by Daniel Drezner The Economist was good enough to review my new book All Politics Is Global: Explaining International Regulatory Regimes in their latest issue. Even better, the magazine liked the book.
Breaking news from Roll Call: Under the agreement, the Senate this afternoon will vote on three proposals, all of which would require 60 votes for passage - a mark that none is anticipated to meet. Lawmakers will vote on Reid's resolution setting a timetable for a redeployment of troops from Iraq by March of next year, a troop support resolution by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) essentially committing the Senate to backing continued involvement of troops in Iraq and a modified version of the Gregg amendment sponsored by Sen.
By David Greenberg TNR's makeover led David Brooks to lament the alleged death of neoliberalism. Back at TNR, Jonathan Chait and Jonathan Cohn and Mickey Kaus (a present-at-the-creation neoliberal) have replied. Here's my take. It's reductive to define neoliberalism as a more centrist form of liberalism, although it is that. It's also reductive to define neoliberalism as a movement critical of liberalism, although it's that, too. These qualities don't define neoliberalism because there are many schools of thought that are a step to the right of, or that are critical of, mainstream liberalism.
When James Dobson gets angry, people notice. And, in early March, the influential chair of Focus on the Family fired off a very angry letter to the board of the National Association of Evangelicals. Tony Perkins of The Family Research Council signed it. So did Gary Bauer. So did 22 other conservative Christian leaders. Their complaint? It seems that Richard Cizik, NAE's vice-president for governmental affairs, had been sounding the alarm on global warming.
I know that the internationalization of our universities is high on everybody's wish list, at least with everybody who makes a living in our academic institutions. Probably, however, much of this is just a scam. "The higher learning" is not everywhere the higher learning. So, many mediocre intellects come from foreign countries to less than mediocre colleges and graduate schools, and the most one can say about these enrollments is that they are a favorable cash transaction for the U.S.
Michael Specter has an important piece in the New Yorker (only an abstract is available online) on AIDS denialists. These are the people who, like those who thought the earth was flat, claim that HIV does not cause AIDS (indeed, some of them allege that contracting the virus can be beneficial to your health). These nutters have deluded themselves into thinking that they are the Galileos of the modern world and that the established scientific community is the Church (as one South African government official tells Specter).
Helen Benedict has a chilling story in Salon about the prevalence of rape, sexual assault, and harassment within the military. In Iraq, things have gotten so bad that officers routinely tell female soldiers "not to go to the latrines or showers without another woman for protection." This stuff is neither universal nor inevitable--several soldiers told Benedict that commanders can stop the mistreatment of women in their units if they so choose--but it is rampant.
I sometimes wonder whether the anonymity of the Internet has not only ushered in a less civil age but a more misogynistic one. Just check out this article in Wednesday's Washington Post about AutoAdmit, a law school discussion board. The purported purpose of the site is to give law students an open forum to anonymously discuss their community ("We are very strong believers in the freedom of expression and the marketplace of idea," says one of the site's high-minded founders).
Since I linked to yesterday's Politico story about Bill Richardson's "personal life," I feel I should also link to Garance's smart retort to it: I've never come across a candidate who has been the subject of more unsubstantiated whispering among the press corps. Some paper with real resources needs to send someone to New Mexico to track down the start of the whispering campaign against Richardson, and then either knock it down decisively, to give the man the fair shake he deserves, or publish the story of whatever its basis might be.
by Jacob T. Levy This is a commentary on the "Wolfe v. Berkowitz" stuff that's been going on on the main page and at The Weekly Standard, not in OU; and it's all 'who said what to whom in rejoinder to which rebuttal' kind of material. Read the whole thing at your own peril. Note: I drafted this after "Wolfe vs. Berkowitz Round 2" was posted on the main page, then decided not to stir those waters any further. Now that two more rounds have been exchanged, it seems that I'm at no risk of bearing sole responsibility for keeping this argument going.