In the Financial Times, Michael Skapinker writes in praise not just of books but of hardcover books:

I have shelves upon shelves of paperbacks – and I regret buying them all. They seemed a good idea at the time: they were cheaper than hardbacks. But the years, sunlight and central heating are taking their toll.

Norm Geras tells him to get real:

As someone in a position to look at my shelves and point to books I’ve actually owned for more than 30 years, I also know that wanting to re-read one or other of them I sometimes don’t want to read it in a decades-old edition. One can take a more free and easy attitude to the ownership of books, treating the rather dull and yellowed thing on your shelf as - what it is - just one physical representative of the work in question. You get yourself another copy.

Me, I’m just happy that people are talking about reading books. Oh yes—and I prefer to read paperbacks. But hardcover books sure do look pretty on the shelf:

Britain’s largest Muslim group decides that it will acknowledge the Holocaust after all:

Britain’s largest Muslim organisation is to end its boycott of Holocaust Memorial Day.

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) voted this weekend to halt its protest because of concerns that it made the organisation vulnerable to charges of antiSemitism. Representatives have controversially stayed away from Holocaust Memorial Day activities, which began in 2001.

The Council, which had wanted to rename the event (one suggestion was Genocide Memorial Day) to focus attention on other genocides, expects to lose members as a result of its 18-8 vote to end its boycott of the event.

Good. Let the hard-liners separate themselves from the rest. It makes them easier to scrutinize.

Look out, Universal Studios–there’s a new kid in town. In Bulgaria, that is:

SOFIA, Bulgaria — The building site stands five miles south of central Sofia, but the facades of the new structures would fit in easily among the low-rises of SoHo, Chinatown, and Little Italy. Two cars sporting the New York City Police Department logo are parked on the street, and copies of several New York publications clutter the windows of a street-corner newsstand.

“We’re creating a new New York,” David Varod proclaims as he watches the 200-person construction crew at work.

Mr. Varod is chairman of Nu Boyana Film Studios, which is erecting a gigantic set designed to mimic the architectural style and layout of Lower Manhattan’s neighborhoods. When Nu Boyana’s “new New York” is ready for lights, camera, and action in April, moviemakers whose scripts are set in New York City will be able to shoot their films in this Balkan nation for a fraction of the cost.

It doesn’t look like New York at all. But that’s the magic of the movies—and globalization at work, too.

In theory, I’m on the side of the writers in the current Hollywood War—because I’m pretty much always on the side of writers. However, this strike seems very ill-timed. Scripted television was already in its death throes before. This action just might push it over the edge.

The NYT reports:

As original episodes of scripted comedies and dramas dry up because of the Writers Guild of America strike, reality competitions and game shows are likely to reach record prominence on broadcast television in early 2008. …
Last week, NBC announced a winter schedule weighted with reality programming, including four unscripted premieres in January: an updated version of the athletic challenge “American Gladiators,” a celebrity version of “The Apprentice,” and new seasons of the game show “1 vs. 100” and the weight-loss competition “The Biggest Loser.”

Fox announced a revised spring schedule last month, including the introductions of two reality series and a new season of “American Idol.”

I don’t watch a lot of scripted television—or reality TV either, for that matter—so this doesn’t concern me too much. But doesn’t it feel like everything is changing right under our noses here in the early 21st century?

I’m as stumped as everyone else about the NIE report on Iran’s nuclear status. Essentially, our intelligence agencies have done a 180 since 2005.

What could account for such a turnaround? Right now, there are too many variables to consider to make sense of it all. Most interesting to me has been the reaction abroad, reported by the NYT’s Elaine Sciolino:

Of the three Western European governments involved in diplomacy with Iran — France, Britain and Germany — Germany seemed to cast the American assessment in the most positive light. … Of the three Western European governments involved in diplomacy with Iran — France, Britain and Germany — Germany seemed to cast the American assessment in the most positive light. … The French Foreign Ministry said there would be no comment until Tuesday….

Then there’s Israel:

In Israel, officials said there would be no official response on Monday.

But a senior Israeli official said that “the Israeli government is familiar with the report,” and that Iran was a major topic of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s meeting with President Bush last Wednesday, after the Annapolis meeting.

The official, who declined to be identified because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the subject, said Israel remained extremely concerned. “We think there is enough information in the report to give a strong factual basis to our very real concerns about the Iranian nuclear program,” the official said.

And a new report from abroad, published this morning at 8:30 here in New York, indicates that everyone is skeptical and proceeding with caution:

Iran Welcomes U.S. Report While Paris Wants More Sanctions

The remarks of one European are the most interesting of all, revealing cui bono[e.a.]:

A European security source familiar with intelligence on Iran said the change of American stance was welcome, and would undermine the position of U.S. hawks.

“The American agencies have in essence come closer to the position of the European ones,” the source said.

“I think a political process (in dealing with Tehran) is more of an option than what we’ve perhaps been seeing from the hawks in the United States, the positioning for a military attack on Iran and so on.”

The official said there was “no definitive proof either way” as to whether Iran had halted a nuclear arms program in 2003. “And … we keep seeing (Iranian) procurement attempts in Europe … to acquire proliferation-relevant material.”

So: No one is saying that Iran hasn’t halted its nuclear ambitions. In fact, there’s ample evidence they’re very energetic on behalf of their larger program. The question is: why release this report now? cui bono?
Obviously: those who want to take military action against Iran off the table, and to thoroughly discredit Iran hawks. So it looks like a massive political hit job.

But there are so many other possibilities: maybe Iran did shut down its “nuclear arms effort” in 2003, as the NYT says in its headline–and that it did so out of fear, in reaction to Bush’s invasion of Iraq, and that it has simply been doing a lot of chest-pounding for a couple of years as a diversionary tactic. There’s also the possibility, of course, that the NIE is dead wrong.

There are other loose threads in this story: Yesterday, the Commentary blog Contentions reminded us about the Iranian defector from last summer. (And today on Contentions, it’s Podhoretz vs. Podhoretz!)

Upshot: I’m stumped but deeply suspicious. This doesn’t pass the smell test. Occam’s razor (the simplest answer) would indicate that the NIE was wrong in 2005 and is right in 2007. It just doesn’t wash, though.