Surgeons in France have performed the first ever face transplant:
In the controversial operation, tissues, muscles, arteries and veins were taken from a brain-dead donor and attached to the patient’s lower face.
Doctors stress the woman will not look like her donor, but nor will she look like she did before the [dog] attack – instead she will have a “hybrid” face.
It is unclear if either Nicolas Cage or John Travolta was the donor – though given the necessity of the donor being braindead, I’ll go with Travolta…
(initially seen in my RSS feed from /. this morning…)
Posted by protected static as 30-second science blogging, geek at 11:22 AM UTC
No Comments »
Or perhaps not…
The administration is under pressure to convince increasingly skeptical Americans that the president’s strategy for Iraq is headed in the right direction nearly three years after the U.S.-led invasion. The president is to give a speech on the subject Wednesday at the Naval Academy and the White House is to release a 35-page document titled “Our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.”
Hey guys, it’s only been three years! What have you been waiting for? Oh yeah, the flowers and open arms, right? Hmmm. Too bad you can’t admit that maybe people like Shinseki (Remember them? The career soldiers y’all told to go pound sand up their collective asses?) knew what they were talking about.
And WTF’s up with Bush being only able to give speeches to the military? Is he practicing to be Caligula or something? (Update (5 minutes or so after initial posting): Jane at firedoglake wonders the same thing…)
Posted by protected static as politics at 11:15 PM UTC
No Comments »
Stop me if you’ve heard this one before:
Although no one knows exactly how many militia members have been integrated into the national force, witnesses described undocumented arrests and torture by police. Two of the witnesses said they were present when detainees died. This month, U.S. forces raided a secret Interior Ministry detention facility in southern Baghdad operated by police intelligence officials linked to the Badr Brigade, a Shiite militia that has long-standing ties to Iran and to Iraq’s leading Shiite political party. Inmates compiled a handwritten list of 18 detainees at the bunker who were allegedly tortured to death while in custody. The list was authenticated by a U.S. official and given to Justice Ministry authorities for investigation. It was later provided to The Times.
The U.S. military is investigating whether police officers who worked at the secret prison were trained by American interrogation experts.
An Aug. 18 police operations report addressed to Interior Minister Bayan Jabr, who has ties to the Badr militia, listed the names of 14 Sunni Arab men arrested during a predawn sweep in the Baghdad neighborhood of Iskaan.
Six weeks later, their bodies were discovered near the Iranian border, badly decomposed. All of the corpses showed signs of torture, and each still wore handcuffs and had been shot three times in the back of the head, Baghdad morgue officials said.
From what I remember, it goes kind of like this:
As every cell in Chile will tell
The cries of the tortured men
Remember Allende, and the days before,
Before the army came
Please remember Victor Jara,
In the Santiago Stadium,
Es verdad – those Washington Bullets again
– The Clash, “Washington Bullets” (1980)
My guess? We don’t really care who’s killing who, so long as a.) the corpses are all Iraqis and b.) Iraq stays out of Iran’s hands. Too bad our half-assed occupation and so-called reconstruction is making both of those less likely.
And if these are rogue elements within the Iraqi police and military (and not some ham-fisted black ops cowboy scheme gone sadly wrong), do we really have the moral authority to tell the Iraqis to not engage in torture or extrajudicial killings? Really?
I didn’t think so.
updated 9:30 AM PST 29-Nov-2005
Addendum: lest anyone think the “it’s only the Shiites doing it to destabilize the country for an Iranian takeover” line survives a sniff test, consider these bits: the murder of Shiite teachers covered here; the Pentagon’s discussion of the “Salvadoran option” here and here. It seems that I’m not the only one who was far from comforted by John Negroponte’s involvement in Iraq, given his background (official bio here; more jaundiced views may be found here and here)… Oh, and remember my previous posting about expanded DoD spy activities? Guess who’s running that show?
I’ll give you a hint: Who is a controversial career diplomat with a dubious human rights record?
Feeling safer yet?
Posted by protected static as politics at 7:48 AM UTC
No Comments »
The comments, the comments, the comments:
When you measure a sock’s quantum state, does that change its spin cycle?
I’m not worthy…
Posted by protected static as geek, humor, random at 11:36 PM UTC
No Comments »
What is “domestic surveillance with no oversight”?
WASHINGTON, Nov. 27 (UPI) — The Defense Department has expanded programs aimed at gathering and analyzing intelligence within the United States, it was reported Sunday.
The moves create new agencies, add personnel and seek additional legal authority for domestic security activities in the post-9/11 world, the Washington Post said.
The White House is reported considering expanding the power of a little-known, three-year-old Pentagon agency called the Counterintelligence Field Activity, or CIFA. In addition to coordinating Pentagon security efforts, CIFA would have authority to investigate crimes within the United States such as treason, foreign or terrorist sabotage or even economic espionage.
Coz’ you know – 9/11 changed everything, including turning the Constitution into toilet paper. Don’t you feel safer now? I stumbled across this on UPI this AM; Atrios links to Democratic Veteran, who links to the WaPo article in question.
Posted by protected static as politics at 11:17 PM UTC
No Comments »
We’re back in town, having survived turkey day. And for the non-Francophones (or non-Francophiles, I suppose), that’d be a quote from Sartre – “Hell is other people”…
That is all.
(Thanks to billmon for the link to the quotes page…)
Posted by protected static as random at 11:13 PM UTC
No Comments »
Pat Morita is dead at 73. Another bit of 1980s ephemera lost…
The loss of ’80s cultural moments, good thing or bad? Discuss.
Seriously though – Morita’s life reads like a Horatio Alger story:
Born in northern California on June 28, 1932, the son of migrant fruit pickers, Morita spent most of his early years in the hospital with spinal tuberculosis. He later recovered only to be sent to a Japanese-American internment camp in Arizona during World War II.
“One day I was an invalid,” he recalled in a 1989 AP interview. “The next day I was public enemy No. 1 being escorted to an internment camp by an FBI agent wearing a piece.”
After the war, Morita’s family tried to repair their finances by operating a Sacramento restaurant. It was there that Morita first tried his comedy on patrons.
Because prospects for a Japanese-American standup comic seemed poor, Morita found steady work in computers at Aerojet General. But at age 30 he entered show business full time.
“Only in America could you get away with the kind of comedy I did,” he commented. “If I tried it in Japan before the war, it would have been considered blasphemy, and I would have ended in leg irons. “
So long, Mr. Miyagi…
Posted by protected static as random at 10:38 AM UTC
No Comments »
According to an email I got from The Scotsman (they’re a great source of stories for this other blog I post at) this morning, today is the anniversary of Dr. Who:
On 23 November 1963, the first episode of the BBC TV serial “Dr Who”, starring William Hartnell, was screened in Britain. The show was resurrected in March. To read about Dr Who click here.
And geek culture was never the same.
Happy T-day, all…
Posted by protected static as geek at 8:49 AM UTC
2 Comments »
Penn Jillette, gettin’ right down to it:
So, anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God. She needs to search for some objective evidence of a supernatural power. All the people I write e-mails to often are still stuck at this searching stage. The Atheism part is easy.
But, this “This I Believe” thing seems to demand something more personal, some leap of faith that helps one see life’s big picture, some rules to live by. So, I’m saying, “This I believe: I believe there is no God.”
[thanks, Mitch]
Posted by protected static as politics at 10:31 AM UTC
No Comments »
I’ll take Jet Orifices for $200, Alex.
Posted by protected static as random at 10:24 AM UTC
No Comments »
Anyone have any prognostications re: Abramoff’s associate Scanlon’s guilty plea? I’m guessing that ’shockwaves’ or ‘ripples’ will be entirely inadequate descriptions of what will follow Monday’s court appearance of Scanlon.
Posted by protected static as politics at 11:23 AM UTC
No Comments »
Keith Olbermann mentioned something in passing the other day that squares with a thought I’ve been thinking for a while: that the Iraq War resembles nothing quite so much as the Spanish American War:
With the political picture finally focused – oh, I see, Iraq isn’t a 21st Century Vietnam War, it’s the 21st Century Spanish-American War (national post-traumatic stress disorder, international scapegoats required, most villainous enemy nominated, evidence massaged to make it seem plausible, everything except the title “Operation Remember The Maine!”) – let me digress again.
No such digressions here, of course. Personally, I’d agree with Keith on everything except his last statement – our version of ‘Remember the Maine!’ has been to repeat ‘9/11!’ over and over. Something else Keith leaves out is that the Spanish-American War was arguably our first ‘real’ Imperialist war, and the conduct of it was driven at least in part by the profit motives of large corporations.
So, if Iraq is the Spanish-American War, what is Afghanistan? The fight against the Moros in the Phillipines? Or the Punitive Expedition to Mexico? While both of these conflicts come after the Spanish-American War, both are classic low-intensity warfare, neither is well-remembered today (both were pretty quickly forgotten by everyone except those who served), and, in the case of the Punitive Expedition, the stated target of the Expedition (Pancho Villa) escaped unscathed because of other political considerations (the onset of WW1). Of the two, I’d vote for the Punitive Expedition as being closer to Afghanistan – it even has the elements of superior military forces against an irregular enemy, cultural and linguistic differences, reliance upon local assets to augment your force structure, and so on.
They’re far from perfect analogies, but there are probably some valuable lessons to be learned from the outcome/aftermath of both of these conflicts… First, the Spanish-American War resulted in our occupation and administration of Cuba – and we all know how well that turned out. Second, neither are really seen as shining moments in our history, militarily or diplomatically.
Are these the sorts of misadventures we’re asking our military to engage in? Ill-concieved Imperialist land grabs that end in an anti-American revolution 50 years later? Failed cat-and-mouse games where we are unable to capture or kill our number one target?
The precedents do not look good.
Update 17-Nov-05 10:45PM PST In discussing this with a friend of mine over lunch today, another similarity was arrived at: the Spanish-American War is also known for obscene and rampant profiteering by the suppliers and contractors. Hmmm… When was Halliburton founded again?
Posted by protected static as politics at 11:20 PM UTC
No Comments »
In an earlier post, I listed information that I thought was a reasonable summation of current US military policy on the legitimate uses of white phosphorus (WP) munitions. RTO Trainer, an Army National Guardsman, left some comments that raised issues with my documentation and/or conclusions. R.T. raised some objections over a line in a training manual for senior command staff (ST 100-3: “It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.”), and also pointed out that if Forward Observers (FOs) were properly employed in Fallujah, then the odds of war crimes having been committed were slim.
So I went back and reread both documents in their entirety, ST 100-3 and the Field Artillery article, and I must say that while the case is less clear, I still have my doubts. Serious doubts.
First, FOs. According to the Field Artillery piece, FOs were deployed in the city with some operational difficulties. The article also states that they had one observer outside the city who had a commanding view of their entire area of operations. The article runs down the ways in which the in city FOs were operationally degraded, but it is unclear from the article what effect, if any, that had on their fire missions.
There are also conflicting accounts as to the numbers of civilians left in Fallujah as well – my own take on it is that the numbers will be impossible to ever nail down. Can we agree that the numbers are larger than what the Pentagon reports (only 10% of the population remained behind, so approx. 30,000 people) and less than what the more extreme reports are from various human rights organizations? Even if the number is ‘only’ 50,000 people (which seems reasonable to me), the use of WP in such an environment with less-than precise accuracy can be criminal.
I will cede that some of the documentation being cited as ‘proof’ that WP was used indiscriminately really isn’t. For instance, Darrin Mortenson’s account of mortar fire:
Another first-hand account from the battlefield was provided by an embedded reporter for the North County News, a San Diego newspaper. Reporter Darrin Mortenson wrote of watching Cpl Nicholas Bogert fire WP rounds into Fallujah. He wrote: “Bogert is a mortar team leader who directed his men to fire round after round of high explosives and white phosphorus charges into the city Friday and Saturday, never knowing what the targets were or what damage the resulting explosions caused.”
A mortar is an indirect-fire weapon – you don’t point the business end of it directly at a target, you rely upon called-in coordinates to fire it in an arc up over the battlefield. A mortar team is highly unlikely to ever see their targets unless their position is about to be overrun… Ditto for the Paladin 155mm howitzers described in the Field Artillery article. But the above account doesn’t exonerate either – from it, we have no way of knowing at all how well-directed those fire missions were.
Now, on to ST 100-3. While I agree with R.T. that the statement occurs within the context of discussing large-tube artillery, I disagree that the statement is limited to that context. Why? Because first of all, in no other place does ST 100-3 go into the other uses for WP munitions. Second, it is the first mention of WP in the manual (actually, it is the only place in the manual where the differences between different kinds of munitions are explicitly spelled out). Third, its tone strikes me as very definitive, particularly when there are clearly some nuances in the battlefield use of WP. Fourth, the discussion of mortars in ST 100-3 seems to implicitly differentiate between WP and other fire support (FS) missions:
The FSO should plan and control mortar fires to ensure they are integrated into the overall fire plan. Mortars are very effective against lightly protected personnel and for obscuration, illumination, and close-in defensive fires.
Mortars:
Are the most responsive FS assets of the battalion.
Provide highly responsive WP and illumination to the T[ask ]F[orce] commander.
And there’s a fifth – the Field Artillery article talks about the 155mm howitzers providing WP fire as well. That’s large-tube artillery, providing the same kind of mixed WP/HE (high explosive) anti-personnel fire support as the mortars.
I won’t dispute that WP is a legitimate munition; I won’t even dispute that it can be used as a weapon without breaking the law. What I will say is that reading these articles still suggests to me that international law may have been broken by choosing to use WP in a primarily anti-personnel role. It’s like this: tracer ammunition (phosphorus-tipped bullets used for target acquisition and, to a much lesser degree, setting things on fire) is a legal munition. On the other hand, if you decided that you were going to have your troops armed with tracers as every other round, you might have committed a war crime. Why? Because the intent with which you’re using the weapon has changed. You are no longer using it in the manner that is protected under law – you are using it because it inflicts greater damage and/or fear, and that starts to edge out of the realm of protected behavior.
To the folks who are reading this who share R.T.’s point of view, let me say this: I do not think that our troops are all criminals. I know that most soldiers want to do the right thing, so it is entirely understandable that folks like R.T. will want to come to their defense. My own military experience is over 15 years old, and is charitably described as partial at best, but I do think I have more than a little understanding of the motivations of people who want to serve. And as an RTO (Radio/Telephone Operator), R.T. has more than likely participated in fire missions (I haven’t read enough of his blog to know), so he certainly brings hands-on familiarity to this debate, something all-too often lacking.
That said, I think that this administration’s actions have made it much easier to believe that we are operating with much less regard for international law. If the Geneva Conventions covering torture are ‘quaint’, what about the rest of them? Are those Conventions and Protocols quaint, as well? From the circumstances under which this war was prosecuted to our conduct regarding detainees to our initial official denials that WP was even used on the battlefields of Fallujah – our actions are certainly convincing a lot of people around the world and at home that we regard international law as irrelevant. This continued course of behavior makes it more and more likely that war crimes will be committed, if they haven’t already.
And it will take a long time for us to repair that damage to our reputation.
Posted by protected static as politics at 7:30 AM UTC
No Comments »
Sony/BMG has infected more than half-a-million networks worldwide. Not individual computers – networks. And that’s a conservative estimate…
Oh, and Sony’s tool to remove their DRM tool malware? It actually compromises the user’s computer and potentially exposes it to even worse exploits.
Good job, guys.
Posted by protected static as geek at 1:46 PM UTC
No Comments »
Or at the very least, wind up on an FBI watchlist… Newsweek has a disturbing look at how the FBI is building profiles of alleged eco-terrorists (of course, why they never did this to abortion clinic bombers with the same degree of thoroughness and enthusiasm is beyond me, but there you go…). Short version of the article? “Big Brother’s listening”
Creepy. And reprehensible regardless of the domestic terrorists being targeted, be they on the left or right.
Posted by protected static as politics at 9:14 AM UTC
2 Comments »