These [remixes](http://web.archive.org/web/20140605075002/http://web.archive.org/web/20140605075002/http://www.idlewords.com/biological.html (original) “Ready.gov - Be Informed - Killer Germs - Visual Guide”) (original) of the new government warning labels cracked me up harder than anything I’ve seen or done all week. New-clear’s knocking but no-body’s home! (Via regis.)
So where do we go from here? Terrorism is a real problem, and one that will only get more dangerous. I’ve argued that terrorism is well within the capabilities of the individual, with or without backing from rogue states. I don’t think removing Hussein will make us appreciably safer. Even if stopping rogue states is the best way to combat terrorism, we’re literally months away from seeing North Korea get more than enough nukes, and Pakistan is one coup away from being very unfriendly. As has been accurately observed, the problem of regime change in a rogue state with nukes is a far cry from the problem of regime change in a rogue state without nukes. ...
Recently, the Observer reported on US plans to punish Germany by pulling out US troops. This would hit Germany’s economy fairly hard. Glenn Reynolds covered this in one post. Two days later, Chirac threatened Romania and Bulgaria for their pro-US stances. Reynolds covered this, and covered this, and covered this, and covered this, and covered this, and there are another four or five references which I won’t link. Atrios, who’s more or less Glenn’s counterpart on the left, hit the Rumsfeld issue once and hasn’t commented on Chirac’s threats. No points for ignoring Chirac, but points for relative consistency. ...
First off, the families of those killed or injured in the South Korean subway tragedy have my utmost sympathies. I want to make that clear up front, since I’m about to use it as an example to support my thesis regarding the future of terrorism. I wish it had never happened. I also know it wasn’t terrorism, but it’s relevant nonetheless. ...
And then I wonder: how did we go from [this](http://web.archive.org/web/20110726202231/http://web.archive.org/web/20110726202231/http://people.delphiforums.com/andybeals/thankyou.htm (original) “9-11-2001”) (original) to this?
It’s almost like a bandwagon. Tony Blair said today that Blix will report to the Security Council again, on February 28th. Getting kinda chilly out there by yourself, Bush.
This is the hidden gotcha in Bush’s plan to provide fifteen billion for fighting AIDS in Africa. None of that money can go to groups that perform or promote abortions. Like, say, Planned Parenthood (original). This restriction affects some of the groups which have been working to fight STDs the longest. Meanwhile, there are lawsuits pending in Iowa against InnerChange, an organization that received funds from Texas under Bush’s earlier faith-based initiatives. In fact, Bush has cited InnerChange as the kind of faith-based program he wants to fund as President. This isn’t necessarily proof that Bush intends to break down the wall between church and state, but even if he’s aghast at this sort of thing, it does tend to show that his faith-based initatives have failed to include proper controls in the past. Kevin Drum has the whole story.
Japan has threatened to launch a preemptive strike on North Korea. This is pretty much right on the edge of violating the World War II surrender terms. Possibly those are obsolete and should be reconsidered anyhow, but I’d like to see that done under less frantic circumstances. Man, I’m glad I don’t live in Northeast Asia right now. Edit: Thanks to my anonymous commentor for correcting my geography.
In honor of Jon Carroll’s 2/11 column, and inspired by my friend R. Francis Smith, I present the Candidate X Store (original). Candidate X: he doesn’t like killing people. It is, in my mind, a perfectly chosen phrase. Everything there is priced at cost; I don’t make any money off ‘em. The slogan is thanks to R. Francis.
Eugene Volokh provides me with an excellent launching point for some stuff I’ve been mulling over lately. He’s discussing recent polls which may show that the British public is not behind the US war on Iraq. In his wrapup, he says “I hope British public opinion is not being accurately reported here. But if it is, then just reflects the errors of the British public, not the errors of a hawkish policy.” ...