A Running Diary of Thought

This site made possible by:

 
Reason to Love the Internet, Number 6:

weblogs do not make money. Some bloggers earn commissions on items bought through a link from their weblog, or receive donations from charitable readers. But even Mr Sullivan says his weblog brings in only about $6,000 a month from such sources. Most bloggers do not blog for money.

Only $72,000/year? Jesus....

And you can be sure that number's going up... Meanwhile, the skeptic needs to get to real work.......

posted at 6:59 PM |

 
Reason to Love the Internet, Number 3: Expressing frustration in a creative way, with less confrontation--making it sooo much easier to laugh off as absurd. (via The Storm)

Reason to Love the Internet, Numbers 4 and 5: Reminds you how much you hated being a teenager. (Via "Fresh Blogs" on Blogger)

posted at 12:34 AM |

 

The Congo As a Platform?

The Filibuster chimes in with a really good point about intervention in the Congo:

Perhaps more significantly, the Congo could also represent the first opportunity for some Democrats to try and form a coherent and reasonable interventionist position for the party, one that could be easily contrasted with the two-faced policies of the current administration. Of course none of this is likely to happen since the one thing we've learned over the past few decades is that American politicians rarely give a damn about what happens in Africa.

the skeptic looks forward to more installments of this "new recurring feature."

posted at 10:25 PM |

 

Rights and Wrongs

The White House does something right: "The Food and Drug Administration (news - web sites), under pressure from the White House, is planning to require companies to list the amount of the harmful fat in their products." (emphasis added)

And then the White House does something very wrong:

President Bush, citing two trailers that U.S. intelligence agencies have said were probably used as mobile biological weapons labs, said U.S. forces in Iraq have "found the weapons of mass destruction" that were the United States' primary justification for going to war.

As Fred Kaplan writes:

The report concedes that U.S. officials found no traces of any bioweapons agent inside the trailers. "We suspect," it states, "that the Iraqis thoroughly decontaminated the vehicle to remove evidence." That's possible.

The report also notes that, in order to produce biological weapons, each trailer would have to be accompanied by a second and possibly a third trailer, specially designed to grow, process, sterilize, and dry the bacteria. Such trailers would "have equipment such as mixing tanks, centrifuges, and spray dryers"—none of which were spotted in the trailers that were found. The problem, the CIA acknowledges, is that "we have not yet found" these post-production trailers. Question: Is it that they haven't been found—or that they don't exist?

It could well be that the CIA is right about its inferences. Either way, these trailers—simply by being capable of producing biotoxins—constituted violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions barring such technology. However, we're beyond U.N. resolutions at this point. We're looking for evidence that Iraq actually did produce such weapons. From what we know so far, the trailers constitute less than airtight proof. (his hyperlink)

posted at 9:59 PM |

 

African AIDS, Part 7

AfricaPundit questions the recently passed African AIDS bill, and he is right to be skeptical.

What makes the whole business so confusing is how it has blatantly bypassed the Global Fund. Why bypass what's meant to coordinate efforts and improve overall effectiveness?

Does the administration want to create direct ties to these governments (ugh) or implement their own conditionalities on how the aid is used above and beyond the UN's restrictions?

Neither is a good deal for Africans, though the news media seem pretty convinced that it's the latter. Too bad more reporters didn't push the administration or congress on this issue, and remained largely silent until the PR deal was wrapped up and ready to go.

(For previous skeptic posts on this, see 5/28, 5/16, 5/3, 4/30, 4/3, and 3/2.)

posted at 7:59 PM |

 

Restoring the Credibility Gap

Slate has a new column out.... and the skeptic doesn't hesitate to make the connection to the Blair-ization of the news industry....

On the NYT side of things, Clymer asks to move on, calling the Burns-Miller fiasco an "embarrassing set of e-mails."

Certainly, but the skeptic is glad to finally know where Miller's ludicrous stories have been coming from. And continues to track Chalabi with disgust.

posted at 7:33 PM |

 

The Congo Disaster

The Economist has a harrowing look at the conflict in the Congo (via Andrew Sullivan):

IN THE chocolate waters of the Congo river, a mutilated corpse rolls by. The rebels' “minister for children” shivers. How is he going to explain this to the horrified UN peace envoys from the capital, Kinshasa, who are at that moment stepping on to the quay to meet him? Not by telling the truth, obviously, which was that his rebel group had slaughtered 150 people in the town of Kisangani on May 14th-15th, then pitched their disembowelled bodies into the river with stones crammed into their bellies. Instead, he smiles, accepts the envoys' offerings of food aid, and talks chummily of other things.
[...]
Simply finding out what is happening in Congo is a challenge, as your correspondent discovered while accompanying militiamen on patrol by the shore of Lake Kivu last week, when he was forced to hide in a bush to avoid 200 hostile Rwandan soldiers passing by.

It is an essential read... (note that the piece is old--7/4/2002, but it could have been written last week)

Also, note that the UN is sending more troops. It's unclear if they'll expand their mandate beyond protecting UN infrastructure and "monitoring" the peace to enforcing the peace and protecting civilians. (The Beeb says they are attempting to "restore order" and "halt the ethnic fighting.")

Update: Congrats to Matthew Yglesias (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and Gary Farber (1, 2, 3) for their numerous posts devoted to raising attention to the Congo situation, as well as Andrew Sullivan, kausfiles and Instapundit. What the Old Grey Lady takes days to do, the blogosphere does in a matter of hours....

Update 2: First John Cole reflects on it some more. Then he breaks it all down. And goes back to pounding the pavement...

Update 3: Keep an eye on Europunditry... with that old familiar template... And The Storm is gathering...

posted at 4:46 PM |

 

More Times Turmoil

Sorry for the non-stop NYT-ing, but this is just ridiculous.

Things must be getting really tough at the Times, considering that they've no longer allowed full access to old articles and have instead set up this stupid thing where you can pay $20/year to get "10 customized alerts," "breaking news alerts", "dedicated customer service", and an "improved interface"! Rah, rah. Well worth the $20 (act now, it's a "special limited time introductory offer"!).

And the best part, you get "your own 90-day personal archive"! Ninety days, that's it? Suck. And, lest you think that entitles you to access any NYT article from the past ninety days, that archive is limited to stories that match "your News Tracker topics." Because if an interesting story breaks, that you would like to be able to access at a future date, you should have already had that topic tracked!!!

Right.

posted at 3:10 PM |

 
Raed puts the smackdown on his critics... whose criticisms have been borderline absurd, thus not warranting a link on this site...

posted at 2:12 PM |

 
How long until Blogger stops freaking out?

posted at 2:01 PM |

 

Another NYT writer...

Judith Miller gets burned, bad. the skeptic already noted her latest transgression, but is somewhat surprised at the extent of the damage Shafer so gleefully notes.

Not that she'll lose her job over it or anything....

Joanne Jacobs takes Michael Winerip to task...

This is really just out of control. Will it ever end? Which reporter is next exposed for shoddy reporting?

Charles Murtaugh picks up on "perhaps a sign of newfound journalistic propriety" in Bob Herbert's latest column.

posted at 10:41 PM |

 
Interesting to contrast this story with this one. Who says our priorities aren't in the right place?

posted at 2:32 PM |

 

More Lynch

A good summary of the "myths, misconceptions and unanswered questions about the war in Iraq." (link via Instapundit, who takes issue with some of the conclusions) But one things is certain, the great drama of the original story has certainly been brought down to size.

posted at 11:46 AM |

 

Things are really reaching a point...

Two things on kausfiles latest posts (and why there is no permalink is beyond the skeptic...)

1) Africapundit says "Things are really reaching a crisis point when these kinds of ideas can be expressed openly in the NY Times..." Very true. But things are also reaching a crisis point when kausfiles steps away from a hot, blogger-ific NYT scandal to note "Not enough troops in the Congo, where hundreds have been slaughtered. I agree that this is more important than Howell Raines' future. ..." (kf's hyperlinks and emphasis)

2) kausfiles keeps the heat on the NYT scandal with quite some intrigue, concluding:

But it seems clear that a) the NYT policy is a lot more permissive than readers ever knew; b) the NYT rules are unclear, which makes them easy to stretch; and c) the paper is less willing to give credit (which would have the effect of discouraging stringer abuse) than other news organizations.

Is Dowd next?

posted at 11:27 AM |

 

Starve the Government, and Cruise the Nation

Tapped breaks down the "bankrupt the government" method of the tax-cut crazy GOP. Sure, it's a little conspiracy theory-ish... but that doesn't mean it's not true!

And this, by the way, is too good!

posted at 10:59 AM |

 
Compassionate conservatism at its not-so-finest...

posted at 10:37 AM |

 

Bush & Africa: the Best Prez Since Kennedy?

Instapundit notes Bob Geldof, in his people-are-starving tour, praising the Bush administration's approach to Africa: "'You'll think I'm off my trolley when I say this, but the Bush administration is the most radical - in a positive sense - in its approach to Africa since Kennedy,' Geldof told the Guardian."

Maybe he is the best, but that's not saying much....

Update: The Beeb follows up with the signing of the AIDS plan. In its report, however, it says

The plan has come under fire from some quarters in Washington angry that a third of the money spent on prevention must be used for projects promoting abstinence rather than safer sex.

the skeptic, whose access to "some quarters in Washington" is limited, has followed the AIDS bill through the chambers and hasn't found much opposition to the promotion of abstinence, but rather to the promotion of abstinence that requires suppressing sexual education.

Update 2: The Post has a much more cynical piece that is well worth reading for the right amount of skepticism.

posted at 10:58 AM |

 

Book Reviews and Baseball

the Literary Saloon (posted on an excellent site for all book readers: www.complete-review.com) fumes about the over-abundance of book reviews dedicated to baseball.

posted at 10:40 AM |

 

New Yorker goes to Africa

The New Yorker makes a quick go of Africa in its latest issue. There's a very excellent Gourevitch piece on how the real test of the international system is the Congo. (A point yours truly has made from time-to-time.)

Adam Hochschild pans a recent book on Livingstone and Stanley--worth reading for the succinct history lesson. But he goes off on a tangent at the end:

Why is a book like Dugard’s appearing today? Like everything else, books reflect the spirit in the air. And we are living at a time in history when, with startling suddenness, people are talking proudly about the American empire. Those in power in Washington see the world as a clash of civilizations, and are convinced that their civilization has every right to use force to prevail, just as Stanley was convinced that he had every right to burn down African villages that impeded his progress. Perhaps, at this imperial moment, it is not surprising that someone like him is viewed in such a friendly light. Hollywood is already giving us sympathetic and glamorous portrayals of C.I.A. agents in the TV series “The Agency” and in films like “The Recruit.” Stanley and Livingstone may be next.

Maybe, maybe not. the skeptic isn't convinced. Writing a book takes a long time--even if you do a mediocre job at it. And the love of American "empire" seems to be a more recent phenomenon.

More likely, the book is hyped the way it is because of the prevailing wisdom. If this book were released three years ago, it would probably have attracted scant attention.

Finally, John Updike trashes a new novel set in Botswana, noting that the main character "is perhaps the most annoying hero this reviewer has ever spent seven hundred pages with."

Update: the skeptic fears he must take back his earlier suggestion that "If this book were released three years ago..." statement. A quick google scan for Dugard's "Into Africa" reveals numerous glowing reviews from people who don't bother to question the author's work.

I have a feeling Hochschild might agree with this line: "This book is a worthy monument to both men", though not quite in the way its author intended...

posted at 10:34 AM |

 

Slate on NPR

The NPR-Slate deal is interesting not only because of what it means for the online news outlet.

"But, Kindel added, 'Day to Day' also raises a question: If it succeeds, will NPR seek out more collaborations with for-profit media? 'Is public radio very public if what we're looking at is new partnerships with entities like Slate?' he asked."

A very good question. Not that the skeptic particularly cares for NPR's "non-profit" status, made possible by commercial sponsors.

posted at 10:03 AM |

 

Respite

the Head Heeb has stopped blogging for a week... now it's time to play catch-up...

posted at 7:36 PM |

 

Idol-izing American Politics

What can American politics learn from American Idol? Paskoff has some suggestions, not all of which are absurd...

posted at 7:25 PM |

 

No Peace (Corps) in Morocco

An interesting article on the limits of free speech for peace corps volunteers, makes this aside:

"Meanwhile, the Peace Corps is feeling the fallout from Bush Administration policies. On April 3 the agency withdrew all volunteers from Morocco in the wake of widespread antiwar protests and rising anti-Americanism."

While the Peace Corps does cite the war with Iraq as sparking their decision (read the press release), it isn't quite clear that fears of terrorism would have been avoided otherwise.

After all, if the ties for the bombing do indeed turn out to be linked to Al Qaeda, would that threat have been absent without the war? the skeptic isn't so sure.

posted at 7:22 PM |

 
Kristof warns of the African holocaust.

posted at 1:27 PM |

 

Chalabi Watch, Day 56

The pentagon's favorite exile been frustrated with the slow transition to democracy in Iraq. But, more interestingly, he's also been behind many of Judy Miller's NYT "scoops" on nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons searches. This man is everywhere.

(Follow the watch: 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, 4/17, and 5/3.)

posted at 1:26 PM |

 
the skeptic hates to say it, but he thinks Krugman is more right than he is wrong in his latest column.

posted at 1:26 PM |