Citadel of the Blogs The Inbox of the Internet (really)

First, I am no blind puff in Michael Moore's self-rep business. Still, I thought <a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com/special/f911-screenshots.php" title="Scenes from Michael Moore's new documentary">if this weren't sad it would be funny</a>:

<img src="http://www.michaelmoore.com/_media/images/special/911_1-small.jpg" alt="Scene from michaelmoore.com" alt="Scenes from michaelmoore.com" width="300" align="Middle" border="2">

Michael Moore: "Oh, well, see, there's not that many Congressmen that've got kids over there, and in fact, only one. So we just thought maybe you guys should send your kids there first. What do you think about that idea?"

Finally, something relatively sensible on the whole topic: former weapons inspector David Kay admits he repeatedly warned of prisoner abuses while he was stationed in Iraq. Did anyone listen? <a href="http://www.morningnewsonline.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=FMN/MGArticle/FMN_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031775300094&path=!news" title="David Kay on Iraqi Prisoner Abuses">Nada chance, Batman.
</a>

Kay also makes final summaries of his findings:

"Years after Iraq was defeated in the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein secretly decided in the mid-'90s to get rid of his weapons of mass destruction, mostly chemical stockpiles, because they were too easy to find and could be rebuilt after world sanctions lapsed, Kay said.

Saddam kept up a policy of deception against weapons inspectors because he feared that the Iraqi people and his own army might overthrow him if they were not convinced he still had the weapons, Kay said. <strong>Every Iraqi general who has been interrogated was convinced the weapons were still in Iraq but had not seen them for years, he said.</strong> [emphasis mine]

American intelligence agencies remained fooled because Iraqis who wanted Saddam toppled kept feeding them false stories about his hidden stockpiles of chemical and other weapons, Kay said."

<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/netnotes/article/0,6729,1225304,00.html?=rss">Singapore has removed its famous ban on chewing gum. </a>The article follows the history of gum. While mentioning that it was the addition of latex which made the stuff widely available, the article fails to mention that it was originally developed as a form of synthetic rubber. That experiment failed. The rest, as they say, was history.

Despite the following sub-title, this book has an intriguing thesis: THE WISDOM OF CROWDS: WHY THE MANY ARE SMARTER THAN THE FEW AND HOW COLLECTIVE WISDOM SHAPES BUSINESS, ECONOMIES, SOCIETIES, AND NATIONS, by James Surowiecki.

<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0525/p15s02-bogn.html" title="review of "Wisdom of Crowds"">According to the review</a>, "As counterintuitive as it sounds, however, the mathematics work so long as Surowiecki's three key criteria - independence, diversity, and decentralization - are satisfied. "If you ask a large enough group," he says, "to make a prediction or estimate a probability," the errors they make cancel each other out. "Subtract the error, and you're left with the information." In this fashion, the TV studio audience of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire," guessed the right answer to questions 91 percent of the time, torching the "experts," who guessed the right answer only 65 percent of the time."

Only asking "experts", incidentally, makes the fatal error of not asking a group with enough diversity. Again from the review, "Take national security. In one section, Surowiecki describes how the US blundered into the Bay of Pigs because the decisionmaking group - the president and his advisers - all shared similar conceptions and assumptions. In short, the group lacked diversity and, as a result, demonstrated a colossal example of the failings of groupthink."

New book on anxiety and stress in the modern world, STATUS ANXIETY
By Alain de Botton. I wouldn't ordinarily mention this link except for the oh-so-scintillating by-line I read: <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0518/p14s03-bogn.html" title="McLeary book review">"Her house is bigger, his wife is prettier …". </a>

So who can't relate to those twin emotions? As Joseph Campbell neatly summarizes in his critique of Buddhism, fear and desire are the quintessential negative elements of life in this world.

So what makes this book different and special? Not much. Except perhaps de Botton's main thesis: we don't envy everybody - just our friends.