If You Read The Lancet, The Terrorists Will Have Won

Here's a leftover pic from my recent trip to Trinidad. Photographer Andrew Currie had left it out of his initial set because my face appears a bit blurry. I'm actually thankful for this, since the blurriness subtracts five years from my appearance!

The gentleman with me is, of course, the great Austin Clarke. It was one of the highlights of my young writing career, sharing the stage with Austin.

There is more debate to be had regarding the Lancet study which estimates 650,000 dead as a result of the war in Iraq. I'm particularly riled up over a comment made by a visitor on Rondi's blog, essentially that the Lancet is "siding with the Jihadis". This is the sort of the hypocriticial discourse-suppressing crap that makes my blood boil. Apparently, unless a science journal publishes data that supports the pro-war agenda, it's "siding with the Jihadis".

Here is a very readable article that well summarizes the dimensions of the study. It points out that the take-home message isn't the exact number of estimated excess deaths, but the magnitude of the estimate; it far exceeds Bush's "off the cuff" estimate of 30,000.

Someone --I think it was D-Mack or Mischa-- had asked if the study's methodology was a commonly used one. In response, here are some quotes from people who should know. I got them from this source.

"This is the most practical and appropriate methodology for sampling that we have in humanitarian conflict zones."
-Richard Brennan, head of health programmes, International Rescue Committee

"The methodology used is consistent with survey methodology that has long been standard practice in estimating mortality in populations affected by war." -Professor Mike Toole, Centre for International Health

"I don't think there's anyone who's been involved in mortality research who thinks there's a better way to do it in unsecured areas. I have never heard of any argument in this field that says there's a better way to do it." -Professor Richard Garfield, Columbia University

"The sampling is solid. The methodology is as good as it gets. It is what people in the statistics business do." -John Zogby, Zogby International

"[Study design is] rigorous, [with] well-justified analysis of the data." -Professor Frank Harrell Jr, Chair of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University

"Given the conditions [in Iraq], it's actually quite a remarkable effort. I can't imagine them doing much more in a much more rigorous fashion." -Steve Heeringa, Director of the Statistical Design Group at the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan

"[The study is] statistically reliable". -Sir Richard Peto, Professor of Medical Statistics at the University of Oxford

"They have enhanced the precision this time around and it is the only scientifically based estimate that we have got where proper sampling has been done and where we get a proper measure of certainty about these results." -Professor Sheila Bird of the Biostatistics Unit at the Medical Research Council

Let us not forget that the authors of the study aren't a bunch of freshly graduated Masters students or freshman professors looking to build a career. Rather, they include world class public health researchers from the Bloomberg School of Public Heath at John Hopkins University. During my two years consulting to the NIH in Washington, DC, I was daily humbled by the brilliant epidemiologists that issued from that school.

This doesn't mean the study is not flawed. I reserve final judgement for when the full methodology becomes available. I just wanted to point out three things: that some very credible leading minds in the area approve of the methodology; that the authors are themselves leading public health researchers; and that the study was peer-reviewed before being allowed onto the pages of the Lancet.

Moreover, there are competing sources of bias at play:

1. The much discussed "main street bias" which would overestimate deaths, if indeed this bias is in play;
   
2. The convenience sample bias that I mentioned yesterday, the one that requires researchers to stay within safe areas, which would drastically underestimate deaths;
3. The fact that if entire households or families are destroyed, there would be no one to provide death certificates for the researchers; this would underestimate deaths;
4. The researchers' inability to interview families that have fled from Iraq could bias the results in either direction. If they fled because some had already died, then this would underestimate deaths. If they fled before any one of them could be killed, then this would overestimate deaths.

Any fair and rational discussion of the study's relevance and rigor must touch upon all of these biases, not just the ones that skew the results in a direction unfavourable to a preconceived agenda.

Slate's Fred Kaplan, in an article highly critical of the study, summarizes the upshot this way:

"This point should be emphasized. Let's say that the study is way off, off by a factor of 10 or five—in other words, that the right number isn't 655,000 but something between 65,500 and 131,000. That is still a ghastly number—a number that, apart from all other considerations, renders this war a monumental mistake. Here's the key question: Had it been known ahead of time that invading Iraq would result in the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis (or 50,000, or pick your own threshold number), would the president have made—would Congress have voted to authorize, would any editorial writer or public figure have endorsed—a decision to go to war?

"Here lies the danger of studies that overstate a war's death toll. The war's supporters and apologists latch on to the inevitable debunkings and proclaim that really 'only 100,000' or 'only 200,000' people have died. It's obscene—it sullies and coarsens the political culture—to place the word 'only' in front of such numbers."

The source article forthe quotes above is definitely worth reading, as it spells out well the media's trend of focusing on the minimal controversy while ignoring the study's message. One telling quote is from a BBC reporter who was asked why he quoted non-experts while ignoring true experts. He said: "I quoted those people because they are players."

Does that make you as nauseous as it does me? I'm reminded of the so-called "controversy" surrounding Climate Change. There is no controversy. Pretty close to 100% of the global scientific community agrees that Climate Change is real. But the media, in an effort to be "fair and balanced" gives equal time to industry mouthpieces who deny the science, giving rise to the illusion of disagreement among scientists.

Anybody Know Any Christian Statistician Jokes?

We start with a bang... with Robert Fisk's allegations of Israel having used a uranium bomb in this year's war with Lebanon. I wonder what the moral distinction is between a battlefield "uranium bomb" and the terrorist "dirty bomb" so feared by the talking heads?

We continue with this article courtesy of EK Hornbeck. It's actually the transcript of a speech given by torture victim Maher Arar. Definitely worth reading to get a full understanding of his ordeal and of the guilt of both the American and Canadian governments. I will never forget meeting a foppish middle-aged housewife here in Ottawa, the spouse of an acquaintance of a famous (yet unnamed) Canadian author who is a friend of mine; the housewife exclaimed, quite unprovoked, "Well that Arar fellow must have been up to something. Why else would they have tortured him?" That, my droogs, is the level of ig'nance we face.

Good news: the Public Health Strengthening Project in Guyana, the one on which I consult, has been shortlisted for a major award called, "the Canadian Award for International Cooperation"! We find out on Tuesday if we've won!

So let's talk a bit more about that Lancet article which estimates 650,000 have been killed in Iraq as a result of the war. On a comment on another blog, someone had written that the number seemed unrealistic since the UK had endured the same order of casualities after several years of Nazi bombing during WWII. What people need to realize is that the Lancet study purports to measure all downstream casualities of war, not just those killed by bombs and bullets. That means it includes deaths by malnutrition, disease, random violence, suicide, etc, if they can be linked to the invasion/occupation. This strikes me as a very proper way to conceptualize the violence of war, especially in the modern context wherein infrastructure destruction is so easy, so prevalent and has such a devastating long term impact on quality of life.

Here is a more detailed discussion of the study's controversy. Meanwhile, the media has made a big deal about a Statistics Canada statistician named Scott Gilbreath having "debunked" the Lancet study on his blog. Gilbreath is a self-described "Perpetually perplexed Christian statistician" and his political posts are unsurprisingly pro-neocon. That's his business, and he's entitled to it and to his opinions; I begrudge him nothing. Good for him for not shirking from his identity.

Interestingly, though, Gilbreath's most popular post, titled "Lancet study of Iraqi deaths is statistically unsound and unreliable", is missing at the time of this blog post (2:AM Monday morning). This missing post is purportedly chock full of juicy analyses tearing down the Lancet study's methodology. So why has it been pulled? Anyone? Bueller?

You will recall from my last post that "main street bias" has been the charge lain by the study's detractors and by the conservative echo chamber. Well, there's another bias at play in the study, a convenience sampling bias resulting from security concerns preventing researchers from entering dangerous areas. Interestingly, the result of this bias is to underestimate the death toll due to war-related violence.

So if these detractors are so keen on exposing the poor methodology of s scientific study, why have they only chosen to discuss a bias toward overestimation? It wouldn't be because --gasp!-- they have a pro-war agenda to prop up?

The simple fact is that every population study is rife with methodological errors and compromises, some of which will bias results in one direction, while others will bias results in the other direction. The question no one has yet asked is, which bias is more potent and thus has more influence over the reported results?

I remain favourably disposed toward the study. I'm impressed by its creativity and rigor, given the difficulty of the study environment. The issue of insufficient test clusters is discussed in more detail by the Christian statistician here, and I'm unsure of what to think about it. It seems to me that if his concerns are largely a sample size issue, then the wide confidence interval accounts for some of it.

You hardcore statisticians out there.... I know you're reading. Pipe up, already! This is your chance to contribute to some important shiznit!

Okey-Doke, Mr. Benny

Many thanks to S.M. for showing me and the other S.M. around the, um, lovely town of Rochester, NY, yesterday. Sure, it can be a drabbish industrial place, but it's got its charms, including hot women, emo music stores, parking spots sufficiently comfortable for napping, and life-shortening BBQ places. Oh yes, and I also learned a new word: "ig'nant". It's up there with, "A-iight".

Speaking of my American friends, in preparation for your upcoming mid-term elections, I share with you this site, which guides you on "intelligent voting", courtesy of Cousin Ajay, whom I've never known to actually cast a vote.

Now this, courtesy of Uncle D., goes out to all my fellow grammar nazis, we who have long suffered in a society that does not know when to correctly use "less than" vs "fewer". It seems the misplacement of a single comma has resulted in a multimillion dollar court judgement.

From some relative or other, check out the GMAC driving test. I scored 80%, hence the $300 speeding ticket.

Mr (or is it Ms? Hmmmm) EK Hornbeck sends us this tidbit discussing "an increasingly influential movement on the [American] far right" that has waged war against the Constitution. Well, no shit, Sherlock. I haven't downloaded the linked documentary yet, but I will. Personally, I blame Abraham Lincoln, the first real "imperial" President, the one who, as far as I know, was the first US leader to conveniently suspend hallowed American rights, such as habeas corpus, in the name of national security. The idiocy that is Bush is a logical extension of such dangerous arrogance.

Hornbeck also sends us this story about a study confirming what many heterosexual men have already suspected: women are more likely to be grumpy in the morning. The article stretches a bit, though, and tries to justify this behaviour with the "women have more to do in the morning" argument. I'm open to this possibility, but judging solely by anecdotal evidence, even the ones who have nothing to do in the morning are grumpy. So nerts to that excuse.

Not sure if I've discussed this yet, but there was a Lancet article recently that extrapolated a 650,000 Iraqi death toll as a result of the US invasion. The Guardian now reports that some scientists are suggesting the methodology of the study was flawed by virtue of something called "main street bias".

If true, this constitutes a serious methodological flaw in the original (Johns Hopkins) paper. Main street bias is simply when researchers only sample from convenient sources, i.e. those near the main street. In Iraq, it might be true that those on the main streets are more likely to be exposed to violence, hence resulting in an analytical result skewed toward finding more violence and death.

However, as someone who does methodological reviews for The Lancet, it seems to me highly unlikely that such a glaring flaw would have been allowed publication in the first place in such a hallowed journal. The Johns Hopkins School of Public Health graduates top epidemiological minds, and this alleged flaw is basic, basic epidemiology. As the study's detractors are physicists and economists, it occurs to me that they might be unaware that such a bias would be among the first elements controlled for within the public health mindset.

More importantly is the simple fact that the full methodology of the study, to the best of my knowledge, has not yet been published. Journals like The Lancet typically keep the boring details of things like sampling strategies in reserve for later online publication. So the detractors are basing their criticisms on assumptions of methodology, not on actual methodology. Yet, the rightwingnutosphere as gobbled up and rebroadcast this criticism with much expected zeal and without asking the right questions, such as, "did the researchers actually do what they are being accused of doing?"

According to the linked story, the Johns Hopkins folks claims that they did indeed sample from non-main street populations. If indeed their methodology is vindicated by the greater scientific community, I wonder if the rightwingnutosphere will publish such an event with as much missionary zeal as they did the initial detraction?

King Of The Castle, Lord Of The Manor

The $5 million public health project in Guyana that I consult on has entered the fourth year of a four year mandate. Some of the team members are pictured to the left. I'm quite proud of all the good work we've done, and hope to do more of it with other projects in the future.

Guess what May 7th is! Not only is it the birthday of my near genetic twin, National Masturbation Day! Coincidence? Hmmm. I know how I'm going to celebrate.

Meanwhile, EK Hornbeck sends us this article which further plumbs that oft-cited statistic about married men living longer than single men.

As far as I know, the statistic is accurate; I have no beef with it. But it seems to me that discussants of this topic tend to suffer the same pathology that besets many anti-porn activists, namely an inability to distinguish between correlation and causation.

See, it may well be the case that marriage confers a health benefit upon men. But it is equally likely that unhealthy men tend not to marry. Both scenarios produce the same statistic. So beware of lay articles that discuss statistics like this one, but which fail to sufficienly explore all the various interpretations.

It reminds me of an old joke.... Why do men die before their wives? Because they want to!

(It's a joke. Get over it.)

The Hornbeck Stops Here

Do recall, the Daily Perv Link (TM) is no more. That means that under no circumstances should you click here.

Once again we have reports of conservative groups trying to ban pornography. The money quote from the article is:

"The connection between the use of pornography and sex crimes, especially where it involves children is obvious though the other side always wants us to prove the correlation.” (emphasis mine)

God forbid that we should require someone to provide evidence for their assertions! My take on this debate has been chronicled here and here. Quite simply, are these fools even aware of the distinction between correlation and causation?

A Deonandia reader who has been re-dubbed "E.K. Hornbeck" for security reasons sends us this story of a "top US general" suggesting that Donald Rumsfeld is "inspired by God". The truly ironic part of the the story is that the general uttered these words in defence of Rumsfeld!

Meanwhile, Darth Vadum sends us this op-ed exploring how/why Bush's extreme conservative base may be abandoning him. Well duh, they ain't stupid. Now that the majority of Americans have joined the wisdom of Deonandia and have driven the putty-head's approval rating to less than his IQ, everybody's jumping ship. But who will be the new puppet? McCain? Giuliani?

Bush's time is over. And even the neocon dawn was just the glare off the foreheads of a few balding intellectuals; their time is over, too. But they might still do some more irreparable damage before they are relegated to history's delete file. Mr. Hornbeck sends us this argument for voting out Bush's neocon successors, since, in the author's opinions, a vote against the Republicans is a vote against nuclear war. Hornbeck also sends us word of this.

We leave you with this video from Darth Vadum. Its authenticity is debatable

That Crazy Qanack

Hey, we can all use some family planning advice.

Sonja sends us this bit of news, about Al Gore winning a major literary award for his climate change book. It's all part of the master plan, people... Gore in 2008.

Okay, time to pipe up about the whole Michael Ignatieff controversy. For my non-Canadian readers, this is what happened. Ignatieff, the leading contender for the leadership of the Liberal party, and hence the likely next Prime Minister, went on French media and commented that a particular event in the recent Israel-Hezbollah conflict constituted a "crime de guerre", or war crime.

(I talked about both Qana massacres --the ones in 1996 and 2006-- here.)

The current Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, in one of his dumbest political moves yet, then commented that this was indicative of the entirety of the Liberal leadership's "anti-Israel" slant. The Liberals then lined up and called Harper "disgraceful" and "divisive" for his comments, yadda yadda.

Ignatieff, meanwhile, started backpedalling to distance himself from his own comments, even going so far as to arrange a trip to Israel to show how pro-Israel he is. Unsurprisingly, the trip has been cancelled.

I'm quite disappointed in Ignatieff. He played this all wrong. He was correct to label the Qana incident a war crime, or at least to express concern over it. His detractors were wrong to then label him "anti-Israel" for the comments. It's a George Bush move: to demand that the world conflate patriotism with blind loyalty. Ignatieff should have gone on the offensive and demanded some rationalism from his opponents.

How is it "anti-Israel" to comment on a single event in the conflict? For that matter, how is it "anti-American" to demand that illegal American military prisons and torture camps be decommissioned? Would it have been "anti-Canadian" to question the ethics and legality of our Japanese internment camps during WWII? Was it "anti-Canadian" to have demanded that our military be held accountable for its crimes in Somalia? See?

Ignatieff, after all, is one of the most pro-Israeli Canadian politicans not in the Conservative party. An objective assessment of his record concludes that he is both pro-Israel and anti-war crime, a position that is both defensible and electable. Why couldn't he simply say that? His detractors, Harper among them, need some serious lessons in both logic and ethics.

And Ignatieff needs to grow a spine.

But if you want to know Ignatieff's real problem, read this.

Those Tyrannical Buildings

Happy 45th birthday to Brother Bhash, who sends us these remarkable photos from Mars. The "blueberries" are in fact made of hematite, and are likely indicative of surface water in Mars's ancient past.

I had to share this bit of email from a friend (CM) in Thailand, who asked a cab driver there about the recent coup. Here's how her conversation went:

CM: So, how has the political situation been the past few weeks?

Taxi driver: Yes, the buildings have been growing up so high. Some like it, but I don't.

So there you have it. What does this mean? Who the fuck knows?

Courtesy of Deonandia's favourite Parisienne, Lady G., comes this. Enjoy!

The Stuff

In the UK, a man named Paul Gibbons tracked down another man named John Jones, after the two of them had exchanged insults online, and Gibbons beat the holy crap out of Jones. Thus, "web rage" is born, and it fills me with inappropriate glee. Maybe this development will take a little wind out of the sails of the army of faceless cowards who seem to infest the comment wing of the blogosphere, those who naively assume a computer monitor is a sufficient wall between their identities and the public. S'all I'm gonna say about it.

Here's a story about a tongue piercing causing trigeminal neuralgia, one of the most painful medical conditions around. This comment from the Rotten.com forums is priceless:

From: iontrap
Date: 18-Oct-2006 13:28

Sorry, but I thought people who purposely puncture their tongues were brain dead, so I'm surprised to discover that there is some neurons still alive to register pain.

Meanwhile, this report holds that as many as 30 additional countries will soon be ableto make atomic weapons. First, let's not forget that George Bush (with the collusion of India, among others) essentially rendered pointless the non-proliferation treaty earlier this year; so, once again, blame him for some of this. Second, I'm surprised the number isn't in the hundreds. I learned the design and theory of atomic weapon-making in undergrad physics, after all, 20 years ago. The hard part is finding the fissable materials; but these days the stuff can probably be found on Ebay!

About 16 years ago, a nuclear physicist friend of mine was approached by a hood, a small-arms dealer, in one of the shadier parts of Toronto's Chinatown. The dealer asked my friend if he could build him a nuclear bomb. My friend said, jokingly, "Sure, but you'll have to get me some plutonium."

The dealer leaned in and whispered, not so jokingly, "the stuff goes missing now and then."

After that, I stopped going to Chinatown with that particular friend.

Take It To The Bridge

First we begin with a hearty happy birthday to Brother Bhash, and a Happy Impending Diwali to all the brown folks out there. Back from Vancouver and slowly getting used to my apartment again. I drove to Montreal yesterday --early Sunday morning on an empty highway-- and was smacked down with a $300 speeding ticket! At that price, I could have flown. Mind you, in some ways I was flying.

Funny thing, though. The French cop commented, "Do they drive this fast in Toronto?" To him, the city was a curse. People from Toronto, like me, are largely unaware of the dismissive ways in which Canadians not from Toronto see the city. I hear it every day in Ottawa, and even in Vancouver and Montreal. And, of course, I read it everyday, especially in Alberta-based publications.

A few years ago, nutty Toronto mayor Mel Lastman called in the military to assist the city during a particularly bad snow storm. The residents and media of Ottawa poo-pooed the move, calling it a sign of Toronto's spoiledness. Ottawa, after all, maintains its functions in horrendously intolerable cold weather several months a year.

I'd like to remind such whiners --and the French cop who, I suspect, shares the attitude-- that if Ottawa is shut down by snow for a week, the country will barely notice. But if you take Toronto off the economic grid for 24 hours, just watch the chaos that will ensue across the whole nation.

Thus ends my long overdue defence of my home town.

Brother Hrab sends us this story about a movie critical of Scientology, called "The Bridge", being forced off the market and "off the Internet". When will these people learn? You cannot force anything off the Internet! While most official copies have indeed been deleted, it's not that hard to find streaming versions still online. Because I care, I give you, The Bridge. If that link doesn't work, go to Google Video and search for it, 'cause miscreants are continuously uploading new copies.

And again, because I care, here's footage of Disney World mascots simulating the nasty.

Just When You Thought Air Canada Couldn't Suck Any More

Greetings from flight 138 from Vancouver to Toronto. Once again I have the fucking middle seat, right behind a screaming toddler.

Air Canada, due to layoffs, had exactly ONE person checking in the bags for all domestic flights. So the time you save by using the automated check-in was wasted in a baggage line 300 deep.

Of course there were other airline officials available. But instead of helping, they were busy handing out the addresses of Air Canada corporate, so we could all send our complaint letters. Yes, I am a victim of work-to-rule.

Then, once again, I was stuck behind the dude who tries to get through the metal detector wearing a veritable suit of armour. Dumbass.

Did I mention I'm hungover and miserable? Can you tell?

Ass Sparks

Apparently some woman in Croatia was brushing her teeth when lightning struck her. It entered in her mouth and exited through her...um... anus. Yes, that's right. She had sparks coming out of her ass.

Here are some priceless comments about the affair from the Rotten.com forums:

From: brainspore
Date: 10-Oct-2006 15:41
"Maybe she'll get some kind of super-powers as a consolation prize."

From: studgerbil
Date: 10-Oct-2006 16:04
"She's gonna be the life of every party now. Who can top her story?"

Meanwhile, in epidemiology news, a mystery disease has stricken Mt. Allison University in New Brunswick. Glad I'm a whole continent away ;-)

With Southern Ontario (where I live) and Western New York (where I intend to be in a week) suddenly buried beneath an early blizzard, maybe I should feel guilty that I'm still in sunny Vancouver? Nahhh. I think I'll stroll out into the sunshine and get me some sushi...

Gastown

Well, here I am in Gastown, in a park filled with stoners and homeless men, my belly stuffed with delicious, cheap sushi.

What a funny (but good) city. The skytrain is immaculately clean and fast, and runs on the bloody honour system! and I just used a free public toilet, which is also immaculately clean and supervised, so there's no hanky panky. How does Vancouver afford all this? Maybe it can't. Maybe the city councillors have been rendered stupid from all the pot smoking.

Speaking of which, the sweet scent of the wacky weed is all over this park. The local cornershop even sells "cannabis scented" incense.

Ahhh... that's how they can afford all of this....

"I'm So Ronery..."

Ok this is just weird. Looks like an excerpt from a Tamil film. Don't blame me, blame Cousin Ajay who sent it in:




Lord Vadum sends us another video, this one seemingly of anti-USA propaganda from North Korea.

Speaking of North Korea, news of their nuclear test has also reached Vancouver. Here's what I don't get. Why is a nuclear test by our "enemy" supposedly the harbinger of doom, while a similar test by our "ally" is supposedly in support of world peace and stability? Nukes are bad for everybody. When France tested one a couple of decades ago, it was bad. When India and Pakistan joined the nuclear club, it was bad. When Israel (secretly) joined, it was bad. When George Bush announced he'd be commissioning a new generation of "battlefield nukes", it was doubly bad.

So why is North Korea's entry into the A-Club so especially bad? Because somehow a North Korean nuke has a higher chance of making it onto the terrorism market? It's an incredibly difficult thing to "weaponize" a nuke small enough to be a useful terror device. In this fake reporter's opinion, it is highly unlikely that the Indians, Pakistanis and North Koreans have the ability to produce such portable devices; their nukes are in ICBMs and possibly submarines. No, it's the mobile "battlefield" devices produced by Russia and the USA that are the more likely candidates for surreptitious export.

So instead of wringing our hands over L'il Kim's acquisition of the Big Bad Bomb, we should take a more global view: let's once again look toward eliminating all nuclear devices in all nations.

Oh yeah, to be completely fair, L'il Kim is right: sanctions that include the stopping and searching of ships in Korean waters is an act of war. North Korea ain't Cuba in the '60s: if a "quarantine" or "blockade" is initiated, shit will go down.

Then what's going on here? Is L'il Kim nuts? Maybe, but he's not irrational. May I suggest that his domestic grip is not has iron-fisted as we've been lead to believe? Is it possible that his test of an ICBM earlier this year, and of his nuke this week, were attempts to appease internal hardliners? He doesn't want war with the West; he wants money and concessions. I say, buy his cooperation. A few hundred million in development funds in exchange for a cessation of military expansion is a deal; I think the South Koreans would agree.

Is it extortion? Sure, why not. You can call it that. Or call it the price of doing business.

Vancouver

Here, very briefly, are my observations concerning Vancouver, after 2 days of exposure:

• Hot Asian chicks everywhere
• The Asian chicks are hot because they know how to dress
• Due to the high proportion of Asians, I'm finally average height!
• No one here knows how to drive
• Perfect weather for running
• Despite rumours to the contrary, I've yet to actually see anyone run
• People here are disproportionately willing victims of one of society's biggest scams: the "organic food" label
• There is a definitive lack of understanding of the role of traffic lights
• Despite one of the finest backdrops offered to any city in the Western world, somehow Vancouver has managed to hire the most incompetent architects; it ain't a pretty city
• Nonetheless, I could easily live here (see points 1, 2 and 3 above)
  

That's all. Happy thanksgiving!

Ahh

Greetings from sunny, though surprisingly chilly, Vancouver. Last night I devoured half a lemon meringe pie, glogged a tankard of red wine, and watched the 4 hour version of The Fellowship of the Ring. To celebrate this feat, this morning I will skip my run and feast upon a mountain of carbtastic French toast. Ahh, this is the life.

Your Cervix is THIS big...

To the left is a photo I took of a billboard in St James, Trinidad. I dunno. Something about the shape her hands are making doesn't exactly say "healthy cervix" to me.

Remember way back in February I made a prediction about India's economic future? I said that within the next two decades India's economic growth will slow and maybe even reverse as that country finally endures its long overdue labour revolution. My theory is that India's rapid growth has been due to cheap exploited labour; poor Indians have underwritten the unaddressed costs of expansion through their own health and well-being.

The same argument can be made for China, whose economic growth has been on similar terms. Well, this article suggests that China is experiencing its labour revolution now. We shall see.

Meanwhile, Kelli F. sends us this bit about the Canadian military cracking down on soldiers' blogs. Are you reading this, SM?

And Brother Bhash sends us this pithy article. Read it.

Regarding yesterday's post about Eric Margolis's appearance on The Agenda with the seemingly out-of-her-league Mercedes Stephenson, I need to share something with you. I wrote to Brother Margolis to congratulate him on his return to TVOntario (I, for one, have missed him). He sent back the following commentary about his exchange of words with Ms. Stephenson. I trust he won't mind me publicizing this bit:

"It's hard dealing with neocons when they are young and pretty. Prefer overweight Republican golfers...."

A true class act, that Margolis. I mean that sincerely.

Heading to Vancouver in a few hours. Next blog post will be from the West coast....

The Agenda

I finally got a chance to watch the new TVOntario show, The Agenda, which replaces Studio 2. My conclusion: I prefer the change. The Agenda is a serious wonkfest, which I love.

The episode that I caught featured Liberal leadership candidate Bob Rae. (I presented my Rae biases earlier here.) Additionally, the show had the return of my favourite Canadian TV pundit, Brother Eric Margolis. (My Margolis bias is detailed here.)

Here is what I have concluded:

1. Michael Ignatieff will win the Liberal leadership race
2. Despite his Middle Eastern policies, which differ from my view, Bob Rae is my preferred candidate
3. Michael Ignatieff will be the next Prime Minister of Canada
4. Out of everyone presently available, in all parties, Bob Rae is probably the most reasonable and effective potential Prime Minister --and I say this grudgingly
5. Eric Margolis still rules
6. TVOntario has some interesting right wing connections

The last point I have no real evidence for; just a feeling. On the panel of the show was someone named Mercedes Stevenson who, while relatively eloquent, seemed way out of her depth against Bob Rae, Eric, John Ibbitson and Sheila Copps (whose reason for being there is a bit mysterious). Stevenson kept citing tired neocon tropes that I would expect from Fox pundits. A quick google search proclaims her to be a Frasier Institute alumnus. Why, I ask, would TVOntario ask her on, when other, far more credible and less shrill pro-war types were available?

I'm no media analyst. It's all a wonderful weirdness. Gotta go eat fatty foods and watch Lost now.

Surrender The P!nk

I think I'm in love with P!nk. Or maybe just the little leather miniskirt she wears in this video:





For some reason, it reminds me of this. But enough of that. I've always contended that nostalgia is the surest path to an early grave.

Haven't got time for much commentary today. So instead I will leave you with this snippet from a recent Haroon Siddiqui article:

"You didn't have to go any further than the blanket coverage of the fifth anniversary of Sept. 11 to know the great divide between the United States and the rest of the world, and also between those Americans and Canadians, like Stephen Harper, who support George W. Bush's geopolitics and those who don't, namely, the majority of Americans and Canadians.

While each of the 2,973 victims of 9/11 needs to be remembered, no less worthy of commemoration are those sacrificed in the failed war on terrorism:

- The 2,670 Americans, and the 42,000 to 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed in Iraq.

- The 16 Canadian soldiers killed since May in Afghanistan.

- The tens of thousands of Afghan civilians killed, maimed or displaced since the toppling of the Taliban five long years ago.

- The hundreds of Palestinians killed and the hundreds of thousands starving in the Israeli-occupied territories, now with Canadian complicity.

These Muslim victims were, and are, not all terrorists. Not to see the connection between their tragedy and the Muslim anger around the world is to be obtuse or ideologically blind."

Ong Wat

Well, I'm back in Canada, having survived the cute little earthquake, and am presently shacked up at the folks' house in Toronto. I will stay here for a few days before returning to Ottawa, then am heading to Vancouver at the end of the week. Unemployment keeps one busy, you know.

Fellow traveller Andrew has uploaded his excellent photos from our adventure in Trinidad to his Flickr page. Above is the only one in the set in which I do not look fat and bloated. Yes, I'm becoming a vain creature in my old age.

Andrew has also uploaded a few video clips from the trip to Youtube. I'd never thought about doing this. Perhaps I should start storing my media on 3rd party sites, as well? Here's another photo from the trip-- the two of us in sheer terror as Andrew took the wheel of "Boopsie", our right-hand drive rental car, for the first time:

Onto a new topic...

As I've mentioned a few times, I spent fourteen years of my life studying seven different martial arts. These days, I go to a boxing class once a week and spend the rest of the time clutching my lower back and sucking in my growing gut. But in my youth I was obsessed with the unarmed fighting arts. To be honest, I was never very good. I have a few medals from my tournament days adorning my parents' dining room, but they were all won in events at which the good athletes failed to show up. I will, however, proudly declare myself to be a bit of a scholar of the martial arts, though not much of an effective practitioner. I've travelled the world observing obscure forms and meeting ancient masters, and have written my share of profiles and folios for martial arts magazines and websites.

And thus I offer a special review of the new Tony Jaa film, The Protector. It's not much of a movie, in terms of acting or story, but Ja's athleticism is something I have never seen before on film. Jaa is known for eschewing the now ubiquitous "wire fighting" special effects so popular in Hong Kong films, like those of Jet Li. Jaa's movie features the single most impressive scene I have ever witnessed in a martial arts movie: for what seems like 12 minutes of a continuous take, Ja races up and down stairs (sometimes not using the actual stairs!) and disposes of more than 20 bad guys-- without even breathing heavily at the end. The choreography alone must have been a grueling task requiring peak mental and physical fitness.

I have a special interest in Jaa's technique, as 16 years ago I spent a month in a town in northern Thailand studying and training in Muay Thai, the indigenous form of Thai kickboxing that has since found a bit of a home in North American studios. Jaa's style, though, is a bit more ancient as it has been enhanced by the more obscure and less sporty (and thus more brutal) form of traditional and rare Muay Thai called Muay Boran.

After being thoroughly impressed by that one scene in The Protector, I raced out rented Jaa's breakout first movie, Ong Bak. I happily report that is perhaps the single best martial arts film ever made. So if you're interested in the genre, go watch it!