I was warned by my friend Bob last night that I need to read the Economist with more salt grains. I guess Salon’s got some new article saying the Economist needs to be “debunked” again. Well, I read the article Salon refers to, and I thought it was pretty awful, but I think it knew how awful it was. It seemed almost apologetic in explaining how tenuous the data was that supported its conclusions. I got the feeling that most everyone looking into the issue of global economic inequality has really no idea how to get a decent handle on the problem. I understand the Gini coefficient — but after that it’s all a blur in my mind. Also, depending on the day of the week, I either have no idea what the consequences of income inequality are and or I am fighting mad about it.

Maybe the article was actually a cynical piece designed to make me think that a clear issue is actually cloudy. All I know is that as soon as I hear or read the word “globalization” I get tired. And when I see the words “International Monetary Fund”, I start to get cranky. Also, I am really tired of hearing about Argentina. That’s right, Argentinians, I’m sick of your whole country.

I guess the point I’m trying to make is that I really like reading the Economist, because it’s well-written and topical, but I fear that it’s turning me into either a Tory or a befuddled idiot incapable of rational thought.

So maybe you’ve heard of the flypaper strategy and maybe you haven’t. In a nutshell, it’s the idea that by occupying Iraq, we can redirect terrorists who would normally be killing civilians in America, or say, Spain, into attacking our troops on the ground there, who are better equipped to deal with that kind of thing. Leaving aside the problem that the soldiers in Iraq aren’t really all that well equipped to deal with terror attacks, and ignoring that the flypaper strategy is obviously not working, a radical thought occurred to me the other day:

If a low-intensity American occupation of Iraq is good for drawing terrorists out of their spider-holes, think how amazingly effective all-out civil war in Iraq would be! Rampaging mobs in the streets, sectarian massacres, brutal reprisals — what terrorist wouldn’t want to participate! I’m predicting now that if Iraq turns into a horrible, bloody mess, you’ll hear at least one person try to find the silver lining in this wise.

Not to beat upon a dead horse, but let me harp upon the Volokh Conspiracy a little more. Specifically, David Bernstein and Randy Barnett. Firstly, can anyone tell these guys apart? Every third post is pure self-promotion, and the rare post that isn’t some kind of book or appearance plug (or both!) is a one more rehash of how anti-Zionism is the same thing as anti-semitism. How many times do I have to read “allowing its own destruction by endorsing the ‘right of return'”? And how am I supposed to take seriously a link to an article written by, I kid you not, the director of the Vidal Sassoon International Centre for the Study of Antisemitism at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem?

Most of the stuff that’s left after you filter out these two jokers is great. (Except Sasha’s interminable lyrics posts. We get it! You’re the “hip” one!) Eugene has the solution, which he posted in an entry I’m nominating as the best post to the Volokh Conspiracy ever. In short, just tack “?exclude=davidb,randy” on the end of every volokh.com URL, and you’re golden. Remember, we’re all libertarians here, so it’s not censorship unless you’re a government agency.

Is it just me, or is the Volokh Conspiracy less interesting lately? The last really interesting thing I read there was Eugene’s call for inventions the Romans could have had, and he hasn’t followed up on it yet! Where is the love?

My personal diagnosis is that there’s been a sharp spike in self-promotional posts from various bloggers, of the “Here’s an article I wrote for some liberatarian rag” or “I’m going to be speaking to five pimply and friendless college conservatives on such and such a date”. There’s also been a lot of “doesn’t this {blank} smack of anti-semitism, and isn’t it just awful but also entirely banal?”

Maybe it’s just the political season, but DAMN these guys are off their game.

So I voted today, and what should appear on my ballot but this, this amazing sight! I felt certain that it wasn’t my personal hero (Speech ’56), but rather some other, lesser Jerry Orbach. Turns out I was right. This J. Orbach is some former Cook County judge and former Chicago alderman. Well, shameless electioneering stunts like having the same name as a well-respected character actor won’t get you anywhere with me. I voted for the other guy.

In other Northwestern Alum news, I did not vote for Jack Ryan, even though I have compelling evidence that he, at one time, was sleeping with Jeri Ryan (Speech ’90). Firstly, I took the Democratic ballot, and secondly, even though I consider it a major accomplishment to have bedded Jeri Ryan, it’s not listed anywhere on his official bio page. I have to believe that he’s, for some reason, not running on a platform of sleeping with Hollywood starlets and former beauty pageant winners. I just can’t get behind someone like that. It makes me question his motives for running for Senate in the first place. I guess I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that there’s an ongoing controversy about the divorce records, and there are even darker rumors (rumors, mind you!) that may remind certain people of Eric Bischoff and his marriage.

In other Jeri Ryan news, Philthee (Speech ’99) claimed the other day that she went to Northwestern at the same time we did. Well, that’s just not the case, Phil. Faced!