politics

Leading Democrats have recently visited Iraq. Leading Republicans have recently visited Iraq. Leaders of America's allies have recently visited Iraq. The son of Prince Charles is going to Iraq and most importantly, the sons and daughters of many ordinary people will be going. But the person who sent them, President Bush, is not going because 'it is too dangerous'. White House: We will send more troops in Iraq - CNN.com

All four of Adam Curtis' excellent documentaries about the mechanisms behind 'manufactured consent' are on Google video. Here is the last and poss the best: The Century Of The Self - Part 4 of 4 - By Adam Curtis - Google Video

I've noticed that even the use of the spin doctored prefix 'not in full blown' to pretend that Iraq is not in Civil War has been quietly dropped in the last couple of weeks by magazines like the Economist and people like Kissinger. At the same time, people who supported the war in Iraq, such as Matt Drudge, the Economist and nearly all of the red blooded (now red faced) war bloggers are now desperately clambering all over each other to make sure the shit doesn't stick to them. They don't want to be on the losing team, there is nothing in it for them to continue to support Bush over McCain or even the Democrats - except loyalty and integrity. People who witnessed Murdoch switch his support, overnight, from the Tories to New Labour, in the UK, will not be surprised if even Fox News flips allegiance as its...

The front page of CNN currently reads: "Bush: Kerry owes troops an apology". At first glance, I read it as: "Kerry: Bush owes troops an apology."

Iraqi blogs make for depressing reading these days. The war appears to be all but lost. Zeyad says: "Another close friend of mine has been killed in Baghdad. We had lunch together in Baghdad just days before I left. I can't concentrate on anything any more. I should not be here in New York running around a stupid neighbourhood, asking people about their 'issues'. I now officially regret supporting this war back in 2003. The guilt is too much for me to handle." Healing Iraq And nothing short of a revolt has happened over some pretty weird comments by the increasingly deranged 'Iraq the Model'. Iraqi Konfused Kollege Kid: Iraqi Bloggers Discuss Lancet Study, Iraq The Model

After luring in the Bush Administration with two tame prequels, the world's most famous journalist delivers a devastating blow. The Age summarizes the Woodward stance. Imagine for one second, while reading it, that there is no God, or that, less contraversially, there is no God that matches the sect within a sect within a sect that is Mr. Bush's god. With that single supposition, you leave the United States as the worlds most powerful vessel, rudderless, drifting aimlessly, its captain asleep at the wheel. A giant aircraft-carrier Mary Celeste bristling with nuclear materiel. Woodward's conclusion is a serious as it gets - the United States is leaderless. "Mr Bush emerges as a man who not only lacks intellectual curiosity but is untroubled by self-doubt, a man who constantly tells his aides that as commander-in-chief his job is to exude confidence in his decisions. He is, according to Woodward, a man...

Well done Schwarzenegger. Smack bottom Bush. Science News Article | Reuters.com

A bigger threat to your life than suicide bombers.

The National Review has a list of the most harmful books of the 19th and 20th Centuries. Its next to an ad for Ann Coulter's book, so these guys are clearly literature experts. (Its a little known fact that (M)Ann Coulter is actually a drag act - check out the give away jaw line.) My top ten most dangerous books, period: 1. The Tanakh 2. The New Testament 3. The Koran 4. Mein Kampf (these guys can't have a monopoly on it) 5. Atlas Shrugged 6. Pedigree Dogs 7. The Art of War 8. Barbara Cartland's Book of Etiquette 9. High Availability MySQL Clusters for Absolute Beginners 10. Grimms Fairy Tales

Civilians targetted in bombing raid - unbelievable casualties, 220,000 men, women and children dead.

Kottke links to a New York Times piece that suggests that people adopted by higher income families will end up with a higher IQ. If IQ indicates intelligence, as the name suggests, then this is interesting as part of the nature vs nurture debate. On the other hand, if IQ tests are fundamentally flawed and merely represent education, then all this result says is that rich people tend to get a better education. What is more likely? That IQ tests are accurate but that the real world is messed up or that, according to Occams Razor, nature is governed by simple laws but there is a flaw in the measurement? One of the things that is absolutely obvious about an IQ test, is that it doesn't really test intelligence because it asks all sorts of questions that require such things as a large vocabulary in the language of the test....

"Is Iraq in civil war?...I have no more idea what is going on in Iraq from here in Baghdad, than from back in London" Sobering, must see, Channel 4 documentary about what's really going on in Iraq. One of the conclusions is that much of the only reporting outside the green zone is coming from bloggers: