Grumpitude.

Conditions: Hot. Stiflingly So.


Examining Afghanistan.

Are the soldiers in Afghanistan actually helping the situation there? It's a simple question, one that any leader should ask of his troops, or people ask of their leaders.

The road between the eastern Afghan city of Jalalabad and the Pakistani border is one of the busiest in the country, congested with gaily painted trucks, battered taxis, buses packed to the rafters and Afghans riding bikes. One morning in early March, a suicide bomber plowed a Toyota packed with explosives into the middle of a U.S. convoy patrolling that road, killing himself and injuring a Marine. That was bad enough, but what may be the key to Afghanistan's future was what happened next.

As pedestrians scattered in the resulting confusion and chaos, other Marines opened fire as their convoy sped away, shooting at vehicles and pedestrians over the course of some 10 miles, according to the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. They left at least 12 civilians dead in their wake and injured dozens more. "They opened fire on everybody," one wounded bystander told a reporter, "the ones inside the vehicles and the ones on foot." A court of inquiry is scheduled to convene next month at Camp Lejeune, N.C., to determine whether the Marines acted improperly. Investigations by the U.S. military and the Afghan human rights commission have already concluded that the American convoy was not fired upon after the suicide attack. The incident near Jalalabad is part of a disturbing larger pattern in Afghanistan. Last year was the worst year for civilian casualties since the fall of the country's cruel Taliban regime, and 2007 is shaping up to be even worse. The most alarming point: As of July, more civilians had died as a result of NATO, U.S. and Afghan government firepower than had died due to the Taliban.

- Truthout.org

It seems to me that the guiding principle of doctors, the hippocratic oath of 'first do no harm', should also apply to armies. It's a safe, somewhat golden rule, one of common sense. And yet time and again we see armed conflict getting out of control, espeically in the middle east, and civilians suffering disproportinally for it. Think of this: If you lived in Afghanistan, and the Western soldiers killed more civilians than the Taliban or Al Queda did, who would you more frightened of?



Head's in the Sand.

It's been clear for a good long while now that a great many people in Iraq have been killed. The question is how many, exactly. On average, American's think the number is around 10,000. The media, and the Iraq Body Count website, put it at around 70,000. But a serious and scientific study by Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health over a year ago, estimated the number at around 600,000. By now the number could well be over a million. That's quite a lot. This study, and therefore this number, has been essentially ignored in America. Why?

These estimates do not include those who have died because of public health problems created by the war, including breakdowns in sewerage systems and electricity, shortages of medicines, etc.

Amazingly, some journalists and editors - and of course some politicians - dismiss such measurements because they are based on random sampling of the population rather than a complete count of the dead. While it would be wrong to blame anyone for their lack of education, this disregard for scientific methods and results is inexcusable. As one observer succinctly put it: if you don't believe in random sampling, the next time your doctor orders a blood test, tell him that he needs to take all of it.

The methods used in the estimates of Iraqi deaths are the same as those used to estimate the deaths in Darfur, which are widely accepted in the media. They are also consistent with the large numbers of refugees from the violence (estimated at more than four million). There is no reason to disbelieve them, or to accept tallies such as that the Iraq Body Count (73,305 - 84,222), which include only a small proportion of those killed, as an estimate of the overall death toll.

Of course, acknowledging the holocaust in Iraq might change the debate over the war. While Iraqi lives do not count for much in US politics, recognizing that a mass slaughter of this magnitude is taking place could lead to more questions about how this horrible situation came to be. Right now a convenient myth dominates the discussion: the fall of Saddam Hussein simply unleashed a civil war that was waiting to happen, and the violence is all due to Iraqis' inherent hatred of each other.

In fact, there is considerable evidence that the occupation itself - including the strategy of the occupying forces - has played a large role in escalating the violence to holocaust proportions. It is in the nature of such an occupation, where the vast majority of the people are opposed to the occupation and according to polls believe it is right to try and kill the occupiers, to pit one ethnic group against another. This was clear when Shiite troops were sent into Sunni Fallujah in 2004; it is obvious in the nature of the death-squad government, where officials from the highest levels of the Interior Ministry to the lowest ranking police officers - all trained and supported by the US military - have carried out a violent, sectarian mission of "ethnic cleansing." (The largest proportion of the killings in Iraq are from gunfire and executions, not from car bombs). It has become even more obvious in recent months as the United States is now arming both sides of the civil war, including Sunni militias in Anbar province as well as the Shiite government militias.

- Truthout.org

I can't help but think that there would be a much greater push to end the war in Iraq if the people realised just how many had been killed for it. It's not about the American soldiers, I'm sure everyone knows how many of those have been killed, it's about the true victims of this war, and the disconnect between that and the people who essentially voted for this was in 2004..



Chessboxing.

Apparently, there's a group of people out there who like playing chess, like boxing, and have decided to put the two together, sort of as an ultimate competition between the two. The players box for a few minutes, then play chess for a few minutes, and so on until we have a winner, in either arena. It must be hell on the gloves.

Youtube Video: Chessboxing




I think instead of creating something great out of two things, they've really just ruined two things by mashing them together. Who cares to watch a chess match after seeing two guys fight for a few minutes, and who cares to see guys fight after getting involved in a chess match? Some of the priciples may be the same, but there's too much dilution for my taste.




Is it Christmas yet?

Again I see the Xmas decorations being put up in malls and so forth. Again I feel the anger of resistance rise within me. So I ask the question: Is It Christmas Yet?



Procrastination Flow Chart.

Here's an easy way to figure out if you really have to do anything. Confused? Just follow the boxes. http://projectsidewalk.com/flowchart/



Film Review: Mr Brooks.

Curiously, it seems that the point of this film is to try and make you feel bad for a serial killer. Oh, sure, Mr Brooks has got problems. His daughter's pregnant and has dropped out of college, and might possibly have inherited the crazy from him. A smart detective, played by Demi Moore, is trying to track him down. And he's being blackmailed by some punk kid (Dane Cook) who filmed him killing his latest victims and instead of going to the cops wants Brooks to teach him the trade. And he's desperately trying to kick his addiction to killing, even (amusingly) attending AA meetings. But still and all, and at the end of the day, he's a serial killer!

See, it's not like Kevin Costner plays Brooks as a raving, demented psycho. All in all he's a very reasonable and correct businessman, husband and father. Indeed, the actual darker side of his mind is embodied by William Hurt, who plays the invisible 'dark side' of Brooks, constantly trying to talk him into another spree. The interactions between the two parts of the same mind are quite good. Furthermore, the plot itself is quite smart, winding together the three story lines (blackmailer, daughter and investigating cop) with the proper twists and turns of a good thriller.

But ultimately, this film tries to make us empathize with Mr Brooks. And you really only see that when you're walking back to your car. And it makes you stop in your tracks, keys in hand, and wonder at the simple chutzpah required to make a film where the character you're meant to feel bad for is the serial killer. Is this a reflection of the lax moral standards we as a civilization show on a daily basis? In the news, on TV, in our own homes? Are our moral choices and those of our leaders being reflected back at us by our popular culture, and if so, then are we truly damned as the immoralities begin reinforcing one another and the slide steepens until it is inescapable? Or is it just a flawed movie? Four thumbprints out of Five.



End Transmission.