Why a deadly disease might be coming your way soon: this scare story takes off from a “massive report issued this week by the U.S. Institute of Medicine, Microbial Threats to Health: Emergence, Detection, and Response. It might as well have the subtitle: How We’re Blowing It.” Slate

But none of this is new. Investigative journalist Laurie Garrett said it all in another (also massive) tome almost a decade ago, The Coming Plague: newly emerging diseases

in a world out of balance, and I’ll bet with far less turgid prose. [As loyal readers of FmH know, I try to follow this stuff in an occasional department here of ’emerging infectious disease news’.]

The military’s laptop of choice provokes shock and awe: The author drools over the beefy hunk of machinery seen in videos from the front and reportedly widely deployed. This is either tongue-in-cheek or over-the-top; do you suppose the writer drives a Hummer? Slate

Why liberals need an affirmative position on Iraq

With the U.S. invasion of Iraq under way, American liberals seem at a loss for how to respond. In recent months, most lined up against unilateral war; now that war has begun, the only semi-coherent message emerging from progressive ranks is one of rejectionism. But that tack is a mistake. And it is one liberals could pay for dearly — at the ballot box and in the department of intellectual credibility — in future years. When it comes to questions of war, Iraq and reconstruction, liberals need to start thinking constructively, and fast.

Liberals held a wide variety of views on the necessity of war during the months leading up to invasion. We were no exception: One of us fully supported the administration’s war plans while the other was critical of the president’s unilateral course. But that is all in the past. War is now a reality. And it seems to us that the only moral and practical option for liberals is to begin immediately campaigning for a more ambitious, comprehensive and compassionate reconstruction of Iraq than the one the Bush administration is likely to embrace — while supporting the war effort that will lay the groundwork for such plans to be enacted. — Nick Penniman and Richard Just, TomPaine and The American Prospect

The president’s party took an early run this week at shutting down criticism with an all-hands-on-deck attack on Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, a Vietnam-era veteran who had the nerve to criticize the diplomatic failures leading up to this war.

“I’m saddened, saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we’re now forced to war,” Daschle said on Monday, “saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn’t create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country.”

The way the Republicans reacted, you’d have thought Daschle had endorsed Saddam Hussein for reelection. “Those comments may not undermine the president as he leads us into war,” said House Speaker Dennis Hastert. “And they may not give comfort to our adversaries, but they come mighty close.”

But a different standard seemed to apply after President Clinton launched his 1999 air campaign in Kosovo to protect ethnic Albanians from another dictator. — EJ Dionne, Washington Post

In times of strife, it is good to know who your friends are. So, in the absence of support from traditional allies such as France and Germany, it will come as welcome news to our troops in the Gulf this week that when the going gets tough, Azerbaijan is right behind them. The “coalition of the willing”, as Colin Powell has called it, is the list of 30 countries that responded positively to a phone call from Washington, seeking their support against Iraq. Starting with Afghanistan, ending with Uzbekistan and with 15 countries in between preferring to remain anonymous, it is an imaginative list, eschewing the usual suspects to give those nations not used to playing a role on the world stage a chance to shine. Albania, for example. And Georgia. Guardian/UK

Bush had Iraq in his sights before he became President:

How the American administration moved, after 11 September 2001, from its pledge to hunt down Osama bin Laden “dead or alive” to launching all-out war on Iraq is one of the imponderables of international diplomacy. According to new inside accounts, the rout of the Taliban in Afghanistan was less a prelude to war on Iraq than a temporary distraction from it. Independent/UK

Blair ‘restrained Bush from attacking Iraq after Sept 11’: Tony Blair played a key role in stopping President George W Bush from ordering military action against Iraq immediately after the September 11 attacks, and convincing him to take a longer diplomatic road to war, British sources disclosed yesterday.

But officials said they decided on a spring campaign because of fears that prolonged uncertainty would undermine the global economy and destabilise Arab countries ready to help. Telegraph/UK

Of course, we all know the dysadministration has never been interested in peaceful disarmament of Iraq as anything more than a pretext. They have been sabotaging and stonewalling the U.N. inspection process all along on both the CBW and the nuclear side.

If you spot terrorism, blow your anti-terrorism whistle. If you are Vin Diesel, yell really loud.

“Russian President Vladimir Putin, in fierce criticism of the U.S. attack on Baghdad, has demanded a quick end to hostilities and is challenging Washington’s view that Iraq is a threat to world security.” Yahoo! News

And: China Demands Halt to Attack Washington Post

Montreal Canadiens fans boo U.S. national anthem. Of course, they were just returning the favor.

“We should make the outcome in Iraq seem, as much as possible, like a victory for Iraqis, and we should put them in charge quickly.” — Nicholas Kristof, NY Times op-ed. Admirable sentiments, but if thinks editorial moralizing, especially from the Times, can hold this dysadministration accountable to any standard of fairness in the face of its rapacious illegality, he lives in a fantasy world.

“Four criteria by which the American public can evaluate the progress of the invasion of Iraq.” NY Times editorial

“Is the war making you ill? In San Francisco, a group called Direct Action to Stop the War put out the call to call in sick the day the United States invades Iraq. Most peace demos thus far have been held after work and on weekends in order to guarantee higher turnouts and to avoid interfering with the working day, but the rapidly maturing anti-war movement is looking for ways to dust off the old connections between war and capitalism by monkeywrenching the economy.” Village Voice

letter ‘C’ (‘D’ to follow shortly). Do with these what you will. There might be some direct action planned at some of these bases that you would want to, ummm, go down and watch. E-Journal of Modern Strategy

“the all clear siren just went on.

The bombing aould come and go in waves, nothing too heavy and not yet comparable to what was going on in 91. all radio and TV stations are still on and while the air raid began the Iraqi TV was showing patriotic songs and didn’t even bother to inform viewers that we are under attack. at the moment they are re-airing yesterday’s interview with the minister of interior affairs. THe sounds of the anti-aircarft artillery is still louder than the booms and bangs which means that they are still far from where we live, but the images we saw on Al Arabia news channel showed a building burning near one of my aunts house, hotel pax was a good idea. we have two safe rooms one with “international media” and the other with the Iraqi TV on. every body is waitingwaitingwaiting. phones are still ok, we called around the city a moment ago to check on friends. Information is what they need. Iraqi TV says nothing, shows nothing. what good are patriotic songs when bombs are dropping

around 6:30 my uncle went out to get bread, he said that all the streets going to the main arterial roads are controlled by Ba’ath people. not curfew but you have to have a reason to leave your neighborhood, and the bakeries are, by instruction of the Party, seeling only a limited amount of bread to each customer. he also says that near the main roads all the yet unfinished houses have been taken by party or army people.”

As an aside: Kottke articulates some doubts about where Raed is, really. In the buzz over this weblog, the thought certainly should cross people’s minds…

in the manner of Gil Scott-Heron‘s The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, which remains to this day one of the more eloquent powerful poetic rants devised. This one works too, in its own right. Don’t fail to follow up some of the hyperlinks. biplog[thanks, walker]

Dean Allen complains about “the constant grousing about the scourge of ‘political correctness’™;

a complaint that plays as reliably well in the echo chamber as a frontman demanding if the arena is ready to rock.

Such staying power for a term unused outside the realm of parody since, oh, 1991? It’s a drained cliché, malleable, as was its antonym long before Bill Maher smirked into view.

Yet the very same pious humourlessness, the very same shouting down of any opposing view, the very same presumptions of power, the very same claims to a higher purpose, the very same misappropriation of the suffering of strangers, that dogged the very worst of what we came to know as the ‘politically correct’™ is now the breakfast, lunch, dinner and midnight snack of the neocons and pseudolibertarians, the Attack Runts and the designated mourners. Easy enough to laugh at. That is, until its impact hits home.

Look, a new term: Idiotically Correct.”

He’s talking about the amazing saga that starts out with Nashville’s Charlie Daniels’ latest effort to prove he’s a caricature of a redneck yahoo, but watch where it goes. [via walker]

“The backlash against prominent stars opposing any attack on Iraq has impacted on this year’s Oscars, with organisers drawing up a blacklist of people who will not be allowed a platform to air anti-war views.

Meryl Streep, Sean Penn, Vanessa Redgrave, George Clooney, Dustin Hoffman and Spike Lee are among those who will not be speaking, amid fears they could turn the ceremony into an anti-war rally.

In a move denounced by some as a return to McCarthyism, star presenters have been ordered to stick to scripts, while winners, who the producers have no control over, could find their acceptance speeches cut if they say anything much more than a brief thank you.” The Scotsman