The New York Times (free registration required) has an interesting article about the Democratic response to Bush's foreign policy. I don't agree with his conclusions: I don't understand why he thinks Wesley Clark's approach, though "softer" on terror than Howard Dean's, is going to be easier to sell because Clark is a general. Still, his analysis clearly explains how we got here and just how far out of the mainstream Bush's approach is.

Before September 11, conventional wisdom declared that the Saudis were staunch allies of the US, an island of stability in a turbulent region. Since September 11, conventional wisdom has become concerned that they are actually enemies, funding anti-American propaganda throughout the world. The reality, Foreign Affairs suggests, is far more complicated. It would be more accurate to say that ongoing political struggles within Saudi Arabia have implications that the US can neither control nor ignore. Long, but worth reading.

This is funny. A bunch of law students get together to analyse the legal implications of Sauron's actions in Middle Earth, using his offer to return Moria to the Dwarves in return for the One Ring as a starting point. Of course, the Balrog infestation of Moria does create some problems, both with warranties on the property and robustness of the title....

Experience with either Tolkien or the law will make the argument easier to follow.