The end of history, revisited

Kishore Mahubani, of the National University at Singapore, reflects that the "end of history" in the West (1989 and all that) is reciprocated by the rise into history of the East, and comments on one aspect of the West's decline:

Sadly, in all the recent discussions of “the end of history,” few Western commentators have addressed the biggest lapse in Western practice. The fundamental assumption of “the end of history” thesis was that the West would remain the beacon for the world in democracy and human rights. In 1989, if anyone had dared to predict that within 15 years, the foremost beacon would become the first Western state to reintroduce torture, everyone would have shouted “impossible.”

Few in the West understand how much shock Guantánamo has caused in non-Western minds. Hence many are puzzled that Western intellectuals continue to assume that they can portray themselves and their countries as models to follow when they speak to the rest of the world on human rights.

It becomes that much difficult to inspire liberty when the citizens of authoritarian countries can come to believe that America is just the same under its skin.

Even more juvenile than the Green Lantern theory

Ilya Somin notes the uncanny resemblance between Bush's theory of executive authority and He-Man's "I have the power!"

What Prof. Somin does not remark, however, is the bizarre circumstance of He-Man's selecting Skeletor to be his vice-president.




Wikipedia:

Despite his occasional bungling actions and personality, all versions portray Skeletor as being extremely cunning and intelligent but with a sense of hubris that invariably leads to his downfall.

Indeed, an eerie resemblance.

Don't say they didn't warn you

Daphne Eviatar reads the latest torture memo -- really, an FBI anti-torture memo -- so you don't have to:

The memo lays out clearly and simply what the interrogation experts at the FBI knew about interrogations of terror suspects, what would or would not work on them, and what sort of conduct was illegal. And it reads much like the sorts of arguments we’re now hearing from the America Civil Liberties Union and other civil and human rights organizations arguing that senior defense department officials and lawyers who approved abusive techniques ought to be criminally investigated.

“Central to the gathering of reliable, admissible evidence is the manner in which it is obtained,” the authors write to the General. “Interrogation techniques used by the DHS [Defense Human Intelligence Services, part of DoD] are designed specifically for short term use in combat environments where the immediate retrieval of tactical intelligence is critical. Many of DHS’s methods are considered coercive by Federal Law Enforcement and [Uniform Code of Military Justice] standards. Not only this, but reports from those knowledgeable about the use of these coercive techniques are highly skeptical as to their effectiveness and reliability.”

The memo went on to explain the need for interrogaton psychologically tailored to each captive, and to criticize as unconstitutional (and in violation of the Torture Act) many of the DOD methods.

That was in November 2002, 3 months after the Bybee-Yoo memos. I'm pretty confident the full record would disclose that no one up top let the FBI analysis bother their pretty little heads.

(You can read the memo here, it seems, if this ubiquitous-and-obnoxious "Scribd" software works in your browser -- it doesn't in mine.)

... In related news, an article on the solitary confinement of al-Marri. Relies rather heavily on his defense counsel, but the feds aren't talking.

Must we burn Heidegger? (updated)

That would seem to be the next logical step, if Emmanuel Faye's advice is heeded:

Drawing on new evidence, the author, Emmanuel Faye, argues fascist and racist ideas are so woven into the fabric of Heidegger’s theories that they no longer deserve to be called philosophy. As a result Mr. Faye declares, Heidegger’s works and the many fields built on them need to be re-examined lest they spread sinister ideas as dangerous to modern thought as “the Nazi movement was to the physical existence of the exterminated peoples.”

First published in France in 2005, the book, “Heidegger: The Introduction of Nazism Into Philosophy,” calls on philosophy professors to treat Heidegger’s writings like hate speech. Libraries, too, should stop classifying Heidegger’s collected works (which have been sanitized and abridged by his family) as philosophy and instead include them under the history of Nazism. These measures would function as a warning label, like a skull-and-crossbones on a bottle of poison, to prevent the careless spread of his most odious ideas, which Mr. Faye lists as the exaltation of the state over the individual, the impossibility of morality, anti-humanism and racial purity.

Leaving aside the question of whether all, or even most, of Heidegger's works have said qualities (and I don't believe they do), the notion that fascism and racism are somehow exclusive of "philosophy" leaves me wondering just how Mr. Faye defines "philosophy." Can there be no evil philosophy? What about a mistaken philosophy -- also impossible?

While I'm not well-read enough in Heidegger to pronounce with much authority, my impression from what I've read (primary & secondary) is that Heidegger's suspicion of rationalism and democracy left him a fairly easy mark for the Nazi emphasis on instinct and authoritarianism, but not that Heidegger's philosophy taught anything "Nazi" as such. Heidegger's shameful rectoral address, and his comment on the "inner truth of National Socialism" in Introduction to Metaphysics, are sheer opportunistic flattery. As Rorty wrote somewhere, Heidegger was basically a very smart Black Forest redneck.

Damon Linker's blog post excoriating the Heidegger-banners, mentioned in the NYT article, shows a much stronger grasp of what philosophy is:

I'm a liberal democrat and a humanist who considers totalitarianism in general, and Nazism in particular, to be moral and political abominations. I believe in the truth of science, and I like many things about technological modernity. I accept logic as a valid means of determining many forms of truth. And I happily accept the vision of Being that has prevailed in the Western world since the time of the ancient Greeks. In other words, I'm not inclined to follow Heidegger in its efforts to prepare the way for a more "primordial" encounter with Being by subverting these and other aspects of our world. But what a breathtakingly exciting experience it is to be forced to think about and make a case for, rather than lazily accept as self-evident, our most fundamental assumptions about the world and ourselves!

That is--or should be--what philosophy is all about. Which is why Heidegger was right at assert in an electrifying lecture course from 1929 that "philosophy is the opposite of all comfort and assurance." What Carlin Romano has advocated in his essay is something altogether different--something tamer, more congenial, more comforting. Fine: By all means, let's offer another seminar on Rawls and the foundations of liberal justice. But surely there should also be a place in the university for a close encounter with a dramatically different style of thinking--with the stunningly radical (and perhaps radically erroneous) thought of Martin Heidegger.

Some may disagree with Linker because they don't believe it's safe or desirable to question the fundamental assumptions of liberal thought, which always has its enemies. That would be to set political priorities and limits on what's philosophically acceptable ... which is not too far from the confusion of quotidian politics and fundamental philosophy that Heidegger apparently fell into. But in a good cause, right? Anything's justifiable in a good cause ....

... John Holbo comes at the NYT piece from the angle of Nazi typography. No, really. Must we burn Helvetica?

... Holbo's thread includes this great comment by Hidari, which Hidari follows up with:

Heidegger’s brother was called Fritz, was famous as the town (Messkirch) ‘card’, never went to University, and was famous for his antics and his anarchic sense of humour (he picked fights with the Nazis during the war). In Messkirch (you’ll like this, Alison), Martin was always known as ‘oh you know…..Fritz’s brother!’. This when Martin was one of the most famous philosophers on earth.

Wonderful.

... Finally I've been able to google the fellow whose lecture at the New School a few years back dwelled on two sentences from B&T that he said demonstrated Heidegger's fascism. That's Johannes Fritsche, who wrote a book. As I recall, his previous book had been on Aristotle, and the New School thought it was getting an Aristotle professor -- then he arrives, and it's all Heidegger all the time. He is now teaching in Istanbul.

I think you've got the wrong "wise ruler" there

Picked up Frank McLynn's biography of Marcus Aurelius at the library over lunch, and the introduction is not inspiring me with confidence. McLynn begins with the rather modest goal of persuading the reader that Marcus Aurelius is worth reading about, for instance as the author of the Meditations, citing

... the example of Cecil Rhodes, multimillionaire, politician and would-be empire builder. As his biographer writes: "He carried a well-thumbed, personally marked-up copy of this last book with him everywhere, favouring such aphorisms as 'Can any man think he lives for pleasure, and not for action or execution?' 'Go to the ant, thou sluggard, consider her ways and be wise.'"

Apparently neither Rhodes's biographer nor McLynn was familiar with Proverbs 6:6?

(McLynn's source, Rotberg, was chastised for the quoted error in a book review, one which McLynn evidently did not have the leisure to consult.)

Now that's a successful lede

From the NYT website, their teaser for "Justices Weigh Life in Prison for Youths Who Never Killed":

There are just over 100 people in the world serving sentences of life without parole for crimes they committed as juveniles in which no one was killed. Seventy-seven are in Florida.

Rather to my surprise, the rest are not in Texas:

Florida is one of eight states with juvenile offenders serving life sentences without the possibility of parole for nonhomicide crimes, according to a report prepared by Professor Annino and two colleagues at Florida State. Louisiana has 17 such prisoners; California, Delaware, Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska and South Carolina have the rest.

And supposedly that's the world total, since no other country is said to allow such. Though I wonder what that rule is worth in China, for instance.

Uh-oh.

12 dead, 31 wounded at Fort Hood; of 2 or 3 gunmen, the dead one is a major, "Malik Nadal Hassan."

Cue the flying monkeys.

... Can't find the link now, but earlier Friday was reading about how the fellow had been speaking out in favor of suicide bombers, criticizing our deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. Did NO ONE think this was out of line in a major? Sounds like another example of "Neighbors Remember Serial Killer As Serial Killer."

... Here's the NYT quoting Colonel Lee, who spoke to Fox News -- there were direct quotes earlier today but the Times has scrubbed them:

Fox News quoted a retired Army colonel, Terry Lee, as saying that Major Hasan, with whom he worked, had voiced hope that President Obama would pull American troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, had argued with military colleagues who supported the wars and had tried to prevent his own deployment.

There's also evidence that he left internet posts re: suicide bombers and such. Fox has video up of Col. Lee but no quotes.

Hasan seems to've had the worst possible job for someone with qualms:

A cousin, Nader Hasan, told The New York Times that after counseling soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with post-traumatic stress disorder, Hasan knew war firsthand.

"He was mortified by the idea of having to deploy," Nader Hasan said. "He had people telling him on a daily basis the horrors they saw over there."

Still not evident why he felt the need to shoot 40 people rather than just himself.

... Kevin Drum passes along what purports to be a firsthand account of the shootings.

I was walking into the medical SRP building when he started firing (he never made it to the main SRP building....the media accounts are understandably pretty off right now). He was calmly and methodically shooting everyone. Like every non-deployed military post, no one was armed. For the first time in my life I really wish I had a weapon. I don't know how to explain what it feels like to have someone shoot at you while you're unarmed. He missed me but didn't miss a lot of others. Just pure random luck. It's a very compressed area, thus the numbers.

More here.

... Ah, I saw Col. Lee's quoted comments at Sullyblog (via the UK press):

"He was making outlandish comments condemning our foreign policy and claimed Muslims had the right to rise up and attack Americans," Col Lee told Fox News. "He said Muslims should stand up and fight the aggressor and that we should not be in the war in the first place." He said that Maj Hasan said he was "happy" when a US soldier was killed in an attack on a military recruitment centre in Arkansas in June.

An American convert to Islam was accused of the shootings. Col Lee alleged that other officers had told him that Maj Hasan had said "maybe people should strap bombs on themselves and go to Time Square" in New York. He claimed he was aware that the major had been subject to "name calling" during heated arguments with other officers.

Did Colonel Lee report any of this conduct? If yes, what was the result? If not, why the hell not?

... More along the Onion line:

The second thing the fellow psychiatrist at Walter Reed said was that he and co-workers were not at all worried that he was a devout Muslim but it was the way he talked about it. A couple of years ago he gave a Grand Rounds presentation. That's when all the doctors come into a big auditorium and you take turns giving a lecture on procedures, diagnosis and treatment and so forth --the best treatment for bipolar, or schizophrenia, etc.

Instead of giving an academic lecture, Hasan gave a lecture on the Koran, and it wasn't informational as much as it was his own interpretation of it --as the co-workers put it. He talked about how if you're a non-believer, the Koran says you should have your head cut off, you should have burning oil poured down your throat, you should be set on fire.

Another Muslim in the audience, another psychiatrist, raised his hand, quite disturbed and said, "Ya know, a lot of us [Muslims] do not believe these things you're saying."

People actually talked in the hallways afterward whether Hasan was one of these people so tightly wound that he might one day freak out and shoot people --sort of half kidding and half serious.

The writer's conclusion that "this couldn't have been prevented" does not seem terribly plausible. That's the case with someone who doesn't send off about a dozen warning signs.

If other countries enforce their own laws, they must be trying to game the system

Our evil twin, Kenneth Anderson at the Volokh blog, gets in a snit and closes comments on a post regarding Italy's conviction in absentia of 23 (presumed) CIA operatives who tried to kidnap an Egyptian terror suspect on Italian soil.

KA complains that his commenters are "annoying/uncivil." Evidently he lacks the self-awareness to grasp how he might draw such comments from his own post, which states:

... I’ll make again the side observation that I have made before that this is the next step in what I have described here and on the OJ blog as “gaming Spain.” It has been remarked by many observers how the effect of foreign prosecutions or the threat of foreign prosecutions is a backdoor way of punishing administration lawyers and others, such as these CIA agents, for various things that can’t be or are not pursued in American courts.

IOW, the Italian courts are said to be acting in a roundabout way to punish Americans for things better addressed by American courts?

KA is an expert on international law, who however can't seem even to admit the possibility that Italian justice was offended by foreign agents' kidnapping someone? That couldn't possibly be more than "gaming"?

Death of a structuralist

The last of the greats of the "theory generation" has passed away: Claude Levi-Strauss, aged 100. He outlived not only the eclipse of the theory he named "structuralism," but also the eclipse of post-structuralism as well.

... Perhaps it's ungenerous to imply that Umberto Eco is not of the same magnitude.

... Superior NYT obit. Nothing up at NYRB yet.

... I was wondering what anthropologists think of Levi-Strauss's work; here's one appreciation (from back in July). (Via 3QD.)

I thought those gummi bears looked possessed, all right

Gary Farber notices kooks being kooks:

In a column on the Christian Broadcasting Network’s Web site, writer Kimberly Daniels asserts that “demons” sneak into bags of Halloween candy at grocery stores.

“[M]ost of the candy sold during this season has been dedicated and prayed over by witches,” Daniels wrote. “I do not buy candy during the Halloween season. Curses are sent through the tricks and treats of the innocent whether they get it by going door to door or by purchasing it from the local grocery store. The demons cannot tell the difference.”

I could believe the occasional stale bag is the result of demonic interference, but "most"? How many witches are employed in this function? Is it seasonal, or year-round? Because my kid may have to check out this potential career.

Daniels asserts that far from being harmless fun, Halloween is a veritable doorway to hell, full of literal monsters.

“Halloween is much more than a holiday filled with fun and tricks or treats,” she wrote. “It is a time for the gathering of evil that masquerades behind the fictitious characters of Dracula, werewolves, mummies and witches on brooms. The truth is that these demons that have been presented as scary cartoons actually exist. I have prayed for witches who are addicted to drinking blood and howling at the moon.”

As opposed to addicted to drinking Bud and howling at the moon, which is simply part of the college experience.

... Farber also notes, with ample commentary, the Rev. Mark Grizzard, who with all 14 members of his congregation held a Bible-burning. Not *real* Bibles of course. No, Satanic profanations of the Holy Word, such as "NIV, RSV, NKJV, TLB, NASB, NEV, NRSV," etc. ... which are all "perversions of ..."

... wait for it ...

... "God's word the King James Bible."

Could they not find some scriptures in the original Greek and Hebrew to add to the flames?

They also burned every kind of music except, to judge by their omission, classical and outright hymns (tho "Southern gospel" is Satanic). And books by heretics such as Rick Warren, Billy Graham, and Bruce Metzger. And "Westcott & Hort." Who? The guys who produced what appears to be a standard critical text of the Greek New Testament. Jack Chick is vewy mad!

... Okay, this stuff is too fascinating for a work day. Peter Ruckman, an Independent Baptist, argued the KJV was superior to the Textus Receptus:

For instance, in his Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, Ruckman says, "Mistakes in the A.V. 1611 are advanced revelation!"

Cf. Stephen Dedalus: an artist's errors are "volitional and are portals of discovery."

Ruckman also believes that the Septuagint was a hoax created by the Alexandrian cult in the 3rd century A.D. in order to subvert belief in the integrity of the Bible.

Which is why Paul quotes it so often. -- Or seems to quote it!

OTOH, anyone who calls Bob Jones University "the world's most unusual hell hole" cannot be completely devoid of good sense.

It's always worked for me

Via Tyler Cowen:

Bad moods can actually be good for you, with an Australian study finding that being sad makes people less gullible, improves their ability to judge others and also boosts memory.

The study, authored by psychology professor Joseph Forgas at the University of New South Wales, showed that people in a negative mood were more critical of, and paid more attention to, their surroundings than happier people, who were more likely to believe anything they were told.

"Whereas positive mood seems to promote creativity, flexibility, cooperation, and reliance on mental shortcuts, negative moods trigger more attentive, careful thinking paying greater attention to the external world," Forgas wrote.

"Our research suggests that sadness ... promotes information processing strategies best suited to dealing with more demanding situations." * * *

The study also found that sad people were better at stating their case through written arguments, which Forgas said showed that a "mildly negative mood may actually promote a more concrete, accommodative and ultimately more successful communication style."

This is why I have Melencolia I hanging above my desk. As should all lawyers, evidently!

No remedy for torture

Maher Arar's Bivens action regarding being sent off by the U.S. for torture in Syria has been rejected by the en banc Second Circuit. Judge Sacks, dissenting:

The majority affirms the dismissal of the Fourth Claim for Relief on the ground that Arar's complaint does not "specify any culpable action taken by any single defendant" and fails to allege a conspiracy. * * *

It should not be forgotten that the full name of the Bivens case itself is Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (emphasis added). * * *

A plaintiff must, after all, have some way to identify a defendant who anonymously violates his civil rights. We doubt that Iqbal requires a plaintiff to obtain his
abusers' business cards in order to state a civil rights claim. Put conversely, we do not think that Iqbal implies that federal government miscreants may avoid Bivens liability altogether through the simple expedient of wearing hoods while inflicting
injury.

That's a majority bending over backwards to affirm a dismissal.

Judge Sacks also rejects the notion that the court was asked to expand the context of Bivens remedies:

Indeed, even the most "international" of Arar's domestic allegations -- that the defendants, acting within the United States, sent Arar to Syria with the intent that he be tortured -- present no new context for Bivens purposes. Principles of substantive due process apply to a narrow band of extreme misbehavior by government agents acting under color of law: mistreatment that is "so egregious, so outrageous, that it may fairly be said to shock the contemporary conscience." Lombardi v. Whitman, 485 F.3d 73, 79 (2d Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). Sending Arar from the United States with the intent or understanding that he will be tortured in Syria easily exceeds the level of outrageousness needed to make out a substantive due process claim.

So one would think:

Although the "shocks the conscience" test is undeniably "vague," see Estate of Smith v. Marasco, 430 F.3d 140, 156 (3d Cir. 2005); Schaefer v. Goch, 153 F.3d 793, 798 (7th Cir. 1998), "[n]o one doubts that under Supreme Court precedent, interrogation by torture" meets that test, Harbury v. Deutch, 233 F.3d 596, 602 (D.C. Cir. 2000), rev'd on other grounds sub nom Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403 (2002); see also Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 172 (1952) (holding that the forcible pumping of a suspect's stomach to obtain evidence to be used against him was "too close to the rack and the screw to permit of constitutional differentiation"); Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 326 (1937) (noting that the Due Process Clause must at least "give protection against torture, physical or mental"), overruled on other grounds, Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969); Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278, 285-86 (1936) ("Because a state may dispense with a jury trial, it does not follow that it may substitute trial by ordeal. The rack and torture chamber may not be substituted for the witness stand.").

Judge Parker, dissenting:

My point of departure from the majority is the text of the Convention Against Torture, which provides that “[n]o exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.” United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Art. 2, cl. 2, December 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85 (“Convention Against Torture”). Because the majority has neglected this basic commitment and a good deal more, I respectfully dissent. * * *

The majority would immunize official misconduct by invoking the separation of powers and the executive’s responsibility for foreign affairs and national security. Its approach distorts the system of checks and balances essential to the rule of law, and it trivializes the judiciary’s role in these arenas. To my mind, the most depressing aspect of the majority’s opinion is its sincerity.

Judge Calabresi, dissenting:

I write to discuss one last failing, an unsoundness that, although it may not be the most significant to Maher Arar himself, is of signal importance to us as federal judges: the majority’s unwavering willfulness. It has engaged in what properly can be described as extraordinary judicial activism. It has violated long-standing canons of restraint that properly must guide courts when they face complex and searing questions that involve potentially fundamental constitutional rights. It has reached out to decide an issue that should not have been resolved at this stage of Arar’s case. Moreover, in doing this, the court has justified its holding with side comments (as to other fields of law such as torts) that are both sweeping and wrong. That the majority--made up of colleagues I greatly respect--has done all this with the best of intentions, and in the belief that its holding is necessary in a time of crisis, I do not doubt. But this does not alter my conviction that in calmer times, wise people will ask themselves: how could such able and worthy judges have done that?

A disgraceful decision, and a disgraceful Executive that continues to oppose Arar's claims to have his case heard.

Reading

In the LRB, Jonathan Raban has a nice little essay on learning how to read -- really read -- from Empson's Seven Types of Ambiguity.

The first lesson Empson taught was to slow down drastically; to read at the level of the word, the phrase, the line; to listen, question, ponder, think. This was easy because his own writing enforced it. A single paragraph in Seven Types of Ambiguity was like a street closely punctuated with traffic-calming sleeping policemen: you had to study the relationship between one sentence and the next – and often one clause and the next – to see the logic that connected them, and if I tried to read them in my usual skimming style, I instantly lost the thread.

The second, more general lesson required one to greatly enlarge one’s understanding of what writing is and does (all writing, not just poetry; Empson illustrated his arguments with sentences from novels, book titles, newspaper headlines that had caught his eye and so on). On this, Empson was inexplicit except by inference, but as a fisherman, I saw it in angling terms. Every piece of writing was like a pond, sunlit, overhung by willows, with clustering water lilies, and, perhaps, the rippling circle made by a fish rising to snatch a dying fly. This much could be seen and appreciated by any passing hiker. But the true life of the pond lay below the surface, in deep water where only the attentive and experienced eye would detect the suspended cloud of midge larvae, the submarine shadow of the cruising pike, the exploding shoal of bug-eyed small fry. It was with the subaquatic life of literature that Empson – a scientist by early inclination, whose interest in science is a recurrent feature of his writing – was concerned.

Beneath the clean line of type on the page lay the muddy depths of the living and changing language, a world of stubborn historic associations, swarming puns, suggestive likenesses and connections (as between trees and carved choir stalls), meanings that were in a continuous process of evolution and decay, sometimes enriching the word in print, but as often subverting it. (Spare a thought for Coleridge when he wrote the line ‘As if this earth in fast thick pants were breathing’. In 1797, he wasn’t to know that shortly after his death pants would become an abbreviated version of pantaloons, and by 1880 a word for men’s drawers.)

With the possible exception of the trotting-out of Wimsatt and Beardsley on the intentional fallacy, I think Empson may have worn the best over time of the "New Critics."

Gutsy mathematician

This fellow deserves to have his courage widely known:

It was near the end of a meeting Wednesday between Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and a group of university students when the man who is Iran's highest political and spiritual authority asked if there were any other questions.

He spotted a young man in the corner with his hand raised and called on him, asking him to go to the podium to speak through the public address system.

What followed was an extraordinarily candid 20-minute speech by the student, later identified as national math Olympiad winner Mahmoud Vahidnia, in which he publicly and explicitly criticized Khamenei for the government's conduct in the unrest that followed Iran's June 12 elections. * * *

He criticized the violence against protesters during the election. He said Khamenei lived in a bubble, unaware of the sentiments against his rule. He critiqued what he described as Iran's "cycle of power" in which entrenched elites in institutions such as the Guardian Council and Assembly of Experts exert what he described as a stranglehold over the nation's political life.

He criticized state broadcasting and the media, saying their unwillingness to criticize Khamenei deepened Iran's divisions. * * *

On Friday night the Sharif University dormitories erupted with cries of "God is great!" and "Death to the dictator!" in support of their fellow classmate. University activists warned that if any harm comes to the “courageous student" the campus would explode.

Good luck, mister. (Via TNR.)

Next up: free with your paid prescription?

Payday, and thus time to order John Keay's new history of China, which bids fair to be the first-ever general history of China in English not to completely suck. Anticipation!!!!

Amazon saw fit to advise me that Stephen King has a new book coming out, for $9.00. A paperback, I assumed.

Nope. Hardcover. List $35.00. 74% off.

I don't really know that it's such a good idea for publishers to emphasize so heavily how little it costs them to print a 1,088-page hardcover.

This is just the most egregious instance known to me of the reciprocal rise in discounts and list prices for hardcovers. The more chains discount, the more the book costs. With the added bonus that, a month or two later, the discounts vanish (in the brick-and-mortar stores anyway) but the list prices do not.

Still, 74% off? Do that many people in Wal-Mart Walmart still pick up the new Stephen King book automatically? (Online Walmart price: $8.98. Take that, Amazon!)