Author: Londonbear

A hospital in South East England has launched an appeal to find information about a young man in his 20s or 30s who they have dubbed “Piano Man”. The story is one worthy of a Sherlock Holmes novel.

The slim 6ft tall man was found five weeks ago in the early hours of the morning wandering the beach on the Isle of Sheppey in north Kent. He was well dressed in a suit but was soaking wet.

He was taken to a mental health unit but has not spoken since then. Staff gave him a notepad and pen in the hopes he might write down some details. Instead he drew a very accurate picture of agrand piano apparently in a spotlight.

When he was taken to the hospital chapel which has a piano, he played for several hours at a stretch. Subsequently he has been given music paper and has written down music.  

The hospital believe he has suffered some sort of mental trauma but he is physically well. Attemps have been made to speak to him using various interpreters but he has not responded.

Despite the picture, the pianist apparently has brown hair. If you do have any information, the National Missing Persons Helpline is doing the co-ordination. Their confidential phone number is  020 8392 4509 (00 44 20 8392 4509 from outside the UK).

In what is fast becoming a trend for publishing pre-war documents from the UK, you may like to see a piece I posted on another board on February 24, 2003:

Or perhaps the beginning of the end.

While many in the US will deny it, the USA has adopted a quasi-imperial role for at least the last 50 years. If you think about it, the corollary to Regans “Empire of Evil” was to suggest that the USA is an “Empire of Good”.

The difference between the “old” empires and the USA is the way in which the acquisition of territory was for the most part internal to north america rather than external as was the case with most others from Rome to the USSR. For the most part the territorial ambitions were not as important as the desire to increase the “home” nation’s wealth by first exploiting the natural resources and setting up an administration. Imperial wars were fought to keep the unruly natives in order so that trade was not interfered with. Direct administration could be reduced (and) dispensed with once a friendly government was installed that could be relied on to be facourable to continued trade relations with the empire. That route was preferable to direct involvement and the associated costs that implies.

Now the US certainly has an imperative to secure trade relations. In particular its dependence on imported oil means that one of its ambitions is to secure continued access to outside supplies. This is why some see the current adventure in Iraq as a putative war for oil. It’s a little more subtle than that. The intended lesson is that if you mess with the US you are going to get a bloody nose. While getting rid of Saddam may not be overtly to seize the oil fields, the intention is to “encourager les autres” in the region to comply with Bush’s wishes.

What should be instructive for Bush is to know how empires end. Almost invariably in history this started when the cost of maintaing the empire became too expensive for the imperial power to maintain. Quite simply if you don’t make a profit from your empire, it invariably shrinks.

The British Empire collapsed because of the costs of WWI and WWII. Indeed the rot started in Iraq during the inter-war years when the UK took over Iraq from the Ottoman empire.

(I then quoted the following extract from the BBC History site. I have added some bold to parts that you may feel bear some relevance to the current situation)

In India a substantial Anglo-Indian army was raised, which landed in Basra in November 1914. The local defending forces soon fled, and the British decided to push on towards Baghdad. They totally miscalculated the strength and determination of the Turkish (Ottoman) forces, however, who trapped them in a terrible siege in Kut al-Amara on the Tigris. The Anglo-Indian force surrendered in April 1916 and many of the soldiers perished in prisoner-of-war camps. New British forces eventually arrived in Basra in greater numbers, and by March 1917 were able to capture Baghdad.

By the end of World War One, British forces were more or less in control of the three provinces and a shaky British administration in Baghdad had to decide on their future. The Ottoman Empire had collapsed, leaving the former Arab provinces in limbo, and the colonial powers of Britain and France aimed to absorb them into their empires; however, the Arab and other inhabitants felt strongly that they had been promised independence.

Under strong pressure from the United States, a sort of compromise was evolved whereby Britain and France were given mandates for the administration of these provinces, under international supervision, by the League of Nations. The Arabs claimed this was a veiled colonialism, because there was only an indefinite promise of independence.

Iraq (the old Arabic name for part of the region) was to become a British mandate, carved out of the three former Ottoman provinces. France took control of Syria and Lebanon. There was immediate resentment amongst Iraq’s inhabitants at what they saw as a charade, and in 1920 a strong revolt spread through the country – a revolt that was put down only with great difficulty and by methods that do not bear close scrutiny. The situation was so bad that the British commander, General Sir Aylmer Haldane, at one time called for supplies of poisonous gas.

Indiscriminate air power was used to quell the revolt of the region’s tribesmen, methods the British admitted did not win them friends and, as one of them said, implanted undying hatred of the British among the people of the area, and a desire for revenge.

The mandate united the three disparate provinces under the imported Hashimite King Faisal, from the Hijaz region of Arabia. Apart from its natural geographical differences, the new Iraq was a complex mix of ethnic and religious groups. In particular the rebellious Kurds in the north had little wish to be ruled from Baghdad, while in the south the tribesmen and Shi’s had a similar abhorrence of central control. In implementing their mandate, the British had certainly sown the seeds of future unrest.

There were other contentious issues. The Iraqis deeply resented the borders imposed on them that cut them off from Kuwait, a mini-state that they believed to be a part of their country. These borders also meant that Iraq had only limited access to the waters of the Gulf. The British imposed a monarchy and a form of democracy but, even after the grant of formal independence in 1930, most Iraqis believed that the British really ruled the country.

In fact Iraq remained a satellite of Britain for the next three decades, under the terms of a treaty signed the same year (1930), which included the retention of British military bases and an agreement to train the Iraqi army. Ironically, this army became a breeding ground of resentment against the British presence, particularly amongst new nationalist officers. They deeply resented both the British policies in Palestine and the local civilian politicians, who were seen as British puppets. After the death of King Faisal in 1933 the country was virtually ruled by a group of colonels who saw themselves as the future liberators of an oppressed Iraq.

After WWII Britain was bankrupt (and indeed offered the US its remaining imperial possessions in repayment of war loans). Despite the huge war effort from the Empire in terms of troups during the two Wars (in far greater numbers of fighters and casualties than that of the USA by the way), the cost of maintaining the structure was too high.

A very similar scenario but more rapid happened to Portugal. At one stage the refugee camps for the ex-colonials around Lisbon were reminiscent of the favellas of modern Brazil.

There is no reason to believe that the experience of the USA in Iraq if they invade will be any different from what happened to the British in the inter-war years. Even more worrying must be the cost of a war and its aftermath to the US. Estimates range from around 100 billion to half a trillion if the US decides to stay in Iraq for anything over a year. Now much of the costs of Bush War I were met by other countries (it is sometimes argued that the US made a small cash profit from the donations compared to the actual cost) This time the vast majority of the financial cost is going to fall on the US. With an already declining economy will a war produce a negative yield in both terms of cost/benefit and future security?

Outside the White House it is generally agreed that short term there will be an increase in terrorist attacks on the US or its citizens. By taking up his “Crusade” Bush is Bin Laden’s best recruiting sargeant. The logic of terrorism is to outrage and provoke retaliation.

Longer term the economic interests of the USA are likely to be damaged. Already an islamic group in France has produced a hugely successful “Mecca Cola” as an islamic altermative to Coke. The US has very few industrial products that are not manufactured elsewhere. How much are informal boycots of US products going to further affect te US economy?

With these sorts of pressure on the US taxpaayer, how long is it going to be before there are calls to claw back involvement in the “war against terror”

Or rather Blair’s Home Office minister Hazel Blears is working on a scheme for uniformed “Community Punishment” squads to work on public schemes rather than go to prison.

The closest punishment anywhere in the world is the system of chain gangs used to dig drains and so on in the USA. The only difference will be that the young offenders will not be chained together.
The whole idea is a response to the pblic perception that Blair is not tough enough on crime. This is at a time when the rate of imprisonment is climbing so that the number per 100,000 population is one of the highest in Europe. Lat week a county police chief criticised “lenient” prison sentencs even though studies show the public when given details of cases would impose shorter prison terms than those the actual sentences.

Blair’s own son was taken to a police station after being found drunk and rolling on the ground in central London so we must presume he is an expert of parenting and the “yob culture”. Having finally realised that the public do not like being assaulted by drunken youths, Tony is trying to show he cares about it. Instead of challenging the behaviour by proper education and parenting support, he has obviously come to the conclusion that the answer is the public humilliation of young people.

Now restorative community punishment – things like making young people clear up and care for their local environment – can be a creative way of re-engaging young people. The “chain gang” proposal is being slammed by professionals involved. Chris Stanley, head of policy for the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, told Channel 4 News that it could cause vigilante action.”There’s no evidence from anywhere that this type of thing has any deterrent effect,” he said.

The next proposal I presume will be for stocks to be set up outside local shopping malls. That way the stores can recover their losses by selling their rotting fruit to throw at shoplifters.

By now you will be very well aware that the “Top Secret – UK Eyes Only”  minutes of a meeting in mid 2002 which record that the British believed Bush had already decided to go to war with Iraq come what may. That was leaked to a couple of newspapers over the first weekend in May, just before the election. It has not been released by the government officially nor has it been challenged as a forgery.

Another document was published officially the previous Thurday after having been leaked and quoted extensively the weekend before. It had far more inpact as it went to the legality of the war and the influence the US administration had on the final advice. It had a far more damaging effect on Blair than the minutes of the meeting. That was the original draft advice given to Blair on 7 March 2003 about the legality of the war but which had remained secret, even from the full Cabinet, until April 2005.
To understand the background to this you have to know the sequence of events. We go back to 17 March 2003 when the UK Parliament was discussing a resolution agreeing the war. Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, read to the Lords the following advice he had given to the Cabinet. It was also read by his junior in the Commons. This is the full text of this public document which was shown to the Cabinet. The emphases are mine.

 Authority to use force against Iraq exists from the combined effect of Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441.

All of these resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security:

# In Resolutions 678, the Security Council authorised force against Iraq, to eject it from Kuwait and to restore peace and security in the area.

# In Resolution 687, which set out the ceasefire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, the Security Council imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace and security in the area. Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under Resolution 678.

# A material breach of Resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under Resolution 678.

# In Resolution 1441, the Security Council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of Resolution 687, because it has not fully complied with its obligations to disarm under that resolution.

# The Security Council in Resolution 1441 gave Iraq “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations” and warned Iraq of the “serious consequences” if it did not.

# The Security Council also decided in Resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and co-operate fully in the implementation of Resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach.

# It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of Resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach.

# Thus, the authority to use force under Resolution 678 has revived and so continues today.

# Resolution 1441 would in terms have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended. Thus, all that Resolution 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq’s failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force

The British thus relied on the assertion that Saddam was in “material breach” and therefore the re-activation of the orgininal UN authority to use force to remove Saddam from Kuwait. The famous “second resolution” following 1441 was not needed after all. This legal advice was also the basis on which the British Chiefs of the Defence Staff were statisfied that the war was legal and therefore they and the troops were immune from war crimes prosecutions.

The controversy is over the fact that there are material changes between this 19 paragraph statement and the 13 page draft advice (.pdf format) given to Blair only 10 days beforehand.

This set out the three possible legal bases for the invasion (Para 2).

* (a) self-defence (which may include collective self-defence);

* (b) exceptionally, to avert overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe; and

* (c) authorisation by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

Goldsmith then goes on to explain why the first two could not be used to justify war. The first (para 3) is interesting in that it points out a difference between US and UK interpretation of self-defence. Goldsmith’s view is that there has to be an imminent attack:

However, in my opinion there must be some degree of immanence. 1 am aware that the USA has been arguing for recognition of a broad doctrine of a right to use force to pre-empt danger in the future. If this means more than a right to respond proportionately to an imminent attack (and 1 understand that the doctrine is intended to carry that connotation) this is not a doctrine which, in my opinion, exists or is recognised in international law.

While that undermines the US position, the next paragraph undermines the later justification given by both Blair and Bush, that the war was justified to stop Saddam’s brutality.

The use of force to avert overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe has been emerging as a further, and exceptional, basis for the use of force. It was relied on by the UK in the Kosovo crisis and is the underlying justification for the No-Fly Zones. The doctrine remains controversial, however. I know of no reason why it would be an appropriate basis for action in present circumstances.

Which only leaves authorisation by the Security Council for the use of force. Whereas 10 days later Goldsmith relies on Resolution 678, this is what he said then (para 9)

the UK has consistently taken the view (as did the Fleischauer opinion) that, as the cease-fire conditions were set by the Security Council in resolution 687, it is for the Council to assess whether any such breach of those obligations has occurred. The US have a rather different view: they maintain that the fact of whether Iraq is in breach is a matter of objective fact which may therefore be assessed by individual Member States. I am not’ aware of any other state which supports this view.

There then follows a long discussion of the precise meaning of the wording of Resolution 1441 which includes some interesting information I shall return to later. The concludion of the deliberation is in Para 29:

However, the argument that resolution 1441 alone has revived the authorisation to use force in resolution 678 will only be sustainable if there are strong factual grounds for concluding that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity. In other words, we would need to be able to demonstrate hard evidence of non-compliance and non-cooperation.

Without that evidence it would, he concludes, be necessary to get that “second” resolution. What happens next we do not know precisely as those documents have yet to surface. Effectively what Blair as a client tells Goldsmith as his lawyer “we have intelligence information that Saddam is in material breach” and Goldsmith tells him “that’s alright then, you’re in the clear” and makes his statement in the Lords.

Two points come out of the detailed reading of the 7 March document. The first is that Goldsmith had extensive discussion with US government lawyers over these points, the paper is littered with references to them. The second sheds light on the abuse heaped on the Russians and in particular the French in the lead up to war and the UN deliberations.

Para 15 d

The Council knew full well, it is argued, the difference between “consider” and “decide” and so the omission is highly significant. Indeed, the omission is especially important as the French and Russians made proposals to include an express requirement for a further decision, but these were rejected precisely to avoid being tied to the need to obtain a second resolution.

So the indications are that the diplomats at the UN knew that the French and Russians were likely to rule against the war that had already been planned and steps were included to nullify these objections in advance.

23. I was impressed by the strength and sincerity of the views of the US Administration which I heard in Washington on this point. However, the difficulty is that we are reliant on their assertions for the view that the French (and others) knew and accepted that they were voting for a further discussion and no more. We have very little hard evidence of this beyond a couple of telegrams recording admissions by French negotiators that they knew the US would not accept a resolution which required a further Council decision. The possibility remains that the French and others accepted OP 12 because in their view it gave them a sufficient basis on which to argue that a second resolution was required (even if that was not made expressly clear).

So while the Minutes from the previous year show a clear intention of manipulating the UN, this new document provides evidence of how it was done.

By not showing the Cabinet this paper from Goldsmith as  background to the final Opinion, Blair breached established written ministerial guidelines. He is the person who decides whether these have been violated so he acts as judge, jury and prosecuter against himself. His cover throughout the election was that “Goldsmith was at the Cabinet meeting and could have been asked”. Of course they did not know what to ask without the 7 March document.

Update [2005-5-14 16:8:48 by Londonbear]: The Messenger at DailyKos has properly converted the original Goldsmith advice to html format. This has been used with thanks to tidy up the original post.

Police in London have been investigating a child murder case for 4 years. The torso of a young black boy was found in the river Thames. Forensic examination, including the stomach contents, suggest that he was killed for ritual purposes and that he came from Nigeria.

As part of the investigation police asked the education authorities to tell them how many black boys between the ages of 4 and 7 had disappeared from school in the three month period leading up to the discovery of the body. The total came back at 300, one from the Caribbean and the rest from Africa. Only 2 have been traced.
The BBC report gives further details. For the most part there seems to be innocent reasons for these disappearence. Most seem to be down to parents arranging informal fostering with distant relatives.

There is also the suspicion that they may be being used for benefit fraud and then passed on to other people. There also seems to be a possibility that older children are being used as illegal house servants or in vice. The problems of unofficial fostering are not confined to African communities. Similar arrangements also occur within communities of recent immigrants from the Indian sub-continent, although these do tend to involve close “counsins” or “aunties”.

As well as the murder and fraud, there are obvious dangers of child abuse and neglect that these children are vulnerable to. By co-inidence there is a case of serious child abuse in trial at the moment involving just such an informal arrangement. A girl from Angola had been allegedly been accused of being a witch by the son of the woman looking after her. After enduring beatings she was reportedly put in a sack and only saved from being thrown into a canal when one of the group changed their mind.

Let’s hope that the desire “not to offend the sensibilities of the communities” does not get in the way of putting proper child protection measures in place.
     

Tuesday a Senate Committee issued a report that British MP George Galloway and French Senator Charles Pasqua were involved as agents in the selling of Iraqi crude oil under the UN’s “Oil for Food” (OFF) program.

Despite vague allegations, the Committee came up with no evidence the either man had benefitted from the alleged deals. George Galloway won considerable libel damages against the “Daily Telegraph” over similar allegations covering an earlier period.

It is accepted that Saddam got far more from oil smuggling than OFF. There is some evidence that corruption in the Iraqi oil industry is even more widespread now than before the invasion. The names of American companies and individuals allegedly involved    in the OOF abuses have been kept secret. With the libel jusgement in Galloway’s favor, there must at least be some scepticism at the evidence provided to the Committee and a suspicion that even if they are true, the allegations are being used to cover up even worse transgressions by US companies and inompetence while the US was running the country.
Why am I so suspicious of the Committee? Well the principle reason is that they seem to be spending an enormous amount of time and effort investigating what are very small abutses of the system.

The scam works liked like this. The Iraqi government issued vouchers which enabled the holders to buy oil under the OFF scheme. They are then supposed to have sold these on to oil dealers in return for a “kick-back”. The Committee appears to be alleging that Galloway got the money paid into a children’s charity he started. Its total income was around £1 million with half that coming from a Jordanian businessman alleged to have been involved in selling Galloway’s oil.

Pasqua is supposed to have received around half the volume of oil allocations compared to Galloway. The allegations against him mention reports in the newspapers the Financial Times (UK) and Il Solo 24 Oro (Italy) He is suing both over these reports. Even so, we are looking at abuses that are not necessarily illegal and involve a couple of million dollars being skimmed off. Individually large amounts but small beer compared to the tens of billions Saddam is supposed to have stolen. We also have the Committee taking evidence from members of a regime who presumably will say anything to protect themselves. They are relying on the veracity of statements from people the Republicans consistently accused of lying over WMD.

If we have to view these allegations sceptically, what could really have happened? Well for one thing the Committee’s report is liberally sprinkley with terms like the allocations “being issued to”. There is therefore at least the possibiity that Saddam was setting them up in case their previously friendly relations soured.So there is the possibility that these transactions used their names but without their knowledge.

Of course there is the question of who had the most to get out of the revalations if the documents are forgeries. I suppose you could answer that by deciding who had the most to get out of the publication of forged receipts for yellowcake “purchased” by Saddam and who had the most to get our of “TANG documents” being revealed as forgeries.  

On the two US News broadcasts I have seen (the CBS and ABC eveing news) they did not report Bush’s little dance at the end of the entertainments in Tblisi, Georgia. One “pop” news programme here used the clip 4 times, including once where they looped it into an even sillier episode.

In one of those “don;t take your father to the disco” moments, Bush put both hands on his hips and wiggled his tush. Unfortunately I do not have the skill with Realplayer to isolate it but for those who do, the episode is at the 2 minute mark in the BBC report on the Georgia trip.

Did this make any of the late evening shows like the Letterman show or Tonight? Have the US MSM just ignored an embarassing Bush episode again?

At 10.00 pm on January 8 in a storm of protest from Christian fundamentalists in the UK, the West End hit “Jerry Springer – the Opera” was broadcast on BBC2, That is the BBC’s analog “minority” channel used for experimental programs and arts shows.

The protests were whipped up in advance by a group of Christian fundamentalist known as “MediawatchUK”. This originated as the “National Viewers and Listeners’ Association” (NVLA) in the 70s.

Now OfCOM, the UK equivalent of the F.C.C. has ruled that the show did not breach broadcasting guidelines. Ironically for MediawatchUK the controvesy the raised beforehand increased the audience for an opera on Saturday nights. The adjudication has some impressive language.
A bit of background. Jerry Springer – the Opera is very loosely based on the original show. The BBC recorded the stage production in the theatre. Almost entirely sung,  most of the spoken dialog is from “Jerry” played by David Soul. At the end of the “television” show Jerry is shot and blacks out. The second half is a dream sequence in which Jerry descends into Hell. The Devil demands he stages one of his shows to reconcile himself with God. Actors playing the disfunctional family in part one reappeat as God, Jesus, Mary and Joseph in the second.

There is a lot of swearing tho not as much as orginally claimed by MediawatchUK. To get near the numbers they quoted you would have to count every member of the chorus singining in unison as a separate instance of swearing. The controvery was fanned by claims that the rather tubby actor who plays a guy who gets his kicks from wearing a nappy and playing baby in Act1 re-appears as Jesus in Act II. The costume is dufferent and clearly a silky loincloth. This did not stock the fundies claiming the show depicted “Jesus in a nappy”.

I should explain that British TV has a 9 pm “watershed” after which more violent or sexually explicit scenes can be shown, the later the “stonger” but within certain limits. Broadcasters are expected to warn audiences of any potentially upsetting material by and announcement before the show starts. The the case of Jerry Springer, there was  further one between the two acts putting the second half into context.

Unusually OfCOM received 210 comments in favour of the show. The organised campaign sent in a record 8860 complaints. 1747 letters or phone calls went in but of the 7113 emails, 4264 were from “Premier Media Group” (a cover for MediawatchUK) or their supporters too dim to rewrite the round robin as if it were their own.

OfCOM’s highest authorities reviewed the programme against the broadcasting code. The decision in .pdf format shown how they went about it.

In assessing these complaints, and in line with our statutory duties, Ofcom has
sought to achieve the appropriate balance between, on the one hand, the standards
set in the Code (ex-BSC Code on Standards) and the need to apply those standards
to give adequate protection from harmful and offensive material, and on the other
hand the need to guarantee an appropriate level of freedom of expression. Freedom
of expression is particularly important in the context of artistic works, beliefs,
philosophy and argument.

MeadiawatchUK’s goose is thoroughly cooked by the time you get to:

In considering freedom of expression, Ofcom recognises
the UK’s long standing tradition of satirising political and religious figures and
celebrities. Ofcom must consider each programme on its merits.

Any possible breach of the Code is looked at and the complaints dismissed. The only possibility for MeadiawatchUK’s small band of activists is to fund a private prosecution for Blasphemy which is just about still law.

Bush often conflates “clean air” with solving global warming. There has been a theory for some time that in fact the opposite is the case. Now a new study in Science Magazine reported by the BBC supports the hypothosis.
The system works like this. Whereas greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide or methane (from all those farting pigs around Chesapeake Bay) provide a blanket that traps heat, particulates reflect radiation back into space.

It is quite possible that the increased radiation reaching the surface could put global warming past the “tipping point” where other things start to happen to accelerate it even further. The methane trapped at the ocean bottoms in methane hydrate nodules could be released as the sea temperature warms by a few degrees.

The problem is of course that politically it is very difficult to sell the idea. Those nice earth-cooling photochemical smogs that we got rid of because they killed so many with lung disease may have been out friends. Should fuel efficient aircraft travel producing helpfully reflective vapor trails be welcomed?

There comes a time for many of us when whe have to decide whether to go on deluding ourselves or whether we should face facts. Prime Minister Blair is at one of those crossroads.

Male baldness is one of those things you accept or take increasingly desparate steps until you just become a laughing stock. Blair will not now have to lead into another election. Should he face facts and accept he is rapidly balding? This is the picture that Blair and his image makers like to portray.

But a candid shot during the election as he was windblown by a helicopter reveals the truth. The Blair hairstyle is an extra-ordinary confection that makes the “Bobby Charlton” (combover) look primitive.

Blair has both a receeding forehead hairline and a thinning crown. The surrounding areas have been grown so the crown is covered in “Shredded Wheat” but it is the front where things really go wild. Hair from the side and back has been grown and parts of it curled so they produce rolls that can be linked to the tuft at the front. One of those curls is the lump that rises above his left brow. The other long strands are combed into these rolls to produced the illusion that his hairline starts at the isolated tuft.

Berlousconi had a transplant but maintains a very short style that reveals the extent of his loss. I suppose it is interesting to speculate whether Blair’s hairstyle indicates how he came to delude himself over Iraq’s non-exixtant nukes. Is it time for him to come clean about his own WMD (Wig Maker’s Dilema)? Should we send in Inspectors to search for follicle-related activity?