ABBEY ROAD IN A BOX: Actually, it’s a lot better than that.

2003: The year in hate speech. “Progress of a sort, I guess. There’s room for a lot more.”

MAD COW AND REGULATION: An interesting post by Daniel Drezner.

STEVEN DEN BESTE looks at the Democrats’ race-and-gender problems.

I’VE BEEN BLOGGING ABOUT POTS, but Virginia Postrel has some interesting observations regarding shoes.

IN AN EMAIL QUOTED IN THIS POST, Stefan Sharkansky said that he couldn’t remember a newspaper making an editorial page correction. Neither could I. (And neither could Terry Teachout). But Linda Seebach put the question to an editorial-page listserv and many reported that they do make corrections (though sometimes in the “corrections box” rather than on the editorial page). Stefan has more comments on this subject here.

UPDATE: This dialogue between Donald Luskin and Dan Okrent is somewhat related.

HERE’S AN AMUSING INTERVIEW: Well, it would be more amusing if it didn’t ring so true.

STEPHEN GREEN has entered the Great Cookware Debate.

By the way, I bought one of the two pans I wrote about earlier. Want to guess which one? Comments are open for a brief period, until I close ’em to stop the inevitable penis-enlargement comment-spam.

UPDATE: Answer in the comments, which are now closed.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Oxblog’s comment on these posts: “MAKING EVEN THE DUMBEST SH** INTERESTING.” Hey, a new InstaPundit motto!

ANOTHER LOOTING SCANDAL: I blame Paul Wolfowitz, for not making sure that there were enough American troops on hand to enforce order.

GERMAN PUBLIC MOOD reaches pessimistic low.

I guess they’ve figured out that they’ve got Gerhard Schroeder running things.

STILL MORE CRUSHING OF DISSENT, this time in Arizona.

SOME RACIST TWIT IN PARIS thinks that the Uruk-hai in Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings look like American Indians.

As someone of Native American descent, I’m deeply offended. So is reader David Emigh, who writes: “As a Cherokee brought up in New Mexico I can think of NO Amerind that looks like the Uruk-hai.”

All my relatives are tusk-free! A guy who sees a resemblance to American Indians in the Uruk-hai is like a guy who sees a resemblance to black people in chimpanzees.

UPDATE: Ed Driscoll emails that Jonah Goldberg has made this point in response to similar comments in the past:

Okay, yes, it’s true. Many of the Orcs (and the super-Orcs) are dark-skinned and have slant-eyes. They are also — how shall I put this? — Orcs! Ya frickin’ idjit!
One is tempted to ask who is the real racist here? On the one hand we have people — like me — who see horrific, flesh-eating, dull-witted creatures with jagged feral teeth, venomous mouths, pointed devilish ears, and reptilian skin, and say, “Cool, Orcs!” On the other hand we have people, like Mr. Yatt, who see the same repugnant creatures and righteously exclaim “black people!” Maybe he should spend less time vetting movies for signs of racism and more time vetting himself if, that is, he free-associates black people with these subhuman monsters.

What he said.

BEST OF THE WEB is back from its holiday hiatus.

FUNNY, but Peter Jennings doesn’t report it quite this way.

DANIEL DREZNER, GUEST-BLOGGING FOR ANDREW SULLIVAN, notes that the New York Times has backed down from its claims of Halliburton profiteering in Iraq.

Maybe they’ve started reading Winds of Change.

SO HOW ARE THINGS IN IRAQ? Beats me. This story from the Washington Post doesn’t sound so great: “The United States has backed away from several of its more ambitious initiatives to transform Iraq’s economy, political system and security forces as attacks on U.S. troops have escalated and the timetable for ending the civil occupation has accelerated.”

On the other hand, this story from the Christian Science Monitor says that things are going much better in the counterinsurgency, and that attacks — rather than escalating — are going down.

When Saddam was captured, Josh Chafetz predicted that guerrilla attacks would intensify for about a month, then fade away. They don’t really seem to have intensified, which is either good news or bad news.

I suspect that money will be the key, with the switchover to new currency in February putting a crimp in the operations of the anti-US forces. Increased pressure on Syria and Iran, and on Saudi extremists, will also make a difference over time. Here’s a tidbit from the CSM story:

Russell says over $10 million in cash has been seized in recent months, even as the asking price for an attack on coalition forces has surged, according to locals. He says the relatively large pool of men willing to attack US forces in the area a few months ago has dwindled as tough tactics have killed many, with few losses on his side.

The supply of money and martyrs seems to be running low, which is good news.

UPDATE: Hmm. This sounds like good news on the money front: “Saddam Hussein has acknowledged depositing billions of dollars abroad before his ouster and has given interrogators the names of people who know where the money is, a member of the Iraqi Governing Council said in remarks published Monday.” Stay tuned.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Well, this certainly sounds like good news:

Influential spiritual leaders from Saddam Hussein’s hometown — a bastion of anti-American sentiment — are joining forces to persuade Iraqis to abandon the violent insurgency, one of the leaders said Monday.

The effort marks a new, open willingness to cooperate with U.S. forces — a shift in the thinking of at least some key members of Iraq’s Sunni Muslim minority, which lost political dominance with the fall of Saddam and has largely formed the most outspoken and violent opposition to the U.S.-led occupation.

Walter Russell Mead, who emailed the link, observes: “This could be the most important breakthrough of all: responsible Sunnis realizing that despite their enduring bitterness at the way the US ended Sunni dominance in Iraq, using the window offered by the US presence to include protection for Sunni minority rights and Sunni interests in the structure of a new Iraq is now their best hope for the future.” I think that’s right, but as the CSM story notes, we won’t see an overnight change, but a gradual one. But I suspect that this demonstrates which way these guys — who are a lot closer to the situation, and who have a lot at stake — think the wind is blowing at the moment. That’s an important indicator, too.

People keep looking for a single storyline here, but there’s a lot going on. The ultimate storyline, of course, is that if we don’t chicken out, things are likely to turn out well — and if we do chicken out, things are certain to turn out very, very badly.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: With regard to the Post story above, Michael Ubaldi observes that it should probably be taken with a grain of salt, given reporter Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s tendency to paint consistently bleak pictures. Stay tuned.

MORE: In a related development, Phil Carter looks at the intelligence officers who tracked down Saddam. And David Adesnik observes: “All I can add is that the outstanding soldiers responsible for finding Saddam did exactly what Americans are supposedly unable to do: they used common sense and cold logic to understand the inner workings of a foreign culture and the behavior of clandestine guerrillas.”

“What Americans are supposedly unable to do” — yes, but mostly so supposed by people who don’t want Americans to be able to do it.

STILL MORE: On the Saddam’s-hidden-billions issue, Alex Bensky emails:

One of the themes from the left was that our sanctions against Iraq were in effect murdering babies. It turns out that the Iraqi government had plenty of money to buy medicine and food for young and old alike, but instead of spending it on that it was being squirreled away in Swiss banks or used to buy and equip dozens of opulent palaces and otherwise feather the nests of Ba’athist thugs.

You owe it to your readers to link to those who now admit that they were wrong and the cause of the starvation and sickness was Saddam and not the U.S. I’ll be waiting right here to see those links…any day now.

Uh, yeah, Alex. I’ll be sure to link every single example that I come across.

MORE STILL: Mickey Kaus thinks worries that we’re moving too fast are wrong:

[T]he “artificial timeline” derided by Hillary Clinton has some obvious virtues. The June 30 deadline focuses the minds of the Americans on what they can and can’t expect to accomplish before they’ve outstayed their welcome–do we really need to “cash out” Iraq’s food rationing program in accordance with Milton-Friedman’s theories before we leave?–and it focuses the mind of Iraqis on what they need to do as well, including what compromises they may need to make. . . .

Remember, we’re not (in theory) leaving after June 30. The Pentagon is talking about a large negotiated presence for “one or two years, in terms of the troops’ staying there,” according to Deputy Secretary of State Armitage. And there will be ongoing reconstruction programs.

Very interesting post. He’s right about the mind-focusing bit, and I wonder if it doesn’t explain the Sunni clerics’ willingness to play ball, now that they’re faced with the prospect of dealing with a Shia dominated government.

THE NEW YORK TIMES BAGHDAD CORRESPONDENT CARRIES A GUN: I’m okay on that, as he obviously believes that he needs it for protection in a dangerous place.

I just want to note the irony, given the Times’ manifest hostility to American citizens who want to carry guns for protection — especially since, according to this report, anyway the murder rate in Baghdad is actually lower than in NYC.

Perhaps one day the Times will come to regard gun-carrying in New York as a matter of legitimate self-protection. And in the meantime, I’m more worried about other gun-toting Times employees in Baghdad.

UPDATE: Tim Lambert notes that the Baghdad study is by John Lott, which I hadn’t noticed. He says it’s bogus, but since Lambert — though he’s made good points from time to time — would pronounce John Lott’s grocery list bogus (“It says Skippy, but he bought JIF!“) I don’t know what to make of it, and it’s after 11 and I’m tired. Make up your own mind. I link — you think. At least while I’m still grading exams. . . .

CATHY SEIPP ASKS: “Is Maureen Dowd the laziest gal in town?”

CHIEF WIGGLES has all sorts of interesting news from Iraq.

JONATHAN PEARCE HAS MORE on the Parmalat scandal, known as Europe’s Enron. He also wonders why it hasn’t gotten more attention in the Blogosphere.

Beats me. I’ve mentioned it more than once.

UPDATE: Professor Bainbridge has posts here (on Parmalat as an accounting scandal) and here (on Parmalat as a corporate governance scandal).

BUT OF COURSE: A French reporter looked at French media coverage of the war:

Hertoghe’s book covers the performance of four national newspapers and France’s largest regional daily over a three-week period in March and April. It contends that the coverage was ideological, in line with the French government’s position opposing the United States, and that it was desirous of portraying a great catastrophe for the Americans.

His reward? He was fired. More crushing of dissent, in Jacques Chirac’s France! Meanwhile a German media watchdog group looked at German coverage:

A draft of the report, underwritten in part by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, says of the state networks: “After assuming a position of sharp criticism of American military actions, abandoned only after their increasing success, and after fixating on the Iraqis as suffering victims, they created a representation of the war in line with the position” of the German government. It continues, “Critical questions concerning the extent to which the unrelenting German position contributed to the escalation of the conflict were thus kept from public scrutiny.”

Do tell. And yet people like Bill Moyers are always saying that American media coverage is slanted because we don’t have state-controlled media.

THE BOSTON GLOBE HAS MORE in its series on inadequate financial regulation where nonprofits and foundations are concerned. This is a must-read if you’re interested in this subject:

Inadequate hardly describes the system now in place to keep watch over the $429 billion in assets held by private charitable foundations. A Globe Spotlight Team investigation of hundreds of foundations nationwide found that oversight is virtually nonexistent, allowing excesses and abuses to go unchecked.

Trustees of private foundations know they can flout the law with almost no risk of detection, much less penalty. That’s because the IRS has neither the resources nor the incentive to police this sector. And state regulators, including those in Massachusetts, admit that with their present budgets and staff they can do little more than warehouse the foundations’ annual returns.

Indeed.

UPDATE: By the way, here is an earlier post with lots on this subject that you might have missed because of the holidays.

OUT OF WAR, PEACE:

The War on Terror has had an unintended, and welcome, side effect; world peace. Since September 11, 2001, and the aggressive American operations against terrorist organizations, several long time wars have ended, or moved sharply in that direction. Many of these wars get little attention in American media, but have killed hundreds of thousands of people over the last decade.

What follows is an interesting story of the Bush Administration’s successful multilateral approach to the War On Terror, with this conclusion: “And hardly anyone noticed.”

EARLIER, I LINKED A PIECE BY RALPH PETERS saying that we were shafting the Poles. Now Trent Telenko has a post at Winds of Change suggesting that Peters is wrong. I hope so.

Meanwhile, for more on the Poles, read this post, and this Tom Friedman oped. Friedman thinks we’re not doing as well by the Poles as we ought to be.

MYSTERIES OF THE MARKETPLACE: Okay, like a lot of folks I got gift certificates for Christmas. With an eye toward using one of them, I was shopping at Bed, Bath & Beyond for cookware and ran across something odd. This All-Clad stainless 12-Inch fry pan was a rather pricy $129.99 (it’s a bit cheaper at the Amazon link, at $124.95, but still steep). But the near-identical, as far as I can tell, Emerilware pan — made by All-Clad, with All-Clad’s name stamped on the bottom — was $59.99. The two appeared almost indistinguishable, except that, if anything, the Emerilware pan seemed slightly heavier and solider.

So what gives? If the pans are different, it doesn’t show, but if ,as seems likely, they are then it’s sort of funny that a famous chef’s signature line is actually inferior to the run-of-the-mill product. On the other hand, if they’re essentially identical, then instead of adding value and letting All-Clad charge more for the same pan because of his endorsement, Emeril’s name would seem to be costing All-Clad money. Can his endorsement be subtracting value? (In a way that makes sense — all other things equal, I’d choose the non-signature item over the signature item — but if most people thought this way, would anyone market signature items?) This article doesn’t help things: it says that the difference between Emerilware and regular All-Clad is largely cosmetic, but also says that Emeril’s name is what’s driving this. So why is the stuff with his name cheaper?

What gives? I’m obviously missing something here.

UPDATE: Hey, forget politics. If you want massive quantities of email, write about cookware! Lots, and I mean lots, of readers weighed in, and Justin Katz has an interesting point about why celebrity-endorsed cookware might be cheaper: “Emeril can be seen as a sort of collective negotiator for his fans — on the payroll of the company. He brings a bunch of new customers, who mightn’t otherwise be in the market for the product, to the store, and to entice the greatest number of them to actually lay down their credit cards, All-Clad lowers the price.” Interesting.

The EmerilWare seems to be slightly inferior to the regular All-Clad, according to several readers. Here’s the best summary, from Brian Erst:

[Discussion of how Calphalon has “extended the brand downward” omitted.]

All-Clad originally just had the “cladded stainless” line (the super heavy, shiny stuff – a three-ply steel-aluminum-steel process that goes all the way up the sides). They then came out with a few cosmetically different lines (LTD has a brushed steel outside, and they have another line that replaces the exterior steel layer with anodized aluminum) but still very high quality. They are now making the move into less expensive, lower-quality stuff (still plenty nice, but not nearly as indestructable, hand down to your grandkids kind of stuff). As I
understand it, the standard All-Clad line is manufactured in the USA, while the Emerilware and their new low-end line is manufactured in China. The Emerilware is not universally “all-clad” – instead of having a thick, three-ply layer going all the way up the sides, they have a thicker disk welded on the bottom and thinner metal on the sides. This gives a similar density on the bottom (dense is good – better heat distribution and heat retention = good searing/less burning), but the sides may warp under high heat (less safe to move the pan from the stovetop to the oven).

For 80-90% of the typical home use, the pan will still give great results, but for high-intensity searing and oven work, stick to the original. And if you want your daughter to secretly covet your pans and fight for them after you die, the original is the way to go. (Of course, maybe with the cheaper stuff, she’ll want you to hang on longer!)

I doubt that the difference in quality really accounts for the difference in price, though. (Which suggests that the profit margin on All-Clad is quite high). Several readers also recommend the Cuisinart MultiClad line. I’ve never used those, but — based on Brian’s description above — it seems comparable to the Emerilware.

I’ve been pretty happy with the few All-Clad pieces I own. When I first bought decent cookware (a Calphalon omelet pan) I was slightly horrified to discover just how much better it was than the stuff I had been using. But I think you hit the point of diminishing returns somewhere along here, and some high-end stuff (chiefly in the appliance field) is actually inferior to the cheaper goods. And it’s certainly true, as one reader observed, that you don’t necessarily get a better product when you spend more money — there’s a lot of market-segmentation going on out there.