Global Warming is just a liberal conspiracy

See the changes in what are termed "Hardiness Zones" - areas where specific types of trees grow best, based on overall temperature trends. The link will bring you to the 2006 numbers. Then press "reset" and "play" to see how tha that has changed in the past 15 years.

http://www.arborday.org/media/mapchanges.cfm

Also, I've been catching up on news pieces I missed this year, as I tend to read the news rather than watching it. Read the transcript of this elegant piece by Keith Olbermann on NBC - you can click to watch the video, as well.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15147009/

There's something wrong with the world today

I don't think additional text will help this story:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2511686,00.html

Ramallah Burning?

I suppose, logically, it was only a matter of time before the violence in the Gaza Strip spread outwards to the West Bank, and thence to Ramallah. But it is both heartbreaking and maddening to hear that it has finally happened. The irresponsibility of the world in failing to resolve this conflict (or even to take steps in the direction of resoution) will wind up with much farther-reaching consequences than I think anyone sees today. The Times has more detail than WashPost today.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2507122,00.html

I know I've said before that answering the question of Palestine is a necessary condition for so much else in the Middle East, and that answer is more needed now than ever. There is a very tightly woven political web, and the question of the Palestinian Territories and Israel is central, if not to practicality, to the hearts and minds of the entire region.

To do this, though, the question of Israel must move from a fruitless (and moot) debate about existence, and into a more productive one of coexistence. There is a seeming aversion to real debate on both sides of the aisle - with a few significant exceptions, who deserve commendation. The terrorists, the hawks and the lobbyists, by choosing to use blunt instruments instead of subtlety, have lost the ability to listen, and have let the chance for peace elude them.

If people don't stop and listen to each other, they will continue to spiral downwards, and violence benefits no one. Not the Palestinians, not the Israelis, nor Egypt or Jordan, and ultimately not even Iran or Syria. And not the US.

Git'n Into Gitmo

This is a very interesting piece from Seton Hall Law School outlining and analyzing the criteria used by the government to determine enemy combatant status for Guantanamo detainees. http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf

Their analysis, as well as the WashPost article that references it, is rather frightening. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/benchconference/2006/11/abbott_and_costello_go_to_gitm.html

On an unrelated note (as much as anything is unrelated today), I had the chance to listen to Tom Friedman come speak at our offices today. Check out his column in the NYT tomorrow, as I think it'll be interesting (not about us, but interesting nonetheless).

Eat your heart out, John Le Carre

So, I haven't had much chance to post lately, which is why I haven't written about the new twisty, turny, cold war-evoking spy drama that is unfolding in London lately. For anyone who hasn't been paying attention, Alexander Litvinenko, the one-time Russian spy, was poisoned with a rare (i.e. government-sponsored?) radioactive isotope about a month ago.

Following his death last week, all sorts of interesting new connections have developed between Litvinenko, the FSB, the Italian SISMI, and another former Russian intelligence officer. To add to the already complex mix, Yegor Gaidar, the former Russian PM, is also a suspected victim of poisoning.

I just can't wait until someone puts all this in a book...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2481876_1,00.html

It's not like it's hard

When I was in 8th grade, our substitue math teacher, who had once fought in WWII, taught us all how to build an atomic bomb. Yup, that's right. It took about 45 minutes, and he drew it on the chalkboard.

At the time, you could find the theoretical instructions in textbooks. When I was a freshman in college, you could look it up online - and I did (for a class). By the time senior year rolled around, I again needed to write up a discussion (historical) about different types of nuclear material, what is used for weapons, what for fuel, etc. To my surprise, all the websites (generally from other universities) had been pulled off the web.

Now, I'm not arguing in favor of nuclear proliferation. But seriously? Once information is in the public domain, we do no one any favors by removing it. Being able to understand the makeup and consequences of dangerous substances allows us to make better decisions about when, how, and why to use them. These websites don't show you where to buy nuclear material, or how to finance such a project, or even the mechanics of making it work. They articulate the science and theory behind a very politically sensitive source of energy. Limiting information limits the effectiveness of democracy, and lowers the tone of political debate. And we all know how I hate that.

In the meantime, as a corollary to some interesting constitutional musings, Japan's foreign minister noted that Japan "has the technological know-how to produce a nuclear weapon but has no immediate plans to do so." Um, ya think? Who's surprised that a nation so focused on science, mechanics, etc, has the ability to make a bomb? I think it'd be a pretty fair assumption that Japan probably figured it out a while ago.

What's interesting is their choice not to build one. There is history there, and politics, and a whole host of other factors. I just hope they don't let North Korean belligerence and American incompetence change their minds.

In any event, here's the WashPost article about it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/29/AR2006112901641.html

This has the best title of any article I've read recently:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/14/AR2006111401228.html

Cupid or DaVinci?

I've been feeling a bit overwhelmed by the onslaught of world events (20 women and children killed in Beit Hanoun, 150 Iraqi civilians kidnapped by "police," Japan's PM aiming to redraft their constitution, etc.), and thought I'd escape with another episode of quirky science. In the Washington Post today, there is an article about what makes humans see each other as beautiful.

Interestingly, Stephen Marquardt posits that beauty, like so many other neat things in nature, such as the spiral, and I think the organization of the spines on a pinecone, is determined by the golden ratio. In mathematical terms, this is expressed as: (a+b)/a = a/b = 1.618, where 1.618 is the only positive solution to the equation. This is also called the golden section or the golden mean, depending on who is talking about it. Wikipedia has a good explanation of the math: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio.

The article even manages to give us a bit of poetry:
I thought Cupid aimed his dart
Deep into my fevered heart;
Instead, the arrow's lusty path
Was predetermined by . . . math.

I can't find a citation for the verse, but I know I've heard it somewhere before... Meanwhile, here's the link to the article - enjoy!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/08/AR2006110801477.html

A New Broom Sweeps Clean(er)

Yeah, yeah. I'm still a cynic. I'm not going to claim moral victory for the Democrats, but I AM going to claim electoral victory. And we all know that's what really matters. But I was going to title this post "Suck it, Santorum" so at least I'm being polite about our SWEEPING victory in the house. Not that my politics were much of a secret, but now my true-blue roots are showing through.

Now, if the Virginia election officials can get their act together and do a quick recount, let's hope Webb triumphs over Allen in that race. I'd even give 'em Burns in Montana if we can just get Allen out of VA. He's just the epitome of eveything I hate.

And now, since I'm in the best mood I've been in (politically) since 2000, here's my 2006 Midterm Election Roundup:

Serves 'em Right - I disagree with these three on pretty much everything they stand for, and I'd be lying if I said I was sorry to see them go:
Santorum (R-PA)
De Lay (R-TX)
Hostettler (R-IN)

The Times They Are A-Changin' - Can't say I'm too sorry to creep closer to a majority in the Senate, but it's a shame it had to come at the expense of Lincoln Chaffee. I think his loss is a loss for the legislature.

Welcome to the Club! Here's a list of some new arrivals I find interesting:
Deval Patrick - Governor of Massachusetts
Bob Casey - Senator, D-PA
Bernie Sanders - Senator, I-VT (our only Socialist, I believe)
Bill Nelson - Senator, D-FL

You Can't Win 'Em All - Someday, these guys will get ousted from office:
John Doolittle - Rep, R-CA (this one's for you, Dad)
Bob Corker - Senator, R-TN
Dennis Hastert - Rep, R-IL

And, on a final note, the race with the best name? The incumbent, now re-elected in Texas' 9th District is... Al Green. Gotta love it.

No Exit Polls? No Problem!

From "The Plank," a blog posted on the New Republic's website, this is almost as good as the idea of terrorism futures:

"For political junkies suffering from data deficit disorder because the exit poll folks are being kept in a locked room and will not be let out until 5 p.m. today--there is a source of relief: The political futures market. Three websites offer the chance to buy into or against virtually every contested Senate, House, and Governor race, and to bet on which party will control either branch of Congress, by what margin, and even to make longer-shot parlays, betting, for example, on the Democrats taking both (or neither) branch.

"The appeal of these websites is that they are constantly changing, so that statistics nuts who don't want to bet can still watch their favorite and hated candidates move up and down, just as if they were a stock or commodity.

"At this writing, 2:46 p.m., you can put $59 dollars on Claire McCaskill to beat incumbent Missouri Republican Senator Jim Talent with a chance to get back $100, or you can put $35 on Talent and get back $100 if he wins. In other words, the market on intrade.com clearly favors McCaskill. Political folks have recently described the Montana Senate race as neck and neck, but the people who put money on it disagree, clearly favoring Democrat Jon Tester over Sen. Conrad Burns by a $70-$25 margin. If you believe the experts' claim that the race is even, putting money on Burns is clearly worth the return."

http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank (you'll need to scroll down the page)

In addition, this is just absurd, and it makes me actually thankful for the fact that voters have been so inundated with political ads that they can't possibly mistake candidates' parties:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/07/AR2006110700740.html

Color-coded chaos

Gee, maybe my company should start judging our activities on color-coded sliding scales. Regardless of how you measure it, though, we're all doing better than the US Military:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/01/world/middleeast/01military.html?ex=1320037200&en=62235052af3eb067&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

And then, from the Washington Post, we have Tony Snow: "You can't say, I support the troops, but I hate the cause, because that's why they signed up. And you've got men and women who are risking their lives for what they consider a noble cause, which is not only defeating al-Qaeda and defeating terrorists abroad, but also creating conditions that are going to allow people in that part of the world to brush aside terror as an unnecessary distraction to building a better life through free and democratic society."

I'm barely going to give a moment's credence to the first half of that quote, because it's so blatantly ridiculous. You've got men and women who signed up years ago, are stuck in the military on a stop-loss order, and others who signed up because they needed work (thanks to the contraction of the economy), or help paying for tuition (due to the recent increases far in excess of inflation). There are some very noble soldiers out there, but arguing that a military fights only for the "cause" is naive and silly.

But let's get to the meat of the matter. In what world do we consider terrorism an "unnecessary distraction"? Is that what the military might of America has been deployed to do? Counter "unnecessary distractions"? I'd like to see certain members of the Administration "brush aside" an IED. Or maybe a landmine.

What will be the next "distraction" we go after? I shudder to think.

Also, this is unrelated, from the Washington Post today:

"In recent days, Bush has said Social Security remains one of the 'big items' he wants to tackle next year and he continues to 'believe that a worker, at his or her option, ought to be allowed to put some of their own money . . . in a private savings account, an account that they call their own.'"

Um, has anyone noticed that we already have a system like this? It's called banking.

Party on the Mason-Dixon Line?

An op-ed piece in the Washington Post today notes the departure of Northern Libertarian-leaning voters from the Republican Party, and the consolidation of the Republicans as the party of "Southern values." The traditional geographic dispersal of the Democrats began to shift northward when the party espoused the idea of civil rights in the 60s. Then, the parties began (continued? I don't know enough about US politics...) to align along social issues. In every region, you find people who don't want "big government," or who "support our troops," but does that really matter?

Could it be that the age-old question of North vs. South is still applicable? This is not to suggest that either bloc is, well, a bloc, but does pose the question of whether people vote on issues, or on cultural perception. Or do we just vote the way the people around us vote? Do we create the "popular" crowd in politics the same way we do it in middle school?

If the parties' support bases really have been shifting over the past 40 years, they've certainly supported a North-South divide. Just take a look at a red-state/blue-state map from the last Presidential election. Are our cultures really so different that we respond to starkly divergent political messages? Or do we just vote what we know?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/31/AR2006103101312.html

The News From Lake Wobegon

Garrison Keillor, master of the quirky, Midwestern fable, writes this article, which is just too good to pass up. Maybe not as good as "The Living Flag," but, I think, just as patriotic.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.keillor26oct26,0,7238007.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines

Betcha Didn't See This One Coming

An interesting piece in The American Conservative (surprise! my news-reading extends to both sides of the aisle!)...

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_11_06/feature.html

...and an interesting companion to it from Al-Jazeera.

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/review/article_full_story.asp?service_ID=12030

For the record, both Breaking the Silence and B'Tselem are official, above-the-radar NGOs, based in Israel. It takes a lot, in the current political climate, to stand up for the truth (as it's not pretty on either side), and the two organizations should be applauded.

Although I think Walt and Mearshimer could have done a better job with carefully choosing source material and playing a bit of devil's advocate in their paper, I look forward to buying their book. Whatever your position on America and Israeli foreign policy, raising the level of debate in the US will result in a better outcome for us all.

Unoriginality, at least

Now, I don't claim that the Washington Post reads my travel blog, but note the similarity here between their discussion of the US border "fence" and my comments on the Israeli occupation wall (March 24, 2005):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/26/AR2006102601826.html

http://ririaroundtheworld.blogspot.com/2005_03_01_ririaroundtheworld_archive.html

Unfortunately, the Post's article talks all about walls, and doesn't even mention Israel, the land of borders, walls, and fences. Writing about walls isn't really quite as effective when you hide behind them.

Dean Gallucci must be pretty pissed off

Interestingly, the Dean of Georgetown SFS was the US Ambassador that negotiated the deal w/North Korea under the Clinton administration. It would have been very interesting to talk to him in the past few days - I didn't expect NK to actually test a bomb quite so quickly - I figured they'd see what they could leverage first. I haven't found a response/analysis piece from him posted anywhere yet, but I'm looking.

Anyway, now that my assessment (and, I'd bet, a lot of other people's, but maybe I'm just making myself feel better) is proven wrong, here's the text of the draft UN resolution:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2397543,00.html

The Washington Post, which has recently pulled its investigative journalism credentials out of the closet, today ran an editorial/analysis piece about the Axis of Evil and how the situation with each country has rapidly deteriorated since the Bush Administration took office. Here's the link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/09/AR2006100901130.html

The Crumbling Difference Between Wrong and Right

Here in Ramallah, everything is quiet. However, news reports are starting to sound sharper. The Times cites growing evidence of civil war, whereas Al Jazeera mentions only a Hamas rally, and their repeated declaration that they will refuse to recognize Israel.

Who, then, is correct? It would be naive to assume that there won't be confilct in Gaza, but I would be surprised if it spread so rapidly to the West Bank. At the moment (possibly not for too much longer, but at the moment), the opportunity cost of civil war is too great.

However, when it comes to principle, who's right? Hamas is holding rigidly to an untenable position. The West refuses to recognize a government that, while distasteful, was elected in what even the US concedes was a free and fair election. So who's right?

If people spend too long battling over ideas, living conditions deteriorate, coping strategies are exhausted, and that opportunity cost suddenly doesn't seem so high. There's no civil war yet. This isn't Iraq. But another actively unstable linchpin in the Middle East will further weaken the tenuous hold on law and order that currently exists. Watch out.

In case the world looks too depressing, take a look at this: http://improbable.com/

The Great Game

Now, I don’t usually turn my focus to East Asia, as I know least about the politics of that region. Kim Jong Il’s intent to detonate a nuclear* weapon, however, is newsworthy enough that even my narrow focus will be diverted to North Korea. I spent a little bit of time in college studying the Cold War, debating the virtues or the futility of nuclear deterrence, articulating how and why countries act, parsing politics down to game theory.

In this instance, even the universal seems not to apply. What does Mr. Kim gain by a nuclear test? Let’s think it through. In early July, the world found out that, although North Korea does possess long-range missile capability, the results of the tests do not exhibit consistent capacity to reach the intended target. We know, and have known for quite a while, that North Korea possesses the capability to build nuclear weapons, and now we know that they have done so. Again, not a surprise.

So, given limited delivery capability, and the general consensus that, no matter how many weapons North Korea has, the US has more, spread within a wider territory, how does this test change the political balance? If anything, Mr. Kim has created a weapon that he cannot use, for North Korea has no second-strike capability. If he were to detonate a weapon in a context other than a test, the world would react, either with nuclear or conventional weapons, obliterating significant sections of both his population and his infrastructure. My personal money would be on well-placed tactical nukes, particularly if it were to happen in the next two years (before the US administration changes), but that's beside the point. Overall, regardless of the method, overt war would be good for no one, and even in the most simple game theory matrix, an option to be avoided.

Instead, what Mr. Kim has achieved by announcing this test is a new phase of detente between China and Japan. After nearly two years of silence between the two powers, the change in Japan's political landscape, coupled with North Korea's disregard for the Nuclear NPT, has led to a summit in Beijing. This, now, is a most interesting development. With the economic strength of China and Japan improving (despite rocky financial indicators for Japan this summer), and that of the US on the decline, Mr. Kim's action, if it leads to more comprehensive cooperation between China and Japan, could be the precipitating moment for an economic power shift rather than a political or military one.

Given the relationship between China and North Korea, this would be no small achievement on Mr. Kim's part. The world could, then, rant, rave, and declare sanctions. But in terms of significant investment, North Korea's nuke could result in a short-term economic decline with the potential for far greater growth over the next twenty years. Not, perhaps, such a poor round of the game after all.

*note, please, that this is nu-cle-ar, not nu-cu-lar!

Maybe I should go into journalism

Did I call this, or what?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402006.html

Mom! Ismail stole my constituents!

I once had the pleasure of a short, impromptu debate with Bob Woodward over whether opening Iraq as a second front in the GWOT was a strategic blunder (I argued yes, seeing as how Afghanistan wasn't finished yet, and still isn't; he argued no, with the dodgeball theory). Although I've yet to win him to my side on that score, at least it appears that we may be in accord on the tactical:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2387604,00.html

In other news, I was watching CNN today (one of my 3 English channels here in Ramallah), and they had a dramatic headline announcement about how talks between Fatah and Hamas have broken down, saying that Fatah was no longer talking to Hamas, and Abbas voiced fears of civil war. Now, I hate to disparage CNN, particularly when it's giving me about 40% of my news lately, but, seriously? First of all, I believe Abbas was quoted as saying that civil war would theoretically be a big problem, and should be avoided at all costs. It's dangerous to equate that statement with the fear that civil war is imminent.

In addition, it's naive to say that the two parties aren't speaking (granted, Abbas is not having an official meeting with Haniyeh, but who are they, a pair of teenage girls?), just fighting.

I'd wager both sides are more clever than that. Look at the last week: Ongoing cycle of closures, lack of money, and rocket attacks leads to unrest in Gaza. Said unrest spreads to the West Bank. Talks break down. Rice comes to visit, with pledges to talk to Israel about easing travel restrictions.

If I were in charge of the Palestinian Territories, and my economy was being strangled, I think I just might turn to the one person with influence (military and economic) over my strangler. But I wouldn't want to give up my position of being powerless, yet. At the moment, I can plead for help with little tit-for-tat. If I shoulder the weight of government, I have much more international responsibility.

Johnny, rosin up your bow

...I didn't manage to actually post this the other day, so it's a bit late, but...

A bit of credit goes to a local DJ in Washington, who, during his "cavalcade of comedy" on the morning show noted, "Venezuela's Hugo Chavez called President Bush 'the devil' during a speech to the UN General Assembly yesterday. Bush had no comment, as he was on his way down to Georgia." I always like cleverness at 7:45 am.

Underlying this joke, though, is something we all should've seen coming - a war of rhetoric. Since the debut of the "Axis of Evil," world politics has read like something out of a Marvel comic. It's only fitting that we've now moved beyond name-calling of epic proportions, and into the Biblical.

I suppose it's only fitting then to evoke an even earlier time - the Stone Age. For all of you who wondered why we were fighting the GWOT alongside an autocratic regime founded via a military coup, Pervez Musharraf now has your answer. Apparently, they're fighting on our side since Dick Armitage told the Pakistani Intelligence Director, "Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age." Heck, I'd think that was a pretty convincing reason. See the Times article here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2369505,00.html

But why is this coming to light now, five years after 9/11? Turns out Mr. Musharraf didn't like Bush's statement that he'd kill Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan, thereby violating Pakistani sovereignty.

But wait! This is a surprise?

We've known for years (decades, really) that Pakistan's northwestern border is porous, that the people living on each side consider themselves to be one people, and that the Pakistani government has little control in the region. We've chosen to make policy that ignores this fact, and now our government has finally realized that we are putting ourselves at risk.

This is amazing to me, frankly, since I have in my files a memo from 1981 (seriously - I keep it because it's older than I am) talking about security and development in the Pakistani tribal areas, and what sort of potential aid programming would be appropriate in the region. Looks like we'd've been better off if the USG had acted back in the 80s.

Ahoy, Mateys!

In a departure from the norm, it's my favorite day of the year: National Talk Like A Pirate Day.

http://www.talklikeapirate.com

Find out your pirate name, get some good pirate jokes, and leave all the h-arrrrrr-d news until tomorrow.

Avast, ye swabs!

Blowing the Horn of Africa

A failed assassination attempt on the president of Somalia's interim government has killed at least 11 people in Baidoa. Two car bombs were detonated as Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed left a speech at the Parliament building.

As Somalia is part of a region highlighted by think tanks, government agencies, and relief workers alike as, alternately, a cluster of failed states, a haven for terrorists, and a humanitarian crisis, one would think the western papers would pick up the story. Somalia's interim government, backed by the West, is largely incapable of holding power in much of the country, including Mogadishu, the capital. The interim government operates from its seat in Baidoa, while the Islamic Courts movement has gained control of Mogadishu and major national seaports, and has witnessed a surge in power over the last few months.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/DDD925B8-35B3-4891-8997-B758C916A151.htm

It will do the West little good to ignore the Horn of Africa in the next year, although it may be that we are too late to play an active role in forestalling the rise of the fundamentalist IC. The lack of rule of law within Somalia is highlighted by today's incident where a Catholic nun was shot and killed outside a children's hospital in Mogadishu. The attack was likely a response to remarks made by the Pope last week about militancy in Islamic tradition.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2362945,00.html

Angry reactions around the world have followed Benedict's quoting of a medieval text during an address at the University of Regensburg, including protests, vocal condemnation of Vatican policy, and the recall of Morocco's ambassador to the Vatican. Fringe reactions have included a new threat of jihad from Al-Qaeda.

Also, this is unrelated, but cool:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2363546,00.html

Deja Vu

I hope this story breaks bigger, and with more analysis:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/13/AR2006091302052.html

Oh, good, another front:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/485C7BAD-DE33-4795-B62F-9360769B1DE0.htm

Where am I?

I missed 9/11. I don't mean to say that I didn't watch the planes hit the tower, because I did, or that I didn't hold my breath along with the rest of the world to find out what, if anything would happen next, because I did. But I did all this from a pub in Dublin, having been in the city for four days, having just found an apartment, having walked literally miles to do it (the bus system being incomprehensible, initially).

I don't mean to say that I don't remember 9/11 as a catalyzing moment in history. All I mean to say is that I don't remember it as an American. I remember it as an American abroad, and that is a very different thing. There are pieces that are easier - I couldn't, for example, see the smoke from the Pentagon like my classmates. But the TV broadcast we watched didn't zoom away from the people who jumped out of the towers. The people who stood next to me and held my hand weren't Americans, and the people who gave me their phones to use weren't, either.

And so, when I landed back in the US, home for Christmas, and in Boston (the same airport I'd left from four months earlier) the first thing greeting passengers in the Arrivals hall was a wall-sized American flag and two soldiers with automatic weapons, I didn't know where I was anymore. I missed those first few months, the ones where America shifted so profoundly. I came back to my own country as someone apart, and I wonder, sometimes, whether that will ever change.

I look at world policy from an uncomfortable vantage point - as if I'm floating somewhere over the Atlantic, not a part of Europe, not fully a part of the US. The more I travel, the less I seem to be able to put down political roots anywhere, and the less I want to.

Urdu, English, Pashto, Punjabi, Sindhi, Baluchi

Do you know what those languages are? Those are the most commonly spoken languages in Pakistan. The official languages are Urdu and English. Pashto, Punjabi, Sindhi and Baluchi are the four most commonly spoken regional languages. Note that Arabic is not a language spoken in Pakistan.

I made the mistake last night of turning on ABC's "Not a Documentary" about the lead-up to 9/11. After 10 minutes, I was so angry I turned off the television, called ABC, and tried to complain (the complaint voice-mail box was full. Hah.). Why am I so upset? It's simple.

9/11 was a horrible event. It changed the way our country views the rest of the world, the way we interact diplomatically (or not), and the way we view each other as Americans. I went to school for history. I appreciate history, and I appreciate the thrill of discovering the truth. To understand history is to understand who you are, to claim your identity, and use it to move forward. To change history is to change identity.

There is another twist to my anger. Not only does changing the truth insidiously weave falsehood into identity, it cheapens the very event it seeks to memorialize. 9/11 was bad enough. There is no need to make it "worse" for TV. To do so implies that it wasn't as bad as we thought, that it just isn't sensational enough. What a dangerous thing to say.

And finally, I'm angry at the level of art. Making a film is a painstaking process. When I turned on the TV, there was a scene set in Islamabad, Pakistan. Three figures were standing on a rooftop, talking about a plot to bomb airplanes. In Arabic. Explain, please, who overlooked this detail.

There are two options here - one, that the filmmaker is stupid, and didn't do his homework, doesn't understand his subject, and can't tell the difference between Urdu and Arabic. The languages use the same script, but they are not the same.

The other possibility is even more disheartening. What better way to show your enemy as a bloc, a faceless mass, than to take away its identity as surely as you dismember your own? By turning Pakistani terrorists into Arabs, by changing the actions of our own government - by hiding behind fictionalization - this movie weaves a myth about the world in a way that is both dangerous and devastating.

Question Time

Tony Blair announced today that he will resign within a year from leadership of Britain's Labour Party. This isn't such a shock, considering the recent mass exodus of cabinet members, lack of internal party support, and negative public opinion. What is interesting is the "why," and how it relates to US politics and the rule of law.

Blair has been either unwilling or unable to distance himself from his alliance with the Bush administration, and his base is unwilling to grant him flexibility on the issue. He threw in his lot with the US, and its policy, and now must see it through. Unfortunately, his inability to convince the population that this was the right decision now makes him more vulnerable to internal issues in Britain. In the UK, now, it seems as though GWOT tinges all policy decisions, from trade agreements and border controls to freedom of expression. Sound familiar?

Here, we see Republican candidates for the midterm elections hurrying to clarify their stance on the GWOT/Iraq, assuring voters that they are not puppets of the executive. That's telling, but it misses the point. Where you stand on the war in Iraq will not, ultimately, make a difference for the American body politic (in a long view, not in a "will I get elected in 2 months?" view), but it will, and does, influence how we define the role of government vis a vis the population.

This administration has defined its role in a paternalistic, authoritarian way. They "know best," and must keep information hidden because disclosure leaves us vulnerable to the "enemy."

We finally have the chance to ask a very important question, one that Britain has been asking Blair for some time now: What is the role of government? Plato asked it, Hobbes asked it, Kennedy asked it. No one has ever come up with a concrete answer for the simple reason that there isn't one answer.

There is, however, a framework of rules in which our government has sworn to operate - the Constitution. If they start to work outside the rules, it's our job to stop them, or if we as a people think the administration is right, work within the rules to change the rules. The Constitution doesn't give us guidelines, it gives us a society, and without it we lose our identity.

What we have begun to see in the US and the UK is an understanding that we are beginning to lose our sense of who we are, and that we're not willing to let ourselves go without a fight.

-----------------------
I hate to cite the Cato Institute, because it's just too easy, but they've recently published an interesting paper on "doublespeak" - applied Orwellianisms, perhaps. Take a look: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6654 The paper illustrates several examples of how language is used to convey meaning, and how twisting language for political ends damages the relationship between government and populace. Interesting.

Assassins

General Samir Shehade, a Lebanese intelligence official involved in investigating the death of Rafiq al-Hariri, survived a remote-detonated bomb directed at his convoy. The bomb killed 4 and injured 4 others, including Shehade.

Interestingly, the bombing comes 10 days before a UN report detailing the UN Chief Investigator into the al-Hariri assassination, Serge Brammertz's, findings is sent to the Security Council.

Now, I'm not an assassin. I'm also not intimately involved in either Syrian or Lebanese politics, but it seems to me that US suspicions that Syria is behind this assassination attempt are, well, asinine. Why? Here's the analysis for the day.

The UN report, although not yet submitted, is, one imagines, fairly close to final. In fact, Brammertz already submitted a report, and this one is an update of his findings. If I were Basher Assad, the last thing I'd do, when waiting on some pretty thin ice, is escalate the situation, particularly when I have a small chance to be taken seriously by larger world powers if I play nicely re: Lebanon.

On the other hand, who benefits from unrest in southern Lebanon? At the moment, it's not Lebanon, it's not Israel, and it's really not even Hizballah. Does Syria benefit? Does Iran? What is Tehran's real stake in this game, particularly when coupled with the current nuclear standoff and threat of UN sanctions?

If I were Assad, I'd be first in line to find the answer.

And then there were eight

After yesterday's conference in Prague, Pluto is no longer considered a planet. Now, I can't say this really has much of an effect on my life, but I am left with the following question. How am I going to remember the order of the other planets when my favorite mnemonic device no longer applies. For over a decade, I've relied on "My Very Excellent Mother Just Sent Us Nine Pizzas" to guide me in my planetary ramblings. Now what?

Here's a suggestion; others are welcome:

Many Very Eager Majors Join Squadrons Under Noriega

A Finger in the Dike?

A Northwest Airlines flight to Mumbai was turned back to Amsterdam's Schipol airport today, and 12 passengers were detained following suspicious behavior involving post-takeoff cell phone use. The cabin crew noted the odd behavior and informed the Captain, who radioed the for support. Two Dutch F-16s escorted the plane back to Amsterdam where the passengers were detained.

Alright. Good job on the part of the crew for being attentive, on the part of the Captain for following appropriate protocol, and the Dutch for responding promptly. But this begs the question: assuming there's a plot afoot, how do the various intelligence agencies fail to pick up at least a few of these potential security risks, particularly when they all board the same plane? It also begs another question: if you were running a terrorist operation, would you put all your operatives on the same plane? These two questions lead to a few possible answers (probably several others, as well).

1. None of these people is a terrorist, and all are unfamiliar with the rules governing cell phone usage on airplanes.
2. Some of these people are terrorists, and they are flying with their families, who are unaware of what they're up to.
3. All of these people are terrorists, but none of them has a prior criminal history, and therefore, their aggregation is not seen as a risk.
4. All of these people are terrorists, none of them has a prior criminal history, and their aggregation is part of a larger plan, where the strateic aim outweighs the risk.

Well now. Isn't that fun? It seems that, despite our best efforts at reacting strategically in the GWOT, we just keep reacting like the little boy trying to stem the flood.

And now we'll just have to keep an eye on the news to find out what really happened. Enough speculation on my part.

Sweet, Sweet Justice

In a decision that makes me glad I'm an American (yes, that was cheesy. deal with it.), US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled in favor of the ACLU, determining that the administration's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional. The argument, "We can't prove it's legal because that would violate national security," was never particularly sound, particularly considering the entire country was following the particularls of the case, and now it's been officially determined to be bull-hockey. Of course there is already an appeal to the 6th Circuit in the works, but still, I'd put this up there as Good Guys 1, Bad Guys 0. Hah.

In other news, Tobacco companies suffered a loss in a ruling by US District Judge Gladys Kessler, who backed the Justice Department's racketeering suit. In her ruling, she stated that the racketeering charge be upheld, as the "defendants have marketed and sold their lethal product with zeal, with deception, with a single-minded focus on their financial success, and without regard for the human tragedy or social costs that success exacted." They won't have to pay the $280 billion, but at least something good is coming out of the Justice Department these days.

And finally, in a note that's more "just desserts" than "justice done," the Washington Post ran an article yesterday about how K Street lobbying firms are starting a hiring push to find Democrats. So, it seems that after 6 years of painful Washington partisanship, the tide is finally turning, and as always, the lobbying firms are on the front edge of the wave. Here's hoping I won't have to put on nude stockings and pearls just to walk downtown anymore.

See, I'd invade Kamchatka

And so it was in the days of my boss' college experience that Dubya lived also in the dorms at Yale. And lo, there were final exams, and yea, there was gamesmanship.

So, it turns out that the 'Merican president was a year behind my boss at Yale. And apparently, he was the kid who spent the study period before finals playing Risk. Now, there are so many good metaphors here that it's almost making my brain overheat. So, we'll stick with the easiest one for now.

As anyone who has played Risk knows, it's a pretty black-and-white game. It's not the game of world leadership, it's the game of world conquest. Force trumps strategy when the dice roll your way, and unlikely maneuvers can pay off if you have enough willingness to go all in and keep betting on sheer probability. That's how my uncle once managed to conquer the world from a nice, secure base in Australia.

However, as anyone who has played Risk also knows, the Middle East is the worst place to start your world takeover. Unlike some more friendly venues, when you start in the Middle East, you have enemies (or, in a less dramatic sense, other players) at every conceivable turn. It's nearly impossible to defend, since you have no safe place to put your back, and you have to marshal resources on all your borders. Sound familiar, anyone?

It seems that Dubya's penchant for Risk has carried through to today, but now he's playing it with a much bigger board. Perhaps we'd all be better off if he'd spent that time studying, or at least playing Diplomacy, instead.

Let Slip the Dogs of War

Read the very excellent comment piece by Jacob Weisberg (editor of www.slate.com) in today's Financial Times re: Lieberman and the fate of the Democratic party.

Meanwhile, Israel's security cabinet voted to expand the ground offensive into Lebanon to meet the Litani River, and restructured ground command to sideline the (relatively) cautious Adam. Theoretically, this move will increase Israel's troop levels in Lebanon, strike a harder assault on Hizballah, prevent Hizballah from reaching Israeli territory with Katyusha rockets.

Theoretically, this move could also do the following:

Kill 300-500 Israeli soldiers (my guess is that this is a conservative estimate, as accurate death toll estimates don't tend to drum up civilian support for wars in democracies), and an unknown number of Lebanese civilians who are now trapped in southern Lebanon;

Further devastate the infrastructure of southern Lebanon;

Prompt Hizballah to use their supplies of longer-range Iranian missiles, escalating the conflict and exacerbating tensions between the West and Iran;

Recruit more Lebanese to the Hizballah cause, as the longer Israel stays in Lebanon, the more support Hizballah garners. There's a new generation of children who will have to make the choice between an ineffective national government and an effective, nationalist/Islamist extra-governmental army.

And what of the wider Middle East? Arab countries are not without their own problems, and many face internal tensions that are exacerbated by surrounding conflict. For example, Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, a banned organization (that still holds seats in government), declared this week that they could send 10,000 jihadists to Lebanon to fight with Hizballah. Long-held tensions between the Palestinians and the Lebanese seem to be easing as leaders from both Fatah and Hizballah see Israel as a common enemy.

This change is dangerous, as Fatah held power as a secular party. Forgive my naivete, but a secular Palestinian political party aligning with an Iranian-sponsored Islamist movement signals a move towards the sort of ideologically irrational alliances made to marshal resources before a wider war. Desperation breeds strange bedfellows.

The Bellwether?

Well, now. As I write this, polls in Connecticut are likely on the verge of closing over one heck of a primary. The nation (and the world, frankly: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2304231,00.html) is watching Celebrity Death Match: Democracy as Lieberman takes on Lamont in an election centering nearly entirely around the war in Iraq.

How easy to say that a Lamont victory is a victory for the blogosphere, for the liberal left, for disaffected Americans nationwide. How wrong. Lieberman's politics, although I don't agree with all of them, show a consistent, smart approach to foreign policy (and the funding thereof, although a lot of his support for the foreign affairs budget stems from funding for Israel), a fundamentally liberal voting record on social issues, and a refusal to give in to one-issue electioneering. Lieberman's a liberal of the educated sort.

It's lucky for the left and the center that Lieberman is considering a run as an independent, not least because trading the influence of Lieberman for Lamont would be a blow to Connecticut's standing in the Senate (I assume here that a Republican would not take Lieberman's empty seat in a final election, but . . .). There are other, more subtle reasons to value his determination to run the race, regardless of his party.

There are not enough independent minds in the US government today. I seriously doubt that Lieberman as an independent will vote any differently than Lieberman as a Democrat, but how refreshing to have a senior member of the Senate cut ties with party affiliation, however nominally.

The second issue does, I admit, center again around Iraq. Lamont's message resonates with voters, but the "get out now" approach to foreign policy is just unrealistic and dangerous. Regardless of the reasons why the US embroiled itself in the Middle East, we did it. They (nearly) all voted for it. We have made a mess, and made a dangerous situation more dangerous, for Iraqis and their neighbors, and for ourselves.

It is irresponsible in the extreme to suggest that troop removal (while continuing training and technical assistance) will have a positive outcome. I can tell you right now that I wouldn't go back to Iraq if the US military wasn't there, and I'd wager there are quite a few aid workers that would agree with me.

We aren't doing the right thing in Iraq right now, but Lamont's proposition won't remedy the situation, either. We need intelligence, strategy, and long-term planning, not rhetoric and name-calling.

So, is this election a bellwether? Is anyone surprised that a New England state would come out anti-war? Does it really show a leftward tilt in the democratic party? Does it even matter, if Lieberman garners a win as an independent? The answer is no.

Oh, yes, we're drowning

It's time for a change.

In the past, I've focused my blogging activities (http://ririaroundtheworld.blogspot.com) on my personal travel stories. I've decided that the world has gone a bit crazy, and the rules I've set for my travelblog don't give enough room for expanding.

So, now I welcome you to ophelianic world, where the topic is global in scope, and nothing is sacred.

Enjoy!