Via the Telegraph*

Foreign terrorists, led by fighters from Saudi Arabia, are behind an upsurge in attacks against British troops in Basra, military sources said yesterday...

..The Saudi influence on terrorism in Shia-dominated Basra has not been previously reported but has caused concern among military commanders because of their training, technology and finance.

Although the majority of Saudi Arabians are Sunni, the minority Shia have taken part in terrorist attacks.

Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, admitted that a recent surge in violence was a cause of "major concern". Dozens of soldiers have been targeted by advanced "improvised explosive devices" (IED) that the Army has been unable to disable or jam.

Morale is also being affected by the continual danger, with older soldiers saying the apprehension is similar to that experienced on the streets of Northern Ireland in the 70s and early 80s.

"People are dying and morale is being affected by it," said an officer operating in Iraq.

"The perception is that attacks are becoming more lethal and better targeted and the delivery process is more effective. There is a definite sense that we are still making progress but because there is no real defence against IEDs people are feeling a bit glummer."

Commanders are concerned that Saudi and other foreign fighters are co-ordinating the attacks in a "consensual environment", in which the locals will not tell the military where roadside bombs have been planted. "The concern is that support for our presence is going down," a defence source said.

There is also a strong belief, particularly among the Americans, that Iran is continuing to ferry bombs to Baghdad via Basra.

According to MSNBC's report, Sheik Saleh Al Luhaidan, President of the Supreme Judicial Council (Chief Justice) with a rank of a minister, member of Council of Senior Clerics, (the highest religious body in the country) appointed by King Abdullah said last October:

"If someone knows that he is capable of entering Iraq in order to join the fight, and if his intention is to raise up the word of God, then he is free to do so," ...

He warns Iraq is risky because "evil satellites and drone aircraft" watch the borders. But he says going is religiously permissible."

* Link thanks to Jihadwatch

This death threat is pretty alarming and so is Reuters' evasiveness.

One thing is clear - Charles' web kung fu is way better than Reuters' or this Mr. Bean impersonators'.

Charles at LGF has the best suggestion - a contribution to Wounded Warriors.

We drove up to our cabin up in western New York. On the way up, I caught some sort of flu that still hasn't gone away. It may be due to the lack of wine with my dinners up there, or it may have been caused by the exercise program I started the previous week. Teetotalism and workouts have never had a positive effect on me when I've tried them separately, it's no surprise that they're deadly combined.

Neo-neocon bravely asked of the War in Iraq: "Why this war is so hated". Was it due to hatred of GWB? Did people see the US as a bully for deposing the homicidal Saddam Hussein? Or are they just disappointed that the war is taking so long?

The war in Iraq was characterized with a certain audacity in its genesis. The reasons behind it, although they were explained, were complex and multiple. Some of them seemed merely "technical"--violations of UN resolutions and the ceasefire of the Gulf War, and failure to cooperate with inspectors, are unusual (perhaps unprecedented?) reasons to attack a nation. Even though the war was described as defensive--including defensive of the UN's authority, which somehow seems ironic--it is very hard for most people to see it as defensive. This is partly because the possibility of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a third-world nation that might give them to terrorists is a relatively new one, difficult to credit and to wrap the mind around (and the failure to find WMDs in Iraq feeds into this difficulty).

This whole business of a war that is at least partly religious in nature (if only because the enemy wills it to be so) is assuredly not what most of us expected for the beginning of the 21st century. I remember, when I first started reading blogs, coming across the site of an Australian blogger (now defunct; wish I could remember his name!) who wrote a funny piece on that very subject. The gist of it was that the whole thing can be explained by a mixup in time: the numbers of the years got reversed, and instead of it being 2001 it was actually the year 1200.

Sometimes it feels that way; the sense of dislocation can be profound.

Some of those 'do not approve' Americans are Republicans and Independents.

Many of those 'do not approve' Americans originally supported the war. Most are happy to be rid of Saddam Hussien. Most support the troops (as I do, wholeheartedly. Our troops in Iraq are the only Americans who have a legal right to shoot Islamist/mujahideen on sight, and they're the practially the only members of the government genuinely fighting terrorism. Godspeed to them).

So why have pro-defense Americans changed their minds about the government's handling of the war?

Iraq as a defensive war?

Like many Jacksonians (or Jeffersonians) I've never believed that the purpose of war should be to bring democracy to our enemies, 'reform' them or make them better, happier, more self-actualized people. It should be to kill enemy troops/combatants/mujahideen until they reach the point of offering a genuine surrender. War should be used only in self-defense.

Once the enemy has been completely defeated, then we can talk about a Marshall Plan.

The message of the 9/11 attacks was that we were facing an enemy whose goal wasn't negotiation or even war, it was just annihilation. That's their goal, and the only thing that limits them is their lack of powerful weaponry. We're facing an intractable enemy. You don't negotiate with an intractable enemy.

The war in Afghanistan was a war against the supporters of the 9/11 attacks. It was sold to us as a part of the war against terrorism because it was.

The war in Iraq was also sold to us as a part of the war against terrorism, yet of all the unfreindly terror supporting nations in the Middle East, Saddam had the least connection to the 9/11 attacks, al Qaeda or any Islamist terror groups. Bush was fairly honest about the fact that we were concerned about the fact that Saddam might be able to produce WMDs in five to ten years. But Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. all had that capablility. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Sudan all had connections to al Qaeda that were equivalent to the Taliban's. If we were fighting a war against terrorism, we would have targeted Iran or the Sudan first. Many Americans may feel that they were the victims of a bait and switch.

A religious war?

Most neo-cons are very determined to point out that we are not at war with 1.3 billion Muslims. They also want to point out that the religion of Islam is not to blame for terrorism - but at the same time, they believe that Islam should and can be "reformed." If Islam isn't to blame for terrorism, why should it be reformed?

Muslims are the primary victims of terrorism. Iraqis, Turks and many others have stormed the streets by the thousands to protest Islamist extremism and terrorism. Iraqis leave the bodies of 'insurgents' out in the street to be eaten by dogs. The majority of Muslims hate insurgents/mujahideen/terrorists with a force we can't begin to comprehend. The best way for us to win their hearts and minds is to kill more terrorists.

The leaders and sponsors of paramiltary muhahideens quote the Koran in the same way that the Ugandan Lords Resistance army uses the Bible to justify mass slayings and slavery. Islam isn't to blame for groups like al Qaeda, Hamas and their ilk, just like Christianity isn't to blame for the LRA. The politicians who use Islam to justify ethnic cleansing are to blame. They're the people we should be fighting. We should leave Islam and 1.3 billion Muslim hearts and minds out of this. We can't reform someone else's religion and it's pointless to make this a part of this war.

However, Bush and most members of the government, right and left, believe in the hearts and minds theory. They believe that we should offer money and political power to anyone who promises to 'reform' Islam and control extremism. When we do that, you can bet that a lot of 'reformers' will show up, promising to do just that. Look at the Ayatollah Sistani. Our Saudi Allies. The UAE. Mahmoud Abbas. If you wave a lot of money around and demand to buy the Brooklyn bridge, people will sell it to you.

Is the war taking too long?

If we were fighting a war against terrorism, we would concentrate our efforts on killing terrorists in an effort to win a genuine surrender. We would ally with anyone who is also threatened by terrorism and could effectively help us kill massive numbers of mujahideen. We would try to improve our relationship with real military powers, like Russia and China.

We didn't do that. Instead, we concentrated our efforts on mending our "freindship" with the Saudis who paid for 9/11. We continue to support American-grown pro-terror groups like Peace In Chechnya. If we keep going in this direction, the war will never end. It's not even clear what we're fighting. Are we fighting for democracy? Then why are we allying with Libya?

Are we at war with anyone who won't sell us the Brooklyn Bridge, who won't pretend to cooperate with our efforts to 'reform' them?

or..

Are we still fighting the Cold War?

The idea of winning Islamist hearts and minds was originally a cover story for Brzezinski and Carter's headless chicken strategy, to win the cold war by using Islamists to fight the commies. There is no proof that this policy has been abandoned. According to Dick Cheney, Carter's strategies are still a very important part of our foreign policy.

in August, 2002, seven months before the war started, Cheney warned that Saddam would be able to seize control of the world’s economic lifeline if he acquired weapons of mass destruction: “Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror, and seated atop ten per cent of the world’s oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world’s energy supplies, directly threaten America’s friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail.”

So why do pro-war Americans disapprove of the way the war is being fought?

As neo says, "who would want to recognize that we're in a long struggle against an unusually implacable and rage-filled enemy?"

I think most people realize that we're facing an unusually implacable and rage-filled enemy. They just don't think a "long war" is the right strategy.

Pretend that the US is the world's policeman. This policeman has just resolved a long, drawn out hostage situation with a clever, well-armed, yet patient, often reasonable enemy. Let's call the hostage taker " the USSR".

After many shared cigarettes and long-drawn out philosophical discussions, the policeman successfully resolved the hostage situation. Now he's faced with an implacable, rage filled axe wielding manic, rushing towards him. Should he:

1. Be prepared for long, drawn out negotiations, offer the maniac cigarettes and mention that he admires Tolstoy?

2. Shoot the maniac in the head.

In their long war scenario, the government has chosen option 1. The American people know we're fighting a new sort of war. The government doesn't.

It's not clear that we are still fighting the Cold War, but it is clear that we're using Cold War strategies. We're fighting the last war, not the present one.

And, despite all the mistakes we've made, we're still doing a better job of fighting terrorism than Europe is. They're still fighting this war using their old cold-war methods - relentlessly criticizing the US while depending on us to protect them.

Since the war on terrorism isn't really being fought as a war on terrorism, and since our government (left and right) is obsessed with the hearts and minds myth, I really have no side to take. Sure, I think we should stay until the Iraqis are able to run their own government. But this is the last 'war on terrorism'/cold war/hearts-and- minds action I'm going to support until the government demonstrates that it has wised up.

Now that Dennis Hastert is having his oversized head handed to him, I guess it's time to resurrect my favorite photo of him.

Jabba shouted, in a voice choked with rage and slime
"Bring me Solo and the Wookiee. They will all suffer for
this outrage!"
The Hut’s minions cackled with glee!

I never liked the guy..

I don't really understand the "braneworld universe" theory , but it's got a wicked cool name and that's a start.

Charles R. Keeton of Rutgers and Arlie O. Petters of Duke base their work on a recent theory called the type II Randall-Sundrum braneworld gravity model. The theory holds that the visible universe is a membrane (hence "braneworld") embedded within a larger universe, much like a strand of filmy seaweed floating in the ocean. The "braneworld universe" has five dimensions — four spatial dimensions plus time — compared with the four dimensions — three spatial, plus time — laid out in the General Theory of Relativity.

The framework Keeton and Petters developed predicts certain cosmological effects that, if observed, should help scientists validate the braneworld theory. The observations, they said, should be possible with satellites scheduled to launch in the next few years.

If the braneworld theory proves to be true, "this would upset the applecart," Petters said. "It would confirm that there is a fourth dimension to space, which would create a philosophical shift in our understanding of the natural world."

Sandmonkey is letting the world know about a campaign of protests in support of jailed Egyptian dissidents. He says:

..if you are in one of those cities, please join the other protesters, and enjoy the fact that this might be one of the few rare moments that the left and right, arabs and israelis and everyone else will agree on something and fight together for it! After that, we can comfortably return to hating each other as much as we please, but for once, for one day, we will have a common cause, a common goal and we will be working side by side to achieve it. And that, my friends, certainly does not suck!

There's one in New York, which I can't get to because of appointments that can't be changed. However, I'll link to posts from those who could get there.

UPDATE: Sandmonkey has a collection of quotes from today's protest in Egypt.

"Notoriously insensitive to subtle shifts in moods, children will persist in discussing the color of a recently sighted cement mixer long after one's interest in the topic has waned"
- Fran Lebowitz

At Kesher Talk (and Winds of Change) Judith asks "Does Osama still matter?"

It's not clear if the old poop still matters, although I would like to see his head hanging from the Christamas tree in Rockefeller center this year. It doesn't seem that he's doing much other than making tapes. Last time he was seen, his health did not look good.

However, to the press, he will always matter. Childishly insensitive to subtle shifts in politics and moods, they obsess about certain subjects long after everyone's interest in the topic has waned. Subjects like: O.J.. Tom Cruise. The Kennedy Family. Liz Taylor. Bird flu. Osama bin Laden.

If he dies, the press will still keep him alive. Look at the decade-old photos they publish of him.

This is what he really looks like (or, at least that's the last verifiable image):

The press rarely shows this one. With a skill that would impress the makeup man on the Golden Girls, they relentlessly paint rosy cheeks on their corpselike star.

If he does die, they'll never bury him. The obsessive press will hollow his image out, fill it with sawdust and leave his finger forever raised, demanding, Number 1 enemy in the (dessicated) flesh.

In the year 2525, they'll be reading about Osama's latest tape, delivered by martians via the Bat Boy, in the Weekly World News.

To the notoriously insensitive media, Osama is forever.

I don't always agree with him, but this time McCain is absolutely right:

The United States needs to overcome its fear of nuclear power and embrace the technology as a way to wean itself from fossil fuels, Sen. John McCain told an audience in Manchester yesterday.

Nuclear power "is safe. The technology is here," McCain said, speaking to a crowd of about 200 at a breakfast hosted by The New Hampshire Federation of Republican Women. "It's a NIMBY (not in my backyard) problem, and a waste-disposal problem. It is not a technological problem."

McCain pointed to France, which draws more than three-quarters of its power from nuclear plants, and Russia, which has plans to build 40 new plants, as examples. "We've got to get over it, get over Three Mile Island," he said, referring to the 1979 accident at a Pennsylvania nuclear power plant.

[Link thanks to Ace]

I could write about our puritanical extremist zealot allies the Saudis. Did you know that they really are reforming? They don't shoot people for smoking anymore.

But there is no force on heaven or earth that will get our government to change their policies. They just can't quit the Sauds.

I'm not going to comment on this Dean's World issue, because I know less about the Koran than I do about the Bible. I don't really understand why comparing religions (Islam vs. Christianity) is relevant in any way. Islam is not just a religion, it's a political and legal system. Comparing Sharia to other forms of law is more relevant.

Rosemary's take is interesting, though. So is the discussion that followed.

I could blog about how disappointed I am by Bush's Carteresque policies, or how the quality of politicans seems to have reached an unprecedented nadir, but that horse has been beaten.

Since most of the Bush agenda lately seems to consist of efforts to appease extremists like the Grand Ayatollah Sistani and our Saudi, UAE, Libyan and Sudanese 'allies', criticizing the Left for appeasement is a big waste of time.

So I think I'll take a break from politics for a while. There are better things to do with one's free time, like grouting the backboard in the kitchen.

No, really. I like doing that.

Inspired by Judith's bunny/pancake, I have no idea what to blog about so here's my favorite subway gnome

I've been trying to learn more about PHP, so I tried out this simple php blog.

When they say simple, they really mean it. Here are the installation notes:

1. Download and unzip the .zip file
   
2. FTP files to your web server
   
3. Visit the index page
   
4. Follow the instructions
   

It wasn't as hard as I thought.

A long, long time ago...
I can still remember
How that music used to make me smile.
And I knew if I had my chance
That I could make those people dance
And, maybe, they’d be happy for a while.

But february made me shiver
With every paper I’d deliver.
Bad news on the doorstep;
I couldn’t take one more step.

I can’t remember if I cried
When I read about his widowed bride,
But something touched me deep inside
The day the music died.

So bye-bye, miss american pie.
Drove my chevy to the levee,
But the levee was dry.
And them good old boys were drinkin’ whiskey and rye
Singin’, "this’ll be the day that I die.
"this’ll be the day that I die."

-Don Mc Lean, American Pie

In Commentary Magazine, James Piereson theorizes that the Kennedy Assasination was to blame.

Kennedy’s assassination heralded a break with the American past and a corresponding rupture in the evolving world of liberal ideas. Far from spurring the liberal tradition forward, as some today still suggest, it played a significant role in its disintegration. In the years and decades that followed, nearly all of the tendencies of the far Right that had so unnerved the liberals of the 1950’s—the fascination with conspiracies, the use of overheated and abusive rhetoric to characterize political adversaries, expressions of hatred for the United States and its national culture—moved across the political spectrum to the far and then the near Left.

For many American liberals, the shock of Kennedy’s death compromised their faith in the nation itself. Against all evidence, they concluded that a violent strain in our national culture was somehow to blame.

The reaction to the Kennedy assassination also parallels the left's reaction to 9/11 - blaming, not at the perpetrators of the crime, but violent America.

..Jim Bishop (in The Day Kennedy Was Shot, 1972) reports that aboard Air Force One en route back to Washington, various people, including Lady Bird Johnson, had urged [Jackie Kennedy] to change out of the blood-spattered clothes she was still wearing. “No,” she replied more than once, “I want them to see what they have done.”

Who were “they”? The New York Times columnist James Reston supplied an answer of sorts in an article that appeared the next day under the title, “Why America Weeps: Kennedy Victim of Violent Streak He Sought to Curb in Nation.” Reston wrote:

America wept tonight, not alone for its dead young President, but for itself. The grief was general, for somehow the worst in the nation had prevailed over the best. The indictment extended beyond the assassin, for something in the nation itself, some strain of madness and violence, had destroyed the highest symbol of law and order.

The nation itself, Reston implied, was ultimately responsible for Oswald’s murderous act.

Post 9/11, there was also the longing for the lost Camelot; the election that was 'stolen' from Al Gore.

That lost Camelot, not the 9/11 attacks, was the focus of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911

In the mid '70's my mom joined the feminist movement, got a fro-perm and taught herself to play a folksy guitar. She often sang McLean's song. You could point out, over and over, that the song really was about the day Buddy Holly died. My folks wouldn't listen. For them, it would always be about November 22, 1963.

And in the streets: the children screamed,
The lovers cried, and the poets dreamed.
But not a word was spoken;
The church bells all were broken.
And the three men I admire most:
The father, son, and the holy ghost,
They caught the last train for the coast
The day the music died.

"Show me a hero and I will write you a tragedy."
- F. Scott Fitzgerald

Dave Price at Dean's World says:

I guess she's part of those "huddled masses yearning to breathe free." And she's pretty hot-looking and articulate, as huddled masses go.

She's coming here partly because her fellow Amsterdam tenants decided that since she was being threatened by radical Muslim terrorists for espousing her ideals, the logical, moral thing to do was to kick her out of the building on the grounds her presence endangered them. That kind of feckless cowardice is frankly despicable, and while I don’t know for sure that such a thing has never happened in the United States, it sounds very un-American and I hope it wouldn't be tolerated in a country with our commitment to freedom of speech, a commitment which is often sorely lacking across the pond. Generally, we try to punish the guilty rather than the bravely innocent.

Unless they're terrorists, of course.

Judith of Kesher Talk says: "Her own party is quite gratuitously retroactively removing her citizenship. It's a slimy mess of vicious party politics, dhimmitude, jealousy, and scapegoating. A nation of Ellsworth Tooeys."

Pieter Dorsman at PeakTalk describes the motives behind the attack:

To be clear, Hirsi Ali was scheduled to leave parliament and join AEI long before both the eviction-affair and the documentary about her entry into the The Netherlands became headline news. Both Hirsi Ali and some of her closest associates must have determined a while ago that there was probably a better and safer future in America. The court ruling which gave her four months to vacate her apartment essentially brought that decision forward. That in essence raises even more questions about Verdonk’s heavy handed approach which it appears is now backfiring and could well derail her political career – and leadership ambitions – for good.

Secretary Rita Verdonk has legalized many, many illegal aliens out of the 26,000 that the left in the Netherlands has claimed were prosecuted unduly.

Now, Rita Verdonk has ruled that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is probably no longer Dutch.

I have earlier shocked at least one reader of this blog (hi, BB) by admitting I am not a huge fan of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. This has nothing to do with her points of view. I agree with quite a few of them. It's how she seems to overly rely on awakening male protective instincts to make her points. Politicians should try to convince their voters by using arguments, not by appealing to emotions. It may be a personal flaw, but whenever I feel someone tries to push my buttons, I find myself responding by immediately jumping in the opposite direction. (This didn't keep me from voting for AHA during the last parliamentary elections, by the way.)

That being said, the whole affair smells worse than badger juice mixed with garlic...

..My take? The VVD party knew AHA had to be sacrificed to fend off a left-wing takeover of the country during the 2007 elections. Rita Verdonk added insult to injury because it increases her own chances of winning the party leadership, and the VVD honchos stand by idly because they know the hugely popular Verdonk may be the only thing standing between Labour Party leader Wouter Bos and four years of social-democratic misery.

God, I hate politics.

In any case, there is a rare bit of good news. The Netherlands' loss is our gain, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali is coming to America. While I now realize that she made this decision a while ago, I'd like to think that the standing ovation we gave her at the NYC PEN conference cemented her decision. She's very welcome here.

The US has restored full diplomatic ties with Libya

"Libya serves as an important model as we push for changes in policy by other countries, such as Iran and North Korea," Welch said.

U.S. officials hope the move will encourage Libya to further open its economy, including its underdeveloped oil industry, which is potentially one of the world's largest. Libya's oil reserves rank in the top 10 worldwide, but its production lags. After the administration lifted U.S. economic sanctions in 2004, American oil companies joined those doing business in Libya, and Libyan oil began arriving at U.S. refineries that year.

At a morning news conference, Welch denied the move was driven by an interest in oil, but acknowledged that Libya's economy has not opened up to Americans as much as hoped since the sanctions were lifted.

Libya "remains a problematic place to do business," he said. "We would appreciate greater openness, as would any number of potential foreign partners."

We're not even getting much oil out of the deal.

Is this a victory in the war against terrorism? No. Our foreign partners in Libya are still supporting terrorism around the world. We're just pretending that they're not.

Now reports have emerged of officials of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) arriving Trinidad in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks to identify persons who trained in terrorism in Libya and who may in some way be linked to criminal mastermind Osama bin Laden, the Saudi dissident suspected of involvement in a series of massacres.

A center of attention there is one Yasin Abu Bakr, a former Trinidadian policeman who now heads Jamaat al Muslimeen, a Black Muslim group. Abu Bakr has close ties to Libya and in fact was also visiting Qadaffi earlier this month. Abu Bakr brags about the assistance he receives from the Libyan leader...

..A Washington expert on the Caribbean-Libyan connection said that the U.S. "isn’t going to pay much attention to it." He indicates that Washington "has a tacit agreement with Qaddafi that he can do whatever he wants in Africa, the Caribbean or elsewhere, as long as he stays out of the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East."

Since this wonderful alliance is such an important model, we'll probably follow the same course in Iran, spending billions of dollars and giving legitimacy to another cheap crook who, in a sane world, would be living in a halfway house and sweeping floors in the local food co-op.

So, what have we won here?

I spent the weekend up in Boston, watching my son graduate with a bachelor's degree in Aerospace engineering and be honored for his prizewinning design.

Many congratulations to him and to his team!

My husband was able to use his Marriott points to gather the whole family together for the weekend. We had an excellent celebration dinner at McCormick and Schmicks, my son showed us his trophy, and he and my husband celebrated with some very old scotch. It was a wonderful gathering.

And, of course, we were all drenched by the rain.

On Saturday the weather channel was predicting rain for the next three days. Unfortunately, for the graduates and everyone who lives in New England, the weather channel was right. My son suggested that we skip the outdoor ceremony and just go to the smaller, indoor College of Engineering event later in the afternoon. He predicted that the outdoor graduation ceremony would be damp, long, and way too boring for his 6 year old cousin to endure.

Great call. We followed his advice and missed all this.

I guess we should have known that this would happen. The same thing happened when he graduated from high school.

But, the important thing is, he graduated. We celebrated with another great meal at the incomparable Rod Dee's. The rain made it a little easier to say goodbye to Boston, but not much.

A member of our NYC based LiberalHawks group writes:

Given that radical Islam and Communist China has set its eyes on Africa, I thought this link may be of help:

To free Africans from intellectual bondage, empower them to take charge of their own destiny and devise African-based solutions to Africa's problems;

- To advocate and seek establishment of which will help promote and safeguard the four cornerstones of freedom: intellectual freedom, political freedom, economic freedom and religious freedom;

- To resist the imposition of alien ideologies and systems on Africa;

- To provide an "African input" in international fora and the formulation of Western (aid) policies toward Africa.

They're unstoppable!!

The technology for remote-controlled light aircraft is now highly advanced, widely available — and, experts say, virtually unstoppable.

Models with a wingspan of five metres (16 feet), capable of carrying up to 50 kilograms (110 pounds), remain undetectable by radar.

And thanks to satellite positioning systems, they can now be programmed to hit targets some distance away with just a few metres (yards) short of pinpoint accuracy.

Security services the world over have been considering the problem for several years, but no one has yet come up with a solution.

But, wait a minute, there are better ideas out there; like, let's have a long debate about the religious significance of Ahmadinejad's letter. Let's praise our most benificent ally in Iraq, Ayatollah "Those who commit sodomy must be killed in the harshest way" Sistani! Let's hold hands with evil. That's how we'll win this war.

Maybe we should welcome our new robot overlords. The average ipod could do a better job of fighting this war than we are.

There is oxygen on the moon - in the strangest place..

An early, persistent problem noted by Apollo astronauts on the Moon was dust. It got everywhere, including into their lungs. Oddly enough, that may be where future Moon explorers get their next breath of air: The moon's dusty layer of soil is nearly half oxygen.

The trick is extracting it.

"All you have to do is vaporize the stuff," says Eric Cardiff of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. He leads one of several teams developing ways to provide astronauts oxygen they'll need on the Moon and Mars. (See the Vision for Space Exploration.)

Lunar soil is rich in oxides. The most common is silicon dioxide (SiO2), "like beach sand," says Cardiff. Also plentiful are oxides of calcium (CaO), iron (FeO) and magnesium (MgO). Add up all the O's: 43% of the mass of lunar soil is oxygen.

Thanks to Blogs 4 Bauer - How to deal with the common Office Mole

Like at CTU, odds are your office is full of moles. Trust me; we don't have a lot of time to explain. Is it the new intern, consultant, freelancer, or all three? It could even be your boss. There are a few signs to tell if they are indeed a mole. I have listed them below.

Signs Your Co-worker Is a Mole
10. They give the new intern the "mole nod" on the way to a meeting.
9. Admits to being a mole after an hour of sensory deprivation.
8. Joins the company softball team and seems to be throwing games.
7. Reformats an Excel spreadsheet without telling you.
6. Steals your Swingline Stapler - theft is a gateway crime...

After locating a mole in your office, the next step is to take action. When dealing with an office mole, the best route would be to think like Jack Bauer. Someone doesn't wash their hands in the bathroom....Jack Bauer would pull out the old Chinese water torture. Problem solved.

Good: What Jack Bauer would do
Bad: What Miles would do

Someone keeps stealing critical office equipment
Good: Place a tracking device on stapler. When located, force the "mole" to swallow a towel.
Bad: Order new supplies and hope they stop...

More...

I'm spending my free time studying for my Nitrox dive class, so blogging will be kind of slow.

But speaking of scuba, I never posted my Cozumel photos - so here they are.

Our dive master and lifesaver, Juan.

The most bizarre part of my trip had nothing to do with the dives. I was sitting on the dive boat wearing a t-shirt, swimsuit and half my wet suit, minding my own business, talking to my husband when Juan shouted "stay still! don't move!" Then he lunged towards me and grabbed something blackish and spiky from my stomach. Whatever it was, he threw it off the boat. Then he said "that was a scorpion. It might have come from one of the scuba bags."

When he said 'scorpion' everyone immediately checked their bags and the floor of the boat. I'd left my bag and my suit to dry out on the hotel balcony. It could have crawled in during the night. Thank goodness it didn't crawl in my suit.

Cozumel's shore is beautiful, but it's still littered with remnants of the damage caused by Hurricane Wilma. Wilma pounded the island for days. Hotels and docks were decimated. But the island is bouncing back very quickly, rebuilding along the coast and in town.

On the second day of the trip, the wind and the waves were so high, they closed some of the ports. I'm not sure what these people were planning to do, but putting the boat in the water wasn't an option.

Before our local scuba classes in the pool, I would usually drink lots of water before a dive in an effort to avoid getting dehydrated. I discovered that when you go on an all-day dive in a boat that has no 'head', this is a very bad idea. Especially when the waves are very high and the teenaged boat driver is racing the boat at butt-bouncing speeds.

Since the wet suit keeps all liquids close to the body, I didn't want to find out what happens if you pee in the suit. Apparently it rots the stitching.

The waves and the winds were too high one day for scuba, so the more advanced divers practiced rescues.

On the last day, we drove to the Eastern side of the Island, to Senor Iguana's (great local beer and margaritas!).

The beaches on the Eastern Side are beautiful, but the waves and the undertow make swimming dangerous.

We had to get there before sunset because that side of the Island has no electricity. We loved the unspoiled beauty, but, norteamericano techies that we are, we wondered why they didn't put up a few wind turbines or solar panels.

Around town, I met Americans and Europeans who had migrated to Mexico. One woman met her husband in Cozumel on a dive trip. She returned to New York City, quit her high-profile fashion job and returned to Mexico to live with her husband and open a shop. One migrant from Amsterdam decided one day that he had enough of commuting. The owner of the dive shop was another migrant. They all seemed to be happy with their decision, even after Wilma.

Just wanted to thank Judith for putting these dinner and a movie gatherings together. It's great to meet with other sort-of-red-staters in this very blue state. In New York City, being a moderate who doesn't believe that Bush is Satan is very extreme.

Here's a new centrist blog to visit - The Purple State, the voice of the Youth Vote

An American neighborhood watch force fights crime:

When Mahotia Grant comes downstairs at Jersey City's A. Harry Moore housing complex, the drug dealers know they'd better move on. If not, they'll risk a stern lecture from a member of the A. Harry Moore Tenant Task Force, an organized and committed group of tenants who are determined to chase drug dealers from their neighborhood.

"You can't even come out the door without seeing them," said Grant of the brazen pushers and their customers, almost none of whom live in the complex. "I tell them, 'You can't sell your stuff here. You have to move.' Now if they see me coming, they start to move right away."

Long dismayed by the prevalence of drugs in their neighborhood, tenants of the public housing complex last year banded together to stage an aggressive face-off that prevented the felons from doing business for a full day.

AMSTERDAM — Liberal Party MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been ordered to vacate the high-security home she is renting in The Hague within four months.

An appeal court sided with her neighbours who complained her presence put their own safety at risk and caused disruption to their lives. Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner broke the news of the court decision at an EU meeting in Luxembourg on Thursday.

In America, too, militant Islamists have been learning how simple it is to take away freedoms. Recently, prestigious newspapers such as The New York Times and The Washington Post refrained from publishing Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad despite their obvious newsworthiness: They had set off an international controversy. The papers claimed their restraint was motivated by respect for Islam — a respect they would never exhibit toward Christianity or Judaism.

Walden books and Borders were more candid about why they refused to stock magazines containing the drawings: "For us," company spokesman Beth Bingham said, "the safety and security of our customers and employees is a top priority, and we believe that carrying this issue could challenge that priority."

Let’s not delude ourselves about what is going on: In the Middle East, Europe, America and elsewhere, a campaign of violence and intimidation is being waged. We have not yet begun to fight back. Instead, we’ve dressed up our fears as sensitivity, attempted to appease those who threaten and kill, while allowing ourselves to be cowed into self-censorship. Surely, we know where this road leads.

In the last century, Nazis and Communists attempted to extinguish freedom. We fought back. Now, there are new bullies on the block. There is no guarantee that if we fight again we will win again. But if we don’t fight, defeat is inevitable.

The majority of the passengers on Flight 93 knew that they had to fight terrorism and they needed to defeat it. They knew that they were being confronted by an intractable enemy.

They figured this out in a half-hour. There are some people out there who still haven't figured this out. Why?

Tomatillo salsa

2 scallions
2 tomatillos
about 2 tbs cilantro
1 jalepeno

Thinly slice the scallions, tomatillos, cilantro and jalepeno, then sprinkle them with salt and chop them up finely. Add the juice of

1/2 lime

Serve over enchiladas, quesadillas, refried beans or with chips.

I bought a bunch of tomatillos on a whim yesterday. I'd never cooked with them before, but I'd seen some yummy-looking green salsas down in Cozumel, and these weird little tomato-ey things looked liked they go into that salsa. So I chopped them up with the regular stuff, sprinkled them on some quesadillas and yes, they're good.

Tomatillos are to red tomatoes as macintosh apples are to red apples - they're less juicy and more tart. If they're not green, they're not worth eating. They're covered with odd leafy stuff, which should be peeled off.

Here's more about tomatillos

1. Da Vinci Code hype

2. the immigration controversy

And why am I supposed to resent immigrants? Am I allowed to say "Happy Cinco de Mayo", or must all holidays now be announced in English?

Are we allowed to celebrate it at all? May we down Margaritas and enchiladas or do we have to find some Anglo-related reason to celebrate? In the Anglosphere, May 5th is International Midwives Day. Let's see, what should we eat to celebrate that?

It would probably go down easier than the traditional English Breakfast.

On Sunday, Judith, Jeff and I went to hear Ayaan Hirsi Ali speak at PEN's 'World Voices' tour.

The basic points of the talk: Ayaan Hirsi Ali told New York Liberals to respect their enlightenment values. Interviewer Gourevitch wondered what was to be done with this difficult woman. The audience responded by giving her a five minute ovation. I'm surprised we didn't light candles and do the wave.

Speaking for myself, we weren't just clapping because we agreed with her or because we admired her bravery. We were clapping because she could express feelings that we no longer can. Like Wafa Sultan and many pro-democracy activists in the Middle East, Hirsi Ali understands and loves liberal and enlightenment values. Ms. Ali tried to communicate that love and passion to us, but even the basically sympathetic audience didn't really get it. Some people giggled uncomfortably when she mentioned freedom and the joys of owning property; they were like a bunch of junior high-schoolers listening to passionate love song - they wanted to hear more, but the subject was so embarrassing.

The best surprise: Salman Rushdie, author of the Satanic Verses, sat near the stage. Early on, the soft-voiced Ali confessed that as a young Muslim, she protested in favor of his death. Later she admitted that she had wanted to burn his book. "Not just the book" he quipped.

Ali describes herself as a Muslim atheist. She speaks out in favor of bringing the enlightenment to the Muslim world. Like Irshad Manji, her message is that Muslims need to question the authority of their Imams and of Mohammed. Muslims need to think for themselves.

She said that there are many Muslims and former Muslims out there who believe the same thing - but they're not willing to say so out loud, because they fear the wrath that the Islamists will stir up. She hopes that the West would defend their own values and the lives of the whistle-blowers of the Muslim world.

That is basically the message that has prompted death threats, accusations of Islamaphobia and extremism against this soft-voiced, elegant and reasonable woman.

Unfortunately, we've gotten so used to living with the kill-all-apostates brigade - their message often raises fewer eyebrows than Ali's.

Honestly - does Hirsi Ali's message sound extreme to you?

[More details from the New York Sun, linked to by Atlas ]

UPDATE: I should also mention that while Hirsi Ali was on tour, her neighbors had her successfully evicted from her home. Of that, Callimachus writes

Of course, for her bravery, Hirsi Ali has been rewarded by the Eurocrats by being evicted from her home because the neighbors are afraid to live next to someone who makes waves.

I remember the aftershock week that followed Sept. 11. The attacks cracked through America's shell and some of what oozed out was darkly ugly. My girlfriend at the time lived in Birmingham, and one of her best friends was a pretty Persian girl, identifiably Middle Eastern on sight. Nobody knew what was happening, or what was going to happen next. There were stories of physical attacks on anyone who looked vaguely Islamic; there were fears of how law enforcement would react.

But her neighbors rallied to her, and every time that girl left the house, for an errand, for her job, for anything, someone went with her. Just in case. There were stories like that everywhere. People who had never been inside a mosque turned out to stand guard over one, just in case. Those of us with Middle Eastern neighbors kept an eye on the, always asked how they were doing, if they needed anything. Just in case.

I don't think we're better than the average European. But I do think we're different. How could we not be? We're the same people, 300 years back, who segregated themselves voluntarily. Those who took religion seriously, those who were greedy and ambitious, those who felt the stirring of individual spirit stronger than the urge to stay safe in the herd -- they came here. At tremendous risk, they crossed half a world. They survived here, in part, by keeping an eye on each other. They're our grandfathers and grandmothers.

Those who were content, or unwilling to take risks, stayed. Modern European history has many heroes, brave men and women. But they are, on the whole, exceptions. The mass of Europeans kept their heads down and hoed their own rows. When the knock on the door came in the middle of the night at their neighbors' houses in 1942, they closed their eyes tighter and pulled the covers around them tighter and pretended to sleep.

I haven't been paying much attention to the Moussaoui trial, except to note that as an enemy combatant, he should have been tried in a short, publicity-free military trial. Or, if we were fighting terrorism the way we fought their predecessors, Moussaoui would be hanging up with John Walker Lindh, Jose Padilla, Sami Al-Arian and the rest of their ilk in Times Square.

Terrorism is an act of war. Treating terrorists as civil criminals has already been proven to be completely ineffective.

However, we're not treating all terrorists as civil criminals. Dean points out that the U.S. Government prefers to classify only the bigger fish in terrorism cases as "enemy combatants", so we can interrogate rather than charge them.

I agree that it makes sense, and the fact that a few of these captured al Qaeda members are being called 'enemy combatants' is one of the few signs that a someone, somewhere, is fighting a war against terrorism.

For the most part, we're not fighting Islamism or terrorism and we're certainly not using methods that have been proven to work in the past. The current Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al Faisal, is more culpable in the 9/11 attacks than Moussaoui will ever be. We let him into the country, we treat him with respect. Every day that we do that is proof that the war on terrorism a complete joke.

But the government wants us to know they're fighting some bad guys - so they had a show trial and threw Moussaoui out to the MSM sharks as chum. Which is about all he's good for.

The Bush administration got some good publicity and the MSM got some fresh bleeds-it-leads garbage to feed on. The government, the MSM - everyone wins.

Well, except for the American people, who got nothing from this show at all.

Cole is now being defended by fellow i'm not an anti-semite, just and anti-zionist-type and Gulf2000 member Helena Cobban.

Cobban, an "accomplished journalist" supports a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In her dreams, the state would be called Palestine. The ADL, an organization that dedicates its efforts to fighting hate, was not impressed.

She's also an enthusiastic supporter of financing and negotiating with Hamas. She sees a lot of hope in the Hamas leadership:

I don't underestimate the alarming nature of Hamas's founding covenant, which calls for the dismantling of Israel as a Jewish state. But it would be foolish and counterproductive to overreact to the Hamas victory...

...a peace settlement reached with Hamas would be far more durable than one made with the ever-vacillating and factionalized Fatah.

Who is going to defend Cole next, David Duke?

Armed Liberal reports:

Future Yale Department Chair Army-of-Juan Cole comes completely, jaw-droppingly unhinged today. Go check it out before he "Winston Smiths" it (note - gruesome pictures of wounded soldiers).

Actually, first, go check out the Christopher Hitchens piece that triggered Cole's frothing scenery-chewing, then go over to Juan's site and snicker.

However, Anna/Cole does blurt out the name of one interesting organization, Gulf2000. He begins his post with this:

I belong to a private email discussion group called Gulf2000. It has academics, journalists and policy makers on it. It has a strict rule that messages appearing there will not be forwarded off the list. It is run, edited and moderated by former National Security Council staffer for Carter and Reagan, Gary Sick, now a political scientist at Columbia University.

A quick google search proves that it is. It also proves that Cole's accusation, that Hitches violated Sick's "strict rule" is baseless. If you do a search for Gulf2000, you'll see that their articles and emails are quoted extensively.

In fact, a post from Gulf2000 was quoted by Juan Cole himself, on his own site.

[Just scroll down to the post that begins with *Here's my post from Gulf2000 today:..]

Gulf2000 seems to be an alliance of paid and/or unpaid marketing/academic/oil/publicity types promoting the interests of the Gulf states. Judging from statements made by Gulf2000 members, their membership is made up of Gulf-state sponsored academics, ex Aramco and State Department employees, Arab haters of Israel, the usual. It's no surprise that Cole is a member.

One interesting note: the Iranian blogger, Hoder, who has received numerous death threats over the years, reported this back in January 2005:

"Someone is spreading my email to Gulf2000 project mailing list about my project to get Iranian-born Israelis blogging about their daily lives, as if it's been a secret email and I'd be embarrassed by it being publicized."

In Winds of Change, David Blue discusses the West's grand strategy for fighting terrorism:

What we do about this, basically, is seek (or seek to manufacture) allies in the Muslim world. These allies by and large are still committed to our subjugation, but they believe in tactics that in the short term are less offensive to us. As Charles Krauthammer said, their line is: cartoons of Muhammed are unacceptable, as is, in the long run, the violation of any taboo Islam imposes on us - but in the meantime, please don't burn that embassy. "Our" Muslims uphold the principle that Muslim domination must be maintained by fear and by high costs imposed on those who want to convert out of Islam - but they are politically flexible enough to allow one particular Christian convert in a very high profile case to escape with his life. And so on. So these are the people we try to make win...

..That means we agree to the grinding down of polytheists of all stripes, most obviously Animists in Africa and Hindus in India and globally. We agree to the grinding down of Christians everywhere the shadow of Islam falls, in Indonesia, in Egypt, in other parts of Africa, in other parts of the world. We accept the bloody scourging and diplomatic slow grinding down of Israel, and of Jews in general. In short, the swift or slow subjugation and destruction of everything that could compete for turf with Islam happens with our tacit consent.

..We haven't asked ourselves how often empowering your enemies in the hope that they will then voluntarily reform themselves so as not to beat you and so as not to continue successfully to extract concessions from you works, historically.

This 'grand strategy' was originally called the 'Green Belt Strategy' - and it was the reason for Carter's lame response to the hostage crisis in Iran. Amir Taheri tells us how and why Carter screwed everything up:

Carter had decided to support Khomeini in the context of the so-called "Green Belt" strategy developed by National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. That strategy was based on the assumption that the United States and its allies were unable to contain the Soviet Union, then expanding its zone of influence into Africa, the Indian Ocean region and, through left-leaning regimes, in Latin America. To counter that expanding threat, Brzezinski envisaged the creation of a string of Islamic allies that, for religious and political reasons, would prefer the United States against the "godless" Soviet empire...

...The second stage in Brzezinski's grand strategy was to incite the Muslim peoples of the Soviet Union to revolt against Moscow and thus frustrate its global schemes.The second stage in Brzezinski's grand strategy was to incite the Muslim peoples of the Soviet Union to revolt against Moscow and thus frustrate its global schemes.

We're still supporting Islamist allies in the hope that we can use them to intimidate the commies. The realpolitikers think we're manipulating the Islamists, but they're wrong; the Islamists are using us. They've learned our divide-and-conquer routine pretty well, and they're using it against us. Whenever we annoy the Saudis, they go running to the Russians or the Chinese. Our Sudanese allies in the war against terrorism use the Chinese as a threat. Iran uses Russia.

Brzezinski's grand strategy has allowed a bunch of zealots, terrorist/extortionists and second-rate crooks to gain more money and power than they ever dreamed. There is no reason to tolerate these militarily weak enemies or their paramilitary terrorist forces. The world needs oil, but no one needs these zealots and crooks.

By the way, why are we still fighting commies? Did the Red Menace slaughter Americans on American soil in an unprovoked act of war? No, our Saudi allies did. Did Russia pay for the attacks? No, our allies in the UAE and Saudi Arabia did. And the Iranians did too. But if we strike at Iran, we'll make the Russians mad. Divide and conquer.

We tolerate the Islamists because we think we need them to 'protect' us from the commies and the terrorists. We fail to realize that they're inciting our feud with Russia and China. They're also supporting the terrorists. Without everyone's Islamist 'allies' terrorism wouldn't thrive, it would wither.