Monday, October 03, 2005
# Posted 8:03 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 7:45 PM by Patrick Belton
We would have sent our brand new west of Ireland artsy fartsy correspondent, but she's oddly on the wrong end of the country. Máire did file by 'phone this evening, however, to tip Charlie Byrne's to take over Kenny's mantle as bibliophile must-see site when in Galway. (Very very unrelated word of the day in her honour: 'jailteacht,' to describe IRA prisoners' autodidacticism of Irish in H-Block and elsewhere.) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 7:09 PM by Patrick Belton
Elsewhere, at the convention today Francis Maude said the party must change or die, frontrunner David Davis seemed to disagree (oops), Rifkind made a call for one-nation conservatism, q.v., and Ken Clarke, whom I happen to quite like and who is as close to a Heathian Tory as there is out there at the moment, had to reassure party members that he really didn't like Europe all that much; actually, it was more of a fling, really. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 6:57 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 6:47 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 4:52 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 1:24 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
It is a free service designed specifically for those who don't have plans to go elsewhere. There are 100 places available for walk-ins. Tell the folks at the door that OxBlog sent you and you'll get a smile. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 12:21 PM by Patrick Belton
Also at CFR today, Ambassador Sestanovich looks to who's in position to succeed Putin. (Hat tip: Yabloko and the Union of Right Forces have announced an anti-Kremlin alliance, starting with Moscow city council elections this autumn. Putin for his part looks to step down to influence from 'the ranks', a la Lee Kuan Yew or Deng Xiaoping from the Central Military Commission, though not Jiang Zemin)
And finally, Charlie Kupchan says Europe is having quite a bad hair day: the pace of integration and economic growth will be further slowed by a weak government in Berlin, and the demise he foresees for Turkey's accession prospects (occulted under a facade of hollow negotiations) will cultivate nationalism there. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 8:44 AM by Patrick Belton
Yesterday,Gotta give credit where credit is due: Jerry Pournelle (minor degradations mine) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
Sunday, October 02, 2005
# Posted 9:02 AM by Patrick Belton
I'm quite for Turkish membership, promoting Europe as an example of diverse peoples living under liberal democracy, and taking at European level a principled stand against the populist rhetoric surrounding discussion of Turkish membership in Austria, Germany and France. Turkey would provide a sharply greying Europe with a massive infusion of cheap, young labour which it desperately needs, and with subsidies from Brussels probably having peaked following the recent round of enlargement, it (unlike France) is unlikely to siphon off much from European treasuries in the form of structural aid and other subsidies. And this is a sharp moment in Turkey's own political evolution, determining whether its recent political, economic, legal and civil rights reforms will be rewarded or spurned by neighbours whose moral legitimacy turns not on their being a club of prosperous white Christians, but on upholding precisely those sorts of reforms and rights.
So here's one for hoping that meeting tonight in Luxembourg, EU foreign ministers do the right thing. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 8:21 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 7:02 AM by Patrick Belton
Elsewhere in the papers:
The New Criterion notes the NYT's cultural coverage is really rotten while meanwhile in Britain, intellectuals beat up men of letters. Christopher Andrew has a lovely charming piece on spies and Indira. Frequent TLS contributor Ronald Aronson opines gimme that old-style atheism, while Carlos Fuentes, developing further some material I heard him lecture with in London, looks to nominative uncertainty within Don Quijote for wellsprings of the novel as democratic polyforum, the public square where everyone has a right to be heard but no one has the right to exclusive speech. ("Religion is dogmatic. Politics is ideological. Reason must be logical. But literature has the privilege of being equivocal. The quality of doubt in a novel is perhaps a manner of telling us that since authorship (and thus authority) are uncertain and susceptible of many explanations, so it goes with the world itself.") And finally, Rebecca Saxe, a lovely brainy lady who studies brains, examines the potentialities of cognitive science to offer descriptive theories of universal moral reasoning. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
Saturday, October 01, 2005
# Posted 12:03 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 11:32 AM by Patrick Belton
(Disclaimer: I write occasionally for Sir Peter's publication, but receive no remuneration for plugging his blog. But I am inadverse to being remunerated, and in fact would consider it quite nice, actually.) (1) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 10:47 AM by Patrick Belton
Incident(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 8:09 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 7:06 AM by Patrick Belton
As to the first day of the month, it's the Kalends, origin of calendar, and the day on which debts come due. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 7:01 AM by Patrick Belton
Also, one of the side benefits of being a blog that's been around for a bit, of which Dan Rather can only be jealous, is that after a while you inevitably come to be one of the top google hits for monstrous tits. (David, not me.) More humbling, we're also the top hit for misinterprets. (That one'd be me.) (1) opinions -- Add your opinion
Friday, September 30, 2005
# Posted 1:29 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 10:28 AM by Patrick Belton
Thus Ramananda Sengupta:
To me this is much more personal. My father died unattended because the goddamned doctors had gone on strike in Calcutta.(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 10:25 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 10:17 AM by Patrick Belton
I quibble with whether the ideal he describes is quite so much in decline: I've certainly come across it quite strongly at Oxford, and earlier at Yale as well. My personal impression might be that technocratic specialisation is more inculcated by the British former polytechnics and American state universities to create niches in which their graduates can compete with those of the grander sounding unis. The question is rather whether liberal humanistic education has then become a luxuriant preserve of graduates who can coast on the names of their universities in the labour market, a state of affairs which has its unsettling aspects as well.
But it's nonetheless an ideal quite worth defending and expanding (who ever writes pieces, or posts, arguing for ditching liberal education?), and I find the way he goes about doing so to be quite resonant. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 10:08 AM by Patrick Belton
In response to repeated reader requests, we'll soon switch all our blogging over to Irish and Uzbek. But not for a few weeks yet. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
Thursday, September 29, 2005
# Posted 9:01 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
David Ignatius: We're winning the war in 2/3 of Iraq, but that other 1/3 is killing us.
Jim Hoagland: Bush won't listen to reason. How about to an old college buddy?
David Broder: Here's a list of Republicans who can tell Bush how to deal with Katrina.
Leon Kass: Americans refuse to admit that getting old means getting frail.
Robert Novak [print only]: There are a few Republicans left who don't want to spend like Democrats.
Editorial 1: Tom Delay is a big jerk, but he may be innocent.
Editorial 2: The GOP Congress wants innocent people to get the death penalty.
Editorial 3: Virginia pols don't have the guts to raise taxes, so the highways are f****d.
Today's must read? Ignatius, hands down. Reporting from the front lines in Iraq, he writes:
It's a war in which U.S. troops remain upbeat, even as support deteriorates back home; in which the appearance of stability in much of Iraq is shattered by spasms of hideous violence; in which U.S. military strategy is confounded by Iraq's political disarray...I don't agree with that last point. There isn't much reason to think that Sunni politicians -- let along the insurgents -- will be worn down enough by the end of the year to play a constructive role in government. Set an early deadline, and we are asking for chaos.
Nonetheless, great reporting from Ignatius. Also of note, Jim Hoagland suggests that the GOP can get around its aversion to tax hikes by just asking for a one-time, one-percent-of-your-income "surcharge" to help pay for Katrina. Here's my idea: pass a one percent surcharge, but allow people to divert as much of it as they want to Katrina-related charities. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 11:40 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 11:26 AM by Patrick Belton
I'm told, however, by credible informants that the pink balloons pictured slightly to the northeast of Mrs Blair's head do not, in fact, represent a choice of headgear. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 11:16 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 4:16 AM by Patrick Belton
Dolphins have been trained in attack-and-kill missions since the Cold War.But don't just trust the Guardian. Trust the U.S. military instead. Take it from NSCT-1: if it has an acronym, after all, it must exist.
As the SPAWAR web page notes, there are five 'marine mammal systems' utilised in operations by U.S. Naval Special Clearance Team-One. There are MK 4, MK 7, and MK 8, which use dolphins to retrieve mines and lost objects; MK 5, which uses sea lions, and MK 6, which uses both sea lions and dolphins, but not Seals, which are apparently different. (But wait, the dolphins are attacking and killing...mines? ed: Perhaps the Guardian thought they said mimes.) Dolphins are better at working underwater than humans, controversially claimed Mike Fedak, a marine mammal biologist at the University of St. Andrews and apologist for American empire. They also apparently require less shore leave. So if you join Naval special operations, you might end up swimming with the
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
# Posted 6:07 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Robert Samuelson: The Japanese and Germans aren't concerned enough about making profits.
Harold Meyerson: Why must American corporations be so damn concerned about making profits?
Anne Applebaum: Louisiana pols prefer pork to profits.
Stephan Haggard & Marcus Noland: North Korea prefers starvation to profits.
Editorial 1: Bush's record on torture is appalling.
Editorial 2: Bush now wants us to conserve oil? He sounds like Jimmy Carter.
Editorial 3: Thank God the US airline industry is in dire straits.
Also, in connection with Editorial 1, the Post has reprinted a letter from Army Capt. Ian Fishback to Sen. John McCain describing his futile effort to get guidance from his superiors about how to treat prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq. Fishback's letter shows that the armed forces have recklessly ignored the issue of torture and that their civilian superiors have displayed an even more disturbing brand of apathy. (1) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 4:55 PM by Patrick Belton
While we're waiting for our blogroll, you can see here for a detailed review of the extant academic literature on Shane's teeth:
Shane MacGowan is somewhat famous for his teeth, or lack thereof. Many of his teeth are missing; the remainder are rotten, crooked and resemble cigarette butts.As an excuse to insert another Hibernocentric comment here, research has indicated that the only women interested to date Irish males are apparently American. (1) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 7:39 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 5:53 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 3:39 AM by Patrick Belton
(I should note that back when the Jews, Skull and Bonesmen and Freemasons were running the world, we spelt quite well, thank you.)
hugs and kisses, Zokor-5 (formerly Shmuelly Throckmorton III).
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 2:53 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
"Completely humiliated by his obvious incapacity to face the wrath of God, who battered New Orleans, city of homosexuals."(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 2:50 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
Prosecutors had sought 74,000 years apiece in prison for [conspirators] Yarkas, Chebli and Ghayoun, representing 25 years for each of the almost 3,000 people killed in the Sept. 11 attacks.Yarkas got 27 years a piece instead, the other defendants. I guess we won't find out about the virgins. Plus, commentary from Capt. Ed. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
# Posted 3:59 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
George Will: Dianne Feinstein is a bleeding-heart liberal.
Richard Cohen: Why isn't John Roberts a bleeding-heart liberal?
Ira Katznelson: We should all be bleeding-heart liberals.
E.J. Dionne: Democrats aren't sure whether they should be bleeding-heart liberals.
Eugene Robinson: Protests are groovy.
Editorial 1: The worst looters in Louisiana are the congressmen.
Editorial 2: There is a tiny chance that diplomacy could work with Iran.
Editorial 3: Bureaucracy killed a small child. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 6:27 AM by Patrick Belton
"But... are these what the virgins in paradise will look like, effendi?"Also,
Dear Mr. and Mrs. _AL-DURRA____:(1) opinions -- Add your opinion
Monday, September 26, 2005
# Posted 11:59 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
David Ignatius: Our generals really, really, really want Iraqi soldiers to fight harder.
Jackson Diehl: Imagine if Fidel Castro had lots of oil. That's Hugo Chavez.
Sebastian Mallaby: If America doesn't stop borrowing, it will qualify as Latin.
William Raspberry: Poor people fantasize about money instead of earning it.
Robert Novak [print only]: The GOP is addicted to pork. Bush, too.
Editorial 1: Please nominate another justice with no opinions, Mr. President.
Editorial 2: Beltway traffic sucks.
Editorial 3: Jack Abramoff is hurting Bush, not just DeLay.
Best article? Jackson Diehl, hands down. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 2:10 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
Seriously, folks, can we get back to the real work of spreading the progressive message and end these useless noisefests?Lorelei Kelly asks,
[Is] ANSWER working for Karl Rove?Only Deep Throat knows for sure. Btw, it is worth noting that Lorelei found the protest itself "hugely gratifying". In contrast, Matt Yglesias is
Beset with deep-seated doubts about the efficay of this sort of endeavor,although he reports that the rock concert afterward was hugely gratifying. If I hadn't been zonked after the protest, I might've also stayed to watch Le Tigre at midnight.
Moving on to the real positives, Max Sawicky celebrates the "diversity" of the protest, while lashing out at "jingoists" who try to subvert the anti-war movement by pointing to the role of ANSWER in organizing the protests.
Max's full explanation of the jingoists' tactics is here. In it, he observes that
There is little that is offensive in the ANSWER positions per se, from a mainline radical standpoint.Or as OxBlog might say, there is little that is offensive in Pat Robertson's positions per se, from a mainline reactionary standpoint. Also, Max blasts the Democratic Party and the "so-called liberal blogosphere" for being AWOL at the protests. On that point, OxBlog is compelled to agree that the Dems were absent. Score one for Max.
Over at EzraKlein.com, Shakes is touting the 500,000 turnout figure provided by some. As someone who attended the anti-war protests in NYC in 2004, which apparently had an actual attendance of 500,000, my thoroughly inexpert opinion is that yesterday's march had 15 to 30 percent of that.
Also, Shakes blasts the MSM for only covering the "nutzoid radicals" instead of the mainstream protesters. I think she must be talking about the NYT.
On a similiar note, BradBlog is angry about the MSM's insufficient coverage of the protests, especially those networks who didn't send camera crews. When it comes to the numbers game, Brad cites 100,000 as the absolute minimum and 600,000 as the upper limit.
Finally, Nicholas Beaudrot argues that insufficient or biased press coverage may not matter, since today's anti-war movement has become much more influential much more rapidly than the anti-war movement in the days of Vietnam.
I would add that not too many Democrats jumped onto that bandwagon all that early in the game, either. You might say that Kerry '04 is our Humphrey '68. The question is, who will play George McGovern? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
Sunday, September 25, 2005
# Posted 8:27 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Given most conservatives commitment to teaching the MSM a thing or two about fairness, I think it would be a beneficial thing for them to engage in slightly more self-criticism, even if they don't have pretensions of being neutral or objective.
To its credit, the WaPo did a reasonable job of covering the counterprotests, although its account leaves out enough important things for the subject to merit a post of its own here on OxBlog. What's good about the WaPo article is that tells you both about the dignified presence of soldiers' families as well as the nastiness of some of the counterprotesters' counterattacks:
Debbie Ellsworth of Wolverine, Mich., had a framed photo of her son Justin, who was killed Nov. 13, 2004, in Al Anbar province, Iraq. "I know what kind of grief Cindy Sheehan must have because of the death of her son. I feel that same grief for my son," Ellsworth said, "but remember that she does not speak for me."...What the Post fails to report is that the protesters directed that kind of remark and much worse at their counterparts. During the 30 minutes or so I spent along the line of police officers and metal fencers separating the rival groups, I constantly heard the protesters tell the counterprotesters they were Nazis and fascists.
One red-faced men even responded to a large poster that read "Duty, Honor, Country" by saying "Hitler would have loved that! Pflicht, Ehre, Land!" The man, whose prowess at translation I admire, then went around screaming "Heil Hitler!"
Another disturbingly common response by protesters was giving their critics the finger. I even saw one guy marching back in forth with his hands in the air, one with the middle-finger raised, the other with a two-fingered peace sign.
In contrast, there were some protesters who did their best to take the high road. At one point, around ten or so women locked arms and began to sing a very sweet rendition of "We Shall Overcome". (Overcome what? The insurgents' car bombs?)
One thing I didn't do that I probably should have is cover the counterprotest from its side of the metal fencing, rather than the from the protesters' side, where I was. Had I done that, I might be able to provide some better examples of offensive things that conservatives said.
But even if some of the comments were drowned out by the noise, I could read the signs, which tended to be moderate and patriotic. Among scores of signs that showed pictures of Iraqis voting and whatnot, there were a few that said things like "Hippies smell" and one bizarre poster that read "Rad fems = Neo-Marxists". What were these guys criticizing? A graduate seminar in the Harvard English department?
But the worst thing I saw was the huge banner put up by counter-protesters, according to which ANSWER coordinator "Brian Becker is a Commie". The assertion may be true, since the ANSWER leadership is filled with members of the Workers World Party, and other fringe groups.
Nonetheless, both the language of the banner and its emphasis on discrediting a specific individual bring to mind the worst sort of red-baiting from a bygone era. I think conservatives would only do themselves a favor by emphasizing ANSWER's perverse support for left-wing dictaors.
Apart from all of these specifics, I think it's important to give a better sense of the atmosphere at the counteprotest, which occupied the long block on the north side of Pennsylvania Ave. NW between 9th St. and 10th St. By the time I got there, the central mass of the protest march had long since gone by and there was just a more relaxed flow of protesters down Penn Ave.
What happened, though, was that the protesters had begun to cluster together in knots just across from the counterprotesters. The center of each knot tended to consist of one particularly loud screaming match that had drawn the attention of those on both sides. In between the knots there were smaller, more personalized confrontations, along with occasional unoccupied spaces. (Imagine the scene in the photograph above multipied along the length of a football field.)
The composition of most of the shouting knots changed slowly, as both the participants and observers on the anti-war side of the fence continued to march along the official protest route. The police also did their part to encourage forward movement, in order to prevent any of the confrontations from getting to heated.
I don't think one can really say that there was much substantive debate going on along the counterprotest block. Rather, there was a mix of condescension and lost tempers on both sides of the fence. One thing that struck me about the chants that went back forth, was how quickly they all returned to the chickenhawk debate.
One of the most popular protester responses to just about everything coming from the other side was "How come you're not in Iraq?" or "Why don't you enlist?" The general response was for the counterprotesters to point out or pull over the soldiers on their side of the fence or, alternately, the families of soldiers.
On occasion, the protesters challenged some of the soldiers to go back to Iraq if they supported the war. Once, there was even a chant of "Re-enlist! Re-enlist! Re-enlist!" Equally nonsensical was the demand of one counterprotester to know why, if the protesters cared so much about peace, they weren't in the Peace Corps.
But leaving aside such strange arguments, I think the prevalence of the chickenhawk argument does say something important the anti-war movment, namely that the only story it can tell itself about those who support the war is that they are very selfish or very naive. If this war is about blood for oil and profits for Halliburton, how could anyone support it if they aren't selfish or naive?
In contrast, mainstream Democrats know that promoting democracy is a good objective and that pulling out of Iraq may be very dangerous, even if they are 100% sure that we have already lost the war thanks to Bush's incompetence. But that kind of intellectual opposition to the war doesn't get people out in the streets.
Cindy Sheehan overcame such reluctance to a certain degree by infusing liberal arguments against the war with emotional content. But with soldiers and their families still coming out for the mission much more often than against it, Democrats can't get as outraged as they were a generation ago, when our government was forcing young men to fight and die in Vietnam. That is the invisible strength of an army of volunteers. (1) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 6:53 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
The second staple of conservative protest coverage is mocking the protesters, a la Michelle Malkin. In a limited sense, this sort of coverage also serves as a form of a media criticism, since the MSM have become so proficient at pretending the "moonbats" don't exist. Nonetheless, a fair amount of this coverage just crosses the line into being tasteless and spiteful.
So what can bloggers do to overcome this kind of entrenched habit? I'm not exactly sure, but I do want to focus in this post on one point that seems to have eluded the both the big papers and the bloggers completely: The Democratic Party, both in terms of official organizations and major politicians, stayed away from yesterday's protests like the plague.
There were a number of fringe Democrats on the speakers list, such as Jesse Jackson and Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA). But the closest thing I saw to official Democratic represenation was a number of protesters wearing t-shirts advertising the College Democrats. (Their timeless slogan: "Have you ever heard of a good piece of elephant?")
The closest thing I saw to a Dem-affiliated organization I saw was a delegation from SEIU, a service workers union. The SEIU brigade stood out both because of their purple t-shirts and because of their being almost exclusively black at a very, very white protest.
But perhaps one of the most important indications of the Democratic Party being MIA was what the protesters' signs were saying and what clothes they were wearing. I'd expected to see at least some leftover Kerry/Edwards paraphrenalia. Maybe I saw one or two items during my five hours at the protest.
In contrast, it was very easy to find folks wearing items such as the popular "International Terrorist" t-shirt, featuring a black-and-white portrait of President Bush. Naturally, I'm sure that almost everyone wearing those kind of t-shirts voted for Kerry last fall because they felt they had no choice. But their fashion preferences provide a good indication of just how far outside the Democratic mainstream most protesters are.
It is simple: If any Democratic senator or presidential candidate described Bush as a terrorist, they would destroy their own reputations. Imagine if Kerry had called Bush a terrorist. It would have made the reaction to Dick Durbin's "gulag" remarks seem tame.
If you read the WaPo or NYT, you get no sense of how far outside the Democratic mainstream the protesters are. And if you read conservative blogs, very few authors acknowledge that there are dramatic differences between the protesters and other liberals. (Although Glenn did point out that even some of Kos' bloggers found the protests distasteful.)
At the extreme of the protester spectrum are those who rare few who hold up posters of Bush and Hitler or superimpose a swastika on the American flag. But the description of Bush as a terrorist was common place. According to one chant I heard, "Who is a terrorist? Bush is a terrorist!" (Wash, rinse, repeat.)
The other major thread of protester sentiment that is totally anathema to the Democratic mainstream is the pervasive blood-for-oil slogan. Sample chant: "George Bush, corporate whore -- we don't want your oil war!"
On the rare occasions when protesters did refer explicitly Democrats, their comments were critical. One sign I saw compared today's Dems to LBJ. And there were at least as many of those sorts of signs as there were pro-Democratic ones.
Perhaps the closest thing I saw to real, active passionate support of the Democratic party was when Ralph Nader took the stage at the Ellipse and someone behind me screamed "F*** you, Ralph!" Al Gore would be proud. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 6:19 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
The protests [in Washington DC] and elsewhere were largely sponsored by two groups, the Answer Coalition, which embodies a wide range of progressive political objectives, and United for Peace and Justice, which has a more narrow, antiwar focus."Progressive" is a hard word to define, but I'm pretty damn sure that it has nothing to do with serving as an apologist for Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il and other left-wing dictators. In fact, that is the exact opposite of progressive -- it is reactionary.
As for UPJ, it is somewhat misleading to define it as having a "narrow, anti-war focus". Tactically speaking, that is not inaccurate, although UPJ itself advertises its interest in the Palestinian issue, "corporate globalization", and nuclear disarmament. (Amusingly, the latter emphasizes that "It is time to disarm America!", rather than, say, North Korea or Iran.)
But getting back to my point, UPJ's ideology in no way has a narrow, anti-war focus. It's purpose is to stop the "relentless drive for U.S. empire". Here's the key graf from UPJ's Unity Statement, its organizational manifesto:
It is now clear the war on Iraq was the leading edge of a relentless drive for U.S. empire. Exploiting the tragedy of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration has sought to use aggressive military action to pursue a long-term agenda: to forcibly dominate the world and impose right-wing policies at home under the cover of fighting terrorism.You know, you'd think that UPJ would give Bush more credit for being good at imperialism. I mean, look at what happened to the Russians and the British when they tried to take Afghanistan. And if Bush can pull our chestnuts out of the fire, then he really deserves an Oscar for imperialism. (1) opinions -- Add your opinion
Saturday, September 24, 2005
# Posted 4:44 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
So good for UFPJ, even if it is still well to the left of the Nation and can't stop itself from talking about the struggle against America's "global empire". More importantly, UFPJ seems to believe in transparency, a concept that ANSWER doesn't even begin to understand. For example, the UFPJ website lists all of the members of its administrative and steering committees, as well as providing financial reports for the past two years.
Sure, it's amusing that a member of the Communist Party -- USA is on both committees. But what matters more is that UFPJ operates (it seems) like a democratic organization and not like a communist party. (2) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 4:00 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
Why give out free chocolate? Because no one likes taking pop quizzes. And because then I can eat the leftovers myself. Buwahahahaha!
Anyhow, I want the quiz to be easy enough that anyone who reads a newspaper on a regular basis should get most or all of the questions right. If there are just a few space cadets who don't know the answers, that's what I'll report. But thanks to Evan Coyne Maloney, I think the results may be a little more interesting than that.
At the moment, here are the five questions I intend to use:
1. George Bush's middle initial is W. What does it stand for?The question about ANSWER is the only one that's a little obscure, but I think that if you're at a protest organized by ANSWER it's a reasonable question to ask. Results forthcoming... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 3:48 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 3:22 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
I think the decision to do this demonstrates the Post's understanding that the blogosphere and the MSM have far more to gain by working with each other rather than pretending that they are competitors. Moreover, it takes a lot of guts for the Post to provide links to numerous blogs that will almost certainly be critical of it. But I think the Post understands that giving its critics a chance to voice their opinions can only make the Post stronger.
If any other newspapers have done the same sort of thing, please let me know about it and I will put up a list here on OxBlog.
UPDATE: I just checked out the "Who's Blogging" links for the article about the protests I quoted below. It seems that this lovely feature has already exposed some of the MSM's ridiculous naivete about the anti-war protesters. Stop the Bleating has the scoop. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 3:15 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
The seasoned protesters who organized tomorrow's antiwar demonstration are well-versed in many other causes. They have marched and rallied against police brutality, racism, colonialism and the policies of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.Translation: Sure, the far left may have organized this protest, but most people there will be plain, old mainstream Americans.
As far as media coverage of anti-war protests go, this article is relatively good. At least it acknowledges that the people in charge are on the far left, even if it doesn't let you know that some of their main concerns include apologizing for dictators such as Fidel Castro and Kim Jong Il.
What I'm curious about is whether most people at the protest are actually middle-of-the-road Democrats, or whether what we're basically looking at are the Kucinich voters and the left-wing of the Howard Dean express. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 2:35 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
Now, I mentioned earlier this week that pointing out the dumbest arguments made by extremists on the other side of the political divide is neither an enriching nor an intellectually substantive activity. However, since ANSWER is one of the main organizers of the protest tomorrow, I figure I should provide all y'all with some information about what the group believes.
One of the first things I learned from ANSWER (courtesy of Ten Reasons Why We Oppose the War) was that "Iraq had no nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction -- and Bush knew it."
But the real treasure trove of strange delusions and apologias for the worlds' dictatorships is this eight page brochure that you can download as a PDF from the ANSWER website. Here are some highlights:
The global anti-war movement must be a movement of international solidarity against the U.S. empire. (Page 2)Well there you have it folks. ANSWER in a nutshell. And don't forget to free Mumia! (2) opinions -- Add your opinion
Friday, September 23, 2005
# Posted 9:43 PM by Patrick Belton
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 10:55 AM by Patrick Belton
We need to remember there is a reason these terrorists inflicted this on the state of Bangladesh. Instead of describing these acts simplistically as 'evil', we need to understand the 'root cause' of this anger, to account for the hatred people around the world feel for Bangladesh. Bangladesh needs to revise all the policies which have resulted in the legitimate grievances of these terrorists, including Bangladesh's occupation of Iraq, its massive military and financial support for the apartheid state of Israel, its refusal to sign the Kyoto treaty and its imperialist arrogance on the world stage. Only once Bangladesh stops trying to project global power and agrees to enter dialogue with the understandably inflamed opinion of jihadists will this cycle of violence abate. After all, if someone hates you in a murderous way, you must have done something to deserve it.And also here:
What's officially the most violent developed nation? And which country's government reacted negligently to a recent natural disaster, despite warnings from experts?Well blogged, mate.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 10:02 AM by Patrick Belton
Thursday, September 22, 2005
# Posted 6:30 PM by Patrick Belton
Then, while perfunctorily filling out my profile, I briefly amused myself by entering 'Abkhazian' under my language, as it was first in the list, and then promptly forgot all about Abkhazia.*
Then, this morning, to indicate to a friend that I wasn't going to ignore her any more, I changed my status to 'skype me'.
Then, out of nowhere, this undoubtedly quite nice Abkhazian lady began calling me, who didn't speak any English, but was happy to have another Abkhazian to talk to. I was very sorry to let her down.
I've heard the Georgian Riviera is quite nice; maybe I ought meet more Abkhazians until I have collected a sufficient quantity that some invite me to visit. You could drive there from here....
* Let my right hand lose its cunning. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 5:37 PM by Patrick Belton
(Other reasons, too. Those mostly below.) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 11:28 AM by Patrick Belton
The SPD apparently thought it necessary, in their last days in power, to demonstrate once more to the world precisely the level of political thought they had been bringing to German politics since 1998. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 1:54 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
In that spirit, OxBlog tries to say what it is for and not just what it is against. But sometimes, when experts with sterling credentials start to say things that are offensive and dangerous, they have to be exposed. Today's case in point is Dr. Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou, associate director of Harvard's Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research (HPCR) .
Last week, Dr. Mohamedou published an op-ed in the Boston Globe entitled "Time to Talk to Al Qaeda?" (Hat tip: Power Line) Here is a typical passage from the column:
Sept. 11 was not an unprovoked, gratuitous act. It was a military operation researched and planned since at least 1996 and conducted by a trained commando in the context of a war that had twice been declared officially and publicly.There you have it folks. An expert on the payroll of the world's greatest university telling us that hijacking airplanes and flying them into skyscrapers really isn't all that bad as long as you tell everyone in advance what you're going to do. But don't forget, this rule only applies to "trained commando". If you're an amateur terrorist, forget about it!
By the way, may I point out the sad irony of the fact that Dr. Mohamedou is the associate director of a center for humanitarian policy. We should be grateful that he isn't director of a center for disease control, otherwise he'd be telling us that there's nothing wrong with malaria.
By the way, you may be interested to know that in addition to Harvard, the two major sponsor of Dr. Mohamedou's program are the Executive Office of the United Nations Secretary-General and the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs. As everyone knows, both the Swiss and the UN have an impressive record of confronting evil in the world rather than retreating into relativism.
On a personal note, what's all the more disturbing about Dr. Mohamedou and is program is that its offices are in the very same building where I had my office when I spent the year at the Olin Institute at Harvard. In fact, a good friend of mine worked for the HPCR. I assumed it was just another program.
Anyhow, I'm still clinging to the hope that this whole op-ed is a hoax. Perhaps someone from ANSWER signed Dr. Mohamedou's name to the article and sent it in to the Globe. But if it's for real, then perhaps one has to wonder just how many other apologists for murder are posing as scholars on America's campuses.
UPDATE: According to Google, Dr. Mohamedou's op-ed has actually gotten a fair amount of attention from the right-wing of the blogosphere, including WizBang, Free Republic, Jihad Watch, LGF, and Best of the Web. On the left, Common Dreams and Info Clearing House have both reposted Dr. Mohamedou's column, with no apparent reservation about its contents. (2) opinions -- Add your opinion
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
# Posted 8:41 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Ethan Zuckerman has summarized three of the papers presented there. Jay Rosen of NYU and Press Think presented an extended defense of the he said/she said hypothesis, which OxBlog feels compelled to dispute approximately every six weeks.
Cass Sunstein presented a rather pessimistic sounding paper on how the blogosphere may serve as an amplifier of ignorance rather than a conduit for the collection and dissemination of our collective knowledge. Actually, I guess if you are a pro-MSM critic of the blogosphere, than Sunstein's paper might be thought of as optimistic.
Finally, Eszter Hargittai sought to measure the degree of partisan insularity in the blogosphere. She did so by trying to measure not just how often liberals link to conservatives and vice versa, but how often liberals link to conservatives approvingly and vice versa. (You can read a more detailed account of Eszter's paper on her own blog.)
Not too surprisingly, Eszter found that bloggers link to their ideological bedfellows far more often than they do to their adversaries and that an overwhelming number of posts to one's adversaries tend to be critical, even to the point of being straw-man attacks.
Nonetheless, as Eszter herself points out, "people from both groups are certainly reading across the ideological divide to some extent." I'm also interested in seeing what happens when Eszter looks at blogs that don't fall neatly into categories of right and left.
Dare I speculate that websites such DanielDrezner.com, The Moderate Voice, The American Scene and (yes) OxBlog actually engage in the supposedly ideal behavior of carefully reading and considering arguments presented by both sides?
Yes, that was a rhetorical question meant to advertise my own alleged open-mindedness and "centrism". Off hand, I'd say that I don't refer to myself as a centrist nearly as often as I once did. I find those on the right as well as those on the left tend to resent self-identified centrists for having a holier-than-thou attitude.
Hmmm. Maybe they're right. And this post is evidence of how right they are.
Anyhow, there are political advantages to claiming the mantle of centrism. But I'm not running for office. And if you want to build up a five-figure daily readership in the blogosphere, you pretty much have to provide enough red meat for one half of the political spectrum. But that is not my aspiration for the moment. I still have a Ph.D. to finish. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 7:45 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 5:52 PM by Patrick Belton
A television presenter on a new Dutch talk show plans to take heroin and other illegal drugs on air in a program intended to reach young audiences on topics that touch their lives, producers said Wednesday. I.e., I get my work to pay for my drugs, then show all my friends how I did. Good job, this being Dutch.Sometimes, you really, really, really can't make this stuff up. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 5:43 PM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 5:37 PM by Patrick Belton
In passing the other day, I mentioned the Moondoggle. This is the idea floated early last year that NASA might return to the moon and build a base there, for no particular reason.(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 11:47 AM by Patrick Belton
(1) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 8:04 AM by Patrick Belton
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 3:27 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 3:08 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 1:32 AM by Ariel David Adesnik
What's especially interesting about the latest developments in Beijing is that, as Kevin Drum ably pointed out, the partisan implications of Monday's deal are anything but clear. Should liberals celebrate Bush's embrace of a Clinton-esque policy of engagement at the price of admitting that Bush deserves credit for this apparent breakthrough? And should conservatives attempt to take credit for this apparent breakthrough at the cost of admitting that Clinton was right about engagement in the first place?
To a certain extent, Kevin himself has sought to square the cirlce by explaining how the recent deal can be both a good idea and a failure for the Bush administration. After calling out Instapundit, Power Line, Michelle Malkin and Hugh Hewitt for their silence on the subject of North Korea, Kevin argues (drawingly heavily on this NYT report) that the Bush administration gave in to North Korean demands it once rejected because the combination of Iraq, Katrina and Chinese pressure weakened its resolve.
Although I'd be surprised if Iraq and Katrina influenced Bush's decision to accept the deal, Kevin's interpretation is plausible enough given the available evidence. However, I think Kevin goes a step too far with his sarcastic observation that
After all, the North Koreans got nothing out of this deal except for every single thing they've ever asked for. [Emphasis in original]Given that both sides have promised a lot and delivered nothing as of yet, it's hard to argue that Bush got suckered. However, Kevin may be pushing the envelope because of Capt. Ed's brazen argument that Bush's steely resolve intimidated NoKo into submission. According to the Captain,
After testing the Bush administration several times and finding it unwilling to waver, even after a number of Bush's political opponents (such as John Kerry) fell for his tricks, Kim knows that Bush has him diplomatically isolated and left with no choice but compliance or war.I'm going to have to side with Kevin on this one and guess that even a total whackjob like Kim Jong Il doesn't think that the United States can to go war against North Korea anytime soon.
In contrast to Capt. Ed, some conservatives, like James Robbins over at NRO, are standing by their traditional argument that any deal with North Korea is useless since the regime simply can't be trusted. Although Matt Yglesias taunts Robbins for his remarkable ability to "oppose sensible policy even when George W. Bush is implementing it," the fact remains that even thoughtful Democratic analysts like Derek Chollet think the latest deal may be worthless.
But even before we can figure out whether Pyongyang is at all serious about abandoning its weapons programs, it pays to consider Suzanne Nossel's argument that the agreement is already falling apart, albeit for reasons unknown. As Suzanne points out, NoKo spokesman have been so vitriolic in the few days since the agreement was signed that something seems to have gone terribly wrong.
But FYI, even though Suzanne and Derek are staunch Democrats, there doesn't seem to be a party line on this issue. For instance, the NYT attempts to endorse the agreement while giving Bush as little credit as possible by writing that
The Bush administration, which has spent more than four years discounting the importance of international agreements, has rediscovered the safeguards and rewards of peaceful international diplomacy in general and this vital treaty in particular.Although the Times headges its confidence with a lone reference to the importance of the agreement's "details", I am still rather disturbed by the editors' blithe confidence in negotiating with otherworldly dictators.
That's all I have to say for now. I still have no idea what's really going on so I can't give a moral to this story. But I can leave you all with this bizarre quote from Fred Kaplan (via One Free Korea):
It's a significant breakthrough. But it could easily have been accomplished two and a half years ago, had President George W. Bush been willing. It is also nothing like an actual agreement, just a preliminary step before the real negotiations—where, if history holds, North Korea will frustrate us with tricks and backtracking, and we just have to hang on tight.OFK comments:
Translation: Bush could have had an equally emphemeral, transitory, and meaningless deal with a shelf life of less then one day two whole years ago if he's only listened to Fred Kaplan.Ouch. But no one ever said that being a pundit is easy, so I think a little mercy is in order (if only because I'll want it next time I screw up). (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
# Posted 12:24 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
The headline guest on tomorrow night's show will be none other than Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice. FYI, you can also listen to the show as a podcast. (See instructions on the S2D homepage.)
All three OxBloggers have been guests on Shaun's show and enjoyed it tremendously. So check it out! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 9:54 AM by Patrick Belton
Bloggers from left to right are agreed that the New York Times's decision to fence off its op-eds from free public consumption, and debate, represents - to put it precisely - A Bad Thing. But then came Amygdala, and all was light. Gary Farber purports to have found a rather straightforward hack, or workaround, or other miscellaneous miscreancy to permit us to continue to read each day, say, our daily Krugman and Friedman. (That sound you're hearing is the roar of enthusiasm from these quarters.) He also suspects, in whispered tones, that some member of staff or broader level of Nice Grey Auntie might have made this so simple on purpose.
Devious buggers, restricting public debate to those who can pay and those who can hack? Has the Straussian conspiracy reached yet so far?
Nah. At least, that's what they told me to say. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
Monday, September 19, 2005
# Posted 6:51 PM by Patrick Belton
Another Brit pundit, and OxBlog knockoff, making white-gloved debut in the blogosphere as a result of the Conservative leadership race is Dr Liam Fox's FoxBlog; though personally, in the 'imitation, flattery, &c department,' and this despite my tendency to support baseball underdogs and sport teams hailing from Gotham, I must confess a certain lingering fondness for SoxBlog. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 8:09 AM by Patrick Belton
# Posted 4:45 AM by Patrick Belton
Sunday, September 18, 2005
# Posted 10:49 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
# Posted 10:27 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Although I think there's no way Condi will run, I think that kind of result says a tremendous amount about her public image as smart, tough and dignified. In a word: presidential. Or in 2008, perhaps vice-presidential. (Hat tip: MS via TMV) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 8:02 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
But the slogan displayed on the right is pure nonsense. It is a contradiction in terms. If only intolerance is wrong, than how dare we not tolerate it! Although there has long been a shortage of moral clarity on America's campuses, it shouldn't be hard to say "We will not tolerate racism. Racism is wrong. Period." (0) opinions -- Add your opinion
# Posted 7:15 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Whereas Friday's coverage quoted Ahmadinejad extensively while ignoring his critics, today's includes mostly paraphrased remarks by the Iranian president, followed by commentary from Western diplomats that makes Ahmadinejad look either foolish or belligerent. For example:
In a defiant speech, peppered with anti-American rhetoric and veiled threats, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told world leaders at the United Nations on Saturday that his country will never give up its nuclear enrichment program...Why the new spin from the WaPo? First of all, today's dispatch was by Dafna Linzer, Friday's by Glenn Kessler. If a single correspondent had turned around like that overnight, it would be very surprising.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, I don't think American journalists have clear standards for covering foreign leaders, especially from non-democratic nations. Sometimes their coverage is deferential for no apparent reason. At other times it is far more harsh and one-sided than the coverage to which an American politician would be subjected, presumably since foreign leaders have no constituency to speak up on their behalf.
The recent coverage of Ahmadinejad sort of reminds me of the coverage of Fidel Castro during the 1980s. Sometimes, Fidel would get quoted uncritically when talking about the importance of peace and of Reagan's threat to it. At other times, journalists would point out that Fidel ruled by force and habitually towed the Moscow party line.
To a certain extent, the treatment of foreign leaders serves as an implicit barometer of journalists' attitude toward American foreign policy. Since Ahmadinejad's remarks on Saturday were so belligerent that even the Europeans expressed considerable disappointment, it's not surprising that the WaPo's coverage of the Iranian president was less favorable.
Although the malleability of such coverage is frustrating, I think it is here to stay. Coverage of American politics is much more (but not fully) balanced because journalists have to persuade both liberal and conservative readers of their relative detachment. In contrast, audiences know less and care less about foreign leaders. Therefore, they aren't as demanding.
POSTSCRIPT: It is also worth comparing the NYT's coverage of Ahmadinejad from Friday as opposed to today. The contrast isn't as stark as in the WaPo, but you can clearly see a more critical turn after the Iranian president's confrontational speech to the UN. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion