Dean's World

I used to despise Howard Dean. Now I just consider him the biggest floppy-shoed, bright ball-nosed clown in Washington.

Case in point: he recently blamed Bush and the right-wing ideologues on the Supreme Court for the highly unpopular Kelo decision--while failing to notice that Bush has to date not put a single Justice on the Supreme Court, and that the dissenters on Kelo were mostly the reviled conservatives. Patterico has the details.

I know a number of Republicans who thank God every day that Howard Dean is the head of the Democratic National Committee. It's pretty obvious why, isn't it?

Sister Toldjah (a recent blogroll addition) has a roundup of further reactions to Governor Dean, plus some choice Howard Dean quotes from the past. Oy. Ted Armstrong, in the comments here, says Dean is "The gift that keeps on giving - to us Republicans." Ouch.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist recently came out in favor of expanding Federal funding for stem cell research. This caused some Republicans to brand him a "traitor" (absurd) and to be shamelessly pandering to the New York Times (as if they had any clout with Republican primary voters). INDC Journal has a pretty good analysis of why this hyperbolic hyperventilating is silly.

That said: I'm not sure why more people aren't asking whether Federal funding of stem cell research is a good idea in the first place.

I'm no doctrinaire libertarian, but I know more than one scientist who has a pretty dim view of the enetire Federal research grant process. Whether they work in major research areas like cancer or AIDS, or minor obscure areas no one's heard of, the complaint is the same: politicians and government bureaucrats are generally scientifically stupid and don't understand the issues they're funding research for. They thus usually wind up giving control of all spending priorities to small cliques of researchers who effectively control all the grant money--and fully credentialed, credible scientists who question the reigning hypotheses or want to take a new approach to the subject are frequently frozen completely out.

If private industry is unreliable because they are obsessed with the profit motive, government-funded research is obsessed with scientific fads, and with research that sounds exciting but may be bogus. Look at the ridiculous amount of money that was spent in government grants to study whether low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets would prevent heart disease. Researchers who questioned this hypothesis rarely received any funding at all, and were routinely treated as dangerous lunatics. In the late 1990s two British scientists finally burst the bubble and proved that despite two decades and billions in research, not one study had ever shown that these diets reduced heart disease mortality or overall mortality (see The Low-Fat, Low-Cholesterol Diet Is Ineffective by L.A. Corr & M.F. Oliver)--and yet still researchers who want to research the "benefits" of low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets often get grant money, and scientists who want to study radically different approaches to human nutrition have a hard time landing any grant money at all.

Worse, because of the entire system of government grants, universities which used to value basic research, and treasure scientists based on their accomplishments in the field, have in recent decades grown more and more obsessed with money--specifically, government money. Scientists who can land fat grants from the government get tenure, respect, and lab space. Those who can't wind up treated with contempt.

Which leads to the other problem with the system today: the tendency to treat scientists like stars, as opposed to treating them like scientists. Or, worse then treating them as stars, they often get treated like members of a priestly class. All based on this holy halo of "researcher working for the good of humanity." Never mind questioning whether what they're researching is particularly valuable, or whether their methodologies are sound, or whether their results are solid, or whether their rivals might have better ideas.

The presumption many people work under is that private industry will not fund so-called "blue sky" research. My own view is that private industry often fails to fund it simply because they know they can depend on the government to do it for them. Meanwhile, the environment that used to be hospitable to the researcher who didn't care about money--the university--has become every bit as money-obsessed as any other large corporation.

I understand why some people have moral qualms about Federal funding for stem cell research. They're not qualms I share, simply because I don't believe a fertilized egg or an embryonic cluster of a few dozen cells is a human being. Sorry, I don't. But I do wonder who's going to get this money, and whether it's honestly going to be put to good use. I don't think that's an unreasonable question, especially considering how rarely anybody asks it of any federal funding of research. The working assumption: "Government money for research is good. Opposing it is bad." All thought stops there.

I look at all the posturing about all the miracle cures that stem cell research is supposed to provide, and I also wonder: if they fail to produce such results, will those who claimed that this funding was vital even notice? Will there ever come a point where they decide it was a waste of time? Will there ever come a point where they wonder, "Hmm, what other research would have been worth funding instead of all this?"

I don't watch television news much anymore, so I really don't know much about Natalee Holloway. I understand that a lot of news channels are spending a lot of time covering the disappearance of an 18 year old girl named Natalee Holloway and some are saying it's only getting so much coverage since Natalee Holloway is a pretty blonde white girl. Well that's not necessarily clear to me--I've seen the cable news channels give attention to non-white girls who disappear. But then again, they rarely give attention to anyone who's not photogenic (or who happens to be male as I think of it). In any case, Dan Riehl notes that some people are being overly vulgar and heartless in their criticisms of the coverage.

Dan thinks people should complain to Google but that doesn't work for me. What does work for me is to (A) never link to a site that says hatefully stupid things, and (B) link Natalee Holloway's real web site.

I taped the new dramatic show on Iraq, "Over There," having heard some good things about it. But before even seeing it, I begin to think I may have wasted my time recording it, since the military bloggers who saw it and many I don't all seem to think it was awful. John Donovan has a review and roundup.

The consensus seems to be: stuck in 30 years out of date ideas about the military and filled with stupid cliches that have nothing to do with the everyday life of someone serving in Iraq.

Oh well.

Pundit Guy notes that a weblogger has disappeared near Mt. Everest. Given that he's been gone for a few weeks, it doesn't look good for the guy.

Well look at this. Quote:

The July 15 "SCI FI Fridays" season premieres of the SCI FI Channel original series Battlestar Galactica, Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis led the network to the top ratings of the night on basic cable among adults 18-49 and 25-54, the channel announced.

The second-season premiere of Galactica was the number-one program on television, including broadcast and cable, among men aged 25-54 and 18-49.

President Mubarak's thugs beat the crap out of some Egyptian protestors, and Gateway Pundit has photos, and links to stories and photos.

One of the things that's always made me laugh out loud is those who claim that mainstream journalism is more reliable that blogging because of the professionalism and "checks and balances" provided by their training and their editors.

Pah! It is to laugh. Fact is that in the blogosphere, if you say something that's inaccurate, someone will generally fact-check your ass and correct you within fairly short order. Such was the case this morning when I posted my astonishment at the apparent lack of coverage of the attempted assassination of Bush back in May--and had it pointed out to me immediately, by numerous people, that the incident was covered in countless mainstream media outlets. It just didn't rise to hysteria because (a) the grenade never went off, (b) it landed about 75 feet away from its intended target, and (c) the Georgian government conducted the investigation and wasn't forthcoming with a lot of details for a while.

What I like about this sort of thing is that whenever a mistake like this happens, someone feels the need to trumpet how unreliable blogs are--instead of noticing just how quickly a correction gets made. Instapundit has some good analysis of why this works so well. It is, as I've noted many times in the past, the same reason that Open Source software works so very well--it's not that no one ever makes a mistake, but that mistakes are noticed quickly and corrected quickly. If the mistakes aren't at least acknowledged (if not fixed) quickly, your product loses credibility fast. For an anthropological explanation, see Eric Raymond's The Cathedral and the Bazaar--it's about Linux, and Open Source software, but the concepts it describes for why Open Source software is often more stable and reliable than commercial software apply perfectly to blogging as well.

The thing is that mainstream media editors and producers would be wise to start finding ways to integrate this into their organizations, developing a symbiotic relationship with the blogosphere. A few are doing this, but most still apparently don't get it--yet.

One of the most fundamental scientific beliefs from my childhood has fallen: the Solar System has at least 10 planets, not just nine. Two years ago, astronomers said they were pretty sure they'd found a 10th planet, and now it's confirmed: The tenth planet, estimated at about 150% of the size of Pluto, has been confirmed.

That's a time-lapse photo taken two years ago over there on the left.

They haven't named it yet. I hope they keep with the convention of naming the solar planets after Roman gods. It's a neat tradition and it would be a shame to see them break with it. I'd love to see them call it Diana or Apollo or Janus.

No matter what they pick, we're going to have to learn a new acronym: "My Very Elegant Mother Just Served Us Nine Peas" won't work anymore. Oh well!

Neo-Neocon has a different take on the Anglican/Presbyterian thing.

Meantime, here's a petition for the Presbyterians and a petition for the Anglicans.

Meanwhile, Martin Peretz notes in a new column that the Disciples of Christ have jumped on the Jew-hater bandwagon--I won't grace it with the "anti-Israel" euphemism anymore. Not when these people have chosen *one nation and one nation only* to divest from.

What's really appalling is the Jews who make excuses for this. But then, the self-hating Jew is more than just a stereotype, isn't it?

I was stunned this morning to read that the President survived an assassination attempt in the nation of Georgia. A grenade was thrown at him and went off about 25 feet from where he was standing.

...back in May. And the press here in America had no interest in the story.

Wow. Just... wow.

* Update * Check the comments for several corrections. It appears that the Powerline guys are blowing smoke. I missed the story, but plenty of others saw it. The fact that the grenade didn't go off probably explains why it wasn't a big news event more than anything else.

Kevin asks a question I have no clear answer for.

Well. Now what?

As I've mentioned before, I really liked the new Charlie & the Chocolate Factory. In retrospect, I liked it even better than I thought I did initially. It was great.

Today to my delight I learned that all the scenes with squirrels used live trained squirrels, not CGI or puppets.

Man, now I really like this movie. I need to go see it again.

(Thanks John.)

The guys at Pundit Review will be hosting Jeff Jarvis this week.

Gotta get these guys a national syndicate. :-)

The latest Carnival of the Recipes is up at Feisty Repartee.

The U.S. economy grew solidly at a 3.4 percent annual rate in the second quarter, the government reported on Friday, just slightly below the first quarter's pace and with room to grow as stocks of unsold goods fell for the first time in two years.

While second-quarter growth eased from a 3.8 percent rate in the first three months of the year, it nonetheless marked the ninth straight quarter in which gross domestic product or GDP increased at a rate exceeding 3 percent, Commerce Department figures showed...

...The second-quarter GDP data also included annual revisions reaching back to the beginning of 2002. They showed a weaker recovery from a relatively mild recession in 2001 than previously thought, but did not change the pattern of growth as the recovery heads toward its fourth anniversary in the final quarter this year.

The revised data showed GDP growth in 2004 was 4.2 percent, rather than 4.4 percent, 2003 growth was 2.7 percent not 3 percent and 2002 growth was 1.6 percent rather than 1.9 percent

Jane has the story, and a petition.

So. Just another muslim in jail where he belongs?

It’s Friday, and around the blogosphere, that usually means cat blogging. As it happens, my girl friend and I are fostering feral felines, and we have some kittens to love and step on avoid crushing in our sleep...

Also, yesterday my GF and I bought a miniature banana tree. This thing currently stands about two feet tall, and shouldn’t get much bigger than 3 feet. It actually grows (I am told) proportionately sized bananas...

So, perhaps not the cutest thing of all time, but certainly cute as all getout...

Dig this: political scientist Rudy Rummel notes that respect and desire for democracy and secular, rationalist government is stronger in Arab Muslim nations than in the United States, Canada, and much of Latin America--amongst other things.

*Poof* goes another illusion.

Michael Demmons is an evil, evil man.

Something seems to be in the air. First, Penny Wit sends me a fascinating Martin Shram column from January 2005. The whole thing is worth reading from start to finish but the opening paragraphs, containing his predictions for 2005, tell the tale:

The big story will be that 2005 was the year of Islam vs. Islam.

It will be a year of Islamic conflicts that will erupt explosively in various ways around the planet. Islamic fundamentalist militants, moderates, monarchs, military and non-military autocrats who are fundamentalist and not-so-fundamentalist will clash in Saudi Arabia, the now-forming Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and to varying degrees in Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines. These will be clashes of ideology, militancy and just plain power-grabbing, local politics style.

Hot on the heels of that link came a note from Crossroads Arabia's John Burgess, which noted a recent document published on MEMRI, a site devoted to translating Arabic-language media for Western audiences. While MEMRI has taken criticism for being agenda-driven and focusing only on the most negative and inflammatory of materials, this particular item simply demands attention. It is a report originally written in Arabic, by muslims from the region. It contains recommendations put before the United Nations legal and security councils. In rather bald terms, the report, in short, recommends:

Europe Must Change its Lenient Treatment of Muslim Extremists

Incitement on the Internet Must Be Stopped

Arab Intellectuals Must Stop Speaking in Two Voices

The Terrorists Must Be Separated from Their Sympathizers

Muslims Must Denounce the Terrorists; The West Must Stop Being Naive

Muslims Must Ban Suicide Bombings for Moral Reasons

The Religious Institutions Must Take Practical Measures Against the Terrorists

The Muslims Must Form a New Religious Culture

The Silent Majority Must Speak Out Against the Terrorists

The War on Terrorism Requires Extensive Intellectual, Political and Educational Activity

Again, these are recommendations written in Arabic, by muslims, for and about muslims. You can read a complete translation on MEMRI's site.

On the same day as all this, Aziz Poonawalla dropped me a line to let me know he'd completed his latest Brass Crescent link roundup of recent muslim blogging, which as it happens has more than one item in it discussing this very topic from multiple angles.

This on top of that fascinating item from the Arab News I ran yesterday (see "If you want to catch a fish..." below).

Makes you wonder about that whole Jungian "collective unconscious" thing, doesn't it? Honestly, I've been feeling lately like something's got to give on this soon.

Hmmmm.... Should this guy be fired?

Burt Rutan and Richard Branson have announced plans to start offering space tourist flights in 2008--at $200,000 per seat. If that sounds like a lot, consider that the average shuttle launch costs about a billion dollars and takes months or years to plan, and the price has gone up over time, while Branson and Rutan plan to aggressively persue getting the price down over time.

In fairness, Rutan's plane can't yet make it into orbit, just to space. On the other hand, consider how unbelievably fast developments are here in the private sector compared with the shuttle program, already 25 years out of date....

(Via Restless Mania, who has more to say.)

Here's a link to a story about Conservative cartoons (hat tip Instapundit), "Laughing at the Left". The article goes beyond cartoons and makes some important points about the ideological divide. Take for instance this quote:

(Chris "Day By Day") Muir’s girlfriend, the primary model for one of his characters, “is a total liberal.” As it happens, the same holds true for Mallard (Fillmore) creator (Bruce) Tinsley, whose wife is a civil rights lawyer. There’s perhaps a lesson here. “It’s a funny thing,” Tinsley says. “All her liberal friends are incredulous that our marriage works, but none of my conservative friends have any trouble with it at all. They understand you can think differently about things and still be civil to one another.”

One of my favorite quotes about civility comes from President Gerald Ford "We can disagree without being disagreeable." It's a value to live by - most of the time. I'm a firm believer that it only works when your opponent holds the same value: when he doesn't you must roll up your sleeves and open up a can of Ann Coulter on their ass. That said, I too live in a "Matlin - Carville" marriage.

Part of it could be the old adage that "opposites attract" - or in New Age speak "my yang yearns for her yin" (hmm... that doesn't read right). When we met 15 years ago she loved the Grateful Dead while I held them in complete Hardcore Punk contempt (and still do. If I ever end up in Guantanamo I expect I'll hear "Wake Of the Flood" and "American Beauty" until I cracked - which I reckon would take all of 15 minutes). When Jerry Garcia died my first response was "How did they notice?"

There are serious benefits to a Liberal/Conservative marriage. First and foremost it keeps both of us from the extremes. If she comes home with some barking moonbat piece of tripe, I can usually shoot it down before she has wasted too much time on it or worse, come to believe it herself. Likewise I can sound an idea or an opinion off her and get her candid take on it before going public with it - thereby applying a level of rigor to what might otherwise have been a stupid idea or opinion. Secondly we can intellectually spar with one another, thereby keeping our ideas fresh and perhaps even (gasp) changing them. Finally, when we're together we can handle issues and situations using our different perspectives. Because of her liberal nature she can be much more open with salesmen than I can be. If the salesman takes advanatage of her openness, I can step in and bitch-slap him into submission without any regard for his feelings or the validity of his opinions. Needless to say the "Good cop - Bad cop" routine comes in quite handy when dealing with disputes with retailers and service providers.

Then there's parenting. Here the roles flip: I'm as free with money for The Kid as the Carter Administration was with taxpayer money for welfare moms. The Wife, on the other hand, is the motherly personification of the Graham-Rudman Act. Ever had to justify buying a $3 pack of Yu-gi-oh cards for a kid that already has hundreds? I have. With a Daddy Decision The Kid always knows there is the Mommy Court of Appeals - and she is all too happy to exercise her judicial perogative and overturn my decisions. Mommy establishes precedent and there is a strong stare decisis in The House. Daddy, being the liberal parent he is, has no sense of the importance of precedent so often finds himself overruled.

There is a definite positive dynamic in our family that is based on our differences and it works for us. I am sure all relationships don't have to be of the "Matlin - Carville" type to be successful, but the article points out some interesting reasons why such relationships are more stable than you might expect. It also makes some important points about humor - but I'll have to leave that for another time.

Dr. Zin notes that Kurds have been protesting, demonstrating, even rioting lately in Iran.

Apparently seeing freedom and democracy for Kurds in Iraq is causing Iranian Kurds to feel a little impatient.

Gosh. Who'da thunk it? I mean, what are the odds?

Ron Coleman notes a recent important court decision which appears to gut the concept of community standards when it comes to the internet.

I'm not one to avoid hyperbole in debate. I use it effectively all the time. I recently had a discussion with a liberal friend that accused me of using it. The funny thing? I didn't feel I was at all hyperbolic, I thought I made an accurate analogy.

I compared the Kelo decision to date rape. I think I was pretty spot on. Please read: A Vagina Dialogue

Let me know what you think. Did I use hyperbole or was that a fair analogy?

My buddy Jerry Kaufman has a powerful piece up by Martin Peretz of The New Republic. Quote:

In England, Anglican clerics were part of the establishment gambit of fascist sympathizers disguising themselves as anti-war idealists. These were the folk who soiréed at Cliveden, read and wrote in the London Times, chatted wittily at All Souls—appeasers all, as seen in the movie, The Remains of the Day. And the Anglican Church also had its devotees of Stalin, the most noteworthy (or notorious) of whom was Dr. Hewlett Johnson, the "Red Dean of Canterbury," who wrote the adoring agitprop volume, The Socialist Sixth of the World. He was a luminary in Henry Wallace’s pro-Soviet campaign for president of the United States on the Progressive Party ticket. Among Wallace’s most notable supporters were bishops and other high churchmen from the mainstream American Protestant denominations.

He goes on to say more--a lot more--about the Anglicans, the Presbyterians, and others who back Islamic fascism over Israel. You can read it here.

Interesting editorial in the Saudi-run Arab News by Dr. Mohammed T. Al-Rasheed:

The summer of heat and bombs continues unabated. The condemnations of terrorism are deafening yet meaningless. Are we to get used to the sight of the wounded being carried away from beaches, hotels, and transport modes? As for the dead, the charred bodies leave nothing to contemplate.

The Brits have tempted fate with their “stiff upper lip” till their police lost their cool and killed an innocent man. Chalk up one more for the terrorists. The Egyptians on television keep telling the world that it was “imported” and could not have been an Egyptian that did the Sharm atrocities. Well, possible, but Ayman Zawaheri is an Egyptian and bosom buddy of Bin Laden.

Are we seeing and experiencing the dementia and frustration of the powerless? I think we are. The world seems impotent for the time being in the face of these atrocities. The world does not lack the means to combat this menace. The history of humanity is full of such struggles and invariably the majority wins and terror recedes. But today we lack the will to combat it. If you want to catch a fish, you do not go to the desert. And if you want to catch a terrorist you do not man tube stations. Once you are in the station trying to catch the perpetrator, you have already lost the game. The most effective way to combat vermin is to strike at their breeding grounds and not under your sink.

It took a heavy price for Tony Blair to recognize that he is fighting an “ideology.” Good for him. Now that this basic premise is clear, let us see what he is to do about it. Rushing off to war in Iraq did not bring terror to London. Those who are in their ivory towers pontificating about this matter are wrong — dead wrong! For once Blair is right and he should be supported unconditionally.

It is too late to ask for American and British withdrawal from Iraq. If that happens, Iraq will sink into a more gruesome, if at all imaginable, bloodbath and bring down the area with it. So let us stop discussing this matter for the time being and concentrate on the real and dangerous issue: Terror at home and abroad — home being where you actually live and abroad is just about fifty yards from where you are all the way to the South Pole.

The rest is here.

(Via Crossroads Arabia.)

The latest Carnival of the Vanities is available at Pratie Place.

Hmm, look here: one of our beloved Military Bloggers is running for Congress--and he's looking to unseat Maxine Waters.

I'd call him a long shot, but I'd love to see one of our guys make the big time.

Thanks to John Van Laer for the heads-up.

I'm behind on my mail so I only just found this out: retired General William Westmoreland, who commanded our troops through the worst of the Viet Nam conflict, recently died at age 91.

I seem to recall that in the 1980s, some PBS documentary film makers accused him of fabricating casualty reports, and that Westmoreland sued them for that. I don't recall what came of that lawsuit though.

Interesting family story: my great-grandmother dated him for a while.

* Update * Wikipedia has a pretty good writeup on Westmoreland, and answers my question on the lawsuit.

NASA is grounding future shuttle flights due to safety concerns--again.

It is time for the shuttle program to be scrapped. In fact, I say it's time they get out of the business of launching vehicles into space entirely.

This is what the bombers in London were using to kill people.

Note how the device has nails all around it--those are there to ensure that the maximum number of people possible are killed or wounded. So that if the concussion or falling debris don't get you, then a nail or glass will. More details here.

Yeah, it's all Blair's fault for helping take out a fascist dictator in Iraq. Uh huh.

(Also via Val.)

Photos of recent protests here.

Val has further comments.

Freedom House, which rates every country in the world based on both political and civil freedoms, continues to list Cuba as among the 8 least-free nations on Earth in its combined average freedom ratings. Even places like China are more free.

Last night The Family watched Dirty Jobs - a show on the Discovery Channel that sends a guy out to do some of the nation's dirtiest jobs. One of the jobs was sorting recyclable materials from trash at a recycling center. If memory serves, garbage trucks from the Bay Area carted recyclable materials to a center filled with conveyor belts that moved the stuff around as people sorted it into paper, plastic, glass, metal and trash. Mike Rowe, the host of the show, worked alongside one of the sorters, asking him all kinds of questions about the job. Paper was compacted into bales weighing a ton. The center produced 400 of these a day, and sold them for about $130-200 a bale.

"See why I nag you to sort the recycling first?" The Wife nudzhed me.

I remained silent, doing the math in my head. 400 x $200=$80,000/day for paper. Not too shabby on its own, but as I stared at the numerous lengthy conveyor belts that snaked their way through a large well-lit center filled with moving cranes and fork lifts and I began to wonder about the overhead costs - both economic and environmental.

There was the cost of electricity to run the conveyor belts, lights and other machines. The electricity most likely came from a powerplant burning fossil fuels. Then there was the cost of the diesel used by the fork lifts and garbage trucks. Diesels aren't the cleanest engines on the planet (yet - although I've read they are much improved). I imagined them driving around the Bay Area collecting recycling while spewing pollution into the air. That struck me as a bit nonsensical.

They didn't mention glass. The materials for glass making are some of the most abundant on earth, and recycling glass takes a lot of water and energy to do. When you look at the entire lifecycle, does recycling a glass bottle make sense rather than making a new one?

Here's an in-depth rticle that discusses just that. It's conclusion: If you are concerned about the environment, recycling doesn't help. There's only one solution: Use less.

It's important in a marriage to choose your battles carefully. It will take me years to convince the Wife that if she wants to help the environment she should read the Sunday paper online, avoid glass bottles and when she can't - throw them away in the trash. She was indoctrinated at the University of California to believe that recycling is good for the environment ie An environmental group said it. I believe it. That settles it. It is a dogma that she hasn't questioned much over the years, and honestly, I wasn't up to rocking her world on a Tuesday night after a long day in the NICU.

But the fact remains: Recycling is bad for the environment. Using less is good. So the mainstream media (MSM) isn't just biased and elitist: it's bad for the environment too.

Who said Conservatives weren't green?

So, tell me something interesting.

Or funny.

Have you ever used a Dutch oven or gone Dutch on a date? Ever felt gypped? Or enjoyed hearing a jew's harp? Are you familiar with reverse Polish notation? Ever known anyone who wore an afro or a dago tee? Have you ever played Chinese checkers? Ever call someone a redneck? Or put some English on a ball?

I sometimes think it must have been odd that I grew up with the idea that all these terms were offensive. I think I feel an onomastic cringe coming on.

Cathy Young has a remarkably fair-minded analysis.

When anti-Castro demonstrations in Cuba start making the news, you have to wonder if old Fidel's power is slipping. Ditto when a mass defection embarasses the regime.

Let's hope so, anyway.

(Both links stolen from Instapundit.)

Heh.

There was a time in this country when most liberals said that it was wrong, even unAmerican, to discriminate against people on the basis of "race, creed, color, or national origin."

I always thought of that as a fundamental American value myself, although I guess it hasn't always been.

I have just one question though:

How many of you know what a "creed" is?

It's not a sarcastic question. I honestly don't believe that most people know. Especially when I read things like this.

The latest roundup of the best medical blogging, the Grand Rounds, is available at Pharyngula.

Today's Wall Street Journal notes the steep and ongoing decline of labor unions in America. They note many reasons for this, including the fact that they're wedded to one political party, that they pour more money into political campaigns than membership drives, and more. But for my money the real explanation is in this part:

What's missing on both sides, however, is a vision of economic opportunity that might actually make workers want to join a union in the first place. Tactics aside, both factions continue to believe in the idea of unions that arose in the Industrial Age: Greedy management versus the exploited working man, seniority over flexibility, fixed benefits and strike threats over working with management to keep a U.S.-based company profitable and innovative in a world of growing competition.

I absolutely agree with that. We live in a world where most young people--by which I mean under 40--don't want cradle-to-grave security, do not view "management" as a monolithic adversary, do not want to work at the same job for their entire lives, actually enjoy things like owning stocks and having our own retirement portfolios, would like to have health insurance portability, and so on.

Most people aren't hostile to the idea of collective bargaining or being a member of an organization that helps provide a safety net. But most of today's trade unions are so badly stuck in the past it's ridiculous.

Move over South Park Republicans. There is a new group in town: potential Cosby Republicans. Read how the Republican Party can help capture the demographic subgroup of black folks who are socially moderate to conservative, but fiscally liberal to moderate (aka old-school blacks). They have the potential to transform moderate Republicanism - they flip the script on the current dominant model of social liberalism and fiscal moderatism - black politics, and the Republican Party itself.

Recently Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colorado) made an incendiary statement that the U.S. should bomb Islamic holy sites in retribution for terrorist attacks in the West. Tancredo was condemned for this, but in my mailbox this morning came this item:

(Washington, DC July 26) The Free Muslims Coalition (FMC), a national Muslim organization with 15 chapters, will meet this Wednesday with Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado about a recent comment in which he suggested that the United States should bomb Islamic Holy sites in Mecca as a deterrent against the terrorists.

Following the congressman’s statements, he was immediately criticized by the White House and the Muslim leadership world wide. In response to the criticism, Spokesman Will Adams stated "We have an enemy with no uniform, no state, who looks like you and me and only emerges right before an attack. How do we go after someone like that?"

The Free Muslim Coalition (FMC) is not interested in joining the chorus of Muslim organizations who attacked Congressman Tancredo. Instead, we intend on having an honest discussion about resolving this controversy. FMC understands that Congressman Tancredo represents the frustration of millions of Americans who on a daily basis watch in horror as dozens of innocent people are murdered in the name of Islam.

FMC will convey to Congressman Tancredo that many Muslims share his frustration about the senseless killing of innocent people in the name of our beloved religion. The Free Muslims have said time and time again that the war on terror is more than a military battle, it is also an ideological battle and only Muslims can defeat the cancer of terrorism and extremism that is spreading throughout the Muslim world. The Free Muslims recognize that the Muslim leadership in America and abroad has failed in challenging and discrediting the ideology that leads to extremism and terrorism but we are now trying to reverse our past mistakes by aggressively challenging the terrorists and their evil ideology.

FMC understands that Congressman Tancredo was only speaking hypothetically based on the theory that America must threaten the terrorists with what matters to them most. However, what congressman Tancredo does not understand is that the terrorists don’t care if the United States destroys their holy places. The terrorists are heartless criminals and as far as they are concerned the holy places are just buildings that can be rebuilt. In fact, they will use Congressman Tancredo’s comments as more ammunition for their arsenal. Most likely, the terrorists will take Congressman Tancredo’s words out of context to gain more recruits by convincing gullible Muslims that they are defending them from "crusaders" who want to "destroy Islam."

FMC president Kamal Nawash will ask Congressman Tancredo to join Muslims who want nothing more that to eliminate the terrorists and the ideology that leads to extremism and terrorism. Nawash said that “Jews, Christians, Muslims and the entire civilized world must join forces to defeat this evil that hides behind religion to justify the murder of innocent people.”

For more information, please visit www.freemuslims.org.

I wish more bloggers would write about these guys.

Smash has a story.

Welcome to the Carnival of the Liberated, a sampler of some of the best posts from Iraqi and Afghani bloggers. This week Khalid is free, a girl changes into a dog, reactions to the latest London bombing, and much, much more.

Afghan Lord is still trying to get some action out of the BBC. You may recall that someone using the Beeb's Internet connection made death threats to him some time ago. If you have any ideas about the appropriate contacts for the BBC, I'm sure Afghan Lord would appreciate some help.

Afghan Warrior expresses his appreciation for the U. S. forces there.

Iraqi blogger Khalid Jarrar has been freed! Khalid himself hasn't posted much yet. His mother and brother are, if anything, even more anti-American after this experience.

Sunshine of Days of My Life has a pair of interesting posts. First, she prepares for a house inspection by American forces. Then, she watches Oprah.

There's a new Iraqi blogger: War on Terror (hat tip: Free Iraq). Go on over and offer him some encouragement.

Ali of Free Iraqi writes about the terrorist attack in Egypt:

I believe the latest barbaric attacks in London and Egypt have confirmed many things for us who support the war on terror but at the same time should in my mind make those in charge reconsider their approach to the problem or at least make some adjustments.

One of the things that these attacks confirmed is that no one is safe and that destruction of the whole human civilization represented by its best current model; the west is the ultimate target of these sick fanatics. It doesn't matter to them who their victims are, how old they are, what's their job or what are they doing in a "Muslim land", while on the "War land" the question is more irrelevant.

Popular Iraqi gossip or supermarket tabloid? Girl changed to dog! or scorpion! From Friends of Democracy.

Hammorabi weighs in on the most recent London attacks. So does Omar of Iraq the Model:

Let's not forget that we're not living in isolated islands anymore, we all share the globe and our interests are connected in a way that makes it almost impossible to stay away from the effects of what's happening in other parts of this world.

Okay, suppose that the UK decided to leave Iraq, what's next?

Egyptians leave Cairo, Londoners leave London, or I leave Baghdad??

Apparently, we're facing the terrorists' version of globalization where every democracy is heresy and every man or woman smoking, playing soccer or not wearing hijab or a beard is infidel. They want their dark culture to dominate the world and they know that the only they can do that is by destroying every other culture they don't agree with.

Alaa of The Mesopotamian thinks that all of Baghdad should be as tightly controlled as the Green Zone.

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

There's been a lot of discussion on a lot of blogs in recent weeks proposing that there be changes to how we treat the Supreme Court, everything from term limiting them to something like 20 years, to having them have to undergo a vote of confidence every 10 years or so, even proposals that they be directly elected.

Whenever I see such discussions I feel compelled to point out to people that any such proposal would require a Constitutional amendment--and that such amendments are notoriusly difficult to have ratified. Given that you need a 2/3rds majority vote in both the House and the Senate, AND 75% of state legislatures to pass the amendment, this is a fearsome task and one that will take an enormous amount of time, money, and energy to accomplish. Getting something that many people can agree to would be a very difficult task.

My own view is that the most politically achievable proposal would be to term limit Supreme Court Justices. Those who saw this as an attempt to gerrymander the results to help Democrats or Republicans could be answered by making such an amendment not take effect until 2013 or even 2017, and exempting current members of the court. But even that would likely degenerate into immature squabbling, as some would suggest that this was all somehow a secret plot to Bush's benefit.

What do you think?

According to CNN the Muslim American Society is launching an anti-terrorism campaign.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — A coalition of U.S.-based Muslim groups launched an intensified anti-terrorism campaign Monday using community groups to persuade young people their religion provides no basis for violence.

The president of the Muslim American Society, Esam Omeish [link, .ed], told reporters at a news conference that his group rejects attacks such as those recently in Britain and Egypt, and will "deny terrorists any religious, ideological or political legitimacy."

He said the attacks bring the spotlight back to prevention, and that such efforts must go beyond surveillance and intelligence by law enforcement.

The Muslim groups said they would intensify an effort among community groups such as religious schools, youth centers and Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of America programs.

Responding to questions, Omeish and representatives of other organizations said they knew of no al Qaeda or Muslim terror groups in the United States.

From the Chicago Tribune:

In recent months Akef, the international Brotherhood leader, repeatedly has praised Palestinian and Iraqi suicide bombers, called for the destruction of Israel and asserted that the United States has no proof that Al Qaeda was to blame for the Sept. 11 attacks ..

In recent years, the U.S. Brotherhood operated under the name Muslim American Society, according to documents and interviews. One of the nation's major Islamic groups, it was incorporated in Illinois in 1993 after a contentious debate among Brotherhood members.

..if the topic of terrorism were raised, leaders were told to say that they were against terrorism but that jihad was among a Muslim's "divine legal rights" to be used to defend himself and his people and to spread Islam.

But MAS leaders say those documents and others obtained by the Tribune are either outdated or do not accurately reflect the views of the group's leaders.

MAS describes itself as a "charitable, religious, social, cultural and educational not-for-profit organization." It has headquarters in Alexandria, Va., and 53 chapters nationwide, including one in Bridgeview, across the street from the mosque there.

Omeish also doesn't mention that a member of the Brotherhood, "the blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman was linked to the World Trade Center bombing in February 1993 and the assassination of Rabbi Meir Kahane, and was arrested and convicted for his role in a plot to destroy NYC landmarks.

The Muslim Brotherhood supports the terrorist "insurgents" in Iraq. The Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood calls itself Hamas. Funded generously by oil money, the Muslim Brotherhood has become a powerful political force in Europe. In Europe, they also pretend to be a non-violent organization.

Like their protege, bin Laden, the Brotherhood hopes to establish a worldwide Caliphate ruled by apartheid Shariah laws.

In America, the Muslim Brotherhood calls itself the Muslim American Society and they claim to oppose violent terrorism. They call themselves a moderate youth outreach group (with a history of assasinations, terrorism and a logo of swords added for extra peace!)

Of course they expect us to believe them. Why shouldn't they, CNN does. So does Harvard.

In his "anti-terrorism" speech, the Muslim American Society's Mahdi Bray said of the American government:

"Rather than spending all their energies in terms of recruiting spies and snitchers, they need to spend more time and more energy engaging the authentic Muslim leadership" in the United States

At times I think America's most extensive brand of Christianity must be the Dispensationalists. The Wikipedia has a remarkably fair and thorough overview of who they are and what they believe.

Once you read it, you may realize you know more than one such person. Indeed, you may even be one.

Theo Van Gogh's murderer, Mohammed Bouyeri, has been sentenced to life imprisonment.

At his hearing, the murderer looked right in his victim's mother's face and said, "I don't feel your pain. I have to admit I don't have any sympathy for you. I can't feel for you because I think you're a non-believer." He also told the court that if given a chance he would likely commit similar murders in the future.

Undoubtedly this murder never have happened if we hadn't taken out Saddam's fascist regime. Damn that Bush!

What he said.

Joe Gandelman has a pretty good analysis.

I'd only note that what voters will want to question is whether she's genuinely centrist, or merely picks a few symbolic conservative-sounding issues to seem centrist.

Mind you, her husband was genuinely centrist (and not, by the way, all that different on a policy level from the "extreme right wing" George W. Bush). The question a lot of voters will have on their minds when it comes to Hillary is how much of her centrism is merely style and how much of it is actual commitment?

On my friend Dwayne's recommendation, I decided to check out the new musical Reefer Madness. I have to admit it's better than I expected. Pretty funny, and the tunes are quite good.

It's airing this month on Showtime if you're looking for it. Not bad at all.

The latest RINO Roundup is available at Countertop Chronicles.

Researchers at Ohio State University say there is a significant difference in how men and women decide who they trust: Men tend to trust people based on group affiliation, and women tend to trust people based on personal and familial affiliation.

Without guessing why that is, I'd have to say that now that I've had that pointed out to me, it rings very true.

(Yes, yes, someone will come along and say "that's not me!" That's not the point. I don't like watching team sports, but I'm not blind to the fact that most men do, either. Studying what makes us different is interesting, and not about superiority or inferiority. It also makes meeting exceptional people more interesting. Learn a little joie de vivre, why don't you?)

Rudy Rummel has a new draft of his work on condensing the Democratic Peace theory in a form people can easily and quickly understand. He would like your input.

Do you like books? I mean, really like books? Does the phrase "used book store" fill your head with visions of sugar plums? Are you waiting for a Rich Relative to die off just to get her library? If so, I cannot recommend The Eyre Affair in strong enough terms...

This is not an unqualified endorsement; though it may sound like one. It is, instead, a very qualified endorsement: Only read this book if you love to read books...

Recently I tried to explain to a parent that American Gods was a wonderful book, but not one for children. It contains no sex and not a lot of violence, but those aren't reasons in themselves for a book to be non-accessible for children. The _themes_ of the book, the presentation, the situations all scream that this is an adult book. Children will understand the words, but don't yet have the life experience to make the words anything more than a collection of syllables...

The same is true of the Eyre Affair, though in a different direction. I've spent more time in front of books than I care to think about. I learned Morality from Heinlein, and Empathy from Scott-Card. My parents never really restricted me from television, but rather from reading anything other than school books. So the idea that one can literally go into a book and play with the characters is one that I can relate to... If the idea seems familiar, well it should. Heinlein would have a good case if he sued for intellectual property infringement. Don't get me wrong, though; Mr. Fforde has written his books much better than Heinlein's latter dreck could even approach. Mr. Fforde plays with words, scenes and conventions in ways that the Late Mr. Heinlein would specifically distain. This must be why Mr. Heinlein was interesting and important, while Mr. Fforde is just fun...

Rating: 5 joyful noises out of 5 joyful noises. Just a lot of _fun_

Charles Chibitty, the last of World War II's Comanche code talkers, has died.

"It's strange, but growing up as a child I was forbidden to speak my native language at school. Later my country asked me to. My language helped win the war and that makes me very proud. Very proud."

John Donovan has a personal story of Charles Chibitty, and more to say that's worth reading.

I was quite moved by this photo-essay at Positive Liberty by Jason Kuznicki. I also enjoyed reading Ace and Sean's responses to it.

It is often noted in conservative circles that gay people who decide they want to change are sometimes harassed and ostracized by their gay friends. It's true that does happen. Yet there is the flip side: the ongoing demonization and ostracization of gay people who simply don't *want* to change, or have honestly tried and feel they can't.

There seems to be a black-and-whiteness to some people's idea of human sexuality that I just don't buy into. I have bigger problems with social conservatives on this subject than I do with others though; most of them seem to be caught in the classic "slippery slope" fallacy-logic that if you deviate from the norm in one area, soon you will deviate in countless areas and become a "deviant." So if you masturbate, soon you might slip into aggressive sex, and soon from there you might slip into rape, and then into homosexuality, necrophilia, pedophilia, bestiality, incest--"all manner of wicked fornication."

Indeed, this thinking seems to be what underlies some people's support of "sexual offender" registries: if one time some guy gets drunk and out of control and winds up pleading guilty in court to "intending to rape" or gets caught masturbating in a theater, we assume that for the rest of his life he should be on a watch list 'lest he slip into child molestation and serial murder.

I don't have much patience for gay people who become angry or accusatory if some gay person decides one day, "you know, I think I was wrong, I think this isn't who I want to be." Who are you to run their lives? But I have an even bigger problem with people who think they have a right to hurl abuse and condescension at someone who says, "you know what? I don't want to change, leave me and my family alone."

I get the same sort of thing when I have evangelicals trying to convert me back into the Christian fold. I actually like evangelical Christians, and count many of them among my friends. I can't tell you how often they've "testified" for me, and given me various explanations for why I have "fallen away," most of them having to do with my lack of sincerity or my having sought salvation the wrong way. I try to just let it go, respect them and treat them as friends anyway, and change the subject. I've got better things to do with my life than browbeat people who don't believe what I do. But sometimes, if they won't take "no" for an answer, I usually try, "You know what? If your view of God is correct, and God pitches people into a lake of fire for not believing, then I choose to stand in the lake with them. So please: NO THANK YOU." After that, some won't talk to me anymore, but that's their choice. Sometimes they try "testifying" some more but soon realize that I mean it--I really do--and we move on. Once in a while, interesting conversations ensue. Sometimes, believe it or not, even lengthy friendships.

Yep. Believe it or not I've got a passal of friends who are all pretty sure I'm going to Hell. When I stopped being mad at them for thinking it, I stopped being mad at a lot of other stuff too.

When I read Jason K's touching photo-essay, I thought, "there's a guy who probably gets it."

The Watcher of Weasels Council is looking for a new member.

My dear wife notes we dodged a bullet when the President didn't nominate Dershowitz.

Heh.

What doubly amuses me is I knew more than one lefty who four years ago was saying Dershowitz was right to call for the torture of terrorist suspects. Those same people now act as if they never said anything of the sort, and routinely act as if "torture" (now defined as things like letting a dog bark at someone, or rubbing lotion on him) is a rampant and horrible indictment of America.

I try not to have discussions with people like that. There seems not to be much point, y'know?

Ghost of a Flea notes confusion between UK "asians" and US "asians".

I've been railing about this subject for years. I've all but given up though. So I'll just say, Sean speaks for me here.

The latest Carnival of the Capitalists is available at Political Calculations.

Ah, I see that someone has resurrected the old game "Killer" into an online version.

Most interesting....

Speaking of Pundit Review, Kevin also made a point earlier this week that the White House pulled a major head-fake when it nominated John Roberts for the Supreme Court.

It wouldn't surprise me. It's long been apparent that the main way the Bush White House operates is not by "dirty tricks" — a common but false allegation most of the time — but by leading opponents to think they're going to do one thing and then do another.

They're also very good at allowing themselves to be pounded hard on issues that they know are harmless. Witness all the witless energy that's been poured by furious partisans into the ridiculous Valerie Plame affair.

When your enemies are certain they have your number and they don't, and when they attack you in areas where only your most rabid critics care, you're usually in pretty good shape.

Via Kevin at Pundit Review I find this repulsive story of a woman who killed herself and her 9 month old daughter by jumping from a window. Her husband had apparently just walked in the door in time to see the woman jump. They later found the suicide note, asking for forgiveness, in her bra.

Suicide I could maybe forgive. But murder? Doubtful. And this woman was a murderer.

I keep forgetting to link this. Val has a great reaction to my birthday surprise.

So, Microsoft has announced that it plans to require Windows XP in order to run its new Internet Explorer version 7. The folks at the Firefox project are reportedly very excited, since they assume it will boost interest in Firefox for all those people running Windows 2000, Millenium, 98, etc.

I doubt if it's going to make all that much difference, but I imagine they'll see at least some bump in interest from people who want browser improvements but don't want to pay to upgrade to XP.

The thing is I fully expect IE7 to copy most of Firefox's enhancements, and to add some typical Microsoft-only "features" that are hard for the Firefox people to emulate. And the users of earlier Microsoft operating systems will shrink over the time.

The really interesting thing to see will be whether or not the Firefox folks can reverse-engineer whatever Internet Explorer 7 has in order to remain compatible with it. Or better yet, find some way to add features that Microsoft feels they have to emulate.