dan collier

Once upon a time there lived in Berlin, Germany, a man called Albinus. He was rich, respectable, happy; one day he abandoned his wife for the sake of a youthful mistress; he loved; was not loved; and his life ended in disaster.

This is the whole of the story and we might have left it at that had there not been profit and pleasure in the telling; and although there is plenty of space on a gravestone to contain, bound in moss, the abridged version of a man’s life, detail is always welcome.

That is the start to one of the best novels I have read in years, Laughter in the Dark by Vladimir Nabokov. First published in 1932 in Russian, Nabokov translated the English version in 1938. Later Nabokov wrote in great detail on the theme of unwieldy passion and its consequences in Lolita, but I preferred the sparse style and quick pace of this story.

Newsweek has an interesting book excerpt that explores the role of Harry Truman in the founding of the state of Israel. The book is Presidential Courage: Brave Leaders and How They Changed America 1789-1989. Without discounting the validity of a Jewish state or Truman’s good intentions, I’m not sure I would classify this particular series of decisions as courageous. Unless we’re using Churchill’s definition:

Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm.
– Winston Churchill

To skip all the ads and pagination, you might try the print version.

There is an interesting debate-as-article in the journal Foreign Policy titled “What’s Your China Fantasy” that delves into differing opinions concerning US-Chinese relations. It seems to me that anybody that thinks the US can successfully dictate domestic policy in foreign countries through economic (or military) means has not quite grasped the idea of globalization or sovereignty. If properly promoted, ideas like democracy and human rights will float or fail on their own worth.

There is a role for applying pressure on countries to align our interests, but the best pressure is cultural pressure. When it comes to winning hearts and minds, the PC is mightier than the sword. Policies that gently encourage engagement and integration with the world will succeed long before policies that require it. Every Blackberry owner knows that connection comes with compromises. A good example is Google agreeing to censor the internet for China, but in doing so they are able to provide services that will make total censorship of ideas more difficult (like free email to foster communication and the nearly uncensorable YouTube).

One should not overlook what our long-standing base in Guantanamo Bay and invasion of Iraq suggest: a nation’s adherence to international ideals is ultimately à la carte anyway.

I’ve been in Washington D.C. for a couple days attending Digestive Disease Week, the largest annual convention for gastroenterology and related fields. The DAVE Project (my full-time gig), in collaboration with the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, is hosting 22 video clips of cutting-edge medical procedures that were presented to a packed audience at the DDW Video Forum. Among the most innovative techniques shown is a new surgery technique that requires no incision at all, called natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery or NOTES. NOTES takes already minimally-invasive laparoscopic surgery to the next step, surgery without a scar. (DAVE is not for the squeamish or lunch time.)

Outside the conference, I find D.C. truly striking for the juxtaposition of marble splendor and perverse poverty. While walking the city late last night, it seemed every marble fountain or statue is somebody’s residence. The beggars in this town are actually the second worst I’ve experienced after Cambodia (and many use the same method: calling or chasing after you when you leave a store). One has to wonder what Rudy Giuliani would do with them all if elected.

I was able to visit the stately Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery this evening. They have some interesting exhibits online. My favorite piece was the statue Death of Cleopatra. The Old Guard dies, but never surrenders.

The Semiwarriors – An essay by retired Army Lieutenant Colonel and current Boston University professor of international relations Andrew J. Bacevich was published in April. Mr. Bacevich’s son died this week in Iraq.

In this article, Mr Bacevich argues that a long-term movement toward constant conflict and the rise of an imperial American presidency go hand-in-hand. It is particularly heartening to read a complete rebuke of the Bush Doctrine from a conservative scholar.

The Big Lie propagated by the architects of the Iraq War is not that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction nor that he was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden; it is that they possessed a secret formula for keeping America safe, the essential ingredient in that formula being a mandate to engage in open-ended war. Although the semiwarriors advising Bush fancied that they had discovered something original, they were really peddling the same elixir concocted by James Forrestal some six decades ago. Having drunk deeply of that elixir, President Bush is now left holding the bag, with others–chiefly young soldiers and their families–picking up the tab.

After reading this article, I had to read Eisenhower’s farewell address again (with video).

Bill Moyers’ asks his readers if there is something in the DNA of foreign policy elites. When I saw that interview initially, I thought the question sounded like an excuse.

A World Bank committee has reported that Paul Wolfowitz violated ethical and governance rules in arranging an unfairly compensated position for his lady-friend. The committee report summed up my previous thoughts more succinctly than I expected:

Mr Wolfowitz saw himself as the outsider to whom the established rules and standards did not apply.

The report conclusion is not a surprise. And I’m not surprised that the Bush administration will ignore the findings and continue to praise Wolfowitz as a uniquely qualified leader. I think this analysis by Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution addresses why the administration is tying itself to a sinking ship (emphasis added by me):

I take his continuing unwillingness to resign to be the biggest argument against his managerial abilities. He has lost the public relations battle and can no longer be effective. Why should he want the job any more? The obvious hypothesis is that he is emotionally committed to a losing battle, and is not placing much weight on the long-term interests of the institution he is running.

I have a feeling the final sentence will sum up the next 2 years of the Bush administration.