imperial power [who's the ass?]

NYT: young elite Azeris mock the government, but apparently it doesn't have a sense of humor
Late last month, a group of Azeri bloggers posted their latest tongue-in-cheek opus, a video in which a donkey holds a news conference before a circle of gravely nodding journalists.

“I always told him, ‘Be careful, son, be careful,’ ” said Hikmet Hajizada, who once served as Azerbaijan’s ambassador to Russia. “I told him that. But in our situation, no one knows from what direction danger comes.”

wronging rights: Taylor takes the stand; defense team blames West for everything
In his opening statement, lead lawyer Courtenay Griffiths compared Taylor's extradition to the Netherlands to the slave trade's forced movement of Africans to Europe. (Because sometimes the race card just isn't enough and you've got to play the whole deck.)

FP: Walt has something to say about empire, based on Brendon's book on the Brits. 10 things, actually. (they're not surprising, but it's unclear what his point is for the US - be an empire but do it better? or avoid it altogether? see #3).
3. Successful empires require ample "hard power."
Although the British did worry a lot about their reputation and prestige (what one might now term their "soft power") what really killed the Empire was its eroding economic position. Once Britain ceased to be the world’s major economic and industrial power, its days as an imperial power were numbered. It simply couldn't maintain the ships, the men, the aircraft, and the economic leverage needed to rule millions of foreigners, especially in a world where other rapacious great powers preyed. The moral for Americans? It is far more important to maintain a robust and productive economy here at home than it is to squander billions of dollars trying to determine the political fate of some remote country thousands of miles away. External conditions may impinge on U.S. power, but it is internal conditions that generate it.

++
FP: how are mega-rapper rivalries like insurgencies? not at all as it turns out, but this is still amusing.
So what does Jay-Z do? If he hits back hard in public, the Game will gain in publicity even if he loses... the classic problem of a great power confronted by a smaller annoying challenger. And given his demonstrated skills and talent, and his track record against G-Unit, the Game may well score some points. At the least, it would bring Jay-Z down to his level -- bogging him down in an asymmetric war negating the hegemon's primary advantages. If Jay-Z tries to use his structural power to kill Game's career (block him from releasing albums or booking tour dates or appearing at the Grammy Awards), it could be seen as a wimpy and pathetic operation -- especially since it would be exposed on Twitter and the hip hop blogs.