Humorous Skeptics in Japan

There is an organization in Japan named "The Academy of Outrageous Books." According to Japan Times, the group's mission is 

squeezing a good laugh out of books that, contrary to the creator's earnest intentions, feature writing, theories and presumptions that were too far-fetched or scientifically faulty to be taken seriously.

Apparently Japanese publishing, much like American, prints numerous works based on "conspiracy theories, occultism, UFOs and pseudoscience." The academy, headed by novelist Hiroshi Yamamoto analyzes and debunks them, and then recommends the most outrageous for entertainment reading.  

More on Mumbai

An article in the Christian Science Monitor analyzes the Mumbai attack as a template for possible future terrorist operations.  The experts quoted in the article emphasize the skillful coordination, and what one calls a "tremendous amount of strategic thinking" on the part of the terrorists.  They point out that no police force is prepared for that type of attack.

Despite the apparent sophistication of the Mumbai operation, I remain unconvinced that a great deal of skill, training, and coordination is necessary to pull off a major terrorist attack.  Imagine ten terrorists with civilian weapons and homemade bombs.  They split into three groups with their weapons concealed under heavy coats or whatever.  Each group enters a crowded shopping mall during the Christmas season,  and they all attack at a prearranged time.  How many people would be killed, wounded, or trampled in the panic, before an effective police response took place? Give them grenades & selective fire military small arms  and the number of casualties would be even greater.

A Voice for Capitalism

At the Telegraph, Iain Martin has an article entitled Capitalists: get up off your knees, please.  When I read that title I couldn't help think of the performance of John McCain & Sarah Palin during the presidential campaign.  Throughout, especially in the debates, I kept hoping they'd actually speak out in defense of the free market.  But instead, all we got was economic populism that consisted mostly of bashing "Wall Street greed."

Martin's article is specific to the UK, but most of what he says applies equally to the U.S.  As he writes: 

big government and elements of big business have been colluding, hoping we'll all think: "It's not as though this is real money; if we run out, we can just print more."

That's certainly the situation here in the U.S.  He also points out that

The advocates of free markets seem frozen in shock. So who should speak up? Well, we should hear from those businessmen who are not corporatists keen to stitch up a deal with big government.

The entire article is well worth reading.  Unfortunately it will almost certainly fall on deaf ears.

No-strings Bailout Money

From todays Washington Post:

Bailout Oversight Lacking, GAO Says: Investigators Find Few Safeguards or Gauges of Success

Wow, what a surprise.  Who would have thought that the government would be so careless with taxpayer money? According to the article, the Treasury department has given out over 150 billion of the 700 billion "rescue" package.  How are the 52 firms involved using this massive handout of tax dollars?  Who knows?  Treasury hasn't gotten around to doing any monitoring yet, so they have no idea what's going on.  Could there be conflicts of interest?  Well, the Treasury department "currently relies on the firms to disclose any conflicts."  That sounds like a great idea -- let's let the companies getting the funds decide whether or not they are using them as intended.  What could go wrong?  It's only taxpayer money anyway.   

The Irrational Left - Another of Many Examples

I was skimming thru a few left-wing sites and stopped on Balloon Juice. There's a post up called "Great Moments In Bootlicking." It's an eye-grabbing title, so I read it. John Cole, the blog's author, is responding to something Ed Morrisey wrote at Hot Air. Here's what Morrisey wrote:

“Unprepared for war”? That admission won’t help him in the final weeks. I think it’s also inaccurate. The Bush administration was prepared for war in Iraq, but they were not prepared for the occupation that followed. If he’s referring to 9/11, he was just as prepared for that as the Clinton administration, and for the same reasons. No one wanted to believe we were already at war with Islamist terrorists — and some people refuse to believe it even today. John Edwards called the war on terror a “bumper sticker”, and unfortunately he’s hardly alone.

Now to a rational person that might sound pretty reasonable, even if he/she doesn't agree with every particular point. Was Bush prepared for war and unprepared for the occupation?  One can certainly make that case pretty easily.  Was Bush unprepared for 9/11, just like the Clinton administration would have been unprepared?  Yes, that's pretty much a given -- we were obviously unprepared for that type of terrorist attack.  Did people in general think we were at war with Islamic terrorism before 9/11?  No.  Do some people now downplay the threat?  Yes.  

So Morrisey's points are either facts, or at least debatable.  But what does Cole think?  According to him, Morrisey's comments demonstrate "unprecedented heights" of "Bush sycophancy" and illustrate the "disintegrating credibility of movement Republicanism in a nutshell."  Really? Yes, he's actually serious.  In Cole's left-wing world, anything but the most rabid BDS-style attack on Bush is "Bush sycophancy."

Anyone who has ever argued with left-wingers about the Bush administration has seen this phenomenon over and over.  It's a prime symptom of Bush Derangement Syndrome.  It goes something like this:

Left-winger:  puts forth ridiculous, over-the-top attack on Bush

Right-winger:  agrees that Bush has done x, y, and z wrong, but points out that Left-winger's attack is irrational, purely partisan, a conspiracy theory, or otherwise weak.

Left-winger:  accuses Right-winger of being a worshiper of Bush.

No matter how critical you are of Bush, the moment you say anything that could be interpreted by a leftist as the slightest defense of him,  you have then achieved "unprecedented heights" of "Bush sycophancy."

   

The Obama Administration & Iran

Now that Obama has named his foreign policy/national security team, one of the problems they'll have to confront is what to do about Iran & its nuclear program. Obama said during the campaign that he would not permit Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. Some of the latest estimates say that Iran already has enough enriched uranium to make at least one warhead. How is the Obama administration going to stop them? Short answer -- they can't and won't.

Iran's nuclear program is too far along to be stopped by any sort of surgical military strikes. The ISIS report of August 7, 2008 details the difficulties of eliminating a gas centrifuge program. A military solution would require massive, sustained action against Iran. With the U.S. winding down its operations in Iraq, still embroiled in Afghanistan, and in the midst of a world-wide recession, there is no way any U.S. administration, let alone Obama's, is going to go to war with Iran. That leaves the diplomatic option.

Despite Democratic propaganda to the contrary, the Bush administration has been talking to Iran, and there has been some international pressure on it to give up its nuclear program. These efforts have been unsuccessful because Iran is dedicated to becoming a nuclear power. From their perspective, obtaining nuclear weapons is a critical project for Iranian security and prestige. There are only two main ways in which diplomacy could possibly force Iran to give up its nuclear aspirations. These could be employed separately, or in combination as a carrot/stick approach. The first involves imposing so much pressure, and so many sanctions, that the nuclear program isn't worth the price they have to pay for it. The second rests on creating positive incentives that convince Iran to change its direction. Neither of these approaches has any real chance of success. The first requires unprecedented international cooperation and resolve, and has to include all major powers, such as Russia & China. The second rests on the assumption --a very large one -- that there is anything that we would be willing to offer Iran, that could sway them from their nuclear designs.

So how does the Obama administration handle the situation?  I fear that Obama will attempt to make a deal with Iran, similar to the Clinton approach to North Korea.  I would not be at all surprised to see a U.S. initiative that offers Iran incentives to stop its nuclear program.  This is a terrible idea for one simple reason: the Iranian government cannot be trusted.  Such a deal would almost certainly result in Iran taking whatever we are willing to give them, and secretly continuing its nuclear program.  If I'm wrong, and Obama is somehow able to get the international cooperation necessary to impose truly crippling sanctions on Iran, I'll applaud him. But I think a bad deal is far more likely.

Atheist Stupidity

"An atheist group has unveiled an anti-religion placard in the state Capitol, joining a Christian Nativity scene and "holiday tree" on display during December." 

As an atheist, this kind of obnoxious behavior really annoys me.  It's one of the reasons many people hate atheists, and why many atheists are relucant to identify themselves as such.  The organization behind it is called the Freedom from Religion Foundation. According to their co-president, Dan Barker, they put up the placard because:

it was important for atheists to offer their viewpoint alongside the overtly religious Nativity scene and Christmas-style holiday tree.

No, it isn't important.  It's stupid and counterproductive.  Atheism is not a religion; it is an absence of belief.  Why is a group of atheists acting like a religious organization and competing to have its own Christmas display?  Holiday trees, Christmas scenes, and other religious holiday displays are completely harmless, and appreciated by the vast majority of the country.  Although Christmas started as a religious holiday, it is also a secular tradition in much of the country. When a minority of atheists behave like a proselytizing religion, especially over something so trivial, it creates animosity toward the rest of us, and it accomplishes nothing.