Obama: Imus Equates to the Virginia Tech Massacre???

Barack Obama today took the honor of being the first demagogue to cynically and opportunistically politicize the Virginia Tech massacre when he none-too-subtly suggested that Imus using derogatory language is somehow in the same solar system as a deranged gunman slaughtering 30+ innocent students. Giving him the benefit of the doubt that the rigors of a presidential campaign are starting to catch up his lack of presidential qualifications and he truly believes that insults can be responsible for mass murder, I would like to respectfully suggest that perhaps he should familiarize himself with the Pareto Principle and focus his energies on language that actually advocates violence. Instead of focusing on cantankerous old men who make millions by saying stupid things to a professional and adult audience and spend the money helping needy children with autism and cancer, a good start may be people who make millions from impressionable teenagers by not just advocating, but also living a life of violence, criminality, misogyny.

Or Is Global Warming Just An Easy Scapegoat?

Yesterday I posted a commentary on how Hurricane Katrina should be a wakeup call for global warming. After writing it, I found this column by James Glassman, basically saying all these people screaming about how global warming caused Katrina are full of crap (e.g. RFK Jr., the Germans, French, etc.).

So instead of relying on intuition and speculation, I went to the National Hurricane Center website and found all of the annual US hurricane data from 1851-2004. I put together the charts below that basically prove James is right. It might not be much consolation to the victims in the South, but nothing about recent hurricane activity is abnormal, nor does it exceed what's happened in the past - we are actually in a period of relative calm compared to the time between 1850-1950 (though it looks like we are leaving that period of calm as part of a natural cycle, as meteorologists have been telling us).

The first chart takes the sum of the Saffir-Simpson intensities (the Category 1-5 rating) for every hurricane that hit the US in the given year. For example, if two hurricanes hit the US in 2005, one being a Category 2 and the other being a Category 3, the total intensity for that year will be 5.

The second chart shows simply the number of hurricanes hitting the US each year.

Both charts show that the past 30 to 40 years have been periods of relative calm. While both the number and intensity of hurricanes are now trending upwards, we are still below the average from the 1850-1950 time period.

I do not think we can conclusively say whether this is just part of a natural cycle or if it is being caused by humans; however, I think it shoots a hole in the arguments of those who are claiming we are experiencing some sort of man-made cataclysm.

The caveat - note these data only track hurricanes landfalling in the US, not all of the hurricanes forming in the Atlantic. Some may take issue with that, however, if we are talking in terms of weather patterns that threaten human life and our economy, I think we must consider the total environment taken together, i.e. if changes to our climate are pushing more hurricanes out to sea, then clearly the threat from hurricanes is lessened.

Can We Afford To Deny Global Warming Any Longer?

The fury and devastation of Hurricane Katrina is unmistakeable. The extraordinarily warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico turned this storm into one of the nation's worst national disasters ever, completely destroying the city of New Orleans for at least a few weeks, possibly months, causing billions in damages across the Gulf coast, with economic shockwaves sure to hit the rest of the country, and killing what will sure to be hundreds, possibly thousands, of victims.

To say this is bad is an understatement. But the truth is, the scariest part of this disaster is the realization that this will continue to happen. The National Hurricane Center just raised their 2005 hurricane season forecast, saying the bulk of the hurricanes this year, (11-14 more tropical storms, eight to nine more hurricanes), are still to come. A look at the surface temperatures of the Gulf show it is at least five degrees Celcius warmer than the rest of the Carribean and Atlantic. If any of those storms make it to the Gulf (undoubtedly some will), the same, if not worse, results are sure to occur.

As a capitalist, I think it is absolutely clear any economic cost incurred in reducing our greenhouse gas output, e.g. implementing Kyoto, pales in comparison to the human and economic toll of doing nothing.

Some argue that the hurricane cycle is natural, so is the carbon cycle, and there is nothing we can do. Well, it is a proven fact of science that a direct correlation exists between carbon dioxide concentrations in our environment (atmosphere and oceans) and global temperatures.

I do not care why air and sea temperatures are trending warmer, whether it be natural, man-made, or Scientology's aliens; if we can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in our environment and consequently reduce global temperatures, we have no logical, political, or economic reason not to do so at this point. If we can avoid just a single repeat of Katrina, it will be well worth it in terms of human life alone, if not economics.

Going Tribal

One of the best shows on television today is the Discovery Channel's "Going Tribal". The synopsis is Bruce Parry, a former British Royal Marine, seeks out ancient tribes still isolated from the modern world in the remote jungles of Africa, Asia, and South America and lives with them for up to a month, adopting and assimilating into their society and culture. The show is absolutely fascinating and wildly entertaining, if for no other reason than seeing Bruce eat, drink, smoke, and be mutilated in ways completely alien (and often painful) to those of us in the Western world.

I logged on to the show's website looking for details on exactly what happened to Bruce when he nearly fainted during a genitalia mutilation ceremony performed for him by the cannibalistic Kombai tribe in Indonesia (episode "Living With Cannibals") and was surprised at the vehement criticism logged on the message boards.

Criticisms ranged from accusations of exploition, to belittlement, to accusations the show may single-handedly be destroying indigenous cultures by causing the natives to question their belief systems. One comment was in response to the genetalia mutilation ceremony, claiming that by refusing to participate, Bruce may cause the Kombai to question their belief system and consequently destroy it. Another critic was upset that Bruce was bringing these societies into contact with Western culture, which has historically destroyed and displaced native cultures.

These are absurd criticisms that are built upon dangerously thin and poorly-reasoned logic.

I agree that studying these tribes is an invaluable academic exercise that teaches us more about ourselves and where our cultures came from and that it would be a crime to destroy these cultures without cataloging and learning from them.

But to keep these people isolated from the modern world in the interest of preserving their culture? That just seems criminal.

How can anybody claim it is right to study these people to benefit our own knowledge base, and then abandon them to remain in their ancient societies without quality of life-improving modern technology or medicine? That is more like exploitation than anything "Going Tribal" is doing. Why should we Westerners keep our vaccines and farming techniques to ourselves? Why would we not want to give these people the same access to the modern constructs that make us the society with the highest quality of life and healthiest, longest-living people to have ever graced the planet? Let them keep their beliefs and cultures, but give them the opportunity to live better lives through modern technology and health care.

I also do not understand how causing them to think critically about their belief systems is a bad thing. Indeed, the world would be a better place if more people spent more time challenging their own belief systems. Should we not challenge the African belief systems that cause some those societies to practice female circumcision? Should we not challenge the Islamo-fascist belief systems that cause young men from the Middle East to become suicide bombers? Should we have not challenged the Nazi belief system justified genocide? If the Aztecs were still around (and yes, I realize the irony of using them as an example), would we not want them to challenge their beliefs that sacrificing young children is the way to worship and pay homage to the Divine? If we were more diligent about challenging our own current belief systems, perhaps the world could be a more peaceful place with less war.

So why is it any different to get these societies to challenge their belief systems that promote cannibalism and mutilation of young girls and boys?

I received the following frothy comment on my case for keeping the estate tax for the super wealthy and thought I would share my response for all to see. First the comment from Ramrod:

"Do you see your own contradiction? You open your unfounded essay by citing Jefferson's 'all men are created equal' adage, and then proceed to make claim that 'rich men should be treated different, if not exclusively punished by a tax burden' [sic]. And for what? I bet Walton's kids could have split peas to make that $1B work for them... but why should the government reap the remaining $99B of his estate, when the government has done nothing to earn it and likely more to cripple it (we'll do that some other time). The point is this: stick to your original claim, and ensure that 'all (taxpayers) are (treated) equal'. Once you've realigned yourself, turn on MTV Cribs and allow your rage to build once more."

And my response:

"I think everybody in America should have an equal chance at succeeding, which is how I interpret Jefferson's writings. I think Walton's future generations (or the current Kennedy's or Bush's for that matter) will have privilages (and will not be treated with equality when compared to the average American) for eons without having to contribute anything to society, simply because of their last name. The last time I checked, that is called royal lineage/feudalism/or whatever you want to call it. America should stand as the antithesis to that, not the new breeding ground for it.

"When Jefferson penned that line, it was legal to own slaves (and he did so himself). A modest leap of logic would imply he saw keeping Africans as slaves as being consistent with 'treating all men equal'. Do you still think we should strictly adhere to the letter of his writings, or do you think it better to interpret the spirit of his writings based on our modern society?

"And let me ask you this - do you really think that two white New England sons who both attended Yale and were Skull and Bones members (all because of who their family was, not because of any achievement of their own) were the two best candidates America could have fielded for president in the last election? I absolutely do not. I do not think that coming from a wealthy family should automatically disqualify somebody for higher office (regardless of what you think of his policies and how he exercises the powers of his office, you cannot deny the fact that Bush is very good at his job), just as I do not think coming from a wealthy family should automatically qualify somebody for higher office, which is clearly the case today."

The Week of 8/8/05

I've received a few emails asking why KT has not been updated lately. I am on vacation this week, so keep checking back as I will resume posting soon.

Regards,
TP

A Science Education 'Manhattan Project'

A while back Tom Friedman wrote an excellent piece (Losing Our Edge?) on the crisis the US is facing by continuing to slip behind the industrial world in science, math, and engineering education. His proposal - kill two birds with one stone by launching a 'Manhattan Project' to develop a hydrogen-based economy. This will both stimulate education and solve our oil dependency problem. My thoughts:

This clearly is not a problem we can just throw money at or solve through incremental efforts such as No Child Left Behind. A motivated, collective effort to maintain our global leadership in education and technology will depend upon the cultural will to do so – we cannot catch up with Japan and China in the number of scientists and engineers we are graduating unless we get students to choose those majors.

I think step one in a 'Manhattan Project' is to have our political leadership acknowledge and call attention to the challenge at hand and put it on par with the war on terror on the national priority list since in the long run, the consequences of failure are just as dire, if not more so.

Step two of the Project (an extension of step one) is to crystallize an objective that to many is currently nothing more than an abstraction – it is one thing to give a speech talking about the need to improve our primary education system, it is quite another to call on Americans to beat our archetypal villain to the Moon. Wrap it in the flag and ask Americans to make the sacrifice and commitment shown possible in past daunting challenges like WWII, the space race, and the war on terror. Make it a matter of patriotism, because really, it is.

The challenge should be meaningful, concrete, measurable, and capable of invoking both passion and fear. Personally, I think the most logical candidate is the pressing task we face in figuring out how to wean the country off our oil dependency (although this is also probably the least likely to ever fly with the current Administration); I also think China is an ideal candidate to replace the Soviet Union as our main 'competitor/villain'.

Step three is to figure out the tactical roadmap of engaging the country in the Project. I think a really powerful and interesting way to make this real for our schools and students is to create a national program of distributed research (in the model of the distributed computing initiatives such as SETI), instead of only looking to our universities for research.

The NSF or some other oversight body could break down and define the research needs that the various primary and secondary school systems in the country can take on depending on their respective capabilities. For example, middle school chemistry classes could experiment with hydrogen-producing electrolysis techniques, high school electronics classes could experiment with optimal engine timing circuits, etc. We could design the curricula of K-12 and our undergraduate programs to focus on both teaching the fundamentals and being relevant to the Project. Not all of the research needs to be necessarily groundbreaking – the point is to engage the students, making them part of a national endeavor, while teaching them about science and technology so that some day, if not during their pre-collegiate education, they will be able to contribute new knowledge and technology to our society.

I think we should also tie the national student research endeavor to goal-based incentives. For example, for every student and/or team a school fields in the Intel International Science Fair (or Westinghouse, or any other national or international competition), the government will provide financial incentives to the schools and students ( e.g. scholarships); for every team that makes it to the regional finals, they get additional funding, etc. This provides a simple impetus for the schools to become proactively involved in the effort. We could also raise the profile of and expand initiatives like USA Today's annual top student lists.

The government could also make a commitment to creating national contests geared towards both students and the public at-large to fulfill knowledge and technology needs, like NASA's current contest for a new spacesuit glove.

I also think there is a place for initiatives like No Child Left Behind, but the way that specific program is currently structured, it is only providing penalties as a motivator. I think it would be much more powerful if we set bold objectives like becoming #1 in each field assessed by the TIMMS. If anything, Americans understand competition drives excellence – if we make it a matter of national pride to best our international peers, I think we will engage communities (which are much more powerful than the schools alone) to a far greater extent than any program that threatens to take away education funding based on national test score benchmarks.

And while I think the aforementioned will help create the cultural commitment to developing the interest and skills of students critical to this effort, we obviously have to also have an apparatus in place to capitalize on having the talent by making pure research a priority of the government, a position well articulated by Vinton Cerf in the Wall St. Journal.

We also need an honest intellectual dialog about where we want to set our national priorities. The best example is biomedical research. I think our leaders are letting us down when their primary guide in setting policy is religion. For example, we need to admit the fact that our current policy on stem cells is driving the best American talent to other countries that will capitalize both medically and economically from the research and as a nation, and then make a collective informed decision based on the reality of the situation. But now I am starting to digress from the original topic.

How do we implement this? I am not sure - the initiative is cleary going to need to come from somewhere else than our current political leadership. I do think a grass-roots unified message and proposal coming from the leaders of the science and technology communities and supported by the public could be a powerful impetus for change. This petition is a good start.

Losing Our Edge?

Another good one from Tom Friedman on the dangers the US faces by slipping behind in math, science, and engineering education, as well as some of my thoughts here.

I was just out in Silicon Valley, checking in with high-tech entrepreneurs about the state of their business. I wouldn't say they were universally gloomy, but I did detect something I hadn't detected before: a real undertow of concern that America is losing its competitive edge vis-à-vis China, India, Japan and other Asian tigers, and that the Bush team is deaf, dumb and blind to this situation.

Several executives explained to me that they were opening new plants in Asia — not because of cheaper labor. Labor is a small component now in an automated high-tech manufacturing plant. It is because governments in these countries are so eager for employment and the transfer of technology to their young populations that they are offering huge tax holidays for U.S. manufacturers who will set up shop. Because most of these countries also offer some form of national health insurance, U.S. companies shed that huge open liability as well.

Other executives complained bitterly that the Department of Homeland Security is making it so hard for legitimate foreigners to get visas to study or work in America that many have given up the age-old dream of coming here. Instead, they are studying in England and other Western European nations, and even China. This is leading to a twofold disaster.

First, one of America's greatest assets — its ability to skim the cream off the first-round intellectual draft choices from around the world and bring them to our shores to innovate — will be diminished, and that in turn will shrink our talent pool. And second, we could lose a whole generation of foreigners who would normally come here to study, and then would take American ideas and American relationships back home. In a decade we will feel that loss in America's standing around the world.

Still others pointed out that the percentage of Americans graduating with bachelor's degrees in science and engineering is less than half of the comparable percentage in China and Japan, and that U.S. government investments are flagging in basic research in physics, chemistry and engineering. Anyone who thinks that all the Indian and Chinese techies are doing is answering call-center phones or solving tech problems for Dell customers is sadly mistaken. U.S. firms are moving serious research and development to India and China.

The bottom line: we are actually in the middle of two struggles right now. One is against the Islamist terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere, and the other is a competitiveness-and-innovation struggle against India, China, Japan and their neighbors. And while we are all fixated on the former (I've been no exception), we are completely ignoring the latter. We have got to get our focus back in balance, not to mention our budget. We can't wage war on income taxes and terrorism and a war for innovation at the same time.

Craig Barrett, the C.E.O. of Intel, noted that Intel sponsors an international science competition every year. This year it attracted some 50,000 American high school kids. "I was in China 10 days ago," Mr. Barrett said, "and I asked them how many kids in China participated in the local science fairs that feed into the national fair [and ultimately the Intel finals]. They told me six million kids."

For now, the U.S. still excels at teaching science and engineering at the graduate level, and also in university research. But as the Chinese get more feeder stock coming up through their high schools and colleges, "they will get to the same level as us after a decade," Mr. Barrett said. "We are not graduating the volume, we do not have a lock on the infrastructure, we do not have a lock on the new ideas, and we are either flat-lining, or in real dollars cutting back, our investments in physical science."

And what is the Bush strategy? Let's go to Mars. Hello? Right now we should have a Manhattan Project to develop a hydrogen-based energy economy — it's within reach and would serve our economy, our environment and our foreign policy by diminishing our dependence on foreign oil. Instead, the Bush team says let's go to Mars. Where is Congress? Out to lunch — or, worse, obsessed with trying to keep Susie Smith's job at the local pillow factory that is moving to the Caribbean — without thinking about a national competitiveness strategy. And where is Wall Street? So many of the plutocrats there know that the Bush fiscal policy is a long-term disaster. They know it — but they won't say a word because they are too greedy or too gutless.

The only crisis the U.S. thinks it's in today is the war on terrorism, Mr. Barrett said. "It's not."

Too Much Pork and Too Little Sugar

Tom Friedman on the energy bill, and a link here on as some of my ideas on the dangers of foreign oil dependence and some thoughts on how to reduce the dependency:

Wow, I am so relieved that Congress has finally agreed on an energy bill. Now that's out of the way, maybe Congress will focus on solving our energy problem.

Sorry to be so cynical, but an energy bill that doesn't enjoin our auto companies to sharply improve their mileage standards is just not serious. This bill is what the energy expert Gal Luft calls "the sum of all lobbies." While it contains some useful provisions, it also contains massive pork slabs dished out to the vested interests who need them least - like oil companies - and has no overarching strategy to deal with the new world.

And the world has changed in the past few years. First, the global economic playing field is being leveled, and millions of people who were out of the game - from China, India and the former Soviet empire - are now walking onto the field, each dreaming of a house, a car, a toaster and a microwave. As they move from low-energy to high-energy consumers, they are becoming steadily rising competitors with us for oil.

Second, we are in a war. It is a war against open societies mounted by Islamo-fascists, who are nurtured by mosques, charities and madrasas preaching an intolerant brand of Islam and financed by medieval regimes sustained by our oil purchases.

Yes, we are financing both sides in the war on terrorism: our soldiers and the fascist terrorists. George Bush's failure, on the morning after 9/11, to call on Americans to accept a gasoline tax to curb our oil imports was one of the greatest wasted opportunities in U.S. history.
Does the energy bill begin to remedy that? Hardly. It doesn't really touch the auto companies, which have used most of the technological advances of the last two decades to make our cars bigger and faster, rather than more fuel-efficient. Congress even rejected the idea of rating tires for fuel efficiency, which might have encouraged consumers to buy the most fuel-efficient treads.

The White House? It blocked an amendment that would have required the president to find ways to cut oil use by one million barrels a day by 2015 - on the grounds that it might have required imposing better fuel economy on our carmakers.

We need a strategic approach to energy. We need to redesign work so more people work at home instead of driving in; we need to reconfigure our cars and mass transit; we need a broader definition of what we think of as fuel. And we need a tax policy that both entices, and compels, U.S. firms to be innovative with green energy solutions. This is going to be a huge global industry - as China and India become high-impact consumers - and we should lead it.
Many technologies that could make a difference are already here - from hybrid engines to ethanol. All that is needed is a gasoline tax of $2 a gallon to get consumers and Detroit to change their behavior and adopt them. As Representative Edward Markey noted, auto fuel economy peaked at 26.5 miles per gallon in 1986, and "we've been going backward every since" - even though we have the technology to change that right now. "This is not rocket science," he rightly noted. "It's auto mechanics."

It's also imagination. "During the 1973 Arab oil embargo Brazil was importing almost 80 percent of its fuel supply," notes Mr. Luft, director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. "Within three decades it cut its dependence by more than half. ... During that period the Brazilians invested massively in a sugar-based ethanol industry to the degree that about a third of the fuel they use in their vehicles is domestically grown. They also created a fleet that can accommodate this fuel." Half the new cars sold this year in Brazil will run on any combination of gasoline and ethanol. "Bringing hydrocarbons and carbohydrates to live happily together in the same fuel tank," he added, "has not only made Brazil close to energy independence, but has also insulated the Brazilian economy from the harming impact of the current spike in oil prices."

The new energy bill includes support for corn-based ethanol, but, bowing to the dictates of the U.S. corn and sugar lobbies (which oppose sugar imports), it ignores Brazilian-style sugar-based ethanol, even though it takes much less energy to make and produces more energy than corn-based ethanol. We are ready to import oil from Saudi Arabia but not sugar from Brazil.

The sum of all lobbies. ...

It seems as though only a big crisis will force our country to override all the cynical lobbies and change our energy usage. I thought 9/11 was that crisis. It sure was for me, but not, it seems, for this White House, Congress or many Americans. Do we really have to wait for something bigger in order to get smarter?

The Creativity Economy

An excellent piece from the Athena Alliance based on an article in Business Week. Excerpts:

The Knowledge Economy as we know it is being eclipsed by something new -- call it the Creativity Economy. Even as policymakers and pundits wring their hands over the outsourcing of engineering, software writing, accounting, and myriad other high-tech, high-end service jobs -- not to mention the move of manufacturing to Asia -- U.S. companies are evolving to the next level of economic activity.

What was once central to corporations -- price, quality, and much of the left-brain, digitized analytical work associated with knowledge -- is fast being shipped off to lower-paid, highly trained Chinese and Indians, as well as Hungarians, Czechs, and Russians. Increasingly, the new core competence is creativity -- the right-brain stuff that smart companies are now harnessing to generate top-line growth. The game is changing. It isn't just about math and science anymore. It's about creativity, imagination, and, above all, innovation.

What is unfolding is the commoditization of knowledge. We have seen global forces undermine autos, electronics, and other manufacturing, but the Knowledge Economy was expected to last forever and play to America's strengths: great universities, terrific labs, smart immigrants, an entrepreneurial business culture.

Oops. It turns out there are a growing number of really smart engineers and scientists "out there," too. They've learned to make assembly lines run efficiently, whether they turn out cars or code, refrigerators or legal briefs. So U.S. companies are moving on to creating consumer experiences, not just products; reconceiving entire brand categories, not merely adding a few more colors; and, above all, innovating in new and surprising arenas.

The U.S. has a lead in this unfolding Creativity Economy -- for the moment.

My thoughts on how we can maintain that lead.

Media Learning Lessons We Find in Modern War

Speaking of Viacom's plans to split into two companies - one a growth company comprised of MTV and VH1, the other keeping CBS - he recently said, "In the 21st century, large is no longer in charge. Leverage will belong to the nimble and the swift."

That quote may have well come from Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, speaking of the need to transform our military into a lighter, more nimble and precise force to face the threats of non-state terrorists who prefer to hide in shadows and caves rather than fight like honorable men.

While Rumsfeld was prescient when first declaring this goal as he took office in February of 2001, focusing solely on this transformation is more dangerous than ignoring it. If we are not careful, we will one day end up with a military designed to fight terrorists yet woefully prepared to defend against the threats of another superpower. China will someday soon fit this bill, and they are determined to militarily overpower us.

Religion Strikes Again

Israel soldier lynched after killing four in Gaza pullout row

A teenage Israeli soldier shot dead four people in a blazing row over the country's imminent withdrawal from Gaza before being lynched by furious residents of an Arab-Israeli town.

The 19-year-old religiously observant Jew, dressed in army fatigues, unleashed a volley of fire inside a bus in the northern Galilee town of Shfaram in an argument over the pullout, police said.

The gunman, Nathan Zaada (eds: correct), was a 19-year-old soldier who was originally from Rishon Le Tzion (near Tel Aviv) and had recently turned to religion.

E Pur Si Muove!

It is a sad day for fans of liberty and students of science when the President of the United States publicly endorses teaching a religious myth as science in America's public schools. We already have a hard enough time keeping our public education system in the same league as the rest of the industrial world; the last thing we need is religious zealots imposing their doctrine in the name of science. While we are at it, why not also teach women are the root of all evil, thanks to Eve's indulgence?

Since we want to be politically correct, we should also include teachings of other religions. We can introduce hard-line Islam and bar girls from going to school - that way, the boys will be much more attentive during the lectures on how to stone blasphemous infidels to death. Maybe some Scientology too - we would not want to offend Tom Cruise's aliens by only teaching one doctrine of creation. And of course, we would not want to leave out the Hopi's spider woman, creator of man, and sun god, creator of Earth. Also not to be forgotten is the Siberian theory that land was created by a giant defecating bird whose urine created the rivers, lakes, and oceans.

There are thousands more of these theories, so in the interest of making sure students are exposed to to as many schools of thought as Bush proposes, we should probably do away with unnecessary subjects like English (and replace it with Aramaic?) and history (the only history we need is the Old Testament) to make room for all these important schools of thought.

While we are at it, we can also take care of all those messy loose ends science cannot yet explain. Unfortunately, we discovered the Earth revolves are the Sun, so we can no longer preach about Ra, the Sun God. Gravity is another story - physics cannot fully explain what gravity is, so I hereby propose we formally include study of Gravitas, the new god of gravity, in our schools' curricula.

If we work hard enough to please Him, by God's good grace maybe one day we will be able to completely do away with secular education and have our own Western version of Saudi Arabia's and Pakistan's madrassas. Think of all the great things the madrassas students have accomplished over the past decade - we can only pray that some day we will be able to send our students out into the world to make similar contributions.

Death Row Kamikazes

Suicide bombers will always have tactical advantage since traditional deterrents, e.g. shooting them, do not work since they are already committing to 'martyr' themselves in their attack. Further, it has proven difficult for us to get our hands on high-profile terrorists like Usama they understand and exploit what deterrents work against us, e.g. shooting our soldiers before they get too close, like the SEAL team we lost in Afghanistan, ostensibly because Usama travels with a huge bodyguard of soldiers.

To fight fire with fire, what if we gave an option to death row inmates who have exhausted all appeals and/or have admitted guilt - they can either die at the hands of the state, or they can redeem themselves to their society by going on a suicide mission targeting terrorists.

Suicide attackers will be able to get much closer to targets and do things we cannot currently do with our soldiers and intelligence agents due the high risk involved; things like get close enough to assasinate Usama without the agent or soldier getting killed in return. It would also be another powerful psychological weapon to employ - terrorists already have to worry about having a US laser-guided bomb dropped on their heads or being rushed by special forces any time, any where, why not make them experience the same fear they exploit of having to wonder if any of the people around them are about to blow themselves up.

Of course there are practical concerns such as how do you ensure the convict carries out the mission and does not just disappear (though potentially easily addressed through some version of tracking technology already used for persons under house arrest), but on a philosophic and moral level, is something like this consistent with our values? Would a program like this be wrong?

Al-Qaida Websites Taken Down

My only question is, "Why the hell did we not do this sooner?" From Britain's The Sunday Times:

Over the past fortnight Israeli intelligence agents have noticed something distinctly odd happening on the internet. One by one, Al-Qaeda’s affiliated websites have vanished until only a handful remain, write Uzi Mahnaimi and Alex Pell.

Someone has cut the line of communication between the spiritual leaders of international terrorism and their supporters. Since 9/11 the websites have been the main links to disseminate propaganda and information.

France Grows Some Cojones

Though instead of sending them back to their respective bastions of extremism, would it not make more sense to throw them in jail? The full story can be found here.

The gulf between British and French treatment of preachers of hatred and violence was thrown sharply into focus yesterday when France announced the summary expulsion of a dozen Islamists between now and the end of August.

A tough new anti-terrorism package was unveiled by Nicolas Sarkozy, the interior minister and a popular centre-Right politician.

His proposals reflect French determination to act swiftly against extremists in defiance of the human rights lobby, which is noticeably less vocal in France than in Britain.

Imams and their followers who fuel anti-western feeling among impressionable young French Muslims will be rounded up and returned to their countries of origin, most commonly in France's case to its former north African colonies.

Singularity

People who embrace futuristic thinking well beyond their time run the risk of being labeled a 'nut'. Suggesting the Earth revolved around the Sun would have landed a person in jail as a heretic in the 17th century. Claiming trans-Atlantic travel could be measured in hours, rather than months, would be absurb in the 18th century. Predicting man would walk on the moon in the 19th century would be a sure sign of insanity. With this post, I hereby embrace that risk.

Technological Singularity refers to the point in time at which "technological progress accelerates beyond the ability of present-day humans to fully comprehend or predict." (Effectively synonymous with the development of artificial intelligence [AI].) When this occurs, the Singularitarians believe that AI will be able to use its intelligence to advance technology at a pace millions to billions of times faster than the pace at which technology progresses under humans. Such an intelligence could easily double the current body of human knowledge, something that has taken tens of thousands of years to accumulate, literally in a matter of seconds. A good description comes from I. J. Good:

"Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far
surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the
design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent
machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an 'intelligence explosion,' and the intelligence of man would be left far behind.
Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever
make."

The potential for good and bad here are obvious. Cures for incurable diseases, the undiscovered secrets of our universe, solutions to virtually any human problem, all become knowable in a very short period of time. Some also think AI will enable us to develop technology capable of merging computational intelligence with biological intelligence, e.g. digitally replicating a person's brain and consciousness, or nanotechnology capable of fighting cancer cells or enhancing intelligence and/or memory, etc, to the extent of enabling immortality. It sounds crazy, but some of the world's leading scientists and futurists fully embrace this (see Ray Kurzweil's book "Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever").

Similarly, technology capable of the destruction of life or other unimaginable horrors also become possible.

The (somewhat scary) fact is humans will no longer be the highest form of intelligence in our world. We simply are incapable of anticipating what AI will be capable of accomplishing, any more than a dog or cat can anticipate what the next miracle drug to be discovered will be. Even scarier is the fact that by definition, disruptive technologies are developed at the fringe of society, and consequently, society is never prepared to deal with their implications. The Wright brothers' seemingly innocuous first flight ended up changing the nature of modern warfare and making all territories, military and civilian, part of the battlefield. The development of nuclear and rocket technologies ushered in the era of Mutually Assured Destruction. Genetic engineering now offers terrorists what could be potentially their most fearsome and devastating weapon.

Not only is it not too soon to begin a serious dialogue on how to prepare for the Singularity, it is probably well past due. A good place to learn more on Singularity is the Singularity Institute's website and Ray Kurzweil's "The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology" or his "The Age of Spiritual Machines."

The World

Nakheel, a real estate developer in United Arab Emirates, is building a series of 300 man-made islands called The World off the coast of Dubai that will be in the shape of a world map upon which luxury estates will be built. Very cool:

http://www.theworld.ae/

China Stocks Nukes as Anti-US Tactic

It seems China has started an arms war - though similar to the genocide in Darfur, we are reluctant to call a spade a spade.

By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published July 29, 2005

China is building up its nuclear forces as part of a secret strategy targeting the United States, according to a former Chinese diplomat.

China's strategy calls for "proactive defense," and senior Chinese Communist Party leaders think that building nuclear arms is the key to countering U.S. power in Asia and other parts of the world, said Chen Yonglin, a diplomat who defected to Australia two months ago.

A recent comment by a Chinese general shows that Beijing's leaders are prepared to launch "a pre-emptive attack on the country considered a huge threat to China," Mr. Chen said.

Chinese Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu told reporters two weeks ago that China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against "hundreds" of U.S. cities if a conflict breaks out over Taiwan.

The former diplomat, who until recently was posted to the Chinese Consulate in Sydney, said the number of Chinese nuclear warheads is a closely guarded secret.

Asked about a Pentagon report revealing that China has 20 nuclear warheads that can reach almost all of the United States, Mr. Chen said, "We don't know the exact number."

"Everything about nuclear weapons is held by a very limited number of people," he said. "Even sometime vice ministers may not know because it is strictly controlled by the general staff and central party leaders."

The Pentagon report to Congress made public last week stated that China is "qualitatively and quantitatively improving its strategic missile force."

"It is fielding more survivable missiles capable of targeting India, Russia, virtually all of the United States and the Asia-Pacific theater as far south as Australia and New Zealand," the report said.

China's nuclear weapons are developed and built in secret under the direction of a company Mr. Chen identified as the Nuclear Energy Company. The company builds both civilian nuclear-power stations and warheads for missiles and bombers.

"It sounds like a nongovernment company, but it is totally top secret," he said.

Mr. Chen, who is visiting the United States and testified before a House committee last week, said that during internal discussions among Communist Party and government leaders and military commanders, military leaders often have urged going to war against Taiwan, a self-governing island -- also known as the Republic of China -- that broke with the mainland in 1949.

"I've heard a lot about the results of those meetings, and most of the military forces leaders advocate the use of force the earlier the better to solve the Taiwan issue," Mr. Chen said.

He said China's long-term strategy toward the United States was outlined by the late communist leader Deng Xiaoping in the phrase "hide our capabilities; bide our time."

"That means don't draw any attention of the Western world -- and especially the United States, to what China is doing," Mr. Chen said.

China's leaders fear the current U.S. policy of engagement with China could shift to one of "containing" China, he said.

"If the policy of the United States changes to containment, there will be no Olympic Games, there will be no business and there will be no peaceful rise," he said.

Shoot to Kill

It was a horrible tragedy that British police shot to death a man who turned out to be an innocent Brazilian they thought was trying to pull off another suicide bombing. However, the police did the right thing. As a man who appeared to be Middle Eastern emerging from an apartment complex under surveillance as a terrorist base, wearing a long coat in the middle of summer, heading to the Tube and taking off running, hopping over a turnstile, and lunging into a train car when the police tried challenging him, in the context of the bombing and attempted bombing in the previous two weeks, the police had no other choice but to kill him. Every single indication the police had suggested the man was going to blow up himself along with a train full of passengers.

The real travesty here is not the shooting alone; the travesty is the next time a situation like that occurs it may really be a 'martyr' wearing an explosives belt and facing political pressure, the police may hesitate just a second longer than they should, and that hesitation may cost the lives of countless innocent civilians.

Hiam Watzman has an excellent piece in the NY Times on this and parallels to the Israeli struggles with suicide bombers.

A Muslim Double Standard?

A common complaint from the Middle East is there is a double standard in the West for victims of terrorism. When Israeli civilians are killed by suicide bombers there is international outcry, the argument goes, while when Muslims are killed by retaliatory strikes or errant bombs in Afghanistan, there is hardly a whisper from the West. To some degree this may be true - consider the West's reaction to the London bombings that killed 50+ people and compare that to the bombings in Egypt that killed over 80 people. Was there a double standard? Did we feel more for the Londoners than the Egyptians? Some say the Middle Eastern victims are getting what they deserve since it is their societies that have allowed terrorism to flower - their chickens are coming home to roost.

Not only do I think this point of view is xenophobic and wrong (the citizens of the Middle East have had very little influence in shaping their societies - the despotic leaders and unchecked mullahs of the region bear responsibility for that), it is incredibly dangerous and is part of the reason we have a terrorism problem today. As I have argued in past posts, the only way we are going to stop Islamist terrorism is to convince Muslims the West has a better vision to offer for the future than the hate and death the Islamist extremists preach; the Muslim world will have to make the decision that no longer will they tolerate the hateful manipulation of their religion.

We must show the Middle East that we value all life, not just Western life. We have to show them we care about and have respect for their needs and beliefs. We must show that part of the world that there is hope for them, that we consider them part of the world community and they too can share in the prosperity and freedom of the Western world. We must show them how backwards and self-destructive the ideas peddled by their extremist leaders really are.

We have made a lot of progress in the military theater (50,000 Terrorists Dead, Captured) of this war, but not so much progress in winning the war of ideas. Recently the Bush Administration 're-branded' the war on terror as a struggle against violent extremist, implicitly acknowledging this fact, although this small gesture should not be construed as actually doing anything to win the hearts and minds. While this is long overdue, it is also encouraging, in a morbid sort of way, to see the terrorists are actually helping us win the war of ideology by continuing to target innocent Muslims in their attacks, which is having a perceptible impact in eroding Middle Eastern support for Islamist terrorism. This week Muslim scholars in North America and Europe released what I believe are the first officially issued fatwas condemning terrorism targeting innocent civilians in the name of Islam, seen here and here.

Again encouraging, but we still have a long ways to go in this war of ideas.

China Trying to Pull the Wool?

China seeks soften image with U.S. - UPI, Jul. 28, 2005 at 9:38AM

China has embarked on an image-polishing campaign to counter U.S. criticism of its growing economic and military power.

Taking advantage of the visit of a senior official to Washington, China is making its case in public for a strategic relationship and is hiring a U.S. lobbying firm to communicate with Congress, the Financial Times said Thursday.

Tang Jiaxuan, state councilor, assured the U.S.-China Business Council, "All this will mean boundless opportunities for U.S. businesses."

China, he said, would "gradually" address U.S. concerns over the trade deficit and intellectual property rights and allow it greater access to services.

Tang reiterated Chinese demands that the United States give China full market economy status, lift restrictions on commodity and technology exports "and correct the wrong practices of trade protectionism."

Tang, a key figure in Chinese efforts to curb North Korea's nuclear ambitions, also met with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

The Most Painful Press Conference

If you did not catch it on C-Span or already read the transcript here, Scott McClelland's press conference on July 11 where he took an absolute beating over the Valerie Plame leak is far and away the most painful I have ever seen. It is highly entertaining in a very sad sort of way.

The Destiny of Man

The Earth is the cradle of humankind, but one cannot live in the cradle forever.
- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky, The 'Father of Human Space Flight'

Us humans have always thought ourselves special in the grand scheme of things – assuming the sun revolves around the Earth, we are at the center of the universe, the Creator for some reason takes a special interest in us, thinking the planet is young just because our race is, etc. I suppose that is an inescapable side effect of consciousness.

Few people realize how inconsequential we are in the history of our planet, let alone our galaxy, and especially in the context of our universe. To plagiarize a terrific analogy from Bill Bryson in his excellent book, “A Short History of Nearly Everything,” if the history of our planet (which is really just a teenager itself in cosmic time) was mapped on a timeline that stretched between a persons outstretched arms, moving left to right, primordial life first appears just before the left elbow. Simple plant life shows up somewhere near the right-hand wrist, the Paleolithic era of the dinosaurs begins somewhere in the right-hand palm, and the entire existence of humans (of which recorded history is only about 1/25th) could be scraped off the tip of the right hand’s outmost nail in a single swipe of a nail file.

Depending upon where you come down in the science-theology spectrum, there are really only a handful of possible endgames for our stint here: we are all killed/saved in some sort of Divine Judgment Day; we go the way of the dinosaurs due to a cataclysmic extinction event involving large objects crashing into our planet, again; our planet becomes uninhabitable due to a radical shift in climate, manmade or otherwise, turning the Earth into a barren ice ball like Mars or a sweltering, caustic sauna like Venus; we all get toasted when the sun flares out, becoming a red giant and swallowing the Earth before dying out in six billion years (we’re only 1/3 of the way there); we melt ourselves with nuclear weapons, or some more creative method of self-inflicted extinction; or we conquer the current limitations of our science and figure out a way to sustain humanity in some other part of the universe.

If you share my instinct for the self-preservation of the homo sapien race (and I think everybody does when you put it in the perspective of the fact that at some point, everything around you, everything you spend your life doing or making or building, what job you held or school you went to, the school itself, all of human achievement and creation, all human history, it will all eventually be vaporized when the aforementioned solar flame out occurs, if not sooner), you probably share my dismay over our range of options.

Indeed, if the true meaning of life is to serve a Higher Power or to simply perpetuate life (again, depending upon where you come down), as a civilization we should be fairly concerned with making sure the Judgment Day and/or conquering science scenarios happen while negating or minimizing the chances of the others. (This sounds outlandish, but this idea is being taken very seriously by some leading academics, scientists, and thinkers such as Stephen Hawking, Ray Kurzweil, and Cambridge University professor Martin Rees in the form of Singularity studies.)

So what can we do? In the case of the religious scenario, we can literally do little more than pray. However, since no single religion is practiced by a majority of the world’s citizens and virtually every religion teaches us that non-believers are doomed, the majority of the populace should be working on a backup plan.

In the extinction event scenario, well, again, we can do little more than pray. In the near term, at best we may have some advance warning so we can always do all the things we promise ourselves we will do if we find out a giant asteroid is on a collision course with Earth.

Actually, unless the religious scenario happens (and over which we have no control), we have three options – we get wiped out by some act of nature, we get wiped out by a collective act of human stupidity, or we work together to prevent and/or survive the first and figure out a way to preempt the former.

With this perspective, there are really only two pursuits worthy of humanity’s attention – science and politics. The science is clearly to enable us to figure out a way of continuing human life elsewhere (perhaps virtually, as a merger between life and technology?) once our planet becomes inhabitable and/or figuring out ways of avoiding cataclysmic natural extinction events. Politics may seem trivial in the context of trying to save humanity from extinction, but it is critical for our national and international governing bodies to prevent humanity from destroying itself before science has the opportunity to save it.

A brief survey of national priorities and the current state of international affairs suggests that perhaps our priorities are misplaced. International affairs remain dedicated to conflict, which historically is nothing new, the existence of military technologies capable of destroying humanity most definitely is new.

Meanwhile, the single greatest engine of scientific innovation, the United States, faces a future where this distinction may itself face extinction. Our public school systems lag those of the rest of the industrial world, especially in math and science, our post-secondary institutions, while still the best in the world, are increasingly filled with foreign students, especially in post-graduate programs. American students are majoring in high-paying, yet ultimately meaningless (relatively, given the context) majors such as law, while China, India, and Japan continue to churn out thousands of scientists and engineers for every one we graduate.

Since doomsday does not appear to be just around the corner, this may all sound quite silly and probably more than a bit kooky. However, with the stakes involved, is this something we can afford to dismiss?

Deterrence at Work

More evidence that deterrence works, even with stateless psychotics like terrorists and murderous drug kingpins. Apparently Usama and company wanted to poison a load of cocaine and introduce it into the American drug market. The drug lords who were initially cooperating with al-Qaida eventually balked, no doubt in large part because they realize that the US government is serious enough about fighting terrorism, and also quiet possibly unpredictable enough (some may say crazy enough), that cooperation with Qaida would lead to the certain destruction of their organizations in addition to their own lives. The story from Drudge:

PAPER: Bin Laden Had Plan To Sell Poisoned Cocaine To Americans In 2002Tue Jul 26 2005 09:43:35 ET

Osama bin Laden tried to buy a massive amount of cocaine, spike it with poison and sell it in the United States, hoping to kill thousands of Americans one year after the 9/11 attacks, the NEW YORK POST reported on Tuesday.

The evil plot failed when the Colombian drug lords bin Laden approached decided it would be bad for their business - and, possibly, for their own health, according to law-enforcement sources familiar with the Drug Enforcement Administration's probe of the aborted transaction.

The feds were told of the scheme earlier this year, but its existence had never been made public.

The Post has reviewed a document detailing the DEA's findings in the matter, in addition to interviewing sources familiar with the case.

More Abortions = Less Crime?

I think the concept of abortion is appalling. I also find appalling the concept of unwanted children who are born in to miserable lives and who disproportionately project that misery through crime, violent or otherwise. So which side is 'right' an occupies the moral high ground? Having thought about this a lot, I really do not know. The following column from George Will is stimulating, at the very least:

John J. Donohue III and Steven Levitt (co-author of Freakonomics) are not in the least like Capt. Gonzalo de Aguilera. Before considering who Donohue and Levitt are, consider who the captain was. He was a polo-playing ex-cavalry officer selected by General Franco as a press liaison during the Spanish Civil War. He said the fundamental cause of the war was "the introduction of modern drainage. Prior to this, the riffraff had been killed by various useful diseases; now they survived and, of course, were above themselves." And: "Had we no sewers in Madrid, Barcelona and Bilbao, all these Red leaders would have died in their infancy instead of exciting the rabble and causing good Spanish blood to flow. When the war is over, we should destroy the sewers."

Donohue and Levitt, professors at Stanford and the University of Chicago respectively, say: "Legalized abortion contributed significantly to recent crime reductions." In their paper for Harvard's Quarterly Journal of Economics they do not recommend abortion as anti-crime policy. Rather, they explore, as social scientists do, whether causation explains a correlation. This one: "Crime began to fall roughly 18 years after abortion legalization."

Since 1991—18 years after Roe v. Wade legalized abortion—murder rates have fallen faster than at any time since the end of Prohibition in 1933. Homicide rates are down 40 percent, violent crime and property crime are down 30 percent. The five states (New York, California, Washington, Hawaii, Alaska) that legalized abortion earlier experienced earlier declines in crime. And states with especially high abortion rates in the 1970s and 1980s had especially dramatic crime reductions in the 1990s.

Donohue and Levitt consider the many variables besides abortion that could explain declining crime—more incarceration, more and better-used police, reduction of the crack-cocaine trade, more victim protections (security guards and alarms), a strong economy. But many cities that have not improved their police have had reductions in crime. Crime has fallen even where there never was a substantial crack trade. And research has not established a strong link between economic performance and violent crime. After controlling for such factors, Donohue and Levitt conclude: "Legalized abortion appears to account for as much as 50 percent of the recent drop in crime."

And why not? Even if you think, as pro-abortion people do, that killing 27 million unborn babies (or, as some pro-abortion people put it, causing 27 million clumps of "fetal material" to "undergo demise") in 18 years is a morally negligible matter, it is not a minor social development. Abortion obviously has reduced the size of the high-crime cohort—young males. Less obvious, but even more important, there is a "selective-abortion" effect and an "improved-environment" effect. These matter because 6 percent of any birth cohort commits about half of that cohort's crimes.

There is a "selective-abortion" effect when a disproportionate number of women having abortions are particularly likely to give birth to children who would have a higher than usual propensity for criminal behavior. Abortions are not distributed evenly across the entire population of pregnant women. Unmarried and poor women and teenage girls are "substantially more likely" to have abortions, and children born to such mothers have a higher than normal probability of committing crimes in the peak ages for crime, 18-24.

The "improved-environment" effect can occur when women use abortion "to optimize the timing of childbearing." A woman's willingness or ability to provide a nurturing environment may vary with her age, education, income, avoidance of drug and alcohol abuse, and the presence of a father. The likelihood of future criminality declines if children are born into better environments. Teenagers and unmarried and poor women are most likely to consider a pregnancy unwanted, and unintended pregnancies are associated with poor prenatal care, greater smoking and drinking during pregnancy, lower birth weights and other injuries to life chances.

Now, nothing in the Donohue-Levitt paper is shocking, or even counterintuitive. However, given the way professional race-mongers poison public discourse nowadays, Donohue and Levitt should brace themselves for ritualistic charges that they are racists urging eugenics."

And why not? Even if you think, as pro-abortion people do, that killing 27 million unborn babies (or, as some pro-abortion people put it, causing 27 million clumps of "fetal material" to "undergo demise") in 18 years is a morally negligible matter, it is not a minor social development. Abortion obviously has reduced the size of the high-crime cohort—young males. Less obvious, but even more important, there is a "selective-abortion" effect and an "improved-environment" effect. These matter because 6 percent of any birth cohort commits about half of that cohort's crimes.

There is a "selective-abortion" effect when a disproportionate number of women having abortions are particularly likely to give birth to children who would have a higher than usual propensity for criminal behavior. Abortions are not distributed evenly across the entire population of pregnant women. Unmarried and poor women and teenage girls are "substantially more likely" to have abortions, and children born to such mothers have a higher than normal probability of committing crimes in the peak ages for crime, 18-24.

The "improved-environment" effect can occur when women use abortion "to optimize the timing of childbearing." A woman's willingness or ability to provide a nurturing environment may vary with her age, education, income, avoidance of drug and alcohol abuse, and the presence of a father. The likelihood of future criminality declines if children are born into better environments. Teenagers and unmarried and poor women are most likely to consider a pregnancy unwanted, and unintended pregnancies are associated with poor prenatal care, greater smoking and drinking during pregnancy, lower birth weights and other injuries to life chances.

Now, nothing in the Donohue-Levitt paper is shocking, or even counterintuitive. However, given the way professional race-mongers poison public discourse nowadays, Donohue and Levitt should brace themselves for ritualistic charges that they are racists urging eugenics.

This, because they report research showing, not surprisingly, that after 1973 the drop in births was not uniform across all racial, ethnic and social groups. While the sudden availability of abortion had only modest effects on the fertility of white women, it coincided with large reductions in teen fertility and teen out-of-wedlock fertility among blacks. And Donohue and Levitt come to common-sense conclusions like this: "Given that homicide rates of black youths are roughly nine times higher than those of white youths, racial differences in the fertility effects of abortion are likely to translate into greater homicide reductions."

But Donohue and Levitt are no more advocating abortion than Galileo was "advocating" planetary motion. Which is not to say that their social science is as nonnormative as astronomy.

One problematic aspect of their analysis is their term "unwantedness." They report evidence that mothers of "unwanted" children are less likely than other mothers to hold, nurture and breast-feed those children. However, the term "unwanted" is not applicable to all children born of unwanted pregnancies. Unplanned children, even those resented in advance, can often elicit parental love when born.

Furthermore, here is a pertinent question, albeit one difficult to research: Does the policy of abortion-on-demand, which reduces children to "choices" and pregnancies to casually disposable inconveniences, contribute to the mentality that does make many children —not just pregnancies—"unwanted" by their mothers? In which case, the abortion culture itself is an incubator of crime. If this and other issues raised by the Donohue-Levitt paper make people uncomfortable, good."

Who Wouldn't Fall for Such a Clever Trick?

PALERMO, Italy (Reuters) - An Italian couple stole 50,000 euros from a woman in the Sicilian city of Palermo after convincing her they were vampires who would impregnate her with the son of the Anti-Christ if she did not pay them.

The man, a cabaret singer, and his girlfriend took the money from their victim over four years by selling her pills at 3,000 euros each that they said would abort the Anti-Christ's son.

Police uncovered the fraud after the 47-year-old woman's family became concerned when they discovered she had spent all her savings, local news agencies AGI and ANSA reported.

Itstrenenig Rscheearch

This has been floating around the Internet for a while. If you have not already seen it, it is pretty cool:

"Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by itstlef but the wrod as a wlohe."

And Some Not So Good News From London

A horrifying development on Friday's shooting in the Tube, sure to be a step backwards for the efforts to protect London from future attacks, from NYTimes.com:

Scotland Yard admitted Saturday that a man police officers chased and shot to death at point-blank range in front of horrified subway passengers on Friday had nothing to do with the investigation into the bombing attacks here.

Taliban Taking a Pounding

Encouraging news out of Afghanistan (encouraging that the Taliban/Qaida may actually be in 'last throes', not that they are recruiting children, of course), from CNN.com:

Taliban-led rebels have been hit so hard recently they are being forced to recruit children and their command structure has been fractured, a U.S. commander said Saturday despite a recent surge in violence.

Who Brought the Nearsighted Kid to the Pool?

Justin Gardner's post on Donklephant showing Chelsea Davis' impact with a diving board inspired me to share this.

With Friends Like This

We are fortunate to have allies like Australian PM John Howard and Tony Blair. Too bad continental western Europe seems inable to breed leaders like them. An excerpt of PM Howard's comments on yesterday's attempted bombings in London, found at Donklephant:

Now I don’t know the mind of the terrorists. By definition, you can’t put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber. I can only look at objective facts, and the objective facts are as I’ve cited. The objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq. And indeed, all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggests to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of principles of the great world religion that, at its root, preaches peace and cooperation. And I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder.

More Hope, Less Tragedy in London

Yesterday and today's attempted attacks in London should offer additional hope for the West. Prior to yesterday, al-Qaida could spin its image to be a global organization with Divine guidance that was successfully fighting and bringing down the Western world's superpower in the eyes of the young impressionable youths who are the targets of their recruiting efforts. Usama and company have been very careful with the images and messages they released and have consequently done well in creating the Qaida 'brand' they were seeking to create.

With the recent copy-cat London attempts, however, like the stories of Saddam climbing out of his spider hole to surrender and the pictures of him in his underwear, part of the the al-Qaida illusion has been forever lost. Qaida's agents in this case were very publicly revealed impotent in carrying out their missions when their bombs fizzled rather than exploded. Any teenager can set off fireworks on public transportation lines, this is hardly the hallmark of a Divine army.

More telling is the fact that at least one of the attempted attackers took Qaida cowardice to a new level. By throwing the bomb and running off the train, this would-be attacker showed that not only was he not man enough to fight like an actual soldier in the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, he was also too cowardly to carry out his 'martyrdom' mission.

Qaida is either deeper in to their 'B Team' than we previously publicly thought, or they are pressed for recruits to the point where they need their stooges alive to carry out multiple attacks, or their cause has now diluted and mutated to a point where their goal is to indiscriminately kill as many innocent civilians as possible. Either way, the 'pureness' of their 'holy' cause has taken a hit, along with their credibility in the eyes of the Muslim world.

Boss Tweed Lives

It appears the spirit of Boss Tweed lives in Chicago's City Hall.

A Sino-Suicide Pact?

Thomas Friedman with an incisive piece on our dangerous lock-step with China, particularly timely in light of these reports on China's military buildup here and here.

Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room

If you have not seen this movie, you should. While it captures the worst in human nature and the dangers of unchecked corporate and political cronyism, particularly with the exploitation of the California energy crisis, it unfairly lays the blame on deregulation. The California crisis did not happen because of deregulation, it happened due to a lack of competition - had Enron not been the only game in town, they would not have been able to inflate energy prices one hundred-fold and give the state no other choice than pay for it.

Raising the Stakes for the Terrorists

Representative Tom Tancredo made a reckless comment today that should terrorists succeed in hitting the US with nuclear weapons, a possible avenue for retribution could be destroying Mecca, Islam's holiest site. While this is an incredibly stupid and ignorant comment - true Muslims abhor terrorism as much as we do; by his logic, Britain should have considered bombing the Vatican in response to IRA bombings; etc. - he does hit upon an important point.

One of the reasons terrorists are so difficult to stop is they have no country, no army, no substantial assets of any kind against which to retaliate for attacks. The United States can prevent other countries from attacking with serious threats of in-kind retribution. Any country daring to hit the US with a nuclear weapon would face immediate vaporization. Any dictator stupid enough to blow up an American airliner will be undoubtedly bombed and subjected to sanctions until the perpetrators were dead or in custody. Any government bold enough to crash commercial aircraft into American skyscrapers would soon find US Marines at their doorstep and their country occupied.

Not only does our current enemy not have a substantial infrastructure against which to retaliate, he welcomes death, emasculating virtually all of our deterrents against carrying out a suicide attack. Carrying out an attack carries no cost to a suicide bomber. While we are slowly but surely winning the war on terror, dismantling terrorist networks, mowing down their brainwashed conscripts, removing their safe havens, and drying up their funding, we freely admit to the morbid fact that suicide attacks will continue occurring and taking innocent civilian lives.

This does not have to be so. Just because our current traditional deterrents do not apply, that does not mean none exist.

To deter suicide attackers we must make these so-called 'martyrs' pay a dear price for their actions and look to other countries who have faced this problem for inspiration. Israel used to have a standing policy that the homes, and sometimes neighborhoods, of suicide bombers would be immediate razed by army bulldozers.

While this clearly was not enough, these are the kinds of policies about which we should be having a national debate. Would the American people be willing to support a policy whereby the families of any suicide attacker would be detained, or worse? Can we live with our conscience doing something that atrocious? Can we live with our conscience knowing that if we do not resort to these kinds of tactics, more innocent Westerners will be slaughtered?

In this most unconventional war, we must ask ourselves: what honor are we paying to the memories and sacrifices of all the men and women who fought and died to establish and protect the freedom and safety of the Western world if we voluntarily choose to let a dishonorable band of thugs single-handedly chip away at their accomplishments because we are too timid to do what it takes to stop them?

This is How We Are Going to Win the War on Terror

While we need to be killing or capturing every last one of the cowardly thugs who wish to destroy the Western model of liberty, doing so alone will not win the war on terror. Many politicians and pundits pay a lot of lip service to winning the hearts and minds of the Middle East 'street', yet we are painfully shallow on follow-through. A bunch of neanderthals posting to amateur websites from their parents' houses in Iraq often show more media savvy than our government.

If we are going to stamp out Islamist terrorism, we are going to have to win the battle of ideas. We must show the people of the Middle East our concepts of freedom and liberty are superior and desirable over the culture of hate and death espoused by the terrorists. Unlike military conflict, the battle for the mind is played out in the open arena of ideas - no amount of money, numerical advantage, military hardware, or technology sophistication can provide an edge on this battlefield. Only the best ideas win.

That is why it is so encouraging to see the stories of compassion and humanity spun by ordinary Americans doing their part (and making the sacrifices our political leaders have been too weak to ask of us in the war on terror) to win this war. Like this story in the New York Times about a handful of citizens who heard the story of a young Iraqi boy disfigured by an American cluster bomb and flew him and his father to New York for three weeks of reconstructive surgery, all expenses covered except for the hotel. Although we will continue to win the battles, it is not citizens of the West who will decide when the war on terror is won. It will be when the Muslims around the world decide the West has a better future to offer than the terrorist thugs.

Clinton for Secretary General?

After President Clinton left office in 2001 there was intermittent talk about him angling for Kofi Annan's job as Secretary General of the United Nations. While at the time this was anathema to those of us who think Clinton was a disgrace to the Office of the President, it is really not a bad idea at this point.

While his personal shortcomings make him a poor choice for the role of chief executive, his personality and talents make him ideally suited to serve as the figurehead of a deliberative and diplomatic body such as the UN. Few have a deeper knowledge and understanding of history, and he is skilled and gifted in the arts of diplomacy. While his unending popularity campaign as POTUS did little to bolster national security, his popularity around the globe could go a long way towards building sorely needed good will and credibility for America. He would undoubtedly be successful in making inroads with countries ambivalent to our Western causes and deepening ties with our allies, ultimately making good on the national security obligations he was unable to wholly fulfill as a president paralyzed by political scandal.

But the biggest contribution President Clinton would make to the United States in serving as the Secretary General of the United Nations actually has nothing to directly do with him, but rather his wife, Senator Clinton. With President Clinton at the helm of the UN, it is virtually certain the already nepotism-weary American body politic would would deny Hillary the slim chance she currently holds of becoming the next President of the United States.

Communists and Fascists Made America Great

America owes a great debt to communists and fascists. Not because they gave us ideology and technology, but because the competition (and armed conflict) with them made us sharpen our own ideology and develop technology superior to theirs. One of the great tragic ironies of international conflict (specifically war) is that more than anything else, this force has single-handedly led to more human advances than any other.

In the very beginning of human history, it was conflict that drove early peoples to band together to protect themselves from external threats, creating the first political constructs that eventually evolved into the modern concepts of political economy. The technological underpinnings of our world today - the jet engine (from WWII missiles and airplanes), the computer (WWII code breaking), nuclear energy (WWII), the Internet (decentralizing government infrastructure to hedge against Cold War nuclear strikes), satellites (Cold War space race), even our existence as the world's beacon for liberty and freedom (the original 13 colonies uniting to defend liberty from imperial oppression) - can be traced back to conflict and war.

While it was a terrifying time through which to live, the Cold War focused our national priorities and provided the incentive to be the best. To contain communism, we had to have a robust economy to pay for the effort, technological superiority and the scientists to develop it in order to maintain the military and intelligence superiority, and a political model of freedom that was more alluring than the socialist state.

As the threat from the Soviet Union began to slowly dissolve in the 1980s and then after its collapse in the 1990s, we became adrift. We became a nation obsessed with the trivial and superficial, lacking a greater purpose than indulgence and self-absorption, as so painfully illustrated in the political leaders we chose. As such, we became soft - no longer were the Soviets inspiring us to aggressively push ourselves in education, science, engineering, and third world development. No longer were we graduating the world's best scientists and engineers from the world's best schools; we instead graduated reams of lawyers and business majors who had designs only on making money, not making history. Instead of the space race, we had the Dow Jones race.

No, the job of intellectual innovation and excellence has fallen to the countries that remain hungry to the best, like China and India. Those countries have their motivation - a target upon which to train their sights and focus their energies - the US. Ironically, it is our technology enabling them to compete with us without having to cross any borders.

We need an economic and military rival to energize and focus our collective conscience and keep us from falling into complacency - if nothing else, Americans understand competition is a good thing. China is worthy competitor.

China's barely concealed ambition is to overtake the US in terms of military, economic, and geopolitical power. The Bush Administration showed encouraging signs indicating they understood this when they first took office. Unfortunately, our government has become completely blind to anything not related to the war on terror. Contrary to the leaders' assertions, Islamist goons are not an existential threat to our way of life. The overwhelming majority of the world rejects their vision of society, their infrastructure is steadily being dismantled and destroyed, and they are severely overmatched in intelligence, technology, funding, and sheer numbers. They are definitely a lethal, painful, and expensive nuisance, but not a mortal threat.

The China threat cannot be overcome so easily - they have four times as many people (the plurality of the world's population, to put Osama's thugs in perspective) and thanks our aforementioned nearsighted political leadership in the 90s, our very own advanced military, civilian, and nuclear technology. China is not going any where and will not rest until they accomplish their goal of toppling us as the world's dominant superpower.

There is no question that when we Americans, uniquely free in our western model of liberty and with all the advantages we possess, are focused on a collective goal, there is nothing which we cannot accomplish. We cannot triumph, however, if we do not even realize the competition is taking place until it is too late.

We can win the war on terror while protecting our benign global hegemony from the China threat - we just have to be asked.

Terrorism's Fuel

It seems all al-Qaida recruits share something in common - they are all failures in the Western world in which they had hopes of succeeding. Unfortunately, their failed governments, artificially propped up by oil revenues - something they never had to work for - failed them with the dysfunctional societies they created.

With free wealth, the oil-rich governments of the Middle East have no need for functioning economies or a free, educated middle class workforce to fuel them. Consequently, when these citizens (the Qaida recruits) venture out of their isolated societies seeking success in the education-centric Western world, they find themselves woefully unprepared. This, however, is not the entire story - there are many angry people in the world, and while the looniest of the bunch have indeed lashed out with random acts of violence, no other modern group of people responds by blowing up scores of innocent civilians with hundreds of suicide attackers.

To keep their relatively uneducated, unemployed populations placated, Middle East governments pump propaganda out of their state-owned media blaming their societies' ills on the West while also exploiting one of the oldest tools of government control - religion - by funding the mullahs who actually control their societies. Many of these mullahs preach a strict interpretation of Islam that has not been updated for over 1,000 years due to its teachings that it is The Superior Religion and the Koran is the direct word of God that should be strictly adhered to and never altered or interpreted. These teachings have had a profound impact on Muslim societies and people strictly obeying them - trying to sustain an eight-century society really stifles innovation, in everything from technology to language.

So when these young 'Muslims' (it is an insult to true Muslims to call these terrorists followers of Islam) are taught their religion and society is Superior to all others, yet they find Western countries more successful, wealthy, and powerful than their own, and then fail trying to share in this success, we begin to have a clearer understanding of why these young men want so badly to destroy the West; especially when their sheiks pervert their religion's teachings and provide Divine endorsement of holy war and 'martyrdom' (despite the fact that the Koran specifically and explicitly prohibits taking the life of innocent civilians, as well as the taking of one's own life).

Christians and Jews rely on many of the same holy texts as Islam, yet both of these religions have acknowledged antediluvian writings need interpretation in the context of the world in which they live. Passages in the Bible and Torah endorse executions by stoning and owning slaves, among countless other atrocities, yet no mainstream practitioner of those faiths accept any of these passages as tenets of their religions.

Clearly by design, radical Islamist terrorists and the strain of Islam they have hijacked is not something the Western world can combat with surgical precision. After 9/11 President Bush rightly observed this war started at the time and choosing of the terrorists, but it will be finished on ours'. If the Muslim world wants to stamp out Islamist terrorism on its own terms, change is going to have to come from within.

Update - July 15, 2005: Thomas Friedman published an excellent column along these same lines in the New York Times today called, "A Poverty of Dignity and a Wealth of Rage"

Has the Beginning of the End of 'Martyrdom' Begun?

The world, and more specifically the British, response to yesterday's cowardly attacks in London is a model of courage, stoicism, and resolve. The Underground is back up and running, Londoners are going about their lives as if nothing happened, the G8 carried on with their agenda, world stock markets are surging, etc.

To some extent, we have already won the war on terror. For one, the best terrorists can do any more is apparently small-time, opportunistic, amateur bombing of civilians, and we have really just begun our reformation of society in the Middle East. Secondly, it should be clear to anybody and everybody that no terrorist activity, no matter how spectacular and deadly, will ever make us fear the terrorists, much less weaken our resolve to destroy them and wipe them from the globe.

One has to wonder, having seen hundreds of so-called 'martyrs' blowing themselves up and seeing the West's response be unity, determination, and decisive retribution, the impressionable youths in the Middle East and Central Asia who are the targets of terrorist recruitment must begin questioning the proselytizing encouraging them to 'martyr' themselves for the 'Islamist' cause. They must now be thinking twice about taking place in suicide missions if they know their death will do nothing to advance their cause. They may be brainwashed by a virulent, perverted strain of Islam, but they are still (arguably) human.