Month: June 2005

My Irony Meter Exploded Again…

by

And I had just replaced it after the last time… Via Randy Paul at Beautiful Horizons comes this White House Press Release: “President’s Statement on United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture On United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, the United States reaffirms its commitment to the worldwide … Read more

Freedom and Equality on the March!

by

The Netherlands and Belgium. Canada and Spain. "We were not the first, but I am sure we will not be the last. After us will come many other countries, driven, ladies and gentlemen, by two unstoppable forces: freedom and equality," [Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero] told the chamber. In the US there’s a … Read more

Failure Is Always An Option

by

by hilzoy Billmon has a very interesting post on Iraq called ‘Failure Is An Option’. He makes a lot of points, some of which I disagree with, but all of which are worth reading. But the point made in his title is a really important one that I’ve been thinking of writing about for a … Read more

Establishing My Religion

by

by hilzoy

I have been reading the oddest thing: Scalia’s dissent in McCreary County v. ACLU (pdf). It’s very peculiar in its own right, and even more peculiar as an illustration of originalist legal theories in action. McCreary County is one of the Ten Commandments cases that were handed down on Monday; it concerns a copy of the Ten Commandments displayed in a courthouse. The majority said that the display of the Ten Commandments in this case was unconstitutional. Scalia disagrees on various grounds; the one that interests me is his claim that putting up the Ten Commandments in a courthouse does not favor one religion over another (pp. 53-55).

I could understand (though I would not agree with) an originalist who said: look, what ‘establish’ means, in the establishment clause, is: to make some religion the official religion of the government. Via the fourteenth amendment, this extends to other units of government, like counties. But putting up a display in a courthouse is not an establishment of religion in this sense. So even if McCreary County had chosen to display the Catholic catechism, the Augsburg Confession, or the Qur’an, that would have been fine. Scalia does say that “governmental invocation of God is not an establishment.” But for some reason he does not conclude that it is acceptable for a public building to display the text of some specific religion; only for such a building to display texts common to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. (Why? I don’t know about you, but I think the answer has to involve a penumbra or an emanation.)

I could also understand an originalist who tried to argue that displaying the Ten Commandments did not count as establishing a religion unless the display somehow indicated which of the several religions that take the Ten Commandments to be sacred it favored. But while that argument would be understandable, it would also be stupid and unworkable, not least because it would require a clear account of what counts as ‘one religion’. (Is establishing Christianity OK so long as the government does not choose between Protestantism, Catholicism and Orthodoxy? Is establishing Pentacostalism OK so long as one does not specify which of the roughly 11,000 Pentacostal denominations now in existence one prefers? And so on.)

But Scalia does not rely explicitly on the claim that the Ten Commandments are not the province of any one religion either. Instead, he argues that because the Ten Commandments are viewed as sacred by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and because these three religions are the most popular monotheistic religions in the country, it is acceptable to display the Ten Commandments in a public building. And what I cannot understand is how on earth he manages to get this out of the text of the establishment clause in a way that even pretends to be consistent with his general views on legal interpretation.

(Note: I am not a lawyer, of course, but I am about to pretend. Be warned. It may not be pretty. Also: I started thinking about this because I was appalled by the idea that you could ‘establish’ anything on which Christianity, Judaism. and Islam all agreed; but as I thought more I ended up being more interested in the question: how did a smart guy like Scalia convince himself that what he says has anything at all to do with originalism?)

Read more

Cupboards Well-Stocked With Things To Diminish

by

Barely adequate.  Bush’s speech last night did pull the Administration back from Cheney’s "last throes" remark.  That’s good, because Cheney’s claim was ridiculous given the facts on the ground.  Indeed, in less-partisan times, one might even call it a flat-out lie.

So, at least we’re no longer at the brink of a self-inflicted Vietnamization.  Bush also hit the high points, forthrightly stated the difficulty of our task in Iraq, and showed a willingness to stick it out. 

After the say, however, comes the do.  It will be hard to do the right thing in Iraq.  We had cupboards well-stocked of goodwill; reserves of will to win aplenty.  Those cupboards are now nearly bare.  The public is no longer buying Cheney’s glib pronouncements of imminent victory or premature claims of "Mission Accomplished".  The worm is turning on Iraq, and we must complete the mission before it does.

With that in mind, Herbert E. Meyer, a former CIA official with the Reagan Administration, offers the following advice:

Get Real with the Generals

First, you need to fight harder in Iraq.  You keep saying that you are giving our generals all the troops they want.  With all respect, sir, this couldn’t possibly be true.  In the history of the world there has never been a general who thought he had enough troops.  If your generals are telling you they have all the troops they want to finish the job in Iraq, either the generals are idiots – or they have gotten the word that asking for more troops will end their careers.  Sit down with your generals privately – just you and them — and find out how many troops they really think they need.  If they still insist they don’t want more troops on the ground in Iraq, then get yourself a new bunch of generals.  If they tell you they need another 250,000 soldiers and Marines – then fly them over from Korea, Germany or wherever they are stationed just as fast as possible.  If we haven’t got them to send – then order a draft.  One way or another, put enough troops on the ground in Iraq to secure that country — fast.  And while you’re at it, give the orders to either take out the governments of Syria and Iran or to hit them with so much force that they quit playing footsie with al Queda and the Baathists, because we cannot win in Iraq so long as Syria and Iran are providing support and sanctuary.  In short, do whatever is necessary, and do it now.

Emphasis mine.  As The Belgravia Dispatch notes, "Sit down with your generals privately" means without Rumsfeld, Cheney, or, indeed, anyone else in the room.  Just the President and the Generals; all cards on the table.  (By the way, if The Belgravia Dispatch is not yet a daily stop for you, it should be.)

When public opinion decisively tips against the war (as it, assuredly, soon will), it will be impossible to keep troops in the field.  When public opinion decisively tips against the war, the insurgents won’t need to beat us; we will have beaten ourselves.  A very public suicide; a disaster for Iraq, our national security, and the Middle East.

The time to win in Iraq is running out.  No more buck passing.  No more of Rumsfeld’s "it’s above my pay grade."  No more a strategy of "just enough."  Act.  For the good of your country and your administration, act now.

(Title cite.)

UPDATE:  A few changes for clarity.  Some of the readership point out, rightly, that a draft is a poor way to keep public opinion on your side.  Absolutely conceded; indeed, I originally bolded that section of the letter to highlight where I disagree with Mr. Meyer’s advice.  Sadly, I didn’t get around to including that discussion in the body of this comment.

But the core of Mr. Meyer’s advice is sound.  I don’t buy the dance of "we want to send troops, but the Generals won’t have them."  The Generals, I’m sure, are very aware that a larger footprint in Iraq will have some negative consequences.  But it seems that all this worrying about "larger footprints" is meaningless if the footprint you have just ain’t getting the job done.  It’s similar to being on a starvation diet, and yet all you talk about is how fat you could get if you eat more.  A strategic anorexia; not very becoming. 

Yeah, there’s a risk (how real?  who knows?  goes the Rumsfeld koan) more troops will enflame the insurgency.  But weigh that risk against the near certainty that the current level of troops cannot defeat the insurgency.  Cost-benefit yo’ ass.  Ain’t a few more troops — if we have them to send — worth the risk of a few months of bad press?  Would enough troops to secure the border with Syria make it more likely that we’ll fail?

(That’s one reason why I found Neurath’s Boat‘s critique of my last post on the subject less than convincing.)

Read more

Eminent Domain

by

When I first heard about the Kelo case I was worried because I thought there was a greater likelyhood of the Court expanding the eminent domain power than there was of them limiting it.  The drift from an already expansive meaning of public use to the very broad understanding of public purpose is unfortunate.  It … Read more

Ceci N’Est Pas Un Post

by

by hilzoy I was writing a long post on a Wall Street Journal OpEd that said that critics of the war were doing Zarqawi’s dirty work for him, but I’ve decided to bag it. If people are inclined to believe that any problems we might be having in Iraq are the fault not of the … Read more

Petition: Investigate Prisoner Abuse

by

by hilzoy Wes Clark has drafted a petition calling on Sen. John Warner, the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, to investigate the role of the Bush administration in the various prisoner abuse scandals. It reads: “Chairman Warner: I urge you to investigate the Bush Administration’s role in the prisoner abuse and humiliation that … Read more

Belgravia, Rolling.

by

by von There’s a lot to criticize in Kerry’s NYT Op-Ed ("The Speech the President Should Give" — not presumptuous at all, is he?), but Greg Djerejian tags the key line: The administration must immediately draw up a detailed plan with clear milestones and deadlines for the transfer of military and police responsibilities to Iraqis … Read more

Iraq and the Occasional Communicator

by

by Charles

As anyone could probably guess, I voted for Bush in the last two elections and I generally agree with many, if not most, administration policies.  There are also some actions and policies I do not support, encapsulated best in this piece last August.  One of the biggest ongoing irritants for me is that, while Reagan was the Great Communicator, Bush is the Occasional Communicator and it’s hurting our progress in Iraq. Here’s the problem:

Read more

Give Truth a Chance

by

by Edward John Kerry, in a New York Times op-ed piece titled "The Speech the President Should Give," really doesn’t offer anything of the kind. Instead he runs through, once more, the laundry list of complaints against the way the Iraq invasion’s been handled. Oh, he suggests here and there a variance to the current … Read more

Rove, Take 2

by

by hilzoy One of the things that went through my mind after Karl Rove’s remarks last Wednesday was: doesn’t he realize that there are Democrats (and even, gasp, liberals) serving in the armed forces? How on earth must it make them feel to know that while they are risking their lives, one of the President’s … Read more

Alea Iacta Est

by

Donald Rumsfeld on Fox News Sunday: … the implication of the question was that we don’t have enough [troops] to win against the insurgency. We’re not going to win against the insurgency. The Iraqi people are going to win against the insurgency. That insurgency could go on for any number of years. Insurgencies tend to … Read more

Hagel: We Are Losing The War In Iraq

by

by hilzoy

From the Omaha World-Herald, via DKos:

“GRAND ISLAND, Neb. – More than 200 Nebraska American Legion members, who have seen war and conflict themselves, fell quiet here Saturday as Sen. Chuck Hagel bluntly explained why he believes that the United States is losing the war in Iraq. It took 20 minutes, but it boiled down to this: The Bush team sent in too few troops to fight the war leading to today’s chaos and rising deaths of Americans and Iraqis. Terrorists are “pouring in” to Iraq. Basic living standards are worse than a year ago in Iraq. Civil war is perilously close to erupting there. Allies aren’t helping much. The American public is losing its trust in President Bush’s handling of the conflict. And Hagel’s deep fear is that it will all plunge into another Vietnam debacle, prompting Congress to force another abrupt pullout as it did in 1975.

“What we don’t want to happen is for this to end up another Vietnam,” Hagel told the legionnaires, “because the consequences would be catastrophic.” It would be far worse than Vietnam, says Hagel, a twice-wounded veteran of that conflict, which killed 58,000 Americans. Failure in Iraq could lead to many more American deaths, disrupt U.S. oil supplies, damage the Middle East peace effort, spread terrorism and harm America’s stature worldwide, Hagel said. That’s what keeps him on edge these days. (…)”

Read more

David Brooks: Lost In Space

by

by hilzoy David Brooks outdoes himself today: “Karl Rove has his theories about what separates liberals from conservatives and I have mine. Mine include the differences between Jeffrey Sachs and George Bush. (…) Sachs is a child of the French Enlightenment. At the end of his new book, “The End of Poverty,” he delivers an … Read more

Sexual Counterrevolutionaries

by

by hilzoy

I’ve just been reading (via Pandagon) the oddest article. It’s from Rolling Stone, and it’s about twenty-something Christians who have embraced chastity. And “embraced chastity” is, I think, the right way to put it: they don’t just not have sex, they seem to have made it the organizing principle of their lives in a way that strikes me as very sexualized, and certainly very strange.

“After church one day, Dunbar, Power and I sit on a bench and lean back in the sun and watch Sunday morning stroll by. “Cleavage everywhere,” notes Dunbar, not disapprovingly. Power holds up his right hand. Wrapped around his wrist, in a figure eight, is a black plastic bracelet. “This,” he says, “is a ‘masturband.’ ” One of their friends at college — Pepperdine University — came up with the idea. As long as you stay pure — resist jerking off — you can wear your masturband. Give in, and off it goes, a scarlet letter in reverse. No masturband? No one wants to shake your hand. “It started with just four of us,” says Dunbar. “Then there were, like, twenty guys wearing them. And girls too. The more people that wore them, the more people knew, the more reason you had to refrain.” Dunbar even told his mother. He lasted the longest. “Eight and a half months,” he says. I notice he’s not wearing one now. He’s not embarrassed. Sexuality, he believes, is not a private matter.”

I guess not.

Read more

Eat the Whales

by

The photo came from a Tokyo market.  The Sunday Telegraph: Japan has introduced an education program into primary and secondary schools to teach students to eat whale meat. Almost 60,000 whale meals were served at 280 schools during the program’s first three months in the Wakayama province, south-west Japan. The program has proved so successful, … Read more

New Iranian President Declared

by

The Iranian theocracy staged an election yesterday and declared that the new president will be Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a fundamentalist hardliner and onetime mayor of Tehran.

Several brief observations are made, followed by a more detailed discussion.  First, the election on June 17th and the run-off yesterday cannot be considered legitimate.  Why?  Because the regime has refused access to international elections observers, the press has no freedom and dissidents favoring freedom and real democracy have reported widespread fraud.  Election results and voter turnout are unverifiable.  Second, the election results don’t matter anyway.  The country is run by Ayatollah Khamenei and the Guardian Council, a group of hardline Islamic clerics.  All other positions of authority are subject.  Third, the message sent to the world by the ascension of Ahmadinejad, a former basiji (read religious goon squad member), is a troublesome one.  The mullahs want to crack down.  The creeping social, political and economic liberalization that took place over the past several years will stop and likely reverse.  Development of atomic bombs will continue, as will funding of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah.

Read more

Oh Dear.

by

by hilzoy

From the Washington Post:

“TEHRAN, June 25 — Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hard-line mayor of Tehran who has invoked Iran’s 1979 revolution and expressed doubts about rapprochement with the United States, won a runoff election Friday and was elected president of the Islamic republic in a landslide, the Interior Ministry announced early Saturday. Ahmadinejad defeated Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former two-term president who had won the first round of voting last week and was attempting to appeal to socially moderate and reform-minded voters.

Ahmadinejad’s election stands to complicate Iran’s gradual engagement with the West, including difficult negotiations over the country’s nuclear program. The apparent victory completes the domination of Iran’s elective offices by the religious fundamentalists who have long held ultimate authority in the theocracy.

“Today is the beginning of a new political era,” Ahmadinejad said as he cast his ballot in a working class neighborhood of Tehran, the capital, where he been mayor for two years.”

Read more

Living, Breathing, Redefining, Collectivizing

by

by Charles

First off, I’m not lawyer but I work in the eminent domain field, and the Kelo v. New London case was a big one.  The Washington Post:

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project’s success is not guaranteed.

The 5 to 4 ruling provided the strong affirmation that state and local governments had sought for their increasing use of eminent domain for urban revitalization, especially in the Northeast, where many city centers have decayed and the suburban land supply is dwindling.

Opponents, including property-rights activists and advocates for elderly and low-income urban residents, argued that forcibly shifting land from one private owner to another, even with fair compensation, violates the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of property by government except for "public use."

But Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, cited cases in which the court has interpreted "public use" to include not only such traditional projects as bridges or highways but also slum clearance and land redistribution. He concluded that a "public purpose" such as creating jobs in a depressed city can also satisfy the Fifth Amendment.

By redefining and broadening the term "public use", interchanging the phrase with "public purpose", the Supreme Court in effect snatched a chunk of property rights from private owners and handed them to cities and other local governments.  This ruling can’t help but favor governments and corporations and developers, all at the expense of the little guy, loosening by another few notches yet again the constraints on governmental power.  Even with a good economy in the Puget Sound area, I know of too many cities strapped for cash.  This case will likely open the door to mischief.  McQ:

In essence the court found for collectivism and government and against individuals and their property rights. It found the needs of the group outweighed the rights of the individual to the point that the collective, through the monopoly force of government, could take the private property of an individual almost at their whim.

Read more

Stop Me Before I Spend Again!

by

by hilzoy By a strange coincidence, the National Review had an article yesterday advocating the same approach to Social Security that the Republican Congressional leadership just adopted. It’s too completely disingenuous to merit fisking, but it does contain one crucial falsehood that it’s important to point out: “The gradual phase-in of personal accounts funded by … Read more

Social Security: The Second Time As Farce

by

by hilzoy Today’s Washington Post reports on a new Republican Social Security proposal: “After watching the Social Security debate from the sidelines, House Republican leaders yesterday embraced a new approach to Social Security restructuring that would add individual investment accounts to the program, but on a much smaller scale than the Bush administration favors. The … Read more

The Short Happy Life of Samson Agonistes

by

We are, of course, all familiar with Mr. Rove’s recent remarks regarding "liberals":*  Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. Now, for myself, I’d generally chalk this up to cheap partisan hackery — red meat for the red meat brigade.  A … Read more

Ethically Challenged

by

by hilzoy

Via TPM, a story from the (San Diego area) North County News:

“Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham and a Washington defense contractor continued their silence Tuesday about allegations that the Escondido Republican’s relationship with the contractor may have influenced Cunningham to use his clout to help the company obtain millions of dollars in federal defense contracts. (…)

When a Congressional representative has strong reason to believe that a House member may have committed an ethics violation, any House member may request that the ethics panel investigate the matter. To date, no Congressional representative, Republican or Democrat, has filed such a request pertaining to Cunningham.

While Republicans may have partisan reasons for not asking the House Ethics Committee to investigate Cunningham’s ties to the contractor, Democrats have no such excuse, said Naomi Seligman, deputy director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

“If Democrats are all about ethics and integrity, how can they not file a complaint?” she asked.”

Josh Marshall is furious:

“Now, I’ve talked to various knowledgable folks. And the reasons are several. The ethics committee is shut down. So there’s no point in filing a complaint. That’s one of the main excuses. But the real reason seems to be this — and the word comes down right from the House leadership: the Democrats don’t want to start filing ethics complaints against the Republicans because they’re afraid the Republicans will turn around and do the same to them.

They apparently want the ‘truce’ of the late 1990s back in force.

And just so we’re clear, it’s awfully hard to think of anything more pathetic than that. (…)

The Republicans are running a wildly corrupt Congress — particularly on the House side. And the Democrats are so shorn of power that they couldn’t even manage to be very corrupt if they tried. After all, this kind of corruption is about selling access and power. And the Democrats have no access or power!

So how is it exactly that the Democrats should be afraid that the Republicans are going to be able to give as good as they get if there’s an ‘ethics war’ in the House when that is the case. Some are just scared. Others, particularly some of the veterans, don’t want to clamp down too much because they’ve spent ten years out of power and they don’t want all the fun to be over if and when they finally get back in the saddle.

If elected Democrats aren’t able or willing to take a stand against the cash-n-carry legislative ethos of Tom DeLay’s Washington they’re simply not doing the job anyone sent them there to do. And they should be replaced too.”

What he said. To be clear: I blame everyone who has not filed an ethics complaint on this one, Democrat or Republican. But while I can, sort of, understand what the Republicans might be thinking, without particularly liking it, I have no idea at all in what universe this is not an obvious thing for Democrats to do. It is, for them, both right and politically expedient. And they should do it now.

You can find your Representative’s email address here. Whether your Rep is a Democrat or a Republican, write and ask him or her to refer Cunningham’s case to the House Ethics Committee. If this isn’t exactly the sort of case the Committee ought to be investigating, I don’t know what is.

Read more

Zimbabwe Falling

by

by Charles

BBC has some disturbing before and after pictures of Robert Mugabe’s Operation Drive Out Trash (the Swahili Shona word is Murambatsvina).

[Before and after images show shanty town clearance in a suburb of Harare.]

Update IV:  Despite the overwhelming case that president Robert Mugabe is precipitating a humanitarian meltdown in Zimbabwe (noted also here), the African Union turned its back. The BBC:

An AU spokesman told the BBC that it had many more serious problems to consider than Zimbabwe.

The UN says that 275,000 people have been made homeless. At least three children have been crushed to death.

[…]

"If the government that they elected say they are restoring order by their actions, I don’t think it would be proper for us to go interfering in their internal legislation," AU spokesman Desmond Orjiako told the BBC’s Network Africa programme.

His comments were backed up by South Africa, Zimbabwe’s giant neighbour, which some see as the key to solving Zimbabwe’s problems.

Presidential spokesman Bheki Khumalo said he was "irritated" by calls from UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to do more to end the "horrors" in Zimbabwe.

"South Africa refuses to accept the notion that because suddenly we’re going to a G8 summit, we must be reminded that we must look good and appease the G8 leaders," he said.

"We will do things because we believe they are correct and right."

If the African Union cannot see the goodness and rightness of standing up to democide, then this group lacks any semblance of moral authority or legitimacy. They are now part of the problem, not the solution.

(Other updates below the fold)

Read more

Retract Or Resign

by

by hilzoy NYT, 6/23/2005: “Karl Rove came to the heart of Manhattan last night to rhapsodize about the decline of liberalism in politics, saying Democrats responded weakly to Sept. 11 and had placed American troops in greater danger by criticizing their actions. “Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; … Read more

Condi Rising

by

by Charles

I’ve always been a fan of Condoleeza Rice.  Part of it has to do with her background and part has to do with her smarts, temperament, grace and charisma.  She reminds me a little of Margaret Thatcher, but better looking (sexist alert).  Another item in the plus column is her performance as Secretary of State.  Just in the last week, she has on multiple occasions lived up to the standards of the second inaugural address.  Let’s recap.

Read more

Bedfellowing with Nancy

by

by Charles

In all the years of reading, watching and listening to Nancy Pelosi, I can safely say that we see eye-to-eye on just about nothing.  But after we reading this piece yesterday, the streak has ended.

The White House on Tuesday rejected the proposed creation of an independent commission to investigate abuses of detainees held at the U.S. military prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the Pentagon has launched 10 major investigations into allegations of abuse, and that system was working well.

[…]

Democrats on Capitol Hill have increasingly called for an independent commission to look into detainee abuses. On Tuesday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said a commission is crucial to answering questions about the atmosphere that permitted abuses, troop training and the length of detentions at Guantanamo.

"These questions are important because the safety of our country depends on our reputation and how we are viewed, especially in the Muslim world," she said.

It is commendable that ten investigations are underway, but the problem is that they are a patchwork, conducted by various departments and having varying lines of authority.  As I wrote here, taking nothing away from the conduct and integrity of those performing the investigations, the US military is investigating the US military and it gives the appearance of a conflict of interest. Reporting to an independent bipartisan commission removes that appearance and gives the world greater assurance that the issue is being addressed.  Putting the disparate investigations under one umbrella (and perhaps adding a few more to fill in the holes) is an effective way clarify the hierarchy.  Instead of ten separate reports, they can be folded into one.  Once the commission has absorbed the investigations, analyzed the situation and made recommendations, the detainee issue is settled and we can move on. 

The 9/11 Commission performed a similar function.  Despite political maneuvering, grandstanding (Slippery Dick, for example) and other ins and outs, the 9/11 Commission Report was a positive and constructive contribution.  If put together right, a Detainee Commission could accomplish similar results.

(also at Redstate.org)

Read more

The Polish Plumber

by

Via Sullivan Tom Palmer points us to this ferociously funny retort to the French’s xenophobic campaign against free labor markets in Europe. The tale of the "Polish Plumbers" coming down to replace French drainage experts was touted repeatedly leading up to the vote. The Poles’ response is a classic: I’m staying in Poland: Y’all Come … Read more

Pissed Off Kristof

by

by Charles And who can blame him?  Pakistan has a problem with women’s rights, among other things, embodied by the travails of Mukhtaran Bibi.  Kristof: When Pakistan’s prime minister visits next month, President Bush will presumably use the occasion to repeat his praise for President Pervez Musharraf as a bold leader "dedicated in the protection … Read more

Art and the End of China’s Cultural Revolution

by

You have no idea how happy this makes me: Not so long ago Chinese authorities were in the business of closing down contemporary exhibitions. Curators and artists organised shows furtively: at the 2000 Shanghai Biennial, for example, the official State-subsidised exhibition was accompanied by a crop of impromptu “underground” shows in warehouses and basements, most … Read more

The UN on Matters of War and Peace

by

The international community is generally quite bad in dealing with issues of war or mass slaughter.  Whatever the utility of the UN on trade or health (and its successes there are decidedly mixed) it is very bad at dealing with the issues its charter makes preeminent.  The international community is especially bad at responding to … Read more