President Bush is not just a decider, he's also a reader - And a prolific reader at that! He recently revealed that he has read not only Camus, but Three Shakespeares. I greatly enjoyed my Shakespeare classes at university, and am curious to get my hands on this book. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a listing for it, and I can't really tell from the title what it's about.

Most interesting, though, is that if you watch the last bit of tape, Bush clearly refers to his having an "ecolectic reading list." Do you think this is some sort of top-secret code? Maybe that's why NBC edited it out of the transcript.

Okay, by far the funniest, though unintentionally, quote is Brian Williams asking Bush "How have you been read wrong?"

From a conversation between President Bush and Brian Williams:

WILLIAMS: We always talk about what you're reading. As you know, there was a report that you just read the works of a French philosopher. (Bush laughs)

BUSH: The Stranger.

WILLIAMS: Tell us the back story of Camus.

BUSH: The back story of the the book?

WILLIAMS: What led you to...

BUSH: I was in Crawford and I said I was looking for a book to read and Laura said you oughtta try Camus, I also read three Shakespeare's.

WILLIAMS: This is a change...

BUSH: Not really. Wait a minute.

WILLIAMS: A few months ago you were reading the life story of Joe DiMaggio by Richard Ben Cramer.

BUSH: Which was a good book.

WILLIAMS: You've been on a Teddy Roosevelt reading kick.

BUSH: Well, I'm reading about the battle of New Orleans right now. I’ve got an eclectic reading list.

WILLIAMS: And now Camus?

BUSH: Well, that was a couple of books ago. Let me look. The key for me is to keep expectations low.

WILLIAMS: Is that what everyone doesn't get?

BUSH: I don't know, Brian, what they get or don't get. Here's the thing: The great thing about the presidency is that you are totally exposed. And people spend a lot of, particularly if you're making decisions, and hard decisions, people spend a lot of time, not only analyzing decisions, but analyzing the decision maker. And I understand that, but a president must never let that get him off track.

WILLIAMS: Even if you're frustrated that we're getting something wrong?

BUSH: You have to do what you, if we're getting something wrong, we change it.

WILLIAMS: How have you been read wrong?

BUSH: I don’t know. I frankly don't pay that much attention. I don’t want to hurt people’s feelings, but…

WILLIAMS: Still not watching television, huh?

BUSH: I watched a good baseball game.

My Summer Reading Journal
George W. Bush reads Camus (as told to Julian Sanchez)

Well played!

Last night I was watching TV when a teaser for the local news came on. In the past we've seen important news stories about the "chillo" - a pillow you can put in your refrigerator. We've seen countless stories about hero dogs, shark attacks, and how to keep your white women safe.

This time, the news was looking out for those most vulnerable of our citizen.

"Coming up, a warning about leet speak and the dangers it holds in store for your kids."

That's right - leet speak. A danger to your kids.

Leetspeak. It is a foreign language to most parents but the in-thing with kids. It is their online lingo. They use it in emails, instant and text messaging. Some of it is harmless. Things like T-T-Y-L for "talk to you later." L-O-L for "laughing out loud." Now experts warn, it's turned into much more. It is complicated, cryptic, and potentially dangerous.

16 year old Niles Jeran uses Leetspeak.

"All my friends use Leetspeak. I can see my parents would be worried just because it could, it can lead to danger," says Niles.

That's exactly why internet safety experts are sounding a warning. This once innocent language is morphing into a dangerous dialect.

The enduring stupidity of the common man never ceases to amaze me.

I'm not a security expert. I'm not even mildly knowledgable about security. I lock my doors, change my passwords every so often, and try to keep aware of what's going on around me. But that's about the extent of my security training. So, I don't really know the answer to this question, but I am curious.

Yesterday's revelation of a plot to bomb transoceanic airliners brought heightened security to airports across the globe. But the plot wasn't foiled by gunmen at the airport, it was uncovered by detectives doing good police work. My question is, what good, really, is manning airports with squads of paramilitary police armed with combat weapons? So far I have not heard anything about the potential for close-combat shootouts with squads of heavily armed terrorist gunmen. And I would think that, if someone were carrying a live bomb, one probably wouldn't want to spray him with automatic gunfire.

So, I ask, in all sincerity, what is the practical purpose of this:

Let's not forget what happened last time.

Another interesting response to Selig Harrison's article about Bangladesh, this time by Brig Gen Shahedul Anam Khan ndc, psc (Retd), again in The Daily Star.

The author ends his piece with a common refrain:

While it is our faulty policy and institutional weaknesses in certain cases that have caused us to confront a monster, what the western scholars and experts seem to conveniently forget when pointing their accusing finger at us is that, it is they who had not only created but also nurtured the monster in the first place.

Bangladeshis are not unaware of American support of al-Qaeda in the 1980s. Nor have they forgotten that the U.S. supported the Pakistani military while they were raping and slaughtering Bangladeshis during the liberation war - a war which sought to establish a secular democratic state in South Asia.

The General touches on another important point, though:

His quoting the Indian police officials' comments after the Bombay blasts, insinuating links of the key suspects, "having connection with groups in Nepal and Bangladesh, which are directly or indirectly connected to Pakistan" shows the weakness of the basic premise on which he wants to validate his argument that Bangladesh is becoming a "hub for terrorism" because, the allegation, made so soon after the blasts, has not been substantiated even after more than one month of the occurrence.

One often hears from the Bangladeshi government the most ridiculous accusations pinned on India, but the same can certainly be said for Indian officials casting unwarranted suspicion on Bangladesh. Both are typically cases of political leaders using communalism for political gain - not unlikely to cover their own ignorance or misdeeds. This simply fuels the fire of religious extremism, and we, as bideshis, would do well not to fan the flames by repeating such unsubstantiated claims.

Selig Harrison has an article on the rise of Islamic extremism in Bangladesh in last Wednesday's Washington Post. He makes some interesting observations, but I think he oversimplifies the BNP role in promoting Jamaat-i-Islami a bit. After all, who believes that Sheikh Hasina would overturn the 8th Amendment? She may be Bangabandhu's daughter, but, I'm sorry to say, she is no Bangabandhu. That said, there is no reason not be highly critical of the BNP, especially with regards to Jamaat as well as their alleged recent courting of Ershad.

A letter from Mohsin R. Siddique in tomorrow's Daily Star provides a much needed clarification of Harrison's article.

Unfortunately, the political problems in Bangladesh will not be solved with simple carrots-on-sticks or putting the Awami League in power. Much like the corruption that continues to infect the US government, Bangladesh suffers from an epidemic of official corruption.

If the US wants to help Bangladesh, we should encourage governmental transparency, as well as work to foster true democratic rule, and not the continued power struggle between powerful political legacies.

Of course, that's exactly what the U.S. needs, too.

More disingenuousness about the law, this time from Philip K. Howard.

The power of legal fear is matched only by its disutility. The effort to avoid risk in playgrounds and recess has been almost perfectly counterproductive--play is so boring that children spend an average of six hours per day in front of a television or computer screen, contributing to the crisis of child obesity.

That's right, fear of lawsuits made play so boring that kids just sit around watching TV all day. *snicker*

So, who is this Philip K. Howard, anyway?

Philip K. Howard is a senior corporate advisor and strategist. Representative clients include KKR and UBS's M&A Group. He was co-counsel in the Bank of New York takeover of Irving Trust, lead counsel in MetLife's challenge as a bondholder of the RJR Nabisco buy-out, and represented ex-Salomon CEO John Gutfreund before the SEC.

OH! He's a corporate lawyer! Of course!

These people are completely f-ing ridiculous.