I grew up listening to Mike and the Mad Dog talk New York sports on WFAN, but the times they are a-changin’. Chris Russo has taken a major contract with Sirius XM radio and Mike Francesa has been going it alone. 660 AM doesn’t come in too well on my car radio up here in Hanover anyway, but it is sad to see the breakup of such a great team.

One of CNN’s liberal opinion men, who masquerades as a news reporter, posing slanted questions to viewers in the hopes of getting the right responses, says about the presidential election: “the polls remain close. Doesn’t make sense…unless it’s race.” Of course, race is the only reason Obama might be doing poorly. It couldn’t be that voters find Obama elitist, arrogant, phony, naive, corrupt, economically illiterate, or the ultimate Hollywood liberal, or any combination thereof.

Time explores the issue with more tact, but when “playing the race card” is denounced as the worst potential Republican smear, it is curious that race is only just entering in to the equation as Obama begins to drop in the polls, from people on the left.

New hope for students (and everybody else) who might not be able to afford tons of CDs or Apple iTunes downloads, but who also don’t want to get threatening letters from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). Enter Myspace Music.

A good friend at A.I.G. writes—or, rather, quotes:

O! that a man might know

The end of this day’s business, ere it come;

But it sufficeth that the day will end,

And then the end is known.

Sue Knapp tells us that Dartmouth has a new data center in Lebanon, N.H. All I have to say is: my data center is better than that, baby. But perhaps with 55 terabytes more storage, the College can finally put a modern e-mail system in place.

As of today, the Dartmouth College Democrats have admitted defeat in their valiant efforts to obtain a donkey or a horse for display during this fall’s election season.

New plan: Dress someone up in a donkey suit. (How could a dude in a donkey suit not stir enthusiasm for the political process?) I don’t know how serious this plan is, but if it happens, Dartblog will be sure to post photos.

I just came across a nice quote by John Edwards:

Where I come from, you don’t judge someone’s values based on how they use that word in a political ad. You judge their values based on what they’ve spent their life doing. So where a man volunteers to serve his country, and puts his life on the line for others—that’s a man who represents real American values.

For those not familiar with some of what Edwards has spent his life doing, a little background on his extramarital affair here at Gawker and here at CNN.

Just like the nifty little bicycle delivery example I posted about a few days ago here and the supermarket example here, the free market is making thousands and millions of corrections, modifications, updates, etc in response to just about everything. High oil prices are no different. Here is a little bit about the now more desirable and economical wood stoves. When people have a self-interest in sustainability (and they almost always do), things will get done.

Congress is looking in to one of the unintended consequences of affirmative action, the (potential) “mismatch” of expectations for and abilities of students admitted under these preferences programs. Essentially that students admitted with less stringent qualifications do worse, surprisingly, than those students admitted with better qualifications.

See here and here.

Professor Rogers Elliott of the Psychological and Brain Sciences Department here at Dartmouth was among those testifying at the hearing. Elliott argued that such preference programs harm the aspirations of minority students and presented data showing that these programs do nothing to close achievement gaps in math and the hard sciences and may, in fact, increase these gaps.

He is wrong on the issue, almost certainly a hypocrite, but I happen to think what Barack Obama is doing with respect to campaign financing is a pretty good thing. The issue is the principle of public financing and limits to the contributions that groups and individuals can make to a candidate along with hundreds of other regulations on advertising, support, etc. Barack Obama and John McCain support it, it being “campaign finance reform,” “limits on political speech,” or whatever you want to call it.

The difference between the two is that Obama has opted out of a key part of the system, public financing, despite his pledge to take it. His cover is that he maintains the particular system in place right now, much of it passed under the McCain-Feingold bill, does not work. I agree with Obama, notwithstanding the fact that he broke his pledge to take it and still supports strict controls on campaign speech (perhaps when it might be more convenient for him). McCain has a less nuanced position, which is to say his words and actions both converge on the wrong.

But I’ll return to Obama because an article about his fundraising successes is what prompted me to write these comments. Specifically Obama has raised $66 million in the past months, a record figure, made even more impressive by the unfortunate policy positions people with this money were convinced to support and by the fact that there were many thousands of individuals brought in to political giving by the Obama campaign. Perhaps most importantly, and admirably, although the last point is commendable as well, is that Obama’s success in this respect demonstrate the failings, practical and ideological, with campaign finance laws. On the practical side, an enterprising privately-funded candidate should be able to outraise candidates on the public dole, thus not having to obey many of the limitations and restrictions that come with taking that money, essentially (or potentially) making public financing a handicap. On the ideological side, Obama’s success demonstrates the idiocy of campaign finance laws to begin with, what is the point if millions of individuals and groups are already showing their support to the candidate they believe in, with contributions large and small, and making their voices heard?

Here’s a fascinating little article on the neural and evolutionary underpinnings of mathematical ability, with broad implications for mathematics education.

I confess that I have played the Fermi game frequently, and I enjoy it.

Here’s one for you: How many pennies could fit in Baker Library?

This just in: The Dartmouth College Democrats are reportedly attempting to obtain a donkey for display during this fall’s election season.

I cannot imagine it would be difficult for an organization of means to lay its hands on a donkey in the middle of New Hampshire, but the College Democrats have had a hard time. At one point they considered using a horse and merely pretending it to be a donkey… whatever ‘using’ means in this context.

One wonders whether the College Democrats have any experience handling horses—or donkeys for that matter—or at least have plans to engage someone who does. As a general statement, one does not behave around horses, or donkeys, in the same way as one behaves around humans alone. We would hate to lose a devoted College Democrat to a donkey.

Traveling from New York to Hanover yesterday, I chanced my first experience with a so-called Chinatown Bus—a fast, no-frills mode of transport from Chinatown to Chinatown along the string of multicultural metropolises of the northeastern United States. There are a number of young companies that run these Chinatown Buses, and all are notorious for their… how do I put this nicely… aggressive cost-cutting. (Their managers would have a thing or two to say to James Wright on that score.)

The most persistent rumor about the Chinatown Buses, and it’s not just a rumor, is that they drive fast. Really fast. One commenter on a travel website I consulted approved of the buses, but advised not to sit near the driver, for “when you see how fast he is going, you will instantly remember all those prayers you were forced to memorize when you were a kid.” Another rumor, in the same vein, is that they drive like madmen, swerving from lane to lane to avoid even the slightest need for such trivialities as the brake pedal. Speed is time and time is money, so to the extent that these rumors are true, they relate to the bus companies’ ferocious cost-cutting. They also relate to my choice of words when I say I chanced a trip on a Chinatown Bus.

I was pleasantly surprised. The company I used was Fung Wah Bus—the name, I am told, translates from Cantonese to “magnificent wind.” Fung Wah offers service between New York’s Chinatown (the corner of Canal and Bowery Streets) and Boston’s South Station, which I understand is quite near that city’s Chinatown. The price is $15 one way. The advertised trip duration is four to five hours, and they made it in three and a half—well, really just under four, but the bus departed half an hour early. This would have been infuriating had I not already boarded the bus by that point, but as I had, it was quite convenient.

And though the driving was fast, insane it was not—excepting a couple of hairy right-lane passes, I suppose.

One small detail was puzzling. When I first boarded the bus, I was struck by the presence, tied to each and every pair of seats, of a clean, empty, bright orange plastic bag with the Fung Wah insignia. Not only are these bags a major cost-cutting failure, they also struck me as rather ominous, hanging there neatly, one in front of the other, all down the aisle. What is the justification for their abundance? Could it be that Fung Wah anticipates sick, regretful faces buried in each of those bags?

The latest buzz word around Dartmouth has been “sustainability”. It seems that everywhere one goes, students are standing up declaring “sustainability” the biggest issue facing our school and our world. I have often found this claim questionable. After all, should not an academic institution focus on just that, academics? Still, the natural beauty of Dartmouth is enchanting and one feels a fierce sort of protectionism towards it. The future students of Dartmouth deserve to feel the absolute peace of a quiet moment in the New Hampshire woods, the colorful tornado of leaves whipping around the green, and the simple pleasure of stargazing into the clear sky above the golf course. Simple pleasures to be sure, but moments that separate Dartmouth from its peer institutions.

An article in The Washington Post today addressed the environmental movement from the perspective of the original conservationists: the hunters. An excerpt:

“Begun well over a century ago, the success of modern conservation can only be fully understood against the backdrop of historical slaughter for markets that took 40 million buffalo to the brink of extinction and 5 billion passenger pigeons beyond it. It was hunters who led a revolution of new values, new science and new approaches for responsible use of these resources. Seasons, game limits and wildlife conservation funds all came from hunters, and we are immensely proud of that effort. Because of us, white-tailed deer, pronghorn antelope, elk, wild turkeys, wood ducks and hundreds of other cherished life forms transitioned from vanishing to flourishing….

….Our very identity clings steadfastly to stewardship of land, clean water and air, intimate knowledge of natural communities, and careful interaction with the good earth — because that’s how we’ve ensured abundant wildlife and good hunting for more than 100 years.

For us, the amusing irony is that American society, which has looked down its nose at hunters more sternly with each passing generation, is discovering that camouflage has been a primary shade of green all along.”

I’m proud that my family has been involved in this conservationist movement for generations, but I regret the way in which Dartmouth students snub their noses at hunters. Despite a recently renewed Dartmouth Bait & Bullet club, shooting remains a somewhat taboo subject. Certainly guns are not part of the answer to saving our environment, or are they? Open-minded environmentalists might ponder this question when bragging about being ‘green’ around campus. Judging hunters for their conservation activities is only hindering the movement to sustainability that we all desire. When “animal killers” and “tree huggers” can work together, then we will make progress. In the meantime, though, I remain unconvinced that an NRA bumper sticker can ever coexist peacefully with a Sierra Club bumper sticker.

worth reading: Aaron Lucchetti reports on the opening minutes of this morning’s historic trading.

Earlier, a friend and I had this conversation over email:

Him: Just so you know, it looks like [our mutual friend] will lose his job at Lehman Brothers.
Me: I presumed as much. Very sad. [Our other friend], too?
Him: Yup. [Him] too. Talked to both today. Seem to be doing alright, but said he’s hoping to make it to pay day or there will be problems… We’ll no doubt have an obstreperous commiseration over scotch tonight.
Me: I think you should go to Lehman, buy a hot dog off the street, lean against the building opposite, and just take in the sight.
Him: Yeah, I know what you mean. Storied bank. 158 years, I think. It’s been a nightmare here, truly. AIG is hurting, too. I wonder if it’s time for MET to gain some market share.
Me: Yeah, baby. Being conservative is good. In so many ways.
Him: Haha. Selah and thrice Amen!

It’s because of that “selah” that I thought you’d want to read that.

My dear friend Bari Weiss reports for The New York Sun:

Senator Obama’s opposition to Columbia University’s ban on the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps is reigniting a campus debate, with several student leaders pushing for a student-wide referendum about whether the military program should be allowed back to Morningside Heights.

A vote to gauge the opinion of the entire student body on a repeal of the 40-year-old ban could come as early as this week.

A Columbia junior who is a marine officer candidate, Austin Byrd, said that the campus is abuzz about Mr. Obama’s opposition, which he discussed at a forum on community service held at the university last week. He said he was surprised by the Democratic presidential candidate’s “unabashed support” for allowing the program back on campus.

Other students said that the crowd of 7,500 that had gathered to watch the speech outside was similarly shocked.

A junior at Columbia, Jordan Hirsch, said that Mr. McCain was booed by students when he voiced his opposition to the ban, but that when Mr. Obama expressed a similar sentiment, the crowd had a different response.

Roger Kimball responds to the question: what was the point of The New York Times’s three thousand word Holy War against John McCain’s running mate?

[T]he point is to discredit Sarah Palin, by evidence of actual wrongdoing, if possible, but if not then by diffusing a rhetorical atmosphere of shadiness, collusion, and self-dealing. Journalists have been pouring over her per diem expenses and every other aspect of her performance with a comb fit for an anorectic gerbil with sensitive skin and the bottom line finding is that she spent hundreds of thousands of dollars less in expenses than her predecessor.

I don’t pretend (and do not want) to write the articles that levy each necessary blow upon the head of the Democratic candidate each time a delicious piece of knowledge emerges that begs them. But the fact that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two institutions which insidiously scratched the back of the federal government, and vice versa, till both were raw, saw fit to make Barack Obama their favorite man in Congress, as far as campaign donations go, is too ripe. John McCain? Way, way down the list. (And consider this: Fannie and Freddie also maintained PACs. From 1989 to 2008, John McCain was one of those rare legislators who received precisely zero dollars from the PACs.)

The electorate, we are told, wants “change” this year. Here are the steps to locating the “change” candidate: 1) Find the money centers whose success is predicated upon stasis, upon continued government favors. 2) Ascertain which candidate has been the beneficiary of their tithing. 3) Vote for the other guy.

This line and variations thereupon—this latest comes from Wendy Doniger, a decorated duchess of feminism who holds sway at the University of Chicago, quoted by Bill Kristol today—have given a not-small revelation: a quiet codicil to the cant of Leftist academe: certain women may no longer be called ‘women’ at all. The world’s gender studies departments have decided that the appellation itself is malaprop in connection to women who do not obey their prescribed pieties. It is a consequence of that sickly social construct view of sex: the construct can be made to collapse; one’s sex can be lost; thus Doniger’s description of Sarah Palin, stripped, of no sex, on account of her incorrect opinions. If this affords any kind of a picture into what the world might be like if the gender studies faculty ran it, we can surmise that their methods would be rather — masculine. Rather brutish.

There was another instance of the language change in this weekend’s Valley News, the little newspaper of Hanover and its surrounds. Some unfortunate headlined his editorial: “Sarah Palin is not a woman” and then labored eight hundred words trying to make it true. I think our dear Diane intends to respond do that editorial anon.

He set out to accomplish what millions of naysayers in America and around the world said could not be done. And If he did not bring Iraq to a state of complete normalcy, he went quite a long way towards that end. Now General David Petraeus will become the head of Central Command in charge of operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

His letter to American troops here.

Amid well-grounded controversy about the merits of its design (few) and its mass (great), the new Visual Arts Center at Dartmouth is likely to be set aside for now, claim e-mails from sources. The gangling thing can be seen here, and some generally inaccurate commentary on the building here. That last link also summarizes the Valley News’s opposition to the building.

This is good news for the prettiness of the area, since the proposed design was another boarish attempt at turning the little town of Hanover into a subaltern New Haven. Instead of self-regardingly searching out architecture of consequence, administration and Trustees should first specify that they want something that gels with the rest of Dartmouth, and then demand excellence within the prescription. (And the prescription, of course, is Georgian.)

I have always presumed that public figures, sitting in front of white screens for magazine cover photo shoots, are told by the photog, about halfway through, “O.K., that’s enough for that pose. Now, sir, why don’t we try something else? Hang your head a little. O.K., marvelous; now look very, very shamed. Downtrodden, defeated. Hang the head lower. Lower! Now place your hand wearily upon your broken brow. Marvelous, sir, you look fantastic!”

How else could photographers produce the classic shame image that seems to exist for every national figure? Oh, I suppose they could trick their subjects. But that doesn’t seem right.

Here, the Italian early music ensemble Il Giardino Armonico performing Telemann. It’s the Suite in A Minor for flute, piano, et basso continuo.

UPDATE: Horror of horrors, I oughtn’t to have described the suite as being for piano. The keyboard is use is, of course, a harpsichord. Thank-you to e-mailers.

My friend TigerHawk (That’s a strange thing to write, isn’t it? But of course TigerHawk is a real man, underneath the blogging and all.) points out Gerard Baker in this weekend’s Times of London. Mr. Baker suspects that eventually the U.S. electorate will turn with a groan to the actual positions of John McCain and Barack Obama; and probably, says Gerard, they will prefer the former. The most important difference, he suggests: national sovereignty versus global unitarianism.

WOODSIDE, Calif. — In strange ways nature seems to desire wine-making.

I passed this morning on a drive to the winery of a friend, whose affinity is for pinot noir—seen above, nearly as fresh as I witnessed them just several hours ago—and whose taste runs to small cloistral vineyards at high altitudes, on the spinal rails of land one finds in high, close hills which, next millennium, might be mountains. On the drive over: blue jays more plentiful than I have ever seen, little filtered glints of ten o’clock sun which improbably but consistently reached one’s eye level at the hue of natural honey, and afforded the suggestion of warmth while something like sixty-five degrees were maintained, for hour hours, by gently passing zephyrs. I hope, dear readers, this dispatch reaches you in like bliss.

It appears that talk of a McCain rise is real, not merely a post-convention, Palin-related bump or an illusion of nationwide polling. McCain has recently taken the lead in the electoral college based on the latest state-by-state polling. The second graph is particularly striking, in which only the votes of solidly-held states are counted. In that count, Mr. McCain now leads Mr. Obama for the first time since April.

Rich Hailey debunks the panicked cries of “gouging at the pump” after Hurricanes Gustav and Ike.

As a number of commenters have said,

Supply and demand. It’s not just smart, it’s the law.

— Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit

Some of the unpaid staffers at Obama H.Q. in the White City produced this spoof on the act one finale of Les Misérables, with apologies to the lesser Schönberg. It’s a solid piece of work, certain to dispirit John McCain’s plenteous monarchist backers and swell the hearts of the lovers of light.

Andrew Sullivan, in omniscientia, declares that the McCain folks “could never pull this off.” (Don’t you just detest that phrase—pull this off?) But I don’t see why not. To the common observer most of the campaign’s mirth has come from Team McCain, and most of the saturnine stuff—intermixed with false hope, because what finally is false depression without a false solution?—from Team Obama. Which team is it, after all, that has stooped to lampooning a debilitating war wound?

Sarah Palin is ostensibly the Republican Party’s nominee for Vice President of the United States. But is it just me, or is she actually running for President? Judging by who everyone is talking about—who Republicans are excited about and who Democrats are afraid of—Mrs. Palin is by far the more important member of her ticket. Given her popularity, and Senator McCain’s age, would it be altogether unreasonable to say that what Mrs. Palin is enduring now is merely a practice run for her 2012 Presidential campaign?