There ought to be a word for these kinds of arguments, in which one simultaneously displays and condemns hypocrisy. They happen a lot.
There should be a word too for the kind of self-deconstructing display of bad faith that Charles Krauthammer treats us to in his latest piece of hackwork, entitled “Blixful Amnesia.” If someone other than Krauthammer were involved, you might imagine that a post thus entitled would be an apology for repeated assertions that Hans Blix was a craven, incompetent fool for not finding WMDs in Iraq. Instead it’s yet another incoherent harangue; this time against a recent talk given by Blix in Vienna. Blix’s speech begins with an aside - that hundreds of millions of people are more directly threatened by hunger than by weapons of mass destruction - and then launches into a detailed and lengthy discussion of non-proliferation, Krauthammer, who doesn’t appear to have read beyond the opening paragraphs, sees this as telling evidence of the failure of the “decadent European left” to face up to the problems of proliferation of nuclear weapons. In fact, Blix offers a series of proposals for addressing proliferation - starting with a real commitment by the existing nuclear powers to stop producing nuclear weapons material.
There’s something rather odd about Krauthammer’s continued obsession with Blix. My suspicion is that it’s because Blix’s credibility (at least with regard to the most recent round of weapons inspections) has increased over time, while Krauthammer’s has evaporated. In Krauthammer’s own words fifteen months ago.
Hans Blix had five months to find weapons. He found nothing. We’ve had five weeks. Come back to me in five months. If we haven’t found any, we will have a credibility problem.
Indeed. It’s high time that the Washington Post took him at his word, and dealt with his continuing “credibility problem” by suggesting that he seek employment elsewhere.
If they fired all the fucked up pundits, there would be not a soul left. Actually, they don’t have souls even now so no biggie, eh?
A hypodox. It’s a combining of hypocrisy and paradox. Let’s face it, condeming hypocrisy while at the same time being hypcritical is a paradox.
Ok, first, I can’t type. Second, I had another thought (yes they are few and far between, but I do have them): A person who condems hypocrisy while being hypocritical could be called a hypodoxiac. Then there’s hypodoxial behavior.
There could be a whole school of study in this area. Honestly, one should look into getting a grant.
“Physician - Heal thyself,” because you’re nuts.
I find him offensive to my toliet reading.
Isn’t this missing the point that Blix wasn’t meant to be looking for WMD, but looking for compliance with 1441?
You don’t get it. He’s right. Moore, Blix, Meyssan, that’s who’s preventing the US from pursuing serious and coherent anti-terrorist policies. It’s entirely the fault of the overwhelming leftist and decadent and paranoid propaganda in both Europe and America, if no WMD were found in Iraq and the place is turning into a terrorist playground that just needs martial laws and military occupation and Abu Ghraib-style prisons.
You know you just can’t wait for four more years of this sort of precious insight. Vote Bush!
See, see how Krauthammer is in touch:
And yet here we are three years after Sept. 11, with the dots already connected, and we are under a powerful urge to ignore them completely.Senator Jay Rockefeller, one of the authors of yesterday’s report:
“Leading up to September 11, our government didn’t connect the dots. In Iraq, we are even more culpable because the dots themselves never existed,”
There should be a word too for the kind of self-deconstructing display of bad faith that Charles Krauthammer treats us
In other terms, “no it’s you who are are the hyporite”. Isn’t that relatively new?
I sometimes get the impression that one of the big advantages of these raving nuts is that you can’t really argue with them, unless by going “ahm, no , i think you’re completely cuckoo”.
You usually don’t do that. You want to pick a subtle flaw in some subtle argumentation. That’s what interesting and fun. But you can’t really argue with, say, coulter’s paranoia, unless by pointing she’s a lunatic.
So lunatics may have an advantage in this modern mediatic landscape. They can speak without real contradiciton, while all the others look at it with round eyes and gaping mouth, recoiling at the idea of having to deal with that crap.
It may be changing now -right at the same time the right began to lament itself on the lost civility of the political debate.
… Any tip for curing my hangover btw?
A surpringly thoughtful piece by Blix I thought, maybe I shouldn’t be surprised. I’m not sure I’d want him running my local police force though, the qualities that make a thoughtful Swedish academic (which is what he seems to be) don’t necessarily make a good policeman (or WMD inspector, seemingly).
As for his suggestion that disarmament among the 5 NWS is a top priority for the future, it’s a little bit dangerous. It’s quite easy to imagine a world where, as the 5 NWS reduce their arsenals, other countries (not rogue states) might want to acquire weapons. To give a concrete example, Japan could build a bomb fairly quickly and might well choose to do so if the US and China reduced their nuclear arsenals but China maintained its conventional forces. Similarly, Taiwan and South Korea might want to do the same. I’m not arguing that it’s justthe US nuclear umbrella that keeps the peace, just that nuclear weapons in the US are, to some extent, substitutes for nuclear weapons in its allies.
Gavin - yeah, I think that your criticisms of Blix are fair and good ones (although I also think that Blix would have a response). It would be nice to have actual debate like this - instead of a partisan clown-show - on the op-ed pages of the Post.
Punditry merely mirrors process: Pot v Kettle.
Hypodox is a great word, in part because a “naive etymology” of it would yield
hypo- (under, insufficient, too little)
-doxa (opinion, thought)
And when you find what it really means, it’s just the same, but better.
Fakery, fraud, fraudulence, hypocrisy, insincerity, mendacity or skullduggery.
In this case, “fraudulent pundits”, captures the nature of the beast.
Same as a money swindler, but swindles your time and conversation instead.
(Defn: Deception deliberately practiced with a view to gaining an unlawful or unfair advantage; artifice by which the right or interest of another is injured; injurious stratagem; deceit; trick.)
The problem with Blix was not that he couldn’t find WMD, but rather that over 10years, he and the weapons inspectors were unable or unwilling to certify that there were none. they were thereby part of an impasse that made revocation of the sanctions regime impossible.
And I think alot of the personal animus towards Blix is that some peopel feel he was implicitly happy to lket this situation continue since it kept him in pay and power. This impresion is reinforced by his determination to keep on poping up on TV commneintg on all and sunder.
“A hypodox. It’s a combining of hypocrisy and paradox.”
For some reason, I can only imagine Stephen Colbert saying this.
“There should be a word too for the kind of self-deconstructing display of bad faith that Charles Krauthammer treats us to in his latest piece of hackwork, entitled “Blixful Amnesia.” ”
This is strong, Henry, and all that for Krauthammer taking issue with a crucial particular in the Blix speech.
I find the initial risk comparison by Blix of the importance of WMD dubious at best. It isn’t just and “aside”, it is a provision of context for the rest of the speech. It diminishes the urgency for treating the threat of WMD, allowing more weight for the Blix approach of, primarily, inspections.
Blix has a useful position as an essential voice for a reasoned political approach to WMD. His advantage is that he is disengaged, in a neutral way, from a national forum that would be easily dismissed by those on the right as something like French chest-beating or German quasi pacifism. However, Blix would be far more effective if he refrained from a partisan alignment. Clearly irritating to Krauthammer, this aspect is better alleviated than highlighted, but is he wrong about that? The nit he chooses to pick for this purpose is precisely the problem why there is a shading of dubiousness over all of Blix’s work.
“The problem with Blix was not that he couldn’t find WMD, but rather that over 10years, he and the weapons inspectors were unable or unwilling to certify that there were none. they were thereby part of an impasse that made revocation of the sanctions regime impossible.”
But that’s so inane. (Not the post; I mean that general objection, which I’ve heard for instance interviewers on the BBC urging on Blix.) How could they possibly certify that? It’s the black swan thing. The fact that one has not, to date, found X is a billion miles from proving or establishing that X does not exist or is not present. How the hell could a finite and in fact quite small number of inspectors possibly establish with certainty that there were no WMDs in all of Iraq? And yet that’s what I kept hearing interviewers insist on. ‘But why won’t you say there aren’t any?’
The Blix findings are a good answer to those who believe that waiting longer would have produced an international coalition to get rid of Saddam.
We now know that Blix wasn’t going to find much.
So Saddam was going to be staying in power right?
That doesn’t follow. As Blix also tried to make clear. The standard does not have to be absolute certainty of a negative.
Or to put it another way, there’s an epistemological issue here that’s separate from the political one. There can be a political decision, what sort of standard one is looking for. But demanding that Blix declare certainty is just silly.
Curiously, Blix mentions in his speech that after 1991 “The IAEA removed all fissionable material from Iraq by flying it to Russia.” How is this possible with the finding of yellowcake at Tuwaitha?
Beyond his Blix criticism, Krauthammer also came up with ten nuclear devices set off simultaneously in ten different American cities. He thinks that everything we think about anything at all should be in the context of the possibility of that event, so this wasn’t really be about Blix at all. With all those bombs going off in Krathammer’s Freudian head, nothing really can be about much of anything at all except the bombs.
Giles’ red herring deserves some kind of prize: the reason people don’t like Blix is because he failed to certify Iraq as WMD-free. Where were YOU two years ago, Giles?
Sebastian just deserves another re-award of the eponymous Sebastian Prize. The problem with Blix is that, since there were no WMD’s to find, Blix NEVER would have found a pretext for attacking Iraq, and so everyone who failed to smear Blix was objectively pro-Saddam.
Eudoxis, yellowcake is an Uranium chemical product, in practical circumstances “fissile material” imply either an Uranium very enriched in his 235 isotope, or Plutonium.
“A sample of natural uranium (as mined) is composed of 99.3% uranium-238, 0.7% Uranium-235, and a negligible amount of uranium-234 (by weight), as well as a number of radioactive decay products.”
from http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/faq/uproperties/faq5.cfm
“The fissile materials used both in nuclear weapons and nuclear power reactors are the same— Uranium and Plutonium. But the useful isotope of Uranium is Uranium 235 which has to be in a concentration of 90 percent and above for a weapon. Unlike Uranium, Plutonium of any composition of isotopes can be used for a nuclear weapon.”
from http://www.saag.org/papers/paper14.html
DSW
The use of the word “fissionable” is important in this instance. Consider that Blix is not a layman and that the IAEA has further definitions for enriched uranium, namely “special fissionable” material. U-238 is fissionable with enough energy. That is why weapons grade uranium or special fissionable material need not be more than say 4% U-235. U-238 is fissionable but not fissile. Yellowcake is fissionable.
Consider futher the absurdity of the IAEA removing weapons grade material from a nuclear facility but leaving behind the drums filled with yellowcake.
Update: Apparently that is not absurd. According to this report from the IAEA “several tons of yellow cake and other natural uranium and some low enriched and depleted uranium” remained in Iraq “under IAEA seal” after the IAEA left in 1998.
“The problem with Blix is that, since there were no WMD’s to find, Blix NEVER would have found a pretext for attacking Iraq, and so everyone who failed to smear Blix was objectively pro-Saddam.”
Nope, that is overarguing my point. It isn’t that such people are objectively pro-Saddam. It is just that they are deluding themselves if they believe that the international process was going to lead to Saddam’s removal. With Blix finding nothing, it was not.
And of course I’m not just talking just about hypothetical people deluding themselves here. I’m talking about at least a few actual main-page posters of Crooked Timber.
sebastian-
What was you’re original “point”?
Sebastian, if I read him correctly, is asserting that many people, including CT posters, believed (at some unstated time, but presumably in 2002 and early 2003), the proposition “The WMD inspection process will lead inevitably to Saddam’s forcible removal.”
Those interested can read a bunch of my posts on the topic, starting with my November 2002 archive. I wasn’t right on every count, but I certainly didn’t entertain the the view posited by Sebastian - very much the opposite.
I thought, and still think that, in the absence of some sort of legitimate international procedure for removing and trying tyrants like Saddam an outcome where he was disarmed was preferable to war.
The power of human mind
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t
mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt
tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset
can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit mcuh
porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey
lteter by istlef, it atcaluly tkaes in the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig
huh?
The interpretation of the arguments about the US-Iraq relationship for many people are very similar to the interpretation of the above sentence…it does not matter the arrangement of the individual facts, since people believe what they want to believe.
One way to improve the level of information flowing on this topic and combat blind ignorance is to expand the number of social links between Iraq and other countries, cultural exchanges, educational exchanges and academic exchanges.
Conferences on political and social theory with colocations in Iraq, through audio-visual links, groupware, virtual libaries and meeting rooms, and physical visits to Iraq by academics would all help initiate understanding and break down prejudices. I hope that academics reading this blog might give a thought to the extent to which they could build links between Iraq and their own country.
On a small but important level, it would be possible to offer scholarships to Iraqi students abroad, especially in History, Social Policy and Political Organisation. I would suggest that these are offered in groups rather than individually, since cultural dislocation is likely to be a problem.
It would also be possible to sponsor Iraqi academics to visit foreign institutions in order to help build understanding and relationships.
There are many improvements in the understanding of Middle Eastern politics and history which could be beneficial to all parties.
Example relating to the Maghreb: Britain & the Maghreb Conference 2004
John, quite right, your position was that if the inspectors couldn’t find anything that Saddam should be left in power. (“in the absence of some sort of legitimate international procedure for removing and trying tyrants like Saddam” being the same as “impossible” in this context). You also took a rather broad view of what compliance with the inspectors was.
I was specifically speaking to those who were particularly concerned with the humanitarian disaster of leaving Saddam in power and entertained fantasies of an international coalition to get rid of Saddam if we the US ‘had just waited a bit longer’. I believe Daniel is one such. That combined with the sanctions combined with the UN Oil for Bribes plan, doesn’t leave us with a very pretty picture either.
I’m not asking anyone to say that they WANTED Saddam to remain in power. I’m merely pointing out that he would have remained in power, and that ought to be part of the calculation.
And if continual disarmament was the goal, please remember that France and Russia were trying to remove sanctions—making that goal highly unlikely to be fulfilled. Unless you have other, yet to be revealed, ideas about realistic levers to apply against Saddam in the absence of sanctions.
And if a feather up my butt made me a hen, I could be laying eggs.
My own belief is that Krauthammer resents Blix not just for being right where he himself was gloriously wrong, but for having a name that doesn’t mean Cabbage hammer. I shall venture into GOP territory and declare my absolute indifference to the fact that Kraut doesn’t mean cabbage. It just feels so right!
“But that’s so inane”
Correct - but that was the fundamental flaw in the UN arms inspection regime and Blix is its public face…………Its unfair but presumably he did want the job and so accpeted its premis with all its flaws.
You know what is scary? I read that entire first graph of scrambled words and only struggled with two of them!
Huh. It would let me post a comment. Let me try this a second time.
I read that first graph of scrambled words and only struggled with understanding two of them. That is really scary.
Ok, want a real perspective on the alternatvies:
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=DefenseWatch.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=561&rnd=713.9062175551647
and more. The real military types out there aren’t happy with the current situation in Iraq.
You will learn more about what is going wrong over there by reading material like this than you will ever get here.
Or from the Greens.
Sebastian, Jesus Christ, Blix’s mandate was never to get Saddam out of there. It was to deal with WMD, and he did a good job of it. And for that he got smeared, and the facts about Saddam were also unjustifiably misrepresented (NOT an honest mistake).
Considering that we’ve just replaced Saddam with a former enforcer goon of his (who was on the outs with Saddam for some reason or another), and the goon who is rehabilitating the Ba’athist police, talking about martial law, etc., the bait-and-switch “bring democracy to Iraq” reason for the war is looking more and more dubious.
Sebastian, Jesus Christ, Blix’s mandate was never to get Saddam out of there. It was to deal with WMD, and he did a good job of it. And for that he got smeared, and the facts about Saddam were also unjustifiably misrepresented (NOT an honest mistake).
Considering that we’ve just replaced Saddam with a former enforcer goon of his (who was on the outs with Saddam for some reason or another), and the goon who is rehabilitating the Ba’athist police, talking about martial law, etc., the bait-and-switch “bring democracy to Iraq” reason for the war is looking more and more dubious.
Sebastian, Jesus Christ, Blix’s mandate was never to get Saddam out of there. It was to deal with WMD, and he did a good job of it. And for that he got smeared, and the facts about Saddam were also unjustifiably misrepresented (NOT an honest mistake).
Considering that we’ve just replaced Saddam with a former enforcer goon of his (who was on the outs with Saddam for some reason or another), and the goon who is rehabilitating the Ba’athist police, talking about martial law, etc., the bait-and-switch “bring democracy to Iraq” reason for the war is looking more and more dubious.
Sebastian, Jesus Christ, Blix’s mandate was never to get Saddam out of there. It was to deal with WMD, and he did a good job of it. And for that he got smeared, and the facts about Saddam were also unjustifiably misrepresented (NOT an honest mistake).
Considering that we’ve just replaced Saddam with a former enforcer goon of his (who was on the outs with Saddam for some reason or another), and the goon who is rehabilitating the Ba’athist police, talking about martial law, etc., the bait-and-switch “bring democracy to Iraq” reason for the war is looking more and more dubious.
Sebastian, Jesus Christ, Blix’s mandate was never to get Saddam out of there. It was to deal with WMD, and he did a good job of it. And for that he got smeared, and the facts about Saddam were also unjustifiably misrepresented (NOT an honest mistake).
Considering that we’ve just replaced Saddam with a former enforcer goon of his (who was on the outs with Saddam for some reason or another), and the goon who is rehabilitating the Ba’athist police, talking about martial law, etc., the bait-and-switch “bring democracy to Iraq” reason for the war is looking more and more dubious.
Is there an echo in here?
And why was it so all-fire important to remove our old friend Saddam from power? Think of the billions we’d invested in him that would be wasted!
I mean, used to we’d just pay Saddam to kill Iraqis for us. Nice scary man. Keeps the region stable, what with Islamist governments to the East and South and all. Then, we cut out the middle man and butcher thousands of Iraqis ourselves. Reason? Because Saddam was a Bad Man!
Get it?
Talk about your selective amnesia!
Sorry, guys. I was getting repeated error messages.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review