BBC NEWS | Health | Heat may be key to cancer therapy
The theory is that cancer cells from testicular cancer are more susceptible to heat, given that their original home is a few degrees cooler than the rest of the body. Sounds plausible.
This reminds me, I am pretty sure there was an Arthur C Clarke novel in which brief mention was made of human males in the future no longer having external genitalia, including testes. The difference between men and women only became obvious on arousal. I think that this was the result of genetic manipulation to improve the design of males. (I hope this is a real memory and I am not relaying some stupid dream!) It seemed to me a very unlikely thing to bother genetically manipulating.
I think it was also Clarke who mentioned a character putting a cream on his face to inhibit beard growth (instead of shaving.) I think of that quite often as I shave in the morning, as it strikes me as a product that sounds a likely prediction, but turns out to be far off the mark.
It's funny how the mind can keep remembering some of the most minor details of novels.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Hope for young soldier
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Palestinian groups agree deal for return of Israeli
From the Guardian:
Palestinian factions, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad, have agreed to stop firing rockets at Israel and to free a captured Israeli soldier in a deal brokered by Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president.
The deal, agreed on Sunday, is to halt the rocket attacks in return for a cessation of Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip, and to release Corporal Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier captured on June 25, in exchange for the freeing of Palestinian prisoners at some point in the future.
An adviser to Mr Abbas told the Guardian that all Palestinian politicians were united on the need to free the Israeli soldier and stop all violence in Gaza, but the obstacles were the Israeli government and the Hamas leadership in Damascus.
From the Guardian:
Palestinian factions, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad, have agreed to stop firing rockets at Israel and to free a captured Israeli soldier in a deal brokered by Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president.
The deal, agreed on Sunday, is to halt the rocket attacks in return for a cessation of Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip, and to release Corporal Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier captured on June 25, in exchange for the freeing of Palestinian prisoners at some point in the future.
An adviser to Mr Abbas told the Guardian that all Palestinian politicians were united on the need to free the Israeli soldier and stop all violence in Gaza, but the obstacles were the Israeli government and the Hamas leadership in Damascus.
I don't understand
Independent Online Edition > Health Medical
Because I can't get free access to this report, or to the BMJ article, I can only see this introduction, and I don't see how his argument works:
A leading doctor has accused Western plastic surgeons who perform cosmetic surgery on the vagina of undermining the battle against female circumcision in other parts of the world.
Writing in the British Medical Journal, Ronan Conroy, senior lecturer at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, says the growing acceptance in Britain and elsewhere of so-called "designer vaginas" was exposing Western double standards.
I mean, aren't "designer vaginas" intended to enhance function, and female circumcision doing the exact opposite?
Because I can't get free access to this report, or to the BMJ article, I can only see this introduction, and I don't see how his argument works:
A leading doctor has accused Western plastic surgeons who perform cosmetic surgery on the vagina of undermining the battle against female circumcision in other parts of the world.
Writing in the British Medical Journal, Ronan Conroy, senior lecturer at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, says the growing acceptance in Britain and elsewhere of so-called "designer vaginas" was exposing Western double standards.
I mean, aren't "designer vaginas" intended to enhance function, and female circumcision doing the exact opposite?
Everything in moderation
ScienceDaily: Light To Moderate Drinking Reduces Risk Of Cardiac Events, Death
OK, maybe you knew that before, but a new study confirming it doesn't hurt.
This one points out that the idea that the cardiac benefits of alcohol may be due to its effect on inflammation doesn't seen right. It seems that no one yet knows clearly why it does work:
The findings indicate that the anti-inflammatory properties of alcohol alone do not explain the reduced risk of death or cardiovascular disease associated with light to moderate drinking, the authors write. Alcohol may have cellular or molecular effects that reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, or it may interact with genetic factors to produce a protective effect.
The health effects of alcohol may not be the same for everyone, the authors caution. "The net benefit of light to moderate alcohol consumption may vary as a function of sex, race and background cardiovascular risk," they conclude.
OK, maybe you knew that before, but a new study confirming it doesn't hurt.
This one points out that the idea that the cardiac benefits of alcohol may be due to its effect on inflammation doesn't seen right. It seems that no one yet knows clearly why it does work:
The findings indicate that the anti-inflammatory properties of alcohol alone do not explain the reduced risk of death or cardiovascular disease associated with light to moderate drinking, the authors write. Alcohol may have cellular or molecular effects that reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, or it may interact with genetic factors to produce a protective effect.
The health effects of alcohol may not be the same for everyone, the authors caution. "The net benefit of light to moderate alcohol consumption may vary as a function of sex, race and background cardiovascular risk," they conclude.
Mark Steyn on the Middle East
Mark Steyn: If only they had refused to indulge Arafat | News | The Australian
All of the article is good Steyn stuff. An extract:
For the first quarter-century of Israel's existence, the Arab states fought more or less conventional wars against the Zionists and kept losing. So then they figured it was easier to anoint a terrorist movement and in 1974 declared Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organisation to be the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people", which is quite a claim for an organisation then barely a decade old. Amazingly, the Arab League persuaded the UN, the EU, Bill Clinton and everyone else to go along with it and to treat the old monster as a head of state who lacked only a state to head.
It's true that many nationalist movements have found it convenient to adopt the guise of terrorists.
But, as the Palestinian movement descended from airline hijackings to the intifada to self-detonating in pizza parlours, it never occurred to its glamorous patrons to wonder if maybe this was, in fact, a terrorist movement conveniently adopting the guise of nationalism.
All of the article is good Steyn stuff. An extract:
For the first quarter-century of Israel's existence, the Arab states fought more or less conventional wars against the Zionists and kept losing. So then they figured it was easier to anoint a terrorist movement and in 1974 declared Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organisation to be the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people", which is quite a claim for an organisation then barely a decade old. Amazingly, the Arab League persuaded the UN, the EU, Bill Clinton and everyone else to go along with it and to treat the old monster as a head of state who lacked only a state to head.
It's true that many nationalist movements have found it convenient to adopt the guise of terrorists.
But, as the Palestinian movement descended from airline hijackings to the intifada to self-detonating in pizza parlours, it never occurred to its glamorous patrons to wonder if maybe this was, in fact, a terrorist movement conveniently adopting the guise of nationalism.
It must cause Phillip Adams chest pains
Many, er, happy returns, PM | Matt Price | The Australian
Matt Price makes this comment in his short piece on John Howard's birthday:
These days the Prime Minister is routinely mobbed during public appearances and Wood reckons more than 400 people from a mix of community groups will make it for a cuppa with the birthday boy.
"You normally get a high proportion of no-shows, but practically everyone we asked is turning up," said Wood.
Matt Price makes this comment in his short piece on John Howard's birthday:
These days the Prime Minister is routinely mobbed during public appearances and Wood reckons more than 400 people from a mix of community groups will make it for a cuppa with the birthday boy.
"You normally get a high proportion of no-shows, but practically everyone we asked is turning up," said Wood.
Insert own joke about sheep being confused
Wig and robes not enough
From the story above:
A PROMINENT New Zealand lawyer - bald and moustachioed - turned up to court wearing a skirt and blouse and carrying a handbag to protest what he says is a male-dominated judiciary.
Rob Moodie, 67, fronted Wellington's High Court yesterday dressed in a navy blue skirt suit with added female extras, The Dominion Post newspaper reported.
"I will now, as a lawyer, be wearing women's clothing," Mr Moodie was quoted as saying .
"The deeper the cover-up, the prettier the frocks."
From the story above:
A PROMINENT New Zealand lawyer - bald and moustachioed - turned up to court wearing a skirt and blouse and carrying a handbag to protest what he says is a male-dominated judiciary.
Rob Moodie, 67, fronted Wellington's High Court yesterday dressed in a navy blue skirt suit with added female extras, The Dominion Post newspaper reported.
"I will now, as a lawyer, be wearing women's clothing," Mr Moodie was quoted as saying .
"The deeper the cover-up, the prettier the frocks."
Any more than guesswork?
Minister ignored parrot advice - National - theage.com.au
While what went on behind Senator Ian Campbell's decision to not approve a new Victorian wind farm is no doubt interesting, this part of the report seems odd:
While refusing to comment on why the departmental briefing paper would not be released, a spokeswoman for said Senator Campbell had based his decision on a publicly available report by consultants Biosis Research, which warned that orange-bellied parrots face extinction within 50 years. There are only about 200 left.
Yet the same Biosis Research report also predicted that the risk of any parrots being killed at the Bald Hills site was extremely low.
According to the Biosis risk analysis, the worst-case scenario would result in one parrot being killed at Bald Hills every 667 years. In the best-case scenario, that would fall to one being killed every 1097 years.
How on earth would you forecast with any high degree of accuracy the rate of bird kill for a particular species in an area that has not had a wind farm in it before?
Sounds like rubbery figures to me.
While what went on behind Senator Ian Campbell's decision to not approve a new Victorian wind farm is no doubt interesting, this part of the report seems odd:
While refusing to comment on why the departmental briefing paper would not be released, a spokeswoman for said Senator Campbell had based his decision on a publicly available report by consultants Biosis Research, which warned that orange-bellied parrots face extinction within 50 years. There are only about 200 left.
Yet the same Biosis Research report also predicted that the risk of any parrots being killed at the Bald Hills site was extremely low.
According to the Biosis risk analysis, the worst-case scenario would result in one parrot being killed at Bald Hills every 667 years. In the best-case scenario, that would fall to one being killed every 1097 years.
How on earth would you forecast with any high degree of accuracy the rate of bird kill for a particular species in an area that has not had a wind farm in it before?
Sounds like rubbery figures to me.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Mum-in-law from hell
Mother-in-law made to pay (pounds) 35,000 for inflicting four wretched months - Britain - Times Online
An Indian arranged marriage goes wrong, and the daughter in law successfully sues the mother-in-law from hell under legislation designed to cover stalkers. I can't think of equivalent legislation in Australian jurisdictions that could work here.
From the article:
Ms Singh was 22 and a manager in her family’s clothing business when she married Hardeep Bhakar, then 25, from Ilford, East London, on November 1, 2002. Their families had been introduced by a matchmaker. She had expected to live with her husband’s family after the marriage.
But she soon began to have doubts about her new home, which she shared with Hardeep and his two brothers as well as Mrs Bhakar and her husband, Prithvipal Singh Bhakar. Ms Singh and Mrs Bhakar were often alone in the house together while the men were out.
Mrs Bhakar attempted to exhaust and humiliate her daughter-in-law, requiring her to clean toilets without a brush and clean the floor without a mop. Her hands became infected. Ms Singh’s visits home were restricted and she was not allowed to attend her uncle’s funeral or make regular visits to the Sikh temple. Her mobile phone was confiscated and she was allowed to make and receive only one closely monitored call a week to her family.
Sounds a lot like a pandora's box of litigation being opened, all the same.
An Indian arranged marriage goes wrong, and the daughter in law successfully sues the mother-in-law from hell under legislation designed to cover stalkers. I can't think of equivalent legislation in Australian jurisdictions that could work here.
From the article:
Ms Singh was 22 and a manager in her family’s clothing business when she married Hardeep Bhakar, then 25, from Ilford, East London, on November 1, 2002. Their families had been introduced by a matchmaker. She had expected to live with her husband’s family after the marriage.
But she soon began to have doubts about her new home, which she shared with Hardeep and his two brothers as well as Mrs Bhakar and her husband, Prithvipal Singh Bhakar. Ms Singh and Mrs Bhakar were often alone in the house together while the men were out.
Mrs Bhakar attempted to exhaust and humiliate her daughter-in-law, requiring her to clean toilets without a brush and clean the floor without a mop. Her hands became infected. Ms Singh’s visits home were restricted and she was not allowed to attend her uncle’s funeral or make regular visits to the Sikh temple. Her mobile phone was confiscated and she was allowed to make and receive only one closely monitored call a week to her family.
Sounds a lot like a pandora's box of litigation being opened, all the same.
Monday, July 24, 2006
The Tablet on the Middle East
The Tablet
The opinion piece above is entitled "Disporportionately deadly" and states the reasons why the writer believes Israel, which he supports generally, should be condemned for an excessive response to Lebanon/Hezbollah.
The article is reasonably well written, and covers a lot of ground about what all the players may want to achieve.
I would criticise the article on some important counts, however:
1. Most importantly, while emphasizing that the laws of war incorporate the concept of proportionality, the article fails to note that the same laws prohibit use of civilians as a shield. This is quite a glaring omission in the circumstances.
To be more accurate in targeting Hezbollah assets on the ground, given that they are apparently hidden within civilian buildings, an invasion far into Lebanon would be necessary, which (in this particular case) carries the added risk of involvement of Syrian and Lebanese (as opposed to Hezbollah)
troops, as well as street to street ambushes and fighting. While not flattening as many residential buildings as bombing from the air, this style of fighting is not exactly going to leave the neighbourhood pretty. (And, I wonder, while it might result in a lower level of destruction in any particular street, would it be over a wider area?)
2. The article says of the response of Bush, Blair and (Canadian PM) Harper:
It is conceivable that one or more of them believes, along with tens of millions of evangelical Christians, that another war between Israel and its neighbours is a necessary precursor to the second coming of Christ.
Raising this seems rather unnecessary if you are unable to find any statement by any of the 3 that they believe this.
I note that has been much speculation by Bush opponents over the years that he probably believes this, especially with his ties to some evangelical Christians who do take the "end times" stuff very seriously. (Let me be clear: it is absurd and offensive for those nutters who believe this is the start of the "end times" to cheer on conflict in the Middle East.)
However, I have not been able to find any quote from Bush's mouth that confirms that he personally believes this. (A generic statement that he believes it is "God's will" that there be peace in the Middle East is not going to cut it. Correct me if I am wrong about this; it seems to me he must have been asked the question directly sometime in his political career, but I haven't found it on the internet yet.)
To worry unduly about Bush's personal belief about this has always struck me as a case of "guilt by association", and an example of many on the Left's general dislike of conservative Christianity getting carried away.
Besides, the number of people involved in executive power in the US system surely makes it extremely unlikely that any President with a belief in his personal apocalyptic role is going to get far with launching the missiles.
Whether you can have the same expectation from an out and out theocracy is another question.
3. The article also says:
President Bush and his advisers have several reasons for wanting a conflict with Iran. They have a score to settle concerning the 52 Americans who were held hostage for 444 days after the Islamic revolution of 1979. They are concerned about Iranian influence in Iraq and - at a time when China and Russia are emerging as serious competitors - have an eye on Iran's immense oil reserves also. A confrontation with Iran could also boost the Republican Party's prospects in the mid-term congressional elections in just three months.
Hmm. It could also be that they have a legitimate concern about another nuclear power in the Middle East with a recurring dream of removing Israel.
4. His final paragraph:
If we accept Israel's response and then tolerate it, we would be devaluing the lives of Lebanese citizens. We would also undermine the laws of war, which exist to prevent unnecessary human suffering without regard to national, religious or ethnic differences. Israel has a right to defend itself, but always within recognised and reasonable limits. Those limits have been breached. Friends of the Jewish state should not pretend otherwise.
Again, it would be good to see a statement that fighters who hide assets and themselves within civilian buildings (and then provoke a conflict) are also "devaluing the lives of Lebanese citizens."
For the record: Israeli targeting of some infrastructure appears to me to be of no military or even "political" use in the conflict, and should be criticised. (Power stations seems the most likely example - as no one seems to suggest that Hezbollah has a manufacturing base in Lebanon, and I don't know how having the power on would help them launch missiles.) Some infrastructure attacks may have a military point: preventing Hezbollah movement and resupply being the obvious one. There are some claims of escaping civilians being deliberately targeted. If it can be shown to have been deliberate, that is a war crime no doubt. It's just that I find it hard to believe this is a matter of Israeli policy, and in most cases would suspect mistake more often than war crime.
The whole problem is, without more detail, I have a hard time judging what attacks are justified or not. Judging from media reports alone is also tricky; a devastated Beirut suburb looks bad; it is bad. But it was always on the cards that this would happen if Israel wanted to stop the attacks. That's the evil of this asymmetric war stuff. It's dirty and nasty.
Hopefully, both sides will stop soon, and that is probably in Israel's interest too.
The opinion piece above is entitled "Disporportionately deadly" and states the reasons why the writer believes Israel, which he supports generally, should be condemned for an excessive response to Lebanon/Hezbollah.
The article is reasonably well written, and covers a lot of ground about what all the players may want to achieve.
I would criticise the article on some important counts, however:
1. Most importantly, while emphasizing that the laws of war incorporate the concept of proportionality, the article fails to note that the same laws prohibit use of civilians as a shield. This is quite a glaring omission in the circumstances.
To be more accurate in targeting Hezbollah assets on the ground, given that they are apparently hidden within civilian buildings, an invasion far into Lebanon would be necessary, which (in this particular case) carries the added risk of involvement of Syrian and Lebanese (as opposed to Hezbollah)
troops, as well as street to street ambushes and fighting. While not flattening as many residential buildings as bombing from the air, this style of fighting is not exactly going to leave the neighbourhood pretty. (And, I wonder, while it might result in a lower level of destruction in any particular street, would it be over a wider area?)
2. The article says of the response of Bush, Blair and (Canadian PM) Harper:
It is conceivable that one or more of them believes, along with tens of millions of evangelical Christians, that another war between Israel and its neighbours is a necessary precursor to the second coming of Christ.
Raising this seems rather unnecessary if you are unable to find any statement by any of the 3 that they believe this.
I note that has been much speculation by Bush opponents over the years that he probably believes this, especially with his ties to some evangelical Christians who do take the "end times" stuff very seriously. (Let me be clear: it is absurd and offensive for those nutters who believe this is the start of the "end times" to cheer on conflict in the Middle East.)
However, I have not been able to find any quote from Bush's mouth that confirms that he personally believes this. (A generic statement that he believes it is "God's will" that there be peace in the Middle East is not going to cut it. Correct me if I am wrong about this; it seems to me he must have been asked the question directly sometime in his political career, but I haven't found it on the internet yet.)
To worry unduly about Bush's personal belief about this has always struck me as a case of "guilt by association", and an example of many on the Left's general dislike of conservative Christianity getting carried away.
Besides, the number of people involved in executive power in the US system surely makes it extremely unlikely that any President with a belief in his personal apocalyptic role is going to get far with launching the missiles.
Whether you can have the same expectation from an out and out theocracy is another question.
3. The article also says:
President Bush and his advisers have several reasons for wanting a conflict with Iran. They have a score to settle concerning the 52 Americans who were held hostage for 444 days after the Islamic revolution of 1979. They are concerned about Iranian influence in Iraq and - at a time when China and Russia are emerging as serious competitors - have an eye on Iran's immense oil reserves also. A confrontation with Iran could also boost the Republican Party's prospects in the mid-term congressional elections in just three months.
Hmm. It could also be that they have a legitimate concern about another nuclear power in the Middle East with a recurring dream of removing Israel.
4. His final paragraph:
If we accept Israel's response and then tolerate it, we would be devaluing the lives of Lebanese citizens. We would also undermine the laws of war, which exist to prevent unnecessary human suffering without regard to national, religious or ethnic differences. Israel has a right to defend itself, but always within recognised and reasonable limits. Those limits have been breached. Friends of the Jewish state should not pretend otherwise.
Again, it would be good to see a statement that fighters who hide assets and themselves within civilian buildings (and then provoke a conflict) are also "devaluing the lives of Lebanese citizens."
For the record: Israeli targeting of some infrastructure appears to me to be of no military or even "political" use in the conflict, and should be criticised. (Power stations seems the most likely example - as no one seems to suggest that Hezbollah has a manufacturing base in Lebanon, and I don't know how having the power on would help them launch missiles.) Some infrastructure attacks may have a military point: preventing Hezbollah movement and resupply being the obvious one. There are some claims of escaping civilians being deliberately targeted. If it can be shown to have been deliberate, that is a war crime no doubt. It's just that I find it hard to believe this is a matter of Israeli policy, and in most cases would suspect mistake more often than war crime.
The whole problem is, without more detail, I have a hard time judging what attacks are justified or not. Judging from media reports alone is also tricky; a devastated Beirut suburb looks bad; it is bad. But it was always on the cards that this would happen if Israel wanted to stop the attacks. That's the evil of this asymmetric war stuff. It's dirty and nasty.
Hopefully, both sides will stop soon, and that is probably in Israel's interest too.
Why does Koizumi bother?
CNN.com - Polls: Japanese oppose shrine trip - Jul 23, 2006
With the recent revelation that the late Japanese Emperor Hirohito gave up visiting Yasukuni Shrine due to it adding war criminals to the list of the honored, and this article indicating that only 33% of Japanese actually clearly approve of the visits, you have to wonder why Prime Minisiter Koizumi bothers to insist that he still visit.
I suppose it could simply be all about saving face now. A sudden stop would seem an implied admission that he was wrong in the past.
Like whale hunting, which seems to also have no significant support in the Japanese public, this a bit of Japanese political behaviour which is strange to Western eyes.
At least the polls give some vague hope that the next PM will stop the visits.
With the recent revelation that the late Japanese Emperor Hirohito gave up visiting Yasukuni Shrine due to it adding war criminals to the list of the honored, and this article indicating that only 33% of Japanese actually clearly approve of the visits, you have to wonder why Prime Minisiter Koizumi bothers to insist that he still visit.
I suppose it could simply be all about saving face now. A sudden stop would seem an implied admission that he was wrong in the past.
Like whale hunting, which seems to also have no significant support in the Japanese public, this a bit of Japanese political behaviour which is strange to Western eyes.
At least the polls give some vague hope that the next PM will stop the visits.
Always time for more micro black hole talk
Seed: What if Black Holes Didn't Exist?
The article above gives a short explanation of an idea of a couple of physicists that black holes may not exist at all. There would still be things called "dark energy stars," which might act like astronomical black holes. One important difference would be (according to the Wikipedia entry on this theory) that they would not evaporate via Hawking Radiation.
I suspect this may be relevant to the issue of safety of micro "black holes" that might be created at the CERN particle accelerator, but whether it is good news or bad news in that regard is beyond me.
The article above gives a short explanation of an idea of a couple of physicists that black holes may not exist at all. There would still be things called "dark energy stars," which might act like astronomical black holes. One important difference would be (according to the Wikipedia entry on this theory) that they would not evaporate via Hawking Radiation.
I suspect this may be relevant to the issue of safety of micro "black holes" that might be created at the CERN particle accelerator, but whether it is good news or bad news in that regard is beyond me.
Something positive for a change
Irshad Manji: Faithful consider liberal reforms | Opinion | The Australian
Interesting story about an important move to liberalise some parts of Islam in Pakistan (and elsewhere.)
Unfortunately, some movement in the other direction goes on in regional government in Indonesia. SBS's Dateline did a story on this recently. As George Negus was away at the time, I could bear watching it.
Interesting story about an important move to liberalise some parts of Islam in Pakistan (and elsewhere.)
Unfortunately, some movement in the other direction goes on in regional government in Indonesia. SBS's Dateline did a story on this recently. As George Negus was away at the time, I could bear watching it.
Sounds unreasonable
Iran: Israel doomed to 'destruction' | Jerusalem Post:
Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, declared Sunday that Israel had "pushed the button of its own destruction" by launching its military campaign against the Iranian-backed Hizbullah militia in Lebanon.
Ahmadinejad didn't elaborate, but suggested Islamic nations and others could somehow isolate Israel and its main backers led by the United States. On Saturday, the chairman of Iran's armed forced joint chiefs, Maj.-Gen. Sayyed Hassan Firuzabadi, said Iran would never join the current Middle East fighting....
In Teheran, the government has sanctioned billboards showing Hizbullah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah and a message that it is the duty of Muslims to "wipe out" Israel.
Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, declared Sunday that Israel had "pushed the button of its own destruction" by launching its military campaign against the Iranian-backed Hizbullah militia in Lebanon.
Ahmadinejad didn't elaborate, but suggested Islamic nations and others could somehow isolate Israel and its main backers led by the United States. On Saturday, the chairman of Iran's armed forced joint chiefs, Maj.-Gen. Sayyed Hassan Firuzabadi, said Iran would never join the current Middle East fighting....
In Teheran, the government has sanctioned billboards showing Hizbullah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah and a message that it is the duty of Muslims to "wipe out" Israel.
Sounds reasonable
NewsDaily: TopNews -- Israel may accept a political Hezbollah
"To the extent that it remains a political group, it will be acceptable to Israel," Israeli Ambassador Daniel Ayalon said. "A political group means a party that is engaged in the political system in Lebanon, but without terrorism capabilities and fighting capabilities. That will be acceptable to Israel."
"To the extent that it remains a political group, it will be acceptable to Israel," Israeli Ambassador Daniel Ayalon said. "A political group means a party that is engaged in the political system in Lebanon, but without terrorism capabilities and fighting capabilities. That will be acceptable to Israel."
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Fisk alert
A farewell to Beirut - In Depth - theage.com.au
The Age runs a Robert Fisk story from The Independent.
Certainly, Beirut sounds like it's been an unlucky city for centuries.
Just don't expect any subtle analysis of the current crisis, though. As a piece of current journalism/commentary, it suffers from Fisk-ness to a high degree.
The Age runs a Robert Fisk story from The Independent.
Certainly, Beirut sounds like it's been an unlucky city for centuries.
Just don't expect any subtle analysis of the current crisis, though. As a piece of current journalism/commentary, it suffers from Fisk-ness to a high degree.
Just in case you need more background
Proxy war | Features | The Australian
There's certainly no lack of commentary and articles giving background on the Middle East crisis, but the one above in today's Australia seemed a particularly good one to me, and filled in a few gaps in my previous knowledge.
There's certainly no lack of commentary and articles giving background on the Middle East crisis, but the one above in today's Australia seemed a particularly good one to me, and filled in a few gaps in my previous knowledge.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
No Sense Left
Early reviews for M Night Shayamalan's latest film, "Lady in the Water" are very bad. Sure, the Sixth Sense was creepy, but as all critics have noted, his films have been on a rapid decline in quality ever since, and this one looks like it has sent his reputation into freefall.
(This reminds me, on cable here some months ago there was what seemed intended to be a "mockumentary" about him. It was awful. )
Anyway, one of the reviews has this very funny paragraph:
If the film weren’t already feeble enough, Shyamalan insists on upgrading his signature cameo performances in his own films to that of featured supporting player. Shyamalan plays a novelist who lives with his "sister" in Cleveland’s apartment complex. Forget that M. Night Shyamalan’s acting skills couldn’t get him cast in a high school production of "Our Town." Watching a skilled acting craftsman like Paul Giamatti delivering lines to Shyamalan is like watching Robert Duvall talk to his cat about politics. It’s the one thing in the movie that sent shivers down my spine.
(This reminds me, on cable here some months ago there was what seemed intended to be a "mockumentary" about him. It was awful. )
Anyway, one of the reviews has this very funny paragraph:
If the film weren’t already feeble enough, Shyamalan insists on upgrading his signature cameo performances in his own films to that of featured supporting player. Shyamalan plays a novelist who lives with his "sister" in Cleveland’s apartment complex. Forget that M. Night Shyamalan’s acting skills couldn’t get him cast in a high school production of "Our Town." Watching a skilled acting craftsman like Paul Giamatti delivering lines to Shyamalan is like watching Robert Duvall talk to his cat about politics. It’s the one thing in the movie that sent shivers down my spine.
Sheridan's odd plan for peace
Israel has right motive but the wrong target | Greg Sheridan | The Australian
Greg Sheridan, somewhat to my surprise, clearly criticises Israel for blowing up bits of Lebanon, not just the Hezbollah units.
However, he ends on this note:
An Israeli strike against Syria's armed forces would have shown Assad he had to pay a price for Hezbollah's activities. Striking Lebanon, which is weak and cannot fight back, causes Assad, and the rulers in Tehran, no pain at all.
Not that I know how strong Syria is militarily, but wouldn't an attack on it have been something like throwing petrol on a flame to put it out?
Greg Sheridan, somewhat to my surprise, clearly criticises Israel for blowing up bits of Lebanon, not just the Hezbollah units.
However, he ends on this note:
An Israeli strike against Syria's armed forces would have shown Assad he had to pay a price for Hezbollah's activities. Striking Lebanon, which is weak and cannot fight back, causes Assad, and the rulers in Tehran, no pain at all.
Not that I know how strong Syria is militarily, but wouldn't an attack on it have been something like throwing petrol on a flame to put it out?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)