A bit of a break, maybe.

I have noticed that my writing isn't up to my usual standards. As this is an outlet for my rants, that might not be critical to others, it bothers me.

Accordingly, (if anyone is still looking here) I'm going to wait for things in my life to get back to the point where I can concentrate on my vanity projects before I embarrass myself further. I am however pretty sure I'll be back.

Slippery Rollercoaster

I'm not even sure how I feel about this, but it's dangerous territory for debate. Naturally, I want to stir that up a bit...

British MPs ... blocked a bill which would have banned the creation of inter-species embryos by a vote of 336 to 176.

Critics had argued that creating human-animal embryos would be a "step too far" and ethically questionable -- some going so far as to brand the technique "Frankenstein science."

But Prime Minister Gordon Brown told a British newspaper that such cutting edge research could "bring new cures and treatments to millions of people."

I am in favour of most forms of actual progress (as opposed to plain "development" or expansion), but this stuff is a big can of worms. The inconsistencies in my personality are revealed very effectively by my responses on this topic.

Being non-religious (technical term for my position is "agnostic") my morality is my own, not out of anyone's books. That does not, for the record make things simpler but rather more complex since I have no assurance that I'm right past what my gut tells me. My gut is by far the smartest part of me, and even it has problems here.

One thing I am categorically opposed to is raising another child for the sole reason of providing a tissue or organ bank for a sibling. It's one thing to know that you were a surprise or an accident, but there are pleasant surprises and happy accidents, so that's not the end of it all. Being put up for adoption because you weren't part of the plan is a selfish act by your parents OR in your best interest, depending on the circumstances, so again a hard thing to generalize about.

I cannot see how a child who was born just for that purpose would feel about it. The first thing that I think is that it seems the well-being of the first child is more important to you than that of the "saviour" one. The term "saviour" is a bit loaded too; coming from a Christian-based culture it suggests suffering for the greater good. Maybe I'm reading to much into that, but it fits pretty well.

In all of this a line has to be drawn somewhere, and for me personally an embryo is just a bunch of cells until it's formed into something that at least looks like a person, and even then until it's capable of surviving on its' own it's not really child to me either. Those are my (blurry) lines, and others can feel free to have their own.

Based on that, pretty much anything you want to do to a bunch of cells is fine with me as long as that is as far as those cells will develop. The slope for me appears with how far along you allow the development of these hybrids to develop. Science has no morality of its' own, and coupled with capitalism, if left unfettered anything can and will happen.

We have laws for this reason, and so far Britain is being fairly progressive but not in "The Island of Dr. Moreau" territory just yet. Parting one kid out for your other kid(s) will remain repugnant for me whatever they say. There are other things that can be done which don't (I feel) necessarily push things over the edge.

The creation of life is a crapshoot, and loading the dice a bit in your favour isn't out of the question as far as I'm concerned. For that reason I have no fundamental objection to a bit of genetic engineering, but I really don't know if we can figure out what you can safely take out/put in without a lot of experimentation. It is the human results of that experimentation that I would not be prepared to face, as I couldn't justify what I had done on the basis of necessity.

What is necessity? Your only child will die unless they get an exact tissue match? At this point you should ask yourself why you're having children in the first place, and I won't even try to answer that for you. There is a certain amount of risk in life; the Nanny State would like to remove as much of it as possible but I think this separates us too much from whatever laws of nature govern our reproduction and survival.

While on that note, I think there are far too many of us. Unlike some people I don't propose to fix that myself, but I strongly feel that something will eventually arrive to cut us back. Yes I just finished re-reading "The Stand" but that is merely co-incidental. There are enough influenzas, Ebolas, etc. of various sorts to do the job without some sort of man-made disaster stemming from genetic engineering, so I don't worry about that as an existential threat.

Not too coherent but I'm not being marked on it, I'm just venting. Whatever the UK government comes up with now, that won't be the end of it even if somebody spawns the Queen of the Harpies out of this animal embryo thing. Buggered if I know all the hidden laws and the balance of Nature, so I'll just go with my gut and play the hand that's dealt me as best I can. I will however think about it as I do so.

If it was obvious to me...

Another lost opportunity, quel surprise. That said, at least it was recognized in time by one of the major players, unfortunately not the one on the ground to do the job:

Israel’s Missed Boat in Lebanon

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report

May 18, 2008

Sunday night, May 11, the Israeli army was poised to strike Hizballah. The Shiite militia was winding up its takeover of West Beirut and battling pro-government forces in the North. When he opened the regular cabinet meeting Sunday, May 11, prime minister Ehud Olmert had already received the go-ahead from Washington for a military strike to halt the Hizballah advance. The message said that President George W. Bush would not call off his visit to Israel to attend its 60th anniversary celebrations and would arrive as planned Wednesday, May 14 - even if the Israeli army was still fighting in Lebanon and Hizballah struck back against Tel Aviv and Ben-Gurion airport.

American intelligence estimated that Hizballah was capable of retaliating against northern Israel at the rate of 600 missiles a day.

Olmert, defense minister Ehud Barak and foreign minister Tzipi Lvini, the only ministers in the picture, decided not to intervene in Lebanon’s civil conflict. Iran’s surrogate army consequently waltzed unchecked to its second victory in two years over the United States and Israel.

I really can't say much other than that. As I mentioned a week or so back (see: "Here We Go Again, Lebanon") this was a golden opportunity to further "Western" interests (including those of most of the Lebanese population), and I was not alone in thinking so.

The one scintilla of comfort I can take from this is that the Americans seem (again, unconfirmed reports and all) to have been prepared to back Israel while it did the dirty work it will eventually need to do anyway.

There has been a lot of talk about the future of Israel on its' 60th anniversary. To me, Israel only made it as far as it did by being prepared to put the smack-down on its' enemies, and this recent (last 10 years or so) softening of resolve doesn't bode well for another 60 years.

A drop in the ocean

The idea that China needs the 200-strong DART to help them out is quite frankly laughable, and a sign that whoever came up with that plan is really out of touch. China is not some failed third-world state; it is a powerful global economic and cultural force with massive armed forces.

DART could definitely help somewhere like Burma, but it's unlikely they will get the chance. That is no reason to try to cook up things for them to do elsewhere in the region; one country that doesn't want them should be enough for the moment. This story kicked up a lot of comments, but most if not all of them missed the fact that China has no interest in DART at all.

The head of the Chinese Canadian National Council can say whatever she wants, but China doesn't need us or want us so I can't see our government pushing it unless they've completely lost their collective mind.

I thought I had a lot more to say about that, but sometimes less is more I guess.

The first thing we'll do, let's ignore all the lawyers!

I've not really a lot to say about this, except that if a group of lawyers is arguing for or against something, I'm inclined to do the opposite of whatever they present:

Lawyers' group urges Tories to kill immigration bill

Updated Mon. May. 12 2008 11:08 AM ET

The Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- The Canadian Bar Association is urging Parliament to discard amendments to immigration legislation, calling them "a major step backwards in the evolution of Canadian immigration law.''

The association's Stephen Green says Bill C-50 would return Canada to a time when visas were given out on a discretionary basis, without sufficient objective criteria.

The changes would fast-track highly coveted immigrants -- such as doctors and other skilled labourers -- while others would be forced to wait behind them in the queue.

They would also allow government to set annual limits on the number of applications processed.

The bar association acknowledges the backlog of immigration applications and labour shortages are critical but it suggests the proposed measures are overkill.

Anybody else share my reaction to that headline? I maintain that I see nothing at all unreasonable about the government's interest in exercising some discretion and control over immigration to this country. I also doubt that a pile of lawyers got together against it concerned only with the greater good.

As always just my knee-jerk, reactionary personal opinions.

Calling a spade a shovel

Israeli Ambassador to Canada Alan Baker on Thursday defended comments he made to a national newspaper regarding Canada's Muslim population.

Alan Baker told The Globe and Mail he is concerned Canada's burgeoning Muslim population is shifting this country's policies in the Middle East. The Globe interview appears on the same day Israel celebrates its 60th year of independence.

Baker told CTV's Mike Duffy Live that Muslim communities have impacted foreign policy in countries like Britain, France and Scandanavia -- and that he "fears" Canada might follow.

For one thing, I 'm happy that he's backing up what he said because it has to be said, and not only for Israel's sake. Any kind of external self-interested group is a threat to what precious little we can still call the "Canadian way" and Muslims are no exception to that.

In this country the church and state are supposed to be completely separated, and there is a worldwide Islamic movement to impose their order. It's not very strong in absolute terms, but it is sneaky. I can't imagine that any other religious grouping with an axe to grind would have the sort of impact that Muslim groups are having in the theoretically non-Muslim, secular West.

Again, not a big problem in Canada yet, but it does bear watching both here and elsewhere, and not just for Israeli interests. The point that the Ambassador makes about being shouted down at or just plain shut out of speaking engagements in this country shows that there is a problem. There is supposed to be a spirit of debate or at least freedom of expression here, and intimidation and threats are a threat to that.

Here we go again, Lebanon.

Lebanon is spinning out of what precarious control it was in (again). My apologies to my Leb friends, but your beautiful home country is a basket case and it’s going to get worse, far more likely than not. [note: since I wrote this initially, the army and the government of Lebanon have caved to most of Hezbollah's demands, so we'll see where it goes from there. (10 May)]

(The title link incidentally is to the main page of the "Debka File" an always interesting look at this part of the world from an Israeli perspective. I can't link to the particular stories, but they have interesting claims to inside information, especially to Iran.)

Ever since fighting the out-of-shape IDF to a stalemate in 2006, Hezbollah has been rebuilding its networks and arms caches, infiltrating every level of the Lebanese government and Army, and has not even been slowed down by the useless UNFIL troops vacationing in sunny south Lebanon.

While I can appreciate the delicate position the government and the army is in, it’s curious to see at what point these preparations for another crack at Israel/coup d’état were judged to have gone too far. This coms network can’t have been a secret to anyone, it was too damned big, and if Hezbollah is building it it’s not for the greater good. That whole fiasco at the Beirut airport with the cameras and the crooked head of security was also predictable in view of the importance of the airport for Iranian arms shipments.

Regardless, things have come to a head, and can rapidly get a lot worse. As I write this the Israelis haven’t directly involved themselves, but if I were running things over there they soon would. That said, this is where their poor treatment of those who should be their allies will work against them once again.

When the IDF pulled out of the buffer zone in south Lebanon in 200, they threw their allies in the South Lebanon Army to the wolves. Had the Israeli government supported the SLA after the pullout, there would be no Hezbollah fortress in the south of Lebanon, and they would have motivated allies who would be fighting on their own ground when push inevitably came to shove.

Well they didn’t so they don’t, and here we are. What would be the best strategic move for Israel right is to tactically hit Hezbollah in the south while it is distracted dealing with the government and other forces. You know the war is coming, (just like in 1967…) and hitting your sworn enemy while his other enemies are distracting him is a solid plan anytime.

This would also force Hez to divide their forces and conform to your initiative which is better than waiting for them to be ready to fight you. These are the basics from Sun Tzu on down, and they’re no less true now than when Sunny learned them himself. Subduing the enemy without fighting may be the acme of skill, but allowing them to defeat your potential/de facto allies in detail before they turn on you is the likely outcome if the Israelis were to try that here.

This could happen, but there is the matter of the UN. UNFIL troops have been quite ready to point things at the IDF planes, etc., while at the same time turning and running every time Hezbollah tells them to keep their collective nose out of things. This is pure speculation, but based on past IDF practice, if the French (for example) were to radar illuminate IDF planes on bombing runs, I can see those same planes going Wild Weasel on their ass.

It’s not a nice thing to say about theoretically allied nations, but if the UN troops there won’t do what they are supposed to do (e.g. prevent Hezbollah from re-militarizing the border zone) then they’d better get the hell out of the way if the shooting starts. If they’d had the cajones to prevent said buildup, there would be no shooting to avoid, but effective action is not what the UN is known for.

Allowing Hezbollah to have complete control of Lebanon is not in the interests of anyone besides Iran and Syria; neither is a country which am I anxious to see achieve their aims, nor should you be. This represents a good opportunity to give them a real bloody nose and I’ll be watching to see if any of the major "blue team" players (read: Israel and America) think so too.

On a purely personal note, this one is my 100th post on this blog, so a round-number milestone for "Arithmetic on the Frontier" for those keeping track.

Whatever works is right.

First off there’s the flap about our guys talking to the Taliban in the first place, about which much virtual ink has been spilled. I’m a big “means justifies the end” guy, although this presupposes that your ends are well chosen. Note that I don’t say “well-intentioned”; we all know what road is paved with those!

Somebody is in a fair bit of trouble for saying this to the media in the first place, but that’s their career not mine. On a certain level I respect them for being pragmatic and working around the box, but from a realistic perspective, that’s not the sort of thing you need to tell the media about. If it works, great, but it’s always easier to beg forgiveness (after it works) than to get permission to do something off the beaten path. Enter the current flap:

KABUL–Canadian soldiers, and their civilian associates, have no business pursuing parallel peace chats with the Taliban, no matter how low-level the probing for mediation.

That was the sharp rebuke yesterday from President Hamid Karzai's chief spokesperson, in an interview with the Toronto Star.

"There is an important principle here,'' said Hamayon Hamidzada. "All efforts to negotiate with the Taliban on this should come through the Afghan government, and we have been saying this for a long time. We are willing to negotiate. The president has made this clear. But it can only happen if the Taliban are prepared to lay down their arms and respect the constitution of Afghanistan. Without this, there can be no progress. So, no, we do not encourage separate negotiations by Canada or any other NATO country.''

Diplomatic rule #1 in any situation: never embarrass your boss/the host country. Karzai’s government has had no luck talking the Talibs down, and it’s debatable how interested they are in doing so as long as NATO sticks around. That rank speculation aside, our attempting such is going behind the Afghan government’s back, which probably explains the vehemence of the MoD’s reaction when the subject first surfaced.

I won’t get into whether the idea was sound or not past to say that even if it was kept on the down-low I feel nothing significant would have been achieved. What they (Taliban) want and what we want, or even would like to see and in fact what we are fighting for, is just too far apart. This brings us back to the non-Pashtu areas of the country:

Many here worry that, in a serpentine way, Karzai is offering the Taliban leadership political legitimacy – even as Omar demands control of 10 southern provinces, withdrawal of all foreign troops and release of every Taliban prisoner.

If anything approaching that scenario were to unfold, it's fair to ask what was the point, then, of ousting the militant Islamists in the first place? What was the point of the West sacrificing treasure and blood to stiffen the spine of a nascent central government with modest democratic values?

The non-Pashtun warlords won't have it anyway, a quasi-Taliban II in Kabul.

That way lies civil war, the sequel.

[As an aside, I have some news for this TorStar reporter; this is already a civil war, the same one it was before we showed up, and likely the same one that will flare up bigger and badder whenever we leave.]

Hmm, this is all looking a bit familiar. I have in the past foreseen this logjam, as I have a capacity to occasionally learn something from history and general human nature. My proposal was to set up some sort of “Talibanistan” in the areas the Northern government couldn’t hold, thus cutting our losses and (if you chose the border wisely) allowing the Kabul government and any foreign partners an easier job.

Those “10 southern provinces” are all (mostly) Pashtun, the sea in which the Taliban swim so freely. Cutting them loose is not the ideal; that would be denying them a sanctuary, but barring hiring the entire Chinese Army to cordon and search everything from Kabul to Islamabad, the ideal solution is physically and diplomatically out of reach.

Again, it won’t happen either way. What will happen is inevitably half-assed unless perhaps guys like “General” Dostum and the old Northern Alliance crew get hold of the government. As long as we (at least) support the Afghan government the Taliban will never retake Kabul, and Kabul is the only hope for any part of Afghanistan to ever again even resemble a progressive society.

This is really an ethnic/religious/ideological conflict with roots going back centuries if not millennia, about as miserable a combination as you can find. It’s the kind of thing that only ever ends when one side so completely dominates the other that then latter will never rise again, or if you can effectively separate them.

It’s all good for a mild rant at least, but there is a lot of inertia involved in this mission despite the screaming and hair-pulling that goes on about who’s willing to do what, where, and for how long. It is obvious to me that short of a time machine to somehow stop the USSR from invading (though they didn’t do it just for kicks even then), and possibly more importantly keep Charlie Wilson and the CIA from sowing the seeds of 9/11 and Afghanistan II, there is no clear exit strategy for NATO in Afghanistan.

“Pick your fights and if need be cut your losses” would be my advice, were I in a position to give any.

Yeah, what he said...

My trolling of blogs with a lot more traffic than mine pays off again; this is a rather long interview with

Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology, Western Washington University, author of 8 books, 150 journal publications with focus on geomorphology; glacial geology; Pleistocene geochronology; environmental and engineering geology.

who has the background to put solid examples and his own (proper) research behind what he has to say.

What he has to say is the same thing that most people with any geology at all would say about our current climate hysteria, and he does a MUCH better job than amateurs like myself can. I know enough about this stuff to be able to tell that he's not full of shit, but I can't match the expertise of a professional in his/her own field.

The short version: it's that bright thing in the sky, you know, the hot ball of fusing hydrogen and helium. There's a lot more to it, to whit:

KLC: I could draw it myself, you have a peak in ’98 and it’s been flat or declining since then. The trend depends on where you start. They love starting in 1850…
DJE: That doesn’t work because there are 30-year cycles. The chairman of the IPCC admits we’ve had global cooling for at least eight years, and there are sources on the Internet, you’ve probably seen them, that show the IPCC folks are panicking.
KLC: Talk about an inconvenient fact…
DJE: On the temperature curve, 1998 was the high point, and this year, we’ve cooled dramatically. It’s been kind of flat for ten years, sort of a plateau, but if you take 1998 as your starting point, it’s down slightly, not soaring as predicted by IPCC.
KLC: Playing the devil’s advocate, if you start in the early 90’s, you would still have a positive trend.
DJE: If you want to be really honest about this, the curve should rise from 1977 and end after 1998. It depends on what you want to show and how you want to filter it. You can filter it with a two-year average, a five-year average, or over whatever period you want and you’ll get a differently-shaped curve. The point is, it has not gotten warmer since 1998; it has not continued to warm in the last ten years.

It's a bit long and slightly (though not excessively) technical, but if you have any interest either in what the climate is actually doing, or in the people trying to make a lot of money or/and destroy our technological society by panicking the sheep among us, you MUST read it.

The debate is not (ever) closed, but I think the interview speaks for itself, so I'm out for now.