By and Large

Dorothy wanted to go back home...to this?

2005-11-08T19:38:00.000-08:00

Today the Kansas State Department of Education approved new public school science standards. The purpose of these new standards: to cast doubt on the science of evolution and promote the assertion of intelligent design as an alternative.

From CNN:

Kansas BOE rewrites definition of science
New standards question accuracy of evolutionary theory
TOPEKA, Kansas (AP) -- At the risk of re-igniting the same heated nationwide debate it sparked six years ago, the Kansas Board of Education approved new public school science standards Tuesday that cast doubt on the theory of evolution.
The 6-4 vote was a victory for "intelligent design" advocates who helped draft the standards. Intelligent design holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.
Critics of the language charged that it was an attempt to inject God and creationism into public schools in violation of the separation of church and state.
All six of those who voted for the standards were Republicans. Two Republicans and two Democrats voted against them.
"This is a sad day. We're becoming a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world, and I hate that," said board member Janet Waugh, a Kansas City Democrat.
Supporters of the standards said they will promote academic freedom. "It gets rid of a lot of dogma that's being taught in the classroom today," said board member John Bacon, an Olathe Republican.
The standards state that high school students must understand major evolutionary
concepts. But they also declare that some concepts have been challenged in recent years by fossil evidence and molecular biology.
The challenged concepts cited include the basic Darwinian theory that all life had a common origin and the theory that natural chemical processes created the building blocks of life.
In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.
The standards will be used to develop student tests measuring how well schools teach science. Decisions about what is taught in classrooms will remain with 300 local school boards, but some educators fear pressure will increase in some communities to teach less about evolution or more about intelligent design.
The vote marked the third time in six years that the Kansas board has rewritten standards with evolution as the central issue.
In 1999, the board eliminated most references to evolution, a move Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould said was akin to teaching "American history without Lincoln."
Two years later, after voters replaced three members, the board reverted to evolution-friendly standards. Elections in 2002 and 2004 changed the board's composition again, making it more conservative.
Many scientists and other critics contend creationists repackaged old ideas in scientific-sounding language to get around a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1987 that banned teaching the biblical story of creation in public schools.
The Kansas board's action is part of a national debate. In Pennsylvania, a judge is expected to rule soon in a lawsuit against the Dover school board's policy of requiring high school students to learn about intelligent design in biology class.
In August, President Bush endorsed teaching intelligent design alongside evolution.

As board member Janet Waugh said, the Kansas Board of Education, led by Republicans, has become a laughingstock of the world. Interestingly though, it is probably less of a laughingstock in the United States (as she also claimed), since creationists have, against all common sense and reason, managed to create a semblance of 'debate' out of nothing but smoke and mirrors.

There is no real scientific debate, of course. Philosophical debate, maybe. Religious debate, certainly. But no scientific debate.

Intelligent design is not science, but rather an assertion. There is no credible supporting evidence for intelligent design, and yet we are close to witnessing the topic being taught as a science in schoolboards across the United States of America.

It is even more ridiculous when you consider some of the integral components of the scientific approach: observation, description, investigation, identification. Intelligent design, in many ways, can be considered the antithesis to science. It is about what cannot be observed, what cannot be described, what cannot be investigated, what cannot be identified. It is the ill-defined, vague, remainder of what science cannot yet explain, not an alternative scientific theory.

Intelligent design has no more place in a science class than teaching the future does in a history class.

Kansas Board of Education member John Bacon (a Republican, of course) epitomizes the obtuseness of intelligent design advocates beautifully with his laughable justification of the implementation of the new standards:

It gets rid of a lot of dogma that's being taught in the classroom today.

Interesting word choice, is 'dogma'.

From dictionary.com:

dogma
1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them.

Actually, John, what allowing intelligent design into the science class does is add dogma to the classroom, at the expense of knowledge.

So...what exactly do you do with problems?

2005-11-07T21:04:00.000-08:00

From a TV advertisement during Monday Night Football:

Me? I'm a problem solver.

If there's a problem, I solve it.

And to think that companies only have 30 seconds to impress, and are paying heftily for that time.

I'd tell you how the rest of the commercial went, but I changed the channel.

Damien Cox Has No Clue

2005-11-03T08:53:00.000-08:00

In a recent column on ESPN, long-time Toronto Star columnist and regular ESPN contributor Damien Cox proved once and for all that he should be banned for life from using, let alone analyzing, any statistical measures. In fact, it could be argued that he should be banned from using numbers of any kind.

For when it comes to numbers, Damien Cox has no clue.

I wonder if words can suitably express how terrible this column is. Let us find out!

The column is entitled "Only wins should be the measure of a netminder". Interesting. Controversial. Everybody knows that hockey is a team sport, so to suggest that wins and only wins should determine who is a good and who is a bad goaltender is a peculiar argument. This sentiment is reminiscent of the opinion of countless old-school "baseball men" who believe that pitchers are nothing more than the sum of their wins and losses.

What arguments does Damien present towards making his case that only wins should be the measure of a netminder? Contradictory, irrelevant, illogical, and untrue arguments:

For years, it was all about goals-against average, the statistic that was supposed to tell you all you needed to know about an NHL goaltender.
Indeed, for more than five decades, they awarded the Vezina Trophy, named in honor of the famed Montreal puckstopper Georges Vezina, strictly on the basis of which goaltender or goaltenders helped their team give up fewer goals than any other team.
That changed in 1981, when the league dreamed up the Jennings Trophy to honor the goalies with the best GAA, leaving the Vezina for the masked man adjudged "to be the best at his position" in the NHL.

It is true that for many years now, goals-against average (GAA) has undoubtedly been the most widely-used statistic for ranking goaltender performance (much to my chagrin). For some reason, the NHL and national media decided that GAA was the most important criteria in ranking goalies, but as far as I know, nobody ever claimed that GAA was ever "all you needed to know about an NHL goaltender.”

I’ve argued for and against certain goalies being better than others since I was a small kid, and from what I remember, most people were quite aware that GAA wasn’t the whole story.

How to judge that particular issue, of course, has long been a matter of some debate, perhaps no more so than when the netminding blip that was Jim Carey of the Washington Capitals scooped up the silverware in 1996.

I wish I knew what made Damien Cox call the 1996 Jim Carey Vezina win a blip. I happen to agree, but I wonder if we agree for the same reasons. See, Carey finished a respectable 2nd in wins, the category that means the most to Cox.

aside: Chris Osgood had 4 more Wins in 21 fewer games, a better GAA and a better save percentage – it was those darn 9 Carey shutouts that pushed the vote in his favour, I’m sure of it.

second aside: Carey was also lucky that the Buffalo Sabres stunk that season, because the great Dominik Hasek had won the trophy in 1994, 1995, and won it again in 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2001. Funny he knew how to win in all of those years but somehow forgot how to do so in 1995-1996!

In recent years, the wisest of the wise have decided that, like size, it isn't G.A.A. that matters most. After all, if a goalie faces five shots per game and lets in two, a flashy G.A.A. of 2.00 might not be telling you all you need to know.
Instead, save percentage, something those of us who watched the game before the Original 30 never even knew existed, has become the sexy measuring stick for goaltenders.

Cox’s fears begin to bubble to the surface. Somebody who was confident in their own knowledge and not ignorant about the meaning behind numbers might write the preceding paragraph like this instead:

In recent years, more and more people have become aware of GAA’s imperfections. After all, if a goalie faces five shots per game and lets in two, a flashy GAA of 2.00 is probably not an accurate representation of how the netminder performed.
Instead, save percentage has finally arrived as the more popular measuring stick for goaltenders.

Of course anybody who has been reading Damien Cox for as long as I have recognizes that he is terrified of what he doesn’t understand.

Thus, here he lashes out by subtly mocking people who prefer save percentage as a measuring stick as “the wisest of the wise”, implying that they believe themselves to be far smarter than the old guard, of which he is a member (never mind that in most cases they probably are smarter).

Thus, here he claims that save percentage “has become the sexy measuring stick”; the word “sexy” meant to imply that save percentage is about style over substance.

Thus, here he betrays his own ignorance by admitting that save percentage is a number that “those of us who watched the game before the Original 30 never even knew existed”. That is akin to pointing out that, back when he was a living, breathing pre-schooler, he didn’t know that oxygen existed.

For years, Cox has been watching great goaltending performances (breathing air) without any awareness of save percentage (oxygen). Of course his lack of knowledge is irrelevant to the big picture, which is that save percentage has existed for as long as hockey’s existed. We only needed to record the proper data and calculate it.

Like on-base percentage in baseball, save percentage has come to be seen as the true measure of what a goaltender is accomplishing every night.

First of all, on-base percentage in baseball is seen as one of the most important measures of what a hitter is accomplishing, not as “the true measure” of those accomplishments. Similarly, save percentage in hockey is merely the single best representation of how a goalie is performing, not the full and inescapable truth. Damien Cox is refuting a misrepresentation of his opponents’ arguments. Did somebody say “straw man?”

In addition, note the presence of the words “every night” at the end of the sentence. Statistics such as a percentage are far more powerful when they draw from a large sample size of data. In a single hockey game we can expect any of a wide range of results; it would be unwise to automatically rely on any particular statistic to rate a goalie’s one-game performance. Cox inserts the words “every night” because he wants to present a scenario in which save percentage, as a measuring stick, is as close to ineffective as possible. Unfortunately by doing so, he presents his preferred statistic, wins, in a similar but even more unfavourable light. Can anybody describe how well a goalie played last night if they were told only that the goalie’s team had lost? Didn’t think so.

The problem with this number, of course, is that it doesn't take into account the quality or difficulty of shots a goalie faces. Just how many he stops out of how many he faces.

And the problem with ‘wins’ as a number, of course, is that it doesn’t take into account the quality or difficulty of shots a goalie faces OR how many he stops out of how many he faces.

It’s rare to witness somebody argue that, in order to best understand something, you should remove some of the known explanation to make room for more unknown and more unexplained. Imagine if the medical profession worked like that! “Uh, I’m not sure all of this research into the immune system explains everything we need to know about the health of this individual. I think that instead of measuring white blood cell counts and antibodies and all of that nonsense, we should just see if the patient pulls through or not to rate their overall health.”

Well, in the new NHL, it may be time to simplify again. As in, just wins, baby.
Victories are what matter the most, and perhaps should be the decisive issue when it comes to passing on the Vezina legacy.
Like save percentage, of course, wins weren't really a big deal for the majority of the NHL's existence. That was a baseball thing, and perhaps it was just generally thought awarding a "win" to a goaltender was giving him just a little too much credit for a team effort.

Victories are always what mattered most, to all players. That’s the central goal in sports: to win! It’s just that, as Cox mentions, awarding a win to a goalie is to give too much credit for a team effort. Does he not agree with that?

Wins and losses stats crept into the game in the 1980s, however, and began to make more sense as a measure of goaltending excellence as minding the twine tent became as crucial to the outcome of a hockey game as pitching was in baseball.
In fact, by the mid- to late 1990s, it could be argued that goaltenders had usurped pitchers as the most single dominant position in any team sport.

Getting confused yet? Wins became important in the high-scoring 1980s. But then in the mid-to late 1990s goaltenders were at their most influential, which implies that in a lower-scoring environment the goalies have more impact on winning and losing than they do in a higher-scoring environment, like this season. So wouldn’t it be wise to avoid using wins to measure a goalie’s worth in the current scoring climate?

With the advent of the "new" NHL, however, that's changing again. In fact, a defenseman who can actually move a body out of the slot area may soon become the MVP of the league.
Or could it be possible that scorers might again become kings of the jungle as they were in the days when a fellow like Bernie Nicholls could pot 70 goals in a single season?

So good defensemen are about to become the players most responsible for winning and losing? Or is it to be the high-scoring forwards? I thought that wins were supposed to measure how well a goalie was playing and yet here Cox seems to be arguing that wins and losses are largely out of a goalie’s control, since goalies are at the mercy of how well their teammates play on offense and defense! Maybe now is a good time to suggest to him that we need a statistic that measures how well a goalie handles what is in his control. You know, like stopping as high a percentage of shots as he can, for instance.

If only we had such a statistic!

Which brings us back to wins. Given what we've seen in the opening month of NHL activity -- and holy smokes, hasn't it been fun? -- it may well be the only number that truly matters is the number of wins a goaltender records while in goal.
That's not just because the GAA and save percentage numbers seem inflated and out of whack, particularly for veteran goalies like Martin Brodeur, Marty Turco and Nikolai Khabibulin.
It's just that winning the game, or figuring out how to avoid complete and utter embarrassment in the face of nightly offensive onslaughts, is quite likely becoming the only issue that matters.

To Cox, save percentage numbers seem “out of whack” because a handful of well-regarded goalies have poor save percentages this season. Martin Brodeur, for example, has a save percentage of .883, good for 30th in the league. Marty Turco’s save percentage is .872 (37th in the league). Khabibulin is ranked dead last (42nd) in the league for save percentage at .847. Instead of chalking up those numbers to poor performance, however, Cox suggests that the numbers themselves are at fault.

You’d think that, to bolster his case that save percentage is bad and wins are good, his example would include goalies with poor save percentages and a high number of wins, but you’d be wrong. Brodeur is 4-5 in 9 games this season, Turco is 4-4 in 9 games and Khabibulin is 3-8 in 11 games. These three goalies have combined for 11 wins in 29 games. Doesn’t Cox think therefore that ‘wins’ totals are also “out of whack”?

If the only issue that matters (for a goalie) is “winning the game, or figuring out how to avoid complete and utter embarrassment in the face of nightly offensive onslaughts”, Cox’s own examples are failing miserably.

Take the case of 40-year-old Eddie Belfour of the Toronto Maple Leafs, for instance. The Eagle's personal stats have been taking a pounding this season. As of Thursday, his GAA was at 3.37, hardly a Belfour-type figure, and his save percentage was .889, well below the .900 mark, under which goalies historically assumed to be performing as if the eye holes in their masks were taped over.

If by “historically” Damien Cox means during the low-scoring mid-1990s to 2003-2004, then his arbitrary selection of .900 happens to be reasonable. However in the high-scoring 1980s, a save percentage of .900 was not only highly impressive, but rare. In 1986-1987, for example, Ron Hextall was the only starting goaltender to have a save percentage over .900 (.902). The next season, Patrick Roy led the league with a save percentage of .900. I was young at the time, but I don’t remember any eye holes being taped over.

On Monday, Belfour's stats weren't enhanced, as he gave up another four goals, making it 13 goals allowed in three games.
But two of those were Leafs wins, including Monday's victory over Boston in which Belfour blocked 43 of 47 Boston shots in regulation, turned away another six in overtime, then blanked Glen Murray, Joe Thornton and Patrice Bergeron in succession to win the shootout (Eric Lindros scored for the Leafs).
All of that, interestingly, overshadowed the mistakes Belfour had made on the night, including a whiff on Murray's very stoppable second-period wrist shot and a screw-up on playing the puck behind his net that led to a goal by Brad Boyes. On that play, Belfour went to play the puck behind the end line outside the trapezoid markings, realized at the last moment that he couldn't, and then was helpless to stop Boyes from firing it home.
The new goaltending gear, particularly the downsized catching mitt, has been giving Belfour fits. As well, he was likely the best goalie at playing the puck outside his crease besides Brodeur, so the restrictions in that area have affected him more than most.
"One minute you're a slug, the next minute you're a hero, so you don't know what to think," Belfour said. "I felt bad about the [Murray] goal that snuck under my glove and then that stupid play where I went out to play the puck and I got caught in no-man's land. You just feel terrible for the guys and you obviously want to do whatever you can to help out."
At the end of the night, Belfour got the big "W," and a Leafs team that has been decidedly leaky in the defensive zone had been saved by its goaltending.

When you dry your eyes, let me know and we can try to tackle the insanity of the preceding sob story together. OK, to support his case that wins are the ultimate measure for how good a goalie is playing, Cox gives us a show-stopper of an example with the Boston game where Belfour stopped 49 out of 53 shots. Folks, I present to you ... Mr. Save Percentage!! *applause*:

49/53 = .925.

One of Belfour’s best games of the season, and Damien Cox’s example of why save percentage is bad and wins are good is a match where Belfour’s save percentage was .925.

With enemies like that, save percentage doesn’t need friends.

See, figuring out the new NHL seems largely about looking at things in a different way and tossing out old assumptions.
A defenseman who can't bang bodies in his own end might be seen as far more valuable now because he can create in the enemy zone more freely. Forwards who lack brawn or speed might be more useful if they can produce on the power play.
And goaltenders, who before might have been seen as wanting if their GAA was over 2.50 and their save percentage less than .915, should now be viewed more generously, with more of a focus on the number of points their teams generate in the standings.

Because scoring is up, Cox supports viewing goalie stats more generously than before. But ignoring a goalie’s individual contribution to the team (namely how adept they are at saving shots) and instead giving them full credit or full blame when the team wins or loses doesn’t represent generosity.

If the NHL scoring climate has changed, it will be reflected in league averages. For instance, if average save percentage is .899 this season instead of, say, .909 the year before (hypothetical example), then that suggests we should adjust our views as to what a good save percentage is for this season, not that we need to throw away the save percentage statistic and switch to a more crude measure of individual success!

These fellows are, after all, also dealing with new equipment sizes, with streamlined jerseys still on the way, and veteran goalies would tell you they are working harder these days while facing more difficult shots and elongated offensive-zone possessions by enemy teams on a nightly basis.

Poor babies. Of course, ALL GOALIES ARE IN THE SAME SITUATION with respect to these issues. Arrrgh.

How does he not see that none of his points persuade as to why wins are better than save percentage? The preceding paragraph wasn’t the least bit relevant! Is he getting paid by the word? Actually, is he really getting paid at all for this crap?

So, if we put wins ahead of everything else, as of today, Detroit's Manny Legace (10 wins) and Tomas Vokoun of the Nashville Predators (seven wins) would be the favorites to win the Vezina. Just behind them would be Montreal's Jose Theodore, Florida Panthers puckstopper Roberto Luongo and Ryan Miller of the Buffalo Sabres.

Sigh. Manny Legace leads the league in wins. He also happens to be 5th in save percentage, and second in save percentage behind Lundqvist out of the full-time starters only. Vokoun is 3rd in wins. He is 9th overall in save percentage or 5th out of the full-time starters. Roberto Luongo’s career save percentage is .920 for pity’s sake and he’s at .922 this season – he’s a perennial Vezina Trophy contender precisely because he regularly stops a higher percentage of shots than most other goalies. It certainly isn't because Florida wins too many games. Ryan Miller has 6 wins which is tied for 4th as I type, is ranked 12th overall in save percentage or 7th overall among starting goalies.

Theodore has been struggling a bit to stop pucks (.883 save percentage) but has 8 wins. I guess Cox finally has his proof! Or, more likely, he's stumbled across an exception, in this early part of the season.

When you sort NHL goaltenders by save percentage, you notice right away a correlation between high save percentage and winning percentage (wins/games played) and Won-Lost record. To illustrate, the top-10 goalies as sorted by save percentage have a combined record of 57-20! Gosh, you stop a lot of pucks and good things seem to happen; you win a lot of games (unless you are Dwayne Roloson) and you don’t lose very many games (unless you are Roberto Luongo or Dwayne Roloson).

Call it the Grant Fuhr standard. In the 1987-88 season, Fuhr appeared in 75 games for the Edmonton Oilers, registering a GAA of 3.43 and a save percentage of .881.
Nothing special, right?
Except Fuhr won 40 games, and ultimately, helped the Oilers capture the Cup. For his efforts, Fuhr was awarded the Vezina for the first and only time in his spectacular career.
He was, the voters understood, better than the numbers.

Ahhh, the good old late 1980s, where men were men, goalies didn’t worry about stopping pucks but instead focused on winning games, and the Oilers scored 22% more goals than the league average.

Fuhr’s reputation is that he would frequently let in soft goals because he knew that the Oilers would score a lot, and then he would shut the door when the game was on the line. Guess what? In 1987-88, Grant Fuhr’s GAA of 3.43 was well below the league average of 3.62, and his save percentage was slightly above the league average of .880. In other words, he was an above-average goalie for a great team. The voters understood that, and given that there weren’t too many credible challengers who played in nearly as many games as Fuhr that season I am not at all surprised that he won.

I don’t doubt that his league-leading 40 wins played a huge role in his award, much to Damien Cox’s glee. But note that Fuhr played in 75 games compared to 45-55 games for most other starters. Imagine if future Hall-of-Famer Patrick Roy had played in 75 games that year instead of 45; he would have won approximately 38 games (on the reasonable assumption that he could have kept up his .511 winning percentage for 30 extra games on the 1st place Canadiens) and the voters would have chosen him and his 2.90 GAA and .900 save percentage, perhaps in a landslide.

So if you are Damien Cox, feeling threatened by numbers you don’t understand, you:

point out the imperfections in an imperfect, but good, statistic.
misrepresent your opponents’ opinion of the value of that imperfect, but good, statistic.
argue against the misrepresentation that you created.
champion a much less sophisticated measure instead, a statistic which happens to share the same imperfections that the better yardstick does but has many additional and more serious flaws.
give examples which not only do not prove your point, but actually lend support to the statistical measure you are arguing against.
pepper the column with completely irrelevant information.
mention Grant Fuhr; he's your "wins, baby" trump card.

That was, quite simply, one of the worst sports columns I’ve ever read.

**************************

(thanks to Greg for the link)

UPDATE (November 3, 2005):

Declan over at CAtO beat me to the punch yesterday. Go read his fantastic (and far more concise) take on this same Damien Cox column.

Declan: "Scout's Honour" I did not read yours before writing mine, despite some obvious similarities. Just coincidental!

Rumsflued

2005-10-30T19:23:00.000-08:00

Some facts to mull over:

Gilead Sciences Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that discovered a flu medicine called Tamiflu.
Swiss giant drugmaker Hoffman-LaRoche (Roche) currently markets and distributes Tamiflu. From Gilead's own site,
Roche has worldwide commercial rights to Tamiflu, and Gilead receives payments from Roche for the successful completion of program milestones and royalties on product sales.
Gilead has been attempting to regain control of Tamiflu from Roche, and in June, 2005 they announced that they had terminated the 1996 "Tamiflu Development and Licensing Agreement" with Roche. They had not been happy with Roche's "commitment" to Tamiflu.
As of the August 4, 2005 quarterly report, the notice of termination was not yet settled (the companies have entered into an arbitration process which is expected to take years).
The World Health Organization recommends the culling of bird flocks to avoid outbreak of Highly Pathogenic avian influenza due to influenza A/H5N1. For human cullers who are suspected of having developed influenza A/H5, the World Health Organization recommends immediate treatment with Tamiflu.
Sales of Tamiflu have more than doubled in the past year (from Q3 2004 to Q3 2005). From the BBC,
"Roche will continue to take action, both on its own and with a significant number of suppliers, to increase production capacity for Tamiflu to meet seasonal and pandemic needs," the company said in a statement.
As Roche mentions, Tamiflu is not a vaccine. It does not cure the flu, and will therefore not cure the avian flu. It instead attempts to prevent the spread of the influenza virus through the body.
The U.S. government, and many other governments, have been stockpiling Tamiflu.
This past Thursday, the U.S. Senate approved an $8-billion emergency, out-of-budget, expenditure to allow the U.S. government to buy even more Tamiflu (in addition to flu vaccines and other medicines).
U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld joined Gilead, the creators of Tamiflu, as a director and board member in 1988, and was named Gilead's Chairman in 1997.
From CBS News back in 2001,
Rumsfeld's 94-page financial disclosure form shows that his holdings include between $6 million and $30 million in Gilead Sciences, a pharmaceutical company, plus $1 million to $5 million in vested stock options.
This past Thursday, on the same day that the Senate approved the emergency $8-billion 'Tamiflu-plus' spending, the New York Times reported the following:
Rumsfeld to Avoid Bird-Flu Drug Issues

By THE NEW YORK TIMES

WASHINGTON, Oct. 27 - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has recused himself from government decisions concerning medications to prevent or treat avian flu, rather than sell his stock holdings in the company that patented the antiviral agent Tamiflu, according to a Pentagon memorandum issued Thursday.

The memorandum, to Mr. Rumsfeld's staff from the Pentagon general counsel, said the defense secretary would not take part in decisions that may affect his financial interests in Gilead Sciences Inc.

Before becoming defense secretary in January 2001, Mr. Rumsfeld was chairman of Gilead. On each of his annual financial disclosure statements, he has listed continued stock holdings in the company.

Gilead holds the patent on Tamiflu, but contracts for it are signed with an American subsidiary of F. Hoffman-LaRoche Ltd., which holds marketing and manufacturing rights.

Mr. Rumsfeld will remain involved in matters related to the Pentagon response to an outbreak, so long as none affect Gilead.
Rumsfeld is set to profit handsomely from increased sales of Tamiflu, brought on by avian flu fears.

UPDATE (October 31, 2005):

As commentor Lou Minatti implies, there are some conspiracy theories out there about Rumsfeld and Tamiflu. From Lou's own post on the topic, these theories range from Tamiflu currently being a completely ineffective treatment for flu to the entire avian flu crisis being cooked up by Rumsfeld himself in order to make an extra million (and counting).

I do not believe in such conspiracy theories, though I admit I find it interesting and entertaining that Rumsfeld's association with Gilead and his current role in the government easily lend themselves to such theories.

I responded to Lou in the comments:

Lou,
I'm not sure what conspiracy theory you are talking about. I typically don't
believe in conspiracy theories.
If you are interested in my opinion (because I didn't offer one in the post, after all) I do think that Rumsfeld should have strongly considered immediately selling his already profitable stake in Gilead rather than seeking to continue to profit from decisions his peers and friends and bosses and underlings may/will be making from here on out.
Conflict of interest is hardly a conspiracy theory.

Scary Halloween Story

2005-10-27T18:32:00.000-07:00

Every so often I'll hear an unsettling story meant to expose our collective apathy towards others; deaths of homeless people going unnoticed for hours, people in apartment complexes ignoring screams for help of their neighbour, etc.

I'm not sure exactly what to make of this, though:

Suicide Mistaken for Halloween Decoration

The Associated Press
Thursday, October 27, 2005; 7:10 PM
FREDERICA, Del. -- The apparent suicide of a woman found hanging from a tree went unreported for hours because passers-by thought the body was a Halloween decoration, authorities said.
The 42-year-old woman used rope to hang herself across the street from some homes on a moderately busy road late Tuesday or early Wednesday, state police said.
The body, suspended about 15 feet above the ground, could be easily seen from passing vehicles.
State police spokesman Cpl. Jeff Oldham and neighbors said people noticed the body at breakfast time Wednesday but dismissed it as a holiday prank. Authorities were called to the scene more than three hours later.
"They thought it was a Halloween decoration," Fay Glanden, wife of Mayor William Glanden, told The (Wilmington) News Journal."
It looked like something somebody would have rigged up," she said.

Ugh. Not to make light, but they must have some pretty sophisticated Halloween decorations down in Frederica, Del., if a real death scene was mistaken for a holiday one.

Or perhaps people, as they go about their daily routines, really don't like to engage in perfect strangers' lives, let alone their deaths.

Since You Can't Beat 'Em, Join 'Em

2005-10-26T21:59:00.000-07:00

Via Andrew Sullivan, you can now become a Republican in 10 easy steps.

Here is how.

Turn your personal hell into heaven, just like that.

---

Hattip to Declan at CAtO for the heads-up.

'Attacking' the States, Knocks on Wood

2005-10-25T19:24:00.000-07:00

My eye caught the following hysterical (all 3 meanings of the word apply) headline on the front page of CNN.com:

"Canadian PM keeps up attack on U.S." (note that the headline appeared as quoted on the front page of CNN, but when you click on the link it leads you [and always did] to the full story with the much less eye-popping headline of 'Canadian leader ready to debate U.S. on trade').

Much to my chagrin, the story was not about an angry Paul Martin lobbing poutine across the Peace Bridge, but rather about the interminable softwood lumber dispute.

What followed for me, in first reading the CNN take on Martin's "attack", and then reading some background on the dispute from the CBC website, seemed to be a classic example of perspective (or perhaps audience?) influencing reporting.

Read the CBC background I've linked to above if, like me, you've finally decided to learn some of the details about the dispute (biased or not, there are plenty of facts to chew on).

Here is an excerpt of CNN's take:

OTTAWA, Canada (Reuters) -- Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin kept up his attack on U.S. trade policy on Monday as he prepared to meet Condoleezza Rice later in the day on her first official visit to Canada as U.S. secretary of state.
"Friends live up to their agreements," Martin said in calling on the United States to respect a ruling under the North American Free Trade Agreement on Canadian exports of softwood lumber.
When Martin took over as prime minister in December 2003, he pledged to improve relations with the United States, but he has taken off the diplomatic gloves in criticizing the U.S. position on softwood."
Good relations with the United States does not mean that the prime minister of the country should not defend Canada," he said.

Good for you, Paul, you scrappy devil.

Now what is the U.S.' position, again according to CNN?

The U.S. position has been that while NAFTA has ruled in Ottawa's favor, the World Trade Organization has ruled for Washington, saying that subsidized Canadian lumber was threatening U.S. producers.
But Martin said NAFTA "trumps" the WTO. Martin brushed aside a question as to whether he was trying to win domestic political points ahead of a general election expected next April.

Back to the CBC:

Two weeks later, a WTO panel concluded that the U.S. wrongly applied harsh duties on Canadian softwood exports. The panel also found that provincial stumpage programs provide a "financial benefit" to Canadian producers. But, the panel made it clear that the benefit is not enough to be a subsidy, and does not justify current U.S. duties.

Wait a second - CNN claims that the WTO "has ruled for Washington" while CBC suggests otherwise. I am left to piece together the following:

the U.S. claims that our stumpage fees (fees charged to companies that harvest timber on public land) are too low, and are defacto subsidies.
they have chosen, in retaliation, to impose harsh tariffs (18%) on incoming Canadian lumber.
many jobs in the Canadian Forestry industry have been lost (at least 15,000 in B.C. alone)
NAFTA has clearly ruled in favour of Canada.
the WTO has ruled that, although U.S. lumber producers are threatened by Canada's provincial stumpage programs, Canada is NOT unfairly subsidizing its lumber (i.e. the stumpage fees are not too low)
the U.S. tariffs are unjustified, as per NAFTA and the WTO.

Now that I've single-handedly gotten to the bottom of the issue, it's time for the States to show us the money!

UPDATE (October 29, 2005):

Commenter 'nomennovum' quite correctly pointed out that, according to CTV news, and since the previous rulings which I refer to in the post above, the WTO has ruled that the United States did comply with international law when it imposed those billions of dollars of duties on Canadian lumber.

According to the CTV article dated August 31, 2005, this decision comes from a confidential ruling that won't be made public until "later this year". While Canada may very well appeal, what this means to me for the present is that the States has merely broken their own agreement with us under NAFTA (as per the NAFTA panel), but have not been found to have acted illegally from an international perspective. From the article:

Toronto trade lawyer Lawrence Herman said the WTO and NAFTA rulings aren't so much contradictory as "mutually exclusive."
NAFTA panels determine whether a country is complying with its own laws, while WTO panels check adherence to international trade laws, he told The Globe.

I intend to write another post about this ongoing dispute when the ruling has been made public (or before then if anything interesting happens). Stay tuned.

Victor's Justice

2005-10-20T11:22:00.000-07:00

Is it just me, or does the trial of Saddam Hussein appear clumsy, rushed, and even illegitimate to you too?

No matter how they dress it up, it looks like "Victor's Justice" to me.

Most would argue that the crimes Hussein is charged with are crimes against humanity and therefore meet a universal standard. I agree, which is precisely why he should be tried in an international court. I find it hard to believe that this hastily established, American funded, Iraqi Special Tribunal will offer justice of high enough standards than it might have had the court actually existed before the American invasion.

Human Rights Watch has been following Saddam's criminal history very closely for a long time, and have some grave concerns about his trial.

In an 18-page briefing paper released last week, Human Rights Watch highlighted concerns that the tribunal is at risk of violating basic fair-trial guarantees. Problems with the tribunal and its statute include:
• No requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Inadequate protections for the accused to mount a defense on conditions equal to those enjoyed by the prosecution.
• Disputes among Iraqi political factions over control of the court, jeopardizing its appearance of impartiality.
• A draconian requirement that prohibits commutation of death sentences by any Iraqi official, including the president, and compels execution of the defendant within 30 days of a final judgment.

These worries, as phrased above, are merely the tip of the iceberg. For even more iceberg, I highly recommend a full reading of this Human Rights Watch briefing paper, entitled The Former Iraqi Government On Trial.

Note that Human Rights Watch has long been calling for the prosecution of Saddam and his henchmen. From their own World Report 2004:

Human Rights Watch has devoted enormous efforts to investigating and documenting the Iraqi government’s atrocities, particularly the Anfal genocide against Iraqi Kurds. We have interviewed witnesses and survivors, exhumed mass graves, taken soil samples to demonstrate the use of chemical weapons, and combed through literally tons of Iraqi secret police documents. We have circled the globe trying to convince some government—any government—to institute legal proceedings against Iraq for genocide. No one would. In the mid-1990s, when our efforts were most intense, governments feared that charging Iraq with genocide would be too provocative—that it would undermine future commercial deals with Iraq, squander influence in the Middle East, invite terrorist retaliation, or simply cost too much money.

It is probably fair to say that this group is concerned about the fairness of this trial not because they care about Saddam Hussein, but because they know he is guilty of many crimes, want the process to be legitimate and desire true justice for any and all of Saddam's victims.

Back to the idea of "Victor's Justice" again, or the idea that a victorious invader is applying different rules to judge right and wrong for themselves and for their enemy. Yesterday, White House Press Secretary Scott McClelland responded to questions of the Court's authority by claiming that

Saddam Hussein is facing Iraqi justice.

Is that true, though? As Jim Lobe from Inter Press Service News Agency points out in this enlightening article,

the basic law under which Hussein is being tried was written under the supervision of the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and has been modified only slightly since the transitional government was constituted last spring.
According to HRW, Washington has so far spent some 128 million dollars on the investigation and prosecution efforts against Hussein and more than a dozen of his aides to date. It also covered the costs of converting the former Baath Party headquarters in Baghdad into a courthouse where this and other trials are to be held.
According to the New York Times, the U.S.-led Regime Crimes Liaison Office, which also included lawyers and international justice experts from other Coalition countries, particularly Britain and Australia, has been "the real power behind the tribunal, advising, and often deciding, on almost every facet of its work, always behind a shield of anonoymity".

Iraqi justice indeed.

As a final thought, I want to point out some of the charges that have been brought against Saddam (so far):

killing
forced expulsion
the imprisonment of people
torture
the failure to comply with international law.

I must ask, in all seriousness:

When will we see the establishment of 'Special Tribunals' for the trials of George W. Bush & Tony Blair?

Planet of the Apes

2005-10-17T15:41:00.000-07:00

I don't know what scares me more; that the United States has recently, finally gone off the deep end and pretty much rejected science outright, or that they waited until long after they had become the world's undisputed military power before doing so. Science sure comes in handy for 'killin' folk' and for assuring armed superiority, after all.

Hopefully we Canadians will continue to study real science - maybe in time we'll come up with a clever way to avoid being invaded and occupied when the United States eventually runs out of natural resources and needs a few trees or lakes.

What's that? They're our friends and would never do that to us? Oh, phew!

I feel much better now.

GIFTED ARTISTS WALLOW IN OBSCURITY!

2005-10-14T10:02:00.000-07:00

You know what's an underappreciated occupation? I'll give you a hint: these people work at tabloid publications (tabloid magazines/newspapers, and no, I'm not talking about CNN again).

The article writers? Gawd no - they stink. OK, that might be unfair coming from a guy who can barely keep a fluffy blog going. Then again, I can read, and by the authority vested in me as a human who can read, I deem that tabloid writers mostly stink (I was just bedridden for almost two months; trust me on that one).

The photographers? No, they get plenty of recognition, albeit it mostly negative. Still, the paparazzi are often in the news themselves these days. Heck, there was even a movie made recently about a celebrity who seeks revenge on the lowlife devils. The movie bombed, possibly indicating that the general public doesn't feel sorry for celebrities, or perhaps proving beyond any lingering doubt that Cole Hauser, Tom Sizemore, Robin Tunney and Daniel Baldwin aren't big box office draws.

No, the underrated geniuses who happen to work in obscurity for tabloids are the people who match giant cover headlines with giant cover photos: the Photo-Headline Synergists¹.

Think about a typical tabloid's headline on the cover page. How about:

"ROBERT DOWNEY JR ARRESTED!"

Their attention having been efficiently grabbed, the reader now needs a visual. Trouble is none of the staff photographers were present at the scene of Downey's actual arrest! The audience might not know who Robert Downey Jr. is, or perhaps they simply don't believe your nearly accurate claim that he's been arrested. So what photo do you publish, hot shot? If you answered "any old picture of Robert Downey Jr, what does it matter?!" then you clearly don't have the natural instincts of a Photo-Headline Synergist.

What would one of these magicians do? They'd start combing through the nearly 12,000 pictures they have on file of Robert Downey Jr, and they'd find the perfect one; the one photograph that captures the raw emotion of the mighty banner above. Maybe it's a picture of a scruffy Robert Downey leaving a police station after posting bail from a previous arrest. Maybe it's a close up of Downey wearing a particularly anguished expression. Sure, he had that look on his face for only the briefest of moments; he was stepping out of a cab, only to be startled by flash bulbs and lenses less than a foot away from his face, and his face briefly contorted into a pained manifestation. But that doesn't matter: Robert Downey Jr. has been arrested and you need a picture of him looking like he has just been arrested.

Let's try another one:

"NICK CAUGHT CHEATING!"

We need a picture of a guilty-looking Nick Lachey. Or better yet, thinking like a true Photo-Headline Synergist professional, you want to publish a picture of Nick Lachey on the left, looking like a deer caught in the headlights and a picture of a furious-looking Jessica Simpson on the right. Perfecto! You've captured the essence of Nick having been caught cheating by his furious bride!

Here's an actual National Enquirer cover story I just saw at the local 7/11:

"INSIDE JEN'S $200M DIVORCE AGONY!"

Sure enough, a big money publication like the Enquirer isn't going to have any old hack on staff putting pictures to cover headlines. Instead, what we see accompanying the startling headline is a photo of Jennifer Aniston, apparently in agony, or something closely akin.

Surprisingly, the National Enquirer's online publication's standards aren't nearly as high. Here is the same story, but check out the picture! Does Jen look like she's in agony? Far from it. She looks cute, perky and almost happy. Hardly the image of a tormented woman in unqualified misery. Careless stuff; probably the work of a co-op student or worse yet, somebody who doesn't take their very important job seriously.

You'd think that these mysterious Photo-Headline Synergists would have to be characters with a great eye for people and solid organizational skills. After all, how many pictures does the National Enquirer Online have on file of Jen Aniston? Probably hundreds of thousands. You'd have to have an efficient filing system to be able to quickly snag one of the few pictures of Jen in agony from the majority of pictures of Jen in bliss.

If anything, the poor choice of picture in the aforementioned National Enquirer Online story, especially when compared to the parent company's perfect choice for the print version, should convince you that exceptional Photo-Headline Synergists do not grow on trees, and that the profession is one of western society's most underappreciated.

-----

¹the profession is so underappreciated that I have no idea what it is called, or if it even exists, for that matter.

Blogging/Health Update

2005-08-27T12:45:00.000-07:00

I was struck down recently by a nasty ailment called acute pancreatitis.

This was caused by gallstones, which in turn was probably caused either by me having been overweight for a number of years, or by me recently losing all of that weight quite quickly.

Whatever the cause, I was in the hospital for a while, was discharged, and have more recently been resting at home/going to specialist appointments.

I'll be going in for surgery on September 8th or sooner (if there are any cancellations); I'm to undergo a Laproscopic Cholecystectomy, which doesn't sound too bad (knock on wood). After that, no more gall bladder and hopefully, no more pain/weakness.

It was for the above reason(s) that I haven't felt up to blogging recently, so for the few people who are still checking By and Large on occasion, I do plan to start posting again in the near future. If I don't post anything new between now and my surgery, look for new posts at or around September 12th (guesstimate - depends how I feel).

A Grim Reminder

2005-08-03T18:49:00.000-07:00

From AP, via CNN, here is a 'grim reminder' that George Bush dehumanizes non-Americans and views American tragedy as an opportunity to push his agenda of perpetual fear and violence:

Bush: U.S. will complete Iraq mission
Latest U.S. military deaths a 'grim reminder'
GRAPEVINE, Texas (AP) -- President Bush lamented the deaths of 14 Marines in Iraq Wednesday, calling the deadly attack a "grim reminder" America is still at war.
"These terrorists and insurgents will use brutal tactics because they're trying to shake the will of the United States of America. They want us to retreat," Bush told some 2,000 state lawmakers, business leaders and public policy experts gathered here.

*skipping ahead*

"Make no mistake about it," Bush said. "We are at war."

In other news, it is highly likely that some Iraqis died too on Wednesday, but we didn't hear anything about it.

A Slip-Up in the Propaganda War

2005-07-24T14:36:00.000-07:00

Maybe now is a good time for an update as to how the war for the 'hearts and minds' of Iraqis is going.

From CNN:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S. military on Sunday said it was looking into how virtually identical quotations ended up in two of its news releases about different insurgent attacks.
Following a car bombing in Baghdad on Sunday, the U.S. military issued a statement with a quotation attributed to an unidentified Iraqi that was virtually identical to a quote reacting to an attack on July 13.
After questioning by news media, the military released the statement without the quotation.
Lt. Col. Clifford Kent, spokesman for the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division, said use of the quote was an "administrative error." He said the military was looking into the matter.

*snip*

Following are the two quotes as provided by the U.S. military in news releases:
Sunday's news release said: "'The terrorists are attacking the infrastructure, the ISF and all of Iraq. They are enemies of humanity without religion or any sort of ethics. They have attacked my community today and I will now take the fight to the terrorists,' said one Iraqi man who preferred not to be identified."
The July 13 news release said: "'The terrorists are attacking the infrastructure, the children and all of Iraq,' said one Iraqi man who preferred not to be identified. 'They are enemies of humanity without religion or any sort of ethics. They have attacked my community today and I will now take the fight to the terrorists.'"

Please keep this bizarre 'administrative error' in mind the next time you read a story, dutifully reported by CNN or others, where the U.S. military claims to have killed x many 'insurgents' in an attack, or how various 'Iraqis who preferred not to be identified' are supportive of the war.

In this occupation, the U.S. military is in almost complete control of the information supply; as you can see, that calls for a healthy dose of skepticism.

Those Geneva Convention Rules Serve a Purpose After All!

2005-07-24T09:43:00.000-07:00

I'm not a sentimental person by nature, but gosh if the following Associated Press story (via Newsday.com) didn't bring tears of joy to my eyes. The U.S. government, doing an about-face in order to selflessly protect the feelings of the very prisoners they once thought so little of that they tortured. How heartwarming!

ACLU Blames Gov't for Abu Ghraib Delay
By LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press Writer
Fri Jul 22,10:36 PM ET
The American Civil Liberties Union accused the government Friday of putting another legal roadblock in the way of its bid to allow the public to see photographs and videos stemming from the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal.
The ACLU said sealed documents the government filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Manhattan will be used to argue that dozens of photographs cannot be released because they would result in a safety threat to individuals.
"We obviously express skepticism about the latest move on the government's part to withhold information the public is clearly entitled to," said Amrit Singh, a staff attorney with the ACLU.
The government raised its new challenge to releasing pictures and videos from Abu Ghraib prison on the same day it was supposed to show the exhibits to a judge presiding over the case, the ACLU said.
Sean H. Lane, the government lawyer handling the case, referred questions to Herbert Haddad, a spokesman for U.S. Attorney David Kelley.
Haddad said the government did file papers in the case under seal, and he said he would not discuss their contents for that reason.Singh said the delay by the government ould be challenged in court by the ACLU, which filed a lawsuit in October 2003 seeking information on the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody and the transfer of prisoners to countries known to use torture. The ACLU contends that prisoner abuse is systemic.
Lane has argued that releasing pictures, even in redacted form, would violate Geneva Convention rules on prisoner treatment by subjecting detainees to additional humiliation or embarrassment.

Emphases mine.

Sarcasm aside, I am in awe at the impudence of the Bush administration. Those clowns have, at every turn, sought ways to sidestep the Geneva Convention rules on prisoner treatment because their intention all along has been to not follow them. It is a remarkable display of cheekiness that they now plead safety behind the same rules they have repeatedly betrayed, and will continue to betray. Amazing.

Light Blogging Continues...

2005-07-18T19:54:00.000-07:00

I have been swamped with activities for the past week, both work-related and not.

The short-term picture (i.e. this week's outlook) isn't too much better, but I'll make a strong effort to post something before Thursday. When I do have the time I plan to write a glut of posts, including a few more Quicky Film Reviews, a blurb about (& pictures of) my hike up Vancouver's Mount Seymour, some more commentary about the Rovian antics which persist at the White House, and a few other odds & ends. I even plan to introduce a brand new, recurring, By and Large feature, entitled "Canadian Content".

So please come back later in the week, at which time I'll have hopefully given you something new to read!

White House Spin Zone Attacked

2005-07-11T22:02:00.000-07:00

Have you ever seen a White House press briefing (or excerpts of such a briefing)? A gaggle of administration-friendly reporters, perhaps a few unfriendly scribes, and sometimes even an administration plant, sit around, pens, notepads and recording devices in hand, while the White House Press Secretary lobs spin at them. Questions are posed, Words are offered in return.

Well at today's press briefing, the normally subservient press corps went at Press Secretary Scott McClelland like a pack of rabid dogs. What set them off? The Karl Rove controversy did, FINALLY.

In 2002, Joseph Wilson, former U.S. ambassador to Gabon, was sent to Niger to investigate whether Iraq had purchased weapons-suitable yellowcake. From Wikipedia,

Wilson achieved wide notoriety due to his involvement in the verification of intelligence regarding Iraq. In 2002 he was sent to Niger to investigate the possibility that uranium-enriched yellowcake had been sold to Iraq. Wilson concluded that since yellowcake mining is managed by an international consortium and supervised by the International Atomic Energy Agency, this was unlikely (Wilson, 2003).
Controversy ensued when the British government issued a white paper asserting an imminent threat from Iraq, on the basis of intelligence that later proved to be a forgery. In his 2003 State of the Union Address, President Bush referred to attempts by Iraq to acquire uranium from Africa. The Bush Administration explicitly affirmed (Fleischer, 2003) this was based on a reference to Niger, but the later Butler Report confirmed the existence of what they found to be credible intelligence that Iraq was attempting to acquire uranium from Niger, see Yellowcake Forgery, and less certain intelligence that Iraq was attempting to acquire uranium from the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Wilson criticized the President over the Niger claims, and shortly thereafter an anonymous source leaked the fact that his wife, Valerie Plame, was a covert CIA operative to columnist Robert Novak. Wilson accused the Bush administration of attempting to discredit and intimidate him. The U.S. Congress has set up an inquiry to determine who was involved with the leak, headed by U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald.

The 'inquiry' is tantamount to a criminal investigation, and Karl Rove is the subject of the investigation.

Imagine if you will, the media's reaction to a Democrat administration leaking the name of a CIA operative - do you think the words "treason," "national security," and "traitor" would come up? You bet they would. Yet even though Rove was identified days ago as being the treasonous traitor who jeopardized U.S. national security, I barely noticed a peep about it coming from the mainstream U.S. media. Yahoo posted an AP story or two, and Michael Isikoff wrote a story for the much-maligned Newsweek's July 18 issue, but CNN, USA Today and others appeared to have chosen silence over news. Until today.

From Editor & Publisher:

NEW YORK At numerous press briefings last week, not a single reporter asked White House Press Secretary about emerging allegations that top presidential aide Karl Rove was a source, or the source, for Time magazine's Matthew Cooper in the Valerie Plame case. Then on Sunday, Newsweek revealed a Cooper e-mail from July 2003 that showed that Rove indeed had talked to him about Plame and her CIA employment, although he apparently did not mention that she worked under cover.
This development apparently freed the journalists to hit McClellan hard at this afternoon's briefing. In September and October 2003, McClellan had rejected as "ridiculous" any suggestion that Rove was involved in the Plame leak. Today, Rove didn't quite get off "Scott free."
Here is a full transcript of the Rove-related queries today.

Below, I present to you Scott McClelland's clinic in 'evasive maneuvering'. It is truly inspiring to watch a man, absolutely pinned down and with nowhere to run, find the strength to completely avoid telling the truth. And this, in the face of a typically docile media turned hostile. Heads will roll.

I debated not including the entire transcript of Rove-related Q&As, but ultimately decided that the full text was entertaining enough to display, unedited. Since McClelland repeats himself so often, it really doesn't take long to read through. If you prefer to watch, you can find the video here or here.

Q: Does the president stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in a leak of the name of a CIA operative?
MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked related to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point.
And as I’ve previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it.
The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation. And as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren’t going to comment on it while it is ongoing.
Q: I actually wasn’t talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the president said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak to the press about information. I just wanted to know: Is that still his position?
MCCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that’s why I said that our policy continues to be that we’re not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium.
The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium....
Q: Scott, if I could point out: Contradictory to that statement, on September 29th of 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one to have said that if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired. And then, on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of this investigation, when the president made his comments that, yes, he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved. So why have you commented on this during the process of the investigation in the past, but now you’ve suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the statement of, 'We’re not going to comment on an ongoing investigation'?
MCCLELLAN: Again, John, I appreciate the question. I know you want to get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States. And I think the way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation. And that’s something that the people overseeing the investigation have expressed a preference that we follow.
And that’s why we’re continuing to follow that approach and that policy. Now, I remember very well what was previously said. And, at some point, I will be glad to talk about it, but not until after the investigation is complete.
Q: So could I just ask: When did you change your mind to say that it was OK to comment during the course of an investigation before, but now it’s not?
MCCLELLAN: Well, I think maybe you missed what I was saying in reference to Terry’s question at the beginning. There came a point, when the investigation got under way, when those overseeing the investigation asked that it would be — or said that it would be their preference that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing.
I think that’s the way to be most helpful to help them advance the investigation and get to the bottom of it.
Q: Scott, can I ask you this: Did Karl Rove commit a crime?
MCCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to a ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than: We're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.
Q: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliot Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this"?
MCCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that, as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation, we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time as well.
Q: Scott, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us, after having commented with that level of detail, and tell people watching this that somehow you've decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?
MCCLELLAN: I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation...
Q: (inaudible) when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?
MCCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish.
Q: No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didn't he?
MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.
Q: Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?
MCCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.
QUESTION: You're in a bad spot here, Scott... because after the investigation began -- after the criminal investigation was under way -- you said, October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this," from that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began.
Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation?
MCCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization. And I think you are well aware of that.....
And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this. Because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States.
I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.
Q: So you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore and since then you haven't.
MCCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation and I'm just not going to respond to them.
Q: When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you pin down a date?
MCCLELLAN: Back in that time period.
Q: Well, then the president commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?
MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.
Q: Well, we are going to keep asking them. When did the president learn that Karl Rove had had a conversation with a news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson's wife in the decision to send him to Africa?
MCCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions.
Q: When did the president learn that Karl Rove had been...
MCCLELLAN: I've responded to your questions.
Q: After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the president's word that anybody who was involved will be let go?
MCCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point.
Q: Can you walk us through why, given the fact that Rove's lawyer has spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with the investigation, that it compromises the investigation to talk about the involvement of Karl Rove, the deputy chief of staff, here?
MCCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it's ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are following their direction.
Q: Does the president continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove?
MCCLELLAN: Again, these are all questions coming up in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. And you've heard my response on this.
Q: So you're not going to respond as to whether or not the president has confidence in his deputy chief of staff?
MCCLELLAN: You're asking this question in the context of an ongoing investigation, and I would not read anything into it other then I'm simply going to comment on an ongoing investigation.
Q: Has there been any change, or is there a plan for Mr. Rove's portfolio to be altered in any way?
MCCLELLAN: Again, you have my response to these questions....
***
Q: There’s a difference between commenting publicly on an action and taking action in response to it. Newsweek put out a story, an e-mail saying that Karl Rove passed national security information on to a reporter that outed a CIA officer. Now, are you saying that the president is not taking any action in response to that? Because I presume that the prosecutor did not ask you not to take action and that if he did you still would not necessarily abide by that; that the president is free to respond to news reports, regardless of whether there’s an investigation or not.
So are you saying that he’s not going to do anything about this until the investigation is fully over and done with?
MCCLELLAN: Well, I think the president has previously spoken to this.
This continues to be an ongoing criminal investigation. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States. And we’re just not going to have more to say on it until that investigation is complete.
***
Q: When the leak investigation is completed, does the president believe it might be important for his credibility, the credibility of the White House, to release all the information voluntarily that was submitted as part of the investigation, so the American public could see what transpired inside the White House at the time?
MCCLELLAN: This is an investigation being overseen by a special prosecutor. And I think those are questions best directed to the special prosecutor.
Q: Have you or the White House considered whether that would be optimal to release as much information and make it as open…
MCCLELLAN: It’s the same type of question. You’re asking me to comment on an ongoing investigation and I’m not going to do that.
Q: I’d like you to talk about the communications strategies just a little bit there.
MCCLELLAN: Understood. The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and that’s what he expects people in the White House to do.
Q: And he would like to do that when it is concluded, cooperate fully with…
MCCLELLAN: Again, I’ve already responded.
Q: Scott, who in the investigation made this request of the White House not to comment further about the investigation? Was it Mr. Fitzgerald? Did he make a request of you specifically?
MCCLELLAN: You can direct those questions to the special prosecutors. I think probably more than one individual who’s involved in overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it’s ongoing.

Sometimes, surprisingly, what isn't said is more informative than what is said. In those terms, McClelland pretty much said it all.

Fox News Reaction to the London Attacks

2005-07-09T13:16:00.000-07:00

I sympathize with Declan - I am also uncomfortable commenting on a tragedy in the immediate aftermath. As the wise blogger points out, rather than argument and debate,

what is needed in these cases (after direct action to minimize the damage, of course) are wise statements of principles and resolve.

Well I'm not qualified to make such statements, so I instead opt for quiet observation and contemplation.

News organizations don't have the luxury of thoughtful, respectful silence, however. Too bad, because when forced to report, an outfit like Fox News can't help but expose their unique brand of ugly, even as bodies are still being pulled from the wreckage.

Courtesy of Media Matters for America, here are some horribly insensitive snippets of commentary from Fox News hosts and reporters, reacting to the London bombings:

Fox News host Brian Kilmeade stated that the attack near the G8 summit "works to ... the Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together." From Fox News' July 7 breaking news coverage between 8 and 9 a.m. ET:
KILMEADE: And he [British Prime Minister Tony Blair] made the statement, clearly shaken, but clearly determined. This is his second address in the last hour. First to the people of London, and now at the G8 summit, where their topic Number 1 --believe it or not-- was global warming, the second was African aid. And that was the first time since 9-11 when they should know, and they do know now, that terrorism should be Number 1. But it's important for them all to be together. I think that works to our advantage, in the Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together, just 500 miles from where the attacks have happened.

Kilmeade, a good corporate soldier, gets in a shot against global warming, and also betrays his and his peers' views on the importance of African aid. Furthermore, he can barely contain his glee that the topic of terrorism was about to take top priority at the G8 summit. 50+ dead? 700+ injured? Small price to pay to put terrorism back in the spotlight, right Brian?

Fox News contributing correspondent Simon Marks distinguished between Arabs and "regular" Londoners, in reporting on the scope of the attacks, as the weblog Daily Kos noted. From Fox News' July 7 breaking news coverage between 9 and 10 a.m. ET:
MARKS: It [Edgeware Road] is an area that has a very large Arab population. Surrounding that station, a large number of Middle Eastern restaurants. So, it's a further indication, if in fact these attacks were carried out by Al Qaeda-affiliated cells, that these people are, if necessary, prepared to spill Arab blood in addition to the blood of regular -- of non-Arab people living in London.

Was this just an innocent slip of the tongue? Slip of the tongue, maybe, but not likely an innocent one. Marks, like most Westerners, probably couldn't tell apart Sikh from Persian from Arab from East Indian. But to him, none of the above are "regular" Londoners, just like no such people would be considered "regular" Americans.

Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume said that his "first thought," when he "heard there had been this attack" and saw the low futures market was "Hmmm, time to buy." From Fox News' July 7 breaking news coverage between 1 and 2 p.m. ET:
HUME: You know, the market was down. It was down yesterday, and you know, you may have had some bargain-hunting going on. I mean, my first thought when I heard -- just on a personal basis, when I heard there had been this attack and I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought, "Hmmm, time to buy." Others may have thought that as well. But you never know about the markets. But obviously, if the markets had behaved badly, that would obviously add to people's sense of alarm about it. But there has been a lot of reassurance coming, particularly in the way that -- partly in the way the Brits handled all this, but also in the way that officials here handled it. There seems to be no great fear that something like that is going to happen here, although there's no indication that we here had any advance warning.

Yep, business as usual. Mind you I've saved the worst for last:

Fox News host John Gibson stated one day before the attacks that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) "missed a golden opportunity" when it awarded the 2012 Olympic Games to London because if France had been selected to host the games, terrorists would "blow up Paris, and who cares?" Following the London attacks, Gibson reiterated that the IOC should have selected Paris instead of London because the British should "let somebody else be worried about guys with backpack bombs for a while."
From the July 6 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, guest-hosted by Gibson:
GIBSON: By the way, just wanted to tell you people, we missed -- the International Olympic Committee missed a golden opportunity today. If they had picked France, if they had picked France instead of London, to hold the Olympics, it would have been the one time we could look forward to where we didn't worry about terrorism. They'd blow up Paris, and who cares?
From the "My Word" segment of the July 7 edition of Fox News' The Big Story With John Gibson:
GIBSON: The bombings in London: This is why I thought the Brits should let the French have the Olympics -- let somebody else be worried about guys with backpack bombs for a while.

If this isn't proof that Gibson is a vile, disgusting maggot, then I don't know what is. Keep in mind that Gibson is the same fiend who complained feverishly in MacLean's¹ about what he perceives as chronic anti-Americanism in Canada, and one week later we find him campaigning for the slaughter of innocent French civilians. What a despicable monster. Why is he given such a high-profile pulpit? Who does he speak for?

Fox News: Fair and Balanced.

-----

¹Princess Monkey, guest blogging on Voice in the Wilderness, also references Gibson's harangue in this smart post about the 'manufactured crisis' of Canadian anti-Americanism.

Sounds like a well thought out plan...

2005-07-01T17:15:00.000-07:00

A 30-yr old American woman tattooed a gambling website's address on her forehead after selling the advertising space on eBay.

For $10,000, Kari Smith has gone ahead and had her forehead tattooed with the Web address of a gambling site.
Smith, 30, who sold her unusual advertising space on eBay, said the money will give her 11-year-old son a private education, which she believes he needs after falling behind in school.
"For the all the sacrifices everyone makes, this is a very small one," she said. "It's a small sacrifice to build a better future for my son," she said. "To everyone else, it seems like a stupid thing to do. To me, $10,000 is like $1 million. I only live once, and I'm doing it for my son," she said.

I can appreciate that there are some desperate people out there; no money, want a better life for their children, etc. Furthermore, self-sacrifice is usually the noblest of endeavors. But was this really the solution? This 30-year old woman will probably be wearing the 'Scarlet Lettering of Stupidity' for the rest of her life, all because she thinks that private education is the answer to her son's problems? No offense, but if son is at all like mother, then there probably isn't much hope for the lad anyway.

Oh, if you think I'm being too mean, consider that the winning $10,000 bid came in quite late. She had only raised $999.99 prior to that! One wonders what she would have done had nobody met her price - would she have sold out for less?

Bidding reached $999.99 before Goldenpalace.com, an Internet gambling company in the Mohawk Territory of Kahnawake, Canada, met Smith's $10,000 asking price.

Poor Kari Smith - hopefully she'll eventually think of a way to raise enough money to cover her entire body in tattoos so that this one isn't as noticeable!

HAPPY CANADA DAY!

2005-07-01T14:50:00.000-07:00

United States Government Retains Control Over "The Internets"

2005-07-01T02:25:00.000-07:00

The United States Government has departed from previously stated policy, and will retain complete oversight of the main computers that control traffic on the Internet. They had previously intended to eventually, officially, pass the responsibility to ICANN, a private, non-profit, U.S.-based, international company, once certain conditions were met.

Michael D. Gallagher, assistant secretary for communications and information at the Commerce Department, shied away from terming the declaration a reversal, calling it instead "the foundation of U.S. policy going forward."
"The signals and words and intentions and policies need to be clear so all of us benefiting in the world from the Internet and in the U.S. economy can have confidence there will be continued stewardship," Gallagher said in an interview with The Associated Press.
He said the declaration, officially made in a four-paragraph statement posted online, was in response to growing security threats and increased reliance on the Internet globally for communications and commerce.

I can appreciate that nothing has really changed for now; the U.S. Commerce Department was already in control of these mysterious machines, holding veto power over ICAAN, the company performing the day-to-day operations. Isn't it interesting though, that with an increased GLOBAL reliance on the Internet's communications and commerce capabilities, the U.S. Government would act to keep control in U.S. hands, away from global influence (or at least a semblance thereof)?

Well maybe it's not so bad - what do these computers (and ICANN) do anyway?

The computers in question serve as the Internet's master directories and tell Web browsers and e-mail programs how to direct traffic. Internet users around the world interact with them every day, likely without knowing it. Policy decisions could at a stroke make all Web sites ending in a specific suffix essentially unreachable.
Though the computers themselves -- 13 in all, known as "root" servers -- are in private hands, they contain government-approved lists of the 260 or so Internet suffixes, such as ".com."

From ICANN:

ICANN is responsible for coordinating the management of the technical elements of the DNS to ensure universal resolvability so that all users of the Internet can find all valid addresses. It does this by overseeing the distribution of unique technical identifiers used in the Internet's operations, and delegation of Top-Level Domain names (such as .com, .info, etc.).

These computers have complete control over what the global population can and can't access on the internets, and ICANN operates to ensure universal access to valid addresses. No biggie!

All sarcasm aside, this announcement doesn't really seem to change the day-to-day operations of oversight of the internet, so I'm not going to jump to conclusions and assume that the next time some poor German lad goes surfing for supermodels he'll get directed, say, here instead. Or that when some Arab family in the middle east tries to find out how to immigrate to the U.S. they get sent here instead. But something seems fishy. Could there be political reasons behind the announcement?

The announcement comes just weeks before a U.N. panel is to release a report on Internet governance, addressing such issues as oversight of the root servers, ahead of November's U.N. World Summit on the Information Society in Tunisia (WSIS).
Some countries have pressed to move oversight to an international body, such as the U.N. International Telecommunication Union, although the U.S. government has historically had that role because it funded much of the Internet's early development.
Ambassador David Gross, the U.S. coordinator for international communications and information policy at the State Department, insisted that Thursday's announcement was unrelated to those discussions.
But he said other countries should see the move as positive because "uncertainty is not something that we think is in the United States' interest or the world's interest."

Sound familiar? The U.S. Government is, for some reason, thumbing its nose at the wishes of other countries, all the while claiming that the world's interest is, or should be, in line with its own. In addition, the Americans have completely undermined a U.N. panel's upcoming report on Internet Governance.

Indeed, angering allies and undermining the U.N. has become the U.S. government's modus operandi. The question of who should govern the Internet is a controversial one, and mere months before the topic was to be discussed in a global forum, the U.S. retreats into full "you're either with us or against us" mode, all in the name of 'security.' Contrast that attitude with the official Welcome Statement by President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia, host of Phase II of the upcoming, aforementioned WSIS:

The World Summit on the Information Society, proposed by Tunisia in 1998, is the first major event of the new millennium and constitutes a historic opportunity for the international community to agree on a common vision of the Information Society and to develop an approach for action aimed at bridging the digital divide and allowing the advent of an Information Society that is balanced and accessible to all.

Gosh, well if anybody can bridge a divide and allow for balance and accessibility, it's George W. Bush!

HIV/AIDS in the Muslim World

2005-06-30T23:43:00.000-07:00

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

2005-06-30T16:30:00.000-07:00

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

2005-06-29T01:17:00.000-07:00

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

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

Devil Collects First-Born from Tony Blair

2005-06-26T10:46:00.000-07:00

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

2005-06-26T03:33:00.000-07:00

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?

2005-06-26T00:16:00.000-07:00

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

2005-06-25T23:11:00.000-07:00

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

2005-06-21T13:07:00.000-07:00

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

2005-06-20T20:57:00.000-07:00

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

2005-06-16T23:39:00.000-07:00

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:

Actuary
Biologist
Financial planner
Web site manager
Accountant
Software engineer
Statistician
Bank officer
Parole officer
Computer systems analyst

Here are the 10 “worst” jobs:

Cowboy
Fisherman
Construction worker (labourer)
Iron worker
Lumberjack
Dancer
Roofer
Garbage collector
Seaman
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:

that it's better to work indoors in an air-conditioned office than to work outside.
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

2005-06-15T15:44:00.000-07:00

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

2005-06-14T00:30:00.000-07:00

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

2005-06-12T16:25:00.000-07:00

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

2005-06-12T12:14:00.000-07:00

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

2005-06-11T14:58:00.000-07:00

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

2005-06-11T14:04:00.000-07:00

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

2005-06-11T13:00:00.000-07:00

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

2005-06-07T10:46:00.000-07:00

Timmy's back!

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

Extreme Blog Makeover: Rookie Edition

2005-05-25T23:15:00.000-07:00

How does it look? Here is the old template, for comparison: http://www.blogger.com/templates/rounders3/sample.html

It certainly requires significant effort to modify every little line/colour/margin (for a blogger rookie, that is) but at least it feels more like my own creation now. I'm sure I'll continue to tinker with the look as time passes; let me know if you have any suggestions for improvements.

I was going for 'colourful' while trying to avoid 'tacky.'

In any case, hopefully the blog won't be style over substance for much longer!

Voice in the Wilderness: heard

2005-04-28T14:34:00.000-07:00

So I'm minding my own business, working hard, playing sports, studying for an exam, putting off working on this poor blog, when *WHAM* - blogging heavy, Timmy (Voice in the Wilderness), links to me. Too bad I haven't set up Site Meter yet - it would have been amusing to see the sudden, severe uptick in traffic today.

So now I'm feeling a bit of pressure to get started. It still won't happen until late May (most likely), but I still fully intend to give blogging a try. If, at that time, you're still looking for another procrastination outlet, please feel welcome to come back for a visit!

Blogging to begin in 2005!

2005-02-16T13:39:00.000-08:00

I'm not ready to dive in quite yet, but I suspect I will start blogging (non-baseball pool related, I mean) sometime in the next few months.

First, a professional exam to study for. Ugh.