Dean's World

It's over: Yanukovich has resigned. He won't exactly concede defeat, but he assents.

Still wet and wobbly, democracy continues its faltering early steps in Ukraine. And, let us hope, soon in Iraq and Palestine.

Pessimism is easy. Optimism takes work. Always remember that.

Happy new year to you all.

The latest Carnival of the Recipes is available at Prochein Amy's blog.

I find myself terribly depressed today, so I probably won't be blogging much. Maybe later.

So what are you planning for today? And have you got any interesting links in the meantime?

If I read this New York Times editorial correctly, he's saying that the Earth spirits are angry with us and we'd better watch out.

Or am I misreading the cat?

Chuck Simmins notes just how bad we are.

Andrew Quinn has more.

Do me a favor: Read this. Note the date: November 30 of this year. This is a current story.

Now read this.

Then, read this.

Would anybody care to comment?

Probably no individual on the planet spends more time dissecting and criticizing the Los Angeles Times than Patterico. You can read his year-end review of the paper's reporting here, with part 2 available here.

Tabby's sure looking good these days, isn't she?

It looks like she's still got some more surgeries ahead of her, but all the really tough stuff's over with.

I just had an hour-long conversation with Dr. Harvey Bialy down in Mexico. I'll probably be having a conversation with Dr. Peter Duesberg soon.

Anybody have any questions you'd like me to ask them?

The latest Carnival of the Vanities is available for your reading pleasure at The Radical Centrist.

I posted on this subject yesterday and it sparked a storm of controversy. Much of it didn't surprise me. There has long been a group of researchers (as well as political activists and professional journalists) who believe primary cause of AIDS is not HIV. Most of them are considered nutcases, hotheads, or homophobes. I've seen it many, many times.

On the other hand I'm used to being ridiculed for holding unconventional views. So such accusations don't scare me away. Nor do they hurt my feelings when they're levelled at me. But it does make me wonder: what drives people's characterizations of the HIV skeptics as dangerous, sinister, or insane?

Well, it's a philosophical question and one with no easy answer. I'm not casting aspersions. Maybe I am one of the dangerous crazies. Like I said, my feelings aren't hurt if people think so.

However, the firestorm of discussion left me feeling that I needed to say more. Then I decided I should say a lot more.

If you're going to respond I merely ask that, before you start peppering me, you take the time to read some sources first. I want you to note of these sources that all but one are written by people with doctorates in fields directly related to the subject at hand, most of them tenured at major universities, and most of them with numerous publications in peer-reviewed journals under their belt. Indeed, you can look up papers most of them have written in Medline. So if you're going to express your (quite proper) skepticism, I would suggest that you express what assertions you are skeptical of, rather than simply sneer at those researchers--or me, for that matter.

I first became deeply interested in the subject of AIDS in the very early 1990s, when I read And the Band Played On by Randy Shilts, still considered the definitive history of how the AIDS epidemic began and how it was treated in the scientific, public health, and political arenas. Shilts himself was a gay journalist who eventually died of the epidemic. Although his book was a little politically charged at times, it was absolutely merciless toward everybody involved. He included a detailed accounting of how two different researchers, Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier, independently claimed to have discovered the virus that caused AIDS. Shilts gave a lot more detail on Gallo and Gallo's methods, but one thing that struck me was Shilts' descriptions of how Gallo came to "discover" the virus: he never clearly explained how Gallo had demonstrated that the virus was the cause of AIDS.

It almost seemed like, because Montagnier announced the virus at the same time, everybody just assumed this meant there was independent corroboration. Shilts didn't say that, but from his descriptions it sounded weird: "I have a virus here, I think it's AIDS, the other guy says so too." Then the world watched while Gallo and Montagnier squabbled over who "really" discovered it first, everybody sort of assuming that since they'd both "discovered" it that they'd both demonstrated that it caused AIDS.

I assumed that this was all because Shilts was not very good at science journalism. Perhaps he hadn't bothered to document the hard-nosed scientists who got down to brass tacks and did double-blind testing. Still, it was striking: as Shilts portrayed it, it seemed that Gallo had isolated this virus in the lab, had thought it caused cancer but couldn't prove it and didn't really know what it was, then decided that it might cause AIDS--and simply proposed that to the world. When the other guy popped his head up, Gallo seemed to assume that Montagnier had vindicated his view, and the two of them began to fight over who got credit for "discovering" it first. Shilts also described how, publicly at least, Gallo had a habit of behaving like a pompous, self-important ass, but managed to make himself a multimillionaire selling kits to test for the antibody to the virus in humans (not the virus itself, just the antibody to it).

Anyway, the whole book was gripping and informative reading. I might want to quibble with some of Shilts' points, but to this day I doubt if a better history of the early days of this or any modern epidemic could be written.

Keeping an interest in the subject (I have long had friends in the gay community) I often read literature on AIDS. I was bemused when I discovered, in the early 1990s, that a few in the gay community were beginning to talk about how some homophobic, fag-hating right-wingers were questioning whether HIV caused AIDS. Some of that criticism seemed on-target, since some right-wing publications like The American Spectator were giving favorable mention of researchers who questioned whether HIV caused AIDS. But a few mainstream journalists were also giving these researchers some cautious press--and meanwhile, their critics were livid. I ran across so many negative ad hominem attacks on any researcher or journalist who would question whether HIV caused AIDS I was taken aback.

Science isn't supposed to work that way. If someone, especially a qualified person, questions a hypothesis, you don't attack them. You ask whether they're asking intelligent, reasonable, well-informed questions. If they dissent, you respect their right to dissent and at most question whether their dissent has any rational basis. You don't attack their motives unless you've got strong evidence for it.

Yet instead what I was often reading was the most apoplectically purple prose I'd ever seen pointed at a working scientist. There were some fierce denunciations from pundits and government officials, too. The most incendiary criticsm was centered on one man: A tenured Berkeley biologist and member of the National Academy of Sciences named Peter Duesberg.

To be honest, whenever anyone is that nasty about a man, I want to know more about him. It's an instinct I have always had. I was always curious about the guy, and I even sent him some email asking him whether he really thought that HIV wasn't caused by AIDS, and if he really believed that AZT, the drug most prescribed to fight AIDS, was poisonous. I got a very terse response from him, basically to the affirmative but not much more than that.

Still, I was intrigued. This man was a scientist. He was a tenured professor with major awards and serious peer-reviewed work on his resume. He was once considered absolutely brilliant. Indeed, he was one of the primary researchers responsible for proving to the scientific world that there existed an obscure kind of virus called a "retrovirus." Without his work we might not even know there was such a thing--and HIV is a retrovirus. This man was a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and he had nothing to sell. No snake oil, no alternative remedies, nothing. He offered only dissent from the reigning hypothesis, and an alternative hypothesis.

It appeared to me that he was dangerous all right. Because if he was correct, the therapies being used to treat many AIDS patients was quite possibly killing them.

He wasn't the only dissenter on HIV, but he was definitely the most unwavering, and the one who really raised people's ire. Still, there were other researchers who agreed with some of what he said. This was 10-15 years ago that I was finding all this out, and only a few years after HIV was announced as the cause of AIDS.

Still, eventually I sort of lost interest. Most of the world didn't seem to be taking these people seriously, and everybody, absolutely everybody, was taking the HIV hypothesis seriously. Eventually I just forgot about it. Until one day to my shock I discovered that ACT-UP, the notorious gay rights organization that had all but forced local, state, and Federal government agencies to recognize that the AIDS threat was real, had come out against the drug AZT, saying it was killing people, and that some of its members were openly questioning whether HIV was the real cause of AIDS.

Now these guys had always had a a reputation for being inflammatory and sometimes flakey, but no one could question their sincerity or call them a bunch of fag-bashers.

Finally, in the late 1990s, a book came out called Inventing The AIDS Virus by Dr. Peter H. Duesberg. I read it within days of its release. It was no easy read, but it was a tour-de-force. It was a detailed history of the research that led up to the announcement to the world that HIV caused AIDS. It matched everything that had been written in And The Band Played On, but with more detail. It was here that I also learned that Duesberg was once a close associate of Robert Gallo's.

Most damning, his description of how both Gallo and Montagnier had "discovered the AIDS virus" matched Shilts' perfectly: they had the virus in the lab already, weren't sure what it did, Gallo proposed that it was AIDS and Mongagnier announced he'd found the same virus--and suddenly the world embraced them both.

Duesberg detailed several studies that were done to "confirm" this hypothesis, all of them obviously very sloppy and none of them properly double-blinded. He then went on and on and on in dizzying detail about why he believed the entire hypothesis was nonsense from day one, and listing all the problems he saw. He also detailed his own alternative hypotheses about the cause of AIDS. He was careful in his reasoning and provided much data. I wasn't sure that he was right, but I was pretty sure of one thing:

Either Peter Duesberg was a monstrous liar or, by the mid-1990s at least, no one had ever demonstrated with any scientific rigor that HIV caused AIDS--and people had only come to believe it by a combination of well-meaning panic to stop a horrible disease, bureaucratic bumbling, petty politicking, and greed. No there was no conspiracy, but there was certainly a massive interlocking of government SNAFUs, scientists with huge conflicts of interest, a breakdown of the peer review process, and people in charge of that process who now had vested personal interests in maintaining the status quo.

Or: Duesberg was full of it. There really didn't seem much alternative explanation. The man was too careful, too meticulous, and provided too much documentation. He had to be taken seriously, if only to prove him wrong.

Or so I thought.

Instead, there seemed a virtual press blackout on the book. Most of the reviews in the mainstream press were short, snotty, and condescending. It was clear that they weren't interested in arguing with Duesberg, and when they didn't sniff at him like rancid garbage they ridiculed him, and mocked anyone who wanted to take him seriously.

I began to feel like I was either wildly paranoid or this was a dizzyingly frightening look at just how the confluence of billions of dollars of government money, journalistic laziness and incompetence, and petty politicking had polluted medical science, science reporting, and public health policy.

I didn't know what to think. But I did know that Duesberg had done his homework, and he still had no conflict of interest. Yes, he was selling this book, this one book. But he had no nostrums to offer, no special programs to sell. He just had two big things to say: 1) HIV can't possibly cause AIDS, and the national and international health agencies' definitions of what made up AIDS were a mishmash of incoherent mumbo-jumbo, and 2) AZT and some other treatments for AIDS were almost certainly ineffective and appeared to be incredibly dangerous. He also had his own carefully-explained and documented hypotheses, which he was unable to find funding to continue researching.

I consulted two retrovirologists on Duesberg. One told me point blank that Duesberg was just plain wrong--but could not tell me why he was wrong. He did say that there was some real sloppiness in HIV research, but insisted HIV was definitely the cause of AIDS. Peculiarly, when I asked him about AZT, his eyes suddenly widened and he actually looked a bit frightened. "That's a really fucked-up drug," he said. But he said that scientific politics made it impossible for a lot of researchers to admit that.

Another retrovirologist I consulted (this was years ago, you'll just have to take my word that these conversations happened) told me he was also certain Duesberg was wrong. AIDS was caused by HIV, period. But he did agree that Duesberg had been treated badly, and that the research on HIV in the beginning had been very sloppy. He said Duesberg should be credited for making retrovirologists be more rigorous, but Duesberg was too temperamental and made problems for himself. Curiously, this retrovirologist also could not tell me why exactly he believed HIV caused AIDS--his answers were vague and when I drilled him, he terminated the conversation.

For a long time I kept quiet about all this. I rarely talked about it much . There seemed no point. It just made people think I was crazy when I said anything about it. Clearly I wasn't going to change anyone's mind, and maybe I just wasn't smart enough to understand the research I had read or the answers to the questions I'd asked. Maybe Duesberg and the other AIDS researchers who questioned the HIV hypotheseis were just off on some wild goosechase. Maybe I was just paranoid and overreaching my own intellectual horizons.

Then, very recently, this book was released: Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS: A Scientific Life and Times of Peter H. Duesberg. It shot to the top of my wish list the moment I saw it. If you read the Amazon reviews they're interesting. But far more interesting is the review of the same book which was published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Nature Biotechnology, a companion publication of Nature. Nature is one of the most respected scientific journals in the world. You have to subscribe to read their articles online, but a reprint was published on Peter Duesberg's own site: Iconoclast to the Max.

I suggest you read that review, and look at it carefully. It was written by one George L. Gabor Miklos, PhD. You can see a list of Miklos' scientific publications right here.

Now I'm going to repeat this link because I want you to read it before you comment to me. Iconoclast to the Max

Miklos is just another flake, is he?

In our earlier conversation on this here on Dean's World, a couple of highly intelligent, well-credentialed scientists took me to task for bringing this stuff out on my weblog. They said I was endangering people's health and damaging my credibility, especially because I said I suspected that the HIV critics were right and that I thought AZT was so dangerous I'd personally never take it.

I won't call my critics out because I respect them and I'm not trying to pick fights with them. But in response to their queries, and their suggestion that none of the AIDS dissenters I talked about were really qualified or should be taken seriously, I wrote to Miklos, and to several other researchers whose names I found in Medline.

I heard back from Dr. Miklos this morning. I had told him that some of my readers were taking me to task, and that I wanted to ask him whether he had merely found the book on Duesberg entertaining and thought-provoking--or if he honestly believed that Duesberg was correct and that HIV is not the proximate cause of AIDS. Some of what he wrote in response was personal/confidential, but here is his word-for-word answer, with only those personal items excised (all emphasis his, not mine):

Bottom line; Duesberg is correct on both counts...on the basis of DATA...not hysteria. Your readers can be as angry as they like, but they should save their anger until after they have evaluated clinical DATA...and then they should direct their anger at their own medical profession.

The scientific data do not support the hypothesis that the HIV virus causes AIDS. If you have Kaposi sarcoma and you have antibodies to the HIV virus, the CDC says you have AIDS...by definition! If you are diagnosed with Kaposi sarcoma and you don't have antibodies to HIV, then you don't have AIDS...you have Kaposi sarcoma!....go figure!

Tell me Dean, if you are diagnosed with blue ears and you have antibodies to the HIV virus, the CDC would say that you have AIDS....if you don't have antibodies to the HIV virus you would have blue ear disease....what a joke. Your own CDC essentially defines any disease where you have antibodies to HIV in your system as AIDS. If you have malaria and and you have antibodies to the HIV virus, the CDC would you have AIDS...by definition! So AIDS equals malaria...this is clinically stupid.

You ought to ask your readers."What is AIDS?"...DEFINE IT!

Background,

I am a senior scientist/business person in the international biotechnology area. I have the luxuries of both being retired, and not being "in the system"....I don't depend on government grants and hence can evaluate data without fear or favor which is what I do for my clients.The entire AIDS and cancer areas are a mess. All current hypotheses are plainly incorrect, inadequate or in many cases absolutely falsifiable on the basis of existing data....this is all that Duesberg is pointing out. I don't defend him ad hominem...I defend the critical evaluation of data.

Anyway, it ought to be Harvey Bialy and Peter Duesberg who refute your readers.

I am simply an idependent scientific judge and I stand by my glowing review.

Dr. Miklos forwarded me a copy of a responding comment to his glowing review which was published in a subsequent issue of Nature Biotechnology (Vol 22 No. 9, pp. 1077-1078), and his own response, as well as the response of the editors. The responder attacked Duesberg as full of it. Miklos accused Duesberg's critics of not bothering to look at the data and of dodging the issues, while the Nature editorial staff struck a defensive but neutral pose. I'd reprint it all but I can't seem to copy or paste from the PDF.

I understand the tendency to be skeptical. But at this point, I'm no longer willing to be pat on the head or told to shut up. I stand by what I've said before: I have a strong suspicion that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, and in any case if I were HIV+ you probably couldn't get me to take AZT if you put a gun to my head.

I also have some emails from other AIDS researchers (people working at medical colleges) who are happy to tell me why they may disagree with Duesberg on some points but are very much with him on the notion that HIV can't possibly cause AIDS and that drugs like AZT are snake oil. Would any of you like me to ask them some questions? I now have email addresses for Bialy and Duesberg as well. Do you think they're worth talking to? Do any of you have anything you want me to drill them on?

Either way, for the "skeptics of the HIV skeptics" I have a few blunt questions:

Is Miklos nuts? Is Duesberg nuts? Are these people all incompetents? (I mean all of them, scroll down, there's more than Duesberg listed there.) Was South African President Thabo Mbeki really entirely wrong to refuse to toe the line on AIDS? And are these professional journalists who allege widespread intimidation and censorship all a bunch of flakes and losers who should be silenced because they are threats to public health?

Am I a threat to public health?

On that last one, I'll say okay, but too bad. I'm a threat who wears pajamas and has nothing to lose--and I damn well want some answers. Because here's my truth: In the last 15 years, I have never met anyone who could give me straight, no-nonsense answers to the toughest questions on AIDS.

For example: is it true that the best anyone has ever been able to establish with HIV is correlation--that AIDS sufferers are HIV Positive? But is it also not true that the list of possible symptoms for AIDS is extremely long, and has grown to include such diverse things as Herpes, Toxoplasmosis, cervical cancer, tuberculosis, and yeast infections? All basically under the theory that if you have HIV it's destroying your immune system, and therefore you are susceptible to a huge list infectious disease or some autoimmune disorders?

If so, are there any rigorously defined standards for an AIDS diagnosis besides "patient is HIV+ and has any one of the following long list of conditions?"

Is it not true that, while in the early 1990s almost no one in the medical community would admit it, we now know that there are people who have been HIV-positive for many years (at this point, some for over 20 years) who are in robust health and take no medication for it whatsoever? If so, and if you were presented with a patient who's been HIV+ but healthy for decades and then came down with cervical cancer, would you feel that an AIDS diagnosis and a prescription for an AIDS cocktail was justified? Why exactly? Are there any tests you'd perform beyond the HIV test and the already-established tests for cervical cancer before drawing that conclusion? If so what are they, and what results would you look for?

As far back as the late 1980s there were diagnosed AIDS patients who were taking anti-HIV medications like AZT, and then stopped despite doctor's objections. Some of them are still alive right now and are willing to talk. Has anyone bothered to fund research to study these people?

Is it not true that some of the AIDS "cocktail" drugs are in fact quite dangerous, and might well kill a healthy patient?

Given everything now theorized about decades-long dormancy periods and the possibilities some grant that a patient might be an AIDS "carrier" but personally immune, is it medically possible that a patient might be HIV+ and have some AIDS symptoms and not have AIDS? Are there any rigorous diagnostic standards for telling one type of patient from the other? If so, what are they?

Is it not true that there have in the past been people who came down with the entire original list of AIDS symptoms from the early 1980s (Kaposi's Sarcoma, diarrhea and vomiting, drop in t-cell count, rapid weight loss, and eventual death by a specific type of pneumonia), but were HIV negative and therefore diagnosed as having an "idiopathic" condition? Even though they looked exactly like all the gay men who died of AIDS in the 1980s? Do you think that people who find this suspicious are being irrational?

Finally: am I a threat to public health for asking these questions? Why?

* Update * I realized this morning that I had repeatedly misspelled Dr. Miklos' last name, and failed to include a citation for the second article in Nature Biotechnology. That's been corrected. Apologies to Dr. Miklos.--Dean

An important book was finally released.

(Via The Queen.)

Plant biologist Dr. Cynthia Ross has recently published some hot and steamy descriptions of the sex life of the Dwarf Mistletoe.

Warning: may not be work-safe!

Here's a handy formula you may want to write down:

Finger food + Tabasco sauce + itchy eye = Danger. Very very danger.

You may want to stick it on your refrigerator to remind yourself. I know I will.

I'm not normally one to watch a lot of documentaries. But I must say that the best documentary I've seen in a long, long time was Step Into Liquid, a documentary on surfing throughout history and throughout the world.

Mind you, I've never been on a surfboard in my life. I sort of doubt I ever will, given where I live and everything else in my life I do. But I was utterly entranced by the beautiful photography, the soundtrack, and the utterly charming and interesting people. For reasons I can't entirely explain I just had a wonderful big grin on my face most of the time.

I think it may have to do with relating it to my experiences as a skydiver or some other crazy things I've done. All I know is when I saw that first scene of tow-surfers skimming at 30 miles per hour through a 70-foot tube, I knew that I was cursed: I should have been born on a a coast. I would have been a surfer for sure.

It's on Showtime this month, and you can rent it. Even if you've never surfed I'll bet you like it.

The Wall Street Journal's Brendan Miniter notes that most two-term Presidents have boring and uninspiring second terms, and that every one since Nixon has wound up spending much of his second term fighting of scandal charges. He also has basic advice for the President on that score:

Lackluster second terms pre-date Nixon, of course. George Washington's first term was pivotal, but his second is most remembered only for his farewell address. James Madison's second term saw the British burn the White House. But what changed with Nixon's resignation is that journalists realized they could bring down a sitting president. It doesn't matter now whether the corruption (and any bureaucracy as large as the federal government contains corruption) actually leads to the Oval Office. The knives are out and, electoral mandates notwithstanding, presidents are most vulnerable after they have a first term record to pick through.

But no president is doomed to this fate. Republicans are of course deluding themselves if they think the media hounds aren't out there sniffing for a scandal to howl about. And there are plenty of "scandals" to be found. Abu Ghraib became an issue because many journalists thought, ah ha!, evidence was finally found that proved this White House was ready and willing to throw civil liberties to the wind. Every "torture memo" revelation since the war on terror began has only confirmed the suspicion that the next Watergate story is out there and that it is somehow connected to the shadowy war against al Qaeda. In a perfect world, we'd now be talking about openness and transparency as a way of beating the curse. Yet for Mr. Bush, no matter how open he is, if the future is about tweaking the policies he already has in place to fight the war on terror, the media will eventually find a scandal that resonates.

To beat the media gotcha game, the president might want to consider a little advice sometimes given to new elementary school teachers: Keep them busy or they will keep you busy. Mr. Bush might succeed with his interesting and ambitious second-term agenda precisely because he has an interesting and ambitious agenda. Just keeping up with what is new in government will be work enough. In the coming years we may find that mini-scandals never become big scandals because the public is clamoring to know what is happening with substantive policy changes that will affect their everyday lives.

We should also note that the first term was plagued by mini-scandals that the press depserately tried to turn into monsters, but turned out to mostly be a bunch of hyped and partisan nonsense.

Still, the point seems clear. Most Presidents seem to tread water after re-election. This one obviously has a highly aggressive agenda. It should be interesting to watch. But I'm betting Miniter is right. The Iran-Contra "scandal" looks pretty dumb in retrospect: an effort to defy Congress, free some hostages in Iran, and defeat a murderous communist dictator in Nicaragua was hardly the worst thing a President could possibly do, and most people knew perfectly well that it was well-intentioned and not "corrupt." In retrospect, while most people found Clinton's behavior odious, most people forgave him and at least admitted that the independent prosecutors had been overzealous in both Reagan and Clinton's cases.

That's the other thing in this President's favor by the way: no unelected, unaccountable Special Prosecutors running around like loose cannons chasing after any whiff of scandal. The Congress finally got rid of independent prosecutors. All to the good in my view; the country would have been better of if we'd never had them, and will be better off not having them in the future.

You know, when the earthquake and subsequent tsunami broke this weekend, I was tempted to cynically opine that soon some of the worst environmentalist nutjobs (not all environmentalists are nuts by the way, but anyway...) would suggest that the proximate cause was Global Warming and the Bush Administration's cynical failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

It seemed a little too cynical so I didn't say it. Well, I did say it to my friend John, but not to anyone else. I saw a few quotes from random nobodies in the papers so I figured we could ignore that. But here it is:

In an interview with the Independent newspaper in Britain, Stephen Tindale, executive director of Greenpeace UK, said: "No one can ignore the relentless increase in extreme weather events and so-called natural disasters, which in reality are no more natural than a plastic Christmas tree." Speaking to the same newspaper, Friends of the Earth Director Tony Juniper pressed the argument home: "Here again are yet more events in the real world that are consistent with climate change predictions."

That's right. Not only does global warming cause unusually cold winters, unusually hot summers, massive species extinction, and so on, but apparently now it causes Earthquakes.

I'm pretty sure that the Bush administration's failure to ratify the Kyoto protocol will soon be blamed for acne, drug addiction, teen pregnancy, and the comedy stylings of Carrot Top.

Pundit Guy has some links to Tsunami home videos.

He describes them as horfying. I myself have an odd reaction to watching them: theyhave very little emotional effect on me. I'm not sure why. I understand the devastating effect of the wave but seeing the wave itself simply doesn't evoke an emotional response. Not numbness, just: water moving. For some reason that's all my brain processes.

Am I the only one like that?

Anyway, emotional reactions to video aside, today's Wall Street Journal has an excellent piece on Tsunami warning and response that's very worth taking the time to read.

Oh, and one more thing: I had someone tell me recently claiming that some in Southeast Asia are blaming America for not providing an early warning to the nations in the area, saying our military bases in the area would have had the ability to warn people but did not. Others are telling me this is nonsense and that no one of significance had even made such allegations. Anyone got the poop on that? Googling around didn't find me anything one way or the other.

The latest Grand Rounds, a roundup of the most interesting medical bloggage of late, is available for your reading pleasure.

The latest Carnival of the Capitalists is also up, and is available at Business Opportunities weblog.

Cathy Young, who's almost always reasonable, notes that both sides of the Christmas wars tend to get a little melodramatic.

Sounds about right to me.

Viktor Yanukovich, who lost Ukraine's elections, is apparently attempting to have the election overturned by the courts. Ben Kepple notes his compelling list of arguments for court.

Think they'll work?

I am known for being highly critical of conspiracy theories. And yet, I also tend to be open to unorthodox views. Some people probably see that as two mutually exclusive tendencies, but they aren't. The reason I don't believe most conspiracy theories is because I'm a believer in Occam's Razor (all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be correct), and conspiracies almost universally require many, many people acting in coordinated fashion--and then for all of them to keep their mouths shut. In my experience, human beings just aren't organized or disciplined or trustworthy enough to pull off most conspiracy theories.

By comparison, being open to an unorthodox viewpoint requires merely open-mindedness and a willingness to give more credence to data than opinion. It's really not all that complicated, but some people find this baffling.

I mention all of by way of introducing the fact that I one of the odder things I believe is that HIV may not cause AIDS.

I am not certain of this. But I have sufficient doubts that were I to turn up HIV positive I'd refuse to take any medications for it unless and until certain very specific symptoms appeared (Kaposi's sarcoma and dramatic drop in t-cell count, basically). Even then, you'd have to put a gun to my head to get me to take any combination of medications that included a drug called AZT.

I also have a strong suspicion that most people in Africa diagnosed with AIDS are actually dying of malaria--because their governments get more international aide money for fighting AIDS than they do for fighting malaria, even though malaria kills millions.

That's a rather dizzying set of suspicions, I know. However, some very smart people besides me think many of the same things.

I also have a suspicion, by the way, that Oncogenes, Aneuploidy and AIDS: A Scientific Life & Times of Peter H. Duesberg may well be the book of the year for people interested in the life sciences.

I mentioned that I generally take a very dim view of conspiracy theories. But bureaucratic screwups, petty politicking, and general human credulousness? These are universal in all human endeavors--including science, I'm afraid.

Jeff has the nine best moments.

So. Osama Bin Laden is calling on Iraqis to boycott their elections and has made his ties to Iraqi terrorist al-Zarqawi official.

Interestingly enough, this seems to mean an alliance between radical Sunnis and radical Shias.

Welcome to the Carnival of the Liberated, a sampler of some of the best posts from Iraqi bloggers. This time around we've got Christmas greetings, an update on Mosul, winter crises, and lots more.

Najma of A Star from Mosul, Rose of Diary from Baghdad, Ibn al-Rafidain, Fayrouz of Live from Dallas, and Husayn of Democracy in Iraq (is coming) offer Christmas greetings and reflections.

Husayn of Democracy in Iraq (is coming) tries to explain why some of his countrymen are fighting the Americans:

People have asked me why do people fight the Americans. Its an interesting concept in my view. I should say first that I do not know anyone who is an insurgent, not that I know of. IT is possible though, as people do things in their own time that they do not talk about openly. But I do live in a major city so I know many people, and I know people who are opposed to the United States Army and who are apparently against elections.

I feel that these people are driven by two major factors: ego and impatience. Ego drives them because they do not see things in the large picture and are simply angered by our nation having foreign soldiers in it. Rather than thinking about why they are here, and how it will benefit us, they simply get angry and thus oppose America and whatever comes from American actions in Iraq. I say they are also impatient because they are unable to think long-term, or better yet, wait for things to take their course before they get mad. People with such a mindset are quick to blame Americans or the interim government for everything ranging from the lack of electricity to the lack of fuel to terrorist attacks and so on.

Mohammad of hajir contemplates the enemies of Iraq and concludes that it's better to trust the Americans and Israelis than the Turks and Syrians.

Zeyad of Healing Iraq posts on the ins and outs of coping with the daily Winter Crises.

Ibrahim Khalil of Iraq Today has an update on the situation in Mosul:

Tuesday's operation in the American military base in Mosul which caused to kill 24 American soldiers had an effect in the situation in Mosul drawing more attention from the American media about. Of the interior matter, the local government declared five bridges which join the two parts of Mosul closed. This caused a negative impact on life in Mosul. There was very limited movement in the city through the first hours of the day, but this stopped completely after another problem which appeared simultaneously, a fuel shortage. Today, Wednesday, all fuel stations stopped providing fuel while there had been a limited quantity in the past few days. These two matters made Mosul a closed city and most work stopped by midday.

Both Abu Khaleel of Iraqi Letter to America and Kurdo are somewhat skeptical of the upcoming elections.

Finally, there's a new Iraqi blogger from Iraqi Kurdistan: Yad of Kurdistan Youngs (hat tip: Iraq Blog Count).

Dave Schuler posts regularly to his own weblog, The Glittering Eye. The Carnival was originally conceived by Ryan Boots.

The Diplomad, who works for the State Department, has probably the most measured and insightful support for Donald Rumsfeld I've seen yet.

Blogger triumphalism is often annoying, but Ed Driscoll has written the best summation of what this year looked like from the activist blogger's perspective in The Year of Blogging Dangerously.

It makes you wonder where the news media is heading. My guess is that over the next few years it's going to increasingly look like this.

Just because I haven't mentioned it recently, I bring this up again:

If you haven't read 59 Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11 you should. You should also urge your friends who think Michael Moore is cool (or "funny" or "clever" or "just a satirist") to read it.

Here is a simple moral truth: Michael Moore is no different from white supremacists or holocaust revisionists. He relies entirely upon hatred and half-truths to make his case. So if you bought into his lies and you're not necessary hatemongering scum, but there is an important question: do you have the spine to admit that you got suckered, or do you not?

If you've been a well-intentioned fool, this is entirely forgivable. Many people, me included, used to be sucked into this kind of evil. There's nothing wrong with being fooled. But if, after being confronted with the evidence you cannot admit that you were had, you've gone one step beyond being just a fool.

Remember this: Integrity is often defined by your own ability to admit to being suckered.

Quite often, so is courage.

So what's it gonna be for you, punk?

By the way, if you've got a few dollars, may I suggest tht you throw a few them this way? Thanks.

Much is being made in the news these days about the fact that certain painkillers increase your risk of heart disease--they used to think there was a 1% risk, and now (the hysterical headlines tell us) the risk looks to be Three Times Higher Than Was Once Thought!

In other words, it's a 3% chance rather than a 1% chance. For this we must pull these drugs from the market? That seems a little much. But some are going even further, calling on the FDA to ratchet up its standards because of this.

I think we'd be much better off if instead of having the FDA in the business of deciding for people what risks are acceptable and what are not, we rely on people to have the choice. Indeed, I'd like to see the entire FDA system overhauled, to put them less in the business of banning pharmaceuticals and more in the business of labeling and warning. Something like this perhaps:

FDA Grade D: "Limited testing has been done, still highly experimental."

FDA Grade C: "Significant testing done, but may still carry unknown risks."

Grade B: "Substantially laboratory tested and approved, with some known risk factors but possibly some still unknown."

Grade A: "Well tested and understood by years of research and extensive use in general practice."

That's the rough idea anyway. The point would be that doctors would be free to prescribe any of it, but there would be large warning labels attached about unknown risks and such. Insurance carriers would also be free to limit which grade of drugs they'd pay for and which they wouldn't. Consumers and doctors could make informed choices based on what level of risk they were willing to accept.

While we're at it, can we add a little box that doctors can tick saying, "Patient requested this medication, but I have prescribed this with reservations?" Something along those lines would seem like a sensible way to deal with liability concerns.

Anyway, I just don't like it that the FDA can simply pull a drug off the market. If patients are fully informed of the risks, and fully informed when a drug still may have unknown risk factors, that really ought to be good enough in my view.

It's strange that people seem to believe that "FDA Approved" means "safe." It really doesn't, and never has. It just means they've looked at it and don't see any screaming problems yet.

It should tell us something that aspirin probably would have a hard time passing FDA approval these days, given its known side effects.

Apparently, the state of Ohio is considering enacting a law to explicitely excusing the Amish from jury duty, since their religion forbids them from serving anyway and judges waste a lot of time excusing them.

At first I thought this was a fairly sensible idea. I'm a big believer in supporting religious freedoms, after all. However, I must admit that the Truth Laid Bear makes a compelling case against this proposal. I didn't think he could change my mind, but by the time I finished reading it, I discovered that he had managed to do just that.

These fine people may be able to help.

(Via the always-interesting Dan Champion.)

I am giving serious consideration to renaming Dean's World. It was a silly joke when I named it "Dean's World" in the first place. But the blog's evolved beyond where it started and the name is seeming more and more cheesy all the time. Furthermore, while I am still the primary blogger, others are beginning to make semi-regular contributions.

I'm thinking something inspired by Eugene Volokhs "The Volokh Conspiracy." I actually like the sound of "The Esmay Conspiracy" but that may be too imitative.

I've thought about "The Esmay Cabal," "The Esmay Convergence," and other things like that. Something that reflects the fact that there are others contributing now.

Anyone have any suggestions

Reuel Marc Gerecht former Middle Eastern specialist for the CIA, and a guy who always seems to know more about Iran than anyone, weighs in with what he thinks is the only real option for preventing a nuclear armed Iran:

Realize that the only option that passes the pinch test--that realistically offers a good chance of delaying Iran's nuclear-weapons production by years--is a preemptive military strike against all of the facilities that American, European, Israeli, and (in private) IAEA intelligence suspect are associated with weapons production. There are certainly many arguments to be made against a preemptive attack, though only one is really free from a pre-9/11 mindset that advances defense over offense in counterterrorism. The weak arguments--the Iranian nation will rise against us, the democratic movement in Iran will die, the Iranian clergy will retaliate in Iraq and globally--are not historically or psychologically particularly compelling. Iranians as a people may well rally around the flag, but so what? The Iranians rallied around the flag when Saddam Hussein invaded in 1980. The invasion didn't prevent the spiritual collapse of the Islamic revolution and the growing popular animus towards the ruling clergy, which were both well underway by the mid-1980s.

...What a preemptive attack would certainly do is provoke another debate about the competence of a ruling clergy who led the nation into a head-on collision with the United States. Khamenei and Rafsanjani, and the Revolutionary Guard Corps behind them, would not look so clever or so unchallengeably strong the day after U.S. missiles and planes destroyed the nuclear facilities.

I've often heard it remarked, usually in sneering tones, that Americans are a very "provincial" people, i.e. we don't care about or pay attention to the rest of the world. Sean Kinsell notes, however, that Americans hardly have a lock on this trait.

Really, that's got to be the funniest headline I've read in weeks.

* Update * Um, it occurs to me that I should have said I got a morbid laugh from it. I'm not laughing at or dismissing the horrible loss of life and livelihoods.

At the moment (it's 5:30 Eastern as I write this), it appears that Ukraine's elections have gone off without a hitch this time, and that Yuschenko, the man who surived both a fraudulent election and an assassination attempt by poisoning, is Ukraine's new President.

Interestingly, his wife is an American businesswoman. I didn't know that. Campaign analyst John Fund has an interesting profile of Kateryna Chumachenko Yushchenko.

Very interesting lady.

I imagine the conspiracy-minded moonbats will make much of the fact that she worked for the first Bush administration back in the early 1990s. Heh.

Economics professor Mark Steckbeck notes that, as the percentage of people born after 1945 rises, so does support for the decriminalization of marijuana, at least for medicinal use, and reasons to think there may be a major change in the works in the next 5-20 years as a result. Even the AARP is starting to make noises about it--nothing official, but they recently noted that well over 70% of adults over the age of 45 now believe that adults should be allowed to legally use marijuana for medical purposes if a physician recommends it. And again, that number is only growing.

He also notes who's most likely to oppose it, and why. Hint: it's all about the $$$.

The latest Carnival of the Recipes is available at Trudy Schuett's blog.

...and Asia's blogs report their experiences.

It looks like its over in the hotly disputed election in the Urkraine where Ukrainian opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko has declared victory and a Chinese news agency has pronounced him the winner. CBC News online reports:

KIEV - With just over half the vote counted Ukrainian opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko has declared victory in the Ukrainian presidential election.

From early in the day it was a smiling and happy Yushchenko who predicted victory. "I am convinced that we are going to win this round of elections just as we did win the first two rounds. I know the mood of the people, today is a happy day for Ukraine," he said after voting By early Monday morning he had seen enough and declared himself the victor in the hard-fought campaign.

Frank Luntz, an independent American pollster, told a news conference on Sunday that the outcome should favour the opposition. "With a 15 point margin, even voter fraud, even margin of error doesn't account for that much. Viktor Yushchenko will be the next president of Ukraine," he said.

Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych has not conceded victory and has refused to accept the pollsters' predictions.

"These are technologies imported from the West," said Yanukovych, "just like the money that financed the Orange Revolution."

December 26 was chosen as the day to rerun last month's presidential contest between Yushchenko and Yanukovych. The decision was made by the country's Supreme Court after it ruled the Nov. 21 vote was marred by massive fraud.

This bitterly contested race has been closely watched in the U.S. and in Europe, where governments there have backed the opposition amid widespread allegations of official voting fraud in November.

Russia's President Vladimir Putin has made no secret about the fact that he backs the government and doesn't want to see Yushchenko come to power.

But what can he do about it? Poison him?

Drug companies are in effect issueing an alert to their employees: Be on the lookout for a heavyset guy who needs a shave who wears a baseball cap...

Yes, it's to warn them about you-know-who, who is working on his next big screen documentary:

LOS ANGELES Dec 26, 2004 — Some pharmaceutical companies are telling their employees to look out for the scruffy guy in the baseball cap.

The Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday that at least six drug companies have released internal communications telling employees to be wary of filmmaker Michael Moore.

Moore's targets have included General Motors ("Roger & Me"), the gun lobby (the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine") and President Bush ("Fahrenheit 9/11").

Moore, normally seen sporting a beard and a ball cap, has now set his sights on the health care industry, including insurance companies, HMOs, the Food and Drug Administration and drug companies. "We ran a story in our online newspaper saying Moore is embarking on a documentary and if you see a scruffy guy in a baseball cap, you'll know who it is," said Stephen Lederer, a spokesman for Pfizer Global Research and Development.

In September and October, Wyeth, AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline, the second-largest in retail sales, sent out Moore alerts, instructing employees that questions posed by the media or filmmakers should be handled by corporate communications.

Heavyweights Sanofi-Aventis Pharmaceuticals and Synthelabo sent similar memos before their recent merger.

This kind of development could make it much harder for Moore. As someone who was in the news biz, I can't stress enough how tough it's going to be for him to get the kind of on-camera quotes he wants (and needs) if he's going to be quickly handed to public relations people. His successes so far have come from doing interviews where subjects are not quite clear on his interview and editing techniques and, also, in editing stock or never before seen behind the scenes footage of famous people.

Now that companies have issued the alert it's going to be far more difficult for him to get those unguarded moments. But he has shown he is, above else, a smart businessman and promoter. Will he change his techniques...to come up with some new ways to surprise subjects (and viewers)?"

Beset Secretary of Defense Donald Rumseld got an endorsement today from unlikely quarters — former Senator George McGovern, a vociferous critic of the Vietnam War. Rumsfeld's big name endorsement came in a letter to the New York Times but we doubt he'll be celebrating it:

To the Editor: I'm for keeping Donald H. Rumsfeld as secretary of defense because he is against increasing the number of American soldiers in Iraq. Sending more soldiers only means more targets for those Iraqis who don't want our army occupying their country.

I did not want any Americans to risk their lives in Iraq. We should bring home those who are there. So better Mr. Rumsfeld than some eager beaver who wants to double our army in the desert as we repeatedly did in the jungle to no avail in the 1960's and 70's. We toppled Saddam Hussein; as George Aiken, that wonderful old Republican senator, said of an earlier time of troubles, Declare victory and come home.

Once we left Vietnam and quit bombing its people, they became friends and trading partners. Iraq has been nestled along the Tigris and Euphrates for 6,000 years. It will be there 6,000 more whether we stay or leave, as earlier conquerors learned.

I tried to persuade Santa Claus to bring our troops home for Christmas, but he said, "No, Rumsfeld sees light at the end of the tunnel if we hang in there and don't listen to old veterans like McGovern."

Is there really a Santa Claus, Virginia? If so, why were 14 soldiers killed at lunch after a hard night searching for that light at the end of the tunnel? George McGovern

THIS JUST IN! Our sources tell us Rudy Giuliani got Bernie Kerik a new job this Christmas -- cleaning up after Santa's reindeer.

....Joe Gandelman, aka The Moderate Voice, will be appearing on Fox's Xetv 6 between 7:45 a.m. and 9 a.m. tomorrow morning. It sounds like it'll be more like between 7:45 a.m and 8:30 a.m. (but we don't know for sure). He will be appearing in his other incarnation in a short promo for Escondido First Nite, at which he'll perform on Dec. 31.

...because the end of the world may be near.

It's a little known fact of history but did you know that from the late 18th century through the years when the Civil War definitively obliterated slavery a free black community thrived in Prince Edward County, Va?

It did — and now there's a book about it, Israel on the Appomattox: A Southern Experiment in Black Freedom From the 1790s Through the Civil WarBy Melvin Patrick Ely. You can read about the book and the fascinating history it details by clicking here.

This is indicative of what alert students of history have discovered: we hear about varying accounts and explanations of trends, but its difficult finding out info about fascinating exceptions to historical (or political) rules without some factual detective work. And detective work takes...work.

Ely has done it.

When a Virginia aristocrat named Richard Randolph died in his mid-20s in 1796, his handwritten will took on the overtones of an abolitionist manifesto, begging his slaves' forgiveness for usurping their rights as human beings and liberating them; not only did he set them free, he also granted them 400 acres of his land to create their new lives as independent men and women. When, after almost 15 years of delay, Randolph's heirs finally carried out his wishes, his former slaves named their newly acquired land Israel Hill, calling themselves Israelites to signify their passage to the Promised Land. By the 1830s the residents of Israel Hill had become the subject of praise by some local white residents but the target of derision by others, one of whom described the community to a national readership as a monumental failure, a breeding ground for ne'er-do-wells, harlots, and thieves.

And, the review notes, Ely makes the case quite well that Israel Hill became a story of triumph. It quotes Ely, professor of history and black studies at the College of William and Mary, as writing:

''Israel Hill amounted to more than a personal promise fulfilled; it was a visionary Southern experiment in black freedom. In building this community of free, self-supporting black landowners in the very neighborhood where the Israelites had grown up as slaves, Richard Randolph and some ninety African Americans had launched a small but audacious attempt to demonstrate that a harmonious society containing free people of both races could exist."

It's on complex issues like this when people on both sides of the ideological divide need to put aside the politicization of the word "nuanced" because subtleties are important here. Miller notes that it is in the nuances of their relations with their white neighbors that the true story of what happened emerges. And after detailing the differences, he gets to factors that made it work:

Ely....argues that blacks and whites in Prince Edward County shared values and beliefs — in music, folk medical practices, notions of timekeeping, patterns of speech, and naming practices, and religion — that facilitated an ease of familiarity and empathy between them: ''Shared attributes and assumptions amid difference helped make possible the tolerant, sometimes friendly relations that linked whites and free blacks."

And his main point? It's that many of ways Americans may have about Americans have come to think of race, slavery, and the Old South may be flawed since they're actually rooted in other periods of American history. Writes Miller, quoting Ely:

Ely clearly registers a sharp dissent from the prevailing wisdom: ''The Old South, like any other long-vanished society, is distant from us, and strange. The more we learn about it, the more we realize we do not know. If the story of free Afro-Virginians in Prince Edward County teaches us anything, it is the danger of making assumptions about that past and its people based on what we see around us today, or on what we think we know about the history of other periods, or on the hubristic notion that our own society is superior to theirs in every conceivable way."

Just to make sure we don't get bombarded with emails from readers who did not read this post or the linked post let's say it straight out:

Does this book say slavery was wonderful, that accounts of it as brutal and repulsive were wrong? No it doesn't.

Does this book suggest slavery was so terrific history books need to be taught? No.

It focuses on this one instance and details the exceptions to the rule, making a case for what some actual attitudes were at the time versus what they were said to be later. And suggesting to beware of blanket historical generalizations that are black and white.

"Hubris" is as important word in history as in politics.

....among those who smuggle illegal aliens.

Most Americans have no idea of this holiday, but it's very popular throughout the British Commonwealth: Boxing Day!

I rather wish we'd pick up the holiday here. Seems like it would make for a nice three-day holiday (Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, and Boxing Day).

Since it's also known as St. Stephen's Day, it's hard for me not to sing:

Saint Stephen with a rose
In and out of the garden he goes
Country garland in the wind and the rain
Wherever he goes the people all complain

Stephen prosper in his time
Well he may and he may decline
Did it matter? does it now?
Stephen would answer if he only knew how...

...Did he doubt or did he try?
Answers aplenty in the bye and bye
Talk about your plenty, talk about your ills
One man gathers what another man spills

Saint Stephen will remain
All he's lost he shall regain
Seashore washed by the suds and the foam
Been here so long he's got to calling it home...

It's almost getting to the point where the end of each new year brings a warning of an impending terrorist attack on New Year's or thereabouts.

And this year is no different. Reports London's Telegraph:

A secret intelligence report has revealed that security chiefs believe al-Qaeda may target New Year celebrations across Britain, The Telegraph has learned.

The document, which has been distributed to every military base in Britain warns that "crowded places or events" are under "a severe threat" of attack from terrorist bombers. The report, which is marked "restricted", is understood to have been compiled by military intelligence specialists, MI5 and Special Branch officers.

International Terrorism", the report warns that military personnel and establishments within the Government Security Zone in central London, which includes Horse Guards in Whitehall, and Buckingham and St James's Palaces, face a "substantial" threat of attack. It says military bases across the country are also facing a similar threat.

The report, which is part of a monthly security update for the armed forces, adds that the threat "comes from al-Qaeda and associated terrorist groups". It continues: "Targeting against US and UK interests both at home and abroad remains a priority for al-Qaeda. Their attacks - including the Madrid train bombings in March - have been against soft targets with the aim of creating as many casualties as possible."

On the other hand, bin Laden's recent statements almost sounded like he wanted some kind of accomodation. Can we trust him -- if we analyze his statements?

It sounds that way -- as a newspaper begins plans to incorporate blogging in a big way into its regular online operations.

I don't mean aesthetically, but outright STINK? If so, here's a possible solution. (Buy these and your life will be complete!)

A massive earthquake has hit in the Indian Ocean area — measuring 8.5...one of the highest on record. (Be sure to see the UPDATE below for latest body count).

This post is written from California where, yes, we do have a bit of paranoia when it comes to earthquakes. And THIS was a big one:

Tidal waves and tremors have struck a wide area around the Indian Ocean, killing almost 200 people in southern and eastern Asia.

Large tidal waves along the east coast of Sri Lanka have reportedly killed at least 160 people.

High tides striking India's coast are said to have killed at least 26 people.

Deaths have also been reported in coastal Thailand and on the Indonesian island of Sumatra, believed to be near the centre of the powerful earthquake.

After the Indonesian quake, panicked people reportedly fled their homes in the towns of Medan and Banda Aceh, the capitals of two of Sumatra's provinces.

The US Geological Survey measured the quake at 8.5 magnitude - one of the highest recorded.

Indonesia's geological position - along the Pacific "Ring of Fire" - makes it prone to earthquakes and volcanoes.

UPDATE: This earthquake is turning out to be far more grave than originally thought, The body count is zooming up. Reuters reports:

COLOMBO, Sri Lanka (Reuters) - One of the most powerful earthquakes in history hit southern Asia Sunday, unleashing a tsunami on Sri Lanka and India and swamping tourist isles in Thailand and the Maldives to kill more than 6,600 people.

The tsunami — a menacing wall of water — caused death, chaos and devastation across southern Asia. The tsunami, up to 30 feet high, was triggered by an 8.9 magnitude underwater earthquake off the Indonesian island of Sumatra.

"This is one of the largest earthquakes ever on record," Peter Rees, of the International Federation of the Red Cross in Geneva, told CNN television, adding: "The situation in Sri Lanka ... is extremely serious."

Aside from this being a catastrophie for residents of the region, it's also catastrophic for British tourists, as British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw noted:

"For the tens of thousands of British tourists in South East Asia and their relatives and friends here this will, I know, be a very worrying time. We are doing everything we can to assist but the disruption to communication in the worst affected areas is inevitably making it difficult to confirm exactly the situation on the ground."

UPDATE II: Death toll is now up to at least 10,000.

...or do left wing blogs hate more than right wing blogs. Or do they both hate about the same?

As the Mozilla foundation continues to erode Microsoft's market share in the browser market, it looks like they are now turning their guns on Outlook.

Not Outlook Express. Outlook itself. More details here.

(Thanks Casey.)

New elections are happening today in Ukraine. Details here.

Let's all hope for the best for them, eh?

The folks at Space.com are holding a contest for "Best space photo of 2004. View the images and vote right here.

This has to win the prize for most surreal Christmas video I've seen this year: Santa Badgers.

(Thanks Jayne!)

Strike Bethesda, a New York bowling alley that caters especially to Jewish clients, including even special facilities for holding Bat and Bar Mitzvahs and offering kosher catering, was recently found to have been partly owned by Yasser Arafat. Story here.

Me? I just find it horrifying to see just how much of the money Arafat was given over the years to help the Palestinian people wound up in his own pockets and in personal investments like this.

Got anything you'd like to share?

(Open thread)

Scientists thing they have found a way that mutation can drive rapid evolutionary change. That flies in the face of most evolutionary theory, which tends to hold that mutation is not the primary way by which creatures evolve. But from studying dogs, they think they may have identified how it might work. At least in dogs...

So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.

And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,

And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.

And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.

When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.

When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.

And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.

And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt.

---From The Gospel According to Matthew