Would the leadership of Iran martyr its population?

Scenario: Military leadership controls all centers of power in Iran, albeit shakily from a sham election. How to consolidate power? Crush opposition (short term), start a shooting war with Isreal (medium term), nuke Isreali city, get paved by Isreali nukes in retaliation (long term). This final cataclysmic end of their nation would only be the beginning of a final war with Isreal, in which the worldwide Muslim community would finally come together in their shared anguish and opprobium. In this scenario, the hostage population of Iran is slaughtered by a few well protected military leaders with a long term agenda, that doesn't require Iran to continue to exist, as the opening blow in their final war. Tell me: why won't this happen?

My letter to Alienware

I wrote the following email to Alienware Inc., an advanced computer manufacturer now owned by Dell. Apparently the web is replete with strongly negative reviews of the company - reviews that I sense are genuine and not just plants by competitors. After almost buying a computer from them, I decided not to, based on the extent of the negative feedback. However, I wrote this email to their PR department explaining the outcome. It's always good to provide real feedback, not just mooning praise or vitriol.

--------------------------


Hello,

I was until recently very serious about purchasing an Alienware desktop. The prices for components were in general quite reasonable (better than at Dell for upgrades, for instance), and the motherboard technology was good. I wanted to use a specialized company that ostensibly could provide above average support. A quick perusal of online reviews shows that many customers are extremely unhappy with their experience. Much of what I have read rings true, so I am going in a different direction. The problem is, many of your potential customers (including myself) can build their own rig if they so choose. Alienware just has to provide a compelling reason for me to not build my own (fancy lights don't do it). Unfortunately, reliability of hardware and service is about the only reason to go with a manufacturer, and currently I don't have confidence that you can provide either. However, I imagine that your company wishes to do the best it can, and that is why I am submitting this letter. I do not wish any enticement or consolation for my decision; this is a genuine communication expressing my viewpoint as an educated consumer.

Sincerely,
Jevan Furmanski, PhD

Quote of the day

"...the greatest cause of verbicide [extinction of words] is the fact that most people are obviously far more anxious to express their approval and disapproval of things than to describe them. Hence the tendency of words is to become less descriptive and more evaluative."

-C.S. Lewis

Self-censorship at NYT?

In a story run about the crazy millitant lesbian shooter of Andy Warhol, there was a comment posted by a "JK." The shooter had written a play reportedly so sexually explicit that Andy Warhol thought it was part of a plot to entrap him, hatched by the NYPD.

What I find interesting is the blatant calling out of the journalistic standards of propriety of the NYT, editing out "bad words," but displaying murdered people on the front page. I also find the reply from the editorial desk telling, as it omits any comment on the censorship note and focuses on her skepticism of the veracity of the witness in the story.

From NYT

____

a) This story is extremely hard to believe and deserves a lot more skepticism.

b) The title of a play is not “unprintable.” What the Times means is that it wants not to print it, at the same time it does want to print, say, bloody bodies on the streets of Iran. Even if the Times has some rationale for protecting us from individual words–protection I neither need nor asked for–then it should be honest about its self-censorship rather than hiding behind a faux universal truth.

— jk

Jk,

Thank you for your comment. Four decades, and a conviction, after the day in question, The Times does not present Ms.Fieden’s account as definitive. On the contrary, we consider this just one angle of the story, made relevant by the discovery of the manuscript and the National Arts Club event tonight.

— Nicole Collins, assistant metropolitan editor

Is this legal?

I saw this posted on a hiring website:

"Effective Sept 1, 2007, Cleveland Clinic will no longer hire tobacco users."

Is this enforceable? Legal? Ethical?

Quote of the day

"To call this a crime is too simplistic. There is Christian scripture that would support this."

-Dave Leach comments on the point-blank murder of abortion specialist George Tiller in the foyer of his Lutheran church.  Leach is the organizer of the anti-abortion newsletter "Prayer and action news". From NYT.

The Faith and Science of Professor Fish

I wrote the following in response to Stanley Fish's second column on faith and reason.

See his article here.

They closed comments while I was writing it, so I'm posting it here.

_____

It might be said that the contrast between faith and science is that faith presupposes that one is right, while science presupposes that one is wrong. The analysis presented by Prof. Fish tells us that the suppositions of science are built on assumptions inherited as "fact" from previous endeavors. Does the humble doubt of the "knowing" faithful parallel the careful hypothesis testing of the critical scientist in this regard? 

I think there is a naive view, however, in limiting the discussion to one person making one observation at a time. Ten scientists can repeat the same experiment in ten places at ten times and get the same answer every time. Facts can exist, even without an observer to attest to them, as the fact is waiting to be observed (gravity is waiting for you at the bottom of the ocean). Independent verification is a powerful antidote to having to accept anything from anyone in the form of assumption. If I understand one of the undercurrents of Prof. Fish's descriptions of faith, the pervasive human belief in God and faith can be also viewed as an experiment performed in parallel over many centuries, thus taking on a greater dimensionality than simple singular belief. 

I did not expect to state this, but perhaps he is right that science and faith do have more in common than they don't.

Quote of the day

"I feel like I have lost my mind. I work hard to make a respectable life and educate my children. Now we are living in a camp, and my sons are talking of guns."

-Sher Mohammed, a Pakistani fleeing from Taliban militants in the Swat valley.

From Washington Post

Torture tyrants

This is it.  I have had it with all the moral relativism discussing whether torture works and is admissible, why torture is bad, and under what circumstances torture is not torture.  All apologists for torture are going to hell- and I'm not even religious and I can say that.  Torturing is fundamentally incompatible with civilization, and so apologists for torture are not members of modern human civilization but another- and that is a good working definition for being in hell (in the theological framework of novelist Cormac McCarthy).  So, quite frankly, I don't give a shit about the opinions of torture apologists.

One fact that has come up lately is that the United States of America, as a victorious power, EXECUTED Japanese soldiers that followed orders to waterboard and otherwise torture our prisoners of war.  To the victor go the spoils, while the vanquished go to the gallows.  But when we conduct the same acts, as a superior power, this is acceptable behavior.  What this highlights is that our position as a country, in the name of sovereignty, is that we are fundamentally above international law.  Above meaning we do not recognize it.  Pragmatically speaking, this is a fine premise, so long as no one can enforce external views on our sovereign nation.  

When Britain ruled the waves, and the American colonists rebelled, I'm sure there was a great deal to be said about how wonderful British society was.  Such nice clothes and music and public schools they set up!  But they tortured and murdered and marauded the coastline and dogged the private affairs of the subjects, and these outweighed all the benefits of being British to a great many of the colonists. Supremacy, when used as a shield from culpability, is tyranny.  And no wonder why the people in the world suffering from our unstoppable foreign incursions, who see that people like them are being tortured without possibility of challenging their detainment, see the USA as a tyrannical and evil superpower (regardless of all the "good" things we do for the world).  No amount of civilized behavior can make recompense for a strategy that is anathema to civilization itself, and any country that does not recognize this will go to hell, and no one will mourn its passing.

Just ask yourself this: if there were a nation that could and would invade ours in order to capture our leaders and force them to stop torturing people, or to force our removal from foreign countries, or anything else, how do you think that would affect our actions?  What we are experiencing is the corruption of supremacy.  All empires crumble.

Quote of the day

"I just built it because I need it... The only problem I have is the spiders."

-Guillermo Flores discusses his three room Hooverville shanty in Fresno, CA.

From NYT

Quote of the day

“Let there be no doubt: the future belongs to the nation that best educates its citizens..."  Barack Obama et al.

Name of the day

Dubhaltach MacFhirbhisigh, also known as Dubhaltach Óg Giolla Íosa Mór mac Dubhaltach Mór Mac Fhirbhisigh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubhaltach_Mac_Fhirbhisigh

Elsa con Baila!!

Elsa and Daddy groove to the fine sounds of Mambo!  Ay Ay!

Quote of the day (Biden is the man)

“The only value of power is the effect, the efficacy of its use, and all the power Cheney had did not result in effective outcomes.”

  -Joe Biden addresses the concept that scaling back the power of the VP will make him less relevant

On Warheads

Artillery shells bursting over the Gaza Strip.  From NYT.

The above picture shows artillery shells bursting over the Gaza Strip.  It clearly shows the "bombs bursting in air," which most people never really think about.  Modern warheads (missiles, artillery shells, tank shells) actually explode before they reach their target.  In the case of shells meant to kill people, they burst into a bazillion hot fragments upon exploding, a concept pioneered by a Canadian named Shrapnel.  As you can see from the picture, the bursts result in a neat cone of forward projected shrapnel, spraying a particular area, and not just in every direction from the burst.  This is because modern munitions include shaped charges that push the explosion in a particular direction.

So, every time you see an artillery shell explode in a movie, and everyone get blown this way and that, that is total crap.  The reality is that hot metal flies from the sky at 4000-5000 meters/second, penetrating houses and getting people hiding in their little holes.  

The same goes for missiles- they explode before reaching aircraft and spray projected shrapnel in a little cone.  You'll never see that in a movie.  No one would understand why the missile detonated prematurely.

HEAT tank round.  Note the inverted cone in the nose, with the backside packed with high explosives.

Finally, tank warheads (so-called "heat", not sabot projectiles made of uranium) are a special and particularly awesome form of shaped charge.  They are based on the "Explosively Formed Penetrator" concept, where an explosion is detonated behind an inverted dome or cone, where the middle of the inverted shape is pushed out and goes through a geometric inversion, resulting in a sharp-looking projectile (made of either superplastic superheated metal or even plasma) travelling at something like 5-10 times the speed of sound (5000-10000 m/s).  This projectile will penetrate almost anything, but not being strictly solid, it breaks up after travelling for significant distances in the air.

Improvised munitions along these lines (IEDs) can penetrate military armor, and are used by insurgents all over the world.  Design of effective EFP type weapons can require sophistication though, and this recalls some aggressive claims of the US government that Iran was training people how to make them, and supplying them with parts and explosives.

In summary, there are no more "bombs" that go off when they hit the ground and blow everything up in a big fiery mess.  That hasn't happened for 200 years or more.  Modern warheads are much nastier.

Elsa sings harmony: first bloggable developmental event

I was singing a little song to my 29 month old daughter yesterday (not sure what it's called, but you know that one in Bugs Bunny that means "busy", with the funny vamping bass line?).   After I finished the rhythm intro (Whitney was doing "drums") I started the melody and she made up a totally synthetic repeated harmony that she kept up for the whole song, and stopped at the end right on time. 

She speaks fairly well, and thinks she can spell words and read (not even close) but this takes the cake.  I love my little girl.