The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Charles Dodgson:

A brief diversion, but hey, it is an open thread:

Colossus is an artfully constructed pack of lies, which should be read only by those interested in detecting the lies and admiring the art with which they're concealed. The nastiest, to my mind, is how Ferguson argues that third world countries need an American takeover because they haven't been able to manage their economies properly -- never mind that the economic policies of many third-world governments have been effectively dictated, over the past several decades, by Washington institutions like the World Bank and the IMF. (And when he's discussing sub-Saharan Africa, he cites only two countries that have managed their affairs properly -- and neglects to mention that these two have been noted with interest in other circles for having the very rare moxie to ignore the IMF's "advice"). I've got more on that here; there's also a scathing review of the book in a recent Harper's which may be of interest.

IIRC, Ferguson has also been criticized for arguing that British imperial rule over India was an economic boon, even though the British failed to raise economic output, and deliberately strangled many preexisting industries there...

As to what I've been reading: I'm currently taking another go at Stephenson's Baroque Cycle,
having recently finished Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, and I'm also going through the recent Joseph Ellis biography of Washington...

The terms "left" and "right" come from seating arrangements in the French legislative assembly early in the Revolution, when the royalists sat on the right of the room, and the more radical elements sat on the left.

Hmmm... we've already had a diplomatic "surprise" along those lines this summer, when Libya took a couple of steps back from "rogue nation" status, and it didn't make a huge splash. And if Iran or Syria professed sudden new friendship with Dubya's crew... well, that would be a heck of a surprise.

Then again, if you go down the list of governments of muslim middle eastern states looking for ones that Dubya hasn't antagonized over the past few months, and strike off the ones which aren't already supposed to be our good, dear, and oh-so-cooperative friends (Saudi Arabia, anyone?), the one that looks most likely to me is... the sovereign government of Iraq. It might be that Allawi's trip was actually intended to be the, well, going-into-October diplomatic surprise. In which case, it may have fizzled a bit...

FWIW, an article in this month's Atlantic on the search for bin Laden says that the reports of his ill health may be somewhat exaggerated. In fall of 2001, his camp was visited by a doctor who saw no sign of the already-rumored kidney disease, and a former comrade-in-arms with Pakistani intelligence reports that he is well enough to ride horses (though he won't say exactly when or how this news reached him). Bin Laden is believed to have medical problems (diabetes, old war wounds, possibly Marfan syndrome), but nothing life-threatening, and his right-hand man, al-Zawahiri, is apparently a pretty good physician when he isn't plotting murder and mayhem. So some of his frailty may be wishful thinking on the part of Western intelligence, in the manner of Zarqawi's trick leg.

(Atlantic subscribers can read the whole thing online here).

It's true, by the way, that a captured bin Laden might have really embarassing things to say about his former contacts with the U.S. government at a trial -- but that's doubly true of Saddam, who hasn't suffered any unexpected medical setbacks yet...

A few comments from a long-time pseudonymous blogger:

First off, on my own motives: I talk mostly on the blog about politics. Now, the psuedonym won't keep me from being on the receiving end of a stream of liquid freepshit (please, let's not insult the poor pigs). But if I keep the identities separate enough that a search engine can't connect them, it will probably keep it away from the mailboxes I use for my job. Fortunately, this hasn't ever happened (though that's luck, in part -- Kathryn's political posts are, I think, milder if anything than mine), but I have had a few really strange correspondants. However, it has lead to a few rare situations in which I've wound up introducing myself to people by the pseudonym -- precisely because my "real name", in that context, would be a meaningless nonce.

That said, it's also the case that a requirement for "real names" can just lead the sleazeballs to adopt real-looking fake names. Here's a case study, in which a company's employees were astroturfing forums related to their product to create the illusion of a large, happy customer base, and to take nasty potshots at their critics. (About a week after that blog post, the head of the company in question released a statement which didn't acknowledge ever doing this sort of thing, but promised never to do it again).

Now, I obviously don't mean to defend astroturfing. (In fact, I generally avoid blogging on anything related to my professional life at least in part because I don't want to wander into it by accident). But it does point out in pretty stark terms that there's no way to actually require a current, legal name on the internet; it's at best a convention of etiquette. And folks who are inclined to take part in these sorts of attacks are probably not the sort to be deterred by knowing it's poor etiquette...

Comment statistics for Charles Dodgson on the Electrolite blog

Total: 5 comments. View all these comments on a single page.