After the liberty and freedom themes sounded by President Bush in his inaugural address, Kazakhstan was one country where supporters of democracy hoped to see some benefits. Yet Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty quickly observed that the country has been continuing down the road to authoritarianism:

If you had been outside the appellate court in Kazakhstan's former capital, Almaty, on 17 January, where the country's biggest opposition party was trying to overturn a ban on its activities, you would have heard nothing...

"In 1994 and '95, it seemed that Kazakhstan would move toward some kind of a genuine participatory government. But since the new constitution was adopted in 1995, there has been a downward trend as far as democracy is concerned, and a concentration of power in the presidency."

Several laws enacted since 1995 in Kazakhstan have placed strict limitations on the ability of citizens to demonstrate. Organizers of public rallies must inform the authorities well in advance. Usually, if the planned action is antigovernment or pro-opposition, permission is not given.

Yet American military cooperation with Kazakhstan remains undeterred. The Navy just issued this press release celebrating the visit of Kazakhstan Rear Adm. Komratov Ratmir Alimkhanovitch to the 5th Fleet in Bahrain. According to the news release:

Most of our [military] cooperation to date has been between the Army and the Air Force, and Kazakhstan's equivalent forces. Military cooperation with the Kazakhstan Navy is relatively new, so we're discussing areas where we can expand our cooperation in the future.
More than 200 Kazakhstan naval officers have now received some form of training in the United States. U.S. 5th Fleet is exploring a variety of additional training opportunities.

Apparently, we're justifying training and cooperation with a regime bent on eliminating democracy by the need for assistance in the war on terrorism. Add Kazakhstan to your list of countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia where we face tough choices and an absolute imperative of trying to figure out how to win the short-run battles against al Qaeda and the long-run war against authoritarianism.

And wouldn't a good place to signal our unhappiness with authoritarianism be by refusing to train the navy of a landlocked Central Asian country? Is the Kazakh Navy really on the front lines of terrorism?

Update: A reader writes: "What does the Kazakh Navy do? Kazakhstan owns oil drilling platforms and refineries in the Caspian Sea. Their Navy protects those facilities from terrorists and aggression by Russia and other neighboring countries. Terrorists also smuggle arms and people across the Caspian.

Okay, maybe we should be helping them train their navy, then.

Chad Orzel is in the midst of a discussion that strikes close to home here at HLS:

Again, if someone reads only with difficulty, that's considered a serious disability, and we scurry around to make accomodations. If someone adds only with difficulty, people laugh it off. Math, after all, is Hard. I know, because Barbie told me.

I'm not ready to elevate innumeracy above illiteracy as an educational crisis-- reading is still more important than math-- but treating it as totally insignificant is deeply wrong. No educated person should have a fear of math or science, and yet there are thousands of people with college degrees who will happily brag about how they managed to avoid taking any classes requiring more than addition. That's just wrong.

He's right -- it's amazing how easily the jokes about how lawyers "can't do math" roll off the tongue after a couple of years here. And, as I've seen recently, even off the tongues of lawyers in the courtroom. I bet those math skills remarkably resurface when partners are figuring out their annual draw, though.

Hat tip: Rand Simberg.

Adam:

I would agree with you that "Drawing political conclusions from scholarship is an essential part of legal academia... and is in marked contrast to the intense navel gazing of Summersgate" if I saw a little more emphasis among academics on drawing political conclusions, rather than supporting pre-determined political conclusions. I certainly don't mean that only as an attack on liberal academics, either.

It's just a different form of navel-gazing to dedicate one's academic scholarship (especially empirical scholarship) to dressing up one's own political beliefs. It's like Hollywood actors and filmmakers pretending to be "engaged with the world" by campaigning for their favorite politician -- coating the statement "see how right I am" with a veneer of legitimacy.

My impression is that many of President Summers' enemies on the faculty think they're fighting the battles of the world outside the Ivory Tower: that sexism is rampant, that women, minorities, and a host of special-interest groups are oppressed, and that by fighting for what they believe at Harvard and on the front pages of newspapers worldwide, they're on the front lines of a conflict more important than the war on terror.

Perhaps you've already read Michael Scheuer's Feb. 3rd remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations:

I always have thought that there's nothing too dangerous to talk about in America, that there shouldn't be anything. And it happens that Israel is the one thing that seems to be too dangerous to talk about. And I wrote in my book that I congratulate them. It's probably the most successful covert action program in the history of man to control--the important political debate in a country of 270 million people is an extraordinary accomplishment. I wish our clandestine service could do as well. The point I would make--the point I try to make basically in the book is we just cannot--we can no longer afford to be seen as the dog that's led by the tail. I've tried to be very clear in saying we have an alliance with the Israelis. We have a moral obligation to try to work through this issue, if we can. But I don't think we can afford to be led around, or at least appear to be led around by them. And I certainly, as an American, find it unbearable to think there's something in this country you can't talk about...

[T]he clandestine aspect is that, clearly, the ability to influence the Congress--that's a clandestine activity, a covert activity. You know to some extent, the idea that the Holocaust Museum here in our country is another great ability to somehow make people feel guilty about being the people who did the most to try to end the Holocaust.

Thomas Joscelyn wrote a good article at the Weekly Standard discussing them earlier this week:

His first accusation is a serious one, but it is also a matter of evidence. As a 22-year veteran of the CIA, Scheuer is in a unique position to offer insight into the espionage tradecraft. If he has evidence that Israel has covertly targeted the U.S. Congress, then he should present it.

His second claim, however, mimics the type of anti-Semitic propaganda that emanates from state-controlled media monopolies in the Middle East every day. Arab propagandists often accuse "the Jews" of winning "world sympathy by playing on the Holocaust and Nazi atrocities." This is a recurring motif, for example, in Saudi state-owned newspapers. It appears that, in Scheuer's view, Israel uses the Holocaust Museum as a way to curry favor by making people feel sorry for world Jewry.

As Joscelyn notes, none of this should come as a surprise: Scheuer made exactly the same points in "Imperial Hubris," his book, written as "Anonymous."

All of this must come as a surprise to those who haven't read the book, however, as the mainstream media fawned over it when it was released last summer. Kennedy School of Government lecturer Richard Clarke wrote in the Washington Post that Scheuer's book "is a powerful, persuasive analysis of the terrorist threat and the Bush administration's failed efforts to fight it... [h]is criticism is damning." (Wash. Post 6/27/04). CNN (Live Today, 6/24) trotted out an analyst who explained that the book showed "the Bush administration is losing the war on terror," and linked it to the day's events in Iraq to claim that "It reminds me of Vietnam." Nick Kristof in the New York Times used the book as the cornerstone for his semi-offensive column "interviewing" Osama bin Laden (NYT 10/9/04):

ME: Tell me, which candidate are you endorsing in the U.S. presidential election?

OSAMA: I try to be nonpartisan. But Al Qaeda will benefit if Bush is re-elected, inshallah...

I'm just showing you a photocopy from "Imperial Hubris." Remember, this is from the C.I.A.'s top expert on Al Qaeda: "U.S. forces and policies are completing the radicalization of the Islamic world. I think it fair to conclude that the United States of America remains bin Laden's only indispensable ally."

And Kevin Phillips in the Boston Globe (8/29/04) charged during the GOP convention that "the most conspicuous missing voice may be that of Anonymous."

Scheuer also featured prominently during the debate over Porter Goss' replacement of top CIA officials, and featured prominently in the attacks on President Bush as someone who refuses to pay attention to experts and truth-tellers (see, e.g. The Nation, 9/13/2004).

But that was different. There was a political campaign on, and, you know, we depend on the media and their ability to interview "secret" and "anonymous" experts to inform us who we should vote for. Maybe if the media wants the leverage to push for a journalistic privilege, they could start by refusing to unquestionable embrace people like Michael Scheuer whenever they have a shared political viewpoint. Or at least provide readers and viewers with enough information to realize that Scheuer's perspective on the "war on terror" has as much to do with our refusal to turn our backs on our closest ally in the Middle East as on our refusal to label this a "war on Islam."

Ironically, some of what Scheuer says is worth hearing. He argues that we have to be more aggressive and less concerned about legalities and collateral damage when opportunities emerge to kill terrorist leaders, and that we have to be more aggressive and open about the fact that this is a war against Islamo-fascism.

But there's a good reason that we don't turn war, foreign policy, or intelligence over to "the experts" to manage on their own. This nation has a long and proud tradition of civilian control over the military. We now find ourselves in a war that must be fought by diplomacy and intelligence as well as by military action, and we should remember the same principles when people tell us that we should defer to the judgment of "experts" who hide behind faceless bureaucracies or unsourced reporting. The great thing about named public figures is that their actions get scrutinized. People can read what they write and hear what they say, identify their connections. That's one reason why we want accountable leaders, who have access to experts, but who make their own decisions. If Scheuer had remained "Anonymous," people might still not know the depth of his anti-Israel passion, and we'd remain clueless as to why the White House doesn't act on every policy idea that the "experts" in the CIA or State Department put forth.

Update: Hat tip to Deacon at Powerline, who inspired my "civilian control" paragraph with his questions: "How could a guy like this have held a responsible position at the CIA? And how many like him are still there?

I think Summers is the victim of a PC tantrum by leftist professors who are still angry that Sen. Kerry lost the election, and nobody they knew voted for the winner. But it appears that President Summers didn't learn anything from Eason Jordan — according to The Crimson, during yesterday's revolt[ing]/faculty meeting, he said "he would 'consider very seriously' the request to release a transcript of his comments, but said that he currently does not intend to do so."

There's more coverage at the Times and Globe. Caution: You can probably guess with which side the reporters are likely to be sympathetic.

No one should be surprised by this — President Summers has been well-defended and well-justified in most of his actions — from the confrontation with Cornel West to his (apparent) comments that gender differences are an appropriate subject for academic research. But we're at an institution where taking the right political position trumps any commitment to academic excellence. See, e.g. Todd Zywicki's critique of Professor Elizabeth Warren's bankruptcy-reform testimony from last week, over at Volokh Conspiracy. His hypothetical "tax-caused bankruptcy" study is a joy to read.

Just came back from the gym, where I saw an "Inside the Blogs" segment on "Inside Politics" discussing reactions to today's opinion from the D.C. Circuit. Somewhat surprisingly, in 10 minutes or so of discussion, they made no reference to this passage from Judge Sentelle's concurrence, noted earlier today by Orin Kerr:

Are we then to create a privilege
that protects only those reporters employed by Time Magazine,
the New York Times, and other media giants, or do we extend
that protection as well to the owner of a desktop printer
producing a weekly newsletter to inform his neighbors, lodge
brothers, co-religionists, or co-conspirators? Perhaps more to
the point today, does the privilege also protect the proprietor of
a web log: the stereotypical "blogger" sitting in his pajamas at
his personal computer posting on the World Wide Web his best
product to inform whoever happens to browse his way? If not,
why not? How could one draw a distinction consistent with the
court's vision of a broadly granted personal right? If so, then
would it not be possible for a government official wishing to
engage in the sort of unlawful leaking under investigation in the
present controversy to call a trusted friend or a political ally,
advise him to set up a web log (which I understand takes about
three minutes) and then leak to him under a promise of
confidentiality the information which the law forbids the official
to disclose?

...

If the courts extend the privilege only to a
defined group of reporters, are we in danger of creating a
"licensed" or "established" press? If we do so, have we run
afoul of the breadth of the freedom of the press, that
"fundamental personal right" for which the Court in Branzburg
expressed its concern? 408 U.S. at 704. Conversely, if we
extend that privilege to the easily created blog, or the ill-defined
pamphleteer, have we defeated legitimate investigative ends of
grand juries in cases like the leak of intelligence involved in the
present investigation?

Huh. It makes you think that someone in Judge Sentelle's chambers is familiar with blogs and has thought about the question... which is something that, despite the experiences of Eason Jordan and Dan Rather, and the fact that her show has been featuring a segment on blogs, is a lot more than can be said for Judy Woodruff. Somewhere in the middle of the segment, during a discussion of the Michael Bates/Tulsa World situation, she asked (seemingly incredulously, but I was reading the closed-captions and not listening, so I could only gauge by her expression) something like: you mean these bloggers aren't just responding to what's on talk radio and the 24-hour TV news networks, but they're reading newspapers, too?

Gee, you think she knows that bloggers have even started doing original reporting?

Returning to the Judith Miller case, Judge Sentelle wisely concludes:

if such a decision requires the resolution of so many
difficult policy questions, many of them beyond the normal
compass of a single case or controversy such as those with
which the courts regularly deal, doesn't that decision smack of
legislation more than adjudication? Here, I think the experience
of the states is most instructive. The creation of a reporter's
privilege, if it is to be done at all, looks more like a legislative
than an adjudicative decision.

It's good to have judges committed to judicial restraint and the separation of powers, although "smack of" is one of the most colloquial-sounding phrases with a solid literary pedigree around. (see, e.g., Shakespeare, The Life and Death of King John, Act I, Scene I).

I'm somewhat reluctant to post about the royal family, because Americans' fascination with the monarchy they rejected (then saved) has always seemed a bit unhealthy. But on this occasion, I can't resist. Check out this list of options that Charles and Camilla may consider to ensure their marriage is legal:

if civil marriage in England was not possible, the couple could either appeal under the Human Rights Act, get married in Scotland, have a common-law marriage, which was abolished for everyone except the royals, or have parliament amend the law.

First, "get married in Scotland." In the United States, this would present an interesting question of recognition. We know from the debate over gay marriage that no state need recognize a marriage against its public policy even if the marriage is valid in the state in which it was conducted. This result is based on the common law and occurs despite the existence of the Full Faith and Credit clause. Presumably, English common law looked similar at one time — but I don't know what statutes or treaties might override such a result. Even under common law, however, it would only raise the: "is this marriage against the public policy of England?" And while "the 1836 Marriage Act allowed for civil marriages in England for the first time, with the exemption of the royal family," that exception might not indicate a public policy so strong as to deny them recognition.

The second option is a real laugher, however. Can you imagine the Prince of Wales appealing under the Human Rights Act? Uh, his status as a hereditary monarch is depriving him of his human rights? Tough luck, pal. The argument might be valid, given the results that human rights statutes often mandate. But it shouldn't be — not if you're planning to be King.

Anyway, I wonder where he got the idea that, if the law doesn't allow him to get married, he should just sue? Don't you love living in Massachusetts?

Adam -

I think you're right that social security "privatization" would not be about ending the government's role as "social insurer of last resort." It seems that the government would still be playing that role - even if not directly, through a scheme that would provide pension payments if your investments failed to yield enough retirement income, then by programs (new or old), providing food, shelter, and medicine to the elderly. I think it's fair to believe that such programs will have to exist due to political pressure.

The problem today is that a huge portion of the population retires and finds themselves at that "last resort," because for their entire working lives they've been paying 12.4% of their income (counting the employer contribution) into a "savings" account of questionable validity and miserable returns. And since the payroll tax is highly regressive, this has the most corrosive effect on the ability of lower-income Americans to accumulate wealth.

Under a private-accounts system, the government most likely will remain the insurer of last resort. But I think the idea is that, if returns outpace those from the current Social Security program, fewer people will need that net when they retire.

(For the record, while I favor private accounts, I also think we should advance the retirement age, discourage early retirement, and consider means-testing or taxing Social Security benefits.)

or -- was that a Cambridge parking enforcement officer leaving Pound Hall with a cup of coffee in his hand?

In one of the more bizarre NASCAR-themed promotional campaigns (the Daytona 500 is just one week away!), Petty Racing, General Mills, and Georgia-Pacific are offering to put your photo on a racecar at the UAW-GM Quality 500 at Lowe's Motor Speedway in Charlotte this October.

There will actually be 88 winners of this prize - and one winner of a trip to the race. According to the official rules:

Each first prize is having one (1) personal photo applied as a decal on the number 43 or the number 45 Petty race car which are scheduled to compete in the race in Charlotte, NC scheduled for October 15, 2005. Prize also includes a replica decal of the photo used and a poster of the race cars signed by Richard Petty. Retail value of each first prize is approximately $10.

$10? This seems to me to be a pretty obvious attempt to allow winners to avoid the income tax consequences of winning a cool prize. I would assume that the fair market value of a Richard Petty autograph is at least $10 (if anything, looking at eBay prices for Petty items with certificates of authenticity, that looks a little low. This seems to value the highly-promoted part of the prize, "Your Face on the Petty Car," at $0.

I wonder if you're allowed good-faith reliance on these estimates when you fill out the awards-and-prizes line on your Form 1040. If not, I'd be pretty nervous about an IRS audit. Last season, estimates of the cost of a secondary sponsorship for the season ranged from $500,000 to $6 million. A secondary sponsorship is one of those little labels on the side panel, which is probably comparable to the photo that they'll put on the car. With 36 Nextel Cup point races, that yields approximately $13,000 to $160,000 per race. Admittedly, that value is somewhat enhanced by the presence of the sponsor on the clothing of the driver, pit crew, team trailer, etc. But my experience as a NASCAR fan suggests that a significant part of that value is in the on-car exposure. Your photo on a NASCAR vehicle for a single race would surely cost you thousands of dollars.

Could the answer be that the fair market value is less if you're not a commercial entity? Maybe, but today, when people advertise themselves with pictures through online dating sites, "build their brands" by appearing on game shows and reality TV, and inhale celebrity culture, I'm not sure you can make that distinction.

Caveat emptor. Or maybe it's closer to say Victor emptor.