Via the Examiner:

BEIJI, Iraq - For more than two years the attacks came like clockwork. As soon as the military secured and workers repaired the pipelines from Iraq's northern oil fields, just when the valves were about to open, insurgents would strike. But roughly three weeks ago they suddenly stopped, letting crude oil flow freely from Iraq's vast reserves near Kirkuk.

Perhaps insurgents feared reprisals in Salahuddin province, where pipelines from Kirkuk flow to the country's largest refinery in Beiji. Maybe terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's death disrupted a chain of command that ordered the attacks, military officials said.

Whatever the cause, the U.S. forces welcome the change, even if history since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 has shown the free flow of oil in Iraq is only temporary at best.

I just hope that it lasts long enough where people start realizing 'Damn, we're making money. We could be rich like Kuwaitis," said Army Lt. Col. Craig Collier, deputy commander of the 3rd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division. "But what is really going on? We don't know."

[Link thanks to Ace]

Our bad posture may be making us sick..

Most geeks I know describe pain around their shoulder blades and upper back. Almost everyone has this pain right where your arm joins to your back, kind of around the back of your armpit on your mouse arm. (You know the one. And you know what it's from.)..

..My advice is to take this stuff seriously, starting now. If you want to be able to keep saving the world through code, design, and online communtiy building, you'd better start making it sustainable.

* If you can afford it, invest in better equipment for your workstation.
* Don't sit slouched over the laptop for hours.
* Drop and relax your shoulders.
* Take regular breaks to stretch your neck, shoulders, and wrists.
* Don't ignore persistent pain.

More at Yoga for Geeks..

Via The Hill:

House Republican leaders are expected to introduce a resolution today condemning The New York Times for publishing a story last week that exposed government monitoring of banking records.

The resolution is expected to condemn the leak and publication of classified documents, said one Republican aide with knowledge of the impending legislation.

The resolution comes as Republicans from the president on down condemn media organizations for reporting on the secret government program that tracked financial records overseas through the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT), an international banking cooperative.

Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times, responds to reader questions about the Times's publication of information concerning government efforts to track and prosecute the financial support of terrorism:

I don't always have time to answer my mail as fully as etiquette demands...It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. Who are the editors of The New York Times (or the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and other publications that also ran the banking story) to disregard the wishes of the President and his appointees? And yet the people who invented this country saw an aggressive, independent press as a protective measure against the abuse of power in a democracy, and an essential ingredient for self-government. They rejected the idea that it is wise, or patriotic, to always take the President at his word, or to surrender to the government important decisions about what to publish.

The founders gave freedom of the press to the people, they didn't give freedom to the press. Keller positions himself as some sort of Constitutional High Priest, when in fact the "freedom of the press" the Framers described was also called "freedom in the use of the press." It's the freedom to publish, a freedom that belongs to everyone in equal portions, not a special privilege for the media industry.

Can ordinary citizens just walk into a presidential press conference, without any press affiliation? Could you walk into the Pentagon with a camcorder and say - 'I'm a US citizen' and be invited to ask Rumsfeld detailed questions about our current actions in Iraq? Were you, as an American citizen with full rights to publish your beliefs, invited to Stephen Colbert's oh-so-daring and truthy Bush-bash? Does Joe Wilson have your number on his speed dial? Are wealthy and influential politicians willing to meet with you privately without the presence of security guards and advisors to openly discuss their goals and plans?

The press and the government have a symbiotic relationship, and this relationship depends on a certain degree of trust. The privileges and perks that the press have long enjoyed are not protected by the Constitution. In fact, the media's belief that they are more equal than than the average citizen might bother the founding fathers.

The New York Times was, for many years, a legitimate and trustworthy news source. They betrayed that trust. Their recent actions have proven that they're not worthy of the privileges they've been given. As a result, they should lose those privileges.

chop:

1 onion
1 clove garlic
1 knob fresh ginger

Fry in 2 tbs. olive oil till onions are softened. Add:

1 pat butter/margarine

Then fry:

1/2 teaspoon ground turmeric
1 teaspoon yellow curry powder
1/4 teaspoon cinnamon

Fry till fragrant, then add

4-6 skinless chicken thighs

Cover and fry till the onions and the outside of the chicken are browned. Add:

1 chopped carrot
1 sliced tomato
1 can chickpeas drained and rinsed *(optional - I left them out because my daughter hates chickpeas)
1/2 small head cabbage, leaves separated
1 zucchini chopped
2 cups chicken stock
Salt, ground pepper and some fresh-ground cinnamon.

Simmer over medium heat, covered, for about 30 minutes. Check to be sure that chicken is done by making a small slice in the meatiest part. If there's any pink, add another 10 minutes to the cooking time.

Cook, according to package directions, 2 cups of plain couscous. Serve veggie/chicken mixture over bed of couscous.

I've often commented that of all nations, Britain is the most incompetent when it comes to fighting terrorism. They encourage it, they appease it, and if they do decide to fight it, they inevitably fight it by targeting innocents in a blind, misguided outburst of rage.

They currently believe that appeasing and tolerating Islamist extremism within their borders is a good idea. They believe that this tolerance, plus efforts to win Muslim hearts and minds will have a positive effect in the war against terrorism. They believe that having a favorable attitude towards Muslims will make Muslims love them.

They don't. Muslims in Britain are the most anti-western in Europe.

Public opinion in Britain is mostly favourable towards Muslims, but the feeling is not requited by British Muslims, who are among the most embittered in the western world, according to a global poll published yesterday.

The poll, by the Washington-based Pew Global Attitudes Project, asked Muslims and non-Muslims about each other in 13 countries. In most, it found suspicion and contempt to be mostly mutual, but uncovered a significant mismatch in Britain.

The poll found that 63% of all Britons had a favourable opinion of Muslims, down slightly from 67% in 2004, suggesting last year's London bombings did not trigger a significant rise in prejudice. Attitudes in Britain were more positive than in the US, Germany and Spain (where the popularity of Muslims has plummeted to 29%), and about the same as in France.

Less than a third of British non-Muslims said they viewed Muslims as violent, significantly fewer than non-Muslims in Spain (60%), Germany (52%), the US (45%) and France (41%).

By contrast, the poll found that British Muslims represented a "notable exception" in Europe, with far more negative views of westerners than Islamic minorities elsewhere on the continent.

Christopher Caldwell's article, After Londonistan, has an answer. Patience and forbearance.

MacShane is basically counseling patience, as many in Britain's government do. A month before the July 7 attacks, Britain's Joint Intelligence Committee made the judgment that "there would probably be a successful attack of some sort in the U.K. in the next five years." Today, British authorities are not much more confident of thwarting all plots, so they have erected a line of defense that is absorptive, not pre-emptive. It rests on harmony between social groups and on the country's ability to suffer atrocities from time to time, as it did during the heyday of the I.R.A., without escalating unrest or oppression, or the rise of extremist parties. Britain is now betting that the country will retain its historically bottomless reserves of sang-froid in the face of a threat that is orders of magnitude more dangerous than the threat of the I.R.A.; that there is something in the makeup of Britons that makes them more stoical than, say, Americans in New York about bombs going off; that the quiet tenor of the British fight against Islamist terrorism thus far is a sign of good manners and forbearance, not of abject fright or sneaking sympathy; and that Britain in the age of the Diana funeral is the same country it was during the blitz.

It's a risky bet.

Many Brits believe that the stoically tolerating abuse is a form of bravery. This is effective in some situations, like during the Nazi Blitzkrieg. But it makes no sense when dealing with terrorism. Stoically tolerating abuse only makes sense when your enemy is larger, smarter or more powerful than you are. It's an idiotic strategy to use againt an enemy who is smaller, stupider and much weaker, as the Islamists are.

The enemy in Britian is hiding in plain sight, the police know where they live, but instead of adopting a zero tolerance attitude towards extremism, instead of plainly enforcing the rules and expecting everyone to follow them, British politicians tolerate terrorism while demanding that the population accept abuse, death, and mutilation graciously.

This doesn't lead to "harmony among social groups".

We learned a few decades ago that tolerating crime leads to more crime. It's no coincidence that stoic and tolerant Britain also has an over-the-top crime rate, while forebearance-free America's crime rate has fallen.

We also know that tolerating terrorism leads to more terrorism. I'd guess that, if they continue to follow this course, Islamists will win significant political power in Britain, as the IRA did. Winning political power is extremism's goal. The IRA was also smaller, stupider and weaker than the Brits, but they won their little war.

When good intentions lead to an inevitably bad result, maybe it's time for a change.

..a sordid American tragedy, told via aerobics, by smiling Japanese, featuring a mugger who vaguely resembles George Costanza with a diaper on his head.

Link thanks to Jewlicious

Sorry posting has been light - I've been at the cabin by the lake, doing some repairs..

Just a quick question - does anyone know how to keep geese and ducks from pooping all over a dock?

This hostile owl is supposed to scare them away, but as dock decor goes, it's fairly unattractive. Will an ordinary windsock (maybe in pretty colors) scare them away, or does the windsock have to resemble an owl?

Iran is rationing gasoline supplies. Via Reuters

Despite being the second biggest producer in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, Iran has relied heavily on gasoline imports for many years.

It lacks refining capacity after directing most of its oil revenues into social spending.

Ann Althouse quotes from a great letter to the NYT, visualizing a school that favors boys instead of girls.

Rosemary Esmay would have enjoyed a school like that. So would Ann. So would I. It's not clear that schools totally favor girls, but it is clear that schools favor passivity.

Speaking of institutions that favor passivity, imagine a religion that gives you:

..extra credit for resisting authority.. having points deducted for being compliant with arbitrary rules and meaningless deadlines.

When it comes to the issue of hawks, doves, chickendoves and/or serving in the military, I think Brian Dunbar, commenting on Andrew's post Dean's World, said it best:

I spent eight years in the Marines, although that was long, long ago when dinosaurs walked the earth; 1985-93. It does seem like a long time. Different uniforms, body armor upgraded. Like a pre Great War Marine looking at a Gyrene fresh from Tarawa.

No shame should be attached to not serving. None.

* This isn't a war where mass armies are going to decide matters. The days where we all have to leave the plow and hearth and settle things with muskets and 12-pounders are gone.

* It's a long war, of which Iraq is only a campaign. If you went to Iraq, then left the service you'd feel guilty about not being there for the next campaign.

* If you accept both facts above recall that this is a war with many fronts - the places where shooting is going on are the least important.

It is, really, a war against us. Our economy, our way of life and so on. Asymetrical warfare is about striking where you are weak. Keep your powder dry and your rifle clean. Be aware of basic first-aid. Whatever your job is, do it well and be an informed citizen.

I think (he went on gloomily) that the bad guys have spent years, treasure and lives proving that they can't stand up against the US in even guerilla war. We learned the hard lessons from Vietnam.

So where would an asymetrical oppenent choose to strike? Mr. Gloomy says walk outside and look around for where they'll strike next.

Think not? One can imagine that the school in Russia was a test case. Think about how ill-prepared we are for even one elementary school in the 'burbs to be taken over by fanatics.

Look - our local cops are good but they are, really, just small town cops. I'm not sure what good they would be against a small platoon of light infantry barracaded in a school. They'd try, I'm sure, and they'd do their best.

Of American Zeitgeist, Atlas says "I may not have enjoyed the biased (this is not a biased) film, but I did enjoy the company of the hawks in attendance. As always."

Ditto.

Judith gets it right about the bias in the film. Read about how the Right wing death beasts invaded the Ethical Culture society.

I wonder if the filmmakers really knew how biased their presentation was. The film's point of view was the same story the media has been telling us for years. They may not have known any better, especially if they were listing to jihadi Margolis. (okay, I'm willing to give them a break after they called Michael Moore a bloviating idiot).

Sherry Argov's book about how men want strong, self-confident women, titled "Why Men Marry Bitches" has been generating a lot of buzz in the blogosphere.

First of all, the title imples that all married women are de facto bitches. For that reason alone, Argov is not going to win many friends. The general reaction in the blogosphere indicates that the content of the book is even more off-putting.

From the book:

Kara is a perfect example of why smart, confident women come out on top. Very early on, her fiancé tried to give her his two cents on how she should dress. She was leaving for a meeting, and he told her to wear a dress instead of the pantsuit she had on. Then he told her she was wearing too much makeup. What the nice girl would have done is run out and buy a new wardrobe. But Kara playfully put him in check: "Listen here, Versace. This outfit has always been fine. And I haven’t had any complaints about the makeup either. But if you’d like, I’ll let you know when I’m wearing this in advance. That way, if you don’t want to see me in it, you don’t have to come over."

In real life, if we do plan to marry, one of our biggest priorities in choosing a mate is "can I stand to be around this person for more than an hour? For an entire day? For a lifetime?"

Let's face it, people like that are very hard to find. How many people can you stand to be around 24 hours a day? It's not a one-size fits all situation. That's why the process is so complicated. That's why people like Argov simultaneously overcomplicate and oversimplify the problem. We're all human beings, but all men don't want the same thing. Neither do all women.

The dating process is basically about determining if you can tolerate each other for ever-longer periods of time. If all men chose to spend their lives with 'confident' women who don't care about their opinons or needs, they really would be an alien species. But they're not, and they don't.

Argov gives us the classic false dichotomy, painting women all women as examples of two extremes - the "confident" bitch and the obsequious "nice girl", who tries to whine and wheedle her way into a man's heart. Most human beings couldn't stand to spend and hour with either of these strawpersons. Like the Mars/Venus book, Argov's theories can be confidently dismissed.

After the screening of American Zeitgeist, the sponsor, the New York Society for Ethical Culture, treated us to a debate between Christopher Hitchens and a pundit I'd never heard of before, Eric Margolis.

The Ethical Culture folks describe Margolis as:

Eric S. Margolis, best-selling author of War at the Top of the World: The Struggle for Afghanistan, Kashmir and Tibet, 2000; award-winning foreign correspondent and television commentator on foreign affairs who has covered 14 separate wars.

I don't always agree with Hitchens' views on Iraq, but I do admire his debating style; precise, slightly arrogant and cruel; something the British do so well.

After the debate the sponsors offered a party downstairs with free beer, but the gathering was about as lively as a Junior League garden party. What did we expect from the Ethical Culture society?

Outside Judith and "Alcibiades" got a chance to talk to the smoking Hitch about Iran (he hopes for a no-war solution and an eventual takeover by the secular liberals in Iran : Judith and Alcibiades aren't thrilled about the current appeasement). Offstage, Hitch was cruelty-free, setting aside a free beer to debate his views.

Afterwards, Judith and I had a very late dinner at a place called the Colosseum bar and restuarant. When we left, sometime past 1 am, the place was starting to fill up. That's New York.

Today I looked up more info on "Foreign Correspondent" Eric Margolis. It turns out that he's not just a supporter of the mujhaideen, he's an enthusiastic jihadi.

Not that this earns him any respect, even in Pakistan. After reading this precise evisceration of Margolis's mujhaideen dreams, I have to guess that arrogant cruelty towards the delusional and the pretentious is a Pakistani skill as well.

Eric S. Margolis' War at the top of the World: The Clash for Mastery of Asia. Generations of young men in the West have been fascinated by the experiences of T.E. Lawrence during the first decades of the 20th century. His adventures in the Middle East and his remarkable effort in uniting the Arabs, has inspired a host of books and David Lean's memorable movie: The Lawrence of Arabia. Margolis quite clearly pictures himself as a latter-day Lawrence. He was inspired by the jihad in Afghanistan against the Soviets during the 1980s and joined the Mujhaideen during a couple of military campaigns.

The first part of the book deals with the war in Afghanistan, and is probably the only one even worth reading. In this, Margolis describes his meeting with the Afghan leader Burhanuddin Rabbani and his decision to join the jihad, as he quickly relocates himself from Toronto to Peshawar and beyond, where his friends include the Pakistan intelligence chief, Lt. General Javed Nasser. His antics apparently provoked the Afghan government enough for President Najibullah to put a price on his head. Consider Margolis' colourful descriptions of the Mujhaideen: "These were the soldiers of Allah, the bravest men on earth... They feared no man and certainly not death. Each man believed that Allah stood at his right shoulder; Allah who was all-merciful, in spite of the cruel world that He had inexplicably created; Allah would carry him to his final rest as a parent would wrap a sleepy child in his arms and take him off to bed." The rest of the book deals with Kashmir, and Margolis' diatribe against Indian oppression, the tense military standoff between India and Pakistan, particularly at Siachen and the probability of a clash between India and China for Mastery over Asia. Much of what is written is superficial journalese, with few new revelations, and littered with errors of fact and judgement.

For all of Margolis' pretences, he is no T.E. Lawrence. He neither has the intellectual strength (recall Lawrence's magnum opus: The Seven Pillars of Wisdom), nor indeed the political vision. The result is a trashy book that will unfortunately bought by many who are seduced by the title. However, the discerning reader will soon recognise that Margolis does not really have it in him to produce a book that is capable of dealing with the immense complexity of the subject.

The man's a menace. Hitch was being kind.

Last night a few members of our Liberal Hawks group went to see the world premier of the film "American Zeitgeist: Crisis & Conscience in an Age of Terror".

The content of American Zeitgeist was ripped from the pages of antiwar.com, Newsweek, CNN and the New York Times. We've seen and heard this all before. Many, many, many times.

Was Zeitgeist boring? Do Ayatollahs wear funny hats?

Zeitgeist tells the now-standard media-spread fairy tale of romantic/militant insurgent/mujahideen, the Blowback from Imperialism, the evils of American hegemony, and our perils under the shadow of dark Lord Bush.

You know how it goes: Once upon a time, in faraway land called Afghanistan, the pious young prince bin Laden joined with the oily American hegemonic empire to fight Atheist-Red-Devil-Communism. Young prince bin Laden won the battle and saved us from communism! After this victory, he and his band of mujahideen became outlaws, had some bold adventures and battled their new archenemy, evil hegemonic America, now led by dark Lord George Bush. The decadent Americans, drunk on IPOs and rock music, were blind to the inevitable results of their sins. The 9/11 attacks were the wages of those sins. America demanded revenge and now the battle rages on, from the pixie dust Afghani pipeline to the dusty souks of occupied Iraq. This war will never stop until America admits the error of its oily-imperialist-colonialist ways. America must now repent - we must buy the hearts and minds of oppressed Arabs, Muslims and pious non-decadent folk around the world. Only then shall the world know peace.

Like most oft-repeated fairy tales, the film made me sleepy. Most of the audience members were fidgety towards the end, except for one elder lady who enthusiastically clapped when jihadi/pundit Eric Margolis and bin Laden dissed Bush.

Zeitgeist was based on the writings of Blowback's ever-whacked Chomskyite Chalmers Johnson, who once said of Ward Churchill's "Little Eichmanns'" statement:

"The bond traders and other professionals, you could argue, were part of the military-industrial complex George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower both warned about, but to say their deaths were warranted is a bit of a stretch."

Chomsky made a short appearance, but he was drowned out by the chorus of loud cheers and hissing from the mixed right/left audience.

Johnson's authority and Tariq Ali's rage dominate the film, shadowed only by the overwhelmingly sympathetic portrayal of bin Laden. A few right-of-center folks were allowed to speak, but only for a short time and mostly when they agreed with Johnson or Ali.

During one scene, as the tragedy of Osama's life is relayed to the audience, he gazes at us with eyes that could have been drawn by Margaret Keane.

The audience suffered greatly, but not in the way the filmmakers intended. Oh the humanity.

Ron Coleman at Dean's World disagees with Glenn Reynolds and Steven Hawking when Hawking says:

The survival of the human race depends on its ability to find new homes elsewhere in the universe because there's an increasing risk that a disaster will destroy the Earth, world-renowned scientist Stephen Hawking said Tuesday.

The British astrophysicist told a news conference in Hong Kong that humans could have a permanent base on the moon in 20 years and a colony on Mars in the next 40 years. . . .

"It is important for the human race to spread out into space for the survival of the species," Hawking said. "Life on Earth is at the ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster, such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other dangers we have not yet thought of."

Something as far out as space colonization has to be justified from the ground up, not by an off-the-cuff statement by the world's smartest human — even if it's agreed with by the world's Insta-ist blogger! There's no shortage of people making the case — see here, here, and here. But "imminent extinction" strikes me as about as least a rational, and as least a convincing, way to move that agenda as any I can imagine.

I'm not sure that the extinction fears are valid (and I'm not sure that Hawking fully believes it) but this is only one of many reasons to spread our wings and use the technology we've been developing for years. I've always thought that space colonization was the natural next step for science. Like improved medical care, improved transportation - it's just the direction we're moving in. Can you imaging a future without space colonization? That's far out - depressingly so.

Commenter John Irving quotes this from the ever-wise Fark:

There is a 100% chance that another large comet or asteroid will hit the Earth. That's not an alarmist statement. It's just a fact. Going into space is never going to be easier than it is right now. In 100 years we may have better technology, but we wont have cheap energy. If we are too scared to do it now, then we'll never do it - and that will basically mean that nature has selected us for exinction. You know the Pandas that wont screw to save their species? Well, we'll be the technological race that wouldn't orbit to save our species.

This is probably a common occurance in the universe. A race obtains technology and decides that the risks of space travel are too high and the rewards are too low. Eventually, they die out. Maybe the remains are eventually found by an actual space-faring race.

"gee, I wonder what happened to them? Wow, they had a beautiful planet. They didn't polute. They didn't harm the lovely trees and squirels. They kept the water clean. Oh, but then a couple of large caldera volcanoes went off and killed all life on their planet anyway. rofl. noobs. I bet that as the last one choked to death he looked up (couldn't see the stars at that point though) and thought, 'fark, we should have risked it, now we're dead."

According to this report, my two addictions, (two giant cups of coffee in the morning, a glass of red wine with dinner) work in harmony. Coffee may cancel the effect of alcohol on the liver:

The Kaiser members who drank four or more cups of coffee per day cut their risk of developing liver cirrhosis by an astonishing 80 percent, according to the study, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

Tea drinking did not reduce risk of developing the liver disease, and those whodeveloped cirrhosis for reasons other than heavy alcohol consumption saw no protective benefits from drinking coffee, researchers found.

It is unclear whether it is the caffeine or something else in coffee that protects the liver from alcohol-induced damage. The researchers did not ask participants whether they drank caffeinated or decaffeinated coffee.

[link thanks to Ace]

Jane Galt asks her readers for videoblogging advice. Some helpful responses for all..

Kids have found a new weapon in their war against their elders - our misspent youth:

In that old battle of the wills between young people and their keepers, the young have found a new weapon that could change the balance of power on the cellphone front: a ring tone that many adults cannot hear.

In settings where cellphone use is forbidden — in class, for example — it is perfect for signaling the arrival of a text message without being detected by an elder of the species.

Age isn't the only factor. My husband, who is older than me (by 2 years) heard it. He's spent his young adulthood listening to classical music and practicing his viola. I, on the other hand, spent my young adulthood in loud bars and rock concerts. I couldn't hear a thing.

Can evolution reverse itself? According to Mark Steyn, if our friends in Saudi Arabia continue their efforts to make man in their image, it will

Writing about the collapse of nations such as Somalia, the Atlantic Monthly's Robert D. Kaplan referred to the "citizens" of such "states" as "re-primitivized man." When lifelong Torontonians are hot for decapitation, when Yorkshiremen born and bred and into fish 'n' chips and cricket and lousy English pop music self-detonate on the London Tube, it would seem that the phenomenon of "re-primitivized man" has been successfully exported around the planet. It's reverse globalization: The pathologies of the remotest backwaters now have franchise outlets in every Western city. You don't have to be a loser Ontario welfare recipient like Steven Chand, the 25-year-old Muslim convert named in the thwarted prime ministerial beheading. Omar Sheikh, the man behind the beheading of the Wall Street Journal's Daniel Pearl, was an English "public" (i.e., private) schoolboy and graduate of the London School of Economics.

Five years after 9/11, some strategists say we can't win this thing "militarily," which is true in the sense that you can't send the Third Infantry Division to Brampton, Ontario. But nor is it something we can win through "law enforcement" — by letting the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the FBI and MI5 and every gendarmerie on the planet deal with every little plot on the map as a self-contained criminal investigation. We need to throttle the ideology and roll up the networks.

UPDATE: Here are our friends with their friends.

- describing James Gilliam, hung for piracy

Scott Kirwin asked 'Should We Celebrate Zarqawi's Death?' I guess the photo above is my answer.

We should not only celebrate, we should be inspired to carry out more of these attacks. In the future, due to the decentralized organization of terrorist cells, we should strive for quantity of terrorists killed, not quality. As we learned on 9/11, it only takes a few terrorists to kill lots of innocent people.

In this war, for the most part, our government has focused on our fear of WMDs. They've ignored the fact that terrorists of all sorts have never needed WMDs. They didn't need guns on 9/11. Mass murdering extremists didn't need WMDs to kill hundreds of thousands in Rwanda. Mass murdering extremists didn't need nukes to slaughter millions of Jews. All they needed was a complacent population, money, organization and hate. That's why terrorist-trained and financed Islamist hate is all over Britain right now. It's all over Middle East and Europe.

We should all try to be less complacent.

The goal of these trained jihadis/mujahideen is to annihilate us, not to engage in ideological discussions. It's not an ideological war, it's more like our war against piracy, where we did hang them and leave them to rot, we did destroy their infrastructure and we did shoot them on sight. As Douglas Burgess writes in his Legal Affairs article:

The rise and fall of state-sponsored piracy bears chilling similarity to current state-sponsored terrorism. Many nations, including Libya, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, and Afghanistan, have sponsored terrorist organizations to wage war against the United States or other Western powers. In each case, the motivations have been virtually identical to those of Elizabeth: harass the enemy, deplete its resources, terrify its citizens, frustrate its government, and remain above the fray. The United States is credited with manufacturing its own enemy by training, funding, and outfitting terrorist groups in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Central America during the cold war.

But the important lesson for us is not merely that history repeats itself. Looking at the past provides a parallel to our current dilemma but also a solution. The Declaration of Paris is, on the one hand, a recognition of shared guilt. On the other, it represents the first articulation since the Roman era of piracy as a crime in and of itself. The pirate, by this definition, exists like a malevolent satellite to the law of nations. "Considering . . . that the uncertainty of the law and of the duties in such a matter [as piracy] gives rise to differences of opinion between neutrals and belligerents which may occasion serious difficulties, and even conflicts," the declaration stated, the signing parties "have adopted the following solemn declaration: Privateering is and remains abolished."

..and turning to the finance pages: not all today's news is good

Zarqawi's dead. Good riddance.

Congrats to the troops, who do know how to shoot a gun.

Peter Tatchell is a British human rights activist who became somewhat famous for his attempts to perform a citizen's arrest on Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe.

Lately Tatchell has been focusing on the homophobia within the Islamist political system. He described Sharia law as "a clerical form of fascism". On his website, he publicized the execution, by Iraqi police, of a 14 year old boy (who was accused of being gay and "corrupting the community"). According to the article, this murder was inspired by the Shia spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who had issued a death fatwa against lesbians and gays.

According to Tatchell, that fatwa is still in effect.

For his efforts, Tatchell has been denounced by a site called Islamophobia Watch, which claims to be "documenting the war against Islam". They call Tatchell an Islamophobe and a racist.

Writer Johann Hari believes that Tatchell, like other activists and politicians who have been accused of being Islamophobes, is being condemned for failing to "draw a distinction between the people who will lash and stone gays after winning at the ballot box, and the people who will lash and stone gays after seizing power in a coup".

Hari says:

Do you believe a "leading cleric" who advocates stoning gay people to death should be denounced? Do you believe sharia law – which requires gay people to be lashed or stoned – is always and forever unacceptable? Then, according to an energetic and aggressive group of white straight boys who surreally consider themselves to be on the left, you are an "Islamophobe" and "objectively pro-Nazi".

People who believe in opposing hatred of gay people everywhere – in Teheran as much as Tunbridge Wells, in Kingston, Jamaica as much as Kingston-Upon-Thames – are being subjected to a bizarre counter-campaign. As so often, Peter Tatchell is facing the most abusive backlash on our behalf. Tatchell believes all people are equal, regardless of their pigmentation. He does not see a difference between the white far-right preacher Jerry Falwell calling gay people diseased, and the Muslim leader Sir Iqbal Sacranie doing the same. He does not see the difference between gay teenagers being lynched to death in Jamaica and murderous gay-bashings on Clapham Common. He reacts to them in exactly the same way – by fighting to stop them.

For this, he is being accused of racism...

..The website complains Tatchell uses "the term 'Islamism'… without distinguishing between its reformist and violent wings." Yes, it’s true - Tatchell fails to draw a distinction between the people who will lash and stone gays after winning at the ballot box, and the people who will lash and stone gays after seizing power in a coup. This is bigotry?..

...Indeed, in their shrill condemnations of anybody who criticises Islam, they have actually fundamentally misunderstood Islam itself. Like all religions, it is based on a dense, contradictory and often ludicrous Holy Book that is being constantly reinterpreted. At the moment, there is a fierce battle within Islam between fundamentalists with a viciously reactionary agenda, and liberals with a more moderate agenda. If Muslim women and Muslim gays are going to have any kind of decent life, the liberals need to receive solidarity and support – but slap-dash charges of Islamophobia intimidate people who could offer it. They make people afraid to help the Muslim critics of fundamentalism, encouraging people to see Islam as a homogenous block defined by its most reactionary elements...

Of these futile governmental efforts to avoid the Islamophobia label, one British Muslim wrote:

The problem with organizations such as the Muslim Association of Britain, the Muslim Parliament and the Muslim Council of Britain is that they portray themselves as one-stop representatives of Muslims on all religious, political and racial matters. This is enhanced by the fact that the Government and other political entities wish to "consult" with ethnic and religious communities.

I choose to define my community as the people with whom I interact and choose to be represented by the political party for which I vote. Why should I, in community terms, have more in common with a Muslim from Bradford than with a Jew from Tonttenham or a Christian from Ramsgate?

One need only walk down a main street in this part of London to see that there are many Muslims who do not necessarily define themselves primarily by their religion. We do not all subscribe to the same way of being a Muslim, neither do we push our religious beliefs into the civic and political sphere.

What do we gain from pursuing the "forward strategy of freedom" while ignoring the liberal values that our country was founded on? What do we gain from dragging religious beliefs into the civic and polical sphere? What do we gain from supporting the "peaceful" Islamists who will lash and stone gays after winning at the ballot box?

We don't gain anything, but we can lose a lot.

We were lucky enough to be able to meet up with Dave R. (formerly of Totally Whacked) and Leslie, who recommeded the wonderful, eclectic Garibaldi's in Pacific Heights. There we talked about white water rafting, scuba and real estate misadventures. Leslie mentioned that she's a birdwatcher, which made me regret not having a camera on hand when I spotted the roadrunner. However, in Monterey, I got a photo of this fellow, who stood out from the flock of cormorants.

I don't know what he is yet, but I just bought a guide to California wildlife, so soon I will.

Dave mentioned that his band was now featuring country music and was now called the Cowhands (according to Dave, the name is frequently changed to "keep our fan base small"). I guess the small-fan-base plan isn't working because the band has been cheered from Modesto to Canada. (and maybe someday London?)

The Cowhands

Altamont Pass, site of one of the world's largest wind farms.

I used to fly over these at least once
a week when I was taking lessons at
Livermore Airport. If you fly a few minutes
past these dry grass hills, you'll be over green,
marshy farmland. Maybe there really are
'microclimates' of a sort in California.

I once took my Mom for a ride on Altamont Pass Road
the first day after she arrived from Jersey.
When we got to a spot like this, she said, "Mary, where
are the houses?"

Calaveras Road starts in Milpitas and ends up in
Livermore/Sunol. In the middle of crowded
Silicon Valley, it's a remarkably quiet road. It's probably
quiet because of all the switchbacks and hills,
which make it a bad shortcut, but a great bike path.

On this drive I saw one roadrunner, wild turkeys and a
pack of mountain bikers. One time, when I was driving past
the Lick Observatory, three deer ran into the
road and literally leaped over the hood of my car. The
switchbacks encourage slow speeds for cars, not deer.

[Film of wild turkeys hopefully coming soon]

Point Reyes on one of its less foggy days

According to the info posted, the stairway up from the
lighthouse is equivalent to climbing thirty stories, but
that estimate seems a little high. It's not a bad walk if
you rest every few minutes.

I guess the lighthouse survived the pirate siege of 1980.
But did Adrienne Barbeau?

..be back in a couple of days with pictures.