posted at 04:49:35 AM by Dominion

Wed, Feb 26 2003

I really did not think I would hear from Charlie Murtaugh again. I really did think that the problem was his mistaken use of the term "race" as opposed to the term "population". I figured he would, at last, do an online search about the subject and do some reading. So I was quite surprised to get another message. After reading it, I am afraid that I lost what little patience I had (which admittedly was not much to begin with).

At this point I had sent him three cites showing that "race" was simply not a consideration when talking about people from different parts of the world. I had also sent him a google search using "Biological Race" as the term. Go take a look, the only person that argues for the concept of race is J .Philipe Rushton, another racist psychologist whom Herrnstein and Murray cite throughout "The Bell Curve". Here is just a taste of some of Professor Rushton's views:

Herrnstein and Murray also cite studies by J. Philippe Rushton. They write, "Rushton argues that the differences in the average intelligence test scores among East Asians, blacks, and whites are not only primarily genetic but part of a complex of racial differences that includes such variables as brain size, genital size, rate of sexual maturation, length of menstrual cycle, frequency of sexual intercourse, gamete production, sexual hormone levels", and so on.

According to Rushton, blacks are not only genetically inferior, but engage in indiscriminate sex and have larger penises. Rushton said, "People are always saying, 'Oh you say whites are superior to blacks.' Even if you take something like atheletic ability or sexuality - not to reinforce stereotypes or some such thing - but, you know, it's a trade off: more brain or more penis. You can't have everything." He claims that Nazi Germany's military victories were due to the purity of its gene pool. Rushton was censured by his university when he went to a mall and paid 150 people to answer a survey with questions such as how far they could ejaculate. One wonders which attribute Rushton would lay claim to (or Murray and Herrnstein for that matter). This argument sounds suspiciously similar to Freud's concept of "penis envy." Murray and Herrnstein assure us that Rushton is "not a crackpot or bigot" and that "there is nothing wrong with Rushton's work in principle."

Charlie had (and has) carefully ignored them all, except in one case below where he makes the startling claims that the paper "Race is a poor perscription" actually agreed with the paper he was citing. The mind boggles.

In any case, I will once again produce his full letter, then my reply. All previous quotes will be in italic. My reply will include a > to help you keep track of who is saying what.

Have I made fun of your name? Just grow up and try to maintain a civil discourse. Far from ignoring your comments, I'm going to try and respond point-by-point.

On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 jmclaughlin4@nospam.houston.rr.com wrote:

Ya know Charlie...I am beginning to despair. See what you call "ad hominem comments" I call a perceptive look at your ability TO READ! Once again you totally fail. But hell I got nothing better to do on a Sunday, so allow me to demonstrate.

"Despite Mac Diva's convictions to the contrary, I'm neither a racist nor a believer in the Bell Curve thesis,"

See what I mean? You are going to be hard pressed to find in either of my comments the accusation you are a racist or that you believe in the Bell Curve. Once again you put words in my mouth.

Look at what I wrote: "Despite Mac Diva's convictions..." I'm not putting words in _your_ mouth, I'm talking about what Mac Diva has written, and trying to convince you -- vainly I guess -- that she's wrong.

"I'm just trying to point out that science is more complex than our political ideas."

Er no, what you are trying to point out (at least to me) is that there is some biological component to "race". At least, I claim that there is none, and you said I am wrong (using your own bizarre choice of words I might add).

"Here is how the New York Times described the study I linked to:"

"Humankind falls into five continental groups - broadly equivalent to the common conception of races - when a computer is asked to sort DNA data from people from around the world into clusters."

Ah yes. I _aways_ rely on the New York Times to accurately report on science! Bwahahahahahaha.

Give me a freakin' break Chuckles, all you have proven here is that the NYT did exactly the same thing you did, namely insert the term "race" where none existed. Even better, the passage above does not claim this proves there is a biological component to race, what it does claim is that it is "broadly equivalent" to "race". See what I mean about that reading comprehension problem you seem to have? But do keep going back to this one study Chuckles. It simply does not say what you claim it says, and all the wishful thinking in the world won't make it so.

Look, I _read_ the Science paper, in its original form -- I subscribe to the damn journal -- and the figure that the New York Times prints was taken right out of the article. So the Times wasn't inserting anything into the debate at all.

Here's a direct quote from the article itself: "For many applications in epidemiology, as well as for assessing individual disease risks, self-reported population ancestry likely provides a suitable proxy for genetic ancestry."

Once again we hit upon your inability to read what is written to you. Chuckles I did not have to interpret anything in a negative light. You are the one that is arguing that most of the biologist in this country is simply wrong about there being a biological component to race.

Maybe we are just disagreeing about semantics, and about the meaning of the word "component." What I'm trying to say is that what humans see as "races" does reflect some underlying genetic structure, and that this paper supports that. The paper also points out that finer ethnic breakdowns, even self-reported (i.e. I'm not just "white," I'm also "Irish") might also be informative, and can be detected in allele frequencies. This is the same point that the other Nature Science Update paper you cite is making.

No where in my comments did I call you an asshole, racist, or a Murray and Herrnstein fan. I did not accuse you of providing cover for the Bell Curve. Although I see that in fact, you are providing such cover. Not in our comment thread but what about this?

"By the way, I see that Atrios et al. have still not bothered to back up their attack on "The Bell Curve." I still haven't made up my mind on that, but I do know that I distrust the mob instinct, and so far most of what I've seen in the left's reaction to Murray and Herrnstein qualifies as such."

Posted by: Charlie Murtaugh on February 18, 2003 07:45 PM

Look, that book came out 8 years ago, and I didn't read it at the time. And contrary to your insinuations, I really am honestly not very interested in the race-intelligence debate. The last I checked, not making one's mind up on a book without reading it was considered a liberal virtue, and it's one I'm proud of.

Despite calling me stupid, dishonest, insulting my name (!), and generally ruining my day, you still haven't convinced me that there is no underlying genetic basis to race. The only reason I got interested in this question in the first place is because the public position of "most biologists" flies in the face of common sense -- is it really just a coincidence that when two white people have a baby, it looks more white than black or Asian? -- and I had a feeling that when serious studies were done, as in this Science paper, they would tend to undermind political correctness.

Now, the existence of races has absolutely _no_ bearing on racial "superiority," or on any meaningful questions of public policy (although, as Sally Satel points out, it is not irrelevant from the p.o.v. of a practicing physician), but still, science is science and data is data. What disturbs me is that people first assume that the answer to this question is politically meaningful (wrong), and then impose their political views retrospectively on the science (wronger). Let me assure you, I get just as pissed about this when it's done by conservatives with regard to environmentalism or evolution, and if you read my blog you would know that.

I am thinking of posting this to the comment section of Atrios' last post on "The Bell Curve". I would have rather kept it there in any case. Probably have something to say about it on my blog too.

Good for you.

Now before we go on to my reply, let me say that the part that makes me the most angry is Charlie admitting he knew nothing about the subject. Why would anyone argue a position that they know nothing about? I don't have a clue.

Just can't let this old dog die eh? Well ok, I'm game.

>Have I made fun of your name? Just grow up and try to maintain a civil discourse. Far from ignoring your comments, I'm going to try and respond point-by-point.

Why is it you debate is such a dishonest manner? If you think you have responded to my points in any way, shape, or form you are hallucinating. In fact and in spite of the length of your reply, you still manage to ignore the most salient points I have brought up. Shame on you.

I can't help it if you object to my "name calling" but what do you expect Chuckes. Each message I get from you reduces my respect for you, and I answer accordingly. In spite of my "name calling" I have consistantly stayed on point, which is more than I can say for you. I have not ducked an issue, which is more than I can say for you. My suggestion is if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

>>See what I mean? You are going to be hard pressed to find in either of my comments the accusation you are a racist or that you believe in the Bell Curve. Once again you put words in my mouth.

>Look at what I wrote: "Despite Mac Diva's convictions..." I'm not putting words in _your_ mouth, I'm talking about what Mac Diva has written, and trying to convince you -- vainly I guess -- that she's wrong.

What nonsense. You obviously hold the opinion that I think you racist, even now. So pay attention 'cause I am getting damn tired of having to lead you by the nose. I have never, ever, in any comment, or email said you were a racist. I have not even implied it. Yet you have both stated (in the above) and implied (in your lame attempt to bring in Mac Diva, who's opinion's I will point out, have nothing to do with the points I am trying to make) that I DO hold that opinion. Of course you are putting words in my mouth, that I think you are a racist. So for the record (since you seem to be too damn dense to get it) I don't think you are a racist, not as the word is generally understood. What I DO think is you're pig ignorant.

>>"I'm just trying to point out that science is more complex than our political ideas."

>Er no, what you are trying to point out (at least to me) is that there is some biological component to "race". At least, I claim that there is none, and you said I am wrong (using your own bizarre choice of words I might add).

Nothing to say about this I see. Well that's ok we will move on.

>>Give me a freakin' break Chuckles, all you have proven here is that the NYT did exactly the same thing you did, namely insert the term "race" where none existed. Even better, the passage above does not claim this proves there is a biological component to race, what it does claim is that it is "broadly equivalent" to "race". See what I mean about that reading comprehension problem you seem to have? But do keep going back to this one study Chuckles. It simply does not say what you claim it says, and all the wishful thinking in the world won't make it so.

>Look, I _read_ the Science paper, in its original form -- I subscribe to the damn journal -- and the figure that the New York Times prints was taken right out of the article. So the Times wasn't inserting anything into the debate at all.

>Here's a direct quote from the article itself: "For many applications in epidemiology, as well as for assessing individual disease risks, self-reported population ancestry likely provides a suitable proxy for genetic ancestry."

See what I mean by pig ignorant? Right there in the middle of the quote you send me what do we see? Population. Not race. I don't know how many times you are going to try and make "population" translate into "race" but if you really, really think that they are the same thing, all I can suggest is an afternoon reading the web. As of this point, you are far to ignorant of the subject to hold any kind of informed opinion.

I will also note that you ignored the fact that the NYT article did not claim this was proof of the concept of biological race, but that it was "broadly equivalent" to "race". LOL and you have the nerve to claim this a "point-by-point" reply!

>> Once again we hit upon your inability to read what is written to you. Chuckles I did not have to interpret anything in a negative light. You are the one that is arguing that most of the biologist in this country is simply wrong about there being a biological component to race.

>Maybe we are just disagreeing about semantics, and about the meaning of the word "component." What I'm trying to say is that what humans see as "races" does reflect some underlying genetic structure, and that this paper supports that. The paper also points out that finer ethnic breakdowns, even self-reported (i.e. I'm not just "white," I'm also "Irish") might also be informative, and can be detected in allele frequencies. This is the same point that the other Nature Science Update paper you cite is making.

No, we are not disagreeing about the meaning of the word "component", we are arguing about the term "race" and "population". You are completely, totally, and ignorantly wrong to try to make population translate into race. It does not. Even worse, what humans see as "race" is based on the stupidest of all superficial characteristics, skin color. Now are you really going to argue that every person that has "black" skin is a Negroid?

But you are really going on a flight of fancy if you think that the Science update I shared with you in any way, shape, or form, makes the same claim that you are. I will leave the paper you keep quoting out of this since it is not saying what you claim it says. My cite flatly contradicts your claim that there is a biological component to race. Read this part again Chuckles and try to understand:

"It's no surprise that skin pigment is a lousy predictor of physiology," says Howard McLeod of Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri. This study is the first to prove it."

Get it yet Chuckles? What humans see as race is a poor predictor of physiology!

>> "By the way, I see that Atrios et al. have still not bothered to back up their attack on "The Bell Curve." I still haven't made up my mind on that, but I do know that I distrust the mob instinct, and so far most of what I've seen in the left's reaction to Murray and Herrnstein qualifies as such."

>> Posted by: Charlie Murtaugh on February 18, 2003 07:45 PM

>Look, that book came out 8 years ago, and I didn't read it at the time. And contrary to your insinuations, I really am honestly not very interested in the race-intelligence debate. The last I checked, not making one's mind up on a book without reading it was considered a liberal virtue, and it's one I'm proud of.

Once again you put words in my mouth. Since I realize that you're incredibly dense when it comes to such things allow me to lead you by the nose just one more time.

I have never said, implied, or even freakin' thought that you held some interest in race-intelligence debate and I challenge you to find one passage I have written that proves me wrong. What I am saying and what I do say is that your idea of "race" and the biologist idea of "population" are wildly divergent.

Nor does this excuse you from learning a bit about the subject before rashly challenging Atrios to "back up his attack". Any person that has any intellectual integrity would have at least ran the title of the book through a search engine. But your admitted ignorance on the subject did not stop you from snidely concluding that the only thing wrong with the book was the "left's reaction" to it.

I like your reasoning. I suppose that, thanks to you, we can now claim that pontificating upon a subject one knows nothing about is considered a conservative trait. See how easy that was? And I didn't have to look up a damn thing either!

Of course this was not some honest search for information about "The Bell Curve" as the quote above proves nicely. This was a challenge to liberals to prove the book wrong, in spite of the weaseling you did. This is intellectually dishonest in the extreme Chuckles. To insult people that hold a particular political belief, one that apparently you don't share, about a subject you keep insisting you personally know nothing about... Bah! Hell that is not intellectual dishonesty, it is just plain chickenshit behavior.

>Despite calling me stupid, dishonest, insulting my name (!), and generally ruining my day, you still haven't convinced me that there is no underlying genetic basis to race. The only reason I got interested in this question in the first place is because the public position of "most biologists" flies in the face of common sense -- is it really just a coincidence that when two white people have a baby, it looks more white than black or Asian? -- and I had a feeling that when serious studies were done, as in this Science paper, they would tend to undermind political correctness.

Man I have to admit I loved this part the most. I ruined your day eh? Perhaps someone so incredibly thin skinned should stay away from comments and debate. Because I certainly hope that I ruined your day. That was my aim. People as ignorant as you should be made uncomfortable, perhaps then they will bother to go and learn something. Nor do I have any hope of convincing you that there is no underlying genetic basis for race, you don't understand enough about the subject (and so far, carefully refused to learn anything about it) for me to be able to change your mind. Ha! After all, you don't even know the difference between the term "population" and the term "race". Nor do I think you have the grounding in science that would be required for you to really understand the subject. After all, when you can say that the view of most biologist that race is an invalid term when talking about population and nothing more than a "public" position and that it "flies in the face of common sense", well you show such a depth of ignorance in the way science is done that I am not sure that I can correct it. Oh sure, I know you call yourself a scientist (at least you did in Atrios' comment section) but I find that almost impossible to believe. If there is one thing science has shown us, it is the folly of taking something at face value because it makes "common sense".

As to why a white couple would have a white baby, that question does not even make sense in the context of this conversation. Since you apparently don't know why this is, I can only suggest you do some homework. Thankfully it is not my job to try to cure you of your ignorance, in truth I am not at all sure a cure is possible. A much better question is do you believe that a black Australian aborigine is the same as a black African? After all, if one were to breed with the other they would produce a "black" baby! So they must be the same "race". It only makes common sense. Now if you say they are not the same race, then you are agreeing with what I have been saying all along, there is no "black" gene. There are "African" genes and there are "Australian" genes, but the color of the skin has absolutely no bearing on it.

>Now, the existence of races has absolutely _no_ bearing on racial "superiority," or on any meaningful questions of public policy (although, as Sally Satel points out, it is not irrelevant from the p.o.v. of a practicing physician), but still, science is science and data is data.

Well as they say, it was mighty white of you to admit that.

Yes indeed, science is science and data is data. Of course, it does no good to point this out when you so carefully refuse to look at the data. And as we have already seen, such an outdated and invalid concept as "race" does nothing to help the medical sciences. Of course, you have your own strange interpretation of that paper so it does not surprise me that you still insist that this is the case.

>What disturbs me is that people first assume that the answer to this question is politically meaningful (wrong), and then impose their political views retrospectively on the science (wronger). Let me assure you, I get just as pissed about this when it's done by conservatives with regard to environmentalism or evolution, and if you read my blog you would know that.

Chuckles, I would not waste five minutes of my time reading your blog. Life is way to short to bother with people that feel perfectly competent in commenting upon things they admittedly know nothing about. Nor do I have much use for intellectual dishonesty at the level I have seen you exhibit thus far. Nor the rank hypocrisy, for what else can I call a person that would state how disgusted he is with people that impose their political view "retrospectively on the science" when you are doing the exactly that. You would rather wallow in ignorance because the concept of race makes you comfortable, it makes "common sense", rather than spend a day reading up on the subject. I repeat...Bah!

Hey here is an idea, one I am sure you will ignore as carefully as you have ignored my cites. You apparently have some connection to an ivy league college. Why don't you find some of the biology professors there and make the same claims to them as you have to me. Then, when they are finished laughing, they can explain to you exactly why "race" is not a valid biological concept!

I know, I dare to dream too much...

Tomorrow: What to think of all this?

posted at 06:16:49 AM by Dominion

Tue, Feb 25 2003

Apparently Charlie Murtaugh took exception to the idea that he is incapable of reading and understanding either my comment, or the paper that he claimed proved there was some sort of biological component to race. He decided not to carry on the conversation in the comment section but instead to write me email. Now I understand this, it is very hard to keep a discussion going in the comment section of a blog . Most blogs run their articles for a week (my own included) before sending them to the archive. On a blog like Eschaton, where Atrios updates throughout the day, sometimes a dozen new entries...well then it is even harder to keep up. Personally though I don't like it. If I start a debate in a public forum, I like to keep it there. Which is why I decided to post this in the comment section of another article at Eschaton on "The Bell Curve". Since he used my blog email, and I very clearly state that I will post email that I find interesting, I did not feel particularly bad about it. I did tell Charlie that I was planning to do so both at Eschaton and here. And yes, I realize he most probably just used the email link provided in the comments, but that is no excuse.

You will note that my tone is considerably sharper here. I make no apologies for it. First, I have been having this debate for years. After awhile you are able to sense whether or not the person is seriously seeking information or just jerking your chain. The email makes it clear that Charlie was jerking my chain. Second, I have very little patience for the type of intellectual dishonesty that I was soon to be exposed to.

Now I admit that I don't know jack about Charlie Murtaugh except that he called himself a scientist over at Atrios' blog and that he himself has a blog. That he is most probably conservative I assume from his attempts to insult liberals but I admit I don't know this for sure. I have never read his blog and at this point I doubt I ever will. Life is simply too short to read bullshit and if this conversation is any indication, bullshit a'plenty is what I would get. For all I know, he is a good guy, loving husband, great father and does not kick the dog. I have no "personal" feelings about the guy one way or another. However, he debates in a most dishonest manner, and in the long run that is really all I need to know.

So here is his email in full. My reply will follow with quotes from his email in italics to make it easier to skip over. I don't want you to have to duplicate too much reading, but I also want to show that I did not edit his mail in a way to avoid any of his points.

I didn't make any ad hominem comments about you, I just said you were wrong. I'd appreciate a similar level of courtesy. Despite Mac Diva's convictions to the contrary, I'm neither a racist nor a believer in the Bell Curve thesis, I'm just trying to point out that science is more complex than our political ideas. Here is how the New York Times described the study I linked to: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/24/science/24RACE.html

"Humankind falls into five continental groups - broadly equivalent to the common conception of races - when a computer is asked to sort DNA data from people from around the world into clusters.

The major groups are African (orange), Europeans and Middle Easterners (blue), East Asians (pink), Melanesians (green) and American Indians (purple)."

(If you would have scrolled up a day or two from the post I linked to in the Atrios comments, you would have seen a link to this. As it happens, I not only understood the scientific abstract in question, but I was able to describe it before the New York Times had a chance to.)

Look, this is getting really depressing -- every thing I say gets interpreted in the most negative way possible. I would just appreciate it if you would give me the benefit of the doubt as a non-asshole, non-racist, and not assume that I am trying to somehow provide cover for Murray and Herrnstein and their fans.

Charlie Murtaugh

My reply:

Ya know Charlie...I am beginning to despair. See what you call "ad hominem comments" I call a perceptive look at your ability TO READ! Once again you totally fail. But hell I got nothing better to do on a Sunday, so allow me to demonstrate.

"Despite Mac Diva's convictions to the contrary, I'm neither a racist nor a believer in the Bell Curve thesis,"

See what I mean? You are going to be hard pressed to find in either of my comments the accusation you are a racist or that you believe in "The Bell Curve". Once again you put words in my mouth. Now I don't know about you Chuckles, But I really, really hate it when people put words in my mouth. Perhaps that is why I am less than my usual gentle self. This is the second time you have done it, so it should come as no surprise that my admiration for your ability to debate has hit a new low. I have no intention of fighting your straw men.

You know, for a person that whines how misunderstood his comments are, I am surprised at the through trashing you have done to mine.

"I'm just trying to point out that science is more complex than our political ideas."

Er no, what you are trying to point out (at least to me) is that there is some biological component to "race". At least, I claim that there is none, and you said I am wrong (using your own bizarre choice of words I might add).

"Here is how the New York Times described the study I linked to:"

"Humankind falls into five continental groups - broadly equivalent to the common conception of races - when a computer is asked to sort DNA data from people from around the world into clusters."

Ah yes. I _always_ rely on the New York Times to accurately report on science! Bwahahahahahaha.

Give me a freakin' break Chuckles, all you have proven here is that the NYT did exactly the same thing you did, namely insert the term "race" where none existed. Even better, the passage above does not claim this proves there is a biological component to race, what it does claim is that it is "broadly equivalent" to "race". See what I mean about that reading comprehension problem you seem to have? But do keep going back to this one study Chuckles. It simply does not say what you claim it says, and all the wishful thinking in the world won't make it so.

"If you would have scrolled up a day or two from the post I linked to in the Atrios comments, you would have seen a link to this. As it happens, I not only understood the scientific abstract in question, but I was able to describe it before the New York Times had a chance to."

Well I can tell you're damn proud of your ability to agree with the NYT which, last time I checked, is hardly the best repository of scientific knowledge. But do keep patting yourself on the back Chuckles. Hey if you can't impress anyone else, might as well impress yourself.

It is clear that you do not understand the study in question, since you seem almost desperately trying to link these findings to "race" when the paper makes very clear that they are talking about populations.

"Look, this is getting really depressing -- every thing I say gets interpreted in the most negative way possible. I would just appreciate it if you would give me the benefit of the doubt as a non-asshole, non-racist, and not assume that I am trying to somehow provide cover for Murray and Herrnstein and their fans."

Once again we hit upon your inability to read what is written to you. Chuckles I did not have to interpret anything in a negative light. You are the one that is arguing that most of the biologist in this country is simply wrong about there being a biological component to race. In spite of your lofty protestation to the contrary it strikes me as unlikely that someone with the purity of your intentions would fight so hard to "prove" something that is simply not provable.

No where in my comments did I call you an asshole, racist, or a Murray and Herrnstein fan. I did not accuse you of providing cover for the Bell Curve. Although I see that in fact, you are providing such cover. Not in our comment thread but what about this:

"By the way, I see that Atrios et al. have still not bothered to back up their attack on "The Bell Curve." I still haven't made up my mind on that, but I do know that I distrust the mob instinct, and so far most of what I've seen in the left's reaction to Murray and Herrnstein qualifies as such."

Posted by: Charlie Murtaugh on February 18, 2003 07:45 PM

As Mac Diva pointed out, this can only be regarded as willful ignorance. The problems with "The Bell Curve" have been discussed for years. If you can't even bother to do a search on the web for this information, why should anyone waste three seconds of time trying to enlighten you?

So here we are.

You have the audacity to complain how your comments have been misinterpreted, yet you have failed to address any of mine. Instead you chose to put words in my mouth and attribute arguments to me that are simply not mine. Now I can put this down to either a) dishonesty b) stupidity or c) an inability to read and comprehend. Really I thought I gave you the benefit of the doubt, an inability to read being fractionally better than being stupid, and a whole lot better than being dishonest.

One parting shot (though I have little doubt you will ignore this as you have so carefully ignored everything else I have written). From the very same issue of Nature Science Update:

"Race is a poor prescription"

"Race should not influence drug prescriptions, warn geneticists. Genetic differences between individuals give a better indication of who will respond well to a medicine, a new study shows."

"Clinical trials for new drugs often note the participants' ethnic origin, in an effort to identify groups who may react badly to a drug or be immune to its effects."

"Classifying people according to small differences in their DNA sequence creates groups that are better associated with drug response, David Goldstein of University College London, UK, and his team propose1. "Ethnicity is not a reliable guide," says Goldstein."

"Goldstein's team compared 40 variable genetic regions, unrelated to drug reaction, in nearly 400 people from all over the world. They divided the people into four groups according to differences between these regions. These groupings predicted drug response better than did ethnic labels such as black, Caucasian and Asian in four out of six cases."

"Geneticists have known this for a while. "It's no surprise that skin pigment is a lousy predictor of physiology," says Howard McLeod of Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri. This study is the first to prove it."

References:

Wilson, et al. Population genetic structure of variable drug response. Nature Genetics advance online publication, (2001).

Here is the abstract, which you can read yourself if you have an account to Nature:

Population genetic structure of variable drug response

James F. Wilson, Michael E. Weale, Alice C. Smith, Fiona Gratrix, Benjamin Fletcher, Mark G. Thomas, Neil Bradman & David B. Goldstein

"Geographic patterns of genetic variation, including variation at drug metabolizing enzyme (DME) loci and drug targets, indicate that geographic structuring of inter-individual variation in drug response may occur frequently. This raises two questions: how to represent human population genetic structure in the evaluation of drug safety and efficacy, and how to relate this structure to drug response. We address these by (i) inferring the genetic structure present in a heterogeneous sample and (ii) comparing the distribution of DME variants across the inferred genetic clusters of individuals. We find that commonly used ethnic labels are both insufficient and inaccurate representations of the inferred genetic clusters, and that drug-metabolizing profiles, defined by the distribution of DME variants, differ significantly among the clusters. We note, however, that the complexity of human demographic history means that there is no obvious natural clustering scheme, nor an obvious appropriate degree of resolution. Our comparison of drug-metabolizing profiles across the inferred clusters establishes a framework for assessing the appropriate level of resolution in relating genetic structure to drug response."

Apparently Charlie had not had enough. So he decided to write me (so far) one more time.

Tomorrow: From the ridiculous to the sublime.

posted at 06:57:32 AM by Dominion

Mon, Feb 24 2003

Since this article is going to be pretty long I am going to break it up into several pieces. I am always worried that if the article is too long that medical condition known as "glazed eyes" might effect those that read this blog. But I do urge you to read the whole thing because it is important. The idea of biological race is stupid on it's face, and it should come as a surprise to you at just how rabidly some people will defend it.

Over the weekend I got into a debate that is rather sad. It revolves around that most pseudoscientific book to come out of academia in a long long time. Of course I am talking about "The Bell Curve". The main claim to this piece of tripe is that intelligence is racially based, with some races testing better than others on a standard I.Q. test.

"The Bell Curve", to me, is even worse than the cold fusion hoax. At least Pons and Flieschmann could use the excuse that they made a mistake (they didn't make that claim but it's beside the point). Murray and Herrnstein have no such excuse. The book is so shoddy, so stupid, so full of total bullshit, that there is little doubt that Murray and Herrnstein knew exactly what they were doing. It is nothing more than a racist screed, no matter how reasonable they try to sound. And for the record, yes I have read the book a number of years ago. From cover to cover, in spite of the total soporific reaction I had every time I picked up the damned thing.

I don't plan to spend a lot of time critiquing "The Bell Curve", though I disagree with those that say it is not worth critiquing. I understand that some people think that paying too much attention will bring the book a certain legitimacy but like ESP, where the argument is the same, I think anything that so many people take so seriously should be debunked. As often and as loudly as possible. However that would make this article about three times as long as it is going to be, and I don't think even I have the patience to wallow in this crap for longer than is necessary.

Basically the book can be attacked on three fronts. The first is the importance and immutability of I.Q. as a measurement of intelligence. The second is the outdated classification of "race". The third is that it comes to a pre-arranged conclusion, the authors believed that such a difference existed, therefore they found such a difference (the well known "experimenter bias" problem).

Intelligence is such a poorly understood, poorly defined concept that it is hard to claim that it is an indicator of anything. A good example is my uncle's father (I realize that this is rather anecdotal but I use it only to illustrate a point, not as proof or evidence of anything). He could not read, not one word. Nor did he have any interest in learning how to read. He considered a frivolous skill he had no time for. See, he was a farmer that owned 200 acres in Central Texas. He was not rich, his house was basically a log cabin with the newest addition being an indoor bathroom (which funny enough, his wife did not trust. She thought it was unsanitary to have the outhouse in the house). Now this man could not even take a written intelligence test. Does this mean he had no intelligence? Was not successful? Of course it does not. I. Q. test measure only one aspect of intelligence (if they measure anything. I admit I blow hot and cold on this subject).

The authors were racist coming to a racist conclusion. Be sure to read the entries at Eschaton and at Digby's blog plus the links included in those articles. Atrois wrote quite a few on the subject so be sure to page up to read them. They are all important.

The third problem is the use of the classic definition of race, which is where I come in. The fact is that superficial physical characteristics as a racial indicator has been out of scientific favor for a number of years. Biologist do not talk about "race" because it is an emotional, error laden term that really has no meaning in modern biology. Instead biologist talk about "population". Population works better because, (and this is just one example) there are people in this world that share skin color but not the same genetic markers. A good example (one that I will use later) is the differences between African blacks and Australian blacks (aborigines). Since both have black skin they would have been considered the same "race". However, they would not be considered part of the same population, since aborigines were extremely isolated from Africans. Looking at the genetic markers of both show a nonconformity that would be difficult to explain if both were of the same "race".

Now I am going to be as clear as I was in the comment section at Eschaton. Race is a concept that is based on superficial physical characteristics, such as skin color and eye shape. As a biological concept, it is as dead as the dodo bird. I do not deny that genetic differences exist between populations, but a population is not even close to the same thing as "race".

I read with some interest the entry over at Eschaton but what struck me about the comments that followed was a heavy duty discussion about I.Q. but hardly anything being said about race. There was a good reason for this that I was unaware of at the time (that's what I get for not following the links) to keep talk of race to a minimum. In any case I saw a lack so I commented on it:

What I find surprising is the use of the word "race" as anything other than a meaningless term. At least scientifically, politically it is different I know all too well.

Most modern biologist think the concept of "race" being based on skin color as being pretty dumb. Where the real differences lie are in population and the isolation of such. Unfortunately there are no quick shortcuts in identifying populations (one only has to look at Africa and the difference between populations there in such things as height, athletic ability, and yes skin color...in fact, Africans are probably the most diverse group on the planet).

It reminds me of an argument I got into a few years ago. Some yahoo was trying to prove to me that Caucasians were superior because of the greater differences in such things as eye color and hair color. Besides just being wrong (you can find blond hair, blue-eyed black people in Brazil) I pointed out that the probable reason for that is that Caucasians are the most bastardized, having survived numerous invasions, wars, migrations...well you get the idea. Needless to say, that did not sit well with him at all...

Now this was not a reply to any particular person, just a comment about how silly the idea of skin color was in determining race. Enter Charlie Murtaugh. See Charlie was hot on this topic by virtue of a post in the comment section on Matthew Yglesias's blog in which he pretty much challenged Atrios to prove his contention that "The Bell Curve" is a bunch of horseshit:

By the way, I see that Atrios et al. have still not bothered to back up their attack on "The Bell Curve." I still haven't made up my mind on that, but I do know that I distrust the mob instinct, and so far most of what I've seen in the left's reaction to Murray and Herrnstein qualifies as such.

His reply to me consisted of just one line:

Dominion is wrong to say that there is no scientific basis for race.

I include the link so that you can read for yourself what Charlie calls a "scientific basis for race". Of course, I went right over to check it out, since I am a big believer of checking references that people give me. I then read the article on the paper he was claiming was proof that there is a "scientific basis for race". Here is my reply:

I see that Charlie Murtaugh has as much trouble understanding a scientific abstract as he does understanding what I posted.

First off, Charlie starts by putting words in my mouth. I never said there was no "scientific basis for race". What I did say is that race, based upon skin color was an invalid biological concept. Biologist, by and large, do not talk about "race" but about populations. In fact, from the very link that Charlie seemed so impressed with:

"Around 95% of all genetic variation exists within populations. Just 3 to 5% of variation occurs between different ones, the study finds. "When the world is such a fractious place, it's reassuring to think about our similarities," comments Lynn Jorde, a population geneticist at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City."

and

"Previous studies relying on 20 or 30 markers have only found strong evidence of genetic variation between very isolated populations. The latest high-resolution analysis "allows us to answer questions people couldn't before," says study co-author Jonathan Pritchard, of the University of Chicago."

"It reveals that humans fall into six broad genetic groups, corresponding to people living in Eurasia, the Americas, sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia and Oceania."

So exactly where did "race" come in to this? Why Charlie injected it himself:

"If you blinked, you might have missed the fact that the first paragraph goes out of its way to try and obscure the main finding of the study: that there are medically-relevant genetic correlates to "race," despite the overheated efforts of many scientists to put those scare quotes around the word.

Since I quoted more than one paragraph, and none of what I quoted was the first paragraph we can put this down to some very creative interpreting on Charlie's part.

So, as they say, Sorry Charlie.

Here are some links that need no re-interpation to conclude that "race" is simply not in the biologist vocabulary:

"Biological research on race has often been seen as motivated by or lending credence to underlying racist attitudes; in part for this reason, recently philosophers and biologists have gone through great pains to essentially deny the existence of biological human races. We argue that human races, in the biological sense of local populations adapted to particular environments, do in fact exist; such races are best understood through the common ecological concept of ecotypes. However, human ecotypic races do not in general correspond with `folk` racial categories, largely because many similar ecotypes have multiple independent origins. Consequently, while human natural races exist, they have little or nothing in common with `folk` races."

Or from the American Association of Physical Anthropologist:

As scientists who study human evolution and variation, we believe that we have an obligation to share with other scientists and the general public our current understanding of the structure of human variation from a biological perspective. Popular conceptualizations of race are derived from 19th and early 20th century scientific formulations. These old racial categories were based on externally visible traits, primarily skin color, features of the face, and the shape and size of the head and body, and the underlying skeleton. They were often imbued with nonbiological attributes, based on social constructions of race. These categories of race are rooted in the scientific traditions of the 19th century, and in even earlier philosophical traditions which presumed that immutable visible traits can predict the measure of all other traits in an individual or a population. Such notions have often been used to support racist doctrines. Yet old racial concepts persist as social conventions that foster institutional discrimination. The expression of prejudice may or may not undermine material well-being, but it does involve the mistreatment of people and thus it often is psychologically distressing and socially damaging. Scientists should try to keep the results of their research from being used in a biased way that would serve discriminatory ends.

Should I go on?

"The Bell Curve" is even worse, trying to find variation within the same population. That in and of itself should damn the book for the racist screed that it is. However it does not stop there. From cover to cover it is nothing more than shoddy scholarship to prove a link that the authors believed was there before they put one damn word to paper.

So try again Charlie. You have a long long way to go before you prove there is anything to the idea of biological "race"!

Well this reply seemed to sit badly with Charlie but he apparently did not want to continue in the comment section.

Tomorrow, Charlie writes me email.

posted at 10:51:33 AM by Dominion

Fri, Feb 21 2003

Need something to do next weekend?

On 2/28/03-3/2/03, Rice University will host its 11th Annual Environmental Conference, this year entitled "This Land is Your Land: Public Lands' History, Philosophy, and Controversy." It promises to be one of the largest public lands conferences to have ever taken place in the Gulf Coast Region, with local and out-of-state speakers from across the nation in attendance. Public lands issues have been a constantly growing part of our cultural consciousness for decades and have manifested within the last decade to be of great academic, economic, environmental, and political importance. The conference includes a broad spectrum of activities including panels, workshops, guest speakers, interactive roundtable discussions, grassroots organizing teach-ins, direct action training, a photography exhibit of public lands from around the country, and video showings produced by contemporary public lands activists. Conference attendees will gain an advanced understanding of the most important issues surrounding our public lands, their structure, history, and management, will have the opportunity to learn new skills and form partnerships to address these issues, and will be introduced to major Texas initiatives relevant to our federal and state public lands. We aim to be a resource for everyone, from the local layperson to the experienced community organizer.

posted at 08:10:45 AM by Dominion

Another innocent victim of the Drug War:

Teen shot by DEA agents dies in hospital

Associated Press

SAN ANTONIO -- A teenage girl, shot and killed by federal drug agents, was a victim of excessive force from law officers who were investigating her father, relatives and friends say.

Ashley Villarreal, 14, died on Tuesday evening after family members requested that she be taken off life support at Wilford Hall Medical Center.

A friend challenged Drug Enforcement Administration officials' account of how agents on Sunday had shot the daughter of Joey Angel Villarreal, a three-time convicted drug offender who turned himself in and was charged with cocaine trafficking a day after the shooting.

Ashley Villarreal had been hospitalized in critical condition since being shot once in the back of the head.

posted at 08:00:41 AM by Dominion

In an effort to further destroy his credibility Colin Powell has agreed to appear on BET to take questions from teenagers:

WASHINGTON — Is the United States planning to invade Iraq to take control of Iraqi oil? No, said Secretary of State Colin Powell. "The oil will belong to the people of Iraq. The United States will not take it."

Washington-area teenagers assembled in a Black Entertainment Television studio tossed questions at Powell for an hour Wednesday night, and there weren't many softballs among them.

He fielded questions about affirmative action (he supports it), about his political ambitions (he has none), and a proposal to reinstate the military draft (he opposes it).

Let's hope that he is not asked a real stumper...like how does he explain that video tape.

posted at 07:54:47 AM by Dominion

From the "Too Little Too Late" files:

NEW YORK — America Online on Thursday said it would form a task force and seek tougher legislation against spammers to bolster its efforts to cut the barrage of unsolicited junk mail that clutters inboxes with pitches for everything from mortgages to ways lose weight.

The effort comes as AOL, the Internet arm of AOL Time Warner Inc. (AOL), struggles to build its high-speed business and keep its dial-up subscribers from leaving while contending with federal probes into its accounting and calls from some investors to spin-off AOL if it does not show a recovery soon.

AOL sent out a letter to its 27 million members in the United States and said it is also working to fix some of the other issues subscribers have brought up since late last year -- including pop-up ads and connectivity problems.

Of course, what AOL fails to mention is the ease in which spammers can use AOL accounts to spread their spam. I think we are seeing the well deserved death of AOL as an internet portal. It bet against high speed access and lost big.

It also plans to unveil new tools to fight spam in the coming months, it said in a statement Thursday.

posted at 07:40:21 AM by Dominion

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is attempting to reign in the Bush administrations attempt to spy on American citizens:

Civil liberties groups are using a long shot approach in an effort to get the Supreme Court to limit the government's power to spy, filing an appeal Tuesday on behalf of people who don't even know they're being monitored.

The American Civil Liberties Union and other organizations hope to draw the justices into their first post-Sept. 11 anti-terror case with a challenge of the Justice Department's surveillance powers.

Congress gave the government broader spying authority after the terrorist attacks. The ACLU argued that a review court misinterpreted the law, making it too easy for the government to get permission to listen to telephone conversations, read e-mail and search private property, and then use the information in criminal cases.

The ACLU and other critics worry there are not enough checks to ensure the government's snooping doesn't stretch to law-abiding citizens.

Amen to that. Unfortunately I think it is naive in the extreme to think that the Rehnquist court will do a single thing to advance the cause of civil liberties, I mean, they haven't so far. In fact, the danger is that Rehnquist will claim that such spying is in fact constitutional.

posted at 07:22:03 AM by Dominion

Thu, Feb 20 2003

Last week the United States entered an orange alert. Tom Ridge told us that we needed to be prepared. Go buy duct tape and plastic sheeting to protect yourself from attack. Sounds good to me, so I rushed out to my local Sear's Hardware store and stocked up. There was just one problem. Tom failed to tell me exactly what I am to do with duct tape and plastic sheeting. Panic time!

Well panic no more. The Department of Homeland Security has put together a website to tell you exactly what to do in case of terrorist attack. Called Ready.gov, it is a treasure trove of advice that will most probably do you no good.

Reading over it reminds one of the old "Duck and Cover" exercises we used to do in elementary schools. Don't get me wrong, doing what the page suggests is probably better than nothing, but just.

So what does one do with duct tape and plastic sheeting? Well you build a safe room:

There are other circumstances when staying put and creating a barrier between yourself and potentially contaminated air outside, a process known as "shelter-in-place," is a matter of survival. Use available information to assess the situation. If you see large amounts of debris in the air, or if local authorities say the air is badly contaminated, you may want to take this kind of action.

To "Shelter-in-Place:"

• Bring your family and pets inside.

• Lock doors, close windows, air vents and fireplace dampers.

• Turn off fans, air conditioning and forced air heating systems.

• Take your emergency supply kit unless you have reason to believe it has been contaminated.

• Go into an interior room with few windows, if possible.

• Seal all windows, doors and air vents with plastic sheeting and duct tape. Consider measuring and cutting the sheeting in advance to save time.

• Be prepared to improvise and use what you have on hand to seal gaps so that you create a barrier between yourself and any contamination.

• Local authorities may not immediately be able to provide information on what is happening and what you should do. However, you should watch TV, listen to the radio or check the Internet often for official news and instructions as they become available.

However we have a problem, which the website itself makes pretty clear:

Unlike an explosion, a biological attack may or may not be immediately obvious. While it is possible that you will see signs of a biological attack, as was sometimes the case with the anthrax mailings, it is perhaps more likely that local health care workers will report a pattern of unusual illness or there will be a wave of sick people seeking emergency medical attention. You will probably learn of the danger through an emergency radio or TV broadcast, or some other signal used in your community. You might get a telephone call or emergency response workers may come to your door.

In the event of a biological attack, public health officials may not immediately be able to provide information on what you should do. It will take time to determine exactly what the illness is, how it should be treated, and who is in danger.

So the chances are you will not even be aware of a biological attack in time to do a damn thing about it. By the time you know that a biological attack has happened your home is probably already contaminated. Going outside for any reason will probably be a bad idea. Needless to say your supply kit will be no good. Sealing your house will do nothing more than seal any contamination with you. Putting a surgical mask over your nose and mouth will be of some limited help depending on the type of biological agent. Nor will it be practical to keep such a mask on till the air is clear. Using air filtration systems will take time, time that you will be exposed to contaminants. Time is of essences and unfortunately time is exactly what it will take for a medical team to decide that is indeed a biological attack.

Nor will any of this help if the biological agent is not the size of a bacterium, such as anthrax. For example, if smallpox is used as the agent, plastic will do nothing to stop the virus from invading your home. One of the huge problems with trying to come up with a protection plan is the variety of biological attacks. According to Meridian Health System:

What precautions can the public take to protect against biological attack?

There has been a lot of focus on what action the American public can take to prepare for possible biological and chemical attacks. However, the truth is that the most effective thing for people to do is to remain calm and await instructions from the Department of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, or other health agency.

We acknowledge that the public is understandably alarmed by the threat of a biological attack and want to take whatever precautions they can take. However, unless there is a specific issue to respond to, there are no practical guidelines. Without such a focus, the list of possibilities is endless. If a biological attack were to occur, authorities would alert hospitals and the public to the risks and issues, and provide instructions on what action we should take

Scared yet? In reality there is nothing much you can do to protect yourself against a biological attack. Radiation contamination carries it's own problems, which have been discussed for years so I don't feel a particular need to recap.

Yet there is good news. Delivery systems for biological agents are actually very hard to build.

...for the destructive material to reach your house, the release must be timed, widespread and well-packaged. Most terrorist attacks have been quickly contained after their execution, and therefore the chances of it spreading beyond a few city blocks is minimal.

Handling these chemical and biological weapons is incredibly dangerous and a lot of training is necessary to create a weapon with widespread destructive capabilities. Overall, an attack with such a weapon is unlikely.

And so here we are. What this all boils down to is there is not much you can do about an attack that is unlikely to spread more than a few city blocks. If you happen to live outside those blocks your chances of surviving (by outrunning the agent) are pretty good. If you are within those blocks, my best advice is to bend over, put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye. As much as it sucks to say, by the time you realize you are under attack, you are probably already getting sick.

This just scratched the surface. There is all sorts of poor advice at Ready.gov. and I could spend two weeks going over it all. Why bother? The only reason to put together such a website is to quell panic at the elevation of the "Terrorist Alert System". And therein lies the reason that the Department of Homeland Security put together such a website. Think about it. The Bush administration has been criticized for constantly panicking the public. Even Laura Bush has claimed that it's "a little bit like crying wolf". Sure she was talking about the media, but the media is only reporting on government warnings!

So they get this great idea to put together an emergency page. It will make you feel better if you lay in a supply of fresh water, food, plastic sheets and duct tape, regardless of the fact that none of this stuff is going to help you. Even Tom Ridge has said he did not want people sheeting up their houses, but again, by the time we realize we are under attack, all the plastic sheeting in the world is not going to help.

This is nothing more than fear propaganda. After all, if you scare enough people you can pretty much do anything you want....

Patriot's Act II anyone?

Update: I don't know what happened to this article but it apparently disappeared for a short time. I also added a link to the "Duct and Cover" animation.

posted at 07:59:39 AM by Dominion

Wed, Feb 19 2003

Sorry that posting has been light, but on Friday I fell and threw out my back. I am feeling a bit better today so light posting. I hope to have something with a bit more meat tomorrow and Friday.

It really sucked because I really wanted to go to the protest this weekend. Reports suggest between 3,000 to 5,000 people attended. Unfortunately there was simply no way I could march, or even stand for very long. I hope to make the next one.

On a related note, it seems that two members of Houston's "Students for Peace" were arrested for trying to hang this sign over the Southwest Freeway.

Seems you can't fool all of the people all of the time. The two students are winding their way through the Houston criminal injustice system (and as a guest of the city a couple of times myself, I feel for them). I will update as I get more information. You can read more here. Pay special attention the comment section, it is scary just how little people know about the laws and the system in their very own city!

posted at 08:57:02 AM by Dominion

In a complaint worthy of Soviet Union at the hight of communistic rule, we have this:

Smithsonian Museum Blasted for Stressing America's Failures By Marc Morano

CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer

February 19, 2003

Washington (CNSNews.com) - A tour of America's premier federal historical museum in Washington D.C., reveals an unflattering historical portrait of America oppressing minorities. Some tourists and cultural critics say the Smithsonian curators have "washed out" the nation's European ancestry in favor of 'diversity' history.

The Smithsonian's American History museum currently features a series of exhibits detailing America's repression of minorities, ranging from the treatment of the Pueblo people in New Mexico to the forced Japanese-American internment camps of World War II and discrimination against Hispanics and African-Americans.

The museum receives approximately two-thirds of its funding from the federal government and the rest from corporate and private donations.

...

Cultural critic David Horowitz, co-founder of the Los Angeles-based Center for the Study of the Popular Culture and a former 1960s radical, was not surprised by the content of the Smithsonian exhibits, which he feels represent an attempt to make Americans feel guilty about their past.

"The Smithsonian is being run by America-haters. This goes back a long time," Horowitz told CNSNews.com.

"The whole museum field has been taken over by the left-wing Gestapo," Horowitz said.

But a Smithsonian curator defended the museum, saying its officials "are always interested in telling diverse stories." Jim Gardner, associate director of Curatorial Affairs, said the museum is also receiving "criticism on the left that we do very conservative history."

Gardner told CNSNews.com, "We would like the museum to be as diverse as the American people, but we don't have quotas or anything like that."

Of course the question that goes a'begging in all this is is the history true? It is amazing to me that anyone would object to history simply because did not paint this country in a good light. Talk about revisionist!

posted at 08:43:09 AM by Dominion

This is just silly:

Ridge to announce terrorism 'Ready Campaign'

Ridge urges Americans not to panic over heightened security alert at a Friday news conference.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. government has developed a "Ready Campaign" to advise families on what they can do to protect themselves against terrorism.

The program will include public service announcements that encourage families to have a communications plan so members can reach each other in an emergency; to make a supply kit with flashlights, batteries, water and other necessities; and to learn more about terrorism.

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge was expected to unveil the program Wednesday in Cincinnati.

"The war on terrorism will be won by the professionals," Ridge told reporters on Friday. "But there are things that individual citizens and families can do to help protect themselves."

"We can't always predict, but we can always prepare," Ridge said.

I have heard all the bull about using plastic sheeting and duct tape to protect in case of biological attack. I have even heard of people actually making safe rooms. It is as great a waste of time as the building of fallout shelters were in the '50s. Just one problem, unless your room is air tight you are going to be exposed. Of course, living in an air tight room presents it's own problems. That is, if you can even make a room air tight using something as stupid as plastic sheets and duct tape. George Bush's governing style seems to be based on "no one has ever gone broke overestimating the stupidity of the American public."...

I plan a much longer article on this so stay tuned.

posted at 08:27:38 AM by Dominion

Just to show how little we care about world opinion we have this:

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) is shrugging off global anti-war protests, saying his role as a leader is to put national security first and confront Saddam Hussein.

Yet the size of the protests, drawing millions to the streets of world capitals last weekend, complicated White House efforts to rally world support for disarming the Iraqi leader.

The administration mounted a public relations campaign Tuesday in an effort to liken the protests to demonstrations against NATO's staging of missiles in Germany in the early 1980s - rather than to the massive protests against the Vietnam War three decades ago.

"I respectfully disagree" with those who doubt that Saddam is a threat to peace, Bush said. "I owe it to the American people to secure this country. I will do so."

Please don't do me any favors.

posted at 07:33:47 AM by Dominion

Well it looks as if Colin Powell will become a complete whore of the current administration. Last week I felt sorry for the guy, having to present a case for war in Iraq that he does not believe in.

But that sorrow has turned to bright anger:

PARIS (Reuters) - Secretary of State Colin Powell accused countries like France that want more time for arms inspections in Iraq of being "afraid" to take responsibility for a possible war to disarm Baghdad.

Powell's comments, in an interview broadcast on Wednesday by French public radio France Info, were a clear reproach to French President Jacques Chirac, who has pushed hard for a longer, more intense inspection process in Iraq.

Powell also said Washington already had United Nations authority under November's resolution 1441 to use force even without a second resolution it was now drafting.

</