Reuters Business Channel | Reuters.com
"Microsoft warns of "critical" Office security flaw" is the headline.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Interesting stuff on WMD in Iraq
TigerHawk
Pajamas Media links to the post by Tigerhawk (above) about confusion over WMD within the Iraqi military itself. (Details coming in soon to be published book by New York Times reporters.) All very interesting.
UPDATE: Slate's article on this is well worth a read. It deals specifically with the interception of conversations about "nerve gas" that Powell played during the famous UN briefing. The conversation is now thought to have had an innocent explanation, but it is easy to see why this would not have been thought of, when until 2002 Saddam himself encouraged his military leaders to believe he did have WMD. Slate then ends with this summary:
And so not only is the mystery of the intercepts solved, we're left with a ragged tale of crossed signals and multiple misunderstandings that may help explain why this war happened. Saddam Hussein had accumulated a vast record of deceptions; George W. Bush, by this time, was firmly intent on regime change through invasion. Almost everyone in the U.S. national-security establishment was predisposed to view all intelligence materials through both prisms—Saddam's deception and Bush's intentions—and the rays converged on toppling Baghdad.
Pajamas Media links to the post by Tigerhawk (above) about confusion over WMD within the Iraqi military itself. (Details coming in soon to be published book by New York Times reporters.) All very interesting.
UPDATE: Slate's article on this is well worth a read. It deals specifically with the interception of conversations about "nerve gas" that Powell played during the famous UN briefing. The conversation is now thought to have had an innocent explanation, but it is easy to see why this would not have been thought of, when until 2002 Saddam himself encouraged his military leaders to believe he did have WMD. Slate then ends with this summary:
And so not only is the mystery of the intercepts solved, we're left with a ragged tale of crossed signals and multiple misunderstandings that may help explain why this war happened. Saddam Hussein had accumulated a vast record of deceptions; George W. Bush, by this time, was firmly intent on regime change through invasion. Almost everyone in the U.S. national-security establishment was predisposed to view all intelligence materials through both prisms—Saddam's deception and Bush's intentions—and the rays converged on toppling Baghdad.
Something vaguely good in the Baghdad deaths
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Scores of bodies found in Baghdad
From the above:
On Monday, radical Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr appealed for calm, saying he would order his Mehdi Army militia not to respond to attacks despite his belief Iraq was now in civil war.
From the above:
On Monday, radical Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr appealed for calm, saying he would order his Mehdi Army militia not to respond to attacks despite his belief Iraq was now in civil war.
Yep
The Australian: Janet Albrechtsen: Why Julia Gillard will never be PM [March 15, 2006]
Janet gives more detail than I did on why Julia Gillard would not be electable as PM. (I didn't know her right wing immigration policy had been forced on her.)
Also, Janet doesn't mention about how fast Julia has run to distance herself from the Tasmanian forest policy which she seems to blame for much of Latham's loss. She the additional interview material on the Australian Story site.
However, it would be a very interesting time if she were running for PM. Us conservatives should really just keep quiet.
Update: Currency Lad's post on the same topic is good, and (as usual) better written than my post. I like his bit about Beazley too:
And yet it is precisely his unsaleable political nature that somehow recommends him - at least to those who believe that the people who actually yearn to be prime minister are, at some level, dysfunctional egomaniacs.
Janet gives more detail than I did on why Julia Gillard would not be electable as PM. (I didn't know her right wing immigration policy had been forced on her.)
Also, Janet doesn't mention about how fast Julia has run to distance herself from the Tasmanian forest policy which she seems to blame for much of Latham's loss. She the additional interview material on the Australian Story site.
However, it would be a very interesting time if she were running for PM. Us conservatives should really just keep quiet.
Update: Currency Lad's post on the same topic is good, and (as usual) better written than my post. I like his bit about Beazley too:
And yet it is precisely his unsaleable political nature that somehow recommends him - at least to those who believe that the people who actually yearn to be prime minister are, at some level, dysfunctional egomaniacs.
Something to look forward to...
ALP image could get worse: MP - National - theage.com.au
...frontbencher Stephen Smith lashed out at internal critics of the Opposition Leader, suggesting the damage they had inflicted was not yet over.
"I won't be surprised in two weeks' time if it is just as bad or even worse," he said.
Further down in the article:
His comments came as party figures reacted warily to Mr Beazley's proposal for Labor's front bench to be chosen by a free vote of the caucus, not by the factions.
Sounds sensible, but for that matter I don't really understand the Labor fear of having the PM chose his own ministers. I guess that undermines factional power, and power is what its all about after all.
...frontbencher Stephen Smith lashed out at internal critics of the Opposition Leader, suggesting the damage they had inflicted was not yet over.
"I won't be surprised in two weeks' time if it is just as bad or even worse," he said.
Further down in the article:
His comments came as party figures reacted warily to Mr Beazley's proposal for Labor's front bench to be chosen by a free vote of the caucus, not by the factions.
Sounds sensible, but for that matter I don't really understand the Labor fear of having the PM chose his own ministers. I guess that undermines factional power, and power is what its all about after all.
Tunguska and global warming?
ScienceDaily: Greenhouse Theory Smashed By Biggest Stone; Is Global-warming Down To Humanity? Or Are Other Factors At Work?
See the link above for a tentative idea from a Russian scientist about the possible connection between the rather large meteorite hit that was the Tunguska event in 1908 and global warming.
Many loopy ideas come out of Russian science, but if you read the arxiv link to the preprint of his paper, this guy does not sound too bad. Still, somehow I expect that they will be scientists rushing to argue against this.
UPDATE: over at Real Climate, they explain why they think there is nothing much to this idea.
See the link above for a tentative idea from a Russian scientist about the possible connection between the rather large meteorite hit that was the Tunguska event in 1908 and global warming.
Many loopy ideas come out of Russian science, but if you read the arxiv link to the preprint of his paper, this guy does not sound too bad. Still, somehow I expect that they will be scientists rushing to argue against this.
UPDATE: over at Real Climate, they explain why they think there is nothing much to this idea.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Anti-virus choices narrow
Anti-virus bungle devours files - Breaking - Technology - smh.com.au
So, McAfee's reputation will take a beating over this.
From what I have read, many people also dislike Norton's antivirus in its latest incarnation.
I have gone over to using AVG at work. It's cheaper and seems to work quite well.
What's more, for home use you can get by on their free version.
So, McAfee's reputation will take a beating over this.
From what I have read, many people also dislike Norton's antivirus in its latest incarnation.
I have gone over to using AVG at work. It's cheaper and seems to work quite well.
What's more, for home use you can get by on their free version.
Who would have guessed?
New Scientist Long-term marijuana use may fog the brain - Breaking News
From the above article:
“Long-term users found it very difficult to learn through new information given verbally,” says Messinis. “It’s not to do with lack of attention but more the encoding process of memory.”
From the above article:
“Long-term users found it very difficult to learn through new information given verbally,” says Messinis. “It’s not to do with lack of attention but more the encoding process of memory.”
It would be good for lawyers
Stanley Kurtz on Big Love & Polygamy on National Review Online
Interesting article above on the forthcoming debate about legal recognition of polygamy. As I think I have said before, if you thought child custody and matrimonial property cases were hard now - just wait for this.
I am curious if there are good figures out there (presumably, from America) about the stability of polygamous marriages. I presume they would be less stable in the long run, but then again I suppose those who enter into it may be over sexual jealously. I would guess that the conflicts are more likely to be between a wife over dislike of, or other forms of competition with, the other wives.
The topic of current views of sexual morality is dealt with by Andrew Norton at Catallaxy today too. Adultery is still seen as a big issue, even more so amongst the young. That doesn't sound good for the prospects of polygamy here.
Of course, there is the point that what much of the West practices now is serial monogamy on a scale never seen before, which is bad in its own way, so I don't want to sound too precious about polygamy. Just that I see that it would be a case of going from bad to worse.
Interesting article above on the forthcoming debate about legal recognition of polygamy. As I think I have said before, if you thought child custody and matrimonial property cases were hard now - just wait for this.
I am curious if there are good figures out there (presumably, from America) about the stability of polygamous marriages. I presume they would be less stable in the long run, but then again I suppose those who enter into it may be over sexual jealously. I would guess that the conflicts are more likely to be between a wife over dislike of, or other forms of competition with, the other wives.
The topic of current views of sexual morality is dealt with by Andrew Norton at Catallaxy today too. Adultery is still seen as a big issue, even more so amongst the young. That doesn't sound good for the prospects of polygamy here.
Of course, there is the point that what much of the West practices now is serial monogamy on a scale never seen before, which is bad in its own way, so I don't want to sound too precious about polygamy. Just that I see that it would be a case of going from bad to worse.
So you thought Annie Proulx would be above this?
Very angry Annie - Film - Entertainment - smh.com.au
The Sydney Morning Herald reprints a Guardian article by Brokeback Mountain author Annie Proulx about her night at the Oscars.
One would expect a fairly high brow author to take such an award process all in her stride. Of course it is basically silly fun to be comparing one genre of film with another, and trying to pick the best actor out of dozens of films that put up at least competent acting each year.
But no, she is as bitter as hell about Brokeback only getting 3 Oscars. As Annie says:
Roughly 6000 film industry voters, most in the Los Angeles area, many living cloistered lives behind wrought-iron gates or in deluxe rest homes, out of touch not only with the shifting larger culture and the yeasty ferment that is America these days, but also out of touch with their own segregated city, decide which films are good. And rumour has it that Lions Gate inundated the academy voters with DVD copies of Trash - excuse me - Crash a few weeks before the ballot deadline. Next year we can look to the awards for controversial themes on the punishment of adulterers with a branding iron in the shape of the letter A, runaway slaves, and the debate over free silver.
How deliciously petty! I assume she plans on never "doing lunch" in Hollywood again.
The Sydney Morning Herald reprints a Guardian article by Brokeback Mountain author Annie Proulx about her night at the Oscars.
One would expect a fairly high brow author to take such an award process all in her stride. Of course it is basically silly fun to be comparing one genre of film with another, and trying to pick the best actor out of dozens of films that put up at least competent acting each year.
But no, she is as bitter as hell about Brokeback only getting 3 Oscars. As Annie says:
Roughly 6000 film industry voters, most in the Los Angeles area, many living cloistered lives behind wrought-iron gates or in deluxe rest homes, out of touch not only with the shifting larger culture and the yeasty ferment that is America these days, but also out of touch with their own segregated city, decide which films are good. And rumour has it that Lions Gate inundated the academy voters with DVD copies of Trash - excuse me - Crash a few weeks before the ballot deadline. Next year we can look to the awards for controversial themes on the punishment of adulterers with a branding iron in the shape of the letter A, runaway slaves, and the debate over free silver.
How deliciously petty! I assume she plans on never "doing lunch" in Hollywood again.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Physics and sex
Seed: Getting Physical
Interesting article that (I assume) has its historical anecdotes correct. For example:
Remarkably, some physicists’ trysts seem to have actually led to physical insight: While once floundering on a problem, Erwin Schrödinger shacked up in an alpine villa for an extended holiday with “an old girlfriend” and, in the “late erotic outburst” that followed, produced the eponymous equation that would net him the Nobel.
Interesting article that (I assume) has its historical anecdotes correct. For example:
Remarkably, some physicists’ trysts seem to have actually led to physical insight: While once floundering on a problem, Erwin Schrödinger shacked up in an alpine villa for an extended holiday with “an old girlfriend” and, in the “late erotic outburst” that followed, produced the eponymous equation that would net him the Nobel.
Valerie Plame - undercover in any meaningful sense?
Ace of Spades HQ
See above for a detailed post (found via Pajamas Media) on Valerie Plame's "cover". So far undercover she drove to to the CIA to work, and had other cover that was so tissue thin you could see through it.
See above for a detailed post (found via Pajamas Media) on Valerie Plame's "cover". So far undercover she drove to to the CIA to work, and had other cover that was so tissue thin you could see through it.
Mainly on Labor's leadership vacuum
Time to comment on the Labor leadership woes.
Over at Crikey.com they have an interesting internet poll result on preferred leaders for both the Coalition and the Labor Party. There are many things to note here:
1. Look at how big the readership of Crikey.com appears to be skewed to the Left generally. Looks like a margin of 3 to 1 would vote Labor or Green over the Coalition. This surely this can't represent the Crikey readership overall, can it?
2. On the conservative side, the big surprise is the strong showing of Malcolm Turnbull as alternative leader (well over the likes of Tony Abbott and Alexander Downer) and on a par with Peter Costello. Why is Turnbull so popular with intended Labor and Green voters? Does this indicate that the poll means nothing much at all?
3. On the Labor side, Julia Gillard wins as preferred leader. For Labor voters, she is miles ahead of the rest; for conservative voters, it seems equally split between her and Kevin Rudd.
4. Maybe Lindsay Tanner is not completely out of the race too. I must admit, he comes across as quite likeable and sincere, and I think more than one conservative commentator thinks well of him too.
As for my opinion of the other Labor contenders:
a. Kim Beazley: No doubt he is basically a nice guy. Several things about him as a person appeal to me: he's Christian; had a divorce but one in which he remained on good terms with his ex (contrast Latham); as right wing as they come on defence and (I think) foreign affairs; Phillip Adams hates him. It would be no disaster if he were PM. But his basic problem is that he all too often has to puff himself up into outrage in a manner which strikes as insincere. As everyone knows, he's still too verbose, which also gives the impression of possible indecisiveness. It's doubtful he can manage the factional issues. If he suffers a repeat of his recent serious illness, it would at least give him an excuse to exit with no loss of face.
b. Kevin Rudd: again, he is a relatively rare thing in that he is a serious Christian in the Parliamentary Labor Party. (I don't want to give the impression that religious belief is the most important thing I consider, but as a general rule I like some type of it in a political leader. ) Again, seems likeable as a person; the rapport he and Joe Hockey share on their segments on breakfast TV seems genuine. But - seems too smart for his own good. Maybe knows how to win arguments on an intellectual level, but not an emotional one. Cannot imagine him being an effective or overly popular leader within the party. Also gives the impression of having personal interests in too narrow a field.
c. Julia Gillard: current popularity seems mainly based on novelty factor (as was Latham's). Christopher Pearson's article in the Australian this weekend was a bit cruel in parts, but makes the basic valid point that she has been seen as too far to the right on immigration, and too far to the left on health. Does anyone know where she stands on foreign affairs and defence issues? Who knows where future policies under her leadership would end up. On a personal level, seems too opportunistic, giving the impression of being there more for personal advancement than for social concerns. (A problem shared by the majority of Labor parliamentarians today, given their backgrounds.)
Apparently decided at 18 that she was not going to have children. I have a personal bias on this that is difficult to justify when pressed, but as a rule I do not entirely trust people who have made that sort of decision at a young age, unless of course it is for health or genetic reasons. I think most people over 30 with children might share that suspicion. She (or more correctly, her mother) should never mention it again. You can read her Australian Story transcript and make your own mind up about this.
I predict she will never be Prime Minister. More likely some sort of meltdown.
Over at Crikey.com they have an interesting internet poll result on preferred leaders for both the Coalition and the Labor Party. There are many things to note here:
1. Look at how big the readership of Crikey.com appears to be skewed to the Left generally. Looks like a margin of 3 to 1 would vote Labor or Green over the Coalition. This surely this can't represent the Crikey readership overall, can it?
2. On the conservative side, the big surprise is the strong showing of Malcolm Turnbull as alternative leader (well over the likes of Tony Abbott and Alexander Downer) and on a par with Peter Costello. Why is Turnbull so popular with intended Labor and Green voters? Does this indicate that the poll means nothing much at all?
3. On the Labor side, Julia Gillard wins as preferred leader. For Labor voters, she is miles ahead of the rest; for conservative voters, it seems equally split between her and Kevin Rudd.
4. Maybe Lindsay Tanner is not completely out of the race too. I must admit, he comes across as quite likeable and sincere, and I think more than one conservative commentator thinks well of him too.
As for my opinion of the other Labor contenders:
a. Kim Beazley: No doubt he is basically a nice guy. Several things about him as a person appeal to me: he's Christian; had a divorce but one in which he remained on good terms with his ex (contrast Latham); as right wing as they come on defence and (I think) foreign affairs; Phillip Adams hates him. It would be no disaster if he were PM. But his basic problem is that he all too often has to puff himself up into outrage in a manner which strikes as insincere. As everyone knows, he's still too verbose, which also gives the impression of possible indecisiveness. It's doubtful he can manage the factional issues. If he suffers a repeat of his recent serious illness, it would at least give him an excuse to exit with no loss of face.
b. Kevin Rudd: again, he is a relatively rare thing in that he is a serious Christian in the Parliamentary Labor Party. (I don't want to give the impression that religious belief is the most important thing I consider, but as a general rule I like some type of it in a political leader. ) Again, seems likeable as a person; the rapport he and Joe Hockey share on their segments on breakfast TV seems genuine. But - seems too smart for his own good. Maybe knows how to win arguments on an intellectual level, but not an emotional one. Cannot imagine him being an effective or overly popular leader within the party. Also gives the impression of having personal interests in too narrow a field.
c. Julia Gillard: current popularity seems mainly based on novelty factor (as was Latham's). Christopher Pearson's article in the Australian this weekend was a bit cruel in parts, but makes the basic valid point that she has been seen as too far to the right on immigration, and too far to the left on health. Does anyone know where she stands on foreign affairs and defence issues? Who knows where future policies under her leadership would end up. On a personal level, seems too opportunistic, giving the impression of being there more for personal advancement than for social concerns. (A problem shared by the majority of Labor parliamentarians today, given their backgrounds.)
Apparently decided at 18 that she was not going to have children. I have a personal bias on this that is difficult to justify when pressed, but as a rule I do not entirely trust people who have made that sort of decision at a young age, unless of course it is for health or genetic reasons. I think most people over 30 with children might share that suspicion. She (or more correctly, her mother) should never mention it again. You can read her Australian Story transcript and make your own mind up about this.
I predict she will never be Prime Minister. More likely some sort of meltdown.
About Jimmy Carter
Power Line: Pious the first
The Powerline post above is about a new book by Jimmy Carter. They quote from someone who really, really doesn't care for the ex-president:
IT IS DIFFICULT, WHEN confronting the miasma of tired bromides strung together in this book, to point to a single childlike sentimentality that fully expresses the smallness of Jimmy Carter's soul, but this one comes close: "[Rosalynn and I] have been amazed at the response of people to these new latrines, especially in Ethiopia, and to learn that the primary thrust for building them has come from women."...
....he trades on his humanitarian good works to burnish his image as an elder statesman, brimming with oracular profundity. The result, as in his current book, is as empty and embarrassing as the naked emperor's new clothes....
Our Endangered Values makes Al Gore's Earth in the Balance read like the Critique of Pure Reason by comparison.
The Powerline post above is about a new book by Jimmy Carter. They quote from someone who really, really doesn't care for the ex-president:
IT IS DIFFICULT, WHEN confronting the miasma of tired bromides strung together in this book, to point to a single childlike sentimentality that fully expresses the smallness of Jimmy Carter's soul, but this one comes close: "[Rosalynn and I] have been amazed at the response of people to these new latrines, especially in Ethiopia, and to learn that the primary thrust for building them has come from women."...
....he trades on his humanitarian good works to burnish his image as an elder statesman, brimming with oracular profundity. The result, as in his current book, is as empty and embarrassing as the naked emperor's new clothes....
Our Endangered Values makes Al Gore's Earth in the Balance read like the Critique of Pure Reason by comparison.
Kite flying as an extreme sport
BBC NEWS | South Asia | Kite flyers arrested in Pakistan
From the above article:
Kite flying is a traditional part of a festival marking the advent of spring in Punjab, but on Thursday the Pakistani authorities introduced a ban.
The prohibition came in after a number of deaths, mostly in Lahore, caused by glass-coated or metal kite-strings...
Kite flyers compete to keep their kites in the air, whilst downing those of others.
But they often resort to using wire or glass-coated strings to cut the strings of rival kites.
When the strings fall across roads, however, they pose a danger to people passing on motor-bikes.
Metal kites can also cause short-circuits in overhead power cables, leading to heavy losses for electricity utilities.
From the above article:
Kite flying is a traditional part of a festival marking the advent of spring in Punjab, but on Thursday the Pakistani authorities introduced a ban.
The prohibition came in after a number of deaths, mostly in Lahore, caused by glass-coated or metal kite-strings...
Kite flyers compete to keep their kites in the air, whilst downing those of others.
But they often resort to using wire or glass-coated strings to cut the strings of rival kites.
When the strings fall across roads, however, they pose a danger to people passing on motor-bikes.
Metal kites can also cause short-circuits in overhead power cables, leading to heavy losses for electricity utilities.
On other blogs
* Andrew Norton over at Catallaxy has a good series of posts over the weekend about Clive Hamilton's views on affluence, labor etc. See here, here and here.
* JF Beck, by co-incidence, gives a fine example of what he calls "edu-babble" (same thing as "academic english" I referred to a few posts back.) Be sure to read the comments too.
* A considerable amount of heat has been gernerated over the issue of DDT bans (or non bans, or near bans, or whatever it was.) I haven't read too much about it, so I don't really know were the truth lies. However, the ever grumpy Tim Lambert is definitely of the view that it is all a stupid right wing beat up. JF Beck is on the other side. Readers will have to work this one out for themselves, and then let me know.
* Man of Lettuce is an interesting personal blog, and I meant to link to this post about "ice". I also heard on Radio National's breakfast last week a doctor talking about the increasing problem of admissions for drug related mental illness in Sydney, but no transcript is available.
Adrian's post on the "risks" involved when a cabbie has gay passengers is amusing.
* JF Beck, by co-incidence, gives a fine example of what he calls "edu-babble" (same thing as "academic english" I referred to a few posts back.) Be sure to read the comments too.
* A considerable amount of heat has been gernerated over the issue of DDT bans (or non bans, or near bans, or whatever it was.) I haven't read too much about it, so I don't really know were the truth lies. However, the ever grumpy Tim Lambert is definitely of the view that it is all a stupid right wing beat up. JF Beck is on the other side. Readers will have to work this one out for themselves, and then let me know.
* Man of Lettuce is an interesting personal blog, and I meant to link to this post about "ice". I also heard on Radio National's breakfast last week a doctor talking about the increasing problem of admissions for drug related mental illness in Sydney, but no transcript is available.
Adrian's post on the "risks" involved when a cabbie has gay passengers is amusing.
Saturday, March 11, 2006
Morality Wars in Indonesia
Islamic moral drive spreads fear in Indonesia - World - smh.com.au
Have a look at the above article for an interesting story on where new morality laws are taking parts of Indonesia.
Have a look at the above article for an interesting story on where new morality laws are taking parts of Indonesia.
Friday, March 10, 2006
Where is the water coming from?
Now this is rather odd. A new NASA survey of both Greenland and Antartic ice confirms that, despite increased snow in parts of (I think) both places, overall there is a net loss of ice. One article says:
When the scientists added up the overall gains and loses of ice from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, there was a net loss of ice to the sea. The amount of water added to the oceans (20 billion tons) is equivalent to the total amount of freshwater used in homes, businesses and farming in New York, New Jersey and Virginia each year.
Sounds a lot. But then again, what is happening to sea levels because of this? From the BBC version:
If ice is on balance being lost to the oceans, it could be contributing to global sea-level rise; and according to Jay Zwally's research, it is, but by less than expected.
"The study indicates that the contribution of the ice sheets to sea-level rise during the decade studied was much smaller than expected, just two percent of the recent increase of nearly three millimeters a year," he said.
"Current estimates of the other major sources of sea-level rise - expansion of the ocean by warming temperatures and runoff from low-latitude glaciers - do not make up the difference, so we have a mystery on our hands as to where the water is coming from."
Only 2 % of the current increase is coming from Antartic and Greenland ice? Maybe we have a while before we all drown. Or someone's figures are a bit screwy somewhere.
Also - if you want to see an example of why the media reporting of global warming irritates me, have a look at this recent Newsbusters story, and the "grab" at the bottom of the TV screen shot. It is not outright false, but still it is designed to give the impression of crisis.
When the scientists added up the overall gains and loses of ice from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, there was a net loss of ice to the sea. The amount of water added to the oceans (20 billion tons) is equivalent to the total amount of freshwater used in homes, businesses and farming in New York, New Jersey and Virginia each year.
Sounds a lot. But then again, what is happening to sea levels because of this? From the BBC version:
If ice is on balance being lost to the oceans, it could be contributing to global sea-level rise; and according to Jay Zwally's research, it is, but by less than expected.
"The study indicates that the contribution of the ice sheets to sea-level rise during the decade studied was much smaller than expected, just two percent of the recent increase of nearly three millimeters a year," he said.
"Current estimates of the other major sources of sea-level rise - expansion of the ocean by warming temperatures and runoff from low-latitude glaciers - do not make up the difference, so we have a mystery on our hands as to where the water is coming from."
Only 2 % of the current increase is coming from Antartic and Greenland ice? Maybe we have a while before we all drown. Or someone's figures are a bit screwy somewhere.
Also - if you want to see an example of why the media reporting of global warming irritates me, have a look at this recent Newsbusters story, and the "grab" at the bottom of the TV screen shot. It is not outright false, but still it is designed to give the impression of crisis.
Psycho history
Guardian Unlimited Film | Features | A stab in the dark
Here's something I didn't know about Hitchcock and the making of "Psycho":
With Psycho, Herrmann not only broke with Hollywood tradition by scoring it for strings alone (saying he wanted to find a sonic equivalent of black-and-white film), but also rescued the film. Having completed filming without a score, Hitchcock was in despair at what he felt had ended up as a mediocre pot-boiler, and was seriously considering cutting the film to an hour and selling it to TV. Herrmann persuaded him to let him score it before doing so, and despite the director's insistence that the first murder scene remain silent, defied him. The end result left Hitchcock no room for argument.
What a great example of how accidental a successful movie can be. Even great directors can't see the woods for the trees sometimes.
Here's something I didn't know about Hitchcock and the making of "Psycho":
With Psycho, Herrmann not only broke with Hollywood tradition by scoring it for strings alone (saying he wanted to find a sonic equivalent of black-and-white film), but also rescued the film. Having completed filming without a score, Hitchcock was in despair at what he felt had ended up as a mediocre pot-boiler, and was seriously considering cutting the film to an hour and selling it to TV. Herrmann persuaded him to let him score it before doing so, and despite the director's insistence that the first murder scene remain silent, defied him. The end result left Hitchcock no room for argument.
What a great example of how accidental a successful movie can be. Even great directors can't see the woods for the trees sometimes.
Saletan debates "bad" and "responsibility"
My Secret Burden - The abortion-rights movement grapples with repression. By William Saletan
I have previously referred to "pro-choice" William Saletan's daring suggestion that the pro-choice movement admit that abortion is bad.
His latest article above is about how he was received at a pro-choice debate. ("Not well" is the short answer: "It was like preaching to the choir, except that my preaching was Sunni, and the choir was Shiite.") The whole piece is well worth reading, because it covers many bothersome aspects that the movement shares with the Left generally. For example:
Then I have this hangup about relativism. Like most people, I'm open to relativism. If you accept that the rightness or wrongness of abortion depends to some extent on circumstance, or that as a general rule, the woman in question is more entitled to weigh the moral factors than Rick Santorum is, that makes you a bit of a relativist. But it was clear at Friday's meeting that many pro-choice activists go further. They're absolutists about relativism. They argue that abortion is good because it's what a woman wants, and that the goodness or badness of abortion depends entirely on her choice. They insist all choices must be "respected" and "free from stigma." I don't get it. If everything has to be respected, what's the value of respect? If every exercise of liberty has to be free from stigma, how secure is liberty?
And this:
Right away, I got in trouble for calling abortion "bad." I like such words because they're blunt: They express a nearly universal gut reaction and make it clear which direction you'd like to go. The absolute relativists in the room found these words unacceptable, since they "stigmatize" and "pass judgment" on women and doctors.... To my relief, cooler heads pointed out how judgmental the absolute relativists are about gender equality and human rights. Liberals treat judgment the way conservatives treat sex: forbid it, except when you're doing it.
Nicely put...
I have previously referred to "pro-choice" William Saletan's daring suggestion that the pro-choice movement admit that abortion is bad.
His latest article above is about how he was received at a pro-choice debate. ("Not well" is the short answer: "It was like preaching to the choir, except that my preaching was Sunni, and the choir was Shiite.") The whole piece is well worth reading, because it covers many bothersome aspects that the movement shares with the Left generally. For example:
Then I have this hangup about relativism. Like most people, I'm open to relativism. If you accept that the rightness or wrongness of abortion depends to some extent on circumstance, or that as a general rule, the woman in question is more entitled to weigh the moral factors than Rick Santorum is, that makes you a bit of a relativist. But it was clear at Friday's meeting that many pro-choice activists go further. They're absolutists about relativism. They argue that abortion is good because it's what a woman wants, and that the goodness or badness of abortion depends entirely on her choice. They insist all choices must be "respected" and "free from stigma." I don't get it. If everything has to be respected, what's the value of respect? If every exercise of liberty has to be free from stigma, how secure is liberty?
And this:
Right away, I got in trouble for calling abortion "bad." I like such words because they're blunt: They express a nearly universal gut reaction and make it clear which direction you'd like to go. The absolute relativists in the room found these words unacceptable, since they "stigmatize" and "pass judgment" on women and doctors.... To my relief, cooler heads pointed out how judgmental the absolute relativists are about gender equality and human rights. Liberals treat judgment the way conservatives treat sex: forbid it, except when you're doing it.
Nicely put...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)