:: Bluestarblog ::

:: Thursday, February 27, 2003 ::

The New Scientist reports that blood is thicker than water - for ants:

Liselotte Sundström and colleague Minttumaaria Hannonen looked at 10 colonies of the ant Formica fusca. They picked colonies headed by two queens, which is the average number for this species.

They determined whether nepotism in the worker ants was skewing the genetic make-up of the next generation by looking at how each queen's share of eggs and pupae changed over time. They also analysed the genetic relatedness of the queens, workers and eggs.

Sundström told New Scientist: "The queen that was more related to the workers gained in share." And this was also directly proportional to the difference in relatedness between the workers and each of the two queens.

She said the workers might be using chemical cues from individuals to "smell" their relatedness. The odours could come from the waxy layers on the surface cuticle, or from glands.

Workers might influence the next generation by failing to look after the eggs to which they were less related. "Or it may be that they kill them, or feed them to the other pupae to which they are more related," said Sundström. In their next study, the researchers will closely examine the workers' behaviour to discover how they influence the brood.

:: Scot 5:27 PM [+] :: ::
...

Den Beste on why Iraq? And why now?

Yes, part of why we're going to take Iraq is for its oil fields. But the reason is that we need to control them so that the House of Saud will no longer have any weapons at all against us and we won't have to pretend they're our friends any longer. One of the long term steps which is essential in this war is for the Sauds to stop financing the international spread of extremist Islam and to stop paying Danegeld to terrorist groups.

I've long said that the real reason to conquer Iraq was to set off a chain reaction of liberalization in the Arab world (here, for instance). Many have asked me whether I thought this was really what the Bush administration was thinking, and if so why they hadn't gone public with it.

The answer is that I do believe they were thinking along these lines all along, but that for them to go public with it back then would have led to serious grief by making clear to such stalwarts as Saudi Arabia just what we really intended. I'm happy, therefore, that we've reached the point where we no longer think we require the good wishes of the Sauds, and thus Bush has indeed publicly stated the real goal for this war, and the only way in the long run we can really win it: liberalization of the Arabs. And, as mentioned above, Iraq will be used to create an example in the middle East of how it's done, and most of that process will be financed by sales of Iraq's oil.

The Greatest Jeneration has more.

:: Scot 5:07 PM [+] :: ::
...

Newsweek gives me some sista lovin in the Black Gender Gap. Included are some uncomfortable differences between black male and female achievement, as well as the perceptions of black females as to some of the underlying reasons why.

:: Scot 4:47 PM [+] :: ::
...

Computers made from DNA and enzymes? What took them so long?

Israeli scientists have devised a computer that can perform 330 trillion operations per second, more than 100,000 times the speed of the fastest PC. The secret: It runs on DNA.

A year ago, researchers from the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, unveiled a programmable molecular computing machine composed of enzymes and DNA molecules instead of silicon microchips. Now the team has gone one step further. In the new device, the single DNA molecule that provides the computer with the input data also provides all the necessary fuel.

Those sneaky Jews from that shitty little country - always inventing stuff and winning nobel prizes.

:: Scot 4:24 PM [+] :: ::
...

Great postings from Andrew Sullivan today on Paul Wolfowitz, Iran and Iraq, Regis Debray, Michael Jackson and the French, and the Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation (the BBC).

:: Scot 8:31 AM [+] :: ::
...

Daimnation has a few thoughts on the Grammys.

Norah Jones won Record of the Year, Song of the Year and Album of the Year. I'm not familiar with her work, but Christopher Cross won these three trophies in 1980. That's not a good sign.

Norah who?

:: Scot 7:54 AM [+] :: ::
...

J.L. Granatstein has a message for Canada:

Certainly, the United States after 9/11 is in an angry, vengeful mood, ready to go it alone if necessary (but looking for reliable allies), ready to undertake pre-emptive strikes, ready to talk of ensuring that no rival superpower should emerge anywhere, and ready to spend US$400-billion a year on defence. The Americans, moreover, have reorganized their homeland defences, creating a federal Department of Homeland Security last fall with 170,000 employees and a US$40-billion budget; establishing a new Northern Command charged with the defence of North America; and assigning national missile defence (which they are proceeding with full speed ahead) to their Strategic Command. Security is Issue No. 1 in Washington. Let us make no mistake: The United States is serious about defending itself. All great powers traditionally have done this; this superpower will do it more forcefully and with more money

And Canada? We continue to sleepwalk into the future. The shock of 9/11 passed quickly here. Most Canadians grieved with the Americans for a few weeks, then moved on. As a result, we largely missed or misunderstood the transforming impact of 9/11 on the United States. Our response to Washington seems to be "get over it," and the gulf between Canadian and U.S. attitudes has expanded in the past year and a half. There has been no defence buildup here; no effort to refurbish the ruined temple that used to be the Department of Foreign Affairs and to play a serious role in Washington and abroad; no effort to draw closer to the United States. Indeed, I believe anti-Americanism is now at a 15-year high.

The United States understands Canadian attitudes and does not like them at all. The Americans have sent repeated messages to us on military and trade areas, and the only problem is that Canada is not getting the message.

The message is very simple: Get serious. The West is under attack. North America is under assault and the United States is determined to prevent further 9/11s. In the circumstances, the U.S. elite is furious at the way Canadians talk about America. Furious at Canada's utter incomprehension of the present situation. Angry at our lax immigration and refugee policies and our sloppy border and port security. And the U.S. is especially furious because it believes we aren't serious about doing our share to militarily protect Canada, North America and the values we profess.

And so it should be.

John Ibbitson has more

:: Scot 7:47 AM [+] :: ::
...

From the Atlantic - a terrific piece on Caring for Your Introvert.

With their endless appetite for talk and attention, extroverts also dominate social life, so they tend to set expectations. In our extrovertist society, being outgoing is considered normal and therefore desirable, a mark of happiness, confidence, leadership. Extroverts are seen as bighearted, vibrant, warm, empathic. "People person" is a compliment. Introverts are described with words like "guarded," "loner," "reserved," "taciturn," "self-contained," "private"—narrow, ungenerous words, words that suggest emotional parsimony and smallness of personality. Female introverts, I suspect, must suffer especially. In certain circles, particularly in the Midwest, a man can still sometimes get away with being what they used to call a strong and silent type; introverted women, lacking that alternative, are even more likely than men to be perceived as timid, withdrawn, haughty.

As many of my friends will attest, giving an introvert what he truly wants - solitude - is not easy. We are not shy, we are not loners, we are not depressed, we are not (all) misanthropic, and we are not bitter. So why this need to be alone? Jonathan Rauch offers a succinct answer - 'It's not a choice. It's not a lifestyle. It's an orientation.'

Sounds good - now leave me alone.

:: Scot 7:43 AM [+] :: ::
...

Is Robert Fisk coming around? Tim Blair thinks so. Too bad - 'fisking' sounds a lot better than 'pilgering' or 'chomskying'.

:: Scot 7:30 AM [+] :: ::
...

Good article from Peggy Noonan on the behavior of ex-Presidents:

Messrs. Clinton and Carter might ponder that they themselves in their own times of crisis benefited greatly from the discretion of the presidents who preceded them, Mr. Carter at key moments during the Iran hostage crisis and Mr. Clinton at many points including--well, for a solid year during the Monica scandal, George Bush 41 was urged every day to speak out about what Bill Clinton had done to the presidency. And Mr. Bush wouldn't say boo. Would've been bad for the country, didn't want to make it worse.

Mr. Clinton and Mr. Carter are, truly, the anti-Ikes (Eisenhower). They want their tongue lashings to be in public, for all the world to see. No matter the precariousness of the moment or the satisfaction of what foes in which caves.

:: Scot 7:28 AM [+] :: ::
...

Blogging has been light lately due to massive downloading all weekend. Among my acquired gems - Schoolhouse Rock! Conjunction Junction, Lolly Lolly Lolly, Interjections, Unpack Your Adjectives, Noun is a Person Place or Thing - got em all. Also included were some of the history lessons of America - I'm Just a Bill, Mother Necessity, No More Kings, Melting Pot, Shot Heard Round the World - devil's bane to the America-hating anti-Bush pro-Saddam socialist-holdover miasma. I also downloaded the best video ever - 'One' by Metallica.

Best video ever.

:: Scot 7:21 AM [+] :: ::
...

Bush the cowboy warmonger? How about these quotes:

"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. . . . I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

"The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. . . . Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. . . . But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."

"Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks, to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons is to dominate, intimidate or attack. With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region."

Interestingly, only the last one is from Bush. The first two are from Clinton during the late 90's when Iraq booted out the weapons inspectors. As Larry Elder notes, "What a difference an administration makes."

:: Scot 4:14 PM [+] :: ::
...

The ostracism of Israel. Anne Bayefsky gives us yet another good reason to tank the UN.

Lacking UN regional group membership in Geneva means that Israel is the only UN member forced to sit out consultations on draft resolutions and UN Geneva-based business of all kinds. Israel is refused any possibility of participating in the consultations of regional bodies in the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development the World Health Organization. The meetings behind closed doors of regional groups at the Commission on Human Rights negotiate the language of resolutions on all subjects without any Israeli participation. In recent years, Sweden and Co. in the European Union have enjoyed negotiating an agreed-upon level of hostility on the myriad anti-Israel resolutions with Arab states on the commission, before Israeli diplomats got a copy of a first draft.

Even Israel's limited participation in the WEOG regional group in New York is circumscribed by the caveat that existing rotation schemes not be disturbed. The result? WEOG membership in the UN Economic and Social Council has already been tied up until 2021.

As for UN staffers, official lists of the UN secretariat from July 2002 count 24 Israelis and 27 from "Palestine."

Algeria, Bahrain, China, Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, and Zimbabwe pass judgment on human rights at the UN Commission on Human Rights. China, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Sudan and the United Arab Emirates specialize in the rights of women at the UN Commission on the Status of Women. Iran is one of five members on the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan scrutinize the implementation of labour standards on the Governing Council of the International Labour Organization.

In the meantime, representatives and experts from the democratic and Jewish state of Israel are disqualified, blackballed, or left standing in the halls of UN bodies everywhere.

:: Scot 4:02 PM [+] :: ::
...

Jeffrey Simpson treats himself to a nice bowl of idiotarian cereal this morning with On the road to losing the peace.

Why not be fearful when Osama bin Laden keeps issuing public messages. President George W. Bush promised to catch him "dead or alive." The terrorist chieftain is alive all right, but taunting Americans. It was bad enough for the U.S. to have endured the intelligence failures that led to Sept. 11; it's another thing to know that 18 months, billions of dollars and untold numbers of bombs later that Osama bin Laden and most of his top advisers remain on the loose.

This is nonsense. Taunting Americans with an ambiguously voiced cassette tape? Americans may be fearful of terrorism, and perhaps leftover remnants of al-Qaeda, but not Osama himself. Most believe that if he's not dead, he's been rendered impotent.

This failure ought to be thrown daily in Mr. Bush's face,

Why?

but he has diverted attention to Iraq,

Oh, that's why.

where the United States is about to make a mistake of historic proportions.

Bad hyperbole for such an established columnist.

Two days of intense discussions with exceptionally thoughtful Americans revealed that not all of them listen to Fox News, read the clangorous right-wing columnists, and buy the Bush administration's prescriptions for Iraq. Many of them are torn between a patriotism blended with revulsion against Saddam Hussein and a fear that their country will be caught in a quagmire with few, if any allies, while providing new grounds for terrorist recruitment.

Wrong on both counts. Patriotism nor hatred of Saddam drives the pro-war statistics (which Simpson conveniently ignores in this piece), and few would consider the company of the U.K., Australia, Spain, Italy, Israel and about two dozen other countries to be 'alone.'

They worry, as well they should, that the U.S. will win the war but lose the peace,

A fair observation.

since, as testimony before the Senate foreign relations committee revealed last week, Washington has done a lot more planning for conquering Iraq than governing it.

So what. The first one is a priority for the U.S., the second should be priority for the U.N.

Millennialism has always run deep in the American psyche, going back to the first settlers' determination to build a "city on a hill" and to the founding fathers' aspiration to create a "more perfect union."

The U.S. almost never tells itself before a war that self-interest, including self-defence, dictates military action, the exception being the Second World War when the country was indeed attacked. War has always been to lift oppression (the Spanish-American War), to defend freedom (the Cold War, Vietnam), to repel aggression (Korea, the Persian Gulf war).

How all this relates to the threat having your citizens gassed to death is beyond me.

Now, the war against Iraq is being premised on two dubious propositions, and that partly explains why public opinion around the world opposes the U.S.

The first is the asserted direct link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. The best that can be said of that is the Scottish verdict "not proven," the worst that it borders on a fabrication.

If such a link had been established, countries joined in the necessary fight on terror would be lining up to invade Iraq, just as many participated in the Afghan campaign. Saddam Hussein is thoroughly reprehensible, but he has not been an active supporter of al-Qaeda.

'Not an active supporter' and free of any links are two very different things, but I do agree that this is not the angle the administration needs to pursue. Links to other terrorist organizations are easy to find - it doesn't need to stress an al-Qaeda connection (which probably does exist, albeit in a small way).

Which leads to the second assertion: Saddam Hussein is so awful that he might (a) develop nuclear weapons, (b) further his biological and chemical programs, and (c) make either or both available to others who, like his regime, harbour ill toward the United States. The logic of these assumptions leads to where Mr. Bush and his hawkish advisers began their Iraq policy: regime change in Baghdad, by military means if necessary.

Uh, yes. That logic is pretty convincing to me.

The option in dealing with Saddam Hussein is not, however, between invasion/regime change and doing nothing. Another plausible option is containment, deterrence and inspections, an option that, to be fair to its critics, does require the threat of force. This is the option sought by most of the world, and by many Americans, even though the Democratic Party has failed to articulate it for fear of being labelled "soft" on defence and terror.

Containment, deterrence and inspections is a 90's antiquity. It also ties up the military resources of the U.S. ad infinitum. They have more important things to do than babysit a murderous dictator by surrounding the country with a hundred thousand soldiers and billions of dollars in supplies.

This option avoids war against an Arab state, a war that will give terrorists another excellent recruiting weapon.

No war against Arab states? Just wait until Saudi Arabia.

This is the second reference to the 'this will create more terrorism' argument from Simpson. The fact that our enemy will get angrier with us if we attack is no deterrent for me. When someone wants me dead, I can't imagine them being any more angry and threatening than they already are.

It avoids fracturing the Atlantic alliance, where the peoples of every country oppose the Bush administration's policy.

Those other countries have yet to see an attack on their soil.

It avoids the illusions of conquerors that they will remake the subjugated region in their own image, or at least in one compatible with their interests.

Or at least safe from being attacked by backward cultures.



More: Fred Barnes counters the stale anti-war arguments.

:: Scot 6:38 AM [+] :: ::
...

From an editorial last week in the Prague Post, Jeremy Hurewitz writes:

But those who claim that the question of invading is solely one of oil interest are mistaken. If the only thing America is interested in is oil in the Middle East, it would have sold out Israel many years ago. Instead, America's policy on Israel is one of principle in supporting the only democratic nation in the Middle East, particularly as it suffers from a wave of homicidal fanatics blowing themselves up and taking with them as many innocent civilians as possible.

Rather than seeking to turn Iraq into its own personal gas station, America's goal is to take the first steps that will help pull the Arab world out of the quagmire that it finds itself in. The UN Arab Development report says that 60 percent of the Arab population is illiterate and that the combined gross domestic products of all Arab nations equals that of Spain. These shocking facts have clearly contributed to the reason the Arab world has proven to be fertile ground for extremists who wish to target Western society. The rhetoric of Islamic extremism is intoxicating for a broad mass of disaffected young men in Arab countries because those governments have failed to provide them with a future and have viciously repressed dissent. What has resulted from repression is a tidal wave of human missiles who have given up on the possibilities of this life and are banking on the promises of an afterlife of martyrdom. Problems are seldom solved with bombs, and war is not an attractive option. But I believe in universal values and I think those in the Arab world also deserve them, even if it means a risky cultural intervention.

I stand solidly with the left on social issues such as abortion, legalization of drugs and prostitution and the struggle to defend civil liberties. But I will not march with the peace movement because it is not a constructive vehicle to bring about change and is dangerously contributing to a polarized world. Whether it is the fashionable objectification of the Palestinian cause or the delusional view of America as an evil menace bent on controlling the world, the left has lost touch with reality and succumbed to perilous delusions.

:: Scot 4:56 AM [+] :: ::
...

No studies on the effects of marijuana? Colby Cosh disagrees:

As I pointed out in my Up Front column in August, even the most clueless layperson can do a Medline search for "marijuana" and find abstracts of more than 8,000 articles that have appeared in the scientific literature since 1970. When shirty footwashers tell you there's "no research" on pot, they really mean there's no research confirming what they'd like you to believe--namely, that your first puff of the weed will plunge you into a private hell of uncontrolled hallucinations and horse-tranquilizer binges.

'A private hell of uncontrolled hallucinations and horse-tranquilizer binges.'

He writes it like its a bad thing.

:: Scot 9:47 PM [+] :: ::
...

Mark Steyn looks at the peace movement through the eyes of an Iraqi:

Why not ask an Iraqi what the disadvantages of stalemate are? As far as Saddam's subjects are concerned, the "peace" movement means peace for you and Tony Benn and Sheryl Crow and Susan Sarandon, and a prison for them. I was in Montreal last week, which has the largest Iraqi population in North America. I've yet to meet one who isn't waiting eagerly for the day the liberation of their homeland begins. Then they can go back to the surviving members of their families and not have to live in a country where it's winter 10 months of the year.

They're pining for war not because they like the Americans, or the Zionists, or me, but because they understand that, as long as there's Saddam, there's no Iraq. Saddam has killed far more people than Slobo, Iraq has been far more comprehensively brutalised than Kosovo. Marching for "peace" means marching for, oh, another 15 years of Saddamite torture and murder, followed by a couple more decades under the even more psychotic son, until the family runs out of victims to terrorise, gets bored and retires to the Riviera.

It's easy to say it's up to the Iraqi people to get rid of Saddam. That theory worked well in the days when all the peasants had to do was storm the palace and dodge the muskets. It doesn't work against a man who can poison an entire village from the air. Marching for "peace" means marching against the Iraqi people: it's the equivalent of turning them away as, to their shame, many free nations in the 1930s turned away refugees from Germany.

Another parallel to WWII. I guess lessons from history are tougher to come by when classes consist of rewritten textbooks, absurd historical/cultural revisions, and the neverending evils of white colonialism.

More from the Daily Telegraph here. (from Mader Blog).

Rants in Our Pants remembers Orwell:

Talking about the pacifists who were demonstrating against waging war on Germany, Orwell once said that "Pacifists objectively are pro-fascist" and that being against the war and trying to fight wartime activities in England, they indirectly helped Hitler. How prescient. Yet, how sad that so many imbeciles fail to see the parallels between the rise of fascism and the heavy toll paid for waiting to deal with it and the situation with Iraq today. Tyrants do not go away. Tyrants always raise the ante to solidify their grip on power. Tyrants are bullies who have time on their side. The more one waits, the more powerful and frightening tyrants become. The cost of not removing them quickly becomes prohibitive. The pacifists are at it again. They have failed to learn the lessons that History teaches us. Let's hope that Bush-Condi-Powell-Blair clearly see through all the disgusting anti-Americanism and stay the course.

David Horowitz with more:

Today's "peace" movement -- the innocent-intentioned along with the malevolent rest -- is a fifth column army in our midst working for the other side. Already their leaders have warned that if the United States remains determined to oppose this totalitarian evil and stay its intended course, they will act within our borders to "disrupt the flow of normal life" and sabotage the war. This is ultimately the most ominous threat Americans face. Abroad we can conquer any foe. The real danger lies at home.

Another reference to transnational progressivism?

:: Scot 9:35 PM [+] :: ::
...

Who's to blame for the Simpson's decline? Chris Suellentrop has a few ideas.

Update: Jumping the shark on tonight's episode intro - brilliant!

:: Scot 2:36 PM [+] :: ::
...

Garry Kasparov on his matches with Deep Blue, Deep Junior, and the future of computer chess opponents.

What makes this new era so exciting is that there are many programs using different techniques that produce distinct styles. Deep Junior is as different from Deep Fritz as Kasparov is from Karpov. Chess offers the unique opportunity to match human brains and machines. We cannot do this with mathematics or literature; chess is a fascinating cognitive crossroads.

Not just a faster program, but a different program. No surprise a chessmaster can appreciate the 'mind in the machine.'

:: Scot 2:34 PM [+] :: ::
...

Steven Den Beste has a few observations on bluffing and geopolitics.

:: Scot 4:35 PM [+] :: ::
...

J.D. Cassidy in The Stupidest Intellectual writes:

Listen to the way that Chomsky, in his Guardian interview, sums up the current Administration’s turn towards war in Iraq: “…it could be what the hawks in Washington hope - a quick victory, no fighting to speak of, impose a new regime, give it a democratic façade, make sure the U.S. has big military bases there, and effectively controls the oil.” This is the clichéd “war for oil” argument that is so hollow, I won’t even address it accept to say that the U.S. has already won a decisive victory over Iraq in the recent past. If our motives were driven entirely by greed, why did we not take over the oil fields then?

The answer to this question should be obvious to any thinking person: America has no intention of taking over the oil fields of the Middle East. America is going to war with Iraq because Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological agents that he refuses to destroy. Moreover, he is supplying and training members of al-Qaeda and he is seeking to develop nuclear weapons. The bottom line is that we are engaging Iraq in war to save the lives of American civilians who have been earmarked as legitimate targets by Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda terrorists whom he sponsors.

This point, however, will never penetrate the syrupy skulls of Noam Chomsky and his numerous stooges who constitute the noisy majority of American academics. They are slaves to the diseased mentality of leftism— an illogical and insular world-view that allows leftists to operate like spoiled children, while the rest of us carry out the unpleasant task of addressing the dangers inherent to life in the real world.

:: Scot 3:06 PM [+] :: ::
...

Damian Penny slaps around Robert Fisk for writing:

UN permission for America's war will not make the war legitimate; it merely proves that the Council can be controlled with bribes, threats or abstentions. It was the Soviet Union's abstention, after all, which allowed America to fight the savage Korean war under the UN flag.

I can understand the argument against intervention in WWII (what were we thinking by liberating the French?), but the Korean War? The dichotomy between the two Koreas is one of the best reasons for intervention.

:: Scot 2:49 PM [+] :: ::
...

Margaret Wente starts my day off just right:

On CBC Radio's drive-home show the other day, the host did a telephone interview with a Canadian woman in Baghdad. She and other people from the peace faction had gone there to see for themselves. They'd just toured the children's hospital -- stop No. 1 on Saddam Hussein's itinerary for the gullible.

The hospital is an awful place, she told our (equally gullible, I fear) radio host. Children are dying for lack of medicine. She saw them herself. Choking with emotion, she said she wished she could stay there to stand shoulder to shoulder with the suffering Iraqi people.

I used to think people like this woman are well-meaning but naive. Now I believe they are blind idiots. How much effort does it take her not to wonder how Saddam manages to purchase his guns and missiles, his palaces and fleets of Toyota Corollas for his Baathist loyalists? How can she not know about the billions he's made from smuggled oil, or about how he manipulates the oil-for-food program? He could buy all the children's medicine he wants. But then he wouldn't have sick kids to use for propaganda.

What effort does it take a reasonably intelligent person not to be aware that any Iraqi who utters an unkind word about the regime risks his life? Are any of the peace marchers this weekend the least bit curious that hardly any of the millions of Iraqis driven from their homes are marching with them? Well, at least you know where these folks stand. You can't say that for the leader of our country.

In the speech that was supposed to lay out his position, we learned that he stands everywhere and nowhere. He's for the U.S., except if it acts on its own, because that could provoke a "clash of civilizations." He says the world should act against Saddam only through the United Nations. But how? When? And under what conditions? Uh, he'll leave that vague for now.

Temperamentally, Jean Chrétien is a charter member of the axis of weasels. If only he weren't a hypocrite as well. We are the peacekeepers, he assured the Americans and us once again. If only it were true. But it's not. Mr. Chrétien knows we contribute less to peacekeeping than Bangladesh does. We don't have the soldiers and we don't have the weapons, and you can't keep peace in a war zone with a popgun. And you can forget about our role in helping to rebuild shattered nations. Our anorexic foreign aid budget makes our claim to compassion a sour joke.

She goes on to take a nice shot at the inspections process - a topic I've rarely blogged about since I think the whole process is a joke and nothing more than a diplomatic charade.

The Washington Post and Fred Kaplan give two good accounts of where we stand based on yesterday's rough day for the pro-invasion-right-now-please crowd.

Andrew Sullivan and David Warren have more on this.

:: Scot 2:33 PM [+] :: ::
...

Some great maps courtesy of the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.

:: Scot 6:21 PM [+] :: ::
...

From Spot On:

Racism, rude names and the children of McCarthy

But the neo-McCarthyites don’t deal in arguments, they indulge in character assassination. The aim is simple — not to win arguments, but to make opponents shrivel up in silence, and to frighten decent people from expressing their views. Instead of winning arguments, they create taboos, hate and fears.

As John Lloyd, the former editor of the left-wing New Statesman complained recently, the Left has “abdicated analysis for denunciation”. It may not be right, but it certainly feels virtuous: those it opposes are not just wrong, but wicked. It has made the tag “right wing” a stigma in polite society.

I worked on Bay Street for three years and in social services for three years and have seen both the righties and lefties and all their ideological flanks firsthand. I never had to watch what I said when I worked with (ok, for) the suits - unless it was going to cost my employer money. When I worked with the lefties, I was given an introduction to real life fascism. While political correctness may be on the general decline in society, it still remains a guiding edict for too many.

:: Scot 5:54 PM [+] :: ::
...

Twenty-one Hajj pilgrims trampled

Another 21 people were trampled to death Wednesday on their way to one of the rituals of the Hajj, the annual Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca, Saudi officials said.

Wednesday's deaths happened on a bridge as the throngs of pilgrims were heading to throw stones at one of three pillars representing Satan's temptation of Abraham, the officials said. The stoning represents a rejection of evil deeds.

On Tuesday, a similar incident killed 14 pilgrims -- three Indians, four Pakistanis, two Egyptians, one Iranian, one Yemeni and one Sudanese.

Two years ago I might have had sympathy, but not today.

:: Scot 3:28 PM [+] :: ::
...

Amir Taheri suggests the Bush administration should have played the 'dictator must be removed' card instead of the WMD disarmament angle. For diplomatic reasons, it could have been an easier sell:

That case must be made around the urgent need to rescue the peoples of Iraq from a regime that is also a threat to the region. World public opinion made no objection when the Tanzanian army marched in to topple Idi Amin in Uganda. Nor did anyone shed tears when the Vietnamese army marched in to get rid of the Khmer Rouge gangsters in Cambodia. When the Americans invaded Grenada to flush out the Castrist gangsters, the world had a sigh of relief. And when the U.S. Navy blockaded Haiti to kick out Raoul Cedras and his band of military thieves, there was gratitude. The British won plaudits when they kicked out Sanke Foda and his cutthroat associates that had seized power in Sierra Leone. Nor do we know of many people who regretted the overthrow of Milosevic and Radovan Karadicz.

Using force to get rid of obnoxious regimes is nothing new, and requires no apologies.

:: Scot 1:46 PM [+] :: ::
...

John Hawkins interviews Mark Steyn. Three things Steyn said rang true: Osama bin Laden is dead; Iraq should have been invaded last summer; and Canada has allowed itself to become impotent and as a result, nearly irrelevant. I'm no right winger, but I find it hard to disagree with this guy when it comes to geopolitics.

:: Scot 1:38 PM [+] :: ::
...

I mentioned before that Charles Darwin, despite his contribution to science, doesn't get the accolades he deserves. The British Humanist Association, which includes one of my favorite thinkers in Richard Dawkins, is looking to change that by proposing 'Darwin Day' in Britain.

:: Scot 1:28 PM [+] :: ::
...

Lesbians might be out of my dating pool, but what about hasbians?

If the lipstick lesbian was the gay icon of the nineties, these days she’s been replaced by her more controversial counterpart, the hasbian: a woman who used to date women but now dates men. Though Anne Heche is the most prominent example, many hasbians (sometimes called LUGS: lesbians until graduation) are by-products of nineties liberal-arts educations. Caught up in the gay scene at school, they came out at 20 or 21 and now, five or ten years later, are finding themselves in the odd position of coming out all over again—as heterosexuals.

Heh heh - nice to have you back ladies.

:: Scot 5:07 PM [+] :: ::
...

Here's a passage stood that stood out in Drew Fagan's latest on the meddling French:

France's ambitions are based largely on its status as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council -- a historic anomaly that now makes little sense and puts the lie to the perception, popular among Canadians, that the UN is necessarily a fair and balanced forum for mediating international disputes.

For Canada's sake, I hope the invasion of Iraq happens as soon as possible. The French and German shipping records that likely await us in Baghdad just might be the final death knell of the UN.

:: Scot 4:36 PM [+] :: ::
...

Tom Utley comes to Michael Jackson's defence:

It seemed to me that Mr Bashir had missed the point of Jackson. True, the man is extremely weird. But we all knew that - and plenty of other people are a banana or two over the bunch. It is also true that Jackson has an eccentric relationship with children, and not all of us would look upon him either as a model father or as the perfect host for our young sons' sleep-overs. But, again, plenty of other grown men have an interest in children that is at least as sinister as Jackson's, and probably more so.

No. The point about Michael Jackson is not that he is odd but that the man is a genius. As a dancer, he ranks well up there with Fred Astaire and Rudolf Nureyev. As a singer, he has been dazzlingly brilliant since he first cleared his throat on stage when he was eight. To put it at its lowest, Michael Jackson is an extremely important figure in the history of popular culture.

Highlighting Jackson's artistry is noble - he hasn't sold 100 million records for nothing, but there comes a point when one becomes such a weirdo that it can eclipse any societal contribution made by the artist (Picasso was close, but nothing compared to Jackson). This level of freakdom is near artistry itself.

Why is Michael Jackson mobbed? Because he is a genius, that's why. And if the effect of Mr Bashir's smug and patronising interview is to drive him even further round the bend, and off the stage, he will have done a very great disservice to the arts. If only Granada had given the job to Melvyn Bragg instead.

He is mobbed by some because of his genius. He is mobbed by others because he is an unpredictable human circus who is capable of some our freakiest behaviors - facial and skin mutilation, media stunts involving everything from charges of racism to declarations of faux relationships, endangering (his own) children, etc. We were mostly sympathetic with this nutjob when he was only harming himself, but now he has three motherless children who are destined to grow up more screwed up than him (if something else doesn't happen to them first). His kids don't deserve this, and thanks to Bashir's interview, something might actually be done about it.

:: Scot 4:19 PM [+] :: ::
...

I knew I could count on Dennis Miller:

No one will ever confuse Dennis Miller with Bob Hope. But during a recent appearance on "The Tonight Show," the comic sounded some awfully Republicanish notes about U.S. intervention in Iraq and revealed himself to be a "Bush fan."

"I know you say that in this town and everyone like goes crazy, but how long do we wait with these morons? . . . I don't need to see any smoking guns except the one that just killed Saddam Hussein quite frankly."

That's not just his opinion - and he's not at all wrong.

:: Scot 1:38 PM [+] :: ::
...

Jackson Fights Back

Michael Jackson filed complaints with two TV watchdogs over a controversial documentary about his life, during which the King of Pop revealed he sometimes lets children sleep in his bed.

Jackson, who said he felt betrayed by the "terrible" documentary, had his lawyers file the complaints with Britain's Independent Television Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Commission, saying he had been "unfairly treated" by the program.

Tough shit freak. Just wait until social services snatches your kids from you.

:: Scot 1:21 PM [+] :: ::
...

This made my day - CBC meltdown: How low can the ratings go?

CBC executive director and programming boss Slawko Klymkiw didn't sound too concerned when I spoke with him in November. The viewers always return to the cozy CBC hearth in January, when our real season starts, he told me. Check us out then.

Well, I did and they didn't. Instead, they went to CITY and Joe Millionaire. To Global and Survivor. To CTV (which is enjoying a terrific year) and American Idol, which has drawn over 2.5 million viewers.

CBC's similar music star search, The Great Canadian Music Dream, has been a ratings nightmare. Recklessly scheduled opposite the American juggernaut, it got creamed, eking out as low as one-tenth the audience.

Nobody is laughing at the numbers during CBC's Friday Night comedy block. Sean Cullen was seen as the heir to Air Farce and Red Green. Last week, 198,000 people across Canada watched his show. That's a decent number -- on The Comedy Network.

Another new comedy series, Jonathan Cross's Canada, slid to 183,000 viewers. Even Made in Canada, a consistently funny show and a multiple Gemini Award winner, limped to 203,000. And those half million viewers who didn't follow Air Farce and This Hour Has 22 Minutes (down to 445,000 viewers) to their new timeslots? Bye-bye.

The fact is, 19 of the Top-20 shows on Canadian networks are U.S. productions like C.S.I., Friends or ER. CBC has no American TV shows, so it is always at a disadvantage when it comes to ratings, like a Canadian NHL team when it comes to cash.

But when the few Canadian shows on the private networks, like Global's Popstars or CTV's Degrassi, are outperforming CBC's all-Canadian lineup, there are no excuses left.

It may be time to re-think the strategy before CBC completely follows PBS down the path to oblivion. What is the point of a retreat to culture if that culture simply doesn't exist anymore?

I hope the CBC tanks. Tepid, boring, uninspired, and uninspiring - it's news and commentary is near parody, the shows (with the exception of Hockey Night in Canada) suck, and as a 'voice of Canada,' makes us look either old and uninterested or young and stupid.

(from Daimnation)

:: Scot 12:14 PM [+] :: ::
...

Confused about what parts of Europe are with us or against us? Mader Blog has put together a handy little map.

:: Scot 11:40 AM [+] :: ::
...

David Warren writes:

Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. Security Council yesterday was a waste of time and energy. While his show was effective enough in itself, and met the demanding criterion of entertainment, by holding its audience, no one was swayed by it one way or the other. It is impossible to gauge the effect on world public opinion, which is anyway impossible to measure given contextual differences from country to country. But my gut sense is that the effect on opinion outside the United States will be slight.

He's right. Did Powell really tell us anything we didn't already know?

The people demanding proof were not going to change their positions after it was supplied. They predictably shifted the criteria for action another step higher, so that now they demand even more U.N. inspectors.

They want peace, and are willing to pay any price for it. The French and Germans -- who have incidentally been exposed as Saddam Hussein's most copious suppliers of ingredients and technology for biological and chemical weaponry (with the Russians in third place) -- have openly stated that war is the worst thing that can happen. From this position, any kind of sell-out or betrayal is preferable to the use of physical force.

As wise old Alistair Cooke said on Britain's BBC, we're hearing an old song from the 1930s. "Most historical analogies are false because, however strikingly similar a new situation may be to an old one, there's usually one element that is different and it turns out to be the crucial one. It may well be so here. All I know is that all the voices of the thirties are echoing through 2003."

This is the fact. The appeasers of Saddam have used the same arguments and the same language as the appeasers of Hitler. They have relied on the same fundamental reasoning -- that there is no price too high, if we can win "peace in our time" -- and under the same inspiration, a pant-wetting fear. They want to believe, in the face of any evidence that is presented to them, that security can be obtained by some kind of negotiation. They chant all the old 'thirties mantras about "collective security", and invoke the United Nations as their grandfathers invoked the League of Nations.

He ends the article in true Steynian fashion:

Another element that is different is that, today, we face not one Hitler, but an assemblage of them, so that each can be used as an excuse for avoiding confrontation with each other. We cannot deal with Iraq, because we must more urgently deal with North Korea; or vice versa once interest is shown in Pyongyang. The U.S. and its allies are by necessity caught up in a thankless game of "monkey in the middle" -- to which the only possible response can be to eliminate the monkeys, one by one.

Nobody, or at least nobody who is properly informed, said it was going to be easy. But it is going to be done, and as would now appear, done over the dead body of the United Nations.

Sweet.

:: Scot 11:28 AM [+] :: ::
...

Harvesting replacement human tissue? Why bother when you can just copy and print:

Three-dimensional tubes of living tissue have been printed using modified desktop printers filled with suspensions of cells instead of ink. The work is a first step towards printing complex tissues or even entire organs.

"This could have the same kind of impact that Gutenberg's press did," claims tissue engineer Vladimir Mironov of the Medical University of South Carolina.

Many labs can now print arrays of DNA, proteins or even cells. But for tissue engineers, the big challenge is creating three-dimensional structures. Mironov became interested when Thomas Boland of Clemson University, also in South Carolina, told Mironov how he could print biomaterials using modified ink-jet printers.

The printers are adapted by washing out the ink cartridges and refilling them with suspensions of, say, cells. The software that controls the viscosity, electrical resistances and temperature of the printing fluids is reprogrammed and the feed systems altered.

(from Winds of Change)

:: Scot 10:47 AM [+] :: ::
...

It's about time - scientists teleport light particle over long distance:

University of Geneva physicist Nicolas Gisin and his colleagues teleported a photon, or particle of light, 55 metres. Gisin likens the process to sending a fax, except the object never exists anywhere between the source and the receiver.

Though it might be some time before we can actually beam anything visible, there are some immediate payoffs:

Although the technology won't help you beat traffic, it may come in handy as a defence against spies. If information were encrypted using quantum cryptography, then sending information would be completely secure. A spy couldn't get hold of data while it is being sent, because it wouldn't exist in between the sender and receiver, Gisin said.

For a walk down memory lane for Scientific American readers, here's an article from 1997 determining the possibility of quantum teleportation.

Here's a challenge to my readers - try to find a 500+ word article on quantum teleportation that doesn't mention Kirk, Spock, or Scotty.

:: Scot 10:40 AM [+] :: ::
...

Terrific essay from Eject Eject Eject on our war with Iraq. Even better is his reply to an email from a Dutch idiotarian:

A final helpful note to you gutless, whiny European crybabies: Calling us "Cowboys" is a COMPLIMENT to us, understand Marius? That icon of the American frontier represents courage, strength, self-confidence, hard work, sacrifice and ingenuity. I have yet to see legions of the world's people flocking to film after film after film glorifying the noble and magnificent lives of Dutch intellectuals discussing Marxist dogma in their dim, damp basements. Your further reference to us being "idiots" may be statistically challenged by comparing the number of American vs. Dutch Nobel-winning scientists, or patents of invention. I DARE you to do so.

:: Scot 8:46 AM [+] :: ::
...

Colin Powell makes the case for war - in the Wall Street Journal.

:: Scot 8:16 AM [+] :: ::
...

Syria a member of the Security Council? Libya head of the Human Rights Commission? Iraq and Iran co-chairing the upcoming U.N. Disarmament Conference? Charles Krauthammer has heard enough.

The United Nations is on the verge of demonstrating finally and fatally its moral bankruptcy and its strategic irrelevance: moral bankruptcy, because it will have made a mockery of the very resolution on whose sanctity it insists; strategic irrelevance, because the United States is going to disarm Iraq anyway.

Having proved itself impotent in the Balkan crisis and now again in the Iraq crisis, the United Nations will sink once again into irrelevance. This time it will not recover. And the world will be better off for it.

:: Scot 8:12 AM [+] :: ::
...

Nice to see that America isn't the only country with guts - UK restates nuclear threat

Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon says Saddam Hussein "can be absolutely confident" the UK is willing to use nuclear weapons "in the right conditions".

Speaking on BBC One's Breakfast with Frost Mr Hoon said the UK reserved the right to use the weapons "in extreme self defence".

(from the Greatest Jeneration)

:: Scot 7:41 AM [+] :: ::
...