC Berkeley, spread to Brown University, and is in its third semester at Harvard. It is a not-for-credit, semester-long, student-moderated workshop that provides a safe environment for women (including those who currently identify as women, have identified as women, or may identify as women in the future)  to learn about their bodies and explore the impact of sexuality on their identity.

The course topics include: anatomy and physiology, race/ethnicity and sexuality, orgasms, masturbation, communication and partner sex, fantasies, sexual diversity, pornography and erotica, BDSM, body image, eating disorders, women's health issues, safer sex, violence against women, community building and whatever else YOU bring to the table.

Set in the context of self-love, exploration and the spectrum of cultural, ethnic, racial, and sexual identities, the objective of women's empowerment will be achieved through analytical readings, assignments, guest speakers, field trips and confidential class discussions. This class requires dedication, openness, willingness to communicate, suspension of judgment, and BRAVERY.

If you are interested in learning more about FemSex at Harvard, attend one of the information sessions in the women's center in the basement of Canaday Hall, B entryway.  

If you are unable to attend any session, email us at harvardfemsex@gmail.com.

Your own thoughts are welcome on the subject. But I have to get back to Mr. Nabakov…

UPDATE (because I'm done with you, Nabakov). This post from someone is by far my favorite: 

It is certainly disadvantageous to all those misguided students who, instead of enrolling in such a ‘class,’ should be engaging in more responsible pursuits, such as trying to find a husband?

I wasn’t planning on enrolling in this class, but I am disturbed. Disturbed because it’s almost the spring semester of my junior year and I am nowhere closer to finding a husband than I was in the third grade. Any suggestions?  

Contrary to rumor, Harvard Dems actually NOT fire-headed hate-monsters

A lot of controversy has stemmed up over the past day or so related to the UC race. I want to clear up a few things.

- The Harvard Dems strongly support Ryan Petersen and Matt Sundquist for the UC race. Our MALs voted this, and the board stands behind that decision.
- None of us (so far as I know) want to be inflammatory against any of the other candidates, the Crimson, the UC election in general, Josh Patashnik's mom, or America Itself. Promise. We take no sick pleasure in pissing people off.
- Today's press release was designed entirely to support our candidate and to get the word out. We have a precedent of re-releasing our endorsement during campaign week to keep it relevant, and we do want to encourage our members to participate in the important process of voting in the UC race. It was NOT designed as a fuck-you to any other candidate, the Crimson, the UC election in general, Josh Patashnik's mom, or America Itself.
- What happens on this blog is reflective of a small subset of vocal people who care deeply about this race. For everyone's sake, let's keep some perspective.
- Nobody's going to love you less in the Dems if you support a different candidate. This is small fry compared to the real elections that are important to us.
- In the end, we as an organization sincerely hope Petersen-Sundquist win. Some may disagree with us, and some may not like that we're behind that ticket. But it is what it is, and trying to demonize us for it isn't going to make anyone happy.