Soldiers take on insurgents with a musical vengeance, cranking up the volume to distress the enemy. The choice of tunes might surprise. Soldiers take on insurgents with a musical vengeance, cranking up the volume to distress the enemy. The choice of tunes might surprise. As tanks geared up to trample Fallujah and American troops started circling the city, special operations officers rifled through their CD cases, searching for a sound track to spur the assault. What would irk Iraqi insurgents more: Barking dogs or bluegrass? Screaming babies or shrieking feedback? Heavy metal. The Army's latest weapon. AC/DC. Loud. Louder! Let's roll. This is a great idea, but what would make it perfect would be if the soldiers used music by artists like Bruce Springsteen, Barbra Streisand and the Dixie Chicks, who've been flamboyantly unsympathetic to the American cause.

I think the winning idea for “The Blinding Flash of the Obvious” goes to the 101st Infantry Division. In the course of combat operations and searching for weapon caches the 101st came across large amounts of Ba’athist cash. They immediately turned right around and spent the money in the local economy for humanitarian efforts. During 2003 they seized and spent $178 million. Other units are now continuing the program.

Taking Condy from the babies The level of dislike some white liberals have for minorities is absolutely amazing. I should be more specific – minorities who are smarter than they are, and on a different side of the political aisle. My apologies if the redundancies continue to accumulate. Since Dr. Condoleezza Rice was nominated to be secretary of state, the vile racism of those who have made their living telling minorities how much they love them, has been nothing short of amazing. One white radio host called Rice an "Aunt Jemima," and Colin Powell an "Uncle Tom." There have been several cartoons – by white liberals no less – which draw Rice as some sort of plantation slave, exaggerating features in the vein of 19th and early 20th century racist "art." It's alright to be racist if your a liberal, but just let one conservative spout this rhetoric and watch all hell break loose. Although, it appears that the Hispanic population is catching on (Bush almost doubled his Hispanic votes since 2000), but when will the rest of the minorities?

One rarely gets a hangover without having drunk too much. World opinion got drunk with the prospect of a Kerry victory, in order to forget the nightmare of an America choosing this time clearly and without ambiguity George W. Bush. Now the world must face up to things. The "Bush moment" cannot be considered as an unfortunate moment to let pass - Bush is not all of America, but he represents the majority of America.

As with all traumas, after phases of shock, denial, and anger comes acceptance. This is particularly true for Europe, for the five international projects that awaited the reelected president concern us directly. If we want this reenergized Bush administration to take into account our interests in the managing of these issues, we must rapidly inject a serious dose of realism and lucidity into our foreign policies.

The first issue is of course Iraq. The political deadlines are clear: elections in January 2005 and a constitutional statute in December 2005. We have an interest that this process unfolds as favorably as possible, because the scenario of an explosive civil war would implicate Turkey and therefore Europe. Rather than focusing on the unrealistic hypothesis on an American retreat in the short term, we must reflect on the best manner of contributing to this institutional process that will be imperfect and transitory, but will also be a decisive step in the evolution of this country. It is not an American retreat that will permit institutional consolidation, but rather institutional consolidation that will permit an American retreat.

The second issue is Iran. After more than two years of crisis on its nuclear program, the IAEA is preparing to decide whether or not it will submit its dossier on the subject to the U.N. Security Council at the end of November. If we do not want to revisit the misunderstandings of the winter of 2002-03, we must prepare ourselves seriously for the following steps. Are we ready for sanctions against Iran? If yes, of what kind, for what goal, and with what deadlines? Would we accept the legitimacy of the regime of mullahs if it renounced definitively its military nuclear options? Inversely, would we be ready to close our eyes on the maintenance of a know-how in this domain if the regime renounced terrorism and adopted a constructive attitude in the handling of crises in the region? Europeans must ask these questions now, since if we do not we will approach a new transatlantic crisis and only the Iranian regime will profit.

The third issue is the Middle East after Arafat. This must be the occasion of a European reflection on our implication in the handling of the conflict. If we believe that the policy of the Bush administration is unbalanced, Europe must nonetheless face up to reality: its involvement as an arbiter in the conflict is not perceived as legitimate by one of the parties present. America is not exactly impartial, but if we want to play a role other than the banker of an ineffective and often corrupt Palestinian Authority, we must adjust our position. The closing of the Arafat era is a historic occasion for this point of view.

The fourth issue is North Korea. This small faraway country is surrounded by a halo of mystery and only rarely interests the EU. But why shouldn't we feel ourselves concerned by the negotiations that involve six nations and have been unfolding for 18 months? The response is simple: because, as with Iran, this is where the future of nuclear proliferation is happening, and because any increased instability in the region would have massive economic repercussions around the world. We must be prepared to contribute the moment it comes to a global handling of the North Korean question, including financially.

Finally, the "war against terrorism." Here is a real and legitimate divergence between America and the majority of Europeans. The majority of American opinion, and the majority of elites, believes that the threat of terrorism is of a nature that threatens the foundation of Western societies, and that it is necessary not to reduce but to defeat terrorism. We prefer to see it as a nuisance and live with it, against which no victory is possible. This difference could one day be broken (let's hope not) by a major act of terrorism in Europe, Madrid having not been our 9/11. In the absence of such a foundational event, we must set aside this difference of perspective, but also recognize that we face a terrorist problem the magnitude of which surpasses by far what we have experienced in Europe, and which cannot be treated merely as a problem of information and police. This implies doing away with the incantations on the stability of the Middle East that, in addition to being inaudible in Washington, have not proved particularly effective in promoting democratic ideals. On the contrary, they have encouraged the obstruction of Middle Eastern societies and violent disputes.

It is not at all certain that Bush will be magnanimous in victory and present an olive branch to the European countries most opposed to his policy. But it is also quite certain that he is not a priori ideologically opposed to Europe (contrary to certain members of his administration). If we show clearly our will to act together on these five projects in a constructive spirit, while respecting the singular perspective of an America that believes itself "to be at war," we will be heard by the White House, and our own interests will have much more of a chance of being taken into account. Inversely, if we go on talking about "multipolarity" (which is currently illusory), and give the impression of putting into effect all our energies toward the promotion of dubious initiatives (lifting the embargo on the sale of arms to China, for example), we will not advance these interests.

Certain Europeans secretly congratulate themselves on the reelection of Bush in the name of a strategy similar to the revolutionary vote: they hope that Bush's American conservatism will help construct a stronger and more unified Europe. They are going to be tempted to exaggerate transatlantic differences to the benefit of strengthening a European singularity. It is not at all certain that this strategy would be effective. Contrarily, it is quite certain that it will be dangerous: the enemies of liberty and democracy only rarely make a distinction between Americans and Europeans and, above all, when they do so, they know perfectly well how to play on our differences. We can choose to try to construct a European fortress on the field of the ruins of transatlantic relations, but this would be a Faustian bargain. Without the cooperation of the U.S. in the Balkans, the Middle East or in Asia, we would sooner or later pay the price for the instabilities that we would have allowed to develop.

It is not a matter of denying the political and cultural divergences that separate the majority of Americans from the majority of Europeans, but of recognizing that the importance of common challenges and the necessity of managing them together implicate and transcend personal and ideological preferences. Bush's reelection is a sort of test for Europe: does she prefer to get drunk on her differences or confront reality? The "Bush moment" is, for us, a moment of truth.

Among the magazines even die-hard right-wingers should sometimes read are the neo-liberal ones "The New Republic" and the "Washington Monthly." They often contain thoughtful articles with stimulating fresh thinking. Alas that makes it all the worse when they publish something moldier than a slab of Roquefort cheese. So it is with their current combined attack on adult stem cell research, designed to support the alternative of embryonic stem cells.

Adult stem cells come from all over the body, plus umbilical cords and placentas. Embryonic stem cells come from pulling apart human embryos, and thus have aroused ethical concerns. The result says Chris Mooney in the "Washington Monthly" is that "conservatives have latched onto fringe science in order to advance moral arguments" by embracing adult stem cell research. We are presented with the illogical argument that since some people prefer adult stem cells for non-scientific reasons, they must therefore have little scientific value.

Yet adult stem cells have actually been used therapeutically in the United States since 1968. At one website you'll find a list, far from comprehensive, of almost 80 therapies using them. This is treatment, not practice or theory. Amazingly, there are also more than 300 adult stem cell clinical trials.

In contrast, the number of treatments using embryonic stem cells is zero. The number of clinical trials involving embryonic stem cells? Zero.

Embryonic stem cell propagandists will tell you adult stem cell research had a huge head start and embryonic stem cells only need time (and more importantly, massive government funding) to catch up.

Yet as a new book called The Proteus Effect points out, both types of stem cell research date back half a century. You might think the author of The New Republic piece, Harvard Professor of Medicine Jerome Groopman, would know this since ostensibly his contribution is a review of the book. Research with embryonic stem cells has progressed at snail's pace simply because they are so terribly difficult to work with.

Ironically, some of the very diseases he says embryonic stem cells may conquer have long been treated with adult stem cells. Groopman specifically mentions Fanconi's Anemia, but it was first treated with umbilical cord stem cells 16 years ago.

The only possible advantage of embryonic stem cells is potential. "It's well established that embryonic stem cells can generate any kind of tissue found in the body," Mooney writes flatly. "There is no disagreement among experts about the capacity of (ESCs) to form any and all cells and tissues of the body," Groopman declares. Translation: Disagree with Groopman and you're not an expert.

But we already know embryonic cells cannot generate placental tissue. The President's Council on Bioethics, in its January 2004 report, observes, "Embryonic stem cells are capable of becoming many different types of differentiated cells if stimulated to do so in vitro (outside the body)." However, "it is not known for certain that human embryonic stem cells in vitro can give rise to all the different cell types of the adult body."

Meanwhile, three different labs have found three different adult stem cells that may be transformable to all cell types. "In aggregate, our study and various others do support the idea that one (ASC) can give rise to all types of tissue," said Ira Black, the head of one of those labs.

Or perhaps we don't need a "one-size-fits-all" cell. Scientists have already discovered at least 14 different types of adult stem cells. Even if each has limited plasticity, combined they could perhaps be reprogrammed into each type of mature cell we need. So when Groopman says adult marrow cells may not be "fully optimal as treatment for many fatal diseases," he's ignoring at least 13 other adult stem cells that could be.

Almost "every other week there's another interesting finding of adult (stem) cells turning into neurons or blood cells or heart muscle cells," notes molecular biologist Eric Olson at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. Unfortunately, it seems every other week there's also another article in the popular press claiming adult stem cells range from nearly worthless to utterly worthless.

Ironically, the original motivation for the massive disinformation campaign is precisely the relative scientific superiority of adult stem cells. Savvy venture capitalists have plowed their money into adult stem cell research and treatment, leaving embryonic stem cell researchers desperate to feed at the government trough. It is they and their supporters who have latched onto fringe science.

  Among the magazines even die-hard right-wingers should sometimes read are the neo-liberal ones "The New Republic" and the "Washington Monthly." They often contain thoughtful articles with stimulating fresh thinking. Alas that makes it all the worse when they publish something moldier than a slab of Roquefort cheese. So it is with their current combined attack on adult stem cell research, designed to support the alternative of embryonic stem cells.

  Adult stem cells come from all over the body, plus umbilical cords and placentas. Embryonic stem cells come from pulling apart human embryos, and thus have aroused ethical concerns. The result says Chris Mooney in the "Washington Monthly" is that "conservatives have latched onto fringe science in order to advance moral arguments" by embracing adult stem cell research. We are presented with the illogical argument that since some people prefer adult stem cells for non-scientific reasons, they must therefore have little scientific value.

  Yet adult stem cells have actually been used therapeutically in the United States since 1968. At one website you'll find a list, far from comprehensive, of almost 80 therapies using them. This is treatment, not practice or theory. Amazingly, there are also more than 300 adult stem cell clinical trials.

  In contrast, the number of treatments using embryonic stem cells is zero. The number of clinical trials involving embryonic stem cells? Zero.

  Embryonic stem cell propagandists will tell you adult stem cell research had a huge head start and embryonic stem cells only need time (and more importantly, massive government funding) to catch up.

  Yet as a new book called The Proteus Effect points out, both types of stem cell research date back half a century. You might think the author of The New Republic piece, Harvard Professor of Medicine Jerome Groopman, would know this since ostensibly his contribution is a review of the book. Research with embryonic stem cells has progressed at snail's pace simply because they are so terribly difficult to work with.

  Ironically, some of the very diseases he says embryonic stem cells may conquer have long been treated with adult stem cells. Groopman specifically mentions Fanconi's Anemia, but it was first treated with umbilical cord stem cells 16 years ago.

  The only possible advantage of embryonic stem cells is potential. "It's well established that embryonic stem cells can generate any kind of tissue found in the body," Mooney writes flatly. "There is no disagreement among experts about the capacity of (ESCs) to form any and all cells and tissues of the body," Groopman declares. Translation: Disagree with Groopman and you're not an expert.

  But we already know embryonic cells cannot generate placental tissue. The President's Council on Bioethics, in its January 2004 report, observes, "Embryonic stem cells are capable of becoming many different types of differentiated cells if stimulated to do so in vitro (outside the body)." However, "it is not known for certain that human embryonic stem cells in vitro can give rise to all the different cell types of the adult body."

  Meanwhile, three different labs have found three different adult stem cells that may be transformable to all cell types. "In aggregate, our study and various others do support the idea that one (ASC) can give rise to all types of tissue," said Ira Black, the head of one of those labs.

  Or perhaps we don't need a "one-size-fits-all" cell. Scientists have already discovered at least 14 different types of adult stem cells. Even if each has limited plasticity, combined they could perhaps be reprogrammed into each type of mature cell we need. So when Groopman says adult marrow cells may not be "fully optimal as treatment for many fatal diseases," he's ignoring at least 13 other adult stem cells that could be.

  Almost "every other week there's another interesting finding of adult (stem) cells turning into neurons or blood cells or heart muscle cells," notes molecular biologist Eric Olson at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. Unfortunately, it seems every other week there's also another article in the popular press claiming adult stem cells range from nearly worthless to utterly worthless.

  Ironically, the original motivation for the massive disinformation campaign is precisely the relative scientific superiority of adult stem cells. Savvy venture capitalists have plowed their money into adult stem cell research and treatment, leaving embryonic stem cell researchers desperate to feed at the government trough. It is they and their supporters who have latched onto fringe science.

On Monday we began talking about the magnitude of the President’s victory and the furious attempt by pro-abortion forces to blur or obscure the clear lessons of his magnificent victory. Today we'll have a go at explaining the considerable impact the abortion issue had on the outcome and also try to tease out the abortion component of the much discussed moral values. Hint: in both cases, abortion was very important.

As you know, there has been a running controversy over what the 22% of voters meant who said “moral values” in response to the question, Which one issue mattered most in deciding how you voted for president?" Alas, as a result, insufficient attention has been paid to more straightforward documentation of how the single-issue abortion voter affected the outcome.

We’ve talked about it some previously, but those basic outlines need further amplification. There are two aspects: the general impact of abortion on voting patterns and the more stringent direct impact.

A whopping 42% of voters in a post-election Wirthlin Worldwide poll said yes to the question, “Generally speaking, did the abortion issue affect the way you voted in today’s election?” Candidates who opposed abortion received 25% while 13% voted for candidates who support abortion. This yielded a 12-point net increment for pro-life candidates.

Getting more specific, respondents were asked, “Which of the following was most important to you?” How many chose abortion out of a list of eighteen choices? Wirthlin reported 8%.

Of those 6% voted for President Bush while only 2% voted for Sen. Kerry. This yielded a net “most important” issue increment for Bush of 4%.

In some ways more important, 9% picked abortion as the most important issue in the 13 “high activity states,” which included “presidential battleground” states and those with a closely-contested pro-life vs. pro-abortion U.S. Senate race. Of those, 8% voted for Bush while only 1% cast ballots for Kerry. President Bush was the beneficiary of a huge 7% increment in crucially important states.

One last dimension that we need to know in advance of further discussion. In the most stringent test of “single issue” voting, Wirthlin also asked respondents an open-ended “what was the main reason you voted for President?” question. Six percent volunteered “his position on abortion.” How did their votes break?

Of that category of voters, 5% voted for President Bush as contrasted with only 1% for Sen. Kerry. The President enjoyed a 4% net “most important” issue increment. So, collectively, what do all these numbers mean?

In a thoughtful analysis that appears in the November issue of the "pro-life newspaper of record," NRLC Executive Director Dr. David N, O’Steen drew this conclusion: “Using this variety of tests, the poll shows that the nationwide net increment gained by President Bush because of his pro-life position was more than the President’s margin of victory in a number of close states, including Florida and Ohio, as well as his overall margin of victory in the nationwide popular vote.”

It will be of inestimable value to you in the months to come if you memorize that conclusion.

See you tomorrow.
Decoding the Post-Election Spin Battle
Part Two

The Muslim religion:  Is the fastest growing religion per capita in the United States, especially in the minority races.

Wednesday, November 17 at 06:22 AM:
Clyde Bradshaw from Little Rock wrote:
"Man in dunking booth at county fair."

Wednesday, November 17 at 06:15 AM:
John from Pennsylvania wrote:
"Fishing booth attendant at carnivals"

Wednesday, November 17 at 04:06 AM:
Cooter from Down south wrote:
"Test subject for medical students learning to perform prostate exams. "

By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer

NEW YORK - Touting tofu chowder and vegetarian sushi as alternatives, animal-rights activists have launched a novel campaign arguing that fish — contrary to stereotype — are intelligent, sensitive animals no more deserving of being eaten than a pet dog or cat.

AP Photo

Called the Fish Empathy Project, the campaign reflects a strategy shift by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals as it challenges a diet component widely viewed as nutritious and uncontroversial.

"No one would ever put a hook through a dog's or cat's mouth," said Bruce Friedrich, PETA's director of vegan outreach. "Once people start to understand that fish, although they come in different packaging, are just as intelligent, they'll stop eating them."

The campaign is in its infancy and will face broad skepticism. Major groups such as the American Heart Association ( - ) recommend fish as part of a healthy diet; some academics say it is wrong to portray the intelligence and pain sensitivity of fish as comparable to mammals.

"Fish are very complex organisms that do all sorts of fascinating things," said University of Wyoming neuroscientist James Rose. "But to suggest they know they what's happening to them and worry about it, that's just not the case."

PETA, headquartered in Norfolk, Va., has campaigned for years against sport fishing, challenging claims by Rose and others that fish caught by anglers do not feel pain. PETA also has joined other critics in decrying the high levels of mercury or other toxins in many fish and the pollution discharged by many fish farms.

The Empathy Project is a departure in two respects — attempting to depict the standard practices of commercial fishing as cruel and seeking to convince consumers that there are ethical reasons for not eating fish.

"Fish are so misunderstood because they're so far removed from our daily lives," said Karin Robertson, 24, the Empathy Project manager and daughter of an Indiana fisheries biologist. "They're such interesting, fascinating individuals, yet they're so incredibly abused."

The project was inspired by several recent scientific studies — widely reported in Britain but little-noticed in the United States — detailing facets of fish intelligence.

Oxford University researcher Theresa Burt de Perera, for example, reported that the blind Mexican cave fish is able to interpret water pressure changes to construct a detailed mental map of its surroundings.

"Most people dismiss fish as dimwitted pea-brains. ... Yet this is a great fallacy," wrote University of Edinburgh biologist Culum Brown in the June edition of New Scientist. "In many areas, such as memory, their cognitive powers match or exceed those of 'higher' vertebrates, including non-human primates."

Chris Glass of the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences in Massachusetts led another recent study, showing how North Sea haddock developed abilities to avoid trawlers' nets.

"There's no doubt that fish of all shapes and forms are capable of learning fairly complex tasks," Glass said. "They can learn from their environment and experience."

Yet Glass declined to endorse the don't-eat-fish appeals.

"We don't want to be caught between warring factions," he said. "We're interested in helping the fisheries industry do a responsible job."

To press their argument, PETA activists plan demonstrations starting next month at selected seafood restaurants nationwide. PETA also will urge changes in commercial fishing practices, for example proposing that trawler crews stun fish before cutting them up.

Friedrich questioned why there is popular support for sparing marine mammals — dolphins and porpoises — yet minimal concern for species like tuna, "whose suffering would warrant felony animal cruelty charges if they were mammals."

Fish-welfare rules would be a new realm for U.S. commercial fishermen. The National Fisheries Institute, which represents them, has pledged to help sustain fish stocks but its members have never faced cruelty regulations regarding their catch.

"It's irresponsible to discourage people from eating fish at a time when doctors and dietitians advise eating it twice a week," said institute president John Connelly. "If anything, we should be eating more fish."

Friedrich acknowledges the difficulty of changing long-held customs, but thinks his project is worthwhile. "We'd rather go too far than not far enough," he said.

___

On the Net:

Can't the UN do something about France?

Thousands of Westerners flee Ivory Coast

November 16 2004 at 11:17AM

Abidjan - France has completed the evacuation of 5 000 Westerners and others from violence-torn Ivory Coast as Africans - with no hope of such rescue - have fled into neighbouring countries.

Two French-organised flights to Paris and to neighbouring Ghana ended six days of shuttles overseen by the French military, French spokesperson Jacques Combarieu said.

With anti-foreigner rampages subsiding and commercial flights restored in Ivory Coast's largest city, any other foreigners who want to leave will be able to do so on their own, Combarieu said.

"It was terrible," said a German who had lived in Ivory Coast for a decade as he waited for one of Monday's last evacuation flights out. He provided only his first name, Helmut, and said he was an aid worker.

He described hiding in the bush around Ivory Coast's southern cocoa port of San Pedro while mobs sacked French shops and warehouses.

"But I'll come back" when Ivory Coast calms down, Helmut said, as calls over Abidjan's airport loudspeakers instructed the last evacuees to gather their luggage. "I'm sure I want to come back."

As Ivory Coast's defiant leader, President Laurent Gbagbo, remained holed up in his lagoon-side mansion and surrounded by hard-liners, the United Nations Security Council voted to impose an immediate arms embargo against Ivory Coast, giving the country's warring sides one month to revive a shattered peace process or face more sanctions.

African leaders had urged late on Sunday that the sanctions be imposed immediately.

Gbagbo's government reopened the nation's civil war on November 4 with airstrikes on the rebel-held north. Two days later, Ivory Coast warplanes bombed a French peacekeeping post, killing nine French troops and an American aid worker and plunging the world's top cocoa producer into its current unprecedented crisis.

France blew up Ivory Coast's airforce on the tarmac.

Loyalists led by the government-allied Young Patriots popular militias took to the streets in five days of violent attacks after the French retaliation, burning and looting French businesses and schools across the loyalist south.

No deaths have been confirmed among non-Africans in the street violence. France says several expatriates were raped. Ivory Coast claims more than 62 loyalists died when French forces fired into crowds.

Helmut, in his 50s, said he and other foreigners in Ivory Coast's cocoa centre escaped on a prearranged route through one another's yards when violence broke out.

The last yard led into the forests, where expatriate families hid for hours at a time.

For others, last week's violence would be the last. Michele, a French man and another 10-year resident of Ivory Coast, said he was getting on Monday's flight to Paris - and never coming back.

"They say to me, 'French, go home - you have nothing to do here,"' said Michele, a legal notary. "I think what's going to happen will be like a Rwanda."

Since Wednesday, French forces have evacuated 4248 foreigners who came to Ivory Coast from a total of 63 countries, French military spokesperson Colonel Henry Aussavy said.

Flights organized by businesses for their employees have taken out about 870 people, Aussavy said.

Spain, Canada, the Netherlands and others have evacuated about 550 others.

The number makes it the largest evacuation in Africa in at least a decade. In 1997, a French led evacuation brought 5 000 foreigners from the Republic of Congo amid election violence and civil war there.

Separately, the United Nations refugee agency in Geneva said about 10 000 Ivorians have fled into neighbouring Liberia.

Many are descendants of immigrants from neighbouring countries, or members of tribes at odds with those who control the southern-based government. Both groups have been targeted by loyalist attacks since 1999, when a first-ever coup ended decades of stability and relative prosperity in Ivory Coast.

About 700 other non-Ivorian African nationals have fled across Ivory Coast's eastern border, into Ghana, the UN refugee agency said. - Sapa-AP