:: Bluestarblog ::

:: Sunday, March 23, 2003 ::

Spin has its latest top 40 list up. I find it interesting how many different ways you can write 'current top 40 artists.' From what I remember, Spin has always worded this mantle awkwardly (this time, it's 'Top 40: The most important artists making music right now'). Then again, Spin still thinks of itself as the hippest thing going ever since they were one of the first magazines to carry Benetton's screwing horses ad.

:: Scot 7:15 PM [+] :: ::
...

I've been tidying up my favorites files the last couple of days and came across a few goodies:

The video of the AC-130 Gunship in action over the mountains of Afghanistan last year. Strategy Page has a pile of videos like these as well as some really cool pics.

20Q. No explanation - just go play it.

The Jet Propulsion Laboratory's Solar System Simulator. Ever wonder what Saturn looks like positioned from its moons Titan or Hyperion? or Pluto?

Think Labyrinth - a cool site on mazes.

The Easter Egg Archive - hidden gems and quirks in books, computers, music, movies, TV, and art.

A nice collection of online crackpots including hate groups, new agers, and conspiracy theorists. The site hasn't been updated in a year and a half, which explains the absence of sites from the current peace protesters.

:: Scot 6:34 PM [+] :: ::
...

I just listened to Iraq's Mohammed Aldouri lambasting the UN for allowing the Zionist charged, racist, imperial war on his country.

He really needs to work on his English.

:: Scot 4:38 PM [+] :: ::
...

I've updated the reading room with another dozen essays and pieces. Here are a few favorites that I didn't get around to posting on my blog:

The Sound of Philosophy by Dmitri Tymoczko
(fascinating look at the music of Milton Babbitt and John Cage)

Which Is the Fly and Which Is the Human? by Lynn Snowden
(what a find! - an interview with William S. Burroughs and David Cronenberg)

The Starving Criminal by Theodore Dalrymple
(harm reduction reductio ad absurdum)

A Bluffer’s Guide to Science Studies and the Sociology of "Knowledge" by Robert Nola
(not for the epistemically squeamish)

:: Scot 4:07 PM [+] :: ::
...

Executive Order: Confiscating and Vesting Certain Iraqi Property

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and in order to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12722 of August 2, 1990,

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, hereby determine that the United States and Iraq are engaged in armed hostilities, that it is in the interest of the United States to confiscate certain property of the Government of Iraq and its agencies, instrumentalities, or controlled entities, and that all right, title, and interest in any property so confiscated should vest in the Department of the Treasury. I intend that such vested property should be used to assist the Iraqi people and to assist in the reconstruction of Iraq, and determine that such use would be in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States.

I hereby order:

Section 1. All blocked funds held in the United States in accounts in the name of the Government of Iraq, the Central Bank of Iraq, Rafidain Bank, Rasheed Bank, or the State Organization for Marketing Oil are hereby confiscated and vested in the Department of the Treasury, except for the following:

(a) any such funds that are subject to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, or that enjoy equivalent privileges and immunities under the laws of the United States, and are or have been used for diplomatic or consular purposes, and

(b) any such amounts that as of the date of this order are subject to post-judgment writs of execution or attachment in aid of execution of judgments pursuant to section 201 of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-297), provided that, upon satisfaction of the judgments on which such writs are based, any remainder of such excepted amounts shall, by virtue of this order and without further action, be confiscated and vested.

Sec. 2. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to perform, without further approval, ratification, or other action of the President, all functions of the President set forth in section 203(a)(1)(C) of IEEPA with respect to any and all property of the Government of Iraq, including its agencies, instrumentalities, or controlled entities, and to take additional steps, including the promulgation of rules and regulations as may be necessary, to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate such functions in accordance with applicable law. The Secretary of the Treasury shall consult the Attorney General as appropriate in the implementation of this order.

Sec. 3. This order shall be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register.

GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 20, 2003.

Now that's power.

:: Scot 1:36 PM [+] :: ::
...

Viking Pundit has the New York Times in his crosshairs:

Although I had girded myself, still I was shocked by the besotted equivocation of the New York Times’ main editorial today “The War Begins.” This noxious spackle, slapped against the wall in the most desultory and unprincipled manner, isn’t fit for The Mini Page, much less the paper that holds itself up as the paper of record. If Andrew Sullivan rejoined as a contributor to the NYT, the wattage in the Howell Raines’ office would triple by the simple physics of radiant absorption.

As you can see, I’m quite upset. Just like picking up my dog’s crap (what an appropriate metaphor!), let’s get to the unpleasant, but necessary, task of deconstructing the mottled fruit of the NYT’s labor

And a well done fisking thar blows.

:: Scot 1:20 PM [+] :: ::
...

A roundup of some of my favorite Canadian columnists:

Margaret Wente

Your time's up, Saddam. History will judge you for exactly what you are. As for how history judges Canada -- well, I'm ashamed to think about that.

Clifford Orwin

The implications for Canada are clearer, simply because we have abdicated all responsibility in the matter. Never has our role in the world been less significant than it is today. When even pacifist Japan supports an American military action, our failure to do so is egregious. Perhaps we should replace the beaver as our national symbol with the horsefly. Having dismantled our military, we combine complete parasitism on the United States with a nasty tendency to sting it. We'll burrow in its hide, as smug as ever and as well-defended. Jean Chrétien is betting that this is what Canadians want.

Mark Steyn

So Bush is right to take a chance. Continued Baathism, Wahhabism and the Ayatollahs offers only the certainty of disaster -- for the people of the Middle East, and for us. Shame on Canada: If we're too chippily post-colonial to follow the lead of the mother country, if we're too uppity and resentful to support our nearest neighbours, we could at least do the progressive thing and take the side of the Iraqi people.

Bob MacDonald

... the so-called bloodthirsty Bush administration that has been repeatedly portrayed by leftist, Muslim and Arab anti-war protesters in Canada and elsewhere sure doesn't fit the role. They bent over backwards to give the Iraqis every chance to surrender before their army is wiped out.

And from the Canadian idiotarian brigade:

Rick Salutin

Personally, I'm in favour of some dithering on tough choices, from hockey trades all the way to wars. Dithering is human, even reassuring. It's like hearing informed people start by saying: "It's hard to know if . . ." You feel they've given due thought.

Eric Margolis

Most Americans cheered this attack. But put the shoe on the other foot. Suppose Saddam Hussein adopted Bush's policy of pre-emptive attacks and "leadership decapitation?"

After all, Iraq has a right under international law to strike at a nation that is about to attack it while the U.S., which has never been attacked by Iraq, has no right whatsoever other than might. One wonders how Americans would react if an Iraqi missile came through the White House front window. After all, the White House is a "leadership target."

In fact, the Bush administration was following the lead of Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in assassinating enemy leaders.

Haroon Siddiqui

This president does not play by the rules, even his own.

His war lacks international legitimacy, as Kofi Annan says, and even violates his own highly questionable doctrine of pre-emptive attack on those who pose an imminent threat to America. Iraq doesn't, by any stretch of the imagination.

This is what Jean Chrétien is saying, ever so politely.

The Prime Minister's has been a virtuoso diplomatic performance. He has been courageous in breaking away from two of our closest allies, America and Britain, to make Canada a conscientious objector to this unjust and unjustifiable war.

:: Scot 12:31 PM [+] :: ::
...

Dan Goure on the crippled status of the UN and NATO :

What is clear, and frightening to some, is that different camps have emerged in the international system with rather diametrically opposed views about the basis for security in the 21st Century. One side, a radical faction led by France, Germany and Russia, believes in achieving security through the expansion of the powers of international regimes. They argue that only the U.N. can authorize war, in effect, giving the U.N. sovereign powers. The other side, led by the United States, is more traditional. It believes that the nation state is the sole source of sovereignty, hence retains always the right to make war in its own defense. It also believes that a political community is built on shared values, on a common will, and not simply on membership in a collective organization.

In truth, the struggle to forge a consensus on Iraq has not done fatal damage to the U.N. This is because the U.N. was never very strong. It was never a provider of international security. It could never lead, but rather had to follow the development of an international consensus on security issues. No consensus, no role for the U.N.

The damage to NATO, however, may be far greater. NATO has a clear mission, the common defense of its members. The members may disagree on many things. They may even have governments of radically different political persuasions. At one time NATO contained members governed by dictatorships, military juntas and left wing socialists. What allowed NATO to function was the commitment to the single goal.

The crisis over aid to Turkey - actually over consultations in advance of the actual provision of defensive capabilities to that country - struck at the very heart of the Alliance. The commitment of the members to consultations is, or at least was, thought to be sacrosanct. It was this commitment that ensured that no member could be “picked off” by an aggressor.

NATO is about to expand, allowing in new members who have not enjoyed the decades of peace and security enjoyed by the original members of the Alliance. What are they to make of the effort by France, Germany and Belgium to prevent consultations on Turkey’s defense requirements in the even of a war with Iraq? The value of NATO’s currency has been eroded by the inability of some members to put aside their particular differences in the interest of the collective good. The United States may feel content to pursue its goals alone, or with its closest ally, Britain, and any other European or Asian powers that may join in. Meanwhile, some observers wonder whether nations such as France have more sinister motives and welcomed a chance to weaken Alliance solidarity. This experience does not bode well for NATO’s future.

:: Scot 10:50 AM [+] :: ::
...

For the last couple of days I've been scanning as many news agencies and media outlets as possible (all found on my linkroll). I have a few go-tos based on quality and quantity of information since I don't have time to read everything I want. These are my most popular news sites:

ABC News
Washington Post / Associated Press - world
Kuwait Times - local news
Haaretz Daily (Israel)
White House news

And from the bloggers:

Instapundit (as usual)
USS Clueless
Andrew Sullivan
VodkaPundit
Where Is Raed? (a Baghdad civilian)

As far as accuracy, rumor, and disinformation is concerned, well, you're on your own.

:: Scot 10:34 AM [+] :: ::
...

I was going to do some bloggin yesterday but there was this REALLY COOL WAR ON TV.

BOO-YAH!!!

:: Scot 10:16 AM [+] :: ::
...

Despite not having posted it, I keep getting search hits for this really old Maxim article on Saddam Hussein's sons called Blood Brothers. Enjoy.

:: Scot 3:40 PM [+] :: ::
...

A tale of two war strategies.

David Warren on Saddam:

His defence of Baghdad is intended as the main show. Around that he has placed a double-ring of conventional artillery formations, behind trenches many of which have been flooded with oil. The idea of creating a smokescreen against aerial attack is a vain one: GPS technology no longer requires clear sight on the ground. And the overt ring formations tend to make the "elite" (not really) Republican Guard into sitting ducks.

More formidably, Iraq's "heavy metal" defences, including anti-aircraft and other blind cannon, have been concentrated within the densely-populated city itself. There may well be little horrors scattered among them, in the hope of creating the appearance that the allies are themselves using chemical and biological weapons in attacks against civilian neighbourhoods.

By concentrating the whole national artillery in Baghdad, Saddam has improved the odds of chance hits against allied aircraft. Most of this flak will miss, however, causing random carnage as it comes back down to earth, and giving the appearance that it is part of the allied bombing.

Why so crazed a self-defence? Because Saddam's real strategy can not be to prevail over the invading forces, only to enmire them in a human catastrophe. Yet from all his past experience, he retains one hope: that by animating huge anti-war demonstrations in the West, through the kind of instant-conclusion media reporting we have seen from Jenin and elsewhere, he can force President Bush to sue for peace.

Jack Kelley on the Delta Force:

Shortly before the war begins, Delta Force commandos, many of them wearing camouflage, are expected to be dropped by Black Hawk helicopters to pre-selected sites on the outskirts of Baghdad, Pentagon officials say. Knowing the Iraqis will expect them, they plan to deploy at night.

Soon after they arrive, they plan to hack into and shut down Iraq's communications and power facilities using laptop computers — a standard tactic in recent military operations. Pentagon officials want to prevent Saddam from communicating with Iraqi military officers who might help him escape or who would be awaiting orders to use biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.

"Special forces have now been trained so that they can break into land lines and monitor what's going on inside those systems or feed in false information," says military analyst Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank in Washington, D.C.

Delta commandos are then expected to call in pinpoint airstrikes on specific targets, including several of Saddam's suspected hideouts, Pentagon officials say.

The goal is to minimize civilian casualties, preserve the city's infrastructure and maintain goodwill with ordinary Iraqis. After the bombing, the commandos will begin a systematic search of the sites to determine whether Saddam — or his three reported doubles, who also are scheduled to be killed — have died in the attack. However, unless matching DNA from a relative is available, it could be a while before any remains are positively identified.

:: Scot 2:38 PM [+] :: ::
...

I had never heard of this before - the Blue Star Service Banner:

A Blue Star Service Banner displayed in the window of a home is a tradition in America. The Banner lets others know that someone in this home is serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. As citizens steel themselves for the long and difficult "War on Terrorism" the Blue Star Service Banner tradition reminds us all that this new war touches every neighborhood in our land.

The American Legion also has available a Blue Star Banner Corporate Flag for government and corporate America to show their support for employees called to active duty with their Reserve or National Guard units in the war against terrorism. This is different from the 1926 War Mothers Flag hoisted every Veterans Day at 11 minutes after 11 o'clock and flies beneath the National Colors until sundown to commemorate the millions of Americans who died during World Wars I and II.

Maybe naming my business Bluestar seven years ago was, for me, an omen.

:: Scot 2:22 PM [+] :: ::
...

I need to read more from this guy. Jonathan Rauch (last month's most popular introvert) on what we are doing about North Korea.

(from Andrew Sullivan)

:: Scot 10:36 AM [+] :: ::
...

Terrific piece, with a couple of dozen linked references, from Edward Driscoll on Hollywood Stasism vs. Valley Dynamism.

:: Scot 10:25 AM [+] :: ::
...

Good memes, bad memes, and the superstition of weather. Interesting piece from Sallie Baliunas.

:: Scot 10:02 AM [+] :: ::
...

Richard Sezibera, Rwanda's ambassador to the United States, writes today in the Washington Post on The Lesson Of Rwanda.

Rwandans believe that the international community needs to learn from its mistakes. Sadly, that seems not to be happening. We are not members of the Security Council, and we do not know whether Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction and is therefore a danger to international peace and security, as Resolution 1441 says. What we do know is that the international community cannot shirk its responsibility. Either Hussein is and he should be disarmed, or he is not.

International politics is, in many ways, about dealing with shades of gray. Where genocide, international terrorism and the survival of the human race are concerned, however, hard choices need to be made. Simply waiting is not a choice, it is an abdication of responsibility.

Bajram Rexhepi, prime minister of the coalition government of Kosovo, echoes this sentiment:

We Kosovars know firsthand that peace is not simply the absence of war. Dictators will use the goodwill of the international community to buy time while they continue to crush the people under their control. Wherever men are denied freedom, there is a threat to peace. Whenever we leave them in bondage, there is a threat to our own dignity. Whenever we fail to act in the face of evil, a shadow is cast across the future of humanity.

Today the world is faced with the age-old question: Do we stand united in the face of evil, or do we close our eyes and hope for the best? We Kosovars stand with the forces of freedom. We know that when confronting evil, there is no compromise.

And so, in the coming conflict with Saddam Hussein, we stand with you, America. We are here to tell you that your sacrifices for the cause of human freedom are remembered. We are here to bear witness to the fact that the day of the dictator is over -- and that peace can be ensured only when all are free.

:: Scot 9:23 AM [+] :: ::
...

A few days ago I linked to a piece from John Ibbitson on how bilingualism dilutes Ottawa's talent. Here's another one from westerner Gordon Gibson.

:: Scot 9:04 AM [+] :: ::
...

Koizumi backs Bush ultimatum threatening war on Iraq

Japan expressed support on Tuesday for U.S. President George Bush's ultimatum pressing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to choose within hours to go into exile or face war, effectively giving up diplomatic efforts to settle the crisis peacefully.

"Now that it is determined that the extremely dangerous regime of Saddam Hussein has no intention to completely disarm, I believe it appropriate to support America's use of force," Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi told a press conference.

Excellent

Here's the latest from AP on the coalition of the willing -

Bahrain - Sent a frigate and troops on Gulf Cooperation Council mission to defend Kuwait. Allowing use of bases for U.S. troop buildup.

Jordan - "Several hundred" or more U.S. troops are stationed in Jordan near the Iraqi border manning anti-missile batteries in case Iraq fires missiles at Israel.

Qatar - U.S. Central Command mobile headquarters at Camp As Sayliyah. Al-Udeid air base opened for in-flight refueling squadron, F-15 fighter wing and maintenance hangars.

and not so willing -

Canada - Will not join military action without U.N. backing. A destroyer and two frigates patrolling in the gulf area as part of war on terrorism could be reassigned, but Prime Minister Jean Chretien suggested Monday the ships will not be transferred.

Saudi Arabia - Won't participate directly in any military action. Pentagon says it has assurances the United States could launch air support missions from Saudi bases, although Saudi officials say decision not yet made. Defense Minister Prince Sultan confirmed this month that Araar Airport, near Iraqi border, was closed to civilian traffic. He said it was to make way for humanitarian aid to Iraqi refugees, not U.S. military operations.

:: Scot 4:11 PM [+] :: ::
...

A few goodies from Instapundit:

DaghtatorBlog has the latest from Denmark including Danish contributions to the war effort as well as an attack on Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen by a crazed activist.

This story from Yahoo - Powell: 30 Nations Support U.S. on Iraq

Secretary of State Colin Powell said Tuesday that 30 nations have declared varying levels of support and 15 others have given their backing privately.

And get ready sportsfans!

:: Scot 4:05 PM [+] :: ::
...

Social psychology and software. Interesting article from Discover's Steven Johnson.

:: Scot 11:58 AM [+] :: ::
...

Rand Simberg lays a nice fisking on Michael Moore's letter to George Bush.

:: Scot 11:50 AM [+] :: ::
...

I, Clone. Michael Shermer from Skeptic Magazine offers three ethical laws for the advancement of cloning:

1. A human clone is a human being no less unique in his or her personhood than an identical twin.
2. A human clone has all the rights and privileges that accompany this legal and moral status.
3. A human clone is to be accorded the dignity and respect due any member of our species.

Sounds good, now send in the clones.

:: Scot 11:42 AM [+] :: ::
...

From Victor Davis Hanson's latest:

Critics have claimed that Mr. Bush has backed himself into a corner; it is hard to see how when his promise was democracy and freedom for a tyrannized Iraq. We should not underestimate the power of his message of human liberty or the need of overwhelming force to ensure it. The EU, the U.N., NATO, the European street, the American Left, and a host of others, by failing to understand the post 9/11 world and its requirement to neutralize Saddam Hussein, have unnecessarily put their perceived wisdom, prestige, and influence in jeopardy — and with the liberation of Iraq they all are going to lose big time.

Maybe, but I can't help but think of Bob Dylan's "When you got nothin, you got nothin to lose" paraphrase of Muddy Waters' "You can't lose what you ain't never had."

:: Scot 11:26 AM [+] :: ::
...

Jeffrey Simpson still looking for any anti-American angle possible:

In this war, Americans -- whatever their hesitations and doubts -- are still so traumatized by 9/11 and fearful of future terrorist attacks that they support the President.

No, stupid. They are at war and THEY WANT TO WIN. They do not support the POTUS because they are scared and need someone to hold their hands. They support him because they know HE'S RIGHT and he is the most likely man to lead the U.S. to victory, as hard as that might be for a newspaper columnists to accept.

Marcus Gee seems to have a better understanding:

The roots of that conviction lie in the events of Sept. 11, 2001. To Mr. Bush, the shock was not just what happened that day, but what could happen in the future. If suicidal terrorists armed with box cutters and hijacked planes could kill 3,000 Americans, he must have asked himself, how many could they kill with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons?

And who was working on those weapons? Who had used them before? Who nursed a bitter hatred of the United States? Who had links to terrorist groups? The answer came easily.

:: Scot 11:13 AM [+] :: ::
...

Andrew Sullivan on the war:

This would be true even if Iraq were not already in violation of umpteen U.N. resolutions. It would be true even if Saddam didn't pose a genuine threat to the region and, via terrorists, to the West itself. How much more morally indefensible is appeasement when we also have complete international authority to do what must be done? I think we will look back in the future and not ask, as so many now are, how it was that diplomacy didn't get unanimity on this matter. We will look back and see the moral obtuseness of Chirac and Putin and Schroder and Carter and feel nothing but contempt for them, and their preference for state terror over the responsibilities of the free world. That's why I felt enormous pride tonight in the stand being taken by Blair and Bush. The president's speech was measured, firm, just. Blair's political risks - in order to do what he believes is plainly right - will confirm him in history as a great prime minister, the conscience of his party, and the leader of his country. I say that before this war begins, because the cause is just whatever vicissitudes of conflict await us, and there will be plenty of people who will make this point if and when the war succeeds. But the truth is, regardless of what happens next, we know something important about the two major leaders of the free world right now. Neither man has blinked at evil. The only question in the next forty-eight hours is whether evil will blink before it is destroyed.

:: Scot 11:05 AM [+] :: ::
...

Mark Steyn comes to Rummy's defence:

Alas, last week Rummy's ruminations on rummy nations finally alighted, as they were bound to eventually, on the United Kingdom. The Defence Secretary made some mild remarks to the effect that, if Britain weren't able to participate in the war on Iraq, it wouldn't make much difference. Even some of his cheerleaders on the right thought this was a tad inconsiderate of Mr. Blair. And at the BBC they fell upon it deliriously as evidence that heartless old Rumsfeld would be happy to have Bush's poodle put down and served up at the South Korean farewell banquet with nary a thought: The Secretary, said correspondent Nick Assinder, had managed to "blow a series of holes in the Prime Minister's armour," he had "pulled the rug out" from beneath Blair's armoured feet, etc, etc.

But the thing is: He's not wrong, is he? Britain is helpful, but not necessary. And it would not be unreasonable if Rumsfeld, with a couple hundred thousand guys kicking their heels in the sand for six months, felt that America was being perhaps too deferential to the Prime Minister's domestic difficulties. After all, at what point does Britain's helpfulness cease to be helpful? There are no hard and fast rules, but when Baroness Amos, Britain's Minister for Africa, is chasing M. de Villepin around the dark continent because Guinea's presidential witchdoctor is advising against war (really), it's hard not to feel that, even by diplomatic standards, the whole thing has become too unmoored from reality.

That's Rumsfeld's function -- to take the polite fictions and drag them back to the real world. During the Afghan campaign, CNN's Larry King asked him, "Is it very important that the coalition hold?" The correct answer -- the Powell-Blair-Gore-Annan answer -- is, of course, "Yes." But Rummy decided to give the truthful answer: "No." He went on to explain why: "The worst thing you can do is allow a coalition to determine what your mission is." Such a man cannot be happy at the sight of the Guinean tail wagging the French rectum of the British hind quarters of the American dog.

There were many complaints about Rumsfeld's lack of diplomacy concerning our greatest ally, especially from the right, but the stalemate was in desperate need of some nudging. If we need to hear how important Britain is to us, let Powell tell it. If we're getting tired of subterfuge and obfuscation, well, we have our man in Rummy.

Another salient point by Steyn that I had forgotten over the past year and a half -

He was the only Cabinet Secretary whose offices were attacked, who lost members of his staff and who helped pull the injured from the rubble.

And a comic aside to cap off the piece:

A few days after September 11th, he observed, "If you're going to cock it, you throw it." For the last year, we have had the world's longest cock. Let's throw.

:: Scot 10:57 AM [+] :: ::
...

Canada will not participate in war: PM

Prime Minister Jean Chrétien said Monday that Canada would not participate in any war on Iraq without UN approval.

"We have always maintained that we need UN approval [to act]," he said, adding that this has always been Canada's position.

The Prime Minister made the statement in the House of Commons in Question Period, and it was greeted with thunderous applause from Liberal MPs.

COWARDS!!!

:: Scot 2:47 PM [+] :: ::
...

At this writing, a Google search for "Great French Inventions" yields 8 results.

(from Pave France, the British need more parking)

:: Scot 3:49 PM [+] :: ::
...

Tim Blair notes an interesting paradox.

:: Scot 3:43 PM [+] :: ::
...

There's stupid, and then there's stupid.

:: Scot 3:41 PM [+] :: ::
...

Spot On found this Italian blogger last week and I'm glad she did. Check out this post that already has my vote for comic of the year.

:: Scot 12:05 PM [+] :: ::
...

The French don't exclusively screw with European domestic policy, they also screw with Canada's. Here's an interesting piece from the Globe and Mail on how Canada's bilingualism has reduced Ottawa's talent.

Whatever the intent, the effect of enforcing bilingualism in the mandarinate is to weight its numbers disproportionately in favour of Quebeckers. (Not all Quebeckers, though -- 54 per cent of them can't speak English, and 5 per cent of them can't speak French.) It also benefits some Ontarians and New Brunswickers. The deputy minister seethes with envy at the kid filling his gas tank, simply because the kid was born in Vanier and the deputy minister in Victoria.

The bilingual requirement also keeps the public service white by disadvantaging many immigrants, who may already speak two languages but not the right two.

These tensions are irreconcilable. As long as we are an English- and French-speaking nation, we must require a bilingual bureaucracy. As long as we require a bilingual bureaucracy, we close its doors to most of the population.

:: Scot 12:01 PM [+] :: ::
...

This interview with Inspector Hans Blix Clouseau has been all over the blogosphere so what the hell - here it is. A few money quotes:

Even so, personally I don't understand what they would use chemical or biological weapons for any longer

They've changed I tells ya. I can't prove it, but I have this hunch.

Every little part of our lives is dependent upon multilateral decisions.

Speak for yourself Euro.

To me the question of the environment is more ominous than that of peace and war. We will have regional conflicts and use of force, but world conflicts I do not believe will happen any longer. But the environment, that is a creeping danger. I'm more worried about global warming than I am of any major military conflict.

I can't totally blame Hans for hedging his bets. He's going to be out of work within a week and, well, Greenpeace is always hiring.

At the same time, though, one must not disregard and forget the things that are breeding these terrorist movements. Why do they become terrorists? Why do they become so desperate they are willing to blow up airplanes or buildings? Therefore we have to look at the social problems as well.

In other words its probably America's fault.

You've made up your mind pal. Just make sure your lackeys have a safe view of the upcoming fireworks.

:: Scot 11:55 AM [+] :: ::
...

Another reason why David Warren is one of my favorite war journalists:

George Will pointed, this last week, to the height of absurdity to which the U.N. has ascended. "The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman nor an empire, the United Nations is a disunited collection of regimes, many of which do not represent the nations they govern."

When its own Secretary General, Kofi Annan, avers that by going to war in vindication of the plain words in Security Council Resolution 1441, the United States would be acting in defiance of the U.N. Charter, we are fully aloft in the faux-empyrian. It necessarily follows, and let me spell this out, that going to the rescue of the victims in Rwanda would have been against the U.N. Charter. Exactly the same principle applies. The Korean War of 1950-53, and the Gulf War of 1991, were the only military actions upon which the U.N. ever conferred its supposed legitimacy.

France, and verily, Jacques Chirac, were instrumental in keeping the allied confrontation with Milosevic's Yugoslavia out of the U.N. -- for the express purpose of avoiding the quagmire, when he thought action urgently necessary. He did not dream of asking U.N. permission before recently dispatching French troops to the Ivory Coast.

The only reason the U.N. vote carried, when North Korea invaded the South, was because the Russian delegation happened to walk out before the vote was called. They would otherwise have vetoed even the Korean War, and Kim Jong-il would today control the entire peninsula. And in 1991, George Bush the elder stopped the attack on Iraq a little beyond the Kuwait frontier, because he did not have a U.N. mandate to proceed. He turned to the U.N. to deal with the rest of the problem, caused by the survival of Saddam Hussein; and 12 years later, see what it achieved.

See what is achieved by Mr. Blair's ludicrous six-point plan, quickly cobbled together this last week to persuade such incidental Security Council members as Cameroon and Guinea to support another plain statement of fact, in the face of threatened French and Russian vetoes.

Reading through the text, I was reminded of when I was a teenager, and went to a Model United Nations in which my high school participated. The resolutions were similarly childish and impractical -- "Saddam must get on TV and say he is hiding WMD" is the sort of thing we might have come up with -- for we were, after all, around 15 years old. And one of my discoveries, now that I am almost 50, is that the world's business is conducted thus -- that grown men are not merely capable of thinking like early adolescents, but incapable of laughing at themselves a moment later.

:: Scot 10:56 AM [+] :: ::
...

I haven't done much blogging in the last few days as I've been tied up with a few music projects. As a result, my visits have been less frequent than usual. For search engine results at least, these cheap and tawdry stories should give my hits a bit of a boost.

Spice Girl Geri Halliwell: "I've had lesbian fling"

Charlize Theron and Christina Ricci to share a very hot, very naked lesbian scene in the upcoming film Monster.

It's a good day to be a guy.

:: Scot 10:53 AM [+] :: ::
...

Lad-lit a new literary genre? Rick Marin's Cad: Confessions of a Toxic Bachelor is causing a bit of a stir.

(from Bookslut)

:: Scot 7:22 AM [+] :: ::
...

Clifford Orwin has a terrific article on America's justification for pre-emption. He concludes it with this:

There are only two possibilities, lefties. Saddam either goes, or he stays. "Objectively speaking," as you like to say, you're on the side of his staying. And he loves you for it. That the Americans will oust him in spite of you is good news for his suffering subjects, bad news only for Noam Chomsky. If you too would prefer the continued oppression of the Iraqi people to the galling spectacle of their liberation at the hands of the Americans, I have a prize for you. It's a trip to meet Mr. Chomsky -- in the circle of hell you'll share with him.

Any foe of Noam Chomsky is a friend of mine.

:: Scot 7:10 AM [+] :: ::
...

Reciprocation, retaliation, and revenge. Interesting piece from Susan Gaidos.

:: Scot 6:39 AM [+] :: ::
...

Last week I posted an article about kinship and ants. Here's one on crows.

(from Science Blog)

:: Scot 8:53 PM [+] :: ::
...

David Warren confirms an uncomfortable suspicion:

Mr. Blair has started to hedge his bets. Though he declared he was willing to lose his job, to stand by what he believed in, he, too, has begun "to weasel". The British foreign office yesterday began to make distance from the U.S. position, and cast doubt on whether Britain would keep its promise to act in Iraq even without U.N. support. Mr. Blair is recoiling, domestically, from one of the most sustained propaganda campaigns in British history, a 24/7 battery of lies from the BBC and similar media, that has succeeded in whipping up an anti-war frenzy on the backbenches of the Labour Party, as well as filling the British streets with Saddam's pacifist allies.

Yet that is only the proximate cause for his sudden loss of backbone. The conditions to which he has succumbed were created and abetted by a profoundly cynical power-play, from France, Germany, and Russia -- one which, in the French and Russian promise to use their vetoes to kill any U.N. decision to enforce its resolutions, is now exposed as a frontal attack on the interests of the United States -- an attempt to create a new balance of power, by cutting America down to size.

The French et al. smell blood, they are not going to back off now when they see the prospect of doing real damage. Their strategy was from the beginning to split the British from the Americans by humbling Mr. Blair, to delay the inevitable full-scale attack into the Iraqi hot season, when the fighting would be more difficult and thus the casualties higher; to isolate the U.S. diplomatically; to galvanize the international peace movement against the Bush administration; and to improve Saddam's prospects for creating a catastrophe when war comes.

With only 20% of his people supporting war, Blair has been put in a very difficult position. I wonder how the U.S. will take to Germany and France sabotaging their best ally.

Den Beste, as usual, has more.

:: Scot 7:30 PM [+] :: ::
...

Butterflies and wheels has put together a useful dictionary for those who prefer the more concrete disciplines such as pseudoscience and postmodernism. Here are a few choice entries:

Accuracy: Exploded concept. Foolish, Platonic notion that we can get our facts straight.

Argument: Unpleasant, testosterone-driven method of supporting one's assertions, to be avoided in favour of acceptance.

Canon, the: A mysterious document (which no one has ever seen) drawn up (no one knows when) in secrecy by a tiny conspiracy (no one knows where) of deceased European males dictating what everyone must read.

Comfortable: A word to use instead of 'agree with', 'accept', 'understand'. 'Doctors have become more comfortable with alternative medicine'. This is useful in subtly training us to replace out of date ways of assessing truth-claims such as logic and evidence with the idea of a nice sofa.

Demonising: Sharply criticising something that I approve of.

Empiricism: Absurd notion that observation and measurement are useful in getting to know about things (see positivism).

Exclusion: What happens when you use judgment, logic, linear thinking, reason, argument. Very bad and unkind thing to do, especially for women, who are by nature caring and loving, except when we argue with biological determinists, when they're not.

Instinct: A very bad thing when we're discussing evolution, genetics, human nature, but a very good thing when we're discussing women's different ways of knowing.

Obfuscation: Useful move when talking to people who know more than you do.

Opinion: Everything. Often confused, by prepostmodern people, with entities like truth, reality, the world. "That's just your opinion," is the approved rebuke in such cases.

Reason: Bad, toxic entity, that foolish people use when they ought to use their inner voice, or angels, or intuition, or a gut feeling, or their hearts, or the I Ching.

Superstition: An elitist, intolerant word used by narrow-minded linear thinkers and positivists for deeply spiritual beliefs held by billions of people.

:: Scot 7:04 PM [+] :: ::
...

Michael Fitzpatrick explains therapeutic pi:

'One in four' is the pi of the therapeutic society. With a remarkable consistency, surveys of the prevalence of different forms of illness or victimhood yield the same 'one in four' result. Thus 'one in four' women have experienced domestic violence, 'one in four' children are victims of abuse, 'one in four' children live in poverty, 'one in four' adults abuse alcohol or drugs.

Such surveys confirm that whatever social or psychological problem is being investigated is much more common than was previously believed, and that it demands intervention on a population-wide level. Therapeutic pi confirms human degradation on an unsuspected scale and reveals a scale of 'unmet need' that requires a further expansion of the therapeutic state.

Though 'one in four' has the character of a mathematical constant, it cannot be calculated to an infinite number of decimal places. In fact, it may vary, though only between the strict limits of 'one in five' and 'one in three'. The former indicates a serious lack of awareness of the problem in question (and that more intensive promotion is necessary); the latter that it has become even more serious than previously thought (and that active intervention is urgently required).

The tendency of surveys commissioned by agencies of the therapeutic state to produce 'one in four' results suggests that this ratio has a particular appeal. It is easily grasped, even by the innumerate, and is readily interpreted as 'could affect pretty well anybody'. Any problem that occurs with this sort of frequency must affect every family and every household. The promotion of 'one in four' statistics both normalises the problem and legitimises the intervention offered in response to it.

:: Scot 6:39 PM [+] :: ::
...

Eric Margolis plays the perfect foil for common sense with this piece: Why France is America's true friend. In case you haven't stopped laughing, let me say this article is no joke. Margolis is the Toronto Sun's favorite America basher and he is being nothing but sincere when he writes:

France, which speaks with the strongest, most logical voice of those opposing war...

...George Bush's administration looks dangerously aggressive, dominated as it is by petrohawks and neo-conservative ideologues linked to Israel's far right. These little Mussolinis have no time for diplomacy or multi-nationalism

It seems at times that President Bush is even more eager to bomb Paris than Baghdad. In fact, the administration has been treating France like an enemy, rather than America's oldest ally and intimate friend. Neo-conservatives even accuse France of anti-Semitism, a disgusting slander.

Far from being an enemy, France has been doing what a true good friend should do: telling Washington its policy is wrong and dangerous, unlike the handkissing leaders of Britain, Spain and Italy, who crave Bush's political support, or the East European coalition of the shilling, ex-communist politicians pandering to Washington for cash

France's President Jacques Chirac speaks for an overwhelming majority of Europeans and, indeed, the world's people, in urging the U.S. to opt for diplomacy and UN inspections over a war that will not be worth the loss of a single American soldier, not to mention tens of thousands of Iraqis and chaos across Mesopotamia. So, too, warns the great and wise Pope John Paul II.

While Bush prepares war against demolished Iraq, he is ducking the surging nuclear confrontation with North Korea, which, unlike Iraq, truly threatens North America

America's friends and neighbours, led by France, the mother of diplomacy, rightly warn the steroidal Bush administration to halt its rush to war. President Chirac and Foreign Minister de Villepin deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. Americans owe France an apology, and a hearty "merci mon ami."

I don't like to insult people simply because I hold a contrary point of view but this guy's a jackass.

Experimental Insanity has put together a much more accurate assessment of the French.

:: Scot 6:14 PM [+] :: ::
...

Kay Hymowitz rips into Western feminists:

Today feminists celebrate International Women's Day. But don't expect to see any banners proclaiming the rights and dignity of women in the Muslim world, even though many women there are not allowed to drive, vote or venture out of the house alone. Nor will there be any mention of women who are expected to cheerfully endure, in the discreet words of the Arab News, "a light beating" from disapproving husbands.

As the feminists of the Western world take to the streets, there will be no speeches denouncing Saddam Hussein who, in an attempt to garner support from Islamists, accuses female dissidents of adultery and has them stoned to death. And don't wait for any proclamations condemning the widespread and state-ignored practice of honor killings, the murder of young women who have ostensibly violated family honor, because they have held hands with or kissed a boy or, worse yet, because they have been raped.

Feminists had an extraordinary opportunity after Sept. 11, when pictures of other-worldly creatures in blue burkhas shocked even beer-chugging Super Bowl fans into becoming women's rights advocates. But instead of seizing the moment to revive an anemic movement by raising their voices against genuine female oppression, they have given the ultimate illustration of their preference for partisan politics and smug resentments over principles.

:: Scot 8:38 AM [+] :: ::
...

Good piece from Right Wing News on anti-Americanism throughout the 20th century. I particularly like his conclusion:

The truth is that if we're doing anything because we expect gratitude from another country, we're going to be sadly disappointed down the road. Maybe some of their citizens may appreciate what we've done, but even that is probably going to be very short-lived. Now why is that? Because as a general rule, I find that many people and all nations tend to decide what's in their best interests first and then come up with all the "moral" reasons why they're taking that position afterwards.

So, I don't worry about anti-Americanism that much. It has always been around and always will be. However, as long as our military and economy stay strong, it'll be in the interest of the other nations in the world to be friendly with us. And if it's in their interest, they'll come up with "moral" reasons why they should agree with/like us on their own -- especially once things start to cool down in the war on terror (although that will be years away). You may think that is a Machiavellian view of the world, but you'll find that it's a very realistic one in a world where politicking between nations is simply a clever way to mask that the law of the jungle is still in effect.

:: Scot 8:30 AM [+] :: ::
...

This is too funny:

Terrified Iraqi soldiers have crossed the Kuwait border and tried to surrender to British forces - because they thought the war had already started.

The motley band of a dozen troops waved the white flag as British paratroopers tested their weapons during a routine exercise.

The stunned Paras from 16 Air Assault Brigade were forced to tell the Iraqis they were not firing at them, and ordered them back to their home country telling them it was too early to surrender.

(from Instapundit)

:: Scot 8:05 AM [+] :: ::
...

A few gems from the New York Times:

Charles Siebert looks at the psychology of face transplants.

The microcosm marriage - how nanotechnology, biotechnology, electronics and brain research is looking to converge.

A review of Jay Martin's The Education of John Dewey.

A quick interview with the White Stripes.

:: Scot 8:00 AM [+] :: ::
...

Don Sellar, Rick Anderson and Linda McQuaiq. All those who injected at least a modicum of thought into their editorials this weekend please take a step forward.

(not so fast McQuaig)

Don Sellar:

What was surprising was some offbase commentary in the Star.

Media columnist Antonia Zerbisias, inaccurately contended Mohammed "has been mysteriously promoted from a minor scowling face on the FBI's terrorist list to, as MSNBC put it the other day, `Al Qaeda's CEO.'"

A minor scowling face promoted? Maybe CEO was a little excessive, but to these eyes, this was a guy Washington had long regarded as a prime target on an elite list of suspects.

Even odder was a Monday column in the Star by veteran Mideast reporter Robert Fisk of the Independent.

Labelling "unprovable" all claims that Mohammed was the 9/11 "mastermind," Fisk went a big step further and asked if he'd really been captured.

That brazenly disputed the self-evident fact that Mohammed's shaggy face, photographed after capture, was glaring at readers, directly above Fisk's piece that ran on Page 1 in the early edition.

"Of course it may all turn out to be true," Fisk wrote deep in the column, awkwardly covering all bases.

Given the column's Doubting Thomas premise, it was an eye-stopping concession.

And to this corner, compelling testimony that columnists shouldn't suck and blow at the same time.

Rick Anderson:

The "anti-war" phrase is one of those charming political hijackings of the English language. As with the old argument over the pro-abortion label, no one is really "pro-war" — but many do believe that an active, serious war against terrorism is better than awaiting the next attack from terrorists aided and abetted by Saddam and his ilk.

Which gets to the nub of North America's two solitudes.

Some Canadians, including our government, see this conflict as initiated by the U.S. government; a "pre-emptive" war — optional, perhaps unnecessary.

But many Americans see themselves as under attack, as they have been for years, in embassies, military facilities, even at home; that the attacks are growing in frequency and ferocity, and have already cost thousands of lives. That the attackers are not just fanatical individuals acting alone, but organized, well-funded terror networks, motivated by hatred of Americans and Jews, encouraged and aided by rogue regimes like Saddam's. And they believe there is a steadily rising probability of terrorist access to even more dangerous weapons.

America believes confrontion with the attackers involves not just individuals who plan and conduct murder, but their underlying support networks, camps, bank accounts — and any governments that gives terrorists sanctuary.

Linda McQuaiq:

Is there nothing that can stop this man from recklessly using his weapons of mass destruction? Apparently not. George Bush made it clear in his televised appearance Thursday night that he's finished with "diplomacy" and is keen to get on with the bombing.

I guess 'finished with' and 'one more chance' means exactly the same thing.

:: Scot 5:59 AM [+] :: ::
...

Thought of the day:

Hard work may pay off later, but laziness always pays off immediately.

:: Scot 1:45 PM [+] :: ::
...

Mark Kingwell: 'check'

Mark Steyn: 'checkmate'

:: Scot 1:38 PM [+] :: ::
...

Slate has seen the Borg - and it is us.

(from Derek James)

:: Scot 1:14 PM [+] :: ::
...

Headline in today's Toronto Star: Bush set to do battle alone. They must have missed this piece from Yahoo last week.

:: Scot 4:38 PM [+] :: ::
...

Steven Den Beste gives another lesson in logical discourse as the honest debater.

:: Scot 3:49 PM [+] :: ::
...

Screech has a rough night:

Childhood fans of "Saved by the Bell" may have gotten much more than they wanted Thursday night when Dustin Diamond brought his mostly adult show to the Indiana Memorial Union's Alumni Hall.

The show sold out, but any late arrival could have found a seat without much inconvenience. A few aisle seats and spots in the back row opened up halfway through the performance. Only one person's exit was very visible even though she assured 'Screech' that she loves him as she hit the door.

Diamond shared anecdotes about the television sitcom 'Saved by the Bell' for about 10 minutes. However they weren't so much anecdotes as they were jokes about Zack Morris' sexuality and A.C. Slater's mullet. Images of Zack as a blow-up sex doll and Slater dripping grease from his permed style came alive for the audience through Diamond's reflections.

:: Scot 3:36 PM [+] :: ::
...

Good read from Carol Tavris on one of modern psychology's favorite battles: scientists versus therapists.

I fear that the scientist-therapist gap is a done deal. There are too many economic and institutional supports for it, in spite of yearly exhortations by every president of the American Psychological Association for "unity" and "cooperation." That's why, in the late 1980s, a group of psychological scientists formed their own organization, the American Psychological Society, to represent their own scientific interests. Every year, the APA does something else to rile its scientific members while placating its therapist members -- like supporting prescription-writing privileges for Ph.D. psychologists and approving continuing-education programs for unvalidated methods or tests -- and so, every year, more psychological scientists leave the APA for the APS.

But to the public, all this remains an internecine battle that seems to have no direct relevance. That's the danger. Much has been written about America's scientific illiteracy, but social-scientific illiteracy is just as widespread and in some ways even more pernicious. People can deny evolution or fail to learn basic physics, but such ignorance rarely affects their personal lives. The scientific illiteracy of psychotherapists has torn up families, sent innocent defendants to prison, cost people their jobs and custody of their children, and promoted worthless, even harmful, therapies. A public unable to critically assess psychotherapists' claims and methods for scientific credibility will be vulnerable to whatever hysterical epidemic comes along next. And in our psychologically oriented culture, there will be many nexts. Some will be benign; some will merely cost money; and some will cost lives.

:: Scot 1:57 PM [+] :: ::
...

The Shah Always Falls: Fredric Smoler interviews Ralph Peters (Our New Old Enemies; Spotting the Losers: Seven Signs of Non-Competitive States; Rolling Back Radical Islam; Stability, America's Enemy).

FS: You’ve suggested that maintaining stability should rarely, if ever, be the goal of American foreign policy. This is, to say the least, out of keeping with what most of our strategic thinkers believe.

RP: There are certainly times when we desire stability in international politics, but in the underdeveloped world an obsession with stability means preserving failure and worse. Overvaluing stability is a heritage of the Cold War, over the course of which we rationalized our support of some very cruel regimes and we deposed elected governments we didn’t like. You could justify it in terms of the greater struggle. But you can’t justify it now.

:: Scot 1:47 PM [+] :: ::
...

Ben Shapiro on the PETA Nazis:

Human life and animal life are not comparable. While cruelty toward animals is reprehensible and damnable, it is certainly not on a par with genocide. Only a Nazi could equate the two. The Nazis equated Jews with animals. In its Holocaust On Your Plate exhibit, PETA picks up where the Nazis left off.

Jonah Goldberg has more.

:: Scot 1:07 PM [+] :: ::
...

Some finely tuned, non-offensive pap from Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs Bill Graham:

But it is not enough to laud the ideals of a diverse society without engaging in the hard work of dialogue -- both within and among different communities -- that makes for a society in which differences are truly respected. Achieving this goal demands ongoing efforts by leaders, teachers, parents and youth in Canada's religious and cultural communities. Whether in private discussions or public forums, incidents of inflammatory words, images or actions should be of grave concern to all Canadians as we look at the terrible costs of intercommunal conflict in the Middle East and elsewhere. If we cannot address these realities within our borders, what hope is there for doing so outside them?

As part of our efforts to guide Canada's approach to such challenges, I recently launched a public consultation process called "A Dialogue on Foreign Policy," in which I am asking for citizens' views on foreign policy directions and priorities. According to the responses I have heard thus far, an integral part of what Canadians most value and wish to share abroad is our commitment to mutual respect among our diverse communities, and to the peaceful resolution of conflict. These commitments are not only important in their own right, but are an integral part of promoting security and prosperity both for our country and for people around the world.

A productive national dialogue about the outward-looking priorities and directions of our foreign policy must be accompanied by an inward-looking national dialogue about our commitment to the civic values we cherish. I am asking Canadians to participate in the foreign policy consultations both by giving their views on specific questions posed in the dialogue paper, and also by making efforts to discuss broader questions concerning our own societal values and principles. Community leaders can play a particularly valuable role here by holding discussions within and among their communities.

We need to look inward. We need to look outward. We must cherish. We must dialogue. We must remain true to our values. We must remain principled.

Kudos to Graham. It's not easy to make so much mean so little.

John Doyle comes closer to nailing Canadian psychology:

We are so comfortable being sly, aren't we? Other countries might call us a wearying bunch of weasels and half-assed hypocrites, but we're cozy in a state of blurred indistinctiveness.

We're anti-this and anti-that while keeping what we support to ourselves. We deflect everything with self-deprecation. An hour of TV the other night captured it all.

Carolyn Parrish, the Liberal MP who said, "Damn Americans, I hate those bastards," went on Open Mike With Mike Bullard on Monday and neither retracted her remarks nor stood by them very firmly. She waffled and Bullard helped her along. In fact the entire show was a devastatingly revealing look at a tortured Canadian culture that can't commit.

Colby Cosh links to this story that shows some Canadians are starting to get it:

Two of the country's largest business groups -- the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association -- said the Canada-U.S. relationship is being contaminated by anti-American remarks like those made last week by Carolyn Parrish, the Liberal MP for Mississauga Centre.

If the U.S. bashing persists, the groups fear American lawmakers will reject Canadian business efforts to increase economic integration between the two nations, and potentially restrict the flow of north-south trade.

:: Scot 12:51 PM [+] :: ::
...

Occam's Toothbrush highlights a memorable passage from Thomas Barnett's The Pentagon's New Map:

Show me a part of the world that is secure in its peace and I will show you a strong or growing ties between local militaries and the U.S. military. Show me regions where major war is inconceivable and I will show you permanent U.S. military bases and long-term security alliances. Show me the strongest investment relationships in the global economy and I will show you two postwar military occupations that remade Europe and Japan following World War II.

:: Scot 12:35 PM [+] :: ::
...

Viking Pundit examines the faulty logic of Mike 'bin' Farrell.

:: Scot 6:45 PM [+] :: ::
...

Pradeep Mutalik reviews Francis Crick and Christof Koch’s Framework for Consciousness:

How secure and solid is this framework? Sadly, not very. The article is filled with speculations, uncertainties, tenuous analogies (the competition of coalitions is like a political primary, winning coalitions can “relax a little” because they have “tenure”), is replete with words like may, might, perhaps and probably. In this respect, Koch and Crick’s structure resembles, not a solid framework, but rather a woolly, shifting, transient coalition of the exact type that they describe. Even when Crick and Koch talk about hard neuroscience (cortical connections, neuronal synchrony, driving versus modulating inputs), their words are not confident and conclusive, but uncertain and tentative.

Of course, it is unfair to blame Crick and Koch for this. This is the nature of the beast that all of us have to deal with. Koch and Crick’s thoughts and caution, after a decade of hard work, show the immense gap that exists in our knowledge, not just about how the brain gives rise to consciousness, but about the structure and functional organization of the brain itself. In this regard, the forward looking portion of this article is quite interesting: the authors call for more comprehensive studies of cortical architecture, and for multi-electrode recordings from humans and from primates. A specific experiment suggested is to record from a thousand or more electrodes from the owl monkey, for reason of its smooth cortex.

The fact that Koch and Crick’s framework can be a leading article in a top journal devoted to hard neuroscience shows that a lot of progress has been made in focusing scientific effort on consciousness. This is indeed good news, and the uncertain, stumbling steps that are being taken by the nascent science of consciousness are precisely on schedule for this crawling baby. Like Koch and Crick’s picture, their static snapshot of the posture of this new science suggests forward motion. The next several frames in this movie, to be played out in the coming decade, will show how well it is learning to walk.

:: Scot 4:15 PM [+] :: ::
...

In addition to finding terrific comics, American RealPolitik can draw them too.

:: Scot 3:50 PM [+] :: ::
...

Remember Uri Geller? The Annals of Improbable Research reports that the not so famous bent-spoon life-guru is awaiting approval of his latest patent - 'a television game show and online media event, wherein couples compete against each other to win legal custody of (a) child.'

Pretty crass, but reality TV will get worse yet.

On the topic of the bizarre, here's Gallagher's homepage.
N.B. Pass on the mp3 offerings.

:: Scot 3:37 PM [+] :: ::
...

A couple of stories from space: last contact with Earth's favorite probe - Pioneer 10 and our once beautiful but now ugly universe.

:: Scot 9:00 AM [+] :: ::
...

Aussie journalist and blogger Tim Blair has a few gems today (or is that yesterday?) on blogger envy, human shields, and anti-war celebrities.

:: Scot 8:06 AM [+] :: ::
...

David Warren with more on Canadian anti-Americanism:

I could criticize the judgement of our governing party, but not on grounds of climbing on a limb. In this case, I must start by conceding they are acting with fairly broad national support. For even after discounting the loaded questions, a glance at the polls and in the pubs reveals that Canadians have got ourselves into a copious anti-American lather, and we do expect our government to find a way to express this. Our government responds by following the trend of public opinion, reticently but consistently. It does not lead.

And this, at a time of unprecedented crisis in our Western alliance, which depends for its direction as for the bulk of its strength on the United States. The prime ministers Blair in Britain, Aznar in Spain, Berlusconi in Italy, have elected to lead, and thus necessarily to resist a tide of cheap anti- Americanism. President Chirac of France and Chancellor Schroeder of Germany have elected to surf that tide, to wherever it washes up. Our own prime minister is never so obvious, but rides both ways, and sideways, carried by the tide, but pointing his little surfboard in a variety of directions, a cork upon the sea.

Of all these countries, Canada has the most to lose, for Canada is by far the most dependant upon the goodwill and accommodation of the United States. Therefore Canada has the government that can least afford to indulge the anti- American froth.

Right On links to Ben Mulroney's latest - Our leaders bring shame upon us:

Our government is asking the military to run around defending our interests and yet it is unwilling or unable to define those interests.

Our government is running around spending its non-existent international political capital on finding a compromise in the Iraqi imbroglio in an effort to justify its flimsy position on the very same matter.

There is a lot of running around in Ottawa these days. The Chretien government could learn from the mistakes of another sprinter, Ben Johnson.

His embarrassment became every Canadian's shame, and each and every one of us carried that dishonour with us for a very long time.

Indeed.

:: Scot 7:47 AM [+] :: ::
...

Galen Strawson roughs up Daniel Dennett's latest - Freedom Evolves - which is now next on my reading list (more reviews here, here, and here - from the Human Nature Daily Review). I'm still working my way through Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate (reviews here and here) - given to me by a good friend who, like me, is always lamenting the absence of time to read everything we want.

:: Scot 7:34 AM [+] :: ::
...

Robert Park's Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science:

1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection
4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation

:: Scot 7:02 AM [+] :: ::
...

Just because Jordan has made nice with Israel doesn't mean they don't need a little democratic nudging. Margaret Wente writes of Jordanian honor killings and women:

Norma Khouri's electrifying new book, Honor Lost, lays bare Jordan's dirty little secret -- its brutal treatment of women who transgress. Perhaps you, like me, assumed that honour killings occur today only in the poorest, most backward and most repressive corners of the world. But you're wrong. In Jordan and in the Palestinian territories, they happen every day.

Jordan has carefully cultivated an image as an enlightened modern state. Jordanian women can vote and drive; many are highly educated professionals. But the culture's beliefs about women's honour are rooted in its Bedouin desert past, and haven't changed at all.

:: Scot 6:49 AM [+] :: ::
...