JACK GUEZ/AFP/Getty Images

The liberal blogosphere is all in a tizzy over John Bolton's endorsement of John McCain, leading some to speculate that the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations would be tapped to serve as secretary of state in a McCain administration.

I doubt it. Is McCain a neocon? Maybe. Maybe not. Supporting the surge does not a neocon make, friends. It's true that since the late 1990s, McCain has increasingly surrounded himself with foreign policy minds sympathetic to the neocon cause, including Bill Kristol, Mark Salter, Daniel McKivergan, Marshall Wittmann, and Randy Scheunemann. His closeness to Kristol, in particular, has been well documented. But McCain casts a wide net. He also seeks advice from Henry Kissingers and Brent Scowcrofts, and occasionally -- gasp -- Democrats, too. And any way you slice it, McCain and Bolton don't exactly see eye to eye.

Here was McCain's answer to a question posed in 2006 by the New Republic's John Judis on a preemptive strike against Iran:

We haven't taken the military option off the table, but we should make it clear that is the very last option, only if we become convinced that they are about to acquire those weapons to use against Israel.... I think that if they are capable with their repeatedly stated intention, that doesn't mean I would go to war even then. That means we have to exhaust every possible option. Going to the United Nations, working with our European allies. If we were going to impose sanctions, I would wait and see whether those sanctions were effective or not. I did not mean it as a declaration of war the day they acquired weapons."

That doesn't exactly sound like John Bolton to me.

"Olympic Fever" has struck China. Much of the talk in the West has been about human rights and political freedoms, but the Chinese themselves are more excited to host the Olympics this summer than you can possibly imagine. I was in China in 2005 when things were just beginning to heat up, and now I'm catching a little bit of the fever myself. It's going to be one massive party, with half a million foreign visitors and 2 million domestic Chinese flocking to Beijing.

When you have a party, you need to provide food—and the Olympic village is going to have tons of it to feed the hungry throngs.  With just 30 percent of its culinary offerings of the Chinese or Asian persuasion, there will be a lot of variety. There's even talk of a Beijing Kosher restaurant opening a stand to appeal to Jewish and Muslim visitors.

But China has made big headlines this year for its quality control problems—including a recent string of illnesses under investigation in Japan due to imported Chinese dumplings. Some fear the Games' participants could inadvertently ingest additives that produce positive drug test results. As such, a few teams have proven skittish about fueling their athletes with food made in China. One American swimmer even said, "McDonald's is everywhere... So I'll have some of that if I need it." The U.S. Olympic Committee has asked its squad's executive chef to provide three meals per day for the team, a step up from the "lunch and boxed meals" in Athens in 2004. (The committee insists this change is not due to concerns over the food in Beijing.)

Personally, I found the food there fantastic, and I know the Chinese government is moving heaven and Earth to avoid any embarrassing food-related incidents. But I also understand that competitors who have trained their entire lives for these Games don't want to take any risks. I just hope that, once they are done competing, they'll get a chance to sample some of Beijing's culinary delights.

FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP/Getty Images

It's well past midnight in the Bidwell-Azarm apartment in Klosters as I sit down to review another long day at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Last night, I got to bed at 2:45 a.m. after giving you all a blow-by-blow(hard) account of all the panels I went to. Since I woke up three hours later and have staggered through the day, I'm going to be a lot more telegraphic about Thursday. In fact, I'm going to summarize the day in a different style altogether, just for a change. (If there are enough protests, I'll return to prose reporting on Friday). Herewith, my day in 10 easy points:

1. Misfires:

• Didn't register in time for the Tom Friedman-Al Gore double bill on climate change, which was sold out within minutes of being available for sign-up.

• Arrived at a scheduled lunch panel featuring George Soros and Walter Isaacson on philanthropy after a 15-minute journey and discovered they'd moved the venue to another hotel and neglected to inform the attendees. Unexpected bonus: Joined a lunch discussion on the water crisis around the world instead. Cloud attached to silver lining: Had to pay 90 Swiss francs, almost $75 now, for my salad.

2. Morning panel highlights: Fascinating discussion on peace and stability featuring four beleaguered Muslim leaders: President Karzai of Afghanistan, President Musharraf of Pakistan, "Chief Adviser" (de facto Prime Minister) of Bangladesh Fakhruddin Ahmed, and Deputy Prime Minister Bahram Salih of Iraq. All inveighed against terrorism and extremism, defended the ways in which their countries were run and sought the world's help in promoting economic growth and political stability in their lands. Musharraf proved the ablest at swatting back tough questions; Karzai at ducking them. Asked (by me) what exactly he meant when he said that in his region extremism had been a "tool of policy," and whether this related to his previously expressed view that terrorism was being exported his way from across his border with Pakistan, Karzai replied, "Mr. Tharoor, I have just had a good visit with President Musharraf. I'm not going to say any more."

3. Panel disappointments: A bland performance by Musharraf in a hugely attended double-bill with Henry Kissinger, who was supposed to ask him three questions but tossed him two softballs instead. Musharraf repeated the points he'd just made at the previous panel.

4. Afternoon panel highlights: A first-rate discussion on the perils of Internet terrorism, featuring such heavy hitters as U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Britain's Leader of the Opposition David Cameron, head of Human Rights Watch Kenneth Roth, and feisty Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid. Lots of pithy insight about the use of cyberspace to recruit terrorists and to wage war, plus a side argument about the definition of terrorism and whether Israel was shooting itself in the foot by denouncing even attacks on its soldiers, not just civilians, as terrorist attacks.

5. Afternoon panel disappointments: A wasted hour-long Middle East panel chaired by Tony Blair and oddly featuring three Israelis (President Shimon Peres, Foreign Minister Livni and Defense Minister Barak) and only one Palestinian (Prime Minister Salam Fayyad). Not one person from this impressive galaxy said a single thing we hadn't heard before, and the audience wasn't allowed to ask questions.

6. Dinner panel: I found myself speaking on whether "globalization = cultural homogenization," along with the likes of Québec Premier Jean Charest, London Mayor Ken Livingstone, genius cellist Yo-Yo Ma and the CEO of Burger King. We all agreed that it doesn't, but had fun coming up with ideas and anecdotes about cultural diversity.

7. Uneven discussions: First, the water panel, an interesting but complicated topic that had been discussed earlier in the Forum and which left me feeling I'd walked in halfway through a suspense movie and couldn't quite figure out the plot. Second, a discussion on "Brand America" with impressive panelists (starting with Rupert Murdoch) and chaired by FP's own Moisés Naím, which nonetheless went all over the place—including a bizarre attack on the United Nations by Murdoch, supported by a Bahraini royal—rather than focusing on its declared purpose of devising recommendations to the next U.S. President on how to improve America's global image.

8. Memorable informal encounters: An animated conversation on the margins with the top leaders of Bangladesh's interim government, and another at the Tata reception with two of India's more impressive cabinet ministers. Also a chat with Bombay society maven Parmeshwar Godrej, currently under pressure from Muslim fundamentalists to apologize for having hosted Salman Rushdie at her home, who is refusing to buckle under despite threats of a boycott of her company's products.

9. One-liners of the day:

• "I don't agree with the notion of Brand America. A country is not a brand and cannot be sold." – French ad tycoon Maurice Lévy

• "Foreign Minister Livni has just told me her parents were arrested by the British. Being prime minister of Britain means having to go around the world apologizing to everybody." – Tony Blair, looking remarkably unapologetic

• "As a business journalist, I feel like I've gone hunting with Dick Cheney and some sidekick has just released all the pheasants in front of me so I can't miss them." – reporter marveling at the availability of quoteworthy CEOs in every hallway

10. Change of plan: Thanks to the lateness of the hour and President Musharraf's repeating himself in the two sessions I've heard him on already, I'll skip a breakfast with him organized by a Pakistani businessman Friday morning. Midway through the Forum, and particularly at the end of a Davos day featuring six panels, three breakfasts, two lunches, four receptions, and a blog diary to maintain, my borrowed bed looks a lot more inviting than a 7 a.m. bus from Klosters. Good night...

Tomorrow, Jan. 23, the House Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will hold a hearing on the future of U.S. embassies overseas entitled, "Fortress America Abroad: Effective Diplomacy and the Future of U.S. Embassies."

Testifying at the hearing will be Jane C. Loeffler, author of the article "Fortress America" in FP's September/October 2007 issue. Jane is without question the world's foremost expert on the cultural and diplomatic impacts of U.S. embassy design and construction overseas. Her FP article, which we are making free this week for non-subscribers, looks at what the billion-dollar compound the United States is building on the banks of the Tigris tells us about America's global outlook. More broadly, she also describes how the architecture of U.S. diplomatic facilities has changed since the bombing of the American missions in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.

Much of the hearing will likely focus on the new embassy in Baghdad. But it also promises to look into why the design of U.S. missions around the world has undergone such a radical transformation—not just in Baghdad but in Cape Town, Dushanbe, Kabul, and elsewhere. The boldly individual designs of embassies during the Cold War have given way to cookie-cutter buildings that follow a set formula the State Department calls "Standard Embassy Design." This has a massive impact on the way the United States is seen overseas, yet it has provoked surprisingly little serious discussion until now. We're thrilled that Chairman John Tierney's subcommittee has decided to take a closer look. Other witnesses at the hearing include: Amb. Thomas R. Pickering, former undersecretary of state; Amb. Marc Grossman, former director general of the foreign service; and John Naland, president of the American Foreign Service Association.

The hearing will be held tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. in Room 2154 of the Rayburn House Office Building. We encourage Passport readers to attend, whether in person or via the committee's Webcast.

Justin Logan of the Cato Institute and Matthew Yglesias of the Atlantic Media Empire protest that, contra my short post about U.S. President George W. Bush and his relationship with the Saudis, the United States needn't coddle King Abdullah.

Logan writes:

There's nothing about the fact that [the United States]–or Europe, or China, or Japan–consume oil that mandates that we play kissy-poo with Abdullah or anybody else. There are a few theories why we would want to kiss up to the Saudis, and none of them hold water.

Yglesias adds:

The United States has what I'd deem an unduly chilly relationship with Venezuela at the moment, but the oil still flows and Citgo stations are still around. The process by which oil-rich states in the Persian Gulf export oil to oil-consuming states is a business arrangement for mutual advantage driven by the exchange of money for fuel.

Or, as Duncan Black colorfully puts it, "Hugo Chavez is a Tyrannical Menace to Civilization... And the Saudi royals are delightful tea party guests."

Here's the thing. As the only country with spare production capacity, Saudi Arabia plays a vastly different role in the global economy than does Venezuela. Unlike Chávez, the Saudis have the power to control the price of the marginal barrel of oil. Until the U.S. economy becomes much less dependent on oil than it is today, that means the Saudis get treated with special deference. Hence the aforementioned kissy-poo.

Logan maintains that Saudi Arabia chooses to expand or cuts back on production based on its own economic self-interest, not because a U.S. president begs it to. We have differing views on the 1970s oil embargo, obviously. Today, Saudi Arabia regularly prevents OPEC from cutting back on production, in line with U.S. requests. And then there's petrodollar recycling—the practice of investing money back into Western economies, often at key times and in key sectors. Surely this is all coincidence?

Perhaps a more hands-off approach to Saudi Arabia would work, as Logan and Yglesias suggest. But no U.S. president has dared try it yet.

UPDATE: Gal Luft has a different take on Bush's begging in Saudi Arabia.

In an emergency meeting Monday, Serbia's cabinet adopted a "secret plan" for responding to Kosovo's seemingly inevitable declaration of independence. Though as Reuters reports, the plan really isn't all that secret:

[I]nformation leaked in the three months since the plan was first drafted point to several measures, including cutting off electricity supplies and blocking power routes for the province, which buys 40 percent of its power from Serbia, as well as a trade and goods embargo.

Serbia could also refuse to recognize Kosovo passports and force travelers to make a long detour to get to Western Europe. It might also withdraw its ambassadors from countries that recognize Kosovo as an independent state.

At first glance, all of these responses seem like plausible courses of action for Serbia—which is desperate to keep Kosovo from seceding but is essentially prevented from taking military action by the 16,000 NATO troops in the region—except for the plan to withdraw ambassadors. Given that the United States and most countries in the European Union plan to recognize Kosovo's independence, it seems unlikely that Serbia would want to risk antagonizing them and returning to the isolation and pariah status it suffered during the 1990s. 

On the other hand, comments by new EU President Janez Jansa indicate that Europe may be backing away somewhat from supporting "total independence" for Kosovo, so Serbia's leaders may feel that there's still bargaining to be done. It seems increasingly likely that Kosovo will continue to languish as "undefined" for the foreseeable future. 

There will be 27 EU foreign ministers and, when they can agree, there will be one person expressing their point of view. The representative will have to represent what the views of the members states actually are, and it is sometimes difficult to squeeze out what those views actually are."

Yikes! That's Chris Patten, FP contributor and former EU commissioner for external affairs, explaining how policymaking will take place under Europe's new guidelines for a common foreign policy outlined in the Lisbon treaty, which is to be signed Thursday by the EU's 27 member states. The document is a watered-down version of what was once the EU's would-be constitution, now dead and buried thanks to a series of failed or indefinitely delayed national referendums.

INACIO ROSA/AFP/Getty Images

Like everything in the EU, the details of the treaty tend to be complex and not altogether clear. A few practical changes, such as lengthening the term of the EU presidency from six months to two-and-a-half years, are straightforward enough. But most of what treaty means in the real world will be sketched out later, in true European fashion. It will also form, in Patten's words, an "Extremely High Rep, or whatever we are going to call him," who will be charged with running the common foreign and security policy.

Seriously, they don't know what the official will be called? I'd say deciding what to call the high officers would be a good start. At least then member states will know how to address the invitations for their Brussels cocktail parties. Instead, it's sip champagne first, and worry about the pesky details later. Ah, Europe.

(Hat Tip: James Forsyth)

CARSTEN KOALL/Getty Images

Last week, I noted the irony that Kosovo's bid for independence from Serbia has finally given Russia and Georgia an issue they can agree on. Both are wary of the precedent that an independent Kosovo would set for their own separatist movements.

The prospect of a "Kosovo precedent" is creating more strange bedfellows this week. Ethnically divided Cyprus is the one holdout preventing the EU from reaching consensus on recognizing Kosovo's independence. Spain, Slovakia, and Greece, all of whom contend with ongoing separatist movements themselves, were also wary about Kosovo but have apparently come around.

Perhaps most unexpectedly, an independent Kosovo may put Canada in something of a bind. In a column for the Toronto Star, political analyst Richard Gwyn worries that the 1995 "Clarity Act," enacted in response to Quebec's near-secession, will put Canada in the dubious company of Georgia and Russia:

This legislation proclaims that a pro-separation majority in any future referendum would not give a Parti Québécois government the right to declare independence unilaterally.

Instead, and as confirmed by the Supreme Court, any separation-bound PQ government would have to negotiate first with the Canadian federal government of the day.

Accepting Kosovo's right to declare independence unilaterally would ensnare us into accepting Quebec's right to do the same. [...]

Given a free choice, there's no doubt Canada would support Kosovo's independence.

Instead, we're going to stand among the naysayers, while looking embarrassed.

Especially embarrassing, considering Canada's generosity to Kosovan refugees after the 1999 war and its ongoing, significant role in Balkan peacekeeping.

ERIC FEFERBERG/AFP/Getty Images

Why exactly is Nicolas Sarkozy "calling to congratulate" Vladimir Putin on United Russia's widely discredited electoral victory? Putin always enjoyed a warm relationship with Jacques Chirac, but Sarkozy seemed to be less predisposed toward coddling dictators than his predecessor. This is certainly true of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose stern tone with Russia couldn't be more different from Gerhard Schröder, another of Putin's European defenders. (And indeed, when he left office, Schröder became board chairman for a Gazprom pipeline project that he had boosted as chancellor.)

Sarkozy has also put France at odds with the EU, which issued a statement on Tuesday saying that Russia's elections "did not meet international standards and commitments voluntarily assumed by Moscow." Even new Polish prime minister Donald Tusk, who has made improved relations with Moscow part of his platform, said, "we can't turn a blind eye when democratic standards are not respected."

Another interesting question: If Sarkozy is just playing realpolitik with the Russians, what does this say about the influence of Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner in the president's administration? The left-wing humanitarian has been one of Europe's staunchest critics of Putin's crackdown on opposition groups in recent weeks. Has France found its Colin Powell?

TOSHIFUMI KITAMURA/AFP/Getty Images

There's been a lot of speculation over China's last minute decision to deny the U.S. aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk and its escort ships entry into Hong Kong harbor for a long-planned port visit over the Thanksgiving holiday. Beijing later reversed the denial of entry, but only after the Kitty Hawk had already set a course for its home port in Japan and seas were too rough for the ship to sail into Hong Kong.

U.S. commanders have said that the decision left them "perplexed." But some people speculate that China's decision should have come as no surprise at all. The Chinese Navy had been conducting live-fire exercises off the Chinese coast using nearly 20 ships and several dozen aircraft. Sailing into Hong Kong would certainly have put U.S. ships (and their prying eyes) in a position that Beijing would consider too close for comfort. These exercises might also explain why the Chinese government had earlier denied safe harbor — a longstanding maritime courtesy — to two U.S. Navy ships seeking entry into Hong Kong harbor as shelter from a storm. It's just one theory. Other possible explanations, as McClatchy's Tim Johnson has pointed out, include continued Chinese anger over the U.S. lovefest with the Dalai Lama.

Whatever the reason, the result was that 8,000 U.S. sailors spent Thanksgiving afloat in the South China Sea. The real victims here, though, are the sailors' families. Several hundred had ponied up thousands of dollars to spend a long weekend with their loved ones in Hong Kong. Nearly 300 families were already on the ground there when the Chinese decided to pull the plug on the visit. One wife of a Kitty Hawk officer says she spent nearly $2,500 on airfare and hotel rooms. The Navy had booked discounted rooms for sailors and their families. But when the port of call was canceled, the families were left paying full price.

There's just no way to put a positive spin on China's actions here. Live-fire exercise or not, the port visit was planned well in advance. Families were counting on it. As one Navy officer told Power Line blog: "[T]here is not much more China could do to hurt military-to-military relations with the US than a stunt like this."

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Forgive for a moment a short trip down memory lane: Back in the last half of June, Hamas had just kicked Fatah out of Gaza, the surge wasn't working, a huge truck bomb decimated a Baghdad mosque, early leaders of the "Anbar Awakening" were killed in a suicide bombing, and one of U.S. President George W. Bush's steadfast Republican supporters broke ranks with him on Iraq. Not a great month by anyone's count, least of all President Bush.

Amidst these dismal headlines, the White House managed to regain control of the headlines with a big announcement on June 27. That day, Bush declared that he would appoint the first U.S. envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a group of 57 countries that promotes "solidarity and cooperation among Islamic states."

Bush's aims for the appointment were simple:

[T]o "listen and learn" and share U.S. views with delegates from Muslim nations. The appointment is intended "to demonstrate to Muslim communities our interest in respectful dialogue and continued friendship," [Bush] said. 

Great, right? A small gesture, but nice all the same. Except for the fact that five months later, nada. Zip. Zilch. No envoy.

The gesture is obviously symbolic, a band-aid for a deeply wounded U.S. image in the Middle East and the wider Muslim world. But why even bother to announce such an appointment, which is supposed to express the United States' intention to reach out to Muslims and at least appear interested in their points of view, and then not do it? It seems so careless. I asked the White House's press office when we might be able to expect an announcement, and I was told in true Yogi Berra fashion, "when we announce it, we'll announce it." I got the feeling they forgot.  

June, 2007, was the month of unfulfilled promises, it seems. On June 5, Bush declared that he'd ordered Condoleezza Rice to cable every U.S. ambassador in an unfree nation with the following message: "Seek out and meet with activists for democracy. Seek out those who demand human rights." Sounds nice, right? The Post's Jackson Diehl checked in on the status of the cable in early August. It still hadn't been sent.

Today was the deadline for U.S. foreign service officers to volunteer to fill 48 open positions in Iraq or face so-called "directed assignments" to Embassy Baghdad and provincial capitals. But, apparently thanks to a high volume of FSOs stepping up and volunteering for these positions, the State Department has decided to extend the deadline until at least the end of the week. As of yesterday, more than half of the positions had been filled with volunteers and an additional 12 posts were tentatively filled, leaving just 11 remaining posts. The hope at State is surely that these remaining posts can be filled with volunteers and the whole kerfuffle over assignments at Embassy Baghdad will soon go away.

Many FSOs spoke out against "directed assignments," including here at Passport. This prompted some in the punditocracy to call them wimps. "[G]row a freakin' pair," blustered Wired's Noah Shachtman, for one. No one appears ready to lay off, despite the fact that FSOs are volunteering to fill the posts. In today's New York Times, neoconservative commentator Max Boot takes yet another shot, calling forced assignments to Baghdad a "baby step" and "a long-overdue response to complaints that diplomats aren't pulling their weight in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Boot goes on to suggest that forced deployments of FSOs ought to be the tip of the iceberg. He wants bureaucrats from other government departments sent to Iraq as well. Boot also suggests that municipal police officers be forcibly drafted and sent to Iraq, along with "lawyers, judges and prison guards." I'm not so sure that exporting America's entire criminal justice system is such a good idea, given that we're in the midst of a surge in violent crime and all—to say nothing of what would happen were terrorists to strike here at home while all of our cops, lawyers, judges, and prison guards were overseas.

After five years of failed policies in Iraq, are we really to believe that the problem is that not enough American civilians and diplomats are on the ground over there? You can send diplomats to Iraq in huge numbers, along with cops, lawyers, judges, plumbers, electricians, and dog catchers. But assuming that they can, by their sheer presence, force Iraq to be a successful democracy proves only that we have learned nothing.

The king of Spain told Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to "shut up" Saturday during a heated exchange that soured the end of a summit of leaders from Latin America, Spain and Portugal.

Chavez, who called President Bush the "devil" on the floor of the United Nations last year, triggered the exchange by repeatedly referring to former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar as a "fascist."

Aznar, a conservative who was an ally of Bush as prime minister, "is a fascist," Chavez said in a speech at the Ibero-American summit in Santiago, Chile. "Fascists are not human. A snake is more human."

Spain's current socialist prime minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, responded during his own allotted time by urging Chavez to be more diplomatic in his words and respect other leaders despite political differences.

The phrase used by the king, "¿Por qué no te callas?," is one that a parent might use on a disobedient child. Watch the exchange here:

Tonight, Nicolas Sarkozy will address a joint session of the U.S. Congress. Yesterday, a few of us from FP attended Sarkozy's address to the French-American Business Council, where the French president touched on a number of themes you're likely to see in tonight's speech. The bottom line? Here's a man on a charm offensive.

Some highlights:

• Sarkozy is looking to build bridges with France's socialists. "I want major reforms and for that I need a vast majority", he said. Expect the unity theme to reappear again in his comments on the Franco-American relationship. 
• Building on that topic, Sarkozy will also likely speak of France's own special relationship with the United States. Expect him to mention the portrait of the Marquis de Lafayette that hangs in the House chamber and the "eternal debt" France owes to the United States for its role in both world wars.
• Seven of the 15 ministers in Sarkozy's cabinet are women, a fact he emphasized in yesterday's meeting, describing the United States as a model of inclusion. Expect him to congratulate Nancy Pelosi on her position as Speaker of the House.
• Sarkozy is also likely to speak on the need for reforms in the world's international organizations. "The UN, IMF and G8 are all organizations of the twentieth century," he said yesterday, and it is likely that he will call for changes that would take into account the emerging powers of the developing world.
• On trade, expect Sarkozy to emphasize the need for free trade but a fair playing field. In other words, while Sarkozy may portray himself as a champion of the free market, expect France to continue to protect its domestic industries, especially agriculture.
• On Iran, the French President said that it is "unacceptable" that Iran be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon but that the country, like all others, did have the right to civilian nuclear power; he even dubbed nuclear energy the "technology of the future". He admonished those who are opposed to meeting with Iran's leaders, saying, "there's no contradiction between firmness and dialogue."

While he praised the United States, Sarkozy's overall message, like that of many recent French presidents, is one of restoring France to its former position of international grandeur. But this French leader brings a new twist:

If you want to be an example, you have to behave like an example. We've fallen too far behind, but we're catching up."

Editor's Note: This post coauthored by Joshua Keating.