Lateline - ABC
The link is to a transcript of an interview on last night's Lateline that was about particular intelligence from 2004 that indicates definite military involvement in Iran's nuclear program. (Iran claims it is a fabrication, but it would seem most European nations think it is genuine.)
Worth reading in full.
Friday, September 01, 2006
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Move on, nothing to see here
Former weapons inspector disappointed with handling of concerns. 31/08/2006. ABC News Online
ABC's 7.30 Report and Lateline tonight both featured this story at some length. I see that Marion Wilkinson had the story in The Age this morning.
Former weapons inspector John Gee, who did not look all that well in the interview, resigned from the Iraq Survey Group in 2004 and wrote to the government saying that the search for WMD in Iraq (after the invasion) was not being well run, and that he did not think anything would be found.
Foreign Minister Downer met him at the time and said, "well let's wait and see." Gee says to him "I can assure you they won't find any."
Apparently, a subsequent sense of (relative) vindication by the ISG's report isn't enough for Gee. He now complains that his letter was not distributed outside of Foreign Affairs to the Defence Department.
Scandal!
What is significant about this story? Extremely little, it seems to me.
ABC's 7.30 Report and Lateline tonight both featured this story at some length. I see that Marion Wilkinson had the story in The Age this morning.
Former weapons inspector John Gee, who did not look all that well in the interview, resigned from the Iraq Survey Group in 2004 and wrote to the government saying that the search for WMD in Iraq (after the invasion) was not being well run, and that he did not think anything would be found.
Foreign Minister Downer met him at the time and said, "well let's wait and see." Gee says to him "I can assure you they won't find any."
Apparently, a subsequent sense of (relative) vindication by the ISG's report isn't enough for Gee. He now complains that his letter was not distributed outside of Foreign Affairs to the Defence Department.
Scandal!
What is significant about this story? Extremely little, it seems to me.
Researchers with too much time on their hands
ScienceDaily: Brain Scan Of Nuns Finds No Single 'God Spot' In The Brain, Study Finds
I'm sure I've commented before about the highly dubious priorities that neuroscience seems to have now, at least with regard to what they do with MRI scanners. This one for example:
Fifteen cloistered Carmelite nuns ranging from 23 to 64-years-old were subjected to an fMRI brain scan while asked to relive a mystical experience rather than actually try to achieve one. "I was obliged to do it this way seeing as the nuns are unable to call upon God at will," said Beauregard. This method was justified seeing as previous studies with actors asked to enter a particular emotional state activated the same brain regions as people actually living those emotions.
This study demonstrated that a dozen different regions of the brain are activated during a mystical experience. This type of research became very popular in the United States in the late 1990s. Some researchers went as far as suggesting the possibility of a specific brain region designed for communication with God. This latest research discredits such theories.
I find it hard to imagine that anyone would think that the essential nature of a mystical experience would be capable of being explained by watching such scans.
Psychologist Jerome Kagan was interviewed on ABC radio recently and made the point:
Well the brain is the foundation of all mental phenomenon but the vocabulary we use for the brain - neurons, circuits, transmitters - that's not the language of thought or feeling. And so mind got put in the background under the assumption that if - an assumption I disagree with - that if and when scientists can understand exactly what's going on in the brain then they'll be able to predict and know exactly what your thoughts, feelings and intentions are.
The rest of his interview, which covers quite a few areas of psychology, is interesting too.
I'm sure I've commented before about the highly dubious priorities that neuroscience seems to have now, at least with regard to what they do with MRI scanners. This one for example:
Fifteen cloistered Carmelite nuns ranging from 23 to 64-years-old were subjected to an fMRI brain scan while asked to relive a mystical experience rather than actually try to achieve one. "I was obliged to do it this way seeing as the nuns are unable to call upon God at will," said Beauregard. This method was justified seeing as previous studies with actors asked to enter a particular emotional state activated the same brain regions as people actually living those emotions.
This study demonstrated that a dozen different regions of the brain are activated during a mystical experience. This type of research became very popular in the United States in the late 1990s. Some researchers went as far as suggesting the possibility of a specific brain region designed for communication with God. This latest research discredits such theories.
I find it hard to imagine that anyone would think that the essential nature of a mystical experience would be capable of being explained by watching such scans.
Psychologist Jerome Kagan was interviewed on ABC radio recently and made the point:
Well the brain is the foundation of all mental phenomenon but the vocabulary we use for the brain - neurons, circuits, transmitters - that's not the language of thought or feeling. And so mind got put in the background under the assumption that if - an assumption I disagree with - that if and when scientists can understand exactly what's going on in the brain then they'll be able to predict and know exactly what your thoughts, feelings and intentions are.
The rest of his interview, which covers quite a few areas of psychology, is interesting too.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
A bad sign for Democrats
The Democrats and religious voters. By Amy Sullivan - Slate Magazine
Just recently I posted about how the Catholic vote for Bush in 2004 was higher than I expected. (Well, the white Catholic vote, anyway.)
Further along these lines is the above interesting article on how, despite attempts by the Democrats to paint a friendlier image to the religious, they have lost substantial ground in this over the last couple of years:
The Pew Research Center's annual poll on religion and politics, released last week, shows that while 85 percent of voters say religion is important to them, only 26 percent of Americans think the Democratic Party is "friendly" to religion. That's down from 40 percent in the summer of 2004 and 42 percent the year before that—in other words, a 16-point plunge over three years. The decline is especially troubling because it cuts across the political and religious spectra, encompassing liberals and conservatives, white and black evangelicals, mainline Protestants, Catholics, and Jews.
That seems a very bad sign indeed for the Democrats. Isn't it odd how, despite all the liberal fights in churches getting so much publicity, there still don't seem to be many (or enough) liberal churchgoers who can sway these figures more in favour of the Dems.
Just recently I posted about how the Catholic vote for Bush in 2004 was higher than I expected. (Well, the white Catholic vote, anyway.)
Further along these lines is the above interesting article on how, despite attempts by the Democrats to paint a friendlier image to the religious, they have lost substantial ground in this over the last couple of years:
The Pew Research Center's annual poll on religion and politics, released last week, shows that while 85 percent of voters say religion is important to them, only 26 percent of Americans think the Democratic Party is "friendly" to religion. That's down from 40 percent in the summer of 2004 and 42 percent the year before that—in other words, a 16-point plunge over three years. The decline is especially troubling because it cuts across the political and religious spectra, encompassing liberals and conservatives, white and black evangelicals, mainline Protestants, Catholics, and Jews.
That seems a very bad sign indeed for the Democrats. Isn't it odd how, despite all the liberal fights in churches getting so much publicity, there still don't seem to be many (or enough) liberal churchgoers who can sway these figures more in favour of the Dems.
Newsweek on the new childlessness
Why More Married Couples Are Going Childless - Newsweek: International Editions - MSNBC.com
Maybe it doesn't add much to what Mark Steyn's readers already knew, but it's interesting to see the topic being covered widely.
Maybe it doesn't add much to what Mark Steyn's readers already knew, but it's interesting to see the topic being covered widely.
So that's why we elect people to parliament
MP attacked on suicide speech | Herald Sun
It's obvious, isn't it. We elect politicians so they can promote methods of suicide from Parliament.
From the above story:
AUSTRALIAN Democrats MP Sandra Kanck's use of parliamentary privilege today to detail ways of committing suicide, has been widely attacked as provocative and a stunt.
Ms Kanck detailed ways to commit suicide in a speech to South Australian parliament this evening aimed at provoking a clash with the federal government.
In an hour-long address, Ms Kanck, a supporter of voluntary euthanasia, used the protection of parliamentary privilege to catalogue ways in which people could take their own lives.
Ms Kanck, who earlier this year sparked controversy by telling parliament there was no evidence the drug ecstasy was dangerous, said she wanted her speech to highlight "odious" federal laws.
What a class act: a politician who not only promotes a drug that is widely believed to lead to depression, but is also happy to advise on preferred methods of suicide. Well thought out, Sandra.
It's obvious, isn't it. We elect politicians so they can promote methods of suicide from Parliament.
From the above story:
AUSTRALIAN Democrats MP Sandra Kanck's use of parliamentary privilege today to detail ways of committing suicide, has been widely attacked as provocative and a stunt.
Ms Kanck detailed ways to commit suicide in a speech to South Australian parliament this evening aimed at provoking a clash with the federal government.
In an hour-long address, Ms Kanck, a supporter of voluntary euthanasia, used the protection of parliamentary privilege to catalogue ways in which people could take their own lives.
Ms Kanck, who earlier this year sparked controversy by telling parliament there was no evidence the drug ecstasy was dangerous, said she wanted her speech to highlight "odious" federal laws.
What a class act: a politician who not only promotes a drug that is widely believed to lead to depression, but is also happy to advise on preferred methods of suicide. Well thought out, Sandra.
Communist monk victory
The Japan Times Online - Monk with JCP fliers ruled not trespassing
This story highlights some odd things about Japan:
* Buddhist monks can be politically active (for the communist party)
* going into a condo complex to put flyers in letterboxes could be much more trouble than it is worth. (This monk was detained for 23 days for this, presumably after his arrest.)
* the lesson (especially for foreigners): try to avoid being arrested for anything in Japan!
This story highlights some odd things about Japan:
* Buddhist monks can be politically active (for the communist party)
* going into a condo complex to put flyers in letterboxes could be much more trouble than it is worth. (This monk was detained for 23 days for this, presumably after his arrest.)
* the lesson (especially for foreigners): try to avoid being arrested for anything in Japan!
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Japan needs babies
Rural Japan | Where have all the young men gone? | Economist.com
For more on the almost certain demographic decline of Japan, have a read of the above article.
An extract:
Over the next half century, demographers expect Japan's population to fall to from 128m to 100m. The process began last year, the first peacetime fall in population since records were kept. Yet in the countryside numbers have been falling for decades—and rural Japan will bear a disproportionate share of the future reduction in population. Already, more than two out of five people living in rural communities are 65 or over.
The only good thing I can see out of this is that maybe Japan has a built in way of reducing green house gas emissions over the next 50 years!
For more on the almost certain demographic decline of Japan, have a read of the above article.
An extract:
Over the next half century, demographers expect Japan's population to fall to from 128m to 100m. The process began last year, the first peacetime fall in population since records were kept. Yet in the countryside numbers have been falling for decades—and rural Japan will bear a disproportionate share of the future reduction in population. Already, more than two out of five people living in rural communities are 65 or over.
The only good thing I can see out of this is that maybe Japan has a built in way of reducing green house gas emissions over the next 50 years!
Ghosts in the Salon
Ghost world | Salon Books
Its politics are always predictable, but some of the reviews and cultural articles in Salon can be OK.
This article, a review of a book about the founders of the Society for Psychical Research (in England in the late 19th Century), is a good one.
Years ago, I read some other accounts of the Society and its early investigations, and have always felt that it is a story that could make good movie material. The founders of the society were well intentioned scientists and academics, and it was really the first attempt to take science to the issue.
The results were ambiguous, but I admire the open mindedness displayed. As for at least one Salon reader, his reaction to the review was:
What a crock of shit.
And that's just Laura Miller's writing. The SPR's particular brand of excrement deserves its own scatalogical label.
Please stop publishing intelligent interviews with people such as Michael Shermer if all you're going to do a few days later is "balance" fact with this pathetic fiction.
As a local sidenote: Many people know that Arthur Conan Doyle became a (rather loopy) believer in spiritualism and all things mystical. In fact, there is a spiritualist church in Brisbane that was opened by ACD during a visit here. This is recorded on a plaque on the church. (Perhaps he just laid the foundation stone, I can't remember for sure, and Google has come up a blank.)
Its politics are always predictable, but some of the reviews and cultural articles in Salon can be OK.
This article, a review of a book about the founders of the Society for Psychical Research (in England in the late 19th Century), is a good one.
Years ago, I read some other accounts of the Society and its early investigations, and have always felt that it is a story that could make good movie material. The founders of the society were well intentioned scientists and academics, and it was really the first attempt to take science to the issue.
The results were ambiguous, but I admire the open mindedness displayed. As for at least one Salon reader, his reaction to the review was:
What a crock of shit.
And that's just Laura Miller's writing. The SPR's particular brand of excrement deserves its own scatalogical label.
Please stop publishing intelligent interviews with people such as Michael Shermer if all you're going to do a few days later is "balance" fact with this pathetic fiction.
As a local sidenote: Many people know that Arthur Conan Doyle became a (rather loopy) believer in spiritualism and all things mystical. In fact, there is a spiritualist church in Brisbane that was opened by ACD during a visit here. This is recorded on a plaque on the church. (Perhaps he just laid the foundation stone, I can't remember for sure, and Google has come up a blank.)
Nuttiest theory ever?
CIA behind Bali attack: Bashir | NEWS.com.au
Indonesian Muslim cleric Bashir comes up with his very own theory as to what exactly blew up the Bali night club (and 202 people):
In an interview tonight on ABC television's Foreign Correspondent, Bashir claims the device that killed most people in the Bali attack was a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) "micro-nuclear" bomb.
"The micro-nuclear bomb that did so much damage was a CIA bomb, not Amrozi's bomb," Bashir told the ABC.
"The Bali bombing was actually masterminded by America. Well, not masterminded, but hijacked. They planned it, but their plan was hijacked by America."
Just nuts.
By the way: I just saw the Foreign Correspondent episode. This program is consistently interesting and enjoyable. Tonight's episode is typical of its eclectic mix of topics: the problems of Indonesian maid abuse in Malaysia; Star Trek fans who makes their own Star Trek shows, and then the nutty Bashir interview.
The Indonesian maid story was good. (A transcript and video of it will be up later.) Malaysia has 300,000 odd Indonesian maids. Filipino ones are protected by Filipino laws which mean that Malaysia must ensure that they are paid a basic wage and have one day off a week. Indonesia does not have such laws, and says they won't be coming soon, because there are too many maids already there, and it would cause too much trouble to force their salary up. Not only that, maids don't deserve a day off (said one Indonesia government figure.) Then there is the physical abuse many suffer.
What a life they have. And the big question is: Malaysia, what's to stop you making your own laws to improve the lot of your fellow Muslim maids?
Indonesian Muslim cleric Bashir comes up with his very own theory as to what exactly blew up the Bali night club (and 202 people):
In an interview tonight on ABC television's Foreign Correspondent, Bashir claims the device that killed most people in the Bali attack was a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) "micro-nuclear" bomb.
"The micro-nuclear bomb that did so much damage was a CIA bomb, not Amrozi's bomb," Bashir told the ABC.
"The Bali bombing was actually masterminded by America. Well, not masterminded, but hijacked. They planned it, but their plan was hijacked by America."
Just nuts.
By the way: I just saw the Foreign Correspondent episode. This program is consistently interesting and enjoyable. Tonight's episode is typical of its eclectic mix of topics: the problems of Indonesian maid abuse in Malaysia; Star Trek fans who makes their own Star Trek shows, and then the nutty Bashir interview.
The Indonesian maid story was good. (A transcript and video of it will be up later.) Malaysia has 300,000 odd Indonesian maids. Filipino ones are protected by Filipino laws which mean that Malaysia must ensure that they are paid a basic wage and have one day off a week. Indonesia does not have such laws, and says they won't be coming soon, because there are too many maids already there, and it would cause too much trouble to force their salary up. Not only that, maids don't deserve a day off (said one Indonesia government figure.) Then there is the physical abuse many suffer.
What a life they have. And the big question is: Malaysia, what's to stop you making your own laws to improve the lot of your fellow Muslim maids?
About Lindzen
Seed: The Contrarian
An interesting story on Richard Lindzen, the global warming skeptic. (Although to what degree this remains a fair title remains a little unclear when you read the article.)
An interesting story on Richard Lindzen, the global warming skeptic. (Although to what degree this remains a fair title remains a little unclear when you read the article.)
Cars for the future
The Race to 100 MPG - Popular Science
See the article above for a few ideas about how to make cars that can do 100 miles per gallon (to go back to Imperial for the moment.)
Interestingly, the X Prize people are going to get involved in this too:
The race should heat up further when the X Prize Foundation—the group that kick-started the space-tourism industry with its $10-million competition to produce a reusable private spacecraft—announces in the next few months a competition for the first car to break 100 miles per gallon and sell a yet-to-be-decided number of units. The prize money hadn'’t been finalized at press time, but X Prize officials are discussing figures in the $25-million range as an appropriate incentive. They hope the prize will urge people to completely reconsider what a car should look like and how it should function. '“We need a paradigm shift,'” says Mark Goodstein, the executive director for the automotive X Prize. '“We need to change the way people think about automobiles.'”
The photo of a prototype super lightweight and aerodynamic car at the top of the article gives an idea of how odd such a vehicle may look. One thing that crosses my mind as soon as I see that picture is how it looks like it could double as a pizza oven if it was parked in the Brisbane summer sun for more than 5 minutes. Look at that big oblique windscreen that seems designed to let as much heat as possible.
Don't forget such obvious practicalities, bug car designers...
See the article above for a few ideas about how to make cars that can do 100 miles per gallon (to go back to Imperial for the moment.)
Interestingly, the X Prize people are going to get involved in this too:
The race should heat up further when the X Prize Foundation—the group that kick-started the space-tourism industry with its $10-million competition to produce a reusable private spacecraft—announces in the next few months a competition for the first car to break 100 miles per gallon and sell a yet-to-be-decided number of units. The prize money hadn'’t been finalized at press time, but X Prize officials are discussing figures in the $25-million range as an appropriate incentive. They hope the prize will urge people to completely reconsider what a car should look like and how it should function. '“We need a paradigm shift,'” says Mark Goodstein, the executive director for the automotive X Prize. '“We need to change the way people think about automobiles.'”
The photo of a prototype super lightweight and aerodynamic car at the top of the article gives an idea of how odd such a vehicle may look. One thing that crosses my mind as soon as I see that picture is how it looks like it could double as a pizza oven if it was parked in the Brisbane summer sun for more than 5 minutes. Look at that big oblique windscreen that seems designed to let as much heat as possible.
Don't forget such obvious practicalities, bug car designers...
Monday, August 28, 2006
Plame case continues to shrink into insignificance
Eat The Press | David Corn: The Meaning of the Armitage Leak News (from the Book I Co-Wrote) | The Huffington Post
David Corn, who is no shrinking violet when it comes to criticism of Bush, explains how it appears very clear now that the initial leak in the Plame case was almost certainly an accident ( my words, not Corn's.)
I recall that there was speculation along these lines from some calmer parts of the press at the time.
Corn still manages to criticise the White House for taking advantage of the leak (see his post for details.) However, the fundamental character of the initial leak appears vastly different from what Bush critics expected.
David Corn, who is no shrinking violet when it comes to criticism of Bush, explains how it appears very clear now that the initial leak in the Plame case was almost certainly an accident ( my words, not Corn's.)
I recall that there was speculation along these lines from some calmer parts of the press at the time.
Corn still manages to criticise the White House for taking advantage of the leak (see his post for details.) However, the fundamental character of the initial leak appears vastly different from what Bush critics expected.
Not a good sign
USATODAY.com
From the above article about Iran in USA Today:
Until recently, Ahmadinejad's hard-line ideology had little impact upon Iranians' daily existence. The tight social strictures imposed in the early days of Iran's Islamic revolution, when morals police roamed the streets chastising women for insufficiently modest clothing, have long since eased. Iranians, especially in cities, take for granted the ability to hear Western music, read foreign news on the Internet and dress with a little flair.
In recent weeks, though, officials began confiscating home satellite dishes, which Iranians use to watch the British Broadcasting Corp. and Western entertainment. The sudden enforcement of this long-ignored regulation has been coupled with a heavy hand on the media and intellectuals.
From the above article about Iran in USA Today:
Until recently, Ahmadinejad's hard-line ideology had little impact upon Iranians' daily existence. The tight social strictures imposed in the early days of Iran's Islamic revolution, when morals police roamed the streets chastising women for insufficiently modest clothing, have long since eased. Iranians, especially in cities, take for granted the ability to hear Western music, read foreign news on the Internet and dress with a little flair.
In recent weeks, though, officials began confiscating home satellite dishes, which Iranians use to watch the British Broadcasting Corp. and Western entertainment. The sudden enforcement of this long-ignored regulation has been coupled with a heavy hand on the media and intellectuals.
Men and fidelity
Spare us men's natural urges - Comment - Times Online
Caitlin Moore's commentary on a new book on the (alleged) impossibility of men being faithful to one partner is pretty funny, and accurate.
Some examples:
On how the author is hardly qualified to write about successful relationships:
His parents were locked in a loveless marriage, which he was able to observe only during the summer holidays from his boarding school.
Subsequently, when Blews attained his majority, his first lover became so agonised in the final stages of her multiple sclerosis that she blew her head off with a shotgun. In any other age, Blews would probably have abandoned any further attempt at trying to deal with human relationships. He would simply have become a sad-eyed and slightly bitter monk, tending a vat of hyssop liqueur and kicking the priory’s chickens out of the way.
However, in the 21st century, the coping mechanism of the troubled middle classes is slightly different: they come up with a theory about how awful people are and then get a publishing deal. And, so, here we are with Marriage & How To Avoid It, which some cultural commentators (primarily the men’s magazines Nuts and Zoo, albeit that their commentary consists predominantly of “phwoar!”), have hailed as a great truth.
Caitlin Moore's commentary on a new book on the (alleged) impossibility of men being faithful to one partner is pretty funny, and accurate.
Some examples:
On how the author is hardly qualified to write about successful relationships:
His parents were locked in a loveless marriage, which he was able to observe only during the summer holidays from his boarding school.
Subsequently, when Blews attained his majority, his first lover became so agonised in the final stages of her multiple sclerosis that she blew her head off with a shotgun. In any other age, Blews would probably have abandoned any further attempt at trying to deal with human relationships. He would simply have become a sad-eyed and slightly bitter monk, tending a vat of hyssop liqueur and kicking the priory’s chickens out of the way.
However, in the 21st century, the coping mechanism of the troubled middle classes is slightly different: they come up with a theory about how awful people are and then get a publishing deal. And, so, here we are with Marriage & How To Avoid It, which some cultural commentators (primarily the men’s magazines Nuts and Zoo, albeit that their commentary consists predominantly of “phwoar!”), have hailed as a great truth.
Steyn attack
Warrior of the Right | Herald Sun
Oh dear, lefty favourites Jill Singer and Jon Faine "stared at each other with incredulity" after interviewing Mark Steyn on his recent Australian visit.
Singer tries to put the boot into Steyn in her article above, and I don't have time to do a full "fisk" as it thoroughly deserves.
The fact that Steyn can use humour in his commentary upsets them. Funny how the Left worried so much that anti terrorism legislation might make satire illegal. The importance of the "right" to use humour only exists when the "Right" is the target, obviously.
Singer criticises Steyn for "exaggerating" the Muslim population of the town of Malmo in Sweden. She claims his source is a 2 year old Fox News report, which put it at 25%. She does not say what Sweden's "official statistics department" says the current figure is. One suspects it must be between 25 and 40% by now.
Anyway, Singer suggests that Steyn's main source is the right leaning Fox News. A quick Google of "Malmo Muslim population" shows that the bad situation in that town has been the subject of stories by the Washington Post, the Christian Science Monitor, and other far from right wing sources. Furthermore, the 2004 Washington Post story notes:
About 40 percent of Malmo's population is foreign-born or has at least one foreign-born parent. The bulk of foreign-born people come from the former Yugoslavia, Iran, Iraq and the Horn of Africa.
As I said, this suggests to me the correct figure is probably between 25 and 40% Muslim. Steyn's website published a letter questioning this figure, to which Steyn replies:
As to the 40 per cent, that'’s the figure I was given by the late Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh in 2003. I don'’t know whether she was talking about the '“greater Malmo'” area, or adding in non-Swedish Muslims plus Swedish Muslims. But certainly the youth population in Malmo is already 50-50.
Does it matter much how accurate this figure is? Whether it is 25 or 40%, the more important issue is what effect this is having on the town itself, and Steyn is big enough to publish a letter that even questions that. (It's the same one that questions the 40%). Looking at the ways the mainstream press has covered this story, it is not a trivial issue.
Singer then claims that:
Now, I am as scared as Steyn is about Islamist terrorists, but a faith-based US President also scares the bejesus out of me.
This is based on Bruce Bartlett's analysis that Bush thinks "he is on a mission from God." Someone else can analyse Bartlett's views, I don't have time right now. But the point is not whether someone thinks that they are trying to do God's will, but whether they are crazy enough to think that they are infallible in understanding God's will. Is there convincing evidence that Bush thinks he is infallible on religious grounds? Maybe some would argue that he is overconfident. Can't any politician suffer from this?
Let's face it, for Faine and Singer, any right wing politician of serious religious inclination is always going to be criticised because of the possible role of their religion in helping form their views. As I have written before, there are so many involved in the American political system that I find it hard to believe that any megalomaniacanic President with delusions of infallibility will ever get to push the red button.
With a system such as that in Iran, for example, you could hardly have the same confidence.
Finally, of course I can concede that Steyn may not always have every fact correct. It's also fair enough to not agree 100% with all of his opinions. But this sort of snide criticism of him from the Left misses the mark by a country mile.
UPDATE: I previously forgot to link to the Steyn on line mailbox for the letter about Malmo. (You have to scroll down to find it.) And welcome all Mark Steyn readers; it's somewhat of a surprise to find he's linked to this post.
Oh dear, lefty favourites Jill Singer and Jon Faine "stared at each other with incredulity" after interviewing Mark Steyn on his recent Australian visit.
Singer tries to put the boot into Steyn in her article above, and I don't have time to do a full "fisk" as it thoroughly deserves.
The fact that Steyn can use humour in his commentary upsets them. Funny how the Left worried so much that anti terrorism legislation might make satire illegal. The importance of the "right" to use humour only exists when the "Right" is the target, obviously.
Singer criticises Steyn for "exaggerating" the Muslim population of the town of Malmo in Sweden. She claims his source is a 2 year old Fox News report, which put it at 25%. She does not say what Sweden's "official statistics department" says the current figure is. One suspects it must be between 25 and 40% by now.
Anyway, Singer suggests that Steyn's main source is the right leaning Fox News. A quick Google of "Malmo Muslim population" shows that the bad situation in that town has been the subject of stories by the Washington Post, the Christian Science Monitor, and other far from right wing sources. Furthermore, the 2004 Washington Post story notes:
About 40 percent of Malmo's population is foreign-born or has at least one foreign-born parent. The bulk of foreign-born people come from the former Yugoslavia, Iran, Iraq and the Horn of Africa.
As I said, this suggests to me the correct figure is probably between 25 and 40% Muslim. Steyn's website published a letter questioning this figure, to which Steyn replies:
As to the 40 per cent, that'’s the figure I was given by the late Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh in 2003. I don'’t know whether she was talking about the '“greater Malmo'” area, or adding in non-Swedish Muslims plus Swedish Muslims. But certainly the youth population in Malmo is already 50-50.
Does it matter much how accurate this figure is? Whether it is 25 or 40%, the more important issue is what effect this is having on the town itself, and Steyn is big enough to publish a letter that even questions that. (It's the same one that questions the 40%). Looking at the ways the mainstream press has covered this story, it is not a trivial issue.
Singer then claims that:
Now, I am as scared as Steyn is about Islamist terrorists, but a faith-based US President also scares the bejesus out of me.
This is based on Bruce Bartlett's analysis that Bush thinks "he is on a mission from God." Someone else can analyse Bartlett's views, I don't have time right now. But the point is not whether someone thinks that they are trying to do God's will, but whether they are crazy enough to think that they are infallible in understanding God's will. Is there convincing evidence that Bush thinks he is infallible on religious grounds? Maybe some would argue that he is overconfident. Can't any politician suffer from this?
Let's face it, for Faine and Singer, any right wing politician of serious religious inclination is always going to be criticised because of the possible role of their religion in helping form their views. As I have written before, there are so many involved in the American political system that I find it hard to believe that any megalomaniacanic President with delusions of infallibility will ever get to push the red button.
With a system such as that in Iran, for example, you could hardly have the same confidence.
Finally, of course I can concede that Steyn may not always have every fact correct. It's also fair enough to not agree 100% with all of his opinions. But this sort of snide criticism of him from the Left misses the mark by a country mile.
UPDATE: I previously forgot to link to the Steyn on line mailbox for the letter about Malmo. (You have to scroll down to find it.) And welcome all Mark Steyn readers; it's somewhat of a surprise to find he's linked to this post.
Time for colour
Not sure that it was worth the effort, but this is done from a photo with some "painter" style software that came with a cheap tablet. (Graphics tablets are a lot of fun if you enjoy doodling.)
I just like to add some colour here occasionally anyway.
Sunday, August 27, 2006
Oh great...
Iran takes new nuclear step - Sunday Times - Times Online
From The Times story:
IN A show of defiance against western efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear programme, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inaugurated the new phase of a heavy water reactor project yesterday, prompting an Israeli warning that Tehran had taken another step towards producing a bomb.
The Arak plant in central Iran can now make eight tons of heavy water a year, with output expected to rise tenfold.
Heavy water aids nuclear fission and the plutonium by- product could be used to make warheads. But the reactor to produce plutonium is still under construction. ...
Arak’s construction was kept secret until the opposition National Council of Resistance of Iran revealed its existence along with the Natanz uranium enrichment facility in 2002.
An Iranian nuclear official claimed there was no need for the International Atomic Energy Agency to supervise Arak as it did not have a military purpose. But experts warned plutonium production could pose a greater threat than uranium enrichment.
“With uranium it’s much easier to put in safeguards to monitor the atmosphere and instruments,” said Paul Ingram, a nuclear analyst with the British American Security Information Council. Arak could produce enough plutonium for one or two nuclear weapons a year.
For a look at this facility, see here. It appears to be an easy target. I therefore wouldn't be bragging about such advances if I were the Iranian President.
From The Times story:
IN A show of defiance against western efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear programme, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inaugurated the new phase of a heavy water reactor project yesterday, prompting an Israeli warning that Tehran had taken another step towards producing a bomb.
The Arak plant in central Iran can now make eight tons of heavy water a year, with output expected to rise tenfold.
Heavy water aids nuclear fission and the plutonium by- product could be used to make warheads. But the reactor to produce plutonium is still under construction. ...
Arak’s construction was kept secret until the opposition National Council of Resistance of Iran revealed its existence along with the Natanz uranium enrichment facility in 2002.
An Iranian nuclear official claimed there was no need for the International Atomic Energy Agency to supervise Arak as it did not have a military purpose. But experts warned plutonium production could pose a greater threat than uranium enrichment.
“With uranium it’s much easier to put in safeguards to monitor the atmosphere and instruments,” said Paul Ingram, a nuclear analyst with the British American Security Information Council. Arak could produce enough plutonium for one or two nuclear weapons a year.
For a look at this facility, see here. It appears to be an easy target. I therefore wouldn't be bragging about such advances if I were the Iranian President.
Hard to believe
The Observer | UK News | Offset your carbon emissions with a text
This short story from the Guardian relates a very hard to believe scheme:
Mobile phone users will be able to offset their carbon emissions by sending a text message using a scheme launched by conservation charity the World Land Trust.
For each text received, the WLT will offset 140kg of C02 through various reforestation projects worldwide. This is the equivalent of the amount of C02 produced by a return flight from London to Paris, 16 people sitting down for a restaurant meal, eight nights in a hotel, two nights on a cruise ship or 120 school runs in a 4x4.
The texts will cost £1.50 plus network charges.
Something is wrong with those figures, surely!
This short story from the Guardian relates a very hard to believe scheme:
Mobile phone users will be able to offset their carbon emissions by sending a text message using a scheme launched by conservation charity the World Land Trust.
For each text received, the WLT will offset 140kg of C02 through various reforestation projects worldwide. This is the equivalent of the amount of C02 produced by a return flight from London to Paris, 16 people sitting down for a restaurant meal, eight nights in a hotel, two nights on a cruise ship or 120 school runs in a 4x4.
The texts will cost £1.50 plus network charges.
Something is wrong with those figures, surely!
Grumpy parenting advice
Booze, boys and other headaches - Opinion - theage.com.au
Parents and teenagers today, I dunno. The article above (from The Age) relates a mother's attempt to "do the right thing" in the way she manages her daughter's party for a bunch of 15 year olds (some 14).
Maybe I will regret some of these comments when the time comes that my children are teenagers, but at the moment, here's how I feel:
1. There are 57 year nine students invited to this party. Seems quite a lot of invitees, doesn't it? Why do school kids, or their parents hosting, want to have a party at which (surely) they don't know a significant proportion of the invitees very well at all? A smaller party is a more controllable party, and 60 people over is pushing the limits.
2. The mother gives up on the idea of banning alcohol entirely, because she has learnt from experience that it will be smuggled in anyway. (And the effort to police a ban is too overbearing.) The end result was allowing each guest to bring "2 or 3" drinks.
She seems well intentioned, but isn't this attitude just waving the white flag of parental responsibility way too early? There are 14 year olds at this party. What parent should care that a 14 or 15 year old resents going to an alcohol free party? What 14 year old should expect to be able to drink at a party?
3. The limited alcohol option fails anyway, with a few impostors getting drunk, a fight (apparently not alcohol related) and some damage to the house.
What is it with this teenage party gatecrashing phenomena? It puzzles me in several respects. What's the typical reason the gatecrashers want "in"? Because they were not invited and they want to prove a point? What sort of point would that be usually - fail to invite me and I'll come and smash up your house (or your friends)? Is it that they don't want to go to the party at all, but are just out to pick fights with someone they know there? Or is it that it is because some parties are alcohol free-for-alls that is the attraction?
Anyway, it's a disturbing thing that parents these days live in fear of gatecrashing teens. I expect, however, that parents allowing consumption of alcohol is not the way to reduce the likelihood of it happening.
Teenagers: you don't run the world. You have decades ahead of you to drink. You can wait.
Parents: when did you start letting teenagers set the rules? You don't have to be buddies with them. Make yourself unpopular for a change.
Parents and teenagers today, I dunno. The article above (from The Age) relates a mother's attempt to "do the right thing" in the way she manages her daughter's party for a bunch of 15 year olds (some 14).
Maybe I will regret some of these comments when the time comes that my children are teenagers, but at the moment, here's how I feel:
1. There are 57 year nine students invited to this party. Seems quite a lot of invitees, doesn't it? Why do school kids, or their parents hosting, want to have a party at which (surely) they don't know a significant proportion of the invitees very well at all? A smaller party is a more controllable party, and 60 people over is pushing the limits.
2. The mother gives up on the idea of banning alcohol entirely, because she has learnt from experience that it will be smuggled in anyway. (And the effort to police a ban is too overbearing.) The end result was allowing each guest to bring "2 or 3" drinks.
She seems well intentioned, but isn't this attitude just waving the white flag of parental responsibility way too early? There are 14 year olds at this party. What parent should care that a 14 or 15 year old resents going to an alcohol free party? What 14 year old should expect to be able to drink at a party?
3. The limited alcohol option fails anyway, with a few impostors getting drunk, a fight (apparently not alcohol related) and some damage to the house.
What is it with this teenage party gatecrashing phenomena? It puzzles me in several respects. What's the typical reason the gatecrashers want "in"? Because they were not invited and they want to prove a point? What sort of point would that be usually - fail to invite me and I'll come and smash up your house (or your friends)? Is it that they don't want to go to the party at all, but are just out to pick fights with someone they know there? Or is it that it is because some parties are alcohol free-for-alls that is the attraction?
Anyway, it's a disturbing thing that parents these days live in fear of gatecrashing teens. I expect, however, that parents allowing consumption of alcohol is not the way to reduce the likelihood of it happening.
Teenagers: you don't run the world. You have decades ahead of you to drink. You can wait.
Parents: when did you start letting teenagers set the rules? You don't have to be buddies with them. Make yourself unpopular for a change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)