# Posted 10:41 PM by David Adesnik  

A LOOK BEHIND THE CURTAIN: I got an e-mail just now announcing a seminar series at MIT. The announcement began with the following caveat:

Please note that the Tuesday, March 30 seminar by Harvey Rishikof should be entitled "Prosecution of Saddam Hussein," not "Persecution of Saddam Hussein." Sorry for the mix-up! :)

If only it had been a Chomsky seminar, that really would've been funny. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:09 PM by David Adesnik  

PRESS GOES SOFT ON BUSH? Brad DeLong (with an "Amen" from Kevin Drum) denounces the WaPo for publishing a major story on the budget deficit that reads like a White House press release.

DeLong is right that the WaPo article doesn't really provide readers with the information necessary to really know what's going on with the budget. But given its unmitigated denunication of Bush as a fool and liar on the editorial page, I think it's a good idea for the WaPo to stick to the facts in the news section.

The counterargument here is that, presumably, more people read the front page than the editorials. Even so, I suspect that the budget-of-lies concept will get across to anyone who follows the issue. Some voters just won't care, and the media can't change that. But with Bush's credibility on this issue so low and the deficit spiraling out of control so soon after Clinton reined it in, Bush can't come out of this looking good. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:49 PM by David Adesnik  

PAPERS SLAM NEW BUDGET: If you read these three columns without knowing who'd written them, you'd probably guess that Paul Krugman had written all three.

Of course, the first is a WaPo masthead editorial, the second a NYT masthead and the third an actual Krugman column. In fact, the WaPo may be the harshest of the three. It opens by asserting that "The Bush administration's 2005 budget is a masterpiece of disingenuous blame-shifting, dishonest budgeting and irresponsible governing." It's hard to disagree.

What really pisses me off is the administration's refusal to acknowledge the continuing costs of our work in Iraq and Afghanistan. That doesn't amount to a cut-and-run strategy, but it isn't all that much better. What this kind of evasiveness ensures is that whenever the President does submit a funding request for Iraq and Afghanistan, it will become a political football.

Perhaps that's smart politics. Perhaps Bush expects that the Democrats will embarrass themselves again and reinforce their image of weakness on national security by bickering over whether or not to fund the occupations. But one sure result will be a weakening of public support for nation-building and democracy promotion. Whenever one of these funding debates start, it is hard even for the bill's supporters to come out and say that we should spend abroad while cutting back at home.

While spending on Iraqis may be for the purpose of ensuring own security, it's a hard case to make on the campaign trail. Thus, if the administration were 100% committed to promoting democracy in the Middle East, it would try to build bipartisan support for its objectives by stating up front just how it intends to pay for them. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:39 PM by David Adesnik  

DAMN THOSE SENSIBLE ISRAELIS! Polls show that Israelis favor Arik Sharon's plan to dismantle the Gaza settlements by a 25-point margin, 59-34. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:21 PM by Patrick Belton  

PLUG: It's been my great pleasure before to note here the tour schedule for the Tallis Scholars, and I'd like to do the same today for Chanticleer. Together, they're uncontestably the finest a capella ensembles singing anywhere at present, and I really can't recommend highly enough that any of our readers who might have the chance to attend one of their concerts would certainly do so.

Chanticleer will be performing in the following cities over the next two months:

February
4 Indianola, Iowa: Simpson College, 7:00p.m.
5 Storm Lake, Iowa: Buena Vista University, Schaller Chapel, 712-749-2452, 7:30p.m.
7 Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Ted Mann Concert Hall, 612-624-2345, 7:30p.m. 
8 Duluth, Minn.: University of Minnesota/Duluth, Weber Music Hall, 218-726-8877, 7:30p.m.
21 San Francisco: One World, Calvery Presbyterian Church, 8:00p.m.
22 Petaluma, California: One World, St. Vincent Church, 3:00p.m.
27 Santa Clara, California: One World, Mission Santa Clara, 8:00p.m.
28 Sacramento: One World, First United Methodist Church, 8:00p.m.
29 San Francisco: One World, Calvery Presbyterian Church, 7:00p.m.

March
5 Palm Springs , California: Annenberg Theatre, 760-325-4490 or boxoffice@psmuseum.org
6 Irvine, California: Irvine Barclay Theatre, 949-854-4646 or tickets@thebarclay.org
7 La Jolla, California: St. James Church, 858-459-3421, Ext 109, 4:00p.m.
10 Anchorage: Anchorage Concert Association, Atwood Concert Hall, 907- 272-1471, 7:30p.m.
29 San Francisco: New Voices, Calvery Presbyterian Church, 8:00p.m.

And the Tallis Scholars, incidentally, will meanwhile be performing on tour in the UK, Europe, and the US:

February
Tuesday 24 February: St. John's, Smith Square, London (020 7222 1061)
Thursday 26 February: at 7.30pm Bridgewater Hall, Manchester (0161 907 9000)

March
Sunday 14 March: Teatro della Pergola, Florence (info@mamusic.com)
Tuesday 16 March: Monfalcone, Italy (same email)
Friday 19 March: Zamora, Spain (porticozamora@terra.es)
Monday 22 March - Richmond, VA
Thursday 25 March - Ann Arbor, MI
Friday 26 March - Lexington, KY
Saturday 27 March - New York, NY
Sunday 28 March - Rhode Island, RI
Tuesday 30 March - Roanoke, VA
Wednesday 31 March - Savannah, GA

April
Friday 2 April - Stanford, CA
Sunday 4 April - Boston, MA
(Further details for US tour are obtainable from: info@franksalomon.com)

Doing things like this is one of the greatest pleasures of having a blog - we're always very happy to support the arts! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:05 AM by Patrick Belton  

DETERMINED TO SHOW THAT "SECURITY COUNCIL" IS A EUPHEMISM: After September 11th, the UN Security Council formed a panel to investigate the funding of terrorist organizations, and ways in which the international community could cooperate to halt those organizations' streams of finance. The panel was founded, under the leadership of a British diplomat named Michael Chandler. It released a report saying that the international community was not doing enough to combat Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

So what did the UN do? Well, of course, it dissolved his commission and fired Mr Chandler. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:42 AM by Patrick Belton  

CALPUNDIT'S NOTING that in very initial polling, Kerry's opening up a small lead over Bush. Undoubtedly, the Skull and Bonesman (errr...I mean, the one from Massachusetts) is being helped out by his recent bounce from comparative obscurity, and hasn't been front-runner long enough to attract a great deal of criticism - but if it holds up, then we might be in for a very interesting summer and fall....

At the very least, we'll have something to write about. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:40 AM by Patrick Belton  

DAVID'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, the extraordinarily important events going on with the Iranian legislature and scheduled elections this week deserve far more attention from all of us here in the blogosphere. Toward that end, here's a first round-up of what people have been writing about Iran, both in the blogosphere and in print. We'll be furnishing these round-ups regularly, so please let us know if we've overlooked anything or you have suggestions....

First off, BBC is offering up a Q&A about the election crisis and the text of the letter submitted by the resigning MPs, while also summarizing the coverage and editorial positions of the various Iranian newspapers.

Voice of America is repeating a US government call for free elections in Iran, while "refraining from specific comments about developments in the struggle between reform politicians and the conservative Guardian Council out of concern it might be seen as American interference." Meanwhile, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is reporting the Iranian government's alleged deliberations about whether to postpone the elections (a view which is particularly strong in the Interior Ministry. The Financial Times is pointing out the low level of enthusiasm for the Islamic Republic's 25th birthday celebrations over the weekend. According to the FT, pragmatic conservative strategists worry public response may swell the ranks of the reformists, and reformers as well as many analysts hope for the intervention of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, to overturn the Guardian Council's ruling disqualifying 2,400 reformist candidates for parliament. EurasiaNet, however, is finding both sides to be digging in and appealing to their bases, and says the Ayatollah has given no indications he will intervene or exercise leadership - his office has indicated he would be "unavailable" for the coming two days. The piece also notes that the boundaries of acceptable criticism of the revolutionary state are expanding - reformists are now openly questioning the existence of the Guardian Council and the office of Supreme Leader, which they had not dared to do before. There is also good reporting to be had in the CS Monitor and NYT, and excellent analysis in the Economist. The NYT, on the other hand, editorializes (too harshly, in my opinion) that the disqualification of the reformist candidates may spell the end of reform in Iran.

Turning to bloggers, Pejman writes:

In addition to the decision of over a hundred Iranian reformers to resign en masse from their parliamentary seats, the the largest reformer party has decided to sit out the upcoming elections:

Iran's reformists are enraged by the decision of the Guardian Council -- an unelected constitutional oversight body run by religious hardliners -- to declare more than 2,000 would-be lawmakers unfit to stand in the election.

More than 120 reformist lawmakers resigned from parliament on Sunday and President Mohammad Khatami's reformist government has called for the vote to be postponed.

"We have no hope that a fair, free and legitimate election can be held on February 20. So in the current circumstances we cannot participate," Mohammad Reza Khatami, head of the Islamic Iran Participation Front (IIPF) party, told a news conference.

He added the party, one of the main backers of his brother President Mohammad Khatami, would only put forward candidates for an election if the candidate bans were overturned and the vote was delayed to allow more time for campaigning.

The hope now is that the supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, will overturn the ban to avert a legitimacy crisis. However, given the continuous efforts of the hardliners in the Guardians' Council (and elsewhere) to sabotage and undermine the work of elected reformers, there is no way to consider the Islamic regime as anything but illegitimate.

At NRO, Michael Ledeen is pointing out that now might not be the best time for congressional staff to cozen up to the regime in Tehran (see AP and WaPo for more). MaroonBlog has a great deal on the topic, too.

Students at Tehran University are reported to be planning a protest on Wednesday - we'll be following along closely. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:20 AM by Patrick Belton  

ONE MORE CONTRIBUTION TO THE ARABIC CONSTITUTIONAL DISCOURSE: In a continuing effort to share a humble, brotherly contribution with the free people of Iraq in their constitutional discussions from out of our own Anglo-American constitutional tradition, a small play about the drafting of the US constitution's been written and translated into Arabic. (Thanks to Kelion Kasler for pointing this out to us.) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:11 AM by Patrick Belton  

BELTON, YOU GIVE ESOTERIC A BAD NAME: This isn't nearly as important as David's post on Iranian democracy below, but for those of you who will be interested in this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing you'll be interested in. Indiana University is in the process of collecting online an exhaustive list of all RFE/RL programs and segments broadcast in Central Asian languages from 1989 or so on. Many, but not all, are also in the process of eventually being posted online in RealPlayer format. (And they also link to the current programming pages of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and BBC World Service in different languages, so you can listen to today's news in Uzbek, Dari, Pahsto, Tatar, Turkmen, Kyrgyz, and every other funny language your mom's never heard of.) This is awfully useful if you're interested in learning any of these languages or seeing what the BBC and RFE/RL are broadcasting in that part of the world - it's also useful if you're just curious what Tajik sounds like. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:49 AM by David Adesnik  

FLOOD THE ZONE: Jason Broander says today's dramatic events in Iran deserve more attention both in the blogosphere and in the mainstream media. He's right, and we should've been on this one earlier.

All indicators suggest that we are about to confront a major turning point in the history of Iranian democracy. The President's own party -- the most popular and legitimate party in Iran -- is boycotting elections. I can't think of any other country in which that ever happened. Moreover, more than a third of Iran's MPs have resigned.

These actions seem to represent a clear challenge to the conservative clerics who are preventing Iran from becoming a true to democracy. Khatami's party is saying that it will no longer lend its legitimacy to fake elections that install governments without power. What it wants now are real elections that let the people choose who governs.

So dammit, flood the zone! (That means you, too, George W.)
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:53 PM by Patrick Belton  

THE BEST WRITING IN OXFORD IS DONE ON THE BATHROOM WALLS, #5:

(text, written in pencil:)

A Venerable Prof of Divinity
Had a daughter who kept her virginity
Oh! The lads down at Magdalen
They must be a'dawdlin'
It wouldn't have happened in Trinity.

(commentator, writing in blue ink:)

Rhythmically unsound
Dubious rhyming
IS THIS SOME KIND OF JOKE?

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:47 AM by Patrick Belton  

VERY RIGHT OR VERY WRONG, BUT NEVER BORING: And today, Andrew takes one of his (admirably rare) detours into the second camp. Viz:

THE CULTURE OF DEATH: A couple of hundred people are dead because they were a little too enthusiastic about stoning the Devil. This happens every year. Is it culturally insensitive to ask whether there isn't something profoundly awry about a religion that sends so many to their deaths as part of a religious duty? The Hajj minister in Saudi Arabia comments: "All precautions were taken to prevent such an incident, but this is God's will. Caution isn't stronger than fate." Excuse me? God's will to commit hundreds to their deaths? At the same time, Islamist fanatics murder scores by killing themselves in Iraq. What we have on our hands is, in some instances, not that far from a death cult.

Rather than parse or critique the argumentative structure of the paragraph (though I don't quite believe that the concluding smear against Islam generaliter follows at all from the premises, however incontrovertibly true, that the Saudi religious authorities are awfully negligent in permitting Hajj trampling deaths to recur with such tragic frequency, and that religiously-motivated terrorists do pose quite grave challenges to the security and peace of the newly free Iraqis), what I'd prefer to do is to point out one hopeful note which this analysis misses. And that is the bluntness, conciseness, and eloquence with which on the night of Eid al-Adha, Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah Al Sheik, the Saudi Grand Mufti and by no means a liberal, denounced terrorism. Noting that the extraordinary majority of victims of the recent terror attacks in Iraq and Turkey have been Muslim, and equally attacking terror against non-Muslims, the Mufti asked in his address to the pilgrims whether "is it holy war to shed Muslim blood? Is it holy war to shed the blood of non-Muslims given sanctuary in Muslim lands? Is it holy war to destroy the possessions of Muslims?" (For reporting of his speech, see Chicago Tribune and LA Times.) And to miss the significance of this condemnation - in favor of instead using a human tragedy aggravated by the incompetence of a tyrannical regime to make a smear against the extraordinarily variegated and broad Islamic swath of the planet - seems to me regrettable.

I'd like to note, though, that I'm criticizing Andrew here precisely because of the high moral tone of his life's work, and because of the great esteem in which I hold his contribution to the political discourse of the two countries of which I am resident. His quite sensible combination of social progressivism, fiscal moderation, and idealistic hawkishness in foreign policy represents a far too rare triumph in our day of humanistic common sense over the partisan and ideological consistencies that are so in fashion for our thoughtless age. With lesser sorts, I do not quibble.

UPDATE: A bit more on this from one of our esteemed friends. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:54 PM by David Adesnik  

CORRECTION CORRECTED: MM writes that

"Distractable" is a recognized variant spelling of "distractible," and not incorrect at all.

As Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary put it (see near the end of the definition):

dis.tract vt [ME, fr. L distractus, pp. of distrahere, lit.,
to draw apart, fr. dis- + trahere to draw] (14c) 1 a: to turn
aside: divert b: to draw or direct (as one's attention) to a
different object or in different directions at the same time
2: to stir up or confuse with conflicting emotions or motives
syn see puzzle -- dis.tract.i.bil.i.ty n -- dis.tract.ible
or dis.tract.able adj -- dis.tract.ing.ly adv

Fine by me. I just feel bad for the kid who got tossed in the first round of the National Spelling Bee for using an acceptable variant. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:24 PM by David Adesnik  

OXBLOG REPORTS FROM THE FRONT: What could be more fun than a post-Super Bowl riot? Driving home, I watched Boston natives honor their athletic heroes by hanging out of car windows, honking continuously and starting a fire in a newspaper vending machine. Shortly thereafter, four men ran by with a keg in a shopping cart. I expected even more action as I approached the next intersection, but no thanks to some cops in riot gear, I lost the chance to become a full-fledged war correspondent. Dagnabit! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:49 PM by Patrick Belton  

RESPECTFULLY NOTED: The Forward notes a few congressional primary races that might interest some of our readers: First, Andy Rosenberg is running against Northern Virginian Congressman Jim Moran, whose nationwide reputation rests mostly on his paranoid and ridiculous (and, now, ironically self-fulfilling) comments that Jews are out to unseat him (see our Moron Watch, from last April). Second, Oxford grad (D.Phil., history, St Antonys) Jamie Metzl's running for an open seat in Missouri's 5th (see his campaign website). Jamie's a really nice guy, and eminently qualified, too - a White House Fellow and Harvard Law grad with experience on the NSC and Senate Foreign Relations staffs, several respected academic books to his name, and enough ties to his district to propel him to a fast lead in fundraising. I didn't think people like him ran for Congress anymore. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:32 PM by Patrick Belton  

VAGUELY INTERESTED IN THE SUPER BOWL, but you'd rather read about Lesbians? Well, you can have it both ways - ESPN has a very nice game cast where you can keep an eye on the game while keeping the other free to do whatever you want with it.... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:19 PM by Patrick Belton  

"WE HAVE AN OBJECTIVE MEDIA" HEADLINE OF THE DAY: "Engineering Geek Names Son Version 2.0" (CNN)

(Incidentally...and since it's somewhat vaguely on the same topic...today is Rachel's and my 40 month, and therefore 3.333 repeating year, anniversary of our first date. So this post goes out with love to the lovely blogosphere wives who put up with us....) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:16 PM by David Adesnik  

OUR CONDOLENCES to the people of Erbil, Iraq on this day, which should have been a day of celebration. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:02 AM by Patrick Belton  

WHICH WAY DO I POINT THIS THING AGAIN?: I'm off, at a dreadfully early hour, to represent Oxford on the athletic field the first time, this time against that pernicious enemy, the villainous British Pistol Association! (cue Darth Vader theme, I suspect). Ideally I'll succeed in at least not doing too dire harm to anyone else or myself....

UPDATE (5:00 pm): Okay, far from being pernicious villains, the British Pistol Association were extraordinarily good sports who not only won a close match against us on a windy day, while showing admirable technique, but also took us out to lunch after, and extended to all of us a kind invitation to shoot there as their guests whenever we liked. Their headquarters, Bisley in Surrey, has for ages been the headquarters of British pistol and rifle shooting, with origins in the officer corps. All national- and Commonwealth-level competition takes place there, and the place has a quite lovely sense of history.

So I'll have to reserve the label of pernicious villain for second-rate universities located in various cities called Cambridge.... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:44 AM by David Adesnik  

TO HELL WITH CANADA! INVADE MARS! Citizen Smash has more. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:43 AM by David Adesnik  

HAVE YOU HEARD THE GOOD NEWS? That quesiton always makes me think of the Sopranos episode where Janice dates an evangelical Christian. Not knowing he's surrounded by mobsters, Janice's boyfriend always begins conversations by asking "Have you heard the good news?" He then tries to convert his newfound criminal and Catholic friends to his brand of Christianity.

Anyhow, Winds of Change has just declared that Saturday, the Sabbath, will from henceforth be a day of good news. Well versed in many religious traditions, Joe will be using his Saturday posts to share the wisdom of Hasidic Judaism, Sufi Islam and Zen Buddhism. Today's earthly good news is that WoC's Armed Liberal has just gotten engaged. AL also has a post from Friday which should count as good news, because it concerns a remarkable display of human compassion.

Of course, if you want some bad news, WoC has plenty of that as well. Thus, I highly recommend the most recent Central Asia briefing, which has some good news, but plenty of bad as well. Torture. Stuff like that.

CORRECTION: Saturday has been good news day for quite some time now on WoC. I just got thrown off by the use of the future tense to describe this practice in the post linked to above. Well, serves me right for not reading WoC more often.

(1) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:05 PM by David Adesnik  

DON'T READ THIS! Stop now. I told you not to read this. Oh, alright. Fine. If you're going to be that way, just go ahead. Anyhow, in case you haven't heard, Slate media critic Jack Shafter has been launching high-profile attacks on the NYT Magazine for running an allegedly unsubstantiated story about sex slavery in the United States.

The first critic to call the NYT on its questionable reporting was blogger Daniel Radosh, who was rewarded for his trouble with personal threats from the article's author, Peter Landesman. Landesman's editor and then Landesman himself apologized for going overboard. But both of them still stand by the story.

After going through all of this material, I'm left wondering why I bothered with it in the first place. Mainly, I guess, because it involves two of my favorite subjects: First, sex. Second, incompetence at the NYT. (If Jayson Blair had been directing X-rated films in the back offices on 43rd St, you can bet OxBlog would've provided daily coverage.) Even so, I felt after going through it all that I had wasted my time.

Why? Perhaps because it all seemed so petty and sensational. Then again, if sex slavery is a serious issue, we should be reading about it. Perhaps because I found Shafter's criticism persuasive, the seriousness of the issue not the first thing on my mind. So before you go and follow the links in this post, decide if that's what you really want. After all, if you'd followed my advice, you wouldn't have even gotten this far.

NB: I have consistently referred the NYT's offices as being on 44th St, even though they are most definitely on 43rd. This is a particularly embarrassing mistake for a native New Yorker, especially one who had the chance to visit the Times' offices as a student journalist in high school. What I can't remember is whether or not the NYT building goes through the entire block and has windows on 44th St. If so, I'd at least feel somewhat vindicated. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:56 PM by Patrick Belton  

HAPPY EID: Tomorrow is Eid al Adha, so an Eid Mubarak to our Muslim brothers and sisters! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:25 PM by David Adesnik  

QUEER EYE FOR THE SADDAM GUY: I hope all you network executives are listening. This is going to be a blockbuster. It's time for the Fab Five to give Saddam a makeover. After coming out of that spider hole, Saddam looked just plain terrible. The beard is the first thing that has to go. But why stop there? This is a job for the professionals... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:10 PM by David Adesnik  

IS MUSHARRAF GETTING TOUGH? He's fired Pakistan's #1 bombmaker and is forcing rural tribes to turn over Al Qaeda suspects. On a related note, Phil Carter reports that American forces are preparing a major offensive in Afghanistan. Their target is Osama bin Laden and they seem unexpectedly confident that they will find him. (And while you're over at Phil's site, make sure to check out his excellent coverage of the legal debate concerning rhe rights enemy combatants.)

I sense that there is a relationship between all these events but have no ability whatsoever to say what it is. My concern is that Musharraf will once again become uncooperative in the near future, since his efforts to play off the United States against his internal opponents demands that the general make concessions to both sides. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:53 PM by David Adesnik  

DEAN-BASHING AT THE NYT? Public editor Dan Okrent examines his paper's record. He find a number of flaws, but nothing serious. I would've been more critical, especially of Jodi Wilgoren, whom Okrent describes as an excellent reporter.

But more importantly, Okrent's column represents a new self-awareness at the Times and a new willingness to subject the Paper of Record to serious criticism. At the moment, Okrent find himself in the somewhat unusual position of defending the Times from the left. Yet by establishing the legitimacy of internal criticism, Okrent is preparing the Times for the much harder task ahead: to admit when it has wronged conservatives. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:36 AM by Patrick Belton  

GOOGLE AND DATING, PART DEUX: Hmmm, when yesterday I took note of the manifold useful applications of the internet to dating (see, for instance, this joker's former jdate profile....), I hadn't even thought of this application:

A suspected US fraudster on the run for a year has reportedly been caught after a woman checked his name on the Google website before meeting him for a date. LaShawn Pettus-Brown was wanted in Ohio for allegedly siphoning off city funds from restoration projects.

Mr Pettus-Brown showed up to meet his date only to be greeted by several FBI agents, not the woman of his dreams. (via BBC)

And they made fun of me for googling Rachel before we went out..... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:28 AM by Patrick Belton  

PLANES AND TERRORISTS: RAND releases a study on the implications of counterterror operations for air power. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:47 PM by Patrick Belton  

NULAND ON GENETIC ENGINEERING: Yale's Professor Sherwin Nuland is one of the most eloquent humanistic voices in the medical profession of our day, and is an extraordinary asset both to his campus and his nation. So it's with great pleasure that I point out he has a piece in the New York Review of Books, on genetic engineering - he's always worth reading, whether in this instance you agree with him or not. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:51 PM by Patrick Belton  

RITA KATZ puts out her weekly summary of terrorism-related headlines. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:00 PM by Patrick Belton  

MAYBE HE'S NOT IN AS GOOD SHAPE as he appears: "Castro would 'die fighting' any U.S. invasion of Cuba" (CNN) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:38 AM by Patrick Belton  

OXBLOG'S MOVIE PICS: The Triplets of Belleville, which played in Europe as Belleville Rendevous, is opening in America. Josh, Rachel, and I saw it here, and it was one of the simultaneously sweetest and most interesting films I've seen in ages.

So if any of our readers have dates tonight, it's most recommended! (And if you don't, then there are websites for that.....) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:10 AM by David Adesnik  

FARRAKHAN ENDORSES BIN LADEN: At tonight's debate Tom Brokaw said,

Reverend Sharpton, there is a great war going on in the world between the West and the Nation of Islam. And the United States, at the moment, is losing the war for hearts and minds. Everyone agrees on that, whatever their political position happens to be. [Actually, OxBlog thinks we've made progress when it comes to hearts and minds. --Ed.]

Specifically, what should the United States be doing in terms of programs? And how much money should it commit to find common ground between this country and the democratic ideals that we all embrace and the Nation of Islam?

If only Dr. Freud had been there. Why not just come out and ask Al Sharpton if he's an irresponsible demagogue like Farrakhan? (And the answer would be...) But I can forgive Tom Brokaw for his Freudian slip. It was at least entertaining.

However, the rest of Brokaw's questions were terrible. After going through tonight's transcript, I didn't have much an opinion about which candidate made an impressive showing or lost ground to his competitors. Because with questions like Brokaw's, all you wind up getting are evasions and cliches.

At first, Brokaw just asked questions about well-known gaffes that have already gotten more than their share of press coverage, for example Kerry's comments about getting southern votes. But then he started asking softballs that just gave the candidates a chance to launch into their stump speeches. I mean, do you really need to ask Howard Dean (in so many words) whether the President lied about Iraq?

Perhaps the strangest questions were the ones Brokaw had for Joe Lieberman. Basically, he only asked him about policies with which he agrees. Was it OK to invade Iraq without UN approval? Has NAFTA been good for the economy?

All in all, it seemed like Brokaw suffered from split personality disorder. Half the time he asked questions that were supposed to be tough but we're generally just impertient. And the other half of the time he asked questions so easy that there was no hope of learning anything about the candidates. Well, I guess that's how they did things back in the days of The Greatest Generation... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:19 AM by David Adesnik  

RECYCLING THE GARBAGE: You'd think the NYT would know better. No, wait. You wouldn't. Nonetheless, I'm going to give the Keller mafia a hard time for writing that

Mr. Bush, whose aides had been plotting a war against Iraq practically since Inauguration Day, has dodged questions about why the American intelligence about Iraq was just as wrong as Britain's intelligence.

Was anyone on 44th St. paying attention when it turned out that Paul O'Neill's claims about pre-9/11 war planning were patently false? Even O'Neill himself admitted that his comments were misleading. Get with the program, people. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:09 AM by David Adesnik  

WHAT'S FRENCH FOR CHUTZPAH? This NYT op-ed defends the proud tradition of French secularism. Its author writes that

In this time of political-religious tensions, school secularism is for us the foundation for civil peace, and for the integration of people of all beliefs into the Republic...

Try telling that to some Jewish kid whose school just got firebombed. If educational secularism is the foundation of civil peace religious integration, I guess that makes it responsible for the fascist anti-Semitism of the French right and the Islamic anti-Semitism of the French left. Not to mention the apathy of those in the middle. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:59 AM by David Adesnik  

PAY ATTENTION! ARE YOU DISTRACTABLE? The answer to that question is 'no'. How can I be so damn sure? Because there's no such word as 'distractable'. If you can be distracted, then you are distract-ible.

Now, the reason I'm being so pedantic is that last night I rented Spellbound, a very sweet documentary about eight kids who made it to the National Spelling Bee in Washington. One of the eight gets asked to spell 'distractible', but spells it with an 'a' instead of 'i'. Of course, I thought he got it right and then felt sort of dumb when he got booted from the competition.

The film is different from a lot of documentaries because it doesn't seem to have a message or agenda. It is just a chance for the viewer to meet eight interesting young men and women as well as their families. What they have in common is an almost inexplicable love of language that results in an almost obsessive commitment to spelling every word in sight.

Unless you have a Ph.D. in English, you'll spend the second half of the film with your jaw wide-open while these kids spell words you've never even heard of. Hellebore? Euonym? Thank God I wasn't on that stage.

The final word in the National Spelling Bee represented an ironic choice on the part of the judges: logorrhea -- the excessive use of words. Might apply to certain blogs...

UPDATE: Who knew? Glenn Reynolds was once in the National Spelling Bee. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:07 PM by David Adesnik  

EGG-FACED PROPHET? Noam Scheiber comments on the resignation of Joe Trippi, whom Scheiber so recently identified as "The Man Who Reinvented Campaigned". (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:00 PM by David Adesnik  

WHO IS JOHN KERRY? TNR tries to decide. Dan Kennedy suggets that Kerry is "a deceptively formidable candidate, especially when his back is against the wall" and that Kerry is "connecting with these voters -- connecting in a way that perhaps he never had before in his career."

Jon Keller responds: "Let's not pretend that a Kerry nomination would be anything more than the latest eruption of baby-boomer political flatulence." Ouch! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:33 AM by David Adesnik  

A SHOT ACROSS KERRY'S BOW: Fred Barnes lays out how conservatives will attack Senator John if he gets the nomination. I don't know enough to say if all of Barnes' criticism is fair, but I think he's right that Kerry's shifting positions on both Gulf Wars will be hard to defend. At the same time, the Standard politely mocks John Edwards' millionaire populism.

UPDATE: TNR reminds us of Kerry's spectacular chameleon act from back in '91. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:32 AM by David Adesnik  

WHAT SISTANI BELIEVES: Reuel Marc Gerecht writes that

The point is, you judge a Shiite cleric first and foremost by his writings, his lectures to his students, the younger clerics he has trained, and his mentors. By all of these criteria, Grand Ayatollah Sistani is a "good" mullah. There are two big intellectual currents in modern Shiite clerical thought. One leads to Khomeini and the other leads to clerics like Sistani. There are certainly overlapping areas between the two schools of thought--the place of women in post-Saddam Iraq will likely be a fascinating subject--but on the role of the people as the final arbiter of politics, there is very little reason to doubt Sistani's commitment to democracy. Clerics like Sistani may use high-volume moral suasion, they may suggest that a certain view is sinful, but they understand that clerics cannot become politicians without compromising their religious mission

Not a definitive answer, but a lot more specific than what we've been getting from the daily papers. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:29 PM by Patrick Belton  

LIVE IN ENGLAND? WANNA VOTE? And, err...if you're a US citizen...then you just might be in luck. I'm aware this is possibly a comparatively small group of our readers, but I thought the information in this email that I just sent around my college might be useful anyway for the few people who would benefit from it:

Dear friends,

Being pitifully unable to raise myself all the way up to the Olympian level of today's earlier emails, can I just point out that for the US citizens in the crowd, there are a few voting-related activities going on around Oxford and London that might interest at least a few of you. Especially if you've been puttering around on a d.phil. long enough that you've been dropped from the rolls in your proper state (ahem...that's not me though).

In terms of voting in the primaries while overseas, there's a Democratic caucus being held in London on February 9th for expatriate US citizens, to select delegates from the expat community. Passports are necessary to attend, or at least to attend somewhat usefully, and contact information for the event seems to be Democrats Abroad UK at 020 7724 9796 or email vote@democratsabroad.org.uk. There's not a Republican equivalent this year, because of the existence of an incumbent president.

On this Tuesday, to help all of you expats have a Super Tuesday (yes, I'm aware that was bad), the UK Democrats Abroad is holding a primary-watching party and absentee voter registration evening in Oxford, at the Rothermere Institute, at 8 pm. They'll also, in somewhat lesser Tammany fashion, feed you. If on the other hand your preferences tilt Republican, I'm quite sure you can turn up anyway and take whatever sneaking pleasure you wish at having them help you register. Or, if you liked to keep to your own kind, the contact information for the Republicans Abroad UK is the address chairman@republicansabroad.org.uk; though I'm not aware of their having yet announced a voting registration event in Oxford or London. Presumably though they're the sort of people who would take pleasure in sending you the appropriate forms you would need in their spare time.

I hope that's useful to at least some of you. Incidentally, my connection was too slow to attach the virus that's going around, but if anyone feels left out, I'm happy to call them up and read them the appropriate zeroes and ones.

with all best wishes,
Patrick

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:56 PM by David Adesnik  

GOING SOFT ON IRAN? The WaPo says that both Europe and the US are endangering hopes of democratic reform. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:50 PM by David Adesnik  

KAY SAYS IRAQ INTELLIGENCE "ALMOST ALL WRONG": However, the former chief investigator explicitly refused to hold political pressure responsible for distortion of the intelligence. On a related note, Kevin Drum has concluded his search for anyone, anywhere who denied the existence of Saddam's WMD before the invasion of Iraq.

Kevin's search came in response to Atrios' insistence that before the war

There were also plenty of reasonable people running around saying that this whole WMD stuff was nonsense. Remember how they were treated by our media? They were treated like escapees from an insane asylum who needed to up their Thorazine dose. Remember how radical and controversial it was to even suggest such a thing?

Suspecting that Atrios was wrong, Kevin asked his readers to search high and low for evidence that someone reasonable doubted the existence of Iraq's WMD. Turns out that no one in either the United States or Western Europe expressed such doubts, although Vladimir Putin came close to doing so. If Kevin were inclined to do so, he might have added that Atrios got what he deserved for buying into the indefensible notion that the media has gone soft on Bush.

By the way, while you're over at CalPundit, check out Kevin's post on the economy. Good stuff. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:06 PM by Patrick Belton  

STUDENTS PROTESTING TOP-UP FEES OCCUPIED EXAM SCHOOLS LAST NIGHT: And, I really don't mean any disrespect, but as far as I can tell no one noticed. The president of the Student Union accompanied the protesters in occupying the university building, and called loudly on the government to reject the proposal to increase the funds available to the nation's suffering universities. Fortunately, however, the government of Britain often possesses sufficient wisdom to disregard the political advice of Oxford students - as when, for instance, it did indeed in 1939 decide to fight for King and country.

I found out about the protest only late this afternoon, as the President of Malawi was in the midst of making a no-show at Oxford. (Which, given President Muluzi's nasty habits of suppressing critical journalists and denying opposition parties the right to hold peaceful rallies, might not on the whole be that bad a thing....) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:30 AM by Patrick Belton  

AND A SECOND BIG WIN FOR BLAIR: The Hutton Report has been released, entirely exculpating the Blair government of any involvement whatsoever in David Kelly's suicide. The report's key points are here, and the BBC devotes an entire page to the controversy as it's unfolded. The full text of the report will be up shortly on the Inquiry's website, here.

UPDATE: It's up... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:11 AM by Patrick Belton  

AND DISCUSSING HOMELAND SECURITY, SOME MORE: The Oxford chapter of our gang is taking up the subject tonight, at 8:30 pm in the St Antony's College JCR. We'll let you know what we come up with! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:02 AM by Patrick Belton  

GOOGLE IN UZBEK! Central Asia hands are awfully happy......

And that includes, incidentally, Nathan Hamm who's just written a Central Asia update over at Winds of Change. (Nathan normally blogs here.) (As opposed to Nathan Hale, who blogs here.) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:57 AM by Patrick Belton  

ANDREW SOUNDS TO ME TO HAVE BASICALLY GOTTEN IT RIGHT: Rather than bash Dean's wife for shunning the traditional first lady role, the media should applaud her.

One of the greatest, freshest, most exciting parts of Howard Dean's campaign was always his refusal to play this hideous media soft-lens Oprah game. He wasn't very telegenic; he shot his mouth off; he said things other candidates were too afraid to say. The fact that his wife was completely absent from the campaign was a wonderful new testament to Dean's real feminism.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:39 AM by Patrick Belton  

WHAT GOT ME, DAVID, was more the person who got to us by googling "undersexed graduate students".... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:05 AM by David Adesnik  

MORE GOOGLE HIJINKS: Someone found OxBlog by searching for "sex change operation pictures". What's really strange is that OxBlog came up sixth in the search even though Google found 149,000 entries.

FYI, it was this post on the relevance of sex change operations to gay marriage laws that caught Google's eye. The previous post had thanked Zeyad for posting pictures of an anti-terrorism march in Baghdad.

In case you were interested, the number one site for sex change operation pictures is here. It doesn't have any pictures either. But it suggests that an appropriate punishment for Osama bin Laden would be for him to have a sex change operation and then be forced to live under Taliban rule in Afghanistan. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:09 PM by David Adesnik  

REAL-TIME COMMENTARY: The WaPo's Robert Kaiser is answering questions online at the moment. I think it's a testament to the WaPo's readership and to internet news junkies in general that their questions tend to be a more interesting than his answers. Here are a few samples:

Toledo, Ohio: Doesn't losing both NW and Iowa doom Dean? 13 out 14 nominees have won at least one of these critical first states.

Robert G. Kaiser: Maybe, but I don't believe in historical determinism, and I have never seen a year like this one.

Washington, D.C.: In the recent past, has any Democratic candidate lost the first position in Iowa and New Hampshire but won the nomination.

Robert G. Kaiser: Bill Clinton did not run against Tom Harkin in Iowa in '92, and came in second to Paul Tsongas in NH. In fact, none of these results from the past "prove" anything about the future...

Boston, Mass..: Paul Tsongas won South Carolina in 1992 by a wide margin -- does this bode well for Kerry down there? Thank you.

Robert G. Kaiser: Well, it suggests that South Carolina won't gote against Kerry on the grounds that he comes from the wrong state. But I'm not sure it means any more than that...

Ames, Iowa: Do you think that the media is so much against Howard Dean because they are owned by the big corporations who would lose if this sort of campaigns built on $100 a little person succeeds?...

Robert G. Kaiser: ...Dean was the big phenomenon of this election. He naturally attracted a lot of attention. He didn't handle it very well. I think that's his problem. [OK, so not all online newshounds are that smart, but the percentage is high. --Ed.]

Now, if you're willing to follow a tangent, take a look at Kaiser's response to a question about the media's role in the election:

Washington, D.C.: Mr. Kaiser, as the fourth arm of government, how would you rate the performance of the media during this primary season?

Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks for giving me the opportunity to say that "the media" is a club neither I nor any of my colleagues at The Post ever applied to join. We work, proudly, for The Washington Post, which has, once again, covered national politics with great distinction last year and this, in my insufficiently independent opinion. Television now does a poor job on politics year round. many papers around the country don't pay enough attention to political coverage. Commercial radio has died. NPR is doing a fine job. Etc Etc. "The media" is a catchall that doesn't really catch the reality of the news business.

While there's no disputing the high quality of the WaPo's coverage, Kaiser's answer is still profoundly misleading. Few journalists spend their entire careers at a single papers, especially not the WaPo. Rather, journalists circulate constantly, a process that results in the establishment of a set of professional norms that is almost identical at every major news outlet. In this sense, there truly is a profession known as "journalism" and a collective of professionals known as the "media".

The opinion expressed above reflects the work of numerous scholars, my favorite of whom is Stephen Hess. In fact, while divided on many issues, scholars interested in the media almost all agree on the uniformity of journalistic norms. This finding has endured now for more than twenty years. In the process, it has been confirmed by opinion surveys (of journalists), hundreds of interviews, and many sociological studies in which scholars have spent weeks or even months in the newsroom as observers.

In fact, Kaiser's comments back up another important finding on which media critics have reached consensus: that even journalists at the most prestigious publications are only dimly aware of the norms that bind them to their colleagues. Rather, journalists often perpetuate stereotypes that have little basis in fact, such as the supposedly low quality of TV journalism in comparison to print. Unsurprisingly, most scholars believe that the first step toward the improvement of American journalism is greater self-awareness on the part of American journalists. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:38 PM by David Adesnik  

NO SURPRISES IN NEW HAMPSHIRE: With the half the votes in, it looks like tonight's results will turn out almost identical to the projections of yesterday's tracking polls. Kerry is running slightly ahead of the projections of the and Edwards slightly behind, but the major story is in place: Kerry sustains his momentum, Dean consolidates second place with a double-digit lead over Clark and Edwards.

The more interesting questions about the race actually come at the bottom of the ballot. If Clark finishes fourth (or a distant third) in New Hampshire after avoiding Iowa, is his candidacy on the ropes? By the same token, will Edwards lose the invaluable media attention of the past seven days as a result of his somewhat lackluster finish?

My guess is that the subtleties of the Edwards-Clark finish won't matter much, since both are depending on a strong showing in the South. That, of course, brings us to the fact that 2/3 of New Hampshire primary voters described themselves as anti-war. Presumably, that statistic favored Dean and, to some degree, Kerry. In pro-war democratic states, will Edwards have an advantage? Or will Clark and Kerry's military records substitute for their having clear positions on the war?

Finally, Lieberman. The NYT suggests (in a straight news article, of course) that Senator Joe's 9% showing "could doom his candidacy". At the end of the same article, it reports that

Some analysts have said that if Mr. Lieberman does as poorly as the pre-primary polls indicated, he will be finished as a realistic candidate.

But given that Lieberman was expected to get 5-6%, doesn't 9% look relatively good? Double digits would look especially nice, suggested that Lieberman is running neck-and-neck with Clark even though the Senator is a supposed also-ran.

With 9-10%, it almost pays for Lieberman to fight it ought until the convention, since those kind of numbers might allow him to play kingmaker. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:57 PM by Patrick Belton  

MEETING AN AMBASSADOR: And a Russian one, at that. Grigory Karasin, the Russian ambassador to the Court of St James and a former deputy foreign minister, stopped up at Oxford this afternoon. I typed up a transcript of the discussion, but haven't had a chance to proofread it, so it contains some typos. (Sorry!)

Some of the more interesting selections are quoted below. You can read this text in one of two ways - as presented and without definite and indefinite articles, in which case you'd have to read it aloud and ideally with a marked Russian accent; or with them, as I've optionally supplied. I hadn't meant to only extract unusual (or risible) comments, as his general presentation was articulate, intelligent, and often quite candid. However, there were a few bits - call them, "Karasinisms" - that I just couldn't let slip by without comment....

on the Holocaust
When we think of anti-Semitism, we shouldn’t overemphasize that part of [the] Holocaust. At [the] same time, some people tried to put anti-Semitism into [the] Middle East to discuss [a/the] Middle East settlement. That is [a] different thing, entirely.

on Iraq, and impersonating Madonna
We think that what happened was not optimal, but we recognize that we are living in a material world, and we think the best thing that can be done is to bring back the U.N.

on imaginative construals of what it means to have free and fair elections
Russia is a multiparty democracy with elections, plus and minuses with them, for examples – but take [the] last Duma election, roughly 23 parties took part in that, generally well organized, honest and fair. I can argue with those who think it was not like that.

on having your next presidential election be a foregone conclusion, in a multiparty democracy with elections
also, on the virtues of going to work each day
On march 15, there will be the election of the President, not many people hesitate to predict the result, and it is not because we live in a society where everything is predictable, it is because the personal record of President Putin is absolutely obvious. People trust him, they see that he is really a working President, that every day he tries to handle in a really constructive way some questions with the government.

on optimism
Because Britain is traditionally the land of very good and positive inventions, so let us hope it will invent something to allow us to prosper as an economic power.

on Chechnya (or, having your eggs and breaking them too)
But to try to take an upper hand in political discussions, that can be done later, but establishing that people can go to work and take their children to school, that is priority, and later we can discuss what was optimal.

on Russia, as a new cuddly neighbor
Even if you take the recent Americans’ announcements, not only in Georgia but certainly, Secretary of State says that he thinks, the intonation of the statement was that Russia should be friendly with neighbours, etc., we don’t have to be reminded about that. We’re not pretending to be the patrons of everybody who is neighbouring to Russia. And that is example of Cold War mentality – when Russia is still seen as former Soviet Union. But we should keep in mind that our security, and our national interests, are observed. And we should keep in mind that Russia is either a partner, a full partner, or no partner at all.

on what free speech means to him
It is not yet the end of the road, but people feel themselves living in free market conditions, where they have no limitation to express their views, and where the media represents different views and, fortunately for the state, and fortunately for Russia, it is no longer in the hands of the oligarchs, who like very much to defend, so-called, their own rights, among them, the freedom of speech. It was not freedom of speech, it was the freedom of speech of those who own the news channels.

on those good old days
We can’t say that the former experience of Soviet power was totally negative for my country, there were a number of positive experiences in education, science, and other fields.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:48 PM by Patrick Belton  

...AND A BIG WIN FOR BLAIR: The top-up fees bill passes the Commons, 316-311. BBC for more. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:07 AM by Patrick Belton  

WHAT WE PAY THEM FOR, PART DEUX: The State Department releases several documents, including Secretary Powell's op-ed criticizing the lack of democracy in Russia in Izvestia; the selection of the first class of Iraqi Fulbright scholars from free Iraq; Deputy Secretary Armitage's interview on Egyptian television about democracy promotion in the Middle East; and a synopsis of the U.S. government's efforts with regard to female and juvenile refugees.

More, please. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:14 AM by Patrick Belton  

MY PREDICTION, PROBABLY WRONG: The last NH polls show a tiny bit of movement away from Kerry, whose post-Iowa surge is starting to cool, and towards Dean, who is solidifying his position as the clear alternative to Kerry. On the other hand, the weather in New Hampshire, while not so great, isn't so bad to depress turnout (i.e., no snow): and lower turnout would have further favored Dean over Kerry, since Dean has a much broader get-out-the-vote organization in the state. So Kerry and Dean move out of New Hampshire tonight to battle it out in the South, with Lieberman (my quijotic candidate), Clark, and Edwards sticking in it until Super Tuesday. Advantage: strongly Kerry, with Dean nipping at his heels to gain on him if he stumbles. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:30 AM by Patrick Belton  

CAMPAIGN FLAGGING, CLARK CAMPAIGNS AS THE NON-YALIE CANDIDATE: At a diner in Keene, N.H., Clark assured a group of voters that "I didn't go to Yale." Kerry, Dean, Lieberman, and President Bush all hold Yale degrees. Edwards and Kucinich quickly picked up on Clark's brilliant idea, and announced they too would help to form a "non-Yalie coalition," which would revive the presidential hopes of the three doomed candidates with flagging campaigns. The three university goyim indicated they would first concentrate their attacks on Senator Lieberman, who holds two Yale degrees, and is therefore thought to be most vulnerable. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:43 AM by Patrick Belton  

POLLY WANNA RUN FOR PRESIDENT? A captive African grey parrot, named N'kisi, is quite astounding researchers by displaying verbal inventiveness, an ability to deal with novel ideas, and a wisecracking sense of humour. Seeing Jane Goodall, after having seen her photograph, he wisecracked to her: "Got a chimp?"

Hearing about N'kisi's verbal suppleness, ability to confront novel ideas, and affable wisecracking sense of humour, there have been last-ditch efforts by U.S. Democrats to attempt to convince N'kisi to enter into the New Hampshire primary. No word yet, however, as to whether the parrot will say yes, or merely string the Democratic party along for an interminable series of crackers. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:56 AM by David Adesnik  

CLARK TAKES EARLY LEAD: Dixville Notch chalks up eight votes for the General. Kerry follows with three, Edwards with two. Last time around they took Bradley, four votes to two. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:37 AM by David Adesnik  

HAPPY BLOGIVERSARY, GREG! Belgravia Dispatch turns one. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:28 AM by David Adesnik  

DEFENDING THE NEW ECONOMY: The WaPo tells Democratic candidates to stop blaming Indian techno-geeks for the supposed jobless recovery. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:19 AM by David Adesnik  

THE 20th HIJACKER: And the man who stopped him. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:16 AM by David Adesnik  

THE ORIGINAL JOHN KERRY: Via Garry Trudeau via Instapundit. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:15 AM by David Adesnik  

STOP JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! In Afghanistan. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:08 AM by David Adesnik  

PROBLEM? ANSWER.

Problem:

The procedures in place for choosing [the new Iraqi] government are insufficiently democratic and excessively complex. Unless the transition goes well, Washington's chances of extricating itself from the day-to-day political and security problems of Iraq could fade.

The system for choosing a new government is built around a convoluted sequence of caucuses in which appointed officials are supposed to solicit and then screen nominations from local dignitaries. The process allows no direct participation by ordinary Iraqis and provides no assurance that all important elements of the population will be appropriately represented.

Answer:

Whatever is decided on, not all Iraqis will be happy. That is why any plan needs the international legitimacy U.N. involvement can bring. The current dispute might have been avoided if the U.N. had been included at an earlier stage. Instead, the agreement that set up the flawed caucus plan was drawn up last fall without U.N. participation. It is encouraging to see Washington, however belatedly, now trying to correct that mistake.

Huh? Iraqis deprived of their democratic rights will somehow be happy if the UN sanctions a less-than-democratic transition plan? Or if the UN had drawn up an undemocratic transition plan in tandem with the United States? By the same logic, one might be led to believe that 44th St. would've accepted the result of the Florida recount four years ago if Kofi Annan had told them to.

I think the real problem here is the NYT's inability to recognize that the people of Iraq know what democracy is and value it. And that the people of Iraq, unlike the editors of the NYT, don't see undemocratic international organizations as a source of democratic legitimacy. Perhaps Ayatollah Sistani will accept the American plan if the UN endorses it unconditionally. But then Shi'ites will be accepting the American plan because of their respect for Sistani, not their respect for the UN. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:50 PM by David Adesnik  

PLAYING HARD TO GET: You've got to wonder about all these undecided voters in New Hampshire. After two months of having all the candidates parade back and forth across the state, what exactly are New Hampshire's voters waiting to discover in the last hours before the polls open?

If they're all so thoughtful and civic-minded, why didn't they read about the candidates when they had time? Frankly, I sorta think that all those folks in Concord and Manchester and Nashua are just so used to having their butts kissed by politicians that they refuse to decide until the absolute last minute just so that they can milk the primary for all its worth.

But you know what would make them real humble real fast? Moving the first primary to another state. Then watch the New Hampshirites complain about the Nebraskans or whoever and how they think they have some sort of special right to get personal attention from the candidates while the rest of us get nothing more than 30-second commercials.

(Yes, I am in a bad mood.) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:39 PM by David Adesnik  

HITTING BELOW THE BELT: According to a financial analyst from Nashua, NH:

It hurts to vote this way, but I think George Bush has been a disaster, and if my cat had the best chance of winning the election, then I'd vote for my cat.

If the cat gets enough votes, it will be Pussy vs. Bush in November. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:25 AM by Patrick Belton  

TRANSATLANTIC DIFFERENCES: The Oxford, Pennsylvania franchise of LA Fitness offers weights and training facilities. My own LA Fitness chapter, in Oxford, England, offers "dating." I have a number of responses here: first, does this make working out more or less of a meat market? second, if the point of weights and training facilities is to facilitate dating anyway, is it then a good or bad idea to simply cut out the intermediate steps? third, and most importantly, is this because English people can't do the "dating" bit on their own after they've done the "go to the gym" bit?

UPDATE: A reader points out: "if you check the boxes on the dating service though, as a male seeking a male, it only comes up with males seeking females. Does this mean that gay men in England don't need the help with dating that straight men do?" Heh - perhaps! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:44 AM by Patrick Belton  

IS THE ROYAL NAVY STILL FIGHTING THE COLD WAR? Prospect Magazine argues that it is:

The most significant threat our ships face is air attack. The only utility of frigates in air defence is as sacrificial shields, and our current destroyers [which are capable of launching surface-to-air missiles: ed] are obsolete. Our fighter screen is cleverly improvised but only works in cold weather. New destroyers may be available in a few years, but we will be without fleet fighters for some time, and will be very weak in airborne radar, which could solve so many of our problems.

In response, author Lewis Page calls for a massive reduction in Britain's frigate and dated destroyer fleet, and a reinvestment in nuclear submarines and an unmothballed third carrier.

With the money saved, we could build effective armed forces and be the terror of the world's dictators and ethnic cleansers, as we should be. Britain would have a capability independent of the US, a situation more dignified than relying on the Americans, while moaning about how they manage each crisis.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:32 AM by Patrick Belton  

STRAIGHT IS BETTER: We at OxBlog have never been stingy in our support for gay rights. However, this post from our friends at Crescat Sententia reminds us that there's nonetheless one thing in life which, even we'd have to admit, is much better off straight: and that's whisky.

UPDATE: Our friend John Gould points out that I shouldn't neglect distinguished Irish variants on the whisky theme. Quite correct, and duly noted! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:34 AM by Patrick Belton  

THE WASHINGTON POST runs a quite good editorial this morning criticizing the President's remarks on gay marriage in his state of the union address last week. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:25 AM by Patrick Belton  

UZBEKISTAN RELEASES 3,000 prisoners in an amnesty to mark the anniversary of the nation's constitution. Many of the prisoners were accused of being members of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, although Karimov's government is also known for using the threat of radicalism to imprison political opponents and Muslims from any branch of Islam not directly controlled for the state. No key dissidents (such as Ruslan Sharipov or Muhammad Bekjonov, brother of the exiled opposition leader Mohammad Solih) are to be released. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:21 AM by Patrick Belton  

POWELL PUSHES PUTIN ON DEMOCRACY: In a front-page piece run in Moscow's Izvestia, Colin Powell expressed grave American concern with the decay of democracy in Russia, said Russian politics were not sufficiently subject to the rule of law, and indicated there were limits to the U.S.-Russian relationship in the absence of shared values. (There - we knew we paid the Department of State for something....)
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:46 AM by Patrick Belton  

PUZZLE WRAPPED IN A RIDDLE SHROUDED IN AN ENIGMA: Amb. Sandy Vershbow, a Yalie Kremlinologist for whom I had what was really a great pleasure to work for several years ago in Brussels at the US Mission to Nato, spoke last week at Carnegie on political trends in Russia. The transcript is online, and definitely worth glancing through. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:34 PM by Patrick Belton  

TNR HAS A SHORT piece on terrorism in the Americas, by the CS Monitor's correspondent in Bogota. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:24 PM by David Adesnik  

MAN IN THE STREET: Hey, Dan, did you meet this guy in New Hampshire? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:09 PM by Patrick Belton  

WOW: More images this evening from Mars, more spellbinding than the last, and reflecting a side of the Martian landscape we'd never quite glimpsed before.

Mars and she played even and odd.

- George Peele (1559–1596), "The Hunting of Cupid," at l. 36.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:37 PM by Daniel  

REPORT FROM THE FRONTLINES. No, not Iraq. New Hampshire. I just got back from a nice weekend in the Granite State during which I surveyed the Democratic primary scene. Quite a place.

I spent my first day with a friend who was helping out the Clark campaign by “canvassing” homes in Bedford. This consisted of knocking on Democrats’ doors and handing them Clark literature as well as his 18 minute DVD, "American Son."

In almost every home I visited (sample size: around 30), people said they had watched the previous night’s debate but had not yet made up their minds. On the whole, Bedford residents were very friendly and concerned about us staying warm.

One couple invited me inside and the wife spoke for almost 20 minutes. She said that she was a Democrat and had voted for Bill Clinton. She said she had no problem with “the gays” (which made me think that she does—think of people who say, “I’m not racist, but you see….”) but didn’t appreciate that they could get health care for their partners without having to pay the marriage tax. She also said that she hated paying taxes. This was related to her second point: she could not understand why immigrants didn’t have to pay taxes and why she had to support them with her money. I was not sure what she meant, but she continued, saying, “you know, the people who own the gas stations, the Arabs (pronounced A-rabbs), the Iraqis, you know.” I didn’t know, but I tried to force a smile and said, “I’m pretty sure that immigrants do pay taxes, but maybe you can check the Clark website for more information.” She and her husband said that “five families of immigrants live in one house, you know? And we have to pay for them.” Her husband said he liked Clark but his wife said she had not yet made up her mind.

At another home, a woman yelled at us and accused us of not paying attention to her “Beware of Dog” sign. Actually, we had. I had just mentioned to my friend that the sign reminded me of one of my all-time favorite Far Side comics: the one entitled "Beware of Doug."

I began to wonder what kind of dogs she had, and if they were scary, and what mailmen or invited guests did, but before I could paint the mental picture, out of nowhere two German shepherds came charging toward us. Fortunately, they ran past us. “Who are you?” an older woman asked. “We are here to give you information about General Clark” my friend replied. She shooed us away and told us, “No, I’m for Dean.” Then, she said, “Well, anyone but Bush.” As we walked away, she reined in her dogs and told us to be careful.

I spoke with one voter who said he traditionally voted Republican, but didn’t like what Bush was doing and could potentially vote for a Democrat. He was particularly peeved by Bush’s “damn amnesty program with the illegals.” His solution: we should put up a fence and keep them out for 5 years, so we can catch the ones who are already here. He asked if Clark was the guy who “hated guns.” I told him that I was pretty sure that Clark did not hate guns, but that he believed in enforcing the gun control laws we had, including a limitation on assault weapons. I mentioned that such weapons did not seem to be very necessary for hunting. He agreed that AK 47s are not too important for hunters like himself, but that he also used guns for protection of his property. If the government did try to seize people’s guns, he told me there was going to be “a battle.” Then he said that he liked a lot of Kucinich’s ideas.

The entire experience was a lot of fun, and it was pretty amazing to see how much time and effort hundreds of people volunteer for one candidate. Some volunteers complained that rival campaigns stole their signs, and apparently the local police quietly dealt with many incidents like this, preferring to keep them under wraps. Edwards, Kerry, and Clark "visibility" volunteers (people holding signs and waving to cars passing by) were out late on Saturday night for in sub-freezing temperatures for hours on end. Very impressive. I was also pretty taken aback by fact that so many voters had not yet made up their minds. I guess we will see what happens on Tuesday!

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:03 PM by David Adesnik  

HYPOCRISY IN A SMALL PLACE: Why is George Bush praising a dictator in Azerbaijan? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:59 PM by Patrick Belton  

YOWSERS, it's amazing how even after you're happily and faithfullly married, how dern long it takes to live down one's reputation from New Haven bachelorhood..... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:59 PM by David Adesnik  

SHOULD KERRY WITHDRAW? Andrew Sullivan reminds us of last month's conventional wisdom. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:28 PM by David Adesnik  

TALK SHOW ROUND-UP: I spent an hour this morning in front of a 60-inch television (not my own) flipping back and forth between Meet the Press, Face the Nation and This Week. For the first time, I actually saw the primal scream instead of just reading about it. And I thought to myself, "This is news?" Actually, the whole story is total bullsh**.

As one of Chris Matthews' guests pointed out, journalists in the hall with Dean didn't think twice about the scream (or "squawk", whichmight be more accurate) . It was a loud, energetic event. Only the after-spin turned the scream into an issue. But after seeing interviews this morning with Kerry, Clark, Edwards and Lieberman, I have to say that none of them had the energy that Dean displayed in the moments leading up to the scream. Watching Dean was actually exciting, even inspiring. Here's was someone who really cared about politics, whose passion seemed authentic.

Does that mean I'll vote for him? Hell no. But I think it speaks to how the press is spinning Dean's anger management issues. As the LAT's Ron Brownstein pointed out, candidates always get punished for doing something that confirms negative stereotypes about them. If Bill Clinton misspelled potato, no one would've noticed. Then again, perhaps the media should ignore such pseudo-events. Especially in this instance, where I don't think what Dean did says anything about his character.

So, moving on. None of the other candidates particularly impressed me. Whatever you ask them, they have a pleasant sounding answer. Many of those answers are truthful, but still less than informative. The one candidate who seemed to have trouble offering vague platitudes was Wes Clark. When George Stephanopolous asked him about the inconsistency of the war, his answer seemed desperate, as well as misleading. Clark said that his April op-ed was taken out of context.

Actually, as Steve Sachs has shown, the context is the most damning part of it. Any single sentence in Clark's op-ed could be spun as somehow anti-war. But all together, they add up to a clear pro-war message. Which is probably why Clark looked so pleading and defensive during his interview. There's just this look in his eyes that says "Please stop ruining my resume! I'm supposed to look presidential!"

Finally, the comedy highlight of the week: Howard Dean's cameo on Letterman, presenting a Top 10 list poking fun at himself. He really delivered the lines well, with the right timing and the right attitude. But will Howard Dean's sense of humor become next week's meme? No, of course not.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:00 PM by David Adesnik  

PATRICK BELTON, AKA "MYSTERY"? Reading about this Casnanova, I couldn't help but think that I'd met him somewhere before... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:55 AM by Patrick Belton  

FACT-CHECKING THE DAILY MAIL'S, WELL....: The Daily Ablution points out that even British tabloids can't be trusted nowadays. O tempora! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:15 AM by Patrick Belton  

IF ONLY THEY HAD SUED BA: David Bernstein has been posting over at Volokh on a hateful early American variant of the "eenie, meenie" counting rhyme- and a fairly frivolous lawsuit against Southwest Airlines that resulted from it.

The etymological site Word Origins includes an interesting survey of the evolution of the rhyme across British and American history, finding that "chicken" and "tinker" occur in early contemporaneous British versions:

The rhyme was not recorded until 1855, with that early version using the words eeny, meeny, moany, mite. Another version, also published in 1855 but said to date to 1815 begins, Hana, mana, mona, mike. Various versions appear in the mid-19th century in both Britain and America, as well as in many different European languages.

Early American versions of the rhyme tend to contain the line catch a n____ by the toe. In early British versions, chicken or tinker are used instead. With rhymes such as these, there is no "original" version and there are countless early variants. The use of n____ is just one variant among many.

For more pleasant etymological stories, see Etymologically Speaking, for starters. (Ex: biscuit from fr. "cooked twice", "Big Apple" from the New Orleans race track, "barbarian" from the sound Greeks thought they were making (ie, bar-bar-bar-bar) - and these are just for the letter "b".....) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:37 AM by David Adesnik  

BLOGGING WITH THE PROS: As mentioned last week, the Columbia Journalism Review has started up a blog devoted to evaluating campaign coverage.

From I've seen so far, it's posts are very, very thorough. Specifically, I went through the "Spin Buster" thread devoted to, well, busting spin. Perhaps because it has been such a rough couple of weeks for Howard Dean, most of the posts are devoted to defending him from unfair attacks. The tone of the posts is very protective of Dean, but I think it's too early to say the site is playing favorites.

One post I tended to agree with (unsurprisingly) argues that the whole primal scream angle is a product of the echo chamber. I also like this post tearing into NYT correspondent Jodi Wilgoren, who criticizes Dean for following advice that she herself gave him.

One post that goes over the line begins by asking: "Does the political press have a vested interest in slowing down the Howard Dean juggernaut?" It goes on to warn that the press has begun to manufacture a "Dean is slipping" meme. Of course, the post is dated January 14, so what it really indicates is that the press got one of Iowa's big stories 100% right an entire week before the vote. Does CJR admit its mistake? Of course not.

Another post that almost sounds like a campaign ad for Dean argues straight out that the press is wrong to brand him a radical, when in fact he is a moderate. (After all, Paul Krugman says so.) Actually, I think the press has been pretty good about noting Dean's moderate record as governor. But his both his message and his support come from anti-war activists in the so-called "Democratic wing of the Democratic party." The fact that Dean casts his opponents as faux-liberals who've been suckered by the administration makes it hard to call him a moderate.

Criticism aside, I'm going to keep reading CJR, since it tends to either hit the nail on the head or make a strong argument for what it believes in. A worthy addition ot the blogosphere.

UPDATE: I just did a little more reading on CJR, and it seems like they're pretty protective of all the candidates, whom they see as victims of a scandal-driven media that ignores substantive issues. In this post, for example, CJR reasonably defends Clark for his supposed "guarantee" that there would be no more 9/11's. Yet in this post, CJR actually defends John Edwards (my homey) for shamelessly dodging a controversial question about gay marriage on the grounds that it forces him to address a thorny issue. But isn't that exactly what the press is supposed to do? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:41 PM by Patrick Belton  

DISCUSSING ISSUES IN HOMELAND SECURITY: The Washington, DC, chapter of our nationwide Nathan Hale foreign policy society met up this week to discuss current and upcoming themes in homeland security. The conversation was insightful and interesting, and we have some notes from it up online here. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:30 PM by David Adesnik  

A TASTY MORSEL OF IRONY: I know OxBlog has been a little heavy on the irony late, but this one is top good to resist. According to this column in Slate (which I found via Volokh), Michael Moore is not just Wes Clark's biggest fan, but also one of his most vicious critics. Apparently, Bowling for Columbine (which I had no interest in seeing) plays up Kosovo as an example of mindless American violence and carpet bombing. I'm guessing Wes Clark didn't see the movie. But how exactly can Michael Moore endorse an alleged baby-killer? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:20 PM by David Adesnik  

BETTER LATE THAN NEVER: Left-liberal FP has published an excellent article by Max Boot that debunks a lot of myths about the neo-cons. While the most recent neo-con moment has passed, this article will be an important resource for the next time that the Wurlitzer gets going.

IMHO, the only point at which Boot comes off as too much of a neo-con apologist is his insistence that neo-cons don't oppose multilateralism. Sure, unilateralism isn't a hard and fast neo-con principle. But neo-con antagonism toward the UN/Old Europe runs so deep -- and overlaps so much with most Republicans' anti-UN sentiments -- that unilaterallism usually turns out to be the preferred option regardless of the situation.l (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:53 PM by David Adesnik  

INSIDE THE ECHO CHAMBER: Josh Marshall has a great post up on what it's like to cover a presidential primary debate. (Plus some solid insights into the Kerry and Edwards campaigns.) Josh writes that almost all the correspondents at the debate were:

in a big room somewhere nearby with a bunch of long school room tables arranged as they might be for an SAT test in high school. And space after space at those tables is occupied by journalists with laptops open, a phone at each station, perhaps some other paraphernalia nearby or a parka, watching the debate on a series of big TVs.

In other words, they’re watching the debate on TV just like you are. Only they’re doing it in a big room with all the other journalists.

Now, this can be kind of fun, because you get to see a lot of other people you know, and a number you haven’t seen in a while. And you get a very good sense of how other reporters think everybody did. But that can be a pretty skewed view, an echo chamber in the making in ways you can probably imagine, even if you don’t spend much time talking to the really egregious above-it-all conventional wisdom types.

So when they talk about a herd mentality, they literally mean that there is a herd. Historically speaking, one of the most important interventions by the herd was during Jimmy Carter's final debate with Gerlad Ford in 1976. In that debate, Ford deep-throated his own foot by insisting that Poland was not under Soviet domination.

According to polls taken immediately after the debate, there was no clear winner. However, media coverage that night focused on the Poland gaffe, and polls taken only hours later showed a dramatic shift in perception, with Carter becoming the clear winner in the public mind.

Now, there's a strong argument to be made that Ford got exactly what he deserved. A public opinion poll in Warsaw would certainly have shown considerable disagreement with Ford's description of Soviet benevolence. The irony, of course, is that Jimmy Carter suddenly looked like the toughest anti-Communist on the block, a reputation which didn't last all that long once he took office.

But was this an example of media bias? Perhaps, but not partisan bias. While Republicans might have felt that their man was getting picked on, the fact is that the media always plays up the candidates' foot-in-mouth moments. The real question is whether the public is poorly served by a media that focuses on such relatively unimportant incidents.

Ideally, voters would know to discount some of the hype around such gaffes, e.g. Dean's primal scream. But no one can tell the voters how to think. The real lesson is for candidates, who should appreciate just how much trouble they will get themselves in if they don't watch what they say. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:34 PM by David Adesnik  

NYT SOFT ON GOP? TPM thinks so. If you compare this NYT story to its Boston Globe counterpart, there's no question who's being tougher. But the Times certainly covers the facts, albeit in less depth. Is this evidence of "The further decline of a great paper"? No, but this is. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:12 AM by Patrick Belton  

AFTER DAVID mentioned the Soviet national anthem, it was all I could do to link to this page with lovely choral renditions of every Soviet national hymn (including Central Asian SSRs), for those of you who might feel nostalgic for a day when the evil we were fighting came at least from the land that produced Dostoyevsky. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:44 AM by Patrick Belton  

IN IRAQ, the first Iraqi brigade of the Iraqi army is nearly ready for service, with three battalions of 750 soldiers and officers having been graduated since October. The first battalion is currently in Kirkuk serving with elements of the 4th ID; the second battalion is with the 1st AD in Taji; and the third, slated to graduate this week, will deploy in Mosul. The plan is to have nine divisions with 27 battalions, acording to MGEN Paul Eaton, who commands the coalition military assistance and training team.

Also, welcome home, Screaming Eagles! We've missed you. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:29 AM by Patrick Belton  

RITA KATZ has this week's terrorism and counterterror headlines. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:32 AM by David Adesnik  

CIA WARNS OF CIVIL WAR IN IRAQ: Both the Bush and Bremer have been notified. (Link via Mark Kleiman) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:18 AM by David Adesnik  

GETTING MEDIEVAL ON THE AMERICAN A**: As a little kid, I was always a little disappointed by the fact that modern-day soldiers never got to wear armor. But disappointed I am no more. It seems that 160,000 suits of body armor are on their way to Iraq. Each suit costs $1585. In contrast, a suit of blackened steel chainmail costs $179.99 (plus $29.99 shipping and handling). If you're short on cash, just go for the chainmail bikini. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:02 AM by David Adesnik  

STATE OF THE UNION'S ARMY: Phil Carter was disappointed by the national security aspects of the President's speech. And for good reason. Phil also has serious concerns about the state of the Army Reserve. And just in case you need to hear it again, Phil reminds us that Wes Clark was not "relieved" of his command. Forced into early retirement? Given the boot? Thrown on out the street? Perhaps. Just not "relieved". (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:36 AM by David Adesnik  

EDWARDS' SPECIAL INTEREST: Robert Tagorda thinks that John Edwards was pushing his luck when he said in last night's debate that he doesn't take money from Washington lobbyists. Rob also thinks that George Soros could benefit from a little more honesty, whereas the Iraqi police already have. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:07 AM by David Adesnik  

THE MAN YOU LOVE TO HATE: The top story right now on CNN.com is that Ahmad Chalabi has come out in favor of direct elections in Iraq. Until I found that out, I was leaning towards elections. But if Chalabi is for them, something's gotta be wrong. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:04 AM by David Adesnik  

BIG F***ING DEAL: For a while, I thought I was the only one who didn't give a sh** about Howard Dean's primal scream. Not a good political move, not exactly "presidential", but still pretty trivial. So now I'm glad to know that the WaPo agrees. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:01 AM by David Adesnik  

SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY? It's hard not to suspect that stories like these create news rather than reporting it. On the other hand, stories describing Kerry and Edwards' late surge in Iowa were pretty accurate. Still, looking at the story, you basically hear about one Wes Clark campaign event that failed draw an audience. And that you get some poll numbers favoring Kerry which aren't exactly news. However, I think the poll numbers are key, because journalists can always defend their work as objective if it says the same things as the polls.

Personally, I'm not sure how I feel about Clark's supposed stagnation. If Kerry dominates Iowa, that accomplishes objective #1, which is to beat Dean. But in November, I'd prefer to see Clark vs. Bush. Of course, what I'd really like to see is Edwards pull it out. If you haven't already, check out his recently unveiled Strategy for Freedom. It's an aggressive and well-thought plan for promoting democracy across the globe and especially in the Middle East.

More importantly, I don't think Edwards is just saying the right things. One of his top foreign policy advisers is OxBlog favorite Mike McFaul, who's feels at least as strongly about democracy promotion as we do. For some recent articles by McFaul, click here, here and here. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:36 AM by David Adesnik  

WHAT A REAL INSPECTION LOOKS LIKE: Libya has given international inspectors access to a treasure trove of disturbing information, much of which implicates Pakistan. The most disturbing find is that the international black market for nuclear parts and information was so well developed that there were factories who sole purpose was to produce goods for it. Also, I think it is worth pointing out the dramatic difference between Libya's cooperation with international inspectors and Saddam's documented efforts to deceive them. As we already knew, any nation which truly wants to abandon its WMD programs, e.g. South Africa, works with inspectors rather than against them. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:26 AM by David Adesnik  

FAITH VS. EVIDENCE: Say what you want, I still don't believe that Pakistani scientists would've sold nuclear secrets to Iran without someone very high up in the military approving the sale. Moreover, I found it quite interesting that

The leakage of nuclear weapons technology to Iran, officials said, apparently originated in 1987, when former president Mohammed Zia ul-Haq secretly approved a long-standing request from the Iranian government for cooperation in non-military nuclear programs.

Hmmm... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:20 AM by David Adesnik  

KAY RESIGNS, SAYS NO WMD IN IRAQ: This is definitely a page one story, but it's still quite amazing how different the NYT and WaPo describe it. After a few paragraphs that get out the basic facts of what Kay said, the NYT observes that

Dr. Kay's statements undermined one of the primary justifications set out by President Bush for the war with Iraq. Mr. Bush and other top administration officials repeatedly cited Iraq's possession of chemical and biological weapons as a threat to the United States, and the lack of evidence so far that Saddam Hussein actually had large caches of weapons has fueled criticism that Mr. Bush exaggerated the peril from Iraq.

Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said the administration stood by its previous assessments that Mr. Hussein had both weapons programs and stores of banned weapons.

"Yes, we believe he had them, and yes we believe they will be found," Mr. McClellan said. "We believe the truth will come out."

Message: Bush lied. McClellan still lies. Now, if you scroll down another ten paragraphs or so, you'll find McClellan saying something about UN Resolution 1441 and how Saddam was in material breach. But who really cares about that?

Over at the WaPo, the money graf also comes after some basic introductory facts. It says:

The transition from Kay to [new team leader Charles] Duelfer underscores a change in emphasis in the U.S. hunt for banned weapons. While Kay began his search with expectations of finding stockpiles, Duelfer has said the mission now is to discover when and how such stockpiles were eliminated.

A good argument can be made that the WaPo is going a bit soft on the administration here. McClellan's quote is so ridiculous that it should have shown up in the WaPo article, albeit toward the end. At minimum, you'd think McClellan would say something like "There is no evidence yet that Saddam had a stockpile of WMD, but we refuse to rule out that possibility until we know exactly what happened to the weapons he had in 1998." Lest you think the WaPo is going too soft, it does report in its second paragraph that

The CIA announced officially yesterday that Charles A. Duelfer, a former senior U.N. weapons inspector, will succeed David Kay, who is resigning after nine months of unsuccessful searches for banned weapons in Iraq. Duelfer, who as a private academic said the Bush administration's prewar allegations on Iraq's weapons were "far off the mark," said yesterday that his goal is to reconstruct Iraq's "game plan" for its weapons and weapons programs.

It's interesting to note that one of the two authors of the WaPo article is Walter Pincus, a veteran national security correspondent not known for pulling his punches. For those of you old enough to remember Mr. Pincus (or have written dissertations on the role of the media in US foreign policy), you'll know that he is the one who turned American production of the neutron bomb into a major controversy in the late 1970s. More specifically, the controversty resulted from Pincus' profoundly misleading description of the bomb as a weapon that killed people but left buildings standing.

Actually, the weapon (if used) would have destroyed a tremendous number of buildings and other physical structures, but less than would've been destroyed by standard nuclear weapons. The purpose of this modification was so that the weapon would do moderately less damage in heavily populated areas such as Central Europe, thus making the process of reconstruction somewhat easier. Until Pincus turned the neutron bomb into a front page story, it had consistent bipartisan support and was considered entirely uncontroversial. Incidentally, Pincus worked at the NYT while all this was going on.

I guess the message here is either that Pincus mellowed with age or that the NYT is trying to be fair and balanced, just like Fox. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:23 PM by David Adesnik  

HULKAMANIA RUNNIN' WILD! Combustible Boy observes that

Today is an important anniversary: It's been 20 years since Hulk Hogan won the WWF world title for the first time, defeating the dreaded Iron Sheik, who you knew was evil because he had the word 'IRAN' written really big on his pants and frequently teamed up with the mad Russian Nikolai Volkoff, who insisted on singing the Soviet National Anthem before his matches while the fans loudly booed and pelted him with trash. Hogan became the first wrestler to break out of the Sheik's dreaded "Camel Clutch" hold, then went for the pinfall, getting a roar from the crowd that nearly caused Madison Square Garden to collapse down into Penn Station. Thus began Hogan's first three-year title reign and the sociologically important "Hulkamania" of the mid-1980s.

Brother, just remember to say your prayers and eat your vitamins. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:19 PM by Patrick Belton  

THANKS, JOSH, for the chance to clarify! I drew the "seventh" comment from this sentence in the article: "The poll, which interviewed 1,007 people in England, Scotland and Wales, found that 18 percent disagreed with the statement, "A British Jew would make an equally acceptable prime minister as a member of any other faith." (I assume that the disparity comes from the poll's use of a Likhard scale, so 18% fully disagreed with the statement, and, errr..., 29% somewhat disagreed....) I haven't found the actual poll online, so I don't have a basis of judging on that basis whether 1/7 or 1/2 of Brits are raving anti-Semites - so I was merely deciding to be optimistic on Shabbas. :) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:23 AM by Patrick Belton  

SOME POSTCARDS FROM THE RED PLANET: Europe's space probe also notes that the mountains are beautiful at sunset, and asks if we can please check on the pets while it's away. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:36 AM by Patrick Belton  

I LOVE THIS COUNTRY DEARLY, but it does appear that it has got a good deal of anti-semitism left in it:

Nearly half the respondents (47 percent) did not fully agree that a Jewish prime minister would be as acceptable as a non-Jewish one. (...) 15 percent of those surveyed agreed the scale of the Holocaust has been exaggerated.

Of course, the vast preponderance of Britain isn't anti-Semitic; this merely suggests there's some core seventh or so of the country which is. Incidentally, the question is slightly less than theoretical as present, as current Tory leader Michael Howard is Jewish. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:57 AM by Patrick Belton  

DAVID IGNATIUS looks at the contemporary Iranian political situation as a struggle between two poles, one centred around reformist, neo-Enlightenment intellectual Khatami and the other surrounding streetwise wheeler-and-dealer Rafsanjani. The idea is hardly new, but Ignatius's characterization of the two sides (drawing mostly on Khatami's recent performance at Davos) is memorable. The same goes for his conclusion - that the intellectuals and partisans of the Enlightenment will win out in the long run, but the day is Rafsanjani and Hezbollah's.

Hezbollah, incidentally, is by far one of the most interesting (as well as organizationally complex) terrorist organizations of our time. Worthwhile analyses include MEIB's, the State Department's annual survey of terrorism, and ICT's. (Please let me know if you'd like me to add any significant ones I'm missing.)

UPDATE: Our readers are wonderful! Zach Mears suggests Adam Kushner's piece from the Columbia Political Review last May. I promise a more substantive Hezbollah post before too terribly long, in an attempt to summarize what's known about key trends, dynamics, and proclivities in the organization at the moment.

UPDATE ^2: And Pejman, who probably knows Iran better than anyone in the blogosphere, elaborates on how Khatami has let Iranian reformers down. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:44 PM by Patrick Belton  

DAILY ROUND-UP: Richard Shultz writes in the WS on why the US didn't use Special Operations forces against Al Qaeda before 9/11. Kevin O'Connell and Robert Tomes offer ideas in Policy Review on reforming intelligence. Slate's Josh Levin points to a NYT Magazine piece showing you don't have to go to Cambodia to find sex slavery. Atlantic marks Emerson's 200th birthday. New Yorker profiles man-of-the-hour Kerry. NYT Book Review takes on Jung, the Church, and terrorist turned author Gerry Adams.

EurasiaNet comments on the Turko-Pak anti-terrorism agreement, prospects for Iranian reformists, Georgia, and the sad state of human rights in Central Asia. The Central Asia-Caucasus Institute offers up pieces on the Xinjiang province of China, India's new drive into Central Asia (come to think of it, Curzon tried that, too....), and promising economic trends in Kazakhstan.

LRB follows al-Muhajiroun activists around London, and looks back at Tacitus and Bonnie Prince Charlie. New York Review of Books looks at the history of the relationship between the US and Israel, Bosnian refugees, and has a piece by Oliver Sacks on whether consciousness is like Borges's river. Wilson Quarterly remembers the two-hundredth birthday of Marbury, says ideas matter even in pragmatic America, and recalls Britain's earlier go at making a democratic Iraq.

Economist, meanwhile, eulogizes a Geisha, despairs about the Chinese and Japanese economies at the beginning of the year of the monkey, looks into human rights in Morocco and education in the Arab World, and peers into Iran. CS Monitor profiles Al Qaeda's super-terrorist Abu Musab Zarqawi, covers rural-urban migration in China, and an op-ed says the wars on terror and against Saddam are changing Korea and Japan deeply.

In the major op-ed pages, Thomas Friedman is calling Iowa a victory for hawkish, sensible, i.e., Tony Blair Democrats (hey, that's us!), Jim Hoagland is optimistic about a settled peace in Kashmir, and David Brooks is optimistic about moderation and optimism in the Democratic party. Maureen Dowd is plumbing new depths. The Post applauds Bush's quiet (but, they point out, unilateralist) war on AIDS, and decries a hugely porky omnibus appropriations act that was rushed through the legislative process.

Happy reading! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:40 PM by Patrick Belton  

WINNER OF OUR HEADLINE OF THE DAY AWARD: Rover Plays Dead (CNN)

Distinguished Runner Up: Dean's "I have a Scream" Speech (Easterblogg) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:42 PM by Patrick Belton  

READING THUCYDIDES IN CARS WITH BOYS: Or, reading him online and with OxBloggers. Along with furiously dissertating, this year I've decided to try to lead a more humanistic and well-rounded life by rereading Thucydides and Aristotle's Politics as my bedstand reading. I'll look forward to having many pleasant conversations on both texts with our readers and friends in the blogosphere as I go along, and I'll try to post on both periodically (much as David did when he reread the Republic last April). Incidentally, The History of the Peloponnesian War is online here, and the Politics is here.

(In a similar spirit, I'm attempting to torment my college's piano more frequently nowadays, along with the memories of Ludwig and Johann; and, in the venerable OxBlog tradition of always having one blogger ready to defend Oxford's honor in a martial art, I'll be futzing about in what may well be a misguided though surely comedic attempt to represent our beloved institution in pistol.) (ed: duck, he's got a gun!) (yes, but it's still fairly unclear whether he can hit anything with it....) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:23 PM by Patrick Belton  

HAPPY CHINESE NEW YEAR! The year of the monkey is meant to be a quite auspicious one in which to conceive. But not for me, thanks.

Instead, here are some nice funny pictures of monkeys. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:18 PM by David Adesnik  

AFTER JOHN PAUL II: Foreign Policy (subscription required) has published a memorandum for the College of Cardinals laying down some guidelines on how to select the next pope. The memo addresses important issues I hadn't thought of, but not in a way with which I necessarily agree.

For example, author Scott Appleby suggests that the next pope must lead the way toward a productive dialogue and possibly even alliance with Islam. According to Appleby, the foundation of such a partnership would consist of Catholics' and Muslims' shared opposition to a secular worldview that disregards the sanctity of life through its support of reproductive rights.

Yet such a proposal seems rather small-minded from an author who also writes that

Advocacy of human rights, including the crucial right of religious freedom, must remain the central message of Roman Catholicism to the world.

If to the world, then why not also to Islam? To be worthy of John Paul II's legacy, his successor must show the Muslim world that Islam, like Catholicism, can thrive by advocating respect for both religious tolerance and human rights.

I would go even further and suggest that the next pope embrace a cause that Appleby does not even dare to mention in his memorandum: democracy. This pope never shied away from identifying himself with the struggle against dictatorship. From Poland to Nicaragua, John Paul II cast his lot with the democratic opposition.

In fact, the College of Cardinals might choose to elevate Archbishop Miguel Obando y Bravo of Nicaragua, who already knows a thing or two about the struggle for democracy and freedom of religion. Besides, Obando would probably be happy to work with his Islamic counterparts to limit access to abortion and birth control, given his archconservative views on those subjects. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:55 PM by Patrick Belton  

IT'S HARD TO WALK NAKED ACROSS BRITAIN.

Of course, it's even harder to walk naked around the coastline of Britain - since not only is that infinite, but you'd have to step on lots of fractals along the way, and that would hurt. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:14 PM by Patrick Belton  

WHAT A CHANGED RACE IT IS! Rasmussen Reports finds Senator Kerry enjoying a nine point lead over Governor Dean, 25% to 16%, with Senator Edwards coming in third at 15% and General Clark fourth at 12%. Reuters/MSNBC/Zogby find Kerry leading Dean by a smaller margin of 27 percent to 24, though in a poll which began the day of Iowa and so may understate Kerry's bounce; they are followed, for Zogby and co., by Clark (15), Edwards (8), and Lieberman (7). Kerry has also erased Dean's once-commanding New Hampshire lead, again according to Zogby and friends.; New Hampshire's WMUR statewide tracking poll similarly registers Kerry has caught up to a statistical dead heat with the good doctor.

Want to be able to tell them apart? CFR has opened for business its traditional website on the foreign policy statements and views of the candidates. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:03 PM by Patrick Belton  

A NOTE FROM THE NORTHERN COUNTRY: Karl Francis, a Fairbanksian whom I've had the great pleasure to meet, has an amusing piece in the LA Times today on polar bears and life in the wilderness. Most memorable line: "Cooked right, bears taste really good. Apparently the feeling is mutual." (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:52 AM by Patrick Belton  

INTERNET VOTING TO GET ITS FIRST TRIAL RUN IN PRIMARIES: In what could eventually turn into a very good development for expatriate Americans (like, for instance, OxBloggers...), the Pentagon is planning to enable an online voting system for overseas American citizens on February 3rd for its first test run, in time for the South Carolina primary. Known as the Secure Electronic Registration and Voting Experiment, the Pentagon program is unfortunately limited to voters from certain counties in Arkansas, Florida, Hawaii, North and South Carolina, Utah, and Washington, but it will represent the most widespread effort yet at internet voting in America. (The primary contractor working on developing the project is Accenture; subcontractor VeriSign is involved as well with attempting to solve some of the more key authorization and security challenges.)

As exciting as this development is (especially for my own selfish reasons - personally, I have yet to vote at an actual stateside election location on an actual election day), internet voting with current technologies has aroused fairly negative responses from scholars of security issues. In July, Avi Rubin, Adam Stubblefield, Tadayoshi Kohno, and Dan Wallach coauthored a paper on security limitations of an older electronic voting system which had been developed by Diebold Elections.

Other studies of internet voting include ones by the State of California, and a Brookings-Cisco conference last January. Brookings devotes an entire page to the subject. An Oxford Union debate on the subject last summer was, fittingly enough, broadcast online. (Several more resources on the subject are available as well on the Election Center's webpage.)

An NSF panel recommended that internet voting begin only slowly, starting with dedicated kiosks which could be made passably secure with currently existing technology. This might be the prudent course - but in the meantime I will be looking forward embarrassingly much to having the opportunity to blog the casting of my first online vote.

For the rest of us not lucky enough to be Floridian, Utahn, Carolinean, Arkansan, or Hawaiian (and question: do we really want the first major experiment in online voting to involve Florida?), the Federal Voting Assistance Program exists to help expatriate citizens exercise their right to vote, and Democrats Abroad and Republicans Abroad are also very active in helping overseas voters to vote. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:59 AM by David Adesnik  

BRING BACK GEPHARDT! Matt Yglesias writes:

If Gephardt had somehow won the nomination, I think there would have been a serious question as to whether or not I could support the Democrats in good conscience in November. Any of the remaining alternatives would be pretty good as president.

It would be almost worth giving Gephardt the nomination just to see if Matt would actually vote for Bush. Imagine if he did. Four years of merciless taunting... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:26 AM by David Adesnik  

NYT COLUMNIST WHORING IN CAMBODIA: Nick Kristof writes

I put out the word that I wanted to meet young girls and stayed at the seedy $8-a-night Phnom Pich Guest House.

In his next column, Kristof writes that

After I decided to buy the two teenage prostitutes, as recounted in my column on Saturday, I swore them to secrecy for fear that the brothel owners would spirit them away.

Did I mention that Kristof has photos of the girls up on the NYT website?

Now, as you might have guessed, I've taken Kristof's quotes ridiculously out of context. As you also might've guessed, Kristof was in Cambodia investigating modern-day slavery, which often takes the form of forced prostitution. While Kristof's approach is unconventional, I think it pays off both in terms of dramatic effect and in terms of understanding the problem.

Incidentally, it must've been pretty funny when Kristof told his wife that his upcoming business trip consisted of spending time with underage hookers. On the bright side, if that's what you tell your wife, she probably won't worry about what your going to do with your free time in Phnom Penh. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:05 AM by David Adesnik  

THE MYTH OF THE NEW ANTI-SEMITISM: You figure The Nation had to give it a try. To admit that there has been a resurgence of anti-Semitism is to discount much of the fierce criticism of Israel that has recently emerged, especially in Europe. It even suggests that there may be a darker side to the anti-Americanism that has been on display over the past eighteen months. And yet, Brian Klug tells us up front that

There is certainly reason to be concerned about a climate of hostility to Jews, including vicious physical attacks. On one Saturday this past November, for example, two synagogues in Istanbul were truck-bombed during Sabbath services, while an Orthodox Jewish school in a Paris suburb was largely destroyed by arson. Some researchers report a 60 percent worldwide increase in the number of assaults on Jews (or persons perceived to be Jewish) in 2002, compared with the previous year. At the same time, something is rotten in the state of public discourse. Anti-Jewish slogans and graphics have appeared on marches opposing the invasion of Iraq. Jewish conspiracy theories have been revived, such as the widely circulated "urban legend" that Jews were warned in advance to stay away from the World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001. And recently, certain public figures on both the right and the left have made negative generalizations about Jews and "Jewish influence."

No question, Klug gets points for honesty. And he also deserves credit for providing historical background to the current debate that is quite interesting regardless of whose side one is on. Klug also poses the interesting question of what is new about the new anti-Semitisim. And it is here where our opinions depart.

According to Klug, those who believe that there is such a thing as the new anti-Semitism tend to define it as hypocritical and anti-Semitically motivated attacks on Israel that hide behind the facade of "legitimate criticism". However, I believe that there are two other phenomena that play a critical role in defining the new anti-Semitism. Klug touches on both of them, but either overlooks or explicitly discounts them.

The first issue is the social acceptability of anti-Semitism. While few individuals will go on the record with statements about "the Jews", it has become almost fashionable in certain European circles to think of the Jews as a crude people and to resent the political correctness that prevents one from saying so in public. In a sense, this phenomenon is not new because sophisticated condescension toward upstart Jews was the status quo for much of modern European history.

But we wanted to believe that this sort of parlor anti-Semitism was dead. Moreover, its death was the ultimate guarantor that Europe could never return to the overt anti-Semitism of old. It is also hard to avoid the conclusion that sophisticated anti-Semites do not care much about the violent attacks on Jewish individuals and institutions perpetrated by lower-class European Muslims. After all, they had it coming.

Which brings us to the second point that Klug misunderstands. A second critical aspect of the new anti-Semitism is the way in which the wrongdoings of the Israeli government have become an accepted justification for the assault on European Jewry. While Klug denounces such violence as "repugnant", he nonethless writes that

Israel does not regard itself as a state that just happens to be Jewish (like the medieval kingdom of the Khazars). It sees itself as (in Prime Minister Sharon's phrase) "the Jewish collective," the sovereign state of the Jewish people as a whole. In his speech at the Herzliya Conference in December, Sharon called the state "a national and spiritual center for all Jews of the world," and added, "Aliyah [Jewish immigration] is the central goal of the State of Israel." To what extent this view is reciprocated by Jews worldwide is hard to say. Many feel no particular connection to the state or strongly oppose its actions. On the other hand, in spring 2002, at the height of Israel's Operation Defensive Shield, Jews gathered in large numbers in numerous cities to demonstrate their solidarity, as Jews, with Israel. Many Jewish community leaders, religious and secular, publicly reinforce this identification with the state. All of which is liable to give the unreflective onlooker the impression that Jews are, as it were, lumping themselves together; that Israel is indeed "the Jewish collective."

Unreflective? Unreflective? How about hateful? How about anti-Semitic? Imagine if Russians were being beaten up on the streets of Paris, Marseilles and Lyon because of French sympathy for the Chechens. Would anyone describe the assailants in such attacks as simply "unreflective"? Of course not. In doing so, Klug unintentionally validates that new anti-Semitism which supposedly doesn't exist. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:42 PM by Patrick Belton  

CATCHING UP ON MY HOLIDAY BACKLOG OF FUNNY STORIES: So on New Year's Eve, having just gotten back into New York after a 30-hour journey from Alaska, I headed straight to Chelsea, to join my buddies (and fellow New Haven exiles amidst the blogosphere) Josh Cherniss and Jacob Remes for caffeination in the environs of a fairly esoteric combination coffee shop/deli/antique store. After a few minutes, I decided that I wanted to eat more than peanuts that day (do follow that link), so I went up to the counter, and, relishing being back on Manhattan island and the ground zero of Western Civilization, triumphantly ordered a bagel with lox and cream cheese. What I got was about four dollars cheaper - a bagel with lots of cream cheese. Much more than a schmear, in fact (the precise quantum, of course, of cream cheese to be applied to a bagel of an ordinary size). Mental image: think Big Mac, with cream cheese in place of the meat. I should note that, at this point, Josh noted my pitifully crestfallen look and decided to personally instantiate another yiddish word: yes, greater love hath no man, that he lay down his lox for his friend. So all lox is well that ends well. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:03 PM by Patrick Belton  

WHITHER AFRICA? The Economist sees good things in the continent's future:

Angola and Sierra Leone are at peace. The pointless border clash between Ethiopia and Eritrea has stopped. Congo's war, the worst anywhere since the second world war, is formally over. Liberia's warlord, Charles Taylor, has been driven into exile. Even in Sudan, which has known only 11 years of calm since 1962, government and rebels are on the verge of signing a power-sharing deal.

In the 1960s and 1970s, no African ruler was voted out of office. In the 1980s, one was. Since then, 18 have been, and counting.... Under most of the military regimes of the 1970s and 1980s, independent newspapers and radio stations were simply not allowed. Today, they are as numerous as they are irreverent.

The main reason the continent is so poor today is that Mugabe-style incompetent tyranny has been common since independence (see our survey). The most important question for Africans now is whether Mr Mugabe represents not only their past, but their future as well. There are encouraging signs that he does not.

The entire article is worth reading. A particularly sad blue note in this chord, however, is the heavy reliance of the continent's two natural leaders upon resource extraction - never a good role for a government seeking to shake off corruption and forge ties of accountability with its citizens (and taxpayers). Think the Gulf, and Mexico in the oil boom of the 70's. Nigeria's economy, like those, is based on the extraction of oil - and Nigerian political economy is in turn based on the distribution of oil rents. South Africa's is a more delicate situation, because the resource being extracted there is the tax dollars of the white population.

But, nonetheless, there are continent-wide trends of democratization and the spread of security and the free press, which are very much on the side of those who would wish its people well - this Economist piece does well to draw our attention to them. And our role in the spread of democracy and conditions of human dignity to Africa over our lifetimes, of course, must be much more than cheering from the sidelines. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:10 PM by Patrick Belton  

NEW HEADS FOR THE RHODES SCHOLARSHIP, AND OXFORD: Colin Lucas, currently Oxford's Vice-Chancellor (and a former history department chair at Chicago), will be taking up duties as Secretary of the Rhodes Trust; in turn, the vice-chancellorship - effectively, the position of head of the university - will be assumed by the antipodean John Hood (himself Secretary of the Kiwi Rhodes Committee - conspiracy theorists, take note....).

Incidentally, while on the subject of Oxford, there's a J.R.R. Tolkien Professorship in English Literature and Language which is coming open here.... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:22 PM by Patrick Belton  

SUDANESE PEACE AGREEMENT LIKELY: A tip just in from one of our friends in Washington says chances are high a peace deal might be reached any day now to bring a close to the 20-year Sudanese civil war. The conflict has led to the loss of over 1.5 million lives there since 1983, displacing an additional four million as refugees. There are potential snags still to be dodged, but the implications of a peace deal would be enormous for the Sudan's future political and development prospects.  The U.S. and German governments are leading the effort to facilitate the peace deal; the secessionist animist and Christian SPLA based in the south has been battling the Muslim and Shari'a-inclined government in Khartoum; synopses of the conflict are here and here. Sudan.net collates all breaking news stories on the Sudan, and is a good source to follow if you're interested in following the sealing of this monumental peace deal. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:15 PM by Patrick Belton  

GIVE THAT TEACHER GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE AN APPLE: Just since some of our readers might be interested in this, and might not know about it - I just read Apple offers discounts (typically hovering around 10 percent) for all purchases for the personal use of federal employees (here defined expansively, to include federal civil service, contractors, active duty military and their dependents, veterans, and employees of state and local governments). People in these categories also have the ability to "sponsor" six purchases annually, i.e., passing on their discounts to anyone they choose to. The website's here, if any of our readers are eligible for the discount and were about to buy an Apple product anyway.... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:20 PM by Patrick Belton  

COME DISCUSS HOMELAND SECURITY WITH US! If you're in Washington, why don't you swing by our Nathan Hale discussion tonight on homeland security? It's going to be held at Bertucci's in Clarendon (orange line) at 7:30 pm - look for the gang in the back room - and there will be participation by a number of people currently serving in the Department of Homeland Security. (Of course, our discussion sessions are always by Chatham House rule.)

And if you're in another of the cities in which we have a chapter (New York, New Haven, Boston, Chicago, LA, San Francisco, and Oxford/London), please drop us a note to be added to our mailing list, if you haven't already done so! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:46 PM by Patrick Belton  

I DON'T OFTEN DISAGREE WITH DAVID, BUT: Pats not going to the Superbowl. Pats got a dissertation. Pats going to the library, therefore.

On the bright side, though, Pats just gotten his Airport working in his flat. (And no, I've never actually gone by Pat, but couldn't resist...) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:21 AM by David Adesnik  

IRAQI ELECTIONS ARE VIABLE BY JUNE: At least that's what the British are saying. Juan Cole (link via Kevin Drum) says the Brits' about face is payback for American condescension. Simple fear of the Shi'ites may also have played a role.

But what if the Brits actually believe elections are the right thing to do? What if elections are the best way to promote a democratic and orderly transition? No question the British are respoinding to Shi'ite pressure. But that may be a good idea. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:05 AM by David Adesnik  

BUSH IS THE REPUBLICAN BILL CLINTON: Stephen Green explains. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:02 AM by David Adesnik  

THE FIGHT IS FOR DEMOCRACY, PART II: In the first installment of my review of George Packer's new collection of essays, I focused on the inability of its authors to distinguish a principled liberal foreign policy from a principled (neo-)conservative one. Today, I want to focus more on the conceptual underpinnings of principled foreign policies rather than the specific initiatives of which such policies are composed.

The two big think-pieces in Packer's book are Susie Linfield's anti-relativist polemic and Paul Berman's attack on Islamic totalitarianism. Both essays direct themselves at the profound intellectual disabilities the authors hold responsible for liberal confusion in foreign affairs. In both cases, I strongly sympathize with the authors' respective messages. Yet again, I found myself asking what distinguished Linfield and Berman's views from those that are supposedly conservative.

The vocabulary of Linfield's essay borrows extensively from the lexicon of conservative culture warriors. Talking about multiculturalism, Linfield writes that "shame [has] spread too far, mutating into guilt and then ossifying into cowardice." (p. 167) Linfield then observes that "judgment is the linchpin on which the health of the culture depends." (p. 173) In the final analysis, this non-judgmental cowardice facilitated the liberal left defense of Stalin and even Pol Pot.

Linfield is right that there is nothing in liberalism inherently averse to pride or judgment. She writes that

We are forced to see that by severing ourselves from our own proud tradition of judgment-as-freedom, we allowed conservatives to "own" the realm of judgment" (just as some black students, in a perverse paroxysm of self-defeat, have relegated intellectual achievement to whites.)

Well, so much for political correctness. Moving on, Linfield runs into trouble when she tries to distinguish a liberal version of judgment-as-freedom from its conservative counterpart. Much like Michael Tomasky, Linfield is only capable of identifying that which is liberal by differentiating it from a conservative strawman. Thus she describes conservatives as being enamored of "cultural hierarchy and 'sacred order'" before tartly observing that

Osama bin Laden, from what I understand, is also an ardent fan of the past's hierarchies and its sacred orders.

Aha! The only problem is that American conservatism has demonstrated little interest in hierarchy, much interest in the sacred, but little interest in order. For more than two hundred years, American conservatives have defied political labels by espousing a revolutionary conservatism. Unfortunately, Linfield never addresses this all-important paradox.

Paul Berman departs from the liberal mainstream by insisting that there is no rational defense of terrorism and there that there should be no effort to empathize with terrorists or assign responsibility to root causes. With regard to violence perpetrated by French Muslims against French Jews, Berman writes that

Liberal-minded thinkers, reluctant to believe that a strictly doctrinal and irrational hatred is at work, have instinctively regarded the violence as a natural and resonable response to Israeli policies in still another part of the world, the Middle East, thousands of miles away...

There has been a temptation likewise to believe that anti-Americanism must similarly reflect genuine greivances against the United States. Yet what has America ever done to, say, Morroco and Algeria -- except help liberate those countries from the Nazis?

In spite of such passages straight out of the National Review, Berman constructs a sweeping historical argument on behalf of semi-pacifist view of democracy promotion. In under twenty pages, Berman summarizes and extracts the essence from two hundred years of Western intellectual history. While I could keep up with what Berman was saying, the breadth of his references and analyses made it all but impossible for me to provide informed criticism of his views.

Yet on those occasions when Berman touched on my areas of expertise, I found myself violently disagreeing with him. His paragraph on the origins of World War I demonstrates a total unfamiliarity with the combatants motives. Berman then writes that

Final victory in World War II was not achieved by troops rolling into Berlin. Final victory was achieved by de-Nazification, which took several decades and perhaps in some respects is still going on. (p. 279)

But the fact is that victory was achieved by force of arms. De-Nazification was a complete fiasco that embarrassed the US occupation authority and angered low-level Nazi officials while ignoring most significant Party officials. What persuaded Germans of the evils of Nazism was not the shining ideal of Western democracy, but the shocking realization that Nazism had brought Germany nothing but death, devastation and despair -- thanks to the Allied armed forces.

I go on at length about Berman's idiosyncratic interpretation of the Second World War because it effectively illustrates how he bends the past to serve his anti-interventionist message. Thus, it rings hollow when Berman says that "America's president has decided to withdraw from the war of ideas". (p. 288) One can argue that Bush's rhetoric is less than persuasive. Yet actions often speak louder than words. More than any speech, the President's bid to democratize Iraq will become the yardstick according to which his intentions are one day measured. As was the case with Germany and Japan, the use of force has been integral to defining America's position in the war of ideas.

The remaining essays in Packer's collection demonstrate just how great a chasm must be bridged in order to unite Linfield and Berman's broad-brush conceptual liberalism with the specific policies favored by their co-authors. Jeff Madrick's discussion of economic inequality in the United States concludes that "Our democracy is no longer working as it should." Presumably, this implies that we have no right to lecture the developing world about freedom until our own house is in order.

William Finnegan's essay on "corporate globalization" is a meditation on the beauty of indigenous cultures, the rapacity of multinational corporations,and the hypocrisy of the IMF and its member governments. If there was one essay in Packer's book that Noam Chomsky could wholeheartedly embrace, this would be it. Speaking more substantively, the problem with Finnegan is that he completely ignores important arguments by first-rate thinkers that globalization promotes growth and even protects indigenous cultures. While the pro-globalization case is far from impregnable, the one-sided nature of Finnegan's attack undermines Packer's aspiration to get away from the kneejerk liberalism of the past.

The contradictions exposed by "The Fight is for Democracy" come across vividly in anti-war patriarch Todd Gitlin's essay on patriotism. On the one hand, Gitlin describes how his decision to hang an American flag from his terrace after 9/11 became an authoritative justification on the Left for accepting the flag as a positive symbol. Yet only weeks later, Gitlin and his wife took down their flag because "the hardening of American foreign policy and the Democratic cave-in produced a good deal more triumphalism than [they] could stomach." (p. 134) This pattern of action and reaction ably stands in for the position of almost all the contributors to Packer's book; they recognize the imperative of breaking away from the guilt-ridden liberalism of the past but can't accept-- let alone comprehend -- the majority's embrace of actual American foreign policies. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:14 PM by Patrick Belton  

OXBLOG'S STATE OF THE UNION INSTANT ANALYSIS:

* Basic summary: Opening material introduces counterterrorism as a unifying national project - The choice facing the nation is between pressing forward or turning back. The State of our Union is confident and strong. But with terror attacks in Bali, Jakarta, Casablanca, Mumbassa, Riyadh, Jerusalem, Istanbul, and Baghdad, the US must use every tool in its disposal against the threat of terrorism. One of those essential tools is the Patriot Act (first controversial element). Key provisions of the Act will expire next year (unexpected, and funny, applause from Democrats). One by one, America will bring terrorists to justice.

Shift to defense of assertive foreign policy, and its success: American leadership is making the world a better place. Afghanistan has gone from a training ground for Al Qaeda to a democracy with a constitution enshrining individual, minority, and women's rights; combat forces of the US, Great Britain, Poland, and Australia, enforced the will of the United Nations and ended the rule of Saddam Hussein, and the people of Iraq are free.” Of the top 55 officials of the former Iraqi regime, the US has arrested 45. US will never be intimidated by thugs or assassins. Introduced the president of the Iraqi Governing Council. With force behind our diplomacy, no one can now doubt the word of America; states US commitment to non-proliferation; budget will provide needed resources to the military for anti-terror purposes; against critics, the war on terror is really a war ("terrorists declared war on the United States, and war was what they got"); against congressional opponents of Iraq war, the world without Saddam is a better and safer place; against critics of unilateralism, lists international allies in Iraq; says America will never seek permission slip to defend the security of our country. The desire for freedom is universal; the US will undertake "forward strategy" of freedom (doubling the budget of the National Endowment for Democracy); the US will lead way in democratization.

Shift to trade and economic issues, and argument for strength of economy: the economy in good shape (tax cut money has been invested; list of favorable economic indicators; the American people are using their money better than government would have, and Congress was right to return it); administration is committed to education; support for the No Child Left Behind Act (choice is between the Act's common-sense testing and a retrograde return to shuffling kids along from grade to grade); introduces the Jobs for 21st Century job-training program; promises to continue “pro-growth” economic agenda; “unless you act” (repetition phrase), taxes will come back (booing, probably supportive booing from Republicans); calls for protection from frivolous lawsuits, less dependence on foreign energy; calls for “free and fair trade” (doesn't develop; just dropping a poll-tested phrase); calls for personal retirement accounts; individual ownership of Social Security; promises to cut deficit in half over 5 yrs and calls Congress to hold the increase in discretionary spending this year to less than 4%; foreign worker program is not amnesty, which he opposes, but a way to bring hard-working men and women out of shadows and into the mainstream of American life; calls for combating rising health care costs and expanding access to health care, in a bipartisan way (first reference to bipartisanship).

Sop to senior voters: congratulates Congress on passage of prescription drug benefit for seniors; lists everything the benefit will do for seniors, and that it won't change anything for seniors who didn't want change; calls for association health plans, a refundable health credit, and a second call for the elimination of frivolous and wasteful lawsuits, this time with regard to health care; calls for a deduction of catastrophic health care insurance coverage from taxes; promises to preserve system of private health care.

Bit directed toward social conservatives: values are eternal and country must take steps to keep the family and religious institutions strong in face of challenges from culture; introduces anti drug program; calls on professional sports to eliminate use of steroids; calls abstinence the only sure way to avoid STDs; constitutional amendment against gay marriage: calls for respect for populism and the will of the people against activist judges in defending marriage as between men and women, and promises recourse to constitutional amendment process if necessary to overrule judges; government must respect dignity of individual and individual's value in God’s sight (first reference to God); "unleashing" faith-based communities – calls on Congress to codify into law Bush's regulatory action permitting religious communities to compete equally for government funding; introduces program to ease prisoners' reentry into society, including funding for faith-based programs; America is the land of second chances, including for prisoners.

Closing matter: we are living in historic times; reads letter from Ashley Pearson, age 10, from Rhode Island who believes in troops, wants to help; Bush responds: Ashley should work hard in school, help people in need, and thank troops when she sees them. Democratization is irreversible; the path of US, guided by above, is right and true; may God continue to bless America.

* Analysis of speech: If the amount of time given over to a single idea reflects its relative importance in the State of the Union speech (a reasonable assumption), then the most important themes in tonight's speech, in descending order, are: the need to commit adequate resources to the military for the war on terror (87 seconds); that government will act against single-sex marriage (84 seconds); the administration's commitment to strengthening families and religious communities, and to combat juvenile use of drugs (78 seconds); the government's commitment to education and excellence for each child in America (72 seconds); that the world without Saddam is a better and safer place (69 seconds). The closing matter took 78 seconds, centered around the idea that we are living in historic times.

Incidentally, the average amount of continuous speech between applause lines was 29.28 seconds. In addition, if by speech units we mean a period of continuous speech without intended applause, the speech was constructed of:

16 units of 10 seconds or under
14 units of 11 to 20 seconds
12 units of 21 to 30 seconds
5 units of 31 to 40 seconds
1 unit of 41 to 50 seconds
3 units of 51 to 60 seconds
4 units of 61 to 70 seconds
and 3 units of 71 to 80 seconds. (Disclaimer: this excludes the introductory matter.)

* Thoughts: This is not a cautious speech - Bush makes one reference to bipartisanship, and instead defends his foreign policy record assertively, argues directly to the people of the country that he should be allowed to finish what he has begun, and appeals unapologetically to his most core constituencies on domestic policy. This is a speech which is meant to launch a re-election bid, not one intended to put forward a new program or to call for cooperation across the aisle.

* I'm struck by how much of a State of the Union address is formulaic: it simply wouldn't be a State of the Union if the president didn't say "the state of the Union is strong," read a letter that a young child wrote to him, and ask that God continue to bless America - these tropes are as much part of the annual ritual as the Sergeant of Arms of the House calling out "Mister Speaker, the President of the United States." I would be awfully interested if any of our readers had a sense of the historical background of these tropes.

Incidentally, the texts may be found here of all of the State of the Union addresses which have taken place since President Wilson's reinstatement of the oral (as opposed to written, as took place from Jefferson to Taft) transmission of the report mandated in Article II, Section 3. Lincoln's are here. And one computer scientist has analyzed all Addresses in history to determine what words appear most in bursts (the first years of the Republic see a great deal of "gentlemen," "militia," "British," "enemy," and "savages"; the Clinton years see welfare, bipartisan, college, communities, working, america, challenge, schools, teachers, 21st, ask, century, and help).

The full text of the speech can be found here. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:13 PM by Patrick Belton  

COME WATCH the State of the Union with us! (via CSPAN.org).... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:05 PM by David Adesnik  

TALK ABOUT AN UPSET! Kerry first in Iowa. Edwards a strong second. Dean an unimpressive third. Gephardt a distant fourth. I have to admit, I really don't know what Iowa was thinking. Why Kerry? Edwards sort of makes sense, but why wasn't there any support for him until the final moments? Conversely, why did Dean look so strong to being with? And how could Iowa abandon the midwest's native son?

Regardless of the answers, this makes New Hampshire a whole lot more interesting. I won't venture any predictions, but I do hope that Edwards can pick up 30% next week as well. Still, one strong showing in an early primary rarely says much about where the race is headed. For a solid assessment of where the conventional wisdom now stands, take a look at the NYT article on Iowa. All I would add is that tonight's results are an indirect but significant setback for Lieberman, who is looking like more and more of an also ran.

For more commentary, visit CalPundit, TPM, and Tapped. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:54 PM by David Adesnik  

WAPO PILE-ON: The same WaPo article I criticized last night has come in for quite a thrashing by other bloggers as well.

First, Glenn took the WaPo to task for its casual insistence that Bush described the Iraqi threat as imminent. (By extension, Glenn might have criticized me for writing that nothing in the WaPo article was "necessarily wrong".) While there is no question that Bush et al. were careful not to describe the Iraqi threat as "imminent", they did overplay it in a way that made the threat seem to be, well, imminent. Thus, while the WaPo has no business getting its facts wrong, it's hard for me to get indignant about this one.

Next up, Steven Den Beste provides a lengthy fisking of the article in question. Den Beste does a very good job of showing just how formulaic the WaPo article is by showing how it recites each tenet of the media's conventional wisdom about the war in Iraq.

While the Post's Glenn Kessler gets almost all of his facts right, he could just have easily written an article that presents a very different perspective on the war as objective truth. For example, instead of fretting about American disrespect for the United Nations, Kessler could have described how the UN has come through the war with its influence intact, thus invalidating the multilateralists' predictions that Bush would destory the "postwar international order". Or, ideally, Kessler could have provided both perspectives and fulfilled his journalistic obligation to provide balanced reporting.

At the same time, one ought to note that Den Beste's apoplectic criticism of the WaPo is pretty much paranoid. Den Beste writes:

They say, "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity", but we seem to have gone beyond any possible stupidity now. Have we reached the point where we can assume there's a conspiracy to spread a big lie? And where we can safely dismiss the opinions of anyone who repeats it?...

All the signs are there: this is a straight leftist propaganda piece disguised as straight news reporting.

Leaving aside its bombast, the main conceptual problem with Den Beste's criticism is its (slightly sarcastic?) attribution of a definite motive to Glenn Kessler and the WaPo. First of all, anyone familiar with the Post's pro-war/pro-reconstruction editorial line knows that the paper isn't committed to a leftist policy line. Second, it is improbable in the extreme that a reporter committed to manipulating the public would last very long at a top-flight newspaper.

The real explanation here -- one that is far more complex than either stupidity or conspiracy -- has to do with journalists' professional norms. As numerous studies (many of them by Stephen Hess) have shown, journalists operate according to fairly specific rules of which they are vaguely aware but almost wholly unable to articulate.

One of those rules is the confusion of bipartisanship with objectivity. Notice, for example, how much stress Kessler puts on the fact that Republicans are offering many of the same criticisms one is accustomed to hearing from Democrats. As a result of moderate criticism from Ken Adelman and Richard Haass, Kessler grants himself license to deconstruct speeches by Bush, Cheney and Powell in a manner that reflects their alleged loss of credibility both at home and abroad.

In all likelihood, Kessler agrees with the criticisms that he describes as part of a bipartisan consensus. If he didn't, he probably would've done more to demonstrate that opposing perspectives exist. Yet Kessler does make sure to quote Richard Perle, who makes the reasonable point that intelligence is about guesswork, not certainty. Of course, by the time you get to Perle's quote, Kessler's anti-administration spin makes it seem that Perle is an ostrich-headed defender of the White House party line.

In the final analysis, it is best to approach mainstream journalism as the product of an unspoken yet fairly precise code of conduct that places strict limits on correspondents while enabling them to advance subtle opinions through the process of selecting what to write about. Some articles, such as Kessler's, obey the letter of the law more than the spirit. Some newspapers, such as the NYT, show less deference to the spirit of the law than others. Yet in order to maintain one's status as a professional, one must respect the letter of law, a framework that gives the reader a certain basic confidence in what he reads, regardless of its spin. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:01 PM by Patrick Belton  

THERE SOME QUITE INTERESTING things afoot in Pakistan at the moment. Responding to US concern about madressahs, special groups drawn from the security agencies examined the records of madrassas in Faisalabad, paying particular attention to the names of students and staff, connection with other religious organizations, and sources of funding (raids which drew in turn criticism from the Islamist group Jamiat Ahle-Hadith). This comes on the heels of an International Crisis Group report which is highly critical of Gen Musharraf for not having followed through on his promised steps to stem jihadi ideology in the madressahs and bring them under government-approved curricula while making closer examinations of their funding sources. (ICG's Asia director Robert Templer argues in the report that Musharraf is too dependent upon the political support of the religious parties to have been able to move against the religious schools.)

At the same time, raids against Al Qaeda operatives in Karachi have increased in frequency, while in Peshawar similar crackdowns are being attempted against tribesmen harboring suspected Al Qaeda members. Also in Karachi, the operations chief of the Taliban- and Al Qaeda-linked Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (Shamim Ahmed, 25) was arrested today for his role in a bombing last Thursday at the city's Anglican cathedral.

What's really happening there? Stratfor believes that the national government in Islamabad has acquired some new level of support from the sundry tribes, enhancing the government's capability to flush out militant Islamists from tribally-controlled badlands and allowing Musharraf to cooperate with the U.S. while irking a smaller amount of anti-U.S. domestic sentiment through countermilitancy operations prosecuted in middle-class neighborhoods. On the one hand, Al Qaeda seems to be feeling under the gun after the organization posted a bad December - this, according to analysts of the Osama tape released in January. On the other hand, Musharraf also is feeling under the gun, as shown by the obvious penetration by militants of his security apparatus indicated by close knowledge of his movements drawn on in the two recent assassination attempts, while international flows of terrorists into his country continue to be exemplified by foreign-born operatives such as Uyghur separatist Hasan Mahsum and the Chechen-born suicide bomber who attacked Musharraf on Christmas Day. Some argue that precisely by appearing so weak in the face of Islamist opposition and two assassination attempts, Musharraf has gained serious negotiating power with both Washington and New Delhi, neither of which wishes to see him replaced with an Islamist successor. Combined with the possible playing out an end-of-term desire on Vajpayee's part to establish a place for himself in history aided by the current strong position of his popular Bharatiya Janata Party (shored, in turn, by a booming Indian economy), then the potential for amicable progress in Kashmir talks along lines fairly favorable to Pakistan seems increasingly likely, which could weaken Kashmiri radicals and their supporters within the lower levels of the ISI. At the same time, the increasing tempo of crackdowns on Al Qaeda members could indicate that the effect of two assassination attempts perpetrated by Islamists may have been to draw Musharraf more firmly into Washington's orbit, rather than toward the propitiation of his would-be murderers. And that would be good news indeed. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:11 AM by David Adesnik  

FUZZY MATH, SHARP POLITICS: This WaPo editorial is right; Bush's proposal for immigration reform isn't perfect by a longshot, but it's enabled him to capture the middle ground in political terms and the high ground in moral terms. Much of the Democratic candidates' criticism of the proposal is valid, but only leads one to ask why, if the Democrats are so concerned about immigrants, they didn't make this an issue first. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:03 AM by David Adesnik  

NEWSFLASH -- BUSH CRITICIZED FOR NOT FINDING WMD: I'm trying to figure out how this got onto the front page of the WaPo. I wouldn't say that anything in the article is necessarily wrong. But is it news that the failure to find WMD in Iraq has hurt US credibility? Or that serious questions have been raised about the politicization of the intelligence process? Or that the Administration now focuses more on the humanitarian victory in Iraq?

If the NYT ran this article, I wouldn't have bothered posted anything. It's what you expect from them. But the WaPo? I expect better. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:49 AM by David Adesnik  

PATS HEADED TO SUPERBOWL: Can New England bring home a second victory in the big game? I'm not sure. While their defense was simply overpowering, questions remain on offense. Why couldn't the Patriots finish drives in the red zone, instead relying on kicker Adam Vinatieri to put up five field goals? Can quarterback Tom Brady turn it up a notch after throwing an interception and a handful of almosts in today's game? I hope so. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:42 AM by David Adesnik  

OUR CONDOLENCES to the victims of terror in Baghdad. This was not an attack on coalition forces. It was the murder of Iraqi civilians. It is terrorism. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:50 PM by Patrick Belton  

BACK IN OXFORD AND LINKING UP A STORM: Today's theme is democracy promotion, and David Ignatius has a wonderful piece about how education and technology are slowly, irreversibly liberalizing the Arab world - beginning with Dubai. "Education is the future of this region," says Sheik Nahayan bin Mubarak, UAE's minister of education. Under Nahayan, the Higher Colleges of Technology have grown from fewer than 500 students to 15,000, of whom 60 percent are women. Ignatius closes by noting that even at a time when it's hard to find much to be very optimistic about in the Arab world, UAE makes you remember change is coming, even to the land of the dromedary and the scorpion.

Elsewhere, Economist has several thoughtful pieces on the progress of democracy in the Middle East. Jordan and Kuwait recently held relatively free parliamentary elections, though both were marked by gerrymandering - and in Kuwait's parliamentary elections July 5th, Islamist and tribal candidates ousted liberals from all but three of parliament's 50 seats. Syria and Saudi Arabia have made halting steps toward democratic reform since the fall of the region's most infamous dictator - Syria's Ba'ath party has claimed to have ceased all its interference in governemnt policymaking and administration as part of a program of voluntary de-Baathification, and Crown Prince Abdullah hosted a forum of intellectuals producing a blueprint of reform, both for his own kingdom and for the Arab world. Outside the Arab world, the Economist also has surveys of democratic prospects in Central Asia, and - on a slightly different note - inequality in Latin America.

Continuing our survey, Freedom House releases its annual report on the state of freedom in the world. In 2003, 25 countries demonstrated forward progress in freedom, while 13 registered setback. Among the gainers, Argentina moved from Partly Free to Free, and Burundi and Yemen moved from Not Free to Partly Free. Among those losing ground, Bolivia and Papua New Guinea moved from Free to Partly Free, and Azerbaijan, Central African Republic, and Mauritania moved from Partly Free to Not Free. Of the 49 countries Freedom House rated Not Free, 8 were given the lowest possible numerical ratings for political rights and civil liberties - Burma, Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, and Turkmenistan, along with two territories, Chechnya and Tibet.

Still elsewhere, the always excellent Journal of Democracy has insightful pieces on Mid-Eastern liberalism, Afghanistan and Iraq. The Journal also has pieces on Arab democracy and terror, Islam, and democratization.

In the Washington Post, Glenn Kessler and Robin Wright provide another assessment of the administration's drive for Arab democracy. One impediment is the unwillingness of Arab governments to cooperate: Egypt, for instance, blocks all funding for democratization programs, particularly to democracy advocate Saad Eddin Ibrahim's Ibn Khaldun Center. On the other hand, a quite nice pro-democracy effort is the Middle East Partnership Initiative, administered in the State Department by VP Cheney's daughter Elizabeth Cheney. The program's funding is not inconsequential but is modest - $129 million for 2002 and 2003, with as much as $120 million coming this year - and democratization scholars like Carnegie's Marina Ottaway charge that the project takes on easy and soft aspects of democracy promotion while not tackling the unwillingness of autocracies to step aside in favour of elections, which can only be promoted at very high levels.

And while speaking of Carnegie, they've produced a great deal of good democracy promotion literature lately, too - Tom Carothers argues the administration needs to commit more resources to democratization and warns that it will be neither a swift nor an easy remedy to terrorism - while Amy Hawthorne, editor of Carnegie's Arab Reform Bulletin (and, incidentally, a Yalie), publishes a number of good pieces, including ones on parties and media in Iraq, and reform prospects in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Arab judiciaries. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:50 AM by David Adesnik  

COINCIDENCE? I THINK NOT! Someone with the same name as a former OxBlogger has an interesting op-ed in the NYT. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:43 AM by David Adesnik  

HOWARD DEAN IS SMARTER THAN YOU THINK: Maureen Dowd writes:

I went to Iowa hunting Howard Dean. His campaign said he might give me five minutes. On the phone.

Perhaps Gov. Howard didn't want the Times to run a column about his choice of sweaters. Plus, it turns out that Dean never gave MoDo her five minutes. So she's getting back at him by saying that you can't run on anger alone:

A race rooted mainly in attacking the president may not take Dr. Dean far enough. Voters want someone who's been through the fire. They care about character. They want to know the evolution of the man, even if it's a myth.

In other words, Dean's lack of cynical condescension toward the American voter is why he's losing momentum. Typical MoDo advice. Yet attacking Dean is only a sideshow. MoDo's real target is Mr. Angry himself, Paul Krugman. This little feud is getting nasty. (Heard offstage: cackles of glee.) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:29 AM by David Adesnik  

BLACKHAWKS DOWN: The NYT's Eric Schmitt reports that the army has conducted a comprehensive survey in order to determine why so many helicopters are being lost to hostile fire.

"The enemy has clearly seen the possibilities from earlier successes," said one senior Army aviator in the Persian Gulf region. "The enemy enjoys a strategic success each time one of our aircraft is shot down. It becomes a major media event, and questions arise as to who is winning. So the enemy sees this as very useful."

Schmitt also reports that the guerrillas are now using increasingly sophisticated tactics. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:20 AM by David Adesnik  

OXBLOG VISITS EXTREME BEER FEST: What makes a beer extreme? According to BeerAdvocate.com, the festival's sponsor,

Extreme literally means that which exceeds the ordinary, usual or expected. And as such is a great way to describe these types of brews when approaching them from a mainstream point of view, where most beers that aren't fizzy, yellow and bland are indeed extreme to mainstream palates. And despite the media's recent usage of the term as a buzzword to solely describe high alcohol beers, many brewers and consumers have embraced Extreme Beer as something that pushes the boundaries of brewing and the palates of beer lovers.

We see it as the continuing evolution of the US beer industry and perhaps the second shot heard round the world for the American craft beer revolution. It's not just a pissing contest to see who can make the world's strongest beer; it's a movement - a movement to showcase the craft and how complex and versatile beer can actually be.

What are we talking about?

- Beers made with no hops but plenty of heather and lavender.
- Beers aged in Jack Daniels oak barrels with an alcohol by volume of 20 percent or more.
- Traditional beer styles, but with double, triple or more hops or malt.
- Beers brewed with chocolate, peanut butter or espresso beans.
- Strong Porters brewed with Chinese candied ginger.
- Ales brewed with oysters or seaweed.
- Sharp tasting beers inoculated with various wild bacteria and yeast strains.

These aren't fancy imports from faraway lands, but rather handcrafted examples of beer being brewed right here in the US. They are highly artisanal and diverse, obtainable in many markets, and they tweak the minds and palates of not only beer drinkers, but appreciators of wine and spirits - a positive crossover conversion for the beer industry.

And no, this is not a new beer trend. The concept of Extreme Beer, although new to many, has actually been around for quite a few years. Although it's been documented that Jim Koch of the Boston Beer Co. first used the term to describe the release of Sam Adams Triple Bock in 1994 (then the strongest beer at 17.5% ABV), home- and pro-brewers have been testing the limits of their craft since the '70s. We can only assume that adventurous brewers have been doing the same since the discovery of brewing beer.

To bring more awareness to Extreme Beer, on January 17, 2004, we'll be hosting the BeerAdvocate.com Extreme Beer Fest at the Cyclorama (Boston Center for the Arts). The day will include two sessions (1-5pm and 6-10pm) and a very limited connoisseur session. Local food, live music and cheese pairings will be available. Tickets are $25 in advance / $30 at the door and are available by going to beeradvocate.com. The connoisseur and evening sessions are scheduled to sell out, so purchase your tickets today.

Respect beer.

My apologies for not posting this notice before the festival. You all missed a helluva time. Also, my apologies for posting such a long quotation without offering any insightful commentary to go with it. But after all that extreme beer, I'm not exactly in a position to think straight. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:14 AM by David Adesnik  

SACHS FISKS CLARK: One rule of thumb you can pretty much follow in life is that if Steve Sachs says you're wrong, you're wrong. And Wes Clark is wrong.

(This post is going to get me in big trouble some day, because Steve is going to say at some point that I am wrong. And he'll probably be right.) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:01 PM by David Adesnik  

THE EXPERTS SHALL BLOG: Dan Drezner notes that the Columbia Journalism Review has set up a blog to monitor campaign coverage. I'm quite curious to see how this turns out. Will the editors of the top academic journalism review provide better analysis than you can already get from first-rate blogs? Or will the CJR effort simply show that if you're inside the ivory tower, you're a step behind everyone else? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:46 PM by David Adesnik  

THE ENEMY IN THE SHADOWS: Paul Krugman says that Wes Clark "gets it" the same way that Howard Dean "gets it". In other words, they both know that George W. Bush is a threat to American democracy who "even put[s] Nixon to shame".

But which Democratic candidate doesn't get it? Presumably Lieberman. But why would Paulie waste a column on also-ran? I'm guessing that Krugman has nothing against Kerry or Gephardt either, and is probably OK even with Edwards.

Pretty much the only person who comes in for direct criticism from is Maureen Dowd. Krugman writes that

Most political reporting on the Democratic race, it seems to me, has gotten it wrong. Some journalists do, of course, insist on trivializing the whole thing: what I dread most, in the event of an upset in Iowa, is the return of reporting about the political significance of John Kerry's hair.

Did he mean to say Kerry's hair, or Wes Clark's sweater? Could there be a Krugman-Dowd confrontation in the works? Listen to OxBlog cackle with glee.

Anyhow, I think the real target audience for Krugman's column is NYT readers who aren't sure they're ready to be as angry as Howard or Wes or Paulie. Not that it matters in political terms -- unangry Democrats are not about to vote for George W. But this is about validation, about Krugman proving -- like Dean -- that he isn't outside the mainstream. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:19 PM by David Adesnik  

MODERATE LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS: Terry Neal reports on Dean supporters' intense resentment of media bias against their candidate. Neal responds that all frontrunners can expect a tougher ride. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:50 AM by Patrick Belton  

AL-HAYAT AL-JADIDAH RESPONDS to President Bush's Mars speech: "The US is preparing for the invasion of Mars and other planets," writes the Palestinian daily. "What are the other planets chosen for the US invasion? Are they an axis of planetary evil? And what is the relationship between the regime on Pluto and fundamentalist groups?" (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:24 AM by David Adesnik  

THE CLARK TRANSCRIPT -- A CORRECTION: I've received a number of e-mails saying that Matt Drudge did not invent quotations and attribute them to Wesley Clark. As the links in this post indicate, my source for that assertion was Josh Marshall. I did not do background research on his post, since Josh was directly quoting a Knight Ridder dispatch. If the KR dispatch turns out to be wrong, I'll take responsibility for the matter at OxBlog's end (while giving KR an earful). (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:40 AM by Patrick Belton  

BACK IN OXFORD, and preparing to resume normal posting duties as soon as I shower! It's very good to be back in England, a country which has come very much to be a second home. See you all soon! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:32 PM by David Adesnik  

RED LETTER DAY FOR TPM: Josh Marshall has been declared blogger of the year by an actual dead-tree publication run by famous people. What next, a Pulitzer for Instapundit?

Josh is also hot on the trail of Matt Drudge, who seems to have invented quotes demonstrating that Wes Clark was pro-war back in 2002. So far, it looks like Joe Lieberman and RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie have fallen for it.

While Dean hasn't fallen for Drudge's skullduggery, he's been telling his audience that "I truly believe [Wes Clark]'s a Republican." I'm not sure whether that sort of statement is better categorized as a lie or a delusion. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:12 PM by David Adesnik  

REMARKABLE: Instapundit has posted the money grafs from a long report on Iraq by Expert #1 Ken Pollack. As the money grafs show, Pollack is a cautious optimist who believes that serious American planning can ensure the success of the reconstruction effort. But you really have to go through all of Pollack's report to get a sense of how dramatically different his view of Iraq is from the one provided by the daily papers.

Pollack begins his review of the situation in Iraq by saying that

It is useful and important to start with some of the most important positives in Iraq, both because too often they have been overlooked in the American media coverage, and because they point to the opportunity that we have there.

Coming from a mild-mannered, conflict-averse guy like Pollack, that kind of indictment of the media is very, very significant. (And, yes, OxBlog is enjoying its vindication very much.) The first point that Pollack takes up is Iraqi public opinion. As most observers report, the people of Iraq fear an American withdrawal far more than they resent the American presence. Next, Pollack takes a look at the insurgency and writes that

In short, [these] are not determined attacks by insurgents willing to die for their cause -- nor are they always very skillfully conducted. The attackers generally place a premium on their survival, not on killing Americans. As a result, most of the attacks do little damage, and the United States continues to suffer only an average of about 1-2 dead per day. As one sergeant who had fought in Vietnam put it to me, "if this were the Viet Cong, we'd have a hundred dead per day."

For this reason, there is a widespread sense that most of the insurgents are motivated primarily by money. While he was on the loose, Saddam reportedly paid $250 for killing an American. Consequently, his loyalists -- who never evinced much willingness to die for him while he ruled -- were willing to conduct large numbers of rather paltry attacks in the hope that they might get lucky and kill one or more Americans, rather than stand and fight (especially against U.S. firepower) and risk being killed, even though by doing so they would have a much greater likelihood of killing Americans.

What happened to all those reports in the WaPo and NYT that the sophistication of the insurgents' attacks was constantly increasing throughout the summer and fall? Well, either the Ba'athists were so incompetent to begin with that they are still incompetent despite marked improvement. Or the media decided that this was a quagmire even though it didn't have the evidence to back its opinion up.

After the insurgents, Pollack turns to the competence of American reconstruction personnel. He writes that

it is important to mention the numerous successes enjoyed by U.S. military and (to a lesser extent) civilian personnel throughout Iraq. American military civil affairs personnel, U.S. AID and State Department officials, contractors, and members of non-governmental organizations have spread out into many Iraqi villages and neighborhoods. In virtually every case, their presence has proven to have had something of the Midas touch...

These personnel acknowledge that they have made mistakes. They were sent in, in most cases, with very little understanding of Iraq or its needs, and little guidance on what to do or how to do it. They have made things up as they have gone along. One U.S. military civil affairs officer estimated that no more than a simple majority of his team's decisions were good ones, but over time, they had corrected their mistakes, continued their successes, and won the trust and gratitude of the Iraqis that they worked with.

This assessment meshes well with that of NYT correspondent Eric Schmitt, whose reports on the adaptability of American soldiers and their high morale almost seem designed to expose just how wrong the rest of the NYT staff (except John Burns) has gotten the story. It also does a good job of making the point that Americans can do a lot of good work despite their lack of expertise in the local language and culture. Why? Because winning hearts and minds depends on our democratic values, not our ability to speak Arabic.

So what about the problems? In the field of security, the number one issue is crime. While it's hard to come by any quantitative measures of the problem,

A poll conducted in early October by the Iraqi Center for Research and Strategic Studies under the auspices of the International Republican Institute found that 60 percent of Iraqis felt "not very safe" or "not safe at all" in their neighborhoods, and virtually the same percentage had either "not very" [sic] or "no" confidence that coalition forces would make their cities safe. Only a little more than a quarter of those surveyed felt "very safe."5

Pollack's controversial suggestion for correcting this situation is to have American soldiers spend a lot more time on

foot patrols backed by helicopters and/or vehicles that the British Army learned to use in Northern Ireland, and that all NATO forces eventually employed in the Balkans. This is the only way that American forces can get out, reassure the Iraqi civilians, find out from them where the troublemakers are, and respond to their problems.

This means risking higher casualties, but Pollack believes there is no other way to get the job done. While I am inclined to agree, Pollack might have considered the political dynamics at play. Both the media and much of the American public become alarmed every time the American body count accelerates. The more alarmed the media and the public get, the harder it is for the administration to fund the occupation and provide manpower. While the Democrats on Capitol Hill seem to believe that the occupation must be done right, Bush's main concern in the coming months will be his re-election. And there is no reason to expect Howard Dean or any other candidate not to take advantage of public alarm. Thus, the safest bet for the administration is to keep the casualty count lay and deal with problems in Iraq after the election.

In the long-term, providing public security will be something that the Iraqis have to do for themsleves. Thus, in theory, "Iraqification" is good idea. But as Pollack argues, it is premature. The mad rush to train Iraqi security forces -- army, police, border guards etc. -- has resulted in shoddy training that turns incompetent and often ruthless men out onto the streets with the authority to abuse others. As they did in the days of Saddam, some policemen are once again resorting to extortion, rape, kidnapping and even murder. Pollack reports that

The problem is so bad that three different CPA officials told me that if they were out alone outside the Green Zone (admittedly a rare experience for many American officials) and they were flagged down by an Iraqi police officer, they probably would not stop because they would be too frightened of what he might do.

At the same time, too many Iraqis are becoming frightened of American troops because of anti-insurgent raids that humiliate many innocent homeowners. Again, Pollack suggests that the solution is to worry less about casualties and more about hearts and minds.

To be continued... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:41 AM by Patrick Belton  

COME SCHMOOZE WITH US: Incidentally, the DC chapter of our Nathan Hale foreign policy society will be meeting next Wednesday for a presentation and discussion of the Department of Homeland Security's operations, featuring a senior official from the department. Last week our DC chapter was able to host Toby Muse, the Times's Colombia correspondent, for a conversation about the alternative possible steps to be taken there. Our chapters in New York, Boston, Chicago, L.A., New Haven, the Bay area, and Oxford are also meeting regularly - please drop us an email if you'd like to be added to our mailing list! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:44 PM by David Adesnik  

UNDERSTANDING SISTANI: Over at Needlenose, Swopa has been observing the Shi'ites -- and specifically Ayatollah Sistani -- very carefully ever since the occupation began. Swopa is absolutely right that Sistani has a lot of talent when it comes to driving a hard bargain.

I think he is also right that the CPA is trying to put the best face on the fact Sistani has more influence than they are willing to admit.

But really, this all comes back to the question of what Sistani's true intentions are. On this point, Swopa writes that

We don't know -- and probably can't know -- exactly what type of government the Grand Ayatollah foresees for Iraq. It's even possible that he doesn't know himself. Sistani, after all, is not a lifelong politician; he's a religious scholar who has a history of avoiding political disputes.

Exactly. As I often say (drumroll please) the media has failed to provide evidence that Sistani has a fundamentalist agenda despite menacing-yet-vague statements about Sistani's intentions.

Six months ago, Swopa suggested that what Sistani and other Shi'ite clerics want is "a straightforward march to an Islamic fundamentalist state in Iraq". Yet he also conceded more recently that

In discussing this subject with others, I've sometimes been told that "but a majority of the Shiites don't want an Islamic state, or at least an Islamic theocracy."

This is very likely true. But the theocratic elements are also virtually the only organized Shiite bloc in the country, which gives them a large head start in any election/constitutional process.

That complicates the situation quite a bit, since Swopa argues that Sistani's influence comes from the absolute loyalty of Iraqi Shi'ites. Yet if the people have a very different vision of government from the Ayatollah, they may not decide to lend him their support, even if his political representatives campaign with a moderate face. Moreover, if Sistani keeps insisting on his total commitment to "democracy", Shi'ites opposed to an Islamic state may very well hold him to his word.

Finally, there are the Kurds and the Sunnis. I do not believe that a Shi'ite state can function with a 30-40% minority of (heavily armed) dissenters. Thus, I am more confident than Swopa that the US can extract concessions from Sistani concerning the rights of religious and ethnic minorities. While the United States doesn't command the loyalty of any constituency in the manner of Iraq's ethnic or religious leaders, their role as broker and as military trustee puts them in a position with considerable leverage, if used wisely. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:26 PM by Patrick Belton  

YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP, #15: Via CNN:

"He made an internationally known obscene gesture when he was being photographed by the Federal Police," Federal Police agent Wagner Castilho told Reuters.

The pilot, identified as Dale Robin Hirsch, raised his middle finger at police to protest new Brazilian security measures that require U.S. citizens to be fingerprinted and photographed upon entering the South American country.

Brazil implemented the policy on January 1 in retaliation for a similar U.S. program.

Further down on the page, a picture of relatively naked hip-wriggling women dressed in ornate headgear appears above the headline "Samba dancers greet tourists in Rio de Janeiro as part of a campaign to make up for long airport lines. " (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:50 PM by David Adesnik  

PALESTINIAN FAMILY VALUES: Steve Sturm has some comments about the particularly disturbing nature of a recent suicide bombing in Israel. This time, the bomber -- the murderer -- was the mother of two young children who seems to have had no qualms about leaving her children motherless.

I have no comment. But as Golda Meir said many, many years ago, there will be no peace until the Arabs love their children more than they hate Israel. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:50 PM by Patrick Belton  

HOOA, AIRBORNE: Special operations forces, working with members of the 82nd Airborne, have captured number 54 of Iraq's 55 most-wanted. The man was Khamis Sirhan al-Muhammad, former Baath Party regional chairman for the Karbala governate. Army Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, deputy operations director for Combined Joint Task Force 7, said "He was an enabler for many of the resistance attacks on Iraqis, as well as (against) U.S. and coalition forces. These attacks were crimes against the Iraqi people." (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:10 PM by Patrick Belton  

I LOVE HOWARD: No, not Governor Dean - you are still reading OxBlog, remember. No, I mean the historic black university - I had a lovely campus tour there this morning, after breakfast and coffee with my friend (and Howard history professor) Alan McPherson, and I was struck by what a phenomenally friendly campus environment I had stepped into. Walking down 6th street outside Howard's main gate, I had three separate middle-aged women wish me "good morning" - and this in the middle of Washington, D.C. It seems to be an awfully special place, and I was impressed and intrigued enough that I will be returning to Howard over the summer to lecture to a consortium of international affairs students from historically black colleges.

(And for those of you who are interested in Latin America, incidentally, my friend Alan is author of a groundbreaking history of anti-Americanism in Latin America, Yankee No, just published by Harvard University Press.) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:20 PM by Patrick Belton  

TOO GOOD A MAN FOR HIS PARTY? The Washington Post assesses the candidacy of Senator Lieberman in words which it would be very difficult for me to better:

Mr. Lieberman is progressive on most issues (abortion, the environment, gay rights) without being a captive of the party's orthodoxy. During three terms in the Senate, he has defied the teachers unions to support experiments with school vouchers and efforts to hold schools accountable for their performance, infuriated trial lawyers by supporting reasonable steps to rein in abusive lawsuits, and confronted Hollywood over gratuitous sex and violence. He's moderate on fiscal matters, combining one of the most progressively structured tax plans of the Democratic field with a pledge to limit the growth of most federal spending to the rate of inflation. He brings a deep commitment to civil rights, nurtured in marches in Mississippi while a college student. His assertive approach to national security contemplates U.S. intervention on behalf of democracy and human rights, not only in Iraq but throughout the globe.

Unlike most of the other Democrats who supported the war, Mr. Lieberman neither minimized that view when it seemed unpopular nor undercut it by opposing Mr. Bush's request for reconstruction funds. Likewise, Mr. Lieberman hasn't trimmed his trade views to fit the demands of presidential politics.

But in a year in which it seems that anger sells, Mr. Lieberman's wry, measured demeanor may fail to inspire some primary voters. He can be less than rousing on the stump. His emphasis on values and morality has often added an important dimension to the political discourse -- as with his withering floor speech about President Bill Clinton's conduct with Monica Lewinsky -- yet he can come off as sanctimonious. Still, for a candidate who's sometimes dismissed as "too nice" to win, and who was criticized during the last campaign for being too soft in the vice presidential debate, Mr. Lieberman has most often been the first to take on his rivals, even when it seemed risky to do so.

It may say more about the current state of the Democratic Party than it does about Mr. Lieberman that he is having a difficult time making this message sell.

The full piece is here. Compare it, for instance, to the WaPo's fairly damning assessment of Governor Dean, and I think the two pieces speak out very well for both the Post editorial page's moral clarity and its good sense. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:14 PM by David Adesnik  

IS MATT YGLESIAS SHORT? The topic of the day over at Matt's site is why everyone assumes that Matt is short based on his headshot. So I have a confession to make: before I first met Matt in person, I also assumed that he was short. It definitely came as something of a shock the first time I saw his head attached to a six-foot-plus body.

But why did I assume what I assume? Here are some suggestions from the comments page on Matt's site:

"Your face isn't long (like, say, John Kerry's), so people -- myself included -- presumed that your body isn't, either."

"Blatant ethnic and cultural stereotyping, pure and simple: Hispanics and Jews are presumptively short, intellectuals are small."

"I think it is the lack of a neck of any substance. Either you don't have one or the pictures aren't showing it."

And you wonder why OxBlog never puts up author photos. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:46 PM by David Adesnik  

TPM SPIN CONTROL: This Slate column says that Wes Clark puts his foot in his mouth no less often than Howard Dean. Josh Marshall tries to defend Clark by arguing that he's telling the uncomfortable (for the Bush administration) truth, rather than making constant gaffes.

Personally, I think Marshall would look a lot smarter if he just admitted that Clark said a bunch of dumb, slightly offensive things that are nowhere near as dumb as the kind of things Dean often says. (Of course, the Slate column doesn't include this howler that Clark gave us a few days ago.)

On the brighter side (for TPM), Josh gets a good shot in at the Bush administration's peculiar attitude toward releasing classified documents:

Number of days between Novak column outing Valerie Plame and announcement of investigation: 74 days.

Number of days between O'Neill 60 Minutes interview and announcement of investigation: 1 day.

Having the administration reveal itself as a gaggle of hypocritical goons ... priceless.

Josh really should've stopped before that last sentence. It's that sort of snide, overwrought remark which often makes reading TPM a chore. Besides, by Josh's standard, even the saintly Jimmy Carter was a hypocritical goon.

While no one should tolerate the kind of double standards that the Bush administration has clearly employed, going for the jugular every time only results in making Beltway politics ever more cutthroat. (Yet as Mr. Marshall would surely remind us, it's the Republicans who were cutthroat first.)

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:51 PM by Patrick Belton  

NO ONE, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS ACCUSING ME of gloating about anything the heck at all.... (Maybe I'm not doing something right....) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:31 PM by David Adesnik  

I'VE BEEN CRITICIZED BY READERS for not gloating approrpriately over this. But, really, when your team has the best starting rotation in Major League Baseball (Mussina, Brown, Vazquez, Contreras, Lieber), you can afford to stay quiet when a AAA ball club from Texas poaches a couple of your starters. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:33 PM by David Adesnik  

THE WORST FORM OF GOVERNMENT (EXCEPT ALL OTHERS): Dan Drezner says that getting serious about democracy in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia may be America's best hope. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:25 PM by David Adesnik  

GO FLY A KIKE: MQ writes in to say that

I tend to find much of the writing on Oxblog, on the whole, of good value, particularly in parsing out the national media's reportage of the occupation of Iraq.

However, the title of your January 11, 11:08am post, "Full of Shi'ite," is disgraceful, disrespectful and not in the least bit cute.

I see no purpose to the use of an incorrect transliteration of a Muslim sect's name in such a distasteful manner. Would you be at all happy if someone would go off about the "Shrew Jew?" Would it even be funny? [Yes and yes. --DA]

This is particularly disconcerting as it is in the context of a discussion of some of the more moderate leadership of the Iraqi Shi'a.

Don't irresponsible lines such as yours only serve to confirm for Muslims the underhanded disdain of those who would proclaim their utmost respect for the cultures, religions and sensitivities of the Muslim peoples?

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:34 PM by David Adesnik  

REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS: There is a solid message at the foundation of this op-ed by Steven Metz, an officer at the Army War College:

Whatever government and constitution emerge in Iraq during the coming year will be badly flawed. Even a talented and energetic people cannot emerge from the darkness of totalitarianism overnight. To ensure success in Iraq, the United States needs to think in terms of multiple generations and decades of sustained effort.

My problem is the logic on which this assertion rests. Metz begins his column with the assertion that

From childhood, Americans are taught the importance of compromise and consensus, of "playing by the rules" and of individual initiative. These are traits that form the foundation of our political and economic system.

Iraqis at this time do not have these basic traits and ideals. To survive in a repressive, pathological system, they've developed a very different set of behaviors, attitudes, values and perceptions, all of which are unsuited to open government and to success in a globalized economy.

If that is so, why were the Poles, Hungarians and Czechs able to establish democracy almost immediately after their liberation from Soviet rule? Clearly, many of the post-Soviet states failed to make the transition to democracy or have found themselves trapped in deeply flawed democratic orders. Thus, what seems to matter more than a history of totalitarianism is the context within which it takes place.

On the one hand, Iraq is far worse off neither it nor its neighbors has a history of democracy (although Iran may have a future). On the other hand, a massive American presence and global interest in Iraq favor democratic reform.

Regardless of such objections, Metz has good recommendations for how to address the probable flaws of Iraqi democracy:

Americans must help Iraq develop a cadre of leaders dedicated to democracy and a free-market economy, and equipped with the skills to manage them. This is a long-term prospect; a short tutorial here and there will not suffice. To make it happen, the United States should immediately fund tens of thousands of scholarships and internships for young Iraqis to come to America and should encourage other Western nations to do the same in their countries...

[Also], the United States must provide constant life support while the new cadre of democratic leaders assumes power. This will include helping Iraq avoid obvious dangers such as foreign intervention, fragmentation, civil war or a takeover by a dictator, but also more subtle risks such as the emergence of a de facto dictator who attains power through the democratic system, or backroom dominance by organized crime.

The United States must be steadfast in its support of Iraq's democrats, even those who aren't particularly pliable. Indeed, we cannot expect that an Iraqi democratic leader will be a supplicant of the United States, always echoing Washington's position. To be a democrat must be enough to merit support.

Exactly. Given Metz's clear commitment to building democracy in Iraq, it really doesn't matter if we have different opinons about the legacy of totalitarianism. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:57 PM by Patrick Belton  

WE ARE WITH YOU. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:02 AM by David Adesnik  

FINALLY, SOMETHING USEFUL IN THE GUARDIAN: Test your knowledge of The Simpsons. I got 10 out of 10. Kevin Drum got 8 out of 10. But the real quesiton is, what's the threshhold for qualifying as a total geek? (Spinal Tap's answer: 11.) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:51 PM by David Adesnik  

THE UNEMPLOYMENT PARADOX: Angry Bear has some comments on the perplexing nature of unemployment statistics. Kevin Drum also points out that the disability rolls have risen sharply in recent years, suggesting that unemployment is being hidden by other forms of compensation. In short, this may well be a jobless recovery. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:45 PM by David Adesnik  

THAT LEGENDARY CONSERVATIVE RESTRAINT: CalPundit praises the right-wing of the blogosphere for its moderate reaction to the non-news that blister gas shells have been found in Iraq. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:42 PM by David Adesnik  

I WANT NUMBERS! Has anyone else noticed that the NYT no longer tells you how many American soldiers have died in combat during the occupation? Instead, we only get the total number of military fatalities since the start of the war, including non-combat deaths.

It's hard to know what brought about the change. On the one hand, it's nice not to have the press obsessively measuring American success or failure in terms of the body count. After all, wars are often won by spending lives to achieve strategic objectives. On the other hand, focusing on total fatalities allows the NYT and others to raise the death toll to almost 500 while avoiding the distinction between those lost to hostile fire and those lost to accidents.

Well, if you're interested in finding out for yourself what's going on, the place to turn (as always) is Lunaville, which is still running an up-to-date casualty count that analyzes American losses from a number of different perspectives. As is fairly well known, US combat fatalities doubled from October to Novermber but fell by half in December, returning to the original figure of about 40. What I didn't know was that there were 422 combat casualties in October, 332 in November and 244 in December (plus 73 in early January).

Thanks to Lunaville, you can also break down casualties by rank, location, week or even specific type of death, e.g. firefight vs. roadside bomb. Remember, knowledge is power. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:23 PM by David Adesnik  

BEIJING TO HONG KONG: BACDAFUCUP! China's central government has made it clear to the people of Hong Kong that Beijing will decide whether Hong Kong gets to hold truly democratic elections in 2007. This presents a tough question for Hong Kong's reformers: should they antagonize the central government by calling on the people to take to the streets, or should they work things out behind closed doors?

While nothing would warm my heart more than 1 or 2 or even 3 million Hong Kong citizens taking to the streets, the time may not yet be ripe for that sort of power play. (Besides, I need some more time to save up for airplane tickets so I can join the protests.) Let's see what negotiations with the CCP can bring. The people of Hong Kong have already made their wishes known, so Beijing may have to offer concessions in private in order to avoid losing face in public. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:08 PM by David Adesnik  

FULL OF SHI'ITE: It is time for a creative American response to the ethnic politics of post-war Iraq. Today we learn that Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani refuses to back down from his demands for national elections -- both for the interim assembly and in order to approve the constitution.

According to American sources, the CPA is moving forward with its plans for "caucus-stlye" indirect elections to the interim assembly. (If these are like the caucuses in Iowa, Iraq is headed for trouble.) As for the constitution, only the American-selected Governing Council will have a say in its ratification.

The supposed cause of the US-Shi'ite tension is the expectation that Iraq's Shi'ite majority will use its numerical strength to turn all other Iraqis into second class citizens or even establish an Islamic state similar to the one in neighboring Iran. Yet as I've complained before, such fears are the product of ignorance and bad journalism. Story after story talks about a potential Shi'ite threat to democracy, but never tells bothers to find out what Shi'ites actually want. Take the following quote from today's WaPo for example:

Sistani insisted, as he has since November, on direct elections this year that would give the country's majority Shiite population a chance to flex its electoral muscle.

Now that's just misleading. Sistani has never said that the purpose of elections is to demonstrate Shi'ite strength. Rather, he has made the very fair point that "one (wo)man, one vote" applies just as much to Iraqis as it does to Americans. Unless there is good reason to think Sistani is hiding his authoritarian plans behind a democratic facade, no responsible newspaper should describe his intentions the way the WaPo does.

I've suggested before that the United States can probe the seriousness of the Shi'ite commitment to democracy by

hammering away at a similar point when talking to the Shi'ite leadership: The more of a commitment that you show to democracy as an institution, the faster we can transfer power to an elected government in which your representatives will have a majority.

Now let me make a more specific suggestion. In order to address concerns about potential Shi'ite oppression of Kurds and Sunnis, the United States should ask Ayatollah Sistani to public endorse constitutional protection of minority rights.

Moreover, the US might offer to hold a referendum on the constitution, provided that a majority of each of major ethnic group would have to vote in favor of ratification in order for it to pass. Alternately, we might suggest an American style ratification process in which 2/3 of all Iraqi provinces must ratify the new constitution in order for it to come into force. This would have the advantage of eliminating any explicit reference to ethnicity in the voting process while ensuring that a Southern-based Shi'ite majority could not force a one-sided constitution onto the rest of Iraq.

But these are suggestions. There are many different ways to design a constitution that protects minority rights. And there are a good number of constitutional lawyers and scholars who can suggest how. What matters above all is that the US take the initiative to ensure that there is a popular and democratic transition to sovereignty in occupied Iraq. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:54 AM by David Adesnik  

MISQUOTED? The NYT's new "public editor", i.e. ombudsman, explains how President Bush accidentally became an advocate of a constitutional ban on gay marriage. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:36 AM by David Adesnik  

REAGANESQUE? Ex-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill is charging that George W. is disengaged, ignorant and driven by short-term partisan interests. Is this just sour grapes, or a genuine look through the grapevine? It's hard to say. O'Neill is a notorious for talking first and asking questions later, but also known for being honest.

What I thought was really interesting was that O'Neill

offered up 19,000 documents, including private White House transcripts and personal notes for the book "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill."

It's a polisci dissertation waiting to be written! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:27 AM by David Adesnik  

WHO LET THE OPTIMIST IN THE BUILDING? Eric Schmitt seems decisively committed to up-ending all of his NYT colleagues' bad news stories about Iraq. Today he reports that

Conversations with scores of soldiers over the past four weeks revealed that morale among most soldiers is fairly high, largely because most are in the final months of their tours or have just arrived. Re-enlistment rates are up in many units, helped no doubt by tax-free bonuses of up to $10,000.

Two things: First, I assume that these "scores of soldiers" are the same ones Schmitt mentioned last week. Second, what happened to our manpower crisis in Iraq? You know, 'Iraqification', and all that. Furthermore, if there is no crisis at the moment, is anyone covering our efforts to train new Iraqi security forces? Are we still rushing fresh recruits into uniform to make it look like we have a transition strategy? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:07 AM by David Adesnik  

TALKING TURKEY: Leaving aside a few outlandish comments, Tom Friedman has a first-rate column today on religious tolerance in Turkey. For example, this is almost unbelievable:

I happened to be in Istanbul when the street outside one of the two synagogues that were suicide-bombed on Nov. 15 was reopened. Three things struck me: First, the chief rabbi of Turkey appeared at the ceremony, hand in hand with the top Muslim cleric of Istanbul and the local mayor, while crowds in the street threw red carnations on them. Second, the Turkish leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who comes from an Islamist party, paid a visit to the chief rabbi — the first time a Turkish prime minister had ever called on the chief rabbi. Third, and most revealing, was the statement made by the father of one of the Turkish suicide bombers who hit the synagogues.

"We are a respectful family who love our nation, flag and the Koran," the grieving father, Sefik Elaltuntas, told the Zaman newspaper. "But we cannot understand why this child had done the thing he had done . . . First, let us meet with the chief rabbi of our Jewish brothers. Let me hug him. Let me kiss his hands and flowing robe. Let me apologize in the name of my son and offer my condolences for the deaths. . . . We will be damned if we do not reconcile with them."

The same newspaper also carried a quote from Cemil Cicek, the Turkish government spokesman, who said: "The Islamic world should take stringent measures against terrorism without any `buts' or `howevers.' "

There is a message here: Context matters. Turkish politicians are not intimidated by religious fundamentalists, because — unlike too many Arab politicians — they have their own legitimacy that comes from being democratically elected.

Exactly. (It's amazing what happens when you research Islam instead of fashion.) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:02 AM by David Adesnik  

OH, THE IRONY: Maureen Dowd devotes an entire column to politicians' sweaters but still has the chutzpah to write "It's discouraging to see presidential campaigns succumb to the makeover culture."

NB: According to Dictionary.com,

The words ironic, irony, and ironically are sometimes used of events and circumstances that might better be described as simply “coincidental” or “improbable,” in that they suggest no particular lessons about human vanity or folly. Thus 78 percent of the Usage Panel rejects the use of ironically in the sentence In 1969 Susie moved from Ithaca to California where she met her husband-to-be, who, ironically, also came from upstate New York. Some Panelists noted that this particular usage might be acceptable if Susie had in fact moved to California in order to find a husband, in which case the story could be taken as exemplifying the folly of supposing that we can know what fate has in store for us. By contrast, 73 percent accepted the sentence Ironically, even as the government was fulminating against American policy, American jeans and videocassettes were the hottest items in the stalls of the market, where the incongruity can be seen as an example of human inconsistency.

Who knew the dictionary was so patriotic? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:51 AM by David Adesnik  

FROM WELFARE TO A THREE-STAR COMMAND: John Burns profiles Ricardo Sanchez, field commander of coalition forces in Iraq. Sanchez is a great subject and Burns does a great job profiling him. But what do you expect of our #1 correspondent in Iraq? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:41 AM by David Adesnik  

1,000,000 HITS: According to Extreme Tracking, which OxBlog started using in late October 2002, we passed the 1,000,000 unique daily visitor mark on New Year's Eve. Of course, our "real" one millionth hit came earlier, but I think this is a milestone nonetheless. And we owe it all to you, our readers. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:30 AM by David Adesnik  

LOX VS. NOVA: Gary explains the difference. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:30 AM by David Adesnik  

GET YOUR STARBUCKS VISA CARD! No, this isn't a joke. You can actually earn "Duetto Dollars" with every purchase. No question, this is a major landmark in yuppie frivolousness. I'm just waiting for someone to pay his or her rent with a Starbucks Visa so that they can get a couple of free Frappuccinos each month. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:25 PM by David Adesnik  

"SAY SOMETHING FUNNY" is a new feature in The Onion. In it, comedians have 250 words to make the reader laugh. Here's Weird Al Yankovic's 250:

Make people laugh? Geez, that's a lot of pressure. Why are comics always put on the spot like this? You wouldn't go up to Meryl Streep and say, "Make me cry!" You wouldn't go up to French philosopher Jean-François Lyotard and say, "Make me cognizant of the impact postmodernity has had on the human condition!" You just wouldn't.

Besides, humor is too subjective. For instance, I would think it's hilarious if Ben Affleck were eviscerated by peacocks. But would Ben think it's funny? Most likely not. See what I mean?

Plus, if you want to be really funny... well, you just can't do it in 250 words. Because humor needs to build. You need a little subtext. I mean, for crying out loud, Tolstoy's War And Peace doesn't even start to get funny until around page 712.

And who do you people think you are, anyway? You think you can just snap your fingers, and I'm going to be funny... on demand? Look, I am not your monkey boy!

I'm sorry. It's just that I generally resist doing anything that requires, you know, actual effort on my part. But I guess being funny is a noble quest, so I'll give it everything I've got. I'll give 100 percent. But you know what I won't do? Give 110 percent. You know why? Because that's logically impossible. And as much as I love The Onion, I refuse to break the laws of physics for it.

Okay, so... Rush Limbaugh and a dwarf walk into a bar...

Whoops, that's 250 words. Sorry.

Hehehe. Eviscerated by peacocks. Hehehe. Monkey boy. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:26 PM by David Adesnik  

HE'S OUR MAN IN 2004: Five TNR writers make the case for each of their favorite candidates. The editors picked out Senator Joe for their official endorsement. A solid choice. Yet as Matt Yglesias observes: "This doesn't strike me as the best way to stay relevant."

The case for Howard Dean is made by Jonathan Cohn. After reading his column, I was actually persuaded that Dean would make a very good......Governor of Vermont.

Dean actually has a pretty impressive record of combining social reform and fiscal discipline. So how about promoting him to governor of a larger state? It's too late for California, but I wouldn't mind him here in Massachusetts or back home in New York. For some real fun, let's nominate Dean for governor of Texas!

Cohn is on somewhat weaker ground when it comes to foreign policy, where he makes the case for Dean by adopting the candidate's own favorite tactic of demonizing Bush. As Cohn writes, Dean's pronouncements on foreign policy fall...seem radical only if the policies of the Bush administration count as mainstream, which they aren't.In light of majority support for the invasion of Iraq -- Bush's most controversial foreign policy initiative -- it's hard to make the case that his policies are outside the mainstream. To be fair, the extreme unilateralist instincts of a Cheney or a Rumsfeld are definitely to the right even of a lot of Republicans. But for all the provocative talk, it was the Colin Powell approach that won out.

What Cohn never gets around to addressing are Dean's outside the mainstream instincts on foreign policy, such as his famous comment on Saddam's fall supposedly being a good thing. Nor does Cohn talk about Dean's lukewarm and fading support for the reconstruction.

Even if Cohn is right that Dean's position on fighting terrorism is actually quite moderate, so what? He presents himself as a leftist critic, his supporters are to the left of the Democratic mainstream and he constantly sets himself for a beating in the fall by making outlandish gaffes about foreign policy. The Democrats can do better.

Moving on, Michael Crowley makes the case for Richard Gephardt. After reading it, I was thoroughly persuaded that Gephardt would make an excellent Minority Leader (or Speaker, in the event that there is a Democratic majority in the House.) Yet as a candidate, Gephardt has been making exactly the sort of extravagant promises any experienced House leader knows to be impracticable.

Michelle Cottle has the honor of making the case for John Edwards. Seems like a good guy. So why doesn't anyone actually want to vote for him?

Finally, we get to Wesley Clark. (Yes, I'm sure you're all thinking "What about John Kerry?" I guess no one at TNR takes him seriously.) While OxBlog has been far from kind to Wes Clark, there are some good things to say about him beyond the fact that victorious generals make good candidates. Peter Scobelic writes that

All the talk about how Clark's biography makes him electable has overwhelmed the more important point: It would also make him a good president. In the last decade, the specter of genocide arose twice in the Balkans; both times, Clark was instrumental in beating it back despite tepid support among political and military elites.

While it may be hard to pin Clark down on what exactly he believes about the war in Iraq or the role of the United Nations, his heroic role in the Balkans demonstrates that he understands the imperative of using American power to promote democratic ideals.

Moreover, he has proven himself capable of working productively with our European allies. While there wasn't much to be said for the French or German positions during the whole Iraq debate, things certainly would have gone better if the Bush administration knew how to reach out to them a little more.

Not that Chirac or Schroeder would've gone along with invasion necessarily, but at least there would've been a lot less criticism on the homefront about how our reckless cowboy President was wrecking our most important alliances.

That's all folks. On behalf of TNR, OxBlog apologizes to Sharpton, Moseley-Braun and Kucinich for not treating them as serious candidates. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 3:31 PM by Patrick Belton  

RATING THE PROSPECTS FOR IRAQI DEMOCRACY: Writing in the pages of the Journal of Democracy, Iraqi-born academic Adeed Dawisha favorably assesses the prospects for democracy in Iraq. (Incidentally, here's a recent piece on Adeed from the Cincinnati Enquirer.)

Of the encouraging signs Adeed records, here are two of the more notable:

Without a doubt, the mushrooming of local self-government councils has been one of the major success stories of the occupation. Even those councils that have not been elected have been selected through peaceful and relatively (or even impressively) consensual means, in more than a few cases with initial advice and assistance from coalition military officers, and are providing scope for unprecedented amounts of open debate.

and, a bit below,

the most encouraging sign for the long haul is the sheer frequency with which Iraqis are using such key democratic terms as elections, parliament, human rights, press freedom, minority rights, and the like as debates over the country's future proceed.

He also objects to the phrase "the Iraqi resistance" (which seems most common in outlets with a clear ideological slant) to refer to the perpetrators of attacks against the US and the Iraqi people. Such a categorization, he writes, "whether purposely or inadvertently, creates an impression of a universal phenomenon supported by most Iraqis. Nothing could be further from the truth." In particular, 75 percent of attacks have taken place in Sunni triangle towns containing about 6 percent of Iraq's population.

The piece is well worth a read. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:16 PM by Patrick Belton  

MORE BAD JOKES FOR A GOOD NEW YEAR: Ask our readers for bad jokes, and they'll respond in droves. Here are a few of the best (or the worst):

Q: Why did the monkey fall out of the tree?  A: Because it was dead.

Q: Where do you find a turtle with no legs? A: Right where you left him.

Q: What do you call a turtle with no legs? A: It doesn't matter, he won't come.

Q: What do you call a cow with two legs? A: Lean beef.

Q: What do you call a cow with no legs? A: Ground beef.

And some jokes from the New York bar: A ham sandwich walks into a bar. The bartender looks at it and says, "Sorry, we don't serve food here."

Shortly after, a crocodile walks into the bar and orders a shot of scotch. The bartender asks him, "How's everything going?" To which the croc answers, "fine". The bartender then asks, "How's the wife?" "Fine." "The kids?" "Fine." So the bartender says, "So why the long face?"

A few minutes later, a bear walks into the bar, puts up his feet on a stool, and orders a beer. The bartender asks, "How's everything going?" The bear says, "well...umm....fine". The bartender then asks, "why the long paws?"

 From our cultural correspondent: A number of years ago, the Seattle Symphony was performing Beethoven's Ninth under the baton of Milton Katims. At this point you must understand two things: first, there's a long segment in this symphony where the bass violins don't have a single note to play. Not a single note for page after page. And second: there used to be a tavern called Dez's 400 right across the street from the Seattle Opera house, rather favored by local musicians.   It had been decided that during this performance, after the bass players had played their parts in the opening of the Ninth, they were to quietly lay down their instruments and leave the stage rather than sit on their stools looking and feeling silly for 20 minutes. Well, once they got back stage, someone suggested that they trot across the street and quaff a few brews. After they had downed the first couple rounds, one musician said, "Shouldn't we be getting back? It would be awfully embarrassing if we were late." Another, presumably the one who suggested this excursion in the first place, replied - "Oh, I anticipated we could use a little more time, so I tied a string around the last pages of the conductor's score. When he gets down there, Milton is going to have to slow the tempo way down while he waves the baton with one hand and fumbles with the string with the other."   So the group had another round and finally returned to the Opera House, a little tipsy by now. However, as they came back on stage, one look at their conductor's face told them they were is serious trouble. Katims was furious! And why not? After all...   It was the bottom of the Ninth, the score was tied, and the basses were loaded.

Our friend Jacob Remes takes responsibility for the "brown and sticky" joke from our last post and and offers another from his incomparable stores: Q: Why do anarchists only drink herbal tea? A: Because they don't believe in proper tea.

And finally, one from the lovely and talented Sasha Castel: Q: Why do the French only make their omelettes with one egg? A: Because "un oeuf" is enough. (Okay, at first I didn't get it either, until a lesser philistine pointed out that "un oeuf" is pronounced "enough.")

Also, while we're speaking about our readers (behind your backs - except for the fact that you're our readers, and so you have a pretty good chance of reading this....), our friend Simon Rodberg from Dublin points out this piece on personals ads in the LRB and NYRB - a subject we've humorously posted on at length (just scroll down to 1:19 pm on Wednesday). (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:03 PM by Patrick Belton  

MOST CONTEMPORARY AMERICANS ARE WIMPS OR BARBARIANS, according to Terrence Moore. This, however, doesn't include our readers. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:04 AM by David Adesnik  

SAVAGE LOVE FOR OXBLOG: Dan Savage writes

thanks for suggesting the NYT hire my ass. it's my dream gig, david.

of course, they would have to let me keep writing my sex advice column on the side. that's where the real money is.

love your site.

xo
dan

In a second e-mail entitled "oh, but my fashion sense?", Dan adds

don't got none. my boyfriend dresses me.

thanks again,
dan

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:58 PM by David Adesnik  

DON'T UNDERESTIMATE THE INDIANS: Here are two responses to my post from yesterday. The first is from DS:

In your recent post "THE INDIAN COMPUTER GEEK MEME" you write:

"Today, job security comes from acquiring knowledge, not building a relationship with a single firm. This model isn't perfect, but it's still damn good."

If only this were true! You still apparently believe the Clinton administration's mantra about knowledge workers. Even the members of the former administration have abandoned their claims: knowledge workers' jobs are the most portable, the ones being exported, and the ones most subject to shrinking wages due to competition whether from offshore outsourcing or importation of cheaper workers from overseas. The $150,000 programmer is largely a thing of the past-- the same guys are making $80,000 or even $50,000 now.

In recent quarters most of the growth both in numbers of jobs and wages have been in relatively non-portable, less-subject-to-foreign-competition sectors like government and health care. Both areas are secure not due to being knowledge workers but due to protection. Health care is one of the most regulated of all fields e.g. licensing, restrictions on telemedicine, etc. And that's where the growth is. Coincidence? Perhaps.

In response to the prediction that the computer industry will lead the field in job growth, JH writes that

I wouldn't put too much faith in those predictions.

It looks like they are largely based on data gathered before the bubble burst, and also probably don't take the current outsourcing boom into account. Nor does it seem to take the length of the jobless recovery period into account.

There are salary numbers from 2001, but the outlook portion refers to 2000, suggesting to me that this part of the report was drawn up in 2000 or earlier.

It wouldn't exactly be the first time that real-world conditions changed far faster than the government could respond...

This issue is pretty far outside my area of expertise, so I don't have a compelling counterargument to offer. In other words, I take DS and JH's comments very seriously. Even so, I'm going to hold on to my position for the moment. My gut says that India can't turn out enough programmers to satisfy a growing computer industry both at home and in the United States.

What I expect to see is a situation somewhat similar to the one in the manufacturing sector, where less demanding tasks are outsourced while cutting edge work is reserved for advanced facilities (with well-paid workers) in the US, Europe and Japan. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:44 PM by David Adesnik  

THE FIGHT IS FOR DEMOCRACY: George Packer wants liberal Democrats to have a tough but principled foreign policy that can go head-to-head with the Bush administration's aggressive call for moral clarity. To that end, Packer has put together a collection of essays by prominent liberal thinkers whose purpose is to lay out a compelling vision that can command the support of a majority of the American electorate.

As someone who shares Packer's goal, I was very excited to get a copy of his book as a gift just a few days ago. So far, I have read the first three essays out of the ten that are in the book. They range from thoughtful to the strident. Yet even the better ones expose -- often unintentionally -- how desperate and hopeless the Democrats have become.

The first essay in the book is Packer's introduction. On page one, it eloquently captures the sense of mission that pervaded American life in the first days after September 11th. On the day of the attacks, an investment banker

...wandered through the smoke and confusion of Lower Manhattan until he found himself in a church in Greenwich Village. Alone at the altar, covered in ash and dust, he began to shake and sob. Feeling a hand on his shoulder, he looked up. It was a policeman.

"Don't worry," the cop said, "you're in shock."

"I'm not in shock," the investment banker answered. "I like this state. I've never been more cognizant in my life."

Packer knows that this sort of intense awareness is the foundation on which a liberal internationalist foreign policy can be built. Yet this awareness faded after September 11th. With some justification, Packer attributes this dulling of the senses to the President's insistence that Americans must resist terrorism by refusing to let it interrupt their daily lives. Instead, what should have come from the White House was a call to arms in the name global democracy.

After making this solid point, Packer's introduction begins to wander. He rails against Americans' selfishness and says that American democracy has fallen into decay. His tone also makes clear that this volume essays is intended only for Democratic partisans. He tells us that "Conservatives today have no concept of the public good. They see Americans as investors and consumers, not citizens." (p. 9)

Packer tells us that liberal internationalists should fight for democracy, but finds it hard to elaborate how. He is more specific, however, about what liberals must abandon:

The relcutance to make judgments, the finely ironic habits of thought, the reflexive contempt for patriotism, the suspicion of uniforms and military qualities, the sentimentality about oppressed peoples, the irresponsibility about hard choices, the embarrassment with phrases like "democratic values" and "Western civilization" -- the softheadedness into which liberalism sank after the 1960s seems as useless today as isolationism in 1941 or compromise in 1861."

After Packer's jarring condemnation of his fellow liberal travelers, Michael Tomasky's essay is especially disturbing. Here is someone who clearly hasn't listened to a word that Packer has said. While its stated objective is to find a solid middle ground "between Cheney and Chomsky", the essay mostly provides vitriolic attacks on a strawman version of Republican foreign policy. Only its final pages does it provide a truncated agenda for American policy that has clearly suffered from its author's preoccupation with denouncing the Vice-President.

According to Tomasky, "What once represented the wish list of the right-most fringe of respectable opinion is now the policy of this country. It is a prescription for empire." (p. 40)The basis for the statement is a history of the Bush administration's National Security Strategy which shows that Cheney and Wolfowitz were aggressive unilateralists back in 1992, long before September 11th made it acceptable to talk about pre-emptive warfare.

Fair enough. But what does this have to do with 'empire'? Despite his occasional condemnations of Noam Chomsky and the far left, Tomasky adopts their vocabularly almost effortlessly. Does America seek to rule foreign nations? Does it make war for the sake of economic gain? Tomasky never says. Instead, he equates unilateralism with empire.

This kind of semantic issue matters because Tomasky's new Democratic foreign policy rests on its opposition to this sort of imperialism. As the author explains,

America is not an empire, it is a democracy. A democracy leads the world, but it does not seek to rule it. The Cheneyites want to rule the world. (p. 41)

I, for one, wish the Cheneyites wanted to rule the world, because if they did they might show a little more enthusiasm for the President's stated objective of rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan.

For the moment, however, let us grant that democratic anti-imperialism can serve as the basis of a new American foreign policy. What would such a foreign policy entail? Democracy promotion, of course. But what's that? For starters, "a massive aid package for the Arab world...tied to specific and measurable democratic reforms." That sounds nice. But will oil-rich dictatorships take American cash in exchange for giving up their hold on power? Besides, if Democrats are hesitant to support spending for the reconstruction of Iraq, why would they send massive amounts of aid to countries we don't occupy?

Another question Tomasky avoids is the use of force. As he informs us, there was a liberal case to be made for invading Iraq. Yet Tomasky doesn't say whether he himself would've supported the invasion on those grounds (presuming President Bush had done so). And if we can impose regime change on Iraq, why don't we impose it on other dictatorships as well? How about starting with dictatorships that don't sit on top of 10% of the world's oil reserves?

As a passionate advocate of democracy promotion, I know from experience that those questions are the first ones that critics (especially liberal ones) ask anytime one suggests that democracy promotion should be the foundation stone of American foreign policy. Yet Tomasky ignores them entirely. Then again, why bother? If all Dick Cheney stands for is empire, then talking about democracy should be enough to make the Democrats different.

The third essay in Packer's book is a discussion of humanitarian intervention by Laura Secor. Inspired by the humanitarian intevention in Kosovo, Secor clearly believes that American power should be used to promote democracy and human rights (even if diplomacy should be the first resort and violence the last). Thus the challenge Secor faces is how to differentiate her foreign policy from the one already advocated by neo-conservatives both in and outside the Bush administration.

In contrast to Tomasky, Secor is honest enough to admit that neo-conservatives are sincere in the call for a principled foriegn policy. Her only criticism of them is that they are too idealistic. As Secor explains,

Where liberal idealists tend to believe that the given the extent of its power, the United States must strive to promote the good, conservative idealists presume that in promoting itself , the United States does promote the good

In short, Secor is calling for a healthy dose of liberal guilt and self-flagellation. While I myself agree that neo-conservatives often come uncomfortably close to a "my country, right or wrong" approach, tempering their missionary zeal with self-criticism hardly constitutes a distinctive Democratic foreign policy. At best, it is a slight modification whose slightness emphasizes how little Democrats have to add to what neo-conservatives are already saying.

What, then, are the Democrats to do? Perhaps the next seven essays in Packer's book will answer that question. In the meantime, the Democrats best hope is to match the neo-conservatives ideal for ideal, criticizing the Bush Administration when it fails to live up to its own rhetoric.

As I noted on Sunday, Republicans are no less divided than Democrats when it comes to foreign policy. If the Democrats are patient enough, they can build up their credibility in the short-term, then attack Republicans from an unassailable idealistic perch once the Republican realists take back control of American foreign policy.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:12 AM by Patrick Belton  

THUCYDIDES, SCHMUCYDIDES: Daniel Mendelssohn adds his take to Donald Kagan's and Victor Hanson's comments on this great historian of Athens. (hat tip to our friend Vishal Arya) Also, Rachel chimed into this discussion a bit back on Nathan Hale. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:35 AM by Patrick Belton  

CFR releases a backgrounder on the new Afghan constitution. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:08 AM by Patrick Belton  

MORE ON ARAB TRANSLATION: The Christian Science Monitor fronts a piece this morning on Syrian author and publisher Ammar Abdulhamid, who has founded a nonprofit translation firm called Dar Emar in an attempt to increase the quantity of Western publications translated into Arabic.

Abdulhamid has got his work cut out for him: Spain translates in a single year as large a quantity of written work as the Arab world has translated in the past millennium, according to the UN's second annual Arab Human Development Report published last autumn.

And incidentally, the combined GDP of the Arab world is less than that of - Spain.

Placed in comparison with historic Islamic civilization's rich history of translation and absorption of intellectual currents from Western and other Eastern cultures, the current Arab world pales. And brain drain has been substantial: 15,000 medical doctors left the Arab world from 1998 to 2000, and in 1995-96 alone, 25 percent of all graduates from Arab universities holding B.A. degrees emigrated, as this column by Thomas Friedman points out. The number of scientists and engineers working in research and development in the Arab world is 371 per million citizens, compared with a global average of 979 per million. And the Arab world, representing 5 percent of the population of the world, produces only slightly over 1 percent of its books - though it produces triple the global average of religious publications.

Clearly stimulating intellectual life and discovery within the region - something in which Arab emigres residing in the West have shown astounding success - is one of the first key steps for the Arab world to take in becoming free, democratic, and prosperous. And Abdulhamid's work may yet figure for historians yet to be born as one of the first movers of a second Arab renaissance. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:31 PM by David Adesnik  

REPLACE DOWD WITH A GAY MAN: The NYT seems to have one columnist slot reserved for a sassy, good-looking writer with great fashion sense and a wicked sense of humor. So why not Dan Savage?

He's not just funny, he's a serious political writer willing to do investigative reporting.

Plus, Savage wouldn't throw off the political balance on the op-ed page because he's actually quite liberal. (Although he is willing to take the NYT to task for journalistic bias.)

Bill Keller, are you listening? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:19 PM by Patrick Belton  

CAROTHERS ON ARAB DEMOCRACY: Tom Carothers gives a fair and balanced assessment of the Bush's administration's strategy of democracy promotion for the Arab world in the current issue of Current History. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:14 PM by David Adesnik  

THE INDIAN COMPUTER GEEK MEME: In honor of the 10th anniversary of NAFTA, the NYT turned over yesterday's op-ed page to eloquent denunciations of free trade.

First up is Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz's morose meditation on US-Mexican trade relations. Stiglitz notes that

Growth in Mexico over the past 10 years has been a bleak 1 percent on a per capita basis — better than in much of the rest of Latin America, but far poorer than earlier in the century.

All in all, Stiglitz's main objection to NAFTA seems to be that it wasn't the silver bullet of Mexican economic growth. He even complains that US-Mexican trade isn't free enough because of US agricultural subsidies that hurt Mexican farmers. Not exactly an argument against NAFTA, is it Dr. Stiglitz?

The second anti-free trade column comes from NY Sen. Charles Schumer and former Reagan Treasury official Paul Roberts. Their column begins with what iis supposed to be a big, scary anecdote:

Over the next three years, a major New York securities firm plans to replace its team of 800 American software engineers, who each earns about $150,000 per year, with an equally competent team in India earning an average of only $20,000.

An almost identical story about high tech outsourcing was the subject of a Bob Herbert column just a few weeks ago. As such, I think it's fair to say that what we are dealing with here is a "meme". It's more than a concept or an idea. It's a convtroversial claim packaged inside of a compelling anecdote that actually has very little substance to it.

The message of the Indian computer geek meme is that the benighted advocates of free trade

advised U.S. workers to adjust, to become better educated and skillful enough to thrive in a new world of employment, where technology and the ability to process information were crucial components.

Well, the workers whose jobs are now threatened at I.B.M. and similar companies across the U.S. are well educated and absolute whizzes at processing information. But they are nevertheless in danger of following the well-trodden path of their factory brethren to lower-wage work, or the unemployment line.

One objection to this argument is ethical. As Matt Yglesias points out,

Say we changed things around and more Americans made more money, more Indians made less money, and all people everywhere had to pay somewhat more for their software. How is that really better? Because it's better for Americans?...

Come to think of it, American software consumers have interests that count as well. So do the shareholders in US software companies. Why is protecting the salary levels of American geeks so overwhelmingly important?

But leaving that (very good) argument aside for the moment, consider the more important fact that the US computer industry is expanding by leaps and bounds. Consider this:

Eight of the 10 fastest-growing occupations between now and 2010 will be computer-related, according to new projections from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The sharpest increase is expected to occur among workers who design software programs or develop computer databases. This occupational group had 380,000 employees in 2000, a figure that is expected to double to 760,000 by 2010. That's an annual increase of 7.2 percent.

Just because the industry is growing by leaps and bounds doesn't mean that no one will get fired and that no jobs will be outsourced. In fact, firings and outsourcing are critical to the growth process.

To be sure, being fired or outsourced or downsized isn't a pleasant experience. But if there is tremendous demand for programmers, then $150,000-a-year programmers shouldn't have a hard time finding a new job.

In contrast, if a factory worker loses his or her job, that's probably it. Economies the world over (including China) are losing manufacturing jobs because of techonological advances.

Thus, the basic message of free-trade advocates is still right on target: acquire high-tech skills and you can expect to have a good job. Can you expect $150,000 per year? I don't know.

One thing you certainly shouldn't expect is security. Critics like Schumer and Herbert seem to be mired in an old-economy model of lifetime employment. (Which still seems to apply to senators and NYT columnists.) But in the information, skills are what matter.

Today, job security comes from acquiring knowledge, not building a relationship with a single firm. This model isn't perfect, but it's still damn good.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:03 PM by Patrick Belton  

POLLS SHOW GOOD NEWS FOR BUSH, CLARK: CNN/Gallup show Bush's approval ratings improving, and Clark gaining ground on Dean in the pool of Democratic candidates. Bush's New Year's approval rating of 60 percent compares favorably with 56 percent for Carter in 1980 (before Carter's popularity had been worn down by the Iranian hostage crisis), 52 percent for Reagan in 1984, 46 percent for Bush in 1992, and 42 percent for Clinton in 1996. Clark, for his part, has pulled within five percentage points of Dean, whose last month's lead of 27-12 over Clark has narrowed to 24-20. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:28 PM by Patrick Belton  

A GOOD MAN STEPS DOWN: Lord Robertson, 10th Secretary General of Nato and my personal former boss, stepped down today as head of the Alliance. Coverage from AP and Northern Ireland press. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:10 PM by Patrick Belton  

BUSH TO PROPOSE AMNESTY TO UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS: This move, details of which are to be announced this afternoon, has the potential to be a very good thing both for US-Mexican relations and for bringing into the legal fold a population who are currently doing a great deal for America and their communities without the color or protection of law. NYT has more, and so do the Seattle Post, LAT, and SF Chronicle . (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:29 PM by David Adesnik  

THE PUNCH: On my way back from LA, I missed my flight and got stuck at the airport for six hours. Bored out of my mind, I decided to purchase a book from the limited selection available at the newsstand/candy store. (I would've bought a magazine, but the idea of paying three or four bucks for information that's usually available for free online really gets to me.)

Anyhow, the book I chose was The Punch, by John Feinstein. It is the story of "the fight that changed basketball forever." On December 9, 1977 one punch from Lakers' forward Kermit Washington fractured the skull of Rockets' All-Star Rudy Tomjanovich. Tomjanovich almost died.

It is hard to convey the brutal nature of that one punch to those who haven't seen it on film. While I can't remember exactly when I saw it, I'm guessing it was during the Knicks-Rockets championship series in 1994, when Tomjanovich was the Rockets' coach. While I am hardly an avid basketball fan, the viciousness of that one punch stayed in my mind. It provided a shocking contrast to the relative civility of NBA basketball in my time as a fan.

In the late 1970s, basketball was a far more violent game than it is today. In one season, more than 40 fights resulted in a player being thrown out of the game. And to get thrown out at that time, you had to get involved in a brawl, not just throw one punch. Before the 1977-1978 season, the NBA decided that it had to do something about its image by getting tough on violence.

The guinea pig for the experiment was Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, who shattered his own hand while punching an opposing player in the opening week of the season. Not long after Abdul-Jabbar returned from his suspension/injury, his teammate Washington sent Tomjanovich to the hospital. Unfortunately, Feinstein never tells us how that punch changed the NBA's attitude toward fighting. Instead, Feinstein becomes so fascinated by Washington's life story that all broader context for the story disappears.

That isn't necessarily a bad thing. Washington had remarkable experiences that deserve to be chronicled. It just isn't what Feinstein promised at the outset. But, hey, this is airport reading. The book is an easy-going page turner that will help you pass the time if you are stuck at an airport. It's a little expensive at $15, but that's what books cost.

If I were going to get all intellectual about it, I would say that Feinstein could have written a fascinating book about the interaction of race and athletics in American life. However, he seems to be a biographer by nature who gets fixated on individual men and women rather than exploring how society as a whole responds to their behavior.

There are brief mentions of how Washington's punch resulted in him receiving death threats, many of them inflected with racial epithets. When a black almost kills a white man anywhere in America, it is news. When a black man almost kills a white man with the cameras rolling, that is a major moment in American cultural life. Then again, that kind of thing is a little bit heavy going for when you're stuck in an aiport. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion