5. juni 2003

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 []

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 []

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 []

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 []

© Copyright 2003 Jan Haugland. Last update: 01.07.2003; 04:32:40.