Sagepaper

TSHSMom wrote about her son Z, who is being home-schooled. The main point she made was that there is good socialization, and bad socialization. Being bullied is bad for healthy socialization. This often means that extracurricular social contact for the home-schooled might be superior to the "socialization" they would get in school.

Z knows he has Tourette's. He and his parents are already way ahead of the game. I was not diagnosed until age 32, despite having a moderate to severe case. I had a hard time in schools. No matter what I did, or tried, I did not fit in; was disliked by teachers; was bullied by students; and unprotected by administrators. Many times I wondered at the irony, as I spit blood from my mouth, of being beaten for being the teacher's pet: trust me, I wasn't. In retrospect, I can see how Tourette's syndrome offered me many difficulties and trials.

I would lengthen my introduction, but there is enough here to read. This is the comment I posted on TSHSMom's Blog:

I traveled around a lot as a kid. I was in many different school systems. In all but one, a rural Oklahoma school, it became evident that my defense was my problem. I always got the short end of the stick from teachers.

The best example of this happened in Maryland, at an open school (a hideous and failed program). A girl two years my senior came up to me with friends in-tow, and began bullying me. I was a smart-ass, and mouthed-off to her, embarrassing her in front of her friends. She slapped me hard across the face.

The school had been trying to reduce MY aggressive behavior, and had told me not to fight back, but to go tell a teacher. I went and told on the girl. I was told by the teacher that someone as smart as me should know better than to provoke another child who was bigger than myself. I told my parents. They called the school, and complained that no disciplinary action had been taken against the other girl.

Next day, the teacher got the other girl and me together, and lectured us both. Fighting was not allowed, but it was better to stop it before it began. She handled the matter unevenly, leaving the blame still with me.

A few days passed, and the girl and her friends approached me again. She was angry that I had told and gotten her in trouble. I said something like, "You got yourself in trouble." She then called me many derogatory things. As I listened, I observed that I was feeling provoked. I punched her in the nose.

The teacher was livid with me. I parroted back to her her own rules, and called on nearby witnesses who said I had been provoked. It mattered not. I was sent directly to the principal's office, and my mother was called.

So, the real rules were that anyone could treat me anyway they liked with impunity, and if I were the least deviant from a perfect young lady { Not a possible standard for a Tourettic }, I was susceptible to the wrath of anyone near me.

To say the least, things like this interaction often emboldened my tormentors. In this particular case, I had caused the other girl enough pain that she no longer bothered me. That was ultimately the take-home message.

There is only so much trouble you can be in. If I got the max for pushing someone, there was little more that could be done to me for leaving them gasping and crying on the ground. If I only pushed, the bullying would continue. If I dropped a bully, they would leave me alone.

Regarding bad socialization, most of my friends and I were turned inside-out over Columbine. The whole nation was stricken. But my friends and I were horrified to observe that we had more empathy for the gunmen than for their classmates and teachers. Bullying must not be tolerated. It can harden a soft heart and warp a bright mind.

After a few days of giving him pain medicine, our elderly Sheltie has recovered. He learns very quickly, which is both a good thing and a bad thing. He has too many food allergies for us to feed him "people" food, so we spoil him in other ways. This evening, I finished a bowl of left-over tater-tots, and he started acting excited, like he might be given a chance to lick the bowl. I put the bowl in the sink, and turned to go get one of his healthier treats for him.

He whimpered, and looked at me expectantly. I saw that coming days ago. He got a lot of extra attention for whimpering. I just looked at him and said, "Oh, I don't think so!" I went and got him his normal treat.

I learned in reading about dogs that it is very important that they participate in meals. As pack animals, they share the kill. There is some order of dominance in the feeding, but even the lowliest little runt is given something. That's because the pack needs every member. If you finish eating, and your dog gets nothing, it will feel profoundly rejected, and even resentful.

To balance our dog's health problems with his social needs, we have established a routine of giving him a hypo-allergenic biscuit when we are done eating. It works! He takes it happily, and seems satisfied with the arrangement.

We need to get him groomed. He's been a bit overdue, anyway. He did soil himself again, so I took scissors to anything that could get soiled in the future. Now he is shedding clumps of undercoat from his hindquarters. He seemed to like the trimming, though. It's starting to warm-up a bit here in the South.

Thanks for all your concern and support! It means a lot to us!

I sympathize with Z's attachment to belongings. I grew to an age when it was no longer possible for me to keep everything. I was mostly limited to the top-drawer of my dresser for things that were too important to let go. My choice of items would have made little sense to most people. For example, I kept a scrap of leather from some stranger's roller skate that I found in a parking lot. It was important because of its personality. Somehow, it belonged with me, or I would not have noticed it "calling out" to me.

To me, everything seems to have its own spirit and personality. Some things resonate strongly with me, others do not. When it is time for an object and me to part ways, I often spend a little time communing with it, sort of "talking" with it. I can usually keep from hurting its feelings that way. In fact, I sometimes let go something I like because it seems anxious to leave. In that case, the farewell communion is more for my benefit than for the object's.

Perhaps allowing Z some ritual time with things he is sorting would help. It takes longer, but in the end there is greater peace of spirit, and less anger at others. Disregard all of this, of course, if it is incompatible with your family's beliefs. As an aside, I do not believe my view of objects constitutes idolatry. I don't worship things, but I respect them.

TSHSMom's son, Z, wouldn't take to one of my hobbies right-off. I am A SkyWarn Storm Spotter, certified by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. I do have an off-beat idea for his weather phobia, though. Perhaps he should take a NOAA spotting course. It would be a nice addition to his home schooling. Also, ignorance tends to foster fear. If he knew for sure which cloud formations to watch for, and what is and is not threatening weather, he might feel more at ease. He could use his local weather statistics and his training to step out, or look out, and assess for himself what the conditions are.

Of course, if he ever did see threatening weather, he might become alarmed. If, however, he knows what to do under those circumstances, he could be a real life-saver for your family. Storm spotters' warnings often come several minutes before radar warnings -- life-saving time. That is why the National Weather Service relies on professionally trained spotters.

There is a phenomenon seen world-wide and throughout history known as "Brain-drain." This is what happens when many people flee an area, and the best and brightest almost all leave. Often, it is those who are the most intelligent, and those who have the greatest education, and those who have been the most financially successful, who first see "the writing on the wall." They evacuate a troubled area immediately, and then soon, and a few later. Very few of these individuals choose to "ride it out." Others in the population leave sooner, and more leave later, then most are stuck with borders closed to prevent their emigration.

This does not immediately affect the highest echelons of government, typically. During an invasion, however, the highest echelons do evacuate swiftly and establish a government-in-exile. When the threat is from the government, however, you typically see brain-drain. This can cripple a nation's institutions, but not for a while. Subordinates will be promoted to fill the vacancies. Institutional policies and procedures can continue to work for a while.

Eventually, though, a nation's institutions are destined for destruction. When the best and brightest and most proven people are gone, that leaves unsavory choices for whom to promote. Often, university professors are in the vanguard of the emigration. This means the educational system is going to go downhill. Unless this is corrected, the future of the nation is grim, indeed.

More bright people will come from next generations, but they must be educated if they are to help their country's recovery. Sometimes nations which have suffered brain-drain will send their youth to foreign universities to get the needed education. Even so, an instance of brain-drain takes decades to fix, unless you can woo your emigrants to return.

I think it likely that Northern Korea suffered a brain-drain during the Korean war, as people chose to flee communism. More recently, I read a headline referring to a major refugee movement from North Korea to South Korea. I don't know how major. There have also been increasing numbers of refugees to China. I can't help but think that many intelligent and educated people might want to get out of a new nuclear power state -- especially one which is not diplomatically well-received. They are more of a target than a power right now, and I would think that might rattle a few cages.

I don't know if fleeing North Koreans will be able to escape the peninsula, or make their way to South Korea. According to an article I read in Asia Times, many North Koreans were able to make it into consulates in China, and then on to third countries. Predictably, this became more difficult. Now, the PRC has actually invaded a number of consulates, supposedly sovereign foreign soil, to arrest North Koreans inside. The gateway is closing, and those who thought of leaving first have left their countrymen behind.

Was this a brain-drain? If so, what are the implications for North Korean society? It is bad enough to have a brain-drain, but having two within fifty years could be truly devastating. Also, I'm sure North Korea has not had a massive program of foreign education for their new shining stars. Simply experiencing the "wealth" of a backwater Chinese province on their border has disillusioned numerous refugees. They have been taught that North Korea is the wealthiest country in the world. They are told of all the things they are provided, which are too expensive for many in the rest of the world. They believe, for example, that free public education is unique to them.

Given the magnitude of the lies the people are told, it could be dangerous to send young idealistic students off to foreign universities. I don't know how bad things are inside North Korea now. They have had to cope with food shortages and face famine. However bad things are, it seems to have reached a point where their leader sees acquiring nuclear weapons as the way to the future. From what the DPRK has indicated they will consider as acts of war, it appears they went swiftly from begging to armed robbery.

They say any reduction in food aid will be seen as an act of war. Why have they turned to armed robbery? We did not make them grovel for the assistance we gave them. Perhaps if they had some better-trained advisors in the government, they could enjoy greater diplomatic success. The nation seems, from the outside, to be intellectually unbalanced. I think they understand militarism better than anything else. Perhaps that is an artifact of the Korean War.

It occurs to me I might have been offensive in my post, "How to Make a Nuclear Target." In it, I used a master and his bulldog as an analogy for the relationship between the People's Republic of China and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), North Korea. I certainly do not wish to characterize Koreans, in the North or the South, as bulldogs, or any other sub-human species.

In our law, there is a responsibility you bear for your "agents," and their actions. People often don't realize how many "agents" they have, when they have not signed any legal papers. An obvious example of an agent is an employee. If that employee is your representative, and is under your control to some degree, you bear responsibility for the employee's actions. For example, if the employee promises a refund to an unhappy customer, you are bound by your "agent's" action. You must honor the promise your employee made.

There are less obvious agents in your life. In olden times, a wife was the agent of her husband, since she was under his control. If she signed an agreement, the husband was bound by it. This agency still exists in many of our states, but is now a two-way agency. A wife might be responsible for the gambling debts of her husband, he being her agent. This part of the law is to protect businesses from collusion between husband and wife to defraud others.

Then we get to more troublesome types of agency. Your children, whom you are presumed to be able to control are your agents. Like other agents, they can get you into legal, as well as financial, hot water. If your child steals from someone, you yourself are on the hook. It is presumed that you have it in your power to prevent your child from breaking the law. As we all know, this is not always the case. The only way to protect yourself from liability for a child's criminal conduct is to go to juvenile court, and have your child declared an unruly child. The state then takes responsibility for the child's conduct. You might or might not retain custody.

Next, we get to pets. All pets are legally considered your agents. Your goldfish are unlikely to misbehave in such a way as to get you into trouble. Other pets can. The most common type of agency problem with a pet involves a dog. Dogs can be trained, muzzled, leashed, confined and otherwise controlled. If your dog bites someone, you are personally responsible for its conduct. This is true even if you do not have an attack-trained pet.

This agency protects people from vicious dogs. If your animal is dangerous, you must bring it under control, or confine it, or give it to someone else, or destroy it, or face the consequences. Of course, if an attack by your animal is in your presence, it is customary for you to try to intervene, although some animals are too vicious to be safely handled by their owners.

Regarding dogs, there are a variety of customs. Some are the same as for other agents, such as children. Generally, you do not discipline someone else's child or dog. That is the responsibility of the parent or owner, and it can be a real breach of etiquette to meddle. There's a Texan phrase that's relevant: "It's your dog. You kick it."

In comparing the relationship between the PRC and the DPRK to that of a master and his dog, I am suggesting agency. This is a Cold War view of things. Those allied with the Western powers were considered to be, to a significant degree, the agents of Western nations. Similarly, those allied with the Soviets were considered to be, to a significant degree, the agents of the Soviet Union. This was for everyone's protection, and to everyone's danger. If a Warsaw Pact country committed an act of war against a NATO country, the Soviets were on the hook. Likewise, if a NATO member committed an act of war against a Warsaw Pact Country, the US was on the hook.

There were too additional components to my analogy: bulldog as a specific breed, and rabid as a specific condition. A bulldog, by nature, is a potentially vicious animal. A given bulldog might be a wonderful family pet, and live a long life without ever biting anyone. You cannot count on that, though. You must take extra precautions if a bulldog is to be your agent. North Korea, because of it's constant poverty, personality cult, tyranny, and enormous standing army, must be considered a potential aggressor.

A dog which is rabid is a danger to the community. It is no longer a matter of potential or possibility. The dog can no longer control its actions, and its very presence can infect humans with disease, even if they are not attacked. It is not necessary, legally, for the owner to be the one to destroy a rabid dog, but it has long been a decision owners prefer to handle themselves. That is changing with urban and suburban growth, but most Americans have seen "Old Yeller."

In the paragraph where I make my analogy, I admit the possibility that North Korea is not acting as the PRC's agent. If it is not the PRC's agent, then it is rogue, but not in the direction of deciding to open markets faster, or reunify with South Korea, or some other thing like that which the PRC might not intend for North Korea to do. Specifically, North Korea has announced that they have the deadliest weapon on earth. The government seems reckless, I cannot figure out a specific strategic need, nor doctrine of use, that the DPRK might have for nuclear weapons. They have much to gain and little to lose from resuming the six-party talks, yet they stay away. Dangerous and beyond reason, I don't think 'rabid' a bad analogy for the DPRK's current foreign policy.

I'm sorry my last few posts have been anemic. This one is, also. My elderly dog had his teeth cleaned today, and he is not altogether well. He seems to be improving a bit, but I might have to take him to an emergency clinic for pain medication. His vet cannot be reached to ask if he has already been given a dose of his prescription medicine. A double-dose would be dangerous. It will probably be kinder to just encourage him to sleep than it would be to take him on a thirty-minute-drive to the emergency clinic.

I guess the decision will be based on whether he stays awake in pain, or returns to his sedation. For those of you with pets, I'm sure you understand my dilemma. I wish the emergency clinic could just give me what they would give him, and spare him the trip.

I have a poem I thought I would post tonight, but I will save it for another time. If I am up all night caring for my dog, I might not be up for writing tomorrow, either. Bless his heart, as if he weren't having a bad enough day, he went outside and soiled himself, requiring a bath and scissors to clean.

Well, now I know why none of the news agencies would explain the lack of photos. I have a problem on my machine with the AOL browser. With Internet Explorer, I found that all the pictures reappeared. At my father's suggestion, I rebooted my machine, and the problem with the AOL browser vanished. It's a bit disappointing, though. I had a number of conspiracy theories I was forming about the matter. My favorite involved the NSA. They have, however, plausible deniability in this instance.

Well, okay, I didn't think much of the photo released of Saddam Hussein. Supposedly more were to be released today, although I had seen the contents already. Presumably others have as well.

I can't find any non-advertisement news photographs online today. I have checked major news providers, national papers: here and in Britain, regional newspapers, local newspapers, and even a tiny rural newspaper. The latter no longer has a website. There are no news photos on AOL. On AOL, a news segment failed to load, although there were news segments available at CNN.com. Even sports and entertainment stories have no photos. Those categories are very photo-dependent.

My father says he heard a news story a number of days back saying that there would be new copyright policies among the larger news services. You would have to pay to download some things. Perhaps that is all there is to it.

Why is this radical change in online news coverage NOT a major story? I have found no mention during CNN's Headline News. I have not otherwise watched television today. Still, I would think that America Online would offer an explanation to its members. There are still blue boxes set in the text, where photos would normally be. The blue boxes even contain the photo captions, but no pictures. Similarly, neither my regional nor my local paper offered explanations. My local paper did offer to let you order novelties with a photo imprinted on them, but you could not view apicture to see if you wanted a ballcap from it or not.

Does anyone know why we are in the darkroom?

According to the Crimes of War Project, Article 13 of the third Geneva Convention of 1949 requires that POW's must at all times be treated humanely. The Convention goes on to list many things from which POW's must be protected. One item says they must be protected against, "insults and public curiosity."

Former Major General Rogers of the British army, and an expert in the laws of war, indicated that the key to deciding whether treatment of POW's infringes the Convention is to look at the intention of the action. Action that was intended to be humiliating and degrading, he said, would qualify as a breach of the Convention. But television footage that was merely factual would not necessarily be a violation. Spokesman Florian Westphal of the International Committee of the Red Cross, said that the ICRC would consider the use of any image that makes a prisoner of war individually recognizable to be a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.

Technically, not all violations of the Geneva Conventions are war crimes that determination is reserved for serious breaches of the treaty. General Rogers said that in his opinion, subjecting prisoners of war to humiliating or degrading treatment was a serious violation, and hence a war crime.

Who may be charged with war crimes? I believe the answer is whoever is guilty. Leaders who order the commission of war crimes are certainly accountable. It's my understanding that the accountability flows all the way down to a private who executes an unlawful order. I believe civilians can also be held accountable, if they participate in the commission of war crimes. There are civilian members of the old Habyrimana government of Rwanda who are standing trial for the genocide.

So, it appears that a war crime has been committed, drawing on the opinions of two experts in the field. Certainly, the photographer could be guilty. It is possible that the photographer had a non-war crime purpose, perhaps it was documentation that Saddam Hussein did not have marks from torture on him on a given day and time. There is some question as to whether there even was a photographer. This image might have come from a surveillance camera.

Certainly, the person who leaked the photograph is guilty, going either by intent or by easy recognition of the individual. There might be a commanding officer involved. Certainly, there was a publisher involved. The New York Post and The Sun (British) are both owned by one man.

It seems to me that the photo was not the war crime. It's publication was the war crime. I think we should include in a war crimes investigation anyone at these two publications involved with the photograph of Saddam Hussein. Ignorance of the law is no excuse in Britain or the United States.

The media used to be self-policing in times of war. That habit is gone, now. Censorship is, in my opinion, necessary in time of war. That censorship should come from within the press. I do not want to see the government attempt to carry that burden. We need to know about prisoner abuse. It's okay for the news to tell us about it, but it is not okay for them to perpetrate it.

On America Online, I have seen many posts calling for the boycott of Newsweek until the journalists responsible for the false report of the desecrations of the Quran are fired. I think the picture of Saddam Hussein in his underwear is far more serious, because it is criminal.

I don't know how to create a grass-roots movement. I do believe it might fall to the public to provide the needed censorship. Boycotting might work on those who are motivated solely by greed. Self-censorship might arise among more responsible members of the media. We must not allow the press to lose its freedom by abusing it.

I have decided to spend the next day or so editing my previous posts. There won't be substantive changes, but hopefully there will be editorial improvements. I am trying to improve the mechanics of my writing. I hope writing daily will hone my skills. Even the best first draft, though, is only a draft. Thanks for your patience and support!

Here's a troublesome topic. Should we impede natural human movement in times of stress? Before there were political States, people would migrate from a bad place to a better place. Now, with states and with NGO's, that is not an option.

It is considered best to encamp displaced people as close to their homes as possible. There are separate rules, by the way, for people who cross State boundaries, and for people who are internal refugees. Still, though, there is a desire that displaced people not integrate with host populations. That is understandable.

Are we really doing anyone any favors, though, by rounding-up the displaced and confining them to aid camps where they eat and die? What if the world did not feed them in camps? Many would die, but I am not sure how that mortality rate would compare with the mortality rate in camps. Maybe, when a region becomes drought prone, it would be wisest to allow the population to move to more fertile ground.

Of course, the owners of the more fertile ground might object. In the good old days when people were free to roam to new territory, there were wicked wars. But there are wicked civil wars over food, anyway. Perhaps if the international community offered aid to owners of fertile land, as a peace offering, we could break the famine cycle some.

Part of the problem is that people who huddle in camps are not working the fields to ensure next season's harvest. There are of course, reasons for this. The greatest is civil war. Still, people die in the camps, and there are fewer left to farm the land if they ever get back to it. Then, the land itself suffers from not being tended for agriculture.

I am not wise enough to know the solution to this problem. Perhaps I will have an opportunity to study a bit about food politics in African civil wars. Meanwhile, do any of you have any ideas?

For decades, people have had curiosity about how to make nuclear weapons. If a weapon can be made, people have wondered about delivery systems. Most curious amateurs never think about how to make a nuclear target. I will do a brief review of nuclear strategy, then focus on target-making.

An atomic bomb is good for some things, but not for others. What it is best at doing is instantly obliterating a circular area around "ground zero," its actual location of detonation. It also produces radioactive fall-out, but that is not always a desirable thing. To help us balance the blast and radioactive effects, we and other nuclear powers have developed a variety of types of nuclear weapon. Strategically, they are very different, but if you are to be at "ground zero," you really needn't worry about the distinctions.

So, we have little nuclear weapons that can be deployed on a battlefield, and used by artillery or aircraft. These are called, "tactical nukes." They are designed to take out a command center, or a large gathering of armored vehicles, or any other juicy battlefield configuration.

Then, there is a slightly bigger nuke that can go farther than the battlefield, but not too far. These can be fired from one European country to about Moscow. These are called, "intermediate range nuclear missiles." They are designed to take out a city, or at least part of one. They target things like large naval bases, or heavy industrial areas that make war machines.

Then, there are very big nuclear weapons called, "Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles." This is what we have in silos in Kansas and elsewhere as our "Central Strategic Forces." These are designed to obliterate anything we don't like about our enemy. We can destroy nuclear weapons in hardened silos with them, we can level cities with them, we can boil naval flotillas with them, we can even trim the tops off mountains with them. We have enough of these to blast the entire land-mass of the world, and then some.

The Russians also retain these abilities. I think some of the larger former Soviet Republics retain some, but probably not enough to just make way for an intergalactic freeway. (I liked the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy!) Britain and France have intercontinental capabilities, too, but I think that's mainly being able to put intermediate nuclear weapons on ships, planes, and submarines. India likely has intermediate range nuclear weapons, and Pakistan probably does as well, since China likes them.

Speaking of China, they have long had tactical nuclear capability, but I don't think they built many tactical nukes. They simply wanted a credible nuclear deterrent for a while; meaning they wanted to say, "If you toast us, we can toast you." They had intermediate range missiles only for a bit. They quickly developed Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, but they had trouble with the "ballistic" part of that. They could chuck one our way, but there was a 1500 mile (or some huge number) potential strike area. It was a deterrent, but not a strategic weapon, since they couldn't aim at anything. Now, China has benefited from Clinton's, uhm, technical assistance. They have good guidance systems for their missiles, and can aim their new strategic weapons.

Okay, we've done the basic strategic overview. How do you create a nuclear target? Well, first you want something that fits within a circular blast area. You could not make a target of elementary schools. They are all over the nation. You would not make a target of the habitat of Spotted Owls. They are strategically unimportant. So, you would choose something important, within a circular area.

Most of the nuclear targets that we own are essentially the same as they were in the Cold War. Losing Detroit would hurt industrially. Losing Philadelphia would be a blow to the Navy. Losing Washington would disrupt our government, and so forth. Our Central Strategic Forces would be targets still for Russians, but no one else would try to take on everything we have in the cornfields, mountains, and deserts.

How could we make new targets? Two ways: make additional important things, or gather things together in circles that could be blasted. We are looking at decisions which would involve both methods of creating nuclear targets. We are closing military bases, and consolidating our forces into a few remaining bases. This is gathering things in a circle. We are also looking at developing "Sea Bases." These would be made of four or five mammoth new Navy ships which could serve as multi-force land bases, but on water, and mobile around the oceans. These would be new important things. Note that they would also fit in circles.

We are too preoccupied with the newest threats, terrorism and rogue states, to remember the strategic lessons of the Cold War. There are two components to any threat: capability and intent. Intent can change more rapidly than capability. Britain poses a somewhat greater threat to us than does Syria. Britain has capability. Fortunately, they do not have a threatening intent. Syria might give us the evil eye, as far as intent goes, but they are not capable of tackling us.

Russia, hopefully our new friend, has capability. The threat from intent has decreased since the end of the Cold War, but could still change more rapidly than their capability. China now has the capability. What have they shown us of trustworthy intent?

Well, they waited until their, uhm, diplomatic counter-part was no longer in office before unleashing their little bulldog, North Korea. Maybe they didn't intend that. They certainly aren't willing to shoot their own dog for becoming rabid, though. We should remember the People's Republic of China as we go about creating new targets, at which they can now actually aim.

The Department of Homeland Security is about to deploy X-ray devices to allow screeners to see beneath a passenger's clothes. The ACLU is crying, "Foul!" The device gives a clear and detailed image of the passenger's naked body. The ACLU claims that it is a virtual strip search, and allowing it's use would be a step on the road to a surveillance society. The Department of Homeland Security says they don't want to get bogged down in endless debates about privacy issues. They intend to go ahead.

What about the radiation? We are living longer lives, meaning we are exposed to radiation more. We have greater life-long exposure to natural radiation. We also have greater exposure to medical radiation. We get more annual chest X-rays per life than when we died younger. Don't forget routine dental X-rays. Since we are living longer, we are also having more imaging ordered for specific diagnostic purposes.

Even though each of these man-made forms of radiation has been engineered with fewer rads actually used per imaging procedure, there is still an accumulation. Radiation, as we know, causes cancer. Risk of cancer is figured on the basis of total lifetime exposure. The more the exposure, the greater the risk.

There is also a "one-hit" theory of cancer. It says that a single exposure to a single unit of a cancer-causing agent can alter a single living cell in your body, and that altered cell could start reproducing forming a cancer. This means you really should try to completely avoid things that cause cancer. For medical imaging, there is some health benefit to offset the health risk.

There is no health benefit to offset the health risk of the X-Ray scanners, no matter how low the dose of radiation. Don't be fooled: it takes years, and sometimes decades before an exposure leads to a cancer. Homeland Security cannot guarantee us that these four-year-old devices with limited testing are safe.

It could come to pass that they will argue the device is safe because it generates less radiation than some other standard. Sometimes people liken radiation exposure to time in the sun. We are supposed to wear sunscreen because radiation from the sun causes skin cancer. Remember, the goal is to limit total lifetime radiation exposure.

So, will the CDC find, in the year 2040, that people who were frequent travelers have a higher risk of developing certain types of cancer? We don't know what these machines will do, but it will be unhealthy. It is simply a question of degree. So, get your frequent-flyer miles and get your frequent-flyer rads, too!

So, Newsweek got it wrong, and many around the world are dead, and the lives of Americans are in greater jeopardy. The story about the desecration of the Qurans was wrong. So, what do we do now that our flag is burning across much of the globe?

At a bare minimum, those two authors should be toast. I had a good friend at The American University in Washington, DC, who was a communications major. AU had a tough policy for would-be journalists. From the date of enrollment, before you knew anything, to the day you graduated, you could not have one single error of fact.

If you had an EOF, you would be permanently expelled with no appeal. (Of course, there would be due process in determining whether an EOF had occurred.) Permanently expelled. If you wanted to continue your education to be a journalist, you would have to do so elsewhere, applying with an expulsion on your transcript. It didn't matter if you misspelled Jon's name as John. One EOF was the end of you.

If we can be that tough on a college freshman, sophomore, junior, or second semester senior, we can be that tough on a professional. In fact, at the level of Newsweek, the editor's job should be on the line, too. Editors are supposed to make sure there are no EOF's in their department.

I still think a symbolic solution is best for a symbolic problem. Perhaps the journalists should make supervised copies of the Quran. I'm inclined to think that is too lenient. I think they should go on a speaking tour throughout the Islamic world, apologizing and setting the record straight. If they find that their lecture audiences throw rocks, too bad. They should have considered the consequences of an EOF.

It is too bad that we cannot make criminal charges against such journalists. Then again, it wouldn't be too good if we could. A free press is precious. Newsweek has deep pockets. Maybe someone should tell the survivors of those killed in the violence that they can try to sue. Certainly, I think DoD, on behalf of the taxpayer, should file a libel suit. This EOF is likely to cause the US some expense.

Perhaps there is something Newsweek can do besides firing some of their staff. They are publishers. Why not make them publish and distribute a painfully large number of Qurans?

Numerous of you have told me you did not find a way to comment on my Blog posts. That is understandable; the link to click is small, camouflaged, and doesn't say anything really identifying. At the bottom of each post, in the lower right, there is a faded comment counter. It's format, so far, has been to say, "O Comments."

There are, "3 Comments" on the Haiku about John Paul II's Funeral. If you wish to view those comments, click the text that says, "3 Comments." Note that you are taken to a page containing each of the comments, and a form for you to use to add your own remarks, if you wish. You will find your way to this form by clicking, "O Comments," as well.

You have three choices for identifying yourself. If you are a member of this free Blogging service, you may use your member name. Otherwise, you may post under the name, "Anonymous," or you may create any name you like as your handle. You do not have to choose one format forever. In fact, you will be able to choose for each comment you post. I appreciate your interest, and the comments offered face-to-face and in emails. Someday, I might learn enough about HTML to make the comments thing easier to see and understand. I appreciate your patience in the meantime!

I wrote a long post today. I was pleased to have done a good job, and to have completed it shortly afternoon. I could enjoy the rest of Friday without Blogging on my mind. Then, blogger.com ate my post. They went down for maintenance. For hours, they didn't come back online. I remembered seeing a help item about recovering a post. I tracked it down in the help menu.

It said you might recover some of it that was auto-saved temporarily. For this to work, it had to be done within thirty minutes of the interruption. So, I was out of luck. Then it went on to say that you cannot leave the screen of the eaten post, or you will lose it permanently, anyway. So, just by looking up how to save a post, I had permanently destroyed mine. Unfair!

Well, it's not a perfect world. Nonetheless, I am going to sulk about this. You can never really rewrite something the same way. I liked what I had written. In the meantime, tonight's post will be a rerun. It has been a while since I posted instructions on how to comment. I will repost that for your convenience.

Following is an excerpt from:

Could NATO Expansion Lead to Nuclear War?
Address Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
150th Anniversary Annual Meeting
The Associated Press

We continue to act as though the Cold War is still a central reality of foreign policy, withal there has been a turnover, and it is now our chance to move the ball downfield. How else to explain the astonishing decision to expand NATO to include three former members of the Warsaw Pact. And only the beginning. As Amos Perlmutter recently wrote in the Washington Times: "the second phase, sometime at the end of 1999, will usher the entry of Croatia, Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria, and assorted new and old entities." Thereafter, the three Baltic nations and after that, who can say?

Moreover, the Resolution of Ratification now before the Senate providing for the Accession of the first three has this singular provision.
(ii) NATO may also, pursuant to Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty, on a case-by-case basis, engage in other missions when there is a consensus among its members and and there is a threat to the security and interests of NATO members.

Does this not read suspiciously like a license to get into a fight just about anywhere?

The expansion of NATO is something I have not studied. I have had misgivings about it. My first dissenting thoughts were more about the feasibility of integrating former Warsaw Pact forces with NATO forces. It's not just different materiel, it is entirely different military culture, and a need for retraining of the highest officers. Essentially, all we would be doing is going out on a limb to say we would come to their aid if they were attacked. We could not count on much contribution to NATO. In fact, they were poor contributors to the Warsaw Pact. I think they have a welfare-state mentality that their defense is someone else's problem. Russia is not the only potential aggressor. Every border in Eastern Europe is contested.

Regarding the new NATO language that would allow us to fight most anywhere on the globe seems to me a good thing. It could conceivably sink NATO, especially if we integrate new nations. I am, however, in favor of matching de facto with de jure. Laws should be enforced, and realities defined. We and our allies agree on a number of things that would be in our interest to jointly pursue outside of the European theater.

We could form another organization for that, and leave NATO as a strictly North Atlantic/European thing. There would then be tests of the resolve of the new organization. Troop commitments would have to be made to three, rather than two international organizations, the UN, NATO, and then something else.

NATO enjoys global name-recognition from the Cold War. That is one reason to use it, rather than something new. Unfortunately, there is a fairly broad consensus that the UN should remain fairly impotent. We don't want to work with them because there are so many members who are indifferent or hostile to us, either generally, or with respect to a given proposed mission.

Since the NATO members have extra-continental objectives, and are a cohesive military force, I think it makes sense to make this de facto situation de jure. The written commitment might help us in dealing with another country by making clear our intentions. I think it will also be better to have transnational military operations to clean up the mess of colonialism.

Remnant relationships with colonies are one reason for a desire to act off continent. Though we have been portrayed by communists as the greatest colonial oppressors of all, the truth is we were more a colony than a colonial power. Additionally, our geography is unique. With Manifest Destiny, we expanded over the continent filling it with our own citizens. We did not send small garrisons here and there to exploit the native people. We just killed them and took their land.

I think we could be a good moderating influence in actions in former colonies in the third world. Often, the former colonial power is in the best position to intervene. They know the history, language and customs better than just about any other capable outside force. Unfortunately, as seen in UNAMIR in Rwanda, the former colonial powers are not always welcome.

While it is a nasty task, I think a geopolitical theme that could/would/should emerge this century is the correction of colonial borders. I hope this can be vigorously pursued at the negotiating table. Some of it will, however, be pursued on the battlefield.

I think it will be especially important to address these issues as we are watching relatively swift, and accelerating weapons proliferation. We need to reduce the risk of international wars, and of civil wars. We need to draw the lines so that people who view themselves as one nation will be in one state. This could result in more and smaller states, but it could result in fewer and larger states, too. It's okay for one state to contain several nations. It's not okay for one nation to straddle multiple states.

Any actual commitment to preventing Genocide is going to have to be done by a swift and ready force. NATO has the best of that around. Genocidal activity will probably increase with the destabilization brought about by the end of the Cold War, and by the proliferation of WMD's. Preventing Genocide needs, in my opinion, the following elements (not in order):

1) Restructuring political geography to reduce tensions
2) Controlling the proliferation of weapons
3) Disarmament initiatives
4) Stop China's production of weapons and sales of technologies as a major
economic component
5) Swift and certain military intervention
6) Nasty consequences for leaders of Genocides
7) Serious consequences for rank-and-file perpetrators

Regarding the last point, we don't want to see other nations follow the Hutu reasoning that if everyone is guilty, then no one is guilty. That is a unique situation, however. Hopefully it will remain so. Other Genocides have been conducted by armed forces, not by every able-bodied man, woman, and even child in the population.

I think it might be possible for NATO cooperation in former colonies now that the European Economic Community is a reality. The former colonists have retained jealously guarded economic ties to their former colonies. With European free-trade, there is less cause for continued jealousy among the old great powers.

Hopefully, with advances in GATT and other international trade initiatives, we will get to a point where political independence is economically realistic. I have some ideas about how we could structure the economies in Third World areas in conjunction with redrawing the borders. My ideas are actually fairly communist. I think we could form three to five state cooperatives, which would function as one economy, but across state boundaries.

There are both peaceful and violent demonstrations against the US in the Islamic world. In a sense, that is not surprising, they seem perpetually perturbed at us. This time, though, they have good cause. That is why we are seeing violent demonstrations even in our newly allied countries.

The problem began with a magazine report that the Quran had been desecrated at the Guantanamo detention camp. Reportedly, Qurans were placed on toilets to unnerve inmates. It is said that at least one Quran was flushed down a toilet. The US military has promised a full investigation, and has said that it is against our policy to disrespect the holy scriptures of any religion.

If this happened, how can we right the wrong? A slap on the wrist won't do. Even a stiff prison sentence would fall short of the mark, although it would send a clearer message of contrition. The death penalty is, of course, out of the question. We must respect our own values as well as theirs.

I think I know of an appropriate sentence for anyone found guilty of these acts. I think they should be required to copy by hand one Quran each. Since copying holy scriptures is a serious undertaking, I think they should have each page approved by the highest level cleric at Guantanamo. Lest the cleric try to be unpleasable, I think there should be a mechanism to appeal to a Muslim Army Chaplain.

This is both a specific, and an open-ended sentence. Each soldier so sentenced would have control over their own diligence. They could balance for themselves going fast with copying perfectly. If it would be preferable to Muslims, the soldiers could, I suppose, use a word processor setup in Arabic. I think the handwriting exercise would be better, however.

I only raise the issue of using a computer because I have dysgraphia. I would probably go eight times slower than would an average person. It is possible that other factors besides diligence could affect the duration of the sentence.

This is somewhat like writing, "I will not throw spitballs in class," a hundred times on the blackboard. Americans are familiar with the concept of a lot of writing being a punishment. This would be different, though. Instead of mind numbing repetition, copying the holy scriptures of another language would require constant attention to detail.

The only thing that might be a real problem with this is whether Muslims would take it as a further desecration to have infidels copying the Quran. If that weren't a problem, though, I would think the approved complete copies could be sent to the appropriate countries of origin to display in their libraries or museums. The problem is symbolic, so should be the solution.

Okay, I have lots to think about right now. I'll write about some of it when I've thought about it. In the meantime, I don't have anything for you to think about.

Feel free to verbally doodle in the comments section while I am off thinking.

My mind has darkened somewhat from reading about Rwanda again. It is not so bad this time, though. In looking back through some old poems, I came across a bit of prose in the middle of my journal. In it, I complained about the strain of researching the case studies for War and Public Health. I refer to 300,000 in mass graves. To be honest, I don't remember which case study had that particular feature.

I believe it might have been Serbian atrocities against Muslims. That is the last study to which I referred, anyway. I mentioned the Serbian torture and murder technique of packing the vagina with salt. I was either venting about Serbs, someone else, or the cumulative mass of inhumanity that permeated my research. I find I am confounded by the same problem: an inability to use verse to convey something that seems to call-out for poetic expression.

I understand, by the way, why the journalists who interviewed a girl from Columbine didn't pull their punches. It's for the same reason I didn't pull mine. The course instructor and I had several head-butting contests over content. The instructor found my distillations of each case study to be deeply disturbing, and shocking.

When faced with an accusation of over-sensationalizing, I would cut loose with what had already been edited out. I kept most of my content. I believe the salt-packing of vaginas was one atrocity I was forced to delete. Perhaps that is why I was disturbed and referred to it in my journal.

Anyway, I obviously had set out to write poetry. I found myself writing prose, instead. I started out trying to state a topic to focus my troubled mind. Then I went on to develop it some in prose. My words of yesteryear still offer me a challenge. I won't take it up, probably, but you might.

Here goes:

There is a moment I would like to capture in verse. Efforts to do so with Haiku have proven unsatisfactory. Short, traditional verse might work. Then again, I might need to write an epic to capture a single "click."

The moment I want to capture is contained within a mass execution. What is it like to have your tortured, bound body forced into a kneeling position at the edge of a trench, along with fellow unfortunates? What is it like, in the middle of a long line, to hear the POP of execution working its way toward you? Frightened out of your prayers, what is it like when the POP is only two prisoners away? That's the moment I want to write about.

I remember a Columbine survivor's interview on T.V. Afterwards, I thought they should have edited or deleted the segment. The teen girl had been in the library. A few feet from her, a student was shot in the crown of the head. The witness described smoke pouring up from the entrance wound. Evidently that is common for point-blank shots. People even use the slang term, "smoking someone," to mean shooting someone.

Ignorance is bliss. I simply assumed they referred to the gunsmoke from the barrel. It never occurred to me that it might include reference to scorched flesh. Using this information is part of capturing that moment. The stench.

I'm writing an awful lot about not writing. I need some support in this effort. I still say there is no tragedy in death, only in life. I don't care that 300,000 people are in mass graves. I care that they were tortured and terrorized unto Death.

That's why I chose a moment of profound LIVING tragedy. The shots before your own must be gut-wrenching. Yours is hopefully just a "click," with no knowledge of the POP.

Blindfolded or not would be key to understanding the experience. Whether you are at a fresh grave site, or are kneeling at the edge of a ditch already three corpses deep would matter. There are more things than I can think of to consider. So much just to understand one "click."

The Department of Homeland Security is planning to spend billions of dollars beefing-up security here in the US. We need a lot more stuff to prevent terrorists or rogue nations from importing and using weapons of mass destruction. I wonder if their proposed expenditures are the wisest way to defend the homeland.

Traditionally, we have been able to defend our homeland by fighting, as the song goes, "Over there." This is working even in the post 9/11 era. Lots of Muslim fanatics out to get us are attacking us directly, over there. We must be more vigilant about the possibility of someone bringing the fight home, as happened on September 11, 2001. Still, our best policy is to fight OVER THERE.

After Clinton's, uhm, peace-dividend, we have a drastically reduced military capability. We are not prepared, off the shelf, to fight a world war, or a like scenario. We are active in two theaters, and might have the capacity to act in a third. The problem is, we need to maintain a credible military deterrent in a number of theaters.

If we are forced to pick one, we might lose strategic interests in another. For example, if we deploy against North Korea, China might snag Taiwan. There are doubtless many other troublesome theaters. Clinton's, uhm, diplomatic advances with China have allowed that patient giant to await our overextension. Clinton's, uhm, technical assistance to China has complicated the Orient. We can expect, over time, to face increasing horizontal proliferation of missiles. We can expect a progressive array of warheads mounted on those missiles.

We really need to find ways to fight "over there." Semi-effective luggage-screening equipment for every airport might not be as good for us as rebuilding our, uhm, depleted Cruise Missile arsenal. Thousands of high-tech sensors in every city to detect biological warfare might not protect us a well as an increased standing, professional army.

Better yet, that could buy us some semi-elite urban forces. Unfortunately, no amount of money can buy us additional elite forces. There are only so many members of the population with "the right stuff." Part of "the right stuff" is volunteering for the grueling training. A draft will not increase our elite forces.

We need protection on the homefront. I think it could be improved in other, less expensive ways. There is a volunteer group operating in Arizona to help seal the Mexican border. I think we need to face the fact that it makes no sense to do a complete spectrum analysis on each piece of carry-on in the airports when a sizable force could walk-in through the desert, rent vehicles, and deploy weapons anywhere. Of course, the desert is harsh, and people can perish there. The Arabian Desert is also harsh. We shouldn't count on that as a deterrent.

With menus of yellowing pictures
And smoke rising up from the kitchen
There's grease all around every fixture
The patrons too weary for bitchin'

The coffee's a solvent for cleaning
The silverware stained and encrusted
Employees in uniform leaning
'Gainst the counters with which they're entrusted

It's late and they're open for business
As ever they are when you're needing
Some soda that's lost all its "fizzness"
Or grub that is fit for your feeding

After the Holocaust, we said, "Never again." After Cambodia, we said, "Never again." After Bosnia, we said, "Never again." After Rwanda, we said, "Never again." It appears we will have another chance to say, "Never again." It appears we will not be saying, "Not this time." The world has not intervened swiftly and effectively in Sudan.

I'm thinking some blame rests with an unlikely culprit. The humanitarian NGO's might be contributing to this lack of military response. Their public relations campaigns are aimed at getting funding, not at promoting compassion.

We have been told a number of times, "Feed the Sudanese NOW or they will die by the hundreds of thousands." We have been told, "Send medical and public health infrastructure NOW or tens of thousands will die of disease." Then we hear, "Send troops NOW or they will die by the hundreds of thousands in a genocide."

Now, I'm going to sound mean, and I don't like that. The truth is, my knee-jerk reaction is harsh. If these people keep dying like that, long hideous deaths by starvation and disease, why not allow a coup de gras? Why go spill our blood to save the souls of the damned? It's not like it ultimately makes much difference, if we are to believe the humanitarian organizations. In fact, it sounds like dying in a genocide might be a kinder, gentler death.

Let's say we do go, just to prove we meant it when we said, "Never again." Let's say we go in enough force to put a swift stop to it, and manage to 'minimize' casualties on the part of the intervention force, and on the part of the government. From Rwanda, we learn, that the impending arrival of foreign troops will perhaps result in an intense increase in genocide activity, as the genocidaires want to finish the job while they still can.

Let's say we then put a stop to the whole thing. There are still Sudanese alive, and we feel great that we kept our word. We impose some sort of peace agreement and install an interim government, and leave peacekeepers there so all will be well.

Next, let's suppose we don't have them dying in heaps and piles in IDP camps, but rather swiftly resettle them to their farms. Let's even suppose that there are not landmines in the fields they will till. Still, we know that they end up about to starve by the hundreds of thousands periodically. Then, they are moved close to food depots where disease runs rampant, and they die by the tens of thousands.

How many of them are there anyway? How can they take casualties like that? These are things the First World has trouble understanding. We simply don't have the population density of Third World countries. The whole thing sounds hopeless.

I think that is in part because the humanitarian NGO's don't spend precious money advertising success. Success doesn't bring in immediate donations. Those NGO's are good at delivering humanitarian assistance, and at acquiring the necessary funding for their activities.

They cannot call in fire power, however, despite the fact that they are often in the best position to observe developments and needs. There are a number of reasons for this. First, the NGO's operate independently, and do not want any authority over them. Second, they have a mindset that weapons can only kill, they cannot save lives. Third, they know nothing about military operations, and what would be required to deploy forces.

Let's say you didn't have the nightmare of working with the UN or other international organizations, and you had one powerful nation willing to deploy immediately. There would be problems the NGO's either can't anticipate, or don't want to manage. It's much easier to dump crates of grain and blankets and bandages from a helicopter in a dangerous area than it is to drop Marines into the same place. Among other things, it's okay if half the crates don't make it to their intended destinations. The same is not true of Marines.

NGO's use escalating announcements to get the world's attention. Some of that is overcoming their own reticence, and some of that is the result of a deteriorating situation. By the time they holler, "Genocide," it's too late to save most of the victims.

In Rwanda, 800,000 people died in 100 days. (Some estimates put the level well over a million.) Most of the killings happened in the first part of the genocide, and there were fewer and fewer murders per day as the genocidaires combed empty land for more victims to kill.

So, back to the Sudan. What we know about the Sudanese is that they are very creative in finding new ways to die. We know they have a tendency to starve. There are a variety of causes for their famines, though, so it's not the same old thing if they are skeletal again. Please send food. They have a variety of diseases to die of, also. I guess the most common would be cholera. So now these highly resourceful "diers" have come up with a new method. They are dying in a genocide.

The NGO's do all they know how to do. They appeal directly to First World populations. We, in our living rooms, are not indifferent. We simply are being confronted with something beyond our capacity to handle. Money won't stop a genocide, so there's no 1-800 number to call to donate by credit card. Hand-me-down clothes won't help. There's nothing much in the garage. You could maybe send them a .22 and a box of ammunition, but the NGO's won't distribute that. (Besides, they always downplay the presence of combat-age males.) So, it's a real shame, but we just don't have anything to offer.

Most of these NGO's don't even understand the efficacy of a letter-to-your-congressman campaign. If they did understand that, they would have to say the word, "Genocide," far sooner. Added to that, the NGO's come from a wide array of countries. Each NGO is likely to turn to its own country.

Another problem NGO's create is discouraging at-risk populations from taking-up arms and defending themselves. Many of them are small religious outfits run by people devoted to the peaceful and humane aspects of their faith, or they wouldn't be there. Some of the larger, less naive organizations have different reasons to discourage armed self-defense. One argument is that they need to be clearly seen as the victims for anyone to intercede on their behalf, since noone wants to wade into a murky civil war.

Other groups want to preserve their efficacy in other crises. They do not want to become known as having anything to do with armed conflict. They hold to that policy to make sure their people are always seen as non-combatants. They also do it to avoid future controversies and criticisms about which group they exhorted to arms.

The NGO's so value their independence that they often will not cooperate in the delivery of humanitarian aid. They certainly are not prepared to make a joint statement, pooling their intelligence, and making a forceful case to the UN or to the Security Council members. They rarely even have the foresight to arrange their own evacuations, and often have to be herded out by a non-NGO entity.

Maybe we should not rely so heavily on the NGO's for human intelligence. Yet, with a shortage of human intelligence hampering the US, it is hard to imagine permanently placed assets in each area where people might find a way to die. The UN has some capability, but is not well organized internally. Beyond the bureaucratic difficulties inside the UN, there is a problem with partisanship. Every nation who is a member of the UN has an interest in what the UN might do in it's own backyard.

So, what do we do? Alas, I am not that wise. It seems to me that one thing we could do is have the humility to stop saying, "Never again," until we sort out a way to keep that promise.

It's well-known that UN peacekeeping missions have been underfunded, undermanned, and underequipped. Still, I had no idea of the magnitude of the problem before beginning Shake Hands With the Devil. At one point, Dallaire had not received comprehensive information from the Demilitarized Zone for almost a week. He forwarded a demand for an immediate, full written report on the situation. He received a call from the DMZ informing him that they had neither paper nor pencils, and were unable to give a written report.

There were many, many other equipment problems. Dallaire was informed that the UN was a "pull" system, rather than a "push" system, as he was accustomed to dealing with in NATO. In NATO, if you ask for a battalion, you get the men, the weapons, the encampment gear, the rations, the vehicles, the whole "package." With the UN, you had to request every single thing you wanted, and request it in such a way that you would get something functional. If you needed 150 flashlights for your men, you had better request bulbs and batteries, too.

The American USO did far more for US troops than the UN Peacekeepers would need to raise them from impotent to effective. The Bangladeshi forces arrived with their uniforms on their backs, their personal weapons, and their kits. They didn't even have canvas for their own tents. Feeding and housing them became a drain on their already thinly operational logistics system. It would not even have taken the luxuries of a C.A.R.E. package for each of the 400 Bangladeshi's to help out immensely.

It seems to me that the little things that weigh-down a peacekeeping mission could be taken care of outside of the UN's grinding bureaucracy. Existing humanitarian organizations might be able to help. In Rwanda, at least, the NGO's would not work with UNAMIR at all. Reportedly, they viewed the UN peacekeepers as just another armed belligerent party. I guess the sort of people who commit their lives to humanitarian aid are the sort who think "government" anything is evil, and there is no such thing as a good soldier (until they need an armed escort out of an area they had been told to evacuate weeks ago).

There probably needs to be a new international organization to try to help support UN Peacekeeping Soldiers. The risk I see in that is that the UN will come to rely on that new organization as a source of equipment, and will send forth even more poorly equipped soldiers. Dealing with the UN is a difficult problem. I will give it some further thought as I read more, and some further commentary. Sadly, these days I'm not up to starting a new international NGO from scratch.

I have only a little more information on shamanism. This report does not include the type of information needed to make much of it: the Interehamwe began showing up at crowded events. At first the UNAMIR folks thought they were clowns for the way they dressed and acted. Evidently they wore camouflage clothes with strange symbols on them painted in the colors of the Rwandan flag. It soon became evident that they were not comical, as violence always followed closely on their heals. They performed some sort of antics that looked clown-like, and wielded machettes and woodcarvings of AK-47's.

I wish Dallaire could have been better able to identify the symbols on their clothes and to describe in greater detail what they did that looked like clowning around. It's a useful lead, though. Perhaps I can find another source describing the pre-genocide public appearances of the Interehamwe. Until reading this account, I was unaware that they had been a public presence before exploding on the scene, fully trained and armed, ready to cross-off all names on a deathlist when the word was given.

I'm not halfway through the book yet. It's about 550 pages. I'm definitely hooked, though. You, my readers, might have to endure a few more posts about the book. Some of what I am writing here probably does not make sense without a background on the basics of the genocide. If you can point to my most bothersome omissions, I will try to offer more detailed information.

Dallaire is beginning to talk about broadcasts from the "Hutu Power" extremist radio station, RTML. It began an escalating campaign of ethnic hatred mixed with African Rock. The station became enormously popular. I wonder if any of the African Rock had the seven-cycles-per-second beat needed to induce a trance-like state.

This pattern has been identified in many altered-state inducing shamanic rituals. It is the common theme among them which seems most likely to account for the altered-states. Similar knowledge has been used in creating a variety of commercially available light-and-sound devices to alter brain waves.

I imagine most of African Rock would not have had that, but perhaps some did. I am not at this time so interested in it that I would go to the International Music Store and try to find a sample. If any of you knows whether Rwandan Rock used that percussion pattern, please let me know.

Well, I resumed reading after having set the book aside for a while. I found his experiences at the UN interesting. After a great deal of difficulty, the UN arranged a "Technical Mission." Dallaire usually called such things "reconnaissance" missions. It's been interesting to observe a soldier's introduction to diplomacy. As the team was leaving, the leader, and only political officer, required emergency surgery to save his eye. That left Dallaire in charge of the mission. Ruefully, he reflects on his naive pleasure with the new arrangement.

In Rwanda, his team spread out for military reconnaissance, using tourist maps -- the only ones available. He took on most of the political reconnaissance, and also met with people addressing the humanitarian aspects of the proposed mission. During the time leading up to this, he had been informed that he would have to make a proposal to the UN that involved minimal troops and money. He was in a quandary, not wanting to scrap a mission, and not wanting to underman one, either.

He committed himself to a mission in Rwanda after seeing an internally displaced persons (IDP) camp. From there, he went to visit the RPF rebel forces residing in Uganda. He looked forward to meeting the commander who had twice stood successfully against French troops on the ground. As he passed through a demilitarized zone and entered rebel territory, he was greeted by tribal dancers. They seemed to him to epitomize the RPF: a highly disciplined and synchronized group with a long warrior tradition.

I, of course, have had my appetite whetted. He just got to Rwanda, and has already seen tribal dancers. Rwanda boasted of being the most Christian (mostly Catholic) country on the continent. Many observers never looked past the churches. As we see later in the genocide, however, that Christianity was somewhat superficial. Ordained clergy participated actively in the genocide.

In one instance, a priest or a bishop drew refugees into his church for several days, getting as many as possible inside. He then warned a number of them to leave, and invited in the genocidaires. They could just kill everyone on that hallowed ground, since the ones not listed for death had already left the church. In other scattered reports, clergy actually wielded machettes, personally committing murder.

Uh-oh. I'm getting ahead of the story. More another time.

It's amazing to listen to music,
Intent on the feeling it stirs.
I'm becoming a happy Tourettic;
My energy rushes and whirs.

Now it feels like the drummer is using
My chakhras as bongos to beat,
And the riffs from the bass are infusing
My limbs with their liquefied heat.

With the band's composition evolving
(My body expanding inside)
There's an instrument swiftly revolving:
It dances within and beside.

I'm experimenting with punctuation. I will abandon it if it becomes too bothersome. I became uncertain of punctuation in poetry a while back, and I quit writing anything for a long time. Finally, I made a deal with myself: I would resume writing poetry if I gave up on punctuation. The above piece was written without punctuation. What I've added is just my best guess. In general, don't expect much punctuation, and don't waste too much time wondering at the odd squiggle you might see.