That's a "Fresh" Rating on RottenTomatoes

From Meteor Blades's DailyKos Diary:

Data from the respected British marketing research firm Opinion Research Business, indicate that as many as 1,220,580 Iraqis have died as a result of the war and occupation of Iraq since March 2003.

A representative sample of 1,461 adults 18 or older answered this question:

"Q: How many members of your household, if any, have died as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 (i.e, as a result of violence rather than a natural death such as old age)? Please note that I mean those who were actually living under your roof."

Results:

None - 78%
One - 16%
Two - 5%
Three - 1%
Four or more - 0.002%

As a friend notes, "But every last corpse was at least free from Saddam's tyranny."

tags technorati : Iraq, Iraq Deaths

Genetic Imperialism and the Law of Unintended Consequences

Or did somebody plan this?

Researchers from the Nairobi-based International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) said that the global market was dominated by a few breeds, selected for their high-yield characteristics.

They added that a report published by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) found that 90% of cattle in industrialised nations came from only "six tightly defined breeds".

But these breeds, from northern temperate regions, were displacing long-established farm animals that were able to cope with conditions found in many developing nations, which was home to 70% of the world's breeds.

They warned that Uganda's indigenous ankole cattle could become extinct within 20 years because it was being displaced by the holstein-friesian, which was able to produce more milk.

However, they said that some farmers had lost their entire herds during a recent drought because the friesians were unable to walk long distances to reach the nearest water supply.

tags technorati : cattle livestock genetic engineering

Note to President Bush: They Only Threaten their own People

Remember when the Clinton White House gave in to blackmail and made an agreement with North Korea, instead of calling Kim Jong Il the Axis of Evil-ite he really is? Pres. Bush was bold enough and principled enough to do this, but he has not gone far enough: we should just call KJI, "Dr. Evil." In any case, Bush was not so foolish as to actually do anything about North Korean nukes, because first we needed to make sure that Iraq couldn't use the WMDs they had stockpiled. But it turns out there were no stockpiles in Iraq. So this time, Bush having learned from his mistakes, the White House will first make certain that Iran and North Korea actually have nukes before a US invasion.

And that policy sure seems to be working. There's one possible glitch, though: they'll have to deal with the fact that NK's nukes look about as dangerous as Iraq's nuclear arsenal at the time of the Second Gulf War. The Economist helpfully points this out, even while failing to appreciate the subtle underlying genius of the Bush strategy.

"Meanwhile, the administration of President George Bush, though occasionally sounding tough, allowed the six-party talks to drift, its mind on challenges elsewhere, notably Iraq."

Nunh-uh. The Economist did not just say that. Iraq a distraction? See? They clearly don't get it. But in spite of this lapse on the part of the editors, they do spot a real potential obstacle to the Bush plan.

In the near term, North Korea's nuclear capabilities are more likely to pose a greater risk to North Koreans than to the neighbours. [ . . . ] The bombs, however, are fairly crude—in the underground test, the nuclear reaction was probably triggered by a large conventional charge. [ . . . ] So the immediate threats from North Korea's new capability come from radioactive leaks into the atmosphere and North Korea's groundwater. [ . . . ]

The action will now move to the UN Security Council. Australia has already said it will advocate tougher UN sanctions against North Korea, blocking North Korean funds and limiting the ability of North Koreans to travel.

For now, it looks like the immediate threats from NK's nuclear capabilities are only to NK civilians: radioactive leaks and UN sanctions, which are also sure to hurt NK civilians more than KJI. We learned that from Iraq, too (remember the children Madeleine Albright said it was worth killing?). Surely, this will also be the case in Iran, except that Iran's technology is probably better than NK's.

If we're going to get the war(s) going, it needs to be clear that their nuclear efforts threaten us. We've got Iran tied to terrorism, so we can say that they may arm terrorists to attack the US. OK, Iran: check.

North Korea, however . . . what are they going to do? Bomb the ROK into the stone age one hundred times instead of ten? Their pathetic missile tests and 1kiloton nuke test don't even rate, yet. The Bush White House should heed the wisdom of The Economist: KJI needs some technology transfer if he's going to become dangerous enough to rate an invasion. He also needs hooked up with some quality terrorist organizations.

There's time, though. We don't want to invade NK and Iran at the same time, not because Our Mighty Military couldn't handle it, of course, but because the political benefits of wars need to be stretched out over time. Why get one war bump for two wars when you can get one war bump for each if you time it right?

But they need to get on the stick in case something goes wrong with Iran. Always good to have a Plan B.