Steve Clemons has more than you probably want to read on the subject of different presidential candidates’ positions on US-Cuba relations. The main point, though, is that Chris Dodd has boldly challenged the status quo, Barack Obama has put forward more modest proposals for change, and Hillary Clinton and the Republicans all support the status quo policies that have been failing for decades.

People should listen to Tim Lee:

I’m going to have to respectfully disagree with Braden Cox’s take on post-sale restrictions of the first sale doctrine. Braden did a good job of explaining why limiting the first sale doctrine would be good for software companies. But he did not, as far as I can see, provide any explanation for how limiting the first sale doctrine would benefit society as a whole, which is what copyright is supposed to accomplish.[...]

But the fundamental issue here is that the convenience of the software industry is not a sufficient argument for any given change to copyright law. The copyright system is supposed to promote “the progress of science and the useful arts,” not to make Steve Ballmer’s life easier. The two aren’t always in conflict, of course, but they’re also rarely in perfect alignment.

It’s really impressive that IP owners have done such a good job of obscuring the basic point of intellectual property law. Impressive as a PR achievement, but also extremely unfortunate. It is, however, an important point. The nation’s IP regime is supposed to serve the public interest, not the business models of today’s IP-creating companies. Keep that in mind as you ponder magazine cover stories about whether or not Rick Rubin can save the music industry. Even if he can’t save Columbia Records — even if nobody can save any of the major labels — their fate isn’t identical with the fate of music, or even the fate of the music business. Once-dominant firms like IBM and AT&T fell very far without that in any way meaning the collapse of the computer or telecom businesses.

From Glenn Kessler’s profile of Condoleezza Rice in the Post:

In this effort, Rice’s bond with Bush has emerged as her key asset — but possibly also her critical weakness. It has made her the president’s top foreign policy confidante and helped her cultivate a public image imbued with power and influence. But at the same time, friends and former colleagues marvel at how Rice has been transformed by the president she so devotedly serves — from a hardheaded foreign policy “realist” to a wholehearted supporter of Bush’s belief in the power of freedom and democracy.

But, of course, this wouldn’t be a weakness at all if the beliefs to which Rice converted herself hadn’t proven to be catastrophic failures. But into that context, Rice’s critical weakness is less her loyalty, than her advocacy of incredibly misguided policies.

Jamie Kirchick quotes Anthony Julius, who says:

But it also has a certain delicacy, in particular in its openness to alternative histories, alternative political arrangements. “It is worth considering how the Middle East might have evolved had Arab rulers accepted the partition of Palestine,” [Ruth Wisse] writes. There would have been some voluntary shifts of population. Arab Palestine might have federated with Jordan. Regional priorities would have dictated new patterns of trade, commerce and development. Jews and Arabs who wanted to live in the other’s land could have traveled back and forth.

I’m not sure about the Palestinians federating with Jordan, but this basically seems right to me. The world would have been a much better place had the Arab states accepted the UN partition plan. But Kirchick runs with this observation in a weird direction:

Indeed, imagine how history might have changed had the Arab powers accepted the mere presence of a Jewish state in their midst. Devastating wars would have been averted, radical Islam would not have the appeal it currently does, economies would be on the rise. Why is the existence of Israel such a big deal, not just for the Arabs, but for gullible and guilt-ridden Westerners who insist that the Palestinian issue must be solved before any other Middle Eastern problem can be tackled?

The establishment of Israel was a big deal to the Arabs because of the legacy of imperialism. Similarly, many Westerners think progress on the Palestinian issue is vital to making progress on other issues in the region because this is a very big deal to Arabs. I don’t think friends of Israel do themselves any favors by refusing to recognize these basic facts.