I was browsing in the campus bookshop over lunch and saw the “UK/Australia edition”:http://www.amazon.co.uk/Freakonomics-Economist-Explores-Hidden-Everything/dp/0141019018/ of “Freakonomics”:http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0061234001/ref=nosim/kieranhealysw-20 for sale — this is the recently released revised and expanded version. Looking to see what had changed, I was surprised and gratified to see that the new version incorporates much of Steven Levitt’s “response”:https://crookedtimber.org/2005/05/23/response/ to “our seminar on the first edition”:https://www.crookedtimber.org/category/levitt-seminar. The essay is prefaced by a generous comment from Steve to the effect that the CT seminar is the best available discussion of the book. Unfortunately the new edition doesn’t contain our essays (though it does give the seminar’s URL), and so we won’t be getting any royalties for our efforts. This shows why traditional models of publishing are doomed in the era of free online content.

In her 2002 Locke Lectures, Christine Korsgaard suggests readings of Plato and of Kant that try to make sense of the relationship between “inward justice” and “outward justice”. She asks, for example, “What is the relationship between maintaining unity in your soul, and doing things like telling the truth, keeping your promises, and respecting rights?” In the course of exploring the connection, she observes, “It’s hard to have a free press and lie to the world.” Her point is not limited to freedom of the press. Rather, she thinks that it is hard to have a democratic society that engages in free public deliberation if it lies to the world.

In its recent effort to prevent victims of “alternative interrogation methods” from telling even their own lawyers – let alone the general public – what they endured, the Bush administration seems to agree with Korsgaard.

Actually, they offered two defenses of the prohibition. First:

“Many terrorist operatives are specifically trained in counter-interrogation techniques,” says a declaration by Marilyn A. Dorn, an official at the National Clandestine Service, a part of the C.IA. “If specific alternative techniques were disclosed, it would permit terrorist organizations to adapt their training to counter the tactics that C.I.A. can employ in interrogations.”

It’s hard to take this seriously. What do they imagine they’ll do – practice holding their breath while being waterboarded dunked in water?

Here’s the other defense:

revealing the countries where the prisoners were held could undermine intelligence relationships with those governments. Such disclosures “would put our allies at risk of terrorist retaliation and betray relationships that are built on trust and are vital to our efforts against terrorism,” Ms. Dorn wrote.

The connection seems plausible – only the conclusion is absurd. We need to undermine the rule of law at home so that we can continue to lie to our allies. Not exactly what Korsgaard had in mind, I think. As a lawyer for several Guantanamo detainees observed, the prisoners “can’t even say what our government did to these guys to elicit the statements that are the basis for them being held. Kafka-esque doesn’t do it justice. This is ‘Alice in Wonderland.’”

The Washington Monthly has sort of a fun “Dewey Defeats Truman” gimmick: bunch of folks writing ‘Dems Win’, ‘Reps Hold On’ morning after wrap-ups. All fun and games aside, I have two really rather depressing thoughts about ‘what’s next’, one assuming the Dems win (go Dems!) One not. [click to continue…]

Ooh, this is cool. You can view a tag cloud of the most common words in U.S. presidential speeches, declarations and letters since 1776. Slide the arrows on the bar to move from the representation of one document to another. The bottom of the page has a detailed description of how the tag clouds were generated, it looks like a careful approach. What a neat idea. [thanks]

While we’re linking to blogs that focus on the economic aspects of life, here is a plug for Credit Slips, a group blog focusing on “all things about credit and bankruptcy”. Not only does this blog have a great list of contributors, but they also bring in some star guests.

This week, Viviana Zelizer from Princeton’s Sociology Department has been guest blogging on topics ranging from the importance of personal ties in economic transactions to economic exchange across generations in families, the gendered aspects of spending and the intersection of economic transactions and intimate relations. (The latter is also the topic of her most recent book on The Purchase of Intimacy). She is great at talking about these issues so I highly recommend checking out her posts.

Full disclosure, Viviana was one of my mentors in graduate school. However, I think that makes me particularly qualified to comment on how helpful her work is in understanding questions about how social relations and cultural context influence economic processes. Be sure not to miss out on this treat.

The catastrophe in Iraq has passed the point where there’s much useful to be said about military options, such as immediate withdrawal, phased withdrawal, stickign with the current failed policies or introducing a draft and ramping up the numbers. They’re all bad, and no one can say for sure which will be worse (for the record, I think withdrawal is inevitable and better sooner than later). But having launched this disastrous war on the basis of false premises the US and its allies are morally obliged to make reparations. It’s even possible that paid on an appropriate scale, reparations might do something to improve the situation.

Over the fold is a piece I wrote for the Australian Financial Review.

[click to continue…]

I’ve received an email chivvying me into linking to the new “Economist blog”:http://www.economist.com/debate/freeexchange/ with the irresistible hook that now I “can attack [them] directly.” The new blog would appear to be at least in part a subdivision of “Megan McArdle industries”:http://www.janegalt.net/archives/009529.html. Consider it linked.

I’ve been involved with Imprints — once subtitled “A Journal of Analytical Socialism” but now “Egalitarian Theory and Practice” — for about ten years now. And a very friendly venture it is too with regular meetings up and down the UK, long sessions in the pub or in various Indian restaurants, and short but businesslike meetings. And, on the whole it has been a pretty successful project too. I don’t think there’s any other journal of its type with a similar bank of interviews with leading left thinkers. But as we smugly enjoyed our combination of conviviality and intellectual excitement we forgot to renew our web address which was poached from us within days of its lapsing. I sought Maria’s advice on the problem and contacted the friendly UK cyber-police at nominet. Perhaps we had a case against the poacher, perhaps not. Either way it would cost time and money to fight. So I went ahead and registered a new address www.imprintsjournal.com . So adjust your links … and subscribe if you don’t already (generous terms on back-issues available on request).

Just in case they were wondering. The riots in France weren’t “Muslim riots”:http://www.tnr.com/blog/spine?pid=53207 that are only likely to end “when the muezzin summons the faithful to prayer from Notre Dame.” Nor does anyone except Stanley Kurtz and the more or less deranged (but I repeat myself) believe that France is descending into a ‘civil war’ where ‘Islamic militias [will] tear [the] capital apart.’ To quote two sources that, like, actually know what they’re talking about.

“Mitchell Cohen”:http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=659 in _Dissent_.

Media often made it appear that everyone detained in last fall’s violence was North African, but recent studies complicate the picture. A study of the Yvelines suburb near Paris showed that 33 percent of those questioned by authorities were “European” in origin, 35.5 percent were North African, and 28.9 percent African.

Last week’s “Economist”:http://www.economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_RDQRPVN

When the riots started, they were treated in some quarters as a “suburban intifada”. “Jihad comes home”, ran one newspaper headline. Some American observers regarded the uprising as further proof of Europe’s inability to control the spread of radical Islam. … A report into the riots by the French Renseignements Généraux, the domestic intelligence-gathering service, however, found the opposite. Islamists had “no role in setting off the violence or in fanning it,” it concluded. Clichy’s mayor agrees. “I completely reject the idea that the riots were an Islamist plot,” he says. “During the rioting I never heard of a young man burning a car in the name of Allah; but I heard of plenty of Muslims saying, ‘go home in the name of Allah’.” Instead, the intelligence officers reckoned, the rioting was a “popular revolt” provoked by a toxic concentration of social problems: joblessness, poverty, illegal immigration, organised crime, family breakdown and a lack of parental authority. France had been so preoccupied with watching Islamic radicals, said the report, that it had neglected the wider problems in its banlieues.

I made my “debut”:http://bloggingheads.tv/video.php?id=151 on Bloggingheads TV yesterday, arguing (well, actually, mostly agreeing) with Bob Wright about Iraq, North Korea, the netroots and other stuff. I’m billed as “a pale imitation of Mickey Kaus” (Bob’s usual sparring partner). As you’ll see from the video, the ‘pale’ bit at least is right on target …

Hey kids! The Sheri Berman event is over, but it’s too soon to be bawling in your cornflakes about how you have nothing to read … about books! Over at the Valve we’re hosting – or at least keeping track of – a book event about Michael Bérubé’s What’s Liberal About the Liberal Arts? [amazon].

In inverse news, I notice that in the last few days Hugh Hewitt and Dean Barnett have made – by my count – 32 posts and/or major updates about this Kerry business. I guess you could say they’ve written a non-event book. (There’s another one. Make that: 33).

UPDATE: I think they’re up to 40.

I’m a few days late with this, but still wanted to write a short post about the “total ban on abortion in Nicaragua”:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6089718.stm. Abortion is now a criminal act under _all_ circumstances, including when the life of the mother is in danger, or when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. There was not a single member of the Nicaraguan parliament who voted against the proposal, which has been explained by the fact that there are elections coming up soon, and no political party wanted to allienate the Catholic voters.
From a moral point of view, abortion is a very difficult issue for most people — also for the non-religious. But how can one vote for legislation that forces women to give birth to a baby that is the result of rape or incest? Surely those parliamentarians must not have the faintest idea of what rape and incest does to the life of a girl or a woman. And even worse, how can one take responsibility for legally forcing women to continue a pregnancy if it is likely that both the mother and the foetus will die?
Moreover, from a pragmatic/political point of view it’s clear “what will happen”:http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1932576,00.html. Girls and women from rich families will go to Cuba (where abortion is legal), and those from poorer families will have illegal (read: unsafe) abortions. The best road to minimising the number of abortions is not to criminalise them, but rather to acknowledge that, whatever degree of (religious) moralising, most people will have sex anyway; to make contraceptives available; and to support women who are faced with an unwanted pregnancy so that they have effective choices between different options, and that, if they choose for abortion, they will have it as early as possible in the pregnancy and under safe circumstances. And let’s hope that no other countries follow this irresponsible move by the Nicaraguan parliament.

Via “Marc Lynch”:http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2006/11/brookings_iraqi.html, some “Congressional testimony”:http://www.stanford.edu/group/ir_workshop/fearon%20testimony.pdf (PDF) by Jim Fearon applying lessons from other civil wars to the Iraq conflict. Fearon suggests that the prospects for Iraq are pretty dreadful – civil wars tend to go on for a long time, and are usually resolved when one side or another gains a decisive military victory (less than one in six ends in a power-sharing arrangement). The reasons for this are rooted in the strategic situation that actors find themselves in – both sides in a civil war are organized so as to fear that the other side will try to grab power, and both are likely to be tempted to try to grab power for themselves. Given this, the least-worst strategy for the US to follow is to withdraw troops gradually, seeking to prevent major massacres of civilians while it does this, but recognizing that a Lebanon-type civil war is highly likely to break out when it does withdraw completely. This is a pretty bleak assessment, but I’m not seeing very many countervailing reasons for optimism.

I’ve put together a PDF of the Sheri Berman seminar, for those who prefer to read it as a paper document. I’ve also corrected some minor spelling errors etc along the way, so it’s a slightly better text than the blogposts themselves. Those who want to download it will find it “here”:http://www.henryfarrell.net/berman.pdf . Please let me know about any remaining errors or glitches …