Peru and Chile went to war with Spain in 1864-1866 to keep control over a group of guano islands that Spain was trying to exploit (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chincha_Islands_War).

Fifteen years later, British mineral interests in the guano and nitrate deposits of southern Peru and western Bolivia provoked the War of the Pacific (1879-1883). The British were fed up with Peruvian controls over the exploitation of their mineral deposits, so they lined up allies in Chile who agreed to be more compliant with their corporate wishes.

The end result was Chile's conquest of the Atacama Desert, Peru's loss of its (nearly depopulated but mineral-rich) southernmost province, and Bolivia's loss of its only outlet to the sea. Bolivia has never forgiven Chile for its loss.

(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Pacific)

Another bit of history: the word "guano" is Quechua and means "excrement," or perhaps better, "manure." In the Andes it refers most often to the "wanu" of llamas, another good fertilizer. In the modern Quechua alphabet, the word is spelled wanu. (The "g" is an artifact of Spanish pronuncation.) Quechua is the language of the Inca Empire and still the most widely spoken native language in the Americas, with about 10 million speakers from Colombia to Argentina.

I just noticed the "Copyright 2007" notice on the title panel, which raises all sorts of questions... the obvious first being, "Why bother?" (As if anyone would bother pirating it! Toni and Tom probably copyright their turds, too.) The second: are Toni and Tom simply too lazy to change the date? (After all, they are too lazy to write, draw, letter, plot, etc.) Or, most intriguing of all: did they actually turn in the entire run of the strip in 2007? Which would mean that our intrepid Salon editors have know all along what a pile this so-called comic is; what, then, justified running it?

If "Prince Harry"'s cover in Afghanistan had been blown by the "liberal media" (New York Times, CBS, whatever), we never would have heard the end of it. The right would be calling to put the lot of them on trial for treason; hanging would be too good for 'em.

But no; it was Drudge who spilled the beans... and all we hear is silence...

I was talking recently with an environmental scientist when the topic of hybrid cars came up. His take: there is no way that hybrids can be environmentally beneficial when you take into account the damage caused by mining needed to get the precious metals that go into the huge, expensive batteries.

I don't know enough about this to comment one way or the other, but his point makes intuitive sense to me. Anyone have more information?

(Pardon me if someone else has already caught this; don't have time to read through the comments today.)

Joan, you write:

But I have to wonder, what's worse for Democrats: A protracted battle that results in a near-tie, with superdelegates carrying the day in Denver (leaving plenty of cash to fight McCain but one camp or the other furious), or a party whose coffers are maybe depleted (though I can't imagine that), but whose supporters know that democracy, though expensive, prevailed.

I'm not sure I can answer that question, but my gut tells me it's the latter: a cash-poor party whose candidate emerged victorious after being tested in all 50 states.

Do you really mean that this is the "worse" choice? You seem to be arguing that it is the "best" choice. And as a Michigan voter, I would agree! Please enfranchise me!

It upsets me to see letters saying that Michigan doesn't deserve a "re-vote." What revote? We never had a vote to begin with! Maybe supporters of Clinton or Uncommitted (whoever he/she is) would disagree, but by the clearly stated rules of the game, THERE WAS NO MICHIGAN PRIMARY, period. I'd love a chance to vote -- for the first and only time!

Everybody expects Republicans to be sleazy. No story there.

A vote for a Republican is a vote for our shadowy puppet masters

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/diebold_accidentally_leaks?utm_source=embedded_video

and everyone knows it.

The only people who seem to think there was a primary in Michigan are the diehard Clinton supporters. Probably because Clinton's was the only name (worth mentioning) on the ballot.

I don't want to "re-vote." I want to VOTE. Yes to a real primary in Michigan.

MSNBC has what it claims to be final results with 100% of precincts reportings (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21228629).

Adding all the county-level results, I get:

Obama: 5,378 votes (61%)

Clinton: 3,312 votes (38%)

Uncommitted: 63 votes (1%)

Total turnout: 8,753. Which equals about 12.5% of the number of people who voted for Kerry in Wyoming in 2004 -- pretty average for caucus states this year.

Ok, so Spitzer hired a prostitute. Icky, yucky, and no doubt illegal in Washington DC. But what on earth does this have to do with his ability to govern the state of New York?

I can't help noticing that David Vitter is still the junior Senator from Louisiana, despite virtually getting frequent flier miles from the DC Madam's little whorehouse. What, no calls for him to resign? No move to impeach him?

Hypocrisy, anyone?

I think about 95% of this "scandal" derives from the way it is being reported. The headlines scream "Spitzer linked to prostitution ring," implying that he was playing some nefarious role in organizing the "ring," maybe forcing unwitting young immigrants into a life of sexual slavery. It is still being reported in that way, too (I just heard the same phrase used on NPR). If the headline had instead read "Spitzer allegedly hired a hooker," would the story have attracted anywhere near as much interest? I doubt it...

The whole thing stinks of a hatchet job to me. And it is worth noting that the New York Times has had it in for Spitzer for years.

Just wondering, is Shirky a Joyce fan?