'Nother Solent

I feel numbed

by this news. There's a line from a Leslie Fish song written when Challenger went down: "You lived the dream I had dreamed..."

Rand Simberg has worked on shuttles. See what he has to say.

Dale Amon also knows a lot about the shuttle and is following the story closely.

As for the crew, may they rest in peace. And may we not rest, neither in peace nor in war. Mankind should be in space. Why?

For early warning of catastrophes that may strike our planet, and a chance to avert them,

for profit and for practical knowledge,

for raw materials and zero-g manufacturing,

for curiosity,

for health research and recovery from injury,

for the beautiful photos,

for a passion honoured by every age but ours: glory, be it personal, national or international,

for new places to live, eventually,

as proof of what human beings can do without that superstition about god - and to know the marvels of His creation,

and for sheer joy.

Space shuttle

Columbia is feared lost.

I disagree

with Turkeyblog's view that the existing coalition should keep struggling to get France and Germany on side. But Geoffrey Barto puts forward some good arguments, and I agree with his underlying political world-view 100%:

The problem is that the world isn't standing against it [i.e. Iraq]. That a nation ever so proud of its Declaration of the Rights of Man has renounced the Enlightenment notion of universal principles and decided that Gallic pride trumps the rights of men whose oppressors cut good oil deals and get France back in the newspapers. That a country that provoked two world wars in the last century is incapable of seeing the need to contain another power that, having brought on a regional war, agreed to disarm as part of its surrender but didn't do so (should we be scared that Germans are so wary of taking action against a socialistic dictator?). That an organization created to secure world peace and justice is more attendant to the whims of its most miserable members than to the ideals upon which it was founded and the need for these to be taken seriously.

Personally, I think it's too late for the UN in its present form. Never forget that the UN has put Libya in charge of human rights and Iraq in charge of disarmament.

UPDATE: Enough. Finis. Be done with them.

The living faith of the dead vs the dead faith of the living.

An excellent string of posts from Eve Tushnet on what tradition is and is not. Here is one from the middle of the string.

"...there's a big difference between a living tradition and a series of reversals, rejections, and capitulations to fleeting cultural fads, even if the series maintains some superficial elements of similarity."

A useful tip

for driving in snow: if your wheels spin when you try to start, change up a gear quickly. Don't speed up, just change up while still moving very deliberately. Maybe only 0.78 of a reader did not know that already, but 1.00 of the writers of this blog didn't until yesterday.

Snow everywhere.

No school, either at my kids' establishment or the one where my husband teaches.

As usual there will be much throwing up of the hands in horror at the way England closes down under four inches of snow. Actually it's perfectly rational. Heavy snow doesn't happen very often. We shouldn't waste much time and money preparing for a natural phenomenon that happens once every three years and is, with sad exceptions, much less harmful to life or property than floods or storms. Furthermore since driving in snowy conditions is much more dangerous than staying home in snowy conditions closing down the country for the odd day might be a net benefit. It snows more in Scotland, still more in Austria, still more in Canada, so naturally they prepare for it more and make arrangements for business to continue.

My husband is, of course, deeply traumatized at being separated from his work and made to build a snowman.

Deutsche Welle has this take on the split in Europe over what to do about Iraq. Later on the article talks about what Schröder might do to jam up the works:

Many Germans, including Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, also oppose any war on Iraq. And on Thursday, they learned of a possible way that their country could slow any U.S. military action. A report issued by a parliamentary lawyer said Germany could prohibit the United States from using its bases in Germany if it launched a war against Iraq without U.N. authorization. Such a prohibition could present a major obstacle for the United States, which relies heavily on air bases in Germany and has thousands of soldiers stationed throughout the southern half of the country.

A Regular Correspondent

writes: ...interesting list of European countries backing action.

- The Iberian peninsula and Italy: I've no particular explanation of why these three are on-side unless the Franco-German axis scares them. One may allow the possibility that the idea of an atom bomb in Saddam's hands also scares them, and they accept that he could one day have one.

- Denmark: one of the less corrupt political cultures in Europe to my way of thinking. Past Danish governments have played the 'vote again and this time get the answer right' game on their populace but they may be on-side simply through being (more) rational and honest on this one. The significant point is they're usually not very bellicose (c.f. WWII: the best record in Europe re saving Jews but nothing to write home about re resisting the initial German invasion; to be fair they were in a militarily hopeless position and the same king who ordered resistance to cease slightly earlier than his general thought suited the military decencies later informed the Germans that he would be the first to wear the yellow star if it were introduced).

- Poland and Czech Republic: tend to like us and dislike Germany for obvious reasons. Also they, with Hungary (and now Slovakia has signed-up too, I see), have living-memory experience of being under a totalitarian regime.

It will also be interesting to see who else signs the rival Franco-German letter of opposition to action that will be sent soon (assuming the slight hints that France is preparing her escape route when it all happens anyway do not blossom so far they they don't sign it either). Doubtless it will get much support from those who are too cynical to believe Tony Blair's warnings - and so implicitly assert that they believe Saddam Hussien's denials instead. I am not given to placing great credence in Tony's remarks in general, but when the choice is between believing him and believing Saddam, I question the sincerity of those who choose the latter.

Just for fun

, let's look for references to sanctions against Iraq that seem curiously reluctant to mention that the holy UN had anything to do with them. To start you off, here's Seamus Milne in the Guardian today.

"What changed after 1991 was that the greatest suffering endured by Iraqis was no longer at the hands of the regime, but the result of western-enforced sanctions which, according to Unicef estimates, have killed at least 500,000 children over the past decade."

LATER: Actually, this game might be too easy to be any fun. A Google search for the phrase "US-led sanctions" gave me 1,710 entries.

The sanctions came about as a result of UN Security Council Resolution 681. It was the usual hodgepodge, nominally about Israel, but it was a bona fide UN resolution, or at least as bona fide as UN resolutions ever are. If you want to say that this organization is the font of legitimacy then the sanctions were legitimate.

While I'm at it, here once again is Matt Welch debunking the 500,000 dead babies figure in March 2002, but not denying that the sanctions have caused hardship.

A cure worse than the disease.

Junius blogs about a threat to academic freedom. He says, "A report into Mona Baker's decision to sack Israelis from the editorial boards of journals she edits has recommended that British universities should take on extensive powers to regulate the external activities of their staff. As regular readers know, I thought Mona Baker's actions were wrong, repellent and stupid, but this rings alarm bells..."

Not a dethronement but certainly a disappointment.

I have done a bit of reading to catch up on the controversy concerning whether John Lott did or did not do a survey in 1997. First things looked like a Bellesiles re-play: little or no evidence that the survey was done. Then along came someone who remembered participating. Then it was revealed that this person was pro-gun activist, so not an impartial source. Then it was made clear that this person had made clear he was a gun activist all the time, and said he had only heard about the doubt about whether the survey was done because he was a gun activist. Other academics do remember talk of a survey, and a computer crash, but the tax and other financial records seem unsatisfactory.

This obviously has the potential to be a Bellesiles scandal with the sides reversed - well, smaller, since the disputed survey covers one specific claim rather than the whole book, but still on the same lines. I am gradually reading (in an irregular pattern, as is my wont) Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime, and I'm still very impressed by it. (Its main argument is unaffected, and it will stay that way until you start reading in the papers about a bloodbath in the US states that allow concealed carry, instead of the reduction in crime you do read about.)

I am a good deal less impressed by Lott's showing in this latest controversy. I have skimmed the various accounts rather than read them deeply - like all such controversies they delve deep into who said what when and have multiple layers - so don't take my conclusions as the last word; but the wrap-up seems to be that he probably did do the survey, but in what a sloppy and disorganized manner. It had far too small a sample size for him to claim it proved what he said it proved. He has been much more evasive than I would have expected. Also he has admitted that he pretended to be a woman called "Mary Rosh" on the internet and defended that nice Mr Lott in comment-room flame wars. There's nothing wrong with using a pseudonym (Disclosure: I do my political writing under one name and non-political work under another), and I gather that pretending to be the opposite sex is very commonplace, but to review your own books favourably is just laughable. Perhaps it started out as just a laugh.

Julian Sanchez writes about it all here. (His angle? Libertarian, disappointed in Lott.)

Tim Lambert writes about it here. (His angle? Anti-gun, serious contender, longtime foe of Lott.)

James Lindgren writes about it here. (His angle? He is a law professor who was appointed ( I'm not sure by whom, but seems respected by both sides) to write a report on the affair. It's a long piece, containing lots of footnotes and quoted e-mails.

Marie Gryphon writes about it in several posts, including a long e-mail from Lott himself. Scroll up and down from here. (Her angle seems broadly similar to Sanchez's.)

In my more optimistic moments

I dare to hope that the current divisions over what to do with Iraq could crack open the European Union as well as the United Nations. It would be absurd as well as immoral to want a war because of its side effects on international organizations. But there is no harm in observing that some of the side effects could be good.

It still astonishes me that until about four years ago I was neutral on the EU and rather pro the UN. (I still think a humbled UN could do some good in providing a face-saving way for belligerent countries who are sick of war to get out of fighting any more.) True fact: my husband has a UN tie in his wardrobe.

Public Interest says Pilger's gone mad. His latest piece in the Mirror says that "The current American elite is the Third Reich of our times."

I'm going to stop feeling guilty

about missing my chance to vote David Janes in the Bloggies and just post this.

Not that I understand a word of it, mind. It feeds your blog RSS or something. I hope the blogs don't get fat rsses.

Sorry. I wish I had the strength of will to delete that, and generally not be such a silly rss.

Good Lord, it's working.

Better post this quick before Blogger goes balooey again. Have you ever wanted to spot the moment when a historical trend swung into reverse? Maybe Patrick Crozier has.

Blogger is being evil today

. I was going to fiddle with the template and put in a new Janes' Blogosphere button, but judging from my success rate so far I shall be lucky if I get to post this.

A missile hits a House of God.

Christopher Johnson of MCJ predicted that the Anglican bishies would have much to say about the recent damage to a church in Israel caused by a IDF missile that went astray. Boy, was he right.

He's right about the correct response, too. (Though Monte Cassino would be a better WWII parallel than Coventry.) What they should be saying boils down to "It’s war. Very sad, but these things happen. Be glad it was only a building."

Such phrases cause a lot of anger amongst some people, who think them callous and overly accepting of war as a natural state. I'm not in the business of causing unecessary anger (er, not in my better moments, anyway) so perhaps it would be better to state the underlying point. It is, or should be, that some wars save lives in the long run relative to the other options, such as surrender. And you don't always even have that much choice in war - if the enemy are sufficiently genocidal you may not even have the option of surrender. A great many Palestinians and other Muslims have said openly that all the Jews should be killed, enslaved or driven out. If you don't believe me spend an hour or so here. The upshot is, sometimes you can't get out of war. And war breaks things. The accidental breaking of a building is among the least of its evils.

I love old churches. Some of them are, literally, the most beautiful works of man, made even more beautiful by contemplation of the piety of those who built them and of the generations who worshipped in them. And the man who would wantonly desecrate the temple of any religion, whether the building is old or new, ugly or beautiful - well, that man is scum. But even the House of God is still only a building. Look, if you believe in any of the Judeo-Christian religions at all, including Islam, then you believe that God – and you! - will outlast not only these stones but the whole earth, the galaxies, the universe, and time itself. From the way some bishops talk you’d think that when a House of God gets knocked down He is in need of emergency housing to be provided by the UN.

By the time that you have been abducted

and are fighting for your life as your kidnapper beats you about the head with a wooden bat, it's superfluous to consider the "risks" of self-defence. But they don't think so in New Zealand, so they are considering whether to prosecute some sixteen year old girl for not lying down to die like she ought. Did the anti-social little beast have no conception of her wider responsibilities? How dare she act as if her miserable little life is more important than maintaining our trust that the police will always be there for you?

Original story from NZ Pundit. Add me, please, to the "I hate these people" list.

David Janes has spotted a story in the Register about Iain Murray getting sacked for blogging.

While I'm on my R&R, I meant to link to this a while ago and put it in a special "Action" filing cabinet to make sure I remembered.

OK, so you can write the rest of the story yourself. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea twittisha culpa.

Never mind me, click it, click it, click it. The man has done more strange and wonderful things to his blog tracking software. (See "Janes' Blogosphere link in column on left.) I always take a while to absorb these things, and I have to be off now, but I will put in the upgraded version tomorrow. Vote Janes in the Bloggies for best update monit... oh drat. It's too late. I'm really sorry about that.

I'd given up poor old Briffa for dead.

Poor chap, either the carnivorous mice had come up from the sewers and got him or he'd died of apoplexy amid the copies of Socialist Worker piled high in Camden Public Library. Not yet, as this link proves. Click on his link to see why it's funny.

Advice to Bloggers:

Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way you're a mile away, and you have their shoes, too.

--- Michael Powell, The Little Book of Crap Advice.

[Please excuse lack of posts while new clone is accelerated.]

But let's get serious here.

The awful truth about Meryl Yourish's washing machine. Sure, she tells it like it is when it comes to cat fur. But can she really be trusted? Is she being entirely frank with us? No. She admits it herself:

"I'd tell you what girls do in high school locker rooms, but then the Sisterhood would have to kill me, and then who would write this weblog, hm?"

I fear no so-called sisterhood. Let me tell you, when I first was on the internet, circa 1995, I joined a cat forum where nice American ladies told all about they saved up the feline combings to knit mittens. But that was only the beginning. They also said that

Supreme Court spurns Barbie suit. Glad to hear it. The justices would have looked silly in pink.

The trustees of the Finsbury Park Mosque

, where a recent police raid picked up an NBC suit, CS gas and several suspects, say it will be closed for three months while it is "cleansed of physical and spiritual filth."

Good stuff. But some people have asked why they didn't talk this way earlier. It seems that at least one of them did. I didn't know until now that one of the trustees had tried to serve an injunction on Abu Hamza*:

"Mr Burkatulla himself had been bundled out of the building by Abu Hamza's supporters while trying to serve an injunction on the preacher."

*An interview with Hamza where he says that "everybody was happy when the planes hit the World Trade Centre" can be found in the second half of this link.

His great grandfather

was executed in the Tower, and died like a gentleman so I've heard, although the link says nothing about that. His grandfather, on fire to punish England, helped run Cicero and would have had the date of Overlord if his masters had believed him. His father successfully put the lusts of the capitalists to the service of the People's Republic for forty years, a triumph of inflitration never equalled in the annals of espionage.

And what does our modern German Secret Agent do? He slips into that old haunt of the Abwehr, Mesopotamia. He walks by secret ways through souk and palace, tent and barracks, seeking, always seeking. Finally he returns, travel stained but triumphant grasping a tiny, dirty scrap of paper close-written with hurried Arabic script. He has it! A really nifty recipe for masgouf, and a baklava to die for.

I have been powering through

most of the back numbers of David Foster's Photon Courier, which I discovered yesterday. The last blogger to whom I paid this compliment was Gary Farber of Amygdala.
I particularly liked Foster's mix of ethics, engineering and pragmatism, shown in this post about the costs and benefits of an anti-terrorism apparatus and this one about arming pilots as a microcosm of educational, legal, technical and cultural problems of our day.

Lots of C S Lewis quotes, too.

Ha ha, fooled ya!

During the foot and mouth agricultural crisis, the Mad Cow Disease agricultural crisis, the this agricultural crisis and the that agricultural crisis, the one constant factor has been government admonitions to farmers to diversify. Some of them did. And now the tax men will try to stop their kids inheriting the farm.

Note the vague and subjective nature of the criteria by which the officials make these decisions - "Is the farmhouse character-appropriate?" "Is the residential aspect in balance with the farm?" If one has high taxation one needs a complicated regime of rules to allow wealth to be created at all. Once the regime of rules becomes sufficiently complicated it collapses under its own weight and becomes a regime of the personal judgement of officials. And personal judgement must frequently mean personal whim, personal caprice. We are edging back to the lord administering justice as he pleases in his own demesne.

UPDATE: The discussion is taken in a surprising direction here. I do have a brain the size of a planet, but I also have this terrible pain in all the diodes down my left side.

Photon Courier linked to my post on Robin Page, and has posted an invitation to carry discussion further.

For several hundred years in the West, the right of free speech has been (with local exceptions) steadily increasing. But in the last 15 years, freedom of speech is under attack everywhere. And intellectuals--historically the defenders of free speech--today are often numbered among its most dedicated opponents.

What is behind this reversal? I have some thoughts, which I plan to write about in the future. I'd also like to hear your ideas: photoncourier (at) yahoo (dot) com.