Monday, May 03, 2004
# Posted 11:56 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
My first thought was: Which Bush administration offficial decided to mint a coin honoring successful American negotiations with France? Was this the brainchild of ironic liberal bureaucrats at the Treasury Department? Or had the neo-conservative cabal decided to mock the French for getting suckered in one of the worst real estate deals in recorded history?
As far as I can tell, the answer is 'neither'. Amazingly, the US Mint has designed a memorial to the Louisiana Purchase that doesn't even suggest that the French had anything to do with it. Instead, the back side of the nickel depicts an American soldier shaking hands with a Native American. Above the clasped hands are a peace pipe and a tomahawk.
Talk about no sense of irony. What do you suppose that the American soldier is telling his Native counterpart? "I just bought your home from the French"? As it turns out, the clasped hands & peace pipe design was first used on medals that the Jefferson administration minted in preparation for the Lewis & Clark expedition. The explorers then gave the medals to native chiefs and other dignitaries as signs of friendship.
The reverse of the friendship medals, much like today's nickels, had a portrait of Thomas Jefferson. What an egomaniac. Imagine if George Bush put his own portrait on the Iraqi dinar. Well, at least Bush is trying to promote democracy in Iraq. Jefferson and his successors were more interested in a permanent occupation. (I guess if the NYT were in business back then, it would insist that the United States had gotten itself into a quagmire in Nebraska.)
Anyhow, while we're on the subject of coins, I'd just like to state for the record that all the new state quarters are boring and dumb. Do I really need a picture of a race car on my Indiana quarter? No offense meant to any Hoosiers or racing fans (both of whom I like), but shouldn't our money be a little more dignified? What's next? A shirtless David Hasselhoff on the California quarter?
Also, I don't want there to be fifty different coins. Yes, I know the government makes a lot of money by creating instant collectibles. Even the new Jefferson nickels are expected to result in a $100 million profit. And it is good to see the government coming up with innovative market-based revenue plans. Maybe I could've accepted 13 quarters, one for each of the original states. But fifty is just ridiculous.
Oh, and while I'm ranting, I think that the next three Americans to get their own coins should be Harry Truman, Martin Luther King Jr. and Eleanor Roosevelt. They bumped Franklin off of the half dollar and replaced him with Kennedy in 1964. OK, so maybe they should've issued JFK coins for a couple of years as a tribute. But isn't Franklin just a little more important? And what exactly are we honoring Kennedy for? He got us into a quagmire!
MLK Jr. got shot four years after JFK and what did he get? Nothing. Why? Because that's the way The Man wanted it. It's not like I'm saying we should put Malcolm X on the dime. But what if we take JFK off the half dollar and give it to Martin? Or what about the golden dollar? It's not like too many people really care about Sacagawea.
Now, Harry Truman, what he really deserves is to be on the Russian ruble. Every time a Russian spends money in a free market, he or she has Harry Truman to thank. (We've heard rumors of the Reagan dime, but he isn't dead yet. And he didn't win the Cold War!) Of course, since Truman won't be getting his due from the Russians, I figure we should thank him for all that he did.
Finally, Eleanor Roosevelt. She was so multilateralist she helped found the United Nations. She also played a big role in coming up with its Declaration of Human Rights. And she's a woman. And she was gay. Now that's what I call killing two birds with one stone.
Finally thoughts? Yes. Put Jimmy Carter on a coin whose value is indexed to the rate of inflation. And is only legal tender in Europe. (1) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 7:23 PM by Patrick Belton
Q: What is the formula for converting pressure in millibars of pressure to inches of mercury?Or, for those of you who got lost somewhere in that mess of USA Today-speak, you could alternatively just use (milibars) * 0.02953 = (inches of mercury). (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 7:19 PM by Patrick Belton
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 5:21 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 8:03 AM by Patrick Belton
A new multipurpose recreation facility has opened in the Al Dura neighborhood, benefiting thousands of residents in Baghdad's Al Rashid district.(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 5:20 AM by Patrick Belton
Roughly eight years ago, a Yale professor with a strongly Southern accent was giving the final lecture of his class on Faulkner, and advised his students that in studying for the final exam, they should focus particular attention upon "
At precisely which point they received their blue books, and eight tightly spaced pages of questions about As I Lay Dying. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 5:08 AM by Patrick Belton
(Incidentally, Josh, David, and I applied to join the Oxfordshire Optimists Club, but personally I don't think they'll let us in.) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 1:23 AM by Dan
The event began with a reception for AIPAC Club Members, which I believe refers to those who give AIPAC many thousands of dollars (not tax deductible, mind you). We did not give many thousands of dollars, but made our way in. They had a great spread with delicious sushi (kosher, of course). We proceeded upstairs to the main event, where elected officials from New England competed in a game of "Who Could Possibly Be More Pro Israel Than Me?." After some introductory remarks, they played a video championing AIPAC's importance, including television news clips where news anchors referred to AIPAC's power. The video also showed Clinton Bush, Daschle, Sharon, Barak, Peres, and Rabin at AIPAC events where they too talked about AIPAC's importance.
Only nerds who studied AIPAC and America's relationship with Israel would have noted the irony of AIPAC including a clip of Rabin's praise for it. In late 1992, after one of AIPAC's VPs had said Rabin had "chutzpuh" for proposing territorial concessions, he reportedly scolded the organization's heads in a closed meeting, saying "You have failed at everything. You waged lost battles. You caused damage to Israel. You created too much antagonism." The Israel Policy Forum was created in 1993, a primary purpose of which was to create American support for Rabin's efforts (AIPAC was seen as dragging its feet in this regard). Rabin's confrontation with AIPAC makes sense: it is much easier to defend an embattled Israel, and when it seemed like Israel was no longer embattled and did not need to be defended from its enemies (or certainly less so), then AIPAC has lost its cause. It just seemed a bit awkward for them to include a clip of his praise for the organization. Or maybe I'm just a nerd. People nearly hissed when they showed clips of Arafat screaming in Arabic and grisly suicide bombing scenes. Those who had to tone down their anti-Arafat rhetoric during the early Oslo years must have wanted to say "I told you so" a few times to a few people.
Susan Collins (R-ME) gave a nice keynote address in which she addressed Israel's challenges as well as those faced by Jews worldwide. She finished strong with a quote from Amos Oz about how Jews in Europe used to be told to go to Palestine, and now they are told to leave Palestine...." She finished with the words "never again" and the crowd gave her a standing ovation.
The experience confirmed my feelings about how AIPAC's opponents and the organization itself often employ identical rhetoric: they say that AIPAC is all powerful. Its critics can do this as a way to ignore the considerable non-Jewish support that exists for Israel absent any lobby group, and AIPAC can use it as a fundraising tool--"you can support the most powerful organization affecting America's relationship with Israel!" It was nice to see so many supporters of Israel in one place, but there were several reminders that we are a long way away from Arab-Israeli peace. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
Sunday, May 02, 2004
# Posted 2:47 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 5:40 AM by Patrick Belton
UPDATE: And here is the announcement - an American hostage, Thomas Hamill, has escaped from his captors. He returned to the CPA, and indicated that he was healthy and eager to get back to work.
In other recent news, the tabloid photographs of British soldiers abusing an Iraqi prisoner appear to have been fabricated, according to recent reports. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
Saturday, May 01, 2004
# Posted 6:50 PM by Patrick Belton
Friday, April 30, 2004
# Posted 11:31 PM by Patrick Belton
With that said, Rachel and I are off now to Magdalen to hear the May Morning Hymn Hymnus Eucharisticus sung, per tradition, dreadfully early on May morning annually as a requiem for the soul of Henry VII. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 11:19 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 10:50 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
So here's the story: Our guest tonight was a very high-ranking official at the United Nations. Our discussion focused primarily on Iraq. It was a fascinating discussion upon which I will elaborate in a later post. An important concern raised in the discussion was the absence of an Arab model for Iraqi democrats to emulate. On that point, a question was asked by a certain graduate fellow in international relations known for her uncritical embrace of Palestinian 'activists'. If she were just one of the Trotskyites or Lyndon LaRouche supporters hawking flyers in Harvard Square, I would ignore her. But her intention is to become a professor. Therefore, she will be in a position to access hundreds of students who may not have access to another credible source of information. That is sad.
Now here is what my colleague asked: Given that the United States continues to have strong alliances with Arab dictatorships and continues to endorse the Israeli occupation of Palestine, might it be said that the United States has prevented the emergence of an Arab model of democracy for Iraq to emulate? All right. That is a standard argument found in the pages of The Nation. In fact, the President himself has said that the United States must no longer embrace Arab dictatorships.
But here's what really left my jaw hanging open. Before turning the floor back over to our guest, my colleague added that the first Intifada was a landmark example of democratic participation in Arab politics that the United States and Israel crushed without a second thought. Oh my God. The first Intifada happens to be one of the subjects of my colleague's doctoral dissertation. She will be arguing in journals and lecture halls that this was the lost model of Arab democracy.
My only consolation is that sometimes, people like this get their comeuppance. A number of months ago, this same colleague of mine delivered a paper on the subject of non-violent resistance. Her case study was the first Intifada. In the audience there happened to be a former Israeli soldier who is also a current graduate fellow at Harvard. He said to her: I served in the occupied territories during the first Intifada. Was it a non-violent rock that Palestinian rioters used to crush the face of one of my close friends? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 10:19 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 1:30 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 11:58 AM by Patrick Belton
(And Rachel has asked me to point out that Dan's blog is required reading for Truman National Security Project members, too.) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 10:58 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 5:57 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 5:13 AM by Patrick Belton
Then, the worrying: while his trade rhetoric is nowhere near the protectionist nonsense touted by, for instance, the otherwise attractive Senator Edwards, in his desire to win over the battleground rust-belt states of the mid-west, Senator Kerry's trade policy is oriented around getting tough on China and Japan for manipulating their currency, and going after other countries engaging in unfair trade practices with the "Super 301" process. While this, erm, unilateralism isn't Ross Perot, neither is it the Clinton administration's leadership of new free trade rounds, either.
Finally, the inevitable: Candidate Kerry is not above subordinating the sensible, centrist economic instincts displayed by his Senate-floor counterpart to the dictates of appealing to an electorate. For instance, he has now distanced himself from his earlier bold proposals to restructure Social Security, claiming now that Social Security can survive as is without structural adjustment, raised reitrement age or premuims, or lowered benefits. Which, of course, is pure poppycock, but perhaps inevitable. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 4:44 AM by Patrick Belton
(As a further note, when Rachel and I were invited over to meet the family in August, he was, incidentally, by far the most friendly to us - which perhaps explains my source of personal bias. Admirable humility from someone whom the Pacific islanders on Tannu worship as a god.) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 4:30 AM by Patrick Belton
Dr Andrew Rathmell, Director of Planning, Policy and Analysis at the Coalition Provisional Authority, today received the Office of the Secretary of Defense Medal for Valor. The medal was presented by Ambassador L. Paul Bremer at a ceremony at the CPA Headquarters in Baghdad.This might serve as a fairly moving reminder that even in our day, heroism is not dead. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 12:04 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
Thursday, April 29, 2004
# Posted 11:48 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Medals and ribbons are NOT considered to be interchangeable uniform accoutrements by anyone who served or is serving on active duty. In fact, in 1971, it would be possible for one to replace his ribbons with store bought official copies -- but not the medals. Medals were controlled items issued by the government. If you lost one (or several) they were hell to replace. John Kerry knew this then and knows it now.That being the case, how do Kerry's explanations of the medal throwing incident stack up with it? JS writes:
Did you see the clip from the  interview? [No, just read about it. -ed.] It was aired on Monday on The News on CNBC in a report from Kelly O'Donnell (the report was probably also shown on NBC Nightly News).That's a pretty good argument, but I'm not persuaded. When Kerry says "and above that...I gave back my others" he seems to be explaining how it was possible for him to have given back six or more medals if he'd only been awarded five. But that isn't the whole story. DC writes that
If you heard Kerry on Hardball last night or went to the site showing military ribbons with their medals attached to them, you would see that the medals are attached to the ribbons above them. Most soldiers don't usually wear the medals on their uniform, they only wear the ribbons. Purple Hearts, Bronze and Silver Stars all have corresponding medals. So when he said that in 1971 he threw his Bronze, Silver Star and Purple Hearts he was referring to the ribbons of the Silver and Bronze Star and the Purple Hearts. Ergo he didn't lie or mislead in 71 or 84 or now.That seems like a good explanation, but then why does Kerry describe himself in the '71 interview as throwing back "medals"? If the distinction was so clear to all the veterans involved, why does Kerry continue to insist that "what I said was and back then, you know, ribbons, medals were absolutely interchangeable"?
By the way, I asked yesterday Kerry had gotten so defensive and tried to blame Medalgate on the GOP attack machine if he himself were responsible for it. As JS (same JS as above, same JS as yesterday, still doing research on OxBlog's behalf) points out, the only reason ABC got its hands on the '71 interview was that the GOP sent it to them. Still, it's sort of strange that Kerry is blaming the GOP for what he himself said (a long time ago).
Finally, we get to a letter from GH. He writes
I'm not the least convinced that Kerry was acting bravely during his three month stint in-country. Recall that he was awarded, at least, three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and a Silver Star. Many, including me, went in harm's way almost every day for a year or more and didn't collect an array like that.I'm not sure what to say about that. As someone who has never put his life on the line for his country, Kerry's actions seem extremely impressive to me. But if his fellow veterans don't buy his story, then Kerry will pay for it at the polls.
(3) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 6:24 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
That's some pretty big news, especially given that last weeks WaPo/ABC poll resulted in the headline "Poll Shows New Gains For Bush". So what happened? According to the first three grafs of the NYT article,
Support for the war in Iraq has eroded substantially over the past several months, and Americans are increasingly critical of the way President Bush is handling the conflict, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.The first thing you need to know about the NYT poll is that there was a single question (#56) which asked
Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the US have stayed out?If you don't think that the US did the right thing, then you have to answer that it should've stayed out (or just not answer the question). I think that's somewhat of a misleading question, since there are probably a good number of Americans who believe that we did was right but, in hindsight, was a mistake. However, in order to get a fuller sense of why the NYT poll is misleading, you have to take a look at the sidebar entitled "Different Poll Results But Much in Common". The sidebar explains that
Wording differences among polls can [also] have a significant effect. In the ABC News/Washington Post poll, 51 percent said that the war in Iraq had been worth fighting, "all in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States." That number was down from 56 percent in January and 59 percent in December. Forty-seven percent said it was not worth fighting, up from 41 percent in January and 39 percent in December...Now, I agree in principle that trends over time are an extremely important indicator of public opinion. But depending on what window of time you're looking at, trend lines can have a very different message. For example, the NYT started asking its 'done the right thing/should've stayed out' question (#56) in mid-December 2003. Thus, the 17 point decline among those who answered 'done the right thing' reflects the artificial high in support for the war that followed Saddam's capture. Moreover, there was only a 6 point decline from December to March, then an 11 point decline from March to April. Does that kind of single observation merit its own headline?
[CORRECTION APPENDED 5/9: JH points out that the NYT asked Question #56 both immediately before (Dec. 10-13) and immediately after (Dec. 14-16) Saddam's capture. There was only a one point difference between the answers. Thus, I was wrong to say that the 63 percent benchmark represented an artificial post-capture high.
One should point out, however, that the NYT had never asked Question #56 before Dec. 10-13/Dec. 14-16 and did not ask it again for a number of months. So first of all, there is no real benchmark against which to measure the mid-December results. This is especially important, since the second mid-December survey took place while the news of Saddam's capture had begun to spread. Second of all, one cannot confirm whether or not the December results were accurate since no further samples were taken until March.
By way of comparison, Question #13 in the WaPo survey (see below), which is analogous to Quesiton #56, was asked consistently over time. It demonstrated that there was, in fact, a post-capture high in support for the war, one which gradually dissipated thereafter.]
Perhaps. Before answering that question, take a look at the answer to Question #13 in the WaPo/ABC poll, which asked
All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?On April 18, there was a 51-47 margin in favor of 'It was worth fighting'. But what's really interesting is that the Post has been asking the exact same question at regular intervals since last April. By last July, support for the war had already fallen below 60 percent. In November if tell to 52 percent. It then rose to 59 after Saddam's capture before falling back to 51 percent today.
So if the NYT staff is so well aware of the important of trends over time, how did they manage to ignore the most important evidence against their conclusion that support for the war is dramatically down? Who knows.
Anyhow, I also think its extremely interesting that the NYT poll doesn't have a question like #11 in the WaPo poll, which asks respondents to say whether Bush or Kerry would deal better with a specific issue (taxes, healthcare, etc.). Instead, the NYT poll asks separate questions (#46 and #51) about whether Bush and Kerry will be able to handle the situation in Iraq effectively. Surprisingly, both men get around a 60-40 vote of confidence, with Kerry doing just slightly better. When it comes to fighting terrorism (Questions #47 and #51), both men get around a 75-25 vote of approval, with Bush supporters more likely to have a lot of confidence in the candidate.
Given that Bush continues to beat out Kerry by 30-point margins whenever voters are asked who will do a better job of fighting the war on terror, I think it's fair to say that asking separate questions about the candidates ability says very little about whom voters prefer. After all, the best way to explain why voters disapprove of how Bush is handling the situation in Iraq but still want to vote for him is that they think Kerry would do even worse.
In closing, I'd like to take a quick look at the second statistic that the NYT uses to demonstrate that suppor for the war has fallen sharply. According to Question #69, the public is evenly split at 46-46 about whether the US should stay in Iraq until it is a "stable democracy" or whether it should pull out "even if Iraq is not completely stable".
Again, the trend line on this question only goes back to last November, when the split was 49-43. It rose to 56-35 after Saddam's capture. Then, for some reason, the NYT didn't ask the question again until this past week. As a result, there was a sudden 10 percent drop in support for sticking it out.
The most comparable question to that in the WaPo/ABC poll is #17, whether the US should stay in Iraq until it restores order, even if that means taking more casualties. Surprisingly, the margin on that one is 66-33 in favor. But again, the question hadn't been asked since last fall, so there isn't much of a trend line to look out.
All in all, I'd say the NYT has a lot to learn about interpreting poll results and even more to learn about writing headlines.
# Posted 6:17 PM by Patrick Belton
Note to Joe Google (actually, Sergey - and he sometimes wears a dress): you might want to work on the spam filter a bit more.
And note to everyone else: if you want to know how to amuse yourself with your Nigerian spammer, this guy's got the right idea. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 5:29 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 6:27 AM by Patrick Belton
An established Democratic fundraiser and longtime proponent of conciliation with the clerical government of Iran, Nemazee was denied an ambassadorship to Argentina in the Clinton administration when details of his past business dealings came to light. The entire latest affair seems rather silly all around, and above all regrettable as it seems to draw a further wedge between the Kerry camp and the much-needed cause of reform in Iran. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 5:29 AM by Patrick Belton
An attempt by the anti-Semitic site's owners to vandalise the Wikipedia article notwithstanding, what's most noteworthy of mention is that the preponderant portion of the bloggers taking part in removing the vitriolic site from the top of the search results weren't even Jewish at all. Which reflects awfully well, I think, both on the great-spiritedness of the greatest portion of our society and that of the blogosphere. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 4:22 AM by Patrick Belton
You can download it here. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
# Posted 10:40 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
You write:To my mind, the italicized words above are the most important. Oliphant writes was that "It was clear from our [Oliphant and Kerry's] conversations back then and ever since that Kerry made no distinction among his various decorations, though others have." Yet according to ABC,
Kerry was asked [in 1971] if he gave back the Bronze Star, Silver Star and three Purple Hearts he was awarded for combat duty as a Navy lieutenant in Vietnam. "Well, and above that, [I] gave back the others," he said.If ABC has its story right, then Kerry didn't make a public distinction between medals and ribbons back in 1971 because he claimed to have given back both of them. But privately, Kerry understood the distinction, which is why kept the medals and gave back the ribbons. Anyhow, ABC also reports that
In 1984, when he first ran for the U.S. Senate, Kerry revealed he still had his medals. According to a Boston Globe report on April 15, 1984, union officials had expressed uneasiness with Kerry's candidacy because he had thrown his medals away. Kerry acknowledged the medals he threw away were, in fact, another soldier's medals. He reportedly invited a union official home to personally inspect his Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, awarded for his combat duty as a Navy lieutenant.So what's really going on here? My guess is that Kerry himself forgot about the 1971 interview and was just as surprised as anyone else to see it broadcast on ABC. Thus, I don't think that Kerry was lying to Peter Jennings when he said he never even implied that he had thrown away the medals. But it's hard to avoid the conclusion that Kerry was consciously lying in 1971 if he claimed to have thrown away his medals after intentionally leaving them at home. I'd even speculate that Kerry was intentionally taking out insurance on his political future, since he knew that he was going to run on his war-hero image and couldn't do that if he'd thrown his medals away.
As for Kerry's inconsistent comments about the medals during his various Senate races, those aren't really worth bothering with. What really gets me is that on Good Morning America, Kerry tried to pin all the blame for this controversy on the GOP attack machine rather than recognize that his own questionable behavior was responsible for it. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 9:15 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 9:02 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
In spite of this historical perspective, however, the CSM profile leaves a lot of important questions unanswered. The profile suggests that the Sadr family's resentment of Ayatollah Sistani reflects the failure of the latter to speak out against Saddam during his reign. That makes sense, but I'd like to see some more evidence. One can also infer from the CSM article that the Sadr family's commitment to Islamic theocracy, which as far as I know, Sistani opposes.
But what is Islamic theocracy or wilayat al-faqih? Is there any room for democracy in Sadr's theocratic vision? The CSM tells us that Sadr wants to rebuild Iraq in the image of Iran. But does he want to create Khatami's Iran or Khomeini's Iran? Is there a place in Sadr's vision for Sunni muslims, both Arab and Kurd?
In its closing paragraph, CSM endorses the view that Sadr's current uprising is directed more at Sistani than at the Americans. That's plausible. But it raises an interesting question: What was Sadr's position on the invasion of Iraq before it happened? Having lost both his father and two of his brothers to Saddam, it seems that Moqtada must have looked forward to the American invasion, even if he saw it as a prelude to a struggle with Sistani.
That said, how has American behavior since last April compared with Sadr's expectations? Did his theological anti-Americanism lead him to expect vicious human rights abuses by American soldiers? Does he believe even now that the United States actually wants to hold elections and withdraw from Iraq? What does he think about Sistani's relationship with the Americans?
Finally, to what degree do the Shi'ites of Iraq share Sadr's beliefs? The CSM profile insists that
The younger Sadr has built on his father's popularity and created a militant Shiite movement that has eclipsed many in the more moderate Shiite majority.At the same time, it acknowledges that Sadr's current revolt has failed. But why did it fail if Sadr has ample public support? Do many Shi'ites share his belief that Sistani sold out to Saddam? I don't know.
Up until now, every major American paper has reported that reverence for Sistani is universal. Is it possible to support both Sistani and Moqtada? Again, I don't know. All in all, CSM deserves credit for printing information that often gets overlooked by others. At the same time, its profile has only begun to scratch the surface. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 5:42 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
The immediate cause of the diplomats' revolt is Blair's implicit support for the Bush-Sharon entente re: Gaza. But as Greg points out, the signatories also insist that the Anglo-American effort to promote democracy in Iraq is misguided and futile no matter how much "Iraqis may yearn for a democratic society".
That is a strange statement to say the least. Is it supposed to mean that even though the Iraqi people want democracy, they are so short-sighted and resentful that they would prefer to endure another civil war or dictatorship rather than let the British and the American take credit for promoting democracy in Iraq?
By that logic, the smartest thing for the Coalition to do is declare that it wants to restore Saddam to power. Then the proudly nationalist Iraqi people will establish a democracy just to spite us. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 5:23 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
"Libya, which led the liberation movement in the third world, has decided to lead the peace movement all over the world," said Colonel Qaddafi.Well, I guess that this what we should have expected from a nation that has been so active during its time as chair of the UN Commission on Human Rights. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 5:00 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
He didn't say "web log". He didn't explain what a blog was. He just made it seem perfectly normal for a New York Times columnist to have a blog. If that is so, then there's no need to get worked up when other leading insist that the revolution will not be blogged. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 1:09 PM by Patrick Belton
UPDATE: Oh, wait, Dan's married. In that case, erm, paging my cobloggers, then. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 12:52 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 12:23 PM by Patrick Belton
UPDATE: Not surprisingly, Randy Paul has more, too. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 11:06 AM by Patrick Belton
Get better soon, our friend! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 11:00 AM by Patrick Belton
A hospital nurse accused of attempting to murder four elderly patients was motivated by a drive to free up beds, a court has heard.Awww, and they say it's impossible to get efficient customer service here.... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 1:07 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
After risking his life in Vietnam to save others, John Kerry earned the right to speak out against a war he believed was wrong.First of all, does that mean that those who didn't risk their lives didn't have a right to speak out against the war? Second, does risking one's life also endow one with the right to lie about the ways in which one protested the war? Clark doesn't answer those questions, but he does say:
Make no mistake: it is [Kerry's] bravery these Republicans are now attacking.I have a lot of respect for Kerry's bravery in Vietnam. In my life, I haven't done anything nearly as brave as serving in the armed forces or pulling an injured comrade out of the water in the midst of a firefight. But if someone asked me whether or not I had thrown away my medals, I'm pretty sure that I would be brave enough to tell the truth.
UPDATE: Steve Sturm adds to my post. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 12:55 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 12:38 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
Then again, it isn't hard to guess why Temptation became such a cause celebre. The film's greatest literary achievement and most perilous theological statement departure are one and the same. In the Gospel, the divinity of Christ makes him seem distant and superhuman even when he is in his human form. In the film, Jesus of Nazareth becomes a human being with tragic failures and complex motivations all his own.
As the film begins, Judas Iscariot discovers that the Carpenter has been making crosses and selling them to the Romans. After watching the crucifixion of a fellow Jew on a cross that he has made, Jesus endures the taunts of an embittered mob that accuses him of betraying his people. I suspect that the attribution of this sort of selfishness and cruelty to the Son of God approaches the blasphemous. Yet at the same time, the profound irony of portraying Christ as a maker of crosses provides the character of Jesus with a powerful and credible motivation for abandoning his home in Nazareth to become a wandering prophet.
On a similar note, I also suspect that the closing scenes of the film, in which the crucified Savior struggles against temptation, would violate many Christians' sense of propriety and decorum. In order to render Christ's temptation in an emotionally compelling and realistic manner, Scorsese once again lets Christ become more human and more flawed than Christian doctrine can accept.
Now, as a non-Christian, I cannot put myself in the shoes of a Christian watching the film. Nonetheless, I found the general tone of the film to be inspirational rather than offensive. If one can accept the artistic license taken by the director, then one can benefit from a vision of compassion that speaks to all of us and not just Christians. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 12:06 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
# Posted 6:49 PM by Patrick Belton
Madeline Albright and Sen. John McCain (correctly, to my mind) call for renewed US sanctions on Burma, as well as a refusal of international recognition for the junta's cynical "road map to democracy" - which is intended only to grant a thin veneer of civilian political legitimacy to the junta's continued rule, and that in a bid to avert regional and international sanctions.
Among the many pundits left and right currently experiencing an epiphany that Senator Kerry, whatever his virtues, is a terrible, terrible, terrible presidential candidate are John Podhoretz and the Village Voice's James Ridgeway (who is calling for a reinstatement of the draft - ideally, of Edwards). And elsewhere, Narasimhan Ravi, editor of The Hindu and a current fellow at Harvard, writes about India's parliamentary elections. And of Kofigate Claudia Rosett (rightly) asks of the Secretary General of the world's foremost corrupt organization, what did Kofi know, and when did he know it? (Note to self: that would almost make for a rather merited google bomb...) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 3:00 PM by Patrick Belton
Beating the Bounds of the Parish is a very ancient custom. At St Michaels at the North Gate (our Saxon tower is the oldest building in Oxford, predating the arrival of William the Conqueror) we have documentary evidence of the practice back to the fourteenth century and it probably goes back to Saxon times when parishes became the basic land unit for law enforcement and taxation. It was very important for members of the parish to know precisely where one parish ended and one began. It was even more important for neighbouring parishes to be told where not to trespass. So, on Ascension Day, Thursday 20th May 2004, armed with willow wands (spears maybe?) we process round the parish, marking the stones which ring our parish.UPDATE: I love our readers:
Hi Patrick,(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 2:13 PM by Patrick Belton
For more information, please consult our essay contest guidelines or email our contest chair, Connie Chung. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 7:01 AM by Patrick Belton
Just as a minor correction to an interesting piece (Thomas Corbally, 83; Figure of Mystery Was Reputed Spy, April 26, 2004 Home Edition, Section:California; Metro; Metro Desk; Part B; Pg. 11), PM Wilson was actually not a Conservative but rather a lifelong member of the Labour party, and is still regarded by many non-Blairites in Labour as representing the high point that party reached.My, with this degree of neglect for detail in just one small matter of British parliamentary history I happen to know something about, I must say I'm starting to have some doubts about these people. Or as a reader rather eloquently puts it: "Whenever I read anything in a newspaper about which I know something, I find they get it wrong. So why should I believe them on subjects about which I know very little?" (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
Monday, April 26, 2004
# Posted 10:34 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Pleasurable and destructive: They're so easy to consume, and so endlessly available. Their second-by-second proliferation means that far more is written than needs to be said about any one thing. To change metaphors for a moment (and to deepen the shame), I gorge myself on these hundreds of pieces of commentary like so much candy into a bloated -- yet nervous, sugar-jangled -- stupor. Those hours of out-of-body drift leave me with few, if any, tangible thoughts.In contrast to Matt, Kevin Drum isn't too bothered by all of this. He observes that
Based solely on the thousand words that are online, I'd say Packer has blogs pegged pretty well. While it may be true that mainstream journalists are sometimes more contemptuous than they should be toward blogs, Packer is dead right when he says that we more than return the favor. In fact, practically the only place that liberal and conservative bloggers find common ground these days is their apparent belief that the New York Times ranks just below Richard Nixon's White House on the list of trustworthy American institutions.Hmmm. I'm going to side with Matt on this one. Packer is right that blogs always seem to be keeping score and that they are far too quick to compliment themselves on landing a knockout punch. But isn't that exactly what Packer is doing in his column? Even the title of his column sounds like a blog post.
Of course, this kind of 'gotcha' attitude is widespread at all levels of the journalistic establishment. All you have to do is the open the paper in the morning to find a half-dozen examples. Here's one: The ABC website now has an article up on the mini-scandal set off this morning by John Kerry's extremely nuanced explanation of what medals he did (or possibly did not) throw over a fence during an anti-war protest in 1971. The article begins as follows:
Contradicting his statements as a candidate for president, Sen. John Kerry claimed in a 1971 television interview that he threw away as many as nine of his combat medals to protest the war in Vietnam.So I guess the lesson here is that bloggers, myself included, have adopted some of the mainstream media's less desirable habits in spite of our constant efforts to demonstrate our moral superiority. Anyhow, I think the real problem with Packer's column (or that portion which is online -- even LexisNexis doesn't have the whole thing and I am certainly not giving my money to Mother Jones) is his assertion that blogs lack substance. While Kevin may be too moderate to say so, his own website disproves Packer's allegation that blog posts are "usually too brief for an argument ever to stand a chance of developing layers of meaning or ramifying into qualification and complication". And while I have my issues with Josh Marshall, I think that is absolutely impossible to accuse him of not developing his arguments in considerable detail.
Moreover, Kevin (and less frequently Josh) develop their arguments through active debate with other bloggers. How often can professional journalists say the same of themselves? While I'm sure that journalists deconstruct each other's work off the record, it is absolutely taboo for the New York Times or Washington Post to take apart each other's articles in the public spotlight (except when plagiarism is involved.) While Packer is right that bloggers tend to have a sort of rah-rah patriotic attitude toward the blogosphere as a whole, he is wrong to say that they are "unfailingly contemptuous toward everyone except one another." Right after the NYT, the #1 target of almost every blogger is his or her closest friends and closest enemies in the blogosphere.
So, how can one conclude a chest-thumping, navel-gazing post like this? By reminding everyone that George Packer is an absolutely first-rate journalist. He has published what is far away some of the best work on the occupation of Iraq. And in person, he is a very nice and down-to-earth kind of guy. But like the rest of us, he makes mistakes. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 9:08 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
The U.N. [Development Program] surveyed thousands of people in 18 democratic Latin American countries and found that a solid majority would prefer an authoritarian system if it produced economic benefits.Commenting on this result, the NYT observes that
Clearly, this endorsement of the Pinochet model shows that most Latin Americans do not feel as if they have a stake in their democracy.Now hold on a second. Pinochet was a brutal dictator who murdered thousands. Is he what the UN's poll respondents had in mind when they expressed their willingness to trade freedom for prosperity? Probably not.
Along with most academic experts on Latin American politics, journalists often forget how powerful the memory of a brutal dictatorship is. I don't think it is any accident that democracy is strongest today in those Latin American nations that suffered the most under military rule (Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, etc.) whereas it is most threatened in those nations that had very moderate dictatorships (Ecuador and Peru) or haven't had to endure authoritarian rule for more than fifty years (Colombia and Venezuela).
On a related note, the NYT should probably mention that dictatorships actually have an extremely poor record of promoting economic growth or even economic stability. The Pinochet regime probably came the closest, although Chile suffered terribly during the pan-Latin crisis in the early 1980s. In theory, dictatorships are supposed to be able to implement those economic reforms that are too controversial for an elected government to implement. Yet in the absence of a democratic mandate, Latin American generals have often found themselves forced to buy off both the rich and the poor. So, what is to be done? The NYT recommends that
Democratization in much of Latin America, if it is to be completed rather than reversed, now requires a bold set of reforms aimed at bolstering the rule of law, such as the development of independent judiciaries.I think it is fairly misleading to suggest that a lack of boldness is the cause of Latin America's troubles. Even the most well-meaning governments (and Latin America has had many) cannot will the rule of law into existence. If a policeman can't afford clothes for his children, do we really expect him to resist taking bribes? Perhaps if there were better child welfare programs, policemen wouldn't take bribes. But how can you set up such programs when the bureaucrats are also corrupt? And so the cycle continues.
Rather than a lack of will, what Latin America suffers from is a set of interlocking institutional crises that eviscerate the democratic order without necessarily promoting dictatorship. How can such interlocking crises be resolved? Unfortunately, nobody knows. Political scientists have been caught off guard, since they expect flawed democratic orders to be overthrown by dictatorships. In other words, this is the first time that Latin America's democracies have survived long enough for the experts to worry about institution-building rather than coups d'etat. At least that is something to be thankful for. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
Sunday, April 25, 2004
# Posted 9:30 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Plus, don't forget to read the latest installment in Steve's series on Pornography and Prostitution, which not only explores the legal dilemmas surrounding such unsavory pursuits, but also explains what Josh Chafetz does on Thursday evenings. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 9:18 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Plus: Read the latest entry in the annals of how high-tech outsourcing creates jobs right here in the USA. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 8:18 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
why it is that in-flight movies are so uniformly bad. There is rarely an Oscar winner shown on flights, and the movies appear to range from barely tolerable to profoundly awful.Well, if you want high-quality films along with attentive service and reasonable food, you should fly Virgin Atlantic. I've flown from London to New York around a half-dozen times with VA and have almost always had something good to watch. Best of all are those flights on the newest VA planes, which are equipped with a sort of video jukebox that gives each passenger a choice of 50+ films to watch along with 50+ hours of TV (including The Simpsons, Ali G, etc.). Moreover, you can control the box the same way you would a DVD player: start the film whenever you want, pause it to go the bathroom, etc.
Among the films I've seen on VA are Igby Goes Down, which came highly recommended by Mr. Chafetz, and the very clever Japanese bank-heist farce, Space Travelers (not to be confused with the animated film of the same name and from it which it borrows playfully). Of course, VA gives you the right to watch bad films as well. Once, I made it through 30 minutes of watching Ben Affleck as Daredevil. Mr. Affleck should be shot.
Anyhow, the question remains as to why VA has better in-flight entertainment. In general, in-flight films are supposed to be as inoffensive and unstimulating as possible. If you look up "least common denominator" in the thesaurus, you'll probably see "in-flight films" listed first. However, Virgin prides itself on being a maverick in the airline industry. It built up its successful business by challenging the staid and government-backed British Airways (which is a perfectly good airline). This rebellious corporate culture -- embodied by CEO Richard Branson -- tends to affect all aspects of the VA experience, from the unorthodox style of animation used for the pre-flight safety video to the choice of films shown on board. Perhaps the best expression of Virgin's rebellious attitude is the fact that its in-flight magazine sometimes gives bad reviews to the films being shown on board. Now that is service. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 7:52 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
And a note for all you Spinsanity fans: Ben, Brendan and Bryan's first book is coming soon to a store near you! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
Saturday, April 24, 2004
# Posted 11:58 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 11:43 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
While I have absolutely nothing meaningful to add to this excellent discussion of vouchers and school choice, I am proud to report that I once met Prof. Hoxby at a barbecue and that both she and her husband Blair are no less charming than they are intelligent. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 11:32 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 11:25 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
In case you haven't already, take a good, long look at Phil's excellent posts on photographs of the fallen, the logistical challenges of waging a global war, and his two-part series on the relationship between security and reconstruction in post-war Iraq. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 11:01 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
Friday, April 23, 2004
# Posted 9:47 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
I wouldn't quite say that John Kerry Is A Douchebag But I'm Voting For Him Anyway but that's not wildly off the mark.Man, Yglesias must be in a bad mood. However, the rest of his post is worth reading if you want to read even more about national security and opinion polls. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 9:37 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Much less impressive are the arguments made by Ryan Lizza and Josh Marshall, whose columns appear together on today's NYT op-ed page (alongside columns by Bob Herbert and Paul Krugman, just in case you find Lizza and Marshall to be insufficiently anti-Bush.) Marshall begins his column by pointing out an apparent paradox:
In this year's presidential campaign, no wisdom is more conventional than the assumption that George W. Bush's re-election effort will succeed or fail along with the American mission in Iraq. If Iraq collapses, the reasoning goes, the Bush presidency will soon follow. And yet here was the president gaining ground, in several polls released this week, in the face of what were certainly the worst three weeks in Iraq since the United States deposed Saddam Hussein a year ago.As it turns out, there is actually a very simple explanation for this paradox. When asked who would do a better job handling the situation in Iraq, voters are pretty sure that the answer is Bush. His margin in the WaPo/ABC poll is 51-42, while his margin in the CNN/Gallup poll is 40-26 with 15 percent saying that both candidates would do a good job. If Marshall had noticed these numbers, he wouldn't wind up asking his audience (mis)leading questions such as
If Americans decide that Iraq is a disaster, why do they not see him as the cause of the problem? Why has support for the president bounced back (up four points in one poll) even as approval of his handling of Iraq has fallen (down three points in the same poll)?Marshall's first question presumes that voters have identified Iraq as a disaster. But that isn't so clear cut. CNN/Gallup shows that voters are not happy with Bush's handling of Iraq by a margin of 49-48. The same respondents still believe that going to war was the right decision by a margin of 52-46. The WaPo/ABC poll shows voters unhappy with the situation in Iraq by 54-45 margin but still approving of the decision to go to war 51-47.
Looking at Iraq, the only numbers Lizza mentions are the 54% negative rating from the Wa/Po ABC poll and the same poll's observation that 65% of voters believe that the number of American casualties sustained in Iraq is unacceptable. The latter figure is misleading for two reasons. First, it has fluctuated in the same four point range (33-37%) for six months now. Thus, there is no correlation between the 65% figure and the recent upsurge of violence in Iraq. By extension, there is no reason to believe that the 65% figure has had an impact on Bush's re-elect numbers.
Second, how often will any poll respondent describe the tragic deaths of American soldiers as "acceptable"? That is why, when you ask voters whether the US military should restore order in Iraq even if it means taking more casualties, they answer 'Yes' by a stunning 66-33 margin. Moreover, that margin has been increasing over the last six months.
But what if you ask the public whether the United States "has gotten bogged down" in Iraq or is "making good progress"? Faced with that kind of black-and-white choice, the answer is "bogged down" by a margin of 59-41. Yet at the same time, the public favors sending more troops by a margin of 54-44.
That said, let's go back to Marshall's second question of why Bush' re-elect numbers are rising while approval of his work on Iraq is falling. The answer is "issue salience". If you take a look at Question 12 in the WaPo/ABC poll, you'll see that 22% of the public lists terrorism as the "single most important issue" affecting their vote while 23% say Iraq. 26% say "the economy and jobs". Six weeks ago, 36% said economy & jobs while the numbers for terrorism and Iraq were 17 and 10. In December, the numbers for terrorism and Iraq were 14 and 9.
All of these additional numbers I'm throwing at you really just make the same point: that no matter how much all the headlines about Richard Clarke and Moqtada Sadr hurt George Bush, they hurt John Kerry even more. Yes, it is ironic. Bad news makes national security more important. George Bush is responsible for a fair amount of that bad news. But what voters fear even more is giving John Kerry a chance to clean up the mess.
Do I feel the same way? I'm not sure. I'm undecided and probably will be for quite a while. But I am pretty sure that I will vote for whoever I think can do a better job of handling terrorism and Iraq.
Last but not least: Ryan Lizza points out that Reagan had a 54% approval rating in April 1984 while Clinton had a 56% rating in April 1996. In contrast, Bush is "hanging by his fingertips" with 51 or 52 percent. What Lizza overlooks is the fact both Reagan and Clinton won their elections by a landslide. No one expects Bush to do that. All that matters is who wins. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 4:22 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
record has become both an asset and an issue as he seeks the presidency. The senator from Massachusetts has used it to define his qualifications for the office, his experience in foreign policy, his leadership -- and, regarding the conflict in Iraq, his firsthand knowledge of war. But critics have cited it as evidence that he was opportunistic and have questioned whether he deserved one of his medals.From what I can tell, there is no evidence whatsoever to substantiate allegations that Kerry was anything less than a full-fledged hero. Thus, when conservatives play up such accusations, all they do is embarrass themselves and provide Kerry with exactly the sort of credibility he so desperately needs on national security issues.
For an in-depth look at both Kerry and Bush's service records, take a look at this post from Phil Carter. The praise that Bush received as a Guardsman is actually quite impressive. Yet as Kevin Drum reminds us, Bush's talent as an officer seems to have been matched by a disturbing lack of dedication to his military duties.
Finally, Campaign Desk thinks that the media has gone soft on Bush by not following up on the documents he released after coming under fire in February. I beg to differ.
What really happened was that the media raised expectations by building up Michael Moore's unsubstantiated charge that Bush went AWOL. Then Bush kept the story alive by stonewalling. Yet once the White House released a new set of documents about Bush's record in the Guard, it became apparent that there wasn't enough evidence to back up the critics' overblown claims. Let down, the media dropped the story -- after first creating it.
What Campaign Desk misses was that the Bush/AWOL episode was more about the media's inconsistent and incoherent definition of what counts as news, rather than its supposedly forgiving attitude towards the President's sins. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 3:32 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
"In sports we have a tendency to overuse terms like courage and bravery and heroes, and then someone like Pat Tillman comes along and reminds us what those terms really mean."Hear, hear. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 4:18 AM by Patrick Belton
Fare thee well, ye banks of Sicily,(0) opinions -- Add your opinion