A tale of two failed Mideast states | csmonitor.com
From the above article:
Washington should, accordingly, not take a passive "wait and see" approach to the increasing violence being exported from both the Gaza Strip and Lebanon, and the increasing lawlessness in those areas, but should rather act forcefully in order to make it clear that it will not allow Gaza and Lebanon to remain failed states.
This requires that the US and the international community: a) actively pressure Syria to end its involvement in Lebanon and its continued undermining of Lebanese sovereignty (despite its ostensible "withdrawal" from Lebanon last year); b) actively pressure the Lebanese government to deploy its Army in the south and to disarm Hizbullah (if necessary with the assistance of a multinational force); and c) move toward the establishment of some type of international trusteeship over the Gaza Strip, which will involve the deployment of multinational forces, possibly including Egyptian forces, to disarm militants in Gaza and stabilize the political, economic, and security situation there.
Israeli actions alone will not bring stability to these failed states and are likely to only temporarily weaken Hamas and other Palestinian factions, as well as the Lebanese Hizbullah. This is a problem of global dimensions, and only the world's sole superpower can take the lead in addressing it.
Seems to me the problem would be be with getting international co-operation in any multinational forces, and in particulare getting an Islamic country on board. (Will Egypt really want to be involved?)
Monday, August 07, 2006
Free storage space
AOL using Xdrive to offer free space - Los Angeles Business from bizjournals:
A couple of years ago, I tried using a free online storage service. It worked OK, but uploads were fairly slow (which probably says more about Australia's pathetically slow internet services than the storage service itself.) The free service I tried was soon stopped and became subscription only.
AOL is now to offer 5 GB free to everyone. How nice. Will it last?
A couple of years ago, I tried using a free online storage service. It worked OK, but uploads were fairly slow (which probably says more about Australia's pathetically slow internet services than the storage service itself.) The free service I tried was soon stopped and became subscription only.
AOL is now to offer 5 GB free to everyone. How nice. Will it last?
Lightning and stupidity
NOAA News Online (Story 2676)
Opinion Dominion has strong views on how stupid people can be about lightning. A future post will detail one particularly good example of this from first hand experience. In the meantime, the NOAA (see link) warns people not to be stupid. It won't work.
Opinion Dominion has strong views on how stupid people can be about lightning. A future post will detail one particularly good example of this from first hand experience. In the meantime, the NOAA (see link) warns people not to be stupid. It won't work.
Carbon offsets offset
Carbon offsets | Sins of emission | Economist.com
The short piece from the Economist about carbon offset problems is worth a look. Mind you, The Economist still thinks that in general they are a good idea in theory. The problem is in the implementation.
The short piece from the Economist about carbon offset problems is worth a look. Mind you, The Economist still thinks that in general they are a good idea in theory. The problem is in the implementation.
Further co-operation from Iran
Defiant Iran threatens to use 'oil weapon' against sanctions - World - Times Online
From the above:
In a blunt response to international concern about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Ali Larijani, the chief negotiator on atomic issues, said that Tehran was ready for a showdown with world powers when the matter was taken up by the UN Security Council this month.
“We will expand nuclear technology at whatever stage it may be necessary and all of Iran’s nuclear technology including the [centrifuge] cascades will be expanded,” he said in Tehran.
The announcement was regarded not simply as another rhetorical outburst from Tehran but rather the precursor of a formal reply to the West which will be delivered in full on August 22....
Mr Larijani said yesterday that Iran had a right under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to build a civilian nuclear programme. He said Iran was planning to expand its operations at the heavily-guarded Natanz facility in central Iran, where the authorities hope to have 3,000 centrifuges — which enrich uranium by spinning it at supersonic speeds — operating by the end of this year. “We will expand nuclear activities where required. It includes all nuclear technology including the string of centrifuges,” he said. ”We won’t accept suspension.”
Why not just set up a big football field sized poster saying "Bomb me now (or as soon as you finish up in Lebanon)" ?
From the above:
In a blunt response to international concern about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Ali Larijani, the chief negotiator on atomic issues, said that Tehran was ready for a showdown with world powers when the matter was taken up by the UN Security Council this month.
“We will expand nuclear technology at whatever stage it may be necessary and all of Iran’s nuclear technology including the [centrifuge] cascades will be expanded,” he said in Tehran.
The announcement was regarded not simply as another rhetorical outburst from Tehran but rather the precursor of a formal reply to the West which will be delivered in full on August 22....
Mr Larijani said yesterday that Iran had a right under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to build a civilian nuclear programme. He said Iran was planning to expand its operations at the heavily-guarded Natanz facility in central Iran, where the authorities hope to have 3,000 centrifuges — which enrich uranium by spinning it at supersonic speeds — operating by the end of this year. “We will expand nuclear activities where required. It includes all nuclear technology including the string of centrifuges,” he said. ”We won’t accept suspension.”
Why not just set up a big football field sized poster saying "Bomb me now (or as soon as you finish up in Lebanon)" ?
Europe still thinking about making travel expensive
MPs call for VAT on flights as greenhouse gas emissions soar - Britain - Times Online
By the way, what is the "Green" way to travel within Europe? Is it by train, ship or what? Is it time to bring back airships? (Hey, I just think they look cool.)
By the way, what is the "Green" way to travel within Europe? Is it by train, ship or what? Is it time to bring back airships? (Hey, I just think they look cool.)
Saturday, August 05, 2006
"But I'm not dead yet!"
New Scientist News - Not brain-dead, but ripe for transplant
Interesting article on doctors reconsidering when to treat patients as dead.
Interesting article on doctors reconsidering when to treat patients as dead.
Against wind power
Matthew Stevens: The answer isn't blowing in the wind | News | The Australian
This is an interesting article explaining why wind power is not the great benefit that it would seem. For example:
...even in those states with the most ambitious renewables targets, South Australia and Victoria, the net effect of wind power on carbon dioxide emissions will be negligible, if not illusory. According to another recent study, if Victoria reaches its target of 1000 megawatts of renewable generation capacity by 2016 (the state currently boasts about 120MW of wind capacity), its share of national greenhouse gas emissions will fall from 32 per cent to 28 per cent by 2020.
But in raw numbers, Victoria's power plants will be pumping out 24 per cent more carbon dioxide by 2020 than they do in 2006 because, quite simply, Victorians will be using much more power.
I suppose it can still be argued that it is better to have some of that electricity produced by clean wind power than an alternative CO2 producing means, otherwise the total future CO2 output will be even higher than that already bad forecast.
But it would seem that the more important message is that, in reality, windpower is just fiddling around the edges of the problem. What's worse, such fiddling can give an impression of significance that is undeserved.
This is an interesting article explaining why wind power is not the great benefit that it would seem. For example:
...even in those states with the most ambitious renewables targets, South Australia and Victoria, the net effect of wind power on carbon dioxide emissions will be negligible, if not illusory. According to another recent study, if Victoria reaches its target of 1000 megawatts of renewable generation capacity by 2016 (the state currently boasts about 120MW of wind capacity), its share of national greenhouse gas emissions will fall from 32 per cent to 28 per cent by 2020.
But in raw numbers, Victoria's power plants will be pumping out 24 per cent more carbon dioxide by 2020 than they do in 2006 because, quite simply, Victorians will be using much more power.
I suppose it can still be argued that it is better to have some of that electricity produced by clean wind power than an alternative CO2 producing means, otherwise the total future CO2 output will be even higher than that already bad forecast.
But it would seem that the more important message is that, in reality, windpower is just fiddling around the edges of the problem. What's worse, such fiddling can give an impression of significance that is undeserved.
Friday, August 04, 2006
A long review article on mini black holes
What fun! Today I get to post about my two favourite subjects one after the other.
This link will lead you to a fairly lengthy review of issues around the possible production of black holes at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. It's by physicist Greg Landsberg, to whom I give some credit for actually answering some emails sent to him by James Blodgett, the author of the Risk Evaluation Forum site (see link in my blogroll.) Blodgett's site got me interested in this whole topic.
Landsberg does not think there is anything to Blodgett's concerns, but at least he was respectful in his answers.
Anyway, Landsberg's article above is interesting in several respects:
1. He confirms clearly that Hawking Radiation is never going to be observed directly at astronomical distances (it is far too weak - see pages 8 to 9.)
2. The entire article makes it clear how many different ideas there are about what exactly would happen in the decay process of a micro black hole.
3. Landsberg notes this:
Given the current lower constraints on the fundamental Planck scale in the model with large extra dimensions of ≈ 1 TeV [8], the black holes that we may be able to study at colliders and in cosmic rays will be barely transplanckian. Hence, the unknown quantum corrections to their classical properties are expected to be large, and therefore it is reasonable to focus only on the most robust properties of these mini black holes that are expected to be affected the least by unknown quantum gravity corrections.
Later, he writes:
In quantum gravity, it is expected that there is a fourth, Planckian stage of black hole evaporation, which is reached when the mass of the evaporating black hole approaches the Planck scale. The details of the Planckian stage are completely unknown, as they are governed by the effects of quantum gravity, which should be dominant at such low black hole masses. Some authors speculate that the Planckian stage terminates with a formation of a stable or semi-stable black hole remnant with the mass ∼ MPl. Others argue that the evaporation proceeds until the entire mass of the black hole is radiated. The truth is that no predictions about the Planckian regime are possible, given our lack of knowledge of quantum gravity.
This has been said before: I just thought that it is nice to see such a blunt and direct statement of ignorance.
4. Despite this, Landsberg expresses no doubts at all about Hawking Radiation applying to micro black holes. (It is expected to occur before the black hole reaches Planckian scale and its behaviour becomes guesswork.)
5. Landsberg notes that it has been suggested that instead of (or as well as?) mini black holes, the LHC could create other things such as string balls (don't ask me) or this:
Another possibility is a production of higher-dimensional objects, e.g. black p-branes, rather than spherically symmetric black holes (p = 0) [48].
First time I have heard of that. Did the safety review of the LHC take these into account?
6. The article appears optimistic on the possibility of the by products of naturally occurring mini black holes being detected in neutrino telescopes being built. If this is confirmed, then any of my concerns about Hawking Radiation not occurring would be gone.
7. Landsberg raises one point in such a way that I cannot understand whether it is a potential danger to the LHC or not. This is heavy going, and I refer the interested reader to section 10 of the paper on page on page 27. It seems to me that he may be saying that, on some models, it may be possible for a mini black to evaporate quickly with the equivalent energy of a few hundred pound bomb. This sounds dangerous to me, but as I say, I could be misunderstanding him here. (I would be happy to hear what other reader's think he means.)
This link will lead you to a fairly lengthy review of issues around the possible production of black holes at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. It's by physicist Greg Landsberg, to whom I give some credit for actually answering some emails sent to him by James Blodgett, the author of the Risk Evaluation Forum site (see link in my blogroll.) Blodgett's site got me interested in this whole topic.
Landsberg does not think there is anything to Blodgett's concerns, but at least he was respectful in his answers.
Anyway, Landsberg's article above is interesting in several respects:
1. He confirms clearly that Hawking Radiation is never going to be observed directly at astronomical distances (it is far too weak - see pages 8 to 9.)
2. The entire article makes it clear how many different ideas there are about what exactly would happen in the decay process of a micro black hole.
3. Landsberg notes this:
Given the current lower constraints on the fundamental Planck scale in the model with large extra dimensions of ≈ 1 TeV [8], the black holes that we may be able to study at colliders and in cosmic rays will be barely transplanckian. Hence, the unknown quantum corrections to their classical properties are expected to be large, and therefore it is reasonable to focus only on the most robust properties of these mini black holes that are expected to be affected the least by unknown quantum gravity corrections.
Later, he writes:
In quantum gravity, it is expected that there is a fourth, Planckian stage of black hole evaporation, which is reached when the mass of the evaporating black hole approaches the Planck scale. The details of the Planckian stage are completely unknown, as they are governed by the effects of quantum gravity, which should be dominant at such low black hole masses. Some authors speculate that the Planckian stage terminates with a formation of a stable or semi-stable black hole remnant with the mass ∼ MPl. Others argue that the evaporation proceeds until the entire mass of the black hole is radiated. The truth is that no predictions about the Planckian regime are possible, given our lack of knowledge of quantum gravity.
This has been said before: I just thought that it is nice to see such a blunt and direct statement of ignorance.
4. Despite this, Landsberg expresses no doubts at all about Hawking Radiation applying to micro black holes. (It is expected to occur before the black hole reaches Planckian scale and its behaviour becomes guesswork.)
5. Landsberg notes that it has been suggested that instead of (or as well as?) mini black holes, the LHC could create other things such as string balls (don't ask me) or this:
Another possibility is a production of higher-dimensional objects, e.g. black p-branes, rather than spherically symmetric black holes (p = 0) [48].
First time I have heard of that. Did the safety review of the LHC take these into account?
6. The article appears optimistic on the possibility of the by products of naturally occurring mini black holes being detected in neutrino telescopes being built. If this is confirmed, then any of my concerns about Hawking Radiation not occurring would be gone.
7. Landsberg raises one point in such a way that I cannot understand whether it is a potential danger to the LHC or not. This is heavy going, and I refer the interested reader to section 10 of the paper on page on page 27. It seems to me that he may be saying that, on some models, it may be possible for a mini black to evaporate quickly with the equivalent energy of a few hundred pound bomb. This sounds dangerous to me, but as I say, I could be misunderstanding him here. (I would be happy to hear what other reader's think he means.)
How cats control the world
LiveScience.com - Study: Cat Parasite Affects Human Culture
Regular readers know that this is a favourite topic here - the dreaded Toxoplasma gondii that may drive people mad.
This report suggests that it might also just make many of the infected (about half of the world's population!) neurotic, and this in turn might affect entire cultures:
...Lafferty wondered whether high rates of T. gondii infection in a culture could shift the average personality of its individuals.
"In populations where this parasite is very common, mass personality modification could result in cultural change," Lafferty said.
The distribution of T. gondii could explain differences in cultural aspects that relate to ego, money, material possessions, work and rules, Lafferty added. In some countries, infections by the cat parasite are very rare, while in others nearly all adults are infected.
To test his hypothesis, Lafferty looked at published data on cultural dimensions and average personalities for different countries. The countries examined also kept records of the prevalence of T. gondii antibodies in women of childbearing age. Countries with high prevalence of T. gondii infection also had higher average neuroticism scores.
"There could be a lot more to this story," Lafferty said. "Different responses to the parasite by men and women could lead to many additional cultural effects that are, as yet, difficult to analyze."
What I want to know is the rate of this infection in Muslim countries. Maybe the whole Middle East crisis is due to cats. (Just a theory.)
Regular readers know that this is a favourite topic here - the dreaded Toxoplasma gondii that may drive people mad.
This report suggests that it might also just make many of the infected (about half of the world's population!) neurotic, and this in turn might affect entire cultures:
...Lafferty wondered whether high rates of T. gondii infection in a culture could shift the average personality of its individuals.
"In populations where this parasite is very common, mass personality modification could result in cultural change," Lafferty said.
The distribution of T. gondii could explain differences in cultural aspects that relate to ego, money, material possessions, work and rules, Lafferty added. In some countries, infections by the cat parasite are very rare, while in others nearly all adults are infected.
To test his hypothesis, Lafferty looked at published data on cultural dimensions and average personalities for different countries. The countries examined also kept records of the prevalence of T. gondii antibodies in women of childbearing age. Countries with high prevalence of T. gondii infection also had higher average neuroticism scores.
"There could be a lot more to this story," Lafferty said. "Different responses to the parasite by men and women could lead to many additional cultural effects that are, as yet, difficult to analyze."
What I want to know is the rate of this infection in Muslim countries. Maybe the whole Middle East crisis is due to cats. (Just a theory.)
Things I don't understand about Iraq
Top generals see threat of Iraq civil war - Reuters.com
Of course, Iraq's slow burn civil war-ish thing is getting worse, but the political situation on the ground seems not to be attracting much in the way of commentary or analysis since Hezbollah decided to light up a front on Israel.
Here are some things I admit to not understanding about the situation in Iraq:
1. What are the ultimate goals of the warring Sunni/Shia factions? Does either of them think they can drive the other out of political power entirely, or (who knows?) out of the country entirely? Given that each group is sizeable, the entire removal of the other isn't an option seriously believed, is it?
2. I heard once on Phillip Adams radio show that there is a high degree of intermarriage between Sunni and Shite in Iraq, and this was believed by some commentators to be a major reason why there would not be a "full blown" civil war. Sounds like a good theory, but why is it not working to curb the terrible fighting even at these current levels (about 100 people a day)?
3. Last night, I saw a report on a bombing of a group of school boys (I forget which faction they were in, but they were just in a park at the time.) What sort of point does any faction think it is achieving by killing unarmed civilians, especially children? And if the intermarriage point mentioned above is true, surely attacks like that only hurt both Sunni and Shite when the families are mixed.
4. Seemingly, it remains impossible to disarm militias in Baghdad. Why exactly is that the case?
I am sure there are more points I could ask, but I need to do other things right now.
Of course, Iraq's slow burn civil war-ish thing is getting worse, but the political situation on the ground seems not to be attracting much in the way of commentary or analysis since Hezbollah decided to light up a front on Israel.
Here are some things I admit to not understanding about the situation in Iraq:
1. What are the ultimate goals of the warring Sunni/Shia factions? Does either of them think they can drive the other out of political power entirely, or (who knows?) out of the country entirely? Given that each group is sizeable, the entire removal of the other isn't an option seriously believed, is it?
2. I heard once on Phillip Adams radio show that there is a high degree of intermarriage between Sunni and Shite in Iraq, and this was believed by some commentators to be a major reason why there would not be a "full blown" civil war. Sounds like a good theory, but why is it not working to curb the terrible fighting even at these current levels (about 100 people a day)?
3. Last night, I saw a report on a bombing of a group of school boys (I forget which faction they were in, but they were just in a park at the time.) What sort of point does any faction think it is achieving by killing unarmed civilians, especially children? And if the intermarriage point mentioned above is true, surely attacks like that only hurt both Sunni and Shite when the families are mixed.
4. Seemingly, it remains impossible to disarm militias in Baghdad. Why exactly is that the case?
I am sure there are more points I could ask, but I need to do other things right now.
Michael Costello: Israel is not the bully here | Opinion | The Australian
Michael Costello: Israel is not the bully here | Opinion | The Australian
Conservative Laborite Costello defends Israel, and good on him.
Actually, if Labor has any internal tension over support for Israel at the moment (which I am sure they would), it is being kept well under wraps.
Conservative Laborite Costello defends Israel, and good on him.
Actually, if Labor has any internal tension over support for Israel at the moment (which I am sure they would), it is being kept well under wraps.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
How quickly could Iran go nuclear?
The New Yorker: Online Only: Content
The New Yorker, not known for being a right wing panic merchant, runs an interview this week with (journalist?) Steve Coll that is worth reading.
Mr Coll notes that on the question of how quickly Iran could have a nuke:
John Negroponte, the director of National Intelligence, has said, in his most recent public assessment, that the American intelligence community believes that Iran may acquire a nuclear capacity some time in the next decade, meaning from 2010 or 2011 onward. From my reporting, I gather that in private briefings the Bush Administration’s intelligence analysts focus on a five-to-seven-year window, although they emphasize that there’s a fair amount of uncertainty about this estimate. I think the one assertion that the intelligence community seems comfortable with is that it’s not this year or next year and probably not the year after that. However, the more that is discovered about Iran’s research, the more some analysts wonder whether Iran might be able to move faster than the official forecast indicates.
It gets worse, though:
[Interviewer] Once the centrifuges are working, how long will it take to make enough material for a bomb?
It depends on how many centrifuges you put into your plant. The math is fairly straightforward: a cascade of a hundred and sixty-four centrifuges can produce so many grams of highly enriched uranium in so much time if the centrifuges are operating around the clock. Iran has said that it intends to install three thousand of these centrifuges by the end of this year. That seems like an ambitious goal, but let’s assume the Iranians could achieve it. If they did, they could manufacture enough highly enriched uranium for a couple of bombs within a year if they operated those centrifuges around the clock. Most people don’t think they can pull that off, but that’s the scale of their operation at this point.
The New Yorker, not known for being a right wing panic merchant, runs an interview this week with (journalist?) Steve Coll that is worth reading.
Mr Coll notes that on the question of how quickly Iran could have a nuke:
John Negroponte, the director of National Intelligence, has said, in his most recent public assessment, that the American intelligence community believes that Iran may acquire a nuclear capacity some time in the next decade, meaning from 2010 or 2011 onward. From my reporting, I gather that in private briefings the Bush Administration’s intelligence analysts focus on a five-to-seven-year window, although they emphasize that there’s a fair amount of uncertainty about this estimate. I think the one assertion that the intelligence community seems comfortable with is that it’s not this year or next year and probably not the year after that. However, the more that is discovered about Iran’s research, the more some analysts wonder whether Iran might be able to move faster than the official forecast indicates.
It gets worse, though:
[Interviewer] Once the centrifuges are working, how long will it take to make enough material for a bomb?
It depends on how many centrifuges you put into your plant. The math is fairly straightforward: a cascade of a hundred and sixty-four centrifuges can produce so many grams of highly enriched uranium in so much time if the centrifuges are operating around the clock. Iran has said that it intends to install three thousand of these centrifuges by the end of this year. That seems like an ambitious goal, but let’s assume the Iranians could achieve it. If they did, they could manufacture enough highly enriched uranium for a couple of bombs within a year if they operated those centrifuges around the clock. Most people don’t think they can pull that off, but that’s the scale of their operation at this point.
More bad news from Asia
Southern Thailand beset by bombings, arson | csmonitor.com
Some other bloggers have noted that while terrorism in Southern Thailand is reported, it doesn't seem to attract much in the way of commentary or analysis.
This article indicates that there is considerable disagreement about whether the Islamic separatist movement is behind all the trouble, or only part of it.
Anyway, things are not looking good:
Three Thai policemen and a soldier were killed in two separate incidents Wednesday, only hours after a series of over 100 attacks in southern Thailand, which has been riven by an Islamic separatist insurgency.
Some other bloggers have noted that while terrorism in Southern Thailand is reported, it doesn't seem to attract much in the way of commentary or analysis.
This article indicates that there is considerable disagreement about whether the Islamic separatist movement is behind all the trouble, or only part of it.
Anyway, things are not looking good:
Three Thai policemen and a soldier were killed in two separate incidents Wednesday, only hours after a series of over 100 attacks in southern Thailand, which has been riven by an Islamic separatist insurgency.
Women and men hit hard in Aceh
The Jakarta Post - Women, the poor singled out by Aceh sharia enforcers: ICG
This is a short article on the tough application of sharia law in Aceh.
This is a short article on the tough application of sharia law in Aceh.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Back to Hollywood for a minute
TIME.com: Where Have All the Cary Grants Gone? -- Aug. 7, 2006 -- Page 1
I think this essay is correct in identifying a trend in Hollywood over the last few years. (A trend which helps explain decreasing interest in Hollywood product in the over 25 market?)
I think this essay is correct in identifying a trend in Hollywood over the last few years. (A trend which helps explain decreasing interest in Hollywood product in the over 25 market?)
More than an apology needed
ABC sorry for bias on children's show | Media | The Australian
The bias and plain errors in the original ABC story were so obvious it really makes you wonder about the competence of the editorial oversight of the program. The important point should be that they take steps to ensure it doesn't happen again.
The bias and plain errors in the original ABC story were so obvious it really makes you wonder about the competence of the editorial oversight of the program. The important point should be that they take steps to ensure it doesn't happen again.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Why is John Howard popular with younger voters?
There have been quite a few images in the Australian media recently of John Howard being accosted by enthusiatic young supporters. Matt Price has noted the PM's recent popularity too.
Does polling confirm this general impression of popularity with youth? A recent Newspoll showing demographic breakdown over the last couple of years pretty much does. To get to it, go here and look for the link to 23/06/06 "Geographic and Demographic Analysis..."
The interesting thing is that while Howard is clearly most popular with the over 50 demographic, his satisfaction rating is sometimes higher with the 18-34 year olds than the 35 - 49 year set. Dissatisfaction with Howard is sometimes higher in the "middle age" bracket too. There's often not a great deal in it, though.
The Newspoll survey shows that voting intention in the 18-34 yr olds is usually pretty evenly split between Lib/Nationals and Labor, with usually only one or two percent higher on the Labor side. (Of course, perhaps the younger crowd tend to favour the Greens too, so preferences from them may help Labor.)
So it would seem that it is certainly not the case that you can argue that on voting intentions, the younger ages are strongly conservative. (Perhaps they are more conservative now than in previous decades; I don't know.) Yet their satisfaction with Howard is quite high. (And unfortunately for Kim Beazley, they are often more dissatisfied with him than satisfied.)
Sometimes a degree of "dagginess" mysteriously reaches a certain level of "cool" amongst the young. (Rolf Harris seems a good example of this in the entertainment field.) I think that is part of Howard's current appeal to the young, mixed with admiration for his clear enthusiasm for the job, and the high degree of resilience he displays (this being a character trait that receives a lot of attention in child development circles now).
I have also always felt that he is a genuinely modest man, who (I like to imagine) has to pinch himself often to be sure he isn't dreaming while being received on the international stage. (He is still capable of appearing not entirely at ease, but I find that oddly endearing.) I presume that others share this view, even if they don't agree with all of his policies.
UPDATE: Janet Albrechtsen gives her view of Howard's popularity today, and it's hard to disagree with her.
Does polling confirm this general impression of popularity with youth? A recent Newspoll showing demographic breakdown over the last couple of years pretty much does. To get to it, go here and look for the link to 23/06/06 "Geographic and Demographic Analysis..."
The interesting thing is that while Howard is clearly most popular with the over 50 demographic, his satisfaction rating is sometimes higher with the 18-34 year olds than the 35 - 49 year set. Dissatisfaction with Howard is sometimes higher in the "middle age" bracket too. There's often not a great deal in it, though.
The Newspoll survey shows that voting intention in the 18-34 yr olds is usually pretty evenly split between Lib/Nationals and Labor, with usually only one or two percent higher on the Labor side. (Of course, perhaps the younger crowd tend to favour the Greens too, so preferences from them may help Labor.)
So it would seem that it is certainly not the case that you can argue that on voting intentions, the younger ages are strongly conservative. (Perhaps they are more conservative now than in previous decades; I don't know.) Yet their satisfaction with Howard is quite high. (And unfortunately for Kim Beazley, they are often more dissatisfied with him than satisfied.)
Sometimes a degree of "dagginess" mysteriously reaches a certain level of "cool" amongst the young. (Rolf Harris seems a good example of this in the entertainment field.) I think that is part of Howard's current appeal to the young, mixed with admiration for his clear enthusiasm for the job, and the high degree of resilience he displays (this being a character trait that receives a lot of attention in child development circles now).
I have also always felt that he is a genuinely modest man, who (I like to imagine) has to pinch himself often to be sure he isn't dreaming while being received on the international stage. (He is still capable of appearing not entirely at ease, but I find that oddly endearing.) I presume that others share this view, even if they don't agree with all of his policies.
UPDATE: Janet Albrechtsen gives her view of Howard's popularity today, and it's hard to disagree with her.
Under the rocks and stones/there is water underground
Looking for lunar caves as a possible place to set up a permanent colony on the Moon got brief mention here recently. One or two space scientists agree:
The Moon appears to possess long, cave-like structures called lava tubes that are similar to ones on Earth. They form when the surface of a stream of lava solidifies and the molten rock inside drains away, leaving a hollow tube of rock.
For decades, engineers and space scientists have discussed the possibility of using these caves as astronaut housing because they are sheltered from space radiation and micrometeorite impacts. But the idea should now be revisited in light of NASA's push to send astronauts back to the Moon, says Austin Mardon of the Antarctic Institute of Canada in Edmonton, Alberta.
At a meeting of the International Lunar Exploration Working Group (ILEWG) in Beijing, China, last week, he argued that robotic probes should be sent to potential lava tubes to see if they are suitable for habitation.
He says erecting pressurised tents inside a cave would be easier and faster than trying to construct a rigid structure on the surface. "Instead of assembling structures that have to be meteorite-proof on the surface, or burying them, you'd have tent-like structures inside these tubes," Mardon told New Scientist. "It's like being cavemen on the Moon."
"It’s a potentially very inviting place to put infrastructure,” agrees Mark Robinson of Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, US. He says sections of the lava tubes with roofs still intact appear to be very stable, having survived for 3 billion years or more since their formation.
But he points out that the lava tubes may not be located where NASA would like to send astronauts. For example, the polar regions – which may harbour water ice that could be used to support a lunar base – appear to bear no sign of the ancient lava flows associated with lava tubes.
That's a pity.
As to how NASA intends looking for water on the Moon, it's hoping to try smashing something into it, and sniffing the plume for water. A previous attempt at something similar was not successful, and in fact I would guess that the new attempt may simply be unlucky too, even if some water is around.
Wouldn't a few astronauts with a couple of drills and some explosives stand a much better chance?
The Moon appears to possess long, cave-like structures called lava tubes that are similar to ones on Earth. They form when the surface of a stream of lava solidifies and the molten rock inside drains away, leaving a hollow tube of rock.
For decades, engineers and space scientists have discussed the possibility of using these caves as astronaut housing because they are sheltered from space radiation and micrometeorite impacts. But the idea should now be revisited in light of NASA's push to send astronauts back to the Moon, says Austin Mardon of the Antarctic Institute of Canada in Edmonton, Alberta.
At a meeting of the International Lunar Exploration Working Group (ILEWG) in Beijing, China, last week, he argued that robotic probes should be sent to potential lava tubes to see if they are suitable for habitation.
He says erecting pressurised tents inside a cave would be easier and faster than trying to construct a rigid structure on the surface. "Instead of assembling structures that have to be meteorite-proof on the surface, or burying them, you'd have tent-like structures inside these tubes," Mardon told New Scientist. "It's like being cavemen on the Moon."
"It’s a potentially very inviting place to put infrastructure,” agrees Mark Robinson of Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, US. He says sections of the lava tubes with roofs still intact appear to be very stable, having survived for 3 billion years or more since their formation.
But he points out that the lava tubes may not be located where NASA would like to send astronauts. For example, the polar regions – which may harbour water ice that could be used to support a lunar base – appear to bear no sign of the ancient lava flows associated with lava tubes.
That's a pity.
As to how NASA intends looking for water on the Moon, it's hoping to try smashing something into it, and sniffing the plume for water. A previous attempt at something similar was not successful, and in fact I would guess that the new attempt may simply be unlucky too, even if some water is around.
Wouldn't a few astronauts with a couple of drills and some explosives stand a much better chance?
About Mel
Unfortunately (as I don't want reader's thinking I just made this up), I have never mentioned before on this blog something that I have said to family: I have never liked Mel Gibson or his movies. It's not an opinion that can easily be rationalised; being one of the few "conservatives" in Hollywood, you would think I would have found something to like about him. (I also have not seen The Passion of the Christ, which I might like, but I have my doubts.)
Now that I feel justified in my dislike of him, I should mention a few other actors I just don't like in case they get into trouble too: Clint Eastwood (the critical acclaim given to "Unforgiven" was incomprehensible); Jim Carrey (I never get any sense from any interview I have seen that there is a "real" person inside that body at all; he's just creepy); and ...I am sure there is another one lurking in the back of my mind, but he or she won't come out right now.
Now that I feel justified in my dislike of him, I should mention a few other actors I just don't like in case they get into trouble too: Clint Eastwood (the critical acclaim given to "Unforgiven" was incomprehensible); Jim Carrey (I never get any sense from any interview I have seen that there is a "real" person inside that body at all; he's just creepy); and ...I am sure there is another one lurking in the back of my mind, but he or she won't come out right now.
Another good Neo Neocon post
neo-neocon: And what does Ariel Sharon have to say about it all?
This one deals with Ariel Sharon's views on the basic issue behing the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, as noted in a New Yorker article from the start of the year. Interesting reading as always on Neo Neocon.
This one deals with Ariel Sharon's views on the basic issue behing the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, as noted in a New Yorker article from the start of the year. Interesting reading as always on Neo Neocon.
No need to actually read him now
The New Yorker: The Critics: Books
Don't know much about Samuel Beckett and his works? Me neither, but I know more now having read the above article. The author seemingly admires Beckett, but many of his comments do nothing to encourage this blogger to actually read him:
Emptying his books of plot, descriptions, scene, and character, Beckett is said to have killed off the novel—or else, by showing how it could thrive on self-sabotage, insured its future....
One of the most purposely obscure writers of the last century has become all things to all people...
The Beckett of the novels is not a very efficient writer—exhaustion is his method—but he can probably condense more cackling blasphemies onto a single page than anyone else....
...Beckett is, however, a hard read. His plays continue to be performed, but as a novelist—and he considered playwriting “mainly a recreation from working on the novel”—he is increasingly more honored than read. This is too bad, because Beckett’s fiction, whether or not it is the summit of his achievement, is its heart. Meanwhile, vague and grand ideas about Beckett flourish because he goes unread. “A voice comes to one in the dark”: this, the first line of the late novella “Company,” also describes the ideal situation of his contemporary reader, as innocent and as apprehensive as that, as ready to be startled. Strange stuff, this work, that life.
The article usefully extracts some bits from Beckett's novels, just to confirm how tiresome reading him can be:
Here he moved, to and fro, from the door to the window, from the window to the door; from the window to the door, from the door to the window; from the fire to the bed, from the bed to the fire; from the bed to the fire, from the fire to the bed; from the door to the fire, from the fire to the door . . .
Think Beckett can’t go on? He can go on. In this case, for another thirty lines.
Good of the New Yorker to confirm a suspicion that I am not missing anything, other than tedium.
Don't know much about Samuel Beckett and his works? Me neither, but I know more now having read the above article. The author seemingly admires Beckett, but many of his comments do nothing to encourage this blogger to actually read him:
Emptying his books of plot, descriptions, scene, and character, Beckett is said to have killed off the novel—or else, by showing how it could thrive on self-sabotage, insured its future....
One of the most purposely obscure writers of the last century has become all things to all people...
The Beckett of the novels is not a very efficient writer—exhaustion is his method—but he can probably condense more cackling blasphemies onto a single page than anyone else....
...Beckett is, however, a hard read. His plays continue to be performed, but as a novelist—and he considered playwriting “mainly a recreation from working on the novel”—he is increasingly more honored than read. This is too bad, because Beckett’s fiction, whether or not it is the summit of his achievement, is its heart. Meanwhile, vague and grand ideas about Beckett flourish because he goes unread. “A voice comes to one in the dark”: this, the first line of the late novella “Company,” also describes the ideal situation of his contemporary reader, as innocent and as apprehensive as that, as ready to be startled. Strange stuff, this work, that life.
The article usefully extracts some bits from Beckett's novels, just to confirm how tiresome reading him can be:
Here he moved, to and fro, from the door to the window, from the window to the door; from the window to the door, from the door to the window; from the fire to the bed, from the bed to the fire; from the bed to the fire, from the fire to the bed; from the door to the fire, from the fire to the door . . .
Think Beckett can’t go on? He can go on. In this case, for another thirty lines.
Good of the New Yorker to confirm a suspicion that I am not missing anything, other than tedium.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Weather talk
Reuters AlertNet - US hurricane expert stirs global warming debate
Seems it's still not clear whether hurricanes are worse than before.
In Brisbane, it seems to have been a mild winter. Roses here can flower all year around (if you don't do a winter prune), although they obviously slow down in winter, and the buds take a long time to open. This last couple of weeks, a couple of the rose bushes in my yard have had a sudden flush of blooms. I also noticed a neighbours tree that looks something like a flowering plum or peach is starting to bloom. All signs, I think, that it has indeed been a milder winter. Summer could be a stinker, it seems.
Seems it's still not clear whether hurricanes are worse than before.
In Brisbane, it seems to have been a mild winter. Roses here can flower all year around (if you don't do a winter prune), although they obviously slow down in winter, and the buds take a long time to open. This last couple of weeks, a couple of the rose bushes in my yard have had a sudden flush of blooms. I also noticed a neighbours tree that looks something like a flowering plum or peach is starting to bloom. All signs, I think, that it has indeed been a milder winter. Summer could be a stinker, it seems.
The strange world of the placebo
Nothing can cure you - Health - Times Online
The link is to an interesting story on the placebo effect, and in particular how it is a large part of the complementary medicine story.
It does seem odd that an effect that is known to be quite powerful cannot really be used by doctors due to ethical/legal issues. (This didn't stop Dr House on the TV show "House" using it last week, though.)
One study is mentioned in the report which I think may have missed at the time:
Four years ago, a big study examined two popular treatments for depression: the herbal remedy St John’s Wort, the antidepressant tablet Zoloft, and a placebo. It revealed, amazingly, that the placebo was more effective than both of them.
Is there any way around the problems of how you could allow placebo to be legitimately used beyond the confines of medical studies? It would be tricky, I know, but it does seem a pity that only fictional doctors ever do it.
The link is to an interesting story on the placebo effect, and in particular how it is a large part of the complementary medicine story.
It does seem odd that an effect that is known to be quite powerful cannot really be used by doctors due to ethical/legal issues. (This didn't stop Dr House on the TV show "House" using it last week, though.)
One study is mentioned in the report which I think may have missed at the time:
Four years ago, a big study examined two popular treatments for depression: the herbal remedy St John’s Wort, the antidepressant tablet Zoloft, and a placebo. It revealed, amazingly, that the placebo was more effective than both of them.
Is there any way around the problems of how you could allow placebo to be legitimately used beyond the confines of medical studies? It would be tricky, I know, but it does seem a pity that only fictional doctors ever do it.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Friday, July 28, 2006
On the Shia/Sunni divide
The Tablet
The link is to a pretty good article in The Tablet talking about the Shia in the Middle East, and what the future may hold. As a summary of who is where, and who holds political power, this paragraph is useful:
Shia beliefs are held by perhaps one in 10 Muslims today - some 140 million people. Only Iran is overwhelmingly Shia, where they form 90 per cent of the population. Across the Persian Gulf, the littoral states with significant proportions of Shia include Kuwait, with 30 per cent of its population, Bahrain with 75 per cent, Saudi Arabia with 10 per cent, Qatar with 16 per cent and the United Arab Emirates with just 6 per cent. Approximately half of all Shia live in the arc beginning in Lebanon, with 45 per cent of its population being Shia, and ranging through Iraq with 60 per cent, Azerbaijan with 75 per cent, Afghanistan with 20 per cent to Pakistan, also with some 20 per cent.
In Syria, the ruling elite is Alawite, a Shia- affiliated group with just 15 per cent of the country's people. Alawite domination has bred deep resentment among many of Syria's Sunni Muslims who constitute 70 per cent of the population. Uprisings by Sunni Islamists in the early 1980s were partly fuelled by this sectarian divide.
The author suggests that (as I had said somewhere in comments before), the invasion of Iraq should logically be only a positive to Iran, due to the empowerment that it gave to Iraqi Shia:
Despite the history of Iraqi nationalism, Arab and Persian mutual suspicion and the legacy of the Iran-Iraq war, Iran is not displeased with the changes in the region and will not want to "rock the boat" irredeemably. Before recent changes, Iran considered itself surrounded by hostile Sunni states: Iraq and Saudi Arabia to the West and Afghanistan and Pakistan to the East. It would not want to see "anti-Iranian Arab nationalism" championed by Sunnis to emerge as a threat.
But if that is the case, why is it acting so belligerently about the having an un-monitored nuclear enrichment program?
The link is to a pretty good article in The Tablet talking about the Shia in the Middle East, and what the future may hold. As a summary of who is where, and who holds political power, this paragraph is useful:
Shia beliefs are held by perhaps one in 10 Muslims today - some 140 million people. Only Iran is overwhelmingly Shia, where they form 90 per cent of the population. Across the Persian Gulf, the littoral states with significant proportions of Shia include Kuwait, with 30 per cent of its population, Bahrain with 75 per cent, Saudi Arabia with 10 per cent, Qatar with 16 per cent and the United Arab Emirates with just 6 per cent. Approximately half of all Shia live in the arc beginning in Lebanon, with 45 per cent of its population being Shia, and ranging through Iraq with 60 per cent, Azerbaijan with 75 per cent, Afghanistan with 20 per cent to Pakistan, also with some 20 per cent.
In Syria, the ruling elite is Alawite, a Shia- affiliated group with just 15 per cent of the country's people. Alawite domination has bred deep resentment among many of Syria's Sunni Muslims who constitute 70 per cent of the population. Uprisings by Sunni Islamists in the early 1980s were partly fuelled by this sectarian divide.
The author suggests that (as I had said somewhere in comments before), the invasion of Iraq should logically be only a positive to Iran, due to the empowerment that it gave to Iraqi Shia:
Despite the history of Iraqi nationalism, Arab and Persian mutual suspicion and the legacy of the Iran-Iraq war, Iran is not displeased with the changes in the region and will not want to "rock the boat" irredeemably. Before recent changes, Iran considered itself surrounded by hostile Sunni states: Iraq and Saudi Arabia to the West and Afghanistan and Pakistan to the East. It would not want to see "anti-Iranian Arab nationalism" championed by Sunnis to emerge as a threat.
But if that is the case, why is it acting so belligerently about the having an un-monitored nuclear enrichment program?
The superconducting future
Science & Technology at Scientific American.com: A Power Grid for the Hydrogen Economy
This is a very futuristic sounding idea for a superconducting electricity grid that is cooled by hydrogen. Thus the grid distributes hydrogen as well as electricity. (It is also going to involve new, better designed, nuclear power stations.)
Sounds technically challenging, but still, the future has to start somewhere.
This is a very futuristic sounding idea for a superconducting electricity grid that is cooled by hydrogen. Thus the grid distributes hydrogen as well as electricity. (It is also going to involve new, better designed, nuclear power stations.)
Sounds technically challenging, but still, the future has to start somewhere.
Have spacesuit will travel
New Scientist SPACE - Future spacesuits could heal themselves
The spacesuit would be self-healing because its innermost layer, which provides the spacesuit's airtight seal, is filled with a thick polymer gel. The rubber-like gel is sandwiched between two thin layers of polyurethane so that if a hole forms in these layers, the gel oozes from surrounding areas to plug it. In vacuum chamber tests, the gel healed punctures up to 2 millimetres wide.
Cool.
One other problem for new lunar spacesuits: accounts of the Apollo missions made it clear that a significant problem was the amount of moon dirt that stuck to the suits and got dragged into the Lunar Module. From another article:
The moonwalkers of the 1960s struggled with the fine, powdery dust that covered their spacesuits. Back inside their tiny one-room cabin, it got everywhere-in the machinery, in their eyes, in their throats.
Scott said that moon dust even got in the connectors between the backpack and the spacesuits."You could almost hear them grind after three days," he said. He ranks dust as "the major problem for a long stay."
I assume that for a habitat on the Moon, they will have to devise some decent way of getting fine dirt off the suits so it is not dragged in through the airlock. (The Apollo lunar module did not have an airlock at all, which was a major problem. ) But even with an airlock, seems to me there will still be a problem unless you can use some fluid or cleaning device of some kind to use. Would a really efficient vacuum cleaner work?
UPDATE: by co-incidence, I just found this snippet about the Apollo spacesuits in a Tech Central Station article (it's a review of a book for kids about the Apollo program):
A central theme of Team Moon is that a large number of people -- the 400,000 of the subtitle -- pooled their talents to make the mission happen. These included, for instance, the seamstresses of the spacesuits worn by the astronauts. The suits consisted of 22 layers of materials such as Mylar and neoprene-coated nylon that were stitched and glued together by a team at the company ILC Dover. Team members had a great deal of confidence in the extensively tested suits, but still felt pangs of worry when, as recalled by seamstress Eleanor Foracker, "the guys on the moon started jumping up and down."
The spacesuit would be self-healing because its innermost layer, which provides the spacesuit's airtight seal, is filled with a thick polymer gel. The rubber-like gel is sandwiched between two thin layers of polyurethane so that if a hole forms in these layers, the gel oozes from surrounding areas to plug it. In vacuum chamber tests, the gel healed punctures up to 2 millimetres wide.
Cool.
One other problem for new lunar spacesuits: accounts of the Apollo missions made it clear that a significant problem was the amount of moon dirt that stuck to the suits and got dragged into the Lunar Module. From another article:
The moonwalkers of the 1960s struggled with the fine, powdery dust that covered their spacesuits. Back inside their tiny one-room cabin, it got everywhere-in the machinery, in their eyes, in their throats.
Scott said that moon dust even got in the connectors between the backpack and the spacesuits."You could almost hear them grind after three days," he said. He ranks dust as "the major problem for a long stay."
I assume that for a habitat on the Moon, they will have to devise some decent way of getting fine dirt off the suits so it is not dragged in through the airlock. (The Apollo lunar module did not have an airlock at all, which was a major problem. ) But even with an airlock, seems to me there will still be a problem unless you can use some fluid or cleaning device of some kind to use. Would a really efficient vacuum cleaner work?
UPDATE: by co-incidence, I just found this snippet about the Apollo spacesuits in a Tech Central Station article (it's a review of a book for kids about the Apollo program):
A central theme of Team Moon is that a large number of people -- the 400,000 of the subtitle -- pooled their talents to make the mission happen. These included, for instance, the seamstresses of the spacesuits worn by the astronauts. The suits consisted of 22 layers of materials such as Mylar and neoprene-coated nylon that were stitched and glued together by a team at the company ILC Dover. Team members had a great deal of confidence in the extensively tested suits, but still felt pangs of worry when, as recalled by seamstress Eleanor Foracker, "the guys on the moon started jumping up and down."
Insects displaying common sense
ScienceDaily: Male Praying Mantids Prefer Not To Be Victims Of Sexual Cannibalism
Gotta love a headline like that. From the article:
Lelito and Brown thus varied female hunger and physical orientation in order to assess how male mantids respond to variation in the risk of cannibalism. They found that males responded to greater risk by slowing their approach, increasing courtship behavior, and mounting from a greater – and possibly safer – distance.
"This shows that male mantids actively assess variation in risk and change their behavior to reduce the chance of being cannibalized," explains Brown. "Males are clearly not complicit, and the act of sexual cannibalism in praying mantids is an example of extreme conflict between the sexes."
Good to know.
Gotta love a headline like that. From the article:
Lelito and Brown thus varied female hunger and physical orientation in order to assess how male mantids respond to variation in the risk of cannibalism. They found that males responded to greater risk by slowing their approach, increasing courtship behavior, and mounting from a greater – and possibly safer – distance.
"This shows that male mantids actively assess variation in risk and change their behavior to reduce the chance of being cannibalized," explains Brown. "Males are clearly not complicit, and the act of sexual cannibalism in praying mantids is an example of extreme conflict between the sexes."
Good to know.
My suggestion for the Iranian problem
With regards to Iran and its nuclear program, I wonder whether the use of an electro magnetic pulse via either a nuclear explosion or a conventional "electronic bomb" has been discussed in Washington. It doesn't seem clear how far advanced the US is with non nuclear e-bombs, but there is a lengthy Australian article about them here. A short New Scientist article is here.
Last year, the US Senate thought about the possible consequences of a nuclear EMP attack from Iran on the United States, and some right wing Christian websites made much of it for a time (possibly that was all a beat up).
But I can't find anywhere yet that has discussed an attack in the opposite direction. Using such weapons against Iran as a first attempt to dissuade from the nuclear research would have many advantages. A nuclear EMP attack seems too big; by the sounds of it, if done at high enough altitude (which basically means in space) the effects on the power grid could extend well into neighbouring countries. If done at night, the giant glowing cloud in the sky shoud have considerable psychological impact though.
OK, first attempt could be by non nuclear e-bombs, which (as far as I can tell) detonate high above the targets and are largely non lethal on the ground (unless you use a pace maker, perhaps). It would seem that non nuclear ones would have a much narrower affected area.
The hope would be to fry all of the electronic equipment in the labs, and the power supply to them, without ruining the entire country's power supply. If such bombs can be delivered by cruise missiles, so much the better. If Iran laughs that off, then how about a really small nuclear one not too high over a desert area?
I trust no one from Iran reads this blog.
UPDATE: just to clarify, when I talk of a small nuclear one over a desert area, I am talking at high-ish altitude for the purpose of demonstrating EMP. I am not suggesting a nuclear strike on the ground. The nuclear EMP that is talked about most often, the Starfish Prime test in 1962, was well out into space, and didn't do satellites much good either. The Wikipedia entry on this is really good. Another Wikipedia entry talks about other high altitude tests in the 1960's - I didn't realise that so much had gone on at the time. Another long entry on EMP from nuclear devices is here. Seems the lowest altitude mentioned is about 40km, well below earth orbit.
Anyway, obviously a nuclear explosion anywhere in the atmosphere is not going to go over well with the Greenies or the UN. Also, it seems that the effectiveness of any EMP attack (non nuclear or nuclear) is going to be very hard to judge for the attacking country. (Especially if you are attacking underground facilities.) I wonder if that is the biggest disadvantage they have?
All interesting stuff for armchair generals to think about in any case.
Last year, the US Senate thought about the possible consequences of a nuclear EMP attack from Iran on the United States, and some right wing Christian websites made much of it for a time (possibly that was all a beat up).
But I can't find anywhere yet that has discussed an attack in the opposite direction. Using such weapons against Iran as a first attempt to dissuade from the nuclear research would have many advantages. A nuclear EMP attack seems too big; by the sounds of it, if done at high enough altitude (which basically means in space) the effects on the power grid could extend well into neighbouring countries. If done at night, the giant glowing cloud in the sky shoud have considerable psychological impact though.
OK, first attempt could be by non nuclear e-bombs, which (as far as I can tell) detonate high above the targets and are largely non lethal on the ground (unless you use a pace maker, perhaps). It would seem that non nuclear ones would have a much narrower affected area.
The hope would be to fry all of the electronic equipment in the labs, and the power supply to them, without ruining the entire country's power supply. If such bombs can be delivered by cruise missiles, so much the better. If Iran laughs that off, then how about a really small nuclear one not too high over a desert area?
I trust no one from Iran reads this blog.
UPDATE: just to clarify, when I talk of a small nuclear one over a desert area, I am talking at high-ish altitude for the purpose of demonstrating EMP. I am not suggesting a nuclear strike on the ground. The nuclear EMP that is talked about most often, the Starfish Prime test in 1962, was well out into space, and didn't do satellites much good either. The Wikipedia entry on this is really good. Another Wikipedia entry talks about other high altitude tests in the 1960's - I didn't realise that so much had gone on at the time. Another long entry on EMP from nuclear devices is here. Seems the lowest altitude mentioned is about 40km, well below earth orbit.
Anyway, obviously a nuclear explosion anywhere in the atmosphere is not going to go over well with the Greenies or the UN. Also, it seems that the effectiveness of any EMP attack (non nuclear or nuclear) is going to be very hard to judge for the attacking country. (Especially if you are attacking underground facilities.) I wonder if that is the biggest disadvantage they have?
All interesting stuff for armchair generals to think about in any case.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
A way to escape the end of the universe?
[hep-th/0607137] Some notes on the Big Trip
There's some unusual stuff to be found at arXiv.
Can't say that I had heard of the "Big Trip" before. From the paper itself:
Rather bizarre implications from dark energy models are now being considered that might ultimately make the
future of the universe sings a somehow weird melody. It has been in fact recently proposed [1] that if the current value of the equation-of-state parameter w would keep up being less than -1 in the future, then the throat radius of naturally existing wormholes could grow large enough to engulf the entire universe itself, before this reached the so called big rip singularity [2], at least for an asymptotic observer. This rather astonishing result - which has been dubbed the ”big trip” - has proved to be not free from a number of difficulties...
It will be seen that none of the problems (1), (3) and (4) indeed hold for the asymptotic observer, and that problem (2) is a debatable one and might require considering the big trip to take place within the context of a multiverse scenario.
The whole universe disappearing down a worm hole. That would be something to see.
There's some unusual stuff to be found at arXiv.
Can't say that I had heard of the "Big Trip" before. From the paper itself:
Rather bizarre implications from dark energy models are now being considered that might ultimately make the
future of the universe sings a somehow weird melody. It has been in fact recently proposed [1] that if the current value of the equation-of-state parameter w would keep up being less than -1 in the future, then the throat radius of naturally existing wormholes could grow large enough to engulf the entire universe itself, before this reached the so called big rip singularity [2], at least for an asymptotic observer. This rather astonishing result - which has been dubbed the ”big trip” - has proved to be not free from a number of difficulties...
It will be seen that none of the problems (1), (3) and (4) indeed hold for the asymptotic observer, and that problem (2) is a debatable one and might require considering the big trip to take place within the context of a multiverse scenario.
The whole universe disappearing down a worm hole. That would be something to see.
Why Lance Armstrong got better?
BBC NEWS | Health | Heat may be key to cancer therapy
The theory is that cancer cells from testicular cancer are more susceptible to heat, given that their original home is a few degrees cooler than the rest of the body. Sounds plausible.
This reminds me, I am pretty sure there was an Arthur C Clarke novel in which brief mention was made of human males in the future no longer having external genitalia, including testes. The difference between men and women only became obvious on arousal. I think that this was the result of genetic manipulation to improve the design of males. (I hope this is a real memory and I am not relaying some stupid dream!) It seemed to me a very unlikely thing to bother genetically manipulating.
I think it was also Clarke who mentioned a character putting a cream on his face to inhibit beard growth (instead of shaving.) I think of that quite often as I shave in the morning, as it strikes me as a product that sounds a likely prediction, but turns out to be far off the mark.
It's funny how the mind can keep remembering some of the most minor details of novels.
The theory is that cancer cells from testicular cancer are more susceptible to heat, given that their original home is a few degrees cooler than the rest of the body. Sounds plausible.
This reminds me, I am pretty sure there was an Arthur C Clarke novel in which brief mention was made of human males in the future no longer having external genitalia, including testes. The difference between men and women only became obvious on arousal. I think that this was the result of genetic manipulation to improve the design of males. (I hope this is a real memory and I am not relaying some stupid dream!) It seemed to me a very unlikely thing to bother genetically manipulating.
I think it was also Clarke who mentioned a character putting a cream on his face to inhibit beard growth (instead of shaving.) I think of that quite often as I shave in the morning, as it strikes me as a product that sounds a likely prediction, but turns out to be far off the mark.
It's funny how the mind can keep remembering some of the most minor details of novels.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Hope for young soldier
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Palestinian groups agree deal for return of Israeli
From the Guardian:
Palestinian factions, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad, have agreed to stop firing rockets at Israel and to free a captured Israeli soldier in a deal brokered by Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president.
The deal, agreed on Sunday, is to halt the rocket attacks in return for a cessation of Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip, and to release Corporal Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier captured on June 25, in exchange for the freeing of Palestinian prisoners at some point in the future.
An adviser to Mr Abbas told the Guardian that all Palestinian politicians were united on the need to free the Israeli soldier and stop all violence in Gaza, but the obstacles were the Israeli government and the Hamas leadership in Damascus.
From the Guardian:
Palestinian factions, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad, have agreed to stop firing rockets at Israel and to free a captured Israeli soldier in a deal brokered by Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president.
The deal, agreed on Sunday, is to halt the rocket attacks in return for a cessation of Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip, and to release Corporal Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier captured on June 25, in exchange for the freeing of Palestinian prisoners at some point in the future.
An adviser to Mr Abbas told the Guardian that all Palestinian politicians were united on the need to free the Israeli soldier and stop all violence in Gaza, but the obstacles were the Israeli government and the Hamas leadership in Damascus.
I don't understand
Independent Online Edition > Health Medical
Because I can't get free access to this report, or to the BMJ article, I can only see this introduction, and I don't see how his argument works:
A leading doctor has accused Western plastic surgeons who perform cosmetic surgery on the vagina of undermining the battle against female circumcision in other parts of the world.
Writing in the British Medical Journal, Ronan Conroy, senior lecturer at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, says the growing acceptance in Britain and elsewhere of so-called "designer vaginas" was exposing Western double standards.
I mean, aren't "designer vaginas" intended to enhance function, and female circumcision doing the exact opposite?
Because I can't get free access to this report, or to the BMJ article, I can only see this introduction, and I don't see how his argument works:
A leading doctor has accused Western plastic surgeons who perform cosmetic surgery on the vagina of undermining the battle against female circumcision in other parts of the world.
Writing in the British Medical Journal, Ronan Conroy, senior lecturer at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, says the growing acceptance in Britain and elsewhere of so-called "designer vaginas" was exposing Western double standards.
I mean, aren't "designer vaginas" intended to enhance function, and female circumcision doing the exact opposite?
Everything in moderation
ScienceDaily: Light To Moderate Drinking Reduces Risk Of Cardiac Events, Death
OK, maybe you knew that before, but a new study confirming it doesn't hurt.
This one points out that the idea that the cardiac benefits of alcohol may be due to its effect on inflammation doesn't seen right. It seems that no one yet knows clearly why it does work:
The findings indicate that the anti-inflammatory properties of alcohol alone do not explain the reduced risk of death or cardiovascular disease associated with light to moderate drinking, the authors write. Alcohol may have cellular or molecular effects that reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, or it may interact with genetic factors to produce a protective effect.
The health effects of alcohol may not be the same for everyone, the authors caution. "The net benefit of light to moderate alcohol consumption may vary as a function of sex, race and background cardiovascular risk," they conclude.
OK, maybe you knew that before, but a new study confirming it doesn't hurt.
This one points out that the idea that the cardiac benefits of alcohol may be due to its effect on inflammation doesn't seen right. It seems that no one yet knows clearly why it does work:
The findings indicate that the anti-inflammatory properties of alcohol alone do not explain the reduced risk of death or cardiovascular disease associated with light to moderate drinking, the authors write. Alcohol may have cellular or molecular effects that reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, or it may interact with genetic factors to produce a protective effect.
The health effects of alcohol may not be the same for everyone, the authors caution. "The net benefit of light to moderate alcohol consumption may vary as a function of sex, race and background cardiovascular risk," they conclude.
Mark Steyn on the Middle East
Mark Steyn: If only they had refused to indulge Arafat | News | The Australian
All of the article is good Steyn stuff. An extract:
For the first quarter-century of Israel's existence, the Arab states fought more or less conventional wars against the Zionists and kept losing. So then they figured it was easier to anoint a terrorist movement and in 1974 declared Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organisation to be the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people", which is quite a claim for an organisation then barely a decade old. Amazingly, the Arab League persuaded the UN, the EU, Bill Clinton and everyone else to go along with it and to treat the old monster as a head of state who lacked only a state to head.
It's true that many nationalist movements have found it convenient to adopt the guise of terrorists.
But, as the Palestinian movement descended from airline hijackings to the intifada to self-detonating in pizza parlours, it never occurred to its glamorous patrons to wonder if maybe this was, in fact, a terrorist movement conveniently adopting the guise of nationalism.
All of the article is good Steyn stuff. An extract:
For the first quarter-century of Israel's existence, the Arab states fought more or less conventional wars against the Zionists and kept losing. So then they figured it was easier to anoint a terrorist movement and in 1974 declared Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organisation to be the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people", which is quite a claim for an organisation then barely a decade old. Amazingly, the Arab League persuaded the UN, the EU, Bill Clinton and everyone else to go along with it and to treat the old monster as a head of state who lacked only a state to head.
It's true that many nationalist movements have found it convenient to adopt the guise of terrorists.
But, as the Palestinian movement descended from airline hijackings to the intifada to self-detonating in pizza parlours, it never occurred to its glamorous patrons to wonder if maybe this was, in fact, a terrorist movement conveniently adopting the guise of nationalism.
It must cause Phillip Adams chest pains
Many, er, happy returns, PM | Matt Price | The Australian
Matt Price makes this comment in his short piece on John Howard's birthday:
These days the Prime Minister is routinely mobbed during public appearances and Wood reckons more than 400 people from a mix of community groups will make it for a cuppa with the birthday boy.
"You normally get a high proportion of no-shows, but practically everyone we asked is turning up," said Wood.
Matt Price makes this comment in his short piece on John Howard's birthday:
These days the Prime Minister is routinely mobbed during public appearances and Wood reckons more than 400 people from a mix of community groups will make it for a cuppa with the birthday boy.
"You normally get a high proportion of no-shows, but practically everyone we asked is turning up," said Wood.
Insert own joke about sheep being confused
Wig and robes not enough
From the story above:
A PROMINENT New Zealand lawyer - bald and moustachioed - turned up to court wearing a skirt and blouse and carrying a handbag to protest what he says is a male-dominated judiciary.
Rob Moodie, 67, fronted Wellington's High Court yesterday dressed in a navy blue skirt suit with added female extras, The Dominion Post newspaper reported.
"I will now, as a lawyer, be wearing women's clothing," Mr Moodie was quoted as saying .
"The deeper the cover-up, the prettier the frocks."
From the story above:
A PROMINENT New Zealand lawyer - bald and moustachioed - turned up to court wearing a skirt and blouse and carrying a handbag to protest what he says is a male-dominated judiciary.
Rob Moodie, 67, fronted Wellington's High Court yesterday dressed in a navy blue skirt suit with added female extras, The Dominion Post newspaper reported.
"I will now, as a lawyer, be wearing women's clothing," Mr Moodie was quoted as saying .
"The deeper the cover-up, the prettier the frocks."
Any more than guesswork?
Minister ignored parrot advice - National - theage.com.au
While what went on behind Senator Ian Campbell's decision to not approve a new Victorian wind farm is no doubt interesting, this part of the report seems odd:
While refusing to comment on why the departmental briefing paper would not be released, a spokeswoman for said Senator Campbell had based his decision on a publicly available report by consultants Biosis Research, which warned that orange-bellied parrots face extinction within 50 years. There are only about 200 left.
Yet the same Biosis Research report also predicted that the risk of any parrots being killed at the Bald Hills site was extremely low.
According to the Biosis risk analysis, the worst-case scenario would result in one parrot being killed at Bald Hills every 667 years. In the best-case scenario, that would fall to one being killed every 1097 years.
How on earth would you forecast with any high degree of accuracy the rate of bird kill for a particular species in an area that has not had a wind farm in it before?
Sounds like rubbery figures to me.
While what went on behind Senator Ian Campbell's decision to not approve a new Victorian wind farm is no doubt interesting, this part of the report seems odd:
While refusing to comment on why the departmental briefing paper would not be released, a spokeswoman for said Senator Campbell had based his decision on a publicly available report by consultants Biosis Research, which warned that orange-bellied parrots face extinction within 50 years. There are only about 200 left.
Yet the same Biosis Research report also predicted that the risk of any parrots being killed at the Bald Hills site was extremely low.
According to the Biosis risk analysis, the worst-case scenario would result in one parrot being killed at Bald Hills every 667 years. In the best-case scenario, that would fall to one being killed every 1097 years.
How on earth would you forecast with any high degree of accuracy the rate of bird kill for a particular species in an area that has not had a wind farm in it before?
Sounds like rubbery figures to me.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Mum-in-law from hell
Mother-in-law made to pay (pounds) 35,000 for inflicting four wretched months - Britain - Times Online
An Indian arranged marriage goes wrong, and the daughter in law successfully sues the mother-in-law from hell under legislation designed to cover stalkers. I can't think of equivalent legislation in Australian jurisdictions that could work here.
From the article:
Ms Singh was 22 and a manager in her family’s clothing business when she married Hardeep Bhakar, then 25, from Ilford, East London, on November 1, 2002. Their families had been introduced by a matchmaker. She had expected to live with her husband’s family after the marriage.
But she soon began to have doubts about her new home, which she shared with Hardeep and his two brothers as well as Mrs Bhakar and her husband, Prithvipal Singh Bhakar. Ms Singh and Mrs Bhakar were often alone in the house together while the men were out.
Mrs Bhakar attempted to exhaust and humiliate her daughter-in-law, requiring her to clean toilets without a brush and clean the floor without a mop. Her hands became infected. Ms Singh’s visits home were restricted and she was not allowed to attend her uncle’s funeral or make regular visits to the Sikh temple. Her mobile phone was confiscated and she was allowed to make and receive only one closely monitored call a week to her family.
Sounds a lot like a pandora's box of litigation being opened, all the same.
An Indian arranged marriage goes wrong, and the daughter in law successfully sues the mother-in-law from hell under legislation designed to cover stalkers. I can't think of equivalent legislation in Australian jurisdictions that could work here.
From the article:
Ms Singh was 22 and a manager in her family’s clothing business when she married Hardeep Bhakar, then 25, from Ilford, East London, on November 1, 2002. Their families had been introduced by a matchmaker. She had expected to live with her husband’s family after the marriage.
But she soon began to have doubts about her new home, which she shared with Hardeep and his two brothers as well as Mrs Bhakar and her husband, Prithvipal Singh Bhakar. Ms Singh and Mrs Bhakar were often alone in the house together while the men were out.
Mrs Bhakar attempted to exhaust and humiliate her daughter-in-law, requiring her to clean toilets without a brush and clean the floor without a mop. Her hands became infected. Ms Singh’s visits home were restricted and she was not allowed to attend her uncle’s funeral or make regular visits to the Sikh temple. Her mobile phone was confiscated and she was allowed to make and receive only one closely monitored call a week to her family.
Sounds a lot like a pandora's box of litigation being opened, all the same.
Monday, July 24, 2006
The Tablet on the Middle East
The Tablet
The opinion piece above is entitled "Disporportionately deadly" and states the reasons why the writer believes Israel, which he supports generally, should be condemned for an excessive response to Lebanon/Hezbollah.
The article is reasonably well written, and covers a lot of ground about what all the players may want to achieve.
I would criticise the article on some important counts, however:
1. Most importantly, while emphasizing that the laws of war incorporate the concept of proportionality, the article fails to note that the same laws prohibit use of civilians as a shield. This is quite a glaring omission in the circumstances.
To be more accurate in targeting Hezbollah assets on the ground, given that they are apparently hidden within civilian buildings, an invasion far into Lebanon would be necessary, which (in this particular case) carries the added risk of involvement of Syrian and Lebanese (as opposed to Hezbollah)
troops, as well as street to street ambushes and fighting. While not flattening as many residential buildings as bombing from the air, this style of fighting is not exactly going to leave the neighbourhood pretty. (And, I wonder, while it might result in a lower level of destruction in any particular street, would it be over a wider area?)
2. The article says of the response of Bush, Blair and (Canadian PM) Harper:
It is conceivable that one or more of them believes, along with tens of millions of evangelical Christians, that another war between Israel and its neighbours is a necessary precursor to the second coming of Christ.
Raising this seems rather unnecessary if you are unable to find any statement by any of the 3 that they believe this.
I note that has been much speculation by Bush opponents over the years that he probably believes this, especially with his ties to some evangelical Christians who do take the "end times" stuff very seriously. (Let me be clear: it is absurd and offensive for those nutters who believe this is the start of the "end times" to cheer on conflict in the Middle East.)
However, I have not been able to find any quote from Bush's mouth that confirms that he personally believes this. (A generic statement that he believes it is "God's will" that there be peace in the Middle East is not going to cut it. Correct me if I am wrong about this; it seems to me he must have been asked the question directly sometime in his political career, but I haven't found it on the internet yet.)
To worry unduly about Bush's personal belief about this has always struck me as a case of "guilt by association", and an example of many on the Left's general dislike of conservative Christianity getting carried away.
Besides, the number of people involved in executive power in the US system surely makes it extremely unlikely that any President with a belief in his personal apocalyptic role is going to get far with launching the missiles.
Whether you can have the same expectation from an out and out theocracy is another question.
3. The article also says:
President Bush and his advisers have several reasons for wanting a conflict with Iran. They have a score to settle concerning the 52 Americans who were held hostage for 444 days after the Islamic revolution of 1979. They are concerned about Iranian influence in Iraq and - at a time when China and Russia are emerging as serious competitors - have an eye on Iran's immense oil reserves also. A confrontation with Iran could also boost the Republican Party's prospects in the mid-term congressional elections in just three months.
Hmm. It could also be that they have a legitimate concern about another nuclear power in the Middle East with a recurring dream of removing Israel.
4. His final paragraph:
If we accept Israel's response and then tolerate it, we would be devaluing the lives of Lebanese citizens. We would also undermine the laws of war, which exist to prevent unnecessary human suffering without regard to national, religious or ethnic differences. Israel has a right to defend itself, but always within recognised and reasonable limits. Those limits have been breached. Friends of the Jewish state should not pretend otherwise.
Again, it would be good to see a statement that fighters who hide assets and themselves within civilian buildings (and then provoke a conflict) are also "devaluing the lives of Lebanese citizens."
For the record: Israeli targeting of some infrastructure appears to me to be of no military or even "political" use in the conflict, and should be criticised. (Power stations seems the most likely example - as no one seems to suggest that Hezbollah has a manufacturing base in Lebanon, and I don't know how having the power on would help them launch missiles.) Some infrastructure attacks may have a military point: preventing Hezbollah movement and resupply being the obvious one. There are some claims of escaping civilians being deliberately targeted. If it can be shown to have been deliberate, that is a war crime no doubt. It's just that I find it hard to believe this is a matter of Israeli policy, and in most cases would suspect mistake more often than war crime.
The whole problem is, without more detail, I have a hard time judging what attacks are justified or not. Judging from media reports alone is also tricky; a devastated Beirut suburb looks bad; it is bad. But it was always on the cards that this would happen if Israel wanted to stop the attacks. That's the evil of this asymmetric war stuff. It's dirty and nasty.
Hopefully, both sides will stop soon, and that is probably in Israel's interest too.
The opinion piece above is entitled "Disporportionately deadly" and states the reasons why the writer believes Israel, which he supports generally, should be condemned for an excessive response to Lebanon/Hezbollah.
The article is reasonably well written, and covers a lot of ground about what all the players may want to achieve.
I would criticise the article on some important counts, however:
1. Most importantly, while emphasizing that the laws of war incorporate the concept of proportionality, the article fails to note that the same laws prohibit use of civilians as a shield. This is quite a glaring omission in the circumstances.
To be more accurate in targeting Hezbollah assets on the ground, given that they are apparently hidden within civilian buildings, an invasion far into Lebanon would be necessary, which (in this particular case) carries the added risk of involvement of Syrian and Lebanese (as opposed to Hezbollah)
troops, as well as street to street ambushes and fighting. While not flattening as many residential buildings as bombing from the air, this style of fighting is not exactly going to leave the neighbourhood pretty. (And, I wonder, while it might result in a lower level of destruction in any particular street, would it be over a wider area?)
2. The article says of the response of Bush, Blair and (Canadian PM) Harper:
It is conceivable that one or more of them believes, along with tens of millions of evangelical Christians, that another war between Israel and its neighbours is a necessary precursor to the second coming of Christ.
Raising this seems rather unnecessary if you are unable to find any statement by any of the 3 that they believe this.
I note that has been much speculation by Bush opponents over the years that he probably believes this, especially with his ties to some evangelical Christians who do take the "end times" stuff very seriously. (Let me be clear: it is absurd and offensive for those nutters who believe this is the start of the "end times" to cheer on conflict in the Middle East.)
However, I have not been able to find any quote from Bush's mouth that confirms that he personally believes this. (A generic statement that he believes it is "God's will" that there be peace in the Middle East is not going to cut it. Correct me if I am wrong about this; it seems to me he must have been asked the question directly sometime in his political career, but I haven't found it on the internet yet.)
To worry unduly about Bush's personal belief about this has always struck me as a case of "guilt by association", and an example of many on the Left's general dislike of conservative Christianity getting carried away.
Besides, the number of people involved in executive power in the US system surely makes it extremely unlikely that any President with a belief in his personal apocalyptic role is going to get far with launching the missiles.
Whether you can have the same expectation from an out and out theocracy is another question.
3. The article also says:
President Bush and his advisers have several reasons for wanting a conflict with Iran. They have a score to settle concerning the 52 Americans who were held hostage for 444 days after the Islamic revolution of 1979. They are concerned about Iranian influence in Iraq and - at a time when China and Russia are emerging as serious competitors - have an eye on Iran's immense oil reserves also. A confrontation with Iran could also boost the Republican Party's prospects in the mid-term congressional elections in just three months.
Hmm. It could also be that they have a legitimate concern about another nuclear power in the Middle East with a recurring dream of removing Israel.
4. His final paragraph:
If we accept Israel's response and then tolerate it, we would be devaluing the lives of Lebanese citizens. We would also undermine the laws of war, which exist to prevent unnecessary human suffering without regard to national, religious or ethnic differences. Israel has a right to defend itself, but always within recognised and reasonable limits. Those limits have been breached. Friends of the Jewish state should not pretend otherwise.
Again, it would be good to see a statement that fighters who hide assets and themselves within civilian buildings (and then provoke a conflict) are also "devaluing the lives of Lebanese citizens."
For the record: Israeli targeting of some infrastructure appears to me to be of no military or even "political" use in the conflict, and should be criticised. (Power stations seems the most likely example - as no one seems to suggest that Hezbollah has a manufacturing base in Lebanon, and I don't know how having the power on would help them launch missiles.) Some infrastructure attacks may have a military point: preventing Hezbollah movement and resupply being the obvious one. There are some claims of escaping civilians being deliberately targeted. If it can be shown to have been deliberate, that is a war crime no doubt. It's just that I find it hard to believe this is a matter of Israeli policy, and in most cases would suspect mistake more often than war crime.
The whole problem is, without more detail, I have a hard time judging what attacks are justified or not. Judging from media reports alone is also tricky; a devastated Beirut suburb looks bad; it is bad. But it was always on the cards that this would happen if Israel wanted to stop the attacks. That's the evil of this asymmetric war stuff. It's dirty and nasty.
Hopefully, both sides will stop soon, and that is probably in Israel's interest too.
Why does Koizumi bother?
CNN.com - Polls: Japanese oppose shrine trip - Jul 23, 2006
With the recent revelation that the late Japanese Emperor Hirohito gave up visiting Yasukuni Shrine due to it adding war criminals to the list of the honored, and this article indicating that only 33% of Japanese actually clearly approve of the visits, you have to wonder why Prime Minisiter Koizumi bothers to insist that he still visit.
I suppose it could simply be all about saving face now. A sudden stop would seem an implied admission that he was wrong in the past.
Like whale hunting, which seems to also have no significant support in the Japanese public, this a bit of Japanese political behaviour which is strange to Western eyes.
At least the polls give some vague hope that the next PM will stop the visits.
With the recent revelation that the late Japanese Emperor Hirohito gave up visiting Yasukuni Shrine due to it adding war criminals to the list of the honored, and this article indicating that only 33% of Japanese actually clearly approve of the visits, you have to wonder why Prime Minisiter Koizumi bothers to insist that he still visit.
I suppose it could simply be all about saving face now. A sudden stop would seem an implied admission that he was wrong in the past.
Like whale hunting, which seems to also have no significant support in the Japanese public, this a bit of Japanese political behaviour which is strange to Western eyes.
At least the polls give some vague hope that the next PM will stop the visits.
Always time for more micro black hole talk
Seed: What if Black Holes Didn't Exist?
The article above gives a short explanation of an idea of a couple of physicists that black holes may not exist at all. There would still be things called "dark energy stars," which might act like astronomical black holes. One important difference would be (according to the Wikipedia entry on this theory) that they would not evaporate via Hawking Radiation.
I suspect this may be relevant to the issue of safety of micro "black holes" that might be created at the CERN particle accelerator, but whether it is good news or bad news in that regard is beyond me.
The article above gives a short explanation of an idea of a couple of physicists that black holes may not exist at all. There would still be things called "dark energy stars," which might act like astronomical black holes. One important difference would be (according to the Wikipedia entry on this theory) that they would not evaporate via Hawking Radiation.
I suspect this may be relevant to the issue of safety of micro "black holes" that might be created at the CERN particle accelerator, but whether it is good news or bad news in that regard is beyond me.
Something positive for a change
Irshad Manji: Faithful consider liberal reforms | Opinion | The Australian
Interesting story about an important move to liberalise some parts of Islam in Pakistan (and elsewhere.)
Unfortunately, some movement in the other direction goes on in regional government in Indonesia. SBS's Dateline did a story on this recently. As George Negus was away at the time, I could bear watching it.
Interesting story about an important move to liberalise some parts of Islam in Pakistan (and elsewhere.)
Unfortunately, some movement in the other direction goes on in regional government in Indonesia. SBS's Dateline did a story on this recently. As George Negus was away at the time, I could bear watching it.
Sounds unreasonable
Iran: Israel doomed to 'destruction' | Jerusalem Post:
Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, declared Sunday that Israel had "pushed the button of its own destruction" by launching its military campaign against the Iranian-backed Hizbullah militia in Lebanon.
Ahmadinejad didn't elaborate, but suggested Islamic nations and others could somehow isolate Israel and its main backers led by the United States. On Saturday, the chairman of Iran's armed forced joint chiefs, Maj.-Gen. Sayyed Hassan Firuzabadi, said Iran would never join the current Middle East fighting....
In Teheran, the government has sanctioned billboards showing Hizbullah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah and a message that it is the duty of Muslims to "wipe out" Israel.
Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, declared Sunday that Israel had "pushed the button of its own destruction" by launching its military campaign against the Iranian-backed Hizbullah militia in Lebanon.
Ahmadinejad didn't elaborate, but suggested Islamic nations and others could somehow isolate Israel and its main backers led by the United States. On Saturday, the chairman of Iran's armed forced joint chiefs, Maj.-Gen. Sayyed Hassan Firuzabadi, said Iran would never join the current Middle East fighting....
In Teheran, the government has sanctioned billboards showing Hizbullah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah and a message that it is the duty of Muslims to "wipe out" Israel.
Sounds reasonable
NewsDaily: TopNews -- Israel may accept a political Hezbollah
"To the extent that it remains a political group, it will be acceptable to Israel," Israeli Ambassador Daniel Ayalon said. "A political group means a party that is engaged in the political system in Lebanon, but without terrorism capabilities and fighting capabilities. That will be acceptable to Israel."
"To the extent that it remains a political group, it will be acceptable to Israel," Israeli Ambassador Daniel Ayalon said. "A political group means a party that is engaged in the political system in Lebanon, but without terrorism capabilities and fighting capabilities. That will be acceptable to Israel."
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Fisk alert
A farewell to Beirut - In Depth - theage.com.au
The Age runs a Robert Fisk story from The Independent.
Certainly, Beirut sounds like it's been an unlucky city for centuries.
Just don't expect any subtle analysis of the current crisis, though. As a piece of current journalism/commentary, it suffers from Fisk-ness to a high degree.
The Age runs a Robert Fisk story from The Independent.
Certainly, Beirut sounds like it's been an unlucky city for centuries.
Just don't expect any subtle analysis of the current crisis, though. As a piece of current journalism/commentary, it suffers from Fisk-ness to a high degree.
Just in case you need more background
Proxy war | Features | The Australian
There's certainly no lack of commentary and articles giving background on the Middle East crisis, but the one above in today's Australia seemed a particularly good one to me, and filled in a few gaps in my previous knowledge.
There's certainly no lack of commentary and articles giving background on the Middle East crisis, but the one above in today's Australia seemed a particularly good one to me, and filled in a few gaps in my previous knowledge.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
No Sense Left
Early reviews for M Night Shayamalan's latest film, "Lady in the Water" are very bad. Sure, the Sixth Sense was creepy, but as all critics have noted, his films have been on a rapid decline in quality ever since, and this one looks like it has sent his reputation into freefall.
(This reminds me, on cable here some months ago there was what seemed intended to be a "mockumentary" about him. It was awful. )
Anyway, one of the reviews has this very funny paragraph:
If the film weren’t already feeble enough, Shyamalan insists on upgrading his signature cameo performances in his own films to that of featured supporting player. Shyamalan plays a novelist who lives with his "sister" in Cleveland’s apartment complex. Forget that M. Night Shyamalan’s acting skills couldn’t get him cast in a high school production of "Our Town." Watching a skilled acting craftsman like Paul Giamatti delivering lines to Shyamalan is like watching Robert Duvall talk to his cat about politics. It’s the one thing in the movie that sent shivers down my spine.
(This reminds me, on cable here some months ago there was what seemed intended to be a "mockumentary" about him. It was awful. )
Anyway, one of the reviews has this very funny paragraph:
If the film weren’t already feeble enough, Shyamalan insists on upgrading his signature cameo performances in his own films to that of featured supporting player. Shyamalan plays a novelist who lives with his "sister" in Cleveland’s apartment complex. Forget that M. Night Shyamalan’s acting skills couldn’t get him cast in a high school production of "Our Town." Watching a skilled acting craftsman like Paul Giamatti delivering lines to Shyamalan is like watching Robert Duvall talk to his cat about politics. It’s the one thing in the movie that sent shivers down my spine.
Sheridan's odd plan for peace
Israel has right motive but the wrong target | Greg Sheridan | The Australian
Greg Sheridan, somewhat to my surprise, clearly criticises Israel for blowing up bits of Lebanon, not just the Hezbollah units.
However, he ends on this note:
An Israeli strike against Syria's armed forces would have shown Assad he had to pay a price for Hezbollah's activities. Striking Lebanon, which is weak and cannot fight back, causes Assad, and the rulers in Tehran, no pain at all.
Not that I know how strong Syria is militarily, but wouldn't an attack on it have been something like throwing petrol on a flame to put it out?
Greg Sheridan, somewhat to my surprise, clearly criticises Israel for blowing up bits of Lebanon, not just the Hezbollah units.
However, he ends on this note:
An Israeli strike against Syria's armed forces would have shown Assad he had to pay a price for Hezbollah's activities. Striking Lebanon, which is weak and cannot fight back, causes Assad, and the rulers in Tehran, no pain at all.
Not that I know how strong Syria is militarily, but wouldn't an attack on it have been something like throwing petrol on a flame to put it out?
A useful short history of Hezbollah
Hezbollah Evolution Opposition Proves Constant | The Jewish Exponent
It's from a Jewish source, but the tone it uses would suggest it's basically accurate.
What surprised me was the amount of funding from Iran for civilian services: $60 million a year. A radical organisation can sure curry a lot of favour with the locals with funding like that. This presumably led to its electoral success:
Running in June 2005 elections, Hezbollah won 23 seats in Lebanon's 128-member Parliament, and holds the Energy Ministry. Some hoped that political power would moderate the group and compel it to act more responsibly, but there has been little indication of a change in Hezbollah's outlook or behavior.
This involvement with government certainly complicates the moral issues over what are legitimate targets and what aren't.
It's from a Jewish source, but the tone it uses would suggest it's basically accurate.
What surprised me was the amount of funding from Iran for civilian services: $60 million a year. A radical organisation can sure curry a lot of favour with the locals with funding like that. This presumably led to its electoral success:
Running in June 2005 elections, Hezbollah won 23 seats in Lebanon's 128-member Parliament, and holds the Energy Ministry. Some hoped that political power would moderate the group and compel it to act more responsibly, but there has been little indication of a change in Hezbollah's outlook or behavior.
This involvement with government certainly complicates the moral issues over what are legitimate targets and what aren't.
Another Slate article worth reading
What is Hezbollah up to? By Fred Kaplan
One thing I wonder about - where do they hide all of those rockets in Southern Lebanon?
One thing I wonder about - where do they hide all of those rockets in Southern Lebanon?
Danny Katz on the Middle East
Caught in the crossfire of blame - Danny Katz - Opinion - theage.com.au
Maybe some will think he shouldn't be trying to be a bit funny about the Middle East conflict, but it works OK for me.
Maybe some will think he shouldn't be trying to be a bit funny about the Middle East conflict, but it works OK for me.
So much for the "Pretty Woman" image
Angst of city's sex workers - National - smh.com.au
Well, it's been a long time coming, but I can finally feel some vindication for my dislike of the movie "Pretty Woman". Apart from being incredibly "slight" but puzzlingly popular (and the unfortunate truth that when I see Julia Roberts on the screen my eyes and mind are always drawn to the fact that she has an enormous mouth,) my main objection was that it implausibly made street prostitution look like a decent enough profession. (She was working the street, wasn't she? Maybe I am wrong there.) Sure, prostitutes with a heart of gold must exist, but I tend to rally against anything that portrays the profession (street or in-house) in such a way that may make it look even slightly more attractive to some down and out girl as way to make money.
Anyway, this SMH story paints an even gloomier picture of the background of a Sydney street prostitute than I would have guessed:
In face-to-face interviews, three-quarters of the women revealed they had been sexually abused as children and 80 per cent had been raped and/or physically assaulted as adults. Almost 70 per cent had been threatened with a weapon or held captive. More than 80 per cent of the women were heroin addicts. Cocaine and cannabis use were also common.
Many of the women used drugs because it numbed their feelings and they "did not have to think". A similar proportion did sex work to pay for drugs.
That two-thirds did not suffer post-traumatic stress was testimony to their resilience, Ms Roxburgh said, particularly since most of them had left home before the age of 16. NSW is the only state that permits sex workers to solicit on the streets.
Well, it's been a long time coming, but I can finally feel some vindication for my dislike of the movie "Pretty Woman". Apart from being incredibly "slight" but puzzlingly popular (and the unfortunate truth that when I see Julia Roberts on the screen my eyes and mind are always drawn to the fact that she has an enormous mouth,) my main objection was that it implausibly made street prostitution look like a decent enough profession. (She was working the street, wasn't she? Maybe I am wrong there.) Sure, prostitutes with a heart of gold must exist, but I tend to rally against anything that portrays the profession (street or in-house) in such a way that may make it look even slightly more attractive to some down and out girl as way to make money.
Anyway, this SMH story paints an even gloomier picture of the background of a Sydney street prostitute than I would have guessed:
In face-to-face interviews, three-quarters of the women revealed they had been sexually abused as children and 80 per cent had been raped and/or physically assaulted as adults. Almost 70 per cent had been threatened with a weapon or held captive. More than 80 per cent of the women were heroin addicts. Cocaine and cannabis use were also common.
Many of the women used drugs because it numbed their feelings and they "did not have to think". A similar proportion did sex work to pay for drugs.
That two-thirds did not suffer post-traumatic stress was testimony to their resilience, Ms Roxburgh said, particularly since most of them had left home before the age of 16. NSW is the only state that permits sex workers to solicit on the streets.
Poor Phil
Still no easy - legal - way to go - Opinion - smh.com.au
Philip Nitschke, the doctor who really, really, respects the right of anyone to kill themselves, even if it is just because they don't like being old, complains that he just can't get anywhere with re-introducing euthanasia legislation in Australia. Whose fault is this? A secret coalition of fundamentalists, of course:
In "Voting for Jesus", a recent article in Quarterly Essay, Amanda Lohrey identifies a fundamentalist, all-denomination Christian lobby that would have been unimaginable half a century ago.
As an activist of 40 years on a range of issues, I have never been confronted with such an anonymous opponent.
When the former prime minister Gough Whitlam warned me several years ago that no politician could afford to be railed at from the pulpit at preselection time I didn't appreciate the full meaning of his advice. I do now.
Maybe the most outspoken critics of euthanasia identify as religious, but I find it hard to believe that there aren't a fair number of the secular, agnostic, or only nominally religious who have doubts about euthanasia, and in particular find Nitschke's broad brush attitude to suicide off putting.
Philip Nitschke, the doctor who really, really, respects the right of anyone to kill themselves, even if it is just because they don't like being old, complains that he just can't get anywhere with re-introducing euthanasia legislation in Australia. Whose fault is this? A secret coalition of fundamentalists, of course:
In "Voting for Jesus", a recent article in Quarterly Essay, Amanda Lohrey identifies a fundamentalist, all-denomination Christian lobby that would have been unimaginable half a century ago.
As an activist of 40 years on a range of issues, I have never been confronted with such an anonymous opponent.
When the former prime minister Gough Whitlam warned me several years ago that no politician could afford to be railed at from the pulpit at preselection time I didn't appreciate the full meaning of his advice. I do now.
Maybe the most outspoken critics of euthanasia identify as religious, but I find it hard to believe that there aren't a fair number of the secular, agnostic, or only nominally religious who have doubts about euthanasia, and in particular find Nitschke's broad brush attitude to suicide off putting.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Mysterious weapons, or stupid rumour
IslamOnline.net- Muslim Affairs - Asia - Politics & Economy
Sorry, no time for positive posts yet...
The above story starts with this:
As I write this, doctors in the Gaza Strip are telling me they are puzzled by the condition of the Palestinian dead. X-rays of the bodies of those strafed by the F-16 fighter jets and Apache attack helicopters show no indication of shrapnel shards. Instead, limbs have been severed and corpses burned to a crisp.
I am told that there is no technology available to determine what has caused this. Even the wounded are making the desperately under-equipped medical staff scratch their heads. Their injuries are not responding to conventional treatment.
And there the mystery is left, as the article goes on in more conventional (pro Palestinian) fashion.
The Palestinian News Network says this:
Dr. Al Sakka told Voice of Palestine Radio that the Israeli army is using new types of non-conventional weapons against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip during the recent attacks. He said, “They are targeting the Palestinian body with unconventional weapons and with that comes a phenomena we have not seen before in any Israeli bombardment we have lived through for many years.”
He continued, “The hospital is central and sees almost all cases of injuries and deaths as a result of Israeli against the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip. These Israeli bombings are entering the body and fragmenting, causing internal combustion leading to up to fourth degree internal burns, exposing the bone, and affecting the tissue and skin.”
The doctor added, “These tissues die, they do not survive, which obliges us to perform arm or leg amputations, and there are fragments which penetrate the body and do not show up on X-rays. When entering the body they spark like a combustion firearm, but not chemically. They seem radioactive.”
He confirmed that there were dozens of wounded legs and arms. Many of them had been burned from the inside, and distorted to the point that they cannot return to life again.
I remain very sceptical. At the (I think slight) risk of being proved wrong, this just seems to be an example of the conspiratorial anti-semitic rumour mill of Palestine.
UPDATE: Little Green Footballs has a post with a translation of a statement by a loopy French MP. This part is relevant to my post:
According to the same testimonials, the Israeli army would be using fragmentation bombs, and “vacuum packed” bombs that result in destruction by implosion. The bodies then look like totally dislocated puppets, like rag dolls.
Just wait til they let loose the Ark of the Covenant. (Note: am satirising stupid rumours, not death of children.)
UPDATE: comment from Kieran is correct: I was unfamiliar with the term "vacuum bomb" , but Wikipedia confirms it is a nick name for a thermobaric weapon (which I think is far more commonly known as a fuel-air explosive weapon.) That'll teach me not to Google or Wiki search a term before I post.
Sorry, no time for positive posts yet...
The above story starts with this:
As I write this, doctors in the Gaza Strip are telling me they are puzzled by the condition of the Palestinian dead. X-rays of the bodies of those strafed by the F-16 fighter jets and Apache attack helicopters show no indication of shrapnel shards. Instead, limbs have been severed and corpses burned to a crisp.
I am told that there is no technology available to determine what has caused this. Even the wounded are making the desperately under-equipped medical staff scratch their heads. Their injuries are not responding to conventional treatment.
And there the mystery is left, as the article goes on in more conventional (pro Palestinian) fashion.
The Palestinian News Network says this:
Dr. Al Sakka told Voice of Palestine Radio that the Israeli army is using new types of non-conventional weapons against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip during the recent attacks. He said, “They are targeting the Palestinian body with unconventional weapons and with that comes a phenomena we have not seen before in any Israeli bombardment we have lived through for many years.”
He continued, “The hospital is central and sees almost all cases of injuries and deaths as a result of Israeli against the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip. These Israeli bombings are entering the body and fragmenting, causing internal combustion leading to up to fourth degree internal burns, exposing the bone, and affecting the tissue and skin.”
The doctor added, “These tissues die, they do not survive, which obliges us to perform arm or leg amputations, and there are fragments which penetrate the body and do not show up on X-rays. When entering the body they spark like a combustion firearm, but not chemically. They seem radioactive.”
He confirmed that there were dozens of wounded legs and arms. Many of them had been burned from the inside, and distorted to the point that they cannot return to life again.
I remain very sceptical. At the (I think slight) risk of being proved wrong, this just seems to be an example of the conspiratorial anti-semitic rumour mill of Palestine.
UPDATE: Little Green Footballs has a post with a translation of a statement by a loopy French MP. This part is relevant to my post:
According to the same testimonials, the Israeli army would be using fragmentation bombs, and “vacuum packed” bombs that result in destruction by implosion. The bodies then look like totally dislocated puppets, like rag dolls.
Just wait til they let loose the Ark of the Covenant. (Note: am satirising stupid rumours, not death of children.)
UPDATE: comment from Kieran is correct: I was unfamiliar with the term "vacuum bomb" , but Wikipedia confirms it is a nick name for a thermobaric weapon (which I think is far more commonly known as a fuel-air explosive weapon.) That'll teach me not to Google or Wiki search a term before I post.
Modern Muslims
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!)
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!)
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)