Political leaders and pro-war commentators may not know what they are for or where they are heading or where they stand in the Culture Wars or what ever happened to tradition and morality or why every domestic initiative ends in crisis or why major institutions are always beset by scandal....but they do know one thing for certain. They Are Against Terrorism. They are opposed to mass murder, to nihilistic bombings, to the killing of 200 innocents as they travelled to work on a Thursday morning. This is the morality of the lowest common denominator, an empty political vision defined in response to empty terrorist acts. To paraphrase Tony Blair: 'It is as pathetic as the terrorists are opportunistic.'

And where does defining your worldview through terrorism get you? It gets you to a place where, although you don't like to admit it out loud, you secretly, guiltily welcome massacres like that in Madrid, as an opportunity to berate your opponents and as a reminder of your own moral indefatigability. Nice.

Brendan O'Neill of Spiked (link via "Australia's most respected blogger")

Steyn on Spain is Really Quite Inane

To be sure, there are all kinds of John Kerry-esque footnoted nuances to Sunday's stark numbers. One sympathises with those electors reported to be angry at the government's pathetic insistence, in the face of the emerging evidence, that Thursday's attack was the work of Eta, when it was obviously the jihad boys. One's sympathy, however, disappears with their decision to vote for a party committed to disengaging from the war against the jihadi. As Margaret Thatcher would have said: "This is no time to go wobbly, Manuel." But they did. And no one will remember the footnotes, the qualifications, the background - just the final score: terrorists toppled a European government.

Daily Telegraph

It just goes to show you how a country and a people can totally lose their moral fibre in the space of four decades; it's utterly inconceivable that, in 1964, a terrorist attack in Madrid could influence the outcome of a Spanish election. General Franco would have seen to that.

Losing the Plot

THE nation's police chief, Mick Keelty, has been personally chastised by a senior member of John Howard's staff after contradicting a key government claim - that the war on Iraq has not increased the terrorist threat to Australia.

The Oz

The Duck of Steel might need to get onto his mate George and ask him to pull the FBI into line too:

A terrorist attack on Australia was inevitable, and the nation was clearly more of a target because of its alliance to the United States, a senior FBI counter-terrorism expert said today.

The Age

The Mathematics of Sympathy

Although many commentators have excoriated the Spanish electorate for its capitulation to terror, we must never forget that the slightly smaller half decisively rejected it. These we honor and the rest we pity.

Some Idiot

The [Spanish] Government's defeat also reflected public anger with the decision to back the United States in the invasion of Iraq, a policy initially opposed by 90 per cent of the Spanish public.

AM

If we're going to distribute honor and pity among the Spanish population according to how they voted in the recent elections, it seems only reasonable that we apply a similar rule to those who died in the Madrid bomb attacks. Those who supported the Popular Party's decision to back the United States are worthy of being mourned as martyrs to the cause of freedom and democracy; that's 20 people. The other 180 we can write off as a bunch of paella munching appeasement monkeys who paid the ultimate penalty for their refusal to recognise the harsh realities of the world we find ourselves in.

The calculation assumes that those killed in the Madrid bombings were a representative sample of the Spanish population. This is a questionable assumption; there's little reason to believe that the terrorists were looking to perform a statistically reliable massacre. But it's reasonable to conclude that the majority of the Madrid victims had probably opposed Spain's involvement in the war in Iraq.

Which all makes me wonder why any of the various bloggers and commentators who have depicted the Spanish election result as a clear case of caving in to Al-Qaeda are wasting any sympathy on the Madrid victims, when what the Spanish people really deserve right now is a bloody big "I told you so!"

AFP Commissioner Soft on Terror?

That seems to be Mark Steyn's message in this opinion piece in today's Oz:

"THE bombs dropped on Baghdad exploded in Madrid!" declared one "peace" protester in Spain. Or as Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty put it, somewhat less vividly: "If this turns out to be Islamic extremists . . . it is more likely to be linked to the position that Spain and other allies took on issues such as Iraq."

By "other allies", he means you – yes, you, reading this on the bus to work in Australia. You may not have supported the war, or ever voted for John Howard, but you're now a target. In other words, this is "blowback". This is what you get when you side with the swaggering Texas gunslinger and his neocon Zionist sidekicks.

It's a worry isn't it; there you are reading the Oz on your daily commute from Belgrave to Flinders St and, on the opinion pages of the jewel in the crown of Australian journalism, you discover that one of the nation's key police agencies is being run by some soft-headed loon who's prepared to go on national television and run that crazy "Islamic terrorism is all our fault" line. Well, it might be, if Steyn wasn't such a lazy bastard (sometimes, I'm a lazy bastard too, that's what makes it easy for me to recognise Steyn's lazy bastardry).

If Steyn had bothered to do a little more research - if for example, he'd obtained a video or transcript of Keelty's interview with Jana Wendt on the Sunday program - he might have spared himself the embarassment of trying to score points off Keelty. Early in the interview, Keelty spells out the police approach to the problem of terrorism:

JANA WENDT: So what conclusions are you drawing from what we now know about this attack?

MICK KEELTY: Well, I think the arrests early this morning indicate that some of the early predictions about who might have been involved are starting to shore up now in terms of Islamic extremism. But we have to let the investigation run its course, like we did in Bali. We have to let the evidence emerge from the investigation, and then make our determinations from there.

Because unlike, for example, intelligence agencies and others who quite properly make statements and make predictions about many of these things, the law enforcement role is to provide the evidence and use that evidence as fact.

I suppose Steyn might be counted here as one of those "others" and, unlike Steyn, for whom it might be quite proper to "make statements and make predictions", the AFP are constrained by the need to actually gather evidence before they go pointing the finger of blame or, as Steyn does in his article, speculating on the complete lack of intelligible motivation on the part of terrorists.

Keelty's "it's all our fault" statement comes later; here it is in full:

JANA WENDT: Well, Commissioner, that brings me to the question that most Australians are asking themselves. Could this happen here?

MICK KEELTY: Well, I think we've said all along this is an uphill battle. This is a marathon, not a sprint. The reality is, if this turns out to be Islamic extremists responsible for this bombing in Spain, it's more likely to be linked to the position that Spain and other allies took on issues such as Iraq. And I don't think anyone's been hiding the fact that we do believe that ultimately one day, whether it be in one month's time, one year's time, or ten years' time, something will happen.

And no one can guarantee it won't. And I think there's a level of honesty that has to exist here in terms of what the problems are here, not only in Australia but in our region.

But on the threat level, the threat level here in Australia hasn't changed. It still remains at medium. It has been at medium for some time for an attack on Australians in Australia.

Beyond the suggestion that the bombing in Madrid was linked to Spain's position on Iraq, what precisely is wrong with what Keelty has said? it strikes me as a reasoned and honest assessment of the situation; certainly more reasoned that Steyn's third riposte:

Commissioner Keelty is confusing old-school terrorism – blowing the legs off grannies as a means to an end – with the new: blowing the legs off grannies is the end.

Nothing Keelty has said, incidentally, is inconsistent with Steyn's belief on this score; it's quite possible that Keelty would agree with Steyn on this score - he might see the Iraq rationale as merely a convenient excuse for terrorists to blow the legs off grannies. This still leaves the possibility that terrorists are more likely to blow the legs off Australian grannies than, say, Venezualan grannies because in the latter case they would have to strain their intellects to come up with new excuses.

Steyn finishes with a lesson from history:

So the choice for pluralist democracies is simple: You can join Bush in taking the war to the terrorists, to their redoubts and sponsoring regimes. Despite the sneers that terrorism is a phenomenon and you can't wage war against a phenomenon, in fact you can – as the Royal Navy did very successfully against the malign phenomena of an earlier age, piracy and slavery.

Personally, I'd find the lesson a little more salutory if it weren't for the fact that both malign phenomena were fostered by the English in the first place; the first through privateering the second through various slaving companies set up under Royal charter. In both cases it took them a century or two to clean up their act.

Afterword: Bizarrely, Phil Ruddock was on AM this morning, arguing, like Steyn, that Keelty was wrong to link the Madrid bombing to Spain's involvement in Iraq. He even used one or two of Steyn's examples. Unlike Steyn, he was trying to hose down the threat.

To Err Is Human

I wasn't entirely comfortable with Professor Bunyip's description of me as "gentlemanly" last week - it makes me feel like I should have a couple of "seconds" for other gentlemen affronted by this blog to call upon, to make the traditional arrangements for a meeting at dawn. I really wouldn't want to get into that sort of gentlemanly behaviour, unless I could be absolutely certain that I could manage things so that I had choice of weapons whenever I found myself faced with a demand for satisfaction.

Still, I'm sure that the appellation was intended as a compliment, which I'm pleased to be able to return - so all credit to the gracious and gentlemanly Gudgeon, S.

Studiously Ignoring Madrid

Just up on the ABC web-site this World Today report covers the three competing theories on who was responsible for the Madrid bombings:

Three theories are emerging. The first, favoured by the Spanish Government is that this was the work of the Basque separatist group, ETA.

The bombs are said to have been made with the same type of explosive used in the past by ETA terrorists, though the leader of a Basque political party linked to ETA has denied it was involved.

The second theory is that Muslim extremists possibly linked to al-Qaeda were behind the bombings.

This has been given substance by the discovery of a stolen van containing detonators and a cassette tape of Koranic teachings, and the delivery of a letter to a London Arabic language newspaper purporting to claim responsibility for the attack on behalf of al-Qaeda.

And the final theory is the chilling possibility that this is the work of two terror organisations, which have put aside their ideological differences in order to target a common enemy.

I don't think it's worth adding anything to that. Not even the instructions on how to make "pump canals" for which, according to the Google Translator you need "5 ... spoonfuls" of ETA's favourite explosive.

Qu(ot)e?

While I was Googling up references for another post, which has so far been about two weeks in the making and probably won't ever appear here anyway, I found this interesting tidbit from a famous historical document:

10. If anyone who has borrowed a sum of money from Jews dies before the debt has been repaid, his heir shall pay no interest on the debt for so long as he remains under age, irrespective of whom he holds his lands. If such a debt falls into the hands of the Crown, it will take nothing except the principal sum specified in the bond.

11. If a man dies owing money to Jews, his wife may have her dower and pay nothing towards the debt from it. If he leaves children that are under age, their needs may also be provided for on a scale appropriate to the size of his holding of lands. The debt is to be paid out of the residue, reserving the service due to his feudal lords. Debts owed to persons other than Jews are to be dealt with similarly.

I'll leave it to you to track down the document in question; it should be simple enough for proficient Googlers. I think you'll be surprised when you find it.

Bits

Fancy yourself as Maxwell's Demon? (link via boynton).

And here's the latest news on the Florida end of Collins Street.

Finally, a slightly overdue hello, to new readers who found this blog through Tim Dunlop's Blogjam at Web Diary. I would have posted this yesterday, but I was too busy trying to come up with something that dealt with the events of the day in a quirky way. It ain't all beer and skittles being one of the blogosphere's real discoveries.

Another Di[s]appointing Homonym

Victoria's Chief Police Commissioner, Christine Nixon, was on the radio this morning, talking to Jon Faine. One of the subjects they discussed was the fact that the Australian Crime Commission will be assisting the Victoria Police with their inquiries in the Piranha investigation. Well that's what I thought she said. Twice. On checking the printed media, it turns out that the investigation, into Melbourne's recent spate of gangland killings, is called Operation Purana.

It had me going for a moment there; I was looking forward to reports that the case had been cracked by an undercover policeman who had adopted the persona of Sancho Panza from Man of La Mancha, complete with outrageous Welsh accent, to penetrate Victoria's underworld and find the guilty parties.

The Talented Mr Copperfield

I've been reading bloody Charles Dickens again. The last time I was in my local library, looking for something by Phillip K Dick, there wasn't anything there I hadn't re-read at least once in the last two years, so I succumbed to the temptation to look a couple of shelves lower and came away with a copy of David Copperfield. It's the 1996 Penguin Classics edition with a post-structuralist introduction by Jeremy Tambling; Derrida, Foucault and Deleuze all score a mention in the first paragraph.

Now, we all know that life was tough in Dickensian England - that's why we call it Dickensian after all. The poor lived out their lives in squalid, drastically underlit hovels walled only by cheap painted canvas flats, while the more affluent middle class could afford more robust constructions of wallpapered plywood, with a birdsong atmosphere track and a yellow flood outside the cellophane window to simulate the afternoon sun. The affluent and the poor alike were all pretty shabby people, dressed in re-tailored cast-offs from last year's serialisation of Pride and Prejudice. It's hardly surprising that people living in such deprived circumstances would have such a high mortality rate.

But the body count in David Copperfield is pretty high even by Dickens' standards. In Chapter IX, David has a memorable birthday; he is told by Mrs Creakle, the wife of his school headmaster, that his mother has died of Supernumary Character's Disease (SCD). By the time he arrives home for the funeral, he learns that it was, in fact, a highly contagious form of SCD which has carried off his step-brother as well.

In chapter XXX, Barkis, the carrier who has married Peggotty his childhood nurse also succumbs to SCD. In the following chapter, Little Emily, his childhood friend, abandons home and fiancee to become a fallen woman - in due course she will suffer a Fate Worse than Death (FWD) and achieve eventual redemption in chapter L. Chapter XXXVIII brings the Mysterious Sudden Death (MSD) of David's employer Mr Spenlow who is also the father of David's intended Dora. By chapter XLVIII Dora, now married to David, is showing the first symptoms of an obviously terminal case of SCD herself. In chapter LIII ( a good 57 pages later), she too dies, but not before infecting her dog Jip.

In between the deaths of Mr Spenlow and Dora, David and his friend Mr Peggotty (brother of his childhood nurse) prevent the suicide of another fallen woman Martha. Finally, at the end of chapter LV we learn of the death of the estranged husband of David's aunt Miss Trotwood; a death which releases the last slender hold the obsequious Uriah Heep might have over her.

At least three of these deaths - the deaths of Mr Spenlow, Dora and the dog Jip - occur in circumstances which suggest that there might be darker forces at work than the ordinary risks of being a minor character in a Dickens novel.

Spenlow is found lying by the road a mile from his home, after his horses and carriage arrive there without him. His death occurs the very night after he has confronted David with the love letters that David has sent to his daughter Dora without Spenlow's knowledge. Their confrontation includes the following revealing exchange:

'... you can hardly think,' said Mr Spenlow, 'having experience of what we see, in the Commons here, every day, of the various unaccountable and negligent proceedings of men, in respect of their testamentary arrangements [i.e. making their wills] - of all subjects, the one on which perhaps the strangest revelations of human inconsistency are to be met with - but that mine is made?'

I inclined my head in acquiescence.

'I should not allow,' said Mr Spenlow ... 'my suitable provision for my child to be influenced by a piece of youthful folly like the present. It is mere folly ... But I might - I might ... be induced in some anxious moment to guard her from, and surround her with protections against the consequences of, any foolish step in the way of marriage. Now, Mr Copperfield, I hope that you will not render it necessary for me to open, even for a quarter of an hour, that closed page in the book of life, and unsettle ... grave affairs long since composed." [My emphasis]

Later, after giving an account of the rest of his day, and how he spent the evening, David describes how he arrives at work the following day to learn that Mr Spenlow is dead, and includes this hearsay description of Mr Spenlow's corpse:

"[he was] more than a mile off [from home] ... lying partly on the roadside, and partly on the path, upon his face. Whether he fell out in a fit, or got out, feeling ill before the fit came - or even whether he was quite dead then, though there is no doubt he was quite insensible - no one appears to know. If he breathed certainly he never spoke. Medical assistance was got as soon as possible, but it was quite useless."

Very strange; was Spenlow's death the result of a desperate author realising that he has painted himself into a corner plot-wise, or did a certain protagonist decide that he would actively prevent the father of his beloved from opening "even for a quarter of an hour, that closed page in the book of life"?

The case of Dora and her dog Jip is even more troubling. The basic facts are these; by chapter LIII, Dora's Supernumary Character's Disease has progressed to the point where she is bedridden and, as is typical of these cases, aware that she only has another dozen pages, tops, before she's out of the story. The dog Jip, has also aged rather rapidly ovee the course of fifty or so pages and is now quite decrepit. Dora has also developed the remarkable insight into her own situation and the motivations of other characters that is often seen in patients in the late stages of Supernumary Character's Disease:

"I am going to speak to you Doady [David]. I am going to say something I have often thought of saying lately. You won't mind?" [Dora said] with a gentle look.

"Mind my darling?"

"Because I don't know what you will think, or what you may have thought sometimes. Perhaps you have often thought the same. Doady, dear, I am afraid I was too young."

...

"I am afraid, dear, I was too young. I don't mean in years only, but in experience, and thoughts, and everything. I was such a silly little creature! I am afraid it would have been better, if we had only loved each other as a boy and girl, and forgotten it. I have begun to think I was not fit to be a wife."

Dora's thoughts on her marriage to David aren't far from thoughts of his own that David has revealed to us. But the most remarkable part of this episode is yet to come.

David's real love Agnes is also present in the house (at Dora's request). After this last conversation with David, Dora tells him that she wants to speak with Agnes in private. So David returns to the parlour, where he is alone with the dog, while Agnes is upstairs alone with Dora. Here is how the chapter ends:

He [Jip] comes very slowly to me, licks my hand, and lifts his dim eyes to my face.

"O, Jip! It may be, never again!"

He lies down at my feet, stretches himself out as if to sleep, and with a plaintive cry, is dead.

"O Agnes! Look, look, here!"

- That face, so full of pity and grief, that rain of tears, that awful mute appeal to me, that solemn hand upraised toward Heaven!

"Agnes?"

It is over. Darkness comes before my eyes; and, for a time, all things are blotted out of my remembrance.

The coincidence of the dog dying immediately before David learns of Dora's death is striking; but we can't help wondering what Agnes got up to while she was alone upstairs with Dora. Did she rearrange the pillows with extreme prejudice while David was downstairs seeing off the dog? Was it just Dickens, glossing over the detail to get Dora out of the way so he could move onto more interesting* things, or did something darker happen here?

* "more interesting" in the same way that you might consider scratching your balls more interesting than scratching your arse. Or vice versa; your scratching preferences are your business. Let's keep it that way.

Santoro Watch

I learnt a new word today: winegate. It's a Queensland word for "storm in a teacup". Star Coalition bench-warmer, Senator Santo Santoro used the Adjournment debate yesterday to give the Beattie government a good hiding over the fact that "an illicit $10 bottle of cab sav" found its way into a dry Aboriginal community on a government jet carrying Queensland Indigenous Affairs Minister, Liddy Clark.

Senator Santoro began by making it quite clear that he had no personal axe to grind with Ms Clark:

Tonight I want to speak about the disgraceful behaviour of the Queensland Premier in relation to what has become known as the winegate affair. At the outset, I want to say to honourable senators that I have thought very deeply about all this before deciding to speak out publicly. I did so because the Queensland minister who managed to enmesh herself in this unseemly display is Liddy Clark, the person who defeated me in my state seat of Clayfield in 2001. For three years I have purposely not made any critical public comment on her so that no-one on the Labor side of politics or indeed anywhere else would be able to claim that it was sour grapes on my part. But tonight I am duty bound to comment on the moral bankruptcy of the Premier of Queensland and the government that he leads—the government that he leads from well behind the action if we are to believe what he has a track record of claiming when in difficulty that he did not know.

No, it is Senator Santoro's painful duty to tell it like it is; to call a spade a spade and an incompetent an incompetent:

It is inevitable that my comments tonight will necessarily go to questions of Ms Clark's behaviour as a minister. The shameful farce that she and the Premier have visited on my state for the past week as they try to evade what otherwise would be the inevitable penalty for their stupidity is a disgrace to public administration and to the government of Queensland. It is hardly possible to credit that an illicit $10 bottle of cab sav somehow flew all the way from Brisbane to Lockhart River in the far north of Cape York Peninsula in the government jet with the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy aboard, via an overnight stop at Weipa, and failed to come to her attention. My comments will inevitably raise questions about Ms Clark's suitability for ministerial office after one term in parliament as a backbencher in which the closest she came to setting the world on fire was to sing a song in parliament and stage a smoking ceremony to chase away the spirits when she took over the electorate office I had just vacated.

Senator Santoro then turns his forensic intellect to an analysis of Peter Beattie's nefarious involvement in "winegate":

...

In relation to the so-called winegate affair, there is very strong evidence of ministerial impropriety by Mr Beattie, among others. At the height of the Netbet affair Mr Beattie finally stood aside his then Treasurer, David Hamill. On the face of it, the winegate affair is less serious. In fact, it is a farce. But, politically, it is a bottler. The conflagration that Mr Beattie is now battling is one he started himself. The Premier's conduct in all of this has been completely inappropriate. The conduct of his office also demands close scrutiny ...

and finishes with a timely warning that "winegate" is no laughing matter:

... The people of Queensland, and doubtless others in other places, are having a rare old laugh. As Peninsula Regional Council chairman, Eddie Woodley, and Cairns Regional Council chairman, Terry O'Shane, said in a statement they released yesterday, the attention being given to `a single bottle of unopened plonk' is just unbelievable. And that is it in a nutshell. The Premier has brought this crisis on himself. He is in grave danger of making himself a laughing stock. That would be tragic because he does not deserve that. He deserves to be seen as an antidemocratic wrecker of the process of government and of the lives of people who get between him and his image ...

Postscript: Senator Santoro was also busy on Monday, when the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties considered a proposal that Australia withdraw from the International Fund for Agricultural Development. As Senator Santoro is at his best as a committee performer, I might give that the once over later this week.

Pop Culture Gender Bender

A friend has passed on a marketing E-Mail about "VC Andrews" latest posthumous novel Celeste:

Cleo Virginia Andrews was born in Portsmouth, Virginia, and initially made her living as a fashion illustrator and ad designer. She published her first novel, Flowers in the Attic, in 1979. More than 40 novels later, there are over 90 million copies of her works in print. Following her death, the Andrews family worked with a carefully selected writer to organize and complete Virginia Andrews' stories and to create additional novels inspired by her storytelling genius.

In Celeste, the first book in the new Gemini series, Celeste and her identical twin brother, Noble, are as close as can be -- until a tragic accident takes Noble's life. It's a loss that pushes their mother, a woman obsessed with New Age superstitions, over the edge.... Desperate to keep her son "alive," Celeste's mother forces her to cut her hair, wear boys' clothes, and take on Noble's identity. [my emphasis]

At Amazon.com, Flowers in the Attic is described as a "dark, terrifying tale of passion and peril in the lives of four innoocent children". Celeste just strikes me as dim.

It's a Man's Game

A LAWN bowls fracas left a man in hospital after violence erupted during a quiet Sunday match at a suburban club.

The Hun

All Our Trade Will Be Free but Some Will be More Free than The Rest

[Labor trade spokesman Stephen Conroy] said the [Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement] also appeared worse for Australian farmers than first anticipated, with fine-print clauses giving America the ability to reimpose tariffs on Australian beef and some horticultural products if US prices dip significantly below average levels.

The Age

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he? Here's what the agreement actually says, in Chapter 3: Agriculture. First there's this interesting article:

ARTICLE 3.4 : AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARD MEASURES
1. Notwithstanding Article 2.3 (Elimination of Duties), a Party may impose a measure in the form of an additional duty on an originating agricultural good as provided in that Party’s section of Annex 3-A (Agricultural Safeguard Measures), provided that the conditions in paragraphs 2 through 6 are met. The sum of any such additional duty and any other customs duty on such good shall not exceed the lesser of:

(a) the prevailing most-favoured-nation (“MFN”) applied rate of duty; or
(b) the MFN applied rate of duty in effect on the day immediately preceding the date of entry into force of this Agreement.

2. The additional duty under paragraph 1 shall be set according to each Party’s Schedule to Annex 3-A.

In other words, although both parties have agreed to eliminate duties, either party will be able to impose dutiers on agricultural goods, as long as the duty has been set out in the agreement and a few other conditions are met.

Here's Australia's list of agriculutural goods which might in future be subject to Agricultural Safeguard Measures:



And here's a summary of the US' list:

Onion Powder, Dried Onions, Garlic Powder, Dried Garlic, Packaged Whole Tomatoes, Tomato Paste, Tomato Puree, Asparagus, Pears, Apricots, Peaches, Canned Fruit Mixtures containing Pears and Peaches, Canned Fruit Mixtures containing Oranges or Grapefruit, Frozen Orange Juice, Unfermented Grape Juice and Must and Tomato Sauces.

It's quite a revealing list, when you consider that the Agreement has to be ratified by the US Congress. Until I saw it I had no idea that the US' onion and garlic lobby was so influential.

Afterword: there's more on this topic from Josh Gordon in The Age.

Islamic Paintball Jihad

Three American Muslims accused of training for holy war against the United States by waging paintball battles in the Virginia woods have been convicted of conspiring to support terrorism.

The Age

The Spammegorical Imperative

Proof positive that at least one spammer has never read Immanuel Kant:



To: gummo.trotsky
Subject: W_a_n_t to a.void sp!am completely Gummo.trotsky?

This pro.gram wo.rked for me. If you hate S_pa_m like I do, you o w e it to your self to try this pro-gram, and forward this email to all of your fri.ends which also hate S+P_A+M or as many people possi.ble. Together lets help clear the Internet of S+P*A+M!

STOP .S_P*A+M IN ITS TR.ACKS!

Do you get jun.k, scams and wo.rse in your i.nbox every day?

Are you sic.k of s.pending valuable time re.movi.ng the trash?

Is your ch.ild recei.ving inappro.priate a_d*u_l*t material?

If so you sh.ould know that no othe.r solution wo.rks
better then our softw.are to return con.trol of your
e.mail back where it belo.ngs!

Ima.gine being abl.e to read your impor.tant em.ail
without loo.king thr.ough all that s*p+a*m...

C.lic_k bel.ow to vist our website:

Oops, I left out the hyperlink.

Tractatus Theologico-Geopoliticus

Axioms:

1. Anyone who criticises the current US President is anti-American.
2. The USA is the most Christian nation on Earth.
3. The current US President is the most Christian US President in world history.
4. Anyone who is anti-American hates Christianity.
5. Anyone who hates Christianity hates civilisation as we know it.

Conclusion:

C1: Anyone who criticises George W Bush hates civilisation as we know it.

This follows from Axioms 1, 2, 4 and 5 (whose truth has been established by frequent repetition elsewhere): to criticise George Bush is anti-American and because the USA is the world's most Christian nation it is therefore anti-Christian and hence (Axiom 5) demonstrates a hatred of civilisation. Additional weight is given to this conclusion by the fact that Bush is an openly Christian President (Axiom 3), so C1 also follows from Axioms 1, 3 and 5.

Infamous Plays

I've just been reading over the last scene of Nahum Tate's revised version of Shakespeare's King Lear. I couldn't help myself; I had to find out how Tate contrives to leave Lear alive and Cordelia married to Edgar.

The scene starts with Lear and Cordelia in prison. Lear is asleep. Cordelia makes a moving speech - it's best not to dwell on what, precisely, gets moved by Cordelia's impassioned words. As soon as she finishes speaking, a "Captain and Officers" enter with Cords. The Captain gives his officers these sinister instructions:

Now, Sirs, dispatch, already you are paid
In part, the best of your Reward's to come.

After a short verbal and physical fracas, Lear shows that he is still sprightly for his age; he

Snatches a Partizan, and strikes down two of them; the rest quit Cordelia, and turn upon him. Enter Edgar and Albany.

(A partizan is a medieval weapon similar to a halberd - I think).

With two of the murderous officers out for the count, Edgar reveals that the Duke of Albany is now in charge. An anonymous gentleman helpfully informs the audience of the fate of the two "officers" struck down by Lear's partizan:

Look here, my Lord, see where the generous King
Has slain Two of 'em.

Albany still has some important business of state to conduct, for which he requires witnesses. So he gives the following orders:

Bring in old Kent, and, Edgar, guide you hither
Your Father, whom you said was near,
He may be an Ear-witness at the least
Of our Proceedings.

Once the witnesses are assembled, Albany gives Lear back his kingdom. Well, most of it anyway:

For to your Majesty we do Resign
Your Kingdom, save what Part your Self conferr'd
On Us in Marriage.

Edgar reveals that Goneril and Regan are both dead:

Gonerill and haughty Regan, both are Dead, [420]
Each by the other poison'd at a Banquet;
This, Dying, they confest.

And yes, Edgar does get the girl (Cordelia), with her father's blessing:

... Edgar, I defer thy Joys too long:
Thou serv'dst distrest Cordelia; take her Crown'd:
Th' imperial Grace fresh Blooming on her Brow;

I just love a happy ending, don't you?

Remember When?

... recently ... I received an e-mail entitled "If you are over 35, you should be dead." As I am in fact over 35, I decided to read it to clear up the mystery of why I was not dead. On opening the message, I thought (an act that provided axiomatic evidence of my being) that I recognized the contents as an antiregulatory diatribe I had already received a few times. And if I've gotten this note a few times, perhaps some Scientific American readers have received it as well. Therefore, I decided to respond here, because I don't have all your e-mail addresses.

First, some highlights of the e-mail: "According to today's regulators and bureaucrats, those of us who were kids in the 40's, 50's, 60's, or even maybe the early 70's probably shouldn't have survived. Our baby cribs were covered with bright colored lead-based paint. When we rode our bikes, we had no helmets. As children, we would ride in cars with no seatbelts or air bags. We fell out of trees, got cut and broke bones and teeth, and there were no lawsuits from these accidents. Please pass this on to others who have had the luck to grow up as kids, before lawyers and government regulated our lives, for our own good! People under 30 are WIMPS!"

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that the target audience for this message is people who are alive. In data analysis, this is what's known as selection bias. Indeed, many kids didn't wear seat belts way back when. Some of them are now, in technical medical terminology, dead. The dead ones don't write such rants. Kids brain-damaged by lead or preventable blunt trauma may write, but they are probably not responsible for the above e-mail. Probably.

Still, life unfettered by bureaucratic interference remains tempting. And so I find myself musing on the good old days. I mean the really old days--30,000 years ago. Bureaucrats and lawyers didn't even exist yet. We were on our own and took responsibility for our actions ...

Steve Mirsky in Scientific American