Ask-Imam.com [18129] Can divorce happen over a text? and what are the consequences when a husband says to his wife go F*** your dad.
It would seem that the "jury" is still out on whether a Muslim can divorce his wife by SMS.
Good to see modern technology being used for innovative purposes.
(Perhaps I had better find something good to say about Islam soon. The weight of my posts could be described as just a little unbalanced at the moment!)
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Black holes at CERN - the bad news and the good news
0607165.pdf (application/pdf Object)
The link is to yet another arXiv paper, this one only a few days old, about creating mini black holes at the LHC at CERN.
The bad news: the paper uses the cautious sounding words:
Once produced, the black holes may undergo an evaporation process (my emphasis).
Maybe that wasn't intentional; it seems that there are extremely few physicists who are prepared to even consider doubts that a few have expressed as to whether Hawking Radiation (HR) exists at all.
For the good news: as I have noted before, some believe that the HR process may leave a "black hole remnant". I haven't noticed anyone talking much about them, and my concern remains whether there is any concieveable risk from them. However, this paper suggests a surprising possible use if such things exist:
If stable BHRs really exist one could not only study them with various experimental setups but also use them as catalyzers to capture and convert, in accordance with E = mc2, high intensity beams of low energy baryons (p,n, nuclei), of mass ∼ 1AGeV, into photonic, leptonic and light mesonic Hawking radiation, thus serving as a source of energy with 90% efficiency (as only neutrinos and gravitons would escape
the detector/reactor). If BHRs (Stable Remnants) are made available by the LHC or the NLC and can be used to convert mass in energy, then the total 2050 yearly world energy consumption of roughly 10 (to the power of) 21 Joules can be covered by just ∼ 10 tons of arbitrary material, converted to radiation by the Hawking process via m = E/c2 = 1021J/(3·108m/s)2 = 104.
By the way, that figure for the total energy requirements for earth is 10 to the power of 21; I have trouble showing such scripts here.
So, if I read this right, they are saying that use of black hole remnants means conversion of about 10 tonnes of dirt could power the entire world. Neat.
Remember, you read it here first.
The link is to yet another arXiv paper, this one only a few days old, about creating mini black holes at the LHC at CERN.
The bad news: the paper uses the cautious sounding words:
Once produced, the black holes may undergo an evaporation process (my emphasis).
Maybe that wasn't intentional; it seems that there are extremely few physicists who are prepared to even consider doubts that a few have expressed as to whether Hawking Radiation (HR) exists at all.
For the good news: as I have noted before, some believe that the HR process may leave a "black hole remnant". I haven't noticed anyone talking much about them, and my concern remains whether there is any concieveable risk from them. However, this paper suggests a surprising possible use if such things exist:
If stable BHRs really exist one could not only study them with various experimental setups but also use them as catalyzers to capture and convert, in accordance with E = mc2, high intensity beams of low energy baryons (p,n, nuclei), of mass ∼ 1AGeV, into photonic, leptonic and light mesonic Hawking radiation, thus serving as a source of energy with 90% efficiency (as only neutrinos and gravitons would escape
the detector/reactor). If BHRs (Stable Remnants) are made available by the LHC or the NLC and can be used to convert mass in energy, then the total 2050 yearly world energy consumption of roughly 10 (to the power of) 21 Joules can be covered by just ∼ 10 tons of arbitrary material, converted to radiation by the Hawking process via m = E/c2 = 1021J/(3·108m/s)2 = 104.
By the way, that figure for the total energy requirements for earth is 10 to the power of 21; I have trouble showing such scripts here.
So, if I read this right, they are saying that use of black hole remnants means conversion of about 10 tonnes of dirt could power the entire world. Neat.
Remember, you read it here first.
If your friends don't support you, blow up your women
Palestinians demand Arab involvement | Jerusalem Post
From the story above:
Enraged by the failure of the Arab countries to help Hizbullah and Hamas in their confrontation with Israel, one of the major Palestinian militias announced on Tuesday that it had recruited dozens of women to join the fight against Israel.
Dressed in military fatigue and armed with rocket-propelled grenades and Kalashnikov rifles, the women were sent to march in the streets of Gaza City, chanting slogans in support of Hizbullah and Hamas and calling on all Arabs and Muslims to launch a war against Israel....
The decision to establish the new force comes one week after the armed wing of Fatah announced the formation of a female suicide bomber unit to launch attacks against Israel. Um al-Abed, a spokeswoman for the group, said last week that over 100 women from the West Bank and Gaza Strip had signed up to carry out suicide attacks.
"Today we have established an army of women to defend the Arabs and Muslims," said Shayma al-Koka, one of the leaders of the force whose members marched in Gaza City on Tuesday. "If Arab men can't defend the honor of the Arabs and Muslims, then the women will fulfill their duty.
From the story above:
Enraged by the failure of the Arab countries to help Hizbullah and Hamas in their confrontation with Israel, one of the major Palestinian militias announced on Tuesday that it had recruited dozens of women to join the fight against Israel.
Dressed in military fatigue and armed with rocket-propelled grenades and Kalashnikov rifles, the women were sent to march in the streets of Gaza City, chanting slogans in support of Hizbullah and Hamas and calling on all Arabs and Muslims to launch a war against Israel....
The decision to establish the new force comes one week after the armed wing of Fatah announced the formation of a female suicide bomber unit to launch attacks against Israel. Um al-Abed, a spokeswoman for the group, said last week that over 100 women from the West Bank and Gaza Strip had signed up to carry out suicide attacks.
"Today we have established an army of women to defend the Arabs and Muslims," said Shayma al-Koka, one of the leaders of the force whose members marched in Gaza City on Tuesday. "If Arab men can't defend the honor of the Arabs and Muslims, then the women will fulfill their duty.
Yes, OK, that's pretty hot
Tomorrow may be Britain's hottest day ever - Britain - Times Online
I recently joked about how Britain considers anything above 30 degrees as a heatwave. Well, it appears that tomorrow may reach 38, which counts as "hot" anywhere. The Times says:
Roads have begun to melt and fans and air conditioning are placing massive demands on electricity suppliers as forecasters predict an all-time record high temperature for Britain tomorrow, when the mercury could nudge 38C.
OK, it's hot, but roads shouldn't be melting. What do they use there, toffee for bitumen?
I recently joked about how Britain considers anything above 30 degrees as a heatwave. Well, it appears that tomorrow may reach 38, which counts as "hot" anywhere. The Times says:
Roads have begun to melt and fans and air conditioning are placing massive demands on electricity suppliers as forecasters predict an all-time record high temperature for Britain tomorrow, when the mercury could nudge 38C.
OK, it's hot, but roads shouldn't be melting. What do they use there, toffee for bitumen?
More credible advice from India
Could you be bisexual?- The Times of India
Is it too early to be making fun of India? Oh well, I'm not finding much to laugh about, so I have to go back to this fairly recent article from the Times of Indian with its typically odd Indian slant:
Religious ideas linked to procreation and the need to find an issue to perform the last rites also lead many men into tying the knot, when they would rather be with other men.
Forty-year-old Lisa, who discovered her husband with another man five years into her marriage, was told by her counsellor that 99% of men are homosexual and they only marry to have children. "I don't necessarily subscribe to that theory," she says sighing. "But it helps me stay in my marriage."
Novel theory, that. The first rule of counselling in India must be "keep the customer happy."
Have a look at the very last couple of paragraphs on page 3 of the article if you want some further amusement.
Is it too early to be making fun of India? Oh well, I'm not finding much to laugh about, so I have to go back to this fairly recent article from the Times of Indian with its typically odd Indian slant:
Religious ideas linked to procreation and the need to find an issue to perform the last rites also lead many men into tying the knot, when they would rather be with other men.
Forty-year-old Lisa, who discovered her husband with another man five years into her marriage, was told by her counsellor that 99% of men are homosexual and they only marry to have children. "I don't necessarily subscribe to that theory," she says sighing. "But it helps me stay in my marriage."
Novel theory, that. The first rule of counselling in India must be "keep the customer happy."
Have a look at the very last couple of paragraphs on page 3 of the article if you want some further amusement.
Protecting astronauts
New Scientist SPACE - Breaking News - Plasma bubble could protect astronauts on Mars trip
Sounds like a difficult engineering job to me.
Sounds like a difficult engineering job to me.
Continuing the anti-semitism theme...
FrontPage magazine.com :: Apocalyptic Muslim Jew Hatred by Andrew G. Bostom
See the long article that puts Islamic theology and eschatology at the core of the intense anti-semitism behind Hizbollah and Hamas.
I wonder what Karen Armstrong says about this. Frontpage is always aggressively pro-Israel, but I don't assume that its articles of this nature are inaccurate for that reason.
See the long article that puts Islamic theology and eschatology at the core of the intense anti-semitism behind Hizbollah and Hamas.
I wonder what Karen Armstrong says about this. Frontpage is always aggressively pro-Israel, but I don't assume that its articles of this nature are inaccurate for that reason.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Some background on anti-semitism
Paul Johnson: The Anti-Semitic Disease
While looking around for material on the Internet by Paul Johnson about Israel, I found the above long essay from 2005 about anti-semitism.
He's a great writer, and as a conservative, entirely trustworthy. (Actually, I'm sure that I once heard Labor brainiac Barry Jones complimenting one of his books, so he can't be too bad.)
Johnson blames much of the current anti-semitism on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, recognised by everyone in the West(except complete neo Nazi nutters) as pure fantasy - a fact first clearly identified nearly 90 years ago, but still given currency in the Arab world. Johnson says that the book influenced not only Hitler, but also Muhammad Amin al-Husseini, who went on to become the Mufti of Jerusalem. Johnson writes that he was:
....head of the biggest landowning family in Palestine. Al-Husseini was already tinged with hatred of Jews, but the Protocols gave him a purpose in life: to expel all Jews from Palestine forever. He had innocent blue eves and a quiet, almost cringing manner, but was a dedicated killer who devoted his entire life to race-murder. In 1920 he was sentenced bv the British to ten years' hard labor for provoking bloody anti-Jewish-riots.
But in the following year, in a reversal of policy for which I have never found a satisfactory explanation, the British appointed a supreme Muslim religious council in Palestine and in effect made al-Husseini its director.
The mufti, as he was called, thereafter created Arab anti-Semitism in its modern form. He appointed a terrorist leader, Emile Ghori, to kill Jewish settlers whenever possible, and also any Arabs who worked with Jews. The latter made up by far the greater number of the mufti's victims. This pattern of murdering Arab moderates has continued ever since, and not just among Palestinians; we see it in Iraq today.
When Hitler came to power in 1933, the mufti rapidly established links with the Nazi regime and later toured occupied Europe under its auspices. He naturally gravitated to Heinrich Himmler, the official in charge of the Nazi genocide, who shared his extreme and violent anti-Semitism; a photo shows the two men smiling sweetly at each other. From the Nazis the mufti learned much about mass murder and terrorism. But he also drew from the history of Islamic extremism: it was he who first recruited Wahhabi fanatics from Saudi Arabia and transformed them into killers of Jews,— another tradition that continues to this day.
For a more detailed history of the Mufti, see his Wikipedia entry here.
Johnson's conclusions about the effect of anti-semitism on the Arabs are tough but hard to disagree with:
...by allowing their diseased obsession to dominate all their aspirations, the Arabs have wasted trillions in oil royalties on weapons of war and propaganda and, at the margin, on ostentatious luxuries for a tiny minority. In their flight from reason, they have failed to modernize or civilize their societies, to introduce democracy, or to consolidate the rule of law. Despite all their advantages, they are now being overtaken decisively by the Indians and the Chinese, who have few natural resources but are inspired by reason, not hatred.
Go read it all, as they say.
While looking around for material on the Internet by Paul Johnson about Israel, I found the above long essay from 2005 about anti-semitism.
He's a great writer, and as a conservative, entirely trustworthy. (Actually, I'm sure that I once heard Labor brainiac Barry Jones complimenting one of his books, so he can't be too bad.)
Johnson blames much of the current anti-semitism on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, recognised by everyone in the West(except complete neo Nazi nutters) as pure fantasy - a fact first clearly identified nearly 90 years ago, but still given currency in the Arab world. Johnson says that the book influenced not only Hitler, but also Muhammad Amin al-Husseini, who went on to become the Mufti of Jerusalem. Johnson writes that he was:
....head of the biggest landowning family in Palestine. Al-Husseini was already tinged with hatred of Jews, but the Protocols gave him a purpose in life: to expel all Jews from Palestine forever. He had innocent blue eves and a quiet, almost cringing manner, but was a dedicated killer who devoted his entire life to race-murder. In 1920 he was sentenced bv the British to ten years' hard labor for provoking bloody anti-Jewish-riots.
But in the following year, in a reversal of policy for which I have never found a satisfactory explanation, the British appointed a supreme Muslim religious council in Palestine and in effect made al-Husseini its director.
The mufti, as he was called, thereafter created Arab anti-Semitism in its modern form. He appointed a terrorist leader, Emile Ghori, to kill Jewish settlers whenever possible, and also any Arabs who worked with Jews. The latter made up by far the greater number of the mufti's victims. This pattern of murdering Arab moderates has continued ever since, and not just among Palestinians; we see it in Iraq today.
When Hitler came to power in 1933, the mufti rapidly established links with the Nazi regime and later toured occupied Europe under its auspices. He naturally gravitated to Heinrich Himmler, the official in charge of the Nazi genocide, who shared his extreme and violent anti-Semitism; a photo shows the two men smiling sweetly at each other. From the Nazis the mufti learned much about mass murder and terrorism. But he also drew from the history of Islamic extremism: it was he who first recruited Wahhabi fanatics from Saudi Arabia and transformed them into killers of Jews,— another tradition that continues to this day.
For a more detailed history of the Mufti, see his Wikipedia entry here.
Johnson's conclusions about the effect of anti-semitism on the Arabs are tough but hard to disagree with:
...by allowing their diseased obsession to dominate all their aspirations, the Arabs have wasted trillions in oil royalties on weapons of war and propaganda and, at the margin, on ostentatious luxuries for a tiny minority. In their flight from reason, they have failed to modernize or civilize their societies, to introduce democracy, or to consolidate the rule of law. Despite all their advantages, they are now being overtaken decisively by the Indians and the Chinese, who have few natural resources but are inspired by reason, not hatred.
Go read it all, as they say.
Funny time for Pirates
The New Yorker: The Critics: The Current Cinema
Watching the Middle East conflict hasn't left much time for fun this last week.
However, Anthony Lane's review of the new Pirates of the Caribbean movie encourages me to give it a go:
At two and a half hours, “Dead Man’s Chest” is far too long, but thanks to Depp—and to Bill Nighy, properly mean beneath his suckers and blubber—it swerves away from the errors committed by the other big movies this summer. If it swallowed a hundred and thirty-five million dollars in its first weekend, that is because of what it doesn’t do. It doesn’t bother to philosophize; it has nothing to report on perturbations within the human or superhuman condition; nor does it labor the nostrum, beloved of every sage from Gandalf to Xavier in “X-Men,” that with power comes responsibility. Instead, Verbinski’s movie trumpets the joy of irresponsibility, and, as for power, it never gets invited to the party.
Yes, I wish Spielberg could find it in him to do a purely fun, silly movie again, such as the undervalued "Temple of Doom", or the even less appreciated "1941". (The latter is somewhat of a guilty pleasure, but Pauline Kael defended it.)
Watching the Middle East conflict hasn't left much time for fun this last week.
However, Anthony Lane's review of the new Pirates of the Caribbean movie encourages me to give it a go:
At two and a half hours, “Dead Man’s Chest” is far too long, but thanks to Depp—and to Bill Nighy, properly mean beneath his suckers and blubber—it swerves away from the errors committed by the other big movies this summer. If it swallowed a hundred and thirty-five million dollars in its first weekend, that is because of what it doesn’t do. It doesn’t bother to philosophize; it has nothing to report on perturbations within the human or superhuman condition; nor does it labor the nostrum, beloved of every sage from Gandalf to Xavier in “X-Men,” that with power comes responsibility. Instead, Verbinski’s movie trumpets the joy of irresponsibility, and, as for power, it never gets invited to the party.
Yes, I wish Spielberg could find it in him to do a purely fun, silly movie again, such as the undervalued "Temple of Doom", or the even less appreciated "1941". (The latter is somewhat of a guilty pleasure, but Pauline Kael defended it.)
You read it here first
The purr-fect parasite - Health And Fitness - smh.com.au
The SMH above runs an article about cats and toxoplasma, based on the same article I reported on a couple of weeks ago. (The SMH does not talk about the most interesting thing though - the fact that it seems that toxoplasma infections can cause madness.)
As a general question, I am curious about how many journalists or newspaper writers now get their inspiration for articles from following blogs of interest. (Not that I am suggesting I had anything to do with the SMH article.) I notice that I seem to have a fairly regular visitor from News Limited, who I would like to think is someone important, but of course it may be the janitor.
The SMH above runs an article about cats and toxoplasma, based on the same article I reported on a couple of weeks ago. (The SMH does not talk about the most interesting thing though - the fact that it seems that toxoplasma infections can cause madness.)
As a general question, I am curious about how many journalists or newspaper writers now get their inspiration for articles from following blogs of interest. (Not that I am suggesting I had anything to do with the SMH article.) I notice that I seem to have a fairly regular visitor from News Limited, who I would like to think is someone important, but of course it may be the janitor.
Monday, July 17, 2006
Bartlett, Armstrong, and me, on the Middle East
The Bartlett Diaries - Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Us - updates
Senator Andrew Bartlett seems a nice enough guy, in a semi-depressed, lefty high school teacher-ish sort of way. His post (above) about the Middle East crisis seems to mark out nicely the sort of wishy washy paralysis that his line of thinking lends itself to:
The way the so-called "‘war on terror"’ is portrayed and prosecuted includes a very strong inference that it is a battle between militant Islam and the West – in crude but none the less reasonably valid terms, "‘them"’ and "‘us’". I don'’t accept the view that this is a struggle between Islam and the West, but unfortunately, the more it is portrayed this way by western leaders and commentators, the more this perception can become a reality...
He goes on to cite (with approval) the recent Karen Armstrong article in The Guardian. I have just read the article, which was referred to in the essay I recommended in Saturday's post.
The more I read of Armstrong's take on Islam, the more suspicious I become of the validity of her views. Of course, I should actually read her books and some detailed criticism of her work, but I am just reporting a strong suspicion here. [I have started reading some internet criticism of her; it seems there is plenty of it about, but the search for what some authoritative historians say about it continues.]
As for what Armstrong thinks of the current crisis, she says:
Doubtless with this anniversary in mind [the London bombings], the prime minister has complained that British Muslims are not doing enough to deal with the extremists. The "moderate" Muslims, he said testily, must confront the Islamists; they cannot condemn their methods while tacitly condoning their anger. The extremists' anti-western views are wrong, and mainstream Muslims must tell them that violent jihad "is not the religion of Islam".
This regrettable step will put yet more pressure on a community already under strain. It ignores the fact that the chief problem for most Muslims is not "the west" per se, but the suffering of Muslims in Guant¡namo, Abu Ghraib, Iraq and Palestine. Many Britons share this dismay, but the strong emphasis placed by Islam upon justice and community solidarity makes this a religious issue for Muslims. When they see their brothers and sisters systematically oppressed and humiliated, some feel as wounded as a Christian who sees the Bible spat upon or the eucharistic host violated.
She states that radical Islamists hate moderate Islamists just as much, if not more, than the West.
I find it rather extraordinary that a call for moderate Islamists to do more to reject the extremists in their midst can be called "regrettable". My take on her examples:
Guantanamo: while some innocents caught up in this, most had (presumably) at least had some connection to the actual militant combatants. If these people despise moderate Muslims, as Armstrong complains, why is their detention such a problem for the moderates?
Abu Graib: very bad behaviour dealt with when revealed. The rule of law and taking responsibility for what your own military does seems to be the lesson that moderates should be told to take from this.
Iraq: surely everyone now sees this as mainly between the branches of Islam. That a framework for a modern and fairer style of government has been set up by the West, and apparently endorsed by the high voter turnout, seems beyond dispute. Does Armstrong think there is any point at which the West can stop being blamed for the inability of conflicting sects to make a government work?
Palestine: an ongoing sore that the militants recently chose to inflame.
Surely the main problem with Armstrong's comments are that they indicate complete sympathy towards the unfortunate tendency of many Muslims to prefer the mantle of victimhood, and to avoid responsibility for ongoing conflict by its radical elements, or to take opportunities as they present themselves and make them work. That is what will hurt much more than a call for moderates to be involved in attempts to de-radicalise their militants. (Who, after all, are clearly in the midst of many Western muslim communities, not isolated from them.)
Back to Bartlett's post:
The trouble with governments trying to insist that we are at war with so-called Islamist terrorists is that the paradigm of war virtually forces people onto one side or another, as the middle ground tends to get blasted away by both extremes.
In what respect are they "so called" terrorists, Andrew?
Perhaps I am being a little mean here; I actually did have some earlier reservations about the use of the phrase "war on terrorism" when Bush first invoked it. I have a preference for keeping the term "war" for the traditional sense of armed conflict between nation states. Using it loosely does encourage ideas such as the application of the Geneva Conventions in circumstances where the "combatants" use techniques which invalidate the right to protection under those treaties. The Supreme Court's recent majority ruling may in fact appear more reasonable to people than it should because of the use of the phrase.
However, the state of the world since 9/11 has caused my initial doubt about the use of the term to evaporate.
The advantage of the term is that it reflects the seriousness of the issue and it is, after all, consistent with the terminology that mad Islamists use themselves.
That the Left can still find an issue with it indicates a lack of willingness to call a spade a spade, and revives the spectre of political correctness with its rparalysisparaylsis on certain issues from the 1980's and 1990's. It does not help them politically regain power.
Having said that, there naturally may come a point at which the conduct of the campaign by the Israelis may become indisputably morally wrong and/or counterproductive to their long term interests. It is just that simple tallies of how many civilians are killed by Israel compared to their own loses is not going to be the test, and in my books Israel seems far from reaching the point of legitimate criticism yet. (I don't have significant problem with the infradtructure targetting either, as I can several legitimate reasons to attack them in this particular case.)
Senator Andrew Bartlett seems a nice enough guy, in a semi-depressed, lefty high school teacher-ish sort of way. His post (above) about the Middle East crisis seems to mark out nicely the sort of wishy washy paralysis that his line of thinking lends itself to:
The way the so-called "‘war on terror"’ is portrayed and prosecuted includes a very strong inference that it is a battle between militant Islam and the West – in crude but none the less reasonably valid terms, "‘them"’ and "‘us’". I don'’t accept the view that this is a struggle between Islam and the West, but unfortunately, the more it is portrayed this way by western leaders and commentators, the more this perception can become a reality...
He goes on to cite (with approval) the recent Karen Armstrong article in The Guardian. I have just read the article, which was referred to in the essay I recommended in Saturday's post.
The more I read of Armstrong's take on Islam, the more suspicious I become of the validity of her views. Of course, I should actually read her books and some detailed criticism of her work, but I am just reporting a strong suspicion here. [I have started reading some internet criticism of her; it seems there is plenty of it about, but the search for what some authoritative historians say about it continues.]
As for what Armstrong thinks of the current crisis, she says:
Doubtless with this anniversary in mind [the London bombings], the prime minister has complained that British Muslims are not doing enough to deal with the extremists. The "moderate" Muslims, he said testily, must confront the Islamists; they cannot condemn their methods while tacitly condoning their anger. The extremists' anti-western views are wrong, and mainstream Muslims must tell them that violent jihad "is not the religion of Islam".
This regrettable step will put yet more pressure on a community already under strain. It ignores the fact that the chief problem for most Muslims is not "the west" per se, but the suffering of Muslims in Guant¡namo, Abu Ghraib, Iraq and Palestine. Many Britons share this dismay, but the strong emphasis placed by Islam upon justice and community solidarity makes this a religious issue for Muslims. When they see their brothers and sisters systematically oppressed and humiliated, some feel as wounded as a Christian who sees the Bible spat upon or the eucharistic host violated.
She states that radical Islamists hate moderate Islamists just as much, if not more, than the West.
I find it rather extraordinary that a call for moderate Islamists to do more to reject the extremists in their midst can be called "regrettable". My take on her examples:
Guantanamo: while some innocents caught up in this, most had (presumably) at least had some connection to the actual militant combatants. If these people despise moderate Muslims, as Armstrong complains, why is their detention such a problem for the moderates?
Abu Graib: very bad behaviour dealt with when revealed. The rule of law and taking responsibility for what your own military does seems to be the lesson that moderates should be told to take from this.
Iraq: surely everyone now sees this as mainly between the branches of Islam. That a framework for a modern and fairer style of government has been set up by the West, and apparently endorsed by the high voter turnout, seems beyond dispute. Does Armstrong think there is any point at which the West can stop being blamed for the inability of conflicting sects to make a government work?
Palestine: an ongoing sore that the militants recently chose to inflame.
Surely the main problem with Armstrong's comments are that they indicate complete sympathy towards the unfortunate tendency of many Muslims to prefer the mantle of victimhood, and to avoid responsibility for ongoing conflict by its radical elements, or to take opportunities as they present themselves and make them work. That is what will hurt much more than a call for moderates to be involved in attempts to de-radicalise their militants. (Who, after all, are clearly in the midst of many Western muslim communities, not isolated from them.)
Back to Bartlett's post:
The trouble with governments trying to insist that we are at war with so-called Islamist terrorists is that the paradigm of war virtually forces people onto one side or another, as the middle ground tends to get blasted away by both extremes.
In what respect are they "so called" terrorists, Andrew?
Perhaps I am being a little mean here; I actually did have some earlier reservations about the use of the phrase "war on terrorism" when Bush first invoked it. I have a preference for keeping the term "war" for the traditional sense of armed conflict between nation states. Using it loosely does encourage ideas such as the application of the Geneva Conventions in circumstances where the "combatants" use techniques which invalidate the right to protection under those treaties. The Supreme Court's recent majority ruling may in fact appear more reasonable to people than it should because of the use of the phrase.
However, the state of the world since 9/11 has caused my initial doubt about the use of the term to evaporate.
The advantage of the term is that it reflects the seriousness of the issue and it is, after all, consistent with the terminology that mad Islamists use themselves.
That the Left can still find an issue with it indicates a lack of willingness to call a spade a spade, and revives the spectre of political correctness with its rparalysisparaylsis on certain issues from the 1980's and 1990's. It does not help them politically regain power.
Having said that, there naturally may come a point at which the conduct of the campaign by the Israelis may become indisputably morally wrong and/or counterproductive to their long term interests. It is just that simple tallies of how many civilians are killed by Israel compared to their own loses is not going to be the test, and in my books Israel seems far from reaching the point of legitimate criticism yet. (I don't have significant problem with the infradtructure targetting either, as I can several legitimate reasons to attack them in this particular case.)
The ever helpful Iranian leadership
Iran Focus-Iran’s Supreme Leader says Israel is “satanic and cancerous” - Special Wire - News
Well, it not just the loopy puppet-ish President who likes to throw petrol on the fire. The religious leadership has this to say:
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei described Israel on Sunday as “satanic and cancerous” and praised the Lebanese group Hezbollah for its “jihad” against the Jewish state.
“This regime is an infectious tumour for the entire Islamic world”, Khamenei said in a speech that was aired on state television.
He rejected the demand by U.S. President George W. Bush that Hezbollah disarm, vowing, “This will never happen”.
Well, it not just the loopy puppet-ish President who likes to throw petrol on the fire. The religious leadership has this to say:
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei described Israel on Sunday as “satanic and cancerous” and praised the Lebanese group Hezbollah for its “jihad” against the Jewish state.
“This regime is an infectious tumour for the entire Islamic world”, Khamenei said in a speech that was aired on state television.
He rejected the demand by U.S. President George W. Bush that Hezbollah disarm, vowing, “This will never happen”.
Kind of late to be worrying about it now
Jonathan Chait: Is Bush Still Too Dumb to Be President? - Los Angeles Times
This LA Times columnist decides to bring up the issue of Bush's intelligence again. Why bother when he is on the last leg of his fixed term anyway? Maybe he thinks it be added to the grounds for impeachment.
This LA Times columnist decides to bring up the issue of Bush's intelligence again. Why bother when he is on the last leg of his fixed term anyway? Maybe he thinks it be added to the grounds for impeachment.
Out of proportion?
neo-neocon: The danger of "proportionality" in war
The always readable Neo-neocon has a good post on the issue of proportionality in war. A key paragraph:
It's in the interests of those with less power, and fewer arms, to advance the doctrine of "proportionality." This evens the playing field, something like a handicap in golf, and makes the game better sport for those with fewer skills. The concept of proportionality comes, no doubt, at least partly from fear of a truly disproportionate response; from some sort of concern for the weak. But it also comes from a disproportionate concern that weaker, third-world countries shouldn't be disadvantaged in any way because of their weakness, that they should be allowed to attack a stronger nation with relative impunity because, after all, they're weaker; and, after all, they're "brown;" and, after all, the West is imperialist and guilty; and, after all...and on and on.
But go read it all, and watch some of the fireworks in the comments too.
The always readable Neo-neocon has a good post on the issue of proportionality in war. A key paragraph:
It's in the interests of those with less power, and fewer arms, to advance the doctrine of "proportionality." This evens the playing field, something like a handicap in golf, and makes the game better sport for those with fewer skills. The concept of proportionality comes, no doubt, at least partly from fear of a truly disproportionate response; from some sort of concern for the weak. But it also comes from a disproportionate concern that weaker, third-world countries shouldn't be disadvantaged in any way because of their weakness, that they should be allowed to attack a stronger nation with relative impunity because, after all, they're weaker; and, after all, they're "brown;" and, after all, the West is imperialist and guilty; and, after all...and on and on.
But go read it all, and watch some of the fireworks in the comments too.
Saturday, July 15, 2006
A good essay on the trouble with Islam
To the death
I just found this recent essay from The Guardian on the question of Islam and terrorism, and it's very good.
The last paragraphs:
As I argued in a piece on Ken Loach's film The Wind that Shakes the Barley on Cif two weeks ago, ideology - uncompromising, appealing to purity of thought and action, murderous - is required to give real or imagined wrongs a framework, a cause and both a battle cry and a battle order. You must fight for something as well as against something. And one of the most powerful of such ideologies has been, in very different forms, an appeal to oneness: oneness of nation and ethnos (Nazism); one-ness of class and party (communism) and oneness of faith, state and thought (Islamism).
The ability to dehumanise large tracts of fellow human beings, because they are non-Aryan, or bourgeois, or non-Muslim, lends great strength to the cause: strength enough to cause adherents to gladly murder, and willingly die, for it.
I just found this recent essay from The Guardian on the question of Islam and terrorism, and it's very good.
The last paragraphs:
As I argued in a piece on Ken Loach's film The Wind that Shakes the Barley on Cif two weeks ago, ideology - uncompromising, appealing to purity of thought and action, murderous - is required to give real or imagined wrongs a framework, a cause and both a battle cry and a battle order. You must fight for something as well as against something. And one of the most powerful of such ideologies has been, in very different forms, an appeal to oneness: oneness of nation and ethnos (Nazism); one-ness of class and party (communism) and oneness of faith, state and thought (Islamism).
The ability to dehumanise large tracts of fellow human beings, because they are non-Aryan, or bourgeois, or non-Muslim, lends great strength to the cause: strength enough to cause adherents to gladly murder, and willingly die, for it.
Israel and it enemies
Aljazeera.Net - Lebanon divided over Hezbollah raid
Aljazeera explains the conflict within Lebanon on the role of Hezbollah in that country:
Dalia Salaam, a Lebanese Middle East analyst, says, "Hezbollah is currently the only political party in Lebanon fighting to save the country."
"The US and Europe should ask Israel to restrain itself. After all, no one, not even President George Bush or the Israeli government, can afford to escalate the situation."
But Ramzi Salha, a travel agent, says: "Whatever the agenda of Hezbollah is, it is not necessarily the agenda of the Lebanese people.
"They have not been designated by the Lebanese people to decide what is best for the country."
With the 22-year Israeli occupation over, many Lebanese say it is time for Hezbollah to lay down its weapons as demanded by UN Security Council resolution 1559.
Few are suggesting a return to war is coming, but Hezbollah's rivals are increasingly complaining that the only Lebanese group that was allowed to keep its weapons after the civil war has become more powerful than the state.
As you may expect, I also like Charles Krauthammer's article on the current situation. He highlights a point that has bothered me a lot over the years: the media's seeming amnesia about the fact that Israel only ended up with the occupied territories because it won the wars that attempted to eradicate it as a nation:
For four decades we have been told that the cause of the anger, violence and terror against Israel is its occupation of the territories seized in that war. End the occupation and the "cycle of violence'' ceases.
The problem with this claim was that before Israel came into possession of the West Bank and Gaza in the Six Day War, every Arab state had rejected Israel's right to exist and declared Israel's pre-1967 borders -- now deemed sacred -- to be nothing more than the armistice lines suspending, and not ending, the 1948-49 war to exterminate Israel.
Finally, this Lebanese issue of having a heavily armed militia force that is separate from the government armed forces seems to be the same problem facing Iraq, Gaza, and probably other countries, for all I know. How do the people of these countries think that they can ever be properly governed when private armies are allowed to retain arms? Until this fundamental problem is rectified, unrest in the region will surely continue indefinitely.
Aljazeera explains the conflict within Lebanon on the role of Hezbollah in that country:
Dalia Salaam, a Lebanese Middle East analyst, says, "Hezbollah is currently the only political party in Lebanon fighting to save the country."
"The US and Europe should ask Israel to restrain itself. After all, no one, not even President George Bush or the Israeli government, can afford to escalate the situation."
But Ramzi Salha, a travel agent, says: "Whatever the agenda of Hezbollah is, it is not necessarily the agenda of the Lebanese people.
"They have not been designated by the Lebanese people to decide what is best for the country."
With the 22-year Israeli occupation over, many Lebanese say it is time for Hezbollah to lay down its weapons as demanded by UN Security Council resolution 1559.
Few are suggesting a return to war is coming, but Hezbollah's rivals are increasingly complaining that the only Lebanese group that was allowed to keep its weapons after the civil war has become more powerful than the state.
As you may expect, I also like Charles Krauthammer's article on the current situation. He highlights a point that has bothered me a lot over the years: the media's seeming amnesia about the fact that Israel only ended up with the occupied territories because it won the wars that attempted to eradicate it as a nation:
For four decades we have been told that the cause of the anger, violence and terror against Israel is its occupation of the territories seized in that war. End the occupation and the "cycle of violence'' ceases.
The problem with this claim was that before Israel came into possession of the West Bank and Gaza in the Six Day War, every Arab state had rejected Israel's right to exist and declared Israel's pre-1967 borders -- now deemed sacred -- to be nothing more than the armistice lines suspending, and not ending, the 1948-49 war to exterminate Israel.
Finally, this Lebanese issue of having a heavily armed militia force that is separate from the government armed forces seems to be the same problem facing Iraq, Gaza, and probably other countries, for all I know. How do the people of these countries think that they can ever be properly governed when private armies are allowed to retain arms? Until this fundamental problem is rectified, unrest in the region will surely continue indefinitely.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Time for a Conservative government
SocietyGuardian.co.uk | Health | IVF hurdle for single women and lesbians to be overthrown
From the above story:
Fertility clinics and NHS trusts will no longer be able to stop single mothers and lesbian couples having IVF treatment following a shake-up of embryology regulation expected later this year.
The public health minister, Caroline Flint, yesterday gave the clearest indication yet that a child's "need for a father" will be removed as a requirement before a woman undergoes fertility treatment.
A change of name from "fertility treatment" is deserved then, because a failure of "fertility" is not what they are "curing". How about, "Government insemination service" instead, at least for the NHS ones?
From the above story:
Fertility clinics and NHS trusts will no longer be able to stop single mothers and lesbian couples having IVF treatment following a shake-up of embryology regulation expected later this year.
The public health minister, Caroline Flint, yesterday gave the clearest indication yet that a child's "need for a father" will be removed as a requirement before a woman undergoes fertility treatment.
A change of name from "fertility treatment" is deserved then, because a failure of "fertility" is not what they are "curing". How about, "Government insemination service" instead, at least for the NHS ones?
That's all it what ever about??
Novak-Rove exchange lasted 20 seconds - Yahoo! News
Good Lord, it was even more trivial than what anyone seemed to imagine:
Regarding Wilson's CIA-sponsored trip, Novak said he told Rove, "I understand that his wife works at the CIA and she initiated the mission." The columnist said Rove replied, "Oh, you know that, too."
"I took that as a confirmation that she worked with the CIA and initiated" her husband's mission to Africa, Novak said. "I really distinctly remember him saying, 'You know that, too.'"
"We talked about Joe Wilson's wife for about maybe 20 seconds," Novak said.
According to Rove's legal team, the White House political adviser recalls the conversation regarding Wilson's wife differently, saying that he replied to Novak that "I've heard that, too" rather than "You know that, too."
Good Lord, it was even more trivial than what anyone seemed to imagine:
Regarding Wilson's CIA-sponsored trip, Novak said he told Rove, "I understand that his wife works at the CIA and she initiated the mission." The columnist said Rove replied, "Oh, you know that, too."
"I took that as a confirmation that she worked with the CIA and initiated" her husband's mission to Africa, Novak said. "I really distinctly remember him saying, 'You know that, too.'"
"We talked about Joe Wilson's wife for about maybe 20 seconds," Novak said.
According to Rove's legal team, the White House political adviser recalls the conversation regarding Wilson's wife differently, saying that he replied to Novak that "I've heard that, too" rather than "You know that, too."
Leunig renews attempt to court the Palestinian readership
Cartoons - Cartoon - Opinion - theage.com.au
I'm surprised that Tim Blair doesn't seem to have a post yet about Leunig's latest cartoon.
Having a go at the suffering of children in war and conflict is a legitimate subject for a cartoonist. But Leunig's take suggests that the Israelis are targetting children deliberately.
Also, just how hard is it to be even handed when drawing a cartoon? Here's a suggestion: fold the paper in two, and one side draw some Hamas terrorists shooting a completely indiscriminate rocket into an Israeli city, and hitting a school. On the other side, draw a half dozen palestinian kids being killed as "collateral" in a reprisal attack (being careful to also show the dead adult terrorists who were actually the target.)
There, pithy point about children being unwitting target of terrorism and war is made; dishonest blaming of one side only for killing kids avoided. Is that so hard to do?
While we're at it, show children on one side being given guns to brandish on the streets, watching a neverending media glorification of matyrdom, and being taught that everyone in the neighbouring country (which has no right to exist) is a legitimate target until the neighbour State ceases to exist. On the other side show...oh, well maybe a bit of a problem finding the balance there.
I'm surprised that Tim Blair doesn't seem to have a post yet about Leunig's latest cartoon.
Having a go at the suffering of children in war and conflict is a legitimate subject for a cartoonist. But Leunig's take suggests that the Israelis are targetting children deliberately.
Also, just how hard is it to be even handed when drawing a cartoon? Here's a suggestion: fold the paper in two, and one side draw some Hamas terrorists shooting a completely indiscriminate rocket into an Israeli city, and hitting a school. On the other side, draw a half dozen palestinian kids being killed as "collateral" in a reprisal attack (being careful to also show the dead adult terrorists who were actually the target.)
There, pithy point about children being unwitting target of terrorism and war is made; dishonest blaming of one side only for killing kids avoided. Is that so hard to do?
While we're at it, show children on one side being given guns to brandish on the streets, watching a neverending media glorification of matyrdom, and being taught that everyone in the neighbouring country (which has no right to exist) is a legitimate target until the neighbour State ceases to exist. On the other side show...oh, well maybe a bit of a problem finding the balance there.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Timothy Leary back from the grave
Independent Online Edition > Health Medical
A very odd story this:
Forty years after Timothy Leary, the apostle of drug-induced mysticism, urged his hippie followers to "tune in, turn on, and drop out", researchers at Johns Hopkins University, in Baltimore, Maryland, have for the first time demonstrated that mystical experiences can be produced safely in the laboratory.... For the US study, 30 middle-aged volunteers who had religious or spiritual interests attended two eight-hour drug sessions, two months apart, receiving psilocybin in one session and a non-hallucinogenic stimulant, Ritalin, in the other. They were not told which drug was which.
Note in bold the first thing to question about this study.
One third described the experience with psilocybin as the single most spiritually significant of their lifetimes and two thirds rated it among their five most meaningful experiences. In more than 60 per cent of cases the experience qualified as a "full mystical experience" based on established psychological scales, the researchers say. Some likened it to the importance of the birth of their first child or the death of a parent. The effects persisted for at least two months. Eighty per cent of the volunteers reported moderately or greatly increased well-being or life satisfaction. Relatives, friends and colleagues confirmed the changes.
Ooh, sounds all so inspiring. But then:
A third of the volunteers became frightened during the drug sessions with some reporting feelings of paranoia. The researchers say psilocybin is not toxic or addictive, unlike alcohol and cocaine, but that volunteers must be accompanied throughout the experience by people who can help them through it.
I just find it incredibly hard to believe that they could ever overcome the unreliability of such "therapy". Wasn't there enough work done on using hallucinogenic and other mind altering drugs (such as ecstacy) in the 1940's to 1960's to see that this is not a worthwhile way to go?
A very odd story this:
Forty years after Timothy Leary, the apostle of drug-induced mysticism, urged his hippie followers to "tune in, turn on, and drop out", researchers at Johns Hopkins University, in Baltimore, Maryland, have for the first time demonstrated that mystical experiences can be produced safely in the laboratory.... For the US study, 30 middle-aged volunteers who had religious or spiritual interests attended two eight-hour drug sessions, two months apart, receiving psilocybin in one session and a non-hallucinogenic stimulant, Ritalin, in the other. They were not told which drug was which.
Note in bold the first thing to question about this study.
One third described the experience with psilocybin as the single most spiritually significant of their lifetimes and two thirds rated it among their five most meaningful experiences. In more than 60 per cent of cases the experience qualified as a "full mystical experience" based on established psychological scales, the researchers say. Some likened it to the importance of the birth of their first child or the death of a parent. The effects persisted for at least two months. Eighty per cent of the volunteers reported moderately or greatly increased well-being or life satisfaction. Relatives, friends and colleagues confirmed the changes.
Ooh, sounds all so inspiring. But then:
A third of the volunteers became frightened during the drug sessions with some reporting feelings of paranoia. The researchers say psilocybin is not toxic or addictive, unlike alcohol and cocaine, but that volunteers must be accompanied throughout the experience by people who can help them through it.
I just find it incredibly hard to believe that they could ever overcome the unreliability of such "therapy". Wasn't there enough work done on using hallucinogenic and other mind altering drugs (such as ecstacy) in the 1940's to 1960's to see that this is not a worthwhile way to go?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)