From The Australian:

AN aging elephant in Thailand has gotten a new lease on life after a veterinarian fitted the animal with custom-made dentures…

Morakot, an 80-year-old pachyderm in captivity at a park in the western province of Kanchanaburi, had been unable to chew her food because she had lost her teeth…

Kept alive with injected saline solution, vitamins and antibiotics, she had become so weak she had collapsed four times and needed to be supported by a sling of chains hung from a tree, he said.
…..
[Dr Somsak Jitniyom] fashioned the ailing elephant a U-shaped denture about 15 centimeters (six inches) wide and 15 centimeters (six inches) long, made from stainless steel, silicone and plastic, and fitted her with it Monday while she was under sedation.

Glenn Reynolds grew up a graduate-student and faculty brat, living in Dallas, Cambridge, and Heidelberg before moving to Knoxville, Tennessee. A graduate of the University of Tennessee and Yale Law School, he is a Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee. He blogs at InstaPundit.com, and, for MSNBC, at GlennReynolds.com.

Why do you blog? > I like the instant gratification of having an idea, seeing it in print (well, pixels), and getting immediate responses. I also love the connection with the readers.

What has been your best blogging experience? > Discovering unknown bloggers and helping them get the audience they deserve.

What has been your worst blogging experience? > Wading through oceans of hate mail engendered by posts I didn’t think anyone would be offended by.

What would be your main blogging advice to a novice blogger? > Pick something that you know more about than most people, and develop your expertise. And pitch posts on that topic – not your blog overall – to other bloggers.

What are your favourite blogs? > Andrew Sullivan, The Volokh Conspiracy, and Kausfiles.

Who are your intellectual heroes? > Charles Black, Arthur Allen Leff, Freeman Dyson.

What are you reading at the moment? > Harry Turtledove, In the Presence of Mine Enemies.

Who are your cultural heroes? > John Fogerty, Bob Walkenhorst, Neal Stephenson.

What is the best novel you’ve ever read? > Cryptonomicon, by Neal Stephenson.

What is your favourite poem? > Charles Black’s ‘Letting Go’. Yeats’s ‘The Second Coming’ is a close second, as is ‘Cypresses’ by Katherine Smith, my sister-in-law; though Cypresses is a bit too sad.

What is your favourite movie? > The Stunt Man, with Peter O’Toole and Barbara Hershey.

What is your favourite song? > ‘Born to Move’, by Creedence Clearwater Revival.

Who is your favourite composer? > Johann Sebastian Bach.

Can you name a major moral, political or intellectual issue on which you’ve ever changed your mind? > Loads of them. When I was a student, I thought that public-choice theory was self-serving conservative twaddle. When I became a lawyer/lobbyist, I discovered that it was exactly right.

What philosophical thesis do you think it most important to disseminate? > That there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in philosophy.

What philosophical thesis do you think it most important to combat? > That life should conform to a philosophy.

Who are your political heroes? > JFK, Jefferson, Joseph Story.

What is your favourite piece of political wisdom? > There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

If you could effect one major policy change in the governing of your country, what would it be? > I’d enforce the Constitutional principle of limited and enumerated federal powers.

What would you do with the UN? > Replace it with an association of free and democratic nations.

What do you consider to be the main threat to the future peace and security of the world? > The various incarnations of statism.

What would be your most important piece of advice about life? > Most things that cause us great distress aren’t that important. If it’s not the death or serious illness of yourself or a loved one, it’s not worth losing a lot of sleep over. But even knowing this, you will still lose sleep over unimportant things.

Do you think you could ever be married to, or in a long-term relationship with, someone with radically different political views from your own? > Yes.

What do you consider the most important personal quality? > Character, integrity.

What personal fault do you most dislike? > Opportunism.

What commonly enjoyed activities do you regard as a waste of time? > Watching sports on television. Others obviously see it differently.

What, if anything, do you worry about? > Dropping the ball.

If you were to relive your life to this point, is there anything you’d do differently? > Fully fund my 401k (retirement plan) at the earliest possible moment.

What would your ideal holiday be? > Scuba diving in the Caribbean.

What do you like doing in your spare time? > Reading, making and listening to music, spending time with family.

What is your most treasured possession? > My grandfather’s Pure Oil Company tie-tacks and cufflinks.

If you had to change your first name, what would you change it to? > William.

What talent would you most like to have? > Singing.

What would be your ideal choice of alternative profession or job? > (Scuba) Dive operator.

Which baseball team do you support? > The Red Sox.

What animal would you most like to be? > A dolphin. They seem to have nice lives.

[Previous profiles: Ophelia Benson (Nov 7); Chris Bertram (Sep 26); Alan Brain (Oct 10); Chris Brooke (Jan 2); Francois Brutsch (Dec 5); Jackie D (Oct 17); Harry Hatchet (Oct 24); Saddam Hussein (Nov 14); Jeff Jarvis (Dec 26); Oliver Kamm (Nov 21); Sheila O’Malley (Dec 19); Natalie Solent (Nov 28); Roger L. Simon (Oct 31); Michael J. Totten (Oct 3); Brian Weatherson (Dec 12). The normblog profile is a weekly Friday morning feature.]

The stand of the young Israeli refuseniks – declining to serve in the IDF because they object to the injustice of the occupation of the territories – should be supported. The following is from an article by Chris McGreal yesterday:

Until now, objectors have generally been allowed to walk free, or have received administrative sentences of a few weeks in jail, to save the military public embarrassment.

But Mr Matar and his colleagues went public with their protest, and encouraged others to join them, at a time when the Israeli army is confronting a wave of objections.

Nearly 1,000 school leavers and reservists have signed refusal letters…

The occupation is not, and for a long time has not been, simply about the defence of Israel’s existence. The settlements are testimony to that. The refuseniks are entitled not to participate in enforcing an unjust and oppressive occupation. This is irrespective of whether one agrees with all that they say. McGreal quotes one of them:

Every day people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip suffer abuse, humiliation, poverty and hunger – things that happen because of the occupation

You begin to understand that there is a reason for the bombings, the terror attacks. You ask how people can get to the situation where people kill themselves and kill others, and you realise they are desperate.

The second paragraph here is an oversimplified inference from the first. Suicide bombings may draw upon the legitimate grievances of Palestinians but they are not a spontaneous product of them. They are the result of a deliberately chosen strategy by political organizations which recruit and tutor those who are to kill themselves and others – mostly innocents – in the process. As such they amount to a campaign of mass murder and constitute a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute of the ICC and under any viable construction of the concept of crimes against humanity in any case. There can be no justification for such crimes, except for someone who is willing to see all moral constraints on conflict go by the board. It cannot be repeated too often, so prevalent is woolly thinking about these issues – which is why I do repeat it.

Yet, the refuseniks shouldn’t have to enforce an unjust occupation, and this is a separate matter.

Tanya Aldred reflects on the flourishing of batsmanship at Test level today:

Of the batsmen with the highest averages in Test history, five of the top 20 were in the same match in Sydney last week: Matthew Hayden (58.28), Rahul Dravid (57.42), Sachin Tendulkar (57.19), Ricky Ponting (55.97 ) and Adam Gilchrist (55.59). And, of course, Steve Waugh (51.06) was also there.

Nearly 7,000 miles away across the ocean, that new accumulator Graeme Smith (18th at 55.45), and his bludgeoning sidekick Jacques Kallis (52) were playing against Brian Lara (52.69), aka West Indies. Those with Sky and an unhealthy dislike of their own beds could flick from Australia to Africa via Charles Colvile and overdose in a sugary confit of runs.

Welcome to another Golden Age of Batting. Those all-time greats Lara and Tendulkar, hailed since they made their debuts in the early 1990s, are being jostled in the upper echelons. Hayden, once as strong and as vulnerable as Goliath, is now the owner of the highest Test score; Dravid, still sometimes booed as he comes in for keeping Tendulkar in the pavilion, is consistently brilliant both on the flat pitches of the sub-continent and away from home; Ricky Ponting is a pub-brawler turned prolific Australian captain and Gilchrist is the most run-hungry wicketkeeper in history.

Read the rest – it’s a nice piece.

I cannot forbear, also, from noting this, though it comes from an article by a writer – Dominic Fifield – whose footballing prejudices are not congenial to me:

The club’s problems [he’s talking about Liverpool] stem from a knee-jerk willingness to harp back [sic] to a glorious era which really does now feel a millennium away. It is 20 years since Liverpool won the European Cup and 14 since they claimed the league championship…

Yup. As I’ve said once before, statute of limitations, folks. Still, they can sometimes win a game when it matters (to us) – like last night at Stamford Bridge. Well done, Liverpool!

If this report by David Miller is anything to go by, the American military will be taking out the BBC, Channel 4, the Independent and the Guardian in the not too distant future. Taking out, not as in on a date, but as in kaboom. OK, so that’s not exactly what Miller says, but hyperbole is also a form of counter-argument. The general impression he creates is of a creepingly sinister tendency of information control, with who knows what totalitarian-type developments lying further down the road.

Here, then, is a question. If this is what is indeed happening, how does it come about that, in a war between a coalition of democratic countries – less than perfectly democratic, maybe, but it’s a shorthand – and a semi-fascist dictatorship, so much of the media in these democratic countries goes to the very verge, and sometimes beyond that, of appearing to be less sympathetic to the latter than to the tyranny they are at war with, while there appear also to be great piles and heaps of information and opinion, just everywhere, antagonistic to those trying to prosecute that war on the democratic side? It’s quite strange. Strange enough to make one wonder whether we would see the same phenomenon were the threat level to the democracies, and to the liberal social orders over which they preside, ever to become more lethally menacing.

Jurjen Smies, across at No Cameras takes up the argument once more:

All right, let’s go over this again. UNSC resolution 678 (1990) authorised armed force against Iraq. UNSC resolution 687 (1991) set the terms of a cease-fire between the members of the 1991 Coalition and Iraq. UNSC resolution 1441 (2002) affirmed that Iraq was in “material breach” of its obligations under resolution 687 and gave it one last chance to comply, which Iraq failed to do. Since Iraq had violated the terms of the cease-fire, the other parties to the cease-fire were therefore justified in resuming hostilities. The weak link here is arguably 687, since the UN Security Council declared the cease-fire between the members of the Coalition and Iraq and therefore, or so the argument goes, it is up to the UNSC to authorise resumption of hostilities. But is that really the case? The sneaky bit about the wording of 687 is that the cease-fire is not between the UNSC and Iraq, but between the members of the Coalition and Iraq; the cease-fire is merely brokered by the UNSC (and its agent, the Secretary-General of the UN). Now, I believe you’re going to be very hard-pressed indeed to find a legal precedent of a cease-fire agreement entered into by two parties where a resumption of hostilities by one party in response to a violation by the other first had to be approved by whoever brokered the agreement.
…..
This was, in broad terms, the argument wielded by the government of the United Kingdom (and declared valid by its Attorney-General), and also that of the United States…

There’s more and it’s all interesting. In the course of making the argument Jurjen has something rather unflattering to say about Richard Perle.

Here’s something that will either amuse you or drive you crazy. It’s a game (sent to me by Dominic Olivastro, to whom thanks). You may be well advised to set the level to 1 to start with.

There’s another long and interesting strategic analysis from Stratfor. It reads Osama bin Laden’s recent statement as reflecting an overall gloomy situation for al-Qaida. Here’s a central passage about the situation in Iraq:

To understand bin Laden’s mood, it is important to look at the war from a strategic standpoint. The United States mounted an effective invasion of Iraq, using Kuwait as a base of operations, and with the overt or covert cooperation of all other contiguous Arab nations, including Saudi Arabia. The United States was surprised by the coherence and tempo of operations of the Iraqi guerrillas, but the insurrection never moved outside the country’s Sunni areas in any substantial way and therefore was confined to a relatively small part of Iraq. Even in this region, after several months of indecisive and ineffective action, the United States mounted a counteroffensive after Ramadan that resulted in a substantial decline in guerrilla operations north of Baghdad, and a much less intense tempo of operations in Baghdad and to the west.

Iraq’s internal politics also have moved in an unsatisfactory direction [from al-Qaida’s point of view – NG]. The majority Shia, in a vague alliance with the Kurds, have not so much supported the United States as opposed the Sunnis. They also have no use for the foreign jihadists moving into Iraq. They are prepared to cooperate with the Americans, exchanging support now for control of the government later. The Sunni sheikhs, observing the deterioration of the guerrillas’ military situation, are repositioning themselves, making deals with the Americans. The prospect of Shiite domination without any U.S. goodwill cushioning that process is more frightening to the Sunnis than the guerrilla movement. Therefore, the Baathist guerrilla movement is under severe pressure, while the foreign jihadists operating without the Baathists have no roots in Iraq, nor does the Sunni leadership welcome them. Therefore, al Qaeda’s hope of bogging down the United States in Iraq as they bogged down the Soviets in Afghanistan is disappearing.

The piece goes on to discuss regional and global aspects, and says:

At the moment, nothing is going al Qaeda’s way. That does not mean al Qaeda is defeated. The war isn’t over ’til it’s over, and as the United States is showing in Iraq, reversals in war are common; the measure of victory is how quickly and effectively one adjusts to the reality and creates a new strategy. Al Qaeda has clearly lost the first round; it is readying for the second.

This analysis is offered as a sample, so I don’t know how long it will be up. (Hat tip: JA.)

David Teather reports from New York:

Officials are likely to recommend the creation of a state-run company to own and manage the Iraqi oil industry, shutting out foreign investment and countering, in part, allegations that the US-led invasion of the country was merely an oil grab.
…..
Both American and Iraqi oil officials are proposing a state-owned business model based on similar arrangements in neighbouring Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

This approach differs markedly from America’s desire to liberalise other parts of the Iraqi economy, where policy makers are investigating wide-scale privatisation of state-owned enterprises.
…..
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Robert McKee, the senior oil adviser to the occupying coalition provisional authority, said: “Our preference is definitely in that direction. It is just pragmatism.” A report being prepared for the interim oil minister would be highlighting “best practice” from other state-run oil firms, he said.

Both the Americans and the Iraqis say a state-run oil company could still attract massive foreign investment. In practice, however, the Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti examples suggest there is unlikely to be much opportunity for US, British and other international oil companies.

See also here and here. Argument still to follow, I guess, about what it really means.

Have you read Angua? If not you should pay a visit. Here’s a sample, a post I hope she won’t mind if I quote in full. It’s intriguing and delightful:

One does not become smarter if one goes from reading Instapundit a dozen times a day to reading CalPundit a dozen times a day. One becomes smarter by reading both a half-dozen times a day. One becomes happier by reading neither.

I remember an old stat showing that the happiest Americans were not the skinny rich famous ones. By every definition, they were the fat white-trashy (of every colour) folk in Florida’s cheap beach motels.

My New Years resolution is to be happy, not right.

Sounds good. How’s it going after the first week, Angua? Better than my main one (not so far disclosed here), I hope.