Eyewitnesses saw Magee crash through the Nazaire train station's glass skylight, breaking his fall. When he regained consciousness, Magee said to his captors: "Thank God I'm alive."
Magee's injuries included 28 shrapnel wounds. A lung and kidney were hit. His nose and an eye were ripped open. His broken bones included his right leg and ankle. A right arm was nearly severed.
Jenkins said the Germans decided that anyone who could miraculously survive deserved "real special attention."
More on leaping from heights and remaining unharmed.*
I've had the opportunity to travel to Iraq three times, most recently last month, courtesy of the nonpartisan Business Executives for National Security. On every trip I'm struck by the difference between the Iraq I hear and read about back home and the Iraq I see in person. Iraq defies expectations and easy definition.
For me as a business executive, these visits provide a firsthand look at the largest U.S. reconstruction effort since the Marshall Plan. As the father of a Marine who recently returned from a tour in Iraq, I find that these trips also offer a glimpse of our frontline troops that few military families ever see. Among my general impressions:
First, U.S. forces in Iraq remain focused on their mission. Talking with soldiers and Marines over dinner in their mess halls, it's easy to see why reenlistment rates among U.S. troops in Iraq are the highest in the military. These men and women understand their mission and believe they are making a difference. Like my son, Joe III, after he returned from a tough mission in Fallujah, the Marines I met said they would be happy to return to Iraq because they believe what they're doing is important.
Second, every Iraqi knows that the battle for their country will be won or lost by Iraqis, not Americans. Fears of an all-out civil war were palpable during my visit. The day before I arrived, attacks on crowded markets in Baghdad's Sadr City killed dozens of Shiites. Dozens of bodies, mostly of blindfolded, bound and executed Sunnis, have turned up in the streets. But despite the ensuing violence, U.S. and Iraqi military leaders called the bombing of the Shiite Golden Mosque in Samarra a defining moment for the fledgling Iraqi army. In the Abu Ghraib region outside Baghdad, a Shiite commander claimed that "sectarian divisions are exaggerated" and said that local Sunnis are more supportive since his largely Shiite troops prevented further violence after the mosque bombing.
Read the rest; it's tempting to excerpt the whole thing. This focus contrasts a bit with the WaPo's front page fare:
Runner-up: "And Eva Longoria, of 'Desperate Housewives,' has also spoken out for the cause, but is careful to see both sides of the benefits of immigration, as well as the need to secure the US border."
Get that woman to a Senate Committee meeting! But the following cannot be denied the title of "Quote of the Week" due to fact that it is totally sweet.
WINNER: "The teachings of Grand Master Masaaki Hatsumi echo through my head as he entreats me to attack a blackbelted disciple with a practice sword. 'Always be able to kill your students,' he says." (emphasis added by ninjas.)
Follow the links for ninja goodness in the second link and Salma Hayek's cleavage in the first.
Bill Adds:
A further glimpse into the mysterious world of Ninjitsu can be found here:
One quibble: to my knowledge, ground targets didn't count towards the five kills needed to become an American ace, otherwise my grandfather would have been rated as one before he died, having had four aerial kills and multiple ground kills.
"... that's him in the spot-light, losing his religion."
Heavy duty theology discussion going on in the comments under this post. I waded in with cannon blazing. Feel free to take your shots or grab my six, as the case may be.
It's Wacked-Out Religious Video Week this week at INDCJournal. Not often you hear a preacher say "f***in' nincom-f***ing-poop". (Unless maybe if you go to this nun's church.)
On the plus side, this is concrete proof that there is, indeed, a God. No where in the universe could someone as talentless as The Pickle get this far without selling their soul to the Devil, and for the Devil to exist, God must exist, therefor Pickle's persistent existence is proof of God. QED. Of course those of us who believe in a just and merciful God will be praying for her idol demise this week. Failing that we must assume that we've sinned and Pickle is a plague upon our houses and we must atone before she GETS THE HELL OFF THAT SHOW!
*** Allah's posted a handy resume of the winding spins and twists of the Mary McCarthy leak story:
This is one of those stories where, if you miss the first 48 hours, you end up feeling so far behind the curve that you tune it out and never bother with it again. So here’s a round-up of news and blog coverage which, while longish, will bring you up to speed.
Not only do they have the problem of a Democratic partisan who has clearly put the interests of her party ahead of those of her nation, they're compounding their mistake by actually defending her as some sort of whistleblower patriot, instead of running away from this whole imbroglio as far and as fast as they can like any sensible post-9/11 politician would. I'm at a total loss to explain this behavior; how could they possibly think that's going to fly? Does anyone else suspect Karl Rove mind control rays?
Those zany D's. Dean cuts to the heart of the matter in the comments:
[D]o you want these CIA agents manipulating public opinion by UNILATERALLY deciding for themselves WHICH information to share, and WHICH to keep secret, solely on their own discretion?
In their quest to create the super warrior of the future, some military researchers aren't focusing on organs like muscles or hearts. They're looking at tongues.
By routing signals from helmet-mounted cameras, sonar and other equipment through the tongue to the brain, they hope to give elite soldiers superhuman senses similar to owls, snakes and fish.
Researchers at the Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition envision their work giving Army Rangers 360-degree unobstructed vision at night and allowing Navy SEALs to sense sonar in their heads while maintaining normal vision underwater -- turning sci-fi into reality.
Tanning salons are targeting high schools. A study of Denver-area schools found that 11 of 23 put tanning ads in their newspapers; 18 salons placed the ads: nearly 40 percent of the ads offering unlimited tanning; and only two ads mentioned parental involvement. Authors' conclusions: 1) According to the World Health Organization, ultraviolet radiation from tanning beds or sunlamps is a likely carcinogen. 2) It's being "specifically marketed to adolescents." 3) This is why more young women are getting skin cancer. 4) Studies suggest tanning can be addictive. 5) Schools and legislatures should ban tanning ads to minors, just like cigarette ads. (For updates on tanning addiction and regulation, click here and here. For Human Nature's take on the shift from regulating tobacco to regulating junk food, click here)
In addition, exposure to tanning salon rays increases damage caused by sunlight because ultraviolet light actually thins the skin, making it less able to heal. Women who use tanning beds more than once a month are 55 percent more likely to develop malignant melanoma, the most deadly form of skin cancer.
Perhaps dovetailing with the increased use of tanning beds, melanoma is becoming increasingly and alarmingly more common, moving from the No. 6 slot in 1997, to a projected No. 1 by the year 2022.
... would it affect your initial judgment on the matter? Remember, we're talking about minors.
*** Malkin - whose non-stop energy has raised my suspicion that she's a pundit cyborg produced in the same robotics lab responsible for the Glenn Reynolds - has a new video blogging effort that launches today. Looks interesting. I'm sure that her usual critics will wax rhapsodic with ultra-lame puns about the title ...
UPDATE: I dropped the Llama-ettes off at school this morning. As we were waiting in the car for the school to open, they had a loud, hanging-out-the-windows conversation with the little girl in the car (sic) astern to us. Topic? Fart jokes. It's an epidemic, I tell you, an epidemic sweeping our land, poisoning the minds of our young people today!
Personally, I'm of the belief that little girls telling fart jokes is a blessing on the world. Whitney Houston sang a song about it, I think. You know, before the crack.
***James Joyner on the generals vs. Rumsfeld debate:
This highlights something about the military that most who have never served simply do not understand: There is plenty of free discussion and intellectual reflection. Contrary to the image portrayed in movies and television, military officers are not robots who merely say "Yes sir! Three bags full!" when told to do something. And, while there is undeniably an organizational culture, the "military mind" is anything but uniform.
Sunday Moonbats and DC's Finest (plus the Limitations of Cellphone Photography)
Posted by Bill
I awoke prematurely to the sound of sirens and chanting ("Murderers! Murderers!") coming through my open window at about 8:30 AM this fine Sunday morning. Giving up on sleep, I headed down towards the gym and passed a few cop vehicles, seemingly set up to either play crowd control for a protest or guard a dignitary. Walking up to the window of one of the vans so that I might inquire as to what was going down, I found these two cops (sort of shown in the indistinct cellphone pic above) sprawled out in the front seat, mouths open, sleeping. Heh.
The protest was a regular IMF/World Bank protest, I was later informed by a cop who was actually awake.
I'd like to thank the moonbats for waking me up at 8:30 on a Sunday; they really struck a critical blow against the capitalist forces of globalization.
You cannot make up stuff like this. Unless you're a creationist. This is the funniest video I've seen in weeks. The banana bit starts at 3:30 and goes to 4:36. I won't quote it, you're going to want to watch it for yourself.
That's not the only funny part, though. Some of my favorite bits:
*** A building is absolute proof there's a builder, a painting is absolute proof of a painter. And a banana is absolute proof of a... bananar? bananer?
*** I laughed when the Australian guy described talking to an atheist as "when we reason with him." (12:30)
*** If you think I was unfair to laugh at that, at 19:29 we have this gem of insight by Kirk Cameron:
...we want to emphasize the principle of swinging from the intellect, straight to the conscience*.
...
...it's not wise to stay in the "intellect" and wrestle with someone intellectually because it's going to take you down a rabbit trail and waste all your time.
Kirk, Kirk, Kirk... Though I think that's funnier than Growing Pains, I don't think that'll be helpful when people start discussions like this.
* When Cameron says "conscience", it looks to me like he's grabbing his balls. I don't know what to make of that.
All but four of the forty-three polls listed support the conclusion that native intelligence varies inversely with degree of religious faith; i.e., that, other factors being equal, the more intelligent a person is, the less religious he is.
Conclusions
In this essay:
1. sixteen studies of the correlation between individual measures of student intelligence and religiosity, all but three of which reported an inverse correlation.
2. five studies reporting that student bodies with high average IQ and/or SAT scores are much less religious than inferior student bodies;
3. three studies reporting that geniuses (IQ 150+) are much less religious than the general public (Average IQ, 100), and one dubious study;
4. seven studies reporting that highly successful persons are much less religious in belief than are others; and
5. eight old and four new Gallup polls revealing that college alumni (average IQ about 115) are much less religious in belief than are grade-school pollees. ... Several studies on Americans focus on the beliefs of high-IQ individuals. In one study, 90% of the general population surveyed professed a distinct belief in a personal god and afterlife, while only 40% of the scientists with a BS surveyed did so, and only 10% of those considered "eminent."[4]. Another study found that mathematicians were just over 40%, biologists just under 30%, and physicists were barely over 20% likely to believe in God.[5]
A survey of members of the United States National Academy of Sciences showed that 72% are outright atheists, 21% are agnostic and only 7% admit to belief in a personal God.[6]
I offer little other commentary except "that's interesting."
I'd be curious if any of you (especially the devout) have any theories on the nature of this apparently inverse relationship. Skepticism related to academic inquiry?
And it's days like this, being extraordinairly sensitive to the loyal blog reader's need for content, that I pine for a co-blogger. Oh, wouldn't that be grand.
UPDATE: Wait a minute! I think I have an opinion ... let's see ...
*** Dean gets inside my head with this evaluation of Kellie Pickler on American Idol ...
She doesn't know "words" from "lyrics?" Please God, either kill me or kill her, right now. Please Jesus, lightning bolt from the blue, please! Pick one of us!
... only to lose me second later with this comment on Ace Young:
Whoah, I think I like the hair.
I'm slowly backing away from that blog post, backing, backing, now turning, now running, running, running faster, gone.
"We got everything we needed and [were] on our way back ... about an hour from our camp ... that's when something happened to our vehicle," recounted Wilson, a full-time member of the Army Reserve whose unit deployed to Iraq in March of 2004.
That 'something' was an improvised explosive device (IED) that wounded her and several members of her convoy in August of 2004. The explosion cost Wilson her left hand and some of her arm. ... "I started to feel this tingling in my hand … I looked down and that was when I realized OK, I don't have a hand here,'" Wilson said. A combat medic rushed over and began patching her up but the attack wasn't over. The U.S. convoy then got hit with small-arms fire. Other soldiers with Wilson began returning fire and radioed for helicopter gunship support. ... "From Day One, my decision was, 'I'm not getting out,'" Wilson said, adding that she still has things she wants to accomplish in the military. "My support channel has been there for me and I'd like to give that back to the soldiers of the future." ... Now, nearly two years after the IED attack in Iraq and after therapy, numerous operations and a new prosthetic hand, Wilson made good on her decision to stay in the Army. She and 37 others re-enlisted in a ceremony held on the steps of the U.S. Capitol on April 6. Wilson wasn't the only veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom who re-enlisted, nor was she the only wounded soldier among them.
Of course, I'd love to actually click thru to Taylor's full linked post, but they say you can catch crazy cooties from reading angry people:
So, when Robert says he wants to spend time hanging around "happy people" and keeping his distance from "deeply unhappy" people, he's keeping his brain from making--over the long term--negative structural and chemical changes. Regarding the effect of mirror neurons and emotional contagion on personal performance, neurologist Richard Restak offers this advice:
"If you want to accomplish something that demands determination and endurance, try to surround yourself with people possessing these qualities. And try to limit the time you spend with people given to pessimism and expressions of futility. Unfortunately, negative emotions exert a more powerful effect in social situations than positive ones, thanks to the phenomena of emotional contagion."
This sounds harsh, and it is, but it's his recommendation based on the facts as the neuroscientists interpret them today. This is not new age self-help--it's simply the way brains work.
DKos is quite the neurological petri dish, eh?
UPDATE: My reading comprehension was on the fritz today - that's Jesse Walker, not Jesse Taylor (formerly of Pandagon). The post will not give you crazy cooties.
*** Caution: This Post Might Just Be Long and Boring Enough to Cause Cancer ***
The WaPo features a bit of hype about a drug that may help prevent breast cancer:
A drug used to prevent bones from thinning also offers millions of older women a powerful way to protect themselves against breast cancer, a large government-sponsored study has found.
The study of nearly 20,000 postmenopausal women found that raloxifene reduces their chance of developing breast cancer as effectively as tamoxifen, the only drug previously shown to reduce the risk, but is less likely to cause serious side effects such as uterine cancer and blood clots. ... Because an estimated 500,000 women use raloxifene to reduce the risk of osteoporosis, many will be more comfortable using it for breast cancer protection, several experts predicted.
"It's terrific," said Susan Love, a breast cancer expert at the University of California at Los Angeles. "This gives us another drug that we can use to prevent breast cancer that is less risky than the only other drug we had."
Preventing cancer sounds great. But how does the drug work?
Tamoxifen and a new class of drugs known as aromatase inhibitors can reduce the risk of breast cancer's recurrence, but tamoxifen is the only drug that had been shown to prevent tumors in the first place, cutting the chances by about half. It is not widely used for preventing primary tumors, though, mainly because it carries an increased risk of uterine cancer and blood clots.
Raloxifene works similarly to tamoxifen by blocking the effects of the hormone estrogen on breast tissue.
It's an effective hormone blocker with impact that may or may not be localized to breast tissue. To understand hormones and their link to cancer, you need to understand their role and relationship to DNA and RNA. Simplifying things immensely, our DNA is essentially a stored set of instructions that RNA refers to while synthesizing proteins. It's your metabolic blueprint. Hormones are a class of chemical messengers, acting as levers for processes related to growth and metabolism - helping to carry out the blueprint.
Repetitively simplistic review: DNA/RNA = coded/enacted instructions, hormones = messengers that govern aspects of metabolism.
Over time, natural aging and environmental influences (sunlight, chemicals, etc) accumulate damage to your set of instructions (DNA) that maintenance mechanisms fail to adequately repair. Some of these gene mutations that hit the right switches lead to cancer, which is basically defined as the neverending division and growth of abnormal cells (normal cells commit suicide at some point). Which is where the known influence of hormones on the course of cancer really comes in, since many of these chemical messengers have targeted anabolic (tissue-building) effects on certain parts of the body. The example that relates to this article is estrogen's stimulation of breast tissue growth. Some of the drugs mentioned work by blocking something called "aromatase," an enzyme involved in the production of estrogen, thus effectively blocking estrogen. The new drug blocks estrogen, though the article is unclear about the underlying mechanism. Whatever the method, blockage of estrogen slows down the targeted tissue-building in an area related to the cancer that this drug is intended to prevent (breast tissue). Slowed breast tissue growth = slowed breast cancer growth (and possibly development).
So does this drug "prevent cancer?"
I certainly can't say that it does or doesn't, but based on the stated general mechanism of the drug and related research into the dubious/disproven link between certain anabolic hormones and cancer causation, I'd be skeptical, saying "not really/maybe/sort of;" it may simply delay the full flower of mutations already in process by slowing the machinery, but may not (probably doesn't ) prevent the cancer itself. In my opinion, as a cancer preventative in apparently healthy subjects, blocking hormones is sort of like aiming to shoot an apple off of someone's head with birdshot.
Again, cancer is caused by gene mutations. Gene mutations are caused by chemicals, radiation, inflammation and the accumulated damage and impaired function of age. As far as I'm aware, natural hormones have not been causally linked to any gene mutations, though they serve as messengers that tell the body to build tissue in specific areas where these gene mutations tend to be present, which is why standard therapies for individuals that turn up with certain varieties of cancer prescribe drugs that block the hormones that cause ALL growth in the targeted tissue (i.e., aromatase inhibitors for breast cancer and 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors [which influences male sex hormones - finasteride] for prostate cancer).
Repetitively simplistic review: Offering the strong disclaimer that this is my subjective interpretation of accumulated research on the subject and not objective fact, by many indications, these hormone inhibiting drugs don't "prevent" the underlying cause of cancer; they influence the speed and course of tissue growth spurred by gene mutations that are already underway or malignantly developed.
So why should you care about how the drug works? If the end result is less people dying from cancer, why should the mechanism concern you? Because the human body is an endlessly complex set of interconnected levers and pulleys, and chronically yanking on some of those pulleys with a drug that blocks certain enzymes involved in the production of certain hormones is bound to have effects beyond the prevention of any cancer that you may or may not have brewing in your DNA. And considering the fact that reducing estrogen production in women thins skin, reduces beneficial cholesterol (HDL), can reduce sense of well-being and mood stability, among other things, I have a healthy skepticism towards a drug protocol centered around a long-term anti-estrogen therapy for tens of millions of women that may or may not prevent a cancer that occurs in about 40,000 women per year.
No one knows what causes breast cancer, and no one can clearly say why we are seeing an increase in breast cancer cases. More women develop breast cancer than men — about 100 cases in females for every one in a man. Women’s bodies make more estrogen than men’s. Therefore, the conventional wisdom has been that estrogen causes breast cancer.(Stupid "conventional wisdom" -- ED)
Some would label this guilt by association; many direct links are missing. One of the biggest missing links is that women’s estrogen levels actually fall as they age, decreasing dramatically after menopause, but the incidence of breast cancer increases with age. The risk ratio that we all hear about — that one in eight women get breast cancer — is for women over 90 years of age. The rate for women in their fifties is more like 1 in 50.(Because cancer is caused by gene mutations that accumulate as we age, NOT hormones -- ED)
So obviously there is much more than estrogen going on in the development of breast cancer, and it is being over-simplistic to think of estrogen as a bad poison when it comes to breast health. Estrogen is a very beneficial hormone in general — it stimulates tissues to grow when we need it to, and it is also a helpful player in response to stress. Let's explore what we know about the causes of breast cancer, what we don’t know, and what this may mean for you.
The rest of this article is very good, and goes a long way towards explaining the details behind the "post-menopausal hormone replacement casuing cancer" hysteria that recently led to some unneccessarily sweeping conclusions about the dangers of HRT:
Another big problem is that all estrogen is lumped together as one entity — but estrogen made by human ovaries is different from a pregnant mare’s (the type used in Premarin), (Who supposed that it was a great idea to replace human estrogen with estrogen derived from the pee of a pregnant horse? This is the fundamental difference in the safety of HRT - BIOIDENTICAL hormone replacement [thus far, not unsafe] vs. 'synthetic God-knows-what' that has hormone-like effects [related to increased rates of cancer] --ED) as well as the estrogens from plants (phytoestrogens) or environmental estrogens from breakdown products of chemicals in pesticides or cosmetics (xenoestrogens). These xenoestrogens may play a critical role, as they boost effective estrogen levels above normal levels and interfere in unknown ways with estrogen metabolism.
The fundamental structure of estrogen, for those who remember basic biology, is a steroid ring which can have different carbon and hydrogen molecules attached. These little differences between our estrogen and synthetics or xenoestrogens can confuse the body and create havoc — like the DES story.
Intuitively (not definitively proven) environmental estrogens may be key players in both increased rates of relevant cancers and the increasingly early onset of puberty among young girls.
There were some women in the WHI study who tolerated Premarin, which is a much stronger estrogen than the body is used to, without problems — their bodies metabolized it, used it, and then excreted it without obvious difficulty. Other women didn’t like how the synthetic hormones made them feel and stopped using them. For others, something stimulated their breasts to make cancer cells. But what we don’t know is what caused that errant growth, how or why. Do certain women have a genetic error that doesn’t let them process synthetic estrogens or xenoestrogens?
I wouldn't term this a "genetic error," as the human body isn't designed to process synthetic substances not normally produced or found anywhere near the human body. In any event, general rule of thumb - chemicals and compounds not naturally occurring or traditionally tolerated in the body = bad. Naturally occuring or synthetic yet bioidentical substances = ok (probably).
We just don’t know — so the NIH decided it was safer to take all women off Prempro and Premarin because of the increased risk of breast cancer and other serious diseases. They are still investigating the difference between Premarin and bioidentical estrogens. We do not know if bioidentical hormones also increase the risk. There is no evidence that they do, and we believe because they are more natural that they are safer than synthetic hormones, but frankly more study is needed.
Again, genetic mutations cause cancer, and thus far, there has been no causal link between cancerous mutations and naturally occurring or bioidentical synthetic hormones. Is it possible that such a link exists? You bet, anything is possible.
Based on current knowledge, if I were a post-menopausal woman, my cancer prevention strategy would focus on not smoking, avoiding excessive sunlight, exercising and eating plenty of fruits and vegetables, rather than ingesting an aromatase inhibitor that blocks what's left of my body's natural estrogen production. If I were experiencing unpleasant changes related to menopause and hormonal decline, I wouldn't have particular fear of supplmenting with small amounts of bioidentical HRT.
Of course, this strategy changes when actually diagnosing cancer, at which point it's sensible to take the aromatase inhibitor to inhibit the growth of the cancer that already exists, so that it might be destroyed before it kills you. Disclaimer: take all of this with a huge grain of salt, as I'm not an expert. I'll try to add more reference links to buttress many of the post's assumptions as the day progresses. Second Disclaimer: all concepts simplified from their true extent. This is a triple function of communcation necessity, humanity's limited (though exponentially increasing) medical knowledge to date and my limited knowledge of that limited knowledge.
It was an American backed plan. La Brigada de Asalto 2506, would invade Cuba and liberate their fellow countrymen from the living nightmare that castro had made of Cuba.
The operation was not successful. Without warning, President Kennedy withdrew air support and abandoned the stranded Cubans.
Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Arleigh Burke knew the stakes in Cuba at the time. And he came damn near a mutiny. He wouldn't let up. "Two planes, Mr. President," he pleaded with JFK, fighting to keep his composure. "That's all they need."
"Burke!" replied Kennedy. "We can't become involved in this." The fighting admiral almost lost it. "Hell, Mr. President!" he barked, inches from the young president's face. "We ARE involved!"
They fought valiantly for three days before they ran out of ammunition and were overrun by castro's Soviet supported troops. The survivors were taken prisoner and held for ransom, which America paid. Most of them were released in December 1962. The last surviving Bay of Pigs prisoner was released in 1986 after 25 years in castro's Gulag. Those were the lucky ones.
...
Kennedy's decision not to engage angered many of the Navy trainers who worked with the Brigade before the battle. Four of the trainers decided to go anyway. Their names are Thomas "Pete" Ray, Riley Shamburger, Leo Baker and Wade Gray, and they were officers in the Alabama Air Guard. Against steep odds, they decided to stick with their fellow combatants. All four died on their first missions.
Loyalty and determination to do the right thing cost them their lives, but in the minds of many Cuban-Americans and freedom-lovers everywhere, they are immortal.
More on Pete Ray's mission and Castro's shameful treatment of his remains.
Al Qaeda in Iraq and its presumed leader, Abu Musab Zarqawi, have conceded strategic defeat and are on their way out of the country, a top U.S. military official contended yesterday.
The group's failure to disrupt national elections and a constitutional referendum last year "was a tactical admission by Zarqawi that their strategy had failed," said Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, who commands the XVIII Airborne Corps.
"They no longer view Iraq as fertile ground to establish a caliphate and as a place to conduct international terrorism," he said in an address at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
It's tedious hearing Republicans called evil (usually in my newspaper) and it's just as ridiculous to hear it said of the Democrats.
It sells, though. Whether they're drinking grape or orange, all Koolaid drinkers like to attend their little political white nights.
You know what else sells like crazy? Those little I-Pods! Like hotcakes! I mean, they're all over the place!
Amir Taheri has an interesting op-ed in yesterday's London Telegraph arguing that the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is hoping to run out the clock until President Bush leaves office.
He's also, apparently, even nuttier than most of us guessed:
A Chinese hospital claims to have performed the world's second face transplant. The patient was mauled by a bear two years ago; the transplant from a brain-dead donor reportedly covers two-thirds of his face. The procedure was performed by a "unit in the Chinese People's Liberation Army specializing in plastic surgery." According to Agence France-Presse, "In December last year, the doctors succeeded in a face transplant conducted on a rabbit, and subsequently decided to try it on a human." Hospital's spin: "This surgery was even more complex and meticulous than the one performed by the French." Skeptics' warning: China has a history of cutting ethical corners to look like a biomedical leader. (For Human Nature's previous updates on the French face transplant, click here and here.)
I have to say, I'm less than impressed with the results of this one:
We are democrats and progressives. We propose here a fresh political alignment. Many of us belong to the Left, but the principles that we set out are not exclusive. We reach out, rather, beyond the socialist Left towards egalitarian liberals and others of unambiguous democratic commitment. Indeed, the reconfiguration of progressive opinion that we aim for involves drawing a line between the forces of the Left that remain true to its authentic values, and currents that have lately shown themselves rather too flexible about these values. It involves making common cause with genuine democrats, whether socialist or not. ... B. Statement of principles
1) For democracy.
We are committed to democratic norms, procedures and structures - freedom of opinion and assembly, free elections, the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers, and the separation of state and religion. We value the traditions and institutions, the legacy of good governance, of those countries in which liberal, pluralist democracies have taken hold.
2) No apology for tyranny.
We decline to make excuses for, to indulgently "understand", reactionary regimes and movements for which democracy is a hated enemy - regimes that oppress their own peoples and movements that aspire to do so. We draw a firm line between ourselves and those left-liberal voices today quick to offer an apologetic explanation for such political forces.
Etc., etc.
Read the rest. Hope springs eternal that classical liberalism will return to "liberalism." Good luck, folks.
This is what I've been waiting for, for a long time.
It is a new democratic progressive alliance - committed to intellectual freedom, human rights, and progressive principles. It is pro-freedom and pro-labor, pro-liberty and pro-human rights. It is the synthesis of being liberal and being libertarian.
I'd quibble a bit with his last line, but the comments under the Dean's World post are interesting - several critics picking the manifesto apart for petty reasons (some incorrect) or certain facets that they find politically disagreeable. These commenters are missing the point, as the effort isn't meant to be a statement of "liberal values that are really conservative-libertarian values;" it's intended to get the left back on track, reconciling historical liberal principles with today's liberalism. Such an effort wouldn't by definition be perfectly politically agreeable to libertarians and conservatives, but it would reestablish common cause in basic humanitarian goals and thus create a relevant opposition in the marketplace of more debatable ideas. To me, that's a capital thing.
SHERMAN OAKS, Calif. -- In the angry life of Maryscott O'Connor, the rage begins as soon as she opens her eyes and realizes that her president is still George W. Bush. The sun has yet to rise and her family is asleep, but no matter; as soon as the realization kicks in, O'Connor, 37, is out of bed and heading toward her computer.
Out there, awaiting her building fury: the Angry Left, where O'Connor's reputation is as one of the angriest of all. "One long, sustained scream" is how she describes the writing she does for various Web logs, as she wonders what she should scream about this day.
She smokes a cigarette. Should it be about Bush, whom she considers "malevolent," a "sociopath" and "the Antichrist"? She smokes another cigarette. Should it be about Vice President Cheney, whom she thinks of as "Satan," or about Karl Rove, "the devil"? Should it be about the "evil" Republican Party, or the "weaselly, capitulating, self-aggrandizing, self-serving" Democrats, or the Catholic Church, for which she says "I have a special place in my heart . . . a burning, sizzling, putrescent place where the guilty suffer the tortures of the damned"?
Read the whole thing - it only gets better, and the full accompanying picture is a hoot.
I guess O'Connor's just practicing some of that "workaday meanness" described by Matthew Yglesias.
Ok, one last punchline from the piece, in case I haven't sufficiently whetted your appetite:
She signed petitions. She boycotted veal. She canvassed for Greenpeace. She donated to Planned Parenthood. She read the Nation, the New Yorker, the Utne Reader and Mother Jones. She agonized over low wages for overseas workers every time she bought a $40 leather purse.
(This is a guest editorial by former President Thomas Jefferson.)
My Fellow Americans:
Much has been written about the decision of Comedy Central to censor the recent episode of South Park, and of Borders to pull a magazine featuring the Mohammed Cartoons. And I am here to tell you that it is ok.
Look, much as I would like all Americans to defend freedom, in certain situations it is perfectly understandable for Americans to not risk their necks for it. Not everyone can show that much courage. It is true that I risked all of my property and my life in the Revolutionary War, when we fought one of the most powerful empires in existence. But look at what employees of Comedy Central could face. They could receive a nasty e-mail. Or worse, people in third world countries on the other side of the Earth could burn down an embassy.
Look at this map detailing protests over the Mohammed Cartoons:
Think of all the Comedy Central employees in the Comedy Central offices in Syria, Iran, the Gaza Strip, and Pakistan.
And look at all the violence in America. Three incidents in the US. Of course two of those were non-violent protests, but those could have caused Comedy Central staffers some stress, temporarily increasing their blood pressure and reducing their lifespan by minutes. But there was an incident of actual violence in New Mexico. Someone threw rocks at a newspaper's front door. I don't want to overly alarm anyone, but the glass had to be replaced. In the face of such violence, can we really blame them? I risked losing my lands and my life to oppose the Crown, in a fight against overwhelming odds fighting British infantry and Hessian mercenaries. But I wouldn't expect the same from others. Especially when some guy threw rocks at a door in New Mexico. These truly are the times that try men's souls. Or as Voltaire said, "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it, or till the point that some yahoo 6,000 miles away burns something, or perhaps looks at me funny, in which case I'll be cowering in the corner, quivering and mewling something about 'tolerance'."
All I ask is for you all to not look down on your fellow Americans. Not when they're facing dangers such as the possibility of receiving nasty letters. Comedy Central's actions are the only responsible ones in the face of some guy throwing a rock at a door. Freedom isn't free, but glass isn't cheap.
*** When do you know that you've hit bottom as a blogger? I'm not exactly sure, but it's got to be somewhere around the point you begin to link CRAZY CAT VIDEOS!
*** Nevermind - this is when you've hit bottom as a blogger, reduced to squealing at every odd google search like a Livespacing tween.
*** Know thy enemy. Or don't, in the case of Balloon Juice's Tim F:
You will die of old age before Esmay and Reagan call for Gingrich’s head.
Yeah, that's Dean alright, a big 'ol Newt Gingrich booster. As a bonus, the post goes on to draw equivalence between Dean attackingcriminal leakers of the top secret NSA program as "treasonous," and the practice of labeling public critics of the Administration's Iraq policy as "treasonous" (which Esmay hasn't done, that I recall). All this non-specificity to make a fallacious argument about ... HYPOCRISY! (to borrow an intonation from Goldstein's toolshed)
But who needs such detail? Who needs logical coherence or relevant distinctions? Such niceties will only serve to confuse the majority of Balloon Juice commenters, who - let's be frank - have enough trouble making out their monitors through the incessant spray of righteously expectorated fury.
*** One of the benefits of MSN Instant Messenger is discovering nifty articles on the program's start-up screen. Today's gem comes from the Dating & Personals section, titled, "Do Nice Guys Finish Last?"
It's every single guy's nightmare: He's on a date with a woman he digs and he's doing everything right, from asking "all about her" to paying the check before she's even returned from the restroom. He calls her promptly the next day for date number two... only to hear her confess that she's obsessed with some guy, despite his flaws - like never paying for dinner or returning her calls.
This is objectively false. I'm a single guy, and my two recurring nightmares revolve around a naked Star Jones writhing in a plastic kiddie pool filled with marshmallow paste and a shrieking velociraptor with a raging erection; my subconscious could give a fig about a date being obsessed with her loser ex-boyfriend. I might be peeved if I'd paid the tab on our date, but what kind of royal schmuckles doesn't insist that she split the bill?
Indeed, it's enough to convince any sincere, sweet guy that he can't win at love... and wonder why, in this day and age, women still fall for that bad-boy shtick? What is it about them that turns women on - and how can a decent guy gain an edge?
There's a word for those sincere, sweet guys that become convinced that they can't win at love, crying and raging into the night at the injustice of women falling for the accursed bad boy. That word is "pussies."
We asked a couple of experts and three women with bad boys in their past to unravel the mystery.
Sagacious, knitted-brow discussion of relationships ensues, this being my favorite snippet:
Judy: I succeeded in turning a bad boy good once. We dated for six weeks, during which time he was flaky and treated me badly, until he ultimately broke up with me. But we never fell completely out of touch. He says he wants to get back together, calls regularly and checks in, and his tone is completely different. But he had his chance, and he blew it.
Judy's quite the triumphant tigress, I'd say. Too bad her bad boy turned good is just trying to weasel his way back into her good graces so he can sleep with her, steal the cash from her wallet, swipe and pawn her portable electronics, salt her Asparagus Fern and poison that yappy little rat-dog, just for good measure. And he'll succeed, because he's a bad boy, and Judy's a deer who can't see day-glo orange vests.
But take my analysis with a grain of salt, as I'm a nice guy.
The day started simply enough, with what was supposed to be a routine test of the foam firefighting equipment in a hangar. But things went horribly wrong when, in a cross between Christine and an episode of The Brady Bunch, the system malfunctioned and the foam refused to stop.
What could make an innocent firefighting system go from this:
... to this?
More and bigger photos at Strategy Page and The Cellar Image of the Day, including photos (yes it gets better) of what happened after they opened the hangar doors.
Not in the pictures: The crusty base commander who happened to be right in front of the doors when they opened and later put the unit on double secret probation.
The Baby Jesus cries when amateurs try to sing Queen.
Queen: Save Me
Depressing lyrics contrast with an inspiring melody and arrangement.
Queen: Princes Of The Universe
Admit it: this song makes you want to run out and cut off someone's melon with a broadsword.
Queen - Innuendo
The Innuendo album is made all the more estimable by the fact that it was the last original Queen record - Freddy Mercury recorded it in ragged bursts as he was dying, yet still sounds amazing. The lyrics to several songs take on added meaning when you consider his frame of mind.
If there's a God or any kind of justice under the sky
If there's a point if there's a reason to live or die
If there's an answer to the questions we feel bad to ask
Show yourself - destroy our fears - release your mask
Oh yes we'll keep on trying
Hey tread that fine line
Yeah we'll keep on smiling yeah (yeah yeah)
And whatever will be will be
We'll keep on trying
We'll just keep on trying
'Till the end of time
'Till the end of time
'Till the end of time
(Way Belated) Incredibly Shallow Aesthetic Lessons From American Idol, 4/5/06 (Results Show)
Posted by Bill
Mandisa's camoflauge wardrobe and singing chops weren't righteous enough to beat back America's self-loathing antipathy for the morbidly obese. Because let's face it, if this were a singing contest, she'd still be there.
There are many factors at play in obesity, from the self-reinforcing survival metabolism of fat cells to hormone levels, to possible viruses, to good old lack of self-control; but one of the most interesting is how the types of food we eat - as a culture - influence our bodies differently, leading to epidemiologically notable rises in obesity and obesity-related disease processes in a society.
Which makes this discussion about a legal strategy to target purveyors of unhealthy food - where Goldstein embraces the default angry conservative/libertarian position of "KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF OF MY SUGAR CRISPS, BUSYBODY LAWYERS AND LIBERALS!" - conflicting for me. You see, it's a position that I empathize strongly with, as I believe in the virtue of market forces and self-determination, and loathe social engineering that pretends that all people are equally smart and should thus make equally smart choices. But at the same time, there's a frame of reference issue here that governs how we view the effect of unhealthy food.
As a specific illustrative metaphor, rank the reasonableness of the following statements:
1. "The government and liberal busybodies should stay out of our business - they have no right to heavily tax nor regulate MY choice, as an adult, to smoke cigarettes."
2. "The government and liberal busybodies should stay out of our business - they have no right to heavily tax nor regulate MY CHILD'S choice to purchase cigarettes from vending machines in schools."
3. "The government and liberal busybodies should stay out of our business - they have no right to heavily tax nor regulate MY choice to drink soda and eat fast food 5 times per week."
4. "The government and liberal busybodies should stay out of our business - they have no right to heavily tax nor regulate MY CHILD'S choice to drink soda and eat fast food 5 times per week in schools."
Tabling the issue of secondary smoke with cigarettes, of course the libertarian-themed statements from an adult perspective are eminently more rational than the statements regarding children, who are viewed as wards of parents and society, and thus afforded protection from themselves. But where it gets interesting to me is how opinions regarding the children-specific statements diverge, based on our perspective regarding cigarettes and "food."
Cigarettes are addictive, cigarettes contain poisons, cigarettes cause emphysema, cigarettes causes cancer, cigarettes can impede a child's development and growth, both mentally and physically. So most individuals, even libertarians, find the concept of the government outlawing the sale of cigarettes to minors to be a conventionally acceptable legal paradigm.
But interestingly, fast food - specifically simple carbohydrate laden sweet drinks and foodstuffs - are also addictive. Many junk foods provide a satiation experience that influences brain chemicals like a roller coaster, first flooding the blessings of seratonin that accompany a rapid insulin spike, then bringing on cravings for more sugary satiation as the cascade of hormones and neurotransmitters crash one to two hours later. Processed, fast and sugary foods contain ingredients that certainly aren't naturally occuring or healthful, if not outright "poisons." Sugar itself is like a cellular wrecking ball, causing the aforementioned insulin spikes that encourage fat, as well as cross-linking proteins and encouraging oxidation. The ingredients, ubiquity and tastiness of fast foods (especially high-fructose corn syrup) have certainly helped spike childhood obesity and diagnosises of Type 2 (Acquired) Diabetes and Metablic Syndrome, and the early onset of these diseases can easily shave a decade-plus off of an average human lifespan. And to put a cherry on top, the chronic inflammation caused by obesity even has a hand in disease processes as diverse as heart disease, asthma and cancer.
So this value judgment - that Sugar Crisps are an order of magnitude different than cigarettes - is a false intuition, a hubris centering around our instinctive knowledge about "stuff that burns" and "stuff that tastes yummy." Which lends this statement in the article ...
The lawsuit argues that children "are intrinsically deceived and abused by encouragement to eat unhealthy junk foods" and are therefore injured every time they see an ad for Apple Jacks on Nickelodeon or a box of Sponge Bob SquarePants Pop-Tarts in the supermarket.
... contextual weight, and lowers Jeff's sarcastic riposte ...
Which begs the question: how much are children "intrinsically deceived and abused by encouragement to" bring frivolous nuisance suits in the name of the "public interest' that violate the individual's right to choice, and how much is that worth in statutory damages?
... to levels of superficial distraction.
I have a dry analytical belief that - given our society's long-established priority of and methodology for protecting children - it is well within our government's (and by government, I mean the judiciary as well as the lumbering legistlature) purview to make distinctions about what sort of substances are marketed to and sold to children, especially during the hours of compulsory education. Because, let's face it - a parent's personal preference and control over what his or her child eats while in school is severely limited, and children are idiots. If it were legal to sell crack to kids, complete with colorful packaging and a talking tucan, they'd certainly buy it. The interesting frame of reference issue is how we perceive the relative differences between crack, cigarettes and cans of coke.
Which brings us to another frame of reference issue that relates to corporate responsibility and expands the debate to choices made by adults. Check out this hypothetical scenario:
While mixing a tuna salad, a chemist for NESTLE accidentally mistakes a can of Comet Lemon Fresh Disinfectant Cleanser with Bleach for a salt shaker. Through a series of events that lead to a series of observations, he discovers that trace amounts of Comet keep foodstuffs fresh indefinitely without refrigeration, and seem both tasty and constitutionally well tolerated in small doses. NESTLE begins adding Comet to their line of Stouffer's refrigerated foods, greatly expanding shelf life, inventory stability, efficiency and profits. And tastiness!
So tell me, do you want to pick up a chicken pot pie and eat trace amounts of Comet? Do you feel confident that eating trace amounts of Comet is good for you, or at least not bad for you? Should the government have a role in ensuring that NESTLE doesn't put Comet in your chicken pot pie, just so it can keep for two decades, causing their unsold inventory to become non-existent? And retroactively, should you have legal recourse if you discover that Comet was added to the chicken pot pie that you ate every Thursday for 12 years?
These are relevant questions. And as crazy and extreme as that scenario may sound, it's very similar to how food processing works - both stripping food of nutrional value, as well as creating compounds usually not found in nature to increase things like taste and shelf life. Industrial chemists tinker with food, essentially making it ... something else. The anticipated negative impact of a potential substance is often a matter of subjective judgment (profit motive), resulting in what amounts to an uncontrolled epidemiological experiment on the public. Perhaps the most recently famous real world example:
Trans fatty acids are made when manufacturers add hydrogen to vegetable oil, in the presence of small amounts of catalyst metals such as nickel, palladium, platinum or cobalt -- in a process described as partial hydrogenation. ... Hydrogenation of edible oils was invented by the German chemist Wilhelm Normann, who patented the process in 1902. In 1909 Procter & Gamble in Cincinnati acquired the US rights to the Normann patent and in 1911 they began marketing Crisco, the first hydrogenated shortening, which contained a large amount of partially hydrogenated cottonseed oil. Further success came from the marketing technique of giving away free cookbooks with every recipe calling for Crisco. ... Trans fat from partially hydrogenated vegetable oils has displaced natural solid fats and liquid oils in many areas, especially in the fast food industry. ... Partial hydrogenation increases the shelf life and flavor stability of foods containing trans fats. These benefits for food manufacturers come at a high cost to the consumer's health. Rather than preventing the sale of trans fats, as advocated by consumer advocacy groups, the FDA in the US, as of January 2006, requires that the quantity of trans fat be listed on nutrition labels. These labeling requirements do not apply to restaurants. A benefit of trans fats for food manufacturers is the ability to design trans fat content so that fat will melt at body temperature, but not at room temperature. Partial hydrogenation raises the melting point of the fat, producing a semi-solid material, which is much more desirable than liquid oils for use in baking. Partially hydrogenated vegetable oils are much less expensive than the fats traditionally favored by bakers, such as butter or lard.
So you see, hydrogen was added to fat to lend it molecular stability at room temperature. The human body, not used to metabolizing the compound, has a bit of a freak-out, and chronic ingestion of this popular food processing - which was done to probably more than half of the foodstuffs in your local supermarket, until a recent reversal of the trend - increases rates of heart disease, among other things. So conceptually, food companies fed you an exceptionally negative substance, without your knowledge or ability to make a rational choice about weathering its impact - for decades.
Which leads to the subjective conclusion that a substance's ostensible status as "food" does not automatically inoculate corporations from public responsibility for what they opt to sell us. Or at least it shouldn't.
My Bottom Lines:
1. I haven't come to a decisive conclusion about what constitutes appropriate legal recourse in the case of unhealthy, addictive foodstuffs and metabolically negative additives.
2. Despite the condemnatory case made above, I'm instinctively uncomfortable with the impulse for government regulation and a flurry of lawsuits to solve the problem. For example, I'd make the case that things like pharmaceuticals are irrationally over-regulated, whereas food companies are pretty much given license to do whatever the Hell they want. I don't have a conclusion about what constitutes the best mechanism for tinkering with that balance.
3. The line between "poisons" and simply unhealthy additives is slightly blurrier than you think.
4. Given logical precedent, there is nothing outrageous about legistlatures and courts protecting children from substances that can be objectively assigned the twin statuses of "harmful" and "addictive." If I could quantify the concept that eating a Big Mac was metabolically equivalent to smoking 5 cigarettes, what would be the distinction between the two substances and our society's choice to give either to kids?
5. The most important factors in both a healthy debate and rational personal choices by libertarian-minded folks is to have complete information and accurate assumptions about the nature of various types of substances.
Which means that the suspected American mortality rate for use of the drug combo decreased from my previously estimated 1 in 92,000 to 1 in 93,333, given that suspected deaths moved from 5 to 7, down to 6, and the figure for total use moved from 460,000 to 560,000 women over the last 7 months. This 1 in 93,333 mortality rate still ranks the drug safer than anti-depressants, penicillin, and pregnancy itself.*
The nature of coverage over such a relatively tiny number of deaths from this drug protocol speaks volumes about how easy and inevitable it is to politicize science and statistics. Attacking the morality of the drug - even assigning an outsized moral weight to deaths potentially caused by side effects, due to disapproval of the scrip's purpose - may be a legitimate subjective attack ... but let's not pretend that RU-486 is a particularly dangerous regimen, based on the information at hand.
* Drug Precautions: All statistical assumptions are based on information contained in linked articles; rates of usage in particular are estimates, and not thoroughly vetted, impartial epidemiological information. That said, all sides of the debate have to work from the same publicly stated material and assumptions. Mortality rates are reported/suspected, and thus exclude potential deaths from the drug which remain unreported. That also said, this ratio of reported to unreported deaths and complications holds true within a percentage range for many, many drugs, presenting a constant challenge to accurate assessment of a pharmaceutical's safety profile. Investigation of RU-486 is warranted, particularly to determine whether topical vaginal usage of misoprostol may be responsible for infection as a side effect; but investigation is a far cry from politically-motivated condemnation of a (thus far) statistically safe medical protocol. NOTE: reading posts at INDC Journal may cause dizziness, night sweats, constipation, projectile vomiting and urge to slap Dorkafork vigorously about the face, head, neck and shoulders. Do not read INDC Journal prior to operating heavy machinery or reading the Daily Kos, as either interaction carries a risk of serious injury or death. Be cool, stay in school.
There's some funky noise dubbed over the last few seconds of the second clip; if you're industrious, you can find an unsullied video on Goldfrapp's web site (no direct vid link).
