<p>Well, if i am correct FS and Xiggi know each other…what was it that Driver was saying?</p>
<p>Guess Cheers doesn’t read too many blogs out there…some brilliant, clear, succinct, writing out there</p>
<p>I could show you some stuff on Myspace that is just amazing…young smart liberal minds at that</p>
<p>Yes Myspace is known throughout the world for its intellectual columns.</p>
<p>loveagoodbrew, can you ever add anything to a conversation besides snide little remarks</p>
<p>guess not</p>
<p>your intellect and contributions to discourse is, to be fair, pretty useless</p>
<p>trollng are we?</p>
<p>Oh getting touchy are we? Don’t feel bad. The anonymity of these forums certainly helps you save face after making asinine remarks. Tell you what, point out a single factual or remotely intelligent post you have made which is devoid of factual or grammatical errors, and I will quit posting forever. No questions asked.</p>
<p>**"Still, despite those moments of brilliance, they are still 19 and 20 years old. A brilliant 19 year old is not the same thing as a brilliant 50 year old. The students have miles to go and loads to learn–which must be part of the reason they hang around this forum. Their talent is challenged and encouraged. In my view, talent gets more benefit out of challenge than encouragement.</p>
<p>I’ve seen brilliant talent ruined by too much adult praise–too much praise leads to an over-developed and surreal sense of brilliance. In fact, ruin is the most common fate of the brilliant young 20 year olds I’ve known in my lifetime. Very, very few manage to live up to adult expectations and praise. To avoid that ruin, young talent should put itself at the top of a pyramid with equally brilliant peers and listen to peer praise–only." **</p>
<p>Cheers, it so happens that I agree with you, and this without any hesitation. </p>
<p>While there are many reasons why I still haunt the forums at CC, one of the most compelling one is the possibility of learning from the brilliant contributions of an elder, and especially if the learning includes a spirited debate. However, looking for praise or recognition is most definitely not a valid reason. I have stated many times that I have learned a lot from the people with whom I disagreed -sometimes vehemently. Here’s a part of my aborted “adios” message in 2004:
</p>
<p>Despite having a “work-in-progress” mind, I haven’t changed my opinion about this issue. :)</p>
<p>Apropos Xiggi & Cheers enlightened prescription,</p>
<p>My parents first read me the following poem when I was 11 years old. It has had a bracing effect on me ever since. Even for those who dont normally read poetry, I suggest taking a moment to hear what it has to say. Its about little victories and great defeats, and which of the two, through awesome blows, will one day shape an individual into a robust and vital human being.
Its Rainer Maria Rilke. It was translated from the original German by a friend of the family.</p>
<p>The Man Watching </p>
<p>*I can tell by the way the trees beat, after
so many dull days, on my worried windowpanes
that a storm is coming,
and I hear the far-off fields say things
I can’t bear without a friend,
I can’t love without a sister</p>
<p>The storm, the shifter of shapes, drives on
across the woods and across time,
and the world looks as if it had no age:
the landscape like a line in the psalm book,
is seriousness and weight and eternity.</p>
<p>What we choose to fight is so tiny!
What fights us is so great!
If only we would let ourselves be dominated
as things do by some immense storm,
we would become strong too, and not need names.*</p>
<p>**When we win it’s with small things,
and the triumph itself makes us small.
What is extraordinary and eternal
does not want to be bent by us.
I mean the Angel who appeared
to the wrestlers of the Old Testament:
when the wrestler’s sinews
grew long like metal strings,
he felt them under his fingers
like chords of deep music.</p>
<p>Whoever was beaten by this Angel
(who often simply declined the fight)
went away proud and strengthened
and great from that harsh hand,
that kneaded him as if to change his shape.
Winning does not tempt that man.
This is how he grows: by being defeated, decisively,
by constantly greater beings.**</p>
<p>by Rainer Maria Rilke</p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>Regarding how you, as you say, **lament the lack of drive and talent in the American liberal scene, even on CC.** </p>
<p>I would merely observe that I believe part of the answer is to be found in the poem by Rilke. </p>
<p>That is, in the willingness to grow by being defeated, decisively, by constantly greater beings; or, more precisely, in the case of college campuses, greater masses of beings rather than Rilkes greater beings. One could add to that the authority of the soft liberal administrations and organizations that govern and shepherd their charges according to the liberal fashion of the day–this cultural way and that, as the times demand. </p>
<p>There is today, I believe, a symbiotic relationship between the common and always well-intentioned liberal student and the common and well-intentioned college administrator (perhaps there always has been, but I dont think socertainly not in the 60s); that is, Rilkes wrestler/prophet (students) and the Greater-Beings that govern them (the administrators) do not wrestle, they stroke each others manes, gently and reassuringly. </p>
<p>I have attended numerous liberal campus functions, both out of curiosity & concern and, at times, to report on their earnest goings-on in the Review. <a href=“http://www.dartreview.com/archives/2005/11/22/sleep_out_4_awareness.php[/url]”>http://www.dartreview.com/archives/2005/11/22/sleep_out_4_awareness.php</a>
I have yet to encounter even a hint of a struggle, victory or defeat, with any greater beings, amongst any of them. It is likely out there, but, sadly, I have yet to see it. Instead, it is largely a struggle with ideologies and self perception. A battleto the degree that you can call it a battlefought with feel-good slogans against mythical creatures somewhere out there in the neither-lands of the real world. In fact, the further away the battle the better. Darfur, for instance, was all the rage last year; certainly a good cause
but you get my point Im sure.</p>
<p>A good counter-example is the Dartmouth Review, known for its youthful exuberance it takes on the administration and engages in, often sophomoric, college high jinxat all costs. You are in a very small minority on college campuses if you are openly disposed to be philosophically or politically conservative. You must either be a wrestler, or be quiet. Your opponent is nearly all-powerful, possessing the ability to make you hurt a lot. From ostracism, to classroom bias, to being sued and attacked by professors, to being expelled from the college, etc–as many Dartmouth Review staffers and editors have been (however, always forcefully reinstated under the orders of real courts and real judges and real laws). <a href=“http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1932236937/ref=sr_11_1/103-4962523-9745433?ie=UTF8[/url]”>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1932236937/ref=sr_11_1/103-4962523-9745433?ie=UTF8</a></p>
<p>Im not taking a position on who is right or wrong. I am merely describing the situation on campus as I have seen it. Lets just say that both sides are in some sense right, as these things go. But only one is really being tested and very often defeated by greater beings. Perhaps it will shed some light, perhaps not. I dont even claim to be right. I would prefer to see a more intellectually engaged left on campus, myself but Im not holding my breath.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Well I am learning something new. I just learned that there is a conservative publication at Dartmouth, for example. I am also happy to learn that Dinesh D’Souza has written for the paper. What doesn’t surprise me is the fact that the tolerant liberals have decried and slandered the paper…</p>
<p>cheers asked: Where is the young liberal counterpoint to FS and xiggi?</p>
<p>Here: <a href=“http://www.caldems.com/smartass/staff.php[/url]”>http://www.caldems.com/smartass/staff.php</a></p>
<p>ILaGB–The Dartmouth Review is <em>the</em> original conservative campus newspaper. Laura Ingraham and Reagan speechwriter Peter Robinson (“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall…”) are among its other illustrious scribblers. It’s worth noting that the college doesn’t support it, or even acknowledge its existence, officially. It’s a guerrilla operation. Freedom fighters, as it were.</p>
<p>As to “smartass.com” being “the young liberal counterpoints to FS and xiggi”…I think they will have to begin by being more prolific—no updates since March??? I also don’t think it’s particularly bold to post a liberal POV blog from a place like Berkeley. Takes a lot more guts to challenge the clique than to support it.</p>
<p>Interesting observation FS. (Write more of those please!) As they say, a gem cannot be polished without friction. </p>
<p>I need to think about your observations for a while–particularily as they relate to how those low-conflict liberal children were raised. That seems to be former radical Lessing’s message as well–do-gooding, low-conflict liberal parenting is untenable.</p>
<p>For what it’s worth, my liberal 20 year old is working for a senior Republican congressman this summer–and has decided to take a semester’s leave from university to continue working through the fall. He loves the friction.</p>
<p>I agree with FS but will put it in less eloquent terms.</p>
<p>On a liberal campus, the conservatives who choose to speak out know that, in order to even survive, they must have strong, reasoned, and eloquent arguments. They know that most people will automatically disagree with whatever they say. They know that there are people waiting to jump all over it. The sympathetic people are few and far between. </p>
<p>Liberals, OTOH, know that their views, however poorly expressed or reasoned, will find a sympathetic ear in their peers. Ergo, no incentive to develop strong arguments.</p>
<p>If someone would find a liberal newspaper or magazine at Bob Jones or even Texas A&M or Hampden Sydney, it would probably have the same intellectual rigour as the conservative publications at most schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>driver, Smart Ass is not a blog, but rather a print magazine which makes its content available online and has a paid subscription base that extends throughout the state. Like the Dartmouth Review, it is not published over the summer. Berkeley’s finals start in early May, and publication is totally student managed and overseen, so April is a dead month due to students preparing for exams/papers, I presume. </p>
<p>As for boldness, I don’t believe the staffers at Smart Ass see campus events as their fodder or the university administration as their intended target the way that the DR seems to; in fact, university politics seem to be ignored at SA. Bigger fish to fry and such. </p>
<p>And finally, I don’t think boldness or a minority-opinion position always goes hand-in-hand with well-reasoned, intelligent political argument, which is what cheers was asking about. The DR article about a student attempt to experience a night of homelessness that Fountainsiren linked a few posts ago was long on irony (which I can always appreciate) but a little too heavy on mean-spiritedness (which is a turn-off). Yes, it’s always bold to be nasty in print, especially when certain sacred cows are the inspiration, but that doesn’t mean it’s helpful or persuasive or even informative. </p>
<p>But, yeah, I give DR the edge in boldness, even if its staffers do look for their grist so close to home. From Wikipedia:</p>
<p>"The Review gained national attention early on for positions on social issues regarded as “politically incorrect” which its critics see as examples of racism, sexism, and intolerance. Among the newspaper’s exploits:</p>
<pre><code>* The newspaper continues to refer to Dartmouth’s sports teams as the “Indians,” the traditional school mascot that was officially discarded in the early 1970s, pointing out that a Gallup poll of living Indian chiefs in fact supported keeping the Indian mascot.[1]
- In 1986, its staffers took sledgehammers to shanties that had been erected on the campus quad as part of a campaign to protest apartheid by divesting Dartmouth from South Africa. The shanties were blocking the College’s annual Winter Carnival and were considered by many to be eyesores; the town of Hanover had ordered the illegally-constructed structures torn down. When the College moved to remove them, 150 students blocked the workers; ten Review staffers attacked the shanties in a midnight raid and were later punished by the College.
- In 1984, the Review snuck a reporter into a meeting of a gay student organization and later published a transcript of the meeting, including a list of those present at the supposedly secure meeting place.
- While on the Review staff, Laura Ingraham frequently referred to gays as “sodomites”.
- Early in the 1990s, the Review was accused of anti-Semitism for the appearance of a quote from Mein Kampf in its masthead in place of the usual quote from Teddy Roosevelt. (According to Review backer William F. Buckley’s book In Search of Anti Semitism, this last incident was the work of a disgruntled former staff member.) The Mein Kampf scandal came on the heels of several smaller incidents also suggesting anti-Semitism on the part of the Review, though the paper did apologize for some of them."
</code></pre>
<p>FountainSiren,
I really like the poem by Rilke that you posted and am going to print it out and show it to my 16-year-old daughter, who has always had an innate tendency to shy away from adversity. This poem beautifully captures what I’ve been rather awkwardly attempting to communicate to her. So thanks!</p>
<p>So who still remembers the ‘Water Buffalo’ incident?</p>
<p>Tried to find a Wikepedia reference for smartass to compare, but there isnt one. Not much pops up for smartasss on google either. Though apparently a whole lot of other products go by the same name. Wonder what that means.</p>
<p>8,980, 000 hits for The Dartmouth Review. According to Wikepedia, the Review has 10,000 subscribers. A yearly subscription costs $40. Wonder what that means.</p>
<p>Last year the editor of the Review was Jewish. I know what that means.</p>
<p>meltingsnow, I’ll start listening when you start talking about content, not sharing your google results, sarcastic faux questions and the subscription costs of the two publications. (By the way, Smart Ass is eight years old; Dartmouth Review is 26; I have to wonder what their subscription base and rate was in 1988, adjusted for inflation, of course).</p>
<p>As for content, maybe you could start here, with “The Future of Energy: The Prospects for Weaning America Off Oil” –
<a href=“http://www.caldems.com/smartass/read.php?vol=9&issue=4&article=energy[/url]”>http://www.caldems.com/smartass/read.php?vol=9&issue=4&article=energy</a></p>
<p>or here: “Cartoons and Free Speech: The Fine Line Between Free Speech and Intolerance”
<a href=“http://www.caldems.com/smartass/read.php?vol=9&issue=4&article=speech[/url]”>http://www.caldems.com/smartass/read.php?vol=9&issue=4&article=speech</a></p>
<p>I’d post up some articles from DR for comparison, but I can’t seem to call up their website this evening.</p>
<p>Haha that second one was a hilarious read. Got some more funny stuff? The irony of the title itself cracked me up. Let me get this. The author is complaining that people who think that the Muslim reaction to the cartoon is intolerant are in fact intolerant themselves. So wait…if being liberal=tolerant, why isn’t the author of the cartoon being tolerant of the people who are allegedly intolerant of the intolerant protestors? Gaaah!</p>
<p>As for the first one, the premises are simply ridiculous. We are as addicted to oil as we are to water or bread. One of Bush’s most idiotic statements ever. How about opening up ANWAR or laxing regulations on new oil rigs if you want to get rid of the ‘addiction to ME oil’?</p>
<p>Keep those articles coming. With this crappy weather outside, I could use a few laughs.</p>
<p>brew, </p>
<ol>
<li><p>have you been drinking? </p></li>
<li><p>The premise of the energy essay is not that we need to get rid of the addiction to Middle Eastern oil but to get rid of the US addiction to oil in general, thus your suggestions about opening up ANWAR and relaxing laws on oil rigs are silly. He’s arguing for alternative energy. As in NOT oil.</p></li>
<li><p>The point of the free speech article is that free speech/anti-censorship SOMETIMES and UNFORTUNATELY must trump expressions of intolerance. People must be free to say their hateful things. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Is it really that hard to discern or are you just baiting?</p>