Dean's World

I'm generally opposed to the death penalty, not under the belief that it's immoral (not in the least) but because I do not trust the system to administer it fairly. That said, the most heinous crimes with the most overwhelming evidence fairly well demand it. This is such a case.

My God. This was the single worst episode of American Idol I have ever seen. I hope nobody tuned into this show for the first time tonight based on my past writing about it.

Best performance of the night was probably Mandisa. Melissa McGhee and Ayla Brown are the most improved. The rest gave competent performances, none of which were much to write home about.

Probably going home: Heather Cox and Brenna Gethers.

There was nothing else worth writing about tonight except why almost everyone gave performances that were immemorable, or memorable only for how disappointing they were.

Aargh.

At times I honestly wish I knew what the right U.S. policy toward Pakistan is. We need them for certain things, and there are positive things there, but there are things there that bother the heck out of me.

Now this is cool: building 3-D images in thin air.

This'll take light pollution to whole new levels if not regulated of course. But, I'll bet something like this is also the infancy of true 3D displays.

U.S. officials are saying an aggressive U.S. and Kurdish diplomatic effort managed to avert civil war in Iraq.

To be honest, I'm not buying it. Yeah I'm sure they had something to do with it. But I suspect the Iraqi people had a lot more to do with it. They've consistently been the most misunderestimated people on the planet. Especially Iraq's Shia population.

...as long as she's Wafa Sultan.

Sultan, an Arab-American Psychologist living in L.A., has a unique ability to stand up for the ideals of democracy and free speech while decimating Islamist arguments.

This ability is completely lacking in American politics today. We don't have it and we need it, badly.

Watch as she verbally drop-kicks her opponents in this Memri TV clip.*

Here's a clip from the transcript:

Arab-American Psychologist Wafa Sultan: There Is No Clash of Civilizations but a Clash between the Mentality of the Middle Ages and That of the 21st Century

Wafa Sultan: The Muslims are the ones who began using this expression. The Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations. The Prophet of Islam said: "I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and His Messenger." When the Muslims divided the people into Muslims and non-Muslims, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war. In order to start this war, they must reexamine their Islamic books and curricula, which are full of calls for takfir and fighting the infidels.

My colleague has said that he never offends other people's beliefs. What civilization on the face of this earth allows him to call other people by names that they did not choose for themselves? Once, he calls them Ahl Al-Dhimma, another time he calls them the "People of the Book," and yet another time he compares them to apes and pigs, or he calls the Christians "those who incur Allah's wrath." Who told you that they are "People of the Book"? They are not the People of the Book, they are people of many books. All the useful scientific books that you have today are theirs, the fruit of their free and creative thinking. What gives you the right to call them "those who incur Allah's wrath," or "those who have gone astray," and then come here and say that your religion commands you to refrain from offending the beliefs of others?

I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others' right to believe in it.

Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: Are you a heretic?

Wafa Sultan: You can say whatever you like. I am a secular human being who does not believe in the supernatural...

Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: If you are a heretic, there is no point in rebuking you, since you have blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran...

Wafa Sultan: These are personal matters that do not concern you.

[...]

Wafa Sultan: Brother, you can believe in stones, as long as you don't throw them at me

The world needs to hear more from Wafa Sultan.

* link thanks to Ace of Spades

Instapundit has an excellent post on various ways to defeat online censorship.

The fact that there are so many ways to do it--including methods Instapundit doesn't mention--is one of many reasons why Google, Yahoo, etc. are just liars when they say it's "either do business in China or don't." False dichotomy: it's entirely possible for them to do business in China in complete defiance of the government. And Taiwan would be the perfect place for basing such operations. Sure, it wouldn't be quite as easy or as profitable for them in the short term. My tiny little violin is playing just for them...

Newsweek has a great story on the thriving and growing democratic, free-market powerhouse that is today's India.

Good quote: "The marketing slogans wouldn't work if there were no substance behind them. Over the past 15 years, India has been the second fastest-growing country in the world—after China—averaging above 6 percent growth per year. Growth accelerated to 7.5 percent last year and will probably hold at the same pace this year. Many observers believe that India could well expand at this higher rate for the next decade."

India's roaring success over the last generation, through some times of troubling unrest (which, by the way, is something all democracies go through), stands as a testament to both the power of free markets and to the value of democracy. They're also, frankly, a rather "in your face" offense in the eyes of those who make certain questionable claims, namely:

1) "Overpopulation" causes poverty and starvation.

2) Countries can only hold together if they share a unified language and ethnic culture.

3) Countries formed artificially by an external power cannot be stable or successful.

4) Muslims are an impediment to pluralistic liberal democracy.

India was formed into one nation by the British. Although Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka all split off after India was granted independence more than half a century ago, the largest section of this vast nation territory remained as part of the Republic of India. After experimenting in socialism and a long dependence on international aide just to stay alive, since embracing free markets and strengthening and liberalizing their political institutions, they've been rewarded over the last generation by explosive growth, improved standards of living, and greater political and social stability. All this despite the fact that it:

1) Has a greater population density than China's, and may soon have more people than China.

2) Has literally hundreds of languages spoken within its borders, with no less than sixteen officially recognized tongues: English, Hindi, Bengali, Telugu, Marathi, Tamil, Urdu, Gujarati, Malayalam, Kannada, Oriya, Punjabi, Assamese, Kashmiri, Sindhi, and Sanskrit. That's not counting many unofficial but widely spoken languages, such as Hindustani.

3) As noted, India wasn't a single country at all before the British, with their trade interests in the region, formed a national government there. And while some parts of it chose to go their own way after the exit of British rulers (see above), the largest segment remained part of India and has been wildly successful. Indeed, it's been more successful than any of those nations that split from it.

4) Muslims are a much bigger percentage of the population there than they are in any European country where muslims are supposedly destroying democracy.

It is entirely plausible that in 50 years they'll be the largest and most economically powerful country on the planet. Which wouldn't be a bad thing at all, since one country's success is not another's downfall.

Welcome to the Carnival of the Liberated, a sampler of some of the best posts of the week from Iraqi and Afghani bloggers. This week we've got the latest on the situation in Iraq in the aftermath of the attack on the Askariya shrine, comments on the cartoon protests, civil rights in the Middle East, and much, much more.

Waheed of Afghan Warrior comments on the cartoon protests. His central message is that very few Muslims are actually protesting.

As you might expect the topic most on the minds of Iraqi bloggers was the attack on the Shrine of the Two Imams in Samarra last week and the violence that followed it. If the intent of the terrorists who destroyed the Askariya mosque was to foment a civil war of Sunni Arabs against Shi'ite Arabs, it looks like they've failed. 24 Steps to Liberty is amazed at his Shi'a and Sunni countrymen:

Iraqi clergymen, Shiites and Sunnis, have met in a mosque in Baghdad and decided to contribute to ending the crisis that followed bombing one of Islam’s holiest sites, the shrine of Imam Ali al-Hadi and hasan al-Askari in the city of Samarra north of Baghdad.

What was amazing about it is the unity they showed on TV. Above is a picture of clergymen. The one leading the prayers and circled by a black line is sheikh Abdul Salam al-Kubaisi, spokesman and main preacher in the Association of Muslim Scholars, which is the supreme Sunni religious authority in Iraq. In the picture, Kubaisi is shown leading the prayers and all the clergies behind him are Shiites from Sadr trend. This is the first time I see this. I’ve never seen a Sunni clergyman leading Shiite prayers. You could see the main difference between Sunni and Shiite Islam. Notice the way the Sunni stands [joining hands on the abdomen] and the Shiites standing with hands loose on the sides.

This is a huge encouragement to Iraqis and a huge defeat also for those who predicted a wide civil war in Iraq. Civil war started for real three days ago, but I don’t think there will be anymore. Not if Iraqis saw the picture above. Lets just hope that Iraqis had electricity to power TVs at homes and see what is happening!

Life is coming back to normal in Baghdad and marketplaces and offices are open again after being shut for 4 days. Although there were a few security incidents today people are mostly looking at these as part of the usual daily situation and not related to the latest shrine crisis.

But, what can we learn from this lesson and how can we make benefit from it in avoiding similar problems in the future.

It's not a secret who was behind the attack on the shrine and I am sure that who did it were the Salafi/Wahabis whether Iraqi or foreigners and with external support from parties planning to disrupt the political process in Iraq.

The reason I believe it's the Salafis who did it comes from their own ideology which considers all mosques built upon tombs as places of polytheism and infidelity and thus must be destroyed. This also applies to Sunni shrines like Abu Haneefa and al-Gailani; Salafis consider the Shia and the Sufis their worst enemies and they commonly refer to them in their speech with the term "tomb worshippers" or Mushrikoon Quborioon in Arabic.

It does not feel like civil war because Sunnis and Shia have been showing solidarity these last few days in a big way. I don’t mean the clerics or the religious zealots or the politicians- but the average person. Our neighborhood is mixed and Sunnis and Shia alike have been outraged with the attacks on mosques and shrines. The telephones have been down, but we’ve agreed upon a very primitive communication arrangement. Should any house in the area come under siege, someone would fire in the air three times. If firing in the air isn’t an option, then someone inside the house would have to try to communicate trouble from the rooftop.

The Iraqis and the nobles of the world should curse Bush, Blair and every body who are observing the Iraqi bloods without trying to stop it. I am shouting WAKE UP WORLD again; WAKE UP IRAQIS. The tears are insisting to make me stop writing… PRAY FOR US. Why those who are burning the mosques did not curse the American and the (Iraqi) forces when these bloodies bombed Imam Ali holy shrine? Why no body is cursing those who attacked the shrine of Malik Bin Anas in Basra who was one of the earliest followers of our prophet Mohammed (MPUH)… why no body is trying to find the link between the cartoons attacking the prophet and exploding the holy shrine?

There's a complete round-up of the reaction of Iraqi bloggers in the immediate aftermath of the attack at The Glittering Eye. See also here.

Talisman Gate reports that the “Baghdad Sniper” (we linked to a post about him from Treasure of Baghdad a few weeks ago) has apparently been killed—by a sniper.

Treasure of Baghdad comments on the kidnappings of Iraqi reporter Atwar Bahjat and American reporter Jill Carroll (for whom the second deadline has now passed).

Freedom of Mind has written a little essay on civil rights in the Middle East, ending with a quotation from The Grapes of Wrath.

Dave Schuler posts regularly to his own weblog, The Glittering Eye. The Carnival was originally conceived by Ryan Boots.

The latest RINO Sightings is up at Ex-Donkey.

New England Republican needs a guest blogger.

The latest Grand Rounds is up at A Chance To Cut Is A Chance To Heal.

Holy Shiite Tomb Attacked

(Via Robert.)

The latest Carnival of the Recipes is up at Sun Comprehending Glass.

Despite the salivating by the press and certain pundits, Iraq isn't embroiled in a civil war, and it doesn't look like it's going to be either. Gateway Pundit has a great, must-read roundup.

Mudville Gazette has an excellent roundup.

My opinion remains unchanged: the United Arab Emirates are our allies. Staunch ones. It's despicable to treat them like scum.

...so leave a comment if you want to.

What do the words "failed paradigm" mean do you?

A bit over a year ago, Dean's World hosted a remarkable series of online discussions on the subject of HIV and AIDS. The original discussion spanned several threads, but the most important was probably here. You'll note that it runs well past 600 comments, and is still available exactly as it transpired, without editing.

Dr. Charles Stein was kind enough to take that discussion and condense it to its essence, in a book you can find here: Falsifying the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis : Eleven Days of Real-Time Cyber-Drama.

To date, no participant in that discussion has raised any (serious) objection. I invite anyone who feels abused by our reprinting to raise any objections. I don't believe anyone was abused in that reprinting. Stein was meticulous.

Since the publication of that book, we have seen the following:

A Modern-Day Copernicus: Peter H. Duesberg by Professor Donald W. Miller, Jr.

Another glowing review by Professor Gerald Pollack.

An extraordinary indictment of the National Institutes of Health for sloppy and deplorable science over the last two decades on AIDS in the March 2006 issue of Harper's Magazine, available on newsstands now.

The DVD release of The Last Lovers On Earth, a scathing indictment of the standing wisdom on AIDS in the gay community by New York Native founder and AIDS journalist Chuck Ortleb.

The release of AIDS 'Aetiology' - The Breakdown by Professor Bialy.

Olympic hero Lee Evans, who's spent much of his professional life in Africa, openly questioning whether we've been told the whole truth about HIV and AIDS in Africa.

I also recieved an email yesterday from Professor Lynn Margulis, who just read Harvey's book and had nothing but praise for it.

A simple question: back in the 1980s, the government told you that a sexually-transmitted virus called HIV caused a horrible and deadly disease called AIDS, and that we were all at risk from it. Why did you believe them? Because you saw some friends die horribly? Okay, maybe you did. But why did you believe them?

The world wants to know.

Update: Oh, have you read this NIAD/NIH 'fact sheet'?? Okay, despite the fact that it was written anonymously and has no one who will answer questions about it (believe me, I've tried), just read this rebuttal. Then ask yourself again: why did you believe them? Why exactly?

The world wants to know.

By the way, I still recommend that you read these papers. And I ask a simple question: where, in the peer-reviewed literature, are the rebuttals to these papers? Point me to them. Please.

I see that Kennewick Man is making the news again, although with sadly little detail.

There are those of us who remember the Clinton administration's deliberate and shameful suppression of this archaeological find, which was probably the most egregious example of politics interfering with science of my lifetime.

Via The People's Daily Online:

The U.S. and the European Union, which consider Hamas as a terrorist organization, have threatened to cut off financial aid to the new Palestinian government to be formed by Hamas unless Hamas renounces violence, recognizes Israel's right to exist and accepts all signed agreements including the roadmap peace plan.

Meanwhile, Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said that Abbas asked the U.S. to continue financial support to the Palestinians and not to punish them for their democratic choice.

"We asked the U.S. administration to continue with its support and not to enforce collective punishment, which will have disastrous consequences," Erekat said.

Erekat said Welch remarked on the difficulty which the Bush Administration will face in asking Congress to continue financial support to the Palestinians after Hamas takes power.

Israel: U.S. money to fund terror

American aid could end up reaching Hamas despite American efforts to circumvent the terror group, Israeli officials say in the wake of a U.S. pledge to continue offering humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians.

Officials are expected to warn the U.S. that funds transferred directly to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas could nonetheless reach Hamas, Israel's leading newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported Sunday.

...[Abbas] also indicated that attempts last week by Condoleezza Rice, the America's Secretary of State, to persuade Arab countries not to fund the Palestinian Authority could prove counter-productive. "We are asking for support from everyone - from Muslims, from Arabs and all over the world - and if we boycott the Arabs and the rest of the world and all is left is Iran, of course, we are going to lose," he said. "Iran cannot respond to all the needs of the Palestinian people."

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad meets Hamas
leader Khaled Meshaal

Is beta CVn the star system nearest us that's most likely to harbor intelligent life? Margaret Turnbull thinks so.

I'm skeptical that we know enough about how life forms to say for sure, but her guesses look pretty smart. I believe this is her home page, but this seems it may be related somehow?

Looks like there are two more moons around Pluto.

Because of my schedule, and because the television coverage has been sucking anyway, I've mostly missed the Olympics this year. But then again, I have found the television coverage I have seen infuriating anyway, with far too much time spent on interviews and on American athletes and far too little time spent on showing the events themselves and everyone competing in them. It's not that I don't want to see America do well, but I'm interested in everyone who does well, and just as interested when smaller countries come in and compete even knowing they won't win but try anyway.

Several years ago one of the major networks that covered the Olympics experimented with a pay-per-view system--I don't even remember what they called it, was it the "triplecast?"--where for a fairly hefty charge you could get broadcasts of pretty much everything in the games. The problem was, the offering was a bomb; almost no one bought it. Part of that, though, was probably due to the fact that they charged a very hefty amount for it, and, cable television and pay-per-view programming were both less common than they are today.

I really do not understand why the networks do not strike a deal where they broadcast the biggest and most popular parts of the Olympics, but then strike deals with cable providers to give "full content" to anyone who wants it.

I was reminded all of this when I read Plunge's story of hosting the South Korean biathlon team in his family's home during the 2002 games. How cool is that? Neat pictures too.

Neo has an interesting essay on how she learns. No big shock, I find myself much the same. I'm terrible at listening to lectures, great if you just give me a reading and writing assignment or give me specific directions on what you want done. The thing is that we've known for generations now that some people don't learn well at all in a traditional classroom environment, yet we still do very little to accomodate such people. Funny eh?

Neo's point about how with certain tasks time dilates for her resonates with me too. It doesn't happen as often to me as I used to, probably because of the frenetic nature of my life these days. Yet it used to be that when I was really intensely into something, time would seem to fly incredibly fast. Moreover, the universe would seem to close around me.

I remember distinctly the first time this happened. It was back when I was a teenager, and I was reading The Universe and Doctor Einstein, and I finally got where I understood the concept that light is the only universal constant and the cascade of concepts that flow from that. I felt like time was standing still as I just sat there reading and sometimes rereading the words while my mind worked in a thousand directions at once, completely re-evaluating how I'd thought of everything in the physical universe up to that point... and I don't remember how long I was in that state, but it was like I'd merged with the text, was flowing with it as I just read and read and understood and understood.

Then my stepfather Don yelled my name at nearly the top of his lungs near the door of my room, and I nearly had a heart attack. The shock was intense; not only the adrenaline rush of being so startled, but my head wouldn't stop realing with ideas. It was like I was stoned on some drug or something. I could barely talk. I asked him what he wanted and he was annoyed, and said he'd been calling me and calling me. He thought I was being obnoxious and ignoring him, but I had absolutely not heard him until he walked up and bellowed at me. Since that day I have never had any problem either understanding the concepts of general and special relativity or of explaining them reasonably well to anyone who doesn't understand them.

I had a similar, somewhat less intense experience a few years later when I read the first edition of Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time (I understand there's a revised and expanded edition out that I may need to pick up). To date I have yet to find a book on quantum theory that's done that to me; it may be the books I've chosen or it may have been lack of time to concentrate. As a result, while I understand the basic basics of that area of physics, I still find it mystifying and profoundly disturbing. Having reached a certain point of understanding with Einstein, I suppose this may mean I wound up inheriting his own deep dislike of quantum physics. "God does not play dice with the universe!" is my favorite quote by him, and I sympathize on an emotional level with the sentiment. ;-)

I studied karate for some time, and I always sought to find that level of deep immersion in the subject that I'd managed to get with purely intellectual pursuits. Neo describes finding that space with ballet lessons, and I can believe it, but I never managed to get there with a physical discipline. Many martial artists describe it as a state of "no mind, no thought," which sounds baffling to some people until you realize what it really means: you've reached a point where everything has disappeared except for what you're doing in that exact moment. You're both suspended in time and hurtling forward in time at breakneck speed. You're at one with whatever it is you're doing, and nothing else is there.

I suppose to be clinical about it what it probably means is that certain regions of your brain are seletively suspending their normal operations or something, but that's a rather dry way to describe a very intense experience.

Quoted:

WASHINGTON--Yenny Wahid has a smile that could melt a Hershey bar at 100 yards. Her sunny disposition is all the more remarkable because Ms. Wahid is on what may be the world's most difficult mission right now: She's a prominent Muslim (and a woman at that) who speaks out against terror and the hijacking of her religion by ideologues who twist it to their own political ends.

After 9/11, many Americans assume that the radical Islamic agenda is to destroy the U.S. The reality is that attacks on Western targets are designed to function as brutal propaganda coups that will attract recruits to the cause of violent revolution. The main goal of ideologues like Osama bin Laden is to topple the governments of Muslim countries, including, most famously, the Wahabi royal regime of Saudi Arabia. But the real strategic plum, Ms. Wahid says, would be her native Indonesia and its 220 million citizens--with the largest Muslim population on earth.

"We are the ultimate target," she told me in Washington during a trip to the U.S. earlier this month. "The real battle for the hearts and minds of Muslims is happening in Indonesia, not anywhere else. And that's why the world should focus on Indonesia and help."

I suggest you read the whole thing.

Ever thought about getting a job teaching English in Japan? Rumor has it that it's a great way to make an easy living. But you might want to read everything on this page closely before you actually commit to doing it.

(Via Sean.)

Regime Change Iran says that there is substantial evidence that Iran is behind the Samarra mosque bombing.

My NEBV colleague Pejman alludes to the idea that an acceptable outcome in Iraq is to partition the country into three ethnic enclaves. Were most supporters of the war here polled a year ago as to whether partition was an outcome that fell into the "victory" camp, I think that the answer would have been a resounding No. It is telling that our expectations for the Iraq project have dropped to the point where our primary definition of victory appears to be avoidance of civil war rather than a free and stable democratic Iraq.

So, then, were the grand designs truly empty? Disillusionment certainly has afflicted notable neo-con war proponents such as Francis Fukuyama:

More than any other group, it was the neoconservatives both inside and outside the Bush administration who pushed for democratizing Iraq and the broader Middle East. They are widely credited (or blamed) for being the decisive voices promoting regime change in Iraq, and yet it is their idealistic agenda that in the coming months and years will be the most directly threatened. Were the United States to retreat from the world stage, following a drawdown in Iraq, it would in my view be a huge tragedy, because American power and influence have been critical to the maintenance of an open and increasingly democratic order around the world. The problem with neoconservatism's agenda lies not in its ends, which are as American as apple pie, but rather in the overmilitarized means by which it has sought to accomplish them. What American foreign policy needs is not a return to a narrow and cynical realism, but rather the formulation of a "realistic Wilsonianism" that better matches means to ends.

Eric Martin of American Footprints points out that Fukuyama is essentially arguing for a return to liberal interventionism - in the mold of Bill Clinton and John Kerry. Martin follows up with a discussion of the strengths of a multi-polar approach to foreign policy - the advantages of which were well-discussed in detail by Gary Hart in his book, The Fourth Power: A Grand Strategy for the United States in the Twenty-First Century.

Fukuyama is not alone in his disillusionment with neoconservative ideology. Conservative icon William F. Buckley Jr. arguably a founder of mainstream conservative ideology, has declared the Iraq war a failure:

Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven't proved strong enough. No doubt they are latently there, but they have not been able to contend against the ice men who move about in the shadows with bombs and grenades and pistols. [...] ...the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat.

(note: in this, Buckley has essentially aligned with Howard Dean, who said in December of last year, "...the idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong.")

There clearly is a rank pessimism about the viability of our venture in Iraq. To my mind though, civil war would hardly be staved off by partition. For a sobering preview of what lies in store down that road, one need only look at the history of ethnic partitions in recent times - notably in the Subcontinent, where the Partition into Pakistan and India (and later, the separation of East Pakistan) led to horrific violence whose legacy still poisons the well in Indo-Pak relations to this day.

Partition would create a Kurdish state free to align economically with China and foment separatist tensions with Turkey; a Shi'a state that would enormously complicate our attempts to isolate Iran; and a pitiable Sunni state with no resources or potential industry other than terror manufacturing. But worse, it would be tantamount to an acknowledgement that the base motivation for the Iraq war was never about freedom and democracy, but rather The Great Game redux. The result would be a true setback for the cause of what President Bush called in his State of the Union speech the "calling of our time."

I am less concerned with the legacy of the present Administration and more concerned with the legacy of American leadership as a beacon for freedom and liberal constitutional government. I don't see how anyone can in good conscience argue that partition would lead to anything but a repudiation of these ideals.

cross posted to No End But Victory and City of Brass.

Well it's Saturday Night and I ain't got nobody....

What other great songs have Saturday in them?

The great Don Knotts has died.

You know it's tempting to scoff at an actor whose work is primarily remembered for one role, but consider: just how many actors are so immortal that even two generations later they are still almost universally recognized? Barney Fife was one of the greatest characters to ever appear on television, in any era.

Beyond that, Knotts did some terrific work on children's films for Disney and other studios, and as a cast member on other successful television shows. Quite a career, and an enviable one for anyone in Hollywood.

...but, Tim the Soldier is now an official co-blogger at The Queen of All Evil.

And so far he's kicking butt. :-)

Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for Friday's attack on a Saudi oil facility at Abqaiq, when Saudi security guards apparently stopped two suicide bombers who were trying to storm the world's biggest oil processing plant.

Via Reuters:

In a statement posted on a Web site often used by militants, Saudi-born Osama bin Laden's group said two of its members carried out the operation.

"With grace from God alone, hero mujahideen from the squadron of Sheikh Osama bin Laden succeeded today (Friday)...in penetrating a plant for refining oil and gas in the town of Abqaiq in the eastern part of the peninsula, and then allowed two car bombs in driven by two martyrdom seekers," it said.

It said the raid was within the framework of efforts by al Qaeda to prevent the theft of Muslims' wealth by "crusaders and Jews" and to force "infidels" out of the peninsula.

May 12, 2004: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.

May 29–31 2005: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.

June 11–19, 2005: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.

Dec. 6, 2005: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.

Why would al Qaeda change their tactics? Why would they attack the Saudi economy, an important source of their income? Why would they attack the Saudi people, their primary supporters and their best source of recruits?

When I first read about this, I assumed that this bumbling, very un-al Qaeda-like attack was an attempt to extort or earn more money from their Saudi supporters.

Al Qaeda also might have decided that it's time to start taking over the Kingdom (they've been saying they want to do this for years, it's about time they did something about it), but this attack is just not al Qaeda's style. Sure, they claimed responsibility for this attack, but they also claimed responsibility for the New York City blackout. Sometimes, greedy mass-murdering zealots lie:

1. They said they attacked to chase the infidels out, but they didn't directly target the infidels. Rule #1 of al Qaeda: If infidels don't die, it's not al Qaeda.

2. It goes against all Saudi interests and traditions to attack to disrupt the cash flow that they so desperately need.

3. There was just one attack. When al Qaeda wants to do a groundbreaking attack that will ineveitably receive a lot of publicity, they always show off. They always schedule simultaneous attacks. They didn't do that.

4. Saudi popular opinion and support is important to al Qaeda. This attack won't win them more friends, recruits or cash.

5. Saudi security services are infiltrated by al Qaeda. If al Qaeda carried out this attack, even if it was supposed to be stopped, they would have worked with the security services to at least kill off a few infidels. Again, no dead infidels, no al Qaeda.

I'd have to guess that it's more likely that this attack was carried out by a Shia group. It might be an independent group, or it might have something to do with the recent attempts on Ahmadinejad's life in Iran. The Saudis and the Iranians are having a disagreement about who should lead their Sharia-based utopia. This might be a part of that disagreement.

If it was al Qaeda, then subsequent attacks will probably be 'foiled' by Saudi security, as this one was. But if it wasn't al Qaeda or any other Saudi supported terror group, then we may have to worry about subsequent, possibly successful attacks.

"Fatboy Slim" is a British Big Beat musician. "Big Beat" is a style that combines hip-hop, rock, electronic music, and rhythm & blues. The result tends to be short, catchy, easy-to-dance-to tunes.

Anyway, Fatboy Slim recently held a contest for his fans: who could produce the best video of one of his songs on a thousand British pounds (roughly $1,600 American I think) or less. Here is the winning video.

I'm not sure what I dig more: the cool-ass cover of the classic Steve Miller song that I'd never heard before, or that extremely cute video. But why choose?

Update: Ha. Fooled me. Turns out the woman in the video is an actress, and the thing was professionally produced by these folks. Well they did a good job of making it look like a well-made amateur film.

Terrific discussion here on Tara Smith's blog. I'll have to take back some of my earlier snarkage, as she turns out to be a better sport than I initially thought. Fine discussion overall I'd say. I only weigh in on the discussion once, and with luck it will stay at only once. ;-)

What with Danish embassies being subject to violent attacks from mobs of idiots who think cartoons of Muhammed are so sacrosanct that innocent people should be punished for them, it was inspiring to see that the rally to support Denmark that Christopher Hitchens called for was well-attended. If you haven't seen the photos and link roundups on Instapundit yet, you should click here and here.

A group of Israeli researchers has created a working molecular computer using biological enzymes, raising the distinct possibility that you can have numerous autonomous computers running in your body for medical and other purposes in the future.

Assuming the technology pans out, I think my buddy Jerry Kindall's notion that everyday people would never let themselves be implanted with computers would be removed. If it's a simple matter of giving you a shot and then you have an autonomous computer that can regulate things like your cholesterol or blood sugar, people will go for that inhesitantly. And it's just a tiny, tiny jump from there to just go ahead and allow your built-in machines to log onto the internet for you...

Interesting episode, eh?

(Warning: Spoilers *are allowed* in the comments.)

Update: I would like to officially state here and now that my faith in the show is 90% restored. Although "cylon baby blood" will forever be on my lips as an insult. ;-)

So what are you up to tonight?

Here's a nice question to end the week on. After almost getting hit by a car today, I learned to pay attention where I walk in the city. I also learned how to anti-alias fonts in Photoshop - ridding myself once and for all of the "jaggies".

So what did you learn today?

Zogby has a fascinating poll out showing how the Democratic base sees its congressional leadership, and how the Republican base sees its. Both are mostly grumpy and despondent:

The survey, conducted Feb. 15-18, shows 29% of Republicans rate the GOP leadership in Congress a “failure because it has passed legislation that has caused massive increases in federal spending and has not made meaningful progress on issues important to rank-and-file Republicans.”

Ten percent said they agree with neither sentiment, or were unsure.

But:

While high-profile Democrats in Washington, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and U.S. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, spar with GOP adversaries, 58% of self-described Democrats said they think their leaders should “accept their lower position in Congress and work together with Republicans to craft the best legislation possible.”

Only 6% said the top goal for Democrats should be to defeat Republican legislation.

That pretty much matches my bias; while I vote mostly-Republican these days, I've been anxious, even eager, to find Democrats to support these days, but can myself find precious few who are interested in discussing anything except why the Republicans are bad and why everything--absolutely everything, it doesn't matter what the subject--is proof of Bush administration incompetence, stupidity, venality, or criminality. And it appears that this attitude is turning off much of the democratic base as well.

More details right here.

Gaaaah!

How do they do that?

Interestingly, it looks like Sony is abandoning plasma HDTV units in favor of LCD.

I admit I don't fully understand how the plasma screens work, but intuitively LCD would seem to be better--and I'm old enough to remember when there was no such thing as color LCD displays because no one could make a blue LCD! Ha!

I have a rather ambivalent attitude toward the prescription drug industry. Some treat them like Satan's minions on Earth, which is dumb. Many others treat them as Sainted Visionaries giving the world better living through chemistry. I think both views are wrong. I think what they are is large corporations, and thus fundamentally driven by profit and thus amoral. (Not immoral, amoral--there is a distinction.)

I have a similar, if slightly more skeptical, attitude toward the dietary supplement industry. I've long believed that it's probably wise to take vitamin/mineral supplements, in moderate doses, especially if you live a hectic, busy life and don't eat a very balanced diet. I don't believe in megadoses of vitamin C or the supposed miracles of colloidal minerals or shark cartilege or all that stuff. There are a lot of people who are, I think, making too much money peddling modern snake oil in the form of dietary supplements.

Yet I cannot help but notice that the advocates for dietary supplements and certain nutritional therapies raise a very good and very troubling point: drugs can be patented, but most dietary supplements cannot be. Which means that there is very little economic incentive to run in-depth studies of dietary supplements, but huge incentive to run in-depth studies of patentable drugs that you can sell for a fortune.

All of that came to mind when I read this interview with Dr. Jason Theodosakis objecting strenuously to a New England Journal of Medicine paper on combination glucosamine and chondroitin treatments for arthritis. I neither advocate nor disapprove of this treatment, but his objections seemed very troubling, especially in light of the perverse incenetives the market does offer to researchers and physicians these days--and as Freakonomics author Steven Levitt has documented many times, when you have perverse incentives in place it's surprising how often these affect behaviors in ways most people would never expect.

I was also struck by his objection that the abstract to the NEJM paper does not match the data inside the paper. This is quite significant, since it's now so popular to search Medline and to simply look at the abstract and accept that the abstract faithfully reports what's in a paper. The case of Woo Suk Hwang demonstrated this most dramatically, but I've seen it in many other cases.

I have no sweeping conclusion here, it's just that I find it all troubling. It all seems to tie in with Jonathan I. Katz' essay, Don't Become A Scientist! somehow, with a very few at the very top making all the money and glory, with almost no one else able to directly question them without their very tenuous careers being threatened.

Some years ago I lost interest in most modern jazz. Too much of it to my ears is either too treacly or too frenetic and not just lacking in melody but sometimes actively hostile to the idea of melody. I tend to seek the primitive and the deep subconscious in music, and most modern jazz seems simplyt too glib to me. It's just not to my taste. There are exceptions of course, and I don't denigrate those whose tastes differ from mine. I'm just saying, this is how I experience it. I'm more a blues guy than a jazz guy, these days anyway (although I love the hippie jazz that sort of straddles both worlds).

All that was a long-winded way of saying that I did enjoy this Stanley Jordan cover of Eleanor Rigby.

I don't understand the math or physics of this well enough to understand this, but, this is fascinating nonetheless: Quantum Computer Solves Problem Without Running.

I imagine you don't have to spend much time debugging code that doesn't actually run...

Baghdad resident Mohammed at Iraq The Model has an update on the situation with the mosque attacks in Iraq.

Despite the clearly desperate desire of some to believe that civil war is on the horizon, my sense is that we won't see a civil war. This will undoubtedly disappoint and infuriate a lot of so-called "liberals" in the U.S. and Europe almost as much as it will infuriate and frustrate the fascist forces within Iraq. But it's not likely they're going to get their wish, no matter how badly they want it.

It's certainly ridiculous to describe what we're seeing now as civil war, because the fascist "insurgents" are far too weak and far too despised by the majority of Iraqis. And if it does come to civil war, it will be quick: the Sunni Arabs are vastly outnumbered and would be wiped out if open hostilities were declared--their only hope would be to have their fellow Arab Sunnis from neighboring countries intervene on their behalf, a dicey proposition at best.

Well my predictions weren't bad: 75% of those I predicted to go home went home.

I'm only very mildly surprised at Patrick Hall. But it's obvious what happened to both him and Stevie Scott: they're both much better singers than some of those who stayed behind, but they tried to be too daring and offbeat with their first appearance before a national audience. At least that's how I'd see it.

President Bush has said that there's no need to worry about a United Arab Emirate-owned company having access to information about our port security arrangements.

Other elected officials, Republicans and Democrats believe that there are reasons to worry.

Here's one reason: According to the 9/11 commission, the vast majority of the money funding the Sept. 11 attacks flowed through the U.A.E. The Islamists who run this Shariah-dominated government ignored American pressure to clamp down on terror financing until after the attacks.

According to the 9/11 commission, the UAE government ignored American pressure to clamp down on terror financing after Al Qaeda declared war on the United States.

The UAE government ignored American pressure to clamp down on terror financing after the Cole bombing and after more than 220 people were killed and over 4,000 were wounded in simultaneous car bomb explosions at the United States embassies in Kenya.

This is the government that refused to stop the flow of money that financed the slaughter of 3,000 Americans in an unprovoked act of war.

The UAE was supporting al Qaeda during the late '90's as westerners played in Dubai. They supported the bombing of our embassies and the murder of hundreds of Africans as westerners drank booze in Dubai. They paid for 9/11 as they built hotels and bars. The enslaved African children and they enforced sharia among their citizens as they promoted Dubai as a hot vacation spot. They were at war with us then and they're at war with us now.

The UAE government supported al Qaeda's war against the US because they share al Qaeda's goals - a shariah-led caliphate in the Middle East - basically, the quest for Islamist lebensraum. They supported al Qaeda's war against us because they too were at war with us. However, due to the fact that the have no real military forces to defend themselves against us, their tactics have changed. Now, like our terror-supporting slaveholding allies in Saudi Arabia, the Sudan and Yemen, they pretend to be our friends.

Like other Islamist organizations, the UAE is selective about its application of Sharia. The Saudi government supports sharia when applied to their citizens. They still chop off hands for theft, they still execute people for selling liquor - but they don't follow Sharia banking rules. When bin Laden demanded that the American military must leave Saudi soil, he didn't also demand that Aramco should close its doors. He didn't forbid American oilmen or American dollars from entering the country. These Sharia-dominated groups are very flexible when it comes to money. They're at war with us, but they hope that we'll continue to pay for their war.

And we do.

The UAE, like our terror-supporting allies in Saudi Arabia, Yemen and in the Sudan do what they do because they're at war with us. They want more money and more power, and they're willing to kill and lie to get it. It's kind of simple, but some are too smart to see something that's so obvious.

Some suggest that Bush is being very smart by promoting this deal. Yes, he is. According to this police analysis of classic cons and scams, smart people are usually the easiest to deceive.

Many of our readers are asking themselves, "Why was I stupid enough to invest in Enron or Tyco?" Well, why were they? The biggest misconception about fraud is that the victims are stupid. The truth is, con artists prefer intelligent people. First, smart people are more likely to have money. Second, smart people are easier to fool precisely because they think they're too smart to get scammed. We deal with victims who are doctors, lawyers, judges — even cops. The easiest people to deceive are those who think that they are immune to deception.

One of the biggest giveaways that you might be part of a con is a sense of immediacy: You have to make this decision now. If a stock is a good deal today, it will be a good deal tomorrow. When you're dealing with any scheme that involves money, you should ask yourself two questions: Is it possible that this person could be lying to me? And if they are, what do I stand to lose? If the answers are "yes" and "a lot," take some time to investigate further.

Is there a sense of immediacy?

Is there a possibility that this (former?) al Qaeda supporting Sharia-led apartheid state could be lying to us?

If they are lying, what do we stand to lose?

If your answer is "a lot" take some time to investigate further.

Here's that great version of "Levon" from last night. Let's see if I can get it to embed here:

You know as dumb as it sounds, before today I didn't realize that "Levon" was a man's name.

Anyway, here are some songs Hicks recorded before going on the show (thanks Bill).

Michael Bérubé notes that environmentalists and Christian groups are alarmed that President Bush met and chatted with author Michael Crichton at the White House. I'm not surprised to see some Christian groups unhappy with the President--despite paranoid claims to the contrary, he's no lock-step fundamentalist and never has been--but I'm amused that some people don't like the idea that the President might actually think for himself or question scientific authority. One wonders how unhappy they'd about that if they themselves were dissenters in some area of scientific authority--say, if they had dissented from the eugenics movement of the early 20th century?

Besides, anyone who claims that science should be immune to politics is peddling rank nonsense. For starters, if you know any real working scientists you know that science is often fraught with petty bickering and squabbles, ego clashes, and ruthless competition for grant money--even sabotage and character assassination. In short, science is riddled with politics.

Second, and probably more important: because so much science these days is funded by the U.S. government (i.e. the taxpayers) it is outright obscene to suggest that scientists shouldn't answer to our elected leaders. You do not have a right to demand billions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers, then slap a label on your chest and say, "We are scientists! You are not allowed to question us! Just give us your money and accept whatever we tell you!"

If you don't want the dirty, dirty politics in your science, then stop taking the dirty, dirty taxpayer money. Until then, it is entirely appropriate to note that an awful lot of scientists who advocate various theories--including the theory that humans are causing catastrophic global climate change--have a perverse incentive: they're being paid to look for evidence that their theories are correct. They're not getting paid to fail to find any such evidence. In the science of economics, this is what is known as a "perverse incentive," and it's hardly inappropriate to note when this happens, and to ask hard questions about it.

So while scientists are still accepting their paychecks from government-funded agencies, or from universities that depend heavily on government funding, and doing studies based on fat grants handed out by the government, let's have a little less hubris, hmm? We didn't elect you. We did elect the President--for, even if we voted against him, we still had our say in the process.

Our elected officials have not just a right, but a duty to be skeptical on our behalf when dealing with the people whose livelihood depends on our good graces.

Quantum Leap Reported At Nano Level.

It's actually a pretty cool story about a new development in neuroscience, too, although I haven't tracked down anything closer to the original source. ;-)

The attack on the Shrine of the Two Imams in Samarra yesterday was certainly an atrocity and many in the media and the blogosphere see it as a sign that Iraq is already in a state of civil war or headed that way. I've rounded up posts from a number of Iraqi and Western bloggers and while everyone agrees that the situation is grim there still appears to be room for hope.

Don't rely on just one voice. Take a look and make up your own mind.

Rudy's got a fact-filled summary, almost all of it good.

The only serious down spot: the obvious disconnect between the small Sunni Arab minority and the overwhelming majority of Kurds and and Shia Arabs.

It's increasingly obvious what's going on: the Sunni Arabs have lorded it over everybody else in that country for about a century, and most of them benefitted substantially from Saddam's despotic rule. Now they've got to share rule democratically, and they don't like it at all.

The more time goes on, the less I care. It's like listening to white South Africans whining about how much better things were under Apartheid.

What is the United Arab Emirates? Like the United States (USA) or the United Kingdom (UK), the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is a single nation that unites various member states into one country. The states within the country are known as "emirates," because they've historically beeen ruled by emirs, which are basically a form of prince.

It's a fairly small country, with a population of only about 2.6 million people. It's situated between Saudi Arabia and Oman, and is right across the Persian Gulf from Iran. Here's a map, courtesy of Wikipedia:

So we understand so far that this is a country, right? Not some terrorist club or anything. It's just a small country in the Middle East. You can get a lot more details on this small nation here in the CIA World Factbook.

The UAE is the home of the United States Air Force Base at Al Dhafra, and the UAE port of Jebel Ali is the most frequent port of call for U.S. Navy ships in the world outside the United States, with a reputation for being a great place for R&R for tired sailors. The USO even operates major facilities in the UAE. Indeed, it's one part of the region where American service members can generally walk the streets unafraid, casually shopping and touristing and making friends with the locals.

The United Arab Emirates is hardly a perfect nation. The Freedom House report on the UAE shows them to have a long way to go in terms of basic rights, and although there have been some important recent reforms the country clearly needs to reform even more before joining the modern world. But they have never once appeared on the State Department list of terror-sponsoring nations, and in the wake of 9/11 they instituted serious reforms to stop any financial or other activities that might help international terrorists. The UAE also has troops fighting alongside U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

In short: the recent hullaballoo over a UAE-based company taking over ownership of some U.S. ports--ports that used to be owned by British corporations--is crazy. They were already owned by foreigners, now it's just different foreigners, both of them great friends to the United States and staunch, vital wartime allies. But security at these ports will still be handled, as always, entirely by United States forces.

Daniel Drezner has more. Joe Gandelman has a humorous spin on a political counteroffensive to this storm of over-reaction. But me? I've had enough. I have only one more thing to say:

Please stop giving aid and comfort to the enemy by crapping on our friends in the Middle East. Please.

Update: Michael gets it right too. (Hey, it's been known to happen.)

So, it turns out that after apologizing for something he should never have apologized for, Harvard President Lawrence Summers has resigned.

His crime: Apparently, it was giving a delicate, fragile flower of a feminist professor the vapors and causing her to swoon by suggesting that there might possibly be in some small way some possible difference in the construction of the average male and average female brain. Poor girl. I'd have told her to go eat a pint of Häagen-Dazs and call her girlfriends to gossip about what a cad he is, and otherwise shut the hell up. But then, they'd never hire me to be in charge of Harvard, would they?

Alan Dershowitz has a pretty good perspective on this: Coup against Summers a dubious victory for the politically correct.

Okay, so last night's show, it should be said that Simon Cowell is right about 85% of the time. Not just tonight but most nights. When he's wrong he's very wrong, but it's not very often and when he is he admits it.

But, I'll say the judges were wrong on one performance. Patrick Hall turned in a truly excellent performance of that Melissa Etheridge song. I don't know if the rest of the audience saw what I did but it was powerful for me.

My wife was spot on with yesterday morning's predictions, though. The four strongest performances, which she predicted yesterday morning, were indeed the four strongest last night. Chris Daughtry laid down the glove and did a great Bon Jovi cover--and I don't even like Bon Jovi. Ace Young did a brilliant cover of that George Michael song, and every teenaged girl went nuts for him I'm certain (even the goth-y chicks who didn't want to admit it). Elliot Yamin, he started and I said, "No way he's going to pull off this Stevie Wonder song, no way! Yeah way.

But for me, so far as I'm conerned: Taylor Hicks. This guy.... There's a certain sound that I've loved for years... it doesn't exactly have a name. It's not "southern rock." It's more like southern-fried soul. Groups like Cowboy and early early Doobie Brothers and some of the stuff Eric Clapton was doing in the early '70s... I know most people won't have heard these names, but John Hammond Jr., Delaney Bramlett, early early Boz Scaggs in the years before he went disco... damn. I cannot believe this guy is even on this show!

Who should go home: Bucky Covington is sincere but Cowell was right. And Bobby Bennett was like Ralph Kramden on acid. Wow. Ugh. Gideon McKinney should be going home instead of Covington but I'm thinking he'll squeak through another round or two.

Update: Cullen is mostly right, but I've got more faith that Hicks is going to go far on the show. The more I watch, the more I realize it's not just the show that's wrongly maligned by the critics, it's also the audience that's wrongly maligned. I don't know that Hicks will win but I'll be shocked if he doesn't do very well indeed in the voting.

Chuck Simmins notes a space of anthrax stories in the news. Without being intentionally rude, I can't get worked up about it. Honestly, I often wonder: do people get freaked out about anthrax because the word "anthrax" sounds so evil, or what? Here's an anthrax fact sheet. The best estimates available suggest there are 20,000 to 100,000 human cases of anthrax every year worldwide, the vast majority of them from highly impoverished people who work with and live amongst goats and certain other animals. And by "live and work amongst," this frequently means "sleeps in the same room with"--yeah, that kind of poverty. And even then, if the animals are given the anthrax vaccine, it's not a big deal.

So the big news is that some guy in the U.S. who imports animal skins--probably goat skins--from third-world countries to make drums got infected. Well that makes perfect sense doesn't it?