Roundup -- Blazing Sun, Flaming Hearts

It's HOT as a motherfucker outside (by Boston standards), and lately it seems people's tempers and temperatures seem to rise in tandem. In the city, with heat comes stress. Of course reading period doesn't help -- it's the time when everyone is pretty much expected to sit in their rooms and be Studious, drives you stir-crazy -- but the level of irritation and downright hostility still seems a little oddly high. Maybe you can blame the CEB, pitting us against each other in this colossal Risk tournament (and if you're not playing yet, why the hell not?). I don't know. But everybody's in high gear and about ready to snap.

You could see it at the Stand for Security rally today (they're every day at 1 outside Mass Hall, please do come). Of course on that front there's real reasons to be agitated. One of the hunger strikers, Javier, has already been hospitalized, and still nothing from the administration -- whose response still basically amounts to "LA LA LA LA WE CAN'T HEAR YOU". Today got a little confrontational outside Holyoke Center, which was actually locked down at both entrances by HUPD once we swarmed it, and it's to everyone's credit that a scuffle didn't break out; it's important to bear in mind that nobody here wants to harass anybody, and I hope that was a one-time occurrance. Still, tensions are running high on the security front; another few days of hostility like this (including from Harvard) and I don't know what'll end up happening. While we all need to splash some cold water on our faces and remind ourselves it's not 1969 anymore -- nevertheless, one can only handle so much.

Hear that sound, Harvard? That's your students getting angry.

ANYWAY. On to pleasantries!

--Gadfly has returned, with a vengeance. Mark Shepard kicked it off with a thoughtful post about Harvard's current campus initiatives, which is worth a read though I disagree with many of his conclusions; now Sahil's followed up with a barrage of current-events post that make a very entertaining mix. Welcome back, boys!

--I'm also assuming I don't need to mention that Cambridge Common should be on your daily reading list, both in general and for their in-depth coverage and commentary on Stand for Security. Endria Richardson has just done a great post on today's protest that I haven't quite processed yet, but that will definitely spark a serious discussion.

--And in less serious Harvard blog news, over at the Indy my friend Georgia Kelly Faircloth liveblogged the Female Orgasm Seminar. Good times.

--Turning to the outside world: if you haven't yet, read Jon Chait's excellent piece on the rise of the netroots and their role in Democratic/liberal politics. I actually agree with his assessment moreso than most bloggers (see Crooked Timber, Matt Stoller, and Whiskey Fire, all of whom think he missed the point), probably because I sympathize with his focus on the pure electoral-strategy side of things. Democrats should aim to become a coherent, powerful progressive force, and to my perspective the ideological program behind it is of secondary importance. But it's an open question. (...For an interesting contrast, read Alien & Sedition's latest bit on the implosion, and lately cannibalism, within the conservative movement.)

--THE POLITICO: Ever since it started something has smelled funny over there, hasn't it? Sure enough -- Glenn Greenwald reveals, in a story that should have gotten much more play, that it's owned and funded by hardcore conservatives. No wonder they ramble about John Edwards' hair so damn much.

--Michael Bérubé, on one conservative writer's crazed proposal for a military coup:

OK, well, call me cynical, but I think Sowell’s setting a trap, and Kevin Drum and Eric Alterman have walked right into it. I’ve watched the right play this game over the past five years, and I know what’s coming next: Why don’t liberals trust our men and women in uniform? What have they got against a coup? Is it that they don’t . . . support the troops?

--Mortage foreclosures: not just for the poor anymore.

--Does it bother anyone else that the White House basically stopped everything for several days and spent bazillions of dollars simply to entertain the Queen of England? Maybe it's just my Canadian upbringing (she's on our money, I'm sick of this woman), but I don't see why an unelected monarch deserves more of a dignified treatment than a duly elected national leader. BAGNewsNotes has a couple slightly disturbing visual analyses of the event that sum up my feelings pretty well.

--Turns out Mitt Romney is even more of a space cadet than you think. What is it with conservatives always confusing science fiction with reality?

--My favorite Crimson feature: Police Log! Not much of interest this time though, other than an oblique Lampoon reference, someone in Cabot burning noodles, and some incredibly expensive clothes lifted from 45 Mt. Auburn. Oh, and -- this freaks me out -- the home plate from Harvard Stadium was stolen by vandals, and apparently it is worth $200. Good grief. They know you can get a home plate for like 20 bucks, right?

--And finally, my heartfelt thanks to Garrett for sending out Radar's amazing piece about everyone's new favorite presidential candidate, Mike Gravel. This guy rolls up to an event driving a vintage Checker Cab and wearing velcro shoes -- how BADASS is that? Choice quotes:

Gravel smiles broadly and says, "Hey, can you straighten out David Broder?" Broder, an influential columnist at the Post and the unofficial godfather of the D.C. press corps, has been a target of much criticism from liberal blogs for seeming to provide political cover for Bush on Iraq, even with a majority of Americans now opposing the war. "He doesn't believe in the power of the people!" Gravel says. [Post writer Tom] Edsall blinks and looks perplexed. "David Broder is the voice of the people," he replies matter-of-factly. Gravel starts to smile, assuming Edsall is making an absurdist joke. But Edsall is not joking. The two men look at each other in awkward silence over a great gulf of unshared beliefs, then Gravel chuckles and walks ahead into the restaurant.

[...]"I don't understand it. They're pointing to Iran and saying, 'By God, those people are dangerous.' Christ, we're dangerous! You're very familiar, I'm sure, with the neo-con plan. It was in writing a few years before Bush even got elected: first Iraq, Iran, Syria, then Saudi Arabia," says Gravel, an apparent reference to a 1996 paper entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, by Richard Perle and several other prominent neo-cons. "Wolfowitz and Perle and all those guys—they're crazy as loons! Not one of 'em has even seen a gun fired in anger. Dammit, it just galls me no end! Why should Jessica Lynch go over there and get all shot up—why not have Bush's daughters do it?"

While Gravel says this, [Newsweek's Jonathan Alter] looks down impassively into his salad as though peering into a bottomless pool. "I need to get going," he announces, offering the distinct impression that one-liners about sending Barbara and Jenna off to get shot at are going to be a bit too pungent for the gatekeepers of mainstream media culture.

Too pungent indeed. This dude is the conscience of the Democratic Party; if Edwards drops out I might seriously consider throwing my support to him. Yeah, I know he's like 90 years old and crazy -- but think critically for a minute. What has Gravel said yet that isn't completely true?

Also, a Checker Cab. You have to admit. That rocks.

Anyway. Happy studying, and good luck to everyone in Risk (except Currier, to whom I send my condolences.) This is an open thread, for discussion of Mike Gravel, the hunger strike, or anything else.

Sexy Bacchus?

Over at Gadfly, Adam Goldenberg liveblogged the UC meeting that took place tonight. Had I not been scrambling to finish a paper I might have gone, as well. Actually, no, I’d rather gouge my eyes out with a pencil than go to a UC meeting, but he has some gems.

However there is one point he brings up that I find quite troublesome.

Including in FiComm is $300 for a “Sexy Bacchus game night/study break.” Here’s from the grant application:

Location: Cabot F-100 and Cabot E-102

Number of undergraduates involved: 15

It’s apparently put on by the “Sexy Bacchus Society.”

My question was, what’s the difference between this and a room party? Apparently this was a legit activity in a venue, according to Haddock it’s similar to “Stand Up” or another big student group party.

So I looked at the grant application. I was invited to this party. It was put on by a bunch of my friends. I couldn’t go, but maybe I should have. It was emphatically a party. Not a student group event.

The scam was caught and the grant was divided out and sent back to FiCom for further discussion. Thank goodness. Talk about beating the system!

I’m glad the scam was caught, but is this a regular occurrence at UC meetings? I too was invited (and attended) the party held in F-100 and E-102, home to a member of FiComm. A good time was had by all… because it was a room party.

In fact, this is how it was advertised:

What: massive SEXY party

Who: Your Friends

When: Saturday Jan 6 (TONIGHT!) 10:30pm-2am

Where: Cabot E-102 & F-100 (first floor = easy access)

I would have thought someone on FiCom wouldn't try and cheat the system, but this is the UC we're talking about.  

Roundup -- 2007 Lurches Onstage

Wake up, children! 2007 is here and it waits for no man. I understand that many of you, in defiance of Harvard's airtight schedule, are still at home enjoying friends and family -- how ludicrous. I laugh ("Ha ha!") at your pathetic friends and family. Because (after an excellent flight on Air Canada) I am here, by God, in CAMBRIDGE, the intellectual capital of the United States, and I'm... well... ok, I'm playing video games and screwing around on Facebook. Nevertheless. You should be ashamed of yourselves, you, you time-wasters, you.

And the Internet is likewise rolling along, whether we like it or not. Some recent events of note:

--The Harvard Law Democrats have started a new blog, Crimson Blues. There's a nascent discussion about centrism over there that cries out for contribution. Hope they keep it up.

--Rumors are floating that not only has Sen. Chuck Hagel's presumed presidential bid fallen through, he may leave politics altogether. They're probably unfounded, but they're also unsurprising -- after all, he's a Republican with common sense, and that (Republicanus brainiensis) is an endangered species. Note his wonderful recent description of the Iraq "surge" plan as "Alice in Wonderland"; you're OK with me, Hagel.

--John Edwards has been awful sexy of late (politically, that is). His presidential announcement had amusing pictures; then he slapped Barack Obama with a much-needed attack on "hope"; now he's coined the phrase "McCain Doctrine" and has Kos eating out of his hand. Not bad for a week.

--Ha ha, Sean Hannity. I can't quite figure why I like this so much.

--Gadfly pantsed us during our brief website outage last week. I'll get you someday, Mulcahy!

--Pretty much everyone agrees that Gerald Ford was a very good man and we'll miss him -- although, thanks for speaking out on Iraq when it mattered, dude. Good job. (Harsher take: Matt Stoller, who made even me blanch when he called Ford "a coward, an elitist, and a loser".)

--And Dave Barry's Year in Review is, as usual, brilliant.

Speaking of vegetables, the United States Congress is rocked by yet another scandal with the publication of e-mails and instant messages sent to male pages by Congressman Mark Foley of Florida, in which he explicitly discusses acts of a sheepherding nature. As the scandal expands, House Republican leaders issue a statement claiming that they "are not aware of any so-called Congressman Mark Foley of Florida." Democrats cite Foley as another example of Republican corruption, declaring that they would never, ever, under any circumstances tolerate such behavior, unless it involved a consenting page.

After days of chaos at the airports, the TSA issues a new directive stating that "passengers may carry small quantities of liquids on board, but only if they are inside clear, one-quart, sealable plastic bags." This leads to still more chaos, as many TSA employees interpret this to mean that the passengers must be inside the bags. Eventually the TSA issues a clarification stating that "if necessary, the bags can have air holes."

That's all I got. Leave more in comments. And now, a YouTube video: