Friday, March 3, 2006

Maybe This Time?

This could very well be just another vain hope or it could be something more concrete. It's not clear yet, but since the word is out there we offer it for what it is worth. There is reason to believe that operations in Anbar province in Iraq may have resulted in the capture of Abu al-Zarqawi. Bill Roggio at The Fourth Rail urges caution, but he mentions the report nonetheless:

The death or capture of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaeda's commander in Iraq who is affectionately called the "Sheikh of Slaughters" by his admirers, would be a tremendous psychological victory to the Iraqi people and the American public. The Kuwait News Agency is reporting that Multinational Forces - Iraq is investigating claims that Zarqawi may have been detained during the raid on the Jazerra region, which sits north of Ramadi and Fallujah. According to KUNA, "A MNF officer did not confirm or deny the arrest, noting that the US forces are still investigating the reports... Meanwhile, sources in the Iraqi Army said that Al-Zarqawi could be among those arrested in the operation on Monday."

Enthusiasm should be muted at this time as we have been down this path several times. It has been believed Zarqawi has been close to death or capture on several occasions, including February of 2005, when he was almost captured in Fallujah (his laptop was seized and driver captured during the raid); April of 2005, when he was thought to be cornered in Ramadi; May of 2005, when Zarqawi evaded capture and was wounded in the Qaim region, and later thought dead; November of 2005, when he was believed to be in Mosul during a raid on a al-Qaeda safe house; and February of 2006 when reports indicated Zarqawi may be in the Hamrin region of north-central Iraq [located between Tikrit and Kirkuk].

Zarqawi is being sought by the hunter-killer teams of Task Force 626. This is an elite team of professionals, likely made up of elements from the Navy SEALs, Delta Force, Defense Intelligence Agency, NSA, and CIA. Multinational Forces - Iraq is very sensitive about the operations and whereabouts of this group. During my time in Iraq, questions about Task Force 626, their mission and any cooperation with conventional forces went unanswered, or the answers were so vague as to be meaningless.

Don't pop the cork on the champagne yet, but it wouldn't hurt to make sure that it's chilled.

More From Congressman Paul

Independently of whether or not this unfolds, it looks like the Democrats will gain seats in the mid-term election as well as, perhaps, win the election in 2008.

If so, it may soon be time to start looking for real estate in Costa Rica.

From the link:

Republican Congressman Ron Paul has gone on record with his prediction that the impeachment of George W. Bush is right around the corner but warned that in the meantime the US was slipping perilously close to a dictatorship.

The Port Debacle

This is an interesting article in that it looks at the issue from a different perspective.

From the link:

There's nothing necessarily wrong with a company from the United Arab Emirates being involved in U.S. port operations. After all, Islamic terrorists have lived in many European countries, and nobody suggests that E.U. corporations should be similarly disqualified.

Business As Usual

From the link:

The Bush administration has informed Congress of a review of the UAE acquisition of a British manufacturer of engine components for U.S. military aircraft and main battle tanks. The British firm operates nine factories, including military production facilities in Connecticut and Georgia.

The Evil Empire

Confirming what everyone except the willfully blind already knew, an Italian parliamentary investigative commission has concluded that the Soviet Union was indeed behind the attempt to assassinate Pope John Paul II in 1981. At that time Leonid Brezhnev was the mafia capo running the Soviet Union, and he must have signed off on the hit. That's the same Leonid Brezhnev that Jimmy Carter warmly embraced.

It turns out that Ronald Reagan stroked the ball with the fat part of the bat when he called the old U.S.S.R. the evil empire:

"This commission believes, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the leadership of the Soviet Union took the initiative to eliminate Pope John Paul," the report said. "They relayed this decision to the military secret services for them to take on all necessary operations to commit a crime of unique gravity, without parallel in modern times."

The report also says "some elements" of the Bulgarian secret services were involved but that this was an attempt to divert attention away from the Soviet Union's alleged key role.

Any day now the liberal media will aggressively report this story. If not this year then surely next. Just as soon as they've gotten Bush impeached for lying about whatever they can bamboozle the public into believing he lied about.

From The Mighty Mogambo Guru

The latest great read of the Mogambo can be found here where he says

Now you want to know, "What upheaval?" Well, on the WorldNewsTrust.org site we read, "The Laboratoire europ�en d'Anticipation Politique Europe 2020 (LEAP/E2020) now estimates to over 80% the probability that the week of March 20-26, 2006, will be the beginning of the most significant political crisis the world has known since the Fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989, together with an economic and financial crisis of a scope comparable with that of 1929." I re-read, and re-read, and re-read that part about it being "comparable" to 1929, which is the year that the stock market crashed and ushered in the Great Depression. But there is, so these guys say, only an 80% chance of that, which is the exact odds my wife figured of our marriage lasting less than a week.

I need to make one correction on an otherwise great article from the Mogambo. He says:

I sort of remember a quote by Benjamin Franklin, who was asked, when they finished work on the Constitution, "And what kind of government do we have?" He replied, "A democracy, if you can keep it."

Actually, Benjamin Franklin replied "A Republic, if you can keep it."

It's a small detail but actually makes all the difference in the world. The framers of the Constitution knew a democracy would never work. A democracy is a failed concept that leads a nation into oblivion. A republic form of government was our only hope. Unfortunately, we are no longer a republic.

The Katrina Video Hype

I watched the video of the briefings given the president about the potential damage Katrina could cause to New Orleans, and I honestly couldn't figure out what all the fuss was about. To listen to the hyperventilated media reports you would have thought that they'd been handed proof that George Bush knew in advance where, when, and how the 9/11 attack would unfold. The Katrina briefing, as best I could tell, said very little that was relevant to what actually occurred in New Orleans.

Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters agrees:

For those who want to see the transcripts themselves of the video conferences, the New York Times has them for the August 28th and August 29th briefings Get the links at Morrissey's site). The transcript for the 29th makes one garbled mention of the levees around New Orleans (page 6). After making the point that the storm surge would cause the greatest devastation in the Gulfport area of Mississippi, going as high as 21 feet, Max Mayfield then turns to New Orleans:

MAX MAYFIELD: ... The rest of the track we have 10 to 15 feet, in a few areas up to 16 feet. At least glimpsed it out, and Louisiana can talk a little bit more about this than I can, but it looks like the Federal levies [sic] around the City of New Orleans will not have been (incomprehensible) any breaches to.

That certainly doesn't sound like a warning -- and this was on the day the levees broke. That transcript clearly shows that the conference considered the storm surge and precipitation runoff to be the major threats of flooding in New Orleans. The possibility of breaches, even on the 29th, had been discounted.

The transcript from the August 28th meeting talked more about levees, but in the same vein, and this time no one mentions the word "breach". Starting on page 5, Max Mayfield again talks about the dangers of Lake Pontchartrain, but only in the context of the winds created a surge that could overtop the levees:

"One of the valleys here in Lake Pontchartrain, we've got on our forecast track, if it maintains its intensity: about 12 1/2 feet of storm surge in the lake. The big question is going to be: will that top some of the levies? And the currrent track and the forecast we have now suggests there will be minimal flooding in the city of New Orleans itself, but we're -- we've always said that the storm surge model is only accurate within 20 percent."

"If that track were to deviate just a little bit to the west, it would -- it makes all the difference in the world. I do expect that there will be some of the levies over top even out here in the western portions where the airport is. We've got valleys that can't overtop some of the levies."

"The problem we're going to have here -- remember, the winds go counterclockwise around the center of the hurricane. So if the really strong winds clip Lake Pontchartrain, that's going to pile some of that water from Lake Pontchartrain over on the south side of the lake. I don't think any model can tell you with any confidence right now whether the levies will be topped or not, but that's obviously a very, very grave concern."

Again, the entire briefing that related to levees only focused on the effects of the wind on Lake Pontchartrain and its effect in pushing water over the top of the levees. Mayfield never even addressed the possibility of breaches in the levee walls. And in fact, the storm track shifted eastward in the final hours before Katrina hit, which eliminated much of the predicate for even the worries Mayfield expresses in this transcript.

The media got it wrong yet again on Katrina. The notion that the experts warned of levee breaches is nothing more than a hack job initiated by the AP and continued by the rest of the Exempt Media even after the source material has proven it false.

The media are so desperate to make something, anything, bad stick to George Bush that they're not hesitating to construct high mountains out of the merest molehills. This is journalistically dishonest, of course, but then honesty was never a very important virtue to the left. Meanwhile, their credibility sinks ever deeper into the muck and Bush continues to score one victory after another, even as his popularity sags because of the media attacks. It really is an amazing thing to watch.

You're Being Lied To

This brief dispatch from Baghdad by Ralph Peters is pure gold:

March 1, 2006 -- The reporting out of Baghdad continues to be hysterical and dishonest. There is no civil war in the streets. None. Period.

Terrorism, yes. Civil war, no. Clear enough?

Yesterday, I crisscrossed Baghdad, visiting communities on both banks of the Tigris and logging at least 25 miles on the streets. With the weekend curfew lifted, I saw traffic jams, booming business - and everyday life in abundance.

Yes, there were bombings yesterday. The terrorists won't give up on their dream of sectional strife, and know they can count on allies in the media as long as they keep the images of carnage coming. They'll keep on bombing. But Baghdad isn't London during the Blitz, and certainly not New York on 9/11.

It's more like a city suffering a minor, but deadly epidemic. As in an epidemic, no one knows who will be stricken. Rich or poor, soldier or civilian, Iraqi or foreigner. But life goes on. No one's fleeing the Black Death - or the plague of terror.

And the people here have been impressed that their government reacted effectively to last week's strife, that their soldiers and police brought order to the streets. The transition is working.

Most Iraqis want better government, better lives - and democracy. It is contagious, after all. Come on over. Talk to them. Watch them risk their lives every day to work with us or with their government to build their own future.

Oh, the attacks will continue. They're even predictable, if not always preventable. Driving through Baghdad's Kerada Peninsula District, my humvee passed long gas lines as people waited to fill their tanks in the wake of the curfew. I commented to the officer giving me a lift that the dense lines of cars and packed gas stations offered great targets to the terrorists. An hour later, one was hit with a car bomb.

The bombing made headlines (and a news photographer just happened to be on the scene). Here in Baghdad, it just made the average Iraqis hate the terrorists even more.

You are being lied to. By elements in the media determined that Iraq must fail. Just give 'em the Bronx cheer.

When people invest themselves in a particular position they will grasp at any evidence to justify that position and vindicate their credibility. This is true of both optimists and pessimists on Iraq, of course, but the liberal media is comprised mostly of pessimists who not only are temperamentally inclined to see the sky falling as soon as a few clouds roll in, but who also, for political reasons, wanted to see George Bush fail. Add the political incentive to the temperamental disposition, and it's little wonder that every pothole in the road to success is seen as an abyss.

Today's Lesson: America is Evil

Just because someone has a teaching degree doesn't necessarily mean that they should be in the front of a classroom. A case in point is a Colorado teacher by the name of Jay Bennish who uses his teaching position as a platform for an anti-American rant that sounds even more absurd on audio than it reads in print. Bennish was recorded by one of his students who was tired of Bennish's propagandizing in the classroom and the recording is being played all over talk radio and the blogosphere. Michelle Malkin has links to the audio as well as a partial transcript. You can listen to a podcast here. Keep in mind as you listen to this guy that he's teaching a geography class. Here's an excerpt:

Make sure you get these definitions down: Capitalism - If you don't understand the economic system of capitalism, you don't understand the world in which we live. Ok. Economic system in which all or most of the means of production, etc., are owned privately and operated in a somewhat competitive environment for the purpose of producing PROFIT! Of course, you can shorten these definitions down. Make sure you get the gist of it. Do you see how when, you know, when you're looking at this definition, where does it say anything about capitalism is an economic system that will provide everyone in the world with the basic needs that they need? Is that a part of this system? Do you see how this economic system is at odds with humanity? At odds with caring and compassion? It's at odds with human rights.

What drug is responsible for the most deaths in the world? Cigarettes! Who is the world's largest producer of cigarettes and tobacco? The United States!

What part of our country grows all our tobacco? Anyone know what states in particular? Mostly what's called North Carolina. Alright. That's where all the cigarette capitals are. That's where a lot of them are located from. Now if we have the right to fly to Bolivia or Peru and drop chemical weapons on top of farmers' fields because we're afraid they might be growing coca and that could be turned into cocaine and sold to us, well then don't the Peruvians and the Iranians and the Chinese have the right to invade America and drop chemical weapons over North Carolina to destroy the tobacco plants that are killing millions and millions of people in their countries every year and causing them billions of dollars in health care costs?

Who is probably the single most violent nation on planet Earth?!

(Unidentified student interjects)We are.

The United States of America! And we're a democracy. Quote-unquote.

...when you shoot a missile into Pakistan to quote-unquote kill a known terrorist, and we just killed 75 people that have nothing to do with al Qaeda, as far as they're concerned, we're the terrorists. We've attacked them on their soil with the intention of killing their innocent people.

Student Sean Allen: But we did not have the intention of killing innocent people. We had the intention of killing an al Qaeda terrorist.

Bennish: Do you know that?

Student: So, you're saying the United States has intentions to kill innocent people?

Bennish: I don't know the answer to that question.

Do we really want the Middle East to unite as one cohesive political and cultural body?

No! Because then they could what? Threaten our supremacy.

We want to keep the world divided. Do we really want to kill innocent people? I don't know. I don't know the answer to that.

I know there are some Americans who do. People who work in the CIA. People who have to think like that. Those kind of dirty minds, dirty tricks. That's how the intelligence world works. Sometimes you do want to kill people just for the sake of killing them. Right?

There's much more on the audio which you really should listen to in order to gain a sense of Bennish's stridency. For our part we were just wondering why some leftists think its okay to indoctrinate students with goofy political propaganda in a geography class, but it's not okay to simply mention Intelligent Design to students in a biology class. Very strange.

Thursday, March 2, 2006

The U.S. Is Bankrupt

From the link:

"A substantial increase in the debt burden on American taxpayers is too important a matter to be rushed through the Senate without a complete debate on the current course of U.S. fiscal policy," the Democrats wrote.

They vowed to offer a longshot plan to reinstate so-called pay-as-you-go budget rules requiring tax cuts and new benefit programs to be financed by spending cuts or new revenues elsewhere in the budget.

Under an obscure House rule, that chamber gets to avoid having to vote on the debt limit if Congress successfully adopts a budget blueprint. So, after passing the budget last April, the House sent the Senate a $781 billion debt limit bill as if it had passed it separately.

That bill is the most likely vehicle for the Senate debate, but an alternative measure would be a filibuster-proof bill permitted under fast-track budget rules that limit debate and opportunities to offer amendments. But to go this route would require the House to vote on the bill before it is sent to Bush for his signature, a prospect House GOP leaders are eager to avoid.

"No decisions have been made," said Eric Ueland, chief of staff to Frist.

The last time Congress voted to increase the debt limit was in November 2004 when it was raised from $7.38 trillion to its current level of $8.18 trillion.

What a joke. If an individual was to operate like the Federal government, they would be out in the streets looking for a cardboard box for shelter. But the government simply raises the limit of the debt they will borrow...from the Federal Reserve. One has to wonder what the logical conclusion is as does the rest of the world who holds U.S. dollars.

What a bunch of buffoons. Make no mistake, the debt ceiling will be raised. And the next generation picks up the tab.

From The R-Man

Richard Russell is a legend in his own time. People of all generations should take heed to what he has to say...especially the younger generation.

Wait, there's one other item I want to talk about, and it's DEBT. I dislike debt, I dislike debits, I dislike being in a position where by I have to make money just to pay off what I owe. I grew up at a time when debt was feared and hated. Debt to me means that you've lost control of some area of your life. You're working to pay off something that's not yet yours. There's an old adage that I've repeated to my kids a thousand times. It runs like this-- "Those that understand interest earn it. Those who don't understand interest pay it."

Young people today get married and immediately buy a house and furniture and a TV set and kitchen supplies. They take on a mortgage and assorted debts, and they never get out of debt. Instead of building savings, they pay the monthly mortgage bill and the credit card bill with whatever money they have left over after food and doctor bills and entertainment. But the point is -- they're buried in debt before they start out in life. And today they accept that as normal. We old codgers from the Depression era see it differently. For instance, every house I ever bought I bought with cash on the line.

So instead of saving and compounding their money, today's kids become slaves to the banks and the mortgage companies and the credit card companies. It's a bum way to start out in life -- it's a stupid way. It's also the unhealthy way. It's the path to stress and anxiety.

So sad but so true.

The Gold Bull Market

Since gold is now back up to its high of $570 per ounce, clearly demonstrating its bull market, I thought it appropriate to address a couple of ways one can take advantage of this opportunity.

My personal preference is to acquire, first and foremost, a personal holding of gold bullion. This can be in the form of American Eagles, a coin minted by the U.S. government, Krugerrands, minted by South Afrrica, Helveticas, minted by Austria, Canadian Maple Leafs issued by Canada or a variety of pre-1933 gold coins issued by various European countries. All of these represent gold in hand and as such, is the safest form of savings.

After this is done, one can venture into the stock market where shares are available from companies who mine gold. Shares in gold stocks offer a leveraged opportunity because as the price of gold goes up the company's profitability increases exponentially.

I have included several links below for examples of solid companies that bear consideration for those interested in this play.

Bema Gold Corporation is an intermediate gold producer with mines and development projects in Russia, Chile and South Africa. Bema operates the Julietta Mine in Russia, the Petrex Mines in South Africa, and is 50% owner of the Refugio Mine in Chile, which recommenced commercial production during the fourth quarter of 2005. By developing its flag ship asset, Kupol in Russia, and continuing to advance the Cerro Casale Project in Chile, Bema is one of the world's fastest growing gold producers with potential production of one million ounces of gold annually by 2009.

Coeur d'Alene Mines Corporation is the world's largest primary silver producer and a growing, low-cost gold producer. In 2004, the Company produced 14.1 million ounces of silver and 129,000 ounces of gold.

Goldcorp is the world's lowest cost and fastest growing multimillion ounce gold producer with operations throughout the Americas and Australia. Goldcorp has agreed to acquire the Canadian assets of Placer Dome (TSX, NYSE: PDG) from Barrick Gold (TSX, NYSE: ABX) upon consummation of Barrick's friendly bid to take-over Placer. This transaction is expected to close April 1, 2006, making Goldcorp the third largest gold producer in North America. With the addition of the Placer assets, Goldcorp's gold production in 2006 is forecast to be approximately 2 million ounces, on an annualized basis, at a cash cost of approximately US$150 per ounce. 2007 gold production is expected to reach almost 2.4 million ounces at less than $175 per ounce

While the text for each of the companies was lifted from their websites and should probably be taken with a grain of salt, below I show their performance since the end of December 2005.

BGOBEMA GOLD CORP53.36%
CDECOEUR D ALENE MINES CORP30.04%
GGGOLDCORP28.26%

Not a bad return on investment for 3 months.

The Benefit of the Doubt

There are basically two arguments employed against selling the administration of terminals in American ports to Dubai. The first is that we will be less secure if we give Arabs easier access to our ports. This argument, when made by Democrats, causes us to double up in a giggle fit. The Dems, who had to look up the word "security" in the dictionary to see how it was spelled, have absolutely no credibility on this matter at all. They scoff at reports that Saddam did in fact have WMD, they've opposed the Patriot Act, they've opposed profiling airline travellers, and they have fought the administration on whether it has the right to listen in on phone calls made by foreign terrorists to this country. Now they expect us to believe that suddenly they've travelled the Damascus Road, had the scales fall from their eyes, and are all for treating Arabs like pariahs.

In any event, the argumentum ad security doesn't seem to be holding up to scrutiny since it appears that whatever security there is now, as minimal as it apparently is, will not be affected no matter who manages the terminals.

The second argument is a bit more compelling, and that is that we should not be entering into business agreements with nations which supported the Taliban and Hamas and boycott Israel. With this it is hard to disagree. We wonder, though, what, if anything, the quid pro quo is. Does the U.A.E. provide us with important military assets in the Straits of Hormuz that would be absolutely essential if war comes with Iran? If so, even the Israelis would probably prefer that we do the ports deal rather than be hamstrung in a conflict with the country that threatens to incinerate them in a nuclear fireball.

The problem is that we just don't know what's in the details. Thus it comes down to a question of whether we trust the President to do the right thing for the security of both the U.S. and Israel. His track record suggests that on this he deserves the benefit of the doubt. We're leery, given his fecklessness regarding immigration, about his willingness to be loosey goosey with who has access to our ports, but we're also encouraged by his almost preternatural resolve in the war on terrorists.

It's not an easy call, but, heck, anything that has so many lefties squealing like pigs in a barn fire can't be an altogether bad idea.

I Must Be Ignorant

I'm sorry. I guess don't have a clue how things work in international circles.

Take this link for instance where it states:

The sides have agreed to a fresh 45-day review but DP World has pledged to complete the deal, subject to a ruling in the High Court in London today. "It has certainly reinforced the perception here that Arab investors can be singled out," said Steve Brice, head of Middle East research at Standard Chartered bank in Dubai.

Ironically, the comments came as US commerce secretary Carlos Gutierrez traveled to Saudi Arabia to urge the country to be more welcoming to foreign investment. The High Court is expected to rule on whether to allow the scheme of arrangement that will seal the $6.8bn merger, after hearing arguments from Eller & Co, a Miami joint venture partner of P&O which claims the deal will adversely affect its business.

My utter confusion is about the "High Court" mentioned in the article. What in the world does this "High Court" have to do with the issue of a Dubai company taking control of our ports? Are we now subject to a "High Court" located in London? I sure don't know. If not, why is the "High Court" then wasting it's time hearing and ruling on the issue?

If any of our readers can enlighten me, I sure would appreciate it.

The whole issue fails to answer the question of why we need any foreign country managing anything in America. Why is it that we can't manage our ports ourselves? It seems that the concept of globalization means America gives America away to any and every other nation as though there were a force at work that is determined to reduce America to third world status. Could it be that this "force" is responsible for our manufacturing and services jobs being out-sourced which is essentially gutting America?

I believe the initial warning shot was fired over the bow of the USS America when China tried to buy one of our oil companies. That effort was thwarted by congress as a non-starter. But the rest of the world is holding hundreds of billions of our dollars and rather than hold them in reserve (while they continually lose value) they want to invest them in American assets. Now an Arab country is attempting to convert their dollar holdings into U.S. port ownership.

From the link above,

The US could lose a host of much-needed inward investment as foreign countries disturbed by the row over the control of US ports look elsewhere to invest money

Ah, it looks like the Bush administration realizes that it has to cave in to Dubai or there will be a price to be paid. After all, we can't expect foreign countries to accept our fiat dollars if they can't use them to conduct business with us now can we? Life was much better when the foreign countries simply invested their dollars in U.S. treasury bills to finance our debt but it seams that now they want hard assets for their dollars rather than U.S. debt.

There's no doubt in my mind that this deal will go through. It has to. For it to do otherwise would put into question the full faith and credit of the U.S. dollar and you can be sure Bush has been made aware of this.

Plato's Cave For Modern Man

Imagine that the year is 2030 and computer technology has advanced to the point where a sufficiently clever programmer (you, for example) can write software that would project beings on the monitor's screen that can potentially evolve from very simple forms to highly complex structures capable, mirabile dictu, of rational thought.

One evening you download the software that confers upon these creatures this marvelous potential and sit back to watch what they'll do with it. Eventually, after much morphing and mutating, the creatures attain a level of mental ability at which they are capable of reflection, cognition, and language. They begin to communicate among themselves, asking questions about their world and their existence. To them their world (we'll call it "screen world") is a three dimensional space since, although they are confined to a flat screen, they think themselves, like characters on a movie screen, to move in all directions. You're very pleased with your creation. You even find yourself growing fond and attached to these creatures, which you dub "screenies."

As the night lengthens, you watch in rapt fascination as one of your screenies begins to think deeply about what exactly it (let's assume it's a "he") is. At first he explains himself in terms of shifting phosphor dots, but this, he realizes, is only a superficial level of explanation, and the screenie isn't satisfied with it. There must be a deeper understanding, a deeper level of reality, a reality that lies beyond the abilities you've programmed into the screenies to apprehend.

He and his fellows do some mathematical calculations and come to a breathtaking conclusion. The "ultimate" explanation for the population of creatures in screen world is a level of reality that they can never observe or visit, but which must exist. The equations demand it. They realize that there must be a whole set of complicated phenomena working to produce emanations from a multi-dimensional tube (Cathode Ray Tube) that somehow generates the relatively "flat" world they inhabit.

They do more calculations and come to an even more astonishing discovery. The CRT must be controlled by an even deeper level of phenomena: electrons, circuits, and microchips and who knows what all else. Finally, awed by their findings, they realize that this whole theoretical edifice they've constructed must be run by an information source, a set of algorithms and codes, that exists somewhere but is inaccessible to them.

Your creatures are very excited. They have plumbed the basic laws, parameters, forces and material constituents of their world. They don't know where these ultimate elements come from or how they came to be organized in the fashion they are, and indeed they're convinced that they can never know this for certain. They have taken their investigation as deep as it is possible for them to go, they believe. The rest they simply accept as a brute fact. A given.

Then these marvelous beings, which have really sprung from your creative genius, draw a disappointing philosophical conclusion. Having explained their existence in terms of the ultimate physical constituents and laws they've deduced from the phenomena of their experience, they conclude that that is all there is to be explained. Those circuits, microchips, electrical energy and even the software are all that's involved in generating them and their world. It's an amazing thing, they agree, it's highly improbable they acknowledge, but there you have it. There's no need to explain it any further, nor any way to explain it even if there were a need.

Screen world is, in their considered opinion, totally explicable in terms of the machinery in front of which you sit shaking your incredulous head. You're delighted that your creatures were able to reason their way so far toward the truth but dismayed that they lacked the wit to see that anything as fantastically complex as the laws and processes that generate their world cries out for even deeper explanation. Why, you wonder, don't the screenies realize that something as amazing as they and their world don't just happen through blind luck? Why don't they recognize that screen world demands an intelligent cause as its truly ultimate explanation?

You decide to tweak the program. You write the code for another being, one that is, perhaps, somewhat of a cyber-replica of yourself. You will in a sense visit screen world yourself through this "agent." He contains much of your knowledge about the reality beyond screen world, and when you download him into the computer up he pops on the screen. You've programmed this agent to tell the rest of the screenies that their world, the world of the monitor and even the deeper world of the computer, is an infinitesimal fraction of the really real.

Your agent proceeds to explain to them as best he can that they, contrary to their belief, actually inhabit only two dimensions and that all around them lies a third dimension that they could never perceive or comprehend but which nevertheless exists, and that even now you, their creator, are observing them from outside the screen in another world that they cannot begin to conceptualize, much less observe, from their "prison" within the screen.

Your agent reveals to them, moreover, that you inhabit a reality infinitely richer than screen world, an idea they unfortunately find wholly preposterous. He tells them that as wonderful and impressive as their discoveries about their world are they've really just scratched the surface of understanding the really real and that, indeed, they aren't actually "real" themselves at all. They're simply epiphenomenal electronic manifestations of ideas in your mind, a congeries of shifting dots of color on a flat screen. They're in fact nothing more than virtual beings.

They scoff at all this. They grow angry. They tell your agent to get lost, his message is confusing and misleading to the young and impeding progress toward the goal of making screen world a better place. They wish to hear no more of the his insane, superstitious babblings. They are the "brights" in screen world and they will stick to science and leave his untestable metaphysical speculations to the priests and shamans among them.

When the agent persists in trying to persuade them that mere mechanical processes could never by themselves produce such complex creatures as screenies, that the algorithms and coordinated flows of energy and pattern in their world, as well as the material organization of the computer, must have been intelligently engineered, they sneer and refuse to allow him to speak such nonsense any further.

They reason among themselves that their existence may be improbable, but what of it? Had their world not been the way it is they would not be there to observe it, so it's not so extraordinary after all. Others say that there are probably a near infinite number of worlds like theirs, and that among so many it's not so astonishing that there'd be one possessing the properties that screen world has and boasting the creatures called screenies.

You're surprised, and a little hurt, that they react this way. You can't believe that having come so far they would refuse to entertain the idea that there must be more to the origin of the information that infuses their world than just blind matter, brute force and random chance. But they're obstinate. They have all the explanation for their existence they care to have.

To be dependent upon unthinking processes is one thing - they're still superior, after all, to the processes and forces upon which they are contingent because they can think and those processes can't. But to be dependent upon a being who is so thoroughly superior to them in every way is, well, degrading. So that they might appreciate you, you entertain briefly the idea of adjusting their software in such fashion as to make the conclusion that an intelligent programmer has created them ineluctable. You decide against it, however, when you realize that compelled appreciation is no appreciation at all.

And so, with a sad sigh of disappointment and resignation, you shut down the computer and go to bed.

Wednesday, March 1, 2006

Heading For the Dark Ages

Andrew Sullivan espies the "Christianist" barbarians at the gates and ominously offers this letter from Samuel Alito to James Dobson as proof of their nefarious perfidy. If, after all, Supreme Court justices are expressing gratitude to supporters for their prayers during a difficult time in their lives can theocracy be far behind?

Dear Dr. Dobson:

This is just a short note to express my heartfelt thanks to you and the entire staff of Focus on the Family for your help and support during the past few challenging months. I would also greatly appreciate it if you would convey my appreciation to the good people from all parts of the country who wrote to tell me that they were praying for me and for my family during this period.

As I said when I spoke at my formal investiture at the White House last week, the prayers of so many people from around the country were a palpable and powerful force. As long as I serve on the Supreme Court I will keep in mind the trust that has been placed in me.

I hope that we'll have the opportunity to meet personally at some point in the future.In the meantime my entire family and I hope that you and the Focus on the Family staff know how we appreciate all that you have done.

Sincerely yours,

Samuel Alito

And you thought Islamism was an imminent threat. Wait until those reactionary "Christianists" succeed in blocking progressive reforms in our marriage laws and begin rolling back a mother's right to kill her unborn baby. We're headed for the Dark Ages for sure.

Anti-Totalitarian Manifesto

Agora and a number of other blogs are reporting on a manifesto signed by twelve prominent intellectuals, several of them Muslims or former Muslims, which takes a courageous stand against the "new totalitarianism." The manifesto apparently originated in France, of all places, and has run in the Dutch paper Jyllands-Posten which originally published the infamous cartoons:

After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism. We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.

The recent events, which occurred after the publication of drawings of Muhammed in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values. This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field. It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.

Like all totalitarianisms, Islamism is nurtured by fears and frustrations. The hate preachers bet on these feelings in order to form battalions destined to impose a liberticidal and unegalitarian world. But we clearly and firmly state: nothing, not even despair, justifies the choice of obscurantism, totalitarianism and hatred. Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of domination: man's domination of woman, the Islamists' domination of all the others. To counter this, we must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people.

We reject "cultural relativism," which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.

We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas.

We appeal to democrats and free spirits of all countries that our century should be one of Enlightenment, not of obscurantism.

12 signatures

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Chahla Chafiq, Caroline Fourest, Bernard-Henri L�vy, Irshad Manji, Mehdi Mozaffari, Maryam Namazie, Taslima Nasreen, Salman Rushdie, Antoine Sfeir, Philippe Val, Ibn Warraq

Agora has brief bios of each of the signers. We anticipate violent, hate-filled protests around the world instigated by Muslims offended to the point of outrage that the signers of this manifesto would imply that Muslims are violent haters.

Telling Friend From Foe

You, like us, may have been wondering how in the world Muslims tell each other apart when they go on their frequent killing sprees. How, for example, does a Sunni distinguish a hated Shia from other Sunnis? Do people often get killed as a result of mistaken identity? Does it matter to the killers who they kill or are they content just to have shot somebody or blown people up?

Anyway, Daniel Engber has an enlightening column at Slate which helps answer the first of these questions. It turns out that a lot of it is in the name.

What Are the Arguments?

There's been lots of excitement in the media over the controversy surrounding the sale of control of our ports to the United Arab Emirates. Quite frankly we don't know whether this is a good idea or a bad one but we do know that not many arguments that have been raised against it make very much sense. People are all aflutter because the ports will be run by Arabs, but Saudi Arabia has been quietly administering nine of our ports without complaint from Chuck Schumer and other political opportunists in the Democratic party.

There is also much ululation about the fact that two of the 9/11 terrorists were from the U.A.E., but why does that mean we shouldn't allow the U.A.E. to do business with the U.S.? Timothy McVeigh was from New York state. Should New York be regarded as a threat to our national well-being? Okay, perhaps that's a bad question, but the point is that it's silly to condemn the country of origin of a terrorist. Jose Padilla is an American, after all. What should we conclude from that?

Our primary anxiety about the deal is that the Bush administration seems curiously, indeed recklessly, insoucient about protecting our borders, and the ports imbroglio just seems to be another example of their disregard for who controls access to our interior. That concern aside, however, we just don't see much in the way of argument being offered by the opponents to the deal. In fact, it seems like the Democrats just see it as an opportunity to grab some desperately needed national security cred from the president. The sudden concern for keeping all Arabs at arm's length is a bit laughable coming from the people who wax indignant over ethnic profiling at airports and the president's NSA eavesdropping program on al-Qaeda phone calls.

Tuesday, February 28, 2006

Peace Studies Stirs Dissent

Students in a Maryland high school are campaigning to get a "Peace Studies" course taught by retired newspaper reporter Colman McCarthy eliminated from the curriculum:

Last Saturday, Andrew Saraf sat down at his computer and typed out his thoughts on why the course -- offered for almost two decades as an elective to seniors at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School -- should be banned from the school. "I know I'm not the first to bring this up but why has there been no concerted effort to remove Peace Studies from among the B-CC courses?" he wrote in his post to the school's group e-mail list. "The 'class' is headed by an individual with a political agenda, who wants to teach students the 'right' way of thinking by giving them facts that are skewed in one direction."

He hit send.

Within a few hours, the normally staid e-mail list BCCnet -- a site for announcements, job postings and other housekeeping details in the life of a school -- was ablaze with chatter. By the time Principal Sean Bulson checked his BlackBerry on Sunday evening, there were more than 150 postings from parents and students -- some ardently in support, some ardently against the course.

Since its launch at the school in 1988, Peace Studies has provoked lively debate, but the attempt to have the course removed from the curriculum is a first, Bulson said. The challenge by two students comes as universities and even some high schools across the country are under close scrutiny by a growing number of critics who believe that the U.S. education system is being hijacked by liberal activists.

At Bethesda-Chevy Chase, Peace Studies is taught by Colman McCarthy, a former Washington Post reporter and founder and president of the Center for Teaching Peace. Though the course is taught at seven other Montgomery County high schools, some say B-CC's is perhaps the most personal and ideological of the offerings because McCarthy makes no effort to disguise his opposition to war, violence and animal testing.

"I do recognize that it is a fairly popular class," Saraf said. "But it's clear that the teacher is only giving one side of the story. He's only offering facts that fit his point of view."

... the Peace Studies course at Bethesda-Chevy Chase is unique for a number of reasons. Although a staff teacher takes roll and issues grades, it is McCarthy as a volunteer, unpaid guest lecturer who does the bulk of the teaching. He does not work from lesson plans, although he does use a school system-approved textbook -- a collection of essays on peace that he edited.

Uh, oh. This sounds to us as though the individual who is the primary instructor in the classroom is an uncertified teacher. In some states, like Pennsylvania, such insults to the protocols set forth by the educational bureaucracy can land a school district a substantial fine. We wonder how Bethesda-Chevy Chase is getting around this regulation, if indeed it is a regulation in Maryland, besides employing a certified teacher to take roll. Using a certified teacher as an attendance monitor certainly seems like a transparent, and cynical, ploy which may itself be a violation of the certification requirement.

Where's the Maryland State Education Association on this? Most state teacher associations demand that only certified teachers be allowed to teach in public school classrooms. Maybe this case is different because the teacher is volunteering. Or maybe it's different because the teacher happens to be a bona fide lefty. Who knows?