HIV/AIDS in the Muslim World

The National Bureau of Asian Research (NBR), a Seattle-based, non-profit, non-partisan research institution (i.e. 'think tank'), has released a troubling report entitled Behind the Veil of a Public Health Crisis: HIV/AIDS in the Muslim World, written by Laura M. Kelley and Nicholas Eberstadt.

As the global AIDS epidemic has worsened in recent years, much of the attention has been on Africa, and for good reason. India¹ has also been in the spotlight, as has Eastern Europe, and even more recently, Asia. Sadly, if this June, 2005 NBR report is accurate, then AIDS has not only reached the Muslim world, but it has firmly entrenched itself in a society still largely in denial:

What is especially troubling to behold is the reluctance to admit that Muslims engage in exactly those same dangerous behaviors that support the transmission and spread of HIV/AIDS elsewhere. This attitude of denial is deeply rooted in the cultural and religious attitudes of Islam and supported by the many authoritar­ian regimes that populate the Muslim world. This reluctance even to recognize the problem will only accelerate the epidemic and make it more difficult for the international community to provide meaningful support and treatment. Another sobering implication is that is now truly a global crisis in terms of both geography and impact.

Even in cultures with relatively liberal views towards sexual conduct and drug use (sexual encounters and needle sharing are the two primary conduits for HIV), there is a strong social stigma attached to sufferers of the deadly virus. In a devoutly religious culture, the burden on victims must be truly unbearable.

The NBR report offers three main arguments:

Despite the fact that the Muslim world is home to many of the behaviors—such as premarital sex, adultery, prostitution, homosexuality, and intrave­nous drug use—which have helped spread the HIV virus in other countries and regions around the world, many governments in the Muslim world have been slow to respond to the rapidly spreading disease.

Two characteristics of the Muslim world in particular are resulting in both a denial of the problem and a lack of pro-active organized efforts for infection control: 1) the fusion of faith and statecraft in many Islamic countries and 2) weak or absent democratic practices.

Government response has varied: some countries like iran and Bangladesh have been relatively proactive in admitting to and beginning work on the problem, while others have been much more passive.

Note that the first main argument highlights some of the high-risk behaviours associated with the spread of HIV/AIDS. Obviously what the authors are implying is that many high-risk habits which are frowned upon or forbidden in Muslim society are in fact taking place. Denying so has resulted in, and will result in further inaction against AIDS; inaction in turn results in an uncontrollable spread of the virus throughout a community which denies its very presence.

The report also offers five "Policy Implications":

The successes of Thailand’s aggressive anti-HIV campaign contrasts starkly with the dramatic mushrooming of the crisis brought on by South Africa’s reluctance to tackle the problem—a difference which clearly demonstrates the need for countries in the Muslim world to tackle these problems now.

If leaders continue to ignore the problem, AIDS could debilitate or even destabilize some of these societies by killing large numbers of people in the 15 to 49-year age group, thereby depriving these countries of some of their best, brightest, and most economically productive members.

One immediate need is to make good faith efforts to survey for infection all commercial sex workers, drug abusers, and those with alternative sexual lifestyles—not simply those who identify themselves as being either infect­ed or possibly infected.

Sweeping legislative and social changes—such as protecting the legal rights of the infected, promoting safer alternative behaviors among high-risk groups, and spreading the message that being a good Muslim can include taking care of those infected by the disease—would be helpful in combat­ing the spread of HIV. HIV/AIDS-education and control efforts could also become part of each citizen’s zakat (charity duty).

The international community can also assist by helping poorer countries establish social programs, advising on the public health infrastructure required to support successful treatment, or simply sharing experience in drug treat­ment and behavioral change efforts—all steps which would be most effec­tive if tailored to local needs.

The second implication is a good point; from a dispassionate, societal perspective, a true AIDS pandemic would infect and kill the most 'productive' and 'economically valuable' members of society (i.e. those of working age). Taking it a step further, HIV can also be transmitted from mother to child which creates generational expansion. It is in a government's best economic interest to protect these 'valuable' citizens; that is what gives a cynic like me hope that steps will be taken in every corner of this corporate planet, eventually.

I encourage anyone interested to read the full, 18-page report, but here are the highlights:

SCOPE OF THE CRISIS

• Muslim world: 50 countries; 3 continents; many hundreds of cultures; over 1 billion people
• very diverse community; majority of Muslims are non-Arab and live outside the Middle East; wildly varying social and economic backgrounds
• common bond: lack of separation of faith & state, relative absence of democratic systems
• one woefully low estimate suggests 1 million HIV sufferers in North Africa, the Middle East and predominantly Muslim Asia
• many Muslim countries lack comprehensive surveillance, treatment and education programs
• a common assumption is that premarital sex, adultery, prostitution, homosexuality and intravenous drug use do not occur (or happen infrequently) in the Muslim world
• the denial of risk and lack of infection control is enabling HIV/AIDS to spread from higher-risk to lower-risk groups
• almost 60% of HIV-positive Iranians (e.g.) commit suicide within a year of diagnosis

CRISIS RESPONSE

Perhaps surprisingly, Iran has been extremely progressive in dealing with the problem (I would argue that they are currently more progressive towards addressing HIV/AIDS than some western nations e.g. the U.S.):

• former President Khatami has been forthcoming with the world press about the scope of the problem
• Iran has passed laws to protect the rights of the infected and even to reduce the social stigma associated with the disease
• HIV education is now standard cirriculum in many Iranian public schools
• needle exchange programs have been offered in high drug-use areas of Tehran
• syringes are now sold over-the-counter in many pharmacies
• drug treatment programs are currently being strengthened
• the commercial sex trade is still in dire need of help, however

Bangledesh is another Muslim society showing advancement:

• considerable progress in HIV-education and prevention efforts
• efforts to increase condom use, including among the young
• awareness programs in mosques (!)
• religious leaders, including a few women, have been trained to deliver educational & prevention messages

Most other Muslim countries are ignoring the problem:

• no surveillance programs in countries with significant intravenous drug use, such as Afghanistan and Iraq (countries which also happen to be under military siege by America and probably need to address their electricity and drinking water situation first)
• Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have traditionally blamed foreign workers/visitors for the presence of the disease

FUTURE IMPACT

• Iran and Bangledesh, despite their efforts, are expected to face a severe epidemic; Iran's emergence as a regional superpower is in jeopardy while Bangledesh faces perpetual widespread poverty
• 1990: Thailand and South Africa both had a very low (but growing) national prevalance of HIV. Thailand, with international help, began an aggressive anti-HIV campaign while South Africa ignored the problem. From 1990-2000, Thailand's percentage of infected adults crept up from near-0% to about 2.5% (if I'm reading the graph correctly). In the same timeframe, South Africa's percentage of HIV-infected adults jumped from near-0% to 25% (!!). Muslim countries must act aggressively, and immediately.

Muslim countries would be wise to use religion to help deal with the impending calamity:

• teach safe behaviours to higher-risk groups (presumably first admit the existence of said groups!)
• teach that caring for the infected is entirely consistent with Islam
• promote tolerance (to address the suicide problem)
• HIV/AIDS education could become part of each citizen's zakat (charity duty)
• a portion of the zakat tax could be used to set up official treatment & prevention programs

-----

¹ Check out the incredibly selfish and arrogant tone of the CBS report (60 minutes) I've linked to. I guess the only way to sell a news story to the U.S. population is to tie it to terrorism and national security. God forbid you simply report on a global problem out of empathy.

Big Fish Tale

Thai fishermen caught a 646-lb. catfish in the Mekong river. Upon hearing the news, wildlife officials urged the villagers to release the beast so that it could spawn, but the catfish quickly died, was chopped up (presumably with a chainsaw) and fed to the village instead. For the full story, click here.

In November I was in Hawaii and did some snorkeling for the first time in my life. I swam with some fish up to 4 feet long and felt as though that was a big deal (I know it's not, but it sure felt that way!).

Can you imagine a fish the size of a bear swimming towards you?

Bush National Address: unofficial tallies

Terror Tally ¹: 34

Freedom Figure ²: 34

Cumulative Uttered References to September Eleventh (CURSE): 6

Number of times Bush apologized to the people of Iraq for launching an illegal invasion and occupation of their country so that he could establish a battleground against worldwide terrorists that was far away from the United States (that's the latest claim as to the reason for war, as per the speech): 0

-----

¹ Terror Tally = number of times Bush used a word with the root "terror"
² Freedom Figure = number of times Bush uttered the words "free" or "freedom"

Devil Collects First-Born from Tony Blair

As expected, The Father of Lies has finally collected Blair's first-born child as payment for an earlier deal between the British Prime Minister and he.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair's eldest son Euan will work as an intern with Republican staff in the U.S. House of Representatives, the prime minister's office said on Sunday.

Euan, 21, will spend three months working with a committee which determines how U.S. legislation is considered in the lower chamber of Congress.

"Euan Blair has been given the opportunity to take up a short, unpaid internship with the Rules Committee of the House of Representatives," said a spokesman at the prime minister's Downing Street office.

As an additional concession to Old Gooseberry, Tony Blair told reporters that Euan will not be allowed to write any memos while working for Washington Republicans.

Euan's appointment is temporary, and he has also expressed interest in a future internship with the Democrats. Beelzebub was said to be receptive to the idea, claiming that as soon as there is a cold day in hell he would be happy to hand the young lad over to the so-called lefties.

Happiness: Prologue

I have been thinking a lot about happiness lately; what it means to be happy¹, what makes me (and others) happy, why I haven't always been as happy as I (hopefully) could be and what I'm going to try to do to correct that for the future. I was gradually putting together some thoughts on the matter with the intention of eventually posting about it. I find it a fascinating topic, not one particularly easy for many people to talk about in their real lives (no one wants to admit to themselves let alone others that they aren't feeling fulfilled).

I'm not nearly ready to post my own thoughts yet, but Timmy from Voice in the Wilderness² recently discussed the theme. Have a read, and make sure to visit the comments section - maybe even post some of your own ideas if you feel up to it. Particularly intriguing was a post from Mike H, who mentions that some people may be "innately unable to experience any meaningful happiness or satisfaction from life." That's a horrible thought, and it's probably, sadly, true.

Even for the rest of us, who have the ability to experience meaningful happiness or satisfaction from life, those feelings aren't always easy to find.

-----

¹lore has it that happiness is...Marineland.

²Still in the early stages of my blog, probably 70% of my modest traffic is arriving via VITW which means most of you have already read Timmy's post, but for the other 3 people per day, you're welcome!

Flip-Flopping?

The U.S. does not negotiate with terrorists.

Oh, really?

Could've fooled me.

Unless of course Bush has softened and no longer considers the term "insurgents" synonymous with "terrorists".

Nah, that would probably be too intricate a thought for a "you are either with us or against us" mind-set.

Poll: Four in Five Republicans still Drinking the Kool-Aid

A Rasmussen Reports survey finds that 49% of Americans agree that George W. Bush is more responsible for starting the war against Iraq than Saddam Hussein is. Meanwhile 44% believe that Saddam Hussein is the man most responsible for having the U.S. napalm the crap out of his own country.

As you would probably guess, this marks quite a departure from public opinion at the time when Bush Incorporated had already planned and was trying to sell its war-as-a-last-resort to a skeptical world and a frozen-with-fear domestic citizenry. According to Rasmussen, back in 2002 a similar poll indicated that most Americans blamed Hussein for provoking the U.S. into threatening war, while only 25% labeled Bush a 'provoker.'

As with most polls involving Americans, it is far more instructive to split the results among sports teams, er, I mean political affiliations:

The biggest change in perceptions has come among Democrats.

In 2002, the party of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi was divided on this point. By a 49% to 34% margin, liberal Democrats at the time said Bush bore most of the responsibility. Conservative Democrats placed the blame on Hussein by a 54% to 30% margin.

Now, however, 78% of all Democrats say that Bush is more responsible for starting the War than Hussein. Just 18% take the opposite view.

Republicans, by a 76% to 17% margin, say that Hussein is responsible. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 52% name Bush and 34% Hussein.

Evidence and facts have finally surfaced that the U.S. (and Britain) clearly started this war, not only by attempting to goad Saddam through illegal bombing raids, but more importantly by planning regime change far earlier than Bush admits to doing. In other words, firm evidence is finally out that they long-ago planned war, and in 2002 successfully executed that plan.

What is the impact of this knowledge on the American public? Many self-professed Democrats and people with no political affiliation accept the truth for what it is and largely change their earlier, erroneous opinion; most Republicans, on the other hand, close their eyes, cup their hands over their ears, and yell out ABABABABABABABABABABA!!! until Truth leaves the room, rolling its eyes and shaking its head.

Seriously now - 80% of Republicans still think that Saddam started this war?? What else do these people believe??

Quicky Film Review: Mr. & Mrs. Smith

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)

Genre: Action/Adventure/Comedy/Romance
Tagline: with your own eyes, witness the swift demise of Brad & Jen! (ok, I made that up)
Plot Outline: A bored married couple is surprised to learn that they are assassins hired to kill each other.

director: Doug Liman (The Bourne Identity, 2002, The Bourne Supremecy, 2004)
writer: Simon Kinberg (xXx: State of the Union, 2005)
produced by: Erik Feig (Wrong Turn, 2003)
starring: Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Vince Vaughn, Adam Brody

Jennifer Aniston should probably pass on this one. By the end of the film my body temperature was at a dangerous level; either because the theatre's air conditioning was on the fritz and I was wearing jeans and a long-sleeve shirt, or because Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt's pheromones were being pumped through the ventilation system instead, part of a Twentieth Century Fox promotional gimmick.

"So Jen should probably go see The Perfect Man instead, but what about me" you ask? Well, take this test to find out. Answer each question and add up your score:

1. Brad Pitt is sexy.
True: +4 points
False: 0 points

2. Angelina Jolie is sexy.
True: +4 points
False: 0 points

3. I can't stand either Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie.
True: -10 points
False: 0 points

4. I have nothing against Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie personally, but I'm sick of hearing about them.
True: -2 points
False: 0 points

5. I am curious to see if the on-screen chemistry between Pitt and Jolie is as hot as they say it is.
True: +6 points
False: 0 points

6. I like action movies, especially if there are light moments sprinkled within, and a few genuine laughs for good measure.
True: +2 points
False: 0 points

7. Massive plot holes and leaps of logic don't bother me as long as the movie is 'fun'.
True: +1 points
False: -3 points

8. Vince Vaughn is a funny guy.
True: +2 points
False: 0 points

9. Vince Vaughn annoys me.
True: -2 points
False: 0 points

10. I would not be uncomfortable watching a fictional husband and wife trying to kill each other for a half-hour, especially if they look like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie and end up 'doing it' instead.
True: +2 points
False: -2 points

BONUS QUESTION

11. I am Jennifer Aniston.
True: -500 points
False: 0 points

Score: Recommendation

• -489 points or less: I'm very sorry. Time heals all wounds.
• -488 to -1 points: avoid this movie - you won't like it. You also appear to have a freakish resistance to the allure of the aesthetic ideal - congratulations on not being shallow like the rest of us.
• 0-4 points: wait for it on DVD and give it a try if you can't find anything else.
• 5-9 points: if you've got nothing better to do, try to catch a matinée. You'll probably enjoy yourself. Definitely rent it upon home release if you miss it in the theatres.
• 10-14 points: this movie is worth seeing. Have fun!
• 15+ points: behold Bradgelina in all its dazzling glory! Drink plenty of fluids beforehand and try to pace yourself.

IMDB User Rating: 6.8 out of 10
Metacritic's Metascore: 55 ("Mixed or average reviews")
Metacritic's Users score: 5.4 out of 10
Rotten Tomatoes Critics: 62%
Rotten Tomatoes Users: 89%

MY RATING: 7.2 out of 10

Light Blogging Notice

I feel a bit silly posting a "light blogging notice" given that I'm a new site with very low traffic, but...

...in case you are checking back here regularly be warned that I won't have much time to post until later this week; probably Thursday or even the weekend. Hopefully Bush or our Canadian politicians don't do or say anything really stupid in the meantime. :)

Best and Worst Occupations

The Wall Street Journal’s Executive Career Site, Careerjournal.com, recently released a report featuring lists of “Best Jobs” and “Worst Jobs.”

Here are the 10 “best” jobs:

1. Actuary
2. Biologist
3. Financial planner
4. Web site manager
5. Accountant
6. Software engineer
7. Statistician
8. Bank officer
9. Parole officer
10. Computer systems analyst

Here are the 10 “worst” jobs:

1. Cowboy
2. Fisherman
3. Construction worker (labourer)
4. Iron worker
5. Lumberjack
6. Dancer
7. Roofer
8. Garbage collector
9. Seaman
10. Welder

I sense a theme! Desk-induced atrophy: good. Burning calories: bad. The list of worst jobs is laden with careers that require physical effort above and beyond pencil pushing. If, in addition, you work outside and are in close proximity to wildlife, well then my friend, you are pretty much scraping the bottom of the barrel.

CareerJournal.com editors conferred with Les Krantz, a nonfiction publisher and researcher based in Lake Geneva, Wis. -- for some help. Mr. Krantz has researched good jobs -- and bad ones -- using data from sources such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics and judging by some of his own hunches.

Mr. Krantz uses six main factors to judge a job: income, stress, physical demands, outlook, security and work environment.

So according to Krantz, the perfect job would feature a high income, low stress, no physical demands, a positive outlook, high job security and a positive work environment. I can’t argue with the presence of 5 of the 6 factors; a high wage, low stress, positive outlook, high job security and a positive work environment are probably all indicators of a satisfying occupation. But are jobs with high physical demands automatically bad? What kind of weightings did he use for each factor?

Take a look at a couple of assumptions that were made for the report:

1. that it's better to work indoors in an air-conditioned office than to work outside.
2. that it's better to be in a noncompetitive environment.

There is little doubt I’d rather be in a heated office than working outside during the winter. But as DeNiro once explained, there is a flip side to that coin; I’d much rather be working outside during the spring/summer/fall than stuck in an office for 8-10 hours per day. So what kind of job is better; outdoor or indoor? Years of being cooped up in Dilbert-land has made me yearn for the great outdoors, so I’m leaning towards the former. Of course I might be afflicted with a case of TGIGOTOSS (The Grass Is Greener On The Other Side Syndrome). My cousin works in construction and I know that while he’s generally a happy person, he isn’t without complaint. Maybe TGIGOTOSS runs in the family?

Back to the report which suggests that, among all of the top dogs, actuaries are the ones living la vida loca. Well I happen to know a lot about the field, and while I wouldn’t dare call it a bad job, it isn’t quite all it’s cracked up to be. The income is good but does not measure up to the hype (for most of the rank and file actuaries – company big-wigs are an obvious exception). Stress levels range from moderate (for many actuaries who work in the insurance or property & casualty fields) to high (for many actuaries who work for HR consulting firms). As for the work environment, let’s just say it is hit and miss across the various disciplines (e.g. insurance vs. consulting) and individual companies (not to mention different cities, departments within the company, etc). Again, it’s a good job, but if that’s the absolute best that society has to offer then what is the point of it all?

‘Cowboy,’ meanwhile, is allegedly the worst job one could have. As a cowboy you earn a meager income (average = $18,000 U.S.), there is a strong physical component, and the long-term outlook for cowboys probably isn’t great. But is the work environment so bad? Despite the demanding schedule, is it more stressful than office work? This is the worst job? What about ‘public toilet cleaner?’ ‘Peep-show janitor?’ Other?

Looking at the criteria and assumptions adopted by the report’s authors, I suggest that there are clearly worse jobs out there than the 10 listed. For example, what about ‘professional athlete?’

• pressure of having to win regularly (i.e. stress)
• high physical demands
• the long-term job outlook is grim (job growth is slow, careers are brief)
• job security is poor (unless you excel)
• you are placed in a work environment where you are often yelled at by coaches, taunted by fans, forced to exercise, are opposed by aggressive, even hostile competitors on a regular basis, and are at constant, high risk of injury.

Professional athletes have it really rough! OK, so the wages can be pretty good. But still, is it worth putting yourself through the hell I’ve just described when you can work at a white-collar job instead?

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to bed. I’ve got to get up early for another day working on Easy Street (where my office is located).

Well-qualified for the job

It’s a dirty job, but someCooney’s got to do it.

Ex-White House science report-fudger (and former oil industry lobbyist) Philip Cooney has been hired by the world’s largest oil company, Exxon Mobil, and will begin working there in the fall. While Exxon declined to provide Cooney’s job description to the press, I think it’s safe to assume that his role will place him in a key position in the Exxon/White House war against the science behind climate change.

Like the Bush administration, Exxon Mobil Chairman Lee Raymond has argued strongly against the Kyoto climate accord and has raised questions about the certainty of climate science as it relates to possible global warming. Greenpeace and other environmental groups have singled out Raymond and Exxon Mobil for protests because of its position on climate change.

*snip*

Its executives have been among the most skeptical in the oil industry about the prospects of climate change because of a growing concentration of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. The leading greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.

This is a marriage made in heaven for the parties involved. Cooney, through his role as Chief of Staff of the White House Council of Environmental Quality (a great example of a governmental description being in some ways completely at odds with its raison d’être e.g. “Child Left Behind Act,” “Clean Skies Initiative”, etc.), edited government reports on climate change in a manner which downplayed greenhouse gas links to global warming. In other words, if you aren’t afraid to call a spade a spade then he lied, or if you are a Bush supporter or a member of the corporate media then he misled.

In the ensuing days after his actions were exposed by a whistleblower, the White House defended Cooney’s actions:

After Cooney's involvement in editing the climate reports was first reported by the New York Times, the White House defended the changes, saying they were part of the normal, wide-ranging review process and did not violate an administration pledge to rely on sound science.

Notwithstanding this touching display of support from the White House, Cooney quickly resigned from his White House post. This, naturally, had nothing to do with the controversy his actions had created:

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Cooney's departure was "completely unrelated" to the disclosure two days earlier that he had made changes in several government climate change reports that were issued in 2002 and 2003. "Mr. Cooney has long been considering his options following four years of service to the administration," Perino said. "He'd accumulated many weeks of leave and decided to resign and take the summer off to spend time with his family."

Just once I’d love to see a government spokesperson (any government, any spokesperson) speak the unabashed truth. “That’s right, Mr. Cooney got caught fudging some rock-solid scientific conclusions which were at odds with the White House energy policy. We were worried that this act of dishonesty might make President Bush look bad, so we asked Mr. Cooney to resign. We expect that he’ll be back on his feet in no time, most likely working for a rich oil company.”

The next time you encounter a quote from Exxon or from an organization funded by Exxon (and/or other greenhouse gas emitters) that expresses skepticism about the science behind global warming, please remember that it’s Cooney, and others like him, who are responsible for what you hear.

Fun-looking toy

I'd like to get me one of these (video here and here).

Just thought I would get the word out since the creator, Masaaki Nagumo, has promised his company will drop the price if enough people place orders. Each Land Walker robot currently costs 36,000,000 yen (about $413,000 Cdn), not counting shipping costs of course.

Come on people, let's get a grass-roots, purchase order movement going to eventually lower the price to below $5,000.

Isn't that what the blogosphere is for?

Down the block from Downing Street

Hopefully by now you've heard about the Downing Street memo (or have you?). Well, another memo now surfaces, producing some additional should-be-damaging news for Bush to dodge (via The Sunday Times):

Ministers were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal.

The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier.

The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal.

This was required because, even if ministers decided Britain should not take part in an invasion, the American military would be using British bases. This would automatically make Britain complicit in any illegal US action.

“US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia,” the briefing paper warned. This meant that issues of legality “would arise virtually whatever option ministers choose with regard to UK
participation”.

So by April, 2002, Tony Blair had already agreed to the U.S. plan of attacking Iraq. In turn, this means there was in fact a plan in place prior to April, 2002. But wait a moment, I thought there was nothing farther from the truth than allegations that the Bush administration had decided to invade Iraq months prior to publicly declaring so! Has somebody been lying to us?

Well maybe this is all simply a hoax. Who were allegedly copied in on this stunning news?

The paper was circulated to those present at the meeting, among whom were Blair, Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, and Sir Richard Dearlove, then chief of MI6. The full minutes of the meeting were published last month in The Sunday Times.

Those are some big names. We can probably assume then, that this isn't an instance of some U.S. Democrat with a chip on his shoulder creating an official-looking document in Word and distributing it on the internet.

The document said the only way the allies could justify military action was to place Saddam Hussein in a position where he ignored or rejected a United Nations ultimatum ordering him to co-operate with the weapons inspectors. But it warned this would be difficult.

“It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject,” the document says. But if he accepted it and did not attack the allies, they would be “most unlikely” to obtain the legal justification they needed.

The suggestions that the allies use the UN to justify war contradicts claims by Blair and Bush, repeated during their Washington summit last week, that they turned to the UN in order to avoid having to go to war. The attack on Iraq finally began in March 2003.

I guess it wasn't that difficult after all.

What does this briefing paper now mean for Bush & Blair? Will the U.S. media even cover this issue or will the Jackson trial and stormy weather and runaway brides continue to dominate U.S. attention? This is where I am skeptical:

The briefing paper is certain to add to the pressure, particularly on the American president, because of the damaging revelation that Bush and Blair agreed on regime change in April 2002 and then looked for a way to justify it.

I won't hold my breath. Bush, the man, and his administration, have been besieged by damaging revelations, one after the other, for nearly his entire presidency, but he has always spun his way out of controversy relatively unscathed (Bush is at an all-time low in popularity, but what does it matter at this point - he's already been re-elected). Still, Michael Smith of the Sunday Times seems to believe in the power of the story:

There has been a growing storm of protest in America, created by last month’s publication of the minutes in The Sunday Times. A host of citizens, including many internet bloggers, have demanded to know why the Downing Street memo (often shortened to “the DSM” on websites) has been largely ignored by the US mainstream media.

The White House has declined to respond to a letter from 89 Democratic congressmen asking if it was true — as Dearlove told the July meeting — that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” in Washington.

The Downing Street memo burst into the mainstream American media only last week after it was raised at a joint Bush-Blair press conference, forcing the prime minister to insist that “the facts were not fixed in any shape or form at all”.

John Conyers, the Democratic congressman who drafted the letter to Bush, has now written to Dearlove asking him to say whether or not it was accurate that he believed the intelligence was being “fixed” around the policy. He also asked the former MI6 chief precisely when Bush and Blair had agreed to invade Iraq and whether it is true they agreed to “manufacture” the UN ultimatum in order to justify the war.

He and other Democratic congressmen plan to hold their own inquiry this Thursday with witnesses including Joe Wilson, the American former ambassador who went to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium ore for its nuclear weapons programme.

OK, maybe there is some hope, after all, that facts and truth will eventually prevail. Still, while I believe that even some traditionally ardent Bush supporters will finally begin to question the honesty of their beloved leader, most people are already (or will quickly become) weary of the repeated allegations that Bush lied to them. Besides, this all assumes, of course, that the U.S. media will actually give these damaging revelations the attention they deserve.

In addition, as a last resort Bush can always simply play the "well we did what we thought was right" card, or if he doesn't even want to give us that much he can play his favourite "the world is a safer place with Saddam behind bars" card.

He may or may not be playing with a full deck, but George W. Bush always seems to have a good enough hand to keep himself in the game.

Quicky Film Review: Hotel Rwanda

Hotel Rwanda (2004)

Genre: Drama/War
Tagline: When the world closed its eyes, he opened his arms.
Plot Outline: Don Cheadle stars in the true-life story of Paul Rusesabagina, a hotel manager who housed over a thousand Tutsis refugees during their struggle against the Hutu militia in Rwanda.

director: Terry George ("The District," 2000 - TV)
writing credits: Keir Pearson & Terry George (In the Name of the Father, 1993)
produced by: Kigali Releasing Limited, Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa, Inside Track Films, Lions Gate Films Inc., Mikado Film s.r.l., Miracle Pictures, United Artists
starring: Don Cheadle, Sophie Okonedo, Nick Nolte

This is a harrowing, but inspirational tale about a good man who became great just in time, and for long enough, to save 1,268 human lives. What have you done with your life, lately? Don Cheadle is spectacular as Paul Rusesabagina, a true hero during the horrific 1994 Rwanda genocide. The rest of the cast does a superb job as well (villians included). The film is unsurpisingly emotional, and that's even before I read these haunting words (among others) from the protaganist:

It was worse than what you saw on screen. When you see all around the road, both sides, dead bodies and you hear noises of people being killed, and there are people passing with machetes and machine guns . . .

Here is a quote from the movie, delivered by Don Cheadle's Paul, that stays with me, even nearly a week later:

There will be no rescue, no intervention for us. We can only save ourselves. Many of you know influential people abroad, you must call these people. You must tell them what will happen to us... say goodbye. But when you say goodbye, say it as if you are reaching through the phone and holding their hand. Let them know that if they let go of that hand, you will die. We must shame them into sending help.

That's what these poor victims (and they were the 'lucky' ones - they survived the atrocities) had to do - shame rich & powerful westerners (their contacts acquired over the years from working at a 4-star hotel) into using their political influence to squirt droplets of watery help (rescuing a few people here and there) into the raging fire of a genocide (at least 800,000 people were murdered). Shame on us.

Finally, the most famous quote from the movie is the following from Joaquin Phoenix's camera man character, Jack [after Paul thanks him for shooting footage of the genocide]:

I think if people see this footage, they'll say Oh, my God, that's horrible. And then they'll go on eating their dinners.

Well, after seeing this powerful film I still did exactly that. McDonald's, I believe.

IMDB User Rating: 8.5 out of 10
Metacritic's Metascore: 79 ("Generally favorable reviews")
Metacritic's Users score: 8.1 out of 10
Rotten Tomatoes Critics: 90%
Rotten Tomatoes Users: 96%

MY RATING: 8.8 out of 10

Bush lies again, but again doesn't technically lie

More shenanigans from George Bush (via The Washington Post):

On Thursday, President Bush stepped to a lectern at the Ohio State Highway Patrol Academy in Columbus to urge renewal of the USA Patriot Act and to boast of the government's success in prosecuting terrorists.

Flanked by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, Bush said that "federal terrorism investigations have resulted in charges against more than 400 suspects, and more than half of those charged have been convicted."

Those statistics have been used repeatedly by Bush and other administration officials, including Gonzales and his predecessor, John D. Ashcroft, to characterize the government's efforts against terrorism.

But the numbers are misleading at best.

An analysis of the Justice Department's list of terrorism prosecutions by The Washington Post shows that 39 people -- not 200 -- have been convicted of crimes related to terrorism or national security.

Most of the others were convicted of relatively minor crimes such as making false statements and violating immigration law -- and had nothing to do with terrorism, the analysis shows. Overall, the median sentence was just 11 months.

This kind of fact-checking sure paints things in a different light, doesn't it? This is a great article (first of two parts) and I highly recommend that you read the entire thing.

How so many people can still take what Bush and his cronies say at face value is something I'll never in my life understand.

Quicky Film Review: National Treasure

National Treasure (2004)

Genre: Adventure/Action
Tagline: The greatest adventure history has ever revealed.
Plot Outline: A treasure hunter is in hot pursuit of a mythical treasure that has been passed down for centuries, while his employer turned enemy is onto the same path that he's on.

director: Jon Turteltaub (Phenomenon, 1996)
writing credits: 6 people (never a good sign)
produced by: Walt Disney Pictures, Jerry Bruckheimer Films, Junction Entertainment, Saturn Films
starring: Nicolas Cage, Sean Bean, Jon Voight, Harvey Keitel

Disney's National Treasure attempts to capture the magic from great adventure films of the past, but fails. While the film succeeds in creating a somewhat authentic action-adventure atmosphere, its awful script, poor acting and utter contempt for the intelligence of your average North American movie-goer (perhaps for good reason - see the website user scores further below) relentlessly drag it down to somewhere far south of mediocre.

Why is it that Disney, Bruckheimer and "dumbed down" are so often synonymous? To wit, what I hated most about National Treasure was the token 'sidekick' character, Riley Poole. He existed for two reasons, and two reasons only:

1) to 'crack wise.' Here is an example of the sidesplitting humour from Mr. Poole:

Abigail Chase (token, supposedly hot, female sidekick): [referring to the underground staircase] How did they build all this?
Ben Gates (Nicolas Cage's adventurer): The same way they built the pyramids
Riley Poole (annoying sidekick): Right... the aliens helped them

Almost makes me wish they had used a laugh track.

2) to explain [already obvious] plot developments, lest any soccer moms and their sedentary kids (clearly the target audience) get confused.

e.g. (paraphrasing) "wait a second - you gave [the bad guy] a fake clue so that it would throw him off the trail??? *gasp* What a great idea - now we'll be able to get to the next clue first!!"

Wow, thanks. I was wondering why you were being so helpful to the bad guys - now I understand that you were tricking them instead! Thanks, humourous sidekick character, for keeping me in the loop!

In conclusion, I recommend this movie only if you meet any of the following criteria:

• you saw Welcome to Mooseport during its opening weekend
• you are 10 years old, still stuck way back in grade 3, and you eat bugs as a hobby
• you are a Disney executive

IMDB User Rating: 6.6 out of 10
Metacritic's Metascore: 39 ("Generally negative reviews")
Metacritic's Users score: 6.8 out of 10
Rotten Tomatoes Critics: 42%
Rotten Tomatoes Users: 75%

MY RATING: 4.5 out of 10

Quicky Film Reviews

I've seen a lot of movies and I like to talk about them. I expect this to continue, hence welcome to my Quicky Film Reviews series!

The current plan is for me to review every movie I see, from now on, whether on DVD or at the theatre and regardless of how many times I've seen it before, unless I have absolutely nothing to say about it (unlikely).

I'll try to maintain a consistent rating system, but it won't be easy. Please consider the ratings "ballpark" figures, despite the precision implied by a decimal place!

Any and all comments are welcome, for each and every review. Hopefully you'll find these useful in some way, whether it be as a trustworthy recommendation or simply as a mindless (but somewhat entertaining) diversion.

Enjoy!

Quicky Film Reviews Archive

Hotel Rwanda 8.8
Mr. & Mrs. Smith 7.2
National Treasure 4.5

Upcoming Quicky Film Reviews

Hero
The Village
The Machinist
Batman Begins
War of the Worlds
Wedding Crashers
Dark Water
Pulp Fiction
Shaun of the Dead
Constantine
Tombstone
Gladiator
Going the Distance
Braveheart
Alien vs. Predator
The Waterboy
The Punisher
A History of Violence
Serenity
The Constant Gardener

Good News

Timmy's back!

Do yourself a favour and re-familiarize yourself with a talented blogger.