# Posted 9:23 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

"AN EMBARRASSMENT OF RICHES" is probably the best way to describe Phil Carter's prolific posting on military affairs. In case you aren't already a loyal reader, start with these great posts on Sec'y Rumsfeld's worldwide redeployment plans and the repositioning of US troops in South Korea. I predict you will soon find your mouse hovering over the "Add Bookmark" command... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:07 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

RACISM AND ANTI-SEMITISM: Cheery fun with Josh Cherniss. Plus, what may be the last-ever post on Strauss and the neo-cons. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:00 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

I-TOLD-YOU-SO REDUX: Andrew Sullivan on how the media invented the looting of Iraq's National Museum. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:53 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

OH, THAT SCANDAL: Last week, Josh Marshall asked, "Was the Pentagon's transcript of Sam Tanenhaus' interview with Paul Wolfowitz scrubbed of embarrassing details?"

The short answer: No. But to Marshall's credit, he has now put up a long post describng the esoteric but nonetheless intersting story behind the scandal he didn't find. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:47 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

800-POUND GUERRILLAS: A front-page headline in the WaPo tells us that

U.S. Soldiers Face Growing Resistance; Attacks in Central Iraq Become More Frequent and Sophisticated

The NYT headline reads

Deadly Attacks on G.I.'s Rise

Matt Yglesias says that

the speed with which the "post-war" casualty figures are rapidly approaching the levels sustained before the end of organized Iraqi resistance give us, I think, good reason to worry that the situation won't be improving any time soon. If you ask me, this is the big under-covered story taking place right now.

Apparently, Matt is too busy with The American Prospect to glance at the front page of the WaPo...(Yes, that was a cheap shot.)

Also sounding the alarm is Matt's favorite conservative, Tacitus, who writes that

Blaming this on "Ba'athist holdouts" doesn't seem to cut it, really. It's more honest to admit that these are resistance movements with some measure of popular support that don't need Ba'athist ties to survive. The popular psychology of the Arab world is more than sufficiently motivated to violence by the perceived humiliation of occupation -- as we've seen in Palestine, where it trumps all rational concerns of self-preservation and communal well-being. I hope that the individuals formulating counterinsurgency strategy are being honest with themselves about this.

No wonder Tacitus is the left's favorite conservative. He's still living in Vietnam.

Frankly, I see no evidence of a self-sufficient resistance movement which can survive independent of Ba'athist ties. Nor does Tacitus provide any. Besides, the fact that almost all of the attacks on US soldiers have been in the former Ba'athist strongholds of Tikrit and Falluja demonstrates just how closely tied the attacks are to the fallen dictatorship.

Now here's some food thought: Remember the good old days when our big concern about postwar Iraq was the potential for Shi'ite resistance to the occupation?

Well, even back then OxBlog was pointing out that anti-American violence was coming from the Sunni community, not the Shi'ites. So? The bottom line is that only that small minority who benefited from Saddam's rule seems interested in resisting the occupation.

But don't worry, Matt. Guerrilla attacks on US soldiers will always be big news. While the WaPo and NYT articles were more subtle than Tacitus, the fact is that any military encounter even vaguely reminiscient of Vietnam will go straight to the front pages.

Does that mean I'm discounting the Ba'athist threat? The answer is "yes" if you think any significant amount of Iraqi real estate will ever fall to the ex-Fedayeen. The answer is "no" if you expect the Fedayeen to take the lives of dozens of brave American soldiers but ultimately prove nothing more than a reminder of the brutality of the man who ruled Iraq before Paul Bremer. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:54 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

JIMMY LOVES HAFIZ: A while back, I reported on the Carter administration's surprising affection for Saddam Hussein. Since the blogosphere seems to love nothing better than bashing America's greatest dove, I thought it might be worth reprinting the following quotation from the comments Carter made before his meeting with the Syrian president on May 9, 1977. Here goes:

It's with a great deal of pleasure and hope that I come to Geneva to meet with the great President of Syria, President Asad. As leader of one of the great countries in the Middle East, I look to him for guidance and advice and for support as all of us search for progress in achieving peace in that important and troubled part of the world.

President Asad has a great role to play because of his experience, the greatness of his country, his interest in and sensitivity about world affairs outside his region and because of his ability to bring together different peoples who in the past have been unfriendly toward one another and at odds.

This is a year when we are blessed with strong and moderate leaders in the Middle East...

Of course, if Carter had stuck around for a few more years he might have seen that strength and moderation in action at Hama, where the Syrian government massacred 20,000 citizens as part of its struggle against the Muslim Brotherhood... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:40 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

BREAKIN' THE LAW: At first, Glenn Reynolds agreed that John Ashcroft's records to defend Unocal's Burmese operations were misguided. But now he isn't so sure.

While I know next to nothing about law, it does seem fair to say that the 1789 Alien Tort Statute was not meant to become a human rights enforcement mechanism. On the other hand, if the law is now bringing criminals to justice why not?

I guess the tougher question (and one which I am in no way qualified to answer) is whether the moral value of misusing the 1789 Statute compensates for the procedural havoc it might create. At the moment, I'm leaning toward no. The real answer is to have the US government -- especially the current one -- take a more serious interest in human rights and democracy promotion. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:26 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

BIG DAY FOR GOD: How often do three separate columns on the NYT and WaPo all talk about the positive role of religion in political life on the same day? E.J. Dionne reminds us that "it's Bush's religious side that seems to draw him at least to the right words about poverty." Of course Mr. Dionne wants more, and justifiably so. Consider the following:

"Jewish prophets and Catholic teaching both speak of God's special concern for the poor. This is perhaps the most radical teaching of faith, that the value of life is not contingent on wealth or strength or skill, that value is a reflection of God's image."

Those thoughtful words are George W. Bush's. Is it too much to ask him to explain how his policies live up to that vision?

For inspiration, Bush might consider the positive example set by Alabama's Republican Gov. Bob Riley.

"I've spent a lot of time studying the New Testament, and it has three philosophies: love God, love each other, and take care of the least among you," [Riley] said. "I don't think anyone can justify putting an income tax on someone who makes $4,600 a year."

That's the kind of religious talk I like to hear. Not pious generalities, but specific humane proposals.

In contrast, Nick Kristof deals with the nasty side of religion, specifically a number of prominent evangelists' demonization of Islam. While breathing fire and brimstone at the demonizers, Kristof argues that "Vituperations about Islam are a throwback, not the trend." Evangelicas are getting more tolerant, not less.

Going further, Kristof puts aside all partisanship and declares that

Mr. Bush displayed real moral leadership after 9/11 when he praised Islam as a "religion of peace" and made it clear that his administration would not demonize it. He should now join the evangelical leadership in repudiating remarks by religious zealots who preach contempt for other religions — and then we should demand that Saudi and Yemeni leaders repudiate their own zealots.

Hell yeah. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:28 PM by Patrick Belton  

FREE TRADE! GET YER FREE TRADE!: The U.S. has inked a free trade agreement with Chile. A friend who was close to the U.S. side of the negotiations says that the administration wanted to reward Chile's progress in governance reform - and to demonstrate to other countries in the region that they'll be rewarded once they implement comparable reforms. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:57 PM by Patrick Belton  

CURIOUS WHAT'S GOING ON IN IRAN? Well, then, lucky for you, because Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty has been doing a fantastic job in compiling news stories from inside Iran. Among the items of interest appearing in today's edition: (1) Sources close to the Iranian Islamic Revolution Guards Corps are reporting that Iran has expelled Suleiman Abu-Ghayth and several other Al-Qai'da operatives whom Iran had been sheltering in Tehran, Qom, and several other locations. (2) Iranian students have been denied permission to rally on the anniversary of an attack four years ago on a Tehran University dormitory by security personnel and vigilantees. (3) In the latest episode of a struggle for power between President Khatami and Ayatollah Rafsanjani (chair of the Expediency Council), Khatami is seeking to reconcile his views with those of the clerical Guardian Council on two key bills on elections and presidential powers, to prevent Rafsanjani's Expediency Council from having a go at them.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:06 AM by Patrick Belton  

SUU KYI WATCH: The United Nations special envoy to Burma, Razali Ismail, has told reporters that he has been given permission by the junta to visit Aung San Suu Kyi. Mr. Razali was involved two years ago in brokering peace talks between Suu Kyi and the country's ruling junta, which later reneged on its promises. His visit, reportedly, will take place later today. (via BBC). (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:32 PM by Patrick Belton  

OKAY, TIME FOR A STUDY BREAK: And OxBlog makes no implicit endorsement of any illegal (or, far worse, procrastinatory) behaviors described...

There once was a number named pi
Who frequently liked to get high.
All he did every day
Was sit in his room and play
With his imaginary friend named i

There are more of them here, unfortunately. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:41 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

AUNG SAN SUU KYI UPDATE: Mort Abramowitz, former US Ambassador to Thailand (as well as uncle-in-law of OxBlog reader AG), argues persuasively in the WaPo that the United States must pressure Thailand to take a harder line on Burma. In his column, Abramowitz lists a good number of practical measures Thailand might take that would be far more influential than another round of US sanctions.

Also in the WaPo is a front-page story about Suu Kyi which contains the most details I've seen about her condition. US and other diplomats have concluded that it was nothing short of a bloody ambush that left scores of Suu Kyi's supporters dead in addition to resulting in her capture. The assault seems to reflect a power-play by the hardline faction in the ruling junta.

Also on the Burma front, Winds of Change says that conservatives should be up in arms about John Ashcroft's shameful effort to defend US corporations who exploit slave labor in Burma. Joe K. rightly credits Randy Paul for focusing on the slave labor issue and says that if conservatives want the right to criticize ANSWER, Galloway etc., they have to be just as ready to denounce those in their own ranks who betray American values. Damn right.

Finally, for background on Aung San Suu Kyi and the struggle for democracy in Burma, visit the Free Burma Coalition, an online international network of activist organizations trying to bring a measure of humanity to brutal land. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:24 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

KIM'S SOYLENT GREEN: Unsure of initial reports that cannibalism has become widespread in North Korea, Glenn Reynolds thinks today's Telegraph account, among others, is disturbingly reliable.

Perhaps more importantly, Glenn places the event in its proper context by reminding us of Nobel Laureaute Amartya Sen's wise observation that there has never been a famine in a democracy. So who says Instapundit doesn't think profound thoughts? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:26 AM by Patrick Belton  

QUICK ROUND-UP: Me have article deadline. Me go and hide. Me come back tomorrow.

In the meantime, here's some of what methinks is worth reading on the web today. The foreign policy society I run in Washington had a meeting last night on the roadmap. While I'd like to say we solved all the problems of the Middle East in two hours of pizza, we did compile a list of readings that I think are relevant to understanding the current peace process and issues for the U.S. in "riding herd": they're here.

MEMRI offers a synopsis of Arab press coverage of the discovery of large mass graves in Iraq. Some of the venues are frequent repositors of self-criticism by Arabs of Arab governments, such as London's Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, but other sources such as Lebanon's Al-Nahar appear as well. The broad tenor of the coverage is a salutary realization by the Arabic-language press of the extent of Saddam's depravity. This conclusion is representative: "To prevent the reappearance of these graves, [we must] discuss why they [came into existence]... and these reasons concern tyrants' domination of the peoples' lives with dogma and slogans..." If run to its conclusion, this course of stories may have an effect of increasing popular displeasure with Arab governments in general - in turn, a displeasure which may be directed either toward liberal reform or Islamic militancy.

Staying in the region, Gary Gambill of the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin has an interesting piece on democracy promotion efforts in the Middle East that I'll return and post on later this week. The MEIB's interview with the UK rep of SCIRI is fascinating ("How big are your bases?" "Very big! I have been to some of these camps, they are huge, with thousands of fighters"), and another piece examines Syrian support for Hezbollah.

The WaPo is to be congratulated for running one of its stories, as it periodically does, that remembers there's a very large, interesting country right to the south of us! - but, predictably, its reporting generates sentences like this: "Panzo heard of a war this year in a place called Iraq -- a friend of a friend saw pictures of it on his boss's television." Note to the Post: my mother didn't even know there was a war in a place called Iraq. More to the point, the article discusses rural poverty in an isolated indigenous village without ever touching on, say, the local economy of the place, or how its fortunes have been affected by broader economic trends, national and state policies, or free trade. Instead, lots of poignant vignettes of rural poverty and human suffering, without terribly much political or economic context to illuminate how that poverty came about or the prospects for its eradication. (One thinks of Soviet-era stories about south Bronx: foreign correspondents far too often focus on the unimaginable poverty/racism/suffering in the Other Country - which are real and important parts of the picture, no question - but neglect the political, economic, or sociological trends which would make for thornier, more complex reporting.) B- for effort, guys.

Moving to Central Asia, the always-excellent Central Asia Analyst features a few interesting stories. For one, the radical Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir is making inroads in Kazakhstan, redoubling recruiting efforts and capitalizing on popular displeasure with the U.S. and Britain after the War against Saddam. For another, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is showing new signs of life, with a secretariat in Beijing and a counterterrorism center in Bishkek - a welcome development, since the thorniest security, economic, and resource-management problems in Central Asia require multilateral solutions. Key developments to keep an eye on: whether the SCO is too taken over by Chinese and Russian efforts to forestall US regional dominance to be able to address important regional issues, and whether practical efforts at economic integration result from the organization, or whether it is sidetracked by bilateral disputes between the Central Asian countries. And, speaking of bilateral disputes, Turkmenistan is reconsidering relations with Uzbekistan after seven months of high tension following a November 2002 assassination attempt against Turkmenbashi Niyazov, in which the increasingly erratic, isolationist, and Stalinist Niyazov imputed the involvement of Uzbekistani intelligence and the nation's ambassador in Ashgabat.

And lest we forget you, India: deputy PM Advani told SecDef Rumsfeld in Washington that his government is considering sending troops to Iraq. Pakistani PM Jamali is pushing forward with summit plans and promising normalized rail, road, and air links between the two South Asian countries by the end of the year, while the Pakistani Foreign Office is saying stability on the subcontinent can only be achieved with a strategic balance in nuclear and missile capabilities. Death tolls from the heat wave in Andhra Pradesh (the state in which Hyderabad lies) pass 1,300, with high temperatures hovering between 113 and 120 for the past three weeks.

Okay, me go away now....



(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:52 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

THE CABAL LIVES: In the NYT, Jenny Strauss Clay defends her father from the raft of conspiratorial accusations that have become attached to his name. For an extended and thoughtful commentary, see Josh Cherniss' take on Prof. Strauss Clay's thoughts.

In fact, if extended and thoughtful posts are your favorite kind, you should be visiting Josh Cherniss' site as often as you can. An impressive guy who also happens to be a very nice one...and has good taste in Scotch.

UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan is still following the Strausscapades as well. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:36 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

HAT TRICK: No, this isn't a post about the Stanley Cup. Still, wouldn't it be weird/cool if New Jersey took home both the NHL and NBA titles in the same year?

Anyway, this post is actually about the WaPo op-ed page, which came up with three big scores in a single day.

First off is a column by Physicians Without Borders that describes the horrors of hospital life under Saddam Hussein.

Next, Democratic consultant Mandy Grunwald points out the real reason that journalist become so defensive when they are the targets of investigation -- they simply have no idea what it is like to be judged instead of juding others. A simple point, but one that is all too true and often ignored.

Finally, Robert Kagan compiles a devastating list of Democratic and European politicians who said all the same things about Saddam's chemical arsenal long before Bush ever did. As Kagan wryly observes,

if all these people are lying, there's only one person who ever told the truth: Saddam Hussein. And now we can't find him either.

Ouch! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:24 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

POETIC LICENSE: Whereas the Guardian has now apologized for its abuse of Paul Wolfowitz, Pravda is now fabricating Wolfowitz quotes out of whole cloth. Well, it always good to see a Soviet paper getting back to its roots. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:12 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

THE PEOPLE HAVE HEARD: I want to thank all of you who responded to my call to arms in defense of Aung San Suu Kyi.

First of all comes Randy Paul, who demonstrated a serious interest in Burma even before Suu Kyi was assaulted. As Randy points out, the Bush administration has previously shown a disturbing lack of concern about human rights in Burma.

On the positive side, Glenn Reynolds thinks that the Myanmar junta's defensive response to the assualt on Suu Kyi and the NLD is a sign that they are concerned about international pressure. I hope so. The question is, will the President recognize the opportunity and add his voice to critics of the regime?

Kevin Drum points out that Burma has joined Zimbabwe and the Congo as the latest additions to crisis central. Like Matt Yglesias, Kevin wonders what the international community can do in such situations given that few have the will to use force while sanctions tend to be ineffective.

One post no one should miss is Boomshock's devastating account of other East Asian nations' -- yes, the democratic ones' -- embarrassing and hypocritical silence when finally given a chance to demonstrate that they are rising actors on the international stage.

Adding a small but important point is Jeff Hauser, who has reminded me (via e-mail) that the proper name of Aung San Suu Kyi's homeland is Burma. "Myanmar" is an invention of the generals.

Last but not least, I'd like to give a shout out to Atrios (yes, really!), who doesn't often visit this corner of the blogosphere but generously decided to publicize Aung San Suu Kyi's plight after I told him about OxBlog's concern.

All in all, I'm glad to see that the blogosphere has started to get its priorities in order. Besides, the NYT will probably appoint a replacement for Raines who is just as good a target for criticism...



(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:39 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

BACK IN BUSINESS: The Blogger blackout has ended. I guess it says something about my compulsive fixation on blogging that I began to feel cut off from the world within 24 hours of being separated from my website.

While shut out of the blogosphere, I happened to notice how rare it is nowadays for committed bloggers to rely on this server. Will it be long before OxBlog joins the Movable Type revolution? I just don't know... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:28 PM by Patrick Belton  

TODAY IS THE BIRTHDAY of Vatican City as a sovereign state, through the Lateran Treaty ratified on June 7th, 1929 by Mussolini and Papal Secretary of State Cardinal Gasparri. What I find particularly interesting about this anniversary is the reflection which it provides into how extraordinarily much journalistic norms have changed in the intervening years: the New York Times's coverage of the original event has very much the texture of a society column, with several pages of reporting along the lines of

Premier Mussolini was seated in the first car with Under-Secretary Giunta. He was followed in another car by Minister of Finance Mosconi, while Minister of Justice Rocco was in a third car.
They all wore their full-dress diplomatic uniforms with the characteristic three-cornered plumed hats. Signor Mussolini wore the collar of the Annunziata, which makes him rank as a cousin of the King, as well as the broad sash of the Mauritian Order and the insignia of the Sovereign Order of Malta.

and

The Vatican text was enclosed in a red velvet case with damasked edges and bearing the Papal coat of arms. The Italian text was contained in a white morocco leather case bearing the Italian royal arms

What doesn't appear in the Times's reporting is anything that could be construed as political - which seems to us unusual, given that the entire event was the entry into force of a treaty marking the emergence of a new polity into the world's society of states. We're not told anything about the actual provisions of the treaty - how security or logistical responsibilities were to be shared among Mussolini's Italy and the Vatican City, or the extent to which Italian police could enter St Peter's Squre under the treaty. Many of these provisions, indeed, were fascinating: under article 8, any "public insult" committed within Italian territory against the Pope, "whether by means of speeches, acts, or writings, shall be punished in the same manner as offences and insults against the King"; substantial extraterritoriality provisions are granted the Vatican over other churches and papal buildings in Rome; and under article 3, Italian police are granted the ability to enter into St Peter's Square, though it forms part of the nation of Vatican City. Instead of covering the actual stuff of diplomacy, though, the Times is seized by its ephemera, and the column reads like contemporary fawning coverage given to an idol from the popular culture, to a Tom Cruise or a (secular) Madonna. The only treatment of the actual treaty comes as an aesthetic afterthought, equal to the white morocco leather case in which the treaty was contained, or the three-pointed diplomatic garb of the Fascist Premier and his secretaries:

The document contained, among others, the following phrase:

"The high contracting parties at the moment of exchange of the ratifications of the Lateran treaties again affirm their desire loyally to observe in letter and spirit not only the treaty of conciliation in its irrevocable reciprocal recognition of sovereignties and in its definite elimination of the Roman question, but also are concerned at its lofty aims tending to regulate the condition of religion and the Church in Italy."

With all the contemporary, and just, criticism of the Times, it's useful to remember just how far the profession has come in providing analysis of foreign affairs, and in consigning fawning over celebrities' fashion to the back pages.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:31 AM by Ariel David Adesnik  

AUNG SAN SUU KYI UPDATE: The Belmont Club has an excellent post up on the situation in Myanmar (posted before my call to arms, mind you.)

Also, many thanks to Glenn Reynolds for publicizing my call to arms over at Instapundit. Glenn also links to this VOA report which says that the State Department is trying to up the pressure on the Myanmar junta. Now it's time for the White House to get with the program.

Also deserving of a shout is Bill Sherman, aka the Tough Democrat, who agrees that 50 million Burmese are more important than two editors at the NYT.

More to come...
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:36 PM by Patrick Belton  

UND HIER, EIN PFOSTEN FÜR SHABBAS: UPI is reporting that Jews have been streaming into Germany to escape anti-Semitism elsewhere... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:54 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

SO HOW ABOUT THAT DUMB TEXAS UNILATERALIST COWBOY PRESIDENT OF OURS? Pejman waxes ironic. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:48 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

ANOTHER FORGOTTEN CAUSE: Winds of Change has an excellent post on the current situation in the Congo. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:48 PM by Patrick Belton  

HEAR, HEAR, DAVID! Burma, Southeast Asia's second most populous nation, has been living under the totalitarian governance of the SLORC generals since September 18, 1988. While bearing suffering with equanimity is the essence of Buddhism, the Burmese people have borne much more than their fair lot. And Suu Kyi is in this emblematic of her nation. Of right she ought to have been its leader, receiving an almost unbelievable 80 percent of ballots as the head of the National League of Democracy, in the 1990 Burmese general elections. But the generals showed their disrespect not only for the people, but for their chosen receipient of mandate, by placing her and other pro-democracy leaders under house arrest, where the Nobel Laureate has remained since. Yet Suu Kyi is not alone in chains; the people of Burma are imprisoned with her; and as lovers of freedom, we must make their cause ours as well.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:13 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

FLOOD THE ZONE, DAMMIT! Preoccupied with its celebration of Howell Raines' fall, the blogosphere has shown a disturtbing lack of interest in the Myanmar junta's assault on Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi. At the moment we don't even know where Suu Kyi is, although foreign diplomats have confirmed that she was injured during an attack on her entourage that left four of her supporters dead.

In case anyone needs reminding, Suu Kyi won a well-deserved Noble Peace Prize for leading the people of Myanmar in a peaceful struggle to overthrow their brutal government and establish a democratic order. However, after winning a landslide election in 1990s, Aung San Suu Kyi became the prisoner of Myanmar's generals who refused to give in to the public's demands.

Actually, it seems that the blogosphere is the only entity that needs much reminding on this count. Both the NYT and WaPo ran masthead editorials today demanding immediate action to ensure Suu Kyi's personal safety and reverse the crackdown on her National Democratic League.

Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle have rushed to Suu Kyi's defense and even American firms accustomed to trading with Myanmar are supporting Sen. Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) call for an import ban.

President Bush has joined other world leaders in calling for Aung San Suu Kyi's release. (Still, as Josh points out, the leader of the free world and the leading advocate of promoting democracy abroad should be doing much more to help Suu Kyi and her people.)

So come on, people. Forget about Howell Raines and start demanding justice for the people of Myanmar.

PS Some blogs, including AndrewSullivan.com, have put up a post on Suu Kyi. Now let's see more! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:44 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

DEFENDING MARTHA STEWART: What better way to polish one's credentials as a defender of civil liberties than speaking out on behalf of someone we all want to see thrown in jail? Thus, setting all personal prejudice aside, Robert Cox has boldly challenged the NYT's unwarranted decision to treat Stewart as a convicted criminal.

Now what's really impressive is that Robert has gotten the Times to admit it was wrong. The Lelyveld era has begun...again. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:31 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

PRIDE COMETH AFTER THE FALL: I agree with Kevin Drum that it is extremely premature for the blogosphere to take credit for bringing down Howell Raines. It was fair to take credit for bringing down Trent Lott because no one other than Josh Marshall & Co. kept Lott's racial gaffe in the spotlight.

In contrast, the NYT scandals have been front page news from day one. As such, I think the devastating combination of public embarrassment and newsroom pressure would have done Raines in even if the blogosphere didn't exist. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:16 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

CASH AND KERRY: The Kerry campaign has announced that their candidate cannot spend his wife's millions on his campaign. Jacob Levy comments that this announcement is a turning point in the Democratic race. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:38 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

THE LAUGH OUT LOUD TEST: Given the contest submissions I've heard so far, Kevin's wins by a longshot. It may be crude, but it makes you laugh. (Dan is also pulling for Kevin, which shows that my vulgarity is in good company.)

Anyhow, I thought I'd throw my hat into the ring just to show I'm a good sport, even if I have no chance of winning. Here goes:

Marx (to nubile Communist co-ed): Hey baby, I turned Hegel on his head. So how about letting me get you on your back?

Talk about a red menace... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:09 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

CONGRATULATIONS are in order in honor of Matt Yglesias' graduation from Harvard (with honors, Matt adds). Only God knows how he got his work done while blogging so much... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:59 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

JOSH CHAFETZ=JAYSON BLAIR? Yes, Josh, the NYT does need an ombudsman. That's why I recommended it six months ago.

But don't worry; Patrick and I have decided to forgive you for your reckless plagiarism of my December post. ;) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:54 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

A MINOR GENOCIDE: In case Josh's post wasn't enough, the WaPo has an informative editorial on mass-murderer and Liberian President Charles Taylor. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:51 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

FLEET STREET NEWS: Kevin Drum updates the Guardian fiasco and says he won't ever take the British press at its word again.

Here's my advice for Kevin and all of you who have an interest in the UK media: make a mental note if you see something interesting, but don't believe it until the NYT or WaPo reprints it. If something is important and true, the US media will pick it up.

Of course, that advice doesn't really work for British domestic politics, since US papers don't really cover it. When it comes to that, I dunno.

Anyhow, Kevin adds that he was so interested in getting to the bottom of the Wolfowitz affair because he doesn't "like to see liberals make fools of themselves." Neither do I. And I don't like to see conservatives make fools of themselves either.

But the real question is why there are fools at all, liberal or conservative. Without going too far into it, I'd say the answer is a lack of patience. For good reasons, the media prizes being the first with the story above all else.

The real test of integrity is whether we are willing to admit our own foolishness when it comes to that. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:11 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

WHY DIDN'T I ENLIST? This sounds a helluva lot better than getting 72 virgins in the afterlife. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:26 PM by Patrick Belton  

ANYBODY OUT THERE happen to know how to make a Comcast cable modem work with an Airport base station? Winner gets, if you want it, your choice of (1) a 0.84 written chapter on Congress and Russo-American relations, (2) a 0.9 written piece on Hizbollah in the Americas, or (3) a 0.4 complete piece on the ideological evolution of Shi'a mosques in Dearborn. Or alternatively, I could send you some baklava. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:31 PM by Patrick Belton  

HEADLINE AWARD: "Yale-New Haven De-Livers," about the closing of a liver transplant center at the Yale-New Haven hospital. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:49 PM by Patrick Belton  

A CHARMING STORY, CARE OF OXBLOG'S FRIENDS IN THE OSS SOCIETY:

You never know when that old Boy Scout manual will come in handy.

Dan Pinck was 18 when he joined the Office of Strategic Services, America's first spy agency in World War II. Pinck was barely trained when he left on his first mission. His job was to slip behind Japanese lines near Hong Kong. He was to liaise with Chinese guerillas and gather intelligence about Japanese forces along the South China Coast. He was the only [non-Asian] hiding in a Chinese town surrounded by hundreds of Japanese troops. Trouble was, no one in OSS had shown Pinck how to draw a map.

How did he get out of this fix? Pinck leafed through an old copy of the Boy Scout handbook and innovated his way to success. A neighbor gave Pinck the scout handbook before he went overseas. "The neighbor was a retired public health official who served in the Philippines. He said it would be useful anywhere and told me to take it along. For some strange reason, I took his advice," said Pinck, now 79, who wrote about his life in a recent memoir: Journey to Peking, A Secret Agent In Wartime China.

The neighbor was right. One of Pinck's most daunting tasks was mapping Japanese artillery positions so they could be destroyed or skirted by U.S. forces. Not knowing the first thing about maps, he consulted a section of the scout handbook called "Getting to Mrs. Nestor's Farm." It's an exercise where scouts find their way to an imaginary farm by drawing in local landmarks and other details. "Mrs. Nestor's farm gave us notations for streets, streams, houses...even rough elevations," Pinck said.

"Mrs. Nestor's Farm" has been removed from latter editions of the scout handbook. But at the time, Pinck followed its instructions to pinpoint the location of Japanese guns based on information he got from Chinese agents. He also mapped out ports and routes used by Japanese ships in his area.

Pinck's maps helped sink several Japanese vessels. His data on Japanese artillery also helped the U.S. plan for an invasion of China which was called off when Japan surrendered.

Pinck relied on his scout handbook so much he once caught a Japanese spy trying to steal it. "(The spy) probably thought it was an American code book stuffed with secret messages," Pinck recalled.

Communicating well with Chinese allies was Pinck's other ace in the hole. He says when serving behind enemy lines, a trusting relationship with locals often spells the difference between success and failure. Pinck came across as an honest communicator committed to helping China defeat Japan. The Chinese respected that. "In special ops, it's not the 'thing' that counts, it's the 'who.' The human dimension is the prime consideration," Pinck said. "If you have good people who can pick good people, you also have a good chance to succeed."

What are some other secrets....? "Always have back up and be ready to pull out instantly. Also, doubt everything and believe only what you see."... "Always go into a situation with two or three people covering you. And always have two or three alternative schemes," Pinck said. "Things rarely happen the way they're conceived. Try to have as many variations as possible and act quickly if the situation demands it."

For instance, I had three different ways planned to finish this post, but I'm in the end selecting lunch. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:18 AM by Patrick Belton  

IT'S OFFICIAL: Arthur Sulzberger announced the resignation of Howell Raines and Gerald Boyd to staffers at a morning newsroom meeting. "This is a day that breaks my heart," said Sulzberger. Former executive editor Joseph Lelyveld will be the New York Times's executive editor for the interim. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:02 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

WHERE CREDIT IS DUE: Robert Cox points out that TimesWatch was onto Maureen Dowd's dishonesty even before Andrew Sullivan, who may have picked it up from TimesWatch.

For more on Dowd's irresponsibility, see Spinsanity and The National Debate. Happy schadenfreude!
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:51 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

THE POWER OF MASS MEDIA: In my periodic ruminations about the role of mass media in public life, one of the questions I often return to is the question of whether one-sided coverage of a given issue actually influence its audience, or whether readers intuitively know how to filter out editorial bias.

I returned to this question today, in fact, after an interesting exchange on the Rhodes Scholar e-mail list. It all began with a brief message from a physicist, who provided a link to a Guardian dispatch on Paul Wolfowitz, simpy noting that it might be of interest.

In short, the dispatch reported that Wolfowitz had finally admitted, in public, that the American motive for invading Iraq was the possession of its oil. The "evidence" cited by the Guardian consisted of an artilce in the German-language Tagesspiegel as well as the already-distorted statements Wolfowitz made in an interview with Vanity Fair.

Not long after the physicist's missive, OxFriend Steve Sachs sent a brief note to the list providing a link to the full transcript of the Vanity Fair article so that his fellow Scholars could see how the Guardian took Wolfowitz's words out of context.

Next up came a message from a Scholar inclined to trust the Guardian, who pointed out that Steve had done nothing to discredit the account provided by the German press. Guessing that it wouldn't be hard to finish what Steve had started, I decided to discredit the German press myself.

As it turns out, doing so required no effort at all, since Greg D. over at Belgravia Dispatch kindly let me know that he had just put up an in-depth exposing the fundamental dishonesty of the German press in this instance.

Yet before I could even let Steve know what I'd found, OxBlog's own Josh Chafetz sent an e-mail to the Rhodes list which linked to an ABC news story with the correct version of Wolfowitz's remarks.

So what's the moral of this story? Well, one moral is that the proliferation of transcripts online makes it much more dangerous for journalists to quote anyone out of context.

Another moral is that even those of us thought to be most educated are prone to manipulation by the press. Consider this counterfactual: What if Josh, Stephen and myself weren't news junkies who had the wherewithal to fisk the Guardian with a few keyboard strokes? My guess is that hundreds of Rhodes Scholars would now believe (if they didn't already) that Wolfowitz had confessed to invading Iraq for its oil.

Would it be their fault for believing this lie? Of course not. For most of the Oxbridge set, the Guardian has the same credibility that the Washington Post has in the United States. In fact, there are probably tens of thousands of Britons who still believe what the Guardian had to say about the Deputy Secretary of Defense.

(Full disclosure: I myself have been suckered by the media, so I do not place myself above any of my fellow Scholars with regard to this matter.)

Perhaps the more important question is what long-term impact this event might have had on the political beliefs of the Scholars in question. One might hypothesize that those who already have negative attitudes towards either the GOP or the US as a whole might be more likely to remember what Wolfowitz said, whereas the less critical might soon forget it.

Yet even if that rule applies in general, what if a small but definite percentage of those who read the article converted from an uncommitted to a highly negative approach to either the GOP or the United States? Given that the Guardian publishes such articles on a regular basis, how long before all those who think of it as political gospel come to share its cynical view of American motives?

Weighing against such considerations is the possibility that articles in other publications might reverse the effect had by the Guardian. The problem is, of course, how it could ever be possible to measure the impact of any article or publication on a given audience.

While I obviously don't have an answer to that question, I would like to describe one broad approach to it which I find compelling. According to this approach, humans are "online" thinkers who retain only small amounts of relevant information in their accessible memory.

Yet rather than "forgetting" information when it disappears from active memory, the mind updates any concepts which might be affected by the information in question. For example, before forgetting the details of the Guardian's attack on Wolfowitz, one might increase one's distrust of Wolfowitz, the Bush administration, the United States and possibly even all government officials.

If, later on, one asked why one distrusts such persons or categories of persons, one will not be available to refer to the Guardian article as evidence, since one will have forgotten it.

While it should be evident that the "online" paradigm doesn't resolve the issue of measurement, it does explain one of the most mystifying aspects of public opinion, i.e. how hundreds of millions of citizens can have firm views on so many different political issues without having any information at their fingertips with which to back such opinions up.

Until recently, scholars presumed that the average citizens was simply so prejudiced and closed-minded that he or she reached his opinions in the absence of information. With the aid of the online paradigm, however, one can understand how the average citizens forms opinions without devoting a tremendous amount of memory to political information storage.

Is there any neuroscientific evidence to back up the online paradigm? I don't know. My knowledge of the literature isn't great. But someone probably is working on it. Still, the online approach does have common sense working in its favor. While there aren't too many specific conclusions to be drawn from it, it does give us a helpful way of thinking about how media bias fits on to the lives of the vast majority of those who don't have all day and all night to spend worrying about politics.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:27 PM by Patrick Belton  

OKAY, I MAY NOT BE a card carrying member of the ACLU....but I'm proud to know one. Congratulations, Chrissy, on your new gig as their communications officer! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:14 PM by Patrick Belton  

SHEIKH IT UP BABY, NOW: On the heels of the Sharm el-Sheikh Arab American conference, we all received this morning from Aqaba some reasons, perhaps, for hope. Prime Minister Sharon declared his support for Palestinian statehood, for Palestine's territorial congruity, and for the forcible removal of up to ten settlements which are illegal under Israel's law. For his part Abu Mazen's Arabic was passionate, calling on the Palestinians to recognize the suffering of the Jews throughout history and especially in the twentieth century. (See CFR's Henry Siegman, and AAI's Jim Zogby (also over here - though the anecdote he slightly boggles is often attributed to Churchill - ya Jim, habib, you shoulda come to me).

Those not invited to the dance are predictably feeling grumpy; in this instance, these are the hard-liners from both sides of the 1967 line. From Israel, some of the harder-line Likudniks are now criticizing Sharon with vehemence; tens of thousands of protesters gathered this evening in Zion Square, with MKs and ministers from Likud, National Union, the National Religious Party, Shas, and United Torah Judaism, all scheduled to speak at the demonstration. As-yet unnamed American representatives and senators, it was reported, would be in attendance as well. Labor, for its part, is happy, leading to the possibility Israel will see reshuffling in its coalition, with one of the three National Union member parties indicating it will quit the governing coalition once the government begins its evacuation of outposts and implementation of the road map.

From the Palestinian side, Hamas and Islamic Jihad were no happier - after all, if the intifadah and Oslo were any example, peace processes help the Palestinian Administration by giving it stature at home, while intifadah hurts the PA and gains stature for the militant resistance. Abdullah Shami (Islamic Jihad head in Gaza) accused Abbas of offering "a free service to the enemy in targeting the Palestinian resistance and stopping our legitimate right to fight the occupation." Hamas's Abdel Aziz Rantisi, while saying his organization was "still discussing" the possibility of a ceasefire with the Palestinian government, strongly criticized Abu Mazen for neglecting the right of return and entertaining the surrender of "even one centimeter" of Palestinian territory.

Also feeling grumpy after the party is Arafat's advisor Saeb Erekat (now thankfullly irrelevant), who criticized Sharon for not dropping dates. Palestinian Foreign Minister Nabil Sha'ath, however, (who for his part is relevant) praised Sharon for his promises of geographical contiguity for the Palestinian state, as well as his promise to dismantle illegal (under Israeli law) settlements in the West Bank.

Sharon may indeed be doing something we never suspected of him - becoming, like Nixon and Reagan, a peacemaker coming from the right. But this is not a region which is easy on its peacemakers, and people are making the inevitable allusions of the cost of the enterprise to previous peacemakers Anwar Sadat (mowed down by Egyptian soldiers in uniform, no less) and Yitzhak Rabin (himself army chief on the fateful day of June 5, 1967). Making ominous alusions to the possibility of violence are such members of the Knesset's rightist fringe as minister Avigdor Lieberman, head of the National Union bloc and himself a settler (in the West Bank settlement of Nokdim), and hard-line rabbis in the settlements, such as Eliezer Melamed of the Nablus-area Har Bracha settlement, who are also making nasty allusions to the possibility of civil war, and bemoaning as treachery their betrayal by a leader they had seen as not only one of them, but the head of the hardline. Many have already remembered, although perhaps (hopefully) with an excess of paranoia, that Rabin's death was preceeded by a month by a rightist protest in Zion Square.

For the United States's part, this administration is to be commended for its reengagement. The Bush administration will be sending a team to Israel and the Palestinian territories to oversee the implementation of the plan, and publicize compliance and violations to it. More of this, please. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:03 PM by Patrick Belton  

GE-RECHT AKTUELL: Reuel Marc Gerecht, in a former life one of our best covert operatives acting in the Middle East, has a Weekly Standard piece on the Iranian Manhattan Project and why, to his mind, (1) more than covert action is needed to stop it, and (2) even if it weren't, Langley is extraordinarily adverse to covert action in Iran, leaving it to Messrs Shulsky and Luti's Office of Special Plans, which would in turn face its own bureaucratic obstacles. For my part, I need to go mull(ah) over his arguments a bit before commenting, but Gerecht is always eminently readable. The Standard's lucky to have him. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:57 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

ASHCROFT'S SELF-INDICTMENT: The Justice Department's own Inspector General has reported on the incompetence and abuse entailed in the Department's treatment of terrorism suspects. Sadly, Ashcroft seems to be in complete denial about the seriousness of his own wrongdoing. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:52 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

BUSH II OR REAGAN III? It is a dangerous thing to write about Ronald Reagan. No matter how much one knows about him, one cannot say that one understands him. Nonetheless, in the hope of knowing more, I sat down today and began to read President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime, by Lou Cannon, the WaPo correspondent who spent almost three decades writing about the Great Communicator.

While I sat down with Cannon's book because my dissertation demanded it, I couldn't help but compare Reagan to George W. Bush. As multiple commentators have observed, both the character and ideology of the current president are far more similar to that of Reagan than that of his own father.

As someone with a special interest in foreign policy, the most apparent similarity from my perspective is the dependence of both Reagan and the younger Bush on a circle of feuding advisers to provide them with the specific knowledge necessary to forge an actual policy. While I don't recall making this comparison explicitly, it was very much on my mind when I was posting about the divide within Bush's cabinet.

But now, having read the first handful of chapters in Cannon's book, I think its important to emphasize a critical distinction between the Reagan and Bush styles of consulting their inner circle.

According to Cannon, Reagan expected his advisors to achieve a consensus among themselves before bringing their options to him. To some degree, this approach was grounded in Reagan's strong averson to interpersonal conflict of all kinds. In contrast, Bush seems to welcome his closest advisors' presentation of contrasting perspectives and strategies, from which he chooses the most effective.

Another aspect of Reagan's approach was his avoidance of all unnecessary detail, almost to the point of being self-destructive. For example, James Baker (then Chief of Staff) approached the President on the morning of the only G7 economic summit held in the US during Reagan's eight years of office, only to find that Reagan hadn't even opened the briefing book Baker had given him the night before.

Although hesitant to confront the President, Baker asked him why he hadn't opened the book. In all seriousness, Reagan replied that the Sound of Music was on the night before and that he wanted to watch it.

From where I stand, this aversion to detail explains how Reagan could, in all sincerity, make the sort of absurd pronouncements that his critics found so maddening, e.g. that the Salvadoran army was struggling to reduce human rights violations or that the brutal Contras were the moral equivalent of the United States' Founding Fathers.

(Now, if you are one of those revisionist historians who believes that the Founding Fathers were genocidal plutocratic racists, the comparison works. But I digress...)

In contrast to Reagan, I think Bush has a far greater command of detail, despite constant attacks on his intelligence and competence as a public speaker.

What made this contrast click in my mind was an anecdote recounted in a front-page story on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in yesterday's WaPo. The anecdote runs as follows:

Bush called Sharon a "man of peace" last year, infuriating Arabs angry over the Israeli army's actions against Palestinians in the West Bank. Bush publicly has not backed off that statement, but last year he privately rebuked Sharon when the Israeli leader began to repeat the comment to the president, administration officials said.

Bush interrupted Sharon when he began to say he was a "man of peace and security," according to a witness to the exchange who recounted it. "I know you are a man of security," Bush said. "I want you to work harder on the peace part."

Then, adding a bit of colloquial language that first seemed to baffle Sharon, Bush jabbed: "I said you were a man of peace. I want you to know I took immense crap for that."

Bush final jab shows that he understands both his critics' motivations and the tactical value of refusing to change his stance regardless of such objections.

(While were on the subject of the Middle East, make sure to read this excellent op-ed about Sharon and Abu Mazen by Fareed Zakaria.)

In the final analysis, I think one should be very careful when analogizing between divisions in the Reagan and Bush cabinets. Yes, both Presidents are from being experts on foreign policy. But one of them has a much more productive method for taking advantage of his advisors' expertise. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:28 PM by Patrick Belton  

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE: Not a very good day for computer use at OxBlog, it turns out. Not only is David doing it in public (ahem, blogging)...but Handspring, which has for years created better products than Palm at a fraction of the price, is being assimilated by the Palm collective for $170 million in stock. Oh well, happens to the best of us. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:58 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

DIVINE JUDGMENT: As punishment for my anti-Macintosh blasphemy, the computer gods have wrought terrible vengeance on my PC, crippling its hard drive and forcing me to subject myself to the ultimate humiliation: the use of a public computer cluster. Oh, the agony!

Anyhow, you'll know why it is if my posting is somewhat irregular for the next few days. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:57 PM by Patrick Belton  

ARLINGTON PUBLIC LIBRARIES ARE BETTER THAN OXFORD UNIVERSITY ONES, PART 318: For all of our readers in the metropolitan Washington area, I've got to just rave for a second on the public library system in Arlington. Not only does it have the incredible area studies and diplomatic history holdings that you might expect out of, well, out of a wealthy area with comparatively low social service needs, and populated entirely by current and former CIA, State, DOD hands - BUT, its online holdings (OED, Proquest, Infotrack) rival if not exceed those of any university I've ever attended. For those of you who are in D.C. (and particularly you all in Arlington), this is better than sliced bread (which isn't really that great anyway - Nabeel Abraham gives a cute story in Arab Detroit of he and his brothers as children pestering their Arabic mother to buy Wonder Bread instead of baking fresh Khubz Arabi every afternoon for them, so they could be like the non-Arab kids in town; and trying to hide their underwhelment with the mythical white sliced bread when their mother finally caved in and bought it....)

(And to those of you who are keeping track, yes, in a noteworthy three-day spurt of nerdiness I've managed to (1) brag about my public library system, (2) tell all of you about a date night spent reading the Greek classics out loud with my bride, and (3) compare the personals ads in two different literary reviews. Hmmm....seems like, to restore this blog's former unparalleled well-rounded image of physical and mental athleticism I should start up a blogger pin-up series or something....)

UPDATE: Matt Madden concurs in part, dissents in part (specifically, the library's no food/no drink rule). (So here's a deal - track me down in the library, Matt, and we'll go out for an interblogonal slurpee) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:19 PM by Patrick Belton  

THE COMPARATIVE LITERATURE OF PERSONALS ADS: It's rainy. So let's play, New York vs. London Review of Books in personals ads.

First off we have the New York Review of Books (print ed., June 12, 2003). Here, we see many entries, and they're...basically...all...the same. That is, people who "love cats" and "classical music." They're "confident, yet sensitive." They even look good in earth-toned sweater vests. In a word: annoying, ingratiating wimps.

to wit,

"ADVENTUROUS, INTELLECTUAL DJM, 47, periodontist...cat-lover, seeks full-figured woman for passionate sex and scintillating discussions"

"BEAUTIFUL, BRAINY SJF, 54, earthmother...passionate about art...knows Paris well...Reply only if you can increase my joy. Handwritten replies only."

"SJM interested in fathering a child in a flexible, supportive parenting partnership. Open to many possibilities, including marriage."

"ALL FETISHES, DOMINATION/SUBMISSION FANTASIES explored by Ivy League educated Goddesses."

And that's leaving out the "Ph.D. Yankee with a twist, spirited not spiritual, California-raised, supportive yet strong, believes humor is key." The passionate, warm, almond-eyed academic (good shoulders)... And lots of avid tennis players, sweater-vest wearers, and strong but compassionate cat lovers who can't live without classical music, and would love to "return to Prague, Vienna, France," with an "educated, financially stable, kind," etc.

etc., etc., etc. Boring, pretentious wimps.

Now, for round two, it's time to turn to the inside back page of the London Review of Books (print ed., 22 May 2003). Yes, even here we do have one or two "passionate, academic, liberal female[s], seeking similar male, also emotionally aware, empathetic, communicative, proactive and progressive." (Et in Londono ego.) But then, we have these:

"EITHER I'M DESPERATELY UNATTRACTIVE, or you are all lesbians. Bald, pasty man (61) with nervous tick and unclassifiable skin complaint believes it to be the latter but holds out hope for dominant (yet straight) fems at box no. 10/18."

"FAT FRISKY AND 42. Not me, it's the wife. Complex M dullard, 43, seeking younger, slimmer and downright unlibidinal replacement to avoid another night of force-fed Viagra. Must enjoy computer battleships, segregated bathrooms and respect my mother by wearing clothes just like hers (calvary twill, mainly). Box no. 10/17."

"BOOKLOVERS! Ask for The Cambridge Companion to My Butt" when you're next in the LRB shop. Embittered overeducated Boston third age gay...not so much disruptive, just plain choleric. Box no. 10/13."

"THEY CALL ME MR BOOMBASTIC. You can call me Monty. My real name, however, is Quentin. But only Mother uses that. And Nanny. Monty is fine, though. Anything but Peg Leg (Shrewsbury Prep, 1956, 'please don't make me do cross-country, sir'). Box no. 10/17"

"MEET A LARDARSE FOR THE THINKING GAY F. Only I'm a man. Difficult to classify bisexual couch potato, 39. Seeking more of the same, only without so many doughnuts this time. Bristol."

"GERMANY IS THE NEW DETROIT" (no text can live up to that, so I'm not quoting it)

"WHEN MY MUM IS IN, I can't make any noise. But when my mum goes out, then I can make a noise. NW M, 38.... Large head. Box. no. 09/02."

"THIS COLUMN IS THE PLACE TO SEE AND BE SEEN. But not too often. Certainly not eight times in the last twelve months. So know when you're beatn G. P.-J., and throw in the towel. Hope for singles nights at the LRB bookshop; failing that, there's always rhumba mornings at the Golden Age Drop-In Centre. Box no. 09/09."

Oh, and the winner,

"MY CURRENT RESEARCH CONSISTS OF UTILISING FRESHWATER and marine isolates for the possibility of Lignin Modifying Enzyme production, Bioremediation of Xenobiotics and Phanerochaete chrysosporium. All this to be blonde. Postgraduate Scottish beauty tired of trans-Euro mousey brown and nights alone with a jigsaw and a chemistry set. Seeking Cambridge hunk, thirties or upwards, for outre bathtime fun and games. Box no. 09/10." (Heck, I'm even writing a couple of hunky Cantabridgian friends about her right now...)

Wow, the difference is striking. So in conclusion: if you want love, go to England.

(Heck, it worked for me...)

UPDATE: Josh C., (no, the other Josh C...if this were grade school, we'd need of course to have Josh C.-sub-1 and Josh C.-sub-2, with precedence being decided by a head-to-head political theory battle royale at noon between these two lovable guys...think "8 mile" meets Rawls...), says the downside of advertising in the LRB is that you might end up with someone in the Balliol MCR....






(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:37 PM by Patrick Belton  

SAY IT AIN'T SO, SAMMY!: Sammy Sosa breaks all of our hearts, for those of us who believe in and have affection for our national sport. Sosa, the only player in the history of baseball with three 60-homer seasons, shattered his bat in the first inning of the Cubs' game against Tampa Bay at Wrigley - to reveal a bat that had been corked. We may never know how much of his career's successes had been due to cheating.

Sosa was ejected from the game.

UPDATES: Lots, lots more email about this than about Sophocles. AJ points out that this will situate Sosa within the immortal pantheon of legendary baseball cheaters. Patrick W. writes in with his thought that the margin of most of Sosa's homers was probably ironically greater than the 20 to 30 additional feet conferred by a corked bat.

(On the other hand, my father-in-law liked my Sophocles post when he read about it...on Volokh, that is!)









(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:51 PM by Patrick Belton  

THE RECENT REARREST OF SUU KYI is but the latest instance in a sad pattern, in which the degree of freedom extended or denied Ms Suu Kyi by the junta has been a careful calibration between its internal imperative to forestall demcracy, and its own departure from rule, and the external imperative to court the trade benefits which East Asian nations (notably Japan) are happy to confer, in reward for any slight "advance" toward democratic rule, however cynically imposed.

The three of us each have somewhat close ties to this remarkable woman, as her late husband, Michael Aris, was an Oxford academic at St Antony's College. Suu Kyi, herself a graduate of Oxford, returned from the life of a homemaker and donnish spouse to assume her father's mantle when she returned to Burma in August 1988, in the aftermath of a brutally repressed pro-democratic uprising months earlier. Her father, General Aung San, had been a democratizing leader pivotal to securing the end of colonial rule in Burma. With her fortunate combination of parentage, comparative youth, and the preexistence of a strong if frustrated democratic movement, she shot quickly to the worldwide stature shared only by such figures as Nelson Mandela; her political party, the National League for Deomcracy, received 82 percent in national elections in 1990; she had by that point already been under house arrest for a year.

She is, as she should be, very much in all of our thoughts at her erstwhile university.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:42 PM by Patrick Belton  

SOPHOCLES AND POLITICS: Over the weekend, Rachel and I stayed in on Saturday night and read to each other the penultimate Sophoclean tragedy, Philoctetes. (Yes, this is how married nerds spend their weekends; Sophocles's final work, incidentally, was his more widely read Oedipus at Colonus, to which Philoctetes bears resemblance). I had been thinking at length lately on how best to begin approaching issues of ethics and statecraft, and on reading this neglected play of Athens's greatest tragedian, I was struck by how appropos it was to modern issues of state morality. Indeed, Philoctetes (and here is one translation) is at its core a play of statecraft, revolving around strikingly topical questions such as the morality of deception and covert action in service of a nation's security (even a spy appears, briefly), the moral validity of raisons d'etat, and the legitimate claims owed to chains of command by an officer of the state. It bears, I think, further reflection.

The titular Philoctetes, once the greatest of Greek archers and second to none in nobility of character, has for ten years been abandoned by his countrymen Achaians after his accidental trespass and subsequent snakebiting in a religious sanctuary on the island of Chryse. In consequence of this mishap he is banished and becomes an instantly recognizable as a sort - in Seamus Heaney's gloss, "the wounded one whose identity has become dependent upon the wound." We meet him rag-dressed after a decade's exile, inaugurated when Odysseus abandoned him sleeping on the shores of the desolate island Lemnos. After the snakebiting, his wounds had brought Philoctetes such pain that due to his "savage and ill-omened" cries, his companions could not pour libations or conduct sacrifices in peace. And so he is abandoned through trickery; and so, with the Chorus, we come upon him ten years after his abandonment,

of illustrious race,
Yet here he lies, from every human aid
Far off removed, in dreadful solitude,
And mingles with the wild and savage herd;
With them in famine and in misery
Consumes his days, and weeps their common fate,
Unheeded, save when babbling echo mourns
In bitterest notes responsive to his woe.

The play's main tension begins nearby, where the wily general Odysseus (registering an early anti-Odyssean tradition in which the Homeric hero's deceptiveness receives much less sympathetic treatment than that to which we are accustomed) is conferring with young Neoptolemus, the late Achilles's noble, battle-untried son. We meet them as Odysseus is justifying to his charge why the young man must convince Philoctetes, through lies and ruse, to return with the Greeks to the battlefields of Troy. This deed is necessary because the seer Helenus, son of Priam, had prophesised Troy would be secure until Philoctetes arrived on the scene; hearing this, the joint commanders of the Greek armies, Agamemnon and Menelaus, dispatched Odysseus and his soldiers to retrieve Philoctetes and his bow - and thereby setting our plot in motion.

Odysseus realized that the archer whom for the common good he betrayed would murder him on sight given the chance, and so dispatches young Neoptolemus to by ruse disarm the afflicted archer so the Greeks could compel him to accompany them to Troy. In justifying his actions to his junior officer, Odysseus presents several arguments to Neoptolemus. His first is premised on state morality (duty) and the chain of command (compliance) - "Reflect that 'tis thy duty to comply." His second is the broader compulsion of the state, justified by the security imperatives it faces:

Say what thou wilt, I shall forgive,
And Greece will not forgive thee if thou dost not;
For against Troy thy efforts are all vain
Without his arrows.

His final appeal, though, is not ultimately to patriotic duty, but to vanity and pride:

I know thy noble nature
Abhors the thought of treachery or fraud.
But what a glorious prize is victory!

Concluding, Odysseus stresses the aberrant, temporary nature of the deceitfulness that the state is compelling upon Neoptolemus:

Therefore be bold; we will be just hereafter.
Give to deceit and me a little portion
Of one short day, and for thy future life
Be called the holiest, worthiest, best of men.

However, the noble nature of Achilles, living in his son, rebels against deceipt, and cries out for an honest contest among equals -

What open arms can do
Behold me prompt to act, but ne'er to fraud
Will I descend. Sure we can more than match
In strength a foe thus lame and impotent.
I came to be a helpmate to thee, not
A base betrayer; and, O king! believe me,
Rather, much rather would I fall by virtue
Than rise by guilt to certain victory

The pivotal interchange in the dispute which ensues is Neoptolemus's question, "And thinkst thou 'tis not base / To tell a lie then?"; to which Odysseus's response is, as it must be, "Not if on that lie / Depends our safety."
 
Before proceding to the unplaying of the covert action itself, we might pause to consider what has taken place. First, we see the state giving, in order to preserve itself, to one of its citizens the right to violate its laws and its decent standards of conduct. The wilyness and deceptiveness of Odysseus, now forced by command and conjolance upon his charge, is from the perspective of Athens a black art forgiveable when the survival of the state is in question, but out of place at home in the peacetime councils and life of the democracy. Second, this dispensation here has become a command - conveyed and made attractive with appeals to patriotism, personal glory, and compulsion (familiar components in the recruitrment of agents even in today's clandestine tradecraft) - but at the same time, a military command given from a senior officer to a junior, who with his soldierly status has accepted the impositions on his individual capacities for moral choice of the military chain of command. Third, when the individual threatens the communal good, that of the state, the Greek polity selects its own self-preservation- whether by deceitfully banishing the unlucky hero far from Greek civilization ("Alas, poor soul," says the Chorus, "that never in ten years' length / enjoyed a drink of wine"), or then by deceitfully compelling his disarmament and forcible return. Sophoclean morality condemns, after all, hubris above all - thus the unseemly pride of Creon in Antigone, or perhaps that of Oedipus in Oedipus Rex - because through it, the individual threatens the good of all Athens.

This much, at least, from Odysseus's perspective. Yet thankfully Sophocles also permits us to see things from the perspective of Neoptolemus: here we come across a talented junior officer for whom the concept of deceiving others - that is, acting under a cover, hiding the true state of affairs (hence our covert, the old French past participle of cuvrir, to cover) - reaches beyond the unaesthetic to the unethical. Neoptolemus's unease with deceipt in the service of a state's survival is not impossible to understand - his code, after all, is heroic, not conniving; it privileges means, not ends; it is ultimately Kantian, not utilitarian. But while gentlemen who, with Secretary Stimson, do not relish the thought of opening the mail of other gentlemen may perhaps nonetheless be forgiven for opening that of tyrants and murderers, the noble character of Neoptolemus, son of Achilles, does not even allow us that much: for noble Achilles's son would seek to struggle honestly and win nobly, or nobly be defeated. The tension between the general of covert artistry and the noble lowly officer is left pending rather than resolved by Neoptolemus's brief acquiescence, and Odysseus departs from the scene, calling both on Hermes, god of trickery, and on Athena, goddess of Athens.

Thus, shortly after, Neoptolemus presents himself under cover to Philoctetes and genuinely pities and befriends the lonely accursed archer, and begins to shake loose his cover when he directs the Spy (a largely gratuitous character who briefly appears) to speak openly to them both, commanding him: "Hide nothing then." And after only a short period further - feeling pity for the abandoned cripple as well as the pull between the heroic code and the shadowy efficacy of Odysseus - he chooses to honor the code of Athenian heroism and tells all, hoping to continue following the chain of command and compel Philoctetes's forcible transportation to the fields of Troy, but now to do so openly and without deception in his application of coercion:

I can no longer hide
The dreadful secret from thee; thou art going
To Troy, e'en to the Greeks, to the Atreidae.
PHILOCTETES
Then am I lost,
Undone, betrayed. Canst thou, my friend, do this?
Give me my arms again.
NEOPTOLEMUS
It cannot be.
I must obey the powers who sent me hither; justice enjoins- the common cause demands it

Unfortunately, Neoptolemus's moment of moral clarity then disintegrates somewhat into the muddled inclarity of a therapy-session. We anticipate, even, catharsis by group hug:

Alas!
What shall I do? Would I were still at Scyros!
For I am most unhappy.

At which point, the session is disrupted by the arrival of Odysseus - who now justifies his actions of compulsion, now no longer covert, by reference to gods' compulsion rather than merely that of the state and men:

Know, great Zeus himself
Doth here preside. He hath decreed thy fate;
I but perform his will.
PHILOCTETES
Detested wretch,
Mak'st thou the gods a cover for thy crime?
Do they teach falsehood?
ODYSSEUS
No, they taught me truth,
And therefore, hence- that way thy journey lies. Pointing to the sea

The gods thus demand it - but, this far, only in Odysseus's mouth, although we have no reason to believe that he and his own commanders are acting in bad faith in keeping with their information at hand and their special responsibility for the Greeks' security. But now Neoptolemus makes his existential choice worthy of the Sartrean French wartime student, and disobeying his general, returns to the crippled archer the bow which was, on his deserted island, his livelihood:

NEOPTOLEMUS
I come
To purge me of my crimes.
ODYSSEUS
Indeed! What crimes?
NEOPTOLEMUS
My blind obedience to the Grecian host
And to thy counsels.

Yet he keeps Philoctetes from slaying Odysseus and permits the latter to escape, for the moment striking out as an independent actor, capable of rendering himself on one side or the other as compelled by the dictates of moral choice. Whereupon Neoptolemus then seeks, though vainly, through speech to make common cause with both the archer and his commanders, and compel Philoctetes to Troy by force of arguments rather than violence; in other words, he becomes a diplomat:

PHILOCTETES An idle tale
Thou tellst me. surely; dost thou not?
NEOPTOLEMUS I speak
What best may serve us both.
PHILOCTETES But, speaking thus,
Dost thou not fear the' offended gods?
NEOPTOLEMUS Why fear them?
Can I offend the gods by doing good?

Having foresworn force or the arts of deception to impose the Greeks' will on Philoctetes, however, Neoptolemus finds that relying on argument he is powerless to compel the crippled archer to Troy. And so, noble Neoptolemus is ultimately rendered in a position of incontrovertible tension between moral commitments.

The resolution of the tension is ultimately by deus ex machina - quite literally, as Heracles then appears, and directs Philoctetes and Neoptolemus to Troy where the two will slay Paris and where Philoctetes will be healed - and this because Sophocles could not in the end answer the question which he himself had posed: how one might reconcile irreconcilably conflicting duties to the state, to the gods, and to human pity and benevolence. The appeal to divine intervention brought Aristotles's scorn upon this play, and subsequent critics have tended to follow his impulse here. Well enough, we might ask, that the gods appear to the agonizing noble pair, resolving their tormenting pulls between human benevolence and the needs of the state - but where are those of us left to whom Heracles does not deign to appear?

The gods themselves must intervene to solve this dilemma. But perhaps - perhaps - Sophocles's play contains a meaning missed by Aristotle and academics following in his path; perhaps this can be read differently, to say that only divine intervention can justify the commission of intrinsically unethical acts to serve a public good. This may not be my answer - I believe, for instance, with John Lewis Gaddis that espionage serves an important good of stability, assuring antagonists of one another's peaceable intentions when, as during the Cold War, their talk in each others' ears is cheap. But I do believe, however, that this is ultimately the answer which is Sophocles's. And as to my knowledge no more compelling treatment in literature, whether classical or modern, of the ethical dilemmas inherent in covert acts of state than this play from the Athenian golden age, we who might argue for more expansive notions of raison d'etat, if only toward murderers and terrorists rather than gentlemen, would do well to measure and tune our arguments against Sophocles's tragedy.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:52 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING IN IRAQ? If all you read were the headlines in NYT or WaPo, it wouldn't hard to persuade yourself that American efforts to rebuild Iraq are an unmitigated disaster. On the other hand, right-of-center critics -- e.g. Glenn Reynolds and Mark Steyn-- have begun to argue with considerable force that the mainstream media have focused on inevitable problems while ignoring that the occupation is going far better than one might reasonably expect.

From where I stand, the fundamental problem with mainstream coverage of the occupation is that its tone depends not on the situation on the ground in Iraq, but rather on the rhetoric that is coming out of Washington. In short, even though the occupation is going better than expected, Donald Rumsfeld's passive aggression toward nation-building has led the media to give as much attention as possible to any evidence that Rumsfeld's lackluster attitude has brought the reconstruction effort to the brink of failure.

It's important to recognize, of course, that this pattern of behavior on the media's part is nothing new. One point that almost all academic studies of the media agree on is that journalists attempt to protect their (self-endowed?) reputation for objectivity by avoiding all independent judgment of what is happening on the ground.

In practice, this preference leads journalists to measure reality against the standards set out by leading officials in Washington. Because Rumsfeld & Co. have demonstrated a disturbing lack of concern about progress in Baghdad, everything that goes wrong in Iraq becomes front-page news.

This pattern of interaction rapidly becomes a vicious cycle. Since journalists themselves place tremendous faith in the media, the constant repeititon of similar headlines persuades correspondents on the ground that the headlines reflect some sort of objective reality. Right now, a raft of negative reports from Baghdad have been mistaken for a decisive assessment of the occupation as an unmitigated failure.

Fortunately, some critics of the administration recognize that this sort of judgment is premature. Yet as the ever-critical Kevin Drum warns, center-right critics of media pessimism can't afford to mistake the media's premature criticism of the Administration for an indication that the President, Vice-President and Secretary of Defence actually understand how hard it is to rebuild a nation.

The occupation certainly isn't going so well that we can start to praise the Administration for its well-laid plans. As Fareed Zakaria points out, the Administration's respective attitudes toward Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate precious little cognizance of the most important lesson we have learned from the failed and semi-successful nation-building efforts of the past decade: go in with overwhelming force and accept nothing short of success.

Does that lesson sound familiar? Of course it does. As Tom Friedman reminds us, it's known as the Powell Doctrine. Except now the US needs to apply it to waging peace instead of waging war. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:55 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

CONSOLIDATING THE MEDIA: I admit it. I can't figure out what my position is on this issue. Today the FCC voted to ease current restrictions that prevent corporations from owning an excessive number of television stations in a single market. The restrictions also prevent individual corporations from owning both a newspaper and a television station in the same market.

The WaPo seems to be just as confused as I am. While its masthead editoral asks some good questions about the current debate, it provides no answers whatsoever.

On the con side, Ted Turner is arguing that he never could've started CNN if not for the current rules, which ensure that risk-taking entrepreneurs have a supply of television stations available for purchase. But that was 20 years ago. My guess is that today's innovators would use the internet or other media to launch their new enterprises.

All in all, I think I'm inclined to discount apocalyptic prophecies of media conformism and agree with Calpundit, who argues that there is a pretty resilient marketplace for ideas and that the revisions voted on today aren't nearly significant enough to have much effect at all.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:30 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

MOBILITY AND INEQUALITY: Dan Drezner has a great post on the subject. For a lot of us, I think it will be the final word on the inequality debate, at least for the moment. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:51 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

APOLOGY, TAKE TWO: It seems that my first apology to the advocates of medieval Europe was thought of as excessively tongue-in-cheek. So, just to reassure everyone, let me say the following: I do not believe that the medieval Europe was backward or be(k)nighted. It is a fascinating period that I wish I had more of a chance to study.

On the bright side, the shortcomings of my first apology led RR to send in this fascinating account of the development of computing technology in the late 20th century. RR's comments come in response to my statment that

"It's not as if Bill Gates was responsible for taking computers that once filled entire rooms and transforming them into desktops."

After re-reading what I wrote, I can see why it came off as a sarcastic dismissal of Gates' critics. But actually, I wanted to show that I am aware of the fact that the history of computers is not the history of Microsoft. Fortunately, RR has made with in greater depth than I ever could. He writes that:

Bill Gates contributed _nothing_ to the development of desktop computers. The microprocessor was developed by Intel, Motorola, Texas Instruments, et al. So was semiconductor memory. Computers were already shrinking:a PDP-11, the standard 'minicomputer' of the '70s, was the size of a small refrigerator, and then a small suitcase.

The first desktop computers were designed by hobbyists and a few daring entrepreneurs. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak designed the Apple.

Then larger companies joined in. Radio Shack's TRS-80 computer was as dominant circa 1980 as Windows is now. Next IBM blitzed the market with the "PC".

During this whole period, Microsoft was a minor player. Its big deal was BASIC interpreters for several of the early microcomputers (including the Apple). Microsoft did not even create DOS - they acquired it for a few thousand dollars from Seattle Computing.

Then Gates had an immense stroke of luck. IBM chose DOS for the PC, spurning then-dominant CP/M for obscure reasons. IBM poured colossal resources into the PC marketing blitz, establishing the PC _and_ DOS as de facto standards. But while a horde of low-cost Asian manufacturers sliced away IBM's hardware domination, Gates expanded DOS' software domination with clever licensing agreements that practically required manufacturers to be Windows-only.

Gates then leveraged his revenue and OS control into control of the spreadsheet and wordprocessor market, squeezing out established products like Lotus 123 and WordPerfect. Xerox invented the graphical user interface that Apple marketed. Gates copied it. The Unix/academic world created the Internet, developing TCP/IP, FTP, SMTP, and HTTP with no help from Microsoft. Netscape pioneered the Web browser; Microsoft followed with Internet Explorer. Databases, gaming, home finance, multimedia, development tools, graphics - Microsoft has never been the leader, never been the innovator.

That's capitalism for you, eh? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:23 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

DEMOCRACY, WHISKEY, SEXY: Shi'ite fundamentalists are giving liquor merchants a hard time in Basra. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:59 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

METAPHOR OF THE YEAR: The WaPo opens its profile of John Kerry with the Senator's advice on how to hunt, kill, skin and cook doves. Is it a metaphor for Kerry's toughness? Or a premonition of what the President will do to his probable opponent in the 2004 election?

Regardless, it is terribly, terribly clever. The rest of the article is not. It provides biographical data but no real information about who Kerry is or what he stands for. Then again, the Post's evasiveness may be both terribly intentional and terribly clever.

In the coming days, the WaPo will publish profiles of the other eight Democratic candidates for president. If those profiles are more substantive, we'll know that the Post was having its way with the Senator from Massachusetts. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion