Neal Ascherson reviews Dershowitz’s latest in openDemocracy:

Preemption: A Knife That Cuts Both Ways … is about doctrines of pre-emptive and preventive war – and of pre-emptive and preventive “targeted killing” (selective assassination). Four years ago, he appalled much of the world with a book (Why Terrorism Works) and a number of articles in which he suggested – in tune with cruder pronouncements from the Bush administration – that a legal framework could be devised to regulate the use of torture in “war on terror” situations.

He has now applied many of the same arguments to establishing what he calls “a jurisprudence” to regulate the resort to pre-emptive and preventive war and murder. And, like the ministers of Salem, he is in no doubt that we have entered new and Satanic times which render the old rules antique and obstructive…

Michael Ignatieff put his finger on the weak joint in the whole approach when he wrote of Dershowitz’s previous book: “Judicialisation of torture, in my view, would lead to its ‘banalisation’, to torture becoming routine rather than an emergency exception”… Much the same applies to “judicialising” the practice of pre-emptive or preventive attack. The knowledge that such attacks were in principle lawful, as long as certain conditions were met, would leave the exceptions helpless at the mercy of the rule. It would open the door to chaos and carnage.

From The Village Voice:

Represented as a 19-inch-tall bronze, a well-fed Lenin, his face scrunched in consternation, stares at an emaciated Giacometti-style everyman—the workers’ savior confronting one of his miserable charges. Mikhail Gorbachev, sporting blue eyeliner and with his pudgy face on a gilded background, is a sorry sibling of Warhol’s iconic Marilyn. Formally wise and riddled with fatalistic humor, this show of more than 50 nonconformist artists from the Soviet Union spans the furtive underground networks of the early ’70s—when clandestine dissidents worked under threat of arrest and with little hope of their work being seen (the KGB once bulldozed an outdoor exhibition)—through ’90s perestroika, with the empire too busy collapsing to bother jailing artists. These rebels clearly loved the freedom of Western art, but it was their own sublime and stoic culture, which has outlasted despots of all stripes, that kept them working through the darkest days.

Artists Against the State: Perestroika Revisited
Ronald Feldman
31 Mercer Street
Through June 24

More here.

From National Geographic:

The study suggests that the human and chimp lineages initially split off from a single ape species about ten million years ago. Later, early chimps and early human ancestors may have begun interbreeding, creating hybrids—and complicating and prolonging the evolutionary separation of the two lineages. The second and final split occurred some four million years after the first one, the report proposes.

“One thing that emerges [from the data] is a reestimate of the date when humans and chimps last exchanged genes,” said David Reich, a professor at Harvard Medical School’s Department of Genetics in Boston.

More here.

Peter Ford in the Christian Science Monitor:

Keep an eye on his fingers. And if he starts testily tapping his pencil on the table, back off.

That piece of advice for Serbian and Kosovar negotiators, who meet here today for a new round of talks on Kosovo’s future, comes from belligerents in other conflicts who have settled their differences under the watchful – and sometimes exasperated – eye of Martti Ahtisaari.

The reputation of the self-deprecating former Finnish president as an impartial mediator has made him the world’s “go-to guy” for international crises.

When NATO needed its surrender terms delivered to Slobodan Milosevic at the end of the Kosovo war, Mr. Ahtisaari was their man. He shepherded Namibia to independence, inspected secret IRA arms dumps as part of the Northern Ireland peace process, and last year brokered a peace agreement between Indonesia and Aceh separatists.

Now, as the UN Special Envoy for Kosovo, Ahtisaari is seeking an answer to one of Europe’s thorniest questions: Can Serbs and ethnic Albanians agree on a status for the independence-minded Balkan province of Serbia-Montenegro?

Most diplomats would shy from that task, regarded by some as impossible. But as Ahtisaari said recently in a wide-ranging interview in his sparsely decorated office here, his track record gives him a head start. “I’ve been around and done so many things by now, it’s easier to tolerate me than many others,” he chuckled.

More here.

On one episode of the comedy King of the Hill, Hank Hill says to a Christian rocker, “You’re not making Christianity any better; you’re just making rock and roll worse.” Apparently, not just rock and roll.

In 1999, there were only eight newborn American girls named Nevaeh. Last year, it was the 70th-most-popular name for baby girls, ahead of Sara, Vanessa and Amanda.

The spectacular rise of Nevaeh (commonly pronounced nah-VAY-uh) has little precedent, name experts say. They watched it break into the top 1,000 of girls’ names in 2001 at No. 266, the third-highest debut ever…Nevaeh is not in the Bible or any religious text. It is not from a foreign language. It is not the name of a celebrity, real or fictional…Nevaeh is Heaven spelled backward…

The surge of Nevaeh can be traced to a single event: the appearance of a Christian rock star, Sonny Sandoval of P.O.D., on MTV in 2000 with his baby daughter, Nevaeh. “Heaven spelled backwards,” he said.

Jon Mandle over at Crooked Timber posts some notes from the Kennedy School’s conference on “Equality and the New Global Order”. (The conference web site has downloadable papers, including those by Allen Buchanan, Dani Rodrik, Kaushik Basu, Branco Milanovic, Mathias Risse, my old teacher Thomas Pogge, Ruth Macklin, Norman Daniels and Angus Deaton.) Philippe van Parijs–one of my favorites, a founder of a project I’ve long supported, but who unfortunatley did not provide a downloadable paper–appears to have unsurprisingly given quite an interesting talk as well.

I. “Linguistic Justice and Global Justice” by Philippe Van Parijs.

Let me [Mandle] say right off that I don’t know much of the literature on this topic, but it seemed that Parijs was taking a rather unorthodox position. He began with a fundamental premise some kind of equal opportunity for welfare holds at a global level. A shared language is a kind of public good, so it raises the issue of distributive justice because of the possibility of free-riders – in this case, those who benefit from the existence of a shared language without paying any of the cost of creating such a lingua franca – namely, the native speakers of that language. Sometimes the benefits of being able to be understood are very large – when you are traveling in a foreign country and say, “I believe I swallowed my spoon,” you very much want to be understood. So, he gave a specific account of how to calculate the amount that the native speakers of the lingua franca must be taxed to subsidize the learning of that language by non-native speakers – there should be an equal cost/benefit ratio, taking into account the number of speakers involved on each side. An actual global tax regime is not likely to be on the table any time soon, so he advocated “reciprocal free riding” – for example, “plundering the intellectual property on the web” (much of which is in English).

He then responded to a number of criticisms, many of which were directed against those who would say that acceptance of English as the lingua franca was itself an insult to the dignity of native non-English speakers, and to subsidize their becoming bilingual would be no consolation. One version of this criticism says that languages are associated with certain perspectives or ideologies. His reply was that English has the word “not” available…. A more serious version of this criticism says that this contributes not only to the arrogance of the native speakers of the lingua franca but to its completely taking over. The only real reply, he suggested, was to have territorially based languages that involve coercive rules that impose education and the public use of the native language in that territory (in addition to learning the lingua franca). This is to extend the Quebec solution worldwide. Finally, he emphasized that the existence of a lingua franca is necessary as a mechanism for collective reasoning and justification – for a global civil society – which is itself necessary to underwrite – both motivationally and normatively – global justice.

Every so often, when some new scientific paper is published or new experiment revealed, the press pronounces the creation of the first bionic man—part human, part machine. Science fiction, they say, has become scientific reality; the age of cyborgs is finally here.

Many of these stories are gross exaggerations. But something more is also afoot: There is legitimate scientific interest in the possibility of connecting brains and computers—from producing robotic limbs controlled directly by brain activity to altering memory and mood with implanted electrodes to the far-out prospect of becoming immortal by “uploading” our minds into machines. This area of inquiry has seen remarkable advances in recent years, many of them aimed at helping the severely disabled to replace lost functions. Yet public understanding of this research is shaped by sensationalistic and misleading coverage in the press; it is colored by decades of fantastical science fiction portrayals; and it is distorted by the utopian hopes of a small but vocal band of enthusiasts who desire to eliminate the boundaries between brains and machines as part of a larger “transhumanist” project. It is also an area of inquiry with a scientific past that reaches further back in history than we usually remember. To see the future of neuroelectronics, it makes sense to reconsider how the modern scientific understanding of the mind emerged.

more from the New Atlantis here.

To most westerners, Arabic script is familiar only from media images: as a threatening, cryptic tangle on the bandannas of suicide bombers, on banners carried through the streets of Gaza or Basra, or in the rolling captions on al-Jazeera news clips. Yet the history of the written Arabic word is, in reality, a volatile 1,500-year-old blend of religion, magic, politics and art. Today, artists working with Arabic are just as likely to use InDesign or a spray can as the calligrapher’s pen of 24 neatly cut donkey hairs, but they draw on the same complex tradition. “Word Into Art”, based on the British Museum’s rarely seen contemporary Middle Eastern collection, traces the way in which artists interact with this legacy.

“It’s an immense story to tell,” says Venetia Porter, curator of the exhibition, as she leads me into a gallery half-hung with calligraphy. “But we’ve tried to begin at the beginning.” As “Word Into Art” emphasises, written Arabic originated as a sacred vehicle for religion. According to the Koran, the Archangel Jibreel delivered the first revelation to Muhammad with the command to recite: “In the name of thy Lord . . . who by the pen taught man what he did not know.” When the reluctant (and illiterate) Prophet eventually complied, generations of scribes and calligraphers devised increasingly elaborate scripts in which to copy his words. Constrained by the Islamic taboo on representation, they created a sophisticated art of the word governed by precise rules.

more from The New Statesman here.

The world of Lowbrow Art was shocked and saddened on April 22, when 59-year-old Juxtapoz publisher Fausto Vitello died suddenly of a heart attack while riding his bike in Woodside, California. Vitello was, of course, best known for his High Speed Productions flagship skateboard publication Thrasher (which disseminated its own unique punk aesthetic vision — call it Gnarlism), but when he decided in 1994 to band together with Robert Williams, Craig Stecyk, Greg Escalante and a handful of other Lowbrow luminaries to launch a magazine to chronicle the amorphous post-punk stew of hot rods, tattoos, comics, commercial illustration and other unacceptable fringe elements of visual culture, he tapped into a global vein of art-world frustration and catapulted Lowbrow from a local subculture into an international phenomenon.

more from the LA Weekly here.

In the Guardian:

A Somali-born Dutch MP who came to symbolise the Netherlands’ troubled relations with Islam is planning to leave her adopted country and settle in the United States.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is expected to announce today that she will resign as an MP, days after a television programme accused her of lying in 1992 in order to secure Dutch nationality.

Ms Hirsi Ali, a fierce critic of radical Islam who lives under armed guard, wants to pre-empt any move by the Netherlands’ tough immigration minister to strip her of Dutch citizenship.

She will be going to the American Enterprise Institute. More reactions here.

Lee Siegel in The New Republic:

Enough already. I mean, enough. Is there anything this guy writes about that doesn’t shill for business values? Is there any aspect of existence he hasn’t transformed into a strategy for coming out on top in a meeting? Is there any business strategy that he hasn’t converted into a universal way of living?

In The Tipping Point, Gladwell turned a banal business-concept–that moment when an idea, trend or style of conduct “tips” into a craze–virtually into an explanation of how history unfolds and society works. In Blink, he argued that the artist’s creative intuition is something everybody possesses, something that can be used for practical purposes in any situation. (The Power of Positive Blinking.) One of the book’s central dramas is the role intuition played, according to Gladwell, in the battle between (successful) Pepsi and (failed) New Coke. Businessmen, Gladwell wants to tell us, have the instinct of poets. That was a thrill.

More here.

Tad Friend in The New Yorker:

The past dozen years have been the most convulsive in television history. The four major networks’ share of the viewing audience has fallen from seventy-two per cent to forty-six. As the HBO hits “The Sopranos” and “Deadwood” made even the best network shows look strangely antique, basic-cable offerings like “South Park” (on Comedy Central) and “The Shield” (on FX) fattened their channels’ purses through subscription fees as well as through ads. Even Univision’s telenovela “Alborada” began to outdraw some network shows. Scrambling to keep up, the networks began premièring shows throughout the year, rather than just in the fall; running them for “short arcs” of only ten or twelve episodes; and putting on serial dramas and reality shows, which can’t profitably be aired in repeats. These changes meant that the networks were often abandoning their expectation of vast profits from the “back end”—the sale of a hit show into syndication—although they began to recoup by selling DVDs of shows like “24” and “The Office.”

The biggest development was that the “linear” viewing model—in which people watched “Lost” when it aired, Wednesdays at 9 P.M. on ABC—started to give way to the “on-demand” model, in which people watched “Lost” whenever and wherever they wanted to: on TiVo systems, iPods, or P.C.s, which swiftly routed them to an illegal P2P download, or to abc.com (which began streaming episodes a few weeks ago), or to a montage of the show’s best scenes on YouTube, a video bazaar where viewers were likely to forget about “Lost” altogether as they watched grassroots “content”—skateboard wipeouts, say, created by “sk8hed,” from Bakersfield.

More here.

Claudia Parsons at Reuters:

Pulitzer Prize-winner Stanley Kunitz, a former U.S. poet laureate remembered as a mentor to young writers and a devoted gardener, has died at the age of 100 in New York, his publisher said on Tuesday.

A spokeswoman for W.W. Norton, which published his last book “The Wild Braid: A Poet Reflects on a Century in the Garden” last year, said Kunitz had died on Sunday of pneumonia.

Tree Swenson, executive director of the Academy of American Poets, said Kunitz would be remembered as both an extraordinary poet of great compassion, and as a mentor who encouraged countless younger poets in their writing.

More here.  [Thanks to Chris Harris.]

From The Guardian:

In an unprecedented politicisation of the most prestigious prize for popular science books, the winning author pledged to donate his £10,000 prize to the family of the late government scientist David Kelly. David Bodanis, who was awarded the Aventis science book prize last night, said he hoped his gesture would, “tell some people in England something about the importance of truth.”

“Science is all about truth. There’s one realm where a lot of people feel that truth hasn’t come out and truth is known but it hasn’t been acknowledged,” he told the Guardian. Alluding to Dr Kelly’s death following comments he made to a journalist about Iraq war intelligence Dr Bodanis said, “[Dr Kelly] was aware of what was really going on and the government lied and tried to feel they could suppress the truth. Events have clearly shown that they were wrong and he was right.”

More here.

From Nature:

A study of the effects of low oxygen levels on ‘economy class syndrome’ has re-opened the debate over how long-haul flights increase passengers’ risks of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), the formation of potentially fatal blood clots.

Although it is well known that restricting blood flow by sitting immobile for long periods can increase the risk of such clots, some researchers have proposed that there may be other factors on flights that contribute to the risk. Studies comparing people on long-haul flights to those sitting still on the ground have indicated that there is a difference between the two groups, although it isn’t clear exactly why. Researchers have suggested that the explanation could lie with passenger stress, poor air quality, low humidity, low air pressure, or exposure to cosmic radiation.

More here.

Wilfrid M. McClay in the Weekly Standard:

It’s a safe bet that W. H. Auden would have been suspicious of the idea behind this book. True, he was forthcoming about his attraction to the Christian faith, an attraction that remained strong even during his years of professed atheism, and became explicit after his formal return to the church in 1940. He was equally forthcoming in lamenting what he called the “prudery” of “cultured people” who treat religious belief as the last remaining shameful thing, and find theological terms “far more shocking than any of the four-letter words.” Furthermore, there can be no doubt that Auden was, and deserves to be known as, a Christian writer, rather than a writer who merely happened to be Christian. Many of his most distinguished works of poetry and criticism, especially in his American years, are not only indebted to, but positively enveloped in, the riches of Christian narrative, language, imagery, allusion, and moral insight.

The notion that religious faith and serious thought are mutually exclusive categories always struck Auden as risible and unintelligible. But he would have bristled at an effort to separate out his religious beliefs and restate them as systematic propositions, or examine them independently or thematically, rather than see them as players in his rich and various inner symbolic drama. Such an undertaking would probably have struck him as unspeakably vulgar and, moreover, an invasion of his privacy, putting his devotional life on display and forcing him unwillingly to be judged by the public standard of a “religious” man, a role for which he felt singularly ill-equipped.

More here.

Robin Lloyd in LiveScience.com:

We all lie, all the time. It causes problems, to say the least. So why do we do it?

It boils down to the shifting sands of the self and trying to look good both to ourselves and others, experts say.

“It’s tied in with self-esteem,” says University of Massachusetts psychologist Robert Feldman. “We find that as soon as people feel that their self-esteem is threatened, they immediately begin to lie at higher levels.”

Not all lies are harmful. In fact, sometimes lying is the best approach for protecting privacy and ourselves and others from malice, some researchers say.  Some deception, such as boasting and lies in the name of tact and politeness, can be classified as less than serious. But bald-faced lies (whether they involve leaving out the truth or putting in something false), are harmful, as they corrode trust and intimacy—the glue of society.

Many animals engage in deception, or deliberately misleading another, but only humans are wired to deceive both themselves and others, researchers say.  People are so engaged in managing how others perceive them that they are often unable to separate truth from fiction in their own minds, Feldman’s research shows.

More here.

The NYU grad student strike is over for the semester. Meanwhile, GSOC continues to make its case for unionization and also takes a closer look at NYU’s activities. For example:

At his inauguration as NYU’s President in 2002, John Sexton articulated a vision of what he calls, “the Common Enterprise University.” He refined that vision in an essay entitled, “The Common Enterprise University and the Teaching Mission,” in which he wrote:

Taken together, these factors-the reality of decreasing government support, the need for increasing investments in both traditional areas and new knowledge and teaching, and the limits on tuition-manifest the depth of the dilemma faced by universities committed to high standards and even higher aspirations. We will generate the resources to fulfill our mission only if we move to common enterprise, with its emphasis on faculty engagement in the setting of priorities as well as faculty ownership of the decisions made and in all parts of the university, led by the faculty, a willingness occasionally to sacrifice for the collective good.

The analysis offered here begs the question “who is being asked to sacrifice for NYU’s future?”… NYU data shows a marked increase in the number of full time, non-tenure track faculty along with an increase in the salary gap between men and women among tenured and tenure track faculty.

Also in the New York Review of Books, there is a transcript of the inaugural PEN Arthur Miller Freedom to Write Memorial Lecture given by Orhan Pamuk. I found this passage lovely.

I always have difficulty expressing my political judgments in a clear, emphatic, and strong way—I feel pretentious, as if I’m saying things that are not quite true. This is because I know I cannot reduce my thoughts about life to the music of a single voice and a single point of view—I am, after all, a novelist, the kind of novelist who makes it his business to identify with all of his characters, especially the bad ones. Living as I do in a world where, in a very short time, someone who has been a victim of tyranny and oppression can suddenly become one of the oppressors, I know also that holding strong beliefs about the nature of things and people is itself a difficult enterprise. I do also believe that most of us entertain these contradictory thoughts simultaneously, in a spirit of good will and with the best of intentions. The pleasure of writing novels comes from exploring this peculiarly modern condition whereby people are forever contradicting their own minds. It is because our modern minds are so slippery that freedom of expression becomes so important: we need it to understand ourselves, our shady, contradictory, inner thoughts, and the pride and shame that I mentioned earlier.

In the New York Review of Books, a recap of the end of the clown show that was the reign of Silvio Berlusconi (or at least this episode of it).

Traditionally on losing an election, a politician calls to congratulate the winner and urges voters to put their differences aside and come together for the good of the country. But Silvio Berlusconi is anything but a traditional politician. Instead, after his narrow defeat by the center-left candidate, Romano Prodi, Berlusconi made charges of fraud (even though his own government had overseen the voting), demanded a recount (which quickly confirmed the original result), and demanded that he be included in any new government in order to avoid “civil war.”

Prodi will probably have enough seats to put together a parliamentary majority. But a weak government, presiding over a sharply divided country, will likely make it possible for Berlusconi to block legislation. Or Prodi’s government could be short-lived, and there could be new elections in the not-too-distant future.

A close outcome was not only predictable but actually planned by Berlusconi during his government’s twilight as a way of lessening the impact of possible defeat. A few months before the election, Berlusconi studied polls that showed the center-left winning a substantial majority in parliament with the country’s winner-take-all electoral system. He decided to change the election system and return to the proportional representation that the Italian electorate had strongly rejected in a popular referendum in 1993. The old proportional system was thought to have encouraged a plethora of small parties, unstable government majorities, short-lived revolving-door governments, and ceaseless horse-trading among coalition partners, all of which fostered corruption and lack of clear policies in the post– World War II period.