Recommended links (in no particular order)
Reason Magazine
Instapundit
Slashdot
Penny Arcade
Chilling Effects
Astronomy pic of the day
Sierra Club
Games * Design * Art * Culture
deviantART

Friends
Adam
Sorknes Art
Single Butterfly
Snowberry Way

Rate Me on BlogHop.com!
  help?

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Stingy
Originally, I wanted to avoid commenting on the Tsunami crisis, but a comment from Jan Egeland, the UN head of relief effort about western governments being "stingy" with help prompted me to write a word or two. I originally wanted to say how much I'd hate to give a penny to an organization that is swarming with corrupt administrators, but then I found an article that sumarizes my feelings towards the UN.

That said, some blogs and my personal friends are recommending WorldVision as the best place to donate money for relief. I already did; did you?
December 30, 2004 at 11:00 pm by Jozef

The question of the week
Whose lawyers will win the presidential election?
November 1, 2004 at 10:45 pm by Jozef

Jozef's Unofficial Guide to the Presidential Elections
With the presidential elections upon us, many people still aren't informed enough to pick a candidate. The two main candidates, pushed to us by every major news source, are not much of a choice. George W. Bush has gotten us into the Iraq misery and is largely responsible for the stagnant economy. John Kerry has the charisma of a telephone pole and the honesty of a bad poker player. Fortunately, there are much better candidates to choose from. Below, I list the candidates who are much more trustworthy. While I may not agree with most of their opinions and ideals, I do respect their honesty and courage to show their real beliefs. Be free to pick a candidate from the following:

• Sterling Allan (Providential Party). Wants to eliminate income taxes and decrease other taxes. With the lower budget income, wants to eliminate or decrease funding on everything except of science, environment and infrastructure-related projects. Is in favor of higher sentences for violent crimes and limiting abortion, but favors lower sentences for non-violent crimes and the decriminalization of marijuana. Is strongly in favor of isolationism, fewer gun regulations and greater freedoms for private citizens and corporations.
• Michael Badnarik (Libertarian Party). Supports the elimination of all taxes with the exception of alcohol, tobacco and gas taxes. This would lead to the elimination of most government funding, with only infrastructure and defense funding remaining in place. If strongly in favor of national isolationism and personal liberties, including removing gun restrictions and decriminalizing marijuana usage. Supports greater freedoms for corporations and the abolishment of all federal welfare programs.
• Michael Bay (NBSR Party). Is in favor of eliminating federal income taxes, but prefers to increase funding for all national security issues. Is in favor of greatly limiting abortion and imposing srticter criminal sentences. Is undecided on most international issues, even though wants a tougher approach against hostile countries. Is in favor of limiting personal liberties.
• Walt Brown (Socialist Party). Supports greater taxation for richer people, while lowering taxation for those in lower tax brackets. Wants to greatly increase taxation on luxury goods, but increase the size of deductibles. Is in favor of increasing spending on everything with the exception of all science and research-and-development projects. Wants to reduce criminal sentences and to limit abortion. Favors other civil liberties. Wants more international presence in political structures, but to reduce American involvement in economic treaties. Supports stronger unions and much stronger limitations on corporations.
• David Cobb (Green Party). Supports a much steeper taxation curve and increasing luxury taxes. The money would go to greatly increased goverment funding, mainly on infrastructure, environmental issues, education, healthcare and science and technology. Wants to greatly reduce defense funding, across the board. Is strongly in favor of greater personal liberties, including abortion and gay marriage. Wants the US to nplay greater international politial role, but leave all economic agreements. Supports stricter gun control, expanded worker rights and a closer integration of states within the fedeal government.
• Earl Dodge (Prohibition Party). Prefers to maintain current level of taxes, but to increase the size of deductibles. Spending should be limited to defense, homeland security and infrastructure. Is in favor of greatly limiting personal liberties, including outlawing abortion, drinking and religious firewalls in politics. Wants a much more aggressive international politics while strictly isolating the US against foreign interference. Supports much stricter criminal penalties, higher education funding and religious influence on American politics.
• Ralph Nader (Independent). Supports the current tax policy but with fewer loopholes. Wants to limit spending on defense, but wants to increase funding of social issues. These include universal healthcare, education and welfare. Wants to limit abortion, expand affirmative action, expand workers' rights, limit corporate rights, increase criminal sentences and eliminate the deqath penalty. Prefers if the US played a political role abroad, but not an economical one.
• Michael Peroutka (Constitution Party). Wants to eliminate all taxes and eliminate all federal funding, except that for defense. Prefers a strong isolationist policy for the US. Is in favor of greatly limiting all personal liberties, while expanding criminal penalties limit or outlaw certain scientific research, and give individual states much wider rights and responsibilities.

John Kerry on taxes
John Kerry says that he wants to lower taxes. In fact, he claims that under his plan, 98% of American individuals and 99% of American companies would get a tax break. I really applaud his proposal!

However, I still have a problem with it. When I was working, I paid around 12% on taxes. Currently, I live off my savings and my msmall stipend, but I'll still have to pay for social security and medicare. And my capital gains and dividend income taxes will account for an effective tax rate of around 3%. That's not too much, unless you consider the following: John Kerry, who earned around one hundred times (that's 100 times) as much as I'm expecting to earn this year has an effective tax rate of 12.8%. That's only marginally higher than me, even though instead of $40,000 he earned $5.5 million.

I'm wondering whether Kerry's proposed tax decrease would cut his taxes as well as mine. Who knows, maybe he'll get me to save $200 or so per year, while he saves $100,000. No wonder he is suddenly so eager to lower taxes...
October 12, 2004 at 2:21 am by Jozef

How Democrats killed Kerry
I’ve been living in a large city for a month now, and I already got used to a thing or two. For example, it takes me about fifteen minutes to commute, out of which maybe five minutes are spent on red lights. In the morning, it’s all talk shows or commercials on the radio, so to amuse myself, I learned to read the bumper stickers on the cars in front of me. With the upcoming election, the pro- and anti-Bush stickers are very prevalent. Please note that I didn’t mention any pro-Kerry stickers; I’ve yet to see one.

I was a little surprised by that, and so I started to pay closer attention to grassroots campaigning – people who put up posters, lawn signs or bumper stickers. Presumably, these people are those who honestly show their feelings about the election, not paid marketing managers. It took me some time to gather my observations and thoughts on this issue, but by now I am convinced that it’s the most supportive Democrats who will cost Kerry the election.

In short, I have yet to see a single person campaigning in Kerry’s favor. Everybody who is presumably on his side is ignoring him, and instead campaigns against Bush. It is as if those people were saying: “Don’t vote for Bush; anybody would be better than him!” And I just can’t see how “anybody” would be a good enough qualification for American Presidency. Who knows, maybe Kerry has some good ideas that offset his previous record, but even if he tries to present his ideas, he’ll be shut up by his own supporters who don’t seem to care who their candidate is, as long as it’s not Bush. For example, Kerry had a very impressive editorial in the Wall Street Journal on September 15. It was impressive because of the form, not as much because of the content, which I don’t think I can judge. As far as the form goes, he was very direct, and several times he actually said: “as a President, I will…” This is so far the strongest set of statements I’ve heard from him, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this wasn’t the first time he’s done that. However, nobody is going to hear him. Instead of people putting on bumper stickers reading “Vote against job outsourcing, vote Kerry”, they’ll continue to drive around with their “Bush is stupid, vote the lesser evil” stickers.

In a sense, I feel sorry for John Kerry. I think it must be frustrating for him to run against such a huge wall of ignorance from his own constituency. Very few people would be able to break this wall, and I don’t blame Kerry for not being able to do so. However, this kind of blinded people don’t deserve the president they wish for. On a national scale, Bush should justifiably beat all his rabid opponents, and Kerry would disappear in the history as a tragic, misunderstood figure.
September 16, 2004 at 12:37 am by Jozef

Orwellian Europe
Ever since 9/11, people were talking about the US turning into an Orwellian super-state, where all its citizens are being kept on a tight leach. That, however, is far from truth. No matter how much the US government would like to control its people, it is Europe that's turning into such a state, much faster than most people thought was possible.

I first realized this yesterday, when I wrote about the prosecution of a Swedish preacher because he spoke his mind. I later discussed this on a message board, with people who approved of the sentence. The most common argument was that he violated laws against inciting violence against a minority, and that those laws were just. This is how most Europeans think; otherwise those laws wouldn't be in place. The underlying assumption here is that a person can move others into doing something against their will, just by talking. In other words, most Europeans believe that humans are like a herd, always following the leader.

It is not my role to test the validity of this assumption; I only want to point out an interesting correlation: such as assumption, and consequently such laws, is prevalent in most countries with a history or recent cases of social engineering by their governments. The majority of these countries tend to have an entrenched ruling socialist government, which is activelly trying to "normalize" its people. This is the case of Canada and most of "Old Europe". On the contrary, countries with a strong tradition or support for individualism, such as the US and "New Europe", don't assume that people are mindless followers, and thus don't have or at least don't enforce such laws.

They can't enforce them, even if such laws were present. In individualistic societies, people are too distinct for the authorities to determine who crossed the line and who didn't. In addition, the data overflow produced by such a society would overwhelm even the best administration. As a result, all speech is tollerated, whether people like it or not. This is not the case of socially engineered societies. Here, the vast majority of people is docile, or trying hard to blend with the crowd. As such, it is very simple to pick up the few outliers and charge them with crimes against normalcy.

This is exactly what Orwell was writing about. In his Big Brother state, it didn't really matter what people thought, what mattered was that everybody became mediocre. Anybody who stood out was immediatelly identified, thanks to the uniform mass of the rest of the population. In this sense, Old Europe is very close to becoming such an Orwellian society.
July 15, 2004 at 6:22 pm by Jozef

EU Enlargement
On May 1, ten Eastern European countries will join the EU. For the first time since the Roman Empire, such a large part of the old continent will be unified behind a common cause. Or will it? Recently, the mood in the Eastern European countries began to change. Protests against joining the EU are threatening to rival the government-sponsored celebrations in some countries. Many people begin to think that the main purpose of the enlargement is the same old-fashioned colonialism and imperialism that Europe has been known for for centuries.

Give a man a fish, and he'll be fed for a day...
At first sight, the EU enlargement looks like a major boon for Eastern Europe. Suddenly, these countries will have better access to Western markets, especially in services, such as trucking. Trucking has been a sore spot for ages, with the EU issuing special permits for truckers to enter the EU countries, and thus limiting the amount of competition. In addition, a common market and hopefully a common policy would further decrease the possibility of future armed conflicts within the EU and increase the deterrence against outside attacks. Finally, the lower than average wages in Eastern Europe will increase the average worker productivity of the EU and give the union a new stimulus for economic growth.

...Teach him how to fish, and he'll be fed for life.
Unfortunately, the helping hand of the EU has changed to a grabbing hand. It appears today that the EU enlargement serves a whole different purpose: the opening up of new markets for Western European products, without proper compensation for the Eastern Europeans. Recently, the German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder and the Swedish Prime Minister Goran Perrson have launched a harsh attack against the level of taxation in Eastern Europe. The relatively new market economies in Eastern Europe are not yet tainted by Western socialism, and the governments of these countries determined that lower taxes would cause higher economic growth. Many scholars, including those in Germany and Sweden confirmed this assumption. Unfortunately, both politicians don't accept economic arguments, because their main fear is that this fiscal policy would work, and they'd be forced to lower taxes in their countries. As a result, they both are calling for tax increases in the newly admitted countries.

However, most people don't need such esoteric arguments to see how corrupt the EU has become, and what the true reasons behind the enlargement are. You just have to go to a store to see a clear picture. That is, if you find a store. Many shops were forced to close, due to the amount of new bureaucratic red tape imposed on them via EU regulations. In their places, chains like the German Billa or the French Carrefour opened. Still, even if you go to these stores you'll find some interesting changes. From May 1, sugar and other basic staples will get 20-30% more expensive. Why? Because there is a mandated minimum price on these products, to protect Western European farmers who don't seem to be as productive as the Eastern Europeans. (By the way, each EUR 1 gained from sugar exports costs the EU EUR 3.30 in subsidies.) Rice will become much more expensive, too. EU countries, mainly Italy and Spain, produce 3 million tons of rice each year. Of course, due to climatic conditions, this rice is much more expensive as Asian rice. The solution? Much higher import duties on rice from Asian countries, in order to make European rice competitive.

I could go on and on with different examples of how life becomes more difficult in newly admitted countries. Unfortunately, while prices of goods and services will increase, mainly to protect the Western producers but also due to higher costs or running a business, wages will not. Eastern governments still believe in productivity as the determining factor of economic growth, and not full employment, as the Western countries seem to. As a result, the tensions between the Old and the New Europe seem to be rising. As the old saying goes, "Give a man a fish, and he'll be fed for a day. Teach him how to fish, and he'll be fed for life." It appears that the current EU only wants to give Eastern Europe the fish, laced with drugs to make it addictive. Whenever the New Europe tries to learn to fish, they chase her out of the water.
April 29, 2004 at 5:04 pm by Jozef

Slovakia and the EU, part III (or so)
Seems that the mood in Slovakia is changing, the closer the country comes to joining the EU. Taxes may be increased, as well as the prices of basic food staples, neither of which sits well with the general population. Just consider:

* The German Chancelor Gerhard Schroder, and the Swedish Prime Minister Goran Petersen are both concerned about Slovakia's 19% flat corporate tax. Their domestic companies are less concerned, and are thinking about outsourcing to the newly admitted countries. This prompted Schroder calling Siemens "unpatriotic", while Petersen criticized similar plans by Ericson. Both called for tax hikes in Slovakia and other countries. As one commentator put it, the situation looks like a poor man who learns to fish, and once he starts being successful the good, rich fishermen chase him out of the river to keep all the fish to themselves.

* When Slovakia enters the EU, the prices of rice and sugar will experience a major hike. In the case of rice it's because the country would have to increase its import taxes on rice to match the EU taxes, which are aimed at protecting European rice growers against cheaper Asian imports. In the case of sugar, Slovakia would have to comply with the minimal mandated price, aimed at protecting Western European sugar producers from cheaper sugar in the newly admitted countries. There's no word on harmonizing the the wages in Slovakia with the European standard...

I said it dozens of times before, and I'll say it again: I told you so...
April 12, 2004 at 3:19 pm by Jozef

Slovak Presidential election, part 2
In the previous part, I explained why the outcome of the first round was so bad. This time, I'd like to blame a certain Prime Minister for the outcome. Mr. Kukan, the leader in all opinion polls, was supported by the ruling party and the Prime Minister, Mikulas Dzurinda. However, it was because of him that he lost.

I still remember the first time Mr. Dzurinda became the Prime Minister. Hi campaign consisted of cycling around the whole country, meeting with people and listening to them. He even came to our village, and that was the only time in my life I shook hands with such a highly placed politician to be. When he got into power, he started changing. He became paranoid and autocratic. A late friend of mine Jaro Filip, didn't like what he saw and criticized him harshly in the papers. It was a wake-up call; Mr. Dzurinda appologized to my friend, and over a beer he agreed to meet with me and about 200 others to discuss his policies. We met, and once again he listened, and everything was well.

In the past several years, however, a lot has changed. Mr. Dzurinda got reelected and my friend, a strong moral voice in Slovakia, has died. The Prime Minister became increasingly paranoid, corrups and arrogant. Over the past year he ousted everybody who didn't disagree with him, he applied two sets of rules, one on him and one on everybody else, and he was in the middle of several political corruption scandals, the latest of which deals with trying to cover up illegal donations to his party (something similar has cost Helmut Kohl of Germany his seat). People in Slovakia are used to morally corrupt politicians, but this was too much for them, and they decided to vote against his candidate.

Mr. Dzurinda has seen all this in his own way. He blamed everybody else, and saw his as a victim, not as the main culprit. He refused to draw any consequences in his own party. Fortunately, the general elections are not far away, and it appears that he'll finally follow other moreally corrupt politicians into early retirement.
April 6, 2004 at 9:47 pm by Jozef

Every nation has a President it deserves
Slovakia held its first round of Presidential elections over the weekend. Since nobody got over 50% of the vote, the two strongest candidates will meet in the secound round. Five years ago, it was the same. At that time, the lesser evil has won the secound round (and evil it was). This year, it didn't look too rosy, either. A former fierce member of the Communist Party and an informant of the communist secret service, Eduard Kukan, was the leading contender in the polls. The second strongest candidate was the former Prime Minister, Vladimir "Doktor" Meciar ("Doktor" being his call name in the communist secret service). The third strongest candidate was Ivan Gasparovic, a former right-hand man of Mr. Meciar. The reform candidate, Mr. Butora, was fifth. The voters have cooked up a surprise, though: the two candidates who go into the second round are Mr. Meciar and Mr. Gasparovic. There's no lesser evil here, this is the ultimate evil. Just consider:

Vladimir Meciar was the Prime Minister three times. During his reign, Slovakia was demoted to the same status as Belarus, Serbia and other post-communist autocratic regimes. Mr. Meciar is accused of having the secret service kidnap the son of his political rival, the former Slovak President, and then kill the main witness. In addition, he instructed the secret service to work closely with the Russian KGB, after it had to withdraw from Eastern Europe.

Ivan Gasparovic is Mr. Meciar's former right-hand man, who's implicated as well in all these alleged crimes. In addition, he is supported by the former communists, Smer, and the ultra-nationalists. However, he's probably best known as the "Stary chuj", or "Old dick", a nickname he used to describe a former Slovak President.

Both candidates are anti-Western and pro-Russian. Even though Slovakia joined the NATO and will soon join the EU, I'm afraid either of them could do irreparable damage. However, there's nothing I can do. The people have spoken, and they deserve the President they elect.
April 5, 2004 at 8:04 pm by Jozef

The European Socialist Union
With Slovakia joining the EU in a month and a day, I keep learning more and more about the new rules we'd be bound to. Today, I want to present the EC Regulation 1972/2003. You see, the fifteen current members of the EU have a dilemma. On one hand, they want the cheap educated workforce of the new members, in order to increase their productivity. On the other hand, they don't want the competition of eastern products, which are cheap for the same reason the work force is cheap: Eastern Europe has been isolated for so long that they developed a totally different price level.

The EU tried to solve this problem in the past, mainly through faux consumer protection laws, which caused many Eastern European companies to go bankrupt and the rest to raise prices. When that wasn't enough, the European Commission came with the grand idea of Regulation 1972/2003. This regulation puts minimal prices on milk products, and the maximal quantities that can be produced. For example, on average the newly admitted states would be allowed to produce 0.7 liters of milk (24oz) per capita per day. The state must purchase and destroy excess production.

This way, the European Commission is hoping to solve two problems. First, it would protect its domestic producers of milk products and maybe even increase their exports, and second, it will increase the strain on state budgets. That way, the newly admitted countries would have to rise their taxes, in order to be able to fit into the budget deficit requirement (which is ignored by Germany) for adopting the Euro. I'm wondering when countries start defecting this new socialist supoerpower.
March 30, 2004 at 7:46 pm by Jozef

Eminent domain in Slovakia
Looks like Slovakia is joining the Western Europe and the US in cracking down on people in the name of eminent domain. According to a whole set of articles I just read, the situation is not really rosy for people who loose their property.

Just consider: in order to build a new road, a number of houses will be demolished. The house owners have to move out, and they'll get a modest sum of money from the state. In one case, the owner gets around $18,000 for his house. The market value of the house, however, is around $90,300, and the value of a 2-bedroom appartment in the same city (which would be a significant downgrade, as the house had two large appartments) is $30,000. The average wage in Slovakia is $5,000 annually, after taxes. In other words, the owner has to move out, live on the street for two years and four months, hope to get at least an average wage and save every cent from it, in order to afford at least the small appartment. If he doesn't do so, the state (in this case, represented by the city of Presov City Hall), has already contracted a company that violently removes people from their property. Who profits from this? It appears that it's a certain Mr. Juraj Kopcak, the former mayor of the city. Of course, everything is legal, courtesy of the still valid eminent domain law that was passed in 1976, during communism.

Okay, I take it back. Maybe Slovakia still has a long way to go till it catches up with the west...
March 3, 2004 at 8:25 pm by Jozef

It's good to be an EU bureaucrat...
With Slovakia joining the EU in a few months, the directives from Brussels are coming in, making everybody's life more miserable and complicated. Just consider one of the latest: doctors and nurses are no longer allowed to call patients by their name; they need to assign them a number and call them by that. Supposedly, this is for the patient's privacy, but in reality everybody knows each other in such a small country, and this just adds another layer to the already quite complex medical procedures. I feel that the bureucrats in Brussels are incredibly bored to come up with such directives. I, too, would like to earn their wage for sitting all day on a chair and pulling crazy ideas out of my ass.
March 2, 2004 at 9:11 pm by Jozef

EU bans micropayments
What I got by mail today:

We are sorry to anounce that we will no longer be able to provide you with moicropayments services, due to a changed legal status of micropayments from January 1, 2004

(Quote loosely translated from Slovak.) The law that was quoted is one that is aimed at harmonizing the Slovak law with EU directives. In other words, starting January 1, micropayments will be illegal, in accordance to EU directives. Whether you believe that micropays are a viable business model or not, banning them makes absolutely no sense to me.
December 24, 2003 at 4:00 pm by Jozef

Ahhh... The power of boycott...
The US finally found the courage to sue the EU over restrictions on the import of genetically-modified food. Personally, I have the feeling that this is just a retaliatory measure for the EU suing the US in an attempt to get the American government to abolish import quota on steel and give export companies tax benefits. Be it as it is, this case may prove quite vital for the relationship between the WTO and nation-states.

Here is how the WTO works. Its main goal is to abolish any trade barriers, in order to create a truly globalized economy. The problem that many governments are facing lies in the definition of trade barriers. A trade barrier, as interpreted by the WTO, is any action of the government that would favor one business over another. As a consequence, import quotas, tariffs and other barriers that affect the import or export of goods are just a part of the barriers. A trade barrier can also be when the local government gives a subsidy to a local business, for example in order to create more local jobs. Or, a government can decide that in order to protect its consumers, it should regulate certain products. Usually, the production those products has been outlawed in the government jurisdiction for some time, and only after there is a danger of unregulated imports of such a product, the government moves to trying to regulate it. And this is exactly the case here.

I am not one to judge whether genetically modified food is risky to one's health or not. Considering that I'm munching on some barbecue chips right now, I don't think I even care. However, I fully support the right of others to know what they eat. The EU supports the same right, by requiring food makers who use genetically modified food to disclose so on the packaging. The food makers, all of which are from abroad due to long standing anti-GMF laws in the EU, claim that this is a trade barrier, forcing them to raise the cost of their product and make it less competitive. (Note: Considering that US products have become 15% more price-competitive in Europe in the past few months, I am pretty sceptical about the food producers' claims.) An article at Reason Magazine picked up the issue and suggested that the Europeans have only one of three ways to go: they could lose by the WTO ruling that the US can employ some counter-measures. Or they can retaliate during the Doha WTO talks. Or they can initiate a boycott.

I'm full for the last option. Consumer boycott has been very powerful in the past. Remember the 1995 incident when Shell wanted to sink an oil platform? The resulting boycott caused Shell's sales to slip up to 70% in some countries, and the company later changed its plans. So how could it work in this case? There are two alternatives. The first one would be to refuse to buy any food that doesn't have a certificate that it doesn't contain GM Food. This, however, would punish the wrong people (I use the word "punish" to describe how anti-GM Food people feel about the issue, not to deal out guilt here), and there would be nothing to stop the GM Food makers to use such certificates as well. The second way to boycott is by simply refusing to shop in supermarkets that either offer GM Food or offer such food without any special labels. Considering that the supermarket industry is getting as consolidated in Europe as in the US, convincing a single chain to stop boying GM Food or requiring its makers to include warning labels would be a major blow to the GM industry, with one important distinction: it would be permissible under the current WTO rules, unlike the import restriction used by the EU now. In either case, I wish the wannabe boycotters good luck.
May 14, 2003 at 5:20 pm by Jozef

A little of Santorum-bashing
I feel I'm so morally superior to Rick Santorum that it would be beyond my standards to comment on his statements. However, this article is an interesting one. Not only it does a great job in ridiculing Santorum, but as a bonus, it offers one of the best definitions of the difference between Republicans and Democrats I have ever heard:

At root, the conservatives want the same power over people’s lives as the liberals. Where the liberal wants to control your life at the workplace and the cash register, the conservative thinks he has a right to dictate what goes on in your bedroom.

International Eat an Animal for PETA Day
Just found this (via Instapundit). Tomorrow is the International Eat an Animal for PETA Day. I like the idea very much; now only to decide: should I go for my traditional steak (medium well), grilled chicken on garlic or some prime ribs?
March 14, 2003 at 1:32 pm by Jozef

How do you define
Remember the almost 300 people who made their way to Iraq, as human shields to guard against a military attack? Well, only 110 of them are left. According an article in the San mateo County Times, and a more recent one by Reuters, most human shields have bailed out, due to safety concerns.

Now let me get this straight. You are going to a country on the brink of war to sit on a spot, hoping that because you sit there, the invader won't drop a 500-pound bomb on your head. Yet, you bail out because of safety concerns? Is that an understatement or what?

Actually, I can understand those who left. They came to Iraq, thinking that they would sit in hospitals and schools, knowing full well that those are targets that the US would not attack on purpose. Due to the fact that the accuracy of precission bombs has increased dramatically and their usage would be more wide-spread than in the first Iraqi war, they reasoned that they'd be quite safe. I tend to agree. However, what those human shields didn't count on was that Iraqi officials are not stupid. They assigned the human shields to places that really needed this kind of shielding - strategic objects like power plants and water treatment plants. Suddenly, the human shields realized that they were put in harm's way. They could get seriously hurt! So, properly citing safety concerns, they decided to leave the country. Right now, they are stuck in Lebanon, because they didn't take enough money with them to get back home.

For those who stayed or who are still thinking of going, I'd recommend this set of guidelines for human shield candidates.

UPDATE: It's always amusing to watch the anti-war protesters to come up with schemes they know won't work. Just consider the woman who is willing to get crucified for peace. However, it's got a catch. President Bush must hammer the nails himself. Yet another case where the anti-war freak is pefectly safe, but still manages to generate some publicity.
March 5, 2003 at 6:15 pm by Jozef

Welcome, Mr. Kristof
The same day The New York Times announced the Mr. Kristof would become a permanent op-ed writer, he published a very interesting (and, I may add, revealing) editorial about the growth of religion in the US. Some numbers are really staggering. Just consider:

• 46% of Americans consider themselves as born-again Christians.
• 50 million copies of a Christian fiction series, the “Left behind” series have been told. Interestingly, the devil in this series is the UN General Secretary.
• Speaking of the devil, 68% of people believe in him.
• 48% of Americans believe in creationism, and only 28% in evolution. Actually, this number varies from 45% to 57%, depending where you look. The most alarming figure shows, though, that while 45% believe in creationism, an additional 37% believe that evolution was directed by a god, and only 12% believe in Darwin-style evolution.