Resident Fellow Daniel Blumenthal has come to AEI from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, where he served as team chief for international security affairs in Asia. He joins AEI's Asian Studies Program, which addresses a wide range of economic and security developments in the Far East.

A specialist in Islamic terrorism in Southeast Asia and domestic terrorist networks, Hedieh Mirahmadi joins AEI this month as a visiting scholar. She is the executive director of the World Organization for Resource Development and Education and previously served as a senior adviser for civil society at the U.S. embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, and as executive director of the Islamic Supreme Council of America. While at AEI, she plans to organize programs on Islamic global security and Southeast Asia.

Resident Fellow Reuel Marc Gerecht

In The Islamic Paradox: The Islamic Paradox: Shiite Clerics, Sunni Fundamentalists, and the Coming of Arab Democracy (just released by the AEI Press), Reuel Marc Gerecht contends that in the Middle East "the United States really has no alternative to switching its allegiances from the rulers to the ruled. To do otherwise is to run against the growing Muslim belief that political legitimacy can come only from the ballot box. It is also to run against the American democratic ethic, which is the wellspring of our national soul. The United States . . . should be generous in opening our borders to those secular Muslims who cannot stomach the democratic transition. Westernized women who grew up under secular dictatorships may find it very rough going. Many Israelis and their American supporters may rise in horror contemplating replacing peace-treaty-signing dictators with fundamentalists who may partly build a democratic consensus on anti-Zionism. But down this uneasy path lies an end to bin Ladenism and the specter of an American city attacked with weapons of mass destruction."

In the Washington Times (October 27), James K. Glassman discusses the recent growth of the U.S. high-tech labor force: "Today, 3.4 million Americans work in [Internet technology]--precisely the same number as in the spring of 2000 when the tech bubble inflated to bursting. The difference between now and then is that jobs are rising in a healthy fashion as demand for new computer and communications gear increases worldwide. We have finally worked the Clinton-era excesses out of the system, just as we have in the economy overall. What's remarkable about recent IT growth is that the workforce is undergoing a dramatic realignment, with higher-paying jobs increasing at home. While fewer workers are employed in the United States today as computer programmers and analysts, many more are employed as managers and network and database administrators."

In the Washington Times (October 28), Scott Wallsten argues that little economic benefit would result from the building of a baseball stadium in Washington, D.C.: "It is important to acknowledge that one real, but intangible, economic benefit [of a District of Columbia baseball stadium] is that many people are simply happy to have a local ballclub. But how much do people really value the existence of a local team? The District's population and the probable size of the subsidy mean that every man, woman, and child would have to value the mere presence of the stadium between $500 and $1,000 to make the District's investment worth it. To justify the District's investment, a family of four would have to get nearly $4,000 worth of happiness just from having the stadium here."

Visiting Fellow John Yoo

John Yoo explains in the Los Angeles Times (October 26) how the increasingly contentious process for replacing Supreme Court justices was ironically brought on by the Court's own activism: "A more politicized nomination and confirmation process is the Supreme Court's own doing. Over the last half-century, it has arrogated power-weakening the role of states and even Congress--when it comes to many political and moral questions. The only way for interest groups and citizens to change policy on abortion, affirmative action, or gay rights is to change the justices on the Supreme Court. Despite bruising confirmation proceedings, however, history shows that it is the president who still makes the decisive choice when it comes to the Court."