Really interesting, insight Salon cover story on Bjork by Thomas Bartlett: All hail the ice queen.

Every time I see her pic or hear her name, I hear that squealing in my head, "Ha! Ha! Reageena. Ha! Ha! Reageena. Ha! Ha! ReAA-gEE-ee-ee-ee--ee-ena."

Did I spell that right?

Why are we always propping up such despicable people? Oh, I know the answer: It's easier. They usually have a lot of power already, so the lazy way out is to just prop up some vile goon who has already been oppressing his countrymen for years.

And then we wonder why the more heavily we back a regime the more likely its population is to despise us. Shrub seems determined to continue the pattern in Afghanistan. What a comforting piece AP posted this afternoon:

Afghans see U.S.-backed warlords as enemy

Nearly two years after the collapse of Taliban rule, ordinary Afghans like Jan say they are losing faith in the United States and its coalition partners.

They point to rampant corruption, President Hamid Karzai's weak leadership and the behavior of U.S-backed warlords whose private armies operate with impunity throughout most of Afghanistan.

And the effect is not hard to imagine:

Their disillusionment is strengthening Taliban holdouts whose attacks are getting bolder. Nowadays the rebels don't fear being turned over to the authorities; they say most villages give them food and shelter.

"The big mistake is from the Americans. They want to bring peace to Afghanistan with thieves and killers. The Americans after two years have learned nothing," said Abdul Raouf, a car dealer in the eastern city of Jalalabad. "Every day the situation is worse."

 . . . then you're either psychic, a film critic, major insider or a big liar. It hasn't opened yet, but it's getting big buzz, with Oscar noms bandied about for Murray and costar Scarlett Johansson. She is the reason I'm writing.

In 1996--when she was maybe 14--she starred in the most amusing and endearing piece of work, which has stuck with me ever since. Here's the synopsis of Manny and Lo:

Runaway teenage sisters Manny and Lo have escaped from numerous foster homes, and are accustomed to living on the road. The sisters' lives take a bizarre turn when they kidnap a very strange woman named Elaine, and shack up at an abandoned house in the woods. But when Lo makes a shocking revelation, it actually serves to bond Elaine with her young captors, and the three form a makeshift family.
However, many surprises await this trio, and their unity may be the only thing they can count on...

That's an accurate description, but it's all in the execution. She and this movie will break your heart.

Manny and Lo was her first film, and she hasn't landing in anything really big yet, (unless you count The Horse Whisperer or Ghost World, which you might.) So nice to see her (apparently) blossoming and getting serious recognition. I adore her.

Go rent it. It won't be checked out. (And it played at Sundance, if that makes you any more interested.)

So the Big Scare study used to try to push the ridiculous RAVE act through Congress last year turns out to be bogus. From the W Post (which has a better piece than NYT):

Scientists at Johns Hopkins University who last year published a frightening and controversial report suggesting that a single evening's use of the illicit drug ecstasy could cause permanent brain damage and Parkinson's disease are retracting their research in its entirety, saying the drug they used in their experiments was not ecstasy after all.

The jury is still out on its actual dangers:

. . . But some studies have indicated that the drug can at least temporarily damage neurons that use the mood-altering brain chemical serotonin. Some users also have spiked fevers, which rarely have proven fatal. . . . Advocates of ecstasy's therapeutic potential, including a number of scientists and doctors who believe it may be useful in treating post-traumatic stress disorder or other psychiatric conditions, criticized the study.

Here's the astonishing thing, though. The mistake appears to have been innocent: the lab got to vials the same day, one of ecstasy (MDMA), the other meth, and the labels got switched. But the results were preposterous, and the scientists published them and went to Congress with them anyway. The researchers gave each monkey three doses of X, which is a bit more than most people take, but pretty common. The results:

Two of 10 animals died quickly after their second or third dose of the drug, and two others were too sick to take the third dose. Six weeks later, dopamine levels in the surviving animals were still down 65 percent. That led Hopkins team leader George Ricaurte and his colleagues to conclude that users were playing Russian roulette with their brains. . . . [But critics] wondered why large numbers of users were not dying or growing deathly ill from the drug, as the animals did, and why no previous link had been made between ecstasy and Parkinson's despite decades of use and a large number of studies.

Or as the Times put it: "If a typical Ecstasy dose killed 20 percent of those who took it, the critics said, no one would use it recreationally." Duh. This study didn't pass the most obvious sense-check. Clearly something was wildly off. Either something was done wrong, or monkeys have a completely different reaction to X than humans. Yet they decided to shock the public anyway. And of course the puritan politicians were right there behind them. Pretty irresponsible for a pack of moralists.

No wonder the audience these scientists and moralists are trying to reach is so dismissive of them. Two of my first posts when I revived this blog in June address the government's ridiculous Ecstasy ad campaign, and some solid information on the drug.

The Boston Globe released a poll this morning showing Howard Dean with a 12-point lead over Kerry in New Hampshire.

And finally, research beginning to confirm what everyone who understood the Dean appeal has known for months: he's appealing to the same enthusiasm that drove voters to McCain four years ago. Despite nearly polar stances on most issues (Dean is only moderately liberal, but McCain is extremely conservative):

Potentially more significant is Dean's appeal among voters who backed Senator John S. McCain in 2000: 54 percent of those who supported McCain's maverick candidacy -- and helped the Arizona Republican soundly defeat George W. Bush in the nation's first primary during the last campaign cycle -- said they intend to vote for Dean. Only 15 percent of McCain voters said they were planning to support Kerry.

(Note: these results are all restricted to registered Dem voters, so those are Dems who backed McCain, though there were multitudes of those.)

And reversing earlier results (just after Dean was introduced to much of the electorate by the twin newsmag cover stories), Dean's people are now more solidly behind him:

And in an increasingly polarized political climate, Dean's supporters also showed more enthusiasm for their candidate, suggesting that the rage among Democratic partisans has not subsided. While 32 percent of Dean backers say they will "definitely support" him in the primary, 26 percent of Kerry's supporters say the same for the Massachusetts senator.

The one downside, NH voters were nearly evenly divided on whether Dean or Kerry had the best shot at toppling Bush.

The poll also shows NH looking more and more like a two-man race:

• Dean: 38 percent
• Kerry: 26 percent
• Gephardt: 7 percent
• Lieberman: 7 percent
• Edwards: 6 percent
• Undecided : 9 percent

 But here's a minor twist:

Asked how they would vote if retired General Wesley Clark entered the race, the number of undecided voters jumped from 9 percent to 23 percent (and 5 percent said they would probably vote for Clark, who has said he will announce his intentions in the coming weeks).