| OxBlog |
|
Front page
|
Sunday, March 21, 2004
# Posted 6:06 PM by Patrick Belton (In the meantime - and until the eighth day rolls around - you might check out our foreign policy think tank's policy paper on North Korea.....) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion Saturday, March 20, 2004
# Posted 8:24 PM by David Adesnik
# Posted 8:23 PM by David Adesnik
# Posted 8:10 PM by David Adesnik A year ago, it would have been inconceivable for a citizen of Syria, run by the Baath Party of President Bashar al-Assad, to make a documentary film with the working title, "Fifteen Reasons Why I Hate the Baath."My compliments to the NYT for putting this story on the front page. The Times also ran an excellent front page story yesterday looking back at the past year in Iraq through the eyes of a single family. I thought this passage was particularly interesting: Three weeks after the bombardent, the [Imaris] returned to Baghdad. American soldiers were cruising the streets.(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 7:56 PM by David Adesnik I know that everyone — and I mean everyone — is probably tired of this comparison even before it's made, but, um, Kelley's fabrications are actually a lot worse than Jayson Blair's, right? And they went on for a much longer time, right? And there are a lot more of them, right?I don't really expect the Kelley affair to get that kind of attention either. But ask yourself the following questions: How often do you read USA Today? Does anyone consider USA Today to be the United States' paper of record and its standard-bearer of journalistic integrity? (You don't have to answer those questions. They were rhetorical. Oh, and one bonus question for all you bloggers out there: How many times have you linked to a USA Today story in the past six months?) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 7:35 PM by David Adesnik What Clarke adds to that story is the allegation that Rumsfeld wanted to go after Iraq instead of Afghanistan. According to Woodward, "everyone agreed that destroying al Qaeda was the first priority". If a second, credible source confirms Clarke's allegation, it might begin to get some serious play. Otherwise, Clarke will become just another Paul O'Neill. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 3:44 PM by Patrick Belton This is pretty standard in Asia - when I was working there last summer we had to eat fish that were fried in the middle but not at the head or tail, and were still alive when brought out to the table. This is a huge nouveau riche type specialty in Asia, and everyone pretty much "ate it with gusto"...so I don't know what that quote was about, really. If the intent of the quote was to prove somehow that Kim is a monster, then it's really a bit short-sighted. But who knows - maybe you were commenting on his status as multimillionaire, who are generally the only people who can afford to eat live fish in good restaurants in Asia.Thanks, Zoë! (Though I've got to admit, it still sounds a little weird to me....) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 7:12 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 6:02 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 12:30 AM by David Adesnik The question of whether or not Aznar's government lied about the evidence seems to have been answered in the affirmative. Still, it is more than possible that the Socialists' would have won the election regardless. That is the point made in an excellent essay by Timothy Garton Ash (link via TPM): Rightwing American commentators charge Spanish voters with "appeasement". This is crass. More than three-quarters of the Spanish electorate turned out for a massive defence of democracy in the face of terror. Every single Spanish voter was a soldier in the "war on terror". They voted different ways for all sorts of reasons. Historically, high turn-outs have favoured the left. Some of the former communist electorate voted tactically for the socialists. Many swing voters punished the conservative government of Jos? Mar?a Aznar for initially attributing the attacks to the Basque terrorist organisation Eta. And, yes, some emotionally blamed him for having made Spain a more likely terrorist target by supporting Bush's war on Iraq. But to say that this vote adds up to "appeasement" is a stupid slur.So now what? According to Robert Kagan, The Bush administration needs to recognize it has a crisis on its hands and start making up for lost time in mending transatlantic ties, and not just with chosen favorites. The comforting idea of a "New Europe" always rested on the shifting sands of a public opinion, in Spain and elsewhere, that was never as favorable to American policy as to the governments. The American task now is to address both governments and publics, in Old and New Europe, to move past disagreements over the Iraq war, and to seek transatlantic solidarity against al Qaeda.That kind of advice is very, very surprising coming from Neo-Conservative #1 -- and all the more important because of it. On the other hand, Kagan seems to have written his column before becoming aware of the backlash against Aznar's deception. Would he still describe the Spanish elections as "al Qaeda's most significant geopolitical success since Sept. 11, 2001" if the elections results were a reflection on the Spanish Prime Minister's dishonesty rather than the Spanish public's supposed receptiveness to blackmail? Then again, as Garton Ash points out, the precise cause of the Spanish conservatives' defeat may simply be irrelevant. We need to demonstrate that terrorism simply does not work. The best way to do that is to capture Osama bin Laden. In the meantime, we do have to improve relations with Europe and work harder than ever to promote democracy in Iraq. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion Friday, March 19, 2004
# Posted 11:38 PM by David Adesnik UPDATE: Josh Marshall defends himself, albeit indirectly. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 11:27 PM by David Adesnik I worked as a banker in Russia from 1997-2000 and can give some missing perspective. Russia's current "boom" is due entirely to $38-per-barrel oil. Each $1 rise in the oil price adds $1B to the Russian state's foreign reserves. Though structural demand and supply conditions may well keep oil prices high long-term, it's useful to think of the Russian economy as another version of Nigeria: an oil-addicted primitive economy in which basic market institutions are either stunted or non-existent.I'm no economist, but I wouldn't be surprised if Russia's economy was no more substantive than its constiutional order. As Mike McFaul has noted, that sort of relationship between growth and democracy is the norm in Eastern Europe. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 4:39 PM by David Adesnik On an unrelated note, Matt has graciously admitted that New Haven has the best pizza in the United States. While Matt believes that good pizza can generally be found throughout the nation, he notes that he has not yet found it in Washington, DC. As a former resident of the nation's capital, I must sadly inform Matt that he is not going to find it there. The best DC has to offer is Bertucci's, which is actually pretty good but nothing to write home about. UPDATE: Eve Tushnet writes Bertucci's? Oy Gott! No.You know, I did eat at Paradiso once. It was quite good, but I wouldn't have put it in the same league as Sally's. Maybe I was just there on an off night. As for Armand's, I think it's pretty run of the mill. Or perhaps it's gotten better since I left town. Frankly, I'm surprised that I don't see eye to eye with someone like Eve who is known for having good taste. Oh well. Now for those of you in Alexandria, Mark the Pundit recommends Generous George's. And finally, getting back to DC, TB writes that Two places sell world class pizza in the DC area. The Italian Store in the Lyon Park Shopping Center off of Spout Run has great Pizza and great sandwiches too. Don't try walking in to get a slice on the weekend. The place is mobbed. And then there is Faccia Luna; they make it all over the place now.I haven't heard of either place, but I'm an open-minded pizza lover, so I'll be sure to give both a try when I get the chance! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 3:04 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 3:00 PM by Patrick Belton Our thoughts are with the innocent members of both Kosovar communities who are suffering now the reprisals and aftermath of this act of genocide by Albanian leaders. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 8:14 AM by Patrick Belton Can't read it? Here's another version, this not in the Bard's own hand. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 4:47 AM by Patrick Belton Thursday, March 18, 2004
# Posted 5:40 PM by David Adesnik
# Posted 5:30 PM by David Adesnik
# Posted 5:29 PM by David Adesnik Moreover, such offensive statements tend to have the exact opposite of the intended effect, since voters don't want to be told by foreign politicians -- especially American presidents -- whom they should vote for. Of course, most Americans will never hear what the new Spanish PM said, since Spanish PMs don't get paid much attention on this side of the Atlantic (unless Democratic presidential candidates foolishly remind voters that Europeans never support Republicans). UPDATE: Steve Sturm adds some thoughtful comments to my response. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 5:03 PM by David Adesnik During the last 15 years, Russia has undergone an extraordinary transformation. It has changed from a communist dictatorship to a multiparty democracy in which officials are chosen in regular elections. Its centrally planned economy has been reshaped into a capitalist order based on markets and private property. Its army has withdrawn peacefully from both eastern Europe and the other former Soviet republics, allowing the latter to become independent countries. In place of a belligerent adversary with thousands of nuclear missiles pointed at it, the West finds a partner ready to cooperate on disarmament, fighting terrorism, and containing civil wars.In contrast, consider what's Stanford Russianist Michael McFaul has to say about the subject: In his first term in office, Putin continued a brutal and ineffective war in Chechnya, acquired de facto control of all major national television networks, turned both the Federation Council and State Duma into rubber stamps, and tamed regional barons who once served as a powerful balance to Yeltsin's presidential rule. He has arbitrarily used law enforcement structures to jail or send into exile political foes. He has removed candidates from ballots and rigged regional elections; harassed and arrested human rights activists, outspoken journalists, and environmental leaders; and weakened Russia's independent political parties and civil society.The most striking difference between these two descriptions of Putin's record is the way in which Shleifer and Treisman provide vague descriptions of Putin's supposed accomplishments while McFaul relies on specific and detailed evidence to demonstrate what has gone wrong in post-Soviet Russia. What Shleifer and Treisman do get right, however, is that Russia's economy is in the midst of an unheralded boom. Of course, this is no secret. McFaul praises Putin's economic record as well. The WaPo reports that Putin "oversaw a dramatic economic expansion". But who would notice those five words in the midst of a lengthy article devoted to the semi-democratic nature of Sunday's election? Shleifer and Treisman marshall an impressive array of evidence to demonstrate how far Russia's economy has come under Putin. In spite of having a stagnant GDP for most of the 1990s, Retail trade actually rose 4 percent between 1990 and 2001. And average living space per person rose from 16 square meters in 1990 to 19 square meters in 2000. The shares of households with radios, televisions, tape recorders, refrigerators, washing machines, and electric vacuum cleaners all increased between 1991 and 2000. And private ownership of cars doubled, rising from 14 cars per 100 households in 1991 to 27 cars per 100 households in 2000. The number of Russians going abroad as tourists rose from 1.6 million in 1993 to 4.3 million in 2000.In other words, a vote for Putin isn't a vote against democracy or even a vote for stability. It is a vote for real improvements in national wealth and standards of living. The next point Shleifer and Tresiman make is that widespread condemnation of Russia's post-Soviet economic reforms has been perilously misguided. First of all, critics of the post-Soviet era tend to dramatically exaggerate the efficiency of the Soviet economy. While GDP may have fallen in absolute terms after 1990, the substance of such economic indicators has changed dramatically. Whereas Soviet figures rested on high production of second-rate military equipment and unwanted consumer goods, newer statistics reflect the actual production of useful goods. Now, when Shleifer and Treisman get into their more detailed discussions of the Russian economy, it is hard for a non-expert such as myself to evaluate their evidence. Nonetheless, their arguments seem plausible and well supported. For example, they point out that there is only a tenuous link between capitalism and inequality in Russia, since inequality hits its peak in 1994, well before capitalist reforms had reconfigured the economy. Shleifer and Treisman also argue that the economic power of the oligarchs has neither damaged the economy nor resulted in unsustainable growth, since the oligarchs' firms have performed extremely well while investing unprecedented amounts in capital stock. Of course, nothing Putin has achieved on the economic front justifies his agressive efforts to promote what his own officials refer to as "managed democracy". It is also damaging for experts such as Shleifer and Treisman to downplay Putin's anti-democratic measures by arguing that "Even in rich countries such as Italy and the United States, journalists shape their broadcasts to fall into line with the views of media tycoons such as Berlusconi and Rupert Murdoch." That sort of comparision is simply absurd. Unless the Bush Administration decides to put all of Fox's competitors out of business and throw George Soros in jail, there can be no comparison between the state of journalism in the United States and Russia. Lest one argue that Putin's anti-democratic measures have paved the way for economic growth, one should take note of Michael McFaul's observation that there is no connection between rigging elections, shutting down opposition media and the efficiency of the private sector. Moreover, "The experience in the postcommunist world is clear: The fastest democratizers are also the fastest economic reformers and the most successful economies." As such, the Bush administration should not hesitate to demand that Putin's stop undermining the foundations of Russian democracy. Colin Powell should not be saying that "I have some concerns, but I don't think democracy is in trouble in Russia." It is. And when the US ignores that fact, it damages our own credibility as a global advocate of democratic reform. Moreover, Putin is hurting our efforts to win the War on Terror by waging a brutal and senseless war in Chechnya. While we can't force Putin to change his ways, we can keep the global spotlight on his authoritarian and aggressive behavior. Ever the self-interested pragmatist, that kind of negative attention may just keep Putin in line. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 5:02 PM by Patrick Belton What prompted the arrests, Saudi sources say, was a plan by the reformers to establish an independent human rights organization. The professors first asked permission to set up the group, only to be told that the government planned to establish its own human rights organization. Predictably, the official group rolled out last week excluded the dissidents as well as other notable government critics. So the reformers revived their plan for an independent organization -- only to be dragged from their classrooms by Interior Ministry officials, purportedly for "questioning."(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 10:21 AM by Patrick Belton Unless President Bush dispenses with his discredited argument for the war — W.M.D. — no one will hear or listen to what I believe was always the only right argument for the war and is now the only rationale left: to depose the genocidal Saddam regime in order to partner with the Iraqi people to build a decent government in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world — because it is the pathologies and humiliations produced by Arab misgovernance that are the root causes of terrorism and Muslim extremism.Also, sticking with the theme of the post indicated in the header - our foreign policy society releases today a policy paper on North Korea, as well as launching the website for our high school and college foreign policy essay contest. Let us know what you think! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion Wednesday, March 17, 2004
# Posted 10:23 PM by David Adesnik
# Posted 10:03 PM by David Adesnik Ralph isn't happy with OxBlog because I recently dismissed these sorts of academic crises as "tempests-in-a-teapot". Perhaps that description was a bit harsh. I fully support all those who actively defend the right of free speech. It's just my sense that such incidents happen so often on campuses across the nation that one shouldn't approach them as landmark battles in a national culture war. (NB: I was unaware of the USM affair before today. The "tempest" comment was about academic politics in general.) As Kikuchiyo observes, the ivory tower has a strong propensity to overestimate the significance of its own affairs. As Henry Kissinger once said, "University politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small." That isn't the whole story, but it is a big part of it. Kikuchiyo is also right to speculate that OxBlog takes a similar approach to academic slugfests regardless of whether they take place in the Ivy League or the Mississippi Delta. While Ralph detected a note of condescension in my original comments, the fact is that my lack of interest in academic politics reflects my experiences at Yale and Oxford, rather than any sense that political controversies only matter if they happen at Yale or Oxford. Finally, I don't think Ralph was being fair to Salma Hayek. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 9:33 PM by David Adesnik UPDATE: I wouldn't exactly call it good news, but the death toll for yesterday's blast has been revised sharply downwards. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 12:07 PM by Patrick Belton Speaking of Saint Patrick's extravaganzas, The Irish Times provides admirable coverage of Dublin's St Patrick's Day festival, which this year invited entries inspired by the concept "glorious." In Galway, a city I nurse warm feelings toward, today's parade will be a re-enactment of the Battle of Knockdoe, fought 500 years ago this year. And the Taoiseach joined Manchester's Irish community this afternoon to open the parade in that city. (The Irish community of Oxfordshire, I should note, will incidentally be congregating tonight in the OxBlog branch office at 109 Rawlinson Road.) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 5:46 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 5:36 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 3:31 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 3:27 AM by Patrick Belton The EU will also hold an emergency meeting of EU interior and justice ministers on Friday before a summit of European leaders on March 25-26. The issue of terrorism is sure to overshadow scheduled talks on economic reforms.(0) opinions -- Add your opinion Tuesday, March 16, 2004
# Posted 6:30 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 12:02 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 10:40 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 7:20 AM by Patrick Belton That disagreement aside, Cole is sponsoring a very admirable translation project aimed at producing Arabic translations of books about American democracy, the American Jewish community, and Western scholarly histories of the Mid East, as well as other works from the Western liberal tradition which are not readily available in Arabic translation. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 5:10 AM by Patrick Belton Podhoretz asks how [Sir Isaiah Berlin] squared his Zionism with his continued appearance in a publication (The New York Review of Books) that regularly published enemies of Israel such as Noam Chomsky and I. F. Stone. Berlin responded with a witticism. “I see,” he responded. “You are accusing me of being a fellow-traveler of a fellow-traveler.”(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 4:58 AM by Patrick Belton BBC concludes, "it suggests that the reporting of the daily attacks on the occupying forces in Iraq could be obscuring another picture. This opinion poll gives a glimpse into the real life of Iraqis, who appear to be overwhelmingly pre-occupied with bread and butter issues - whether the lights go on or not, and the restoration of the economy." (Question for the NYT's Dan Okrent: is this what you meant when you told us about rowback?) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 4:34 AM by Patrick Belton [In the Symposium, as the hours drag on] we learn that the real object of desire is not young men but rather elderly ones, and our ultimate aim is not pleasure but wisdom. One sees why everyone at the symposium was drunk: they had to be legless to swallow Plato's argument, as the great philosopher clumsily substituted one object for another, until he ... made the squat septuagenarian Socrates the pin-up boy of ancient Athens.Read on, and you can discover Blackburn's concept, in reading Hobbes, of "fungibility", "which frankly sounds more like something caught from sex than a concept to help explain it." (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 4:15 AM by Patrick Belton "He particularly enjoyed sashimi so fresh that he could start eating the fish as its mouth is still gasping and the tail is still thrashing," Fujimoto said. "I sliced the fish so as not to puncture any of its vital organs, so of course it was still moving. Kim Jong Il was delighted. He would eat it with gusto."(0) opinions -- Add your opinion Monday, March 15, 2004
# Posted 9:37 AM by Patrick Belton More importantly though, for present purposes, this sets up a bad joke. It's a little known fact that Julius Caesar did not die from stab wounds by Brutus, but, rather, was poisoned. During a sumptuous banquet which they both attended on that fateful Ides of March, Brutus slipped some poisonous hemlock leaves onto Julius' salad. (Thus making the world's first Caesar's salad - no, that's not the joke, wait for it....)There are more here, but they aren't as funny. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 2:56 AM by Patrick Belton Named Sedna after the traditional Inuit goddess of the ocean, it orbits 10bn kilometres from Earth in a region of space known as the Kuiper Belt (or KB, for those in the know or who care to use the lingo). That there seem to be a large family of Kuiper Belt Objects, as they're called - leftover parts, in essence, from the creation of the solar system - has been known for some time: these include a number of minor planets, but before Sedna none yet had been discovered to rival Pluto's 2,000 kilometer diameter. Though it's unclear as yet whether ten planets will result from Sedna's discovery, what seems likely to happen is that there won't any longer be nine - either Sedna gets counted, or Pluto suffers demotion to the ranks of a large number of Kuiper Belt Objects lounging about in the most exotic tourist location in the solar system. UPDATE: Noting the Latinate names of the current registry of the club of planets (Mercury, Venus, and the rest), reader James asks "Ye Gods! Why Sedna?" AND ANOTHER UPDATE: BBC has a picture. Also, our New Haven friends might be interested to know that one of the discoverers, David Rabinowitz, does his stargazing from Science Hill. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion Sunday, March 14, 2004
# Posted 4:24 PM by Patrick Belton As Joe Gandleman has pointed out (see also here), the Socialists have promised to withdraw Spain from the Iraq coalition in the event of their election. Which is to say, of course, that the terrorists got what they wanted - assuming that Al Qa'eda was indeed behind the attack - to deter a European country from further participation in Iraq, after punishing it for its involvement to this point. But to be fair, on the other hand the Spanish government has gone out of its way to play down the Al Qa'eda implications (which would make it vulnerable) in favor of ETA (which would strengthen it). An attribution of the attack to Al Qa'eda would have made Aznar's party vulnerable, having brought the country into Iraq and provoked the terrorists' ire; an attribution to ETA would have strengthened the party, having amassed a strong record in combatting the separatist group. Aznar's government is seen as having played politics with the investigation, which if true would have been unworthy both of the commitment to principle which brought his government into Iraq and of the continued trust of his nation. And at any rate any nation which had suffered the unprovoked tragedy which Spain did in the March 11th attacks may be given considerable leeway in forgiving actions it takes while grieving. The webpage of the party, whose full name is the Partido Socialista Obero Español, is here. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 7:16 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 6:41 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 1:57 AM by David Adesnik Saturday, March 13, 2004
# Posted 9:27 PM by Patrick Belton Also, our San Francisco chapter will be getting off the ground this coming Friday, March 19, with an event on globalization at 6 pm at the Berkeley Faculty Club. Nayan Chanda of the Yale Center for Globalization (and editor of its magazine, YaleGlobal) will be the guest speaker. There is unfortunately a door charge of $15, but it buys a great deal of food. Penultimately, we're running high school and college foreign policy essay contests in each of the ten cities in which we have a chapter; please let us know if you'd like to volunteer and pitch in! Finally, we've got new pages up for a few of our programs, in democracy promotion, Trade, Security, and Development, and Asia. Please do drop us a note if you've got any ideas for resources you think we should link to from any of these pages (or if you can at least think of a particularly funny way to make fun of what we've got so far...). (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 4:17 PM by David Adesnik That's just pathetic. If the NYT cared so much about its integrity, perhaps it should've kept an eye on Jayson Blair. On the other hand, this sort of vindictive behavior is an implicit admission of just how vulnerable professional journalists are to the criticism of intelligent amateurs. Viva el blogosphere! UPDATE: Joe Gandelman observes that Robert Cox "couldn't BUY this kind of advertising." That's absolutely right. Cox has already gotten a hundred times more exposure than he would have if the Times said nothing. His work is being distributed by dozens of websites. I guess all we can hope for is that the NYT will sue OxBlog someday. UPDATE: I was sort of curious whether anyone left-of-center would pick up on this and what their take would be. Kevin Drum answers both questions in an impressive manner: This goes beyond mere bullying and descends into paranoid — and hypocritical — lunacy. The Times certainly has the right to protect its copyright, but at the same time you'd think the publisher of the Pentagon Papers would show a little more respect for free speech and a little more tolerance for criticism.Amen. Kevin also has a very solid post up on Social Security. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 4:01 PM by David Adesnik
# Posted 3:55 PM by David Adesnik The great challenge facing so many martial arts films is how to translate the lexicon of the contact weapon -- sword or fist -- into the language of the bullet-riddled present day. In Way of the Dragon, Bruce Lee granted himself the miraculous ability to disarm polyester gunmen with wooden darts. Other films, such as the Once Upon a Time in China series, have made the wiser decision to cast themselves as period epics in which the world still had a place for pure martial artists. Jarmush transcends this divide by having his protagonist endow a firearm with the philosophical elegance once reserved for the sword and the fist. The result is unforgettable. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 3:00 PM by David Adesnik Anyhow, there was one paragrpah from Bumiller that struck me as somewhat disingenuous: Generally, the campaigns of the 19th century were meaner than the ones today, in large part because the newspapers of the era took sides and were often subsidized by the political parties. "There was almost no restraint on what could be said in the partisan press," said Bruce J. Schulman, a professor of history and American studies at Boston University. "Party organizations were much stronger, and the partisan attachment of voters was much more loyal. Politics then was not about trying to convert voters based on issues. There were more or less no swing voters. It was all about getting your army of voters to the polls."Although no expert on the subject, I think Prof. Schulman is right about the changing nature of partisanship. Nonetheless, Bumiller is really pushing the envelope when she credits the relative civility of modern campaigns to the rise of objective journalism. As Harvard prof Thomas Patterson documents in his excellent book Out of Order -- not to be confused with the Rod Stewart album of the same name -- the modern media has taken upon itself the mission of exposing every presidential candidate as a liar, an exaggerator and a hypocrite. To be fair, the candidates often do much of the journalists' work for them. Even so, journalists have chosen to focus their coverage on the candidates' inconsistency and spin rather than the substance of their policy proposals. Now, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps voters should have a healthy cynicism about the candidates they elect. In fact, the modern press may do a far more effective job of character assassination than the partisan press ever did because today's journalists are detached enough to focus on actual lies and inconsistencies rather than generating the outrageous rumors of yesteryear (or of post-Soviet Russia). Whereas 19th century voters could easily discount the output of the other side's spin machine, today's journalists are neutral enough to ensure that whatever they report has to be taken seriously. Perhaps the best way to put it is that thanks to the media, the negativism of modern campaigns is more substantive and disciplined than ever before. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 2:19 PM by David Adesnik "Scientists have found the oldest known fossilized animal that is definitely male. The pinhead-sized yet proportionately well-endowed ocean-dwelling creature was retrieved from 425-million-year-old rocks in the United Kingdom. Dubbed Colymbosathon ecplecticos, Greek for "amazing swimmer with a large penis," the animal is remarkably similar to a group of modern crustaceans known as ostracodes."In other news about impressive endowments, Jesse Jackson is demanding that Yale place at least 5% percent of its assets in the hands of minority asset managers. I think Yale's response to Jackson was about right: When it comes to the endowment, we're color-blind. We only see green. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 1:52 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 12:45 PM by Patrick Belton A black joke of the later Soviet period supposedly quotes a history book of the 21st century: "Who was Adolf Hitler?"Interesting, but like usual, you can do better than the BBC just by pilloring random sites from the internet: A delegation from his native Georgia leaves Stalin's office after an hourly meeting. Stalin realizes that he cannot find his pipe and calls Dhzierhzynsky to find out if anyone from the delegation took his pipe. After 30 minutes Stalin finds the pipe under the table and calls Dhzierhzynsky to let the delegation go. Dhzierhzynsky answers Stalin's call: "I am sorry Comrade, but one half of the delegation already admitted that they took your pipe, and the other half died during questioning."UPDATE: One of my favorite Soviet Era jokes is this one. In 2072, a boy asks his father, "Dad, who was Leonid Brezhnev?" His father answers, "He was a politician who lived at the time of Solzhenitsyn."(0) opinions -- Add your opinion Friday, March 12, 2004
# Posted 10:19 PM by David Adesnik While some might conclude that the absence of such a force paved the way for February's chaos, I would argue that the minimal human cost and peaceful outcome of the crisis were a direct result of the fact that Haiti had been demilitarized. I regret that a hundred or more Haitians may have died, but am glad that there was no return to the pre-Aristide era, when death tolls rose into the thousands and tens of thousands. Moreover, the absence of a reactionary military establishment all but ensured that French and American peacekeepers could take up their posts without a challenge. Instead of mourning the dead, Haitians can now focus on rebuilding their nation. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 9:54 PM by David Adesnik
# Posted 9:23 PM by David Adesnik The phenomenon you note -- viciousness being a response to provocation -- is played out nicely in 1940s and 1950s cartoons. Chuck Jones usually required that Bugs Bunny be (playfully) mean in response to a provocation. Jones's typical introduction of the shift from mildI think JL is right, although my memories of Bugs & Duffy are a little bit hazy. It's also interesting how in almost every episode of M*A*S*H, Burns has to antagonize the audience before Hawkeye is allowed to have a go at him. This sitcom/cartoon logic: the characters have no apparent history and must reenact their morality each time the camera starts to roll. Next up, SC tries to provide a little more context for my perceptions of M*A*S*H: Just to clear up some misconceptions...You know, I may just go back and rent the DVD again so that I can listen to the commentary track. Getting a director's insight into his own work is one of the great benefits of upgrading from VHS to DVD. However, when you rent DVDs, you don't often want to watch the movie twice in the space of four or five days. But when I own the DVDs, I tend to go through as much of the extra material as possible. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 12:19 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 9:27 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 8:47 AM by Patrick Belton www.cricinfo.org is likely to have access to at least a radio broadcast and quite possibly video too. The BBC's site may also be of use. UPDATE: AND MORE INDIA-PAKISTAN CRICKET - It turns out that coverage of the match is live online at the BBC website. Also, a friend whose sympathies lie more with the Pakistani side responds to our email above: Hey there,AND EVEN MORE! ...In the above paragraph, it should be noted that the Nawab of Pataudi and Ghulam Ahmed, also Indian Muslims, have captained the Indian side back in the 50s and 60s.Thanks very much, Swami! And our congratulations, as India's now won the match by five runs. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 8:02 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 7:46 AM by Patrick Belton (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 7:42 AM by Patrick Belton THE BUSH administration's clumsy diplomacy and its critics' hyperbolic charges of "unilateralism" sometimes obscure the fact that the United States has had true and valuable allies in the war on terrorism. Yesterday one of the best of those, Spain, suffered a blow as shocking and as terrible as any the enemy has landed since Sept. 11, 2001. Authorities said that more than 190 people were killed and more than 1,200 injured when 10 backpacks crammed with compressed dynamite exploded on four trains in Madrid at the height of the morning rush hour. It remained unclear last night who was responsible; police initially blamed the Basque ETA organization but later discovered evidence pointing to al Qaeda. Either way, as Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar put it, "March 11, 2004, has taken its place in the history of infamy."See also the New York Times, which poignantly notes "We are all Madrileños now.". (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 6:13 AM by Patrick Belton I'd be very interested to hear whether any of our South African or cricket fancying friends might know whether the international is to be webcast, and if so, where (and when)? I'll be very happy to share the information with our readers. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 3:07 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 2:55 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 12:16 AM by David Adesnik Thursday, March 11, 2004
# Posted 11:55 PM by David Adesnik I'm not sure that I care one way or the other. The process of governing has already become a permanent campaign. From the moment a President takes office, he works on building public support for his agenda while keeping a watchful on his approval ratings. Well, duh, isn't that what Presidents are supposed to do? Not exactly. For the past forty years or so, governing has resembled a permanent campaign. But before that there really was a divide between electioneering and policymaking. Now, I'm not saying that political considerations didn't have an overwhelming impact on policy. But in the days of Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower, politics between elections had more to do with closed-door bargains than public appeals for support. Depending on your perspective, the old system may have been more or less democratic and more or less efficient. Anyhow, that doesn't mean I want to see a Kerry-Bush catfight dominate the news for the next eight months. I think it's fair to say that the more we hear about the candidates the less we will hear about what's going on outside of this country. Then again, no one is stopping from reading foreign newspapers, so if I get caught up in the catfight I've only got myself to blame. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 11:35 PM by David Adesnik
# Posted 11:15 PM by David Adesnik
# Posted 11:09 PM by David Adesnik The purpose of the dinner was for Hagee to share his thoughts on the future of warfare. The talk was off the record, but my buddy Captain K said it was the same canned routine you always get. As far as I can tell, Hagee's message was about the same as the one on the Marine Corps website: our strength is our people. We are flexible, adaptable and fast. Nonetheless, it was an interesting talk, with some good war stories and insight into the challenges of rapid deployment. I sort of suspect that Hagee only described his talk as off the record in order to give the impression of greater intimacy. Without breaching confidence (which I can get away with now that John Ashcroft is on the disabled list), I think I can tell you all that the only impolitic thing Hagee did was take some very mild cheapshots at NATO. Moreover, he had a very sympathetic audience, consisting mostly of security studies faculty who like to feel that they're inside the machine. The best story of the night came from Captain K and was not told within earshot of the Commandant. Apparently, one of K's sailors went down to Davy Jones' locker as a result of auto-erotic asphxiation. That shouldn't be funny, but the Navy medical team found him dead "in mid-stroke". Not knowing exactly what happened to their son, the sailor's parents demanded access to all of the evidence gathered as part of the official investigation of his death. Thus, it fell to Captain K to write a letter suggesting to them that the evidence -- including detailed photos of the "crime scene" -- were more graphic and disturbing than they could handle. It's actually not the first time K had to handle this kind of bizarre situation. Another one of his soldiers discovered after shipping out of Bangkok that his new wife was a man. However, he told K that he loved "her" very much and that they were saving up for an operation to make "her" a real woman. And to think Kevin Drum was worried that true love no longer exists. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 4:34 PM by Patrick Belton The announcement ran in Al Quds al Arabi: The newspaper Al-Quds al-Arabi said it received a five-page e-mail from the Brigade of Abu Hafs al-Masri claiming its "death squad" had penetrated "one of the pillars of the crusade alliance, Spain."WaPo has added: The statement to the al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper said, "We have succeeded in infiltrating the heart of crusader Europe and struck one of the bases of the crusader alliance," and called the attacks "Operation Death Trains."Reuters, for its part, has: We bring the good news to Muslims of the world that the expected 'Winds of Black Death' strike against America is now in its final stage...90 percent (ready) and God willing near," the letter said.... A copy of the letter was faxed to Reuters in Dubai.Also, Spanish investigators have found detonators and a Qur'anic tape in Arabic in a stolen van near Madrid. Several thoughts at the moment: the coordinated aspect of the attacks in different locations, as well as the scale of casualties, would both tend to be points in favor of an Al Qa'eda attribution; further, Al Qa'eda had threatened Spain as an ally of the United States's in the Iraq war; Eta as a matter of practice has always telephoned a warning prior to an attack in public; and finally, Eta has not produced a massive attack in years, with the number of its operatives pared after a series of high-profile arrests. On the other side of the balance sheet, a new generation of leaders will be coming into their own in Eta precisely on account of those arrests; and the timing, 72 hours before elections predicted to return a right-of-center party, would seem to suggest a domestic group. Of course, there always remains the analytic possibility that Eta and Al Qaeda may have joined forces - in the way that Hamas and the IRA share weapons and operatives (and in their case, post-colonial ideology), and may both be found in FARC-controlled areas of Colombia - they may simply have decided that both groups could agree on having Spain as an enemy. Like everyone, I'll be following the news very closely for the next few days, to see how the attribution dilemma unfolds. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 1:41 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 10:39 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 4:36 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 1:00 AM by David Adesnik
# Posted 12:13 AM by David Adesnik Getting back to Matt and Rob, the debate started with Matt's column in TAP, which argues that the flip-flop charge is a artificial one created by the Bush administration and picked up by journalists with a compulsive interest in embarrassing the candidates. Rob's first response to Matt implies that Matt is attacking a strawman, since he debunks conservatives attacks on Kerry's record while ignore what the WaPo and TNR have to say. Matt then got the jump on Rob by pointing out that he had already responded to the WaPo and TNR pieces in question. Undaunted, Rob responded with some original research by using Nexis-Lexis to pore over back issues of Kerry's hometown paper, The Boston Globe. Unconvinced, Matt shot back that the Globe has it in for Kerry and that its evidence is less than compelling. So where do I stand on all of this? I don't know yet. I spent an hour and half tonight reading just some of the many articles devoted to the flip-flop question. What struck me as most surprising was Matt's statement that if you "look at Kerry's words and deeds with the pre-existing assumption that he's a man of principle and integrity" you will that find his positions to be consistent and nuanced. Yet "if you go into it assuming that Kerry is an opportunist, you can read the events to support that conclusion." While Matt's comments refer specifically to Kerry's vote to authorize the use of force against Saddam in October, they seem to reflect his general take on the issue. What surprises me so much about Matt's approach is its implication that there is no right answer to the question of whether or not Kerry has flip-flopped on the major issues of the day. It all comes down to a question of trust. While Matt may be right, "Trust me" is a very hard message for a candidate to run on. To be sure, Bush's less-than-forthright approach to the deficit, the 9/11 commission, the WMD question and his National Guard service record make it just as hard for him to ask for the voters' trust. But as the challenger, Kerry has to show that he is better than Bush, not that he isn't worse. Asking for the voters' trust is also an invitation for journalists to challenge a candidate's reputation. When Jimmy Carter promised that he would never tell a lie, journalists did all they could to catch him telling one. And Gary Hart...well don't ask about Gary Hart. The point is that Kerry can't lay the flip-flop issue to rest by telling either voters or journalists to trust him. In fact, doing so would only ensure that the issue stays on the table. And even now, there may be enough evidence out there to cast doubt on Matt's "pre-existing assumption that [Kerry]'s a man of principle and integrity". Consider the opening grafts of the NYT profile devoted to the flip-flop question: When Senator John Kerry was speaking to Jewish leaders a few days ago, he said Israel's construction of a barrier between it and Palestinian territories was a legitimate act of self-defense. But in October, he told an Arab-American group that it was "provocative and counterproductive" and a "barrier to peace."Later on in the Times' profile, Kerry explains that He had criticized the Israeli wall before the Arab-American group in October because its path was then expected to deviate widely from Israel's border into West Bank villages ? though he conceded he had not made the distinction clear at the time.Perhaps Kerry is telling the truth. But why does it always seem that Kerry has to pull this kind of rabbit out of his hat in order to reconcile apparently inconsistent views? By the same token, Kerry has recently revised his 1996 conclusion that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. This subtle distinction has enabled Kerry to argue against Bush's proposed amendent banning gay-marriage but in favor of state-level amendents that have the same effect. If one assumes that Kerry is "a man of principle and integrity", then all is well. But isn't it just a little too convenient how Kerry has revised his passionate and long-held views on gay marriage just in time to present a more moderate face during his presidential campaign? Again, there's no evidence to show that Kerry is being opportunistic. But my gut instinct says that this guy has to be watched. Tomorrow: Bush's flip-flops and Kerry's stance on the war. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion Wednesday, March 10, 2004
# Posted 7:54 PM by David Adesnik
# Posted 1:49 PM by Patrick Belton I can't think of a worthier cause, or a more trustworthy organization to give a prominent role in it to. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 11:03 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 10:43 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 5:17 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 3:52 AM by Patrick Belton As far as understanding Sistani goes, Spencer Ackerman has written on the subject on his TNR blog, Iraq'd, CFR does a backgrounder, CS Monitor, which I'm increasingly impressed by, has a piece, and NPR ran a profile which is basically an interview with Juan Cole. Also, RFE has a brief profile, and Slate has a piece, too. As far as understanding SCIRI goes, FAS has a profile - the WaPo had one as well, a third one dates to the pre-war period - and other worthwhile pieces are here and here. I haven't come across any pieces that are quite as good about the trends among the Shi'a in general - perhaps because what those trends really are is somewhat more nebulous. The best I've found are CS Monitor, Guardian, Juan Cole, and Juan Cole's blog. Please let us know if you run across any other pieces you think we should include in this list! UPDATE: Steve Den Beste wrote a lengthy and insightful post today on the constitution, and particularly electoral incentives it attempts to introduce toward moderation and compromise (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 12:27 AM by David Adesnik After watching the first half-dozen episodes on DVD, it's not hard to figure out why everyone says that the series is simplistic, self-righteous and far more political than the film. These characteristics emerge in the series pilot, which develops and amends one of the important subplots in the film, the fate of Ho-Jon, the young Korean who works for Hawkeye. In the film, we first meet Ho-Jon along with Maj. Burns, the pretentious martinet surgeon who later becomes Hawkeye's main adversary. When Hawkeye first meets Burns, he is teaching Ho-Jon to read by using a Bible as an instruction manual. In the pilot, Burns shows no demonstrable interest in Ho-Jon's welfare. Instead, Hawkeye persuades his alma mater to accept Ho-Jon as a foreign student but discovers that Ho-Jon will need $2000 to cover the cost of travel, etc. Thus, Hawkeye organizes a raffle to raise funds for Ho-Jon while Burns tries to throw a wrench in the works because Hawkeye's plans violate military regulations. Another change in Burns character in the first episodes is that he becomes a mindless poster boy for American propaganda. Whereas in the film Burns was simply strict, his strictness now becomes an extension of his naive belief that Korea is a good war. This point comes across best in Episode Six, in which Burns desperately tries to get the lead role in a propaganda film being made by an Army public relations unit. In contrast, Hawkeye's breaks into the storage room where the undeveloped film is being kept and destroys it in order to protect the homefront audience from this sort of propaganda. Then, Hawkeye persuades Col. Drake to let him direct the film, which turns out to be a Marx Brothers farce set in the 4077th. The Marx Brothers' mock-up is actually one of the most brilliant things I've seen on television. Alda's impression of Groucho is fantastic and the machine-gun sarcasm of the dialogue doesn't give you even a second to recover. When the mock-up ends, Hawkeye appears on screen by himself, out of costume and delivers a solemn lecture on the human costs of war. This is M*A*S*H at its most self-righteous. In lesser ways, this leitmotif appears again and again throughout the first six episodes. It is also a rhetorical device for battering Burns and other defenders of the war, since they are often shown to be far less concerned about the human cost of war than are Hawkeye, Trapper John, etc. Yet at the same time that the series meditates on the costs of war, it also sanitizes it. The bowdlerization first becomes apparent as the M*A*S*H theme music plays at the beginning of the episode. The haunting lyrics of the original song have been taken out. But perhaps one simply cannot have a primetime television show declare that Through early moring fog I seeThe fact that Marilyn Manson chose to do a cover of the song only emphasizes the fact that it was something mainstream America just wasn't ready for. (NB for our British audience: The Manic Street Preachers have covered the song as well.) While one can argue that the removal of the lyrics was an inevitable concession to the network censors, it does reflect the absence of the darker psychological aspects of the film as well. In the original, the men of the 4077th sing the song during a mock funeral for one of their comrades who has chosen to commit suicide because he is unable to confront his Given that psychiatrists still defined homosexuality as a perversion and a pathology at the time the film was made, its portrayal of the issue is both far ahead of its time as well as sensitive and sophisticated by today's standards. However, I'm going to have to reserve judgment on this issue until I get to watch the later episodes of the series, in which a more prominent role is played by the cross-dressing Corporal Klinger. Still, Klinger does appear in some of the early episodes and is nothing more than a clown. One final aspect of the series I'd like to comment on is the contrast between its paternalistic liberalism and the politically correct liberalism of today. In Episode Five, Hawkeye runs across a sergeant who has purchased a Korean woman named Young Hi from her family for a price of $500. While Young Hi is at best an indentured servant and at worst a slave, she bears it all with constant chirpiness and no complaining. After delivering a lecture about the hypocrisy of buying slaves during a supposed war of liberation, Hawkeye hatches a plan to win Young Hi in a fixed poker game with the visiting sergeant. When Hawkeye wins, he grants Young Hi her freedom. The catch is that she doesn't want it. In fact, Young Hi is so dedicated to being a servant that when Hawkeye sends her to Seoul she sneaks back to the 4077th and starts cleaning again. At that point, I was beginning to expect that the scriptwriters were going to pull a fast one on the audience. Surely Young Hi wasn't really all that servile and self-denigrating. Her ridiculous pidgin English dialogue made her seem like a complete fool. It had to be an act put on for the Americans' benefit. As good liberals, the scriptwriters were surely luring the audience into believing that Koreans aren't as self-aware or assertive as Americans, only to have Young Hi drop the mask once the audience had bought into her act. Bottom line: she doesn't. Instead, Hawkeye teaches her how to be an individual. He teaches her to interact with other members of the M*A*S*H unit as an equal. Hawkeye also contacts Young Hi's family so that she can return to them. But when Young Hi's brother shows up to claim her, he makes it clear that he intends to sell her once again, but this time for double or triple the price. At first, she goes along with it, telling Hawkeye that family is the most important thing for Koreans. But within thirty seconds of leaving the base, Young Hi strides right back and announces that she told her brother off because she learned from Hawkeye how to be an individual. On one level, there's a good message in this story about the universal value of freedom. On the other hand, it is absurdly condescending to suggest that Hawkeye's 72-hour lesson in civics could persuade a Korean woman to turn her back on her family. It makes Young Hi seem even more naive then she did when she accepted her role as the sergeant's slave. Are we supposed to believe that Koreans have no personalities of their own, but instead willingly conform to the dictates of their American masters? Isn't that exactly the kind of Great Society paternalism that supposedly got the United States involved in the same war that M*A*S*H was devoted to protesting? But remember, that was 1972. Ethnicity and gender weren't mainstream liberal concerns. Thus, Hawkeye's relentless womanizing -- and the passive acceptance of it by his giggily-jiggily nurses -- might strike today's audiences as no less disturbing than the racial caricature known as Young Hi. All in all, M*A*S*H is truly a relic of its time. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion Tuesday, March 09, 2004
# Posted 12:28 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 10:20 AM by Patrick Belton So, illustrating what I do when I'm skipping lunch to work on my dissertation, I used the McDonalds's website nutrition calculator to run a few sample meals, and the CNN article was right. It turns out the trusty cheeseburger has 330 calories and 14 grammes of fat, of which 6 are saturated. The Crispy chicken California cobb salad has 370 calories and 21 grammes of fat, of which an identical 6 are saturated. You can draw whatever moral you like, but my suggestion is to just go have a burger! UPDATE: Baude says get the salad. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 6:08 AM by Patrick Belton Several months ago, the International Crisis Group had written a report about vexing issues hanging over the drafting process. And among the more noteworthy journalistic reporting, the Christian Science Monitor discusses the issues which hung over the Shi'i reticence to sign: The Shiites, which account for about 60 percent of Iraq's population, had reservations about a Kurdish-backed clause dealing with a permanent constitution as well as the composition of the presidency.(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 3:03 AM by Patrick Belton Haunted by "strigoi" - the undead - villagers on the slopes of the Carpathian mountains exhume a corpse from the graveyard and drive a stake through its heart to banish the evil spirit.After noting this is after all rather weird, BBC goes on to say "the 'Strigoi Show', as the TV dubbed it light-heartedly, has prompted such a stir about local customs and culture." Not one to abandon such an admirable stride once it had hit it, the BBC finishes strong with the conclusion, "Romania's metropolitan press may argue that its ancestral customs are out of line with "modern European civilization", but the new Europe may be all the poorer for it if they disappear completely." Cutting-edge political scientists quickly then appeared on the scene in south-west Romania, arguing that in a Transylvanian mountainside infested by Nosferatu, it is only rational to engage in collective actions to burn and drink the heart of grandma. They then quickly engaged in a bitter war over whether most of the village should then free ride, which resulted in someone's graduate student not getting tenure. When asked by a local village bystander what they were doing, the political scientists replied, "It's our culture. Go away." (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 2:19 AM by Patrick Belton The state of women in the world has not yet arrived at the level of dignity enjoyed by its men, and on International Women's Day we must all commit ourselves to ensuring that it one day does. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion Monday, March 08, 2004
# Posted 10:40 AM by David Adesnik Dear Friends,In response to Mr. H's e-mail, I sent a message back to the list that read as follows: Dear Friends,(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 9:04 AM by Patrick Belton There's more news from Mars here and over here, too. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 3:52 AM by Patrick Belton Pyramid for our age, Funeral pyre, Souls on fire;There's also his less-known work, Message to the Republican Mob, which begins Before you merely mauled welfare mothers, But now you’re messing with The Great American Middle Class; We’ll kick your rear! Grandfathers are full of fear, New anger after every tear.Read them a few times; they have a way of sticking with you. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 3:10 AM by David Adesnik The delay represented a major embarrassment for the American officials here, who had guided the negotiations on the constitution and helped break numerous deadlocks. L. Paul Bremer III, the chief American administrator, was supposed to appear at the ceremony and the sign the completed constitution.The WaPo reported that The Shiites' refusal to sign was regarded by some council officials as a stark indication of the deep divisions that exist between rival religious and ethnic groups, suggesting that a consensus on the interim constitution reached earlier this week may not have been as solid as U.S. and Iraqi officials had claimed.But now the Shi'ites have withdrawn their demands and the constitution should be approved tomorrow. So, did the NYT report today that Friday's "major embarrassment" didn't materialize? Or that Paul Bremer has been successful in encouraging Iraqis to work together? And what about the WaPo? Did it report that the Shi'ites' compromise is an indication of how ethnic and religious divisions may not be as profound as originally thought? Since those were all rhetorical questions, I won't bother telling you the answers. The fact is that professional journalists have a remarkable habit of overlooking their own short-sightedness. Unsurprisingly, the same correspondents at the Times (Dexter Filkins) and the Post (Rajiv Chandrasekaran) covered both the Shi'ite walkout on Friday and the Shi'ite compromise earlier today. Their coverage demonstrates how committed both men are (subconscioulsy, I think ) to telling the story of how America is going to fail in Iraq. Of course, it's hard to tell a consistent story when the facts keep getting in the way. Consider the Times' and the Post's respective interpretation of Ayatollah Sistani's role in this affair. Initially, Filkins reported that The delay demonstrated anew the political power of Ayatollah Sistani, the country's most powerful religious leader. Despite repeated avowals that he would remain above the push and pull of politics, and that he would keep Islam separate from the state, he has repeatedly shown his willingness to involve himself in political debates.Taken unawares by the Shi'ites' compromise, Filkins now writes that The change of heart by the Shiite leaders appears to represent a retreat by Ayatollah Sistani, who touched off the impasse last week by expressing his concerns to the Shiite leaders.Filkins wants us to believe that suddenly, on Sunday, Sistani decided to stop bossing the Americans around. Yet this change was apparently too subtle for Chandrasekaran to note, since he's still reporting that The Shiites' initial refusal to sign provided a clear demonstration of the political influence of Sistani and other top clerics.Now, as I said above, I don't think that any of this WaPo/NYT spin is conscious. We're simply dealing with reporters who think in terms of deadlines and put together a story each day that makes sense of the known facts. Such reporters have little incentive to go over the previous day's dispatch to see how it looks in hindsight. After all, they're not bloggers. If Filkins messes up, Chandrasekaran won't mention it in his article. And neither one will have an inbox full of criticism if today's dispatch abandons the insights of yesterday. But it isn't only deadline pressure and the absence of peer review that is responsible for what's going on here. If that were the case, coverage of Iraq wouldn't be so uniformly negative. Rather, there is a basic narrative of failure in the reporters' heads that transforms deadline pressure and the absence of peer review into a conveyor belt for the reproduction of their profession's conventional wisdom. Six months ago, Josh Marshall wrote that There's a basic principle in scientific theory: an hypothesis, to be a real hypothesis, must be capable of disproof. In other words, for an hypothesis to be a valid basis for research, there must be some data which, if found to be true, would prove the hypothesis was false. Otherwise, there's no way to test it.Marshall intended his comments as criticism of those naive Iraq hawks (specifically myself and Ralph Peters) who insisted that every suicide attack was a sign of the insurgents' desperation. While I don't think Josh was being fair to us naive optimists, his comments about falsifiability do explain a lot about why Dexter Filkins, Rajiv Chandrasekaran and the rest of the Iraq press corps almost never recognize the shortcomings of their own work. On those days when bad news comes out of Iraq, e.g. Friday, they describe it as evidence that Iraq is going to hell in a handbasket. When there's good news, e.g. today, they put their failure narrative aside for the moment. Thus, it's very hard to change the coloration of the news that's coming out of Iraq. In the long term, correspondents sometimes begin to recognize what's going on. Certain facts are simply too hard to ignore. When American tanks rolled toward Baghdad, the media stopped reporting that the invasion had become a quagmire. Of course, there is no clear geography of success or failure when it comes to nation-building. If history is a guide, the first big positive story to come out of Iraq will be the elections held in late 2004 or early 2005. Often, the first election held after the fall of a dictatorship provokes a dramatic response in terms of both turnout and popular enthusiasm. Examples of that trend include El Salvador, Cambodia and South Africa. Of course, what all of us would most like to see is a peaceful transfer of power from one elected Iraqi government to another. That is the most reliable indication that democratic norms are taking root. But in nation that is almost 2/3 Shi'ite, the opposition may not win a national election for quite a while. In fact, that sort of stability wouldn't be surprising. The first West German chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, held office for 14 years. In Japan, the Liberal Democratic Party was at the helm for even longer. Which means that in Iraq, we will have to look at the quality of everyday life to figure out whether or not it is a democracy. There won't be a happy ending to the story in Iraq because there won't be an ending at all. But we can make sense of what's going on if we pay close enough attention. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion Sunday, March 07, 2004
# Posted 11:36 PM by David Adesnik One need look no further than the controversy over December 2003's IGC decree 137 which introduced sharia (Islamic religious law) in the place of secular family law to see how poorly democratic values are entrenched. Passed at a time when key secular members of the IGC were out of the country, and the chairman of the IGC was a Shia Islamist, decree 137 was denounced by the Kurds, women's groups, and some secular parties as undemocratic and discriminatory. Ambassador Bremer refused to sign decree 137, which meant that it could not be implemented.From a different perspective, this might just be a story of democracy at work. After all, there were no violent protests, no denunciations of the democratic system as anathema to Islam. Just hardball politics of the kind you see in any modern state. Of course, the Shi'ites can afford to be patient because they expect to dominate the new Iraq. But calculated or not, that kind of restraint on the part of a brutally repressed and suddenly liberated people suggests a certain faith in the democratic process. (Thanks to BM for the link.) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 11:16 PM by David Adesnik Take it from somebody who grew up with the "military life," specifically the United States Army Medical Corps. You don't have a clue, son. There is not and has never been a more dedicated, disciplined, and dynamic enterprise on the face of the planet...Not that we don't enjoy the humor ourselves, but especially after years of TV saturation, the leftist portrayal of "military life" was and is now an extreme disservice to our country and our people.EJB's comments are pointed but fair. While I meant no offense, my review of M*A*S*H never challenged the film's portrayal of the Army Medical Corps. In retrospect, I should've made it clear that I was approaching M*A*S*H as a suggestive satire about military life, not an actual account of any specific soldiers or units. One reader who speaks to that point is naval officer CL, who writes: Re: Your point about the US military juggernaut -I fully agree. Whether we're talking about the US military, the US government or major corporations such as Microsoft and Ford, there is something inexplicable about their ability to function. And yet they do. Moving on to the cultural side of things, NC remarks that I recently rewatched MASH myself. What I found interesting was the initial hostility of Hawkeye and Trapper John when they first meet Frank Burns. They come into the tent where Frank is teaching [Korean teenager O-Jon] English [by using] the Bible. This leads to much mockery and the gift of a girlie mag to the kid, continuing as Frank kneels to pray at the foot of his cot, and sometime later [more] mockery of his refusal of a martini. This is all before Frank shows himself as the classic military martinet, perhaps earning the abuse that he suffers. Maybe as I've aged I have become more conservative (yet still agnostic, long haired, etc...) , or just sensitive, but the prejudice against Frank was in a sense shocking.I fully agree. Most anti-authority films (think Animal House) protect the moral integrity of their protagonists by having the 'bad guys' break the rules first. But there's no mistaking what happens in M*A*S*H. Hawkeye is relentlessly cruel toward Frank Burns and Nurse O'Houlihan. Perhaps the director wanted it to be that way, or perhaps the novel on which the film is based emphasizes that Hawkeye is anything but a Boy Scout. Either way, if the portrayal of Hawkeye's cruetly was intentional, I think it was a good decision from an artistic perspective. It shows that Hawkeye's behavior is a reflection of his character, not a sudden response to minor provocations by Burns or O'Houlihan. It also adds sophistication, both moral and analytical, to the anti-authority message of the film. Hawkeye is rebelling against a system, not against one or two bad officers. Moreover, Hawkeye's cruetly suggests that the irrationality of the system may provoke the response it does because it is dealing with humans and not with angels. Of course, the irrationality of the system reflects the fact that it is composed of humans and not of angels. Now, going back a bit further in time, there have also been some interesting comments made about Blackboard Jungle and To Sir, With Love. WS writes that I had the pleasure of meeting Ron Clark, a real "To Sir With Love" teacher, last week at my corporate conference, where he was the featured speaker. His story is amazing and he is an terrific speaker. After falling in to teaching in his home town in rural North Carolina, Ron set out to teach in Harlem. He was the only white person in the school and he was given the very worst class. The transformation which took place, and he tells his story very well, was nothing short of fantastic. By the end of the school year he got nearly one-third of his class of 37 into the best junior high in the city. A school which only took 30 kids total by application and interview each year. His secret was teaching respect and civility as a foundation. Check out his website and his book. If you get a chance to hear him speak you won't be disappointed.No doubt about that. Even those teachers who succeed in more favorable circumstances need tremendous strength of character and often have astounding stories to tell. Nonetheless, I think it is often hard to express exactly how one goes about transforming sullen and dejected students into curious and thoughtful ones. As I mentioned before, both Blackboard and To Sir find it hard to express the cause of that transformation. If Clark can put it into words, he is most assuredly an impressive speaker. Finally, DS writes that I attended Bronx public schools starting in 1948, so I can report on actual conditions then. Blackboard Jungle was a best selling book before it was a movie. The author Evan Hunter (Ed McBain) has written a gazillion books, mostly mysteries, and remains productive today.If only we knew how to fix them... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 11:37 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 10:54 AM by Patrick Belton The Olympics are thought of as apolitical, really, and not something to get worked up about. Indeed a recent poll has show an alarming apathy towards them amongst the public. Also, I wouldn't say ND are 'edging ahead'. I have been here in Greece for a couple of years now. Last summer ND led PASOK by about 5 points. Since then, one of the two main issues has reared is ugly head: that was union power. I think it was September when the Govt capitulated to one of the major civil service unions, seemingly because it was scared of this 5% gap widening. This opened the floodgates, and it was 'beer and sandwiches' all round. Teachers, Lecturers, Doctor, Taxi drivers, and, yes, even prostitutes (here everything is unionised!) went on strike. I was worried that we were in for a winter of discontent, but somehow they managed to pay them off or stand them down. The damage was done, however, and a weakened government has just been limping along for a couple of months. The overall economy has moderate growth but is too resistent to structural change. Nothing for either party to really shout about. The other main factor is just the feeling that it is time for a change, that the present lot have become (too) corrupt and indifferent to their needs. Evidence for this is that when PASOK announced the PM would be retiring to let his foreign minister contest the election, their ratings jumped 5 points to make it 3 behind. The new guy, Papandreou, is no more popular a polician than the old one, Simitis, but just the change did them a lot good (but not good enough, unless the polls are wrong). (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 8:08 AM by Patrick Belton The main choice is between two political dynasties that have dominated modern political life.Conservatives are edging ahead in what is anticipated to be a highly close result, and in which bloated bureaucracy and the country's embarrassing abysmally stalled preparations for August's Olympic games have become the most pivotal issues. Economist reviews the issues and political dynamics, while Guardian, scaremongering, fixates on a marginal far-right parliamentary candidate who has been expelled from the conservative coalition. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion Saturday, March 06, 2004
# Posted 6:29 PM by Patrick Belton Okay, maybe a picture of Ganesh. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 3:01 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 10:24 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 7:29 AM by Patrick Belton Friday, March 05, 2004
# Posted 9:08 PM by David Adesnik
# Posted 4:20 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 9:08 AM by Patrick Belton In fact, you can hang out with all your favorite bloggers - our LA chapter is getting off the ground under the inspired leadership of Robert Tagorda, and our newest member Pejman nobly emits the admirable sentiment "I regret that I only have one blog to give for my country." So drop us a note, and come hang out with the cool kids! (Okay, maybe not all the cool kids yet - we're still working on CalPundit....) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 9:01 AM by Patrick Belton Okay, I wrote it, will you let me go now? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 8:57 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 1:59 AM by David Adesnik I didn't watch the film with any particular expectations in mind, since the few episodes of M*A*S*H that I saw on television left no impression on me. However, I did expect the film to be somehow anti-army or anti-war. It's important to keep in mind that one can be critical of the army without being critical of the war, or vice versa. A book like Catch-22 can expose the insanity of military life without suggesting that the US shouldn't have been fighting in Europe. If anything, the unquestionable necessity of the Second World War adds an important dimension to the tragedy of Catch-22, since the confusion and injustice that Heller portrays are part and parcel of a just cause. That said, M*A*S*H came across as apolitical. It doesn't dwell on the human cost of war. The main characters are surgeons in a military hospital, but they never philosophize about the terrible human cost of war. The patients themselves have nothing to say, literally. There are no scenes of convalescing soldiers, only bodies under white sheets on the operating table. Hawkeye and Trapper John have no qualms about going to play golf in Japan. For them, being a military surgeon is just a job they never asked for. The target of the film's satire is the hypocrisy and bureaucracy of military life. The villians of the camp are the bible-reading major and the uptight head nurse. The great joy of the film is to show how those who have a healthy disrespect for the mindless regimentation of military life can use the army's own rules against it. In a sense, the fact that the film takes place in a military hospital in Korea is almost irrelevant. It is simply a film about defying authority, wherever it may be found. Perhaps this is not how the film came across in 1970. In the midst of the Vietnam war, it may not have been necessary to show the bodies or talk about the war in order to make a political comment. Simply ridiculing the army may have been enough. In that context, the incompetence portrayed in the film may have suggested that the irrationality of military life was responsible for our failure in Vietnam. But in 2004, that message doesn't come across. Today, the American military is a high-tech juggernaut. At least to those of us on the outside. I have a friend in the service whose view of military life roughly corresponds to the one in M*A*S*H. All I ever hear from the captain is how the radios never work and the clowns in charge have no idea what they're doing. And yet somehow, it all comes out fine in the end. I think the lesson here is that M*A*S*H and Catch-22 and other works in that genre remind of the inevitable absurdity of military life. Even in the most efficient army on earth, there is no escape from bureaucracy and confusion. And humor. God only knows what it was like to serve on the Iraqi side. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 1:25 AM by David Adesnik Thursday, March 04, 2004
# Posted 3:42 PM by David Adesnik
# Posted 3:01 AM by Patrick Belton Want cream and sugar with that? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 2:43 AM by Patrick Belton This company, whose implicit motto seems to be "you get what you pay for with our cheap service," just lost all of our foreignpolicysociety.org email that hadn't been downloaded, and had the cajones to send around this non-unduly-apologetic email: What this means for you is that any email that was on the server prior to today at 1pm EST and has not been retrieved has been lost and is non-recoverable. Any emails that have been sent to an account after 1pm that we host will be either returned to the sender or the messages will go into the queue of the sending server and be set to retry to deliver the message for up to 5 days. Redelivery attempts are the most common response to this sort of problem. We regret that this has happened and that the redundancy of the mail system did not work as intended.There - now, as you've asked, I've told my friends and business associates about you. Anything else, while I'm at it? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 12:06 AM by David Adesnik As we speak, night has settled on the mountains of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. If Osama bin Laden is sleeping, it is the restless slumber of someone who knows his days are numbered. I don’t know if the latest reports – saying that he is surrounded – are true or not. We’ve heard this news before.What Kerry is saying is that whereas George Bush was afraid to sacrifice American lives in order to capture Osama bin Laden, John Kerry has the authority to order such a sacrifice because of his record as a war hero. Leaving aside the specifics of Tora Bora, this passage shows why Kerry's war record isn't just a biographical artifact. It is a personal trait that will change the way he makes critical decisions. After all, imagine Bill Clinton saying that he would send American soldiers' to their deaths in the same situation where George Bush wouldn't. No one would believe it. And when Clinton got into office, he had to tread lightly on the generals' turf. But Kerry would be in a much better position to handle them. Next, Kerry observes that This war isn’t just a manhunt – a checklist of names from a deck of cards. In it, we do not face just one man or one terrorist group. We face a global jihadist movement of many groups, from different sources, with separate agendas, but all committed to assaulting the United States and free and open societies around the globe.Identifying "jihadism" as our opponent is a significant step. It entails the affirmation that this is a war of ideas, because one can stop terror with airport security, but one can only stop suicide bombers by destroying the ideology that animates them. Of course, there is a trade off here. By adopting language similar to that of George Bush, Kerry admits that the President has been right about something very important. Kerry will have to decide for or against such trade-offs on a lot of security related issues. He will have to calculate how much he needs to concede in order to show that he is "serious" about security without giving away so much that he presents no alternative to Bush. Apparently, Kerry's strategy for transcending this dilemma is to try and attack Bush from the right. Hence his statement that I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the War on Terror; I believe he’s done too little.I'm somewhat surprised that Kerry is using quagmire language, e.g. "bogged down" to describe the situation in Iraq. With both guerrilla attacks and American casualties falling significantly, it seems strange to say that victory is not in sight. To be sure, the insurgents' murder of scores of Iraqis is horrific. But it is American casualty figures that matter to the electorate. As for NED and Halliburton, the good news coming out of the oil fields suggests Kerry might want to be more careful here as well. Like them or not, Cheney's boys are doing their country a great service and an expensive one. Although highly speculative, my sense is that Kerry hasn't been watching Iraq carefully enough to sense that the media's pessimism may not be worth investing in. Turning from Iraq to Al Qaeda, Kerry argues that Working with other countries in the War on Terror is something we do for our sake – not theirs. We can’t wipe out terrorist cells in places like Sweden, Canada, Spain, the Philippines, or Italy just by dropping in Green Berets.I don't get it. How can Kerry attack Bush for his failure to cooperate with foreign intelligence services while citing as evidence our successful capture of Shaikh Mohammed, Bin al Shibh and Hambali? Moreover, law enforcement cooperation with our European allies doesn't seem to have suffered despite the conflict at the United Nations. As such, Kerry returns to stronger ground with his accusation that our Troops are going into harm’s way without the weapons and equipment they depend on to do their jobs safely. National Guard helicopters are flying missions in dangerous territory without the best available ground-fire protection systems. Un-armored Humvees are falling victim to road-side bombs and small-arms fire.Again, this is the kind of accusation that Kerry can only level because of his war record. While I vaguely recall hearing that the body armor situation had been dealt with, this sort of oversight on Bush's part is exactly what Kerry is in a position to take advantage of. Another oversight relates to non-proliferation. According to Kerry, Today, parts of Russia’s vast nuclear arsenal are easy prey for those offering cash to scientists and security forces who too often are under-employed and under-paid. If I am President, I will expand the Nunn/Lugar program to buy up and destroy the loose nuclear materials of the former Soviet Union and to ensure that all of Russia’s nuclear weapons and materials are out of the reach of terrorists and off the black market.I strongly support Nunn-Lugar, but if I were Kerry, I'd focus a lot more on Pakistan. After all, here is a supposed all in the war on terror who has been selling nuclear secrets to our most dangerous enemies. Bush said that other nations would have to be with us or against us. Yet Pakistan is allowed to play both sides. There are reasons for treating Pakistan differently, some of them good. But as far as campaign logic goes, the situation in Pakistan seems like a perfect demonstration of how Bush's short-sightedness is undermining American security. The final subject that Kerry tackles is homeland security. He wants more firefighters and police. He says that We need to provide public health labs with the basic expertise they need but now lack to respond to chemical or biological attack. We need new safeguards for our chemical and nuclear facilities.I'm not in a good position to comment on these recommendations since I have given in to my preoccupation with "foreign" policy and decided not to focus on the painstaking details of securing the homefront. By the same token, the media also seems to have lost interest in the story. But my gut instinct is that we've gotten lucky since 9/11. Who would've guessed there wouldn't be even one more attack on America soil (assuming the anthax letters were homegrown)? Not I. So perhaps Kerry should play this one up a little more. It seems tailor made for Kerry's interest in showing that he is far more serious Bush about winning the war on terror. All in all, I think that Kerry gave a strong speech albeit a mild one. I have seen him breathe a lot more fire, especially when Howard Dean is involved. But perhaps the time has not yet come for that. Right now, Kerry may want to build a foundation of trust before going on offense. After all, the world is an uncertain place and you never what opportunity fate might throw his way. (1) opinions -- Add your opinion Wednesday, March 03, 2004
# Posted 11:44 PM by David Adesnik Now, Kevin hits the nail on the head when identifies Kerry's proposal to add 40,000 soldiers to the US military as the headline news in Kerry's speech. As Kevin points out, Bush can't match the proposal without vindicating those critics who insist that we simply don't have enough boots on the ground in Iraq. Thus, Kerry now has a major issue on which he can credibly present himself as more hawkish than Bush. The subheadline of Kerry's speech is his insistence that the United States has a "solemn obligation" to finish the job in Afghanistan and Iraq. As the Senator explains, Whatever we thought of the Bush Administration's decisions and mistakes -- especially in Iraq -- we now have a solemn obligation to complete the mission, in that country and in Afghanistan. Iraq is now a major magnet and center for terror. Our forces in Iraq are paying the price everyday.Kerry's vague comments about the administration's "decision and mistakes" indicate that he isn't confident enough to directly attack the administration for its conduct of a war that Kerry himself voted to authorize. In fact, I was generally suprised by the restraint Kerry showed in criticizing the President's record on foreign policy. Perhaps it is not a matter of choice. On a lot of security issues, it is all but impossible for Kerry to attack the President without falling into the stereotype of a Massachusetts liberal. In contrast, Kerry had no qualms about using far more punishing language to attack Howard Dean's foreign policy in December than he is using to attack Bush's now. While Josh Marshall may love Kerry for being a fighter, it already seems that he is giving ground on the most important issue in the election. The one point Kerry tries to hammer on relentlessly is Bush's disrespect for our allies. Yet when Kerry says that "As President, [he] will not wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake," he is again giving away the middle ground to Bush. Yes, one can argue that since there were no WMD in Iraq Bush was wrong to go to war without the Security Council. But Kerry can't say that without raising the question of why he voted for the war in the Senate. Getting back to Kerry's talk of a "solemn obligation" in Iraq, I think it is important to point out that Kerry portrays the situation in Iraq as nothing more than a burden for the United States. As he strongly implies, the situation we now face in Iraq is a product of President Bush's "decisions and mistakes". In contrast, President Bush tends to portray the situation in Iraq as being a historic opportunity as well as a heavy responsibility. It marks the beginning of the democratic transformation of the Middle East. Such language, however, is entirely absent from Kerry's speech. To some degree, that is just partisan politics. Bush wants to spin the occupation as a historic event while Kerry wants to use it against the President. Now that Bush has unveiled his Greater Middle East Initiative, Kerry doesn't want to validate it by talking about the importance of democracy promotion. Yet if the promoting democracy weren't so important, why do we have a solemn obligation to ensure its success in Iraq? While this kind of subtle coloration of Kerry's words probably won't matter to much of the electorate, it does indicate to me that President Bush may have a better instinctive grasp than John Kerry does of what's at stake in Iraq. On a similar note, I have to admit that I am disturbed by Kerry's statement that It is time to return to the United Nations and return America to the community of nations to share both authority and responsibility in Iraq, and take the target off the back of our troops...Does Kerry really believe that any other nation will provide enough troops to take American soldiers out of the line of fire? The best we can hope for is a token force from France and Germany that will add some legitimacy to the occupation. Then again, no one in Iraq seems to be complaining that the occupation is too American. After all, the insurgents even kill UN employees. What I want to know is, when would Kerry offer the UN "the lead role" -- not a lead role, but the lead role -- in the definition of Iraq's political future? Before or after it puts enough blue helmets on the ground to give our troops a rest? While the American public respects the UN, I don't think that giving it a quid without getting a pro quo is likely to create the impression that Kerry is serious about national security. There is no question that Kerry's speech was a good one. If you take a closer look, its strengths become more apparent. But there are still strong indications of how divided Kerry is about whether to attack Bush's foreign policy from the left or from the right. Perhaps the answer is both. Yet by trying to have it all, Kerry may only reinforce the notion that he doesn't have a real position on the issue. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 5:48 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 11:59 AM by Daniel (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 10:05 AM by Patrick Belton Compared to non-coffee drinkers, men who drank more than six eight-ounce cups of caffeinated coffee per day lowered their risk of type 2 diabetes by about half, and women reduced their risk by nearly 30 per cent, according to the study in Tuesday's issue of Annals of Internal Medicine. Nevertheless, experts said more research is needed to establish whether it really is the coffee or something else about coffee drinkers that protects them.So drink coffee, it's good for you! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 6:47 AM by Patrick Belton A warm welcome to all of our new readers! We hope you enjoy what you find here, and come back to join us often! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 6:27 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 5:24 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 5:10 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 4:32 AM by Patrick Belton Ninety percent of the most cheerful quarter of the nuns [as determined by psychologists coding diary-style essays the aforementioned nuns wrote in 1932] turned out to be alive at age 85 compared to only 34 percent of the least cheerful quarter.And if instead you want a different (and more Protestant) perspective, go to Kierkegaard: "Old age realizes the dreams of youth: look at Dean Swift; in his youth he built an asylum for the insane, in his old age he was himself an inmate." Either/Or, vol. 1, sct. 1 (1843, trans. 1987). (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 4:30 AM by Patrick Belton Tuesday, March 02, 2004
# Posted 3:21 PM by David Adesnik Recipe for civil war down the road, especially as crucial issues like the borders of the Kurdish region remain undefined. Unfortunately, we're seeing a confluence of interests between the Bush administration and various internal groups that would like to undermine either the integrity or the democratic character of a future Iraqi state. Both just need to keep a lid on the situation for a few months yet so America can claim victory and go home before the real fights begin.While it might be nice if the interim constitution represented a permanent consensus on religious tolerance and human rights, I don't see how Matt can expect a temporary document to accomplish the tasks of a democratically-elected constitutional convention. If the interim constitution sought to pre-empt those debates that will take place once the convention begins, it would be taking away the Iraqi people's right to control their own future. Matt also quotes Juan Cole to the effect that no one in Iraq will have any incentive to compromise once the convention begins. But the interim constitution wouldn't then become a default point of compromise since it is supposedly just the product of a Bremer-Chalabi collaboration. According to Matt, the time bomb within the time bomb is the preservation of the Kurdish militia known as the pesh merga. As &c. observes, So much for the state's monopoly of force. If a future Iraq can survive as a unitary state with separate, ethnically based militaries, it will truly be something new under the sun.But Matt seems to forget the Kurds are the faction most dependent on American protection and therefore most amenable to American influence. American diplomats have made it clear that Kurdish secession is intolerable. Kurdish leaders know that America won't protect them from predatory neighbors if they choose to go it alone. So while there are always reasons to say that the glass is half empty, this time it is at least half full. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 2:50 PM by David Adesnik Despite the complexities of the unfolding situation in Haiti, two things can be said with certainty: Haiti is better for the fact that Jean-Bertrand Aristide is now in exile. And the world is better for the fact that we put him in power ten years ago.I agree. (Link via Matt Yglesias) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 11:30 AM by David Adesnik
# Posted 6:32 AM by Patrick Belton The Globe points to the irony that the Bush administration, so vitally against nation building in candidature, is now engaged wholeheartedly in the creation of democratic structures of governance in failed states, and winning support for this policy with a skeptical electorate. This is not, incidentally, the first time a president came into office to adopt policies he had campaigned against in his predecessor - for only one example, as a candidate Clinton attacked the first President Bush mercilessly for his Realist, great-powers-comity stance toward China which left no room for human rights considerations; then, after a year, he adopted precisely the same policy under the guise of engagement. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 1:50 AM by Patrick Belton Along the way, he learned French, Latin, English, German, Spanish and Hebrew but is most eloquent in the native Creole that he used to exort Haitians to rise against the 29-year Duvalier family dictatorship.Go figure. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 1:14 AM by Patrick Belton In other news, our Southern California chapter is now open for business - and headed up by no less a statesman of the blogosphere than Robert Tagorda! Thanks, Robert! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion Monday, March 01, 2004
# Posted 11:48 PM by David Adesnik The side-by-side comparision of Blackboard and To Sir is also instructive because Poitier plays the rebellious student in the first film and the teacher in the second. Both performances are masterful. As student Gregory Miller, Poitier blends the sullen resentment and untapped potential of many an overlooked and underprivileged young man. Poitier is even more impressive as Mark Thackeray, the out-of-work engineer who makes the decision to teach in London's East End. Thackeray is a fascinating combination of social awkwardness, intellectual ambition, human warmth and latent rage. Each one of his interactions with his students brings out an unexpected combination of these traits. While Blackboard and To Sir were made only 12 years apart, they seem to be a full generation apart. The acting in Blackboard is of the stilted, artificial kind that seems so jarring to the modern viewer. (Poitier's performance is an exception and, as a result, seems far ahead of its time.) In To Sir, we come face to face with young men and women who would seem in place in any high-school classroom in America today, despite the fact that they are British and poor and living in 1967. The difference in acting styles also accentuates the difference of the messages conveyed by the respective films. The message in Blackboard is explicity political and often makes the film seem more like a modern parody of 1950s culture than an actual product of the time. The strangeness begins with the film's trailer, which preceded the main feature on my copy of the cassette. In the manner of Reefer Madness, it promises to convey a shocking truth that naive and patriotic Americans have for too long ignored. Given what inner-city schools are like today, one immediately begins to wonder whether any thing that happened in the 1950s could really have been all that bad. There are no guns in the film and drugs play a very minor role, so you figure that things can't really be all that bad. On the other hand, protagonist Glenn Ford (playing Rick Dadier) is beaten badly by his own students in a planned nighttime attack. The same students appear to be professional criminals who rob trucks after class. And at the climax of the film, one of them pulls a knife on Ford in class. Did things like that really happen in the 1950s? I don't know. While this sort of scaremongering about inner-city youth might come off as racist today, its purpose in the film is to advance a liberal agenda. After all, the moral of the story is that if a teacher never gives up on underprivileged kids, they will shine through in the end. Thus, Blackboard manages in the space of a couple of hours to be both disturbingly alarmist and naively optimistic. In contrast, To Sir has much less of a social agenda. While it does suggest that committed teachers can resolve a systemic crisis in education, the students come away mainly with a more mature approach to the constant challenges of life in the British working class. Moreover, they begin the film far more time than their Blackboard counterparts, who are miraculously transformed into patriotic Americans. If I were to advance one main criticism of both films, it is that the moments of epiphany at which the students suddenly abandon the Dark Side of the Force seems improbable. To be fair, real-life student-teacher relations develop subtly over the course of months. To portray them in a matter of hours is all but impossible. Still, it seems like both sets of students are following a script when they undergo their conversions. It's never clear why they reject their goodhearted teachers at first but then come around when the time is right. In the final analysis, To Sir, With Love is the superior film, one whose artistic merit should be evident to audiences today. However, Blackboard Jungle is still plenty worth watching, both for its historical value as well as the chance to observe a magnificent actor about to become a major star. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 11:07 PM by David Adesnik
# Posted 11:01 PM by David Adesnik
# Posted 6:00 PM by David Adesnik
# Posted 5:41 PM by David Adesnik I think it's worth taking a look at the NYT article in detail, since it contains so many surprises that run against the grain of conventional wisdom. Correspondent Neela Banerjee reports that With additional production increases expected, oil exports this year could add $14 billion to Iraq's threadbare budget, compared with a little more than $5 billion last year, said a senior official with the Coalition Provisional Authority, the occupation government.I don't know that the total Iraqi budget is, but I have to imagine that $9 billion will make a big difference in the books. This suggests, moreover, that American support may be fall back to more moderate levels and/or focus on institution-building rather than basic services such as santiation. Next up, consider this: The revival of the oil sector is a result of the $1 billion in repairs undertaken by the Americans and Iraqis as well as some dogged ingenuity by the Iraqis in keeping their badly damaged industry running.Usually, we hear that the American reconstruction effort is overwhelmed by chaos and getting little back in the way of results. On a related note, The top American civil administrator of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, appeared on Iraqi television on Friday to announce that electricity generation, a major source of discontent for this country of 25 million, had been restored to prewar levels and was expected to rise rapidly as summer approaches.Assuming that Bremer knows what he's talking about, that's pretty impressive, especially the part about a rapid rise this summer. Of course, even silver linings have clouds: In the north, [oil] exports have been stymied by attacks on the pipeline leading to an export terminal in Turkey. But the Northern Oil Company recently tested the pipeline and shipped a few million barrels of oil to Turkey.Perhaps the reduction isn't all that surprising given that The American military commander, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, said last week that attacks on coalition soldiers had been cut by half in the last three months, even as attacks on Iraqis had increased.Accordingly, the Coalition's casualty and fatality figures fell in February to a level considerably below even that of last summer. (NB: It's not just because February is a short month. The per-day figures fell dramatically as well.) Finally, if you look at the print version of this morning's NYT, you find an interesting sentence that has disappeared from the online version of its article: American efforts to restore Iraqi oil have been led by the Army Corps of Engineers and its principal contractor, Halliburton.Halli-who? You mean those guys who overcharged the government for gas? Are we really supposed to believe that they do anything right or good? Well, if the NYT says so, who am I to disagree? Anyhow, the good news isn't limited to the oil sector. The front page story about Iraq actually concerns its new interim constitution, which, if approved, Would be the most progressive such document in the Arab world. Even before the hard bargaining began, there was wide agreement on many of its major features, including the freedom of speech, press and assembly and the free exercise of religion.As if that weren't enough, Sunni clerics are now calling on anti-American forces to put an end to their attacks against both Iraqi civilians and security officers. The clerics' fatwa begins as follows: The document issued in Ramadi declares that killing fellow Iraqis not only runs counter to the idea of holy war, but also constitutes what is known in the Muslim world as haram, the unpardonable act of killing another Muslim.
# Posted 2:10 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 1:38 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 8:27 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 5:22 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 3:25 AM by Patrick Belton Languages die the way many people do -- at home, in silence, attended by loved ones straining to make idle conversation.Even accounting for Hitt's occasional adolescent slips ("Does anything say Western dominance quite like the flush of a private john?"), the magazine should be congratulated for the highly unusual and innovative step of bringing good writing to the profit-making press. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion Sunday, February 29, 2004
# Posted 9:39 PM by David Adesnik
# Posted 9:23 PM by David Adesnik The future of Iran is in the hands of its own people. Our role is to encourage them by making it clear time and again that their ideals are ours as well. Encouragement is no guarantee of success, but we did learn after 1989 just how valuable moral support is for those who struggle against totalitarianism. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 8:39 PM by David Adesnik Finally, DK writes in with a response to my statement that "Having lived through September 11th, we have no need to watch the planes crash again and again. But are there Christians who might be inspired by this sort of film, which goes beyond the violence of gospel?" According to DK, Yes, absolutely there are, and there has been a long tradition of this sort of thing throughout history:If you're still looking for more insightful comments about The Passion, Judith Weiss has a very comprehensive set of links up over at Kesher Talk. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 8:17 PM by David Adesnik Campaign Desk goes through all of this in order to demonstrate that a number of major media outlets have misrepresented Kerry's views on gay marriage. As far as I can tell, they have, albeit slightly. Even so, you have to have a lot of faith in Kerry in order to believe that his rhetorical acrobatics represent a sincere effort to explain his views rather than a calculated effort to explain them away. And even if the Senator's views are consistent, his decision to dodge Brownstein's final question is a pretty clear indication of the fact that Kerry does not want to let anyone know what his real views on gay marriage are. But that's only the beginning. It also turns out that Kerry would support amendents to state consitutions that outlaw gay marriage provided that such amendents protect civil unions and the like. However, Kerry is against an amendent to the federal constitution which would do the same. These positions are consistent now that Kerry has revised his view of the constitutionality of DOMA. But what did he revise his view of DOMA? Has he changed his interpretation of the 14th Amendment, or did he misunderstand certain parts of DOMA? Perhaps the more important question is whether it hurts Kerry more to reinforce his reputation for straddling the fence, or whether he should pay that price to avoid seeming too liberal (or too conservative?) on gay marriage. On the one hand, I sympathize with Kerry for having to make such a hard decision. On the other, I expect real answers from a candidate for President. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 10:56 AM by Patrick Belton By shrewdly laying his Iraq quarrels with Chancellor Schröeder aside, President Bush has secured Germany's support for the intiative. In the opposing camp is Egypt's Mubarak, who has already been travelling the region to ask its autocratic rulers (beginning in Riyadh) for their opposition. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 9:14 AM by Patrick Belton (Greatest hits: "The narrative necessarily implicates Jews and Romans, since there weren't many Norwegians around at the time." "In the back of the theater, two cops are present, perhaps to make sure the Jews and Christians don't turn into the Jets and Sharks, what with all the talk of anti-Semitic overtones, or perhaps just to guard against the phone bully. "Don't worry," offers Norm, in the event of a Jewish uprising. "You're with me. You'll be okay.") (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 7:52 AM by Patrick Belton The Bush administration said it welcomed Aristide's departure and said it was in the best interests of Haiti. A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Aristide left at about 6:45 a.m. EST, accompanied by members of his security detail.See also this piece from earlier this morning, on the administration's decision yesterday to increase its pressure on Aristide to leave, to leave open chances for a peaceful resolution in his absence: Earlier in the day, senior administration officials said the United States did not want to seem to be pushing an elected leader out of office. But after a meeting of Mr. Bush's national security advisers on Saturday morning — run by teleconference from Camp David by Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser — the president concluded that Washington's strong hints to Mr. Aristide that he needed to resign must be stepped up to a strong shove.Rebel leader Guy Philippe, who had earlier boasted that he would be in Port-au-Prince today to mark his 36th birthday, had reportedly slowed his advance into the capital city in response to a request from Washington. So who's left to pick up the pieces of power in Port-au-Prince? The Democratic Platform opposition coalition had been led by senior socialist member Micha Gaillard, Christian Democrat Marie-Denise Claude, and Paul Denis of the left-wing Organisation for the People's Struggle. Other key figures in the political opposition include Lionel Etienne, head of the Franco-Haitian Chamber of Commerce; and industrialist Edouard Peaultre. (See AFP). The Platform Democratique, in turn, includes the Convergence Democratique (a wide-ranging collection of political and civil society groups) and the Group of 184 (which represents Haiti’s business community; website). It's not yet clear whether a restoration in order in Haiti will now follow along the lines of the French peace plan, in which a multinational police force would deploy to Haiti along with relief aid, human rights observers, and a U.N. representative; a government of national unity would be formed among political parties; and new presidential elections would take place before the summer. (The alternative, CARICOM, plan had called for Aristide to remain in power heading a government of national unity.) And the State Department has already indicated that a multinational force will be sent to the Haiti soon. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 6:52 AM by Patrick Belton Aiming to get more low-income students to enroll, Harvard will stop asking parents who earn less than $40,000 to make any contribution toward the cost of their children's education. Harvard will also reduce the amount it seeks from parents with incomes between $40,000 and $60,000.(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 1:45 AM by David Adesnik The Administration's policy toward's Haiti is anything but coherent. Running the gamut from ignoring the coming crisis then rushing to negotiate a half baked "peace plan." Haiti under Aristide may be a lot things but a dictatorship is a bit much. Aristide has been a failure as a leader and needs to go but I remember Haiti under Duvalier and you can't begin to compare the two.(0) opinions -- Add your opinion Saturday, February 28, 2004
# Posted 10:29 PM by David Adesnik
# Posted 10:13 PM by David Adesnik His message to the rebels, Mr. Kerry said, would be: "You're not going to take over. You're not kicking [Aristide] out. This democracy is going to be sustained."According to Freedom House, Haiti has become a dictatorship in all but name, as power has been monopolized by President Aristide and his Lavalas Family (FL) party.Makes you wonder what kind of democracy Sen. Kerry would like to promote in Iraq. And if Bush called Haiti a democracy, you could bet that the next line in the NYT article would've read "According to Freedom House, Haiti is a violent dictatorship." (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 9:39 PM by David Adesnik Bush is now stating pretty clearly that Aristide must go. Obviously, doing so raises the possibility that the rebels may take over. Yet having Aristide go now may result in there be a lot less violence than if the rebels had to invade Port Au Prince and haul him out. Morevoer, if Aristide resigns in response to American pressure, the rebels will be robbed of the legitimacy that comes from ousting a dictator (cf. "Sandinistas"). I don't how much chance there is that the democratic opposition to Arisitide can become an interim government in the event of the President's resignation. But if the US, UN and France all support a clear pro-democracy line, the worst may not come to pass. Oh, and by the way, notice how neither the NYT nor the WaPo said anything bad about the rebels until the last couple of days. But that's the kind of oversight you should expect when big-name correspondents fly around the world from trouble spot to trouble spot rather than really learning about any of the nations they cover. For example, last week the WaPo identifed Louis-Jodel Chamblain as a "former army officer". The NYT described M. Chamblain as "leader of the rebel troops" and quoted him as saying that "Cap Haitien is a symbol of Haiti's freedom. This fight is to liberate the Haitian people under the regime of Jean-Bertrand Aristide."Today, the NYT describes Chamblain and Jean-Pierre Baptiste as Two leaders of Fraph, the Haitian Front for Advancement and Progress. Fraph was an instrument of terror wielded by the military junta that overthrew Haiti's embattled president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, in 1991. It killed thousands over the next three years.You know, you'd think that American journalists would be more skeptical when someone claims to be waging a war of liberation. After all, a few months ago, someone or other at the Pentagon said something about liberating some country in the Middle East and caught hell for it from the media. But some two-bit gang leader gets press coverage that makes him look like George Washington. Go figure. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 9:20 PM by David Adesnik While the NYT cover story contains a lot of interesting information, its criticism of the UN's role in the affair is too light to even be described as a slap on the wrist. While Rossett's op-ed makes clear that widescale corruption was only possible because of ridiculously lax UN oversight, all the NYT gives us is a pathetic denial from the UN official in charge: The director of the Office of Iraq Programs, Benon V. Sevan, declined to be interviewed about the oil-for-food program. In written responses to questions sent by e-mail, his office said he learned of the 10 percent kickback scheme from the occupation authority only after the end of major combat operations.Yeah, right. Just this week, Rosett published another column which provides considerable evidence that either that the UN is hiding a lot of information from the public or that its accountants don't understand basic arithmetic. On a related note, one also has to ask to what degree the French and Russians were involved in Saddam's massive kickback scheme. To its credit, the NYT raises the issue briefly at the end of its lengthy report. Hopefully, it will follow up on the issue, because even the little bit it has found is quite incriminating. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion Friday, February 27, 2004
# Posted 6:12 AM by Patrick Belton UPDATE: Matt Yglesias doesn't buy that Kyrgyzstan is trending toward democratization (and correctly points out that a good deal of quite execrable oppression is taking place in that country), while Brian Ulrich argues in Matt's comments that the Kyrgyz Republic is at any rate the most free of any Central Asian nation, and whether it is trending toward more or less democracy is open to dispute. Incidentally, Freedom House has two reports on Kyrgyzstan, here and here: their consensus is that corruption is rife, and initial hopes for a thriving Kryyz democracy have been dashed by growing presidential authoritarianism. I'm not convinced yet, though, by Matt's criticism that the State Department country reports alter their analyses or pull their punches to cohere with broader government foreign policy goals. In fact, it's my fairly strong impression that the bureaucratic processes leading to the production of the human rights reports are staffed by people drawn in from the human rights community (like human rights lawyer Harold Koh from YLS, or civil rights lawyer John Shattuck), who remain in very close contact with the principal human rights organizations from whom they draw most of their reporting. The human rights groups, in turn, are generally laudatory of the human rights reports, while using them as an opportunity to criticise broader US policy - see Tom Malinowski from 2002 here, or Amnesty from this year here. This seems to me like a far more benevolent form of the common political phenomenon of bureaucratic capture - where a government agency is staffed principally by members of an industry, who continue to represent its aims and view of the world while working in the executive. And this seems to me, first of all, a good thing where the industry in question is the human rights community, and second of all, to be precisely in line with the legislative intent of Congress when late in the Nixon administration it created the Coordinator for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs in Section 301 of the International Security and Arms Export Control Act of 1976. The idea then was to create an entrenched bureaucratic interest which, even in the cynical course of promoting its own bureaucratic stature within the State Department, would also tend over time to promote the cause of human rights within US foreign policy. That said, I'm personally very fascinated by the Bureau, and would be very interested to hear whether any of our friends have more to say on the point. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 4:31 AM by Patrick Belton New York was the home base of choice for the super-rich, with 31 of them living there. Moscow came in second with 23, followed by Hong Kong with 16 and Paris with 10.Almost as many billionaires live in Moscow as in New York! That there would be comparable numbers of billionaires living in the financial capital of a nation with a PPP GDP of $1.409 trillion and that of one of $10.45 trillion is a stunning indication of the oligarchic character of a country where like medieval Western Europe there are only two true powers, declining oligarchs and a rising dirigiste state. The professional and commercial middle classes, so important for democratization, are in mother Russia dearly missed. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion Thursday, February 26, 2004
# Posted 11:16 PM by David Adesnik
# Posted 11:06 PM by David Adesnik "Whoever imagines that it is possible to impose solutions or reform from abroad on any society or region is delusional," Mr. Mubarak said on Wednesday. "All peoples by their nature reject whoever tries to impose ideas on them."Wouldn't it be funny if Colin Powell responded by saying "Whoever imagines that it is possible to impose dictatorship or tyranny from within on any society or region is delusional. All peoples by their nature reject whoever tries to speak on their behalf while robbing them of their freedom." The history of the Middle East is on Mubarak's side on this one, but the idea of freedom has a habit of ignoring history. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 10:54 PM by David Adesnik
# Posted 10:36 PM by David Adesnik The movie was to me deeply disturbing. In a word, it is pornography. By pornography, I mean the reduction of all human thought and feeling and personhood to mere flesh. The center-piece of the movie is an absolutely disgusting and despicable piece of sadism that has no real basis in any of the Gospels. It shows a man being flayed alive - slowly, methodically and with increasing savagery. We first of all witness the use of sticks, then whips, then multiple whips with barbed glass or metal. We see flesh being torn out of a man's body. Just so that we can appreciate the pain, we see the whip first tear chunks out of a wooden table. Then we see pieces of human skin flying through the air. We see Jesus come back for more. We see blood spattering on the torturers' faces. We see muscled thugs exhausted from shredding every inch of this man's body. And then they turn him over and do it all again. It goes on for ever. And then we see his mother wiping up masses and masses of blood. It is an absolutely unforgivable, vile, disgusting scene.The same metaphor of pornography appears in this eloquent letter-to-the-editor from the NYT, which happens to be written by my very thoughtful uncle: As a psychiatrist, I wish to state my profound concern about the mental anguish and suffering that Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ" is likely to cause not only to the young and impressionable but to anyone seeing it ("Tears and Gasps for "Passion,' " news article, Feb. 24).The comparison of the Passion to September 11th raises an interesting point. To what degree is an immediate inundation of the senses necessary to overcome the detachment that develops in time? Having lived through September 11th, we have no need to watch the planes crash again and again. But are there Christians who might be inspired by this sort of film, which goes beyond the violence of gospel? Or does a reliance on such fare suggest a spiritual failure on the part of the Church to inspire its members with the ideas that Christ stood for? Of course, I have no answers. But I most certainly agree with the sentiments of one of the NYT's letter writers (not a relative of mine) who writes that "There is only one thing to be said about Mel Gibson's version of "The Passion of the Christ": Forget the movie, read the book. It's good." Agreed. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 5:10 PM by Patrick Belton It is very pleasant to be back in Egypt again in spring, without having had to do any of that tiresome business of surviving the summer. Even the traffic fumes seem to be less overpowering than usual - reputedly one is a ten-cigarettes-a-day smoker here just by virtue of stepping outside the front door, which seems rather unfair to me. Anyway, I clean out my lungs three times a week by breathing in lots of steam in the sauna at the hotel gym, which is sheer heaven. I salve my conscience by not allowing myself to go there before making use of the exercise equipment, but even this has its compensations, since it is all positioned facing huge windows with a sunset view of the Nile - or, for those with slightly less elevated souls, large televisions showing CNN. The gym, I must confess, is a ridiculous extravagance, even in European terms, but it is also ridiculously luxurious. Attendants scurry to provide one with fresh towels at every opportunity - while working out, after working out, for the pool, the jacuzzi, the sauna, the (blissfully high-pressure) shower. They just have an awfully large laundry. Actually, if my landlady ever does throw me out, I think I might go and live at the gym. It is open 24 hours and provides every amenity (including toothbrushes, for no adequately explained reason) except food, which I am certain could be obtained by persuading Room Service to go a little out of their way...(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 11:21 AM by Patrick Belton Our foreign policy society has other active chapters in New York, Boston, Chicago, L.A., San Francisco, and Oxford - please do just drop us a note if you'd like us to keep you in the loop about our events and other activities! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 10:46 AM by David Adesnik
# Posted 10:23 AM by David Adesnik Stern should've immediately denounced his caller for using the word "nigger". And Stern's remarks about the monkey were definitely racist, but I don't think that taking him off the air is the way to go. If Howard Stern were a member of Congress, I'd want to get rid of him ASAP. But he's a talk show host, so his opponents should take him on in public. If he says something racist, then anti-defamation groups should denounce him. And you know what? I bet that Stern would admit he was wrong. Because he is a pervert, not a racist. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 5:21 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 5:21 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 5:21 AM by Patrick Belton Wednesday, February 25, 2004
# Posted 11:26 PM by David Adesnik There is some evidence that this quiet diplomacy approach is often preferable to public confrontation. For example, the Soviet Union reduced the number of Jews it allowed to emigrate once American activists began to draw attention to the issue. Previously, it had complied with American diplomats' request to let more Jews go. On the other hand, there are plenty of instances in which quiet diplomacy amounted to no diplomacy. When the US government wanted to deflect criticism from anti-Communist allies, it simply said that it was going to engage in quiet diplomacy. After all, who could say that it wasn't? I'm bringing this up because the issue of human rights came to mind with regard to Uzbekistan. As things now stand, the US is clearly in bed with the repressive Uzbek dictator Islam Karimov, who -- in spite of his name -- has a habit of doing very nasty things to those who advocate the establishment of an Islamic state. In honor of Donald Rumsfeld's recent visit, Karimov let a prominent dissident out of jail. While that is good, the US should not make the mistake of confusing symbolism with substance. Now, Rumsfeld is probably right that cooperating with Uzbekistan is necessary at this stage in the war on terror. But that doesn't mean effective pressure can't be exerted behind the scenes. The Soviet Union could resist pressure from human rights advocates because it was a superpower. But Uzbekistan is an American client. The situation here reminds me of the one in El Salvador in the 1980s. In that instance, the Salvadoran military had no problem figuring out that anything Reagan said about the importance of human rights was just for show, since he never sent a message to San Salvador saying he would actually cut off US aid if the human rights situation didn't improve. Then, in 1983, in response to tremendous domestic pressure, the administration sent Vice-President Bush to El Salvador to make specific demands and lay out deadlines for compliance. His visit saved hundreds of lives. It also showed that quiet diplomacy can work, but only if the administration has a sincere interest in making it work. Suffice it to say, that isn't the impression Donald Rumsfeld gives off when he's in Uzbekistan. For more on the Uzbek situation, read Brian Ulrich. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 10:58 PM by David Adesnik Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, frequently calls companies and chief executives "Benedict Arnolds" if they move jobs and operations overseas to avoid paying U.S. taxes.As if that wasn't bad enough, here's Kerry's lame excuse for his hypocrisy: On Monday, Kerry was asked why two of his biggest fundraisers were involved with "Benedict Arnold" companies. "If they have done that, it's not to my knowledge and I would oppose it," Kerry told a New York television station. "I think it's wrong to do [it] solely to avoid taxes."Of course the real victim here is Benedict Arnold. It just isn't fair to associate his name with outsourcing, since he was a living example of how enterprising Americans could persuade foreign investors to create jobs on American soil. Did the British hire some cut-rate Indian espionage firm to spy on the Continental Army? Hell no! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 3:30 PM by David Adesnik The author of the article is a member of the Yale Political Union's Liberal Party, of which Kerry was chair during his time as an undergraduate. As a former officer of the Liberal Party myself, I can vouch for the fact that no one there has any fond memories of Kerry. But does Kerry's record of incompetence as an undergraduate really have anything to say about his ability to serve as chief executive of the United States of America? According to the op-ed's author, Personally, I would not let Kerry circa 1966 run a public toilet, let alone a country. Hopefully, today's Kerry is a different man. Perhaps his service in Vietnam changed him for the better. Perhaps time has changed him. But maybe he has not changed. Recently Kerry mentioned that George Bush remains the same guy he was in college. If Bush didn't change, why would Kerry?I think the real message here is that members of the YPU still take the institution way too seriously. While the author begins his article with a self-effacing admission that "The political union is by no means a 'cool' organization," he proceeds to judge the character of a veteran Senator according to his behavior as a 21-year old. To be fair, my own criticism is an example of the pot calling the kettle black. I took the YPU way too seriously during my two semesters as an elected official. But one thing that has become very clear since then is how much almost everyone I knew in the YPU has grown and changed in the years since I first met them. As a freshman first getting involved in the YPU, I remember how much I valued the sense of belonging and identity that came with membership in one of the parties. Sometimes, I did some pretty stupid things because I thought they would make other people in the YPU like me. Now, it seems like John Kerry did plenty of dumb things as well, except without much of a payoff in terms of social acceptance. Personally, I chalk it up to him being an awkward kid like the rest of off, not some profound character flaw that will make him anything less of a President. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 1:35 PM by Patrick Belton According to a study by Ms Kryshtanovskaya, the proportion of siloviki in the uppermost echelons of Kremlin power has increased from 4.8 per cent under Mr Gorbachev to 58.3 per cent under Mr Putin. More than half of Mr Putin's 24-member informal "politburo" are siloviki. In the Kremlin one in three officials has a military or security services background, says Ms Kryshtanovskaya.On the one hand, under the Soviet tyranny, the KGB was one of the Soviet Union's few meritocratic and functioning institutions, and its people represented many of the nation's best and brightest. On the other hand, their statist ideology leaves pauce room for democratic niceties, and to the extent they wield power, they may provide Russia with order, but little justice. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 12:53 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 12:34 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 12:25 PM by Patrick Belton On March 8, 1963, the Council of the Revolutionary Leadership declared a state of emergency in Syria. Although 41 years have passed since then, the state is still bowed under the yoke of the emergency laws, whose effect encompasses all areas of the life of society and citizens in Syria. As a result, society is under siege, its movement is halted, its potential is damaged, and thousands of citizens are thrown into prison because of their opinions, political views, or charges that do not constitute a criminal offense. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 12:09 PM by Patrick Belton On a completely different note, I've returned from an absolutely lovely few days in Paris, and am looking forward a great deal to writing about my time once I've adjusted a bit more to being in my college's computer cluster rather than walking along St-Germain-des-Prés and the left bank of the Seine! (And incidentally - what's with this - just as soon as I go on vacation for a few days, we get 7,000 readers on a Sunday? It's okay, I won't take it personally.....) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 11:47 AM by David Adesnik Tuesday, February 24, 2004
# Posted 10:44 AM by David Adesnik "France is the country of freedom which defends freedom to show the body and to be immoral and depraved. In France you're free to show yourself but not to dress modestly," [al-Zawahri] said in reference to the headscarf ban newly approved by parliament.Now, OxBlog never thought that the headscarf ban was a good idea. But it's not as if Mr. Chafetz and Mr. Belton are about to strap dynamite to themselves and get on the next train for Paris. So, thank you, Mr. al-Zawahri, for reminding us -- not to mention our friends in Europe -- which side we're all on. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 1:16 AM by David Adesnik The NYT also has a quote from Prevalis, who was arrested by the insurgents because of his suspicions he supported the governments. He says that he is just a bricklayer. I guess I noticed the twin photos of Prevalis because of this post from Glenn, which catches the NYT quoting the same man-in-the-street Bush critic in separate articles published weeks apart. As Glenn says, journalists know exactly where to go to get the soundbites they're looking for. But with Lexis-Nexis, such backhanded practices are becoming more and more transparent. So what is it about Prevalis that got the attention of so many photographers? That his face was bloody? I guess that's news. But somehow you have to wonder if the audience back at home is getting the whole story if we have multiple correspondents chasing the same victim. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 12:57 AM by David Adesnik Which is exactly why it is so delightful to see David Brooks rip into Huntington's latest book on all of our behalves. As Brooks aptly says, this is another book about the Clash of Civilizations, except this time the clash is on the homefront. And the enemy is from Mexico. Huntington's basic idea is that Mexican-Americans don't believe in the American dream. The more of the them there are, the closer they come to destroying the identity that made America great. Now, I admit that I don't know the first thing about demographics or immigration. If Huntington has the evidence, he may be right. But it just sounds so cliche. In the early days of the Republic, they said the Germans couldn't be real Americans. Then they said the Irish couldn't be real Americans. Then the Italians. Then the Jews. Then the Chinese. Then the Koreans. And then the Pakistanis. But all of them seem to have adapted just fine and made America that much stronger. (OK, so I admit I'm not objective when it comes to evaluating the Jews.) Anyhow, it will be interesting to see how all this plays out at Harvard. Will people challenge Huntington in the hallways? Will they remain silent out of deference? Or will they have the same reaction because of pity? I'll let you know. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion Monday, February 23, 2004
# Posted 1:13 AM by David Adesnik Dear Family,.UPDATE: OK, so I wasn't the first one to have the fake-letter idea... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
|