Why I'm not in love with "multilateralism": Each time the UN has stood between innocent civilians and genocide, the UN has turned tail and run. In Afghanistan, our German 'allies' aren't actually allowed to shoot at anything, except in self-defense. And now we learn that even our old, faithful allies, the British sold our troops down the river in Iraq:

A secret deal between Britain and the notorious al-Mahdi militia prevented British Forces from coming to the aid of their US and Iraqi allies for nearly a week during the battle for Basra this year, The Times has learnt.

Four thousand British troops – including elements of the SAS and an entire mechanised brigade – watched from the sidelines for six days because of an “accommodation” with the Iranian-backed group, according to American and Iraqi officers who took part in the assault.

It's better to be on your own than to depend on the undependable.

Newsweek: OBL's associates not really terrorists: I was rather amazed to see Newsweek using scare quotes around "terrorist" when referring al Qaeda members.

The Bush administration needed a big win in the Salim Hamdan case at Guantánamo. It didn't get one. By convicting Osama bin Laden's former driver—the first "terrorist" to be tried under the first U.S. war-crimes tribunal since World War II—only of "material" support for terrorism, and absolving him of conspiracy to commit terrorism, the military judges provoked questions about what Hamdan was doing there in the first place. Is driving a car a war crime?

Gee: if I recall, OBL himself also didn't personally plant any bombs either. (Newsweek doesn't deign to tell its readers that Hamdan was also one of OBL's bodyguards, personally purchase vehicles to aid OBL's escape, and delivered weapons to al Qaeda. He's just a "driver", like any random NYC cabbie.) The phrasing above is telling: Newsweek's view, it is only "the Bush administration" who had something to gain by convicting a captured member of al Qaeda. I guess we all know who the real terrorists are here.

Indeed, the Hamdan verdict points up, more than anything else, one of the central mistakes of the Bush administration after 9/11: sheer overreaching.

Yeah. How dare they detain this al Qaeda member.

Illegal immigrants and harmful behavior: Reuters:

Mexican men living and working illegally in the United States are more likely to sell their bodies for sex, take drugs or frequent prostitutes than they would have been in their homeland, increasing their risk of AIDS infection, U.S. researchers reported on Wednesday....

The men in the study were three times more likely to have sex with a prostitute in California than they were before leaving Mexico, Lemp's research showed. They were five times more likely to have sex while using drugs or drinking and 13 times more likely to have sex with another man.

The article implies that this risky behavior is solely the result of "discrimination" and warns darkly that "a recent U.S. crackdown on illegal immigrants and increase in deportations could make the danger of HIV infection worse."

Yet the study itself suggests a much simpler explanation: "The significant increases in HIV high-risk behavior in male work sites and bars and clubs make this population vulnerable to HIV transmission through their common work and social environments, particularly where women are infrequently present." (underline added) And if so, then the effect is exactly the opposite of what Reuters suggests: by moving immigrants back home, and discouraging re-entry, they'll be near their wives and girlfriends again, and less in danger of contracting AIDS.

It's one thing to be in favor of unrestricted immigration. But it's quite another to mislead the public into supporting situations which will increase the incidence of AIDS among Mexicans in order to further that political goal. Their willingness to do so strongly implies Reuters actually could care less about protecting Mexicans from AIDS.

Motive for anthrax murders? According the LA Times, Bruce Ivins "stood to gain financially from massive federal spending in the fear-filled aftermath of those killings." (But I'm sure such motivations could never apply to climate researchers, right?)

On the other hand, the Wall Street Journal has run an editorial suggesting that there's strong evidence Ivins couldn't have produced the anthrax. After their admission that Steven Hatfil (their last named culprit) was entirely innocent, I don't find it impossible to ponder that they may have made yet another mistake.

A description of hospitals in (a) Cuba, (b) The Congo, or (c) Guatemala?

One had wasps in a neo-natal unit, and flying ants on the main wards, while another reported rats in their maternity unit, and wasps in operating theatres. A children's A&E was infested with flies, and main wards were also home to mice, silverfish, biting insects and beetles. Other common problems included bedbugs, fleas and cockroaches.

Answer: (d) None of the above: the UK. Ah, the joys of socialized medicine. Ask anyone who's had to deal with the VA (veteran's administration) how well that works out.