Slave's Wages

For those who wish to see what real slavery is about, I submit this story of a Saudi prince's treatment of his "servant" while in the UK.

Unnecessarily Heating Up the Climate

I watched a video "commercial" on YouTube the other day  that was about as offensive a piece as I have seen in a while.  I even refuse to link to it (acutally, as it turns out, it has been pulled). The video, produced by a British "climate change" group, was a terrible death fantasy whereby people who did not buy into the climate change dogma were horribly killed, on camera. I saw it as a thinly veiled threat to all who do not believe as they do. How many of these climate-change true believers feel the same way?

According to the climate change worrying site 350.org, the British climate group 10:10 produced and posted the video, but has since taken it off.  The folks at 350, who are attempting to organize a "work day" on October 10th in every country in the world, were also appalled at the video and lamented its effect on their work.I don't know much about 350, and would bet that I would differ with them on most things. But I can respect their disgust and the repugnant video.

If you have not seen the video, be glad that you missed it.

Love for Haiti

By now all readers are probably aware of the earthquake disaster in Haiti. With no major earthquake activity for the past 200 years and the generally impoverished nature of the country, Haiti's urban buildings were particularly vulnerable to damage and collapse. Initial reports indicate a potential for great loss of life. In addition to prayers, those away from the site of the disaster can help by donating to appropriate charities. We have contributed to Food for the Poor, a Catholic charity with experience in Haiti and a less than 3% overhead rate. In addition to Food for the Poor, the following charities are also taking donations for Haitian relief:

(List taken from The Anchoress)

Catholic Relief Services
United Methodist Committee on Relief
The Red Cross
Salvation Army
Providence in Haiti
American Jewish World Service
Lutheran World Relief
Cross International
World Vision
International Orthodox Christian Charities
Beyond Borders
Mercy Corps
Partners in Development

Bow Wow

Did you lose something, Mr. President?
Is something on the floor?
I did not think you'd come to call
with a back that's sore.

You're bent double, Mr. President;
a quite unseemly pose
for a leader, an organizer
whom everybody knows.

Look up here, Mr. President;
you are a head of state!
The leader of the free world
should not be found prostrate.

Oh, do come now, Mr. President;
this is all quite much
we don't need a demonstration
of a one-handed-toe-touch.

Please! Really, Mr. President;
Your wife gave the Queen a hug.
So you don't have to start out
by staring at the rug.

You must know, Mr. President,
the protocol you broke
has made you and your country
look like some kind of joke.


- Dminor

Would Che be the Designated Hitter?

From the Parody Department -- reaching back to a poem published in 1910, "Baseball's Sad Lexicon," for inspiration to comment on current events.

"Zelaya's Sad Company?"
by DMinor (apologies to Franklin Pierce Adams)

America's saddest of possible names:
"Castro, Morales, Chavez."
Trio of tyrants put freedom to flames,
Castro, Morales, Chavez.
Ruthlessly putting down any dissent,
Making a lackey of our President--
Lords that would never have terms that are spent:
"Castro, Morales, Chavez."

Just Wondering

From The Washington Post:

Senior Obama officials said that an overthrow of the Zelaya government had been brewing for days and that they worked behind the scenes to stop the military and its conservative, wealthy backers from pushing Zelaya out.

But...wouldn't that be meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations?

Crazy from the Heat

It was 100 degrees in Georgia
There was rioting in Tehran
Sasha and Malia got ice cream
And it rained on the New York golf fans.

Again 100 degrees for tomorrow
Let's pray for the folks in Tehran.
I really would like something colder --
Like a pic from a North Pole web cam.



The photo is from a NOAA arctic webcam from the end of May. After that heavy snows or a pressure ridge seems to have spoiled subsequent pictures.

Hat tip to Watt's Up with That for pointing the way.

Miss Manners I'm not

Nonetheless, the rapidly growing list of protocol goofs being perpetrated by the administration is starting to get to me, if for no other reason than that my taxes are going to support a cadre of protocol advisers who are either not worth their salaries or not being used. Thus far we have:

*Tacky gift-giving and a political snub to PM Gordon Brown of the UK.
*Ticking off the Poles and Czechs over missile defense.
*Presenting the Russian foreign minister an Easy Button marked "overcharge" in Russian.
*Secretary of State Clinton's ignorance of the story behind the shrine of Guadalupe while in Mexico.
*And now, the President's insistence on referring to the UK as "England" during his meeting with Queen Elizabeth coupled with Mrs. Obama's apparent failure to observe the "hands off the Queen" rule.

And that's not counting insulting Special Olympians the world over.

One has to wonder: weren't they briefed? Don't they have a staffer to handle the gift issue? Did they bother to check the records to see what previous gifts looked like? Starving student Hon. Daughter #1 is more fastidious with shower gifts than the White House seems to be, and all she has to worry about is ticking off her personal acquaintance.

Moreover: don't they have anybody over there fluent in Russian? And why didn't Hillary Clinton read the page or two of brief on local culture she was handed en route to Mexico? She was given briefing materials, wasn't she? WAS SHE??

Before the election, our prez went to great lengths to cast himself in the Citizen of the World mode. Well, as a citizen of the world, shouldn't he be aware that the country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not England? Add the Scots, Welsh, and Northern Irish to the list of justifiably miffed. I hear the Obamas were briefed on the flight over--were they paying attention, or were they having too much fun trying to spot Newfoundland from the windows?

I remember being made aware of some of the protocol respecting Queen Elizabeth when she visited the US in 1991. As part of her tour, Her Majesty was shown around a DC housing project and introduced to one of the residents.

The resident, a friendly lady who I assume had been informed of the visit only shortly before, greeted the Queen with something to the effect of "How you doin'!" and an enthusiastic hug. Her Majesty was a bit taken aback, but recovered herself and dealt with the whole situation with the aplomb of one well versed in managing sticky matters. The hostess meant no harm and really couldn't have been expected to be up on how to act at a royal audience. The media, nonetheless, went to great lengths to explain that this just wasn't done, and why.

Perhaps the Chicago area media didn't give the incident much coverage (I followed the story on DC stations,) or perhaps young Michelle Robertson was watching sitcoms that night. At any rate, it was a bit surprising to me to hear of her placing an arm around Queen Elizabeth's shoulders: I can't imagine that that little bit of protocol didn't get covered--probably repeatedly--on the flight. Perhaps it's just that I haven't been Oprah-ized and am such a fossil that personal space still matters to me, at least with people I've just met. But protocol aside, there is something of patronization to giving the uninvited arm-around-the-shoulders treatment to an elderly lady who is neither your mom nor your Aunt Zeitouni. Particularly when the elderly lady in question rode out the Blitzkrieg and is still putting in a day's work (as she's done since before you were born.) Even if royalty doesn't impress you, that should. I suspect quite a few nonroyal elderly ladies would be annoyed by that sort of liberty, particularly since (as a short person I'm rather tuned in to this) being put in a shoulder clinch makes one feel about ten years old.

Perhaps it's expecting too much that these people should know better. Obama was, after all, a Chicago community organizer with limited international travel and Mrs. Obama was a hospital administrator with less. (Mrs. Clinton, as a former first lady with eight years' experience, has no excuse.) But they have access to personnel whose job it is to keep them up to speed on the proper thing. The Brits will get over our gaucheries, (the Brit press seems to have had loads of fun with the recent ones) and will probably even forgive us, eventually. But there are countries in which this obtuseness regarding protocol could be very dangerous. At what point will this "Chicago Hillbillies" episode stop being funny?

An Embarassment of Riches

I let things go for a month or so, and when I come back there's so much material I feel like Lucy in the chocolate factory--I can barely keep up! A few items from this evening's offerings:

1. We spent some time in Germany and were always a bit nonplussed about the Germans' love-hate relationship with Americans and all things American (on average, they didn't much care for Americans, although Air Force officers seemed to be in high demand in the Morale Welfare circular personals ads; things American, be they music, rodeo, U.S. mailboxes, or the flag as a motif on everything from scarves to sports cars, they were wild about.) Thus we weren't terribly surprised to come across this new product. Yep, that's right. Chicken fingers. Mit curry dip--let's not go overboard with this American thing, shall we?

I figured the product choice was an example of political correctness stopping at the water's edge, but we are assured that the common stereotype does not translate into German. I dunno...

2. Somebody at the Huffington Post went off the rez and posted a profile of Kolan McConiughey, a top Special Olympics bowler who could easily make hash of Barack Obama. He has some tips for the prez for improving his game.

3. The New Republic's assistant editor James Kirchick takes matters into his own hands and offers his own Nowruz greeting to the people of Iran. All I can say is whew.

"Gift" means poison in German . . .

They say that you can never take back a first impression, and the new administration has made quite an impression with their choice of gifts in the last couple of days.

Among the things which peeved our British friends during the UK Prime Minister's visit to Washington was President Obama's choice of gift to PM Brown. Our President offered the Prime Minister a bunch of DVDs of American Movies. Iain Brown, of the Daily Telegraph, explains that DVD technology and television have made it all the way to the UK, and that the British people have viewed the films "as many times as you have." The Obama gift was in contrast to Mr. Brown's gift of a very unique pen made from the wood of an old British vessel (HMS Gannet). The desk in the White House Oval office is made from the sister ship of the Gannet.

Finally, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov with a red button she believed was marked "Reset" in Russian. It did not read "Reset," but instead read "Overcharge." Sister Toldjah believed that the button was actually supposed to remain in the White House for when the President "decides to help the American people with more entitlement programs, tax hikes, and pork." Tommy Christopher quipped that
"the last thing you want to give Russia is 'the button. . . .'” This has got to be a big black eye for the U.S. State Department Russian Lanuguage program.

Label this: Protocol Fail

This would almost be laughable, were it not so grotesque

Not long ago, D posted on the case of the Hamas Mickey Mouse lookalike. The show has now ended its run in stereotypical Hamas fashion; Farfour (the faux Mickey) is "beaten to death" by an actor portraying an Israeli official. That should get Hamas off the hook with Disney, but it's a hell of a display to put on in front of preschoolers. I can't imagine how children so subjected will escape growing up warped. Shameful!

As this topic seems to be a magnet for propagandists (note the responses on both linked posts,) it will be interesting to see if bringing this up again brings any commenters of that stripe out of the woodwork. Some people have way too much time on their hands--or is combox propaganda a growth industry among islamists?

Yer wastin' your time, dudes--Little Green Footballs this blog ain't.

Abandoning our Post?

I have forgotton who said that etiquette was really about consideration for others. The "rules" exist so that we, as a society, can stand to live together. In fact, we consider a person who obeys the norms of behavior to be civil. It follows then, that while an intentional breach of etiquette may be intended as a slight, the real effect is to show the uncivility of the breacher.

Former President Carter has long ignored the unwritten point of etiquette that helps to maintain the respect of the office of the President. Most recently he has claimed that the current Bush administration is the worst in the history of the republic. Leaving aside his own glass-house administration for the moment, the open attack did not hurt so much Carter's intended target, but instead served to make the United States look like a third world country. Instead of lending his celebrity to add weight to his views, he has diminished his stature, and that of his country. The constitution affords Mr. Carter the right to say anything he wants, but the unwritten laws of etiquette and good sense dictate that he keep his own trap shut, for his own good and for the good of the country. I am sure there are those among the 300 million Americans who could pick up his slack.

A while back, the civilized world recoiled in horror when a bootleg tape of Saddam Hussein's execution was released. The execution was punctuated by cat calls and celebration. Not that the guy didn't deserve it, but it reflected poorly on those doing the cat calls etc. At the end of the day, Saddam ended up just as dead as he would have given a proper execution. The parties most hurt by that day's antics were the government of Iraq and the partisans doing the shouting.

In the same vein, the breach of etiquette committed by those maligning the Rev.Jerry Falwell did their own reputations more disservice than damage to Mr. Falwell. What his detractors did was nothing short of dancing on his grave, which is always disgusting.

Death is a solemn occasion, even if it is the death of a horrible person. This rule is not so much for the sake of deceased as it is for the attendants. Reverence for human life, even a human life gone bad, keeps us from losing respect for life in general. We have all seen the damage resulting from the loss of respect for life, damage that can be measured in deaths from abortion and euthanasia.

What would Emily Post say?

---------------------------------------

BTW, I would be a fool to be pitied if I did not wish Laurence Tureaud
a happy birthday.

Teach Your Children Well

Looks lile I spoke too soon regarding Mickey Hamas and his children's show. According to Agence France Presse, the slandering and inciting show ran again on Friday, 11 May. On the 10th, the television station's chairman of the board decried the attacks against the show, calling it an Israeli and Western plan "to attack Islam and the Palestinian cause," according to the AFP article.
Apparently, the chairman would rob his community's children, who I'm sure have suffered mightily, of more of their childhood for the sake of his causes. Whom else would he manipulate?

The Mouse that Abhorred

At first I thought it was a story from the satirical web site The Onion -- a Palestinian children's show where a young child called in and talked about killing and "commit[ting] martyrdom." The show's main character was a multilingual tuxedo-clad mouse who was taken to task for his lack of ethnic chauvinism. Disney gone mad? Has Mickey Mouse become Mickey Hamas? And what will become of Pluto and Goofy?

I will leave my Mickey Mouse theme parody out for now.

"Mick' Hamas (Phil Fatah!), Mick' Hamas (Phil Fatah!)"



I understand that the show has been pulled - could it be that Hamas hate is no match for Disney's lawyers? If only it was that simple . . . .

Recently Read, & Some Yard Eco

An interesting, (and I think rather timely) perspective on militarism from Chesterton:

Now, Mr. Kipling is certainly wrong in his worship of militarism, but his opponents are, generally speaking, quite as wrong as he. The evil of militarism is not that it shows certain men to be fierce and haughty and excessively warlike. The evil of militarism is that it shows most men to be tame and timid and excessively peaceable. The professional soldier gains more and more power as the general courage of a community declines. Thus the Pretorian guard became more and more important in Rome as Rome became more and more luxurious and feeble. The military man gains the civil power in proportion as the civilian loses the military virtues. And as it was in ancient Rome so it is in contemporary Europe. There never was a time when nations were more militarist. There never was a time when men were less brave. All ages and all epics have sung of arms and the man; but we have effected simultaneously the deterioration of the man and the fantastic perfection of the arms. Militarism demonstrated the decadence of Rome, and it demonstrates the decadence of Prussia.

G. K. Chesterton on Rudyard Kipling from Heretics, 1905.
Page By Page Books (Also available at several other sites.)

*****
A thoughtful opinion piece by Fred Thompson on Cuban health care and Michael Moore's latest "documentary."

*****
Yard Eco: A very handsome male
Rose-Breasted Grosbeak dropped into our backyard feeder yesterday and was back today (he really seems to enjoy the spread chez minor premise! Must be the sunflower seeds.) Rose-Breasteds are northern birds and we don't see much of them around here; this was the first one I've seen since I started birdwatching. Our grosbeak is likely en route to points north; the species migrates to the tropics over the winter. I called up a local wildlife expert of my acquaintance yesterday about the sighting. She assured me that, notwithstanding the heat and the fact that the local wild birds settled into nesting some time ago, those birds from boreal climes are still on holiday and he might stick around a few days before heading north. I'm enjoying watching the feeder--he really is a thing of beauty!

Stuff and Nonsense

...I leave it to you to decide which is which.

D put me onto this Fars News Agency story posted in Sweetness and Light on Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega's meeting with Iran's Foreign Minister. We can relax; all Iran wants is peace and justice. The U.S., of course, is the villain of the piece. Excuse me, but weren't we all assured that Danny had gotten religion and was a changed man? It's sounding an awful lot like Meet the new boss/ same as the old boss to me. (Hat tip for song line: The Who)

*****
Also in Sweetness and Light, Tehran is cracking down on women who push the limits of the dress code. Penalties include fines, lashes, and exile from Tehran (which some might actually see as a benefit!) The photo accompanying this post is edifying; the young lady being loaded into a paddy wagon could pass for a nun, yet she is nonetheless in violation.
In olden days a glimpse of stocking/
was considered simply shocking/
Now Heaven knows/
Anything goes!
(Hat tip for song line: Cole Porter)

*****
Mike Adams proposes a gun ownership option that he suggests could be acceptable to both pro-and anti-gun types: institute a concealed carry permit program as the only legal requirement for purchasing a gun. Eliminate all other permits. Probably won't make the anti-gun types happy as it does allow gun ownership, but nothing short of an outright ban is going to make some folks happy.

Adams being a pretty resolute gun-rights advocate, I was a little surprised to see him advocating this: it does, after all, impose restrictions on gun purchases. It strikes me as eminently sensible. While I support the Second Amendment, it seems to me that the right to purchase and carry a gun ought to be balanced by the responsibility of appropriate use. You can't legally get behind the wheel of a car without demonstrating some basic competence in driving, why should you be able to buy a gun without demonstrating basic competence in using it? You can kill people just as easily either way.

*****
Courtesy of my sister-in-law, this link to the site of
the "Real Borat." (Warning: Adult Content. More like Slightly Suggestive Adolescent Content, actually.) As far as we can tell, this is not a spoof; if anybody has info to the contrary, however, we'd love to hear it. SIL checked Snopes.com, but could find nothing either way.

The owner (and primary photo subject) of the site has mercifully refrained from attempting Borat's yellow-Speedo-over-the-shoulders beach look. Although he does look rather Borat-like, he also reminds me of the old Saturday Night Live "Czechoslovakian Brothers" sketches, in a way. I wonder if he's gotten any takers? I wonder if I'll need to go to Confession for posting this link?

some things I really would like to have seen on the nightly news, but didn't

Suzanne Fields (Washington Times) has written a column on Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The Somali-born Ali collaborated with filmmaker Theo Van Gogh on Submission, the film which led to his brutal murder by an Islamist. Ali is the author of a new autobiography, Infidel, in which she explains her transformation from submissive Muslim girl to human rights activist at frequent odds with the ideology in which she was raised.
**
I let myself get behind reading Nat Hentoff's column, alas, and thus missed this one from December 5. Hentoff discusses Supreme Court arguments (which he saw thanks to C-SPAN) on Partial-Birth Abortion. Of particular interest to him are the verbal gymnastics required to defend late-term abortion. Whoops, did I hear somebody let slip a reference to the "baby"?
**
The Mercury News had a column which I encountered courtesy of Rebecca of Mary Meets Dolly. Rebecca, a Catholic molecular biologist, posts information and analysis on topics in genetics, stem cell research, and reproductive tech and is an invaluable resource for anyone trying to sort out what is really going on in those areas from what drivel actually makes it through the wire service reports. She quotes, on her Feb. 12, '07 post:
All of the guidelines to date focus on bench research. But Menlo Park biotech company Geron has already announced that it intends to start clinical trials using differentiated embryonic stem cells for patients with acute spinal cord injury. Yet we have almost no guidance on how oversight committees should evaluate these trials or what should go into informed consent forms. Astonishingly, neither the NAS nor ISSCR has said anything about the right of subjects who may oppose stem-cell research to know that the cells placed in their bodies for research come from embryonic stem cells.
Get out your dilapidated pulp copies of those '70s futuristic dystopia novels and somebody call up Jeremy Rifkin, folks: You, too, could become the "beneficiary" of ESCR without your knowledge or consent. Sooner than you think.
**
This organization seeks to aid an American convicted of a murder in Nicaragua. The evidence against him, if the site is accurate in depicting it, appears to be extremely flimsy and it is difficult to accept that justice was served. Some thoughtful analysis of the case, and perhaps a little national media attention, might just lead to that happening.
**
But of course, they couldn't possibly make room for any of this fluff in their lineup. There wouldn't be room for every last detail of Britney's new 'do, the paternity lineup for Anna Nicole's wretched orphaned daughter, Lust in Space, or all the Congressional bloviating re the Non-binding Resolution Boondoggle.

Locke, Stock and Barrel

Michael Totten, a freelance writer who resided in Beirut for a time and was ill-used by the Hizballah, published a combox entry from a Texan, Ric Locke, to a Hizbollahi commenter. Pretty powerful stuff. Some excerpts:

I am, more or less in order of importance, an American, a Christian, a Texan, a military veteran, a Republican, and a descendant of American Indians. Whatever your goals are, you must convince me, and others like me, not to oppose them, or you don't have a hope in Hell.

The reason that is so is that you produce nothing for yourself. You and your people do not even make the explosives you kill people with; you must buy them from the West, or from the Persians. . . .

You don't even earn the money you buy those things with. You must depend upon the largesse, the generosity, of others, and if you believe that generosity is genuinely in your interest you are too stupid to take seriously, . . . .

We, on the other hand (and by "we" I mean the West and those who have copied us) make all those things. It is for this reason that we are strong. We learned, with the most painful lessons coming in the century just past, that both Mao and Machiavelli were wrong. . . . . What we have learned is the deep truth of another aphorism: When you are strong you can forgive your enemies. When you are weak you can only kill them.

It's worth reading the whole piece.

Number Games

Recently Lancet, the British medical journal, published a report from the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University claiming 665,000 civilian deaths in Iraq since the U. S. bombardment began in March 2003. There has been remarkably little controversy about this figure despite its being wildly out of proportion with most other data out there.
I submit the following sampling:

Iraq Body Count site counter as of last weekend: Min-- 43937 Max--48783
At least 400 civilian deaths were reported between Monday 2 and Sunday 8 October.

From Raed Jarrar's Civilian Casualties Site
The First Fifty Days Table: Casualties betw. 3-20 and 5-8/03
total injured:4959
total dead:1995
War Deaths 20 March 03-31 July 03 Table: 2066 total, boys & men 1573, girls & women 493

From BBC, October '04:
Civilian toll estimates at 10/04
Iraq Body Count: 14-16,000
Brookings Inst: 10-27,000
UK foreign secretary: >10,000
People's Kifah >37,000
Lancet: >100,000

Let's get a few things straight ere we go further. Every death, civilian or combatant, is a horrible tragedy for somebody. In the case of civilian deaths, tragedy is compounded by the fact that these were not combatants. In the best of all possible worlds, innocent bystanders aren't supposed to die. Of course, in the best of all possible worlds there would be no dictators, no extremists, and no need for military engagement in the first place. It would be nice to be able to resolve an international dispute without innocent bystanders getting hurt, but as long as there are bad guys in the world that's unlikely. Innocent bystanders make such handy bargaining chips.

Several of the studies do little to discourage the implications that all these deaths are genuinely civilian and can be laid squarely at the feet of the U. S. Armed Forces. Both assumptions are unfair, especially when it is consistently the "insurgents" who have no qualms about targeting the vulnerable and seem to seek opportunities to do so: driving explosives-laden vehicles into groups of children, raiding school buses for teenagers of the "wrong" sect, strapping explosives to the mentally handicapped, and dissembling about the combat status of their own injured.

Let's look at the Lancet numbers critically, though:
I took the total number given by Lancet, 665,000, and divided it by the number of days in a year (didn't factor in the Leap Day; sorry,) and the number of years since the beginning of hostilities. That came to 3.5 years as of mid-September. The fatality rate I got for 665,000 divided by 3.5 years comes to 190,000 deaths per year. The per day fatality rate for that figure worked out to about 520.5 (let's go easy on Lancet and just call it 520) deaths. That's 520 civilian deaths per day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, for the last three and a half years. It's also 500,000+ more than Lancet cited in 10/04, a year and a half into the war, which seems to me disproportionate enough that it ought to raise some eyebrows.

Jarrar's figures above cite 1995 deaths in the first fifty days. Most of those were during the first few weeks so an average doesn't really describe the actual situation, but 1995 divided by fifty comes to an average of 39.9 deaths per day. (If you look at his table, you will notice that the high-casualty days were up in the low hundreds, while late April and May had only a few deaths per day.) Even if we imagine that all 4959 injuries resulted in death (which would be unlikely,) that would still only come to (about) 139 deaths per day for that period. You would have to nearly quadruple the figure to get the Lancet rate for that period.
Iraq Body Count's high-end figure from its counter is 48,753 fatalities. Lancet's figure is more than thirteen times that number. People's Kifah's October '04 figure is 37,000, or about 68 per day for the first year and a half--about one-third Lancet's rate for the same period and almost one-eighth the current study's rate. The Iraq body count statistics for the past week are noteworthy. Recently, much has been made of the spike in violence. If Iraq Body count's number of 400+ civilian deaths in one week constitutes part of a spike, how can Lancet defend a figure of 500+ a day?

The Iraq the Model brothers appear fit to be tied over the Lancet study. They maintain that the numbers are not borne out by their own observations, and condemn the intent of the study:
Among the things I cannot accept is exploiting the suffering of people to make gains that are not the least related to easing the suffering of those people. I'm talking here about those researchers who used the transparency and open doors of the new Iraq to come and count the drops of blood we shed.
In the last 1000 days, Lancet is claiming an average of about 500; over 3000 every week. The reported news notes a few dozens on bad days, hundreds in the week. Where are the thousands of bodies? They're not in Iraqi hospitals or morgues -- I wonder how many death certificates have been made (and who makes them).

Over the weekend I caught part of an NPR interview with the Lancet study's director. He defended his methodology, in part, on the grounds that it had been used in other conflicts; the Sudan, for example. It's really too bad he brought that up, because it's forcing me to question the validity of the fatality rates there, as well--not something I wanted to do. If the Lancet study's researchers are allowing personal agendas to bleed over into their work, they need to consider whether the shock value of their numbers in this one study is worth the potential damage to any good work they have previously done.

Still More on the Papal Address Outrage

Iraq the Model has weighed in on the Papal Address Outrage with a thoughtful article (Tuesday, September 19 post) focusing on the Islamization of Iraq and attitudes toward 'conversion by the sword.' It's worth reading. I can't remember which of the brothers posted it, but his conclusion spoke to thoughts I have been having as I have reflected on the precarious situation of Christian minorities in Islamic countries right now:

Some accuse the pope of bad timing but I wonder what is going to be the best time to accept criticism and accept questions? Next year? a decade from now? When?

There will be no such time for our clerics who derive their power from this history, and to them, questioning or criticizing this history is a threat to their holiness and power.
****

The Moderate Voice posted a report that Mohammed Qaddaffi has called for Benedict XVI to convert. (I'd link to full details on this myself, but going to this guy's blog seems to make my computer lock up. Oh, don't worry, lots of things make my computer lock up. It will probably be just fine for everyone else.) Th M.V. quips, more or less:

I could see it happen...right after the President of Iran gets Bar Mitzvahed.
****

Some of the flap that arose over the Pope's address is directly attributable to media spin; Jimmy Akin has posted some comments on this. It looks like the BBC zeroed in for a 'grabber' headline (or maybe a less savory motive,) and things went downhill from there.

Several sources have now pointed out that a minor variance in translation--the exclusion of one or two short phrases in the English version (which has since been corrected) altered the sense of the Pope's words enough that his comments seemed a good deal harsher initially. Benedict's address actually included the observation that Manuel Paleologus addressed his commentary on Islam "with a brusqueness that astonishes us."

I think that the Holy Father was trying, with his words, to distance his own views from the "brusqueness" of Paleologus in an effort to not inflame the oh-so-easily inflamed passions of the Islamofascists. Perhaps, he hoped to appeal to Islam's better nature: "Look, this is how the rest of the world sees you; you can change this view by changing your actions." Hope springs eternal.

With all due respect to the Papa, Manuel Paleologus' brusqueness doesn't surprise me at all. At the time he made his now-famous remarks, after all, he was either living as a hostage in the Ottoman court (almost certainly resisting proselytism,) or holding off an Ottoman seige from his formerly glorious Constantinople. Give the guy credit: he persevered in his Christianity, protected his people for as long as he could, and eventually died a monk. But perhaps it's a bit much to ask that, given his circumstances in 1391, he get up every single morning feeling like "an Alleluia from head to toe." The Lord knows I don't, and nobody's holding me hostage or trying to make me abandon my faith. If the "Religion of Peace" wasn't exactly giving Manuel the Peace that Passeth Understanding, maybe there was a good reason.

Brusque or not, Paleologus' purpose, like that of the Pope, was to appeal to reason in order to dialogue. If there is to be any peace and justice in the world, Islam is going to have to learn that it's not a dialogue if one side gets to do all the talking, and it's not a dialogue if one side is above scrutiny while the other can be criticized freely. I can't think of any other religion on earth that is so unable to cope rationally with constructive criticism.

I have been profoundly concerned for Christian minorities in Muslim countries since the flap began. Like Paleologus, they are pretty much in a hostage situation. But it's worse, because they are also at the mercy of mobs. One supposedly "moderate" cleric has already declared Friday a Muslim "day of anger;" I'm fearing a repeat of Kristallnacht, or worse.

Still, I am intensely aware that if it hadn't been the Pope last Tuesday, it would have been the Chair of the Southern Baptist convention tomorrow, the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church next week, or the Dalai Lama a fortnight hence (okay, so I exaggerate a bit.) The point, as ITM succinctly put it in my quote above, is that unless we are all prepared to rationally concede that Islam is "pure" and above reproach (a view held by most practicing Muslims, but few other humans of any or no faith.) there is never going to be a "good time" to question or criticize it--and if we don't start asking some hard questions now, that situation is never going to get any better.

Pray for our Brothers and Sisters in Christ who live in Muslim countries, and for all the Dhimmi. I fear it will go hard for them.
****
UPDATE:
Father Stephanos at Me Monk, Me Meander offers his own "Junior High Outline" of the Pope's address, as well as some UNEXPECTED GOOD NEWS that blew me clean out of the water! It appears that Islamic Jihad Militants in a West Bank Village have turned out to protect a Catholic church from vandalism. Much more of this, I may have to give up sarcasm for a day or two. I pray it's true--he has pictures posted!