Shots Across The Bow

First attempt at a picture

First attempt at a picture My oldest son went to his senior prom last weekend. He decided to skip the traditional tuxedo and go with something that suited his personality a little better:

Comic books

Comic books "Why do you waste your time reading that trash? It's just a comic book!"

I've heard that many times over the course of the last few years. I usually just shrug it off, smile and say something about killing some time, and let it go. How do you introduce somebody to comics when they've already closed their mind? How can you tell them about Alan Moore, and Bernie Wrightson, Steven R. Bissette, and Frank Miller? How do you tell them about how the best comics take the classic themes of drama and literature, love, hate, retribution, and redemption, and play them out on a gargantuan stage of color and action. They are just as artificial as opera, and capable of being just as moving. Comic books may have been the home of violence and simple moral tales, but I defy anyone to read The Watchmen, and call it a simple comic book.

I've been a comic book fan ever since I found out my neighbor had a complete collection of XMEN comics starting from issue #1. Today, with my adult perspective, I think about what a treasure trove that was, about how much those books are worth today. Of course, they were kids comics, and were dog-eared and ratty from being read, re-read, and re-re-read, so they weren't worth much as a collectible. But the kid inside me remembers falling into those stories about kids just a little older than me, with awesome powers, but real life issues that I could identify with. They were heroes, but they were people too. From there, I branched out to the Fantastic Four, (boring except for the Thing), Iron Man (way cool suit of armor, plus millionaire playboy. Excellent!), and then Spidey. The ultimate icon.

A super hero with more problems than I had! What a cool concept! Spiderman would kick butt at night in his suit, cracking wise and cracking heads with equal facility, but as soon as he took that suit off, he was the lowest of the low, a complete nerd. Not by choice, like Clark Kent, but because he was different. He was a science guy, a brain, a geek, so he didn't quite fit in with the other kids. Flash Thompson rode Parker unmercifully for years, even though he worshipped Spiderman, in a nice bit of irony.

I became a collector in college, and continued while in the Navy, and although I had to stop collecting when I started having kids, my collection is still safe and sound, waiting for one of my kids to get interested. Unfortunately, it seems that my kids have found other mythologies to explore, like EverQuest, and Asheron's Call.

Comics were our mythology. We knew they aren't real, but we invested them with a part of ourselves, and made them real. A few lines of dialogue, some stylized drawings, and a load of primary colors could not tell such a compelling story unless we filled in the blanks from our own lives. Like the Greeks who built elaborate stories around natural events, we embellish the comic with emotions and passions from our lives. That is the brilliance of the comic's creators; they provide the framework of a story that speaks to all of us, and key that framework to elicit a certain response so when we flesh out the story, we do it from experiences we all have in common. I may not have ever fought the Green Goblin, but I've suffered through unrequited love, worried about grades, worried about my future, been put down and frustrated by events beyond my control, as we all have.

Some stories have an even more specific impact. One of my favorite Spidey stories is when Peter was talking to Flash, asking why he had always picked on him in high school. This was a central issue in Peter's life, and he finally worked up the nerve to deal with it directly. By this time, he and Flash had become friends, as often does happen in real life. High school divisions disappear quickly once we enter the real world. Peter was shocked when Flash answered that he felt like he had to take Peter down a notch or two because he was such a snob in high school, not joining in with everybody else, always standing apart. Peter suddenly had to re-evaluate his entire life, based on this new perspective. The writer was able to convey all of this in three panels, one of which was just the look on Peter's face as he absorbed this new idea. A novelist would have taken two or three hundred words to convey the same thing, and still may not have achieved the visceral impact of the comic.

I was stunned, because I had been a loner throughout school, never fitting in, and it never occurred to me until that moment that at least some of my isolation was of my own making. I was in the Navy at the time, and not quite a loner, but still not fitting in completely, and I decided to make some changes. I made an effort to get involved, to connect with other people, and before long, I wasn't a loner anymore.

Just a comic book?

Hardly.

Dilemma solved

Dilemma solved Spring is here, and now is the time for romance, when young men and women go out into the world, and try to connect with each other. They engage in the timeless rituals of courtship, strutting and preening for each other, showing off their assets in a mating dance as complicated and as obvious as any of our avian cousins. A long time ago, they would walk together through the woods after a barn raising, or a church social. A couple of decades later, they might wander the footpaths through a park, or take a buggy ride down an isolated lane. More recently, they might cruise the strip, then hook up and go park at the local lover's lane. But all of these rituals are gone now, replaced by urban blight, and fast food neon signs. So where is a young man to go to win his love?

WalMart.

It's not as odd as it sounds. It’s a safe place, well lit, and with an active security presence. Everything you need is right there. Breath mints, aisle 4. Snacks, aisle 17. Condoms, in front of the pharmacy. And you can pretend you aren't looking, even when you are looking, desperately.

I work odd hours, so I often wind up doing my grocery shopping on a Friday or Saturday night. I first started because I figured the store would be fairly empty then and I could get done in a hurry. Now I go just to watch the show. The kids start out in packs, separated by sex, wandering the aisles, strutting and showing off. My nephew and his friend climb the shelves to sit in the display furniture, and sit and watch the crowd roll by, until security chases them down. Some kids come with a date already, to show off in front of their friends. They’ll promenade through the store a time or two, making sure to be seen, before heading off for the rest of their evening. This weekend was a prom weekend, and I saw several couples in tuxes and evening gowns, cruising the aisle before going to their prom.
The kids begin to break off into smaller groups, no longer segregated, but still needing the safety of a group, before the final pairings are made. As they pair off they begin to trickle out of the store, and head to where the lights aren't quite so bright. By 10:30 or so, most have left for locations more favorable for getting to know each other, but the action isn’t over, as they are replaced by their elders, as their mothers and fathers come to take their chances in Sam Walton’s World of Romance.
Men in their best jeans or dress pants, comb-overs slicked down and shiny, and women with their hair stacked and sprayed and perfect makeup walk the aisles with a few items in their carts, pretending to shop. These older folks are a more solitary breed. They don't travel in packs like the kids do; they get their security from the hiding behind the illusion that they are shopping for groceries, or air conditioner filters, or a new handsaw. They are more comfortable traveling alone, or in pairs. You can tell the amateurs, because they tend to hang out in the areas dominated by their own sex, clothing for the women, and hardware for the men. The more experienced cruisers hang out in unisex areas, like the grocery aisles, where the chance for an encounter with the opposite sex is much more likely. The gardening section is also a popular place, particularly since the lighting is not as bright.
By midnight, there is a lull, as the kids and the older folks have gone away, either alone or with a new friend. This lull lasts until closing time at the local bars.
"...last call for alcohol. You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here."

When the clubs close down, those who have been unsuccessful at the traditional meat markets come to WalMart for one last chance for a hook up. This crowd is between the kids and the older folks in age, and are more direct than either. They are at the end of the line for the evening, and the time for preening and strutting is over; this is a time for a naked display of lust. No courtship here, because the relationships born now are destined to last only 24 to 48 hours, spread over the next week or so. No coy ‘accidental’ collisions or teasing flirtations. Both sexes know why they are there, and play the game accordingly.
They give the store one lap, maybe two. If they haven't hooked up, they go home with the tube of toothpaste and jar of mayonnaise they threw in their cart as camouflage, and prepare to face another lonely night, seeking comfort with Ben and Jerry's New York Super Fudge Chunk. The successful cruisers go home, or to a motel, where they stave off the loneliness for a few hours. By 3AM, the store is deserted, except for the occasional insomniac, and the night stock clerks, who prep the store for another busy shopping day, and another busy night of cruising.

All of this goes on as the rest of us do our shopping, usually oblivious to the intricate mating rituals taking place all around us.

Time share hell

Time share hell Show tickets! Dollywood discounts! Tourist information! You'll see these signs all over as you approach the Great Smoky Mountains National Park from the Tennessee side, going through Gatlinburg and Pigeon Forge.

Don't believe it for an instant!

Oh yeah, you'll get your tickets, eventually, but TANSTAAFL is a universal concept, and you'll pay for those tickets with a twenty to thiry minute high pressure sales pitch for time share chalets or cabins. Does anybody go on vacation to look for real estate? (OK, my parents are getting ready to do that just next week, but they're an exception) Is a vacation home considered an impulse buy now? It must be because these shacks are spreading faster than kudzu and are even more annoying. At least kudzu looks pretty as it chokes the life out of the landscape.

I used to work on a small island out in the Pacific, and had to fly through Honolulu to get there. I had about a 20 hour layover, and would spend a lot of time walking up and down the main boulevard, people watching. Hawaii is a paradise without question, but the snake in this particular Eden must be the time-share shills. They're set up in the lobbies of the major hotels, as well as in booths lining the streets. Since I was there alone, I was vaccinated against them, since they target young couples. I wasn't aware of how intrusive they were until I flew my wife out during one of my layovers. I took a couple of extra days before returning home, and we explored the island. I can't count how many times we were asked to "view a short presentation on time shares, in exchange for a {Insert random premium here}. We are sure you will be amazed at how inexpensive it is to actuallyown a piece of Paradise!" It didn't spoil our vacation, but it was an annoyance. I remember being grateful that this particular pestilence had not spread to Gatlinburg.

And then I returned home, and found that we had been infested after all. There are booths and signs all over the place, even at the local WalMart. I can see it now:

"Honey, I'm going to run to the store to pick up some eggs and some soda. Is there anything else we need?"

"Yeah! Why don't you check and see how much a timeshare on a chalet would be?"

I just don't see it.

Househusbands and death

Househusbands and death Katie posts about this study:

Women have been telling men for decades that staying home with little kids is one of the most challenging, stressful jobs imaginable. Apparently for some men, unused to the rigors of changing 45 diapers a day, refereeing 28 arguments over small pieces of plastic toys, and preparing more than a dozen meals and snacks ( most of which will remain only half eaten) in an eight hour period, this stuff can actually kill them.

I understand she is trying to make a point about how difficult it is to be a parent, but she takes the study out of context. Of course it is easy to see why, since the title of the file, "husbands_stress_1" also singles out the male version of the study. When you read the article, you see that it is both sexes who suffer when taking on non traditional roles, which indicates not that keeping house is so much more stressful than working nine to five, but that taking on a non traditional role increases stress levels accross the board, resulting in a higher death rate for househusbands and for female executives when compared to their opposite sex counterparts.

Welcome a new Tennessee blogger!

Welcome a new Tennessee blogger! Katie Allison Granju, a freelance write, editor, and mama, is the latest Tennessee addition to the blogosphere. She's a pro, who actually gets paid for writing. ( I can only dream....)
She wrote a book on "attachment parenting" which is apparently the latest thing in parenting technique. The idea, as I understand it, is that you spend lots of time with your child, promoting a deep bond between the two of you. That bond frees the child to explore and develop their own personality, backed by the security of their tight connection with their parents.

I just thought that was the way things were done. When my ex and I split the first time, shortly after the birth of our first girl, by necessity my baby went wherever I went, usually riding on my chest in a little papoose type thing. We went to softball games, grocery shopping, to the zoo, even out to the movies on a date once. (By the way guys, a single man carrying around a baby is a magnet for women. Of course, that's a hell of a way to go to pick up dates, but some times you have to go the extra mile!) There were many nights when she slept with me as well, particularly after the 2 AM bottle. I would make the bottle, bring her into the bed with me, lay back with her snuggled in the crook of my arm, and rest the bottle on my chest. She would take it down while I drowsed, and we would fall asleep together. I wouldn't fall soundly asleep, and after 20 minutes or so of drowsing, I would put her back into her crib.

One night after feeding her, I instantly fell into a deep sleep. Sometime later, I rolled over a large lump. I've never come awake so fast in my life! I just knew I had crushed my little girl.

Well, the lump was just a couple of folds of my blanket that had bunched up underneath me. I had already put her back into the crib, but didn't remember doing it. I didn't stop letting her sleep with me after that, but I was very careful to make sure that she was safely out of range of my tossings and turnings.

Firewalls and stuff

Firewalls and stuff My new computer came with firewall software. I didn't think I needed it, but installed it anyway. Folks, I couldn't believe the number of programs trying to access my omputer while I was on line, including several Trojans which were automatically blocked by the system. (What condoms have to do with computers is beyond me.) Here's just a small portion of the log:

4/26/2002 20:10:13 NDIS Filter Rule "Default Block NetBus Trojan" blocked (valuedcu,NetBus). Details:
Inbound TCP connection
Local address,service is (valuedcu,NetBus)
Remote address,service is (63.75.191.36,1300)
Process name is "N/A"
4/26/2002 20:10:13 NDIS Filter Rule "Default Block Backdoor/SubSeven Trojan" blocked (valuedcu,27374). Details:
Inbound TCP connection
Local address,service is (valuedcu,27374)
Remote address,service is (63.75.191.36,1299)
Process name is "N/A"
4/26/2002 20:10:01 NDIS Filter Rule "Default Block NetBus Trojan" blocked (valuedcu,NetBus). Details:
Inbound TCP connection
Local address,service is (valuedcu,NetBus)
Remote address,service is (63.75.191.36,1300)
Process name is "N/A"
4/26/2002 20:10:01 NDIS Filter Rule "Default Block Backdoor/SubSeven Trojan" blocked (valuedcu,27374). Details:
Inbound TCP connection
Local address,service is (valuedcu,27374)
Remote address,service is (63.75.191.36,1299)
Process name is "N/A"
4/26/2002 20:09:55 NDIS Filter Rule "Default Block NetBus Trojan" blocked (valuedcu,NetBus). Details:
Inbound TCP connection
Local address,service is (valuedcu,NetBus)
Remote address,service is (63.75.191.36,1300)
Process name is "N/A"
4/26/2002 20:09:55 NDIS Filter Rule "Default Block Backdoor/SubSeven Trojan" blocked (valuedcu,27374). Details:
Inbound TCP connection
Local address,service is (valuedcu,27374)
Remote address,service is (63.75.191.36,1299)
Process name is "N/A"
4/26/2002 20:09:52 NDIS Filter Rule "Default Block NetBus Trojan" blocked (valuedcu,NetBus). Details:
Inbound TCP connection
Local address,service is (valuedcu,NetBus)
Remote address,service is (63.75.191.36,1300)
Process name is "N/A"
4/26/2002 20:09:52 NDIS Filter Rule "Default Block Backdoor/SubSeven Trojan" blocked (valuedcu,27374). Details:
Inbound TCP connection
Local address,service is (valuedcu,27374)
Remote address,service is (63.75.191.36,1299)
Process name is "N/A"
Alert 4/26/2002 18:50:54 NDIS Filter Unused port blocking has blocked communications. Details:
Inbound TCP connection
Remote address,local service is (61.129.64.108,22)
Alert 4/26/2002 18:50:51 NDIS Filter Unused port blocking has blocked communications. Details:
Inbound TCP connection
Remote address,local service is (61.129.64.108,22)
4/26/2002 18:49:44 NDIS Filter Rule "Default Block Bla Trojan" blocked (216.78.30.189,1042). Details:
Inbound UDP packet
Local address,service is (216.78.30.189,1042)
Remote address,service is (eqlogin1.989studios.com,15900)
Process name is "N/A"
4/26/2002 18:49:44 NDIS Filter Rule "Default Block Bla Trojan" blocked (216.78.30.189,1042). Details:
Inbound UDP packet
Local address,service is (216.78.30.189,1042)
Remote address,service is (eqlogin1.989studios.com,15900)
Process name is "N/A"
4/26/2002 18:49:43 NDIS Filter Rule "Default Block Bla Trojan" blocked (216.78.30.189,1042). Details:
Inbound UDP packet
Local address,service is (216.78.30.189,1042)
Remote address,service is (eqlogin1.989studios.com,15900)
Process name is "N/A"

Why post all of this? Just to let you know that while you are online, you are exposed, and there are folks that will take advantage of that.

Who needs Embryonic stem cells?

Who needs Embryonic stem cells? According to this story, researchers at Stanford University Medical Center have been able to transplant a kidney from a non matching donor, and prevent rejection using Adult stem cells.

After the transplant, the kidney recipient received multiple small doses of radiation targeted to the immune system combined with a drug to reduce the number of cells capable of an immune attack. The team then injected blood stem cells from the kidney donor into the recipient. The stem cells made their way to the recipient's bone marrow where they produced new blood and immune cells that mixed with those of the recipient. After this procedure, the recipient's immune cells recognize the donor's organ as friend rather than foe.

The Stanford team monitored the recipient's new hybrid immune system looking for a mixture of cells from both the recipient and the donor. These cells were tested in the laboratory and did not attack cells taken from the donor. This told the team that the new hybrid immune system would not mount an attack against the transplanted organ. At this time, the team slowly weaned the patient away from the immune-suppressive drugs.

By the way, Charlie

By the way, Charlie enjoy your vacation, and I'll be sure and watch Blade Runner over the weekend.

Continuing the discussion on cloning

Continuing the discussion on cloning Once again, linked via Charles Murtaugh we find this quote:

One interesting aside: Gazzaniga points out that perhaps half of all normally fertilized eggs spontaneously abort, and he suggests, "It is hard to believe that under any religious belief system people would grieve and hold funerals for these natural events."

There are two very large problems with this statement.
First, a miscarriage can be emotionally devastating to the parents, even if it occurs early in the pregnancy. No, most do not hold funerals, but most do grieve. I think he is trying to refer to those miscarriages which occur before the woman realizes she is pregnant. Certainly, a woman will not grieve over the loss of a baby she never knew she was carrying. But this is a result of her ignorance, not from some dismissal of the fetus as a person. If she knew she had miscarried, she would react. To get a feel for this visceral reaction, imagine counseling a grieving woman who just miscarried by telling her that the fetus wasn't really a person yet, that all she lost was a bit of tissue.
You might want to step back as you do it though.

The second, and more devastating flaw in this position is that it assumes that if something happens naturally, causing it to occur artificially is OK. This is clearly not the case. People die all the time, but causing them to die is wrong. People catch diseases all the time; deliberately infecting them is wrong. Monuments wear out and collapse on their own, but blowing them up is wrong. A sand castle built too close to the high tide line will be erased by the natural action of the waves, but deliberately kicking it to pieces is wrong. You cannot use a naturally occuring process to justify an intentional intervention. What makes this argument even worse is what is left out. The "half of all normally fertilized eggs spontaneously abort" is an unfounded claim. A quick survey of the literature available on the web puts the figure at anywhere between 20% and 50%. The truth is we don't know how many blastocysts fail to implant, or are rejected after implantation. Nor do we have enough data to make a reasonable estimate of losses prior to recognized pregnancy. We do know that spontaneous abortions occur in approximately 15-20% of all recognized pregnancies. WE also know that, according to the Merck Manual:

In up to 60% of spontaneous abortions, the fetus is absent or grossly malformed, and in 25 to 60%, it has chromosomal abnormalities incompatible with life; thus spontaneous abortion in > 90% of cases may be a natural rejection of a maldeveloping fetus.

In other words, over 90% of the time, the spontaneous abortion is the bodies way of ejecting a non viable fetus. This simply does not apply when considering whether or not it is ethical to remove/alter/harvest a viable fetus. In one case, you have a dead end, with no potential; in the other, you have a living, developing organism.

The argument against reproductive cloning

The argument against reproductive cloning Charles Murtaugh graciously responded to my request for a rationale which supports therapeutic cloning while banning reproductive cloning. He referred me to this article as well as one he wrote. The thrust of both articles is that there is a moral repugnance to designing babies that should warn us away from this type of activity. In response to my e-mail, he writes the following:

I don't like the idea of "designing" children, or imposing our will upon their very genetic character.

Here is an imaginary conversation exploring this common feeling. Imaginary because I'm not about to call Mr. Murtaugh at 2AM.

Don't we already do that? When we select our mates, we select them based on qualities which will affect our offspring, intelligence, physical attractiveness, athleticism, emotional stability, etc. What we find attractive has developed over generations into a set of characteristics which enhance our ability, and more importantly, the ability of our offspring to survive.

"But that's an unconscious process, nothing like the deliberate selection of characteristics using genetic recombination."

Does that really make a difference? The pro-choice crowd has long advance the argument that abortions are OK because miscarriages occur spontaneously. Doesn't that indicate that duplicating the actions of nature through artificial means is acceptible?

"That's different. We aren't talking about abortion, we're talking about cloning!"

The logic is certainly the same, but we'll let it go for now.
You don't like artificially 'designing' a baby, unless it occurs through natural actions. Well then, what about artificial insemination? Women choose the sperm according to the characteristics of the donor, based on their wishes for their child. Isn't this artificial as well? As we learn more and more about the genome, it will be possible to chose not only eye color, but physical proportions, intelligence, musical or artistic abilities, possibly even temperment. No genetic manipulation needed, just a road map and a menu of choices.
This is already happening today, and with little or no outcry, unless folks disagree with the attributes which are selected for, as in the recent case of the two deaf lesbians creating a deaf child. So should this practice be banned? Should women who go to a sperm bank be required to face the luck of the draw?
Of course not. So now we can agree that 'designing a child' occurs already, whether through natural processes or artificial ones. The only difference here is the technique used to implement the design.

Let's remove the 'design' objection all together. No modifications, no selection of characteristics, just the duplication of an already existing pattern.
From Charles' article linked above:

A cloned child, made rather than begotten, is a pet: His or her "breed" picked out for its "unique characteristics" just as a border collie is chosen for its intelligence and a poodle because it doesn't shed much hair.

Why? If a natural clone developes during gestation, is one twin real while the other a copy? Is one a child and the other a pet? Of course not! The idea is silly. Both twins are children of equal worth, and loved equally. So why should a purposeful clone be any different? Because it was intentionally made rather than occuring naturally? Again this is a false distinction. The application of technology to duplicate natural processes in no way diminishes the humanity of the resulting child. What Charles seems to suggest, however, is that the act of selecting a child based on its characteristics dehumanizes the child. This is simply not the case. Adoptive parents select children based on physical characteristics, particularly with the older children. Does this make them pets? Again, of course not.

So, why this insistence that a cloned child would be somehow inferior to the original? Why look at it as less than human, as a pet?
Actually, this viewpoint is required in order to facilitate therapeutic cloning. If the cloned organism is somehow less than human, a thing instead of a person, then there is no problem with using its tissues for therapeutic purposes, regardless of the state of developement of the fetus. If, however, the child has the recognized potential to become a person, then using his tissues for therapeutic purposes becomes problematic, as we must then determine when this mass of cells becomes a person. Such a determination has proven to be elusive.
The same logic which supports therapeutic cloning also supports reproductive cloning. To support one and not the other reveals an inconsistency in the application of that logic.

But now let's turn to Mr. Kass, and see what he has to say. Charles tells us that he agrees with much of what Mr. Kass has to say

First, an important if formal objection: any attempt to clone a human being would constitute an unethical experiment upon the resulting child-to-be. As the animal experiments (frog and sheep) indicate, there are grave risks of mishaps and deformities. Moreover, because of what cloning means, one cannot presume a future cloned child's consent to be a clone, even a healthy one. Thus, ethically speaking, we cannot even get to know whether or not human cloning is feasible.

Balderdash! A child conceived in the traditional manner has no say in whether he will be born or not. Why should a cloned child be any different? The risk of deformity is one that will be reduced to levels consistent with natural fertilization by improving technique. Failed clones can be detected and aborted prior to birth.

It is not at all clear to what extent a clone will truly be a moral agent. For, as we shall see, in the very fact of cloning, and of rearing him as a clone, his makers subvert the cloned child's independence, beginning with that aspect that comes from knowing that one was an unbidden surprise, a gift, to the world, rather than the designed result of someone's artful project. [Italics mine]

Here we see the implicit assumption that a clone is less than human, and that it would be raised differently than a baby produced in a more traditional fashion. This assumption is baseless. The children of in vitro fertilization are not raised differently than children of normal conception. Parents do not look on them as experiments, but as blessings. As for the last sentence, this is simple moral posturing. The use of birth control would also negate the 'unbidden surprise.' Should we ban contraceptives?

The cloned person may experience concerns about his distinctive identity not only because he will be in genotype and appearance identical to another human being, but, in this case, because he may also be twin to the person who is his "father" or "mother"--if one can still call them that.

Do identical twins suffer from crises of identity? "Sometimes, she goes away, but I'm always right here." Somewhat simplified, bu it points out that identity rests in the ego, not in the genotype. If I were brought face to face with my doppelganger, I would not start to wonder if he was me. "I'm always right here."

Genetic distinctiveness not only symbolizes the uniqueness of each human life and the independence of its parents that each human child rightfully attains. It can also be an important support for living a worthy and dignified life.

This assertion requires some back-up. Unfortunately, Kass doesn't supply any.

As bioethicist James Nelson has pointed out, a female child cloned from her "mother" might develop a desire for a relationship to her "father," and might understandably seek out the father of her "mother," who is after all also her biological twin sister. Would "grandpa," who thought his paternal duties concluded, be pleased to discover that the clonant looked to him for paternal attention and support?

Wouldn't it be more likely that the child would form an attachment to any male providing a father figure, and not preferentially her grand father? While she may be genetically his daughter, by birth and experience, the two real keys, she is his grandaughter, and that is how she will react.

In the case of self-cloning, the "offspring" is, in addition, one's twin; and so the dreaded result of incest--to be parent to one's sibling--is here brought about deliberately, albeit without any act of coitus. Moreover, all other relationships will be confounded. What will father, grandfather, aunt, cousin, sister mean? Who will bear what ties and what burdens? What sort of social identity will someone have with one whole side--" father's" or "mother's"--necessarily excluded?

The first sentence is emotional tripe. There is no incest involved. The rest is a litany of resistance to change. Why should the patern of relationships be confounded? We relate to others based on our experiences with them, not based on our genetic linkages. Why should one side of the family be excluded? Kass is taking the point of view that since a clone has genetic material from one parent only, the other parent has no involvement with the child. Adoptees and blended families refute that point of view.

Human cloning would also represent a giant step toward turning begetting into making, procreation into manufacture (literally, something "handmade"), a process already begun with in vitro fertilization and genetic testing of embryos. With cloning, not only is the process in hand, but the total genetic blueprint of the cloned individual is selected and determined by the human artisans.

Here we have something of a legitimate concern, but it is interesting how early in his argument, Kass was concerned that the identity of a cloned child would be confused, as he shared a genotype with another person. Now he is saying that if the genotype is altered by artificial means, the product is designed, rather than natural, and inherently less than human. I dealt with this objection above.

Kass goes on to argue the 'slippery slope', that once cloning is legalized, then eugenics becomes a foregone conclusion. And it is on this point that I agree with him. I share his fears of a homogenized corporate population. The problem is that the first step on this slope is not just reproductive cloning, but therapeutic cloning. The commodification of human life begins a soon as you start creating and harvesting fetuses for tissues.

Unfortunately, this is all moot, as I can't think of a single example of a technology which, once discovered, has not been put to use, certainly not one as hotly desired as this one. WE will have cloning of both sorts, as well as genetic blueprinting and design, and it will be sooner rather than later.

How many flaws can you spot?

How many flaws can you spot? First, read this story about Yucca Mountain.

Anything leap out at you?

Transporting the existing 70,000 metric tons of spent fuel now scattered among the various sites will take care of an overcrowding problem as well as centralize storage more safely — 1,000 miles below the surface, in the desert and near an Air Force base, supporters say.

1000 miles? Let's see, the earth's crust averages about 15 miles, so I guess we are going to drop the spent fuel directly into the mantle. Sheesh, doesn't anybody read what they write?

While numbers vary, NIRS says the project will require more than 96,000 truck shipments impacting 44 states and a combined population of 123,000 in major cities including St. Louis, Atlanta, Omaha, Chicago, and Indianapolis.

Only 123, 000? We get more than that into Bristol Motor Speedway on a race week. Somehow, I thought the cities listed were a little bigger than that.

Singer said that NRIS has exaggerated how many shipments there will be, saying the numbers are closer to 200 shipments annually, about one and a half a day — not the five per day that opponents are talking about.

Hmmm. 365 days per year, 1.5 shipments a day 547 shipments per year, not 200. Or we could go the other way. 200 shipments per year equals roughly one shipment every day and a half. Once again, doesn't anybody read what they write? This is simple math here folks.

OK, enough of the factual errors, let's get to the meat of the article. Opponents claim that waste transportation would be a prime terror target. I guess we should halt the transport of medical waste, hazardous chemical wastes and mixed wastes as well.

As for fears of leakage, I worked at a plant which performed volume reduction and stabilization of spent ion exchange resins for nuclear reactors. While classified as low level wastes, the dose rates were fairly high on many of the containers. For two years we averaged a shipment every two days. Not once were we involved in any accidents. The resin was shipped in a High INtegrity Container, or HIC, which was made of a very thick, very tough poly. The HIC was transported inside of a lead shielded stanless steel cask. This cask was subjected to tests, and was able to withstand the impact of a freight train without rupturing.

And all of this was for low level waste. Spent fuel is shipped under even tighter controls.

Finally, which is more dangerous: leaving this stuff in multiple temporary locations, most situated very near major population centers, or to consolidate it into one, heavily shielded storage facility, one which has been designed for permanent storage?

It's a no brainer once you have the facts.

The Supreme Court and ersatz kiddie porn

The Supreme Court and ersatz kiddie porn Via Instapundit comes this story by Mike Lynch on the recent SCOTUS decision to strike down the Child Pornography Prevention Act.

"What the Supreme Court has said here is that ‘child pornography’ has to involve children,’" Mark Kernes, a senior editor at Adult Video News, told The New York Times. "And what a shock that is."

OK, first, the references:

The Act itself
The decision

From Lynch’s article:

The latter includes some twisted stuff, but it also includes much mainstream art and discourse. "The statute proscribes a visual depiction of an idea," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy, "that of teenagers’ engaging in sexual activity, that is a fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature throughout the ages."

Now from the dissent of Rehnquist:

Judge Ferguson similarly observed in his dissent in the Court of Appeals in this case:
From reading the legislative history, it becomes clear that the CPPA merely extends the existing prohibitions on real child pornography to a narrow class of computer-generated pictures easily mistaken for real photographs of real children. Free Speech Coalition v. Reno, 198 F.3d 1083, 1102 (CA9 1999).
See also S.Rep. No. 104358, supra, pt. IV(C), at 21 ([The CPPA] does not, and is not intended to, apply to a depiction produced using adults engaging i[n] sexually explicit conduct, even where a depicted individual may appear to be a minor (emphasis in original)); id., pt. I, at 7 ([The CPPA] addresses the problem of high tech kiddie porn). We have looked to legislative history to limit the scope of child pornography statutes in the past, United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64, 7377 (1994), and we should do so here as well.2
This narrow reading of sexually explicit conduct not only accords with the text of the CPPA and the intentions of Congress; it is exactly how the phrase was understood prior to the broadening gloss the Court gives it today. Indeed, had sexually explicit conduct been thought to reach the sort of material the Court says it does, then films such as Traffic and American Beauty would not have been made the way they were. Ante, at 910 (discussing these films portrayals of youthful looking adult actors engaged in sexually suggestive conduct). Traffic won its Academy Award in 2001. American Beauty won its Academy Award in 2000. But the CPPA has been on the books, and has been enforced, since 1996. The chill felt by the Court, ante, at 6 ([F]ew legitimate movie producers would risk distributing images in or near the uncertain reach of this law), has apparently never been felt by those who actually make movies.

So, the ‘chilling effect of the CPPA does not actually exist, nor is the overbroad interpretation of Justice Kennedy warranted by the legislative intent of the act.

Chief Justice Rehnquist brings up another point:

We normally do not strike down a statute on First Amendment grounds when a limiting instruction has been or could be placed on the challenged statute. Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 613 (1973). See, e.g., New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 769 (1982) (appreciating the wide-reaching effects of striking down a statute on its face); Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 760 (1974) (This Court has repeatedly expressed its reluctance to strike down a statute on its face where there were a substantial number of situations to which it might be validly applied). This case should be treated no differently.

In other words, if there is a legitimate application of this Act, then it should be modified if needed, rather than struck down completely.

Getting back to Mike Lynch:

The same goes for another of the law's targets: computer generated images. By definition, these fakes, the porno version of the Emergency Medical Hologram on Star Trek Voyager, don’t exploit children.
The government argued that even these simulations hurt children, on the grounds that they whet the appetites.

This is an oversimplification of the government’s position. Let’s look at the government’s real argument and see if it can be dismissed as easily.

Findings 6 though 13 of Subsection 1 of the CPPA present the government’s case. In these findings the government states that among other things:

• computers can be used to create lifelike images of children engaging in sexual acts using innocent pictures of children as raw material;
  
• that those pictures cause damage to the child, even if he wasn’t really involved in the acts depicted;
  
• that the effect of Child pornography on pedophiles is the same whether it is virtual or real:
  
• that the usefulness of porn to pedophiles is the same whether real or virtual:
  
• that the existence of child pornography has an equivalent effect on the community, whether real of virtual;
  
• that the sexualization of children has a deleterious effect by encouraging a societal perception of children as sex objects, and that this effect is equivalent whether real or virtual;

This is a little bit more than just “whetting the appetite. There are several valid concerns here, which brings us back to Chief Justice Rehnquist’s position that we don’t need to throw out the entire Act, as it serves a real purpose. It would have been more appropriate to limit or modify the act, if some of the provisions are considered overly broad.

Cloning again

Cloning again Yes, I'm still at it. Charles Murtaugh briefly addresses cloning again, restating his opinion that therapeutic cloning is OK, but reproductive cloning is not.

I still don't see any ethical difference between the two. If it is OK to create an organism to harvest its parts, why is it not OK to create an organism and allow it to become a person? We do this with in vitro fertilization all the time. The only difference is that a clone would have one parent, not two. So what?

It's in for a penny, in for a pound on this issue. If you don't like where it leads, you may want to re-examine your support for cloning in general.

I've asked Charles to comment on this, as I respect his opinion. If he finds the time to reply, I'll post it here.

Bright college days

Bright college days I went with my son to his college orientation on Saturday. He has enrolled at the local state university as a premed student, majoring in Psychology.

Yes, I'm proud.

But the reason I bring it up is not to praise him, but to damn the weakwilled pantywaisted sexist twerps running our college campuses (campusi?). During the orientation, there was a question and answer session for the parents. One woman asked about the incidence of sexual assault on campus. First, the campus security representative answered, saying that it was fairly rare, with approximately one incident per semester. He went on to say that although only one was reported, given the nature of the crime, he was certain that more went unreported. The rep for the campus counselors spoke next and got into the date rape discussion, saying that violent attacks were very rare, but date rapes were far more common. He said that they tried very hard to educate all of the students how to avoid that situation. He said specifically that they tried to teach the boys that "no means no" and that they should try not to get so drunk that they couldn't understand "no." Then he said, and this is as close to an exact quote as I can make it,"We also try and teach the girls, not that it is ever her fault [emphasis mine], to try and stay sober enough to be able to say no."

I was livid! Talk about a double standard! Basically, what he was saying, and what I explained to my son that night, was that if two kids got together, went out drinking and decided to have sex, if she decided the next morning that it was a bad idea, he was guilty of sexual assault. So when drinking, he is still held accountable for his actions, while she isn't. Somehow, this seems to violate equal treatment under the law.

Don't women realize how degrading this kind of crap is? I mean, look at it. What we are saying is that women are not as capable as men of being responsible for the decisions they make.

This whole thing is rooted in sexism because it views the sex act as something men do to women, rather than something men and women do together. Shouldn't we have grown out of that crap a long time ago?

Anyway, I've warned my son that, on the ETSU campus anyway, not only does NO mean NO, but YES can also mean NO if she decides later that she regrets her decision. I also warned him that, in the event that he decides to have sex anyway, to get her consent in writing, duly witnessed and notarized, followed by a three day cooling off period.

Safe sex is developing a whole new meaning......

Now that is weird!

Now that is weird! Just checked my referral log and found that my site was googled for "Sarah Hughes cleavage." As far as I know, this is the first time those words appeared together on my page.

It's an Outrage!

It's an Outrage!It was one of the most disgusting, degrading spectacles I have ever seen. Young men in their prime, forced to prostitute themselves for money. Last night, the local high school soccer team auctioned off its players in a fundraiser to buy new nets for the field. (The old nets were full of holes. I explained to my sons that nets are made with holes. They’re supposed to be there. “No, Dad,” they said. “These are different holes.”)

It was so horrible, watching these innocent young men forced to prance down the track to disco music as their coach, the molder of their character, the leader of the team, the man these boys trusted to provide a moral compass, cracked wise about their character flawsin order to liven up the audience. The boys grinned mechanically as they pranced across the runway, but you could see the innocence dying in their eyes as they awakened to the callous, mercenary nature of the capitalist system.

The eyes of the bidders glowed in lascivious anticipation as the auction began.

“Fifteen dollars!”
“Twenty!”
“Twenty one!”
“Thirty!”
“Sold!” The gavel would drop and a soul would die.

The bidding escalated as the night wore on, until boys who would only have fetched fifteen dollars at the beginning of the auction were going for fifty and sixty dollars. Boys who had been sold cheaply earlier in the auction hung their heads in shame as the bids got higher and higher. Even their short time in bondage taught them that their only worth was in how much they could bring on the auction block.

Finally, the auction ended, and I was allowed to bring my boys home, although they still have to serve their three hours of slavery this weekend. The auction may be over, but the scars will remain for a lifetime. There’s no telling how many times I will awaken in the night, hearing their sobs as they relive the degradation and humiliation in their nightmares.

This wanton abuse of my children shall not go unpunished. I’m going to sue the parents who took part in the auction, the coach, the school, and because they are all poor, I’m also going to sue Adidas. (They supplied the uniforms for the team, so they are liable.) My kids are due reparations for the scarring they suffered on the auction block, the hours they toiled without compensation, and their loss of dignity.

I think I’ll call Charles Ogletree and Randall Robinson and see if they’ll put Johnnie Cochran on this case. It’s certainly no sillier than the one they’re pushing now.

What's a well bred liberal to do?

What's a well bred liberal to do? The Cherokee Indians want to trade some land to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park so they can build a new school on land which currently belongs to the park.

The area in question is a flat, 168-acre parcel of land known as the "Ravensford Tract." Ravensford is located adjacent to the reservation in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.

In exchange for Ravensford, the tribe is offering the National Park Service 218 acres of mountain terrain located along the scenic Blue Ridge Parkway. But the uncommon flatness that makes Ravensford so appealing for development also makes the land environmentally unique, according to conservationists.

So, as a liberal, do you support new schools for an oppressed people, or do you preserve the natural area, and the artifacts that it contains. Of course, the artifacts are probable mostly Cherokee in origin, but we won't mention that bit.

As a conservative, this is an easy one. The Park experiences a net gain in acreage, the Indians, who are bootstrapping their way out of grinding poverty by sucking down the white man's dollar, get some brand new schools, and access to their own history. Sounds like everybody wins.

Willfull ignorance is not bliss

Willfull ignorance is not bliss Some folks are ignorant on a subject because they simply are not capable of learning any more about it. For example, most people are not capable of fully understanding the consequences of relativity, or quantum mechanics. They are ignorant of the subject because it is beyond their capacity to learn.
Other folks are ignorant because they have not been exposed to the subject. Once exposed, they can apply themselves, and correct their ignorance, up to their level of intelligence or initiative.
Still others are ignorant by choice, and this is what I want to talk about.

I heard a radio personality the other day talking about how he never used a computer, and never would use a computer, and had no interest in learning to use one. "The old ways are good enough," he said, or words to that effect. What struck me was his pride in announcing to the world that he was computer illiterate.
Just think about it for a minute. Think about how ubiquitous these silicon marvels have become in our lives, not just in the PCs on our desks or laps, but in all kinds of applications from sales to manufacturing to inventory control and so on. Much of the increase in productivity that fueled the economic expansion of the 80s and 90s can be traced directly to the continuing development of the microprocessor. And here is this journalistic icon proudly proclaiming his ignorance of the whole thing. Now we could excuse him because of his advanced age. After all, old folks can't learn new things the way kids and younger folks do, right?

Wrong!

The decision to stop learning is just that, a decision, and is not an automatic consequence of aging. My grandfather learned to use a PC at well over 70 years of age, and used one to run all of his financial affairs. He chose to keep learning, to continue to use the best technology available, rather than to become obsolete, left behind by time and progress.

So, why choose to remain ignorant? Fear and pride are the first things that come to mind.

Learning something new is a form of change, and most people instinctively resist change. Let’s revisit our buddy Albert Einstein. He revolutionized physics with his theories of relativity, and faced strong resistance in getting his ideas accepted, particularly from the older physicists. Ironically, when his theories were used as one of the bases to develop quantum mechanics, he resisted this new application for his ideas, going so far as to create a ‘cosmological constant’ to explain away the quantum effect.
Our need for stability can blind us to reality.

Next, we come to pride. We all have things we believe to be true, beyond fact, beyond proof, beyond argument. When one of these beliefs is challenged, we often react irrationally, leaping to defend this belief, even if we have no real facts to back it up. We don’t want to admit that we were wrong, so we refuse to face the facts, preferring our own pet theories to reality.

And that brings me to my inspiration for this piece. A couple of days ago, I posted a series of poll results, chronicling the overwhelming support among Palestinians for Arafat’s Intifadah, including the violence and homicide bombings. I sent this information to Tony Andragna to illustrate that his belief that the majority of Palestinians are moderate is wrong.

Here are some excerpts of his response:

I have a problem with "polls" in general, because of "framing effects".
Asked whether I support an "uprising" against a "military occupation",
I would have to respond: Yes! I wouldn't object ot Palestinians having a
similar view. That position doesn't become immoderate until we cross
the line to murder - the distinction between suicide bombing a legitimatte
target and homocide bombing innocents. Has there been an attempt to
judge Palestinian opinion on that distinction, or does the survey merely ask
"do you support suicide bombings"? I'll have to look at the survey
(hopefully the questions are provided).

The overwhelming majority of homicide bombings during the Intifadah have been carried out against non-combatant targets. In fact, for the first time in Israeli history, civilian casualties have outnumbered military casualties over the last twelve months. To suggest that the question may not properly distinguish between attacks on military targets and civilian is tenuous at best. Combining the polling data with recent statements by bomber wanna-bees and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade leaders, and the suggestion becomes sheer fantasy.

Tony goes on to say:

I'm especially hesitant to accept at face value the published
sentiments of Palestinians, and there are two reasons:
(a) the statements of the Palestinian leadership are inconsistent with action, and
(b) opinions expressed by a population under duress (you do know what happens to
collaborators) aren't the most reliable source of true sentiment.

Here is my biggest problem with Tony’s argument. He questions the veracity of the available evidence without offering any sort of proof it is illegitimate. He claims that all the media reports, audio, video, and print, coming out of the Middle East are biased against the Palestinians, but supplies no supporting evidence. He says he doesn’t trust the polls because the Palestinian people live in fear of Arafat, and are obviously lying, but he doesn’t provide any statements from Palestinians that this is the case. Are we to believe that Arafat so dominates the Palestinian people that not even one voice of protest can be raised? When dissidents in China can get their message out, and when Cuban protesters can make their voices heard, it is simply illogical to assume that the same could not be said for Palestinians.
Then Tony presents his assumption, again without a shred of evidence to back it up. No quotes, no communiqués, no demonstrations, no interviews, nothing. Tony provides us nothing to support his claims, but wants us to take them seriously anyway. His actions clearly fall into the category of irrationally defending a point of view that has no basis in fact. His rejection of the available evidence is an example of willful ignorance.

I’m hammering on this point, not to put down Tony, because we all have our blind spots, but to illustrate a very common human problem. We all fall into the trap of seeing the world as we think it should be. We craft simplified abstracts of the complex world that help us to understand what is going on. Unfortunately, those abstracts are often distorted by our own biases, and may not accurately reflect the real world. When this happens, any projections we make based on those abstracts will be in error. We have to guard against wishful thinking, and deal with the world as it is.

Is it live, or is it Memorex?

Is it live, or is it Memorex? A new bin Laden tape is out, but we can't tell when it was made.

In an excerpt of the tape, bin Laden appears with his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, who claims the Sept. 11 attacks as a "great victory."

"Those 19 brothers who went out and worked and sacrificed their lives for God, God granted this victory that we enjoy today," al-Zawahri said.

"The great victory that was achieved was because of God's help and not because of our efficiency or cunning," he said.

An Al-Jazeera official said the tape was received a few days ago at its headquarters in Doha, Qatar. Al-Jazeera broadcast only an excerpt of the tape, and said it would air the complete tapes on Thursday.

bin Laden does not speak on the tape.

It's called reporting

It's called reporting The Aussie paper, The Age, has a columnist by the name of Paul McGeough. I referenced one of his columns earlier, in a discussion about homicide bombers in Palestine. He has another column in the current issue of the Age, chronicling a few more would be martyrs:

Hundreds of Palestinians poured in for condolences and coffee. Members of Shadi Tubasi's family formed a greeting line, handing each new arrival a postcard celebrating the "hero" of the Haifa explosion.
And in a corner, 31-year-old Walid Fayad, unsmiling as he clutches an M16 rifle, explained the unusual absence of sugar in the cardamom coffee that is served in tiny china cups: "Today we drink it bitter, so that we can share the Tubasi family's bitterness for the Israelis."
Fayad waved away the revulsion and horror of the previous afternoon, when a bomb detonated by 18-year-old Tubasi tore apart the lives and bodies of 15 people lunching in a road-side restaurant at the port city of Haifa.

A bit more, then read the rest yourself:

Khaled, a hotel worker, spoke in wonderment of a martyr's encounter at the gates of heaven as someone having their file checked: "There will be blessings for 70 of his family and friends. The 72 virgins are real - their skin is so pale and beautiful that you can see the blood in their veins. If one of these virgins spits in the ocean, the seawater becomes sweet. The martyr is so special he does not feel the pain of being in the grave and all that his family has to do to cleanse his file thoroughly, is to repay his outstanding debts."

Surely, we ask, this view of the Koran should be seen as philosophical? As a parable? But no, there was a chorus of disagreement from a gathering of his friends in the teeming Jabalya refugee camp near Gaza City: "No. This is real . . . this is as it will be," said Khaled, as much for himself as on behalf of younger Palestinians who now talk endlessly of the benefits of death over life in a bombing campaign that has killed more than 200 Israelis in 18 months.

I'm going to quit searching USA Today and read The Age It has better reporting. Besides, they do articles on Steve 'the Crocodile Hunter' Irwin.

Palestinian support for Arafat

Palestinian support for Arafat A couple of weeks ago, I got into a debate with Tony Andragna of Quasipundit over whether the majority of Palestinians support Arafat and his suicide bombers. Tony advanced the proposition that there was a distinct segment of the Palestinian population that were moderate, and opposed to Arafat and his thugs. Tony went on to say that these moderates probably constituted a majority.
While reading the Front Page, I came across this quote:

3) The moral basis. While western media are efficient in reporting innocent Palestinian casualties, they rarely report Palestinian polls that show that 80% of Palestinians support the suicide bombings (even before the latest Israeli military operation).

The author, a resident of Tel Aviv, didn't state a source, so I went looking. and I found this:
excerpts from a December 2001 poll of the Palestinian people by the Jerusalem Media and Communications Center

• The poll also shows that the overwhelming majority of the Palestinian public (80.1%) supports the continuation of al-Aqsa Intifada.
  
• The poll showed that a majority (67.5%) supports the military operations as a Palestinian proper response under the current conditions while 26.1% opposed military operations, considering them harmful to the national interest.
  
• A majority of Palestinian public (64%) still support the continuation of suicide (martyrdom) operations inside Israel compared with 68.6% in June 2001
  
• The majority of the Palestinian public (24.5%) trusts mostly President Arafat.
  

  This item needs a little explaining. Looking at the actual question, which is available at the link above, the question was "Which Palestinian personality do you trust the most?" Arafat was the highest person named, at 24.5%. Interestingly enough, the biggest vote getter was "I don't trust anyone," at 33.1% Arafat's trustworthiness was hurt in this poll as he considered a cease fire, which was extremely unpopular with Palestinians.

  
  

I also found this poll, conducted by the the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR) in December 2001
Among its findings,

• 76.4% oppose the arrest of Palestinian activists violating the cease fire by the PA police.
  
• 60.5% believe that armed confrontations have won them rights unachievable any other way.
  
• 73% support a reconciliation betwen a Palestinian and Israeli State, but 41% believe reconciliation is impossible.
  
• 58.4% wouldn't want legal measures to prevent inciting acts against Israel, even if a Palestinain state was granted.
  
• 90.7% refuse to accept a school curriculem which recognizes the legitimacy of Israel, even if a Palestinian state was granted.
  
• 68.8% believe a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine is impossible
  
• 37.7% believe terrorism can be justified.
  
• 81.8% support armed attacks against Israeli targets.
  
• 61.6% oppose a UN initiative to combat terrorism
  
• 82.3% do not believe that the bombing of a disco in Israel was a terrorist act.
  
• 69.4% believe it would not be an act of terror to use chemical or biological weapons against Israel, but 93.6% believe it would be an act of terror if Israel used such weapons on them.
  

Tony, I've found the proof you were looking for. By their own admission, the majority of Palestinians support Arafat, and his tactics.

Why haven't I heard this?

Why haven't I heard this? I was reading an article in the Idler by John Leboutillier about how tmessed up our Middle East policy is, and it referenced an article which says that the Suadis have a fund to support homicide bombers and their families, similar to the one Iraq has. I followed the link, and sure enough, there it is:

The Saudi Arabian government has paid out at least $33 million to families of Palestinians killed or injured in the 17-month-old intifada and in December 2001 earmarked another $50 million for the payments, according to Arabic news agencies and the Saudi Embassy's Web site.

Similar payments promised by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein have drawn sharp condemnation from U.S. President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

The Saudi Committee for Support of the Al-Aqsa Intifada distributes payments of $5,333 to the families of the dead and $4,000 to each Palestinian receiving medical treatment in Saudi hospitals. The fund is managed by Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef bin Abdulaziz, according to the embassy.....
Saudi Arabia makes no distinction in compensation to families of suicide bombers and those killed by Israeli military action.

It seems that few of our news services found this to be a significant story. I found it mentioned in the NY Post, and in some Arab news sources, but the NY Times, WaPO, USA Today, WSJ, all silent.

Very curious.

So much for distancing himself

So much for distancing himself Al Gore is launching his new campaign, and he's decided to correct what he sees as his major flub the last time around.

He brought the crowd to its feet saying: "I don't care what anybody says, I think Bill Clinton and I did a damn good job."

Apparently Al has decided that the positives of Bill outweigh the negatives. I look forward to a constant chorus of "Bill Clinton and I"s coming from Al in the near future.

Just an aside, in case Al reads this. Had you won your home state, you wouldn't have needed Florida. Or Bill.

Hope she's not a lawyer!

Hope she's not a lawyer! Check out this statement from a girl at Ithaca college:

Katrina Baker, a self-described “radical feminist,” stated that she did not believe that the poster was protected speech under the First Amendment.

“When I saw that flyer, I read it as ‘Bay Buchanan is here to hang me.’…Regardless, the Constitution is irrelevant on this campus. We are [a] private [college]. We do not go by that here.”

Frightening. But I'll bet this same "radical feminist" will cry foul if a private men's club excludes her.

I hope the Red Cross checks up on him.

I hope the Red Cross checks up on him. An American was arrested in Tiananmen Square while protesting for Falun Gong.

Think Amnesty Internation will investigate?

We need confirmation of this

We need confirmation of this This is posted on Debka, but I haven't seen it anywhere else. If true, kiss Arafat goodbye.

Israeli security foiled a Palestinian terrorist attempt to hit the motorcade driving US secretary of state Colin Powellfrom Ben Gurion Airport to Jerusalem Thursday night, April 12, shortly after he landed. The Secretary was accompanied by Israeli foreign minister Shimon Peres and heads of the US embassy.
Just before 9 pm IT, two hours before the US Secretary arrived, a Palestinian Red Crescent ambulance was stopped by a hidden Israeli security patrol near the gas station on the Modi’in-Jerusalem Highway 443....
According to some of DEBKAfile’s sources, the two Palestinians admitted under questioning that they had planned to pull the ambulance up on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv expressway, the route taken later by the Powell motorcade. One of the men was to stay in the vehicle, while the other strapped on the bomb belt and hid in some roadside bushes. When the secretary’s car drove by, the ambulance was rigged to explode. The second bomber was then supposed to leap into the milling crowd of officials and security men and blow himself up.

Unintentionally misleading? Moi?

Unintentionally misleading? Moi? John Brau acuses me of just that in this post
His points and my responses:
The great wall worked well as long as it was in the hands of a stable dynasty.
The Israeli government, with its constantly shifting alliances, and multiplicity of priorities cannot be termed a dynasty, nor does it represent a consistent, stable philosophy of government. Rather, it is a constantly shifting balance of conflicting viewpoints, where priorities change rapidly. In short, as you point out, the wall is only as good as the men commanding it.
The maginot line would have worked if the Belgians had done their part.
The spectacular failure of the Maginot line lies not in the rapid collapse of Belgium, but in the fact that a wall represents a static defense, and if the attacking army chooses to avoid the fence, all the resources spent on building maintaining and manning the wall are completely wasted. The configuration of any Israeli wall would of necessity copy that of the Maginot line, since encirclement is impossible, and the territories surrounding Israel are all either hostie, or at best partially neutral.

The Berlin wall was a success because it kept the refugees in East Berlin
The Berlin wall was built not only to keep refugees in, but to keep out Western influences. In this second role, the wall was an utter failure. But more importantly, and the reason I listed it, was that the Berlin wall, by its very existence became a symbol of brutal repression, and it was this which doomed the wall to failure. Building such a wall In Israel would suffer from the same flaws, as it would be characterized as an attempt to ghettoize the Palestinians. Not to mention the sheer impossibility of routing the wall to please all interested parties, unless you picture a wall through the center of the temple mount.
Also, you note that the number of escapes plummeted with the erection of the wall. What you fail to consider is that the driving forces behind the escapes remained present, and the refuges kept trying. How much more motivated are the palestinians, who will undoubtable see this wall as a pen to keep them out?
As far as your extrapolation goes, it is not worth much as the agendas of the two groups are completely different, as are their tactics, methodologies, and available technologies. Refugees were trying to escape; terrorist would try to inflict damage. Unless the wall is made absolute, completely restricting the flow of Palestinians into the Israeli sector, terrorists would still slip through. In addition, refugees generally don't have access to rockets, nor would they be interested in lobbing them over the wall, wreaking havok while remaining safely on their side of the wall. But I'm certain a terrorist would love the idea.

Finally, the US Mexican border. I threw this in as an example of how a semi permeable barrier, such as the one that would be required in Israel, is a complete failure at its intended purpose. Rather than laughing at the idea, look a little deeper. The Israeli wall would be more than a fortification. If it were only that, it would have a greater possibility of working. However, it will be more of a control point, attempting to regulate passage between the two areas. In that capacity, the US Mexican border is an apt example of how easily such a barier can be penetrated. Granted, the Israeli wall would cover a shorter area, and would be correspondingly more effective, but there's always a way around the wall, as I mentioned above.

Finally, even though you try to avoid this point, each wall failed in its stated purpose, although to be fair, some met with a degree of success before absolute failure. What this should tell us is that a wall may at best represent a temporary solution, and at worst, a complete waste of time and resources.

Eureka! We are saved!

Eureka! We are saved! Graham Freeman from grudnuk.com has solved the Middle Eastern Crisis all by himself. Listen to this brilliance!

How to stop this whole mess:
- Send UN Peacekeepers into the occupied territories.
- Hold a conference, with a view to the Arab neighbours (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Egypt) acknowledging Israel's right to exist, and correspondingly with Israel acknowledging Palestine's right to exist.
- Guaranteeing the various faiths right of access to their particular holy sites. And perhaps, at worst, demarcate an international zone around the city of Jerusalem, removing it from the jurisdiction from any existing state.

Also, given that Israel have had Arafat holed up so that he gets out less often than your average warblogger, it's churlish and stupid to suggest that he still has any control over your average Palestinean. And don't even imagine that aggravated violence against a party in this conflict will suddenly make retaliatory actions evaporate.

Way to go Graham, we're all proud of you. I guess we can all sit back and relax now. All we have to do is get Israel and Palestine to recognize each others right to exist, expropriate the one of the holiest sites from both parties, and send in the blue hats to make sure they play nice.

Of course, UN Peacekeeping forces have a marginal success record, to put it kindly. But maybe they'll get it right this time. After all, the sight of those powder blue helmets will certainly ease any lingering tensions between the Palestinians and Israelis.
Now, about this conference, exactly what is in it for Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, et al? What are they going to get for their reversal of a decades old policy of refusing to recognize Israel as a legitimate state? Are we to suppose that they will do this out of some hitherto untapped generousity? Or will we bribe them? And how will they make such an about-face palatable to theri populace, who have been trained for decades to hate Israel and the Jews? Could be a bit tricky. The second half is already accomplished. Israel has conceded that Palestine has a right to exist, and in her last aatempt to prevent war, offered the PA almost everything they asked for, with the major exception of the right of return. How does your plan address this issue, which is a deal breaker on both sides? How many palestinian refugees can return to Israel? What kind of compensation should they get, if any? Should they be accepted as full citizens of Israel, or as permanent residents?
This also brings up the larger issue of the settlements. How will you handle the issue of settlements on the wrong side of the border? Not to mention the tricky question of drawing the border in the first place. How about water rights? Can you draw a border which ensures both states will have adequate access to the Jordan river?
Your third suggestion is allowing each group access to its particular holy sites. Unfortunatey, Judeism and Islam share many holy sites, and neither group is going to be willing to give up access to any religious site. This is another well established stumbling block. How do you propose to resolve it? This problem also encompasses Jerusalem. Both sides want unfettered access. Arafat was offered a portion of the city in the last Israeli proposal, and he refused it and launched the Intifadah. How are you planning on getting Arafat to agree to a compromise he already rejected violently? How are you going to get both sides to agree to cede Jerusalem to international control?

Finally, your last statement is self contradictory. If Arafat has no control over his people, then why should Israel negotiate with him? Is Palestine an anarchy? The escalating violence, and the pattern of attacks speaks of co-ordination and planning. If Arafat is not in charge, then who is? Either he is calling the shots, and is therefore guilty of terrorism, continuing his old ways, or he is not in control, and isn't worth speaking to. By the way, documents found when the Israelis raided Arafat's headquarters implicate him in the ordering, planning and funding of terrorist operations.

So Graham, while the broad strokes of your plan sound eminently reasonable, the devil is in the details, and unless you have some radical new answers that nobady else has thought of over the last 60 years or so, I'm afraid your suggestion is a pipe dream.

A definition of insanity

A definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing, but expect different results.

• The Great wall of China
  
• The Maginot Line
  
• The Berlin Wall
  
• The US Mexican Border
  

History shows us clearly that the foreign devils will go over, under or through any wall we put up. So why do people keep suggesting that a wall will work for Israel? Putting a wall up between Israel and Palestine is like sending two kids to their room for fighting when they share the same room.

Naw, he wouldn't lie!

Naw, he wouldn't lie! Abu Zubaydah, one of the top men in al Qaeda, swears that al Qaeda had nothing to do with the WTC attacks. And he wouldn't lie would he?

Pakistani intelligence officials said Zubaydah was taken by surprise when security forces raided his house in the early hours. Unarmed, the Saudi-born Palestinian ran to the roof with three other men, but Pakistani police were already there, a senior official said. Zubaydah reportedly tried to win over police, saying "We are friends." But as he spoke, a bodyguard stabbed an officer, prompting police to open fire, the official said.

OK, so maybe he would.

One nice thing about blogging at night.

One nice thing about blogging at night. You never see that "Server busy" error. Of course, sleep would be nice too.

Come one come all!

Come one come all! We've found a lot of southern bloggers active in the blogosphere, and like other intrepid blog groups before us, now is the time to get out pasty white faces out from the blue glow of the CRT and meet in the flesh. I've talked about this with Terry Oglesby of Possumblog, and we think it must be done. Anybody interested email me at the address on the right, and once we get an idea of the interest level, we'll try to pick a reasonably central location. I'd offer my home in the Smokies, but with 6 kids, three dogs, a yard cat or two, uncounted field mice, and an ex-wife living there (don't ask), it's a little crowded.

He's dead, Jim

He's dead, Jim James Traficant was found guilty of all charges.

Traficant, who angered many Democrats by voting to elect Republican Dennis Hastert as speaker, has already been stripped of committee assignments.

Look, Traficant didn't do anything that almost every other Congressman. He ticked off is party leaders, and they hung him out to dry. They stripped him of his committee memberships (only member of congress with no comittee seats), and rezoned him out of a district, all before the charges were made. They wnted him gone, and they got what they wanted.

"At the heart of all public service is personal integrity. A member of Congress who breaks the law betrays the public trust and brings discredit to the House of Representatives," Gephardt said.

Does this turn anybody else's stomach?

Coup in Venezuela

Coup in Venezuela According to the NYTimes the army has ousted President Chavez.

A Venezuelan general said on Thursday that President Hugo Chavez's government had ``abandoned its functions'' and the country was under the control of the armed forces.

National Guard Gen. Alberto Camacho Kairuz made the announcement on local television after senior military officers blamed the president for violence during a huge anti-Chavez protest march in which at least 10 people were killed.

``All of the country is under the control of the national armed forces,'' Camacho said.

Well, that's a relief....

Armies are great for fighting. They suck when it comes to running a country.

Scenes from around town

Scenes from around town Last Saturday, while I was waiting for my daughters to finish an engineering conference for girls, I spent some time just driving around Knoxville. I was getting onto I-40, when I saaw a car parked on the side of the entrance ramp, one of those circular clover leaf ones. The gman was fiddling around in the trunk, and since he was an older gentleman, I slowed down to see if he needed a hand. When I drew abreast of his car, I could see what was absorbing his attention; je was breaking down a fishing pole, and putting a stringer of bluegill into a cooler in his trunk. There was a small pond nestled in the circle of the cloverleaf, and he had spent a few morning hours wetting his line.

I love living in East Tennessee.

I stopped by Borders soon after opening to browse the shelves, and see what caught my eye. Passing by the bargain bin a saw a slim volume entitled Practical Origami

And they say literature is dead.

I stopped to put gas in my Tracker and saw that the honeymoon was over. American car flags were on sale, marked down from $12.99 to $3.99. It made me wonder, how much of the last 6 months has been cheap sentiment, and how much true patriotism? Are the patriots still out there, or are we just wanna-bees, waiting for the next crisis to erupt so we can wave our flags, make pretty speeches, then go back to sleep. Maybe I'm naive, but I think that there are true patriots, and more of them than there are wanna-bees. We may not wave the flag as ferociously as the last six months; we may squabble among ourselves about trivial issues, but when the time for action is thrust upon us, we act in unison.
In the next few months, before the next big eruption hits, we are going to see people falling back into their normal routines, and pettiness will once again dominate in politics. But I think that we are now more aware that just beneath the surface, lies a well spring of strength and love of country, ready to be tapped when needed.

I hope this isn't true

I hope this isn't true but it is all too plausible.

Reproductive Cloning vs Therapuetic Cloning

Reproductive Cloning vs Therapuetic Cloning Charles Murtaugh published this piece on why he supports therapeutic cloning, and not reproductive cloning.

On a related note, I've added my name to a petition against Senator Sam Brownback's proposed ban on "therapeutic cloning," i.e. the production of cloned early human embryos for research/treatment purposes, rather than for birth. Since I've been so outspoken in opposition to human reproductive cloning, you might ask whether I'm being a hypocrite at worst, or foolish at best.

Obviously I don't think so, and here's why. First off, as an ethical matter, since I support human embryonic stem cell research, it would be hard for me to muster opposition to embryo cloning on a purely ethical basis. Put simply, I don't believe that very early human embryos are people, in any moral or legal sense.

Charles is neither foolish, nor hypocritical, but he doesn't really explore the ramifications of his position.

For example, when does this non-person become a person? At what point in it's development can you point to the fetus and say that it is now a person? Or do you wait until it is born to call it a person? The way he puts it "...very early human embryos.." leads me to believe that he thinks that the point at which a fetus becomes a human is somewhere before birth, although I could be mistaken in this assumption. As far as I can know, conception is the defining moment when a new organism is created, which makes it the obvious choice for assigning personhood. I don't know of any other point in pre-natal development which equals it, except possibly for the initiation of brain activity.

My next problem with this position is it takes one procedure, cloning, and makes it legal or illegal based on the intentions of the person performing it. What justification can there be for making such an artificial distinction?
We've heard the proponents of therapuetic cloning dissmiss the arguments of those against it as motivated by the "Eewww factor." I contend that the arguments against reproductive cloning can be assigned the same motivation. Most of the arguments against reproductive cloning(RC) fall into the "slippery slope" category which is cavalierly dismissed by therapuetic cloning(TC) supporters when it is applied to them. OK, so let's eliminate this line of argument from consideration in both cases, and consider purely scientific reasons why RC would be a bad idea.

I'm waiting.....

If it is the failure rate you are worried about, as Charles Murtaugh discusses, then what failure rate is acceptable? Once we reach or exceed that point, does that end your objection to RC?
Or maybe deformities are your concern. Do you also feel that we should limit the reproductive rights of those who possess inheritable genetic defects?
Or are you concerned about misuse of the process? Ooops, there's that slippery slope again.
Or are you concerned that folks may use RC for purposes that don't live up to it's noble aspirations (like plastic surgery has gone from helping folks who need it to designing centerfolds for Playboy)? There's the eeeww factor.

For a quick demolition of the standard arguments against human cloning in general, see Glenn Reynold's post here. While I have a few problems with his logic (remember, I oppose human cloning for any purpose), for the purposes of this discussion, I'll ignore them for now. Basically, what it comes down to is this. The arguments for therapuetic cloning work just as well for reproductive cloning, and the same can be said for the arguments against each.

Hey! I'm a warblog!

Hey! I'm a warblog! While I'm pleased to be included with the likes of Glenn Reynolds, Rand Simberg, the Sarge, and the others on this list, I really have to point something out. I blog what interests me, and what I think other people might be interested in. In case the fellow behind 'wrongwaygoback' hasn't noticed, there is a war on, one that could very easily become global. That seems to me to be a pretty big story, and worthy of attention.

Neale Talbot proceeds to critique the warblog community, speaking from the perspective of an old time blogger, one who existed before 911, and the warblog explosion. Let's take a look at his critiques, and see if they are valid

1. Warbloggers Do Not Respond Well To Criticism Even though Alex Beam made an error that completely ruined his argument, one result was clear - criticise the warblogging mass and they will respond like pit vipers on crack. All sense and reason seems to go out the door, and the warbloggers sink to the same level as usenet trolls - petty insults and a focus on irrelevant details (such as spleling mistakes) become the order of the day. To paraphrase an e-mail I received, "If you make spelling mistakes and grammatical errors, your entire argument must be invalid". Warbloggers can't see the forest for the trees.

Critiques we can handle, particularly when the critic is at least semi knowledgeable about the subject. Insultingly ignorant condescension, like the Beam article, will be given the trashing it so desperately deserves. As for your charge about warbloggers descending to "petty insults and a focus on irrelevant details," let's check out this post you approvingly link to, criticizing your favorite target, Glenn Reynolds. It's a good thing G Beato doesn't descend to such levels of petty sarcasm and personal attack. I'm glad you were here to show us the error of our ways.
By the way Neale, spelling and grammar are hardly irrelevant when you are communicating in print. When you print stuff like:

• John Hiler responds to my war profiteering charges, with some interesting counter-arguements. It would be nice a response from Sullivan and Reynolds as well.
  
• 6 months ago this was have been unheard of, but it seems that the "blog/borg queen" (incidentally, a title given to Brig Eaton over two years ago) has managed to capitalise on the deaths of 3000 innocent civilians and turn a profit.
  
• I challenge either Reynolds or Sullivan to put to their readers some truly alternative views to their readership.
  
• Because, just like CNN or MSNBC, it's easier for them to tell their audience what to think, then ask them to think for themselves.
  
• Now that a profit is being achieved, these journalists are falling to the same models they've seen so successful elsewhere, and which their trying to be perceived as following.
  

it determines how people will approach your ideas. If you don't take your writing seriously enough to do some basic proofreading and editing, why should we? It's like getting dressed up for a job interview. The way you present yourself colors how people react to you. In a print media, using good grammar, proper spelling, and an appropriate vocabulary is the equivalent of dressing for success. (Just so you know, disseminate means to spread information. I think the word you were looking for was dissect. But don't worry, I will continue to dissect your argument as well as your grammar. See? "Dissect" works much better.)

2. If You're Not With Us...

Warbloggers seem to think that if you criticise someone on the right, you're a tree-hugging, beret-wearing, pinko leftist scumbag. Or if you ask a warblogger to logically and unemotionally look deep into the heart of an event like 9/11, then you're a terrorist-loving, Jew-hating, fascist bastard. Or maybe just part of a vast, right wing conspiracy. With this attitude it's no wonder political parties and opinions stagnate.

So warbloggers now shape the opinions and policy planks of political parties? That's some kind of power there! We better be sure and wield it only for good. Your first sentence shows that you don't really read any warblogs. Your buddy Glenn Reynolds has criticized conservatives fairly frequently on his blog, and I haven't heard anybody calling him a pinko leftist scumbag. Maybe you just missed the flap about Bush raising tariffs on steel. Warbloggers made a much bigger issue out of that decision than did the mainstream media, and most of them castigated (I'll wait while you look it up) the President for his decision.

. Some can see a logical progression from the events of 9/11 ?¨ the rise of warbloggers ?¨ the increased traffic numbers ?¨ the growth of the tip jar. And some don't have a problem with it. If you don't have a problem with it either, why not donate to one of the following 27 warbloggers who have tip-jars on their site? But before you spend that dollar, just bear this in mind - if each of these warbloggers makes a dollar a day, after a year they'll have collectively made almost $10,000. $10,000 that could have gone to the victims of 9/11.

In another post:

What I'm also saying is that the warbloggers have taken a personal vehicle and are attempting to use them for personal profit from some rather serious and tragic events.

No, we are trying to recapture some of what we have invested in time, effort and money. Your misunderstanding springs from your belief that all we write about, all we care about is 9/11 and its consequences. Had you actually read some of the blogs you list, you would know otherwise.
Here's the deal, Neale. Some bloggers spend a considerable amount of time and effort creating their blogs. They scan the web for interesting stories, then link to them saving other surfers hours of time. Other bloggers link to one or two stories, then provide analysis and commentary from their own areas of expertise. Still others share parts of their lives with us, reinforcing the commonality of the human experience. In any case, they devote considerable time and effort to their blogs. Some of them go even further and spend money to keep their blog on-line, paying for server fees and web design and the like. It amounts to a significant investment; one which we like to think might one day be defrayed in some small way by the folks who enjoy what we do. Of course, I know you understand this whole thing. After all you have your own tip jar, don't you?

OK, now for the more egregious logical errors in your original post. First, you say that Reynolds and other warbloggers are not doing the job they should be because they are merely parroting what the man on the street is already saying. Then, in your conclusion, you say that it is the other way around, and that they are telling the man in the street what to think. Well, which is it Neale?

Next you say that warbloggers don't ask why, just how and when. Tis one is really simple, Neale. If you want to know why, just take a look at some of the pictures and video from 9-11. Watch the bodies fall through the air. Watch the planes crash into the towers, and see them collapse. See the horror on the faces of the witnesses, the anguish of the firefighters and rescue workers. See the joy on the faces of the people of Palestine, dancing in the streets as they got the news. Then you'll know why.

As for a 'long critical look at why the 9/11 attacks occurred', any critique which attempts to justify the actions of those murderers by faulting US policy is wrong on its face, and here's why. The people who died on those planes, and in the towers did not set or carry out those policies. They were not targeted for their complicity in US policy. They were not combatants nor should they have been considered such. However, in an animalistic devaluation of human life, al Qaida used these people as payback against US foreign policy, most specifically our support of Israel. If the terrorists attacked a military target, if Osama bin Laden had convinced the Taliban to declare war on the US, instead of acting as a rogue agent of terror, then perhaps we would still give some consideration to their issues. But, they chose instead to attack civilians, to strike down innocent people, and for that, their arguments and causes are rendered irrelevant. They acted like animals, and will be put down like a rabid dog. Maybe the next group will be prepared to act in a civilized manner, and we will be able to resolve our differences amicably, or at least in a limited engagement where not every man, woman, and child is considered a legitimate target.

Well, having reviewed the argument presented by Neale extensively, I probably should have just sent you to this link, from Sgt. Schultz. It says the same thing, only it doesn't take as long to read.

By the way

By the way, there's a new post on Battle of the bulge, if you're interested.

Why didn't they call me?

Why didn't they call me? The Knoxville News Sentinel did an article on blogging, and of course, instead of being creative and choosing a diamond in the rough blog, like mine for instance, they chose instead to go the conventional route, and use a more established blog, i.e. Instapundit. Like he needs more exposure.

I'm sure though that Prof. Reynolds mentioned to them that I blog as well, and recommended that they contact me for a choice quote or two.

Yeah right.

The article closes this way:

As for his own role, Reynolds says he doesn't think too much about his worldwide audience of thousands and his place in blogging history.
"If you start thinking of yourself as a mover and shaker, you start spouting drivel," he says.

Apparently some folks think this has already happened. Congratulations Glenn. You haven't really arrived until you have your own fanatically obssessed cyber stalker.

Send for the thought police

Send for the thought police Did you know that what you think, what you believe, even what you feel may be a crime, punishable by two years in jail? Well, it isn't yet, but if the EU nuts have their way, it will be.

The draft proposals define racism and xenophobia as feelings of hostility to individuals based on their "race, colour, descent, religion or belief, national or ethnic origin". If they are put into effect, the police will be able to send anybody suspected of these offences for trial anywhere in the EU, without having to go through the current extradition procedures.

Apart from being a blatant attack on the British citizen's freedom of speech and thought, the proposals contain an obvious absurdity. If it is to be an offence to disapprove of an individual because of his beliefs, then it must surely be an offence to disapprove of him for believing in racism or xenophobia.

The officials who drafted these proposals would make criminals of themselves, by the very act of proposing to imprison others for their beliefs.

Raving lunatics

Routine demonization of Palestinians

Routine demonization of Palestinians Aziz Poonawalla objects to my side of the debate with Tony Andragna.

To really achieve peace, we need to pragmatically address the needs of both sides, so that both get some measure of justice. As long as one side is routinely demonized, this cannot happen. This sort of "partisanship" is acceptable and even healthy for a nation's politics - for example the demonization of Democrats by Republicans. But when it shapes foreign policy, there is vast asymmetry and the result is the chaos and injustice that we see.

My position is that the Palestinians are demonizing themselves by their actions. And yes, I still address the Palestinains as a block, because they are still acting as a block. When a significant number of them reject the suicide bombings and the targetting of noncombatants, and begin to demonstrate against them, then I will recognize a distinction. The overwhelming wealth of information from Israel and Palestine shows clearly that the two sides differ not only in their agendas, but in their approaches as well. The Palestinian terror groups, al Aqsa for example, do not target combatants but prefer to target non combatants. Contrast this with the Israelis, who have acted with restraint, going after militarily significant targets, then withdrawing when their limited objectives have been carried out. Yes, non combatants have died in this process, but they were not specifically targetted.
There is a huge ethical difference between the two sides, and until the Palestinians reject the use of terror tactics, then they shall surely reap what they have sown.

Aziz also links to a diary written by folks in Palestine right now. The stories are horrific, as all war stories are. Oddly enough, there seem to be no Palestinian militants, only poor, innocent Palestinians trying to survive the evil nasty Israeli soldiers, or Americans abd Brits, horrified by the sights and sounds of war. What none of these diarists talk about, and I've read through quite a few, is why this operation is going on.

Here is one example:

The people from the camps carry with them the memory of fleeing for their lives from their original towns and villages within ’67 borders from waves of massacres carried out by the Zionist forces in 1947-1948. In some cases, a few men with guns are trying to resist, but somehow in the media the reasons why are not understandable, neither their right to resist Occupation under international law and heaven forbid anyone dare to speak of their right to return provided under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and according to umpteen UN resolutions now.

How heinous it is to invade a refugee camp? How appalling that the US, after Sabra and Shatila, looks on and allows this? How miserable that a world full of civilians who have undergone inhumanity and racism cannot make state powers serve the needs, deliver the rights and guarantee the basic protection of human beings. It should be our common priority.

It is still totally unclear in the Western media that it is Israel violating international law here, it is Israel which acts lawlessly and thus creating and perpetuating this terrible situation. It seems that according to Israel and with the green light of the US, the only right of Palestinians in the camps and Palestinian civilians in general seems to be to die or disappear.

No mention of the suicide bombings, the rockets aimed at neighborhoods, the driveby shootings. This myopia is the true cause of the conflict, and if the Israelis are guilty, the Palestinians are equally so. Yes, Palestinians are dying, and in greater numbers than Israelis. That's usually what happens when you pick a fight out of your weight class. That doesn't make it Israel's fault. There are plenty of quotes from the Palestinain leadership, from Arafat, from al Aqsa leaders which quite clearly express their aim: not to live in peace with Israel, but to drive her out and destroy her completely. Did the Palestinian people object to this rhetoric? Did the riot in the streets to demand that the warmongers go home? Nope. Some say it's because the Palestinians live in a police state, that they are unable to voice their true feelings. If a dissident can make his voice heard in China, if a student can stop a tank, albeit only temporarily, then the Palestinain dissidents could make themselves heard. Perhaps had the Palestinians cleaned their own house, repudiated terrorism and Arafat, and worked to find a peaceful compromise with Israel instead of slaughtering people who went out for dinner on a Holy Day, perhaps then the Israeli army would not have to do the job for them. I'm confident that they would rather not have to do the job, because the inevitable consequence is more anger, more rage, more hatred directed at Israel.

So, what is the answer? Should Israel pull out again, and see if a peace can be reached? Should the US intervene, and force a peace? Should we force Israel to stand still while Arafat and his thugs destroy them piece by piece? I don't know the answer, but I do know this. While I have sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians, as long as their chief representatives continue to use their favored tactics of terror and mayhem, as long as the Palestinian people acquiesce to these actions and support them either expressly or tacitly, I will not support them, or their objectives.

Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg disagrees with my warnings about dismissing too easily the capabilities of the Arabs in their fight against the US.

But the main reason they put up such a good fight for so long was not because of fanatical bravery and devotion to their cause (though they had that in abundance)--it was vastly superior generalship, until Grant was put in charge. And while the South had some brilliant generals, this is more of a commentary on the poor quality of those of the Union, most notably McClellan, who threw away opportunity after opportunity to follow up a battlefield victory with the destruction of Lee's army, instead always failing to follow through and pursue.

The South had its share of incompetent leadership early in the War, some of whom went on to far greater reputations than their actions merited. For example, you mentioned Stonewall Jackson. Had he acted in accordance with his orders during the Seven Days Campaign, there is a very good possibility that the Union Army would have been crushed, and the war ended early. However, he failed to act, and an opportunity was lost. Throughout the early years of the war, both sides failed to capitalize on opportunities which presented themself. Another example is the aftermath of the battle of Chickamauga, where again, the opportunity to throw the Union Army out of Middle Tennessee was lost.
However, If you find the War Between the States a strained analogy, try this one, also from American History. In the Revolutionary War, America faced a well trained, well equipped, and certainly well led army, and still emerged victorious, despite losing nearly every major engagement. The British were hampered by several factors, including the length of their suppply lines, trying to operate in a terrain which they were unfamiliar with, operating in a land where friend and enemy looked alike, and allegiances shift with the tide of the battle. The US adopted tactics which made victory for the British Empire more costly than they felt it was worth.
We have to ask ourselves this question, "Who has the greater will to win in this conflict? Who is fighting for their "lives, fortunes and sacred honor" this time? The Arabs, through Operation Desert Storm, and again in Afghanistan have shown the ability to avoid pitched encounters, to melt away before pressure can be brought to bear, thus preserving men and equipment to continue fighting later on. The US could very well get into a conflict like a bear battling a hive of bees. All of his power is useless because it can't be brought to bear on the target in an effective manner.

I'm not alone

I'm not alone Rand Simberg gives us post:

This is starting to look more and more like World War III started on September 11. Except this time, Europe will sit on the sidelines. And there's a tremendous technological and industrial asymmetry between the good guys and the bad.

He brings up two interesting points:
Europe very likely will sit this one out for as long as possible. It reminds me of a Powers Booth line in the John Milius movie Red Dawn. From memory, "I guess they figured two wars on their territory was enough for one century. They've decided to sit this one out."

Next, he mentioned the technilogicl and industrial gulf between the opposing sides. Most pundits I've read point to this as an assurance that we will easily win. May I remind you of a conflict, similar in nature, between a large industrial power and a smaller, agrarian society. The larger nation was so certain that they would win that picnicers went to watch the opening battle, as it took place just a few miles from their capitol city. Imagine their shock and dismay as they watched the smaller army kick the crap out of their larger, more advanced forces! They underestimated the determination of the smaller force, their will to fight, and to win, regardless of the odds. For three long and bloody years this smaller army threw back and held off the larger army, even invading twice, before finally being weighed down by sheer numbers. They fought with pride, love of their homeland, and a firm conviction that they were on the right side of an ideological struggle that went beyond the blood on the battle field.

Of course, I'm talking about the War Between the States, and there are some striking parallels between the Arabs and the Confederacy. The main difference is that the North had Lincoln, who held firm in the face of rising opposition to the war, insisting that the Suoth be re-united with the North, by the sword if need be. Do we have the same will today? To keep fighting when our enemy refuses to quit, refuses to surrender, attacks with all the ferocity of a true fanatic?

Something to think about...

From Andrew Dodge

From Andrew Dodge at Dodge(y)Blog comes this link which tells you just what AD&D character you would be. As I know you are all waiting in suspense, I will share my results with you. Please hold your applause until I'm done...

I Am A: Neutral Good Elf Ranger Fighter


Alignment:
Neutral Good characters believe in the power of good above all else. They will work to make the world a better place, and will do whatever is necessary to bring that about, whether it goes for or against whatever is considered 'normal'.


Race:
Elves are the eldest of all races, although they are generally a bit smaller than humans. They are generally well-cultured, artistic, easy-going, and because of their long lives, unconcerned with day-to-day activities that other races frequently concern themselves with. Elves are, effectively, immortal, although they can be killed. After a thousand years or so, they simply pass on to the next plane of existance.


Primary Class:
Rangers are the defenders of nature and the elements. They are in tune with the Earth, and work to keep it safe and healthy.


Secondary Class:
Fighters are the warriors. They use weapons to accomplish their goals. This isn't to say that they aren't intelligent, but that they do, in fact, believe that violence is frequently the answer.


Deity:
Mielikki is the Neutral Good goddess of the forest and autumn. She is also known as the Lady of the Forest, and is the Patron of Rangers. Her followers are devoted to nature, and believe in the positive and outreaching elements of it. They use light armor, and a variety of weapons suitable for hunting, which they are quite skilled at. Mielikki's symbol is a unicorn head.


Find out What D&D Character Are You?

This is what I was trying to say!

This is what I was trying to say! Lawrence Henry, over at the American Prowler has this to say on Bush and being wobbly:

Abroad, that's easier to see. Behind all the tut-tutting about the Bush foreign policy ("de-stabilizing the region," etc.) lies a very real fear, a fear Bush is willing to confront, and that his critics are not: World civilization itself will be re-shaped by American actions. If it is not re-shaped by American action, it will be re-shaped by American inaction. Bush has bitten down firmly on this bullet. If, in doing that, he remains more than a little tight-lipped, we should not be surprised. This is not a recap of 1991, or 1967, or 1948, or any of the other oft-tolled dates in Mideast history. This is 1941.

Bush is not wobbly or indecisive, but is walking a very narrow plank ov