This article makes a very plausible argument for a type of military option for dealing with Iran if the need arises.
(My idea of using electromagnetic pulse weapons does not get a mention, but maybe someone in the Pentagon reads my blog. Or perhaps I have to type in the words "Praise Allah, here are the plans for nuclear weapon" to be sure that will happen.)
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
An interesting take on Stern report
This short article from TCS daily argues that cost of fighting global warming, as suggested in the recent Stern report, is much higher than it first appears. (Roughly $400 billion annually.) The writer suggests that if this is the sort of money involved, then maybe some global engineering solution (of the mirrors in space variety, for example) is not so out of the question after all.
Speaking of which, here's another suggestion for such a solution:
Angel and colleagues propose launching a constellation of trillions of small free-flying spacecraft a million miles above Earth into an orbit aligned with the Sun, called the L-1 orbit. The spacecraft would form a long, cylindrical cloud with a diameter about half that of Earth, and about 10 times longer.
According to Angel and colleagues, the sunshade could be deployed by a total 20 electromagnetic launchers launching a stack of 1 million flyers every 5 minutes for 10 years.
Oh. Suddenly sounds less than plausible. Do it from the moon instead would seem a much better bet!
This idea also made me wonder whether anyone has suggested nanotechnology as a possible shielding solution. I quite liked Michael Crichton's novel "Prey", about swarms of nano gnats that start eating people. Of course, that such devices will ever exist seems farfetched, but if something like them could be made on an industrial scale, and launched to live high in the atmosphere, could the swarm form a controllable high altitude dusty sunshade? Just thinking outside of the circle, folks...
Speaking of which, here's another suggestion for such a solution:
Angel and colleagues propose launching a constellation of trillions of small free-flying spacecraft a million miles above Earth into an orbit aligned with the Sun, called the L-1 orbit. The spacecraft would form a long, cylindrical cloud with a diameter about half that of Earth, and about 10 times longer.
Some 10 per cent of the sunlight passing through the 97,000 kilometre length of the cloud - pointing lengthwise between the Earth and the Sun - would be diverted away from our planet. The effect would be to uniformly reduce sunlight by about 2 per cent over the entire planet, enough to balance the heating caused by a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
But the trick is how to get them there:According to Angel and colleagues, the sunshade could be deployed by a total 20 electromagnetic launchers launching a stack of 1 million flyers every 5 minutes for 10 years.
Oh. Suddenly sounds less than plausible. Do it from the moon instead would seem a much better bet!
This idea also made me wonder whether anyone has suggested nanotechnology as a possible shielding solution. I quite liked Michael Crichton's novel "Prey", about swarms of nano gnats that start eating people. Of course, that such devices will ever exist seems farfetched, but if something like them could be made on an industrial scale, and launched to live high in the atmosphere, could the swarm form a controllable high altitude dusty sunshade? Just thinking outside of the circle, folks...
Monday, November 06, 2006
About Saddam's verdict
You can always trust Huffington Post to run some Hollywood star, comedian, or ex-journalist with the most anti-Bush take possible on current events. (OK, occasionally they have someone with an opinion I can agree with.) But today, Joan Z Shore (apparently an aging former journalist) makes this ridiculous comparison on Saddam's guilty verdict:
So, George W is meant to suffer by comparison with the "caution" of past presidents who failed to invade Communist Russia and China? Joan: if, as you virtually concede, it is bleeding obvious that they is no comparison, why make the comparison?
As for the fairness of the trial, despite the chaos surrounding it, Radio National this morning spoke to Mark Ellis, the executive director of the International Bar Association, and he did not seem to have major issues about that. I felt that Fran Kelly had a twinge of disappointment that Ellis did not get on a high horse about how procedurally unfair it had been. Instead, he made it clear that the evidence was there and it was a compelling case.
Christopher Hitchens has turned up on Lateline tonight (transcript should be available soon) making it clear that while he doesn't support capital punishment, he can see that the execution will at least serve the practical purpose of ending the substantial fear in many Iraqis that he will some day return to rule again. This argument is surely persuasive when you consider the amount of insurgency still going on in the country. I don't support capital punishment for your run of the mill murderer or criminal either, but the difference between them and former charismatic but murderous national leaders is the potential for more deaths caused by the latter's supporters.
Finally, a string anti American and British comments can be found on the BBC's comments section. My favourite so far (from "Julie in Stourbridge") is this:
Okay, i feel like the little boy in the emporers new clothes for saying this but how on earth do we know this is the real Saddam and not just an actor or a double.
Saddam was known to have many doubles and his wife did say many months ago that this was not her husband on trial.
Is the whole thing just a stage show for the benefet of the public while the real Saddam is playing Golf with George Bush?
That's worthy of Daily Kos, that one.
UPDATE: Ever since the turmoil in Iraq has increased, there have been a few voices from some the anti war, anti-death penalty Left who have actually suggested that Saddam should be re-instated. The fact that such voices exist at all only further strengthens my argument that it is too dangerous for him to left alive, as the Sunni insurgents would always have the hope of his return as an incentive to keep creating enough chaos.
I note that the Guardian has published what appears to be a serious "tribute" to Saddam, although there appears to be some suggestion that it might be satire. Satire should be clearly recognisable as such in order to work, though, shouldn't it? Certainly, some of the argument is so egregious as to be truly breathtaking. As one of the comments following says:
What next. Joseph Stalin: a Tribute. "Yes Uncle Joe murdered millions of people and was a despotic tyrant, but at least he got tractor production up in the urals and made the Moscow metro run on time". You are mad
What is worrying is that a lot of comments are semi-supportive, or at least along the lines of "if he hangs, so should Bush and Blair". As Jim Nolan argues today, such comments are:
"...confirming yet again, if confirmation were needed, that new depths of moral obtuseness not seen since the Hitler-Stalin pact are resurgent."
How can anyone in a civilized world justify or condone what has
happened? Invading (preemptively) a sovereign nation, occupying it,
capturing its leader, setting up a kangaroo court, and sentencing him to
hang for crimes against his own people.....
Did we dare do this with Idi Amin, with Joseph Stalin, with Chou
En-lai, with Pol Pot?
Of course not. Maybe those nations were too big too tackle, or too
far away, or maybe there were no economic interests (e.g., oil) hanging in
the balance. Or maybe our leaders then simply had a commendable sense of
caution, before waging a unilateral attack on a foreign dictator.
So, George W is meant to suffer by comparison with the "caution" of past presidents who failed to invade Communist Russia and China? Joan: if, as you virtually concede, it is bleeding obvious that they is no comparison, why make the comparison?
As for the fairness of the trial, despite the chaos surrounding it, Radio National this morning spoke to Mark Ellis, the executive director of the International Bar Association, and he did not seem to have major issues about that. I felt that Fran Kelly had a twinge of disappointment that Ellis did not get on a high horse about how procedurally unfair it had been. Instead, he made it clear that the evidence was there and it was a compelling case.
Christopher Hitchens has turned up on Lateline tonight (transcript should be available soon) making it clear that while he doesn't support capital punishment, he can see that the execution will at least serve the practical purpose of ending the substantial fear in many Iraqis that he will some day return to rule again. This argument is surely persuasive when you consider the amount of insurgency still going on in the country. I don't support capital punishment for your run of the mill murderer or criminal either, but the difference between them and former charismatic but murderous national leaders is the potential for more deaths caused by the latter's supporters.
Finally, a string anti American and British comments can be found on the BBC's comments section. My favourite so far (from "Julie in Stourbridge") is this:
Okay, i feel like the little boy in the emporers new clothes for saying this but how on earth do we know this is the real Saddam and not just an actor or a double.
Saddam was known to have many doubles and his wife did say many months ago that this was not her husband on trial.
Is the whole thing just a stage show for the benefet of the public while the real Saddam is playing Golf with George Bush?
That's worthy of Daily Kos, that one.
UPDATE: Ever since the turmoil in Iraq has increased, there have been a few voices from some the anti war, anti-death penalty Left who have actually suggested that Saddam should be re-instated. The fact that such voices exist at all only further strengthens my argument that it is too dangerous for him to left alive, as the Sunni insurgents would always have the hope of his return as an incentive to keep creating enough chaos.
I note that the Guardian has published what appears to be a serious "tribute" to Saddam, although there appears to be some suggestion that it might be satire. Satire should be clearly recognisable as such in order to work, though, shouldn't it? Certainly, some of the argument is so egregious as to be truly breathtaking. As one of the comments following says:
What next. Joseph Stalin: a Tribute. "Yes Uncle Joe murdered millions of people and was a despotic tyrant, but at least he got tractor production up in the urals and made the Moscow metro run on time". You are mad
What is worrying is that a lot of comments are semi-supportive, or at least along the lines of "if he hangs, so should Bush and Blair". As Jim Nolan argues today, such comments are:
"...confirming yet again, if confirmation were needed, that new depths of moral obtuseness not seen since the Hitler-Stalin pact are resurgent."
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Go John Kerry
On a lighter note, some of the commentary on the disastrous John Kerry "joke" is pretty funny. Gerard Barker writes :
Conan O'Brien's segment on Late Night (shown on Comedy Channel here last night) was also very funny. Unfortunately, no clip of it is available on his website yet, but maybe one will become turn up later. Before Google came into the picture, I would have expected to find it on You Tube, but much of the posting of TV clips has sadly come to an end.
IN John Frankenheimer's electrifying 1962 thriller The Manchurian Candidate, an American soldier is captured by communists during the Korean War, brainwashed and programmed to return to the US and, years later, to assassinate a presidential candidate.
There is compelling evidence now that John Kerry is a kind of Manchurian Candidate of Democratic politics.
Read it all.Conan O'Brien's segment on Late Night (shown on Comedy Channel here last night) was also very funny. Unfortunately, no clip of it is available on his website yet, but maybe one will become turn up later. Before Google came into the picture, I would have expected to find it on You Tube, but much of the posting of TV clips has sadly come to an end.
More war with Lebanon?
A pessimistic assessment from John Keegan in the Telegraph about Israel having to go to war again soon. Within a year, he reckons.
In Gaza, killing continues, and women who heed the call to act as human shields get killed.
As if there weren't enough problems in Israel already, a fight is going on about a planned gay pride parade in Jerusalem next week. The police think it is more trouble than it is worth, and want it stopped. If it goes ahead, at least Conservative Jews and Muslims will be meeting on the street with a common aim, for a change. Somehow, I don't think that is the point the march organisers want to achieve.
This Jerusalem Post article about the whole issue is interesting. Apparently, many areas of Jerusalem are being abandoned by secularist and left to the religious conservatives. (Incidentally, the parade is planned to be through the secular commercial areas.) But what is life like in Jerusalem for gays? I was a little surprised to read that it's not so bad:
The leaders of Jerusalem's gay community are obviously pleased at the enormous amount of publicity their parade has been receiving. But they are aiming for a Pyrrhic victory. Jerusalem is not the most difficult Israeli city for gays to live in. The capital has a vibrant gay scene, with a number of bars operating peacefully, while the Open House social center is funded (under a Supreme Court order) by City Hall, where there is an openly homosexual City Council member. Of course, there is some degree of homophobia, and a number of cases of harassment - but no more, and probably much less, than can be found in many other places around the country.
And the need for a march therefore is....?
In Gaza, killing continues, and women who heed the call to act as human shields get killed.
As if there weren't enough problems in Israel already, a fight is going on about a planned gay pride parade in Jerusalem next week. The police think it is more trouble than it is worth, and want it stopped. If it goes ahead, at least Conservative Jews and Muslims will be meeting on the street with a common aim, for a change. Somehow, I don't think that is the point the march organisers want to achieve.
This Jerusalem Post article about the whole issue is interesting. Apparently, many areas of Jerusalem are being abandoned by secularist and left to the religious conservatives. (Incidentally, the parade is planned to be through the secular commercial areas.) But what is life like in Jerusalem for gays? I was a little surprised to read that it's not so bad:
The leaders of Jerusalem's gay community are obviously pleased at the enormous amount of publicity their parade has been receiving. But they are aiming for a Pyrrhic victory. Jerusalem is not the most difficult Israeli city for gays to live in. The capital has a vibrant gay scene, with a number of bars operating peacefully, while the Open House social center is funded (under a Supreme Court order) by City Hall, where there is an openly homosexual City Council member. Of course, there is some degree of homophobia, and a number of cases of harassment - but no more, and probably much less, than can be found in many other places around the country.
And the need for a march therefore is....?
Friday, November 03, 2006
Fiddling with life for the benefit of Chad
The LA Times certainly brings attention to the culture wars with a series it has run this week about what 2 gay men did to get a baby:
...they had decided to have a child through a gestational surrogacy arrangement. They would pay one woman to provide her eggs and then, after fertilizing them in vitro with their sperm, pay another woman to carry the resulting embryos to term.
Section one is here. (To avoid having to register in to see following pages, click on the "one page" choice at the bottom.)
By and large, the article strives for a very non judgment tone, with lines like this:
It was a quest that would take them to the frontiers of medicine, bioethics, technology and the law, as well as to the front lines of the culture wars.
And:
Rather than creating a life in the privacy of a bedroom, Chad and David would plot this conception in law offices, doctors' suites and Internet chat rooms. It would take a village to manufacture their child.
Why did they chose this method of getting a baby:
They had considered adoption, but Chad, 33, and David, 35, wanted to participate more fully in the process of bringing a child into the world. They longed to see the first ultrasonic images of a tiny pumping heart and even to provide coaching in the maternity ward, just like straight fathers.
Why did they decide on such a complicated procedure (rather, say, than impregnating a volunteer mother)? Because this method reduces the chances of the mother making claim to any parental rights (the child is not genetically hers). So, take the riskiest path possible for this manufactured child, hey boys?
Despite the writer's efforts, some creepiness gets through:
For weeks, they had evaluated virtually any woman who entered their field of view. One night, when David met friends at a Georgetown bar, a striking woman with olive skin and dark eyes asked him to dance. When he later told Chad how flattering it had been, Chad could only ask: "Do you think she would be our egg donor?"....
They didn't want to consider appearance at the exclusion of all else, but they couldn't deny, in the privacy of that room, that it mattered.
"You can't ignore it," David said. "I mean, who wants an ugly child?"
"David, some people would be happy with that," Chad scolded.
Did I say the article was non-judgement? This description of the young David, and the perfect nature of their relationship, goes beyong that:
David's materialism made friends roll their eyes. But beneath the Neiman Marcus veneer they found a razor intellect, a generous heart, an optimistic spirit, and an almost effortless charm. By the time David came to grips with his sexuality, a lacerating tongue had mellowed into a quick and often wickedly entertaining wit.
From the outset, Chad and David seemed perfect complements. David grounded Chad, and made him more secure. Chad softened David, and made him more sensitive.
(Look, even if it was a straight couple, you would have to question this in anything resembling journalism.) It wasn't even as if both of them had life long desires to be fathers:
It wasn't until Chad and David went to couples counseling in 2001 that David revealed he had serious reservations about being a parent. He liked their life as it was, he said, and he wasn't convinced he was the nurturing kind.
This section here just about sums up neatly the zenith of the commodification of reproduction that this story represents:
Now that the technology existed, they asked themselves, why shouldn't gay men have the same right as straight people to produce a genetic heir? All they lacked were eggs and a womb. As it turned out, they could buy the first and lease the second.
Chad gets his way. They don't have much luck:
It was their fifth attempt in 15 months to create a pregnancy through a gestational surrogacy arrangement. To get to this point, they had gone through two egg retrievals, 58 eggs, 43 embryos, two embryo freezes, three frozen embryo thaws, four failed embryo transfers, two surrogates and more than $100,000.
Part 2 of the story is here.
Long story short: Chad's sister ends up being the surrogate (how perfectly liberal this family must be). What's more, it's twins.
Happy ending? No way. Babies born at 24 weeks. Chad and David rush to hospital. Of course, they are the perfect grieving parents:
It didn't take long for the hospital staff to conclude that Chad and David were more devoted than many parents who passed through the unit.
Both babies die. Teary scenes by everyone, because, you know, they are just such a loving couple.
Chad and David are trying again. Through double implantation again. Did I mention that they are both Christians?
I find this story just appalling on so many levels it is hard to know where to begin. I don't think I will even try.
...they had decided to have a child through a gestational surrogacy arrangement. They would pay one woman to provide her eggs and then, after fertilizing them in vitro with their sperm, pay another woman to carry the resulting embryos to term.
Section one is here. (To avoid having to register in to see following pages, click on the "one page" choice at the bottom.)
By and large, the article strives for a very non judgment tone, with lines like this:
It was a quest that would take them to the frontiers of medicine, bioethics, technology and the law, as well as to the front lines of the culture wars.
And:
Rather than creating a life in the privacy of a bedroom, Chad and David would plot this conception in law offices, doctors' suites and Internet chat rooms. It would take a village to manufacture their child.
Why did they chose this method of getting a baby:
They had considered adoption, but Chad, 33, and David, 35, wanted to participate more fully in the process of bringing a child into the world. They longed to see the first ultrasonic images of a tiny pumping heart and even to provide coaching in the maternity ward, just like straight fathers.
Why did they decide on such a complicated procedure (rather, say, than impregnating a volunteer mother)? Because this method reduces the chances of the mother making claim to any parental rights (the child is not genetically hers). So, take the riskiest path possible for this manufactured child, hey boys?
Despite the writer's efforts, some creepiness gets through:
For weeks, they had evaluated virtually any woman who entered their field of view. One night, when David met friends at a Georgetown bar, a striking woman with olive skin and dark eyes asked him to dance. When he later told Chad how flattering it had been, Chad could only ask: "Do you think she would be our egg donor?"....
They didn't want to consider appearance at the exclusion of all else, but they couldn't deny, in the privacy of that room, that it mattered.
"You can't ignore it," David said. "I mean, who wants an ugly child?"
"David, some people would be happy with that," Chad scolded.
Did I say the article was non-judgement? This description of the young David, and the perfect nature of their relationship, goes beyong that:
David's materialism made friends roll their eyes. But beneath the Neiman Marcus veneer they found a razor intellect, a generous heart, an optimistic spirit, and an almost effortless charm. By the time David came to grips with his sexuality, a lacerating tongue had mellowed into a quick and often wickedly entertaining wit.
From the outset, Chad and David seemed perfect complements. David grounded Chad, and made him more secure. Chad softened David, and made him more sensitive.
(Look, even if it was a straight couple, you would have to question this in anything resembling journalism.) It wasn't even as if both of them had life long desires to be fathers:
It wasn't until Chad and David went to couples counseling in 2001 that David revealed he had serious reservations about being a parent. He liked their life as it was, he said, and he wasn't convinced he was the nurturing kind.
This section here just about sums up neatly the zenith of the commodification of reproduction that this story represents:
Now that the technology existed, they asked themselves, why shouldn't gay men have the same right as straight people to produce a genetic heir? All they lacked were eggs and a womb. As it turned out, they could buy the first and lease the second.
Chad gets his way. They don't have much luck:
It was their fifth attempt in 15 months to create a pregnancy through a gestational surrogacy arrangement. To get to this point, they had gone through two egg retrievals, 58 eggs, 43 embryos, two embryo freezes, three frozen embryo thaws, four failed embryo transfers, two surrogates and more than $100,000.
Part 2 of the story is here.
Long story short: Chad's sister ends up being the surrogate (how perfectly liberal this family must be). What's more, it's twins.
Happy ending? No way. Babies born at 24 weeks. Chad and David rush to hospital. Of course, they are the perfect grieving parents:
It didn't take long for the hospital staff to conclude that Chad and David were more devoted than many parents who passed through the unit.
Both babies die. Teary scenes by everyone, because, you know, they are just such a loving couple.
Chad and David are trying again. Through double implantation again. Did I mention that they are both Christians?
I find this story just appalling on so many levels it is hard to know where to begin. I don't think I will even try.
Scott Adams' humour
I was aware some time ago that Dilbert writer Scott Adams had a blog. Unfortunately, I keep forgetting to read it. Must add him to blogroll.
His recent entries on the Sheik Hilali ruckus, and the Slate story I mentioned about the internet and rape, are both funny. (The Sheik has sure made an international name for himself, hasn't he?)
His recent entries on the Sheik Hilali ruckus, and the Slate story I mentioned about the internet and rape, are both funny. (The Sheik has sure made an international name for himself, hasn't he?)
Tim Dunlop goes professional
I am pretty surprised by this. Tim Dunlop is turning into a professional blogger for News Limited.
I know that in the past, Tim has been on friendly enough terms with Tim Blair, and makes the occasional comment that is sort of respectful to opposing opinion on going into the Iraq war. However, it has seemed to me that he has become increasingly nasty and afflicted by Howard (and Bush) Derrangement Syndrome over the last 18 months or so that I have read him. Those who regularly comment on his site are worse. It is an unpleasant place to raise dissent.
I therefore have no idea why News Limited finds him a good bet for hosting a blog, although it is clear that puts a lot of time into his own.
I am also very curious as to what such a job pays.
I know that in the past, Tim has been on friendly enough terms with Tim Blair, and makes the occasional comment that is sort of respectful to opposing opinion on going into the Iraq war. However, it has seemed to me that he has become increasingly nasty and afflicted by Howard (and Bush) Derrangement Syndrome over the last 18 months or so that I have read him. Those who regularly comment on his site are worse. It is an unpleasant place to raise dissent.
I therefore have no idea why News Limited finds him a good bet for hosting a blog, although it is clear that puts a lot of time into his own.
I am also very curious as to what such a job pays.
Sunlight good for at least one cancer
An interesting suggestion from this study:
Using newly available data on worldwide cancer incidence, researchers at the Moores Cancer Center at UCSD have shown a clear association between deficiency in exposure to sunlight, specifically ultraviolet B (UVB), and ovarian cancer.
It's all to do with vitamin D.
Using newly available data on worldwide cancer incidence, researchers at the Moores Cancer Center at UCSD have shown a clear association between deficiency in exposure to sunlight, specifically ultraviolet B (UVB), and ovarian cancer.
It's all to do with vitamin D.
Religion and women
Some good points are made in this opinion piece in the Times:
The Anglican Archbishop of Perth, however, uses the debate about Islamis views on women to criticise the conservatives in his own church who are against the ordination of women:
The Archbishop goes onto say:
In Christianity, as I am sure in Islam and in other faith and non-faith systems, there are other texts and a humbler interpretation given by many other scholars that gives rise to a different, equally divinely sanctioned world view. All humanity and the whole created order are loved into a dignity that invites all to move from slavery to freedom.
Yes, the Bible is funny like that, can be interpretted to support a wide variety of propositions. That Catholics and Anglicans are not fundamentalists in the generic sense is therefore a good thing. The use of reason is good.
But the pro-women's Ordination argument that it is all about overcoming ancient prejudice against women I find very tiresome. It assumes an inherent unreasonableness on the part of their opposition for refusing to recognise their own prejudice.
I don't think it is helpful if the conservatives really do claim that their opponents are destined for hell if they ordain women. But I equally find it unacceptable for pro-ordination forces to claim that the opposition is inherently unreasonable, as I think they are inclined to do.
The fundamental problems of faith in the modern world are not, in my view, really to do with issues about rights and social justice anyway. Those churches that concentrate on those matters at the expense of emphasising their, um, supernatural or metaphysical (I am not sure of the right way to characterise this) role in the life of their individual church members are losing ground in popularity anyway, because those churches have dealt themselves out of having any special value or purpose anyway.
In this way, concentration on an issue such as women's ordination is a side issue and hurts churches, but in exactly the opposite way to which most liberal churches think.
It is the asymmetry that I object to in Muslim thought, the fact that men can wear what they like while women cannot. Are women supposed to be more evolved than men, more in control of their passions? In that case it seems odd that they are not even allowed to enter many mosques, let alone preach in them.
No, Muslim men seem to want to have it both ways. They want complete leadership of their community, with women’s voices seldom heard, but then they are happy to reduce themselves to the status of animals — feral cats in the Mufti’s sermon — when it comes to sex, unable to resist the charms of a woman with an uncovered head.
The issue ranges beyond the Muslim community. For it’s not much fun for the rest of womankind, dressed perfectly modestly in their own eyes, to know that, because their heads are bare or their calves exposed, many Muslim men will see them as tarts.
What is more, Western women are prepared to cover right up if they visit a strict Muslim country where local people would be offended by skimpy shirts or shorts. Yet there are still many Muslim women living in liberal Britain who continue to wear the full veil, hiding their face, whatever offence or alienation it might cause here.The Anglican Archbishop of Perth, however, uses the debate about Islamis views on women to criticise the conservatives in his own church who are against the ordination of women:
The thought forms that treat women as second-class human beings have foundational elements that are similar in many repressive religious traditions.
One of the leading academics from Moore College, Dr Mark Thomson, made it clear that there was nothing to discuss regarding women in ministry as "God has not left us alone to guess what any part of Scripture is saying. God is a very good communicator — we have been convinced that the teaching of Scripture is authoritative — we rejoice in the word God has given us".
Hilali in his logic reiterates that Allah is forgiving and merciful yet wise and all powerful, so the word that is given must be for the good of humanity. Women just fall into this divine pattern of submission — it is the way things are — and it is good.
The divinely sanctioned world view authenticated by the selective use of Scripture by these Islamic and Christian scholars keeps women in subjection and gives a clear passport to heaven for the chosen. Those who see the Scriptures differently will find their destiny in the fires of hell.
Is this really a fair or correct representation of what the Anglican opponents to women's ordination say?The Archbishop goes onto say:
In Christianity, as I am sure in Islam and in other faith and non-faith systems, there are other texts and a humbler interpretation given by many other scholars that gives rise to a different, equally divinely sanctioned world view. All humanity and the whole created order are loved into a dignity that invites all to move from slavery to freedom.
Yes, the Bible is funny like that, can be interpretted to support a wide variety of propositions. That Catholics and Anglicans are not fundamentalists in the generic sense is therefore a good thing. The use of reason is good.
But the pro-women's Ordination argument that it is all about overcoming ancient prejudice against women I find very tiresome. It assumes an inherent unreasonableness on the part of their opposition for refusing to recognise their own prejudice.
I don't think it is helpful if the conservatives really do claim that their opponents are destined for hell if they ordain women. But I equally find it unacceptable for pro-ordination forces to claim that the opposition is inherently unreasonable, as I think they are inclined to do.
The fundamental problems of faith in the modern world are not, in my view, really to do with issues about rights and social justice anyway. Those churches that concentrate on those matters at the expense of emphasising their, um, supernatural or metaphysical (I am not sure of the right way to characterise this) role in the life of their individual church members are losing ground in popularity anyway, because those churches have dealt themselves out of having any special value or purpose anyway.
In this way, concentration on an issue such as women's ordination is a side issue and hurts churches, but in exactly the opposite way to which most liberal churches think.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Charts and stuff on CO2 levels
Hearing figures and statistics on CO2 levels and the Kyoto protocol can make it hard to process the information. I therefore had a look around the web for some charts and graphs that would make it easier for me to understand. Here's a few that I think help:
First, here's the "per capita" chart for greenhouse gases that pro-Kyoto people like to refer to:
Yes, yes, Australia looks bad on a per capita basis. However, the next chart shows some total figures:
Where does Australia fit in? It's kind of confusing because of the different ways different charts are counting carbon, but the Australian National Greenhouse Gas Inventory says:
Australia’s net greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors totalled 564.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt CO2-e) in 2004 under the accounting provisions applying to Australia’s 108% emissions target.
That figure sounds about right, according to the next chart too. Anyway, the USA and Europe are pretty much on top. However, here's the really worrying thing (assuming you think CO2 is a worry):
Just look at that growth curb for China. It hits US levels in a little over 10 years time, and then keeps climbing. I am not sure if this is on a "do nothing" basis or not. However, even on current "do something" ideas, I doubt it's going to have much effect within 10 years.
China is, of course, amongst the many countries which Kyoto doesn't currently cover, as shown clearly shown here:
Finally, projections for CO2 increase over the next 100 years or so (on a "business as usual" basis):
Kind of a steep curve, hey.
The lesson I take from this is: the really, really serious issue is preventing China's huge climb, as well as reducing the US. As the US is already economically advanced, I guess there is greater grounds for optimism that it can develop and afford the technological fixes which may help. But there will be a huge need to get those technologies into China fast. How the international community can help China in this process is not a topic I can say I have heard a lot about.
First, here's the "per capita" chart for greenhouse gases that pro-Kyoto people like to refer to:
Yes, yes, Australia looks bad on a per capita basis. However, the next chart shows some total figures:
Where does Australia fit in? It's kind of confusing because of the different ways different charts are counting carbon, but the Australian National Greenhouse Gas Inventory says:Australia’s net greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors totalled 564.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt CO2-e) in 2004 under the accounting provisions applying to Australia’s 108% emissions target.
That figure sounds about right, according to the next chart too. Anyway, the USA and Europe are pretty much on top. However, here's the really worrying thing (assuming you think CO2 is a worry):
Just look at that growth curb for China. It hits US levels in a little over 10 years time, and then keeps climbing. I am not sure if this is on a "do nothing" basis or not. However, even on current "do something" ideas, I doubt it's going to have much effect within 10 years.China is, of course, amongst the many countries which Kyoto doesn't currently cover, as shown clearly shown here:
Finally, projections for CO2 increase over the next 100 years or so (on a "business as usual" basis):
Kind of a steep curve, hey.
The lesson I take from this is: the really, really serious issue is preventing China's huge climb, as well as reducing the US. As the US is already economically advanced, I guess there is greater grounds for optimism that it can develop and afford the technological fixes which may help. But there will be a huge need to get those technologies into China fast. How the international community can help China in this process is not a topic I can say I have heard a lot about.
More about Islam and women
While I am talking about the Imam Hilali uproar, fierce Islam critic Robert Spencer's Frontpage article about this is worth reading. While most people probably know of the difficulty that rape victims in strict Sharia law countries have in getting the rapist convicted (most rapes not occurring within sight of 4 male witnesses), the extent of the related problem of the complainant being at risk of going to jail for adultery surprised me:
What’s more, in traditional Islamic law rape cannot be established except by the testimony of four male witnesses who saw the act, as stipulated by Qur’an 24:4 and 24:13. Consequently, it is even today virtually impossible to prove rape in lands that follow the dictates of the Sharia. Unscrupulous men can commit rape with impunity: as long as they deny the charge and there are no witnesses, they get off scot-free, because the victim’s account is inadmissible. Even worse, if a woman accuses a man of rape, she may end up incriminating herself. If the required male witnesses can’t be found, the victim’s charge of rape becomes an admission of adultery. That accounts for the grim fact that as many as seventy-five percent of the women in prison in Pakistan are, in fact, behind bars for the crime of being a victim of rape.[i] Several high-profile cases in Nigeria recently have also revolved around rape accusations being turned around by Islamic authorities into charges of fornication, resulting in death sentences that were only modified after international pressure.[ii]
What’s more, in traditional Islamic law rape cannot be established except by the testimony of four male witnesses who saw the act, as stipulated by Qur’an 24:4 and 24:13. Consequently, it is even today virtually impossible to prove rape in lands that follow the dictates of the Sharia. Unscrupulous men can commit rape with impunity: as long as they deny the charge and there are no witnesses, they get off scot-free, because the victim’s account is inadmissible. Even worse, if a woman accuses a man of rape, she may end up incriminating herself. If the required male witnesses can’t be found, the victim’s charge of rape becomes an admission of adultery. That accounts for the grim fact that as many as seventy-five percent of the women in prison in Pakistan are, in fact, behind bars for the crime of being a victim of rape.[i] Several high-profile cases in Nigeria recently have also revolved around rape accusations being turned around by Islamic authorities into charges of fornication, resulting in death sentences that were only modified after international pressure.[ii]
Attempt at humour ends in tears
A Times of India blogger posted about the Imam Hilali "cat meat" issue in terms clearly meant not to be taken entirely seriously:
This post and many others on O3 reveal expose one thing. The scum in our society. My post may be interpretted as discriminatory but if you read it carefully it is not. On reading the comments to my post I am shocked at some posts such as those by this person calling him or her self as “human“. My dog is capable of higher levels of inteligence.
And the next day:
Let me set the record straight on this issue. I don't give a rats ass as to what someone is wearing. My post is not against burkhas. It is against idiotic statements and practices that have no place in todays society. And these practices are not limited to Islamic practices. What do I mean by that? Quite simple. No one should dictate what anyone wears, sings, believes, eats, drinks etc.
If you are that averse to freedom then perhaps you need to seek out a nation that will deprive you of your freedom and go live there. This goes out to people of all religion, caste, creed, color, shape, size, whatever......
Obviously, it is challenging to mix humour and commentary on Islam in India.
Clearly, the woman by not wearing a burkha is not commiting a crime. She is merely exposing herself to the weaker sex (men) who in their weakness will rape her which indeed is a crime. Yes it is so even per the Quran.
Sooooo, logic would dictate that all muslim men wear a burkha so that they cannot see anything and cannot derobe easily to rape. Perhaps all muslim men should be made to wear some form of a chastity belt the key to which is held by their mother until they are married and their wives after that. This way the “weaker” sex, i.e., the male, will not be able to lose to tempation and commit a crime.
After all crime prevention is about keeping criminals at bay not the innocent.
Now I would like to see some Imam make that law :-)
Reader reaction, which unfortunately seems not to be available, was clearly not good, as the blogger makes clear in his follow up posts:This post and many others on O3 reveal expose one thing. The scum in our society. My post may be interpretted as discriminatory but if you read it carefully it is not. On reading the comments to my post I am shocked at some posts such as those by this person calling him or her self as “human“. My dog is capable of higher levels of inteligence.
And the next day:
Let me set the record straight on this issue. I don't give a rats ass as to what someone is wearing. My post is not against burkhas. It is against idiotic statements and practices that have no place in todays society. And these practices are not limited to Islamic practices. What do I mean by that? Quite simple. No one should dictate what anyone wears, sings, believes, eats, drinks etc.
If you are that averse to freedom then perhaps you need to seek out a nation that will deprive you of your freedom and go live there. This goes out to people of all religion, caste, creed, color, shape, size, whatever......
Obviously, it is challenging to mix humour and commentary on Islam in India.
My "Wallace" post
When I was a kiddie, there seemed to be only about 5 different fresh cheeses commonly available in Brisbane supermarkets. Mostly cheddar. And then there was the rubbery cheese-like foil wrapped bricks of Kraft processed cheese, which seemed to have a shelf life of 5 years or more. Is it still available? I haven't gone looking...
Cheese varieties available grew over the 1970's, and seemed to explode in the 1980's. Now, every self respecting foodie area of Australia has its own small cheese factory, even in South East Queensland.
Here are two I have been to in the last 12 months, one at Mount Tambourine (not far from the Gold Coast) and the other at Maleny (not far from the Sunshine Coast). These cooler high areas are both well worth visiting for their scenery anyway, and they also have several competent wineries, although more often than not these are just outlets for wine made in the Stanthorpe region. There is also a nice goats cheese made by a Frenchman near Gympie that is available at the "farmer's markets" held at various locations around Brisbane.
Both of these small cheese factories made excellent cheeses and deserve success. In fact, the art of competent cheese making seems something that Queenslanders found a lot easier to master than making competent wine. (There are good Queensland wines now, though.)
The Witches Chase factory even runs 2 day cheese making classes, for those truly obsessed with cheese, I suppose. Their website is, however, one of the worst commercial ones I have ever seen.
Of course, true cheese connoisseurs will go on about how ridiculous it is that Australia will not allow cheese to be made from unpasteurised milk. (I have never tasted it so don't know what I might be missing.) They will also watch the cable TV show "Cheese Slices", which is truly European cheese pornography. (Well, I have seen an episode or two and have to admit to enjoying it.)
There is something deeply satisfying about melted cheese on toast when you are really hungry. I feel like some now.
Unnecessary research
Condom woes lead to erection 'deflation' is the heading on this New Scientist story. Enough said...
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Two articles on Iraq
Christopher Hitchens still isn't showing any signs of jumping ship on the whole Iraq issue. From his latest Slate article:
I am glad that all previous demands for withdrawal or disengagement from Iraq were unheeded, because otherwise we would not be able to celebrate the arrest and trial of Saddam Hussein; the removal from the planet of his two sadistic kids and putative successors; the certified disarmament of a former WMD- and gangster-sponsoring rogue state; the recuperation of the marshes and their ecology and society; the introduction of a convertible currency; the autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan (currently advertising for investors and tourists on American television); the killing of al-Qaida's most dangerous and wicked leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and many of his associates; the opening of dozens of newspapers and radio and TV stations; the holding of elections for an assembly and to approve a constitution; and the introduction of the idea of federal democracy as the only solution for Iraq short of outright partition and/or civil war. If this cause is now to be considered defeated, by the sheer staggering persistence in murder and sabotage of the clerico-fascist forces and the sectarian militias, then it will always count as a noble one.
Meanwhile, Juan Cole, who Hitchens has ripped into before, writes what seems to be an unobjectional piece in Salon, explaining why the partitioning of Iraq is not really an option:
I am glad that all previous demands for withdrawal or disengagement from Iraq were unheeded, because otherwise we would not be able to celebrate the arrest and trial of Saddam Hussein; the removal from the planet of his two sadistic kids and putative successors; the certified disarmament of a former WMD- and gangster-sponsoring rogue state; the recuperation of the marshes and their ecology and society; the introduction of a convertible currency; the autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan (currently advertising for investors and tourists on American television); the killing of al-Qaida's most dangerous and wicked leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and many of his associates; the opening of dozens of newspapers and radio and TV stations; the holding of elections for an assembly and to approve a constitution; and the introduction of the idea of federal democracy as the only solution for Iraq short of outright partition and/or civil war. If this cause is now to be considered defeated, by the sheer staggering persistence in murder and sabotage of the clerico-fascist forces and the sectarian militias, then it will always count as a noble one.
Meanwhile, Juan Cole, who Hitchens has ripped into before, writes what seems to be an unobjectional piece in Salon, explaining why the partitioning of Iraq is not really an option:
But aside from the selfish interests of all the political actors inside and outside Iraq, as a practical policy, partitioning Iraq is too risky. It would probably not reduce ethnic infighting. It might produce more. The mini-states that emerge from a partition will have plenty of reason to fight wars with one another, as India did with Pakistan in the 1940s and has done virtually ever since. Worse, it is likely that if the Sunni Arab mini-state commits an atrocity against the Shiites, it might well bring in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. They in turn would be targeted by Saudi and Jordanian jihadi volunteers.
A break-up of Iraq might not stop at Iraq’s borders. The Sunni Arabs could be picked up by Syria, thus greatly increasing Syria’s fighting power. Or they could become a revolutionary force in Jordan. A wholesale renegotiation of national borders may ensue, according to some thinkers. Such profound changes in such a volatile part of the world cannot be depended on to occur without bloodshed.
The crime fighting internet and further thoughts. (An adult post.)
This story in Slate is fascinating.
Turns out that one serious study on crime statistics indicates that internet access reduces the number of rapes (although mainly for teenage perpetrators).
So, all that lack of "mastery of domain" that the internet encourages in teenagers has at least one upside.
One downside, I am sure I have read somewhere in the past, is that widespread familiarity with the explicit porn around today had led many people - mainly men I guess - into having unrealistic expectations of what a sexual partner should be happy to try. This can have serious effects on what otherwise might have been a good relationship.
In fact, the whole issue of community attitudes to what is "acceptable" in terms of everyday sexual practices is pretty interesting, in that it seems to me underappreciated (especially by younger people, who have grown up in the current decadent period) how quickly it changes over time. This is not a subject I have spent much time researching, but as an example, I remember an SBS documentary in which an old gay American guy said that, prior to about the 1970's, gay culture was not at all fixated on anal sex as its predominant sexual practice. As I recall, he claimed that in the 1940's and 50's, gay men who wanted that were seen by most other gay men as being somewhat extreme. This, however, has now changed completely in the gay community. On the heterosexual side, I suspect that the equivalent change in the 20th century is in the attitude to oral sex. (Slate has previously run a story on the apparent very recent increase in oral sex amongst American teens in particular. Experience of heterosexual anal sex has had a big increase too, although I would be curious to know how often this is a matter of regular practice, rather than one off experiment.)
Of course, much of what I am relying on for my impressions is anecdotal evidence, but establishing in retrospect what were previous community attitudes has obvious problems. The type of studies that Kinsey did on this - which do indicate a wide variety of sexual practices earlier in the 20th century - are now considered very methodologically suspect.
Everyone knows, of course, that all sorts of sexual practices were illustrated by older cultures, as shown on Greek, Chinese and Hindu art. The fact that they were illustrated, however, tells us little about the average person's attitude towards those practices. It seems still very arguable as to what exactly was the average Greek man's attitude to homosexuality, for example.
Nor is it clear that relying on famous writer's views is necessarily a good guide to past communities' attitudes. Everyone knows at least a little about the great moral panic about masturbation in the West that ran for a couple of centuries or so, yet how likely were the mountains of pamphlets and books warning of its great dangers to influence the common man's view of it? Surely most father's experience of it as a youngster would have lent some sympathetic understanding of their own offspring's practice? Even Kant, who I generally admire, went completely overboard on this topic, writing:
The obstinate throwing away of one’s life as a burden is at least not a weak surrender to animal pleasure, but requires courage; and where there is courage, there is always respect for the humanity in one’s own person. On the other hand, when one abandons himself entirely to an animal inclination, he makes himself an object of unnatural gratification, i.e., a loathsome thing, and thus deprives himself of all self-respect.
So, there is at least something to admire in suicide, but masturbation is completely depraved?
This post is going no where, I guess, except to make the point that I feel it is important to recognize that attitudes to sexual practices are subject to cultural fashion and highly debatable intellectual analysis. I am not arguing that current Western laissez-faire attitudes are inherently an improvement over past attitudes, even though I have made my view of the moral panic over masturbation clear. Rather, I am suggesting that the current predominant Western attitudes deserve analysis and justification if they are to be any more than just another cultural fashion. My tendency, of course, is to support more conservative analysis, and in that respect I would hope Roger Scruton's approach is worthwhile, but I haven't read much by him about this yet.
I haven't even directly touched the whole current attitude to sexual identity either, which I think should be subjected to the same critical approach, but that is a post for another day.
Turns out that one serious study on crime statistics indicates that internet access reduces the number of rapes (although mainly for teenage perpetrators).
So, all that lack of "mastery of domain" that the internet encourages in teenagers has at least one upside.
One downside, I am sure I have read somewhere in the past, is that widespread familiarity with the explicit porn around today had led many people - mainly men I guess - into having unrealistic expectations of what a sexual partner should be happy to try. This can have serious effects on what otherwise might have been a good relationship.
In fact, the whole issue of community attitudes to what is "acceptable" in terms of everyday sexual practices is pretty interesting, in that it seems to me underappreciated (especially by younger people, who have grown up in the current decadent period) how quickly it changes over time. This is not a subject I have spent much time researching, but as an example, I remember an SBS documentary in which an old gay American guy said that, prior to about the 1970's, gay culture was not at all fixated on anal sex as its predominant sexual practice. As I recall, he claimed that in the 1940's and 50's, gay men who wanted that were seen by most other gay men as being somewhat extreme. This, however, has now changed completely in the gay community. On the heterosexual side, I suspect that the equivalent change in the 20th century is in the attitude to oral sex. (Slate has previously run a story on the apparent very recent increase in oral sex amongst American teens in particular. Experience of heterosexual anal sex has had a big increase too, although I would be curious to know how often this is a matter of regular practice, rather than one off experiment.)
Of course, much of what I am relying on for my impressions is anecdotal evidence, but establishing in retrospect what were previous community attitudes has obvious problems. The type of studies that Kinsey did on this - which do indicate a wide variety of sexual practices earlier in the 20th century - are now considered very methodologically suspect.
Everyone knows, of course, that all sorts of sexual practices were illustrated by older cultures, as shown on Greek, Chinese and Hindu art. The fact that they were illustrated, however, tells us little about the average person's attitude towards those practices. It seems still very arguable as to what exactly was the average Greek man's attitude to homosexuality, for example.
Nor is it clear that relying on famous writer's views is necessarily a good guide to past communities' attitudes. Everyone knows at least a little about the great moral panic about masturbation in the West that ran for a couple of centuries or so, yet how likely were the mountains of pamphlets and books warning of its great dangers to influence the common man's view of it? Surely most father's experience of it as a youngster would have lent some sympathetic understanding of their own offspring's practice? Even Kant, who I generally admire, went completely overboard on this topic, writing:
The obstinate throwing away of one’s life as a burden is at least not a weak surrender to animal pleasure, but requires courage; and where there is courage, there is always respect for the humanity in one’s own person. On the other hand, when one abandons himself entirely to an animal inclination, he makes himself an object of unnatural gratification, i.e., a loathsome thing, and thus deprives himself of all self-respect.
So, there is at least something to admire in suicide, but masturbation is completely depraved?
This post is going no where, I guess, except to make the point that I feel it is important to recognize that attitudes to sexual practices are subject to cultural fashion and highly debatable intellectual analysis. I am not arguing that current Western laissez-faire attitudes are inherently an improvement over past attitudes, even though I have made my view of the moral panic over masturbation clear. Rather, I am suggesting that the current predominant Western attitudes deserve analysis and justification if they are to be any more than just another cultural fashion. My tendency, of course, is to support more conservative analysis, and in that respect I would hope Roger Scruton's approach is worthwhile, but I haven't read much by him about this yet.
I haven't even directly touched the whole current attitude to sexual identity either, which I think should be subjected to the same critical approach, but that is a post for another day.
Monday, October 30, 2006
Back soon
I've been away for the weekend, and work is going to slow down blogging for a day or two. Stay with me, vast international readership, for I shall return. (With cheese shop recommendations too!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)