Europeans Cannot Even Enforce Their Own Travel Ban

In response to the increasingly dictatorial nature of the Zimbabwe regime, the European Union early this year enacted a number of sanctions against Zimbabwe, including a ban on travel by members of Zimbabwe’s government.

But, of course, they didn’t mean it. This month Zimbabwe’s Trade Minister was allowed to travel to Brussels, Belgium — which houses the headquarters for the European Union — for a series of talks related to issues in developing nations (previously Zimbabwean officials made trips to France and Italy). An article on the row in the British newspaper The Independent noted that,

Zimbabwe’s élite has already taken advantage of a loophole in the EU’s travel ban to attend UN-sponsored or international meetings in Italy and France. However critics argue that, by travelling to the EU’s headquarters in Brussels, the minister is exposing the sanctions to particular ridicule.

Something making a mockery of the EU? Imagine that!

Source:

Anger over visa for Zimbabwe minister. Stephen Castle, The Independent, September 26, 2002.

Washington, DC Keystone Kops

The Associated Press reports that police in Washington, DC are once again looking at Ingmar Guandique as a possible suspect in the murder of Chandra Levy. Guandique was arrested and convicted for attacking two female joggers in the same general area that Levy’s remains were found.

The scary thing is that DC police had ruled him out as a suspect apparently based largely on the fact that he passed a lie detector test. Now the police want him to take another lie detector test because they think the first one was faulty.

What is really faulty here is that a pseudoscientific process like a lie detector test is used to rule suspects in or out. Why don’t they just bring Uri Geller and a bunch of kids with dowsing rods in to tell them whether or not Guandique killed Levy. They’re likely to be as accurate as their lie detector test.

Source:

D.C. Police Probing Man in Levy Murder. Associated Press, September 29, 2002.

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend on Affirmative Action

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is running for governor of Maryland. At a recent debate with her opponent, Robert Ehrlich, Townsend pointedly accused Ehrlich of opposing race-based affirmative action. Here’s her stunning defense of such initiatives,

He opposes affirmative action based on race. Well, let me tell you, slavery was based on race. Lynching was based on race. Discrimination is based on race. Jim Crow was based on race., and affirmative action should be based on race.

And she thinks that’s a defense of affirmative action. Oy.

Source:

Gloves come off at political debate. Associated Press, September 27, 2002.

USA Today on Atlas Shrugged

USA Today has an enormous front page story today on, of all things, Ayn Rand’s horrible novel Atlas Shrugged. The article is centered on CEOs reading the book as a defense of what they do in light of corporate scandals.

I’m amazed that busy CEOs would have the time or energy to plow through it. Even though I agree with Rand on many things, Atlas Shrugged is ideological fiction at its worst, including an enormous political speech that goes on for something like 50-70 pages.

But to be fair to Rand, some of the criticism in the USA Today article seems unfair. For example, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, CEO of the Leadership Institute at Yale University, claims that,

Ayn Rand did not anticipate CEOs who would loot their firms for hundreds of millions of dollars beofre bankrupting them.

But if you actually read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead (which is not a very good novel either, but a better polemic than Atlas Shrugged) I think it is clear that Rand did anticipate crooked/corrupt businessmen and lays out quite well her view of such people. Rand certainly was clear in her vehement opposition to fraud, whether originating in the private or public sectors (though she did think, like many of the people interviewed in the USA Today article, that many CEOs and businesses had received a bum rap).

Colin Aric Brian Carnell

On Saturday, Sept. 21, 2002 at 8:50 a.m., my wife, Lisa, gave birth to our second child, Colin Aric Brian Carnell. But to really explain the experience, first you have to know about Christmas 1996.

That was when my daughter decided to be born, and I can without any qualms say it was one of the most hellish experiences I’ve ever been through, and in some ways the second time around was even worse.

Back in 1996, my wife first noticed she seemed to be having more regular contractions very early in the morning. But since they were still very far apart, we drove the 60 minutes or so to a relative’s house for Christmas festivities anyway. We drove back in a nice snowstorm and went directly to the hospital.

Lisa is one of those people who wants as natural a childbirth as possible so she had almost no pain killing drugs (and an epidural was strictly out of the question). I had an abscessed wisdom tooth that was pulled a few days later and was myself in excruciating pain at the time (though I would not have switched places with her for anything). And on top of it all, it took almost 24 hours for my daughter to make her way out.

After that my opinion is that women who do not want epidurals or pain killers must secretly be masochists. Would I want an epidural if I were pregnant woman? Hell no, I’d want at least three of them and all the pain medication doctors are legally allowed to give.

But we should have expected that from the pregnancy which was one long vomit-fest. Lisa literally vomitted 6-12 times a day for almost 6 months. Ah, the miracle of pregnancy and childbirth. The real downside was that Emma came out being just on the edge of being low birth weight. Today she’s almost 6, but people who don’t know her guess she’s 4.

Compared to that, the second pregnancy was a breeze. There was no marathon vomitting and the ultrasounds revealed the child would be at least 7 pounds.

So we go to bed Friday night with Lisa thinking she’s having contractions and she wakes me up at 2:30 a.m. to confirm that indeed the baby is on its way. We both try to sleep for another hour, then wake up our daughter, call the relatives, and head out to the hospital. By this time it is 4:30 a.m. and my neighborhood is still filled with drunken students staggering around. My daughter asks me if all of the people on the street are coming to see Colin be born? I tell her that they might end up at the hospital for different reasons, but definitely not to see her soon-to-be baby brother.

We arrive at the hospital and my in-laws arrive around 6 a.m. or so. And then it starts to look like Christmas 1996 all over again. Lisa’s contractions are becoming longer, more frequent, and obviously much more painful, but she’s not dilating much.

Then Emma starts getting antsy because she didn’t get any sleep and she’s stuck in a boring hospital. So my in-laws take her to a waiting area on a lower floor (there are no waiting areas on the birthing floor) to play for awhile and watch television.

And then everything pretty much happens at high speed. One minute she’s not dilating, the next minute Lisa is screaming her head off, the midwife says she’s fully dilated, and the next thing I know there are 7 or 8 doctors, nurses and other hospital staff in the room. Something about how they’re not getting good readings from the electrodes attached to the baby’s skull.

Then, I can clearly see the head and within a few minutes the baby is out. And then the midwife is doing the most controlled yelling of instructions I’ve ever seen. I look down and see why — there’s a goddamn umbilical cord wrapped once around the baby’s shoulder and then around his neck looking for all the world like some H.R. Giger painting of some alien parasite trying to suck the life out of the baby. The midwife just has this complete look of clarity and serenity, and while she’s yelling to the other doctors and staff that the cord is around the neck, she simultaneously removes the cord in a ballet-esque move that defies all logic. I saw her do it, but I still don’t know exactly how.

I don’t know if my wife saw or heard any of that, but I’m freaking out inside while trying to maintain some outward sense of composure. Once they’ve got the baby on a warming table to boost his temperature, I’m asking how much I need to worry about this. She’s reassuring me that the fetal monitor only indicated any sort of distress for a very brief time, so I shouldn’t worry. Right, tell that to the millions of years of evolutionary instinct that’s still screaming “danger, danger” as if I’d been temporarily awarded an after-the-fact Spidey sense.

Otherwise, the baby and mother are doing fine and the big sister is extremely impressed by it all. More pictures to follow soon.

Good for Buzz Aldrin

Over the past couple weeks, a number of people had weighed in as supporting Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the Moon and, who decked an idiot who asked Aldrin to swear on a Bible that the Moon landing actually took place. The idiot, Bart Sibrel, is one of those folks who think the entire moon landing was staged.

But as much as I’m a fan of Aldrin, it didn’t seem to me that being asked to swear on a Bible that you weren’t a liar was rude, I’m not sure it warranted punching Sibrel out.

But the BBC has the rest of the story in an article about Aldrin being cleared of any charges in the matter. Sibrel lured Aldrin to a hotel on the false claim that he wanted to interview the astronaut. Sibrel then called Aldrin a “thief, liar and coward,” and physically poked Aldrin with the Bible.

And, as he had every right to, Aldrin then decked Sibrel. If I were a celebrity who thought he was doing a straighforward interview, only to end up outside a hotel with some wacko poking me with a Bible and demanding I swear on it that I wasn’t a fraud, I think I’d follow the same course of action.

Ted Rall vs. Wendy Chamberlain

Glenn Reynolds posted a link today to a massively stupid article by Ted Rall rehashing the lame conspiracy theory that the war in Afghanistan is really about oil. There are so many things wrong with Rall’s version of this conspiracy theory, that it’s difficult to know where to begin. So let me just stick to one of the early targets in Rall’s essay, former U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan, Wendy Chamberlain. Here’s what Rall says about Chamberlain,

U.S. ambassador to Pakistan Wendy Chamberlain met with PakistanÂ’s oil minister to discuss reviving the old Unocal deal on the third day of the bombing campaign, October 10, 2001. This was when the U.S.-aligned Northern Alliance still controlled just five percent of the country and defeat of the Taliban was still anything but guaranteed.[xxiii]

[xxiii] Frontier Post, Peshawar, Pakistan, October 11, 2001.

If you do a Google search on Wendy Chamberlain and Unocal you will find hundreds of left wing web sites repeating this claim. Rall makes an apparent error in his citation, though. Every other left wing conspiracy site puts this story as appearing in the Frontier Post on October 10, 2001, not on the 11th.

Unfortunately, the Frontier Post does not apparently maintain archives of its web site, so tracking down what the Frontier Post actually wrote about Chamberlain’s meeting is not easy. However, doing Google searches I ran across a web discussion group where someone had the entire text of the Frontier Post’s October 10, 2001 story on Chamberlain’s meeting. Here it is:

From The Pakistan Frontier Post

ISLAMABAD: The US Ambassador to Pakistan Wendy Chamberlain paid a courtesy call on the Federal Minister for Petroleum and Natural Resources, Usman Aminuddin here Tuesday and discussed with him matters pertaining to Pak-US cooperation in the oil and gas sector.

During the meeting the Petroleum Minister briefed the US Envoy on the ongoing and future development activities in the oil, gas and mineral sectors, privatization process, salient features of the new onshore and offshore exploration policies and opportunities for the prospective investors.

Usman Aminuddin said that the government was attaching high priority to the promotion of these vital fields of the economy aimed at accelerating socio-economic progress in the country.

He said that Pakistan is endowed with the fifth largest coal reserves in the world and the government is focusing specific attention to exploit them as soon as possible with a view to reduce the heavy dependence on oil and gas.

The Petroleum Minister said that a number of US oil and gas companies were successfully operating in Pakistan and were playing a tremendous role in the oil and gas exploration activities.

He invited the US investors to increase their participation in the petroleum and coal sector activities for the mutual benefit.

Usman Aminduddin also briefed the Ambassador on the proposed Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan gas pipeline project and said that this project opens up new avenues of multi dimensional regional cooperation particularly in view of the recent geo-political developments in the region.

Ms Wendy Chamberlain said that the United States attaches great importance to its relations with Pakistan.

She informed that the US Government had lifted a number sanctions ton Pakistan which would help revive it s national economy.

The Ambassador expressed the hope that the US investors would avail the opportunities in the oil, gas and mineral sectors of Pakistan.

Rall casts the article as claiming that Chamberlain met with the Petroleum Minister to talk about reviving the Unocal pipeline project, whereas the Frontier Post article is quite clear that this was a general meeting about petroleum and coal-related issues where the Pakistani Petroleum Minister raised the issue of the pipeline and apparently had to brief Chamberlain on the details of that proposal. Reading between the lines, Chamberlain appears to have been noncommittal (and for good reason — the pipeline is a nonstart for business reasons even with the Taliban out of the way).

Now, Rall could conceivably be referring to some other article the Frontier Post published about Chamberlain’s meeting. He should either produce that article or withdraw his claim about Wendy Chamberlain plotting to restart the Unocal pipeline project.

Source:

Peshawar Frontier Post article.

Gullible People

I’m really taken aback by the number of people who are posting this alleged misdirected e-mail.

Okay, I’ll grant there is a remote chance it is legitimate, but it has all of the hallmarks of a hoax.

And yet dozens and dozens of people — especially the more-skeptical-than-thou webloggers — are posting this e-mail as if it must be true without any apparent attempt to verify it (a Google search on the individuals in the e-mail turns up nothing). It’s like it’s 1995 all over again.

What’s next? Are these folks going to be warning us about the Good Times virus? Gee, somebody sent it to them in an e-mail, it must be true.

Aaaargh.

Dave Winer on Conflict of Interest

Watching the principals involved go back and forth over RSS 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, whatever.0, is certainly entertaining. Imagine what these people could do if they didn’t have to spend all that time fighting with each other?

Anyway, le’affair RSS has devolved into threats of lawsuits, discussion of doing Winer’s bad ticker in with bad food, and other assorted silliness.

Now, I don’t know much about (actually I don’t know anything) about the various technical issues surrounding RSS, but I do have a little experience with media ethics. And for once I find myself in complete agreement with Winer — this story about RSS aggregators for The Guardian is the sort of thing that would result in someone getting fired at most newspapers (at any respectable newspaper).

As Winer notes, this is more advertising than news copy and the author praises people in the article whom he has a relationship with. You can get away with writing puff pieces about your friends at some college newspapers, but at most newspapers that would be strictly forbidden.

Winer writes,

The Guardian requests an apology. For what? They ran a tainted review. [Ben] Hammersley is a participant in the debate over the future of syndication technology, yet he wrote a review for the Guardian where that was not disclosed. Now, either Hammersley didn’t tell them, or they don’t care, or British newspapers run ads without saying they’re ads. Whatever it is, this whole thing stinks. How dare they bully me into silence.

Winer’s absolutely right. Either Hammersley didn’t disclose or The Guardian thought it was irrelevant. Either way it’s lousy journalism.

The NFL’s Lousy Medical Ethics

ESPN has an excellent article about the conflict of interest that team doctors in the National Football League face as well as the surprisingly low level of care that athletes making hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars a year receive.

The things that Jeff Novak faced from the Jacksonville Jaguars team doctor is just obscene, but unique only because Novak’s leg wound is just so visibly disgusting — that and the idiocy of the team doctor maintaining it was appropriate to do surgery on Novak’s leg at a stadium in non-sterile conditions.

One of the worst incidents I remember (though the player and team escape me) was a team doctor who was giving a player a pain killing shot and ended up puncturing his lung.

A major part of the problem is that the team doctor’s rely on their connections with the team to build their practices. As such, it is in their interest to put the coaches and owners demands above the medical needs of players.

Source:

At what price a player’s pain? Tom Farrey, ESPN.Com, Sept. 12, 2002.