# Posted 12:10 PM by Patrick Belton  

NOVELIST LEON URIS, author of Exodus among other notable books, died today at 78. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:12 PM by David Adesnik  

A DECADE OF SUFFERING AND STRENGTH: Andrew Sullivan marks the tenth anniversary of his struggle with HIV. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:56 PM by David Adesnik  

ROADMAP SCHOLARS: Intelligent updates from Reason of Voice, Kesher Talk and Belgravia Dispatch. [BD's permalinks are broken, so scroll down to "Roadmap Implementation Watch".] (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:45 PM by David Adesnik  

THE PERSONAL IS POLITICAL: Better known to OxBlog readers as the creator of Boomshock, Robert Tagorda has just published a fascinating essay in The American Spectator on his experiences as a Filipino American confronting the idiosyncratic arbitrariness of affirmative action.

While my knowledge of the law consists of nothing more than common sense, I think that Robert's essay provides a compelling illustration of why the Supreme Court chose to strike down all affirmative action programs that treat human beings as numbers rather than complex individuals. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:18 PM by David Adesnik  

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: Commentary on the Court's rulings from Jack Balkin and Eugene Volokh. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:15 PM by Patrick Belton  

ISLAM AND DEMOCRACY: Last night, our D.C.-based Nathan Hale foreign policy group hosted a discussion on the prospects for democratization in the Muslim world. Will Baude posts notes on our discussion here. (And here's what we'd been reading on the subject.) I'll look forward very much to hearing your thoughts!.

On a somewhat related note, there's a new free monthly bulletin Carnegie has just begun, to track and analyze reform and democratization developments in the Arab world. You can subscribe to the on-line version here. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:33 AM by Patrick Belton  

BASHAR ON IRAQIS IN SYRIA AND THE PEACE PROCESS: Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad gave a recent interview on Al-Arabiyya. Some highlights:

On not cooperating with the US about Iraqi ex-officials from the Saddam regime presently in Syria: "One official entered Syria under a false name, but not from Iraq - from another country. We learned about him from the Americans, who asked that we extradite him, but we refused. I think he was captured later in Iraq. We did not turn over, and will not turn over, anyone to the Americans. There may be [Iraqi officials in Syria that we are unaware of]. Anything is possible. It's impossible to stop the movement of goods and people between the countries. [If we capture any of them], we'll send them back to Iraq. We won't do anything to them. We won't turn them over to anyone."

On Syria's non-cooperation with the peace process: "They (the U.S.) did not require Syria's presence, because Syria is irrelevant to the issue and because we do not agree to the proposals..."

On Syria's supposed benevolence toward the Palestinian people: "When we adopt the [Palestinian] problem, we do it in accordance with the desire of the Palestinian citizen, whose problem it is. We cannot agree to anything that contradicts it, even if we believe in it, and we cannot oppose anything the Palestinian citizen believes in."

Incidentally, the last point belies one of the unstated cruelties of the Arab world: Arab governments' treatment of their Palestinian refugees. Of the 3.5 million UNRWA-registered refugees in Arab countries, only the 1.5 million in Jordan are granted the basic rights of citizenship of the nation in which they reside. This act of humanity is particularly striking for Jordan, a country which is beset by a simmering question of competing Jordanian and Palestinian identities given the fact that Palestinians have come to constitute 60 percent of the Jordanian population. The 373,000 stateless Palestinians living in Lebanon are not allowed to attend public school, own property, or even improve their housing stock. The Lebanese government is even planning to revoke citizenship rights to Palestinians who were granted Lebanese citizenship in 1994. Marginalization of Palestinian refugees in the Arab world does nothing to diminish radicalism or improve the lot of a people whose human suffering has been great. Arab countries are quite happy to treat them as pawns, to clothe themselves in the symbolic legitimacy of their cause while acting in quite atrocious ways to the actual Palestinians, who often live (as in Lebanon) in refugee camps where they face horrific public health, minimal prospects of education or employment, and are instead maintained in as much of a marginalized status as possible to augment their stateless status and maintain pressure on Israel. If Arab governments were only as good as their people, they might remember with the Palestinians the meaning of the phrase "Ahlan wa Sahlan" - "When you cross our threshold you are one of our family, and you have stepped on even ground."
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:23 PM by David Adesnik  

NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SON: We have not found weapons of mass destruction. Thoughtful critics have begun to charge the Administration with practicing pervasive deception. Much of the furor centers around an investigative report in The New Republic, which reaches the damning conclusion that President Bush

has engaged in a pattern of deception concerning the most fundamental decisions a government must make. The United States may have been justified in going to war in Iraq--there were, after all, other rationales for doing so--but it was not justified in doing so on the national security grounds that President Bush put forth throughout last fall and winter. He deceived Americans about what was known of the threat from Iraq and deprived Congress of its ability to make an informed decision about whether or not to take the country to war.

But compare TNR's allegations to the more precise criticism offered by Josh Marshall:

It's suddenly become acceptable to discuss what everyone knew for the last year or so: that is, that the administration was willfully misrepresenting the evidence both on WMD and a purported link to al Qaida.

At first, Marshall's criticism comes across as a repetition of the TNR allegations. But it isn't. Marshall is accusing the administration of engaging in deceptive salesmanship, not wholesale fabrication of an Iraqi threat. As Marshall observes in The Hill:

There were really two WMD debates. One was about chemical and low-end biological weapons. The other was about smallpox, nukes, al Qaeda and pretty much everything else under the sun.

On the former, the White House didn’t hoodwink anyone, since virtually everyone in the foreign policy mainstream figured that Iraq at least maintained a chemical and biological weapons capacity. I certainly thought so.

At a minimum, there was solid circumstantial evidence to believe that they did. Frankly, there still is.

If there still is solid evidence that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons, then Saddam was in material breach of Resolution 1441. Do those words sound strange to you? "Material breach"? "Resolution 1441"?

They should. Because the question everyone is now asking is "Did Bush lie?" rather than "Did the United States have good cause to invade Iraq without the express written consent of the Security Council?"

While I suspect that Bush himself did not lie, there is considerable evidence that high-ranking officials, possibly including the Vice President, knew in advance of the State of the Union address that Iraq had not purchased uranium from Niger. If so, all of the officials involved in that process of deception should be severly disciplined.

Nonetheless, this sort of deception has minimal bearing on the justice of the American cause. Just days ago, Hans Blix

said he remains deeply puzzled by the former Iraqi government's efforts to deceive and mislead U.N. inspectors for 12 years after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

"Why did they conduct themselves as they did throughout the '90s?" Blix said in an interview last week. "Why deny access if you are not hiding something? What I am groping at now is whether pride was at the root of it."

For the moment, there are no answers to those questions. But if Saddam was refusing to submit to the will of the Security Council, then France and China and Russia had an obligation to ensure that Saddam would face the "serious consequences" mentioned in 1441.

Still, it is fair to ask whether the American people would have supported the President's decision to invade if it had been more fully aware of the salesmanship involved in the presentation of the Iraqi threat. TNR argues that

Had the administration accurately depicted the consensus within the intelligence community in 2002--that Iraq's ties with Al Qaeda were inconsequential; that its nuclear weapons program was minimal at best; and that its chemical and biological weapons programs, which had yielded significant stocks of dangerous weapons in the past, may or may not have been ongoing--it would have had a very difficult time convincing Congress and the American public to support a war to disarm Saddam.

While still within the realm of the possible, TNR's speculations directly contradict the results of multiple opinion polls: that if Saddam was hiding chemical and biological weapons, then the United States should go to war.

In the final analysis, there is nothing new under the sun. The case for war then is the case for war now. While front-page stories continue to hint at startling revelations of presidential lies, even those of us who supported the war knew that the President's rhetoric went too far.

What we are waiting for now is the truth in Iraq. Until we know for sure what happened to the WMD, we will not know whether the invasion of Iraq headed off a major threat to international security, or simply removed a megalomaniacal dictator who conned his opponents into believing that he was much more dangerous than he actually was. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:41 PM by David Adesnik  

AUNG SAN SUU KYI: Enraged, the WaPo observes that

Southeast Asian foreign ministers, meeting last week in Cambodia with Mr. Powell, agreed to send a delegation to Burma no later than October. October? While one of the world's most courageous political leaders languishes in one of its most infamous jails? Where are Kofi Annan and the U.N. Security Council? Where are the executive orders that President Bush could issue today?

Your answer is as good as mine. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:17 PM by David Adesnik  

EVIL FORCES: The inimitable Reihan Salam waxes nostalgic about high school life in NY, spins esoteric political rhymes, and comments on the lyrical subtlety of teenage Russian lesbians. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:34 PM by David Adesnik  

ME VS. ME: In the first half of his column in today's NYT, Harvard sociologist Orlando Patterson advertises his liberal credentials by offering a bleeding-heart utilitarian defense of affirmative action. In the second half, Patterson launches a devastating attack on the politically correct multiculturalist rationales offered in defense of affirmative action as it is currently practiced. The horse, my friends, is Trojan.

NB: If you are interested in the history of slavery and emancipation, head straight for Patterson's brilliant work on Slavery and Social Death. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:58 PM by David Adesnik  

A GEM FROM SAFIRE: On freedom in Iran.

For more on the role of foreign broadcasts in supporting the protests, click here. And click here to read about flagrant Iranian violations of the profoundly flawed Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:22 PM by David Adesnik  

ALL YOU WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT TERRRORISM...but were afraid to ask. Yesterday, I wrote that

If there were any hope of destorying Hamas, Fatah and Jihad by purely military means, I might well support it.

Yet as Greg Djerejian points out [via e-mail], Fatah is not an explicitly terrorist organization, even though it has spawned such offshoots such the Tanzim and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.

In fact, Mahmoud Abbas himself is a member of Fatah. So it is pretty much here to stay. But Greg's real point is that we pundits need to be more precise when talking about different terrorist organizations, lest we say something we don't mean. To that end, Greg recommends consulting the "Terrorism: Questions & Answers" website, a project suppored by the Council on Foreign Relations. I, for one, have every intention of doing so. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:13 PM by Patrick Belton  

INTIFADA IN GAELIC: In one of the more interesting manifestations of the IRA-Hamas linkages (which extend to symbology as well as cooperation in training exercises - Irish Republicans have begun flying Palestinian flags, and in response Unionists have started to display Israeli flags), a web page has appeared supporting the intifada, in Gaelic.

Small world, indeed. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:29 AM by Patrick Belton  

MAN ON THE STREET RESPONSE TO BRITISH TOE WRESTLING: "No, Patrick, you do that much better than I do." - Eliana. "That looks like an exciting topic." - Rachel, newly returned from wedding travels. What is everyone talking about - at least at the OxBlog DC bureau office, this morning? It's the British triumph yesterday at toe-wrestling world championships.. "That's sad." - Rachel (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:14 AM by David Adesnik  

POWELL COMES, POWELL GOES: After a brief visit by the Secretary of State, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have become more optimistic about the prospects of a new security accord for Gaza. What stands in the way of an accord are continuting disagreements between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators about how to provide security for Gaza's main intercity road.

While denouncing Hamas in no uncertain terms, Powell also indicated that the United States and Israel had come to an agreement that targeted killings are out of bounds unless there are indications of an impending terrorist attack.

While this sort of minor advance is encouraging, serious questions about the viability of the Road Map still abound. Without sounding all that optimistic, Reason of Voice observes that the Road Map has forced both Israeli and Palestinian factions to clarify their positions on the prospects of peace.

While the first half of Dan's post amounts to a revisionist history of the Oslo process which declares that it never came close to achieving a lasting peace, I found the second half quite interesting, especially given's Dan's firm support for Likud. He writes that

Mahmoud Abbas' rise and Yasser Arafat's marginalization have forced Palestinian policy 'out of the closet'. The complaints of previous Israeli governments dealing with Arafat was that he would give one speech in English and another in Arabic. It is astoundingly clear how true that statement was in light of the last 3 months of 'roadmap' negotiation. Abbas's statement in Aqaba forced Palestinian terrorist groups to speak for themselves. We've seen Sheik Yassin and al-Rantissi of Hamas, previously unknown publicly, emerge with a firm voice of continued terrorist commitment. These men had previously hid comfortably in the shadows of Arafat's cloaks.

Without intending to do so, Dan seems to have admitted that the (temporary and uncertain) rise of Mahmoud Abbas represents a historic opportunity to negotiate with a Palestinian leadership actually committed to peace. From where I stand, that sounds like a very strong argument in favor of Israeli restraint when it comes to targeting Hamas officials for assassination.

Presumably, friend-of-Volokh Jonathan Zasloff disagrees. He writes [via e-mail]:

My sense is that it would actually ENHANCE Abu Mazen's credibility at this point to tell Hamas: "look, this guy Sharon--you know who he is. I can't control him. Like the Israelis says, he eats Arabs for breakfast. I can get the Americans to lean on him to stop the killings--but only if you commit to an unconditional cease-fire. And you'd better do so--because if you don't, you're all dead men. You know as well as I do that the Shabak is crawling all over Gaza City. They know where you guys are and will find you out eventually. And like I said, this Sharon won't care if he kills a bunch of civilians. He never has."

Given Jonathan's argument, I would counter that Hamas actually wants Sharon to kill as many Palestinian civilians as possible. Each innocent bystander that dies reinforces the Hamas message that Israel is too brutal to negotiate with.

While the killing off of its top leadership may intimidate Hamas, that seems to be a price its top cadres are willing to pay in order to discredit moderates such as Abbas. If that price were too high, Hamas would've declared a ceasefire after the Rantisi attack rather than launching even more destructive suicide attacks.

All in all, the critical question in the targeted killings debate seems to be "Why now?" Why risk destroying Abbas's credibility if he is the best negotiating partner Israel has had? If there were any hope of destorying Hamas, Fatah and Jihad by purely military means, I might well support it. But for as long as one believes that peace can only be had at the negotiating table, there will be no choice for Israel -- at certain critical points -- but to shoulder the risks associated with self-restraint. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:22 AM by Patrick Belton  

I NEED TO FINISH MY DISSERTATION, so I can be a professor, and teach courses that don't read like this course description:

"You and me baby ain't nuthin' but mammals/So let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel." Is it true, as The Bloodhound Gang sings, that we are "nuthin' but mammals?" What does it mean to be a mammal, human to otherwise? And, just how do we "do it?"

Makes you kind of want to show up, just to throw rotten fruit.... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:08 AM by Patrick Belton  

MEMRI picks up on a purported Al-Qa'ida message. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:19 PM by David Adesnik  

ANOTHER OXBLOGGER: It seems that England is not the only place where Oxford polisci grad students post political commentary in their spare time. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:13 PM by David Adesnik  

THE PROSPECTS FOR REGIME CHANGE: John Kerry seems very confident that the President will be exposed as a liar on the WMD front. If that doesn't happen, Kerry may find it impossible to establish himself as a credible candidate on the national security issue. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:01 PM by David Adesnik  

NO ACCOUNTABILITY: Glenn Reynolds thinks the Bush Administration should stop stonewalling about intelligence failures before 9/11. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:52 PM by Patrick Belton  

DOG DAYS: The federal government creatively wasted $700,000 on a dog trainer, who was hired to provide explosive-sniffing canines to guard the State Department, Federal Reserve, and other federal buildings. The problem was, the trainer had absolutely no experience in the field, and provided...plain dogs. Cute dogs, yes. Explosive-sniffers, no: when in a test, 50 pounds of dynamite, 50 pounds of TNT and 15 pounds of plastic explosives were driven into Federal Reserve parking lots, the dogs didn't bat a big brown eye. The guy, Russell Ebersole (whose company still has a website, had no experience at all training dogs, and hired as "dog-operators" high school dropouts who had applied for a job cleaning kennels. Question: shouldn't someone have checked on this guy's credentials before giving him nearly a million dollars? I smell a job for a congressional committee here. And I'm not even a pup. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:42 PM by David Adesnik  

CORRECTION: Last week I criticized Matt Yglesias for asserting without a source that cholera and starvation are serious problems in Iraq. However, Nick Kristof is now reporting that water shortages in Basra have led to cholera outbreaks while Unicef calculates that the malnutrition of Iraqi children has risen since the end of the war. While I have less than 100% in either Unicef or Kristof, they are on the ground and I am not, so I will take their word for it. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:36 PM by David Adesnik  

IRAQI CONFUSION CONTINUES: As I have observed more than once before, it is often impossible to reconcile conflicting accounts of whether the occupation of Iraq is accomplishing anything at all. Nick Kristof describes it as a fiasco. Tom Friedman points to some important accomplishment but thinks we could be doing better.

Unsurprisingly, Paul Bremer is proud of what he has accomplished. More interesting, however, is Bremer's stated intention of opening Iraq to international trade and investment. The directness of Bremer's announcement suggests that he isn't concerned about potential critics who will immediately denounce the opening of the Iraqi economy as a reflection of American self-interest.

The most disturbing criticism of the occupation comes from even-tempered WaPo columnist David Ignatius, who charges that Bremer "is turning what was a war of liberation into a war of occupation." Ignatius' case in point is the planned election in Najaf that Bremer cancelled at the last minute.

While Ignatius' concern about elections is well-meant, his demand for national -- as opposed to local -- self-government seems dangerously misguided given the intensity of fighting in central Iraq. I am much more confident in the United States' ability to lead the charge against the Ba'ath than I am in the ability of an interim Iraqi government.

"Leading the charge", however, is not the same as doing all the work. Perhaps to complement the NYT's insistence that our soldiers' morale is dangerously low, the WaPo now has a front-page report making exactly the same point. While I am often suspicious of the way in which the most critical soldiers get the most attention in such stories, it does seem fair to say that we are asking our troops to do a job they weren't exactly trained for.

On the combat front, things seem to be going rather well despite reckless descriptions of anti-Ba'athist operations as a quagmire. If you read the WaPo's latest report on the capture of the Ace of Diamonds, you begin to get a sense of how desperate the top leadership of the deposed government has become.

Abid Hamid Mahmoud spent his last hours as a fugitive in the house of a couple who didn't even want him there. Mahmoud had no significant weapons, cash resources, nor means of transportation. (The WaPo article clarifies earlier reports which suggested that Mahmoud was found along with $8.5 million in cash. In fact, the cash was found during a different raid.)

Mahmoud's desperate condition suggests that the Ba'ath has not been effective in organizing resistance and that it's support among the population is rather shallow. With any luck, such conditions will result in the ultimate capture of Saddam Hussein, who has been pronounced alive (if not well) according to US experts. [UPDATE: Mahmoud himself has claimed that Saddam is alive.]

Finally, we come to the greatest mystery of all: The WMD. While no new evidence has turned up, uber-expert Ken Pollack (and former Clinton NSC staffer) has published a long essay in the NYT which argues that the President was fundamentally right about Saddam's WMD presenting a very serious threat, even if certain administration officials exaggerated at times in order to make a compelling case for an immediate invasion.

So, how is the occupation going? It could be a lot worse. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:47 PM by Patrick Belton  

EWWWWW: Would you like to write a book, but worry no one will buy it? Don't worry - they've been buying this.

Furthermore, while the previously mentioned book is number 67,697 on Amazon.com's sales chart, this important book is ranked 79,954 on Amazon.com, this important book is 90,283, and this damned important book is number 174,157. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:09 PM by David Adesnik  

BLACK HELICOPTERS, ANYONE?: As Josh has noted, OxBlog is now an official part of the neo-con conspiracy

Given the importance of secrecy for conspiracies such as ours, I though I might learn a little more about World-Information.Org, the organization that "outed" us. What I found out was that,

Under the patronage of the UNESCO, World-Information.Org serves to meet the needs and expectations of citizens for high quality and accessible services of cultural information and content.

Would it be more disturbing if that were true or if that were an outright lie? The UN funding third-rate propaganda outlets?

While I haven't tried to confirm whether UNESCO actually gave WIO any money, I think I just might. Why bother, you might ask? Well, I was looking at the names listed as part of the WIO Advisory Council, and I actually recognized two of them as scholars whose work I've come across while doing my doctoral research. With any luck, they'll let me know what's going on.

As Dan might say, "Developing..."
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:50 PM by David Adesnik  

"$%&@*£!" That is an exact quote from Daniel Drezner, who is very angry at Blogger for not letting him post on his usual site. For the moment, Dan is posting on a temporary site where you can visit him until further notice. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:55 PM by Patrick Belton  

HEY, CUT IT OUT!!!! Someone just surfed in after googling Yale and Vaseline. Not sure if you found what you were looking for, but thanks for your custom.

(P.S. Some people, of course, go for magazines....) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:50 PM by Patrick Belton  

WANNA JOB? My favorite magazine, the London Review of Books, is hiring. For my part, I think it would be wonderful if we placed an OxBlog reader there:

The London Review is looking for an editorial intern. The job, which would suit a recent graduate, will last for a year from September, and will involve proof-reading, fact-checking and other even less glamorous jobs. You will be paid.

Want a job? Apply! Hey, you might even get a date while you're there.... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:06 PM by Patrick Belton  

SO SPEND IT on THIS!: Slate has a piece up this afternoon (by A.O. Scott, keeping to our Scott theme for today...) on Robert Lowell, making the important (to my mind) point that: "For more than 20 years, Lowell seemed to be more read about than read. Bidart's goal of restoring Lowell to his rightful place as a great poet may therefore require rescuing the poet from his biographers." Of course, Lowell's poems were about Lowell - and New England's Puritan and Brahmin past, which contribute to his psychic universe, together with the conflicting influences of Kenyon southern agrarianism and his very non-Brahmin bounded conversion to Rome - but precisely for that point, he's perhaps best approached through his poetry, on his own terms.

So for those of you who, like me, find yourselves alone on a Friday night, might find in Lowell a suitable pillow-companion. Start here, for starters... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:34 AM by Patrick Belton  

AND HE SHOULD KNOW, ONE HOPES: The head of Shin Bet has told senior US administration officials this morning that if it comes to it, the Palestinian security services are in sufficiently good condition to be able to prevail over Hamas in a Palestinian civil war (via Kol Yisroel and Ha'aretz).

AND, to step gingerly into this vat of acid, I agree with David's arguments here. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:20 AM by Patrick Belton  

GUESS I've disqualified myself from voting on our groupies by virtue of being married.... Oh well, our existing OxBabe thanks you..... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:05 PM by David Adesnik  

DOES ASSASSINATION WORK? Even though they have not made the front page for a few days now, targeted attacks on Hamas leaders are still a major point of contention. Whereas Palestinian negotiators want Israel to stop the attacks -- period -- the Sharon government insists that it has a right to kill any "ticking bombs", i.e. militants in the midst of planning imminent attacks.

While the definition of "imminent" is not a simple matter, Sharon's apparent willingness to forgo vengeance strikes and limit himself to pre-emptive ones suggests that he is amenable to compromise. I hope that this is what Sharon has in mind, since pre-emptive strikes are far more justifiable than punitive ones. No one (outside the Occupied Territories) can object to Israel saving the lives of its own citizens when they are in immediate danger. In contrast, punitive strikes raise the prospect of a Hamas, Fatah or Jihad counterstrike, forcing Israeli retaliation, necessitating a Palestinian response...(cf. "cycle of violence").

Now, I recognize that the "cycle of violence" argument does not have many friends in the blogosphere. While Matt Yglesias and the Armed Liberal have gotten my back on this one, Gene Volokh (posting on behalf of JZ), Martin Kimel (scroll down to June 14th), Dan Simon and others certainly don't.

While all of those arrayed against me make good arguments, they one question they always seem to avoid is "Why now?" In other words, why launch punitive strikes at the one moment when they could do the most possible damage to the peace talks?

The closest Sharon's defenders come to addressing this point is when they insist that killing off the Hamas leadership will benefit Abu Mazen by weakening his most prominent opponents on the Palestinian side. When I point out that such targeted attacks hurt Abu Mazen's credibility, they point out that Israel cannot afford "credibility" if that entails an acceptance of endless terror.

That point had me for a while, but I have figured out what's wrong with it. Targeted killings almost inevitably inflict civilian casualties regardless of whether they are successful in eliminating their intended target. If such deaths could be avoided, Palestinians might accept Abbas in spite of such attacks. Yet most Palestinians seem to feel that Israel must not be allowed to strike down innocent bystanders in the process of eliminating Hamas.

Of course, there is a significant minority that supports Hamas outright. Yet as Zvi Bar'el observes in Ha'aretz,

"Today the ambition of the Palestinian public is to go to work, to make a living, and therefore, to see the peace process advance...

While the attack was going on, seven thousand Palestinians were standing waiting to pass the terminal gates into Israel, only to be turned away because of the shooting.

When there is a period of no hope, no change, the Hamas 'rides high,' accumulating more and more popularity points among Palestinians. But the moment the pipeline to socio-economic welfare is opened, Hamas must immediately find an alternative. It can find a bad alternative in mounting a terror attack, which we cause Israel to clamp down, but in reading the 'map' today, Hamas knows that what people really want, is to go to work, to begin to live their lives again."

If Bar'el is right, then Abu Mazen has a very strong base of potential support. But regardless of how much Palestinians want work, they won't stand for innocent bystanders being slaughtered.

Is that a one-sided perspective, given constant attacks on Israeli civilians? Of course. At the same time, insisting on the sanctity of civilian life is hardly unreasonable.

In the final analysis, I stand by the "credibility" argument because I believe that the targeted assassination of Hamas officials alienates a constituency that is potentially pro-Abbas and pro-peace. And if Abbas can bring peace and prosperity, this same constituency will fall silent when he finally crushes Hamas.


(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:11 PM by David Adesnik  

WAITING FOR POWELL: With the arrival of the Secretary of State now imminent, the participants in the Roadmap process have been making last-minute efforts to improve their negotiating positions.

Ariel Sharon has upset both Israeli doves and the New York Times by telling the Knesset that his government would crush Hamas if its attacks on Israeli citizens continued. Then Sharon ordered the armed forces to dismantle, for the first time, an inhabited Israeli settlement in the West Bank.

Given that actions speak louder than words, it would seem that Sharon wants to show Powell that he is serious about implementing the Road Map. At the same time, he is covering his right-wing with conditional threats to destory Hamas.

In the meantime, the Palestinian Authority has rejected an Israeli plan for withdrawal from Northern Gaza, arguing that the plan does not grant it either sufficient control or enough territory. At the same time, the PA is talking up the prospects of a ceasefire with Hamas and other militants.

In tandem, these two moves suggest that the PA wants Powell to believe that it can deliver a ceasefire provided that he forces the Israelis to make further concessions related to the Gaza withdrawal. The question, of course, is whether there is any hope of a Hamas ceasefire.

According to Zvi Bar'el, Arab affairs commentator for Ha'aretz, Hamas can invoke the concept of hudna, or truce, to justify a ceasefire that might otherwise seem to contradict its doctrine of unflagging resistance to Israel.

Under hudna, Hamas is permitted to cooperate with more moderate Palestinians in order to make tactical gains such as the establishment of a Palestinian. Once that happens, it can begin its resistance again. While that sort of Trojan Horse strategy is exactly what Israelis fear, there is no way to persuade Hamas to stop its attacks now unless it can be persuaded that a ceasefire is in its own best interests. The crux of the matter is to ensure that the PA government turns on Hamas once it relaunches its resistance.


(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:06 PM by David Adesnik  

BURMA UPDATE: Randy Paul has the latest on the prosecution of foreign human rights cases in the US court system. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:53 PM by David Adesnik  

TOO CLEVER BY HALF: James Taranto has this to say about harsh conditions at Guantanamo:

Remember that New York Times sob story we noted yesterday about the illegal enemy combatants being held at Guantanamo Bay? Here's the last sentence in the Times article: "Hospital officials said that about 5 percent of the inmates were suffering from depression and that they were being treated with antidepressants, typically Zoloft."

Today's Times carries a story titled "More Americans Seeking Help for Depression," according to which "more than 16 percent of Americans--as many as 35 million people--suffer from depression severe enough to warrant treatment at some time in their lives." That means the Guantanamo inmates are much happier than Americans are! If that's so, could it be that they're being treated too humanely?

James' math may be somewhat off, but I have to admit I laughed. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:31 PM by Daniel  

CHINESE AIR POWER. One of our Oxblog's greatest friends, Jackie Newmyer, opines on China's air power capabilities in Policy Review. Jackie, if you recall, skillfully argued against the Oxford Union's proposition that "America is the Greatest Threat to World Peace" back in February. She's so hot right now. Jackie. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:42 PM by Patrick Belton  

OOPS. After two decades of selective abortion, Indian society has an acute shortage of women, particularly in the villages of the north. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:48 AM by Patrick Belton  

BRUSHING YOUR TEETH IS BAD FOR YOU! Well, okay, only if you overdo it...but the story has been picked up with stereotypical ferocity in the British press: Guardian, Daily Telegraph, FT, Globe and Mail (okay, so Globe and Mail is Commonwealth...thanks, JG, for pointing that out...). (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:49 AM by David Adesnik  

ACE OF DIAMONDS: The United States has apprehended Abid Hamid Mahmoud al-Tikriti, the fourth most-wanted man in Iraq after Saddam Hussein and his sons. American forces captured Mahmound along with 50 other members of Saddam's special security forces along with $8.5 million in cash. Sounds like a quagmire to me. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:54 AM by Patrick Belton  

THOMAS FRIEDMAN IS ON CRACK. You know, it takes real indisputable talent to be able to espouse basically sensible arguments and ideas, and yet manage to do it in a way that makes you almost unreadable to your audience. Case in point: Friedman argues, this week, that is in Israel's interests for Hamas to be rooted out, but by Abu Mazen's Palestinian Authority (albeit with substantial quiet U.S. and Israeli help), and not by Israeli tanks. Without wanting at the moment to engage a massive imbroglio, I happen to agree. But for the moment, that's immaterial: what seems fascinating is that, en route to making a fairly sensible (though not uncontroversial) argument, Friedman manages to drop such Friedmanisms as calling Hamas a "ragtag terrorist group" (I'll quibble with "ragtag," don't worry, not "terrorist"), and disputing whether the organization has ever had enough senior operatives and officials for Israel to have been able to kill as many senior Hamas members as it claims to have done. Call Hamas what you will - it doubtless deserves it. Peace will never come about until the organization is gone. But is Friedman on crack? Hamas is a mind-bogglingly vast organization, which includes an overt Da'wah arm, a security arm devoted to gathering information on suspected collaborators with Israel, multiple press and propaganda offices, three military arms (the Izz al-Din al-Qassam hit squads, the Aman, and al-Majahadoun al-Falestinioun), and an unequalled network of overt charitable activities and front fundraising organizations. As much as I agree with the one trick of Mr. Friedman's pony - i.e., that peace and security for Israel (and its neighbors) will require, eventually, a two-state solution and a moderate, secular, reformist government in Palestine - his frequent mistakes and inane comments lead even the most sympathetic reader to question whether he really gets the Middle East that well, after all. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:27 AM by Patrick Belton  

SANCTIONS BREWING: The Senate has voted 97-1 to ban all imports from Burma and freeze its government's assets in the United States; the House will vote soon on a similar measure. The Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, sponsored by Senator Mitch McConnell and Senator Diane Feinstein, also calls for the expulsion of the junta's envoy in Washington.

Want to read more? Good for you. See: BBC, testimony of Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Lorne Craner, Sen. Feinstein press release, and CFR report with recommended US actions. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:23 PM by David Adesnik  

POVERTY AND INEQUALITY: Thought we'd beaten that topic to death, didn't you? Not by a long shot. In Monday's WaPo, investor Steven Rattner presents an argument that is striking similar to the one on Calpundit.com that set off the whole inequality debate a while back. (For responses, see here, here and here.)

In short, Rattner argues that the poor are getting screwed and that the Bush tax cut will screw them even worse.

After reading Rattner's op-ed, I came across the following column in the NYT by poverty-fighter and Harvard sociologist William Julius Wilson. Based on the NYT summary of Wilson's column, I expected it to be identical Rattner's. According to the summary,

If the president's tax cuts cause huge budget deficits and further weaken the economy, we may again see the high levels of concentrated poverty recorded in 1990.

After reading Wilson's column, I began to wonder if Jayson Blair had written the summary.

Consider the following facts Wilson presents:

The number of people residing in high-poverty neighborhoods decreased by 24 percent, or 2.5 million people, from 1990 to 2000. Moreover, the number of such neighborhoods — the study defined them as census tracts with at least 40 percent of residents below the poverty level — around the country declined by more than a quarter...

...neither the spectacular rise in black [Americans'] concentrated poverty from 1970 to 1990, nor the dramatic decline from 1990 to 2000, can be explained mainly in terms of race. Rather, these shifts demonstrate that the fate of African-Americans and other racial groups is inextricably connected with changes across the modern economy...

So, just as blacks suffered greatly during the decades of growing separation between haves and have-nots, they benefited considerably from the incredible economic boom in the last half of the 1990's, which not only substantially reduced unemployment, including black unemployment, but sharply increased the earnings of all low-wage workers as well...

While Wilson does get around to saying that the Bush tax cut may reverse the gains of the past decade if it results in massive defecits and slower economic growth, his final message is rather different:

The lesson for those committed to fighting inequality, especially those involved in multiracial coalition politics, is to pay more scrutiny to fiscal, monetary and trade policies that may have long-term consequences for the national and regional economies, as seen in future earnings, jobs and concentrated poverty. We must remember that high-poverty neighborhoods reflect America, all of America.

As they used to say, a rising tide lifts all boats. Or is that just a pleasantly-worded justification for trickle-down economics?

While Wilson's arguments hardly justify the Bush tax cut -- to which I am still adamantly opposed -- they do suggest that poverty and inequality may have an inverse relationship to one another rather than a direct one. If economic growth (easier said than done) is the answer to poverty but also results in growing inequality, then what's wrong with inequality? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:46 PM by David Adesnik  

DOES ASEAN MATTER? The Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) is best known for its belief that subtlety is the essence of diplomacy and that public criticism can only aggravate interstate conflicts. In practice, this means that ASEAN members prefer to bury their heads in the sand rather than address the issues of the day.

Thus, it is heartening to see that all of ASEAN's member states (Myanmar excepted) have chosen to make a public demand for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi.

But why act now? Given all the inhumane actions taken by the junta before, why speak out now? As Daniel Drezner shrewdly observes, the Western media tend to portray ASEAN's response as a reflection of American and EU pressure, whereas the Southeast Asian media are reporting that ASEAN's criticism reflects a principled commitment to the rule of law and quiet diplomacy. Moreover, the Southeast Asian's argue that vocal Western criticism will only provoke an even more militant response from the Myanmar junta.

While Dan isn't sure which of these versions is a better reflection of reality, my experience with ASEAN suggests that its members are, in fact, responding to Western criticism, but denying their susceptibility to pressure in order to avoid both setting a precedent or exposing their vulnerability.

Yet as is always the case with ASEAN, actions speak louder than words. The question is, how far will ASEAN go? Will it only do enough to placate the West? Or will it go as far as to threaten Myanmar with expulsion from ASEAN if it continues to embarrass the other member states?

The initial reluctance of even the Philippines and Thailand -- ASEAN's most democratic states -- to speak out suggests that their is no real interest in confronting Burma.

However, united front presented by the United States, the EU and (lately) Japan, may have persuaded ASEAN that it cannot have credibility as an international actor if it doesn't confront those issues that are of concern to the world's leading states.

In practice, that means that ASEAN's member states will have to start monitoring each other's internal affairs. Before ASEAN expanded in the mid-90s to include Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar, this sort of monitoring would not have been much of a problem. But now ASEAN will have to ask itself "What matters more? Quantity or quality?"

Whereas quality enhances ASEAN's presence on the international stage, quantity helps protect the ASEAN states from Chinese aggression. For the moment, the Chinese threat is dormant because of the war on terror. But if the Middle East calms down and the Taiwan Strait heats up, there will be a real test of ASEAN's commitment to human rights and the rule of law. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:33 PM by Patrick Belton  

OVER IN WASHINGTON, IN THE FOREIGN POLICY CREW I HELP RUN, my lovely wife has some remarkably good thoughts up on Thucydides, honor, and the war on terror. There are also fairly lengthy discussions of two issues raised in democracy promotion: the relationship of processes to objectives, and that between liberalization and broader democracy promotion efforts (here, here, and here). Lately, we've been doing a bit more jaw-jaw than blog-blog, but look for more to come out of this gang of young turks soon.....


UPDATE: And we're off! Archidamus has a lengthy response to Rachel's Thucidydes-and-counterrorism post from Nathan Hale (Rachel's post incidentally merited an Instalink). And many more interesting foreign policy discussions out of the DC Yale community no doubt to come. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:05 PM by Patrick Belton  

CONGRATULATIONS, JOSH!!!! When you get done recovering, you can type out your answers for all of us to read. :) In the meantime, go have a drink on us! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:29 PM by Patrick Belton  

FREE SPEECH IN NEW HAVEN: I've been asked by a reader to link to this essay by a Yale freshman on fairly reprehensible behavior by a genetics professor at Yale's medical school. Happily done. Professor Qumsiyeh, in conduct far unbecoming a professor (much less one at a university historically characterized by great respect and collegiality on the part of faculty for their students), sent a mass email at the end of the spring semester to members of a pro-peace student group, reporting his purported 'discovery' of a large overlap between the memberships of Yale Students for Democracy and Yale Friends of Israel. This was supposedly to be of interest because it apparently was to have demonstrated that for 15 years, a Jewish, Straussian, neo-conservative cabal had been planning to "put Israel and personal wealth ahead of U.S. public interests." (his words).

As Eliana points out, however, sleuthful, conspiracy-minded Professor Qumsiyeh sadly wasn't exactly as brilliant as he'd imagined,

Professor Qumsiyeh?s research was not quite as brilliant as he believed it to be; he had mistakenly copied the Yale Friends of Israel member list for comparison purposes rather than the member list of the Yale College Students for Democracy. He was therefore comparing two identical lists of members of the Yale Friends of Israel; not surprisingly, he found "significant overlap" between the two lists. And not surprisingly, Professor Qumsiyeh mistakenly named many students who were staunch opponents of the war in Iraq, and who were horrified at being identified as members of a pro-war cabal by dint of their affiliation with the Yale Friends of Israel.

Putting aside, though, the mistaken empirical basis of his epistle, Eliana notes "The message bears an ugly subtext consistent with Professor Qumsiyeh?s fevered "Jews on the brain" mania." Such behavior has no place whatsoever at a largely principled, humane, idealistic center of learning, and Eliana is right to bring it to widespread attention.

UPDATE: Incidentally, I just discovered Eliana also runs a very nice blog, which just moved to a new Movable Type site. Well done! OxBlog is sending over a bottle of blogwarming champagne.

UPDATE^2: Egads, I just realized Eliana was one of the two freshmen students we mentioned way back here. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:23 PM by David Adesnik  

QUAGMIRE! You'd think the left would've learned its lesson after pronouncing the invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan to be quagmires. But apparently not.

Focused (like a laser beam) on postwar casualties in Iraq, Kos has declared "It's a quagmire." Atrios seems to be in on this one, too, having compared anti-guerrilla operations in Iraq to be reminiscient of the Army's "search and destroy" missions in Vietnam. [Permalink bloggered.]

While I would like to respond in detail, I've to get some more work done before the library here closes at 7pm. No, I'm not lying. That's actually when the library closes. In fact, the libraries stay open later than almost everything else in Oxford. But that's a whole 'nother story... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:18 PM by Patrick Belton  

GLENN has a thoughtful essay on Tech Central Station about what makes for a good blog. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:12 PM by David Adesnik  

SMALL BOXES: I think this headline says it all: Iraqi Emerges From 22 Years in A Wall. In fear of his life, Jawad Amer Sayed actually spent 22 years living in a 3x7 secret compartent built inside a wall.

On a related note, Kos points to this NYT article on the harsh conditions for captives imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay.

Kos says the conditions are no different than torture. Given the Justice Department's shameful mistreatment of suspected terrorists, I wouldn't be all that surprised to find out that the conditions in Camp X-Ray went beyond what was necessary from a security perspective. And from the descriptions given by the NYT, it is hard to dismiss the notion that the prisoners at X-Ray did suffer considerably. But torture? I'm not so sure. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:59 AM by David Adesnik  

JESSICA LYNCH 2.0: With the passage of time the story of Private Lynch has become much clearer.

The critical points made by the WaPo's investigative report are that initial reports of Lynch's resisting capture were based on intelligence reports that the army did not discover to be flawed until after Lynch's rescue.
Reports that Iraqi soldiers and/or doctors also seem to be false. While the Iraqi lawyer who alerted US forces to Lynch's presence insists he saw Fedayeen hitting her, the hospital staff who helped save Lynch's life denying the allegation vigorously.

As for the rescue itself, it was not staged, as the Guardian implied in its exposee. May 15. The hospital Lynch was in had, in fact, served as a military command post, with substantial Iraqi forces present until the morning before Lynch's capture. During the rescue itself there were no Iraqi forces in the hospital, but American soldiers involved did take fire from surrounding buildings.

All this, of course, does not mean that the Pentagon did its best to get the truth out. As far as I can tell, the Pentagon rushed to tell the story without doing enough fact-checking, because it recognized the propaganda value of putting a human and heroic face on a war that the media was describing as stalled, or even a quagmire.

No surprise there. Perhaps the more important question is whether the American media's coverage of the Lynch rescue story demonstrates that its presumed liberal bias often surrenders to a certain patriotic naivete in terms of war?

Or is does the media just suffer from split personality disorder, given its flawed descriptions of both the invasion and Lynch's rescue? Or is the media simply incompetent, given that it got both issues wrong (although its spin on the invasion wasmuch further off the mark than its coverage of Lynch)?

IMHO, the answer to all three of the above questions is 'no'. In order to understand the inconsistent coverage of the invasion and the Lynch rescue, one has to look at what kind of story each one is. The former is a diplomatic and military affair. The latter is a human-interest story.

When it comes to the former, the media are far more critical and are often desperate to demonstrate the government's failure, regardless of whether the current administration is Republican or Democratic. When it comes to the latter, the media is far less critical, since it thinks of itself as the defender and advocate of the common man (or in Lynch's case, woman).

Perhaps the way to sum up the media's behavior is to say that it is against the army but for the soldiers. It criticizes the generals and celebrates the privates. Unsurprisingly, this pattern of behavior goes back to Vietnam, where the media saw itself as siding with the common soldier against the military brass. In fact, this struggle within the armed forces is the theme of two of the best books ever written on Vietnam, namely Michael Herr's Dispatches and Neil Sheehan's A Bright Shining Lie.

This schizophrenic approach also resembles the media's coverage of domestic politics, where it rails against politicians while paying respectful attention to the man in the street (whose name is often Greg Packer.)

If memory serves, it was media critic Herbert Gans who first said that the media are for the office but against the office holders.

In the post-Watergate, post-Vietnam era, this is the nature of the American media. All in all, it actually does quite a good job.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:59 AM by Patrick Belton  

THE PROBLEMS WITH HAIKU FORM, as relayed by Kieran Healy....

To-Con-vey one’s mood
In sev-en-teen syll-able-s
is ve-ry dif-fic.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:56 AM by Patrick Belton  

STICKING THEIR HEADS IN THE SAND DOWN UNDER: Australia's Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, rejected calls yesterday from Secretary Powell for a tougher international and regional response to Burma's jailing of Aung San Suu Kyi, saying that Australia would continue its current level of trade relations with Burma. Downer justified Australia's pusillanimity by reference to the herd: "I don't think it [i.e., sanctions] would make too much difference unless you were able to get China and the ASEAN countries on board and I think you are whistling in the wind if you think that's going to happen." (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:33 AM by Patrick Belton  

MORE ON THE CEASEFIRE IN LIBERIA: There are celebrations on the streets of Monrovia, but the Guardian raises the cautionary note that the last ceasefire was a mere two weeks ago, and had the result in escalating violence (it ended in a rebel attack on Monrovia). (See also Reuters, VOA.)

UPDATE: Mere hours after the Accra-brokered ceasefire went into effect, the rebel Movement for Democracy in Liberia (MODEL) is alleging that government forces have already violated it.

Also, UN and WHO officials are saying that public health and security conditions in Monrovia are rapidly deteriorating as Liberians internally displaced by fighting stream into Monrovia by the thousands. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:32 PM by Patrick Belton  

OF FASCES AND TIAN'ANMEN SQUARE: In this week's TNR (yes, Josh, I finally ponied up the $28 to pay an intern's salary...) Jasper Becker makes a good case that the relevant paradigm for understanding today's China isn't so much Maoist (or any other variant of) Communism, but Fascism - not Hitler's, yet that of Franco, Mussolini, and the young Japanese officers who cultivated the cult of the Shinto emperor. It's worth a read.... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:50 PM by Patrick Belton  

FRESH THINKING FROM LARRY SUMMERS ABOUT RESTRUCTURING UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION: President Summers's commencement proposals last week about restructuring undergraduate education at Harvard were gusty, idealistic, and far-reaching. Henceforth, a few greatest hits:

"First, in a project as ambitious as the curricular review now underway, it is easy to lose sight of the "knower" as we strive to agree on what should be known.... The only true measure of a successful educational model is our students' experience of it. I was thus moved and troubled by a recent letter from a science concentrator admitted to the top graduate programs in his field, which contained the statement: 'I am in my eighth semester of college, and there is not a single science professor here who could identify me by name.'"

" We regularly learn in senior surveys that our students are satisfied with and proud of their experience at Harvard. But both objectively and relative to their peers at other institutions, they are more satisfied with their outside activities than with their academic experience.....I hope that in any new curricular approaches we may adopt, we will think hard about how to incorporate aspects of our students' extracurricular experience that make them so meaningful"

".. it is not clear to me that we do enough to make sure that our students graduate with the ability to speak cogently, to persuade others, and to reason to an important decision with moral and ethical implications"

"I recently commented to one of our leading art historians that it would be terrific if Fine Arts 13 [a popular fine-art survey course, cancelled for lack of faculty willing to teach it] were still available as an introduction for students who would probably never take another art history course in their lives. Reacting with a mixture of consternation and hilarity, she wondered how I could possibly expect any self-respecting scholar to propel our students -- like a cannon ball -- from "Caves to Picasso" in one academic year. In this age of exploding and highly specialized knowledge, and justified skepticism about Olympian claims, it is not easy to figure out how we can legitimately address our students' desire for familiarity with the landscape of the major fields of knowledge. But I hope we will do our best to wrestle with this issue. "

This is fresh thinking, of the sort that can even conceivably overwhelm being dragged down by the combined weights of university committees, vested departmental and bureaucratic interests, and the seductive normative power of the factual. I wish President Summers well, and we will be watching with eagerness from the sidelines as he takes on a task of such odyssean proportions.

UPDATES: Innocents Abroad have thoughtful comments on the topic, including about the role of the classics in providing a bulwark for liberalism precisely by pointing out liberalism's shortcomings. And our friend Josh Cherniss makes the point that the central problem Summers is confronting in undergraduate education - namely, a noteworthy lack of attention given to the educative aspect of education - is particularly conspicuous at his own university. On the other hand, an optimistic take might be that this could make him all the more likely to come up with even bolder reforms - we'll see. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:14 PM by Patrick Belton  

PROBABLY NOT LOOKING FOR HARDCORE POLITICAL ANALYSIS, This afternoon, someone (presumably a student who had recently finished exams) got to OxBlog by googling "massage parlor Oxford marston road". Gentlemen, your trenchcoats at the door, please.

UPDATE: At least it was better than this. Sorry to disappoint whoever came here looking for "women using vibrators clips". (We're result #12, and...it's not because of me...) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:59 PM by Patrick Belton  

SEVERAL WEEKS AGO, OxBlog wrote about a 132-year old man in the Indian state of Rajasthan. His only unfulfilled dream? To make the hajj to Mecca, which at the time, seemed rather improbable given his age and impecunity. That is, until now: a UK businessman, reading about the BBC's profile of Habib Miyan, generously transferred $5,700 (270,000 rupees) to Jaipur to cover the costs of Mr. Miyan's pilgrimage, as well as those of two of his grandchildren to act as his guides. So he will be making his life's wish come true, after all.

There is still great generosity in the heart of man, even in the present age. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:28 PM by Patrick Belton  

JAPAN, WE'RE PROUD: At a meeting on the sidelines of the ASEAN ministerial, Japan's Foreign Minister instructed her Burmese counterpart that Japan's future relations with Burma will be dictated by whether or not Burma's government releases Aung San Suu Kyi. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:19 PM by Patrick Belton  

AL QAEDA DANGER STILL HIGH: The director general of MI5, Eliza Manningham-Buller, warned this morning that "It is only a matter of time before a crude version of a CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapon) is launched on a Western city." She went on to say, "If this is a war which can be won, it will not be won quickly. (CNN, Times) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:42 AM by Patrick Belton  

IRANIAN QUESTION AND ANSWER: Come on, let's play a round....

Q: What did Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi tell reporters yesterday?
A: Alleging that the U.S. was behind the student protests in Tehran, and that Iran's students would never ever want to seek freedom on their own (to think such a thing!), spokesman Asefi told reporters, "Yesterday we lodged a protest with the Swiss Embassy here, which protects the U.S. interests in Iran. We have strongly protested U.S. interference" in the internal affairs of Iran, "and we reserve the right to pursue the matter through legal channels."

Q: What is the address of the headquarters of Iranian intelligence in Europe?
A: Third story, Godesberger Allee 133-137, Bonn, Federal Republic of Germany

Q: What are Iranian intelligence's other principal bases of operations in Germany?
A: Consulates in Frankfurt and Hamburg, and Imam Ali Mosque in Hamburg

Q: How many full-time operatives from Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security are based out of Godesberger Allee 133-137?
A: 20 full-time, with the rest of the 70 members of the embassy staff regularly used in their operations

Q: And what have the good employees of Godesberger Allee 133-137 done for us recently?
A: Murdered, at the Mykonos Restaurant in Berlin, three Kurdish dissidents and their translator, with the complicity of the highest levels of the Iranian government. A German court pronounced Iran and Iranian agent Kazem Darabi complicit on April 10, 1997.

Q: What is the number of front companies in Germany involved in procurement for Iranian intelligence of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons?
A: Approximately 100

Q: What other ways is Iranian intelligence currently intervening in the internal affairs of European states?
A: Besides hunting down dissidents abroad and acquiring technology associated with weapons of mass destruction: Iranian intelligence provides intensive support to Islamic extremist groups in Europe, using financial aid to influence targeted organizations and expand their operations in accordance with Iran’s interests, and placing Iranian-controlled agents in key positions within those organizations.

Q: Moving away from Western Europe now, how many Iranian agents have infiltrated themselves into Bosnian Muslim political and social circles, and into the US program to train Bosnia’s army?

A: More than 200.

Q: Has Iran also intervened in the affairs of countries within the Western Hemisphere?
A: Yes. In March 1992, 28 people were killed and 220 injured in an Iranian-backed bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires. In July 1994, 86 people were killed in an Iranian-backed explosion which destroyed the Argentine Jewish Mutual Association and the Delegation of Argentine Jewish Associations. According to a high-level defector from Iranian intelligence in the custody of the German government, President Carlos Menem of Argentina accepted a payment of $10 million from the government of Iran to keep Iranian complicity secret; Menem himself had received campaign support from Iranian intelligence back to his tenure as governor of La Rioja province, when Iranian agents decided reports of his anti-semitism made him a promising ally for Iran’s interests.

Q: What do the Hadith have to say about hypocrisy?
A: From the Bukhari, Hypocrisy in Deeds:

"The Prophet said, "Whoever has the following four characteristics will be a pure hypocrite and whoever has one of the following four characteristics will have one characteristic of hypocrisy unless and until he gives it up.

1. Whenever he is entrusted, he betrays.

2. Whenever he speaks, he tells a lie.

3. Whenever he makes a covenant, he proves treacherous.

4. Whenever he quarrels, he behaves in a very imprudent, evil and insulting manner"

Q: So you're saying, the Islamic Republic of Iran is exceptionally hypocritical, and really not very Islamic at all?
A: Exactly. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:06 PM by Patrick Belton  

SHOULD THE ADMINISTRATION have drawn from the strategic petroleum reserve in the past year, with the Venezuelan oil strike and the War on Saddam decreasing U.S. supply? Paul Domjan thinks it should have. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:47 PM by Patrick Belton  

AMERICAS ROUND-UP: In Argentina, kidnappings for ransom are up 16-fold since the beginning of the nation's economic crisis in 2002. And Fidel is going to war with the EU. But on a brighter note, Kirchner is calling for massive impeachments against the nation's (Menemist, and perceived-corrupt) Supreme Court, beginning with its president. And Secretary Powell is touring hemispheric capitals to mend neglected relationships with America's neighbors, with BA next on the list. Finally, Mexico signs into law a massive anti-discrimination statute which had been reputed to have low chances of passing.

So there: good news as well as bad news. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:33 PM by Patrick Belton  

ON ORWELL'S CENTENARY BIRTHDAY, the Economist offers an essay on the essayist (and novelist)'s moral vision:

Camus was the better novelist, but their moral vision was remarkably close. Personal engagement and behaving decently mattered more to them in politics than policy or dogma. Neither was happy in party camps. They were distrusted by right and left alike. Both recognised the violence that could result from bad thinking and bad writing—a lesson Orwell put memorably into “Politics and the English Language”. Both believed in the boundlessness of our duty to resist injustice, yet took a bleakly limited view of how far any of us could succeed. Orwell, who was allergic to theory and speculation of all kinds, would have hated the word, but in a sense he was England's existentialist.

Preachy Orwell certainly was. But his anti-authoritarian sermons could almost always make you laugh. He was a master of the one-liner: “Good prose is like a window pane”; “At 50, everyone has the face he deserves.” Whether his weekly column was on writing clearly, resisting tyranny or making tea, he always made it sound like a matter of life and death.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:24 PM by Patrick Belton  

NEXT YEAR, IN (WITH) LABOR?: Fox News is reporting a recent survey done by Dahaf Polling, indicating that Israeli public opinion is strongly in favor of the Road Map and for permitting Abu Mazen to establish himself as a credible alternative among Palestinians to the Islamists. Respondents favored ending Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank by a surprising 67 percent.

Dahaf, incidentally, is recognized as one of the more trustworthy and unbiased public opinion polls in Israel; its head, Dr Mina Tzemah, conducts surveys frequently for Yedioth Ahronoth and Channel Two. On the other hand, public opinion polls in Israel have recurring problems with undercounts among three populations: Israeli Arabs, haredim, and immigrants from the former Soviet Union (see this piece on the subject). (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:04 PM by Patrick Belton  

STANDARD-IZING THE NEXT AMERICAN NEWSPAPER: Responding to Bill Kristol's critique (pre-regime change) of the New York Times, Yale computer scientist David Gelemter offers a few interesting ideas about what a creative newspaper that took advantage of the possibilities of the internet medium could look like. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:00 PM by Patrick Belton  

I GOT IT TOO, DAVID: and I thought it presumably was from having all those Kuwaiti men kissing me at an Arab party I went to last week in Arlington.....

However, if any of the rest of you care to watch "Head Honcho" in Arabic, I have no problem at all with it. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:32 PM by David Adesnik  

ALTERNATIVE MIDDLE EASTERN LIFESTYLES: I just got this message in my inbox and I think someone is playing a joke on me:

Hi!

How are you? I came across your e-mail address on an Arab Gay themed web site and I hope to be doing you a favour by e-mailing you the url of a new and free Arab Gay community web site. The site is 100% free and it has galleries (users can upload their soft- and hardcore photos!), forums (English/Arabic), chat, personals, downloads, links, news, articles, stories, reviews and many more features.

This is the url of the site:

http://www.Arab-Gay.com

Please note that this is not spam. I only wanted to e-mail you the url of this Arab Gay web site, because I thought you would be interested. If not, then I apologise. I will not e-mail you again and you don't have to remove your e-mail address from any mailinglist because you aren't on any mailinglist :-)

I hope you will enjoy the site!

Regards, Kevin.

Thanks but no thanks, Kev. I'll assume you sent that message my way because gay Arabs are about as fond of Osama bin Laden as OxBlog is. However, having made the mistake of actually following the link to your site, I think our similarities may end there. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:16 PM by David Adesnik  

GO, GREG, GO! The Sunday Times (London) has up a great column about the Wolfowitz fiasco at the Guardian. What makes the column so great is that describes how OxFriend Greg Djerejian exposed the Guardian's flawed reporting almost instantly by relying on nothing more than common sense and Google.

For some interesting comments on the Times column, see Greg's post about it from earlier today.

All I can add is that the Times column is some well-deserved publicity for a very intelligent blogger. But I wouldn't be surprised if Greg got more traffic from Instapundit's link to his exposee than from the Times!

PLUS: Greg has my back on the retaliation issue. Dan Simon disagrees with both of us, though. And Paul Jaminet isn't happy either. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:55 PM by David Adesnik  

PAGING SISKEL & EBERT: Now it turns out that Maureen Dowd can't even write a coherent movie review.

There is one thing worth noting about today's column though: Dowd comes perilously close to criticizing a European. The almost-victim is sexy British chef Nigella Lawson, the "domestic goddess" who may or may not be subverting modern feminism by glorifying life in the kitchen.

I say "may or may not" because Dowd's column is far too incoherent for anyone to figure if she is actually criticizing Lawson or merely whining about something tangentially related to her.

However, I am sensing that a partial redefinition of Immutable Law #5 may be in order. Said law states that "Europeans are always right."

But are the British European? They refuse to replace the pound with the euro. Their Prime Minister has publicly allied himself with the President of the United States.

My guess is that Dowd wants to issue a warning to the British: start behaving more like the rest of the EU , or else I will flay you with my withering sarcasm. However, after living here for three years, my sense is that the British are not afraid of sarcasm. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:57 PM by David Adesnik  

WISH GRANTED: Michael Jennings wonders why I haven't linked to him, since he has lots of posts about cricket.

Michael also has an interesting post about the Bilbao (Spain) airport, where the price of a drink is surprisingly reasonable. He asks why the stores there don't indulge in the sort of price gouging one would expect at an airport.

I don't know the answer to Michael's question, but I will say this: Bilbao is a well-run city with an award-winning underground system built in 1995. Thanks to Frank Gehry's Guggenheim Museum building, Bilbao has become a major tourist attraction.

Thus, I wouldn't be surprised if the city fathers decided that imposing reasonable prices at airport stores is good for the city, given the positive feelings that it generates among tourists.

In addition, Bilbao is the first city to recognize that capping airport prices is good for the city as a whole. For example, Dulles International Airport outside of Washington DC has banners up all around which advertise that its stores charge the same price one would pay in a Washington area mall. In fact, one can complain to the airport authorities if one has to pay more.

Somewhere, Ralph Nader is smiling. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:40 PM by David Adesnik  

UNDER FIRE: My criticism of Ariel Sharon and defense of the NYT isn't winning me any friends in the blogosphere.

Adding to the pile-on, Dan Simon insists that Israeli retaliation will not undermine Abu Mazen's authority since Israeli retaliation did not undermine the US effort to sideline Arafat and install Abu Mazen in the first place.

From where I stand, the flaw in Dan's argument is that destroying credibility is far more difficult than reinforcing it. A combination of American and Israeli intransigence forced Arafat to back down. But that same combination cannot persuade Palestinians to embrace Abu Mazen.

Next up, GMU law prof David Bernstein asks (via e-mail)

It's been reported that [Abdel Aziz] Rantisi was in charge of coordinating Fatah, Jihad, and Hamas into one big terror group. The attack on Israeli soldiers in Gaza earlier this week was their first operation. If that's the case, would you really expect Sharon sit by and let such a terror organization, a comibnation of Arafat's minions and Hamas', sprout under his nose?

No, not really. But would an attempt to kill Rantisi change all that much? If Fatah, Jihad and Hamas want to work together, they will. Even if killing Rantisi would've damaged such efforts, did Sharon have to attack him right after the Aqaba summit, at a critical moment for Abu Mazen? Moreover, if Rantisi is that important, why didn't Sharon try to kill him earlier?

Anyhow, what matters far more than my opinion of Sharon is the President's, and it seems that Bush is backing off his initial criticism of the Rantisi attack. In the meantime, Israeli helicopter attacks continue even while Israeli and Palestinian negotiators continue to talk about implementing the roadmap. What will happen next? I don't know. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:58 PM by Patrick Belton  

A TRAGIC STORY from Egypt. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:57 PM by David Adesnik  

DOES OXBLOG MALIGN THE FRENCH? Matt Yglesias definitely thinks so. He argues that

The notion that the "anti-war coalition" is under an obligation to demonstrate it's "ability to defend international order and human rights without relying on American firepower" is a mighty odd test for David to have made up.

Actually, I don't think it's a bad test all. Almost all opponents of the second Gulf War -- especially Europeans -- argued that the United States should respect international law and rely on multilateral mechanisms (such as UN inspections) to resolve its conflict with Saddam Hussein.

While the inability of the United States to find any WMD has restored the credibility of the UN weapons inspectors (at least for the moment), I still believe that there was no multilateral way to address the threat presented by Saddam Hussein. Beginning from that premise, it is fair to present the current situation in the Congo as a test of the UN/European approach to international order.

Matt supports his initial point by emphasizing that

...the UN is not some entity distinct from the United States...

The case for multilateralism in Iraq was never that the US shouldn't do anything about Saddam because some mythical UN-but-not-US entity was going to handle the situation. The UN is an organization through which we multilateralists thought the United States ought to have worked.

The fact is that the United States began to work through the UN, but came to a point where its was no longer possible to reconcile its preferred course of action with that of France et al. Thus, the question isn't whether the UN can handle situations instead of the United States, but whether the United States should limit itself to the problem-solving methods insisted upon by the United Nations.

That being the case, it is fair to ask whether those problem-solving methods have any prospect of success in Central Africa. Even so, I am tempted to concede Matt's point that

French-led UN efforts...[are]doing a hell of a lot more good than the nonexistent US-led efforts there

While Matt seems to ignore that the French are there because the US supported the Security Council's decision to send them, it would be nice for some high level US officials to express concern about the situation in the Congo.

Where I can't agree with Matt is his declaration that

When the United States undermines the international institutions the world has in order to accomplish something in Iraq it makes it that much harder to resolve all the other humanitarian crises out there.

How, pray tell, did the unilateral invasion of Iraq made it harder for the UN to deal with the situation in the Congo? Neither the United States nor any of the nations of Central Africa have challenged the UN's role as peacekeeper and peacemaker in the Congo. As such, the UN's prestige seems to be fully intact. The only question is whether the French and the other anti-war nations of the Security Council are willing to send enough of their own troops to get the job done. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:57 PM by David Adesnik  

PEACEKEEPING DESTROYS MORALE: A major NYT story reports that

Two months after surging into Baghdad, the First Brigade's soldiers have found themselves enmeshed in yet another war — less intense, perhaps, but still exhausting, still perilous and, at times, still psychologically taxing.

Some are haunted by the deaths they caused — and suffered — and have sought counseling. All are tired and hot and increasingly bitter. Morale has plummeted as sharply as the temperature has risen.

While it's hard to discount the direct observations of a professional reporter, there are subtle indications that the NYT may just be crying wolf, as it did with its "quagmire" stories during the invasion.

Perhaps more importantly, the NYT story doesn't seem to fit with most other coverage of the occupation, which tends to show American soldiers adjusting to their new role rather well. You know, I'm really beginning to think that I won't figure out what's going in Iraq until I buy a one-way ticket to Baghdad.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:30 PM by David Adesnik  

LOVE THOSE JEWS: Ran across this in the WaPo:

"I see this guy with funny-looking clothes on, mumbling," [Senator] McCain said. "I thought, my God, what's going on here? It was Joe [Lieberman], practicing his religion."

In context, the quote still sounds pretty silly, but isn't at all offensive. McCain was once with Lieberman on a transatlantic flight and woke up blearey-eyed, with a prayer shawl-clad Lieberman in front of him.

In fact, McCain respects Lieberman because he "is one of the few men I've met in my life who lives his religion." Albeit a religion that involves mumbling and funny-looking clothes. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:29 PM by Patrick Belton  

THE HATFIELDS AND MCCOYS HAVE SIGNED A TRUCE: And this without a road map, even. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:11 PM by David Adesnik  

MORE IMPERIALISM, PLEASE: Peter Beinart is scathing in his denunication of the Bush record on human rights. If Saddam's atrocities provoked outrage in the White House, why has the United States turned a blind eye to brutality in Liberia (a former US colony of sorts)?

While welcoming Beinart's call for a more aggressive foreign policy, Glenn Reynolds notes that intervention often consists of dispatching a token force that assuage the Western conscience while accomplishing nothing on the ground. Exhibit A: The Congo.

While there is no question that Beinart goes overboard in his criticism of the administration, his argument is solid. In contrast, Glenn avoids Peter's strongest point, which is that the prospects for a successful intervention are quite good in a country as small as Liberia.

As Peter points out, the British have restored order in Sierra Leone (a former British colony) and the French in Cote D'Ivoire (a former French colony) with just a few thousand troops. Sierra Leone and Cote D'Ivoire are, of course, Liberia neighbors and about the same size.

In contrast, the Congo is four times the size of France. While that doesn't excuse the United Nations' decision to dispatch a miniscule force, it does undermine Glenn's analogy.

The one thing Peter doesn't seem to recognize is that rampant accusations of imperialism in the run-up to the second Gulf War may, in part, be responsible for US disinterest in Liberia. Given that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush are predisposed to ignoring Africa, they're probably thinking to themselves: "Why bother with Liberia? It has no strategic value. And the Europeans will only accuse us of unilateralist imperialism if we go ahead and act. Let them take care of it if human rights are so important."

Sadly, this perception is misguided. As in Kosovo, Europe welcomes American intervention when the protection of human rights is the United States' only possible motive. Moreover, in light of the British and French interventions in Sierra Leone and Cote D'Ivoire, no European government can portray itself as defending international law from American depredations.

Ideally, the members of the Security Council will take advantage of the situation in Liberia to repair their relations with one another by unanimously endorsing an American-led intervention.

UPDATE: West African mediators believe a ceasefire in Liberia is now possible. Sadly, the Reuters dispatch which reported this still describes Charles Taylor as an elected president.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:56 PM by Patrick Belton  

I KNEW GRADE INFLATION WAS BAD THERE, BUT.... Currently fronting our sister school's website, "Harvard has the largest intercollegiate athletics program in the country, with 41 varsity sports. More than 1,500 varsity letters or freshman numerals are awarded annually." 1500? Sweet Christ, are you giving them away to tourists in Harvard Yard?

UPDATE: Okay, okay, I deserved it: Amanda fromCrescat Scententia tweaks my nose back.... :) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:43 PM by David Adesnik  

BAD NEIGHBOORHOOD: Given its own brutal human rights abuses, the Thai government's failure to condemn the Myanmar junta for imprisoning Aung San Suu Kyi may not be all that surprising. (Thanks to PD for the link.) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:38 PM by David Adesnik  

MEANER THAN A...Junkyard Blog has put up a nice post on US efforts to reach out to Iraqi Shi'ites. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:28 PM by David Adesnik  

VOTING WITH THEIR FEET: In response to yesterday's post about the situation in Iraq, RT writes

There's one set of "experts" about the post-war situation in both Iraq and Afghanistan about whom I've seen very little comment; and yet I personally respect their opinions more than all of the opinions of the "world affairs experts." (What can I say? I'm an ignorant engineer and have a lot of respect for the person actually on the scene!)

That group is the "refugees." All the reports I've seen have said that vast numbers of Afghans have been moving back into Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban, and also that the flow of "refugees" has been INTO Iraq rather than out of it. I consider that to be a VERY significant comment upon the value of the changes wrought by the U.S. actions.

I'm not by this trying to excuse any errors that the U.S. may have made, but I think that the opinion of the former refugees is the most valuable one available as to the relative change in the situations. Those people both understand the situation at the level of the individual citizen far better than any "distant expert," and they are validating their opinions with their LIVES.

"Better" is, of course, not perfection, but it is, I think, a valid comparison of what has been accomplished. There's still work to do, but the mere fact that the net flow of people has been back into both of the countries in question, starting very soon after the completion of "major military action" (you'll notice that I'm not saying "after the countries were safe and secure") is something that deserves consideration and respect.

Well-said. Refugee flows are definitely important indicators of conditions on the ground. This is a subject I hope to learn more about in the near future. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:11 PM by David Adesnik  

OXBLOG DEFENDS NYT: Yesterday, I expressed surprise at my own agreement with this anti-Sharon editorial in the NYT.

In contrast, Martin Kimel decided that the editorial was so bad that it deserved a full-frontal fisking. (Martin doesn't have permalinks, so you'll have to scroll down. His post is the fourth from the top on June 12th.)

In short, I agree with absolutely nothing Martin says, even though his arguments are quite intelligent and well-composed. In fact, I even entertained thoughts of counterfisking Martin's post because it got me so riled up.

But for the sake of clarity and brevity, I think I'll just respond to a few of his points directly

1. Martin defends Sharon from the charge of undermining Abu Mazen's authority by saying that Mazen had none in the first place. But that's just plain wrong. Until the recent attacks, the Palestinian government accepted Mazen's replacement of Arafat as its bridge to Israel and the United States. Now that status is threatened.
   
   
2. Martin argues that Abu Mazen's refusal to use violence against Hamas is a violation of his commitment to stop Palestinian terror. Instead, Mazen has sought to negotiate an end to suicide attacks. What Martin doesn't consider is that Mazen hasn't had enough time to consolidate his authority to the point where he can launch a military assault on Hamas without provoking a popular backalsh.
   
   
3. Martin mocks the NYT's call for Israeli restraint as nothing more than an assertion that "Israel should just sit back and watch its people get slaughtered." However, that argument presumes both that Sharon had no other option than to launch targeted assassinations and that such assassinations improve Israeli security.
   
   As Jackson Diehl points out, there was no security rationale for Sharon's decision to target Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi for assassination just six days after the Aqaba talks. Israel could have targeted Rantisi at any time in the past year, but chose not to.
   
   In addition, Diehl observes that Sharon has a habit of launching high-profile assassination attempts in the midst of every Israeli-Palestinian ceasefire. Sharon knows that the immediate response to such attempts will consist of more suicide attacks.
   
   While forgoing a violent response to Palestinian terror compromises the valid principle that one must punish the perpetrators of such barbaric acts, the fact is that a less violent response (border closings, etc.) would have saved Israeli lives.

Thanks to the United States, Israel was given its first chance in 15 years to negotiate with someone other than Yasser Arafat. Had Sharon recognized this historic opportunity and shown proper restraint, Palestinians might now think of Abu Mazen as the one man capable of protecting them from Israeli vengeance. At the same time, Palestinians might have begun to recognize that Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al-Aksa are not defending them from Israeli brutality, but destorying all prospects of peace.

I say "might" cautiously and without great confidence. I recognize the validity of the hawks' argument that restraint often ensures further victimization. Thus restraint entails risk. But for the first time in many years, that risk was worth taking.

UPDATE: Michael Totten and Reason of Voice -- both of whom are often to my left on foreign policy -- agree with Martin that the NYT editorial is nothing more than a call for Israel to passively accept the murder of its citizens.

Sadly, the point may be moot since the prospects for peace are now so dim. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:09 PM by David Adesnik  

CONGO CRISIS: Glenn Reynolds has posts up on the incompetence of both French and UN efforts to stop the slaughter in the Congo.

The question I'm trying to work out in my mind is whether the situation in the Congo is a fair test of the anti-war coalition's ability to defend international order and human rights without relying on American firepower.

Do the French and/or the UN leadership see this as a chance to demonstrate the falsehood of the United States' accusations of incompetence and amorality? Or are the French and the UN more interested in avoiding responsibility for an explosive ethnic war that may demonstrate to the world just how incompetent and amoral they are?

Answer: I don't know. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:00 PM by Patrick Belton  

COULD THIS BE THE BEGINNING OF THE END? This, of course, being the fairly spontaneous growth of protests in Iran, which in their last three days have spilled over from students to their fairly pro-Western Tehranian neighbors, who are unhappy with the slow pace of reform Khatami's election was meant to herald in six years ago. See coverage from the VOA, FT, Reuters. This (and this timeline) is from the last time students protested in Tehran, during the hot summer of 1999 following the election of reformist but hobbled President Khatami.

UPDATE: Josh and I think alike.... :)
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:14 PM by Patrick Belton  

ON ARAB ISRAELIS AND JEWS VISITING AUSCHWITZ TOGETHER: Yossi Halevi has a poignant piece - now especially - in the TNR on this joint pilgrimage, organized by an Arab Catholic priest from Nazareth. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:56 PM by David Adesnik  

ROOKIE OF THE YEAR? Blogosphere newcomer Boomshock is continuing to put up one good post after another. Right now, check out his comments on postwar Iraq and Aung San Suu Kyi.

And for you sporting types, don't miss Boomshock's posts on the LA Dodgers and Ba'athist Poker. Alas, he has no posts on cricket.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:39 PM by David Adesnik  

POSSIBLY A FIRST: I actually agree with this NYT editorial on Israel's reckless response to Palestinian terror. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:36 PM by David Adesnik  

OUR SAUDI FRIENDS: Jim Hoagland slams them for negligent and hypocritical efforts to combat extremism. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:33 PM by David Adesnik  

WHAT, ME HUMANITARIAN? Matt Yglesias wants to disabuse liberals hawks of their dangerous illusion that there is a humanitarian strand in the Bush administration's thinking.

Matt writes that

The administration's actions in postwar Afghanistan and Iraq have, however, made it clear that humanitarianism — like everything else — is a banner to be picked up and then discarded according to the immediate needs of political opportunism.

First Iraq. This morning, both the NYT and WaPo ran long articles on evidence of a remarkable turnaround in Baghdad.

According to the Post,

After weeks of looting and unchecked criminal activity, the U.S. effort to improve security in Baghdad has helped bring signs of normality to this city of 5 million people. As the Americans deploy thousands more soldiers and assign many of them to neighborhood patrols, merchants not only are keeping their doors open longer, they also feel confident enough to stack televisions, air conditioners and other high-priced goods on the sidewalk. Cars zip around until the 11 p.m. curfew imposed by the U.S. military. Parents have begun to let their children walk to school in the daytime.

According to the Times,

Just over a month into his Iraq mission, Mr. Bremer described considerable progress in restoring basic services: electricity now flows 20 hours a day in Baghdad, all 12 hospitals are open, 8,000 police officers patrol the capital and commerce is reviving.

In addition, one has to consider the remarkable progress made in major provincial cities such as Karbala, Kirkuk and Mosul.

Now, Afghanistan. I'm not going to defend the Administration on that one. The prospects for democracy are not looking good. But on strictly humanitarian grounds, one has to give the US considerable credit for the massive shipments of food it sent after the war, shipments which prevented a famine that Oxfam and others had described as imminent.

(NB: There are no indications of famine in Iraq either, even though Matt insists that people there are continuing to die of thirst as well as cholera. Given the absence of a link, I suspect Matt is waxing rhetorical.)

All that said, Matt does make some good points in his post about humanitarianism. He is right that Cheney and Rumsfeld do not share Wolfowitz's idealism. But Matt is wrong to think that OxBlog or any of the other authors he criticizes are unaware of divisions within the cabinet. (See here and here for examples of OxBlog's comments on Rumsfeld's shortcomings.)

Matt is also right to criticize paleo-cons for insisting that humanitarian objectives should have nothing to do with foreign policy. Still, it is somewhat disingenuous for him to cite the National Review as the source of Rumsfeld and Cheney's -- let alone the President's -- attitudes toward foreign policy.

While Matt is right that no one -- especially not liberal hawks -- can afford to be complacent about the Administration's foreign policy, it is no less imperative for doves to overcome their their resentment of the President and recognize that, for all his flaws, he has done certain things very right. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:51 PM by David Adesnik  

SYMBOLIC HOMOSEXUALS IN THE MILITARY: While we're talking about sex, why not take a look at this Michael Gordon dispatch about the Spartan Brigade, officially known as the Second Brigade of the Third Infantry Division in the US Army.

How ironic is that? Imagine if a literary society that excluded homosexuals called itself the Oscar Wilde Club. It just wouldn't work. So how, then, can the Second Brigade model itself on the Spartans?

(Bad joke interlude: What's the Greek army's motto? Never leave your buddies' behind.)

At least Canada is starting to figure that homosexuals are human beings, too. Thanks to a recent ruling by an Ontario appeals court, gay Canadians can now get married.

Just so you know that OxBlog has an open mind about the gay marriage issue, we will make sure to report all evidence that traditional Canadian families are falling apart as a result of gay marriages. We will not, however, report any instances of "man on dog". Leave that to the Senate.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:38 PM by David Adesnik  

REYNOLDS SLEEPS WITH WIFE: His own wife, actually. No scandal here, folks.

In the past, I have chided Prof. Reynolds for his mildly exhibitionist postings. But no more. In fact, it's probably a good thing for people to see that sex and marriage are not mutually exclusive.

However progressive we think we are, the fact is that sex is still a taboo subject. Yes, we are seeing more of it on TV, at the movies and in the papers. But what we see is so distant from reality that it does nothing to promote more healthy attitudes towards the subject.

So good for Glenn.

Now, I have to admit that this post didn't come from nowhere. Amused by my chidings, the good Professor sent me a link to a post (not one of his) so disgusting and offensive that it made me realize that what Glenn is doing is most definitely a good thing.

And no, I'm not going to link to the post that changed my mind. (But if you want to read about more sex and love and marriage, I recommend the Onion.)

Now one last thing about Glenn: If the InstaKids ever come across his posts, they're going to ask some very interesting questions. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:28 AM by Patrick Belton  

SAPPAGE (THAT'S ETONIAN SLANG, OR SO I'M TOLD, FOR INTENSIVE STUDYING) Yet another day passes in hiding for me, as I put myself to the task of writing my way back into the good graces of both an advisor and an editor. However, a few items which nonetheless I couldn't help but briefly comment on:

* Jim Hoagland writes a piece in this morning's Post on the sad travails of the Arab press. The principled, reformist editor Jamal Khashoggi of Saudi's al-Watan was canned recently for denouncing local causes of extremism and intolerance in the kingdom. And after being hit with far worse allegations than the Times (in its case, vending of coverage to Iraqi intelligence), al-Jazeera for its part has launched no public review, and provided no public explanation for the allegations which led to the sacking of the Qatari station's director, Mohammed Jasim al-Ali.

* Elsewhere on editorial pages this morning, the Times calls the recent cycle of violence by Hamas and allied Palestinian militant organizations inevitable at a moment when a real alternative to their absolutist Islamist vision is nearly tangible under the guise of the road maps's two-state solution - but says that strengthening Abu Mazen rather than undermining him is the best way for Israel to battle terror in the occupied territories.

* And he was, by all reports, a decent and clever man, and a good politician. But when Plaid Cymru politician Phil Williams met his end Tuesday night in a massage parlor, there was something novellish about the event. (By contrast, for an instance of true class, witness the New York Yankees franchise's sending of six bottles of champagne to the lockers of the Houston Astros after the latter's no-hitter against them, in which six pitchers had participated. Even in defeat, the Bronx Bombers find ways to make one proud....)

* But finally, a truly important item - which is our heartiest congratulations to our Oxford (and my Trinity) classmate Greg Behrman, for signing his book deal with Simon & Schuster! Greg will be writing on the global response to AIDS on the African continent; we for our part will be impatiently waiting in the bookstores....

That said, there's someone in New York who for her part is impatiently waiting to read something about American mosques...so off I go to think up something to say. Ma’assalama! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:17 PM by David Adesnik  

THE DEATH OF PREEMPTION: Dan Drezner has the story in TNR. Footnotes are provided on Dan's blog. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:01 PM by David Adesnik  

ME THREE: Broder seconds Chafetz and Adesnik in calling for an ombudsman at the NYT.

NB: Four posts in one day attacking the NYT. I think it's a personal record. Or maybe I'm just dumbfounded by Josh's praise of Johnny Apple. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:50 PM by David Adesnik  

SEINFELD AT THE NYT: Seinfeld was a show about nothing. Everybody loved it. Seeking refuge from the scandals wreaking havoc at the Times, Maureen Dowd has decided that she, too, should write about nothing. And I don't just mean that she's incoherent. Usually she's incoherent when writing about something. Now it's just nothing.

But what's truly miraculous is that Ms. Dowd continues to obey the Immutable Laws even though she is writing about nothing.

Law the First is "the People magazine principle: All political phenomena can be reduced to caricatures of the personalities involved." Dowd writes today that

It seemed perfectly natural when Dennis Kucinich had a dark brown stain on his light blue tie at a recent presidential candidates' forum.

Dishevelment — stains that indicate you had soup at your desk as you sorted through Social Security offset taxes, or that you are wearing a hand-me-down sportscoat your dad gave you at Harvard — signals that you're far too busy pondering the meaning of neoimperialism to look in the mirror.

Law the Second is that "It's easier to whine than to take a stand or offer solutions." Hence the incisive conclusion of today's column:

That's why men are from Mars, a planet where, strangely, it is possible to have too many pairs of black pants.

Law the Third is that "It is better to be cute than coherent." The men-are-from-Mars quote lets us tick off that box as well.

Law the Fourth is that "The particulars of my consumer-driven, self-involved life are of universal interest and reveal universal truths." Hence Dowd's column opens with a declaration that

I know this is an odd bias, but I really don't like to see a him-and-her shopping for clothing for her...

I hate to play into stereotypes, but when I see men following women around the couture departments of Bergdorf's on a rainy Saturday afternoon like trained poodles, it crosses my mind that they should be home on their Barcaloungers watching ESPN and eating a Jerry's sub.

Somehow, I don't think that me and the rest of the Macy's crowd are going to worry about what goes on at Bergdorf's.

Moving on, Law the Fifth states that "Europeans are always right." Which explains why

President Clinton raised eyebrows here when he began wearing showy Zegna ties and double-breasted suits with double-pleated pants designed by Donna Karan (DKDC). Was he going Euro?

To think: If only Bush dressed that well the French might have endorsed a second resolution.

So there you have it folks. A column about nothing that obeys the Immutable Laws. So let me make a recommendation that violates all five of the laws: Fire her. Now. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:25 PM by David Adesnik  

ANOTHER SUCCESS STORY: This WaPo front-pager ties together two important points I've made about postwar Iraq. The first is that American soldiers are more dependable than American diplomats when its comes to putting American values into practice. The second is that we should expect far more violent resistance to the occupation from Sunni Ba'athists than from Shi'ite opponents of Saddam.

According to the WaPo, the exemplary behavior Lt. Col. Michael Belcher has won him the respect of the people of Karbala. The WaPo reports that

In gestures large and small -- from reopening an amusement park with free admission to restoring electricity to twice its prewar level, from stopping looting with a rapidly reconstituted police force, to a conscious effort to respect religious sensitivities -- Karbala seems to have avoided the bitterness and disenchantment that has enveloped Baghdad and other cities.

This story belongs to a genre that is becoming increasingly familar: pragmatic US officer wins over suspicious locals. It's already happened in Mosul and Kirkuk.

What's different about Karbala is that it's in the south and that it is predominantly Shi'ite.

Unlike towns in restive regions north and west of Baghdad, U.S. troops in Karbala have yet to come under fire. They have entered fewer than 10 houses here to search for weapons. They patrol without flak jackets in an effort to make their presence less formidable.

I'd say that's a pretty good indication of the fact that Sunni, and not Shi'ite resistance is the real challenge facing the US.

That said, one shouldn't become complacent. (Although it is still OK to laugh when the NYT runs a headline like "G.I.'s in Iraqi City Are Stalked by Faceless Enemies at Night".)

American soldiers will continue to lose their lives in Iraq. They will fall prey to maddening and unpreventable guerrilla attacks rather than dying heroically during a lightning strike on Baghdad. But that is the inglorious nature of democracy promotion in Iraq. We have no choice. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:59 PM by Patrick Belton  

A WEB FORM JUST CRYING OUT FOR ABUSE: Silflay Hraka is suggesting creative ways to abuse the Saudi religious police's on-line form conveniently provided for ratting on the misdeeds of one's neighbors. Go have fun....

(Yes, these, of course, are our friends the mutawwa'in who caused 15 young girls to die in March 2002 by preventing them from fleeing a blazing building in Mecca, because they were not propertly covered with abayas.) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:42 PM by David Adesnik  

NYT CONTRADICTS NYT: Is the United States dangerously neglecting the Iraqi oil industry or agressively taking advantage of the occupation to help US oil companies best their French and Russian rivals? I have no idea. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:35 PM by David Adesnik  

ALL IN THE NAME: Josh isn't the only one who can put up posts about GOP legislators' embarrassingly selfish shenanigans. Check out this front-pager on new Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO), who collected $150,000 in campaign funds from Philip Morris and then tried to slip one of the corporation's pet projects into the Homeland Security Bill. That, my friends, is blunt.

UPDATE: The NYT joins Josh in bashing Larry Craig. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:23 PM by David Adesnik  

SADNESS: Hamas suicide attack kills 16, injures almost 70 in Jerusalem.

UPDATE: Greg Djerejian and the WaPo have some thoughs on whether the peace process can survive. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:55 PM by David Adesnik  

BURMA PETITION: 54 Monkeys has passed on the URL for an Amnesty International site where you can sign a petition demanding the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters.

The AI site also provides addresses at which you can write the Myanmar junta directly. Don't expect a personalized response. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:58 AM by Patrick Belton  

SCHOO! MAKE WAY FOR GEN. SCHOOMAKER: Okay, not to fawn, but....naah, I'll fawn. Former special operations command head and Delta Force chief Peter Schoomaker may just be such a good candidate to lead the Army that it's hard to think of how he could even be any better. General Schoomaker enjoys a reputation as an agile, innovative thinker; his special operations background is in the portion of the army which most embodies the flexible, highly mobile army into which the Secretary of Defense would like to help transform the current conventional army. Here's a round-up: an article he wrote on the challenges facing SOCOM (special operations command), an article from 1999 focusing on him, a piece on mil-mil contact with China in which he figures prominently, the Welch Commision report he partly wrote on giving special operations command a larger role in the war on terror, reportage from Waco mentioning him, NYT , the Telegraph, his bio.

UPDATE: David just pointed out to me that Phil Carter has a thoughtful post on Secretary Rumsfeld's appointment of a retired general over the army's serving three- and four-stars as possibly portending another episode of power struggle between the civilian appointees (and army chief) who push a quick pace of defense transformation, and serving brass who favor a slower pace.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:23 PM by 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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

# Posted 12:06 PM by Patrick Belton  

HONEY, CAN WE SET ASIDE SOME TIME TO TALK ABOUT REINVIGORATING OUR RELATIONSHIP?: This, at least, is the question being posed to the Kremlin by Ambassador Sestanovich and Carnegie's Michael McFaul. And it's timely: for all of the Bush administration's just criticisms of the highly personalized nature of the Clinton-Yeltsin relationship, President Bush's with Putin displays remarkable areas of similarity: despite a bilateral agenda spectacularly lacking in creativity or capacity for inspiration (chicken and steel imports and visa regimes figure at the moment in the first rank of bilateral issues), Vloidim Putin nonetheless currently tops the list of the "axis of the unwilling" leaders with whom Bush is mending fences - and this because, unlike Herr Shroeder or Monsieur Chirac, Bush made great political hay from his personal friendship with Vloidim, which he must repair before Democratic presidential contenders use it to attack the administration for needlessly alienating allies in the run-up to the War against Saddam. Highly personalized relationships can have their usefulness - one thinks of Reagan's famed walks in the woods with Gorbachev - but only if they do not distract from broader strategic visions and creativity. Some ideas are currently on the table, and are worth pursuing: for instance, forming a consultative body between the two presidents' national security advisors (which, if nothing else, will serve as an instrument of influence, exposing the Kremlin more frequently to U.S. position and thinking at a high level). But more are needed: the Kremlin's influence in North Korea, Iran, and the Middle East could be a useful instrument for selling US-brokered ways forward in each of those regions, but absent American prodding, Moscow's instinct may well be to tell the U.S. to go and patch things up, and let them know when they should sign on the dotted line - possibly in Moscow's interests by allowing it to conserve political capital in those relationships, but robbing us of a potentially useful tool in the meantime. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:21 AM by Patrick Belton  

GAINS BY INDIRECTION?: Mexico enters the final months before an important mid-term election for its Camera de Diputados and several state governorships. Most analysts think things won't be changed terribly much: Fox, bruised by lack of progress on the bilateral agenda with the U.S. and vigorous opposition from the countryside about the entry into force of new NAFTA categories, will suffer slightly, but the field of play will remain basically what it is now - a politically reformist, economically liberalizing, pro-U.S. president facing off against a parliamentary opposition seeking to maintain government ownership of struggling public services and secure federal aid to the countryside along with protecting partisan patronage. While this isn't ideal - there still isn't a clear panista or tecno successor to run under Fox's reformist mantle after the close of his sexenio, and a more strongly entrenched opposition may hobble his prospects for success in the remainder of his term - one externality is that constitutional democracy in Mexico is being strengthened, as the opposition PRI and PRD search for and breathe life into separation-of-powers provisions implicit in the Mexican constitution. Gracias al Señor por las benediciones pequeñítas. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:26 AM by Patrick Belton  

WAIT, IF THIS WAS AN ANNULAR ECLIPSE, then why don't I remember one like this last year? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:50 PM by David Adesnik  

WHO NEEDS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION? Certainly not women. Across the board, men are trailing behind in the dust while women build an ever more impressive record of academic achievement. Good for them. They deserve it.

Btw, the above article on women's achievement also contains a statistic which says quite a lot about the nature of income inequality in our post-industrial economy:

Better-educated men are also, on average, a much happier lot. They are more likely to marry, stick by their children, and pay more in taxes. From the ages of 18 to 65, the average male college grad earns $2.5 million over his lifetime, 90% more than his high school counterpart. That's up from 40% more in 1979, the peak year for U.S. manufacturing. The average college diploma holder also contributes four times more in net taxes over his career than a high school grad, according to Northeastern's [Andrew] Sum. Meanwhile, the typical high school dropout will usually get $40,000 more from the government than he pays in, a net drain on society.

Hmmm. If that income statistic is correct, then I still have $2.44 million to look forward to... (Thanks to A at Rational Explications for the link.)

Also, RS recommends that anyone with a serious interest in inequality take a look at Jeremy Waldron's Liberal Rights, specifically Waldron's essay on charity and the welfare state. If all y'all get a chance to read it, send in your thoughts. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:26 PM by David Adesnik  

HOPE FOR 2004? Trent Telenko says the Dems have none. While Trent may be right, I think his analysis flows much more from his profound resentment of the Democratic left than from a real consideration of the current candidates prospects. Moreover, Trent tends to confuse the hardcore left with the whole of the Democratic party. As he would have it,

Today's "Democratic liberals" are big central government statists who are functional isolationists. As such, a political party run by them can provide neither national security nor long term economic prosperity...

Sounds like Trent thinks Jimmy Carter was president in the 1990s. Thankfully he wasn't. The fact is that almost all American presidents migrate, over time, to the center. Clinton started out far more to the left than he ended up. His shift reflected both self-interest and the will of the electorate. So don't underestimate the Dems.

This criticism aside, Trent's post is quite thoughtful, definitely worth reading, and full of great links to articles about the Dems and national security. Viva Winds of Change! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:54 PM by David Adesnik  

A LIBERAL DEFENDS BUSH: Dan from over at Reason of Voice agrees with Wayne Hsieh that Bush's China policy has been far more successful than I'm willing to admit.

In an e-mail, Dan writes that

I'm no Bush lover, believe me, but I think you do him a disservice in your analysis of China.

Besides having coopted, as best possible, the Chinese on Iraq and Afghanistan, he's clearly made great strides on including the Chinese in a dialogue with North Korea when Pyongyang was adamantly opposed to
inclusion of anyone besides the Americans. The 'closed door' discussions you wonder about, I have little doubts are proceeding, and proceeding well.

Give credit where it is due.........which for me and the Bush administration is a wholly rare event.

I'll grant that the jury is still out. But I sense that China's participation in the North Korea talks has much more to do with China's self-interest than Bush's diplomacy. As for the talks themselves, I don't think I'll be willing to admit they've accomplished anything until there are some concrete results.

But I really do hope that Bush can put together a deal that puts a permanent end to the crisis on the peninsua. First of all, it would be good for both the US and North Korea. And more importantly, it would set Josh Marshall up for a big "I told you so!" ;) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:34 PM by David Adesnik  

BRIDGING THE ATLANTIC: Belgravia Dispatch has some very good thoughts on the state of US-European relations. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:31 PM by David Adesnik  

BLAIR=BRAGG=DOWD? With the NYT reeling after the departures of Jayson Blair and Rick Bragg, Maureen Dowd has chosen to duck for cover rather than admit that her own standards had begun to slip. In her most recent column, Dowd implicity acknowledges her gross distortion of the President's words on May 14th. Instead of a selective quotation of the President's comments on Al Qaeda, she now reprints all of what Bush said. But that is not enough.

For those of us who watch Dowd like hawks, an implicit confession admission is gratifying enough. But the overwhelming majority of NYT readers won't notice a thing. They have better things to do with their time than monitor Dowd's honesty. Thus, I'm glad that NY Daily News columnist Zev Chafets has chosen to expose Dowd in his most recent column. The question is, when will Howell Raines give Chafets Dowd's job?

(Thanks to N for the Chafets link.)

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:34 PM by David Adesnik  

ANTI-SEMITISM AT YALE: Judith Weiss reports that a Yale prof active in pro-Palestinian causes has begun to rant about a Straussian conspiracy and has even launched personal attacks on Jewish students in New Haven. This is apalling. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:00 PM by Patrick Belton  

THANK GOODNESS FOR SCIENTISTS: Without them, for instance, we wouldn't have this: (from the Economist, print edition, May 24th, p. 69)

Beauty matters most, though, for reproductive success. A study by David Buss, an American scientist, logged the mating preferences of more than 10,000 people across 37 cultures. It found that a woman's physical attractiveness came top or near top of every man's list.

Here's hoping this study was at least some grad student's excuse to get funding to look at lots of women. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:32 PM by David Adesnik  

CALIFORNIA REPENTS: An internal memo drafted by the editor of the LA Times takes its correspondents to task for liberal bias. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:28 PM by David Adesnik  

EVERYDAY AMERICAN VALUES: Daniel Drezner has just put up a must-read post about how US field commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan have taken the initiative in promoting democracy and compensating civilians who became accidental targets of American bombs.

Dan is absolutely right when he says that

a signal virtue of U.S. diplomacy is the ingrained habit of trusting subordinates to innovate and adapt to local circumstances, and then copying those innovations when they work.

All I can add to Dan's point is a bit of historical context. According to Cold War historian John Lewis Gaddis, the United States' successful effort to transform Germany and Japan rested heavily on local commanders' efforts to adapt American values and institutions to local circumstances.

In most cases, such commanders received no direction from above. According to Gaddis, they simply acted on the belief that the Germans and Japanese deserved exactly the same rights as US citizens had on the homefront.

There was, however, some recognition on the part of higher-ups in Washington that the best way to transform Germany and Japan was to ensure that American soldiers held foreigners to the same standards that they did their fellow Americans. According to John Dower, the foremost American historian of modern Japan, the training films shown to US soldiers departing for Japan emphasized that American values were the key to reform in Japanese society.

If shown today, such films' uncritical glorification of the United States and its values would provoke immediate accusations of cultural imperialism. While I wouldn't recommend the replication of such propaganda today, the fact remains that promoting democracy in Iraq will depend more on the occupation forces' ability to instill democratic values than on their ability to appreciate the local populations' cultural heritage.

Even so, this is not necessarily cultural imperialism. First of all, the values in question are not American or even Western. They are the values shared by democratic nations in Latin America, East Asia, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, the Indian subcontinent and even parts of Africa.

Perhaps more importantly, the occupation forces will transmit such values more by setting the right example than by spreading propaganda. Then again, the simple fact of holding elections privileges democratic values over all others.

The critical point to recognize here is that elections provide the Iraqi people a means of expressing themselves. If this sort of fostering self-determination counts as cultural imperialism, then the accusation has become meaningless. As I see it, true democracy cannot be imperial.

All in all, one of the most important reasons that I have much greater faith in the Pentagon's ability to promote democracy in Iraq (as opposed to the State Department's), is that rank-and-file American soldiers have a long tradition of sharing democatic values with all those they encounter. Even our generals and admirals tend to adopt this same straightforward approach.

While American diplomats have often risked their lives and reputations for the sake of human rights, their measured, cosmopolitan approach is not best-suited to countries in need of a total transformation. From where is stand, the best hope for democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan to just let our soldiers do what their grandfathers did in Germany and Japan: be themselves. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:07 PM by Patrick Belton  

SPRING CLEANING: In Argentina, President Nestor Kirchner is beginning his tenure in the Casa Rosada by replacing the chiefs of the air, sea, and land forces, along with half of the nation's remaining officers of flag rank (see the NYT and Clarin(Spanish)). This is a bold move, and given the resumes of the men Kirchner is replacing, inspires confidence.

Most of these newly-retired flag officers - like top officials in the supreme court, federal police, and SIDE (Argentine intelligence) - were appointees of President Menem, and generally a thuggish lot. It is somewhat poetic that the SIDE's new chief, thanks to Kirchner, is to be Sergio Acevedo - a man has spent the last several years on a congressional committee staff, bravely challenging Menem and his appointees' cover-up of the role of Iranian intelligence in the 1992 Hezbollah bombing of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. According to the court testimony of an Iranian defector currently in German protection, Menem personally received $10 million from the Iranian government in return for diverting the course of the investigation into the bombings. The story of the investigation, perhaps not surprisingly, has been one of disappearing evidence, unfollowed leads, and the occasional videotape surfacing starring an investigating judge discussing payoffs.

Kirchner's bold act is good news. Argentina, and we as a hemisphere, are much better off without the likes of these in office. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:03 PM by Patrick Belton  

TERRORISM BOOK REC: For those of you who are at all interested in terrorist organizations and operations, I can't recommend highly enough Rohan Gunaratna's Inside Al Qaeda. Among Gunaratna's principal themes is the fantastic success of Osama as a diplomat, who succeeded in weaving together previously feuding operatives from Hezbollah, Iranian intelligence, and Sunni ethnoreligious groups around common goals, rather than religious or ideological doctrines. In terms of his dedication to detail and evidence, quiet analytical tone, and breadth and quality of contacts among those who labor quietly in the shadows, Rohan's text is insuperable.

Gunaratna moves peripatetically among several of the leading centers of counterterror analysis, including his principal affiliation at St Andrew's Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence, Israel's International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism, and the US-based RAND Corporation. If you can't find the book, you're lying - it's in a library within two miles of you - but here are two of his interviews in Singapore and PBS's Newshour. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:02 AM by Patrick Belton  

ON THE OTHER HAND, IT DOES MAKE KNOWING WHAT TO WRITE EASIER: The Times is reporting that Al-Jazeera's director general has been dismissed amidst allegations he worked with Iraq's Mukhabarat intelligence service (via Instapundit). The Times story notes that Al-Jazeera enjoyed a unique status in pre-war Iraq of being allowed to work independently of the information ministry and its controls over foreign media. Other coverage is making the claim that Jazeera both provided information to Mukhabarat and placed stories, although it's not clear with what frequency, on Uday's request. Correspondent Rahim Mizyad is explicitly named as an agent. The Weekly Standard's take is that it reported this before. Mine is that this is a sad indicator of the regrettable state of the press in the Arab world, which still must await its Arthur Schulzburger. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:37 AM by Patrick Belton  

WAS THE FIRST TIME JUST A DRESS REHEARSAL?: The often-brilliant Marc Perelman of the Forward muses here on Iran-Iraq lead-up parallels: the presence of an emigree policy entrepreneur (for Ahmed Chalabi, substitute Reza Pahlavi), the involvement of the Pentagon's fascinating Office of Special Plans (now supplemented by knowledgeable Iran hawk Michael Rubin) - and of course, those dern neo-cons (William Kristol, Michael Ledeen, Jim Woolsey, Frank Gaffney, AEI).

For another perspective, see the WaPo, which says the pro-western Tehran street is becoming so pro-western that now it's even apathetic about politics too. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:33 PM by David Adesnik  

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY: Wayne Hsieh defends both the Bush administration's China policy and Katrina Leung from OxBlog's recent attack. I agree wholeheartedly with the point about Leung. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:19 PM by David Adesnik  

WHAT DARK AGES? PH proudly defends the Catholic tradition from my derogatory comparison of it a Macintosh. He writes that

As to the "Protestant" DOS being the foundation for capitalism, again, leaving Weber aside, it *is* true that the Microsoft Way has generated entire short-lived cottage industries which have grown up to plug the busted dams and fill the holes and generally fix the glaring weaknesses in their products. Microsoft generates industry
in the same way that an Enron does: swarms of lawyers, regulators, muckrakers and inevitable t-shirt makers are picking over the bones, but that's all.

Finally, the error that put me over the edge. "...Macintosh Catholicism, one dare not forget that it alone could not have brought us out of the dark ages." Oi, where to start? Passing over the dichotomy at hand, either no one taught you, or you have forgotten, basic aspects of medieval, Renaissance, Reformation, and early modern
history.

I admit it. I am a terrible, terrible bigot. What fair-minded invidual would dare suggest that Catholic Europe of the Middle Ages and Renaissance was a backwards place?

By the same token, who but an unthinking partisan of DOS could deny the tremendous progress made on computer technology in the 1940s, '50s and 60s? It's not as if Bill Gates was responsible for taking computers that once filled entire rooms and transforming them into desktops.

As such, I must repent. Yet as it says in the Book of [Steven] Job[s], it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a Windows user to enter the gates of Heaven. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:22 PM by David Adesnik  

TAKING APART THE POST: I said there would be a fisking tonight. Here it is:

Argentine Leader Takes Office, Pledging to Combat Poverty

By Jon Jeter
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, May 26, 2003; Page A18

BUENOS AIRES, May 25 -- Pledging to combat deepening poverty and rebuild a struggling economy, Nestor Kirchner was sworn in today as the first elected president of Argentina since a succession of violent demonstrations 18 months ago forced the ouster of four presidents in two weeks.

The constant repetition of the "four presidents in two weeks" motif makes Argentina seem like a banana republic. But in fact, the "four presidents" comment is profoundly misleading.

Fernando De La Rua, elected in 1999, resigned in response to violent protests in December 2001. Because there was no vice-president at the time, the leader of the Senate automatically became president. He refused the office, however, and the Senate later chose provincial governor Adolfo Rodriguez Saa to govern as interim president for 90 days so that new elections could be held. Yet thanks to the Senate leader's 48 hours in office, he is counted as a president.

Rodriguez Saa immediately provoked widespread anger by appointing corrupt ministers and indicating that he would use his position as interim president to position himself as front-runner in the new elections. In response to protests that were actually quite peaceful, Saa left office.

This time, the presidency fell to the leader of the lower house, who also rejected the office. Yet once again, thanks to the 48 hour interval between the resignation of Saa and the selection of his successor, Argentina technically observed the inauguration and resignation of a fourth president in two weeks.

Complex as the December 2001 transition was, the WaPo could've avoided its raft of errors by replacing the last five words of its lede with "Fernando De La Rua, elected in 1999."

Addressing Congress and 12 leaders from Latin America, including Cuba's Fidel Castro, Kirchner promised to reinvigorate Argentina's once-solid middle class, which has been hit hardest by the worst economic crisis in the country's history. But he also appealed for an end to the cronyism and corruption that
many Argentines associate with Kirchner's ruling Peronist Party.

Mentioning Castro is gratuitous and damning. It's how American reporters imply that the Latin American left is resurgent without providing any evidence to that effect. But the fact is that Castro attends lots of inaugurations, so his presence means nothing.

Next comes the misleading description of "Kirchner's ruling Peronist Party". The Peronist Party is a badly divided party which doesn't stand for much of anything at all. Such internal divisions were so extreme that the party couldn't agree on rules for a presidential primary. As a result, four separate Peronist candidates ran for president, each representing one faction within the party.

Even though Kirchner is no saint, he ran as a reformist outsider bent on challenging the corruption of former President Carlos Menem, who withdrew rather than facing a run off he was sure to lose by a landslide.

However, Kirchner did have the support of current President Eduardo Duhalde, who is known for running a massive political machine whose corruption is second only to that of Menem's. But Duhalde only supported Kirchner after Duhalde's hand-picked successor performed so badly in early polls that he had to withdraw from the election. Once again, the WaPo could've significantly improved its coverage by changing only a few words.

"We want to be the generation of Argentines that restores upward social mobility, but also promotes cultural and moral change and respect for the law,"
Kirchner said in his inaugural speech.

...Kirchner succeeded Eduardo Duhalde, a caretaker president who was named by Congress after violent protests forced four of his predecessors from office in the last two weeks of December 2001.

The repetition of the "four presidents" error suggests that the WaPo doesn't even understand how misleading his dispatch is. While lede senteneces have to be short, there is no excuse for this sort of glaring inaccuracy later in the article.

Despite the lack of a clear mandate from voters, poll results released last week showed that Kirchner has the support of nearly 70 percent of voters. Today he continued to strike the defiant, populist tone that characterized his campaign.

He said Argentina planned to honor its outstanding $136 billion in foreign debt but only if new terms of repayment could be negotiated with international lenders such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. And he promised to place the needs of poor Argentines ahead of debt repayments.

"We know our debt is a central problem," Kirchner said. "It is not a question of paying," but creditors "will only get their money if Argentina does well."

Kirchner is getting off pretty easy here. Imagine quoting an American president's inauguration speech without getting any sort of response from the opposition. What might the opposition say? That Kirchner talks tough but will give in to the IMF like all of his predecessors.

Kirchner has proposed a New Deal-like $2.8 billion public works program to create jobs and jump-start an economy that contracted nearly 11 percent last year. Nearly 60 percent of the country's 37 million people live on less than $2 a day, and Argentina's official jobless rate is roughly 18 percent...

The Post really needs an opposition quote here. I guarantee that my old boss, Sen. Terragno, would've been happy to provide one. He might've said that there is no way Argentina can afford massive public works and that even if the Congress passes them, the funds will be siphoned off by all sorts of corrupt officials.

Although Kirchner has questioned Argentina's relationship with the United States, he has promised greater cooperation with other Latin American countries, particularly Brazil. Lingering resentment of U.S.-backed free-market reforms helped elect a former metalworker, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, known as Lula, to the Brazilian presidency, and he publicly supported Kirchner during the campaign in Argentina.

Resentment of U.S.-backed reforms had almost nothing to do with Lula's election. The Brazilian himself cut a deal with the IMF during the campaign, even though the IMF's demands still consisted of "U.S.-backed reforms". Fact is, American reporters thrive on a strange mix of paranoia about the Latin American left and liberal guilt about the United States' responsibility for its alleged rise to power. Until they get over both obsessions, we're going to get third-rate coverage of the region.

PS Argentina is not a Third World country! But there is no better way to get Argentines' attention than to accuse Argentina of being backward... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:45 PM by David Adesnik  

WORST NAME EVER: The Command Post reports that Islamist rebels in the Philippines have called for a ceasefire. The name of the rebels' organization is the Moro Islamic Liberation Front or MILF. Go ahead and see what happens if you put that into Google. I dare you.

(If you want actual commentary on the MILF rather than prurient entertainment, see this post by Boomshock.) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:37 PM by David Adesnik  

HARD NUMBERS: Boomshock has an absolutely first-rate post on the causes and extent of income inequality in the United States. Read the whole thing. Now! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:30 PM by David Adesnik  

THIRD-RATE THIRD-WORLD COVERAGE: One of the lessons I learned this past summer in Argentina is the NYT and the WaPo often provide terrible coverage of those countries whose internal affairs are not at the top of the American agenda. With regard to Argentina, the Times and Post provided alarmist coverage of the violence and instability that followed Buenos Aires' political and economic trvails in autumn 2001.

In contrast to the American papers, the Financial Times and The Economist provided top-notch coverage both before, during and after the crisis. I make this claim with a fair amount of confidence because one of the projects I conducted as a Senado intern in Buenos Aires was a review of all articles about Argentina published between July 2000 and June 2001 in the four periodicals mentioned above.

In my final report on the project, I argued that the financial papers' superior coverage of Argentine affairs was not a random event, but rather the direct result of two very different approaches to covering the news.

The Times and thePostrely on one or two full-time correspondents to provide coverage of the whole of Latin America. In contrast, The Economist, the FT and financial news services such as Bloomberg have correspondents in almost every country in the region. Often, these correspondents have enough experience covering economic affairs to provide much more thoughtful coverage than their non-expert competitors.

The reason that the financial papers devote more resources to this sort of thing is that their readers demand accurate news about all those countries in which their capital is invested. If a financial doesn't provide such coverage, it will lose it readers.

In contrast, no one will cancel their subscription to the NYT or the WaPo because of their coverage of Latin America is less than stellar. (Of course, it is entirely possible that the NYT and WaPo provide better coverage of those countries in which foreign investors have little interest.)

The broader lesson of all this is that one has to be especially careful when reading what the papers have to say about any country that isn't the focus of sustained international attention. While the editorial position of any given paper may influence its coverage of Israel or Iraq, one can have a certain degree of confidence in the nuts and bolts of its coverage.

Elsewhere, that isn't the case. To make my point, I am now going to go ahead and fisk the WaPo whose inaccuracies provoked me enough to write this whole post in the first place. However, I am about to go out to dinner, so I will fisk said article in my next post on the subject.

UPDATE: Randy Paul recommends the Miami Herald's coverage of Latin America, which is arguably the best around. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:50 PM by David Adesnik  

REMEMBER CHINA? About a half-dozen news cycles ago, Josh Marshall was all over the Katrina Leung scandal. Remember her? The GOP fundraiser who slept with FBI agents and turned over stolen intelligence to the Chinese goverment?

I am now embarrassed that OxBlog didn't take the story more seriously at the time. Patrick wondered why two long-serving FBI agents would betray their wives and their country to sleep with a woman who is so profoundly unattractive. I responded that that Lewinsky affair had perilously lowered the standards of American males. In short, OxBlog spun the Leung affair for laughs.

What brought it all back to my attention was this excellent column by the WaPo's Fred Hiatt, who persuasively argues that true significance of the Leung affair is not its exposure of either the vulnerability of the US intelligence community or the hypocrisy of all those Republicans who bashed the Clinton administrion for its China spy scandal.

Rather the Leung scandal is a powerful indicator of just how adrift and directionless the Bush administration's China policy is. On the campaign trail, the President attacked Clinton for the failure of his policy of "constructive engagement" and promised to get tough on China both for its espionage and its human rights abuses.

Bush has done neither. To be fair, it may not be productive to antagonize China given its relatively constructive approach to both Iraq and North Korea. But the Republicans silence in response to the Leung affair shows that the adminsitration isn't even thinking about China.

For example, if it were committed to working with China on the North Korea front, the administration should thoroughly investigate the Leung affair and use it (behind doors) to remind the Chinese that they have to demonstrate their good faith through action, not promises.

Is it possible that the administration has been doing just that, albeit without public knowledge? Possibly, but given the inevitability of leaks within this administration, I find it very hard to believe that this is the case.

I think it's far more likely that the administration is desperate to direct attention away from yet another fiasco that emphasizes the failures of the US intelligence community. And fortunately for the President, Iraq and the Roadmap have largely kept China off the front pages.

Without excusing OxBlog's negligent avoidance of the Leung affair, I still think it is fair to criticize Josh Marshall for presenting the scandal in entirely partisan. From his first post onward, Marshall presented the Leung affair as a partsian issue that exposed Republican hypocrisy.

While that perspective is significant in its own right, I've tended to become somewhat inured to Marshall's constant focus on the scandal of the moment. To be fair, Marshall isn't the only who covered the Leung affair in partisan terms. I think one could direct that charge at most of the mainstream media.

Even conservative columnist Michelle Malkin -- who deserves considerable credit for commenting on her own party's hypocrisy -- approached the Leung affair in partisan in terms.

So why single out Josh Marshall for abuse? Because I know he is capable of so much better. While I usually find myself opposing TPM, its posts often provide the most persuasive argument for Josh's side of a given issue.

At the moment, I hope Josh is working on something other than the Texas Legislature scandal, which has been TPM's cause celebre over the past week or so. While Josh does have a professional interest in writing up unique stories that can advance his career as a journalist, I still think he might do even better by focusing his considerable talents on issues that will have a greater impact on American national security.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:29 PM by Daniel  

DELAY-ING THE ROAD MAP. One-trick-pony Dan chimes in on an article about America and Israel....I don't think that the Christian Zionists' pressure tactics will be a problem for Bush. He has declared it in America's national interest to pursue the road map. No lobby group can hold him back from his goal, and his position on the Arab-Israeli dispute resonates with a majority of the country. The Christian Zionists will still vote for him in 2004 regardless of what he does in Israel (who are they going to vote for, the Democrats?). The big question is what will happen with the Jewish vote in 2004. As I have said before, I think Jews will stay home in the Democratic Party, which is so much more tolerant on a host of social issues--gay rights, a woman's right to choose, keeping religion away from politics. These are important issues on which Jews vote besides Israel. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:16 AM by David Adesnik  

LIONS, TIGERS AND REPUBLICANS: Little Miss Attila is tickled pink by the NYT's in-depth coverage of the campus conservative movement in this week's issue of the Magazine.

I haven't had time to read the whole thing yet (because it is very, very looooong), but I'm really hoping to turn up some evidence of a Straussian conspiracy. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:08 AM by David Adesnik  

MICROBES ON PARADE: NZ Bear has set up a showcase for new weblogs that aren't as well-known as the ecosystem elite.

If your blog is just starting up, definitely think about submitting an entry to the contest. If you run an established blog, than vote for your favorite new entrant.

My votes for the week go to and to Rational Explications for its post on income inequality and to Page Three for its post on Star Wars. Again, I strongly encourage all of you with blogs to vote, since just a few more can make all the difference. Happy blogging! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:37 AM by David Adesnik  

I AM OVERPAID: Kevin Drum draws on personal experience to argue that corporate executives are overpaid. He says that executive pay has risen at the same time that executives have become less and less accountable for their performance. The result? Inequality. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:24 PM by David Adesnik  

DEMOCRACY IN PALESTINE? Judith Weiss takes a careful look at the prospects. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:58 PM by David Adesnik  

INEQUALITY VS. POVERTY: Responding to my initial post about inequality, DP writes that

The real question is: How poor is America willing to let its least fortunate be?...Those that advocate assistance to the poor are in essence trying to raise the standard of living for the poor to some minimum standard...

If the poor already had [this minimum], would we be worrying about the poor at all? Would we care how wealthy the rich are? It seems to me that complaints like Kevin's are not precisely about the wealthy are making so much more money than everyone else, but that they are doing so while the poor have an inadequate standard of living.

I agree that our objective should be to establish a minimum standard of living rather than a minimum share of income growth. At the same time, we have to recognize that what we consider a minimally acceptable standard of living rises over time. Fifty years ago, it was acceptable to live without a washing machine, a television, or a computer. Now it isn't.

That aside there are some reasons to think that the inequality situation isn't as bad as Kevin makes it out to be. CS points out that according to the Census data Kevin cites

"The official income estimates in this report are based solely on money income before taxes and do not include the value of employment-based fringe beneifts nor of gevernement-provided noncash benefits, such as food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, and public or subsidized housing."

In other words, Kevin's data provide no indication of the degree to which major government programs have actually mitigated extant inequality. While it's fair to say we should be doing more for the poor, especially in terms of education (remember the President's campaign promise?), one has start by establishing exactly how much the government does for them already.

JV adds that if the top 5% of American households earned $687 billion more than they "should have", much of that $687 will be sent to Washington as taxes, since -- contrary to popular myth -- the rich pay much more in taxes than the poor. (JV kindly provides a link to this page on the Cato Insitute website which has the hard data she is working with.)

On the other hand, if that growth were proportionately distributed in the first place, we wouldn't need the government to collect taxes and redistribute them!

Moving on, JAT writes in to emphasize just how much the changing nature of the family has contributed to inequality. As he says,

Remember, households aren't people. There are two major, major changes
that have occurred in household structure, especially in the last twenty years:

1) Increase in women's participation in the workforce, especially at the upper income ranges, and

2) Increase in divorces, single motherhood (and fatherhood), and a later age of first marriage.

You discussed the first, let's also consider the second. For background, here's the census data on household structure.

Consider the following [initial] situation:

Household A - married couple, making a total of $100,000
Household B - married couple, both making $50,000 [Total: $100,000]

No household income inequality. The top 50% of households make 50% of the
income.

After a divorce in Household B:

Household A - married couple, making $100,000
Household B - single man, making $50,000
Household C - single woman, making $50,000

Now only the top 33% of households make 50% of the income. Much more income inequality!

See the problem? Of course, this is a simplification. But economists and demographers can tell you that, given various societal trends, income inequality as measured by households was bound to increase in the last twenty years.

All these seem like good points to me. But to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, I don't even know what I don't know about economics. I sense that the arguments made above are just the tip of the iceberg.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:36 PM by David Adesnik  

ECON AVALANCHE: I want to start this post with a big shout out to all of you who have shared your thoughts on some of the very basic economic questions I am just starting to grapple with. I am much obliged.

The first response I want to talk about is the one from your favorite sociologist and mine, Kieran Healy. Kieran heads straight for the jugular and questions my fundamental premise that "rapidly increasing inequality is an inevitable feature of capitalism," given that entreprenuers always reap the lion's share of the return on their investments.

As I understand it, Kieran's main argument is that top executives have rigged the American economy to ensure that "middle-managers and workers [are] being forced to bear a much larger part of the risk inherent in the capitalist enterprise" even though top executives still take home the lion's share of the profits.

Sounds improbable to me, but I'm going to take Kieran's argument seriously, since his position reflects the good professor's extensive reading on the subject, a bibliography of which is included in his post.

[Btw, don't forget to check out Kieran's clever comment about my post on Marx.]

Next we come to Kevin Drum's own response to my post (which he sent along via e-mail rather than posting it on the web). Kevin says

Good post. At least you addressed the main point of my post, instead of dodging it, as so many have done...

I completely agree that in a pure free market economy the rich get richer faster than anyone else -- and our transition to a service economy has made this even worse. That's the basic problem of monopoly in a market economy, and it's roughly what we had in American a hundred years ago. I much prefer regulated capitalism, which harnesses the genius of the marketplace but also reins in the worst of its excesses.

"Regulated capitalism" is an interesting phrase, since regulation entails everything from the existence of a central bank to the establishment of a Scandinavian welfare state.

Whereas progressives tend to think of regulation as their rallying cry -- while conservatives denigrate it as a wrench in the capitalist works -- the fact is that even the most committed free marketers have accepted the existence of extremely powerful regulatory bodies such as the Federal Reserve Board.

In fact, I think there's an argument to be made that the simple existence of a legal system with the power to enforce contracts is a pervasive form of regulation. Whereas some might argue that the existence of contract law is the foundation on which the market rests rather than an imposition on it, the existence of market economies in places such as China shows that markets can operative with remarkable vigor regardless of whether contracts can be reliably enforced.

In short, the point I'm trying to make is that regulation is always a question of "how much", not "whether or not".

Anyhow, I'm going to cut off this post right here since I have to run out to meet a friend. This evening I'll start putting up all the great responses that are now waiting in my inbox. Hasta luego!

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:56 PM by David Adesnik  

THE PEOPLE OF THE (POWER)BOOK: Writing from his portable G4, Steve Sachs informs me that Dr. BL may have been too hasty to identify Mac users as the Jews of the computing world, when in fact they are the Catholics.

Steve points to this column by celebrated Italian novelist Umberto Eco, which observes that

The fact is that the world is divided between users of the Macintosh computer and users of MS-DOS compatible computers. I am firmly of the opinion that the Macintosh is Catholic and that DOS is Protestant. Indeed, the Macintosh is counterreformist and has been influenced by the "ratio studiorum" of the Jesuits. It is cheerful, friendly, conciliatory, it tells the faithful how they must proceed step by step to reach - if not the Kingdom of Heaven - the moment in which their document is printed. It is catechistic: the essence of revelation is dealt with via simple formulae and sumptuous icons. Everyone has a right to salvation.

DOS is Protestant, or even Calvinistic. It allows free interpretation of scripture, demands difficult personal
decisions, imposes a subtle hermeneutics upon the user, and takes for granted the idea that not all can reach salvation. To make the system work you need to interpret the program yourself: a long way from the baroque community of revelers, the user is closed within the loneliness of his own inner torment.

You may object that, with the passage to Windows, the DOS universe has come to resemble more closely the counterreformist tolerance of the Macintosh. It's true: Windows represents an Anglican-style schism, big ceremonies in the cathedral, but there is always the possibility of a return to DOS to change things in accordance with bizarre decisions.....

And machine code, which lies beneath both systems (or environments, if you prefer)? Ah, that is to do with the Old
Testament, and is Talmudic and cabalistic.

Never much of a theologian, what concerns me are the socio-economic implications of Eco's argument. The MS-DOS emphasis on personal responsibility recalls Max Weber's insistence that Protestant thought is the foundation of capitalism.

Given the worldly success of Microsoft, it seems that Weber's analysis may be just as relevant to the information age as it was to the industrial era that came before it. While there is every reason to celebrate the beauty of Macintosh Catholicism, one dare not forget that it alone could not have brought us out of the dark ages. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:28 PM by Patrick Belton  

I'VE GOT (COMPUTER) ISSUES, so posting from me (and from our Washington bureau office) may be a bit light while I straighten them out..... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:33 AM by David Adesnik  

THE UNKNOWN ECONOMIST: Having almost no knowledge of economics, I rarely comment on the fiscal state of the nation. But if I'm going to pretend to know about current events, I better start figuring out what I think about economics. And besides, this post from Kevin Drum made such an exploration impossible to resist.

As usual, I've decided to give Kevin a hard time because he runs my favorite left-of-center site in the blogosphere. Whenever I put up a post that criticizes the Democratic party, liberal policy or anything similar, I try to anticipate Kevin's counterarguments. Of course, Kevin still manages to surprise me and come up with solid arguments that expose flaws in my own logic. And I'm happy to do the same for him.

Now onto the post in question. In it, Kevin rails against the unjust distribution of the economic gains made by the United States over the past 20 years. In general, I am open to that sort of criticism. I do think that the US government needs to a lot more for America's poor. But designing such programs must begin with a solid analysis of why poverty continues to exist in the midst of rapid growth.

As Kevin points out, the top 5% of American households have seen their incomes rise by $687 billion more than one would expect if one made such projection on the basis of population size. In other words,

That means that the bottom 95% — in other words, households making less than $150,000 per year — have gotten $687 billion less than they would have if we had all shared equitably in the economic prosperity of the past two decades...Translation: if increasing prosperity had been equitably distributed, those households — 100 million of them — would have incomes today nearly $7,000 higher than they do.

With that extra income, those 40 million Americans without health insurance might be able to afford to protection. Or they could spend more on their children's education. In fact, they could probably do both and still have some cash left over to spend on the simple pleasures of life, such as a fine steak and some good beer.

So, to Kevin's credit, one has to admit that the stakes on this issue are large. But I can't bring myself to agree with Kevin's observation that

It's one thing to say that the rich have most of the money — after all, that's the whole point of being rich. But it's qu