November 30, 2005
Bad Day for Journalists
Posted by Dorkafork
Professional ones anyway. Besides the Katrina post-mortem, screwing up the reporting on Iraq strategy, or ignoring key points of said strategy, there's the covert propaganda that wasn't.
My favorite part of the LA Times "covert propaganda" story is this:
Though the articles are basically factual, they present only one side of events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the U.S. or Iraqi governments, officials said.
Well, if they're factual, they're one up on the New York Times. (see previous post.)
Knights in White Phosphorus
Posted by Dorkafork
The meme that wouldn't die! Now the New York Times is getting in on the action (via John Cole), and manages to get nearly everything wrong.
Read More »
The United States restricted the use of incendiaries like white phosphorus after Vietnam, and in 1983, an international convention banned its use against civilians. In fact, one of the many crimes ascribed to Saddam Hussein was dropping white phosphorus on Kurdish rebels and civilians in 1991.
"Saddam used chemical weapons, we used chemical weapons" in slightly different phrasing. What made Saddam's actions illegal was the fact that he was deliberately targeting civilians in an attempt at genocide. It had nothing to do with WP's chemical properties or status under international law. And nobody used WP use in accusing Saddam of crimes against humanity. For example: the Halabja gas attack. Nowhere is WP listed. But maybe that was an oversight. Let's look at UNMOVIC's description of Iraq's use of WP in their (pdf) "Cluster document" (titled "Unresolved Disarmament Issues/ Iraq's Proscribed Weapons Programs") pg. 141 (143 of the pdf):
Iraq also faced the problem of finding a suitable delivery system for its CW agents: to develop such systems may have taken years. The solution found by Iraq was to purchase bombs designed for white phosphorus (an incendiary and smoke bomb) and then, by simple modification, make them suitable for the delivery of a CW agent.
Doesn't exactly make WP sound like a chemical weapon, does it? But back to the NYT editorial:
But white phosphorus has made an ugly comeback.
Don't call it a comeback! It's been here for years!
Italian television reported that American forces used it in Falluja last year against insurgents. At first, the Pentagon said the chemical had been used only to illuminate the battlefield, but had to backpedal when it turned out that one of the Army's own publications talked about using white phosphorus against insurgent positions, a practice well known enough to have one of those unsettling military nicknames: "shake and bake."
At first, the State Department said it had only been used for illumination.
The Pentagon says white phosphorus was never aimed at civilians, but there are lingering reports of civilian victims.
False dichotomy. It doesn't mean WP was aimed at civilians. If civilians are injured in an attack, that does not make it a war crime, as long as they weren't intentionally targeted.
The military can't say whether the reports are true and does not intend to investigate them, a decision we find difficult to comprehend. Pentagon spokesmen say the Army took "extraordinary measures" to reduce civilian casualties, but they cannot say what those measures were.
Cannot? Or did not? What about warning them a week ahead of time?
They also say that using white phosphorus against military targets is legal. That's true, but the 1983 convention bans its use against "civilians or civilian objects," which would make white phosphorus attacks in urban settings like Falluja highly inappropriate at best. The United States signed that convention, but the portion dealing with incendiary weapons has been awaiting ratification in the Senate.
These are technicalities, in any case.
Whether or not US troops used illegal weapons in Iraq is a "technicality?" This is the current position of WP critics. They will do things like falsely claim the Pentagon described WP as a chemical weapon, then claim it's not the important part, the important part is that it's undermined America's credibility. (Ignoring the fact that they are creating this situation by spreading false claims and rumors about a legal conventional weapon.) Or that the important part is Bush lied to get us into war, etc., ad nauseum. Either US troops used WP in Fallujah in violation of the rules of war or they didn't. I for one don't see that as a "technicality".
Not only that, but the NYT isn't getting the "technicalities" quite right, either. (Isn't it sad the New York Times is being fact-checked by an Internet yahoo named "dorkafork"?) Once more on the legality of WP, at the risk of repeating myself: the convention the NYT is referring to is Protocol III. Now even though the US has not signed it, it's use of WP in Fallujah doesn't violate Protocol III. Though the NYT says "but the 1983 convention bans its use against 'civilians or civilian objects'", the problem is that the NYT apparently did not read the entire Protocol. According to Article 1:
2. Concentration of civilians" means any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads. (emphasis added)
The presence of civilians themselves makes them "concentrations of civilians." And much in the same way a mosque becomes a legitimate target when insurgents are using it to fight from, "civilian objects" cease to become "civilian objects" when insurgents use them to fight. (Another explanation of why WP isn't illegal can be found here by Juan Cole, who is not the same person as John Cole.)
The Protocol isn't the only thing the NYT didn't read. Let's take another look at the Field Artillery Magazine that the NYT referenced earlier in the editorial.
Clearance of fires was executed by demanding accurate company frontline traces and forward observer (FO) locations at regular intervals and battle tracking in detail.
...
Danger-close missions were the rule, not the exception. 2/A/1-6 FA, our Paladin platoon, and Thunder Base, our 120mm mortar platoon, quickly earned our confidence in their abilities to deliver timely and, more importantly, accurate fires. We routinely had 155mm and 120-mm fires within 200 meters of friendly forces.
...
As any combat training center (CTC) fight tells us, he who wins the reconnaissance fight will do well. Sergeant Sapp could destroy enemy OPs early and refine target locations as well as confirm or deny that targets we had planned were viable, such as AIF targets or buildings that did not appear to have been recently inhabited. (emphasis added)
US forces took care to avoid attacking civilian housing that had shown signs of being recently inhabited. This is the same publication that every WP critic is pointing to, because it mentions "shake and bake". And yet they will still accuse US forces of firing indiscriminately at civilians.
One last time: WP is not banned by Protocol III, it's use was in compliance with Protocol III, it's use in Fallujah isn't banned by the CWC, the Pentagon does not "refer to white phosphorus rounds as chemical weapons", it doesn't create a toxic cloud that kills everthing in a quarter mile, it doesn't burn flesh while leaving clothing intact, and most importantly, US forces did not fire indiscriminately at civilians, according to the very same source WP critics have been using to help support their nonsense.
« Close It
Show Us Your Teeth, You're The Scary Man
Posted by Hubris
Somebody get Billy some black coffee and unfiltered smokes ASAP. Really, he's freaking me out more than he did with that "We Didn't Start the Fire" video, or the time he was presumably allowed to touch Christie Brinkley's vagina in order to create a child.
The concern shouldn't stop with the teeth; take a closer look at the eye:
Below the fold, I've enhanced the blow-up by adjusting the contrasts and eliminating some of the digital noise.
Read More »
That's right, Joel appears to be suffering from crazy-ass chicken eye, the first symptom of bird flu. That would make him "patient zero" in the States, but I'm unsure whether the virus has mutated such that it can be transmitted by shitty music. It would probably be better to proceed with the quarantine to err on the side of caution.
« Close It
November 29, 2005
Cute National Zoo Panda Cub Makes Media Debut; Is Revealed To Be Total Badass
Posted by Hubris
Read More »
Quick Links (and Thoughts on Canada)
Posted by Bill
*** Tell me: who exactly would buy this crap?
*** One is the loneliest number.
Sure, everyone already linked the sad Sheehan picture yesterday, but Florida Cracker provides multiple angles!
*** Some stuff is happening up in Canada ... but I can't for the life of me figure out what, nor muster the energy to care.
Yes, yes, I know that jokes about Canada's unimportance fulfill a tired cliche, but honestly, not for me: I make it a point to wake up every day and aggressively affirm my disdainful apathy for the impossibly vanilla hurly-burlies and intrinsically dull deficiencies of Canadian character, politics and "culture." Why? Experiential bias.
You see, a few years back, I had a roommate that dated one of them Canadiennes, and all she ever seemed to do was thumb her nose at America, shun the consumption of meat, brag about her vaunted expertise in snow ("You think this is snow? You think you know snow? Look, I'm from Canada, I know snow!") and make VERY BIG noise in a very small house during their incessant sessions of filthy Canuckian-American fucking. And the cacophonic insult was immeasurably compounded by the oddity of the noise: a pitching and whirling series of palsied stacatto yelps whose only parallel in nature might be the sound a seal makes when tortured by a sociopathic Inuit child, or perhaps when suffering a violent seizure, followed by a climactic stroke and cold, wet death rattle.
It went something like this:
ee-OW! eeHeeHOOOH! ee-OOW! ee-HOW! yep yep yep yep yep yep ee-OW! yepyepyepyepyepyep ee-OW! yepyepyepyepyepyep ee-OW! ee-OW!
yepyepyepyepyepyep ee-OW!
And on and on and on and on ...
And that's why I don't care much for Canadians or Canadian goings-ons or to-dos.
I always have my reasons.
November 28, 2005
Posted by Hubris
Cocktails Of The Future
Posted by Hubris
From Jim Treacher.
Important Note
Posted by Bill
I've just secured my escape from a relativistic rip in the space-time continuum fueled by the four lazy days of a holiday weekend, the virtual infinity of back-to-back-to-back-to-back Law and Order episodes on TNT HD, six bags of salted pistachios, individual bottles of Mezcal, Barbados Plantation rum, Belvedere vodka and rubbing alcohol and, ultimately and embarrassingly, the desperate, dying gasps of propellant from a Colgate shaving cream can.
How did it begin? The last thing I can clearly recall from our world is my laying prone on the couch, sipping a Mezcal-accented Orange Julius and watching the conclusion of my third consecutive Law and Order episode (the closeted gay professional ballplayer did it and got off on suppressed evidence!). I remember entertaining a brief yet determined impulse to rise and exercise, but TNT's neat continuity trick roped my arms and legs, sinking me further into the warm folds of the sofa's spongy faux-suede loam. You see, as another suspenseful Law and Order attains denouement, instead of properly breaking between repeats, the credits roll in a small horizontal zone underneath the start of a new episode. And the accidental discovery of a new dead body, the command of burning blue letters and the stern lecture about the elegant structure of our criminal justice system present an irresistible psychological lure to goggle more crime, fresh intrigue and Angie Harmon 's bosom. And just like that, bang, you're trapped.
A few observations/occurrences:
1. I believe that I've solved the murders of Jimmy Hoffa, Jonbenet Ramsey, Nicole Simpson and Kurt Cobain via a combination of learned investigative protocol, exceptional internet research skills and mystical augury relying on the applied geometric patterns of randomly strewn pistachio shells. I implore law enforcement with relevant jurisdiction to contact me immediately.
2. Time moves more slowly here. In the L&O Rip in the Space-Time Continuum (L&ORSTC), I had the leisure of successfully tracking down Ms. Harmon at a SoHo cafe, where I swiftly incapacitated Jason Sehorn with an Impact Kerambit Fighting Travel Wrench and stole my love away to a romantic two-month tent retreat among the cacti and gila monsters of the Mojave Desert. Despite some initial protestations, Angie soon fell deeply in love with me (deeply), anulled her marriage (it seems that the Sehorn-Harmon union had never been properly consummated, as his anomalistic white cornerback speed was unsurprisingly spurred by a sexually-suppressive cocktail of designer equine anabolics) and aggressively angled for our very own wedded union. Unfortunately, provoked by her bombastic snoring and clingy dependence, I was forced to end the relationship. Annoying, fellas, annoying. Still, sweet kid.
3. When one is trapped on a couch, used judiciously, a 5.5-quart Atlantis saucepot serves as an effective bed pan/chamber pot for a period of up to 48 hours.
4. My escape from the L&ORSTC was enabled by a combination of factors: the circumstantial discontinuation of mood-altering substances, the acquired smelling salt-like pungeance concommittant with a largely immobile four-day alcohol and pistachio-nut bender, and the sudden realization that Tyne Daly is not a hard-charging NY Assistant District Attorney, and that I'd somehow stumbled into trying to preemptively finger L&O's requisite sadistic rapist and murderer during an episode of "Judging Amy." Also, an indomitable will to live helps. To really LIVE.
Anyway, my apologies for the light posting; I hope that the mitigating circumstance of my story cuts me some slack, as well as helps anyone else who's ever found himself susceptible to the crime drama siren song of Ted Turner's succubi network. To those poor souls I say: you are not alone. I've ... we've ... seen horrible, brutal things over the course of our daily investigations, things that normal people - wrapped up as they are in an artificial cocoon of piddling worry - can scarcely imagine. But we deal. We soldier on. Why?
Because it's our job, detective.
And the good citizens of this fair city are counting on us.
Speaking Of Harry Shearer...
Posted by Hubris
I disagree with his reasoning here (for one thing, he's trying to make a comparison where there are too many variables other than his intended point of contrast), but I'm impressed that he actually responds to some comments, including mine.
If I were him, I'd use my residuals from The Simpsons to pay a hooker to dress as a cowgirl and read the comments on my posts, say "they're so wrong" and lightly spank me intermittently. But that's just me.
November 26, 2005
I Can't Be The Only Person Who Is Reminded Of Spinal Tap
Posted by Hubris
And oh, how they danced, the little children of Stonehenge...
This lends additional support to my theory that Cindy Sheehan and Harry Shearer are the same person.
I assume that making the thing was a lot like the building of the pyramids, with the exception that instead of thousands of laborers moving millions of tons of stone, it involved a hippy with limited part-time construction experience and seven bags of Sakrete®.
November 25, 2005
Random TNT HD Law & Order Marathon Thought
Posted by Bill
Do you think I have a shot with Angie Harmon?
UPDATE: What if I told her that I was a blogger?
UPDATE: Yeah, yeah, so Jason Sehorn runs the 40 in like 4.35 seconds on grass - how often does that come in handy during a marriage?
I can feed Angie's mind.
First UN Condemnation of Hizbollah attack
Posted by Dorkafork
This condemnation - slamming Hizbullah by name for "acts of hatred" - marked the first time the Security Council has ever reprimanded Hizbullah for cross-border attacks on Israel. The condemnation followed by two days a failed attempt to get a condemnation issued on Monday, the day of the attack, when Algeria came out against any mention of Hizbullah in the statement.
When asked what changed from Monday to Wednesday, one diplomatic official replied: "John Bolton," a reference to the US ambassador to the UN. Bolton lobbied vigorously for the passage of the statement.
(Full story here found via Norm Geras.)
November 24, 2005
What Am I Thankful For?
Posted by Bill
I'm thankful that John Cole finally came to his senses about a certain virulent little seditionist.
It's not like I didn't tell him ...
I'm also thankful for Klondike Artificially Flavored Ice Cream Cones with Chocolate Flavored Coating and Roasted Peanuts Artificial Flavor Added. And Belvedere vodka.
Happy Thanksgiving! Pass the pumpkin pie, John!
November 23, 2005
Es-cha ... Escha ... Eschacha ... cha ... ATRIOS
Posted by Bill
Ace finally samples the second most popular left-wing blog, and finds it lacking.
Hey, these short posts are fun! Open thread!
The Little Boy Who Cried Bias
Posted by Bill
Amen.
Read More »
November 22, 2005
Posted by Bill
Propellerheads: History Repeating (featuring Shirley Bassey)
(video link just below picture)
New Game
Posted by Bill
It's called "Andrew Sullivan or Kos:"
Quote 1:
Marty Lederman has some important background on what Geneva's Article 3 means, how, before Cheney-Rumsfeld, the United States had adhered to it strictly for fifty years, and how the 9/11 Commission specifically recommended that adherence be restored. Money quote:
At page 380 of its Report, the Commission recommended that the United States "engage its friends to develop a common coalition approach toward the detention and humane treatment of captured terrorists," and expressly urged the U.S. to "draw upon Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions on the law of armed conflict," which was "specifically designed for those cases in which the usual laws of war did not apply." Common Article 3's minimum standards, reasoned the 9/11 Commission, "are generally accepted throughout the world as customary international law."
Except for rogue states that refuse to abide by even minimal standards of decent treatment. I.e. Bush's America.
Quote 2:
Saddam tortured, we torture. Saddam used WP chemical weapons against insurgents and civilians, we use WP chemical weapons against insurgents and civilians.
Like torture, the apologists try to justify our use of such abhorrent techniques, oblivious to the fact that our moral standing is in tatters and our crediblity beyond repair. We aren’t just losing the war in Iraq, we are losing our credibility in the world.
Getting tougher and tougher to tell them apart, isn't it?
Read More »
Answer: Quote 1, Quote 2
Related: Jeff Goldstein takes apart Kos's repellant moral equivalence:
In Kos’s world, there is no difference between US military and the regime of Saddam Hussein—between humiliation and rape rooms ; between the sanctioned use of WP against entrenched terrorists and the use of nerve agents and WP on Kurdish civilians; between fighting to free a people and fighting to keep them subjugated.
Such moral relativism is not clever or nuanced, though it likes to pretend to be. Instead, it is obfuscatory for the sake of personal aggrandizement: Kos and his ilk like to play as the conscience of the country, but what they are, really, are the kinds of intellectually feeble brats who have come to take for granted the very system they hope to tear down.
As does Dave Price:
The kind of equivalence argument Kos is making should truly disturb people, because it not only trivializes real torture and real war crimes, but more insidiously also degrades and despoils the very process of debate that is the lifeblood of free democracy by blurring the definitions of the concepts the debate is built on. What is torture? What are chemical weapons? Why, they’re whatever we say they are, and we’ll say whatever benefits us politically. In some sense, this is what Orwell was trying to warn us against: the death of objective truth, and the terrible consequences that follow.
« Close It
November 21, 2005
The Current Plan on Iran
Posted by Dorkafork
It's apparently to have the Russians give Iran enriched uranium.
Now it's not as completely crazy as it sounds. It would be low enriched uranium (LEU) which is not suitable for nukes, but is suitable for light water reactors. They would still need a covert enrichment program to get the highly enriched uranium (HEU) for a bomb. The main problems are that the reprocessing would take place in a Russian plant "under part-Iranian management." No word yet if they're actually going to name the plant "The Uranium Enrichment Learning Annex". The other problem is if, as Drezner argues, we're hoping Iran rejects the deal so we can use the rejection as the basis for more forceful action, there'd be a problem if Iran calls our bluff.
Random IM Conversation with Goldstein, Nineteen
Posted by Bill
INDCBill: I wonder if Lauren thinks you're being funny
INDCBill: or that you're just a garden variety psycho
proteinwisdom: Huh?
proteinwisdom: Dude. I like my glasses.
INDCBill: but really?
INDCBill: you're a funny psycho
INDCBill: not mutually exclusive traits
INDCBill: in fact
INDCBill: Ted Bundy?
INDCBill: a SCREAM. he used to absolutely KILL
proteinwisdom: yeah. Dahmer? Used to do hi-larious shadow puppet shows right before he ate your thigh.
INDCBill: and John Wayne Gacy, well
INDCBill: I mean
INDCBill: he was an ACTUAL CLOWN
proteinwisdom: Sure, a professional funny man
INDCBill: and killer
proteinwisdom: Well, an amateur killer -- but good enough to turn pro had he wanted to.
INDCBill: admittedly, Son of Sam wasn't THAT funny
INDCBill: but he had that great dog ventriloquist schtick
proteinwisdom: Ahead of his time
proteinwisdom: that dog shit was GENIUS.
INDCBill: Lenny Bruce of the serial killer set
proteinwisdom: Richard Speck?
proteinwisdom: Could tell a knock knock joke like nobody else
proteinwisdom: Knock Knock
INDCBill: who's there?
proteinwisdom: DIE BITCH
INDCBill: ruthless
proteinwisdom: Hey, but seriously?
proteinwisdom: You should fire up the webcam and check out my glasses.
Posted by Bill
Radiohead: Karma Police
(Choice of player formats)
Links (Inside Blogging Edition with Thoughts on OSM)
Posted by Bill
*** The Wonkette advocates a ban on the word "Pajamahadeen," a term initially coined by Jim Geraghty to describe the bloggers that swarmed CBS. Quoth Geraghty:
She's just jealous.
Of course - all of her clever little epithets and double entendres are ripped off from the graffiti on Roman bathroom stalls, circa 60 BC.
*** Pleased horn tooting: The Pajamahadeen and story of Rathergate conquer an important frontier: the journalism textbook.
Let it be told.
Prediction: Mary Mapes' version of events also makes campus ... in a Psych textbook.
*** My take on last week's unveiling of the new Open Source Media? Disclaimer: I was invited to join, initially indicated interest, then declined.
I don't have a particularly strong opinion on the venture either way. While I think that some of the criticism is valid, particularly the head-scratching confusion about OSM's specific image, format and goals, I also think that certain folks have gone fairly far overboard, including indulging in ridiculously hyperanalytical criticism, personal attacks and innuendo about OSR's use of venture capital, as well as prematurely busting out the cliched "they're just like the MSM!" irony. A few distinct impressions that gelled last week:
When MSM folks and public officials malign bloggers as ankle-biting pissants obsessed with tearing things down, they're partially right - there's a strong undercurrent in blogging that does resemble a school of pirahna, indiscriminately killing and devouring anything that moves in order to survive (or at least entertain themselves). Blogging lends itself to the digital expression of the ID writ easy, large and largely free from personal consequences, and this chronic gunslinging can get a bit exhausting in its incessancy and negativity.
That said, OSM does have a confusing presence. Apparently, one of its goals is to serve as a cutting edge aggregator of independent citizen reporting of the Michael Yon variety. Given that goal, I'm surprised that they didn't recruit and promote more bloggers to produce original newsgathering rather than straight pundits that rely on secondary material. A model that decentralizes real reporting and research by paying citizen journalists a bonus stipend to specifically gather and submit exclusive news would constitute a true media innovation that might spark a sustainable wave of independent reporting.
Right now, speaking from experience, it's infinitely harder and more time consuming to conduct interviews, take pictures and track down sources than it is to comfortably opine about the work of others. The open source journalism revolution gathered steam in 2004 and has notable representatives in 2005, but it's still failed to scratch its ultimate potential. Why? Because it's hard and it doesn't pay. Ameliorating one of these hindrances will soften the other. I hope that OSM moves some of its capital in this direction - I see an opportunity.
My particular ankle-biting criticism levied, I'm willing to give the endeavor a chance to find its feet, and much of the more outrageous animus directed at it from non-ideological sources is bizarre, surprising and unseemly enough to garner a new candidate entry for the DSM IV of mental health disorders. Such is the peril of attempting a public venture in the aggressive, narcissistic world of blogging, I suppose.
Best of luck to them.
November 19, 2005
Random IM Conversation with Goldstein, Eighteen
Posted by Bill
[18:00] proteinwisdom: I got my new glasses
[18:23] proteinwisdom: and man, do I look SEXY.
[18:35] proteinwisdom: Rimless
[18:35] proteinwisdom: gorgeous
[20:37] proteinwisdom: I look like a movie star. Only, less like I'm TRYING to look like a movie star than ACTUAL movie stars do.
[23:17] proteinwisdom: If I had a vat of bronze, I'd dip myself in it.
[23:18] proteinwisdom: I look THAT good.
[00:09] proteinwisdom: I think I'm going to install a bunch of new mirrors around the house.
[00:53] proteinwisdom: I've changed clothes like 15 times and I look great in EVERYTHING with my new glasses!
[10:32] proteinwisdom: I woke up this morning with my eyes all puffy, but then I put on my glasses and I looked like Jude Law!
[11:01] proteinwisdom: I love my new glasses.
[11:04] proteinwisdom: It's like they're almost MAGIC!
[11:08] proteinwisdom: If you were a pair of rimless glasses, what kind of flowers would you like?
[12:07] proteinwisdom: Or maybe I should just go with a nice Merlot ...
[12:08] INDCBill: CHRIST, dude
UPDATE: Compounding the insanity? I'm not the only one.
November 18, 2005
More ID!
Posted by Bill
Krauthammer marshalls some fresh pain for Intelligent Design:
Let's be clear. Intelligent design may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological "theory" whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge -- in this case, evolution -- they are to be filled by God. It is a "theory" that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species but also says that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, "I think I'll make me a lemur today." A "theory" that violates the most basic requirement of anything pretending to be science -- that it be empirically disprovable. How does one empirically disprove the proposition that God was behind the lemur, or evolution -- or behind the motion of the tides or the "strong force" that holds the atom together?
In order to justify the farce that intelligent design is science, Kansas had to corrupt the very definition of science, dropping the phrase " natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us," thus unmistakably implying -- by fiat of definition, no less -- that the supernatural is an integral part of science. This is an insult both to religion and science.
Reminiscent of one of the Commissar's ID stemwinders, I'd say.
(Via John Cole, who is, right now, as we live and breathe, standing on his chair and doing the wave, excitedly pinching his nipples between "crests")
UPDATE: One of Cole's commenters (TM Lutas) points out:
Unfortunately, Krauthammer seems to be misstating ID, at least as Behe writes about it. That makes his column useless at getting to any sort of civilized settlement.
The fundamentals of ID as scientific theory is that irreducible complexity exists and that is incompatible with blind, random chance. That isn’t what Krauthammer is saying ID is and that’s a problem.
I'm not certain if Krauthammer is blithely misstating the theory, or whether he simply rejects the characterization of ID as non-religious. In any case, the rest of TM Lutas's comment is worth reading.
Wish Me Luck
Posted by Hubris
I've packed my breath strips and chaps; my "audition" at the Stud Farm is on Saturday.
My only concern:
Berman said the "stud farm" could appeal to women who want a taste of sexual adventure and experimentation, or even to try to reach orgasm, without the pressure of pleasing a regular partner.
This isn't the America I grew up in.
Bill Adds: I believe that I mentioned something about shame, earlier?
Hubris Adds: There's no room for shame in my chaps.
Friday Musical Selection
Posted by Bill
Tears for Fears: Sowing the Seeds of Love
(Live, Acoustic, Realplayer)
Quick Links
Posted by Bill
*** Do you know what today is?
Why, today's the return of the Dark Lord, it is:
As good as these actors are, nothing prepares you for the malevolent force that is Lord Voldemort and the brilliance of the actor playing him, Ralph Fiennes. Dressed in a flowing black robe that seems to float off his body rather than hang, Mr. Fiennes moves with lissome grace, his smooth white head bobbing like a cork on a sea, his fluttery hands and feet as pale and bright as beacons. For years, the movies have tried to transform this delicate beauty into a heartthrob, but as "Schindler's List" proved, Mr. Fiennes is an actor for whom a walk on the darker side is not just a pleasure, but liberation. His Voldemort may be the greatest screen performance ever delivered without the benefit of a nose; certainly it's a performance of sublime villainy.
Absinthe-swilling Canadian dandy Ghost of a Flea has compiled a wide array of Goblet of Fire release-related links to dark mark this glorious occasion.
*** Are academics being denied tenure because of their blogs? Probably:
Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of academics keep blogs these days, posting everything from family pictures to scholarly works-in-progress. While few are counting on their Web publications to improve their chances at tenure, many have begun to fear that their blogs might actually harm their prospects. Last July, "Bloggers Need Not Apply," an essay in the Chronicle of Higher Education about an anonymous Midwestern college's attempt to fill a position, laid out the perils for academic job-seekers who blog. "Our blogger applicants came off reasonably well at the initial interview, but once we hung up the phone and called up their blogs, we got to know 'the real them'—better than we wanted, enough to conclude we didn't want to know more," wrote the pseudonymous columnist.
One thing I'm certain of: my future political ambitions died a shrieking, scrabbling, muddy death the minute I allowed Hubris and Dorkafork to start posting here. As well as any future employment prospects, come to think of it. As a matter of fact, it's probably safe to say that my new blogging manservants are wholly responsible for destroying my credibility and reputation, both as a serious CITIZEN JOURNALIST, as well as personally, since every human interaction endeavored in meat space is now preemptively tainted by the fetid albatross of Hubris and Dorkafork's concordantly hungry and repellant online perversions. Their appetites garotte me with resilient shame.
I am ruined.
...
Well. That's a load off.
Who's up for some Harry Potter?!
November 17, 2005
Alito Meets Kennedy
Posted by Hubris
Read More »
Posted by Bill
Who Said It?(Iraq)
Read More »
The author is compiling a list of past Dem quotes on Iraq, so feel free to e-mail him with any particularly good examples.
« Close It
And The Best Use Of Misleading Headlines Award Goes To...
Posted by Hubris
Greg Gutfeld. The outraged comments on his last three posts, e.g. "how disappointing that Arianna is letting you make a mockery of her forum" (note: I think it's a bit late to be concerned about that) are the best part.
WP Science 2: Chemical Boogaloo
Posted by Dorkafork
Instapundit has a great roundup that includes this post by Bruce Rolston. An excellent post until the end, where I believe he is far too generous to the anti-WP side.
NOTE: For the record, the case that WP is a "chemical weapon" under the terms of the 1993 UN Chemical Weapons Convention is probably stronger than arguing it is an "incendiary weapon" under the terms of Geneva. WP is a lousy way to start a fire in anything less flammable than a dry haystack. It does, however, easily cause burns to its victims, due what is essentially a violent chemical reaction between the phosphorus and the surrounding air, and the CWC defines prohibited chemicals in weapons as "any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals." That clearly excludes explosive effects (sorry, Colby) but it is inclusive of caustics and chemical burning agents, which WP could reasonably be compared to.
But how exactly does WP burn people? What is the difference between chemical burns and regular burning?
Read More »
How does stuff burn? Here is a simple description of how things burn. "Burning is a chemical process by which two atoms or molecules will combine with each other. In burning, the two atoms or molecules will combine and release energy. Usually one of the two molecules is oxygen or something else chemically like it called an oxidizer. When the molecules combine and release energy, it is released in the form of heat and often light." Often oxygen is part of the equation. For example, when wood burns, the carbon in the wood combines with O2 to form CO2. That's what happens in a fire. And that's pretty much how WP works. In fact, white phosphorus works in this manner in an extreme way. It will oxidize (combine with oxygen) immediately upon exposure. That is why WP is stored and handled underwater. Once it is pulled out it will "ignite spontaneously with the oxygen in air at temperatures above 88°F (31°C)."* And this burning is not essentially different from any other flame or incendiary agent. I think it is safe to argure that this type of chemical reaction is not covered under the 1993 UN Chemical Weapons Convention, because that would not only have banned incendiary agents (legal under Protocol III), but if it's read that broadly then any explosive and even bullets would be banned. Mr. Ralston of course does not argue this, he suggests that it may be "inclusive of caustics and chemical burning agents, which WP could reasonably be compared to."
How are chemical burns caused? Again, I am not an expert, but it seems chemical burns are "typically caused by coagulation necrosis of tissue rather than by direct heat production." It will certainly feel like heat production due to damage of the tissue, and it can generate actual heat energy, but that is not the defining characteristic of a chemical burn. It appears to be the recombination of ions in the acid that does the damage. "Acids are defined as proton donors (H+), and bases are defined as proton acceptors (OH-). Bases also are known as alkalies. Both acids and bases can be defined as caustics, which cause significant tissue damage on contact." "The fluoride ion is the primary agent responsible for the prolonged destruction seen in hydrofluoric acid burns." Though it seems from a brief overview that the main action of chemical burns involves hydrogen ions.
While WP may cause a chemical reaction similar to that which causes chemical burns, remember we're talking about a substance that spontaneously ignites in flames at (close to) room temperature. Through a normal chemical reaction commonly known as "burning". And if "burning" is outlawed by the CWC, then pretty much every modern weapon is illegal.
I can understand how this argument became widespread on the left. This dailyKos post mentions Peter Kaiser, of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (the organization that administers the CWC), who argues on RAI that "If [...] the caustic properties [are] intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited [under the CWC].[...] Any chemical that is used against humans or animals that causes harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons." Unfortunately for readers of Kos, Peter Kaiser has apparently backed down from this argument:
"However, Peter Kaiser, a spokesman for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which enforces the convention, said the convention permitted the use of such weapons for 'military purposes not connected with the use of chemical weapons and not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare'. He said the burns caused by WP were thermic rather than chemical and as such not prohibited by the treaty."
(See previous post here, includes warnings about my ignorance and links to previous coverage of WP.)
(Incidentally, when looking at the history of the CWC, I ran into this gem: "Negotiations on a chemical weapons ban treaty went on for 12 years, from 1980 to 1992. Near the end of these negotiations in Geneva, the use of chemical weapons by Iraq, against both Iran and its own Kurdish citizens in Halabja, was brought to world attention. The effect of mustard gas and other agents on ordinary people, and the horrific photographs that were published around the world, made all the more urgent the work of the diplomats on a treaty not only banning the use, production, and stockpiling of chemical weapons, but also a treaty that would contain a mechanism for verifying a State's compliance with the treaty's provisions.")
* according to the book Phosphorus: Chemical Elements That Make Life Possible.
« Close It
Busy Morning (Revisado)
Posted by Bill
... and I'm largely AFK. As a reminder, we have several authors here at INDC Journal, so please check the name of the author (located both just below the title and again at the bottom of the post) before automatically addressing comments or e-mails to me.
This requires the ability to read English. Good luck.
Thank you.
UPDATE: Per Marble's admonition in the comments:
Esto (la abilidad de destingir los diferentes autores de este blog) requiere la abilidad de leer ingles, pero si necesita una traduccion espanol, mandame un correo electronico. Si hay alguna muchacha que se paresca a Jessica Alba, Eva Mendez u Sofia Vergera, incluya una fotografia tambien, por favor. O si hay un hombre guapo y con mucho dinero, incluya una fotografia para Hubris - el siempre dice, dice, dice que su "culo esta apprietado como el de un adolescente!." Me molesta mucho.
Otro Reviso: Me doy de cuenta, la gente que hacen comentarios en este blog son imbeciles, por lo general. Creo que voy a escribir revisos en espanol a partir de ahora. Entonces, ellos continuaran de escribar estupideces, y yo me cagare de la risa.
Otro Reviso: ¡ Burrito, taco, chimichanga!
Otro Reviso: ¡ Diga hola a mi pequeno amigo! ¡ Mira pelicano vola! ¡ Vamos pelicano!
White Phosphorus: Here Comes The Science
Posted by Dorkafork
(Or "some" science, at least. I am not an expert, and I can't claim this is definitive.)
An argument seems to be going around (for example, in the comments to
this post) that WP manages to burn skin without affecting clothing through the following process: burning white phosphorus creates phosphorus pentoxide which reacts with water in the human body to create phosphoric acid, which is "highly corrosive" and burns the skin without burning clothing. Well, let's take a closer look at this.
Read More »
First of all, let me note that the smoke generated by WP is not harmless. You can tell by reading previous descriptions, it can have harmful effects on your health. And these effects are minor. "Mild irritations" or a "cough".
Now it's one thing to say that white phosphorus (P4) creates phosphorus pentoxide (P4O10 often rendered P2O5) which when combined with water creates phosphoric acid (H3PO4). This part is true, but doesn't really tell you as much as you might think. These chemical reactions can and do take place. But chemistry is more complicated than that. For example, iron reacts with oxygen to form iron oxide (and you can find a list of health effects from Googling, too). What is iron oxide? Fe2O3, also known as rust. Now, does iron, when exposed to oxygen, immediately begin to rust? Well, technically, yes it does. But at what rate? How much rust is formed? That's the important part.
Now let's look at phosphoric acid (H3PO4). "Acid" sounds bad, doesn't it? Well, I'll have you know that I have been drinking phosphoric acid while writing this post. Again, quantity is the key. (It's in Coke and other sodas. Take a look at the ingredients on a Coke. From what I understand, the ingredients are listed in order of amount. That means there's more phosphoric acid than caffeine in a can of Coke.*) Also, although phosphoric acid is an acid, it is considered a weak to "not particularly strong" acid. Another thing we can look at is the acid-dissociation equilibrium constant (Ka). In general, the higher the Ka (acid-dissociation equilibrium constant) value of an acid, the stronger it is. Now lets look at the Ka value of common acids:
| Strong Acids |
|
|
Ka |
|
| *************************************** |
| hydrochloric acid |
(HCl) |
|
1 x 106 |
|
| sulfuric acid |
(H2SO4) |
|
1 x 103 |
|
| hydronium ion |
(H3O+) |
|
55 |
|
| nitric acid |
(HNO3) |
|
28 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| Weak Acids |
|
|
Ka |
|
| *************************************** |
| phosphoric acid |
(H3PO4) |
|
7.1 x 10-3 |
|
| citric acid |
(C6H7O8) |
|
7.5 x 10-4 |
|
| acetic acid |
(CH3CO2H) |
|
1.8 x 10-5 |
|
| boric acid |
(H3BO3) |
|
7.3 x 10-10 |
|
| water |
(H2O) |
|
1.8 x 10-16 |
|
The Ka value of phosphoric acid is about 4,000 times less than that of nitric acid, the weakest "strong acid" listed. And it's only 10 times greater than citric acid. And we don't know how much phosphoric acid is formed.
All of this I've posted looks impressive, but it is simplified and an expert in chemistry could probably point out mistakes, like how the process of rust formation is simplified. (Naturally I think my logic and sources are sound.) This is part of the point. There are a lot of amateur Google chemists (like me) floating around now that don't necessarily know what they're talking about (like me!). (I'd just like to point out that as of the time of this writing,
this dailyKos post has a scientifically incorrect equation for the formation of phosphoric acid. "P2O5 + H20 -> H3PO4" is not a balanced chemical equation. If it was P
2O
5 + 3H
2O -> 2H
3PO
4 it would be a balanced equation. The number of atoms of each element has to be equal on both sides of the equation for it to be balanced - I believe this is taught in high school chemistry.
As far as I'm concerned,
the most important thing to note is the reported effects of WP munitions. It is a common and widely used munition, and the health effects are fairly well known. And as we've
seen before, "most of these injuries are mild irritations. No human deaths have been reported from exposure to either white phosphorous or RP smokes." You would think that if WP smoke resulted in phosphoric acid that burned flesh without affecting clothing, that maybe any of the large number of soldiers who have been in WP smoke in either training or combat situations would have noticed that, wouldn't you? Especially if it was to the extent of the photos that have been circulating.
* Phosphoric acid "adds a slightly fruity flavor", according to the book
Phosphorus: Chemical Elements That Make Life Possible.
(Related, see the
WP User Hall of Shame (not a complete listing). Previous WP coverage
here,
here, and
here, and a followup post
here.)
« Close It
November 16, 2005
Posted by Bill
Alanis Morrissette: Crazy*
Read More »
* A surprisingly good remake of a fantastic song.
« Close It
But Soft, What Stupidity Through Yonder Computer Screen Breaks? It Is Eschaton, And A Bunch Of Morons
Posted by Hubris
My favorite blogger shares his unique brand of insightful commentary while linking to a post about bodies remaining in New Orleans.
The Eschabots pounce:
Impeach!
-----------
Any troll want to argue that Shrub gives a rat's flying ass about black people?
-----------
Amazing. FEMA continues to fuck up, months later. Isn't it time for Chertoff to resign? Isn't he ultimately responsible, as head of Homeland Security, FEMA's boss?
-----------
None of the poor black folks in New Orleans were useful to the GOP. They didn't vote for them, they didn't contribute to their campaigns, and they don't own oil companies or need an estate tax cut. They aren't even cute enough to use in photo ops shilling for Christian extremism. As Karl Rove would say, "fuck 'em."
Eh, it's kind of unfair to pick on a site for its commenters, but Atrios himself jumps into the comment thread:
Read More »
The right spends so much time indulging in fake outrage they can't even imagine that anyone ever feels real outrage.
Well, who can blame them for being stirred up? The subject post includes the following call to arms:
It is time to DEMAND of your representatives that the government fulfill the most basic of duties and search the lower 9th Ward before December.
Perhaps everyone should have paid more attention to the CNN transcript that started the whole thing:
COOPER: You warned us October 3. When the state stopped house- to-house searching for -- for -- for the deceased, you said, it was a bad idea, that there were more people out there. Now the death toll, it turns out, has jumped by 104. And -- and families are returning to find the bodies of their loved ones still in their homes. How does -- it's got to infuriate you.
The State? A comedy group? Ohhhhh, wait a second, he's talking about a state. I'm taking a wild guess, but maybe it's this one.
Hey, I got lucky! I looked back at the news in October, and it turns out my guess was right:
All agencies conducting the searches have finished their sweeps for remains. But Kenyon International Emergency Services, the private company hired by the state to remove the bodies, is on call if any other body is found, said Bob Johannessen, a spokesman with the state Department of Health and Hospitals.
"There might still be bodies found for instance, if a house was locked and nobody able to go into it," Johannessen said.
Last week, the Federal Emergency Management Agency said it had completed its role in the search, because its specialties were no longer needed. Those services include getting to bodies in attics or other hard-to-reach places or in buildings that may be structurally unsound.
It seems that it was actually Louisiana that finally called off the search in its entirety. I don't know enough details to give an opinion on whether or not state officials made a mistake, but it doesn't seem relevant to Bush's potential impeachment either way.
So yeah, call your representatives, but don't expect it to have much of an effect--unless you happen to live in Louisiana.
For the record, I don't doubt that the outrage Atrios shows is genuine. It's unfortunate that it is so misguided.
« Close It
Why Steroids Matter
Posted by Bill
Reading Michael Wilbon's column on MLB's new tough disciplinary policy on steroid use, I wondered how many paragraphs it would take for him to toss in the repetitive, vague, intellectually lazy health bugaboos about the evils of steroid use. Turns out it was six:
From the way Fehr and other union executives initially fought testing and then sanctions, you would think that players had nothing to gain from a get-tough policy against steroids, when in fact players had more to gain than anybody else. While there is still so much we don't know about steroids and their long-term effects, no responsible physician or trainer argues steroids are good for players' health.
Physicians don't argue that lots of things are good for one's health. These omissions do not equal "particularly bad for one's health," though Wilbon's subsequent strong assertions do just that:
In fact, most studies, the overwhelming anecdotal evidence, and the testimony from the steroid hearings, offered in fairly frightening detail, spell out the damage steroids can do over time.
Oh really? "Most studies?" Any references for that? "Overwhelming anecdotal evidence?" Surely not a standard around which to base dire, unequivocal health warnings. And given the "fairly frightening detail" supposedly spelled out between "most studies," "anecdotal evidence," and "the testimony from the steroid hearings," does Wilbon assert one or two examples of the ill effects of steroids? No. Why? Because he's parroting lazy dogma.
One would think a union would want to eradicate anything that brings that kind of health risk to its constituents.
Again, what kind of health risk, exactly?
The smarter members of the union are thankful today that their fraternity brothers are going to be much less likely to take steroids because the consequences are so grave.
Grave, how?
This is the exact type of ridiculous scare-mongering that marks the hyperbolic social taboos and media coverage surrounding anabolic substances in sports, a taboo that bleeds into the larger culture and misinforms the public and health care system about the nature and safe and appropriate usages of steroids. A superb article by Dayn Perry in Reason addresses many conventionally repeated health concerns about anabolics:
Read More »
Anecdotal accounts of harrowing side effects are not hard to find -- everything from "’roid rage" to sketchy rumors of a female East German swimmer forced to undergo a sex change operation because of the irreversible effects of excess testosterone. But there are problems with the research that undergirds many of these claims. The media give the impression that there’s something inevitably Faustian about taking anabolics -- that gains in the present will undoubtedly exact a price in the future. Christopher Caldwell, writing recently in The Wall Street Journal, proclaimed, "Doctors are unanimous that [anabolic steroids] increase the risk of heart disease, and of liver, kidney, prostate and testicular cancer."
This is false. "We know steroids can be used with a reasonable measure of safety," says Charles Yesalis, a Penn State epidemiologist, steroid researcher for more than 25 years, and author of the 1998 book The Steroids Game. "We know this because they’re used in medicine all the time, just not to enhance body image or improve athletic performance." Yesalis notes that steroids were first used for medical purposes in the 1930s, some three decades before the current exacting standards of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) were in place.
Even so, anabolic steroids or their derivatives are commonly used to treat breast cancer and androgen deficiencies and to promote red blood cell production. They are also used in emerging anti-aging therapies and to treat surgical or cancer patients with damaged muscle tissue.
And this column by Sean Turner offers some broad rebuttals to prevalent "Steroid Hype:"
So-called "experts" are fond of citing incidents of suicide and irrational behavior, and narrow studies of steroid abuse to justify its criminalization — while they omit or fail to study any pre-existing psychological disorders or other environmental factors.
Steroids, like many common subtances (anti-depressants and alcohol come to mind), have potential for dependence and abuse. This does not justify overstating their risk, nor irrationally demonizing any reward.
Additionally, many of the studies mentioned in both the hearing and elsewhere, tend of focus on merely the abuse of a particular type of steroids — ignoring more tempered usage, or consumption of other kinds of substances classified as steroids.
Exactly. A specific example? "Experts" often cite the side effect of liver toxicity associated with steroid use, neglecting to mention that this negative effect is only associated with certain orally administered steroids, many of which are fairly antiquated and cosmetically employed by a certain odd breed of body builder that's aware of the risk, yet insists on cycling a wide variety of different anabolics to maximize perceived effect. From Perry's Reason article:
Caldwell cites one of the most common fears: that anabolics cause liver cancer. There is dubious evidence linking oral anabolics to liver tumors, but athletes rarely take steroids in liquid suspension form. Users almost uniformly opt for the injectable or topical alternatives, which have chemical structures that aren’t noxious to the liver. And as Yesalis observes, even oral steroids aren’t causally linked to cancer; instead, some evidence associates them with benign liver tumors.
More specifically, it’s C-17 alkylated oral steroids that are perhaps detrimental to liver function. But the evidence is equivocal at best. A 1990 computer-assisted study of all existing medical literature found but three cases of steroid-associated liver tumors. Of those three cases, one subject had been taking outrageously large doses of C-17 oral anabolics without cessation for five years, and a second case was more indicative of classic liver malignancy. It’s also C-17 orals, and not other forms of steroids, that are associated with decreased levels of HDL, or "good" cholesterol. But, again, C-17s are almost never used for athletic or cosmetic purposes.
Despite this sketchy causality and the requisite use of specific steroids associated with this ill effect, liver toxicity (and cancer) is one of the most frequently cited unequivocal side effects of "steroid use." The mere possibility ostensibly grants free license for health officials, members of the media and government authorities to demonize an entire class of substances that share a similar muscle-building action, when only certain types of the less commonly used varieties - but not others - have a dubious association with negative side effects.
And what about the dreaded "Roid Rage?"
Another commonly held belief is that steroid use causes aggressive or enraged behavior.
...
"There’s very inconsistent data on whether ’roid rage even exists," says Yesalis. "I’m more open to the possibility than I used to be, but its incidence is rare, and the studies that concluded it does exist largely haven’t accounted for underlying factors or the placebo effect."
Scientists are nearly unanimous that excessive testosterone causes aggression in animals, but this association begins to wither as you move up the evolutionary ladder. Diagnosing such behavior in athletes is especially tricky. "There’s a certain degree of aggression that’s not only acceptable but necessary in competitive sports," Yesalis says. "What’s perhaps just the intensity that’s common to many athletes gets perceived as steroid-linked outbursts."
In fact, it's probably important to note that men with low levels of testosterone are perhaps more susceptible to aggression, irritability and other negative psychological traits, whereas high circulating levels of testosterone (or synthetic variants, potentially) are associated with a greater sense of gregariousness, purpose and well-being, as well as enhanced mental acuity. From an overview of the phenomenon in the NY Times:
As it turns out, testosterone may not be the dread "hormone of aggression" that researchers and the popular imagination have long had it. It may not be the substance that drives men to behave with quintessential guyness, to posture, push, yelp, belch, punch and play air-guitar. If anything, this most freighted of hormones may be a source of very different sensations: calmness, happiness and friendliness, for example.
Friendliness???
Reporting here last week at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society, researchers said that it was a deficiency of testosterone, rather than its excess, that could lead to all the negative behaviors normally associated with the androgen. Studying a group of 54 so-called hypogonadal men, who for a variety of reasons were low in testosterone, Dr. Christina Wang of the University of California at Los Angeles and her colleagues, found that before treatment, the men expressed a surprising suite of negative emotions. They did not feel passive or depressed or timid, as standard ideas of testosterone deficiency might predict. Instead, they described feelings of edginess, anger, irritability. Aggression.
When the men were given testosterone replacement therapy, and were asked to complete questionnaires about their moods several times over the course of two months of treatment, their general sense of well-being improved markedly. Their anger and agitation decreased, their sense of optimism and friendliness heightened.
Of course, the aforementioned study deals with testosterone deficient, hypogonadal men subsequently receiving treatment with bioidentical synthetic testosterone (not other synthetic steroids), and certainly a unique potential exists for aggressive tendencies as a side effect of various forms of synthetic steroid abuse (for one example, there's no doubt that many anabolics d
