MyHeadlines - Dossier World News

Sources | Newsletters | Top Ten | Search | FAQ

My News

Dossiers

World News | Magazines

Sources:
Spiegel online \| International news

The Economist \| Print edition

Le Monde Diplomatique \| English edition

The New Yorker \| Articles

Time magazine \| World news

Newsweek \| World News

Al-Ahram Weekly

The New York Review of Books

Foreign Policy

Rolling Stone \| Features

Newsletter World News | Magazines

Learning to Play Polo
Newsweek | World News 12 03 2010

Iraq Election: Votes Being Counted Amid Risk of Violence
Time magazine | World news 12 03 2010

Can a Fatwa Against Terrorism Stop Extremists?
Time magazine | World news 12 03 2010

More...

Spiegel online | International news

Countdown on the Baltic Sea: Will Baby Herring and Conservationists Delay Russo-German Pipeline?
11 03 2010 Preparations are fast taking shape for the construction of the controversial Nord Stream natural gas pipeline between Russia and Germany this spring. But it still faces a legal challenge in Germany from environmentalists, and critics say the project could disrupt the spring spawning of the herring found in the western Baltic Sea.

Homage to Hasselhoff: Trying to Be German in South L.A.
11 03 2010 A new book by SPIEGEL ONLINE writer Philipp Kohlhöfer explores facets of German culture both at home and abroad. In Los Angeles, he finds, there's no accounting for taste -- even Americans like David Hasselhoff.

Hands Off our Shackles, Please: The Debate Over German Security Policies
11 03 2010 Two decades after reunification, the German decision to call in a NATO air strike on fuel trucks in the Kunduz province of Afghanistan is a test of Germany's maturity. But even the handling of this incident has already turned a harsh spotlight on the shortcomings of Berlins security policy.

More...

The Economist | Print edition

The president and trade: Go sell
11 03 2010 As Barack Obama embraces exports, trade friction looms A GLOOMY office park in suburban Chicago is the home of NewMedical Technology. At the moment the young company has only one main product, silicone strips to reduce scarring after surgery. But in its tiny warehouse, employees busily pack boxes to be shipped to Brussels. In the past year the firm’s business has expanded quickly; NewMedical now exports to South America, Europe and Asia. It is the type of growth Barack Obama dreams of. Consumers are nursing battered balance sheets and the government is wallowing in debt. That puts the burden on exports to carry the recovery; Mr Obama wants them to double over the next five years. ...

Labour markets: Distemper
11 03 2010 Temporary work may dim future employment prospects IS ANY job better than no job? Some research has suggested that unemployed workers should take up any job they can get, including temporary work, as a bridge to higher-paying employment. But what may be good for the economy, reducing the drain on government coffers, may be bad for the individuals concerned. In a forthcoming paper in the American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, David Autor of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Susan Houseman of the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research in Michigan show that taking up temporary work after a spell of unemployment can hurt future earnings. The authors looked at data from Detroit’s “Work First” welfare-to-work initiative, which uses placement agencies to put low-skilled unemployed people into paid jobs. They then assessed participants’ earnings and job tenure before and after their involvement in the programme. ...

Economics focus: The inflation solution
11 03 2010 The merits of inflation as a solution to the rich world’s problems are easily overstated IT HAS long been considered a scourge, an obstacle to investment and a tax on the thrifty. It seems strange, then, that inflation is now touted as a solution to the rich world’s economic troubles. At first sight the case seems compelling. If central banks had a higher target for inflation, that would allow for bigger cuts in real interest rates in a recession. Faster inflation makes it easier to restore cost-competitiveness in depressed industries and regions. And it would help reduce the private and public debt burdens that weigh on the rich world’s economies. In practice, however, allowing prices to rise more quickly has costs as well as benefits. The orthodoxy on inflation is certainly shifting. A recent IMF paper* co-authored by the fund’s chief economist suggests that very low inflation may do more harm than good. Empirical research is far clearer about the harmful effects on output once inflation is in double digits. So a 4% inflation target might be better than a goal of 2% as it would allow for monetary policy to respond more aggressively to economic “shocks”. If the expected inflation rate rose by a notch or two, wages and interest rates would shift up to match it. The higher rates required in normal times would create the space for bigger cuts during slumps. ...

More...

Le Monde Diplomatique | English edition

Bosnia's war victims speak
10 03 2010 Wounds have not healed in the Balkans: Rajeshree Sisodia's photographs were taken recently in Bosnia and accompany her article in our March 2010 issue “Bosnia's rape victims struggle on”.-2010/03/ Images, 2010/03 - Bosnia

Bosnia's war victims speak
09 03 2010 Wounds have not healed in the Balkans: Rajeshree Sisodia's photographs were taken recently in Bosnia and accompany her article in our March 2010 issue “Bosnia's rape victims struggle on”.-2010/03/ Images, 2010/03 - Bosnia

A people's cartoon history of Gaza
09 03 2010 The cartoonist and author Joe Sacco has a new book, Footnotes in Gaza (1). Sacco's books are what you might call graphic nonfiction. For this publication, he spent seven years researching two sordid events in November 1956, when Israeli forces invaded Gaza as part of the joint British-French attack against Egypt. Hundreds of Palestinians were murdered by the Israeli army, and Sacco set out to record the oral histories of the Palestinians who were witnesses or victims. He had to investigate (...)-2010/03/ Open access, 2010/03 - Palestine

More...

The New Yorker | Articles

Nancy Franklin: “The Pacific” on HBO.
08 03 2010 8220;The Pacific,” a ten-part miniseries that begins Sunday on HBO, is a companion piece to the channel’s “Band of Brothers,” which chronicled a company of paratroopers in the 101st Airborne Division from training to D Day, and on to Germany, through Holland and . . .

Goings on About Town: Readings and Talks
08 03 2010 goatTitle-->AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY The poets George Green, Joshua Mehigan, Linda Pastan, and David Yezzi join Billy Collins for a reading from “Bright Wings: An Illustrated Anthology of Poems About Birds,” which was edited by Collins. (Central Park W. at 79th St. 212-769-5200. March 10 at . . .

Goings on About Town: The Theatre
08 03 2010 PageBreak -->OPENINGS AND PREVIEWS Please call the phone number listed with the theatre for timetables and ticket information. THE ADDAMS FAMILY Marshall Brickman and Rick Elice wrote the libretto and Andrew Lippa wrote the score for this new musical, based on the cartoons of Charles Addams. Phelim McDermott and . . .

More...

Time magazine | World news

Iraq Election: Votes Being Counted Amid Risk of Violence
12 03 2010 Sunday's poll appears likely to yield an indecisive result, while accusations of ballot fraud by opposition parties could challenge the legitimacy of the new government that eventually emerges

Can a Fatwa Against Terrorism Stop Extremists?
12 03 2010 Can an influential Pakistani cleric end terrorism by declaring a fatwa against it?

Greece: New Strike Over Austerity Plans Sparks Violence
12 03 2010 Anger is rising in Greece a week after leaders announced a new austerity package to rein in the deficit, with protesters taking to the streets and workers walking off the job

More...

Newsweek | World News

Learning to Play Polo
12 03 2010 When I was growing up, I was on a first-name basis with Polo, Ralph Lauren's line of preppy staples. But I've come to understand that the little mallet-wielding man on a horse embroidered on my shirts is more than just a logo; it's a symbol of one of the world's most storied sports. And polo is becoming an increasingly popular leisure pursuit, thanks in large part to canny marketing and the crossover appeal and tireless efforts of star players like Nacho Figueras, himself a Ralph Lauren–brand ambassador and model. As captain of the Lauren-sponsored Black Watch team, Figueras has propelled himself into the nexus of New York's social and fashion scenes. His celebrity exploits—he's a frequent guest on the Manhattan-Hamptons party circuit—are tirelessly chronicled in gossip columns and glossy magazines. The sport's self-styled spokesperson, Figueras sees his widespread visibility as part of a larger effort to rebrand polo as the sport of choice not just for the privileged set, but for a more mainstream audience as well.

Matt Damon's War Film Green Zone Doesn't Ring True
12 03 2010 Paul Greengrass's new Iraq film, 'Green Zone,' pays admirable attention to the details of Baghdad. It's the story that's ludicrous.

Sarkozy and Bruni in Trouble? Not So Fast.
12 03 2010 From tweets to the world's front pages, the tales of infidelity about France's first couple are too good to resist—never mind the facts.

More...

Al-Ahram Weekly

Arab world's leading English-language publication (Cairo, Egypt)

The El-Baradei phenomenon
26 02 2010 The entrance of El-Baradei to the Egyptian political scene gives secular and liberal opposition parties a chance to regain ground from Islamists, writes Abdel-Moneim Said

Homecoming
26 02 2010 Mohamed Abdel-Baky joined the hundreds of Egyptians who flocked to Cairo airport to welcome El-Baradei

El-Baradei with Moussa
26 02 2010 After receiving a warm welcome at Cairo airport on 19 February, ex-IAEA head Mohamed El-Baradei has embarked upon a media campaign that includes sustained attacks on the regime, reports Gamal Essam El-Din

More...

The New York Review of Books

Britain: The Disgrace of the Universities
11 03 2010

Anthony Grafton

Oxford Fellows ‘envisaging the weather’; drawing by Max Beerbohm
from Zuleika Dobson, or An Oxford Love Story, 1911

British universities face a crisis of the mind and spirit. For thirty years, Tory and Labour politicians, bureaucrats, and “managers” have hacked at the traditional foundations of academic life. Unless policies and practices change soon, the damage will be impossible to remedy. As an “Occasional Student” at University College London in the early 1970s and a regular visitor to the Warburg Institute, Oxford, and Cambridge after that, I—like many American humanists—envied colleagues who taught at British universities. We had offices with linoleum; they had rooms with carpets. We worked at desks; they sat with their students on comfy chairs and gave them glasses of sherry. Above all, we felt under constant pressure to do the newest new thing, and show the world that we were doing it: to be endlessly innovative and interdisciplinary and industrious. British humanists innovated too. Edward Thompson and Eric Hobsbawm, Frances Yates and Peter Burke, and many others formulated new ways of looking at history for my generation. But British academics always admitted, as we sometimes did not, that it is vital to preserve and update our traditional disciplines and forms of knowledge: languages, precise interpretation of texts and images and objects, rigorous philosophical analysis and argument. Otherwise all the sexy interdisciplinary work will yield only a trickle of trendy blather. There was a Slow Food feel to British university life, based on a consensus that people should take the time to make an article or a book as dense and rich as it could be. Good American universities were never exactly Fast Food Nation, but we certainly felt the pressure to produce, regularly and rapidly. By contrast, Michael Baxandall spent three years at the Warburg Institute, working in the photographic collection and not completing a dissertation, and several more as a lecturer, later on, writing only a few articles. Then, in 1971 and 1972, he produced two brilliant interdisciplinary books, which transformed the study of Renaissance humanism and art, remain standard works to this day, and were only the beginning of a great career. Gertrud Bing, E.H. Gombrich, J.B. Trapp, and A.M. Meyer, who administered the Warburg in those days, knew how to be patient. Their results speak for themselves. From the accession of Margaret Thatcher onward, the pressure has risen. Universities have had to prove that they matter. Administrators and chairs have pushed faculty to win grants and publish and rewarded those who do so most successfully with periods of leave and other privileges that American professors can only dream of. The pace of production is high, but the social compact among teachers is frayed. In the last couple of years, the squeeze has become tighter than ever. Budgets have shrunk, and universities have tightened their belts to fit. Now they are facing huge further cuts for three years to come—unless, as is likely, the Conservatives take over the government, in which case the knife may go even deeper. Administrators have responded not by resisting, for the most part, but by trying to show that they can “do more with less.” To explain how they can square this circle, they issue statements in the Orwellian language of “strategic planning.” A typical planning document, from King’s College London, explains that the institution must “create financially viable academic activity by disinvesting from areas that are at sub-critical level with no realistic prospect of extra investment.” The realities that this cloud of ink imperfectly conceal are every bit as ugly as you would expect. Humanists who work on ancient manuscripts and languages or write about premodern history or struggle with hard issues in semantics don’t always make an immediate impact or bring in large amounts of grant money—even when other scholars around the world depend on their studies. If you don’t see the point of their work, why not eliminate them? Then you have room for things that pay off immediately. At King’s College London, the head of arts and humanities has already informed world-famous professors—one, David Ganz, in paleography, the study of ancient scripts, and two in philosophy—that their positions will be discontinued at the end of the academic year. All three are remarkable scholars who have had remarkable students. Paleography—to take the field that I know best—is to the study of texts what archaeology is to the study of cities and temples. Paleographers lay the foundations other humanists build on. They tell historians and literary scholars which texts were written when and what they say, which scripts were used where, and why, and by whom. Training in the analysis of manuscripts is central to the world-famous programs in medieval studies that are among the glories of King’s College. That is why Jeffrey Hamburger, the Harvard art historian who is one of the world’s leading experts on medieval manuscripts, has helped to organize a worldwide campaign to reverse the decision. (Similarly, the Chicago philosopher Brian Leiter has publicized the cuts in philosophy on his widely read blog). The cuts are not intended to stop with the first victims. All other members of the arts and humanities faculty at King’s are being forced to reapply for their jobs. When the evaluation is finished, around twenty-two of them will have been voted off the island. Even the official statements make clear that these faculty members will be let go not because they have ceased to do basic research or teach effectively, but because their fields aren’t fashionable and don’t spin money. When criticized, the principal of King’s, Rick Trainor, complained that foreign professors don’t appreciate the financial problems that he faces. He’s wrong. All of us face drastic new financial pressures. But we also appreciate a principle that seems to elude Mr. Trainor—as well as his colleagues at Sussex, who have begun similar measures, and the London administrators who seem bent on turning the Warburg Institute from a unique research center, its open stacks laden with treasures uniquely accessible to all readers, into a book depository. Universities exist to discover and transmit knowledge. Scholars and teachers provide those services. Administrators protect and nurture the scholars and teachers: give them the security, the resources, and the possibilities of camaraderie and debate that make serious work possible. Firing excellent faculty members is not a clever tactical “disinvestment,” it’s a catastrophic failure. Are academic salaries really the main source of the pressure on the principal? Vague official documents couched in management jargon are hard to decode. The novelist and art historian Iain Pears notes that King’s has assembled in recent years an “executive team with all the managerial bling of a fully-fledged multi-national, complete with two executive officers and a Chief information officer.” The college spent £33.5 million on administrative costs in 2009, and is actively recruiting more senior managers now. These figures do not evince a passion for thrift. Moreover, the head of arts and humanities proposes to appoint several new members of staff even as others are dismissed. Management probably does want to save money—but it definitely wants to install its own priorities and its own people, regardless of the human and intellectual cost. Universities become great by investing for the long term. You choose the best scholars and teachers you can and give them the resources and the time to think problems through. Sometimes a lecturer turns out to be Malcolm Bradbury’s fluent, shallow, vicious History Man; sometimes he or she turns out to be Michael Baxandall. No one knows quite why this happens. We do know, though, that turning the university into The Office will produce a lot more History Men than scholars such as Baxandall. Accept the short term as your standard—support only what students want to study right now and outside agencies want to fund right now—and you lose the future. The subjects and methods that will matter most in twenty years are often the ones that nobody values very much right now. Slow scholarship—like Slow Food—is deeper and richer and more nourishing than the fast stuff. But it takes longer to make, and to do it properly, you have to employ eccentric people who insist on doing things their way. The British used to know that, but now they’ve streaked by us on the way to the other extreme. At this point, American universities are more invested than British in the old ways. Few of us any longer envy our British colleagues. But straws show how the wind blows. The language of “impact” and “investment” is heard in the land. In Iowa, in Nevada, and in other places there’s talk of closing humanities departments. If you start hearing newspeak about “sustainable excellence clusters,” watch out. We’ll be following the British down the short road to McDonald’s.

They Did Authorize Torture, But …
11 03 2010

David Cole

John Yoo; drawing by David Levine

Whatever else you might say about John Yoo, the former Justice Department lawyer who drafted several memos in 2002 authorizing the CIA to commit torture, you have to admit that he’s not in the least embarrassed by the condemnation of his peers. On February 19, the Justice Department released a set of previously confidential reports by its Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) excoriating Yoo’s legal work—but stopped short of referring him for professional discipline by his state bar association. Since then Yoo has written Op-Eds for The Wall Street Journal and The Philadelphia Inquirer trumpeting his “victory.” In the Wall Street Journal piece, entitled “My Gift to the Obama Presidency,” Yoo argued that President Obama owes him a debt of gratitude for “winning a drawn-out fight to protect his powers as commander in chief to wage war and keep Americans safe.” Four days later, in The Philadelphia Inquirer, Yoo called the decision not to refer him for bar discipline “a victory for the people fighting the war on terror.” This is a bit like a child coming home with an F on his report card and telling his parents that they should congratulate him for not getting suspended, or President Clinton proclaiming to Hillary that Congress’s failure to impeach him was a vindication of his affair with Monica Lewinsky. The one thing practically everyone interviewed by the OPR agreed about was that Yoo’s legal work on the torture memos was atrocious. Bush’s Attorney General Michael Mukasey called it “slovenly.” Jack Goldsmith, another Republican who headed the Office of Legal Counsel from 2003 to 2004, said that Yoo’s August 2002 memo justifying torture by the CIA was “riddled with error” and a “one-sided effort to eliminate any hurdles posed by the torture law.” Daniel Levin, who headed the Office of Legal Counsel after Goldsmith left and, like Yoo, was a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, described his reaction upon reading Yoo’s memo as “This is insane, who wrote this?” And Stephen Bradbury, who became acting head of the OLC after Levin’s departure, also under President Bush, and who wrote several memos authorizing torture himself, said of Yoo’s arguments about presidential power, “Somebody should have exercised some adult leadership” and deleted his arguments altogether. These are the assessments not of human rights advocates or left-wing critics but of Yoo’s Republican colleagues at the Justice Department. The OPR itself, which is comprised of career civil servants charged with monitoring ethics violations by department lawyers and is not known for being eager to discipline its own, decided before President Obama took office that Yoo and Jay Bybee, Yoo’s superior, had violated their ethical duties as attorneys. After considering responses from Yoo and Bybee, the OPR reaffirmed that Yoo had “put his desire to accommodate the client above his obligation to provide thorough, objective, and candid legal advice, and…therefore committed intentional professional misconduct.” It found that Bybee, who signed the 2002 torture memos and is now a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, had acted in “reckless disregard” of the same professional obligation. It recommended that both lawyers be referred to their respective state bar associations for discipline. So how can Yoo portray this process as a victory? Only because a single Justice Department official, Associate Deputy Attorney General David Margolis, overruled the OPR’s considered opinion, finding that while Yoo and Bybee exercised “poor judgment,” they did not knowingly provide false advice, and therefore were not guilty of professional misconduct. But Margolis’s assessment was in no way an endorsement of Yoo’s theories or practices. He described the issue of whether Yoo engaged in misconduct as a “close question,” called the memos “an unfortunate chapter in the history of the Office of Legal Counsel,” and said he feared that “John Yoo’s loyalty to his own ideology and convictions clouded his view of his obligation to his client and led him to author opinions that reflected his own extreme, albeit sincerely held, views of executive power.” In short, no one reviewing Yoo’s work gave it a passing grade. And he narrowly escaped a referral to his bar association for disciplinary action only because of the decision of a single lawyer in the Justice Department. The OPR and Margolis largely agreed that Yoo’s memos contained many serious flaws. Yoo interpreted the ban on torture to require the intentional infliction of severe pain of the level associated with death and organ failure, a standard he imported from a health benefits statute having no relevance to the issue at hand. The standard is literally meaningless, as neither death nor organ failure are associated with any particular level of pain. Yoo appears to have adopted it to permit the CIA to inflict an extraordinarily high degree of pain. Yoo wrote that an interrogator could inflict even severe pain as long as he did not “specifically intend” to do so. He advised that the president could order outright torture, and that a criminal statute to the contrary could not constrain the president as commander in chief. (Indeed, he later told the OPR that the president could not even be prohibited from ordering the extermination of an entire village of civilians.) And he reasoned that an interrogator who engages in torture could defend his behavior by claiming that it was done because of “necessity” or because it was required for self-defense—of the nation, not of the interrogator himself. In both cases Yoo employed unprecedented and virtually unrecognizable versions of these defenses. (Indeed, the OPR report discloses that even the lawyer who worked under Yoo on the memos initially found his argument about self-defense “wholly implausible,” because self-defense requires an imminent threat to the person invoking it, and interrogators faced no such threat.) The OPR and Margolis were in full accord that these opinions are deeply misguided. But where the OPR viewed the errors cumulatively as evidence of an extraordinary and ultimately bad-faith effort to contort the law to a predetermined result, Margolis considered the errors one by one, and concluded that no single error “of itself” warranted a finding of professional misconduct. Margolis, in short, missed the forest for the trees. In a more fundamental sense, however, both the OPR and Margolis failed to confront the real wrong at issue. They focused exclusively on the manner by which Yoo and Bybee arrived at their result, rather than the result itself. What is most disturbing about the torture memos is not that they employ strained reasoning or fail to cite this or that authority, but that they do so in the name of authorizing torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of human beings. Remarkably, neither the OPR nor Margolis directly considered the illegality of the conduct that was authorized by the memos. The OPR stated that it “did not attempt to determine and did not base our findings on whether…the Memos arrived at a correct result.” Margolis also did not address whether the conduct authorized was illegal. But surely that is the central issue. Why, then, did the OPR and Margolis fail to take up the question of the legality of the brutality itself? Almost certainly because doing so would have implicated not only John Yoo and Jay Bybee, but all of the lawyers who approved these methods over the five-year course of their application, including, within the Justice Department, Jack Goldsmith, Daniel Levin, and Stephen Bradbury, Bybee’s successors as head of the Office of Legal Counsel, and the two attorneys general, John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales. Notwithstanding their criticism of Yoo’s errors, all of these men concurred with the basic conclusion of the Yoo and Bybee memos that the tactics being used by the CIA were legitimate. Goldsmith, Levin, and Bradbury could have reversed the authority that Yoo and Bybee gave the CIA. They each actively participated in rewriting memos to replace or supplement the initial 2002 memos—but while the subsequent memos were written more carefully, they reached the same bottom line and continued to allow the CIA to inflict waterboarding, sleep deprivation, stress positions, and other illegal tactics on detainees. Margolis sought to excuse Yoo and Bybee in part on the basis of the extraordinary circumstances in which they wrote their initial memos, within one year after September 11. It’s not clear why this consideration would warrant approval of torture. In any case, Yoo and Bybee’s successors in the Justice Department wrote their memos not in the heat of the moment, but after the program had been in place for years, and had been the subject of substantial criticism by the CIA’s own inspector general. He found, among other things, no evidence that the practices in fact obtained useful information that lawful, noncoercive tactics would not have obtained. Yet the OLC continued to approve of the practices. Responsibility for the illegal brutality inflicted on CIA and Guantánamo detainees cannot be limited to Yoo and Bybee. It extends to all those who approved the tactics—even those so eager later to condemn Yoo’s reasoning. And unless we as citizens demand that these lawyers be held to answer for the wrongs done in our name, responsibility extends to all of us, too. We must continue to insist on accountability—whether in congressional hearings, citizens’ commissions, civil lawsuits, or the marketplace of ideas. The essential lesson must be that torture and cruel treatment are not policy options—even when a lawyer is willing to write an opinion blessing illegality. —An expanded version of this post will appear in the April 8 issue of The New York Review.

Girls! Girls! Girls!
11 03 2010

Tony Judt

Félix Vallotton

In 1992 I was chairman of the History Department at New York University—where I was also the only unmarried straight male under sixty. A combustible blend: prominently displayed on the board outside my office was the location and phone number of the university’s Sexual Harassment Center. History was a fast-feminizing profession, with a graduate community primed for signs of discrimination—or worse. Physical contact constituted a presumption of malevolent intention; a closed door was proof positive. Shortly after I took office, a second-year graduate student came by. A former professional ballerina interested in Eastern Europe, she had been encouraged to work with me. I was not teaching that semester, so could have advised her to return another time. Instead, I invited her in. After a closed-door discussion of Hungarian economic reforms, I suggested a course of independent study—beginning the following evening at a local restaurant. A few sessions later, in a fit of bravado, I invited her to the premiere of Oleanna—David Mamet’s lame dramatization of sexual harassment on a college campus. How to explain such self-destructive behavior? What delusional universe was mine, to suppose that I alone could pass untouched by the punitive prudery of the hour—that the bell of sexual correctness would not toll for me? I knew my Foucault as well as anyone and was familiar with Firestone, Millett, Brownmiller, Faludi, e tutte quante. To say that the girl had irresistible eyes and that my intentions were…unclear would avail me nothing. My excuse? Please Sir, I’m from the ’60s. The life of an early-’60s adolescent male was curiously confined. We still inhabited our parents’ moral universe. Dating was difficult—no one had cars; our homes were too small for privacy; contraception was available but only if you were willing to confront a disapproving pharmacist. There was a well-founded presumption of innocence and ignorance, for boys and girls alike. Most boys I knew attended single-sex schools and we rarely encountered women. A friend and I paid hard-earned money for Saturday morning dance classes at the Locarno Ballroom in Streatham; but when it came time for the annual social, the girls from Godolphin & Latymer School laughed at us all the same. We cut the experiment short. Even if you got a date, it was like courting your grandmother. Girls in those days came buttressed in an impenetrable Maginot Line of hooks, belts, girdles, nylons, roll-ons, suspenders, slips, and petticoats. Older boys assured me that these were mere erotic impedimenta, easily circumnavigated. I found them terrifying. And I was not alone, as any number of films and novels from that era can illustrate. Back then we all lived on Chesil Beach.

And then, to our surprise, we learned that we were part of the “sexual revolution.” Within a matter of months, a generation of young women abandoned a century of lingerie and adopted the miniskirt with (or without) tights. Few men of my acquaintance born later than 1952 have even heard of—much less encountered—most of the undergarments listed above. The French pop star Antoine sang optimistically of buying contraceptive pills in the Monoprix (approximately France’s K-Mart). At Cambridge, cool and worldly, I helped a friend arrange an abortion for his girl. Everyone was “playing with fire.” Or claiming to. My generation was obsessed with the distinction between theory and practice—I knew a man in California whose doctoral dissertation was devoted to “Theory and Practice in theory and in practice.” Sexually, we lived the contrast. In theory we prided ourselves on being the cutting edge. But in practice we were a conformist cohort: shaped more by our ’50s youth than our ’60s adolescence. A surprising number of us married young—often to our first serious girlfriend. And of that number, many have stayed married. Championing the inalienable right of everyone to do anything, we had scant occasion to do much ourselves. Our predecessors had grown up in the claustrophobic world of Lucky Jim and Look Back in Anger. Constrained by the limits they were taught to respect, they might try to seduce an office junior or a female student but were instinctively rule-bound: they did not expect to live out their fantasies. We, by contrast, had trouble distinguishing our fantasies from everyday life. The solipsism of the ’60s—“make love, not war,” “do your own thing,” “let it all hang out”—certainly destroyed taboos. But it also muffled the conscience: nothing was off-limits. In 1981, shortly after arriving at Oxford, I invited a student and her boyfriend to dinner. My wife and I lived in a country village and by the time the young couple arrived it was snowing hard. They would have to stay overnight. I casually pointed out the tiny guestroom with its double bed and wished them good night. Only much later did it occur to me to wonder whether the pair were sleeping together. When I delicately alluded to the matter a few days later, the young woman patted me on the shoulder: “Don’t worry Tony, we understood. You ’60s types!” Our successors—liberated from old-style constraints—have imposed new restrictions upon themselves. Since the 1970s, Americans assiduously avoid anything that might smack of harassment, even at the risk of forgoing promising friendships and the joys of flirtation. Like men of an earlier decade—though for very different reasons—they are preternaturally wary of missteps. I find this depressing. The Puritans had a sound theological basis for restricting their desires and those of others. But today’s conformists have no such story to tell.

Nevertheless, the anxieties of contemporary sexual relations offer occasional comic relief. When I was Humanities dean at NYU, a promising young professor was accused of improper advances by a graduate student in his department. He had apparently followed her into a supply closet and declared his feelings. Confronted, the professor confessed all, begging me not to tell his wife. My sympathies were divided: the young man had behaved foolishly, but there was no question of intimidation nor had he offered to trade grades for favors. All the same, he was censured. Indeed, his career was ruined—the department later denied him tenure because no women would take his courses. Meanwhile, his “victim” was offered the usual counseling. Some years later, I was called to the Office of the University Lawyer. Would I serve as a witness for the defense in a case against NYU being brought by that same young woman? Note, the lawyer warned me: “she” is really a “he” and is suing the university for failing to take seriously “her” needs as a transvestite. We shall fight the case but must not be thought insensitive. So I appeared in Manhattan Supreme Court to explain the complexities of academic harassment to a bemused jury of plumbers and housewives. The student’s lawyer pressed hard: “Were you not prejudiced against my client because of her transgendered identity preference?” “I don’t see how I could have been,” I replied. “I thought she was a woman—isn’t that what she wanted me to think?” The university won the case. On another occasion, a student complained that I “discriminated” against her because she did not offer sexual favors. When the department ombudswoman—a sensible lady of impeccable radical credentials—investigated, it emerged that the complainant resented not being invited to join my seminar: she assumed that women who took part must be getting (and offering) favorable treatment. I explained that it was because they were smarter. The young woman was flabbergasted: the only form of discrimination she could imagine was sexual. It had never occurred to her that I might just be an elitist.

This story is revealing. When discussing sexually explicit literature—Milan Kundera, to take an obvious case—with European students, I have always found them comfortable debating the topic. Conversely, young Americans of both sexes—usually so forthcoming—fall nervously silent: reluctant to engage the subject lest they transgress boundaries. Yet sex—or, to adopt the term of art, “gender”—is the first thing that comes to mind when they try to explain the behavior of adults in the real world. Here as in so many other arenas, we have taken the ’60s altogether too seriously. Sexuality (or gender) is just as distorting when we fixate upon it as when we deny it. Substituting gender (or “race” or “ethnicity” or “me”) for social class or income category could only have occurred to people for whom politics was a recreational avocation, a projection of self onto the world at large. Why should everything be about “me”? Are my fixations of significance to the Republic? Do my particular needs by definition speak to broader concerns? What on earth does it mean to say that “the personal is political”? If everything is “political,” then nothing is. I am reminded of Gertrude Stein’s Oxford lecture on contemporary literature. “What about the woman question?” someone asked. Stein’s reply should be emblazoned on every college notice board from Boston to Berkeley: “Not everything can be about everything.” The playful mantras of our adolescence have become a way of life for later generations. At least in the ’60s we knew, whatever we said, that sex was about…sex. All the same, what followed is our fault. We—the left, academics, teachers—have abandoned politics to those for whom actual power is far more interesting than its metaphorical implications. Political correctness, gender politics, and above all hypersensitivity to wounded sentiments (as though there were a right not to be offended): this will be our legacy.

Why should I not close my office door or take a student to a play? If I hesitate, have I not internalized the worst sort of communitarian self-censorship—anticipating my own guilt long before I am accused and setting a pusillanimous example for others? Yes: and if only for these reasons I see nothing wrong in my behavior. But were it not for the mandarin self-assurance of my Oxbridge years, I too might lack the courage of my convictions—though I readily concede that the volatile mix of intellectual arrogance and generational exceptionalism can ignite delusions of invulnerability. Indeed, it is just such a sense of boundless entitlement—taken to extremes—that helps explain Bill Clinton’s self-destructive transgressions or Tony Blair’s insistence that he was right to lie his way into a war whose necessity he alone could assess. But note that for all their brazen philandering and posturing, Clinton and Blair—no less than Bush, Gore, Brown, and so many others of my generation—are still married to their first serious date. I cannot claim as much—I was divorced in 1977 and again in 1986—but in other respects the curious ’60s blend of radical attitudes and domestic convention ensnared me too. So how did I elude the harassment police, who surely were on my tail as I surreptitiously dated my bright-eyed ballerina? Reader: I married her. —These pieces are part of a continuing series of memoirs by Tony Judt.

More...

Foreign Policy

Published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

What the Neocons Got Right
12 03 2010 Believe it or not, they made a few good calls.

The LWOT: 'JihadJane' Arrested; No 9/11 Trial Decision Forthcoming
12 03 2010 Foreign Policy and the New America Foundation bring you a weekly brief on the legal war on terror. You can read it onforeignpolicy.com or get it delivered directly toyour inbox -- just sign up here.

Trouble in Paradise
11 03 2010 Welcome to the world's newest narcostate.

More...

Rolling Stone | Features

Rolling Stone Magazine comes to life online with music news, videos and photo galleries, the latest movie and music reviews, cover stories and online exclusives.

The Secrets Behind the Rolling Stones' "Exile on Main Street" Reissue
10 03 2010 Mick Jagger and Keith Richards reevaluate their classic 1972 double albumGet the full story on the never-before-heard tracks on the Rolling Stone's upcoming Exile on Main Street reissue in our new issue, on stands now.In the new issue of Rolling Stone, Mick Jagger and Keith Richards talk about plundering their vaults for the

Spring Music Preview 2010
05 03 2010 From MGMT to Erykah Badu, a first listen to 2010's hottest albumsFrom Katy Perry and Stone Temple Pilots to MGMT and Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, some of 2010's most anticipated albums are hitting stores this season. Big debuts from Court Yard Hounds and Drake are due, along with eagerly awaited releases by Christina Aguilera, Hole, the Hold Steady and Gaslight Anthem. Read up on 38 of the spring's discs, plus get your first listen to new tunes from Jakob Dylan, Willie Nelson and Peter Wolf, and watch exclusive performances and sneak peeks featuring fre...

Post-Paula Depression
03 03 2010 The unthinkable has happened - by losing Paula's craziness, and with Simon heading for the door, "American Idol" feels like it has finally reached the end of its runHow do you replace Paula Abdul? You don't. That's no knock on Ellen DeGeneres — it's just that absurd Hollywood creatures like Paula are rare and precious flukes of the universe, like the Loch Ness monster in sequined capri pants. Without Paula, American Idol loses its crazy factor, the suspenseful thrill that you're never more than a few minutes away from seeing a grade-A display of batshit antics on live TV. And what is American Idol without a dose of crazy?Sending Ellen in to...

More...

Latest News
Login: Users | Administrators

© 2008 RISQ Consultancy | Disclaimer
Website by Maarten H.J.van den Berg | Powered by MyHeadlines © 2004 Mike Agar.

Page generation: 1.93 Seconds