Break

It's not just this blog that is distracting me from work lately, it's all the links from my blog to the other sites of the wonderful WWW that I love to visit. (Many of them daily or more frequently, particularly if I comment on some other blog and then want to follow the responses.)

Really, I love the internet. This blog continues its useful function for me as a record of the things I find interesting, but as for its other purpose of having my take on the world noticed, well that seems to have found its natural, very low, level. A good day here is about 50 hits, but perhaps half a dozen (or more) of those will be me using the links as my bookmarks.

Anyhow, this is all preamble to saying I need a week's break to concentrate on work, and this I mean it! I actually want to give up looking at the internet completely for a week, but I don't know if I can avoid visiting the news sites. Especially if that long wished for video of Kevin R and Julia G turns up.

You watch, something spectacular that I long to comment on will probably happen this week. But I want someone to promise to come and break my typing fingers if I breach this self imposed absence.

Remember to come back. Fifty visits a day is pretty pathetic, but coming back and finding its now stuck on a twenty or so for the week after I start posting; that's just depressing.

And could someone apart from Caz, TimT and Geoff add a comment that might give me general encouragement? I seem to have some regular visitors who never say "boo", and it would just be nice to know who at least one or two of them are.

Pilger's latest

A gentle kick in the fundamentals - Times Online

Here's an extract from the above amusing review of John Pilger's latest effort at documentary:

Pilger’s journalistic compass is set by the position of America: wherever that is, he swings the other way. So, based on the sound principle of my enemy’s enemy is my friend, he set about an obscenely embarrassing tongue-bath of Hugo Chavez, the megalomaniac president of Venezuela.

Pilger’s interview technique is not to have any technique visible. He listens to himself asking questions that include answers, then to little else. He picks through the wreckage of people’s misfortune, gleaning shards of proof to complement his mosaic ideology, while dismissing and discarding anything that could be a contradiction. This relentless film looked like Brezhnev-era Soviet propaganda.

All about Chavez

Reason Magazine - The Caudillo in His Labyrinth

This week's happy alcohol news

Alcohol may lower risk of kidney cancer | Health | Reuters

Drinking more than two glasses of red wine per week was associated with a 40-percent reduction in kidney cell cancer risk compared with drinking no red wine, the investigators observed, and there were similar trends for more than two glasses per week of white wine or strong beer.

Could be an interesting movie...

Ahead of 'September Dawn,' Mormon Church revisits dark period | csmonitor.com

The root of all evil

Comment is free: Springtime in the desert

Dana Moss has an interesting post talking about the very, very limited progression towards women's rights in Saudi Arabia. Bear in mind that they currently cannot vote, drive, own real estate, or show their face in public.

One thing that is planned to "help" women is this:

.....an all-female industrial zone employing roughly 10,000 women in more than 80 factories.

So, the right to be a factory worker is recognized. I wonder how they will get there?

Anyway, these two paragraphs show that there is just a tiny bit of conservatism to be overcome yet:

Characteristic of such hostility from the religious elite is the reaction of the Grand Mufti, Sheikh Abdulaziz bin Abdullah al-Sheikh, to the mixing of men and women - conventional practice in international business terms. In 2004, after witnessing mingling during the Jeddah Economic Forum, he issued a furious reprimand: "I am pained by such shameful behaviour ... allowing women to mix with men is the root of every evil and catastrophe."

Nor is resistance to women's economic empowerment limited to the clergy. Hardline factions within the royal family, such as the mercurial Prince Nayef, currently interior minister, remain powerful. When faced with demands to allow women to drive, he proclaimed: "I am astonished as to why this issue is being discussed."

Good luck reformers. See you at the ground-breaking inaugural Young Men and Women's Chaperoned Tea Party and Evening Dance to be held in the year 2250.

Guns and teens

The short, happy life of Rhys Jones - Times Online

I haven't been reading much til now about the shooting death (by teenagers, apparently) of an 11 year old boy in Liverpool. The story above, and this report here, give some background, and ends on this surprising note:

Last year, 48 under-18s were arrested for gun crime in Merseyside.

Confusing the brain for science

Scientists induce out-of-body experiences in the laboratory. Slate Magazine

This is an interesting article on recent research on inducing something a little (though not that much) like an out of body experience.

It makes mention of an illusion I hadn't heard of before:

The "rubber hand illusion," for example, can trick you into losing track of a single body part. Someone strokes a rubber hand in front of you while at the same time stroking your real hand out of view. After a while, you start to think the rubber hand is your own.

How odd. Pity I don't have any rubber hands around the house with which to try.

Of course, Kevin Rudd has probably already doing it with a John Howard rubber head. Boom boom.

What doesn't it cover?

Breathe Islam :: Protect your child :: June :: 2007

From this post:

The Prophet said, “If anyone of you, when having sexual intercourse with his wife, says: Bismillah, Allahumma jannibna-Sh-Shaitan wa jannib-ish-Shaitan ma razaqtana,
and if it is destined that they should have a child, then Satan will never be able to harm him.”

The meaning of this prayer is given in the following post:

‘With the name of Allah! O Allah! Save us from the evil of Shaytan and save whatever children You bestow us.’

A religion whose founder recommends praying during sex is a religion too far.

On Shelley

Avenging Angel: Books: The New Yorker

I love reading about radicals who think they know what's best for the world, reject religion and all traditional morality, and yet never recognize their own nastiness. Shelley is a very good example of this, and this review of a new book about him has plenty of examples of his unpleasantness.

I suppose his first wife (aged 16) didn't fully appreciate his attitude to marriage:

When Harriet Westbrook, in rebellion against her father and her school, begged Shelley to rescue her, it was the kind of cause that he found hard to resist. He agreed to elope with a girl he had never considered more than a friend. “If I know anything about love, I am not in love,” he had written just weeks before the marriage. He loved the idea of getting married even less: “A kind of ineffable, sickening disgust seizes my mind when I think of this most despotic, most unrequired fetter.” But he recognized that living together out of wedlock would hurt Harriet’s reputation much more than his own, and he agreed to go through with the ceremony.

A child or two later he subsequently fell in love with another 16 year old:

....in the summer of 1814, Shelley fell in love with Mary Godwin. Mary was then sixteen, the same age that Harriet had been when Shelley married her, and she had intellectual gifts that Harriet could never match. Just as important was her intellectual pedigree: she was the daughter of William Godwin, a radical thinker whom Shelley worshipped, and Mary Wollstonecraft, the crusader for women’s rights. Add the fact that Mary was instantly smitten with Shelley—it seems that they had sex for the first time by her mother’s grave, to mark their spiritual union—and Harriet never really had a chance.

There is a lot more detail in the review.

I had read about his life somewhere before, but it's good to be reminded about this sort of stuff.

Just nuts

Home is where the booze is - Times Online

The trend for some parents to let their teenage kids know that they can have alcohol at a party, rather than just let it be brought in secretly, seems to be taken to an insane extreme by some in England. Have a read of this account of a party for a group of 14 year olds:

The invitation read: “Let my mum know if you can drink and if so bring some.”...

On the way to the party, I asked my son if he wanted to take a bottle of wine. He declined then retracted, saying he supposed he would if others were drinking. Reluctantly, I bought a bottle of white wine. I did not want him to be embarrassed and besides, I was looking forward to a drink at the party myself....

By 10.30pm the consequences of my friend’s drinks policy were all too obvious. Everywhere I looked there was someone vomiting. I wondered what their parents would be thinking if they knew their children were quite so drunk. They had, after all, supplied the booze.

I don't think this comment which follows the article is meant to be funny, but it made me laugh:

A whole bottle of wine for one 14 year old's personal use? What lunacy! When I was 14, my parents would not let me take more than four bottles of lager to a party. I'd inevitably scrounge another couple, but that was outside their control. My parents have continued to place (low) limits on what I can take to parties - but these days I am more often in pubs and clubs.

For Space Cadets

This month's Air & Space Magazine has a couple of interesting articles. One is about the ongoing work on hypersonic flight, which mentions the leading role played by research being done at the University of Queensland.

The other is about the design work for the new Orion capsule, that is expected to become the workhorse for getting around in space for quite a long time. Unfortunately, it still sounds awfully claustrophobic for the average punter.

What is wrong with Hedley Thomas?

Interview discredits claim by Andrews | The Australian

I am sorely tempted to say he's just an idiot, given the opening paragraphs in this morning's report about the Dr Haneef record of interview:

CLAIMS by Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews that his decision to cancel Mohamed Haneef's visa was based on much more than a mobile phone SIM card given to a second-cousin have been undermined by the release of the second police record of interview.

Police officer Adam Simms, who questioned Dr Haneef during the second interview last month, told him: "Tell me exactly. Now let's not forget, Mohamed, the reason you are sitting here and the reason you've been in police custody is because of this issue with the SIM card -- now it's causing you a lot of grief. We need to be clear as to what is happening with this SIM card. OK?"

How the hell does the fact that the police said that in the record of interview discredit Andrew's claim that there is significant other evidence that informed his decision?

Thomas is now just making no sense at all in his determination to criticise Andrews.

I downloaded the record of interview last night and had a quick read. (At 380 odd pages, with many of them on procedural matters, you really have to head to near the end to get to the interesting stuff.)

While Dr Haneef does answer all questions, I honestly don't think that anyone with an open mind who reads it will come away thinking that it represents some form of complete exoneration of him.

Tit for tat

No it's not another Kevin Rudd post, this time it's about China giving the US a bit of stick over the quality of its soybeans:

China's quality watchdog warns on U.S. soybeans

What's the bet that there is a political motive to this. You reject our lead toys, then don't expect us to like your soybeans.

A curious miracle

A night journey through Jerusalem -Times Online

This article explains the origin of the Muslim's need to pray 5 times a day:

Since the Koran does not provide specific detail of the Night Journey, historians have to draw on accounts by Islamic scholars versed in the Hadith, or prophetic traditions, for the specific details of what Armstong describes as “the most important mystical experience of Muhammad’s life”.

Alighting on the Temple Mount, he was greeted by Abraham, Moses, Jesus and other prophets, whom he led in prayer. Then Muhammad and Gabriel ascended the seven heavens to the Throne of God, who instructed Muhammad on the five daily prayers. According to tradition, God initially said Muslims should pray 50 times a day. But on his way down Muhammad met Moses, who told him to go back and get the number reduced. Moses kept sending Muhammad back to plead with God until the number of prescribed prayers was reduced to five.

As Armstrong points out: “This tradition shows that religion was not meant to be a crushing burden, but a moderate discipline which everybody could manage.”

Abu Sway agrees: “The amount decided on shows that God is merciful, and the intercession by Moses shows that there should be moderation in matters of faith.”

This idea of being caught as negotiator between Moses and God is a curious one.

As a story, it's close to the Genesis one about Abraham bargaining with God over the fate of Sodom, but at least there was something significant at stake there. Arguing the toss with God over the degree of inconvenience of your religion seems a little trite in comparison.