The observant will also note that I haven't actually been posting. For this sorry state of affairs, I blame World of Warcraft, which is at least as good as you have heard, and probably better. University has resumed, so my playtime will be sharply decreased . As a consequence, I may even find some time to post again. We shall see.

pstops -pletter "6:1(0,0)+3(0,-0.6666667h)+2(0,-0.3333334h),4(0,0in)+5(0,-0.3333334h)+0(0,-0.6666667h)" $*

Magic, but it worked for me. Took about an hour of cursing to get the values right - and now, you can fix it too! No need to thank me. (Note - possibly useful on a Gentoo Linux using LaTeX and the leaflet package. Probably not useful otherwise.)

Critics also worry about the studies left out of the reading panel's scope. Of 100,000 studies first culled by the panel, all but experimental research that adhered to the scientific method were eliminated. That left around 40.

Given that I did not go to a public school, I can easily calculate that
about 1/25th of 1% of all studies adhere to the scientific method.

*sigh*

The sad thing is, this comes from an article attacking a mandate that
schools must use a reading program supported by "scientifically based
research". The horror... The very next line in the article has this lovely
quote: "It's raising quantifiable data to the equivalent of a truth..."

(Via Joanne Jacobs)

(Speaking of computer problems, I really can't recommend the customer service of Newegg enough.)

One explanation is that DHS is so bad, what activity there is hasn't been found, but that strikes me as unlikely - as ineffective and haphazard as so much of their activities seem to be, they aren't THAT bad. But the alternative explanation is that no such activity is taking place, which seemed equally unlikely - why wouldn't people who so loudly declare their enmity to the US an everything it stands for at least try something?

The obvious answer is because there simply isn't that much terrorist activity at the moment. The problem with this answer, of course, is that it doesn't seem to be true. Certainly the families of the victims of the attacks on Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Indonesia, Turkey, and the rest would disagree! But consider also this:

Terror cells regroup - and now their target is Europe

That's an extensive roundup, published in the Guardian, of terror activity all over Europe - and there's a LOT of it. Certainly you can assume that the police will be mistaken about much of it - but consider also that they will be missing much as well. If the article is to believed, Europe is teeming with terror cells, and it's only by good fortune that Europe (outside of Turkey) has avoided any attacks so far. Example:

Al-Qaida terror plot foiled, say French police

The French authorities seem quite convinced that they only just managed to prevent attacks on Paris using chemical weapons.

Let's have a pause to think about that. Terrorists, using chemical weapon, attacking the capital of a first world nation. Welcome to the 21st century ladies and gentleman, be prepared for a bumpy ride. :-/

So, if terrorism is rife in Europe (which it apparently is), and if terrorism is rife in the Islamic world (which it obviously is), why is it not rife in the US? Could the Department of Bureaucratic Job Security actually be having some effect? It seems implausible, but if not them, what? The only other conclusion which presents itself is that the US's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan had an intimidating effect, and as intended, made the US safer - although this too seems unlikely. I never bought the critics argument that it would actually significantly increase the risk of an attack, yet at the same time, I didn't see how it would decrease it either, and I argued at the time that it was by far the weakest of all the arguments for war.

But if it isn't because of US actions abroad, and if it isn't because of US actions domestically, then whose actions is it caused by? I try and avoid making the mistake of assuming that the US is the only "actor" on the world stage, and everyone else must simply react. As hard as it may be to imagine, sometimes things happen for reasons completely unrelated to the US. But again, I have to wonder - if not us, then who?

War of Ideas, Part 2

(For those not already aware, New York Time's articles require a username and password - for those reluctant to deal with the hassle of registering (or the intrusion of telling them the demographic information they ask for) just use "laexaminer" for both fields.)

it seems Kilroy-Silk is not a very nice human being - funniest comment to date on the issue comes from his secretary, who said "[Kilroy-Silk] is not a racist at all - he employs a black driver". Oh, well, that's okay then! Regardless, his comments may well get him jailed for up to seven years. Even if nothing comes of that, he's been removed from the air. Meanwhile, the BBC still has Tom Paulin as a regular contributor - a man who said of "Brooklyn-born Jewish settlers" that "They should be shot dead," he says forcefully. "I think they are Nazis, racists, I feel nothing but hatred for them."

Right. Well, at least he wasn't advocating violence or something. In other related news, the police are investigating the Bishop of Chester, because he said:

"Some people who are primarily homosexual can reorient themselves. I would encourage them to consider that as an option, but I would not set myself up as a medical specialist on the subject - that's in the area of psychiatric health."

You may disagree with the Bishop's views - and I certainly don't agree with him - but police action seems exessive. Still, it's just an investigation, unlike a pro-hunting writer (and Telegraph columnist) who was arrested and held in a cell on suspicion of "stirring up racial hatered" after saying that the "rural minority" should have the same protections as other minorities such as blacks, Muslims, and gays. Again, you may not agree that people living in the countryside constitute a minority that requires or deserves the same protections as the other minorities listed above, but...

Good to see Britain is on the ball protecting us from these doubleplus ungood thoughtcrimes. Where would we be if people could wander around criticizing favored groups?

It doesn't take a great deal to string these incidents together, and get a disturbing pattern. If the 20th century should have taught us one thing, it's that the problem with government power is that sooner or later it will be used in a way you do not like. I wonder if those who applaud Kilroy-Silks fall from grace will be as happy when it's someone whom they agree with on the receiving end? For make no mistake, sooner or later, it will be...