Tuesday, March 07, 2006

The future of modern liberalism is submission

A wake-up call addressed to the British government by an expert on Islam has been removed from the Telegraph website "for legal reasons".

Fortunately, it is cached by Google here.

UPDATE: As statguy notes in comments, the article has been removed from the Google cache; read it below:

The day is coming when British Muslims form a state within a state By Alasdair Palmer (Filed: 19/02/2006)

© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006.

For the past two weeks, Patrick Sookhdeo has been canvassing the opinions of Muslim clerics in Britain on the row over the cartoons featuring images of Mohammed that were first published in Denmark and then reprinted in several other European countries.

"They think they have won the debate," he says with a sigh. "They believe that the British Government has capitulated to them, because it feared the consequences if it did not.

"The cartoons, you see, have not been published in this country, and the Government has been very critical of those countries in which they were published. To many of the Islamic clerics, that's a clear victory.

"It's confirmation of what they believe to be a familiar pattern: if spokesmen for British Muslims threaten what they call 'adverse consequences' - violence to the rest of us - then the British Government will cave in. I think it is a very dangerous precedent."

Dr Sookhdeo adds that he believes that "in a decade, you will see parts of English cities which are controlled by Muslim clerics and which follow, not the common law, but aspects of Muslim sharia law.

"It is already starting to happen - and unless the Government changes the way it treats the so-called leaders of the Islamic community, it will continue."

For someone with such strong and uncompromising views, Dr Sookhdeo is a surprisingly gentle and easy-going man. He speaks with authority on Islam, as it was his first faith: he was brought up as a Muslim in Guyana, the only English colony in South America, and attended a madrassa there.

"But Islamic instruction was very different in the 1950s, when I was at school," he says. "There was no talk of suicide bombing or indeed of violence of any kind. Islam was very peaceful."

Dr Sookhdeo's family emigrated to England when he was 10. In his early twenties, when he was at university, he converted to Christianity. "I had simply seen it as the white man's religion, the religion of the colonialists and the oppressors - in a very similar way, in fact, to the way that many Muslims see Christianity today.

" Leaving Islam was not easy. According to the literal interpretation of the Koran, the punishment for apostasy is death - and it actually is punished by death in some Middle Eastern states. "It wasn't quite like that here," he says, "although it was traumatic in some ways."

Dr Sookhdeo continued to study Islam, doing a PhD at London University on the religion. He is currently director of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity. He also advises the Army on security issues related to Islam.

Several years ago, Dr Sookhdeo insisted that the next wave of radical Islam in Britain would involve suicide bombings in this country. His prediction was depressingly confirmed on 7/7 last year.

So his claim that, in the next decade, the Muslim community in Britain will not be integrated into mainstream British society, but will isolate itself to a much greater extent, carries weight behind it. Dr Sookhdeo has proved his prescience.

"The Government, and Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, are fundamentally deluded about the nature of Islam," he insists. "Tony Blair unintentionally revealed his ignorance when he said, in an effort to conciliate Muslims, that he had 'read through the Koran twice' and that he kept it by his bedside.

"He thought he was saying something which showed how seriously he took Islam. But most Muslims thought it was a joke, if not an insult. Because, of course, every Muslim knows that you cannot read the Koran through from cover to cover and understand it.

The chapters are not written to be read in that way. Indeed, after the first chapter, the chapters of the Koran are ordered according to their length, not according to their content or chronology: the longest chapters are first, the shorter ones are at the end.

"You need to know which passage was revealed at what period and in what time in order to be able to understand it - you cannot simply read it from beginning to end and expect to learn anything at all.

"That is one reason why it takes so long to be able to read and understand the Koran: the meaning of any part of it depends on a knowledge of its context - a context that is not in the Koran itself."

The Prime Minister's ignorance of Islam, Dr Sookhdeo contends, is of a piece with his unsuccessful attempts to conciliate it. And it does indeed seem as if the Government's policy towards radical Islam is based on the hope that if it makes concessions to its leaders, they will reciprocate and relations between fundamentalist Muslims and Tony Blair's Government will then turn into something resembling an ecumenical prayer meeting.

Dr Sookhdeo nods in vigorous agreement with that. "Yes - and it is a very big mistake. Look at what happened in the 1990s. The security services knew about Abu Hamza and the preachers like him. They knew that London was becoming the centre for Islamic terrorists. The police knew. The Government knew. Yet nothing was done.

"The whole approach towards Muslim militants was based on appeasement. 7/7 proved that that approach does not work - yet it is still being followed. For example, there is a book, The Noble Koran: a New Rendering of its Meaning in English, which is openly available in Muslim bookshops.

"It calls for the killing of Jews and Christians, and it sets out a strategy for killing the infidels and for warfare against them. The Government has done nothing whatever to interfere with the sale of that book.

"Why not? Government ministers have promised to punish religious hatred, to criminalise the glorification of terrorism, yet they do nothing about this book, which blatantly does both."

Perhaps the explanation is just that they do not take it seriously. "I fear that is exactly the problem," says Dr Sookhdeo. "The trouble is that Tony Blair and other ministers see Islam through the prism of their own secular outlook.

They simply do not realise how seriously Muslims take their religion. Islamic clerics regard themselves as locked in mortal combat with secularism.

"For example, one of the fundamental notions of a secular society is the moral importance of freedom, of individual choice. But in Islam, choice is not allowable: there cannot be free choice about whether to choose or reject any of the fundamental aspects of the religion, because they are all divinely ordained. God has laid down the law, and man must obey.

'Islamic clerics do not believe in a society in which Islam is one religion among others in a society ruled by basically non-religious laws. They believe it must be the dominant religion - and it is their aim to achieve this.

"That is why they do not believe in integration. In 1980, the Islamic Council of Europe laid out their strategy for the future - and the fundamental rule was never dilute your presence. That is to say, do not integrate.

"Rather, concentrate Muslim presence in a particular area until you are a majority in that area, so that the institutions of the local community come to reflect Islamic structures. The education system will be Islamic, the shops will serve only halal food, there will be no advertisements showing naked or semi-naked women, and so on."

That plan, says Dr Sookhdeo, is being followed in Britain. "That is why you are seeing areas which are now almost totally Muslim. The next step will be pushing the Government to recognise sharia law for Muslim communities - which will be backed up by the claim that it is "racist" or "Islamophobic" or "violating the rights of Muslims" to deny them sharia law.

"There's already a Sharia Law Council for the UK. The Government has already started making concessions: it has changed the law so that there are sharia-compliant mortgages and sharia pensions.

"Some Muslims are now pressing to be allowed four wives: they say it is part of their religion. They claim that not being allowed four wives is a denial of their religious liberty. There are Muslim men in Britain who marry and divorce three women, then marry a fourth time - and stay married, in sharia law, to all four.

"The more fundamentalist clerics think that it is only a matter of time before they will persuade the Government to concede on the issue of sharia law. Given the Government's record of capitulating, you can see why they believe that."

Dr Sookhdeo's vision of a relentless battle between secular and Islamic Britain seems hard to reconcile with the co-operation that seems to mark the vast majority of the interactions between the two communities.

"Well, it isn't me who says Islam is at war with secularisation," he says. "That's how Islamic clerics describe the situation."

But isn't it true that most Muslims who live in theocratic states want to get out of them as quickly as possible and live in a secular country such as Britain or America? And that most Muslims who come to Britain adopt the values of a liberal, democratic, tolerant society, rather than insisting on the inflexible rules of their religion?

"You have to distinguish between ordinary Muslims and their self-appointed leaders," explains Dr Sookhdeo. "I agree that the best hope for our collective future is that the majority of Muslims who have grown up here have accepted the secular nature of the British state and society, the division between religion and politics, and the importance of allowing people to choose freely how they will live.

"But that is not how most of the clerics talk. And, more significantly, it is not how the 'community leaders' whom the Government has decided represent the Muslim community think either.

"Take, for example, Tariq Ramadan, whom the Government has appointed as an adviser because ministers think he is a 'community leader'. Ramadan sounds, in public, very moderate. But in reality, he has some very extreme views. He attacks liberal Muslims as 'Muslims without Islam'. He is affiliated to the violent and uncompromising Muslim Brotherhood.

"He calls the education in the state schools of the West 'aggression against the Islamic personality of the child'. He has said that 'the Muslim respects the laws of the country only if they do not contradict any Islamic principle'. He has added that 'compromising on principles is a sign of fear and weakness'."

So what's the answer? What should the Government be doing? "First, it should try to engage with the real Muslim majority, not with the self-appointed 'community leaders' who don't actually represent anyone: they have not been elected, and the vast majority of ordinary Muslims have nothing to do with them.

"Second, the Government should say no to faith-based schools, because they are a block to integration. There should be no compromise over education, or over English as the language of education. The policy of political multiculturalism should be reversed.

"The hope was that it would to ensure separate communities would soften at the edges and integrate. But the opposite has in fact happened: Islamic communities have hardened. There is much less integration than there was for the generation that arrived when I did. There will be much less in the future if the present trend continues.

"Finally, the Government should make it absolutely clear: we welcome diversity, we welcome different religions - but all of them have to accept the secular basis of British law and society. That is a non-negotiable condition of being here.

"If the Government does not do all of those things then I fear for the future, because Islamic communities within Britain will form a state within a state. Religion will occupy an ever-larger place in our collective political life. And, speaking as a religious man myself, I fear that outcome."
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006.

Meet the Big Dog

You have to see this guy in action to believe him.










The Big Dog carries four backpacks. Looks like two guys in a robot suit.

Second picture: The Big Dog keeps running along into the shadow.











Closeup of the rear legs--no guys in the suits after all.











Some big meany kicks the Big Dog...but the Big Dog cleverly sticks his leg out and recovers anyway.













The Big Dog walks up hill; through snow; over rocks.











Closeup of the gasoline-powered engine; back on leash in the lab.

Monday, March 06, 2006

Denial and the Dems

The Democrats and the left have resorted to this psychological defense mechanism repeatedly since 9/11. Their desperate hope is that they will wake up and it will be 9/10 again and all they have to worry about is undermining that upstart Bush who stole the election from them. In fact, that appears to be ALL that they worry about, as they--with the help of the MSM--manufacture "crisis" after "crisis" with which to attack the despised administration.

Denial is a river, and it runs through the Democratic Party; giving them the illusion that their lack of ideas and oppositional agenda is working to their advantage.


Via Dr. Sanity

Supreme Court showdown

The Indystar has an article, entitled Abortion-ban idea divides Hoosier State.

51% oppose it. I understand the desire to take the issue back to the people, but I think Republicans will find that most people will not support an outright ban. It may well be that the Supreme Court will have to decide.

A blast from the past

Dennis has more info on the port deal including a very interesting press release from the office of the former vice president:

THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Vice President

March 05, 2000

VICE PRESIDENT GORE LAUDS LOCKHEED MARTIN SALE OF F-16s TO THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

Washington, DC -- Vice President Al Gore today congratulated Lockheed Martin and the United Arab Emirates on Sunday's announcement from Abu Dhabi that they have completed terms on the sale of 80 F-16 fighter jets to the UAE -- finalizing a purchase announced at the White House in May of 1998 by UAE Crown Prince Khalifa and Vice President Gore.

The sale of the 80 F-16s at an estimated cost of more than $6 billion will generate -- according to company data -- 100,000 man-years of direct employment at Lockheed Martin; at Northrop Grumman, which supplies some of the F-16's most sophisticated technology; and at the hundreds of companies in 40 states who supply parts for the advanced fighter jet. At the same time, the sale will enhance the UAE's defense capability and the U.S.-UAE security partnership.

"This sale is just the latest in a long line of acknowledgments of the skill, ingenuity, and excellence of Lockheed Martin employees and their suppliers," Vice President Gore said. "It shows us again how American mastery of high technology is essential to both advancing our economic growth and protecting our national security."

Vice President Gore was part of a White House team that encouraged the UAE to purchase the F-16 as the Gulf country was considering bids from international competitors. In May of 1998, the Vice President and Crown Prince Khalifa announced at the White House the UAE's intention to purchase 80 F-16s. That same week, the Vice President joined UAE officials at the Lockheed Martin plant in Fort Worth to celebrate the announcement. Early this year, the Vice President was in contact with the Crown Prince during the final push for an agreement.

The sale is part of U.S. efforts to help Gulf allies defend their interests in the region. Just before Iraq invaded Kuwait in August of 1990, Saddam had threatened the UAE along with Kuwait for overproduction of petroleum. The UAE then played an integral role in the Allied coalition against Iraq.

"The UAE will reap immense national security benefits from the F-16, and from the close relationships it will bring them with the finest Air Force and finest defense contractors in the world," Vice President Gore said. "The sale also advances U.S. interests by equipping an important Gulf ally with an advanced fighter jet that can help deter aggression in the region."


Keep scrolling and you will also find an interesting post on Congressman Duncan Hunter's vow to "kill this deal"..If Republicans keep acting like this I might have to go back to voting for Democrats. The Congressman says the UAE are not to be trusted. If this is true why did he not demure at selling them all kinds of military hardware?

This is turning into historical revision with a dose of polictical oppurtunism. Some people say it does not matter if the US Navy trusts Dubai Ports or not, after all what does that have to do with terrorism? I should think the fate of the USS Cole might make it plain to some folks that the US Navy has every reason to be careful who they do and do not trust.

People blame Bush's number on bad PR but when people can get away with this kind of short sighted dishonest posturing, what good will PR do?

My grandmother had an old saying about biting off your nose to spite your face. We need these people and they have not broken a law by winning a bidding war. Demonizing them can always backfire on us.

Unanimous Court Authorizes Campus Military Recruiting

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that colleges must allow military recruiters on campus if they accept federal funds.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion in the case of Rumsfeld v. FAIR.

The Supreme Court reversed the 2-1 decision of the Third Circuit in FAIR v. Rumsfeld.

Most interestingly, the unanimous court suggests that Congress could have unconditionally required campus military recruiting under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. Instead, Congress enacted the Solomon Amendment, which ties military recruiter access to a college's receipt of federal funds.

I wonder if Congress will consider additional legislation based on this court's view of Article I Section 8?

Flares commenter CF and University of Wisconsin Law Professor Ann Althouse both commend the Chief Justice on his clearly written opinion. CF recommends: "If you've a high school student at home, you might want to hand it to him/her to read."

ScotusBlog has some preliminary comments on the decision here.

Cold Fusion Update

The Cold Fusion story puts the lie to the rosy picture of scientific progress that is so often painted. Everyone likes to believe that we dwell in a time of endless progress, and it's just one happy step forward after another with everyone in agreement. We all look back at Einstein and think we, unlike those foolish uptight Victorians, would certainly have agreed with the paradigm shift he engendered had we been living during those times. Well, we wouldn't have. We deride Hitler's characterization of relativity theory and quantum mechanics as "Jewish physics", but when something new really does come along in our own lifetimes we as a society are even more belittling and ostracizing than he was. New scientific discoveries--truly new scientific discoveries--will necessarily upset the scientific apple cart. The problem is this: the more we know about nature, the richer we become in both material and mental wealth, the more we wish to believe that we've got it all, and the less willing we are to have that gravy train of grants overturned. Too much money and too much knowledge leads to very poor science.

Nature is what it is, not what we want it to be or have convinced ourselves it is; nor even what our theories tell us it is. The universe is elegant only if it truly is elegant, and not if it isn't.

Despite the best efforts of grant-burdened physicists and the parochial New York Times, the Cold Fusion story just keeps picking itself up off the ground, stronger than ever. This latest update comes from the NPR show Living on Earth.

GELLERMAN: Dr. Pamela Boss works at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in San Diego. She and Dr. Stanislaw Szpak have produced some of the most definitive evidence of the cold fusion phenomenon. They fund the research mostly out of their own pocket and, even though he's retired, Dr. Szpak still comes in almost every day to conduct cold fusion experiments, perfecting a method that he says speeds up the reaction. Now, instead of waiting weeks for cold fusion to begin, it happens instantaneously.

SZPAK: Now we have 100 percent reproducible results. In other words, we always get to that last step. We are doing that within seconds.

...

GELLERMAN: Like Michael McKubre, Szpak and Boss have measured elevated levels of tritium and have focused on detecting the other radiation byproducts of fusion reactions, gamma and x-rays. Pamela Boss:

BOSS: We work with a lot of physicists here and they, of course, were very skeptical. So then, we borrowed equipment to do gamma ray measurements and x-ray measurement. And you could see they were tracking one another. When the gamma ray detector was going up, so was the x-ray detector. And I pointed this out to the physicist who was helping us and he was a little bit disturbed by that because he made sure that everything was on separate circuits, there was no cross talk.

...

SZPAK: We see appearance of elements which weren't there to start with. In other words, during the experiment itself these elements have been created. Now, by what mechanism, if you're asking me that question, I cannot answer because I simply don't know yet.

...


GELLERMAN: Szpak and Boss have published the results of their experiment in a prestigious, peer-reviewed physics journal. And Japanese scientists have reported similar findings. So, how might cold fusion work? Well, few researchers at U.S. universities are investigating the question because it's a career destroyer; those who study cold fusion do so at their own peril. One of the few who has from the very beginning is Peter Hagelstein of MIT.

HAGELSTEIN: This experiment implied the existence of some new physics. Hence, if there's going to be heat there are going to be neutrons; if there's no neutrons hence there's no heat, hence it's all wrong. It got very confused very quickly.

GELLERMAN: Today, because of his continued work on cold fusion, Peter Hagelstein lives a life of virtual academic exile at MIT. He lost funding for his lab and he never did make full professor.

...

GELLERMAN: As Peter Hagelstein sees it, cold fusion is not just a colder version of plasma or hot fusion, but an entirely different phenomenon. His theory doesn't violate any of the fundamental laws of nature. But it does require a rethinking of modern physics.

HAGELSTEIN: So, we start out now with a picture of a communication between reactions at different sites, and this is not in the textbooks.


There you have it: it's not in the textbooks, it upsets current theories, it can't be true, so cut off his funding, defrock the heretic. Is house arrest too good for him?

Science as it's really practiced.

Yale Taliban

"I could have ended up in Guantanamo Bay. Instead I ended up at Yale."

So said Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, former deputy foreign secretary of the Taliban, who has been admitted as a student at Yale.

This story originally broke on February 26th in the New York Times Magazine. (The article is now behind the TimesSelect barrier and is available for a fee.)
OpinionJournal.com's John Fund has a couple of columns on this subject, here and here.

As Fund points out, Yale continues to block ROTC training from its campus and argues for the right of its law school to exclude military recruiters.

What did Rahmatullah's regime stand for? Hosts for Osama bin Laden and terrorism! Beheadings, amputations, mutilations. etc. And what about women's rights? Not!

And Yale is proud of its catch. The Times reported that Yale "had another foreigner of Rahmatullah's caliber apply for special-student status." Richard Shaw, Yale's dean of undergraduate admissions, told the Times that "we lost him to Harvard," and "I didn't want that to happen again."

A couple of unanswered questions: (1) Who at the State Department approved Rahmatullah's visa? (2) Who is the other foreigner accepted by Harvard?

Chinese Government Blogging?


People's Representatives in China are starting to blog.

As the Danwei blog says, it's unlikely anything too inflammatory would stay up, but still, here's a translation of one comment:
Representative Ye, you are a National People's Representative, did you know that ten years ago, the Chinese government signed the UN's International Convention on Civil and Political Rights? 



Without democracy we cannot unite, this is the common understanding of the Democratic Progressive Party's unification policy. How do you see democratic peaceful unification? When do you think the People's Congress will consider the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, and even better, protect and safeguard human rights to promote peaceful unification?

Another Cartoon Jihad About to Explode?



Muslims are disgusted by an adult toy on sale in Worcester because they say it disrespects the prophet Mohammed.

Adult store Ann Summers, in the High Street, is selling a blow-up male doll called Mustafa S**g.

The name of the novelty toy has outraged Muslims living in the city, who have said the name insults the Prophet Mohammed, who is also known by the title al-Mustafa.
...
Jacqueline Gold, the owner of Ann Summers nationwide, said: "We don't want to offend anyone. This feels like political correctness gone mad.

"If anyone has a better name for a blow-up doll, please contact us."
This could get ugly (ht: Dag). Where do these Orientalist stereotypes of Arab men, and the degrading pandering of them to English women (and men?), come from anyway? If it all weren't so ludicrous, i'd be appalled at our western decadence.

Sunday, March 05, 2006

A European Writer Worth a Read

On occasion, I have been depressed by comments here at Flares that suggest it is time to give up on Europe. They strike me as falsely pragmatic, for a number of reasons we can argue about later. The apparent desire to see America condemn the treacherous Euro (elite)s and to go it alone with India and other non-European allies is an aspect of American identity I don't fully understand. There remain in Europe the national and folk cultures - and all the monuments to them - from which so many North Americans, and all of their nations, emerged. And if these cultures eventually die off, we will lose many landmarks for our own self-understanding.

Perhaps there is in the USA an over-estimation of the revolutionary nature of the American nation that allows one to imagine sacrificing a decadent Europe, and going it alone without the embarassingly-accented mama and papa? If so, it strikes me as unfair to future generations of Americans. I am reminded of the dictum of the Norwegian-American immigration historian, Marcus Hansen: "What the second generation tried to forget, the third generation tries to remember."

Incidentally, when I googled Hansen's name to see if I had remembered that quote correctly, I came across this page where i read about a documentary film looking into attempts to foster reconciliation between Germans and Jews:
At the beginning of the new documentary, "From Third Reich to Third Generation," 21-year-old Christoph Erbsloeh, the grandson of a doctor in Hitler's army, asks 101-year-old Holocaust survivor Arthur Lederman, "Do you think every German has a little Hitler in them?"

Lederman's response: "Yes, and I told you that, deep in your being, you're a Hitler."
...
Christian Staffa, the executive director of Action Reconciliation, tells the camera, "There is still an incredibly strong feeling of guilt among the third and fourth generation. You can sense it right away when they meet a survivor or grandchild of a survivor."
And so I was reminded that the problem Europeans face, when it comes to their need to become again a people who can defend themselves because they first know why they are worth defending (to paraphrase Wretchard), is the same problem American culture faces: the need to overcome the postmodern "white" guilt that emerged in the wake of the Holocaust and Hiroshima. And I wonder if the desire to write off Europe in face of its problems with low fertility and unassimilated immigrants practicing Jihad, is not itself evidence of a desire to quickly throw off the age of guilt without first a proper accounting of what one should be about defending.

In any case, the point of this post is to link to a blog I have just discovered, home of a European writer who gives me hope that the curse of the Holocaust may yet be broken and a new Europe that rediscovers the value in nationhood (i.e. that rediscovers, among other things, its Jewishness) can emerge alongside an international order of honestly self-interested nation-states without the utopian lies we see from EU elites. I'll shut up now and let Wolfgang Bruno speak for himself:
There is now a critical mass of Europeans who see clearly that Islam and Muslim immigration constitute a mortal danger to their freedom and their civilization. They feel confused and scared, but first of all angry. If this is the true face of Islam, doesn’t that mean that our academic elites, our media and our political leaders have lied to us systematically for decades? Muslims misunderstand the mentality and potential response from the infidels because they see mainly the appeasement of the political class. What they don’t see is the simmering defiance that is growing at the grassroots level.
...
The EU is not a joke, the EU is evil, destroying freedom across an entire continent and spreading instability far beyond the borders of Europe. The Cold War was won when Ronal Reagan publicly labelled the Soviet Union “the Evil Empire.” A generation later, we are witnessing the rise of another Evil Empire. Not the Soviet Union, but the European Union. It’s time to bring this one down, too. The European Union, not the USA and definitely not Israel, is the greatest threat to world peace today. It is appeasement by the EU that has emboldened the Islamic Jihad, and not just in the West. The EU is an increasingly totalitarian entity that is post-democratic and neo-feudalist. The buildings of the European Commission should be turned into a museum of the history of dhimmitude and Jihad across the world.
...
Perhaps instead of pinning our hopes on an Islamic Reformation that will probably never materialize, Westerners should rather focus on an Enlightenment and a new Renaissance. Not in the Islamic world, but in Europe and the West.
Read the whole thing.

I don't fully agree with this last point; I think the Islamic world will be engaged and forced to change for the better of all concerned. But the enormity of this task can only be imagined from the perspective of a world that still loves Europe for what is has been and can yet be.

Blondes becoming extinct, film at eleven ...

According to the London Times, blondes evolved to stand out:
THE modern gentleman may prefer blondes. But new research has found that it was cavemen who were the first to be lured by flaxen locks.

According to the study, north European women evolved blonde hair and blue eyes at the end of the Ice Age to make them stand out from their rivals at a time of fierce competition for scarce males.


Interesting notion, makes a certain amount of sense. Then you get to this part:
A study by the World Health Organisation found that natural blonds are likely to be extinct within 200 years because there are too few people carrying the blond gene. According to the WHO study, the last natural blond is likely to be born in Finland during 2202.


I read that and thought "Hmm, interesting notion, i've wondered if there would be a general die out as there is more racial mixing." Then I was distracted as a riff from Ray Manzarek's The Golden Scarab playing in my head and didn't really think more about it. (Special Seneca "You neeed a life" award for anyone who gets why.)

Probably should have thought more about it. Turns out the 2202 thing is an urban legend that was started in a German women's magazine.

Didn't stop the legacy media from reporting it, however. CBS had this:
"There's a study from the World Health Organization -- this is for real -- that says that blondes are an endangered species," Charlie Gibson said on "Good Morning America," prompting Diane Sawyer to say she's "going the way of the snail darter."


This last from a Washington Post story on how the story was "too good to check."

All interesting, even amusing. But --- like the "plastic turkey" and "breeches" of the New Orleans levees --- instructive.

What else do we know that turns out to have been "too good to check"?

Espionage Act and Whistleblowers

Today's Washington Post reports on efforts to limit leaks of classified information at the CIA and NSA, including FBI investigation and polygraphs.

The Espionage Act is found here and here.

For those concerned about wrongful governmental behavior, please note that there is an alternative to criminal leaking: The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 (scroll down almost to the end to find sections 701 and 702).

What will they do if we win?

It seems to me that a lot of people on both the left and right have staked a great deal on the United States failing in Iraq. From Buckley to Murtha, they need defeat for the sake of their own credibility.

Ralph Peters in his recent oped Dude Where is my Civil War makes the point that there is more to this story than we are getting.

I'M trying. I've been trying all week. The other day, I drove another 30 miles or so on the streets and alleys of Baghdad. I'm looking for the civil war that The New York Times declared. And I just can't find it.

Maybe actually being on the ground in Iraq prevents me from seeing it. Perhaps the view's clearer from Manhattan. It could be that my background as an intelligence officer didn't give me the right skills.

And riding around with the U.S. Army, looking at things first-hand, is certainly a technique to which The New York Times wouldn't stoop in such an hour of crisis.

Let me tell you what I saw anyway. Rolling with the "instant Infantry" gunners of the 1st Platoon of Bravo Battery, 4-320 Field Artillery, I saw children and teenagers in a Shia slum jumping up and down and cheering our troops as they drove by. Cheering our troops.

All day - and it was a long day - we drove through Shia and Sunni neighborhoods. Everywhere, the reception was warm. No violence. None.

And no hostility toward our troops. Iraqis went out of their way to tell us we were welcome.

Instead of a civil war, something very different happened because of the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra. The fanatic attempt to stir up Sunni-vs.-Shia strife, and the subsequent spate of violent attacks, caused popular support for the U.S. presence to spike upward.


read it all.

Mark Steyn is one of my favorite commentators and in a recent article even he made reference to Bush's attempt to force democracy on people.

I don't think that is true at all. I don't think Bush is going to depose the King of Jordan or kick the shieks out of Qatar and the UAE, but democratic reform is a slow process and the end result will be a product of that culture, not ours.

The Drums Grow Louder

In an aptly titled article from the UK's Telegragh: How we duped the West, by Iran's nuclear negotiator we read the following concerning Iran's top arms negotiator:

In a speech to a closed meeting of leading Islamic clerics and academics, Hassan Rowhani, who headed talks with the so-called EU3 until last year, revealed how Teheran played for time and tried to dupe the West after its secret nuclear programme was uncovered by the Iranian opposition in 2002.

He boasted that while talks were taking place in Teheran, Iran was able to complete the installation of equipment for conversion of yellowcake - a key stage in the nuclear fuel process - at its Isfahan plant but at the same time convince European diplomats that nothing was afoot.

"From the outset, the Americans kept telling the Europeans, 'The Iranians are lying and deceiving you and they have not told you everything.' The Europeans used to respond, 'We trust them'," he said.


Tomorrow Iran will begin a new round of lying to the IAEA in prelude to further lies being told to the UNSC should the IAEA for once in its existence actually respond to the obvious in a correct manner. It appears that many members of the UNSC, in particular most of those holding the right to veto, are at the point of accepting the blindingly obvious fact that negotiation with a proven notorious liar is a frivolous pursuit. It is reasonable to suppose that sanctions might be imposed on Iraq - except for the effect of such sanctions on China, should Iran retaliate by shutting down oil exports, or upon Russia which has close trade ties involving peddling the Iranians standard weaponry. Should either of these two exercise their veto on a sanctions proposal - what would be the appropriate response from the US?

President Bush named Iran and North Korea as members of the Axis of Evil for very good reasons. The exposure of the AQ Khan "Islamic Bomb Bazaar" occasioned by Libya's renunciation of its clandestine nuclear program make it clear that both nations are into nuclear proliferation up to their necks - as was Pakistan. Pakistan and Libya have given believable assurances that they are no longer in the business, although it would be more comforting if Pakistan would allow close questioning of Dr. Khan by others outside of Pakistan. Korea's endeavors can actually be effectively curtailed fairly easily. As a peninsula with China at its northern border, it is no great task to insure that it does not receive the equipment necessary to continue its nuclear game.

Iran is another matter entirely. Too much porous border with too many untrustworthy neighbors to be left to its own devices. And far too much evidence, not only of duplicity in dealings with international agencies but of actual planning and execution of terrorist attacks. The Iranian regime must be eliminated and the weapons program completely destroyed. To not do so would leave the madmen in Tehran in possession of arms that can be used to extort whatever they please from the rest of the world. That is simply not a viable option.

They are not all terrorists

Gateway has some amazing pictures of anti-terrorism protests in Bahrain. Like Iraq, Bahrain is a majority Shia country that has long been dominated by the Sunni minority. Here at least people seem to be trying to come together and build a functioning society.

Here are the moderate Muslims the west has been asking for. Will we accept them at their word or treat them with suspicion?

I have heard pundits say that we are at a tipping point with Islam. They say Americans have had enough and hence the hissy fit about Dubai Ports.

We can not afford tipping points. These people are not part of some cult that will die out in a few years. Islam is a major religion that is practiced by more than 1 billion people. To think we can simply disengage, politically or economically or culturally, is wishful thinking.

If we do begin to think that all of Islam is the enemy then we have to decide what that means.

Do we abandon Iraq and Afghanistan?

Will we stop buying oil from them?

Will we shut down all investment in the United States by Muslims from abroad? Dubai is only one company doing one deal...there are already Muslims in shipping and air freight here as well as real estate and other businesses. Do we send them all packing?

Do we outlaw Islam in the United States or at the very least assume all American Muslims are to be suspect?

Do we cut off all military training of Muslims both in our own armed forces as well as the armed forces of other nations?

Do we rescind all military relations with countries like Pakistan and the UAE?

Should we curtail our relationship with countries like India which has a large Muslim population?

If in fact they are hopeless and are all the enemy and even business relationships with Muslims are susceptible to security breaches...then how do we proceed?

If there is no difference between Tehran and Bahrain..then should we consider the destruction of the religion? I certainly don't think so, but when I hear some of the rhetoric on both sides of the aisle in this country here of late I wonder if some other people do think that the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim or at the very least a powerless Muslim.

Down that road lies madness.

Chester asked the same kind of questions as does Dr. Sanity

Saturday, March 04, 2006

Sympathy for the Devil (reason #6243 that I'm not a "conservative")

As regular readers (both of them) know, I'm a Buddhist and Stoic, and very much not a Christian. (Not that there's anything wrong with being a Christian, and after umpteen years of Baptist sunday school, and extensive reading since then, I think I understand Christianity reasonably well.)

But ever since I gave up Christianity at 11, I've been made conscious, perforce, of some of the difficulties that not being in the majority religion can bring. Not too long after that I met my lifetime friend Anil, who was the other non-Christian in my sixth-grade class, and which made me ever more conscious of the ways in which belief in Christian doctrine is subconsciously expected. So I tend to be a little more sympathetic of the ACLU's position about religious instruction in school and the like than a lot of "conservatives". An awful lot of what I see people, conservatives, say about other religions and beliefs seems to me to be, charitably, ignorant; often it seems flat out bigoted.

Thus, when I read this article in powerline, and came upon this:
The Associated Press has seemingly tried to make the riot at least somewhat comprehensible by describing the Basilica of the Annunciation as "one of Christianity's holiest sites." But Christianity doesn't really have "holy sites" in the way that, say, Islam does. And, while Nazareth is of course famous as Jesus's home town, I'm sure that not one Christian in a hundred has ever heard of the Basilica.

That was a stopper.

"Christianity doesn't really have 'holy sites' in the way that, say, Islam does."

This seems just a bit hard to credit, at least if we admit Christianity includes Catholicism and the various Orthodox sects. You know, from outside, the hajj and the many pilgrimages to the Holy Land (and the people who go to Jerusalem to do the Stations of the Cross) seems awfully similar. The Shrine of Imam Ali and Saint Peter's --- hard to see much objective difference.

In fact, from my point of view, it's a little hard to figure out just what their point was. Unless it's that, well, Christianity's a real religion and Islam's just a fake.

The point about "one Christian in a hundred" rang a little odd too. Maybe it's true --- but I'm willing to bet there weren't a lot of Lutherans from Waseca in Nazareth that day. I suspect that the Christians in Nazareth were a lot more generally aware of the Basilica than one in a hundred. Should they have rioted? No, but the main thing it seems to me to suggest is that there's a general impulse-control problem in the area.

As I say, though, it points out one of the strains of "conservatism" that make me confident I'm only a conservative fellow traveller. Too many conservatives seem to base their "conservatism" on the notion that "if it's different, it's bad." An "inside the beltway" mentality can cripple us --- whether it's inside DC, or inside Minneapolis.

Larry Kudlow on the "ports" issue

When you scratch this debate among conservatives deep enough, what you are left with is a clear demarcation between free-traders and protectionists. Those conservatives who oppose the deal are lining up with xenophobic protectionists like my old friend Patrick Buchanan. On the other hand, conservatives in favor of the deal align themselves with the pro-growth, free-trade tradition embodied by Jack Kemp. The Kemp adherents believe in breaking down global barriers in order to enhance prospects for prosperity and freedom everywhere. That’s in large part what the UAE/DP World episode is all about. (National Review, March 04, 2006, 12:30 p.m. )

Quick, someone tell the Washington Post

It seems there has been a clarification of the AP story concerning Bush and Katrina and the breaches vs. over runs.


Clarification: Katrina-Video story

ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) _ In a March 1 story, The Associated Press reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing among U.S. officials.

The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking.

The day before the storm hit, Bush was told there were grave concerns that the levees could be overrun. It wasn't until the next morning, as the storm was hitting, that Michael Brown, then head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Bush had inquired about reports of breaches. Bush did not participate in that briefing.


However, it seems that the rest of the [snort chuckle] fourth estate has not got the news yet.

Who was it that said a lie will be half way around the world before the truth gets its pants on?

hat tip Powerline

Update: USA Today:
We don't normally work on the weekends, but the Associated Press has released a "clarification" of its headline-grabbing report earlier this week and we wanted to get it out as soon as we could.

AP concedes President Bush was not told before Hurricane Katrina hit land that the storm might cause a "breach" of New Orleans' levees. He was told the levees might be "overrun."


USA Today seems to deserve some credit for making the effort.

Wonders of the Sea














More.

Friday, March 03, 2006

Fascinating new results on global warming

As those of you following the debate about global warming will know, the National Academies of Science are currently running a symposium to evaluate the results of Mann et al, and the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick.

David Stockwell has published preliminary results of his new study, applying the methods of Mann et al to the same surface temperature data, but using other associated data.

A graph of Stockwell's results:



As can be seen, this is very strongly similar to the "hockey stick" graph of Mann Briffa et al.



What's interesting about Stockwell's results is this: his associated data is not real observational data, but "red noise": "1000 sequences of 2000 random numbers containing red noise generated with a multiple time scale fluctuation approach."

What is "red noise"? Random numbers. Specifically, red noise is a random signal in which the amplitude decreases monotonically as the frequency increases.

Reproduced from Stockwell's initial paper (in submission), here is his conclusion:
The resulting reconstruction is very similar to published reconstructions (e.g. see [1]), exhibiting a gradual decline in temperatures from an apparent Medieval Warm Period (MWP)), and an anomalous 20th Century warming popularly known as the ’hockey-stick’ [4] Clearly the ’hockey-stick’ pattern is easily produced by selecting those random series that correlate over the period of the calibration temperatures (producing the blade) and revert to randomness elsewhere (producing the handle). The apparent height of the MWP is an function of the arbitrary zero calibration point. Thus all the salient aspects of past climate usually associated with millennial reconstructions are essentially already encoded into the methodology, so that a ’hockey-stick’ shape is inevitable on any data resembling natural LTP series.


Emphasis mine.

[Updated with second graphic, and corrected authors.]

The Force of Reason

...what kind of a democracy is a democracy that forbids dissent, the punishes it, that turns it into a crime? What kind of a democracy is a democracy that instead of listening to its children silences them, hands them to the enemy, abandons them to abuse and bullying? What kind of a democracy is a democracy that favors theocracy, that re-establishes heresy, that tortures and burns the free minds on the stake? What kind of a democracy is a democracy where the minority counts for more than the majority and where, counting for more than the majority, it swaggers and blackmails?!? A non-democracy, I say. A deceit, a lie. And what kind of freedom is a freedom which prevents us from thinking, from speaking, from going against the wind, from rebelling, from opposing those who invade and muzzle us? What kind of freedom is a freedom that makes citizens live in the fear of being prosecuted and convicted as criminals? What kind of freedom is a freedom that along with thought wants to censor feelings, to decide whom I must love and whom I must hate, so that if I hate Americans I go to Heaven and if I hate Muslims I go to Hell? A non-freedom, I say. A mockery, a farce.

-- Oriana Fallaci



I had forgotten I had ordered The Force of Reason, Oriana Fallaci's latest book some time ago. It was on back order, so today I got a box through the mail and was delighted by the surprise. The above except was from her prologue, and I could not help but think of the Mohammed cartoon controversy and the craven response to the ensuing Islamic riots. What kind of freedom indeed?

At any rate, I look forward to a weekend of being rabble-roused by the acerbic old woman. I thought I best warn you I may be foaming at the mouth a bit in the near future.

The answer is yes

Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal ask the question Has Washington Gone Insane :

Over the Bush years that code has been displaced by a new ethos that to resist policies that flowed from such a "lie," anything goes--such as leaks about the most sensitive national security programs or published "dissents" by recently retired CIA officials like Paul Pillar. Compare this ethos to that of the U.S. intelligence community that ran the Venona program, producing invaluable signals intelligence on Soviet espionage activities from 1943 onward without any participant revealing its existence. No such achievement is imaginable now.

Instead every issue that emerges becomes an illegitimate extension of the original "lie"--the NSA wiretaps, the Guantanamo detentions, Abu Ghraib, terrorist interrogation techniques, the Plame affair. This is a dangerous game. Raised to this level, policy becomes a super-heated moral Armageddon that makes mere politics impossible to manage. One then might ask: Do you want this government to fail? To which a tragicomic response is appropriate: Are you insane?


Sometimes I get the feeling that we the people have become incidental to the process.

Like an embittered married couple oblivious to the fact that they are out in public, Bush..the silent type and his mercurial and hysterical mate, the Washington Press Corp, have it out while the children play in traffic.

Shipping While Arab

Richard Klein makes the case for UAE in his oped entitled Great Risks in Humiliating a Reliable Arab Ally :


Commercial arrangements, union contracts, relationships with port authorities, U.S. government- required security standards, U.S. Coast Guard oversight and the people running day-to-day operations at these ports will not change. Yes, two Sept. 11 hijackers were from the UAE. But lesser known is that when the Emirates government learned two of its own were part of the attack it committed troops to fight alongside American soldiers in Afghanistan.

No rationalizing about motives, no suggesting Israeli Mossad or CIA conspiracies, no avoiding responsibility. The UAE was the only Arab and Muslim country to stand shoulder to shoulder with the U.S -- a display all too rare in the Middle East.


read it all.

UPDATE: The Anchoress, always a class act supports the Dubai deal but has some very respectful ideas about some of those who do not. Read her take on Islamaphobia.

Release the Saddam Tapes!

Former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had an interesting obsession. He recorded his own conversations. According to Bill Tierney, a former United Nations weapons inspector, our intelligence community now possesses over 3,000 hours of tapes Saddam made of his discussions with his top aides.

We also have documents. Many documents, not only from Iraq, but from Afghanistan as well. Currently these materials are classified, and mostly not translated.

What do these documents contain? It's anyone's guess. But judging from what we know of Saddam's barbarism, there could be many things of great interest on subjects like Saddam's relationship with Osama bin Laden, mass murder, weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, and collaboration with Jacques Chirac and Vladimir Putin, just to name a few.

The Directory of National Intelligence is currently examining these documents in Qatar under a program known as "Harmony." But just like most everything in the intelligence community, this effort is highly classified. (Note: my public source for Harmony is here.)

As a former member of the intelligence community, I am one of the strongest proponents of classification, especially of sources and methods which if revealed could endanger the lives of our brave agents and and dry up our important sources of intelligence. But there are times when it is appropriate to disclose information where a strong public interest exists, so long as our sources and methods can be protected.

Executive Order 13292 signed by President Bush on March 25, 2003, sets the rules for classification of national security information. Section 3.1(b) of this Executive Order allows for the declassification in exceptional cases where the public interest in disclosure outweighs the need to protect the information. I would urge DNI to consider making such determinations in a cautious fashion under this EO so that the public can be informed with the true facts in wartime.

Yesterday Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R., Mich.) introduced H.R. 4869, a bill to require the Director of National Intelligence to release documents captured in Afghanistan or Iraq during Operation Desert Storm, Operation Enduring Freedom, or Operation Iraqi Freedom. Hoekstra is the Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

The actual language of this bill is not available at the time of this writing, but I am sure that Chairman Hoekstra will have sufficient protections available to address the security concerns I have raised above.

But there is no need for this legislation if DNI acts. I hope reason will prevail and the public will be privy to exactly the kinds of dangers we face from the enemies of freedom and democracy.

The Bloody Borders Project

No, I didn't get a paper cut at the bookstore. I clicked in to have a gander at what Baron and Dympha were up to at Gates of Vienna and found out about The Bloody Borders Project. It is worth the clicks and the time.

Bush's fault again

Over at Instapundit I found a rather long quote from Jim Geraghty:

Welcome to Post-Tipping Point politics. There is no upside to doing the right thing – which is to emphasize, as one blogger put it, that there is a difference between Dubai and Damascus. There is tremendous political upside to doing the wrong thing, boldly declaring, “I don’t care what the Muslim world thinks, I’m not allowing any Arab country running ports here in America! I don’t care how much President Bush claims these guys are our allies, I don’t trust them, and I’m not going to hand them the keys to the vital entries to our country!”

And more and more, I think Glenn Reynolds had it right; the entire Tipping Point phenomenon can be summed up as action and reaction. The Bush Administration’s reaction to the cartoon riots was comparably milquetoast. The violence and threats committed over the cartoons shocked, frightened and really, really angered Americans. They want somebody to smack the Muslim world back onto its heels and set them straight: “It doesn’t matter how offensive a cartoon is, you’re not allowed to riot, burn down embassies and kill people over it.”


Considering the fact that not even a conservative paper like the Indianapolis Star here in the Midwest would so much as print the cartoons I am not so sure I agree with this sentiment. I do think people are sick of hearing about the Middle East and Muslims and riots and all the rest but I don't really think the American people expected the President of the United States to get out there and start lecturing a mob. Not when we have 130,000 men and women in uniform in Iraq.

I was disgusted the barbaric reaction to the cartoons, most westerners were I think, but these constant references to tipping points remind me of the constant references to civil war in Iraq. They never really seem to come to fruition. The sentiment here seems to be that if Bush had somehow been sterner with the Arab world and threatened them or lectured them or done a better job of laying down the law...then the American public would have felt more comfortable when the media started scaremongering the issue of the Dubai deal. I doubt that, in fact it might have made it worse. In truth I think most Americans wish the cartoons had never been published at all.

I learned something long ago, it is a waste of time to argue with crazy people and a mob is not rational. Besides, Bush made it plain that the US stood with Denmark as we should. Was there ever any doubt about that? It seems Bush is either accused of declaring war on Islam or catering to it, whichever works for whatever critic.

Geraghty also feels the ports deal is doomed because public sentiment as reflected in polls is running high against it, while at the same time it seems to me the issue is fading from the scene somewhat.

I do not know if the port deal is dead or not, or if the poll numbers reflect what people will feel once they learn more. But I do think it would be wrong to kill the deal just because the UAE is an Arab state. The truth is we need all the friends we can get, even if we do not always approve of them.

Thursday, March 02, 2006

US troops say seize 61 al Qaeda in Iraq members

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. military operations in the province of Anbar, west of Baghdad, have resulted in the capture of 61 members of al Qaeda in
Iraq, Major General Rick Lynch, a U.S. military spokesman, said on Thursday.
ADVERTISEMENT

Bomb making equipment, weapons and munitions were seized in the raids on the training and bomb making facility in an area 50 km (30 miles) northeast of Falluja, Lynch said.

Some of al Qaeda in Iraq's "critical facilitators" were included in the 61 people captured, he said.


Sixty one captured. Seems like quite a score.

I wonder how the military happened to find out about them?

Bush in India

I've been trying for a funny, or at least interesting, hook, and I just don't have one. but get this:
At some point before too long (probably between 2015 and 2020) India will have more home users of English than the US; not much longer afterwards, there could be more home users of English in India than the rest of the Anglosphere combined. This (especially given the cheapness of electronic publishing and dissemination) will mean that the bulk of English-language media will be produced in India. (If Bollywood learns how to appeal to US audiences, which it eventually will, that will also be true of visual media as well.) That means that not only will the Anglosphere change India, but India will change the Anglosphere.

Not many people are thinking about what this really means. They should be. Bush's trip to India, and the deal made there today, may end up being the single most consequential act of the Bush presidency.

Personally, I already like Bollywood movies.

(By the way, notice where the original story's from. Someone is paying attention.)

Tremors?

Giant worms destroying ancient rice terraces. These creatures were driven to their rampaging invasion of the rice paddies by the destruction of their natural habitat. Or so it is claimed. I don't see why they should have stayed in the forests when the paddies beckoned during all those centuries. More likely they are the result of ungodly experiments conducted by the Abu Sayyaf guerillas in their quest for more effective weapons of terror.

Where are the WMDs? (More...)

I never know how much to trust FrontPage, but for what it's worth:
The Italian media also reported that their intelligence services had information indicating that in January and February of 2003, Iraqi CDs full of formulas and research work along with tubes of anthrax and botulinum toxin were sent off to Syria. By the end of February, Iraqi WMD expertise was already in Syria including a top nuclear physicist.

An Iraqi scientist also led Coalition forces to hidden stockpiles of precursor chemicals that could be used to make chemical and biological weapons. The scientist said some facilities and weapons were destroyed, and the rest were sent to Syria. Syrian defectors are also claiming that Syria is where the weapons are, along with Representative Curt Weldon's source in his new book. The Prime Minister of Albania even stated that based on information he has which is not available to the media, he cannot rule out such a transfer.

There is also a report that an Iraqi medium-range al-Hussein missile on a truck moved into Syria, and in the early stages of the war, was spotted briefly coming into Iraq, operating its radar overnight, and returning to Syria. Most reports about the transfer indicate missiles were included in the transfers.


Lots more in the interview.

Was Iran responsible for the bombing of Samarra's Askariya Mosque?

Askariya Mosque is a Shia Muslim holy site located in the Iraqi city of Samarra, 60 miles from Baghdad. It is one of the most important Shiite mosques in the world, built in 944. The remains of the tenth and eleventh Shia Imams rest at the shrine.

On February 22, 2006 at approximately 6:55am local time it was bombed destroying its golden dome and severely damaging the mosque. This attack resulted in a wave of sectarian violence, which some claim could turn into a civil war.

Indeed, the New York Times called the attack “a deliberate attempt to make it politically impossible to create a national unity government capable of leading Iraq to democratic stability.”

But who is responsible for the bombing?

No entity has claimed responsibility. This is unusual.

Search the Times, the Washington Post, and other MSM and you won't find any investigative reporting. The question remains unasked and unanswered.

Egypt's weekly Al Ahram had the most detailed reporting I could find:
"[T]he attackers were 10 men dressed in commando outfits and that they had
been apprehended.

The shrine ought to have been protected by a contingent of 35 Interior
Ministry troops, because of its particular importance to the Shia community.
Questions abound. Why was the security detail reduced from 35 to only five men
guarding such an important shrine? If it took at least 12 hours to plant the
explosives, why did no one notice that the five police guards had been taken
hostage? If it took at least 12 hours to plant the explosives, would that not
have meant access to the shrine during evening prayers the night before?

Hoping to find answers and interview residents of Samaraa, Al-Arabiya
news network dispatched three of its journalists, including former Al-Jazeera
reporter Atwar Bahjat, herself a native of the ancient city. Sources in Iraq say
she was interviewing residents when a truck full of unknown armed men abducted
her as she screamed for help. Bahgat, 30, of mixed Sunni-Shia heritage, was
found executed outside Samaraa, along with her cameraman and sound technician.
Her field equipment and video were missing.

Iraqi websites have speculated as to why Bahgat was so brutally
murdered and what became of her video material. According to the Baghdad-based
Iraqi blogger, Zeyad, of Healing Iraq, quoting other Iraqi sources, Bahgat had
been filming the arrest of two Iranians in Samaraa who were released when
Interior Minister Baqer Jabr arrived on the scene."
So, according to the oldest newspaper in the Arab world, a former Al-Jazeera female reporter was killed while filming the arrest of two Iranians and her film has disappeared?

Very puzzling. Who was responsible for this bombing? What about the death of this female reporter? Why doesn't the MSM investigate this question?

Remember this guy?


Abdul Rahman Yasin was born in Bloomington, Indiana in 1960 where his father was studying at Indiana University. But he was no American.

Sometimes I find it interesting to familiarize myself with certain celebrated terrorists who were known to find sactuary in places like Iraq. Today Yasin has a price of $25 million on his head for the part he played in mixing the chemicals for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center in NYC. He is considered the only man still at large, he was last seen in Iraq where he went after the attack. His whereabouts today are unknown. Dead men tell no tales.

NY Times is backing off its opposition to the ports deal

Compare the New York Times editorials from February 16th and today:

Feb. 16th (requires TimesSelect subscription): “Putting port management in the hands of a country like the United Arab Emirates, which has a mixed record in the war on terror, is a step in the wrong direction.”

Mar 2: “At this point there is little hard evidence that Dubai Ports World is especially vulnerable to infiltration by terrorists or lax on security. * * * [I]f the controversy is treated correctly, it should provide new security benchmarks that could be applied to any company that wishes to manage American ports. * * * The deal's opponents ought to use this opportunity to negotiate for additional, and much needed, financing for [enhanced port security].”

Not again

In a recent post Powerline makes note of falling poll numbers for Bush and the attempted resurrection of Katrina.

Of course we can thank not only the AP for their shameless of flogging of that dead nag Katrina, we can also thank the press and many pundits on the right for that matter for their inability to get the facts straight on the Dubai port deal. Now we are actually beginning to hear references to things like freight terminals rather than the hysterical and inaccurate "port takeover" nonsense that was leading many Americans to believe to the Feds were selling the coast line to AlQaida.

Add to that the incessant drum beat of bad news from Iraq as the press and terrorists in a sort of perverse symbiotic relationship feed off each other. It amazes me how willing they were to lie for Saddam and cover for him while he killed and maimed and tortured and starved hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, but now one car bomb is world news.

So now according to CBS Bush's numbers are down. Well... who cares?

I mean really, this is as obvious as that movie Gas Light. I think that was the title, the one in which Charles Boyer [boo.... hiss] tried to convince Ingrid Bergman that she was losing her mind. His tricks were really transparent and after awhile I just wanted to slap the silly girl and say Oh come on, the man is a dog, he is playing you honey.

Well now I feel like saying that to a lot of my fellow Americans. Oh come on, they are playing you. First the media lies about Katrina, they screw up, they cover their butts, they hide the truth and now they drag this video out courtesy a leak and in the end it means nothing.

I can still remember Bush going on TV two days before that hurricane hit and personally asking people to get out of the area. I remember hearing how Bush called Nagin and asked him to get people out. I remember people saying tens of thousands of people could die if it was a direct hit on NO. I remember getting up the next morning and seeing people in New Orleans celebrating because they thought they had dodged the bullet. There had been talk of levees being topped, but they had survived. Then disaster struck when the levees broke.

And then came about the largest emergency rescue mission in history. But all people can talk about today is that Bush screwed up. In order to punish Bush the media is willing to downplay and overlook the tremendous efforts of tens of thousands of emergency people to do the best they could to save lives.

I am sure that if Bush had it to do again, he would steamroll right over the locals and move the remaining people in New Orleans out of there, legal or not. But to deliberately drag this out again just keep up the steady drum roll of bad news for partisan political purposes can work both ways. Bush is not running again, but people like me have lost any faith in the fiction of objective reporting.

I would not buy a used car off these people.

The Imperial Presidency

One of the claims made against the current administration is that they behave as an Imperial Presidency. The Nation, Salon, NYT, and other media outlets have made this charge as have icons of the left such as Chomsky. Even CATO makes this charge.

I recently had reason to go looking for FDR's famous Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself first inaugural address. I hadn't read or heard it in a very long time and had completely forgotten these remarkable words (emphasis added):

It is to be hoped that the normal balance of executive and legislative authority may be wholly adequate to meet the unprecedented task before us. But it may be that an unprecedented demand and need for undelayed action may call for temporary departure from that normal balance of public procedure.

I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require. These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional authority, to bring to speedy adoption.

But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis—broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.


Has George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States, ever threatened (or promised, as the case may be) to take over the nation and brush aside Congress?

Would You Like a Massage?

Of your 10K, I mean. If so, try a Sulzberger approved masseuse. Thomas Lifson and Jack Risko do an excellent job of separating fact from light fiction in their analysis of what's buried (but still stinking) in the NYT financial reports.

I can only add that the "go national" plan presumed a potential subscriber core - blinkered liberals - that was dimensionally illusory from the beginning. The potential pool was never more than 13% deep and half of them aren't going to spend a dime of Daddy's money on a newspaper. Between that fact and the fact that the potential customer "pool" is very heavily concentrated in the Blue Castles already served by major MSM print organs - well, it really wasn't a very well conceived plan.

Not bad for a not terribly bright scion of a family owned business but it could well become a Harvard Business School study on mismanagement. Let's hope so.

Where are the Iraqi WMDs? In Syria?

George Tenet called it a "slam dunk." Well, maybe the CIA's HUMINT operations were neglected during the Clinton administration. But how about the British intelligence, the French, the Russians, Israelis and everyone else? Were they all wrong? Especially the British and the Israelis?

And there's no dispute that Saddam did use chemical weapons for mass murder in the past.

Larry Elder, a columnist and nationally syndicated talk show host, reported today on a recent interview of Gen. Georges Sada, the second-highest ranking general in Saddam Hussein's air force. In response to a question about weapons of mass destruction, Sada said:

"The chemical and biological weapons were available in Iraq before liberating
the country, but Saddam Hussein took the advantage of a natural disaster that
happened in Syria when a dam was collapsed and many villages were flooded. So
Saddam Hussein took that cover and declared to the world that he is going to use
the civilian aircraft for an air bridge to help Syria with blankets, food and
fuel oil, and other humanitarian things, but that was not true. The truth is he
converted two regular passenger civilian aircraft, 747 Jumbo and 727 ... all the
weapons of mass destruction were put there by the special Republican Guards in a
very secret way, and they were transported to Syria, to Damascus, by flying 56
flights to Damascus ... In addition ... also a truck convoy on the ground to
take whatever has to do with WMD to Syria."

Larry Elder has previously reported on this subject.

There are reports alleging specific sites in Syria where these WMDs are currently located.

In April 2005, Captain's Quarters reported that Charles Duelfer and the Iraq Survey Group recommended "further investigation, a clear indication that he believes the question remains open on WMD transfers to Syria."

The Israelis speculate on this Syrian connection as well.

And there's the February 19th report that the WMDs were moved from Iraq to Syria and Lebanon by the Russians.

All these reports certainly deserve further investigation, don't you think?

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

More Retrocomputing

The Ternary (base 3) calculator and 1960's desktop calculators. (I remember those Frieden machines.)

Babbage's Difference Engine built from LEGOs.

The GENIAC. Couldn't afford this one when I was a kid.

More from Ralph Peters

We hear no end of tales of failure in Iraq. But because of one small project (and there are hundreds such in Iraq), 10,000 of our fellow human beings won't have to live with sewage in their streets and shanties. That makes a real, human difference. Yes, it might be minor in the great schemes of global strategy. It won't make us loved throughout the Middle East. But America's soldiers make a profound difference in here-and-now lives. How many armies in history could make that claim?

We've all heard plenty about human-rights abuses. What about those 10,000 dirt-poor Iraqis whose children will have a chance to escape disease? The old regime wouldn't spare them a few pipes and pumps. Isn't exposing a child to cholera while building palaces for yourself a human-rights abuse?

By the way: I didn't see any of our self-righteous critics in the Risalah slum. ....

For all the bad news you hear — much of it viciously skewed — Baghdad is a city of hope. And it isn't thanks to Saddam — or to those in the West who opposed a tyrant's overthrow. ( New York Post)

So do they even talk?

OK, so probably everybody has already seen at Lucianne. But it appears that while Hillary was proposing that no foreign government-owned companies be allowed to run a port terminal, Bill was coaching Dubai on how get through the process.

Container Security Initiative

Dennis has more facts on port security you are not likely to see anywhere else. Such as:


The four core elements of CSI are:
• Identify high-risk containers. CBP uses automated targeting tools to identify containers that pose a potential risk for terrorism, based on advance information and strategic intelligence.
• Prescreen and evaluate containers before they are shipped. Containers are screened as early in the supply chain as possible, generally at the port of departure.
• Use technology to prescreen high-risk containers to ensure that screening can be done rapidly without slowing down the movement of trade. This technology includes large-scale X-ray and gamma ray machines and radiation detection devices.
• Use smarter, more secure containers, which will allow CBP officers at United States ports of arrival to identify containers that have been tampered with during transit.

CBP’s goal is to have 50 operational CSI ports by the end of fiscal year 2006. At that time, approximately 90 percent of all transatlantic and transpacific cargo imported into the United States will be subjected to prescreening. CSI continues to expand to strategic locations around the world. The World Customs Organization (WCO), the European Union (EU), and the G8 support CSI expansion and have adopted resolutions implementing CSI security measures introduced at ports throughout the world.

CSI is a reciprocal program and offers its participant countries the opportunity to send their customs officers to major U.S. ports to target ocean-going, containerized cargo being exported to their countries. Likewise, CBP shares information on a bilateral basis with its CSI partners. Japan and Canada currently station their customs personnel in some U.S. ports as part of the CSI program. Information sharing between the U.S. and other Customs Services enhances the ability of both services to identify all containers that pose a potential threat.

42 CSI ports are currently operational:

Canada - Halifax, Montreal, and Vancouver.
The Netherlands - Rotterdam.
France - Le Havre and Marseille.
Germany - Bremerhaven and Hamburg.
Belgium - Antwerp and Zeebrugge.
Singapore - Singapore.
Japan - Yokohama, Tokyo, Nagoya and Kobe.
Hong Kong - Hong Kong.
Sweden - Gothenburg.
U.K. - Felixstowe, Liverpool, Thamesport, Tilbury, and Southampton.
Italy - Genoa, La Spezia, Livorno, Naples and Gioia Tauro.
Korea - Pusan.
South Africa - Durban.
Malaysia - Port Klang and Tanjung Pelepas.
Greece - Piraeus.
Spain - Algeciras.
Thailand - Laem Chabang.
United Arab Emirates (UAE) - Dubai.
China - Shanghai, Shenzhen and Kaohsiung.
Brazil - Santos.
Sri Lanka - Colombo.
Argentina - Buenos Aires.
Portugal - Lisbon

Facts about CSI from DtP .

My Reapportionment from Your Gerrymander?

Today the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument on the Texas redistricting case, League of United Latin American Citizens v. Texas, or LULAC v. Texas.

You’ve heard about this – it’s what made partisan Democrat Austin DA Ronnie Earle, as an act of revenge, indict former House Majority Leader Tom Delay.

And remember how some Democrat members of the Texas Legislature actually left the State of Texas and went to Oklahoma so there wasn’t a quorum to vote on the redistricting?

Let me present a little history in this case.

In 1991, the Texas Legislature (then controlled by the Democrats) conducted a redistricting following the 1990 census. Their plan resulted in a 21-9 Democrat advantage in U.S. House seats in the 1992 election, even though Texas voters were almost evenly split between Republicans and Democrats. This 1991 redistricting has been described as the most partisan redistricting plan ever, anywhere in the U.S. See page 12 of the Texas District Court panel’s opinion in the Texas case for some history.

With the next census in 2000, the Texas Legislature was unable to agree on a redistricting plan, so the U.S. District Court conducted its own redistricting in 2001, following as much as possible the lines of the extremely partisan 1991 Democrat plan.

In 2003, the Texas Legislature finally was able to decide on redistricting and conducted a reapportionment plan that approximately reflected the current 60% to 40% Republican to Democrat voter edge in Texas.

So what’s the beef? The Texas Legislature in 2003 corrected the extremely partisan Democrat gerrymander conducted in 1991.

Now let’s look at the law.

In 2004 the U.S. Supreme Court in Vieth v. Jubelirer considered a redistricting in Pennsylvania. There was no majority opinion in that case.

Four justices, Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and O’Connor, argued that redistrictings in general are nonjusticiable, that is, these cases are not able to be decided by the court.

Four justices, Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter and Breyer, disagreed arguing the court should intervene, but for different reasons.

Justice Kennedy was the swing vote. He opined that, although he did not agree with the justices on nonjusticiability as a general principle in redistricting cases, in this case he could see no reason for the court to intervene.

Now fast-forward to this Texas case in 2006. Rehnquist has been replaced by Roberts; O’Connor by Alito. Does this change the balance? I think not.

It appears to me that Kennedy is still the swing vote.

My guess? Kennedy will opine in a similar fashion to what he wrote in 2004. If I’m correct, the Texas redistricting will be upheld. But only time will tell.

Ralph Peters in Baghdad

THE reporting out of Baghdad continues to be hysterical and dishonest. There is no civil war in the streets. None. Period.

Terrorism, yes. Civil war, no. Clear enough?

Yesterday, I crisscrossed Baghdad, visiting communities on both banks of the Tigris and logging at least 25 miles on the streets. With the weekend curfew lifted, I saw traffic jams, booming business — and everyday life in abundance.

Yes, there were bombings yesterday. The terrorists won't give up on their dream of sectional strife, and know they can count on allies in the media as long as they keep the images of carnage coming. They'll keep on bombing. But Baghdad isn't London during the Blitz, and certainly not New York on 9/11. ....

The bombing made headlines (and a news photographer just happened to be on the scene). Here in Baghdad, it just made the average Iraqis hate the terrorists even more. (NY Post)

Dogbert Politics

I believe that all people favor what they think is in their best interest and then rationalize it with absurd philosophical arguments. Or worse, they join a “team” and agree with whatever the leader tells them.


Scott Adams' Dilbert Blog.

A Brief Change of Tune

The other evening I had the good fortune of witnessing Emanuel Ax perform Johannes Brahms - Piano Concerto No.1, Op.15 with the New Jersey Symphony Orchestra. I do not have an educated ear so I cannot tell you why it was excellent but viscerally I know that to be the case. It was among the very finest performances I have ever experienced.

Should you ever have the chance to experience a performance by Mr. Ax, grab it.

As for Brahms Piano Concerto No. 1, Opus 15, well, I expect piano concertos to lull me to sleep (I don't mean that as criticism, it is what piano concertos do to me and as odd as it may be to say so, I like the feeling of it). There is no lullaby in that piece. It is invigorating (thanks, Rick!). Try it, you'll like it.

As for the orchestra, it is always in fine fiddle and for this performance, it seems to this knucklehead, in excellent form and Maestro Järvi, a man of good humor, was at his best.

Individual Bristles Instead of a Broad Brush

(1)Hmmmm. A media forum with invited bloggers. Wonder if Jeff Jarvis has written anything on this one? You may be surprised at who sponsored it and where it was held. Or not.

The panel was about media and power, and the speakers talked about many different things, including how political manipulation can affect the freedom of media...

All in all, it was a very good event, and I really enjoyed the experience. And even though not many bloggers were there (I mean those invited because of their blogs and not journalists who blog), blogging was one of the main headlines in the forum and it was almost mentioned in every panel. Blogging has received a very good exposure at this event, and I'm extremely glad about this. I had a really good time, and I'm looking forward to attend next year
.


=========

(2)Muslim Offense Level downgraded to "Condition Yellow"

Wherein we learn how an advertisement which contained a Danish apology for the cartoons appeared in Saudi newspapers.

=========

(3) Notwithstanding Chris Matthews pessimistic view that Iraq is headed for all-out civil war and democracy will never be embraced by a people who do not want it, we have this more optimistic view from Mohammed at Iraq the Model:

Life is coming back to normal in Baghdad and marketplaces and offices are open again after being shut for 4 days. Although there were a few security incidents today people are mostly looking at these as part of the usual daily situation and not related to the latest shrine crisis.

But, what can we learn from this lesson and how can we make benefit from it in avoiding similar problems in the future
.


RTWT in which a very bright and politically astute Iraqi analyzes the current situation and hopes one of the lessons learned is the necessity to separate the government from the clerics and disband the militias.

(In contrast, one of our own politicians, Levin, on Chris Matthews tonite demanded that Bush threaten to withdraw our troops if the Iraqi government doesn't get its act together. Smart move. Not. This is exactly what certain Sunni's are hoping for.)

For some more info on the background negotiations in Iraq to end the conflict, check this short WaPo piece. Talabani impressed me here, and, of course, Khalilzad as well.

==========

I caught up on my reading of all three of these blogs in one go tonite. If I told you I feel better and more optimistic now it would be admitting how turned off I was to the whole Arab world after the violent reaction to the cartoons. It's not the entire Arab world, of course, just certain elements within it. I'm afraid I have to be reminded of that from time to time.

History Lesson

The occupation of the Rhineland in defiance of the Versailles and Locarno treaties was a major step forward in Hitler's plan to re-establish Germany as a respected and feared Great Power. The failure of Britain and France to threaten, much less employ, military force to prevent or reverse the occupation revealed their unwillingness to confront a revisionist, totalitarian regime that didn't hide its contempt for Western values—individualism, tolerance, and democracy. By allowing his gambit to succeed, the two most powerful European liberal democracies encouraged Hitler's megalomania and fueled his transformation into Germany's messiah. The end result was a clash of civilizations that resulted in the most destructive war in the history of the world.


(See The American Future)

Does the University Have a Future?

From The New Republic:
Three key American enterprises have seen costs rise much faster than inflation over the past generation, and all three are enterprises in which America leads the world: housing, health care, and higher education. Houses have grown bigger and better, as anyone who has looked at contemporary bathrooms and kitchens knows. Doctors do things they could not imagine a generation ago. Costs may have risen faster than quality, but there is no doubt that quality has risen, and risen substantially.

Higher education is similar--on the cost side. Benefit is another story. There is little reason to believe that undergrads and graduate students are better educated today than a generation ago. More likely the opposite. Teaching loads of senior professors have declined; probably teaching quality has declined with it. The culture of research universities has grown ever more contemptuous of students, especially undergraduates, who are seen as an interruption of one's real work rather than the reason for the enterprise. Which means that, year by year, students and their parents pay more for less. That isn't a sustainable business plan.


I wonder if the underlying point here is not whether the modern research university is an aberration anyway. Operating mostly on looking at universities for the last 30 years, and reading about them in the preceding 100 (see, eg, Henry Adams' autobiography) it would seem to me that the modern university in the US is largely an unexpected side effect of the massive government research support that followed WWII.

Certainly that seems to have a lot to do with the rise of the highly paid "celebrity" professor who doesn't actually teach or even publish scholarly work any longer (Stan Fish and Cornell West, call your offices.)

In the mean time, though, I can download whole MIT technical courses into my iPod, and access a virtual library of Alexandria from my living room.

Le bon temps rouler encore!




You just can't hold a good town down.