Posted 4:56 AM by Patrick Belton
THE SILENT MAJORITY: Mexican-American Jew Daniel Lubetzky and Palestinian Mohammad Darawshe from Nazareth have conducted a massive survey of 23,000 Palestinians and 17,000 Israelis, and have found that that seventy-six percent of both populations favour a two-state settlement, liberal democracy and minority rights, and mutual recognition.

The down side was that strong Palestinian majorities opposed settlements while strong Israeli majorities opposed the right of return. But in any event, the efforts of Lubetzky and Darawshe and their organisation OneVoice have demonstrated that there exists substantial broad agreement among the ordinary people of Israel and Palestine about what the contours of a final status agreement should look like - and hearteningly, that 'strong rejectionists' on both sides, even in the current dark days, number definitively as a comparatively small minority.

Posted 1:28 AM by David Adesnik
UPDATE YOUR LINKS: Blogger-ventriloquist Joe Gandelman has moved his site to Type Pad, so don't look for him on Blogspot anymore. Right now, Joe thinks things are looking pretty bad for the President:

Each day it seems like another group in the coalition that helped election him in the nail-biting election against Al Gore is dropping away.

What we seem to be seeing now is a slow but steady trend away from Bush, rather than to Kerry, who remains as exciting and palatable as a bowl of frozen chopped liver.

I hope Joe intended that chopped liver remark as a compliment, since a bowl of frozen chopped liver has the potential to become a delicious bowl of warm chopped liver. And if you've ever been to New York's 2nd Ave. Deli, you know how good chopped liver can be.

Posted 10:06 PM by David Adesnik
BIG MEDIA ROUND-UP: The WaPo's Dan Froomkin has an extremely comprehensive round-up of big media reactions to last night's speech. Somehow, the folks USA Today managed to write that "President Bush set out sweeping and impressive plans to bring stability and democracy to Iraq." On a similar note, the Chicago Tribune observes that

Bush laid out the path to that new Iraq. His speech capped a remarkable day that gave Americans the full measure of their president's determination to empower Iraqis.

But the real award for optimism goes to Ron Brownstein at the LA Times, who thinks that

President Bush offered Monday the most detailed explanation of his plan for moving Iraq from chaos to independence, increasing the pressure on his Democratic rival, Sen. John F. Kerry, to fill in an alternative vision for stabilizing the troubled country.

But if almost 60% of Americans believe that Bush has no plan for Iraq and that he is doing a bad job of handling the situation, why should Kerry feel any pressure? A more realistic take on the situation comes from John Podhoretz, who writes that

Bush is a high-stakes player, a political gambler. And last night he took a fantastically bold gamble: In the teeth of bad polls, an atmosphere of panic in his own party and the barely concealed glee of his rivals . . . he has decided to stand pat.

That assessment dovetails with both the opinion of David Brooks and yours truly. When Bush was running for President the first time around, he promised that he would govern on the basis of firm principles, not the latest numbers from the polls. That argument may not work this time around because now we know its true.

Posted 9:30 PM by David Adesnik
BLOGOSPHERE ROUND-UP: Andrew Sullivan and Kevin Drum agree that the most newsworthy aspect of the President's speech was his promise to grant Iraq full sovereignty on June 30. Andrew accepts the President's words at face value. Kevin, echoing OxBlog, thinks that the idea of full sovereignty on June 30 is a farce. Waxing cynical, Kevin writes that

Iraqis won't be fooled by [the promise of sovereignty], but for that reason they aren't going to be disappointed either. Americans, however, are going to be fooled by it, and that's all Bush cares about. A hundred million people are going to hear that we're handing over "full sovereignty," and maybe 1% of them will read or hear an explanation of why that's not true. So it's a win for Bush.

On a similar note, Matt Yglesias writes that "To the grossly ignorant American public, this sort of tripe can be extremely convincing." Matt thinks, however, that if Bush follows through on his plan to give a speech about Iraq every week, even our ignorant fellow Americans will see through it.

The problem with this kind of cynicism is that it flies directly in the face of numerous opinion polls, the most recent of which reports that 58% of Americans think that Bush has no clear plan for Iraq. The same 58% disapprove of how Bush is handling the situation in Iraq. Moreover, both numbers have risen over the past months.

As the WaPo points out, Bush's lower approval ratings, both for Iraq and for overall job performance, reflect the fact that even Republicans are losing faith in the President. So perhaps most Americans won't be able to explain the difference between full and limited sovereignty for Iraq. But Kevin and Matt should be celebrating the fact that even the President's partisans are beginning to take a Democratic view of Iraq's future. The only question in my mind is whether the Democratic view is actually democratic.

Posted 6:57 PM by David Adesnik
THE NUMBERS ALL GO TO ELEVEN: Is Spinal Tap running the New York Stock Exchange?

Posted 6:42 PM by David Adesnik
COKE ADDICTS: Committed to bringing you the hottest celebrity news, OxBlog is proud to announce that Coca-Cola will launch its newest beverage, dubbed "C2", in a series of commercials broadcast during the final episodes of American Idol.

In case you haven't heard, C2 has half the carbs and half the calories of Coke Classic. Bascially, it's a soft drink for the Atkins diet. Will anyone buy it? I guess that really depends on how it tastes. I drink a lot of Diet Coke but would drink regular Coke any day if I weren't concerned about the calories. If C2 really tastes like the real thing, I'll give it a try.

But I'm not optimistic. All three of the recent Coke innovations: Vanilla Coke, Lemon Coke, and Lime Coke, were a waste of time. I tried them each for a few weeks and came to a pretty simple conclusion: If you want citrus-flavored cola, buy a frikkin' lemon at the grocery and put it in the soda yourself.

Posted 6:17 PM by David Adesnik
MADONNA CANCELS ISRAEL TOUR STOP: Death threats from unidentified Palestinian terrorists have forced the cancellation of three concerts planned for September in Tel Aviv. You can't really blame the Material Girl for backing out, since the terrorists specifically threatened her children.

In spite of the cancellation, I think it's extremely surprising that a top-flight international superstar would identify herself so publicly with the Jewish state. Moreover, Madonna had intended to mark the third anniversary of the September 11th attacks with a special televised concert in Tel Aviv.

So why hasn't Madonna bought into the anti-war, pro-Palestinian Hollywood consensus? I don't really know, but one has to wonder whether her intense attachment to the Jewish mystical tradition known as Kabbala has something to do with it. On the other hand, some (so-called) experts are suggesting that rabbinicial condemnations of Kabbala were responsible for the cancelled tour stop:

“Kabbalah, as it’s practiced by Madonna, is held in great scorn by rabbinical leaders in Israel,” says cult expert Rick Ross. “People in Israel are not reticent about expressing their religious beliefs. If you’re the number one missionary in the world for that form of Kabbalah — which Madonna is — a concert there could be, shall we say, messy."

That actually sounds pretty far-fetched to me. Tel Aviv is the personification of Israeli secularism, and a visit from Madonna hardly merits a commotion on the religious right. Now, if the Material Girl gave a concert in the Old City of Jerusalem, that might provoke a confrontation. But I just don't see busloads of blackhatted haredim descending on Tel Aviv in order to protest.

On a related note, I'm not sure what it means to "practice" Kabbala. I haven't studied it much, but at least in the mainstream, there is no such thing as Kabbalistic Judaism. For those of you familiar with the legend of the Golem, you may remember that the Maharal of Prague, the Golem's creator, was a practitioner of Kabbala. If Madonna has figured out how to animate lumbering giants made out of clay, then more power to her. In the meantime, I'm happy to let Madonna introduce Britney Spears, Posh Spice and David Beckham to the wonders of medieval Judaism.

UPDATE: Sasha Castel has a very informative post on the centuries-old Christian tradition of embracing Kabbala.

Posted 12:37 AM by David Adesnik
FIRST VERDICTS: In its straight news account of the President's speech, the WaPo reports that

Bush disclosed few new details of the scheduled June 30 handover of limited sovereignty to Iraqis, declining to name the Iraqis who will take power or to clearly define the future U.S. military presence in Iraq.

The article then reinforces that point by reporting that

Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), the president's Democratic challenger, said in a statement that Bush "laid out general principles tonight, most of which we've heard before." He added: "What's most important now is to turn these words into action by offering presidential leadership to the nation and to the world."

Finally, for those who needs thing spelled out for them, the WaPo has a news analysis column entitled "A Speech Meant to Rally Public Support Doesn't Answer Key Questions".

Pretty much, Bush is getting what he deserves. The repackaging of the administration's strategy for Iraq as a five-point plan is hardly persuasive. Already, the NYT is putting scare quotes around the words "five-point plan", as if to warn that it may contain only four points or even just three. But from where I stand, the real problem is that the speech created false expectations about what the June 30th handover will accomplish. In the final analysis, that is much more dangerous than being vague.

On the other hand, the implicit suggestion that Bush should have unveiled a revolutionary and detailed plan for bringing stability to Iraq is somewhat absurd. It is the kind of suggestion that exists only in order to create impossible standards that cannot be met. The overall strategy for Iraq has been the same for quite some time now: hold things together until the Iraqis can elect their own government.

It might just work. Or, as the NYT readily suggests, it might just fail. Either way, it is a strategy, and a strategy that distinguishes the President from those such as John Kerry who have begun to suggest that the people of Iraq cannot expect the United States to give them freedom, but instead only stability.

As suggested below, the real news value of the President's speech is the way in which it solidified his commitment to stay the course in Iraq, come hell (falling approval ratings) or high water (more American casualties).

Although indirectly, this point sometimes comes across in the newspapers. For example, the WaPo's first graf describes Bush's commitment to promote democracy in Iraq as a "vow". Still, there is very little sense that Bush is holding fast to a risk-laden but idealistic strategy even as the November election approaches. Stubborn perhaps. Even foolish. But very idealistic.

UPDATE: David Brooks makes exactly the same point.

Also, the NYT editorial on the speech is now up. Can you guess what it wanted Bush to say about Iraq? The same as always, of course: drop the problem on someone else.

Posted 11:56 PM by David Adesnik
THE PRESIDENT'S SPEECH: It was an impressive performance. Or perhaps I should say an impressive text, since I only read it. But let's get to the criticism first. The praise can wait.

The purpose of this speech was to chart a course for the future of America in Iraq. As expected, Bush placed considerable emphasis on the June 30th handover date. Too much emphasis:

On June 30th, the Coalition Provisional Authority will cease to exist and will not be replaced. The occupation will end and Iraqis will govern their own affairs.

America's ambassador to Iraq, John Negroponte, will present his credentials to the new president of Iraq. Our embassy in Baghdad will have the same purpose as any other American embassy: to assure good relations with a sovereign nation.

The suggestion that a nation will govern itself with 150,000 foreign soldiers on its soil and without an elected government is simply not credible. While most critics emphasize the first of those two points, I think the latter is just as important. The fact is, interim governments don't truly govern. Their purpose is to dissolve themselves and pave the way for an elected, constitutional authority.

By raising expectation of what the June 30th handover will accomplish, Bush is only hurting himself. From what I can tell, few Iraqis expect much to change on that date. What I expect is an updating of the artificial consensus that produced the current Governing Council. Once again, the US -- this time along with the UN -- is trying to provide Iraq with a government that won't offend anyone.

But governments that don't offend anyone are governments that don't govern. Without the mandate provided by an election, no Iraqi government can make the controversial decisions that will have to be made during the process of reconstruction. And if Iraqis can't make those decisions, then Americans and UN officials will. That is why it is thoroughly disingenuous for Bush to describe Negroponte's post as just another embassy.

Now on to the good parts of the speech. First and foremost, I was overwhelmed by the President's unabashed Wilsonianism. Even Reagan's most idealistic speeches never went this far, either in terms of emphasis or specificity. On far too many occasions, Reagan embedded his democratic aspirations in vague formulas that had few practical implications.

In contrast, Bush has now lain out a very clear schedule for the transition to electoral democracy in Iraq. His remarks announced specific deadlines for elections to the constitutional assembly, for a referendum on the draft constitution and for general elections. He has invested his America's prestige -- and perhaps the survival of his administration -- in this process.

He is also investing American soldiers. With Bush's approval ratings in the midst of an extended plunge, critics have suggested that the President was getting ready to cut and run. But now he has explicity promised to hold the size of the occupation force steady at 138,000 or even increase it if necessary. While Bush held "the commanders" responsible for estimating that only 115,000 troops would be necessary at this point, he did admit that the American effort to create self-sufficient Iraqi security force has resuled in failures.

Finally, Abu Ghraib. It will be razed. To be sure, Bush refused to admit that the abuses there went beyond the actions of a "few American troops who dishonored our country and disregarded our values". Yet, in this instance, actions may ultimately speak louder than words.

Posted 9:30 PM by David Adesnik
DISTURBING: Human rights violations at Abu Ghraib have brought the perils of the American prison system back into the public spotlight. To some degree, this (re-)revelation of the horrors we tolerate at home detracts attention from the seriousness of what happened abroad.

However, I would argue that focusing more on the failures of the domestic prison and mental health systems provides a proper context for understanding how American soldiers committed such brutal and hypocritical acts at Abu Ghraib. Our domestic failures reproduce themselves abroad.

This fact in no way mitigates the guilt or responsibility of those who violated the human rights of Iraqi prisoners. It simply points to the fact that we may not be able to set the standards we want abroad until we commit ourselves to setting them at home as well.

Posted 9:05 PM by David Adesnik
BACK IN THE SADDLE AGAIN: I need a vacation to recover from my vacation. Bachelor party in Vegas. Drive to LA. Rehearsal dinner. Wedding mass. Wedding party. Flight back to Boston. Arabic final the next morning.

Although deprived of sleep, I am quite well-rested intellectually. I am actually excited to start working on my dissertation again. But I am a little apprehensive about blogging. Dissertation research behaves itself while you're away. When you come back, it is exactly where you left it.

But the blogosphere goes wild. How can I possibly catch up on hundreds of news articles and thousands of blog posts? How can I say anything without exposing myself to withering criticism from those who are now better informed than myself?

Yet strangely, I didn't feel at all disconnected from the world when I wasn't blogging. I threw an occasional glance at the headlines, but nothing seemed all that important. My life went on exactly as it had been going. No one I talked to seemed all that concerned about the news. What really mattered was that one of my closest friends ever, someone I lived with for four life-changing years, was entering into a life-long relationship with the woman he loves.

For someone who spends hours a day reading about, thinking about the news, this break served as an important reminder that very few of us inhabit the insulated reality known as the blogosphere. By the same token, it served as an important reminder that neither journalists nor politicians, no matter how important, play a prominent in the lives of most Americans.

One might argue that Americans should be more publicly-minded and better informed. But how much information is enough? At what point would the experts agree that American citizens know enough?

Of course, I am hardly the first one to consider the implications of such questions. Two hundred twenty-five years ago, the Founders sought to strike the right balance between creating a democracy and creating a republic. To what degree must elected representatives obey the will of the voters and to what degree must they act in what they believe to be the voters' best interests?

I have no new answers to these questions. I am simply glad that taking some time away from OxBlog enabled me to confront the real-life conditions that give rise to these eternal dilemmas.

Posted 6:53 PM by Josh Chafetz
JUST GOT BACK FROM LONDON, where I had drinks with Jonah Goldberg and his wife, Jessica Gavora. I'm happy to report that Jonah is every bit as delightful in person as he comes across in print -- er, in pixels -- and Jessica is absolutely wonderful, as well!

Posted 4:34 AM by Josh Chafetz
MORE ON 'HEALTH MULLAHS': Andrew Stuttaford responds to my criticism of his use of the phrase. I thank him for the kind words he has for OxBlog, and I should note that I very much enjoy his writing. But I still think he's wrong here. He writes:

The term 'mullah' is an English translation of a word widely used throughout the Middle East denoting a man who is (very roughly speaking indeed) a cleric. There are mullahs in, for example, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan and, for that matter, all over the Western world. Well, Josh, in my view and (for what little it's worth) as I've written before, health has become the new holiness, a secular religion that, for far too many of its adherents, comes with many of the weaknesses displayed by the followers of other faiths, secular or otherwise, intolerance, bigotry, superstition and the insistence on compulsion.

But I think appealing to the denotation of "mullah" is a cop-out. After all, "taliban" means, if I'm not mistaken, "students." So when Julian Bond talked about the "Taliban wing of American politics," was he just talking about student political activism? Of course not -- because regardless of its denotation, the connotation of Taliban is now exclusively the former Afghan regime. Similarly, when someone -- especially someone at a publication like NRO -- uses the term "mullah," the connotation is not of a cleric generally, but of a hard-line theocratic cleric, of the Iranian regime sort. See, e.g., Michael Ledeen's latest column: "Deceiving ourselves, we lie to the mirror, saying that defeats are really victories, that Baathists are our friends and independent minded Shiites are our enemies, and that appeasement of the mullahs will end their long war against the United States." The implication of Ledeen's statement is that all mullahs are at war with the United States, which makes it clear that "mullah" does not simply mean "cleric," at least not in his use.

Indeed, Andrew at least partly acknowledges this, writing that,

Of course, there's a touch of exaggeration about it, but comparing some of its adherents with “mullahs”, a word that, thanks to Iran and elsewhere, now comes freighted with notions of oppression seems entirely appropriate within the context of debate over the increasingly aggressive tactics of the anti-tobacco fanatics, the anti-obesity warriors, the anti-alcohol crusaders, well, you get the point...

But does he really think the comparison apt? People who seek to push legislation through democratic bodies in Western states are really comparable to the Iranian regime? And if you can claim that, how can you not claim the same about conservatives trying to push their legislation through the same democratic bodies? Wouldn't NRO howl if a writer on a prominent liberal website called anti-abortion activists "abortion mullahs" or something like that?

I think that when we compare legal political behavior in liberal, democratic countries with the actions of tyrannical regimes, we not only devalue and further de-civilize political discourse in our own country, we also do an injustice to those who are forced to live and, in many cases, die, under actual tyrannical regimes. I mean, hey, if democratically enacted anti-smoking laws are the kinds of things that mullahs do, then living under a mullachracy isn't really all that bad, right? I know, of course, that's not what Andrew is trying to do -- but words are fragile, and if you devalue them to make trivial points, then, when you find you need them to make important ones, they aren't there anymore. You can't use terrible words to decry the trivial without trivializing the terrible. When everyone who does something that anyone doesn't like gets labelled a "fascist," then it becomes harder to impress upon people what fascism really is, how truly awful it was when fascism ruled most of Europe. Given the meaning -- especially the connotation -- of "mullah," I think Andrew runs the risk of doing the same thing. I hope he'll reconsider his use of the term.

UPDATE: Eugene Volokh, writing about a different issue (the South Dakota Senate race), says something similar.

Posted 12:09 PM by Josh Chafetz
IVO DAALDER AND JAMES LINDSAY ISSUE A CALL for the formation of an Alliance of Democracies. I think they're absolutely right.

Posted 11:58 AM by Josh Chafetz
DISGUSTING MORAL EQUIVALENCE WATCH: Andrew Stuttaford calls those who want to ban smoking on a beach "the health mullahs." Explain to me why this is any less objectionable than leftists calling members of the religious right the "American taliban." Or is moral equivalence only a problem when practiced by the left?

UPDATE: More here.

Posted 11:25 AM by Josh Chafetz
THE TIMES DOESN'T KNOW THE TIMES. An interesting op-ed by Matthew Parris in today's Times of London addresses the speculation about the results of the British general election that everyone assumes will be held early next year. As Parris points out, it need not be held early next year at all. But Parris seems a bit confused on one point:

So here's the deal, Mr Blair. Don't have a general election early next year.

Who ever said you had to? It is still more than two years before the next general election needs to be called, let alone held. Our unwritten constitution gives you five years. You are just a little more than half way through. There is absolutely no reason why the election could not take place in the early summer of 1996.

(Emphasis added.) Surely a typo, right? But the next paragraph reads:

That would give you the two years more your friends say is all you want or need to complete your legacy: time to get Iraq back on track, time for the referendum on Europe, time for the fruits of public service reform to begin to show and for further reforms to be put in train. It would allow — near the beginning of 1996 — the orderly transfer of the party leadership to Mr Brown; and it would allow Mr Brown to enter the general election as the Labour leader who would, if Labour won, be prime minister. The electorate would know exactly what we were getting. Vote Brown, get Brown.

Surely some editor at the Sunday Times knows what decade we're in ...

(For those of you curious about the underlying constitutional issue that Parris is talking about: Under the 1911 Parliament Act, parliamentary elections must be called at least every five years, but can be called more frequently. They are called more frequently if the government is confident that it can expand its majority (or at least retain its majority whereas it may not if it waits until the five year period is up). This, of course, sometimes backfires -- the recent elections in India were called early because the BJP thought it could extend its majority. Since the last general election was held in 2001, another one need not be held until 2006. It's also worth noting that Parliament can, by law, extend its own sitting. Infamously, under the 1694 Triennial Act, parliamentary elections were supposed to be held at least every three years. But in 1716, Parliament passed the Septennial Act, which allowed up to seven years between elections and, most importantly, extended the life of the very Parliament that passed it from three to seven years. More recently, elections were not held during either of the World Wars -- the Parliament elected in 1911 served for eight years, and the Parliament elected in 1935 served for ten years. But short of something like a major war which threatened Britain itself, Parliament these days wouldn't dare try to extend its term without an intervening election.)

Posted 10:18 AM by Josh Chafetz
MY FRIEND STEEV SACHS has procrastinated studying for his exams (which start tomorrow) by writing two very good posts: one on Israeli Army tactics in Gaza and another on genocide in Darfur. Both well worth reading!

Posted 4:52 AM by Josh Chafetz
SOME GOOD NEWS FROM KARBALA, where Moktada al-Sadr's forces appear to have left the city.

Posted 11:19 AM by Patrick Belton
SURPRISE! So it looks as though Rachel's planned me a surprise birthday trip to my ancestral city of Dublin - I'm writing this from a kiosk at Gatwick, where she's whisked me away from Oxford's Gloucestr Green. I'll see all of you on Tuesday, and a year older - till then, slan agus dia dhuit!

Posted 8:39 AM by Josh Chafetz
IN THE PREVIOUS POST, Patrick links to this page of 1974 Weight Watchers recipe cards. But he does not hint at the true joy that lies within. You must go to that page. Having done so, you must click on the cards on the right, look at the pictures, and read the wonderful, wonderful comments. You have not truly lived until you have viewed the Rosy Perfection Salad or the Mousse of Salmon or the Frankfurter Spectacular, among other delights (N.B.: You may not truly live much longer, however, if you attempt to make and consume any of these products.)

Go! Feast your eyes!

Posted 8:00 AM by Patrick Belton
OXBLOG'S AFGHANISTAN CORRESPONDENT goes on a diet with 1974 vintage weight watcher cards. (Joel, can't you at least come up with a version featuring the delights of Afghan cuisine?)

Posted 7:00 AM by Patrick Belton
WELL, I HAVEN'T GOT ONE OF THOSE ANYWAY: Porsche owners are more likely to cheat on their spouses than the owner of any other genus of car, with 49 percent taking a spin in the wrong lane according to a survey. Want to boost your chances of marital fidelity? Try a trusty Vauxhall.

Posted 6:50 AM by Patrick Belton
INDIA WATCH: Outlook India speculates on what Indian national security policy will look like under Congress. Also, the Economic Times argues that Congress's election had more to do with astute alliance management than in increasing its vote share (which actually declined slightly from the 1999 elections).

Posted 10:49 AM by Patrick Belton
SRI LANKA WATCH: OxBlog friend and Nathan Hale member Vikram Raghavan has just returned from Sri Lanka, where he formed part of a World Bank team to explore how best to go about the reconstruction of a country ravaged by two decades of civil war. He writes about his travels and thoughts there on his new blog.

Posted 10:33 AM by Josh Chafetz
INTERESTING. I was looking at the latest Fox News-Opinion Dynamics Poll (taken May 18-19), and something interesting stood out. Look at question 16:

For you and your family, does it feel like the economy is getting better or worse?

	Better	Worse	Same	Not Sure
All	31%	49%	17%	3%
Dems	11%	72%	14%	3%
Reps	59%	20%	18%	3%
Inds	27%	47%	23%	3%

Two things worth noticing, I think: First, the partisan divide is amazingly stark. Second, the economy is, in fact, improving, and most economists seem to expect it to continue improving at least through the end of the year (see, e.g., here). Which means that these numbers may, actually, be good news for Bush. Here's why: People think the economy is not doing well. But for the next five months (assuming that the economy continues to improve), most of the news reports on the economy will be good ones, and people's personal experience will improve (i.e., they'll find it easier to get jobs, etc.) This kind of pleasant surprise can only be good for the incumbent, I would imagine.

Of course, it's possible that the news will turn bad, and it's possible that the good news will simply never filter down (or at least, not in time for November). But that strikes me as unlikely. I would guess that the Bush team is pretty happy with a tied race five months out when an awful lot of voters are low-balling the economy.

Posted 10:13 AM by Josh Chafetz
DISGUSTING. Stacy Tabb is rightly disgusted by the "Little Miss Hooters" contest run by her local Hooters ("The contest is for girls 5 and under, and will require they be dressed in little orange spandex shorts, and a tied up Hooters t-shirt.") But I think the reason for her disgust is only half right. She writes:

Before anyone so foolishly accuses me of sporting a Puritanical attitude, let me clarify that my problem is with the placing of young children in harm's way. We are surrounded by sex offenders, 875 registered in this county alone. I'm not saying they couldn't find ample opportunity if they wish, I'm saying when you're swimming with sharks you don't throw fucking blood in the water.

Let's suppose there were no sex offenders in the area at all -- would that make this okay? It's bad enough that a good part of our commercial culture treats women as sex objects (cf. beer, commercials for), but what kind of jerk would begin ingraining this kind of self-image in girls age five and under?

Posted 9:59 AM by Josh Chafetz
SCIENTISTS HAVE FINALLY REACHED THE ELUSIVE GOAL of being able to tell what breed a dog is without looking at the dog!

Posted 9:58 AM by Patrick Belton
THINK TANK WATCH: Over at Rand, Bruce Hoffman considers the effect of killing Osama on the corporation succession plan of Al Qa'eda. Cheryl Bernard considers how the west might best assist reformers in the Islamic world without actually hindering their cause. OxBlog favourite John Lewis Gaddis speaks at CFR on surprise, security, and the American experience. DCIs Turner, Woolsey, and Webster talk about in which directions their alma mater agency should change in the future. Yale Law hosts a senior USAID official and two UN ambassadors to discuss whether nation-building is in fact possible. Brookings looks at labour standards in trade agreements and whether the market is moral, while CSIS looks at Afghanistan security, US options toward Pakistan, and security and migration across the US-Mexican border.

Posted 9:47 AM by Patrick Belton
GOVERNMENT TO BRITAIN: NIPPLES ARE FOR TABLOIDS, NOT FOR BREASTFEEDING - Brief shots which included the nipple of a breastfeeding mother were cut from an advert to encourage voting in upcoming elections for members of the European Parliament which will be shown in 2,200 British cinemas, on the orders of the Cinema Advertising Association.

Britain is the only country to require the deletion of the offending breastfeeding scene, which contravene long-standing British social standards that breasts are to be used to sell newspapers rather than feed young Britons. French censors are uncomfortable about a brief shot of a stern-looking female judge receiving a jury verdict. Ireland has reportedly decided not to screen the advert at all.

Posted 7:30 AM by Josh Chafetz
WORTH READING: Noam Scheiber on Barack Obama and Masha Gessen on pro-democracy sentiment in Russia, both in TNR.

In The Hill, Byron York points out that, according to Seymour Hersh, America's tough interrogation techniques have been successful in getting good intelligence. As Kaus notes, "That doesn't mean it was a) moral or b) smart--in the medium term it may also cause us to lose the war in Iraq (and we might have beaten back the insurgent attacks without the extra intelligence)." But it is worth noting.

Posted 4:57 AM by Patrick Belton
PIGEON WARFARE: As most people know, Britain and the Forces Françaises Libres relied upon the services of trained homing pigeons to transmit messages across enemy lines. As is less known, British counterintelligence came to realise that the Axis nations also had their own pigeons relaying mesages to the continent from Blighty. So as BBC reports this morning, Britain established a falcon brigade to intercept enemy pidgeons. Other intelligence agencies considered, against the advice of MI5, the training of pigeons for suicide missions; much better to be a chicken, where your duties would merely consist (in another rejected British war plan) of sitting on a nuclear bomb.

Posted 4:49 AM by Patrick Belton
MORE ALEXANDRA KERRY: Apparently Alexandra was having a lovely evening before she ran into Michael Moore in the same dress.

Posted 7:50 PM by Josh Chafetz
KINDA COOL: India is over 80% Hindu. Last week, they kicked a Hindu nationalist party out of power. A plurality was won by the party led by an Italian-born Catholic. She then stepped aside in favor of a Sikh (who happens to be largely responsible for instigating the economic reforms that have made the Indian economy take off the last few years). The new Prime Minister was officially appointed by India's President, who is Muslim.

Posted 12:45 PM by Josh Chafetz
WANNA KNOW WHO IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORTS BUSH / KERRY? Check out FundRace.Org -- just type in your zip code and it'll tell you which of your neighbors has donated to which political candidates. (Via the NYT.) Of course, the raw data are available on the FEC website, but FundRace.Org's contribution is to code them by location so you can see what your neighbors are up to ...

UPDATE: I think the NYT article may have been a bit more publicity than the FundRace.Org people were expecting -- I keep getting a "too many connections" error message.

UPDATE: Seems to be working now, albeit a bit slowly.