5. juni 2003

Headline of the day "Ballmer waxes lyrical about Foghorn Leghorn Longhorn" (The Inquirer) ...or, how many words on -horn can be shoehorned into one headline. 3:05:37 PM    comment []

Guardian deletes Wolfowitz article The Guardian article that falsely claimed that Wolfowitz had given Iraq's oil wealth as the real motive for the war against Iraq has now been deleted from their web site. The old link now gives an error message. I have found no retraction or notice to this effect anywhere on their web site. A number of blogs wrote about the Guardian's misquotation. I wrote about the deception here and here. 3:05:02 PM    comment []

� Sars epidemic "over its peak" Henk Bekedam, WHO's representative in China, says that the Sars epidemic has reached its peak, and should now be on decline worldwide. There has been a marked decline in the number of new cases and in deaths in all affected areas over the last days. 1:18:27 PM    comment []

Misquotations for oil: continued It appears very likely that the original misquoted version of Wolfowitz' statement about Iraq and oil first appeared in the German newspaper Die Welt, where I am not able to locate the article online. It is, however, referenced in another German newspaper, Der Tagesspiegel. Here is the relevant text, translated from German by me: However, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz elaborated on his admission that weapons of mass destruction was not the real reason for the war. To the question about why they [one] treated North Korea differently than Iraq, he said in Singapore according to "Welt": "The most important difference is, that economically we simply had no choice in Iraq. The country is swimming in a sea of oil." Note that the German text has Wolfowitz say the country "schwimmt auf einem Meer von Öl," a rather liberal translation of Wolfowitz' real words "the country floats on a sea of oil." Then pay attention to how The Guardian reports the statement claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil. The word "swimming" doesn't come from the original English, which Guardian writer George Wright obviously hadn't bothered to check, but from this German "translation." So there you have it. German lies translated into bad British journalism, and propagated worldwide. The Guardian apparently starts to feel the heat, as well it should. I just noticed the article, while apparently unchanged, now actually links to the transcript which proves it is bunk. Speaking of Wolfowitz and transcripts: On June 3, Wolfowitz was actually asked by a Japanese journalist if the war in Iraq was over oil. He answered: The notion that the war was ever about oil is a complete piece of nonsense.  If the United States had been interested in Iraq's oil, it would have been very simple 12 years ago or any time in the last 12 years to simply do a deal with Saddam Hussein.  We probably could have had any kind of preferred customer status we wanted if we'd been simply willing to drop our real concerns.  Our real concerns focused on the threat posed by that country -- not only its weapons of mass destruction, but also its support for terrorism and, most importantly, the link between those two things.  So that is his real opinion. This also ties in with the other, well-published distortions of Wolfowitz' statements, the already infamous Vanity Fair interview. I suspect the deputy defense secretary is starting to develop an intense dislike for journalists. I can't blame him. It may be interesting to track this story and its debunking on Google News. 12:00:33 PM    comment []

Infinity isn't a number Not being a math expert by any stretch of anybody's imagination, I have very few pet peeves in math. But I have one: infinity is not a number. And when a recent article on Kuro5hin makes the same argument in a funny, entertaining and educational way, I just have to bring it to your attention. On a related note: When I tried to copy a paragraph from the article to my blog, containing the mathematical symbol for infinity which is represented by the html code ∞ I found that my Radio blog software butchered it into ��. I see no reason whatsoever that a web based tool should butcher a legal html character. Grr. 10:11:00 AM    comment []

The press misquotes Wolfowitz on Iraqi oil Large parts of the world press is right now propagating a direct lie and a misquotation. I am referring to the claim that US Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz has confirmed the accusation made by opponents of the Iraq war, that it was really about Iraq's oil resources. The Guardian, a leading British leftist newspaper, makes the following claim: Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed, confirming the worst fears of those opposed to the US-led war. The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil. This version of his statements are all over the European press today. After it was propagated by the largest Norwegian news agent NTB, it was picked up by many Norwegian papers and TV networks (e.g. Aftenposten, VG, Nettavisen, TV2). This story have a prominent placing in the German Der Tagesspiegel and Die Welt (not found online; many Scandinavian papers give these two German papers as their sources) and in the Danish Jyllands-Posten. I can only imagine what French newspapers say. Now, let's examine what Wolfowitz actually said in context. The question was quite correctly why the US has chosen a different approach to North Korea compared to Iraq. Part of his answer contains the statement misquoted above: Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil.  In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq.  The problems in both cases have some similarities but the solutions have got to be tailored to the circumstances which are very different. As we can see, the difference between the two states had nothing to do with US desire to control or acquire Iraq's oil resources. On the contrary, it was Iraq's vast oil wealth that made economic sanctions ineffective. Against North Korea, arguably on the brink of economic collapse, the US has more options available to put economic and political pressure on the regime. Against Saddam Hussein's regime, economic sanctions were tried and - according to Wolfowitz - failed. People may still claim that the coalition attack against Iraq was "about oil." That is an honest opinion, though as I see it a rather naive opinion stemming from ignorance about world politics and economics. What is a fact, however, beyond what people may believe about US motives, is that Wolfowitz statement is being misquoted, and that these newsreports are lying about what he said, intentionally or due to ignorance and incomplete fact-checking. Update 1: The Norwegian Aftenposten, one of the country's most well-reputed newspapers, yanked the original article and have put out an updated article which contains the corrected statement and mentions the misquotations elsewhere. They do not admit they were themselves among the misquoters just a few minutes earlier, though. I emailed Aftenposten about the error, but I don't know if it was my email that influenced the change. Update 2: Word gets around. The Norwegian Nettavisen and TV2 has changed its articles online to get closer to the truth, without indicating the change or admitting they originally misquoted Wolfowitz. VG, Norway's largest newspaper and web site, still contains the fraudulent article. And the German Tagesspiegel is still unashamedly lying. Welt (where I can't find the story online) is apparently the original source of this well-distributed misquotation. 9:41:26 AM    comment []

Judge outlaws price competitiion A judge in northern Brazil has ruled that petrol stations should have at least 22% profit, which will lead to an increase in prices for many of them. The ruling came because competition had lowered petrol prices, threatening some stations with bankruptcy. The judge has understandably enraged car owners. 8:03:50 AM    comment []

Teaching and technology Have a school, add computers. It's not necessarily a succsess, even though most people probably agree that computer technology offers many exciting opportunities for education. And, of course, learning about computers and the Net is crucial for anyone growing up today. The Journal of Literacy and Technology is well worth a look if you are interested in these topics. 4:54:06 AM    comment []

Patriotic sex The Moonlite BunnyRanch, a legal brothel in Nevada, offers free sex to the first 50 servicemen or -women who served in Iraq who comes in through the door. Proprietor Dennis Hof sees this unusual act of patriotism as the most natural thing in the world: "We want to feel patriotic and feel we are doing something for our servicemen," he said. "If we owned a Dairy Queen we would be giving away free ice cream, but ... we own the sex capital of the world. What better way is there to give back?" After the stunt on that carrier, would Bush qualify? 2:14:50 AM    comment []

Middle-East hardliners oppose peace move Shortly after Sharon and Abu Mazen agreed to make concessions toward peace, they were met with harsh criticism from rightists in both camps. Israeli hard-liners violently oppose a Palestinian state, seeing any land concessions as rewarding terrorism. Jewish hard-liners also argue the point that the whole land was given to the Jews by God. Palestinan hard-liners also oppose the "road map" on similar grounds. Hamas has rejected calls for a cease-fire, reaffirming its goal to destroy Israel and bring the entire land under Arab rule. Security is strengthened around Ariel Sharon, as the security forces remember very well the killing of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by a ultra-nationalist in 1995. 2:02:18 AM    comment []

Conservative, me? Fellow blogger Silver Rights links to my entry about gay Republicans and makes many interesting comments on the strained relationship between the Republican "heartland" and gays. I jumped a bit at being referred to as a "conservative blogger," as I fit badly into most political blocks. I may be conservative on many issues, in particular security and international affairs, but I am definately not on the issue of gay rights. I also feel my sentence "Who else should conservatives vote for anyway?" was misunderstood. It was not directed at the Log Cabin Republicans, but of course it does apply to them to. It was a reference to the right-wing Republicans who now threaten to jump ship if the Bush administration embraces gays. If they should abandon the GOP and vote for an independent candidate (e.g. Buchanan), they would just help the Democrats to power. No matter how much distate they have for whatever Bush should do in this question, they hate the alternative even more. That is the power of conquering the centre in a two-party system. Bush understood this well. Clinton understood it, but I am not sure Al Gore or the current democrat nominees do. Both parties have already secured the extreme fringes of their position (alas for Al Gore, the extreme left didn't appreciate the point and voted for Nader). What they are competing for is the undecided voters in the middle. A successful candidate thus portrays his opponent as an extremist of the other block. A democratic nominee will want to exaggarate the power of the Christian right over George Bush, to sway centrists over to him. Bush, on the other hand, will play off his opponent as an extreme liberal. The candidate who succeeds in convincing the voters in the middle will win. There is a rub, of course. If Bush should embrace gay rights too closely and alienate the extreme right too much, they may jump ship. And the unlucky Democratic candidate must be careful to not push his left over to Nader's camp again. So far, it seems that hardline Republican voters understand the "better the devil you know" argument better than the Democrats tend to do. 12:47:23 AM    comment []

Bush shrugs it off, Blair may be in trouble over WMDs There are growing allegations that both the British and US governments mislead the public over the WMDs in Iraq. If such weapons are not found, there may be inquiries on both sides of the Atlantic in why intelligence was misleading and, the big question, whether the governments distorted the evidence to make a case for war. Currently, there are preparations underway to start parliamentary investigations in both countries. Tony Blair's opponents have every reason to be jealous at the legal powers of the US Congress in securing information. The investigative committees in the UK both lack teeth. The political fallout, however, is likely to be much more serious in Britain. A majority of Americans tend to take the attitude of "so what, we got rid of a dangerous dictator." 12:06:03 AM    comment []

© Copyright 2003 Jan Haugland. Last update: 01.07.2003; 00:25:04.