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.