Finagle's rules for scientific research
1. Do not believe in miracles--rely on them
2. Experiments must be reproducible-- they should fail the same way.
3. Always verify your witchcraft.
4. First draw your curves--then plot your readings
5. Be sure to obtain meteorological information before leaving on vacation.
6. A record of data is useful--it indicates that you've been working.
7. Experience is directly proportional to equipment ruined.
8. To study a subject best--understand it thoroughly before you start.
9. In case of doubt--make it sound convincing.

I have no idea who Finagle is or was.

by Donald Sensing, 1/31/2004 07:51:00 PM. Permalink |

The administration's claims about Saddam and WMDs
Are exhaustively documented verbatim here.

by Donald Sensing, 1/30/2004 09:16:00 PM. Permalink |

"There has been an exaggeration" of the terrorist threat
That according to John Kerry in last night's debate. How interesting that in the night when Wesley "Prissy" Clark accused President Bush of not doing enough about the threat of terrorism before Sept. 11, 2001, Kerry implies that Bush is doing too much. The entire exchange between moderator Tom Brokaw and Kerry is a little longer than I want to put here, so I have appended it to this post as an endnote.

It seems to me from the whole exchange that what Kerry said was exaggerated was the inclusion of Saddam's regime into the terrorist threat matrix. But the quote will almost certainly prove political poison for Kerry as time goes on, especially if he does face Bush in the general election.

Will the Republican party runs ads against Kerry with these images and theme, with Kerry's voice over? Probably.

Kerry specifically mentioned "the linkage to Al Qaida" as one instance of exaggeration, again apparently in respect to Saddam's regime and al Qaeda before Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). I say apparently because the context is ambiguous; read the endnote for yourself.

I'd like to hear Kerry explain in detail two things:

More specificity about what exactly he thinks was exaggerated - was it the Iraq-al Qaeda connection or the terrorist threat generally?

Why he thinks the threat is exaggerated.

It is true that the Bush administration claimed, before OIF, that al Qaeda and Saddam's regime were working together. Secretary of State Colin Powell told the UN Security Council a year ago that

... al Qaeda affiliates, based in Baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they've been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months.

During testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee in mid-February, CIA Director George Tenet added, "Iraq has, in the past, provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It has also provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates." [link]

(Powell said this month, "I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I do believe the connections existed.")

The CIA's reputation for accuracy is hardly sterling at the moment. But there is no doubt that al Qaeda went to Iraq to fight America after we invaded (here's why , I think). The evidence on the ground in Iraq is that al Qaeda is intensifying its efforts in Iraq. The recent arrest of a top al Qaeda officer, Hassan Ghul, inside Iraq, "is pretty strong proof that al-Qaeda is trying to gain a foothold here to continue their murderous campaigns," according to Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez.

Did a connection exist before OIF began? I consider the public-record evidence overwhelmingly positive. I detailed it in some length last September. Also, Osama bin Laden verbally allied himself with Saddam as long ago as 1998 in his fatwa called Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders. (In fact, bin Laden denounced American aggression against Iraq in 1996 as well.) He also declared that an alliance with the "socialists" (Saddam’s regime) was permissible, which pretty much cuts the rug out from those who claim that bin Laden would never make common cause with Iraq because of Saddam's secularism.

Furthermore, the Clinton administration claimed a connection between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda. I would like Mr. Kerry to say whether he thinks those claims were exaggerated.

I have written that I think al Qaeda has been badly mauled by the United States. I stand by that. But they want to strike against us again hard as much as ever. An exaggeration of the threat? I don't think so.

Kerry also said in his exchange with Brokaw that counter-terrorism is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation, that requires cooperation around the world -- the very thing this administration is worst at." This is a topic that deserves its own examination, but this post is long enough, so it'll have to wait.

Endnote: the verbatim transcript:
BROKAW: Senator Kerry, let me ask you a question. Robert Kagan who writes about these issues a great deal from the Carnegie Institute for Peace, has written recently that Europeans believe that the Bush administration has exaggerated the threat of terrorism, and the Bush administration believes that the Europeans simply don't get it.

Who is right?

KERRY: I think it's somewhere in between. I think that there has been an exaggeration and there has been a refocusing...

BROKAW: Where has the exaggeration been in the threat on terrorism?

KERRY: Well, 45 minutes deployment of weapons of mass destruction, number one.

Aerial vehicles to be able to deliver materials of mass destruction, number two.

I mean, I -- nuclear weapons, number three.

I could run a long list of clear misleading, clear exaggeration. The linkage to Al Qaida, number four.

That said, they are really misleading all of America, Tom, in a profound way. The war on terror is less -- it is occasionally military, and it will be, and it will continue to be for a long time. And we will need the best-trained and the most well-equipped and the most capable military, such as we have today.

But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world -- the very thing this administration is worst at. And most importantly, the war on terror is also an engagement in the Middle East economically, socially, culturally, in a way that we haven't embraced, because otherwise we're inviting a clash of civilizations.

And I think this administration's arrogant and ideological policy is taking America down a more dangerous path. I will make America safer than they are.

by Donald Sensing, 1/30/2004 08:41:00 PM. Permalink |

New identity-theft threat
A federal employee I know sent this to me, apparently from a security alert she received.

Keep a watch out for people standing near you at retail stores, restaurants, grocery stores, etc., that have a cell phone in hand. With the new camera cell phones, they can take a picture of your credit card, which gives them your name, number, and expiration date. This is just another example of a means of identity and credit theft being used.

I am not sure that cell phone cameras have the resolution needed to do that unless the thief was pretty close. But I don't have such a phone, either. Anyone know?

by Donald Sensing, 1/30/2004 07:50:00 PM. Permalink |

Karl Rove - political genius
If he was the brain behind this fiasco, "practice saying 'President Kerry.'"

by Donald Sensing, 1/30/2004 06:32:00 PM. Permalink |

Cartoon laws of motion for candidates
These seem sadly true.

by Donald Sensing, 1/30/2004 06:10:00 PM. Permalink |

To link or not to link
In the past couple of weeks I have gotten a copious number of emails saying one of two things:

"I'll link to your site if you link to mine."

"Do I have your permission put a link to your site on my site?"

As for the latter question, that is easily answered: You don't need my permission to link to me. As Nike says, Just Do It. You don't even have to tell me you did. In fact, I have the honor and pleaasure every day of discovering new sites that have linked to mine. Cool! So, link away and thank you!

For the former: While I am grateful for your reading, I don't bargain over linking. If you like my site and wish to link to it, I'll be grateful. If I like your site and wish to link to it, I will. But I do not enter into reciprocal linking arrangements. That's so kindergarten.

So there you have it.

by Donald Sensing, 1/30/2004 04:32:00 PM. Permalink |

The Nation and I agree
It seems David Corn at The Nation has the same opinion as I did of Howard Dean's replacement of campaign manger Joe Trippi with Washington insider Roy Neel. Only Corn supplies more details.

What warrants criticism is his decision to put his campaign in the mitts of a Washington insider. Neel, a former Al Gore aide, was head of the U.S. Telecom Association in Washington in the late 1990s until he left to join Gore's 2000 campaign. The USTA lobbies on behalf of the telecommunications industry. As its lead lobbyist, Neel was the embodiment of the "special interests" that Dean has assailed on the campaign trail.

For much of the past week, I listened to Dean repeatedly bemoan the influence of corporate lobbyists as he crisscrossed New Hampshire. A sampling:

* "All the things that happen in Washington happen for the benefit of corporations and special interests."

* "This government is run by a president who cares more about corporations than he does about ordinary Americans, and that is why I'm running."

* "The ordinary people in this country are supposed to be running it."

* "There are no special interests in Washington who can buy us."

No, we only let them oversee our campaigns.

As Glenn Reynolds said, Dean's biggest campaign problem is Dean. But, as Corn adds, citing the old political saying, "You can't fire the candidate."

by Donald Sensing, 1/30/2004 03:59:00 PM. Permalink |

"Prissy" Clark - pinned like a butterfly
I think that Tom Brokaw's performance as the sole moderator of the debates last night was uneven, but he pinned Wesley Clark like a butterfly with this exchange, following a brief synopsis of the terrorist atacks on the United States during Bill Clinton's administration:

Was there an inadequate response to terrorism during President Clinton's term?

CLARK: Well, I have not been on the inside of the Clinton administration, in terms of how they responded to terror.

BROKAW: You don't have to be on the inside. We know what happened.

You have to hand it to Brokaw for that rejoinder. Clark tried to weasel out of answering by responding like Prissy in Gone With the Wind: "I don't know nuthin' 'bout the Clinton administration!"



Did Wesley Clark study Butterfly McQueen's role
to prepare for last night's debate?

Then Clark ponderously wandered on, first recounting how he focused on protecting military forces in Europe as the American commander there. Then:

In '98, when Osama bin Laden issued a fatwa against the United States, there should have been, at that point, measures to go and get Osama bin Laden. I'm told that there were such measures that were attempted to be undertaken. Why they didn't work, what they are, and so forth, I don't know.

First Clark says that the US should gone after bin Laden during the Clinton administration, then says the Clinton administration did try to do so. Then Clark says that he doesn't know what measures the Clinton administration undertook but that whatever they were they didn't work for some reason.

All this seems to me to be semantically equivalent to saying, "Tom, I'm as ignorant of what the Clinton administration did about terrorism as a baby is about rocketry, but the answer to your question is, 'yes, there was an inadequate response to terrorism during President Clinton's term.'" Then Clark makes his obligatory slam against President Bush:

But I will say this: that when the Bush administration came to office, the Bush administration was told the greatest threat to America is Osama bin Laden, and yet almost nine months later, when the United States was struck, there was still no plan as to what to do with Osama bin Laden. ...

Let's see: the greatest threat to America for several years at least has been Osama bin Laden, but Clark confesses he doesn't know what the Clinton administration did about it. He wants to be president and face the threat, but hasn't bothered to brush up on the policies and actions of his predecessors. At least for this issue he does not know the history of the office he wants to occupy.

Nonetheless, he unswervingly asserts that "the Bush administration was told the greatest threat to America is Osama bin Laden." Pray, Prissy, who told them that? The outgoing Clinton administration? Not bloody likely. The CIA? Possibly. But ISTM, from the readings I have done on the subuect since 9/11, that no one in either administration took al Qaeda very seriously as a threat to the domestic security of the United States. Clark is just tap dancing through a subject he admits he knows nothing about. Astonishing.

by Donald Sensing, 1/30/2004 03:40:00 PM. Permalink |

US Army "sure" it will capture bin Laden this year
Army officers have said they are sure that we will capture Osama bin Laden this year.

U.S. commanders in Afghanistan have expressed new optimism about finding bin Laden. [Lt. Col. Bryan ] Hilferty said the military - the United States has 11,000 men in the country - now believes it could seize him within months.

"We have a variety of intelligence and we're sure we're going to catch Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar this year," Hilferty said.

"We've learned lessons from Iraq and we're getting improved intelligence from the Afghan people."

Who knows? But it's another indicator of, as I wrote last Saturday, Al Qaeda's grim present and bleak future.

by Donald Sensing, 1/29/2004 07:08:00 PM. Permalink |

Underwater messkit repair?
Nope, something a lot cooler.

by Donald Sensing, 1/29/2004 06:43:00 PM. Permalink |

Plants that detect explosives
Not quickly, of course.

Danish researchers said they have produced a plant that can help detect hidden landmines by changing its colour from green to red when its roots come in contact with explosives.

The genetically-modified plant changes its colour from green to red within three to five weeks of growth when its roots come in contact with NO2, a chemical group present in explosives. [link]

Ann Haight comments,

For several years I've been intrigued by revolutionary methods for detecting landmines and buried explosives, because this is such a tough problem from an engineering perspective. The world is littered with landmines left over from forgotten wars, and also in places where hostilities are still active but serve mainly to threaten the lives of innocent civilian populations in rural areas. ...

But something like plants that change color is innovative for many reasons. It's environmentally non-disruptive, can operate passively for long periods of time (eliminating the need for active scans or patrols), and the signal is pretty much idiot proof even to local residents; the plant turns red.

So tell me again how genetically modified plants are evil?

Good question.


by Donald Sensing, 1/29/2004 06:24:00 PM. Permalink |

The other cost of war
As Lee Greenwood Billy Ray Cyrus sang, "All gave some, some gave all."



This is a grab from a FoxNews story about long-term medical recovery and physical therapy at Walter Reed Medical Center, the Army's flagship hospital in Washington, D.C.

by Donald Sensing, 1/29/2004 05:46:00 PM. Permalink |

Forget politics, BBC, war, WMD
Let's recall those banner days of yesteryear: Saturday, Jan. 12, 1974, the day before Super Sunday, the last time the Super Bowl was held in Houston. Austin Bay, now a full colonel in the Reserve and a nationally syndicated columnist, was then 22, a Rice University student who occasionally got a paid gig to play the piano.

Off that evening to the Rice Hotel, upscale now but back then,

... the hotel was a derelict joint, a wreck of bricks and memories best towed offshore and sunk as a manmade reef.

The pep rally ballroom had already taken two torpedoes. Its chandelier and ceiling fixtures shed more plaster than light. Zig-zag cracks scarred the mirror behind the bar.

As I walked up to the piano, I saw Mr. Fine waving a can of purple spray-paint above a shoddy "Go Vikes" poster. He yelled to his ticket taker, "Ten bucks to get in. That gets 'em a first drink."

I played slow standards, "Summertime" and "As Time Goes By." The pep rally crowd filtered in -- slower than the music. Though the ballroom could handle 400, after an hour perhaps 40 people had showed.

The angry fan wore a purple blazer and purple pants. "One drink. That's it?" he snarled at Fine. "Hey, piano. You know the Vikes' fight song? No? What the heck you doing here?"

"I don't know, sir," I told him.

"I'm for Miami," the brunette knockout yelled. "Play the Miami fight song. It goes like this." She stood on a table, long legs, high heels, and sang a capella "When you say Miami, you're talking Super Bowl."

Ah, college daze, I remember well.

by Donald Sensing, 1/29/2004 05:16:00 PM. Permalink |

Fake email adds?
A reader emailed me,

I don't want to mess up your comment section, but I always (even on my own blog - www.news-sheet.net) put up fake e-mails so that I don't get spam. The URL is correct. My apologies if this conflicts with a strongly held policy of yours. I'll be happy to comply in the future, if it does.

Well, so do I. Whenever I comment on either my blog or another, I always enter the phony email address, [email protected]. So it's perfectly okay with me if commenters use a bogus email address in my comments.

by Donald Sensing, 1/29/2004 05:08:00 PM. Permalink |

God and Allah - again
Meryl Yourish emailed me the link to a NYT piece, "My God Is Your God," by John Kearney, a student at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. Kearney wants journalists to stop using the word, "Allah," altogether and simply use "God" to refer to the deity of Islam, just as "God" is used to refer to the deity of the Jews and Christians.

Of course, there are distinctions to be made between religions, which the press shouldn't shy away from. But there is no need to augment these differences artificially, especially at the cost of an accurate understanding of the origins of the Abrahamic faiths.

Meryl asked me what I thought about the piece, then added,

My very quick, totally lay opinion: Where does a journalism student get the credentials to make such a claim?

Well, good question. When I was in journalism school I was taught that reporters have to do research and cite experts in the field they are writing about. With op-ed pieces, as Kearney wrote, the attributions need not be quite so stringent, but in this piece, Kearney cites no authorities at all. It's all totally his own opinion in a topic outside his expertise.

Meryl is right: what gives him the authority to demand such a change in journalistic practice - other than his self-evident contempt for Christians who insist there is a real distinction between the Allah of Islam and the God revealed in Jesus Christ)?

I wrote about difference between God and Allah at some length last November.

The overall concepts of deity between Judaism-Christianity and Islam are so divergent that both cannot be simultaneously true. Comedian Jack Handy [had a] shtick that trees and dogs are just alike. They both have bark, after all. Of course, one is a small, furry, warm-blooded, mobile animal. The other is a large, leafy, coarse-surfaced, woody, motionless plant. But they are really the same.

But if someone described his pet dog to you using terms such as leafy, woody, motionless and such, at some point you’d insist that he wasn’t talking about a dog at all. And no matter how stoutly he insisted he was, you would say no.

So it is with the way Islam presents Allah and the way Judaism-Christianity present YHWH/God. At some point, for those who study the subject, the light dawns that although both recognize there is only one deity, we are not talking about the same deity. If we alike insist, though, that there is still only one deity, then either Judaism-Christianity or Islam are false, even though there are occasional points of agreement.

The real problem with Kearney's piece is that he shows no evidence of even attempting to understand the depth of the religious issues. He gives the smallest of nods to religious distinctions:

Of course, there are distinctions to be made between religions, which the press shouldn't shy away from. But there is no need to augment these differences artificially, especially at the cost of an accurate understanding of the origins of the Abrahamic faiths.

Accuracy is the key, and I would hope a graduate journalism student wouldn't be so dismissive of the contentions in the debate in his desire for political (though not religious) correctness.

Update: Vocabulary is irrelevant to the point. It does not matter that "Allah" is simply the Arabic word for "the deity" (though in fact Allah was the name of a pre-Mohammed pagan deity in Mecca; Mohammed co-opted the name for his religious movement, and declared the rest of the pagan gods did not exist. How intolerant.)

The discussion is not what word is used for deity, but what is the very nature of the deity. As I wrote extensively in November, comparing the nature of Allah as described by Muslims, and the nature of YHWH/God as described by Jews and Christians reveals conclusively that the two descriptions are so radically different they cannot both be simultaneously true. And this is in fact exactly what Muslims themselves say: anyone who converts to Islam must discard his pre-existing concepts of the deity and adopt only those of Islam.

The pre-Israel, ancient, pagan Canaanites used the word "El" for one of their deities. The Hebrews adopted the word when they moved in from Egypt, incorporating it into "Elohim," for example, and the names of angels of God (i.e., Gabri-el). But try to find a rabbi today or a Jewish prophet of the Bible who argued that because the words were the same, the deity was, too.

by Donald Sensing, 1/29/2004 07:03:00 AM. Permalink |

US Army to get bigger
Regular Army to grow by 30,000
The Army is seeking a four-year increase of 30,000 troops in the regular (non-reserve, non-Guard) force.

Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker told House lawmakers he already has the authority and money under emergency authorizations to institute the increase, but deflected calls from members of Congress to make the increase permanent.

The Army is already overstrength by 11,000 soldiers compared to the strength the Congress authorized; these 11,000 troops are included in the emergency increase, leaving 20,000 more to be accessed to active duty.

Thirty thousand soldiers is almost two divisions worth. The Army today has 10 divisions. The previous chief of staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, was denounced by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for insisting that the Army was too small for the missions being thrown at it: “Beware the 12-divison strategy for a 10-division Army.” Funny how the math works out.

But maybe that is an improvement. Back in 1999, the Army told Congress that it was using 10 divisions to do 14 divisions' work. Brig. Gen. Richard Cody told the House Armed Services Committee in July of that year, "The heavy lifting in the Army has increased 300 percent since the Iron Curtain came down. We are a 10-division Army for probably about a 14-division mission."

The Congress can overrule the Army on the matter of its permanent size, of course, and legislate a larger Army if it wishes. The reluctance of the Army's leadership to embrace such a change, however, certainly stems from the well-founded suspicion that the Congress would not fund the increase, forcing the Army to pay for it out of present budget. It costs about $215,000 per year to deploy one soldier, so the costs for 30,000 more troops to the Army is unaffordable unless Congress appropriates the money.

There is no doubt, though, that the increase is needed, even if only for four years. The heavy reliance of Guard and Reserve units since Sept. 11, 2001, risks gutting those units as their reenlistment rates drop sharply.

by Donald Sensing, 1/29/2004 07:02:00 AM. Permalink |

The outsider candidate goes inside
Howard Dean, who insists that only he, a Washington outsider, can "take back the country" from anyone who opposes him, has fired his Washington outsider campaign manager Joe Trippi and brought in Washington insider Roy Neel to be the manager. As Glenn Reynolds says, Dean's biggest problem is Dean.

Howard Dean: A divider, not a uniter?

I don't know about you, but this whole "take back the country" shtick Dean does is wearing mighty darn thin on me. It's hardly a clarion call to unity. You have to wonder - who does he include in the other side? Republicans, sure. What about conservative independents? Liberatarians? People who oppose higher taxes? This is dangerous rhetoric. Does he intend to be the president of all the people or just the "us" group, however he defines it?

"Us vs. Them" speeches may be effective to form a core of followers, but it's not possible to capture a majority in a country as large and politically diverse as America. It's stupid politics for a national race, and it's Dean's very own idiom.

by Donald Sensing, 1/28/2004 10:10:00 PM. Permalink |

Another strong victory indicator
Men named Saddam Hussein line up to change their name

Cable news reports today say that large numbers of Iraqi men are taking legal action to change their names. They all have a name in common: Saddam Hussein, or a variant thereof.

In the new, post-Saddam Iraq, the men said that it hurts them socially and economically to carry the same name as the hated former dictator, who is now in American custody.

This development is a very strong indicator that we are winning there. The less important indicator is that the men are changing their names. The more important indicator is that the revulsion at the name is so widespread - and so openly expressed - that the men see no alternative.

More than almost anything else I've seen, this fact convinces me that Iraq's people have turned an critical corner. They are more and more certain that the pro-Saddam jihadis cannot prevail and that America is there for the long haul. So the people are no longer hedging their bets by consorting with men blamelessly named Saddam Hussein by their parents. And the men concerned are divesting themselves of the name quickly.

They are leaving the past behind now in concrete ways, and the pace will only increase.

by Donald Sensing, 1/28/2004 03:13:00 PM. Permalink |

New jihadi war crime
Today in Baghdad the anti-coalition jihadis committed another war crime. They used a vehicle disguised as an ambulance to carry a suicide bomb, detonating it in front of a hotel where Westerners were staying.

U.S. military spokesmen and security guards said the bomber used a white vehicle painted with Red Crescent symbols, giving it the appearance of an ambulance.

The bomber and three other people were killed.



It is a violation of the international laws of war to use an ambulance to carry military supplies or weapons. It is a violation to use the symbols if the International Committee of the Red Cross as deception or to mask military activity. The Red Crescent is an internationally-recognized symbol.

I wait now for the streets in front of the White House to fill with demonstrators demanding that the terrorists who planned and supported this war crime to be dealt their just desserts. If there's one thing that American demonstrators won't stand for, it's incontrovertible proof that war crimes have been committed.

by Donald Sensing, 1/28/2004 02:49:00 PM. Permalink |

Howard Dean campaign license plates approved for Tennessee
The Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) has approved auto license plates for unreconstructed Confederate sympathizers who support Howard Dean.



In an interview published Nov. 1, Dean said ,

"I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks."

With the Tennessee primary looming this month, and Dean badly in need of a win, TDOT's approval of the Confederates for Dean plates come not a moment too soon.

"Dr. Dean told us that if Robert E. Lee was alive today, he'd choose him as his running mate," said Homer "Stonewall" Ruckus, acting chairman of the Franklin, Tenn., "Rebels for Dean" chapter. "He still has a lot to learn, 'cause round these parts we'd rather see Nathan Bedford Forrest join the ticket."

When asked whether he might consider a change to a Southern "fantasy ticket" to elevate Forrest, even though Forrest had founded the Ku Klux Klan, Dean responded, "I still want to be the candidate for guys with bedsheets and pointy hoods on their heads. Besides, my campaign is about the future, not the past. We've got to take this country back."

"Back to 1860?" came the question.

"Yeah, well, whatever," Dean replied. "Hey, you remember how Bush served the press some ribs the other day? Well, we're headed to South Carolina now, so have a Moon Pie and an RC Cola!"

by Donald Sensing, 1/28/2004 01:30:00 PM. Permalink |

Missing military records
John Cole has some stories of his own to tell, such as,

- A promotion was delayed six months while various levels of the National Guard bureaucracy debated whether or not I had in fact attended PLDC [a leadership-development course- DS]. My CO was convinced. I showed him my diploma and pictures, but the official paperwork was not to be found.

His commenters have more.

by Donald Sensing, 1/28/2004 01:07:00 PM. Permalink |

Is Bush in trouble?
Andrew Sullivan thinks so.

by Donald Sensing, 1/28/2004 08:56:00 AM. Permalink |

Coffee confirmation
I got this heartening email from Dr. Michael T., MD, yesterday,

I just wanted to thank you for turning me on to home coffee roasting. I got the Zach and Dani's machine that you described and I've been having lots of fun with it for just over a month; we like our coffee darker roasted, and it's worked nicely for that, too. Definitely better than anything available pre-roasted, and it's already saving us a ton of money (my wife and I both like 3 cups a day, so we go through quite a bit of coffee.)

Thanks for the tip and keep up the good work!

Michael also said he is a former Marine, so thank you, Michael, for your service to our country.

Here is everything you need to know about roasting your own coffee at home. Unroasted (green) coffee beans are much less expensive to buy than roasted beans, even from a grocery, and you have a enormous variety of coffees to choose from. OTOH, most coffee in stores is either Brazilian (medium quality at best) or Columbian. There's nothing wrong with Columbian, but commercial companies roast it for the mass market; once you roast your own Columbian, darker than commerical companies as Michael said, you'll never go back.

And once you try other coffees, such as Kenyan or Sumatran and especially Papuan New Guinea, you'll probably leave Columbian behind, too. Right now I'm finishing a cup of 50 percent each of Sumatran Manhelding and Tanzanian Peaberry. Can't get that in a store!

I recommend the Zach and Dani's roaster for reasons I explained here.

by Donald Sensing, 1/28/2004 08:51:00 AM. Permalink |

Dean - the Dems' Pat Buchanan?
Dean Esmay thinks so.

by Donald Sensing, 1/28/2004 08:27:00 AM. Permalink |

Bush wins in NH!
With 88 percent of the vote, President George W. Bush scraped out a primary victory in New Hampshire against these powerhouse opponents: Blake Ashby, Richard P. Bosa, John Buchanan, Michael Callis, George Gostigian, Robert Edward Haines, Mark "Dick" Harnes, Millie Howard, "Tom" Laughlin, Cornelius E. O'Connor, John Donald Rigazio, Jim Taylor, "Bill" Wyatt.

I think I'll run, too, as Donald "Ace" Sensing. Or maybe "Bubba" Sensing. No! I've got it! I'll lock up the Southern vote by changing my name to Dale Earnhardt Jarrett Bedford Lee Calhoun Jackson "Bear" Bryant Jimmy Sensing! Yeah! That's it!

by Donald Sensing, 1/27/2004 08:16:00 PM. Permalink |

Blogs and bloggers on National Public Radio
A reader emailed me yesterday,

Heard the NPR show with you while driving home from a snow delayed Chinese New Year family party. The tail end of the show really stuck. There were three of you bloggers but it took NPR over a min. to rattle of the names of all their support folks to make the short discussion with the three of you. All I could think was gawd how much more efficent bloggers are.

This mystified me, as I have never been interviewed by NPR, so I emailed back asking for more details. He emailed back that I was mentioned on the show, along with Belmont Club and Steven Den Beste.

I am pretty sure that then program referred to was The Blogging of the President, sponsored Jan. 25 by Minnesota Public Radio. Guests were:

Jerome Armstrong, www.mydd.com; Atrios, Eschaton; Ed Cone, Edcone.com; Max Fose, Republican Internet strategist; Gary Hart, Gary Hart blog; Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine; Josh Marshall, Talking Points Memo; Kevin Phillips, Republican political analyst; Richard Reeves, Political writer and columnist; Frank Rich, Culture columnist for the New York Times; Andrew Sullivan, andrewsullivan.com.

I haven't listened to its online archive yet, but will try to soon.

by Donald Sensing, 1/27/2004 07:46:00 PM. Permalink |

New Hampshire so far
As of 8 p.m., EST:



Based on exit polling, not returns. Returns with 13 percent of precincts reporting show Kerry, Dean and Edwards with 38, 24 and 13 percent, respectively.

Update, 8:45 p.m. EST: Here's an interesting breakdown just on the news. Among "military households" (not further defined), Kerry got 35 percent, Dean 26, Clark 15 and Edwards 13 percent. So Kerry the lieutenant pulls more than twice the vote of Clark the general. General, you've just been further demoted.

by Donald Sensing, 1/27/2004 07:04:00 PM. Permalink |

Quote of the day . . .
. . . comes from Belmont Club: Writing of the failure of American inspectors to find WMD stockpiles in Iraq "is like making fun of a man who, having been tested for diabetes, receives a negative result but is told that what he really has is cancer." Indeed, because recently-resigned chief inspector David Kay said that while no WMD stockpiles have been found,

I must say, I actually think what we learned during the inspections made Iraq a more dangerous place potentially than in fact we thought it was even before the war.

Which is why arguments over whether the Iraqis are better off now than before we invaded simply miss the point. We are better off now than before, which is supposed to be what national security is all about.

by Donald Sensing, 1/27/2004 06:59:00 PM. Permalink |

Linkagery

Claims for jobless benefits are trending downward; the Joint Economic Committee of the US Congress reports "Job markets are strengthening ... labor markets are improving and ... job growth should accelerate."

The Questions and Answers blog now has its own domain and a new look. A new post cites and newly confirms what I wrote last September: that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda don't have a strategy to achieve their aims; they just think that enough violence will make things fall into place for them.

Reinforcing that notion, Saudi Al Qaeda ideologue Louis Attiya Allah writes in "Voice of Jihad" on the upcoming plans....

"It will be a surprising blow, that is, one that is completely unexpected. They cannot conceive or imagine the way in which it will be carried out... It is a great blow. That is, the losses that will be caused to America and the Western world in its wake will be very great. Due to its magnitude, the blow will change the international balances of powers..."

So...no plan, except to blow stuff up? And hope that, when the chips land, the balance of powers will be changed?

That's hardly a strategy ...

An interesting comparison between Napoleon's strategic inability (at his end) and al Qaeda's follows. (And where have we heard such threats before? Oh, yeah, before last Ramadan.)

by Donald Sensing, 1/27/2004 04:26:00 PM. Permalink |

Parting of Red Sea by Moses done "through the laws of physics"
Russian researchers explain natural causes for biblical miracle

I confess up front I find this revelation a yawner, though interesting. Two Russian scientists have determined that a high wind blowing over the Red Sea at the crossing point of the children of Israel would have blown the water off the reef enough to enable the 600,000 refugees to cross. (BTW, this idea is not original to them; I read something like this when I was a kid. It seems that these Russians' contribution is more rigorous mathematical treatment of the idea than before.)

"I am convinced that God rules the Earth through the laws of physics," [Naum] Volzinger said in a telephone interview. ...

The six-month study, published in the Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences, focuses on a reef that runs from the well-documented starting point of the Jews' escape to the north side of the sea. In biblical times, the reef was much closer to the surface, Volzinger said.

The questions the researchers were interested in answering included what wind speed was needed to leave the reef high and dry at low tide, how long the reef could stay dry, and how quickly the waters would return.

"If the wind blew all night at a speed of 30 meters per second, then the reef would be dry," said Volzinger, who specializes in various ocean phenomena, including flooding and tidal waves.

"It would take the Jews -- there were 600,000 of them -- four hours to cross the seven-kilometer reef that runs from one coast to another. Then, in half an hour, the waters would come back," he said.

So the question is whether their escape through the sea can still be considered a miracle. Miracles are generally defined as violations of the laws of science. Scottish philosopher David Hume - "generally regarded as the most important philosopher ever to write in English" - argued that there could never be a scientific study of miracles precisely because their definition placed them outside the purview of science. Hume denied such things could occur. In fact, he undercut the metaphysics of cause-and-effect itself, causing science to come to a screeching halt, substantively speaking, until Immanuel Kant rescued science from Hume's Babylonian captivity. But I digress.

Back to the question at hand: can the parting of the Red Sea still be considered a miracle since the Russian scientists explained it could have happened through natural weather phenomena? After all, Occam's Razor still applies: the simplest explanation is to be preferred absent compelling evidence otherwise.

On Jan. 16 I posted, "Have some wine!" in honor of the Revised Common Lectionary's passage for Sunday, Jan. 18, which was the story of Jesus turning water into wine at a wedding at Cana. Jesus directed six stone jars to be filled with water, about 150 gallons total. The he ordered a dipper-full of water be given to the chief steward of the party. When the steward tasted it he exclaimed in delight that it was the best wine yet.

Miracle? In my Jan. 16 post I discussed German wines, Rhine wines being the type I am most familiar with. To drive along the Rhine river is to see water, in the form of rainfall, made into wine. Rain soaks the ground, enters the vines, fills the grapes, is harvested and made into wine. It happens all the time. We do not wonder at it. It “has lost its marvellousness by its constant recurrence,” as Saint Augustine said in another context.

So why was Cana's transformation a "miracle" and not the Rhine Valley transformation?

In fact, miracles are all around us. The story is told of an Eastern king whose Magi spoke of the wonderful works of God. The king scoffed, "Show me a miracle and then I will believe."

"Here are four acorns," said the Magi, "will you, Majesty, plant them in the ground, and then stoop down for a moment and look into this clear pool of water?"

The king did so, "Now," said the other, "look up."

The king looked up and saw four oak-trees where he had planted the acorns. "Wonderful!" he exclaimed, "this is indeed the work of God."

"How long were you looking into the water?" asked the Magi.

"Only a second," said the king.

"No," replied the Magi. "Eighty years have passed as a second." The king looked at his garments; they were threadbare. He looked at his reflection in the water; he had become an old man. "There is no miracle here, then," he said angrily.

"Yes, there is," said the Magi, "It is God's work, whether he did it in one second or in eighty years."

The fundamental understanding of "miracle" in Christian thought - and I'm pretty sure in Jewish thought, too - is not primarily supernaturalism (though that's there, to be sure), but the way that God's will is worked in the affairs of nature and human affairs, what America's founders, for example, called God's providence. So that the parting of the Red Sea might have occurred through natural causes disturbs this notion not a whit, because nature is under the dominion of God. Hence, I see no problem with Prof. Volzinger's observation that "God rules the Earth through the laws of physics."

J.B.S. Haldane said, "The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine." Astronomer Sir Arthur Eddington observed, "Something unknown is doing we don't know what."

Maybe there are not only more laws of physics than we imagine, there are more than we can imagine. Maybe God, whom both Judaism and Christianity admit cannot be fully apprehended by humankind, sometimes does "we don't know what," being not only more powerful than we imagine, but more powerful than we can imagine.

by Donald Sensing, 1/27/2004 04:01:00 PM. Permalink |

Why I will vote for Joe Lieberman
The Tennessee primary is next month. Tennessee has an open primary; voters may vote in any party's primary without reference to how they are registered. I am a registered voter, naturally, but have no party affiliation. Both parties have, at one time or another attempted to enlist me in local politics, but I always refuse to affiliate myself openly with any party.

(You will search my site in vain for any endorsement of re-election of President Bush, or the election of another contender. I have been asked more than once to join "Blogs for Bush" but I always decline.)

I'll vote for Lieberman in February's primary. And no, I am not endorsing him for the office of president here. I well recognize that he has no chance of being nominated. I see no point in voting in the Republican primary because I cannot - even on secret ballot - put my stamp of approval on the Bush administration, which is what a vote in the uncontested Republican primary would do.

I will vote for Lieberman to protest both the Bush administration and the unimpressiveness of the rest of the Democratic field. As much as the prospect of a second Bush terms disturbs me, the prospect of any of other party's present frontrunners occupying the White House gives me insomnia.

Take Dennis Kucinich, for example, who was interviewed by Sean Hannity on his radio show as I was driving today. Kucinich accepted Sean's invitation to be on Hannity and Colmes tonight.

Kucinich said that we are fighting the Taliban in Iraq.

He said last year that President Bush has revoked President Ford's Executive Order 12333, which forbids assassination of heads of state, but when pressed about it by Hannity, Kucinich said he would have to check to see whether it was true. (Maybe he should have checked on it before saying it?)

Kucinich said that the US Declaration of Independence obligates a president to defend America but then said that it forbids America from taking the offense against another country, even one that has made war against us.

He said that President Bush directed the bombing of civilians in Afghanistan but the only example he could cite was the accidental aerial attack of a wedding party that killed about three dozen people - a tragedy, to be sure, but hardly proof of a presidential order to bomb civilians.

When asked forthrightly whether he would have ordered the actions against Afghanistan and al Qaeda the US began in October 2002, Kucinich said that because Osama bin Laden was a "non-state actor" the situation was "complicated," and that instead of the course of action the US took, he would have sought an "international coalition" to track down those responsible for the attack.

To his credit, Kucinich unambiguously denounced the idea, broached by his rival Howard Dean, that President Bush was warned in advance by some Saudis about the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Of course, Kucinich isn't a frontrunner, for which the Republic may be eternally thankful.

Update: John Cole's words resonate with me pretty well:

... I refuse to let this administration and Karl Rove treat me the way the Democratic party treats African-American voters. I DO have options. I have a lot in common with moderate to conservative Demorats ...

... I feel like I have been sold down the river when it comes to this hideous spending. The Farm Bill? The Education Bill? Medicare prescription drug plan? Marriage Promotion? Drug Testing in Schools? Faith Based Initiatives?

You know, when Bill Clinton pandered, he at least had the decency to be straight forward about it. And, I might add, Bill Clinton, despite what you may think his role was in the process, did sign a balanced budget at the end of the day. Chew on that, Mr. Delay.

Yep.

by Donald Sensing, 1/27/2004 03:36:00 PM. Permalink |

What did David Kay really say about WMDs in Iraq?
A short pop quiz: David Kay reported which of the following:

A. American inspectors have found no weapons of mass destruction, or,

B. American inspectors have found no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

The answer is B, of course, which Justin Katz documents in detail. You can also verify it yourself with Kay's own voice (via Instapundit).

See also Bill Hobb's perceptive post.

by Donald Sensing, 1/26/2004 04:50:00 PM. Permalink |

Added Google search
I have added the code for Google-powered search of this site and of my old, Blogspot-hosted One Hand Clapping site.

Yee-hah, I can't take much more excitement today than that.

The search results page only displays the link to the master archive page that containes your search terms. So when you click on it, it does not take you directly to the post itself, just to the month-long archive page that has the post concerned. That seems to be the best that can be done with Blogspot-generated blogs.

by Donald Sensing, 1/26/2004 03:19:00 PM. Permalink |

Spotty web service for me today
For some reason my web service has been in and out with Comcast here today. Light posting today anyway since I have a lot of work-related tasks to do and will (sigh) be in meetings tonight. Thank you for reading!

by Donald Sensing, 1/26/2004 03:05:00 PM. Permalink |

Mel Gibson's "The Passion" completely reworked for March release
I thought Mel Gibson had more backbone than to cave to the snipings of critics of his soon-to-be-released move, "The Passion". But apparently not:

Finally, Mel Gibson has caved-in to critics who charge that his new "Passion" film is "anti-semitic," and re-edited the movie with more palatable story elements. In the new ending, Jesus is saved at the last moment by an elite team of American commandos led by wise-cracking commander, Dirk Dakota. The commandos mow down the Romans, whose spears and gladii are no match for modern MP-5's. After the Romans are dispatched, Dakota muses, "So much for the glory of Rome." Jesus is taken down from the cross and given first-rate medical care to the cheers of all Jerusalem. Jesus then makes an uplifiting speech, calling for everyone to pursue their dreams no matter the obstacle and explains -in no uncertain terms- that the Jews had nothing whatsoever to do with his attempted murder. Dakota replies, "Jews? What Jews? Everyone knows it was the Samaritans' fault!" Fade to black as Jesus, fist pumping in the air, is carried off Golgotha on the shoulders of a jubilant crowd....but wait! In the shadows...a Roman soldier slowly rises from the ground with a knife in his hand! The story continues in Jesus 2: Pentecoastal Boogaloo.

I'll probably go see it anyway. Gibson missed a big opportunity though - he should have named the commando leader Capt. Abe Gershowitz or Jacob Steinberg or something like that.

by Donald Sensing, 1/25/2004 10:29:00 PM. Permalink |

Retroactive abortion
Back in my seminary, the liberal Vanderbilt Divinity School, I once argued that supporters of capital punishment (I am not one) should adopt the rhetoric of the pro-abortion activists. Capital punishment, I said, should be seen simply as a choice that the state must have, and is often appropriate for the health of the state's body (body politic, that is). Furthermore, judicial executions are not really killing, they are merely retroactive abortions.

The pro-abortion students there were not amused.

I wonder what they would say about this:

A [British] GOVERNMENT adviser on genetics has sparked fury by suggesting it might be acceptable to destroy children with ?defects? soon after they are born.

John Harris, a member of the Human Genetics Commission, told a meeting at Westminster he did not see any distinction between aborting a fully grown unborn baby at 40 weeks and killing a child after it had been born.

He's right, of course. It's uncertain across the pond whether Harris is truly serious or just trying to repopen public debate about abortion. He has a record of saying provocative things.

But do you think there is a difference between aborting a baby at 40 weeks (or 30) and killing a newborn baby? What about a week-old baby?

Is there a difference between aborting an unborn baby and smothering an comatose man or woman? Why or why not? Leave comments, please. (And remember, my commenting rule of "no profanity" means "no" profanity; I can't put it any clearer than that and I have a low threshhold of what constitutes profanity. Thank you.)

by Donald Sensing, 1/25/2004 09:42:00 PM. Permalink |

Al Qaeda's grim present and bleak future
Also, a German court has been told that bin Laden planned 9/11 attacks in Iran with Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei and senior Iranian officials

I explained earlier today why al Qaeda is now simply in a survival mode: "They have lost too much major talent either to death or capture. Their first team is pretty much off the field and the benchers trying to carry on aren't up to the job."

Comes now the words of State Department counter-terrorism coordinator Cofer Black:

"The Al Qaida of the 9/11 period is under catastrophic stress. They are being hunted down, their days are numbered."

US intelligence estimates are that about 70 percent of al Qaeda has been neutralized (summarizing from the linked article):

The Saudis have made significant gains against al Qaeda. Saudi authorities have arrested more than 600 al Qaeda suspects and have killed or captured many top al Qaeda leaders.

Al Qaeda has lost most of its offensive capability and "thousands of Al Qaida operatives have been captured, killed or neutralized, with cells eliminated even in such strongholds as Kuwait and Yemen."

Al Qaeda basically cannot operate out of area and therefore will "focus largely on Saudi Arabia, the Horn of Africa while seeking to consolidate under the protection of Iran."