Dave Pollard's environmental philosophy, creative works, business papers and essays.

trust your instincts

< £ Salon Bloggers & >

	March 27, 2003

AND YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE A NEWS JUNKIE Just two quick posts today, as I catch up on work backlog, my reading of others' blogs and research for two big posts that should be ready this weekend. The Agonist warblog has become so popular that it has had to put up a fourth mirror site and revamp its comments software to handle the more than two million hits per day it has been receiving since the start of the war. Offering readers minute-by-minute details on the war, and apologizing for bathroom and family breaks, engaging writer Sean-Paul Kelley shrugs off his fame as a 'labor of love'. There is no time for 30,000-foot analysis in the blizzard of facts: He just reported that Richard Perle has resigned one of his advisory posts (in light of his obvious conflict of interest), and that Paul Cellucci had the full backing of the Bush regime when he launched his outrageous tirade against Canada Tuesday. A surprised beneficiary of this fact feeding-frenzy is Salon blogger Douglas Anders' The Agora . Due to alphabetical privilege, Doug's blog appears first on The Agonist 's blogroll, which has sent hundreds of Agonist readers to Doug's blog in search of more, pushing The Agora near the top of the Salon rankings. The self-effacing Mr. Anders has been posting only irregularly, and insists his blog 'sucks' (it's actually very good). Good on yer mate -- shows it pays to advertise. I got a bit of a tailwind myself yesterday when MSNBC's Blogspotting covered my How to Be a Successful Activist post. 7:08:08 PM  trackback []  comment []

A DIAGNOSIS FOR GULF WAR SYNDROME There's been a lot of discussion lately about depleted uranium as an unlikely cause of Gulf War Syndrome. Now it appears there may be an explanation of why so many Gulf War vets, and so many Iraqi civilians, have come down with symptoms consistent with chemical poisoning. The New Scientist reports that as much as 10% of the population has a sensitivity to even miniscule traces of chemicals, and that as a result they suffer permanent brain damage with as much as a whiff of these substances. This susceptibility is exacerbated by stress, which is why, proponents of the theory say, it is so prevalent in war areas and war situations. This same 10% have negative reactions to the drug pyridostigmine given to U.S. troops during the Gulf War (and also in this war) to increase their resistance to nerve agents. This, of course, raises interesting ethical questions. If chemical weapons used by both sides in a war leave 90% of combatants and civilians unaffected but debilitate or kill the other 10%, is their use justifiable, and who's responsible for reparations? 7:05:47 PM  trackback []  comment []

© Copyright 2004 Dave Pollard. Last update: 19/02/2004; 2:41:14 PM.