Pearls Before Swine by Stephan Pastis- An Illustration for Yesterday's Post

A Bah-Humbug Commute

So there I was, reading about the Palestinian crisis in my 'Express', minding my own business somewhere between Suitland and Anacostia and I start to hear singing; Christmas carols... So I'm thinking... "Ok, someone has their headphones/radio on a little louder than it should be, or someone has a Christmas ringtone..." No, it's definitely singing... I give a furtive glance around the train car, so as to not let on that I've noticed anything out of the ordinary and to maintain the detachment that is essential when riding mass transit.... It turns out there's a man in a bright red coat and beret standing in the middle of the train car belting out one of those more 'religious' Christmas songs; more of a Christmas Hymn really. Stitched across the back of this guy's red jacket was the logo of and words "Guardian Angels". Great... You're probably aware of the two major 'Angel' groups out there... The Hells' Angels - mostly white, biker folk who terrorize travelers on the highways and revel in other gang-related violence and mayhem, and the 'Guardian Angels' - the mostly black quasi-vigilante group that is intended to fight crime, social ugliness, gang-related activities and other social activism - evidentially within a Christian/religious context.

Each morning I particularly enjoy the quiet (silent really), socially disengaged reading time that is my morning train ride. So often the walk to my building from the metro station involves numerous solicitations from pan-handlers and people trying to push fliers and leaflets into your hands, traffic honking and screeching, and the ride home is often filled with school children or college students, both of whom are obnoxiously loud and talkative. So I'm loathsomely contemplating this, with a burning, secular indignation swelling within me that my morning commute should be so interrupted by some evidentially unemployed, self-styled vigilante singing Christmas Hymns in my train car to do his "good work" by pushing his Judeo-Christian religiosity on me and my fellow commuters... Interrupting my newspaper reading time no less! It was a dastardly ploy as well, as on the Washington Metro system passengers cannot move between cars while the train is moving - captive audiences.

Well, to make a long story short, I was gathering up my belongings to move to a different car when the train was approaching a station when this musical missionary, this jolly jihadist waging his holiday holy war one captive train car audience at a time, left our car on his own accord, presumably to bring his 'cheer' to other weary morning commuters, no doubt as equally enthusiastic as myself (judging from the reactions of the commuters in my car).

As the train pulled out of the next station (Anacostia) en route to Congress Heights I joyfully returned to my newspaper reading about intractable conflict in the Holy Land, Iraq and and looming 2008 Presidential Election. As we crossed the Anacostia River and were rolling along towards the Navy Yard I found myself thinking, "Well, at least he had a good voice."

And you thought the Lieberman-Bush kiss was bad...

A picture says a thousand words, this is from www.Wonkette.com a worthy blog in its own right. It has to be the single most disturbing image I've seen all day.

At right, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani his Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad demonstrate why America hates the latter and has given up on the former.

The Case for an Iraqi Strongman

Here are two articles from two very different sources (National Review & The New Republic) both discussing the same point - Saddam's power to control Iraq and the Shiites.

First James Robbins of the National Review Online:

November 28, 2006, 8:28 a.m.

Bring Back Saddam
Bygones?

By James S. Robbins

When Saddam Hussein first went on trial in October 2005, I wrote a satirical memo from Saddam to his (still living) chief lawyer Khalil al-Dulaimi. In it, he explained why he did not want to embarrass the United States during the trial:

We had good times back in the day, we can again. I think in time the Americans will shake the influence of their Zionist masters and come to their senses. They still need someone to hold the line against Iran, more than ever these days. Will the Shiites do it? Not likely! And there was never this level of disorder when I was in power. Order is what they want. I can take care of it. They know this, and they will come to me eventually. If we can draw it out they’ll understand the futility of this exercise. They don’t have to admit failure, I can stand for election or something, however they want to dress it up. We just need some time.

I was only partly kidding in that passage. I knew this really was part of Saddam’s defense strategy. It seemed funny at the time. But now who’s laughing? As Saddam’s probable execution nears and violence in Iraq escalates, the idea of bringing him back to power is starting to simmer.

The rumor that the U.S. has been backing Saddam all along has been out there in one form or another since 2003. It was originally intended to delegitimize the presence of Coalition forces, particularly among the Shiites. We overthrew him, but are keeping him around in case we need him, in case the Shiites grow too powerful. The notion has been hawked by the Iranian press for years, most recently this week in the Tehran Times. The story line is familiar — the U.S. fears a Shiite majority in Iraq that will pursue friendly relations with Iran. The answer is to overthrow the democracy and place the Baathists back in power. “The secret visit to Baghdad by US Vice President Dick Cheney and former secretary of state James A. Baker, who is currently the chairman of the Iraq Study Group, is part of the conspiracy,” the Times speculates. Jomhuri-ye Eslami says a coup against the current government “would be one of Bush's major achievements to implement American-style democracy in Iraq at the hand of the Ba'thists, and to present a new style of democracy to all the bewildered observers.” Bewildered is right. Hard to see how it constitutes a major achievement to go to all this trouble to wind up where we started.

Meanwhile back home The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait, in a piece I am still not sure is serious, makes his case for bringing back Saddam. Everyone agrees that radical de-Baathification was a blunder, so why not try radical re-Baathification? You want order? Saddam invented it. A bulwark against Iran? He’s your guy. Plus, this time around he’ll be grateful and cooperative. If not, we hang him. The people? They will be so shocked and awed by the turn of events they’ll meekly reassume their traditional roles. No more random killings in the streets, but focused, systematic and orderly massacres in freshly dug pits. No foreign terrorists coming and going as they please, but only doing so on Saddam’s orders. Oil exports up, American troops out. It really would be an ideal solution, if it weren’t for all those lives we sacrificed on our journey back to square one.

Even if we declare the democratic experiment dead and seek regime re-change, I do not understand the fascination with Saddam per se. There have to be many dictators in waiting out there, why bring back one who most likely will be very angry at us for all the trouble we put him through? Saddam does not do gratitude. If you want a strongman, wouldn’t it be much easier just to hand the reigns over to someone else? Sure, Saddam has a proven record of accomplishment, he knows how to use a political party ruthlessly to dominate a government apparatus and establish totalitarian rule buttressed by secret police and an effective cult of personality, but these days who doesn’t?

The “bring back Saddam” plan is a geostrategic way of saying “Oops, my bad.” It seeks to erase the last three and a half years of conflict and start fresh, as though one could do so without consequences. Resurrecting the Baathist regime, even if it were possible, would stand as a repudiation of the entire war effort, its means, its ends, and its ideals. It would be a slap in the face to all the members of the armed forces who have done or continue to do their duty in Iraq, not to mention those who have been wounded, and the families of the fallen. It would signal the emergent impotence of the United States in world affairs, and the death-spiral of the Bush presidency. It would be an admission of strategic failure on a level seldom seen in history.

Other than that — great idea.

— James S. Robbins is senior fellow in national-security affairs at the American Foreign Policy Council, a trustee for the Leaders for Liberty Foundation , and author of Last in Their Class: Custer, Picket and the Goats of West Point. Robbins is also an NRO contributor.

And now, Jonathan Chait of the New Republic:

Jonathan Chait: Bring back Saddam Hussein

Restoring the dictator to power may give Iraqis the jolt of authority they need. Have a better solution?

Jonathan Chait

November 26, 2006

THE DEBATE about Iraq has moved past the question of whether it was a mistake (everybody knows it was) to the more depressing question of whether it is possible to avert total disaster. Every self-respecting foreign policy analyst has his own plan for Iraq. The trouble is that these tracts are inevitably unconvincing, except when they argue why all the other plans would fail. It's all terribly grim.

So allow me to propose the unthinkable: Maybe, just maybe, our best option is to restore Saddam Hussein to power.

Yes, I know. Hussein is a psychotic mass murderer. Under his rule, Iraqis were shot, tortured and lived in constant fear. Bringing the dictator back would sound cruel if it weren't for the fact that all those things are also happening now, probably on a wider scale.

At the outset of the war, I had no high hopes for Iraqi democracy, but I paid no attention to the possibility that the Iraqis would end up with a worse government than the one they had. It turns out, however, that there is something more awful than totalitarianism, and that is endless chaos and civil war.

Nobody seems to foresee the possibility of restoring order to Iraq. Here is the basic dilemma: The government is run by Shiites, and the security agencies have been overrun by militias and death squads. The government is strong enough to terrorize the Sunnis into rebellion but not strong enough to crush this rebellion.

Meanwhile, we have admirably directed our efforts into training a professional and nonsectarian Iraqi police force and encouraging reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites. But we haven't succeeded. We may be strong enough to stop large-scale warfare or genocide, but we're not strong enough to stop pervasive chaos.

Hussein, however, has a proven record in that department. It may well be possible to reconstitute the Iraqi army and state bureaucracy we disbanded, and if so, that may be the only force capable of imposing order in Iraq.

Chaos and order each have a powerful self-sustaining logic. When people perceive a lack of order, they act in ways that further the disorder. If a Sunni believes that he is in danger of being killed by Shiites, he will throw his support to Sunni insurgents who he sees as the only force that can protect him. The Sunni insurgents, in turn, will scare Shiites into supporting their own anti-Sunni militias.



And it's not just Iraqis who act this way. You could find a smaller-scale version of this dynamic in an urban riot here in the United States. But when there's an expectation of social order, people will act in a civilized fashion.

Restoring the expectation of order in Iraq will take some kind of large-scale psychological shock. The Iraqi elections were expected to offer that shock, but they didn't. The return of Saddam Hussein — a man every Iraqi knows, and whom many of them fear — would do the trick.

The disadvantages of reinstalling Hussein are obvious, but consider some of the upside. He would not allow the country to be dominated by Iran, which is the United States' major regional enemy, a sponsor of terrorism and an instigator of warfare between Lebanon and Israel. Hussein was extremely difficult to deal with before the war, in large part because he apparently believed that he could defeat any U.S. invasion if it came to that. Now he knows he can't. And he'd probably be amenable because his alternative is death by hanging.

I know why restoring a brutal tyrant to power is a bad idea. Somebody explain to me why it's worse than all the others.

What's really at stake is the future of democratic pluralism in the Middle East, if not the entire Muslim World from Morocco to Mindinao. What kind of political structure do we want to see in these areas dominated by America-hating populations and regimes both religious and secular dedicated to proposition of a defeated America. After years of cultural indoctrination into this culture of hate, is democracy really a good idea? Is pluralism even possible? Is it even worth trying to facilitate their growth in the face of such open and unabashed hostility? This may be one of those instances when fighting for freedom and democracy may endanger you and your ideals more than simply tolerating repressive and totalitarian regimes - as long as those regimes do not pose a direct and imminent threat.

Bathroom Ettiquette

Lately I've been noticing an ever increasing number of men from different floors of this office building coming to use the facilities on this floor. I think it's safe to say that if you're going to another floor (not your own) to use the restroom, you are not going to use the urinal.

Is this the new ettiquette for the office? Is this an offshoot of the "Not in my backyard" philosophy? Perhaps the pooper is worried about creating a stink and facing his coworkers at the sink as the malodorous vapors waft about creating much displeasure... Or perhaps it is an act of mercy by which this person chooses a different floor as to spare his comrades from the stench within.

Office bathroom ettiquette is hardly codified on this issue and more debate is needed I think.

After days of squabbling, the South Korean Parliament today passed a resolution condemning North Korea’s nuclear test. But some governing party lawmakers criticized the resolution because it did not mention American “responsibility” for the crisis.

This was taken from: www.nytimes.com

I think it's time we abandon South Korea to its own reality.

The following can be found at: http://www.bloggernews.net/179

What if U.S. responded like Amish to 9/11?

The response of the Amish to school shootings they themselves describe as “the Amish 9/11″ has been to turn the other cheek, to forgive the shooter and reach out to his family.

This made me think what would the world be like if the U.S. had responded to 9/11 the way the Amish did to the school shootings? What if the U.S. said “these people were troubled and clearly out of their minds. We should not think evil of them. We should forgive, and reach out to their families.”

One’s instinctive reaction is to think the terrorists would have just kept attacking. But would they? Such a pacifist response kind of takes the wind out of an attacker’s sails, makes the whole world say, “Look what you did to these peaceful people.” Kind of like that song by Coven, where one group of people attacked another, and the “treasure” they were seeking by force turned out to be nothing but the words “Peace on Earth.”

Of course, one can’t really imagine the U.S. responding in a pacifist way to 9/11. In fact, one can’t imagine any nation of the earth responding in this fashion to the equilvalent of 9/11. The natural response is to seek out the attackers and their support system and kill them.

And yet here you have the Amish, who have enough numbers to be, in effect, a small nation. And they respond with forgiveness. It makes a person wonder…is a world without war possible? Wouldn’t the first logical step toward such a world be to respond, as the Amish did, to an act of war like 9/11? Will we ever see a world where something like that might happen?

What if you had a situation where, say, a nation like Bhutan or Nepal were attacked by a terrorist group, and the leader of the nation said something like, “Because the majority of people in the nation embrace non-violent, pacifist beliefs in accordance with their religion, the response of the nation, like the response of the individuals who make up that nation, will be to forgive this attack and determine what we can do to provide help for the loved ones of the group which attacked us.”

I can’t imagine the U.S. responding to 9/11 in a pacifist way. My head can hardly get itself around a concept like that. But I can imagine a theoretical world where SOME OTHER nation might respond to a 9/11 act as the Amish did and, nation by nation, this might become the norm.

And it makes me think…isn’t that a better world? And what could be done to move toward a world like that? Or would evil, violent people just take over the world, because good people wouldn’t be willing to fight them?

Posted by John Hoff on October 5th, 2006 under Uncategorized.

An equally important question then would be: "What if Islam reponded to slights, insults and criticisms as the Amish do?"

It's unfair to only hold the United States, her people and government accountable to a standard that is not equally applied across the board. If Americans are expected to "turn the other cheek" then why not Islam?

Here we have a child-killer and abuser being forgiven and his family consoled byt he community he wrought destruction upon. Juxtapose that to the violent reactions to caricatures of Mohammed in Europe, an academic lecture by the Pope in Germany and the ongoing ugliness of trying people who insult "Turkishness" (whatever that is).

Maybe it's time that before an individual commits to an action or decision they should ask themselves, "What would the Amish do?"

From CNN.com:

MEXICO CITY, Mexico (AP) -- A spokesman for Mexican President Vincente Fox on Wednesday said the United States will likely never build 700 miles of new fencing along the border dividing the two nations.

The fence received final approval in the United States last week.

But Fox's spokesman Ruben Aguilar said the U.S. Congress is unlikely to approve enough funding to finish the project.

"There is no money to build it, so it won't be built," Aguilar told reporters. "Even though the wall was approved, there is no funding."

No one knows how much the 700-mile (1,125-kilometer) fence will cost, but Congress sent a bill to the White House making a $1.2 billion down payment. A 14-mile (23-kilometer) segment of fence under construction in San Diego is costing $126.5 million.

On Monday, the Mexican government sent a diplomatic note to Washington criticizing last week's U.S. Senate vote to authorize the new fencing as part of congressional efforts to combat illegal immigration. (Watch U.S. Congress debate border fence -- 1:45)

On Tuesday, all eight parties in Mexico's Congress joined forces to exhort Fox to use all the diplomatic means at his disposal to try to stop the construction of the fence.

The bill must still be signed into law by President Bush, but Mexico is lobbying Bush to veto it.

U.S. State Department spokesman Tom Casey said Tuesday the U.S. was talking to Mexico about the issue of immigration, but he did not give details.

Aguilar said on Tuesday his country still wants comprehensive immigration reform that would allow more people to migrate to the United States legally.

"The wall will be useless and unworkable," Aguilar said, adding that it would adversely affect the environment, including the reproduction of some species.

Yes, I believe Mr. Aguilar is referring to the Mexican Species.

The other day while attending a get-together up in Hanover, PA I was shocked to hear people complaining that US Immigration and Citzenship forms were only in English! My initial reaction was, "Well, that's kinda the point isn't it?" The people in question were not hispanic, they are not in any way a minority. In fact, only one was an immigrant and he's a white from South Africa. They were noting the seemingly anachronistic questions US immigration officials pose on prior activity with either the Communist Party, Nazi Party or terrorist organizations. While they joked on these questions, the more pertinent question I thought would've been if this immigrant from South Africa had been involved in or benefited from Apartheid and the racist regime in Pretoria! I thought it best to be civil, as my views on immigration and society were decidedly in the minority, and didn't broach the subject...

Eine Ungelegene Wahrheit

Recently German security authorities held a meeting with the Berlin Opera Company to discuss the security ramifications of staging "Idomeno" - the controversial Mozart opera with the inclusion of a new scene depicting the severed heads of several god/prophets including Mohammed. The Berlin Opera has attracted much criticism from across Europe and the United States for kowtowing to fears of Islamic reprisal attacks/protests.

It is interesting that there is such widespread support for free speech and anti-censorship when German culture is anything but truly free nor is their political philosophy so self-confident enough that they can truly be free.

It remains today that several symbols, actions, and political affiliations are stricktly verbotten, illegal and punishable under German law. That of course are all things Nazi related. The fascist hand salute, various Nazi symbology, the Nazi Party, neo-Nazi movments, expressions, etc.

Not to say that Nazism and fascism are not abhorrent social and political movements, but if the German people truly belive in the open debate of ideas and that Western principles of civic responsibility, liberal political philosophies will carry the day on the basis of their political/philosophical merit, then why not move beyond the Nazi shadow and into the light of a truly free society?

Just as Europe is besieged by fears of a restive and hostile Islamic population both at home and camping outside the gates of Vienna, so too is Germany still beseiged by archaic fears of a disproved and defeated ideology.

Voice of Reason #2

A stunning admission from the Washington Post...

Liberal Media?

---

The "mainstream media presents itself as unbiased, when in fact there are built into it many biases, and they are overwhelmingly to the left."

The man who made that comment is not some rabid right-wing critic but Thomas Edsall, a Washington Post political reporter for a quarter-century who recently accepted an early retirement offer.

In an interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, Edsall said he is pro-choice on abortion and does not think he has ever voted for a Republican presidential candidate. He said he believes that reporters vote Democratic by somewhere between 15 to 1 and 25 to 1.

Edsall, who now writes for the New Republic and has just finished a book called "Building Red America," also said that journalists have an inherent "suspicion" of the military, and he agreed "to a certain degree" with the argument that Fox News and conservative radio became popular because many people, in Hewitt's words, "got sick and tired of being spoon-fed liberal dross" by the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Washington Post.

In an interview, Edsall says the main problem is "an inability to empathize with the way many people in red states think and feel" but that it is "possible" for journalists to set aside their views and report fairly.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Source Link

Voice of Reason

Here's an article from today's Washington Post. The commentary is on the recent statements of Pope Benedict XVI and the predictable response from the "Islamic World". This piece hits the nail right on the head.

Tolerance: A Two-Way Street

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, September 22, 2006; A17

Religious fanatics, regardless of what name they give their jealous god, invariably have one thing in common: no sense of humor. Particularly about themselves. It's hard to imagine Torquemada taking a joke well.

Today's Islamists seem to have not even a sense of irony. They fail to see the richness of the following sequence. The pope makes a reference to a 14th-century Byzantine emperor's remark about Islam imposing itself by the sword, and to protest this linking of Islam and violence:

· In the West Bank and Gaza, Muslims attack seven churches.

· In London, the ever-dependable radical Anjem Choudary tells demonstrators at Westminster Cathedral that the pope is now condemned to death.

· In Mogadishu, Somali religious leader Abubukar Hassan Malin calls on Muslims to "hunt down" the pope. The pope not being quite at hand, they do the next best thing: shoot dead, execution-style, an Italian nun who worked in a children's hospital.

"How dare you say Islam is a violent religion? I'll kill you for it" is not exactly the best way to go about refuting the charge. But of course, refuting is not the point here. The point is intimidation.

First Salman Rushdie. Then the false Newsweek report about Koran-flushing at Guantanamo Bay. Then the Danish cartoons. And now a line from a scholarly disquisition on rationalism and faith given in German at a German university by the pope.

And the intimidation succeeds: politicians bowing and scraping to the mob over the cartoons; Saturday's craven New York Times editorial telling the pope to apologize; the plague of self-censorship about anything remotely controversial about Islam -- this in a culture in which a half-naked pop star blithely stages a mock crucifixion as the highlight of her latest concert tour.

In today's world, religious sensitivity is a one-way street. The rules of the road are enforced by Islamic mobs and abjectly followed by Western media, politicians and religious leaders.

The fact is that all three monotheistic religions have in their long histories wielded the sword. The Book of Joshua is knee-deep in blood. The real Hanukkah story, so absurdly twinned (by calendric accident) with the Christian festival of peace, is about a savage insurgency and civil war.

Christianity more than matched that lurid history with the Crusades, an ecumenical blood bath that began with the slaughter of Jews in the Rhineland, a kind of preseason warm-up to the featured massacres to come against the Muslims, with the sacking of the capital of Byzantium (the Fourth Crusade) thrown in for good measure.

And Islam, of course, spread with great speed from Arabia across the Mediterranean and into Europe. It was not all benign persuasion. After all, what were Islamic armies doing at Poitiers in 732 and the gates of Vienna in 1683? Tourism?

However, the inconvenient truth is that after centuries of religious wars, Christendom long ago gave it up. It is a simple and undeniable fact that the violent purveyors of monotheistic religion today are self-proclaimed warriors for Islam who shout "God is great" as they slit the throats of infidels -- such as those of the flight crews on Sept. 11, 2001 -- and are then celebrated as heroes and martyrs.

Just one month ago, two journalists were kidnapped in Gaza and were released only after their forced conversion to Islam. Where were the protests in the Islamic world at that act -- rather than the charge -- of forced conversion?

Where is the protest over the constant stream of vilification of Christianity and Judaism issuing from the official newspapers, mosques and religious authorities of Arab nations? When Sheik 'Atiyyah Saqr issues a fatwa declaring Jews "apes and pigs"? When Sheik Abd al-Aziz Fawzan al-Fawzan, professor of Islamic law, says on Saudi TV that "someone who denies Allah, worships Christ, son of Mary, and claims that God is one-third of a trinity. . . . Don't you hate the faith of such a polytheist?"

Where are the demonstrations, where are the parliamentary resolutions, where are the demands for retraction when the Mufti Sheik Ali Gum'a incites readers of al-Ahram, the Egyptian government daily, against "the true and hideous face of the blood-suckers . . . who prepare [Passover] matzos from human blood"?

The pope gives offense and the Mujaheddin al-Shura Council in Iraq declares that it "will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose the 'jizya' [head] tax; then the only thing acceptable is conversion or the sword." This to protest the accusation that Islam might be spread by the sword.

As I said. No sense of irony.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

© 2006 The Washington Post Company


Source Link

A good way to start

With my first, brief post to the blogosphere, I will hope to show that I am at least marginally informed of what's going on in the world and perhaps capable of some insightful commentary.

My results from the Weekly World News Quiz found at http://news.bbc.co.uk

Weekly world news quiz

It's the end of another week... Just how much do you remember about the headlines from the past seven days?

Test your knowledge of world news events in our quiz.

When you've got your result, why not e-mail the quiz to your friends to see how they measure up?

You got 6 right!

Genius

Question 1

In a speech at the UN this week Venezuela's Hugo Chavez said about George W Bush: "The devil came here yesterday..." How does the quote end?

A: "And most of you have sold your souls" B: "It still smells of sulphur" C: "And I come today to save you"

The answer was B Mr Chavez went on to criticise the UN system, which he said was "worthless". Read more: Chavez tells UN Bush is 'devil'

Question 2

What blunder has left Jerusalem tourist officials red-faced?

A: An official pamphlet named it as the birthplace of Christ B: They listed the West Bank barrier as a visitor attraction C: Leaflets were distributed which suggested the city did not exist

The answer was C A translation error on a sightseeing pamphlet meant it read "Jerusalem - there's no such city!", rather than "Jerusalem - there's no city like it!". Tens of thousands of the leaflets, translated from Hebrew to English, were distributed before the mistake was spotted. Read more: Jerusalem is lost in translation

Question 3

How have US officials pressed fish into service in the "war on terror"?

A: To help "sniff out" liquid explosives B: To safeguard public drinking water from toxic agents C: A programme has been launched to develop "cyber fish" fitted with tiny microphones to "spy on" potential enemies

The answer was B San Francisco, Washington and New York are using bluegills - also known as sunfish - to watch out for chemical and biological agents. Read more: Fish enlisted in US terror fight

Question 4

Why did Chinese police remove a German art student from the terracotta warrior museum in the ancient capital, Xian?

A: He dressed himself up and posed as one of the warriors B: He 'wrapped' some of the warriors in pink plastic paper C: He placed masks of Hollywood screen icons over some of the faces

The answer was A Pablo Wendel, made up like an ancient warrior, jumped into a pit showcasing the 2,200-year-old pottery soldiers and stood motionless for several minutes. Read more: New recruit joins Terracotta Army

Question 5

Which Holywood actor has begged world leaders to take action against violence in Sudan's Darfour region?

A: Sean Penn B: Leonardo DiCaprio C: George Clooney

The answer was C Clooney made an impassioned speech to the UN Security Council, telling council members genocide was taking place "on your watch". He said how they responded would be their legacy. Read more: Clooney begs UN to act on Darfur

Question 6

The son of a renowned 20th Century writer has just completed one of his deceased father's unfinished works. Who was the author?

A: Ernest Hemingway B: JRR Tolkien C: Kingsley Amis

The answer was B Christopher Tolkien has spent 30 years working on The Children of Hurin, which The Lord of the Rings author started in 1918 and later abandoned. Read more: Son completes unfinished Tolkien

Question 7

Hungary was thrown into crisis this week after a "lies" speech given by the prime minister was leaked. How did he describe the government?

A: Boneheaded B: Blundering C: Bird-brained

The answer was A Ferenc Gyurcsany's admission came after Hungarian radio played a tape of a meeting he had with his Socialist MPs a few weeks after the election. On it he says the party had lied to the public and his "boneheaded" government failed to introduce any real policies. Read more: We lied to win, says Hungary PM

Notice it said, "Genius"... Until next time!