From the Frankfurt, Germany Allgemeine Zeitung, November 16:
Occasionally, it occurs that hobby researchers make important scientific discoveries. If one accepts the press conference that was recently organized in Cyprus by an architect from Los Angeles, one could get the impression that such feat was pulled off once again.Hat tip and thanks for the information to Benny Peiser, who has more.
Robert Sarmast claims that he has definitely discovered the Acropolis of Atlantis in the Mediterranean Sea between Cyprus and the Syrian coast, presenting multicolored images based on measurements of underwater sonar. These images allegedly show the ancient castle of the sunk city, a channel as well as remainders of a city's wall.
What Sarmast did not know (or what he concealed), is the fact that [German] geophysicist Christian Huebscher of the University of Hamburg (Zentrum fur Marine und Atmospharische Wissenschaften), together with colleagues, analyzed and measured this particular area of the sea last summer on board the Dutch research ship "Pelagia."
The researchers were not in search for the lost island of Atlantis. As scientific experts on the mighty salt layers that rest under the bottom of the eastern Mediterranean, they wanted to find out more about their condition. Their sonar data also detected those submarine hills, which Sarmast now interprets as the Acropolis of Atlantis.
According to Huebscher, however, these [structures] are old mud volcanoes that are approximately 100,000 years old. These volcanoes were produced because the mud which lies under the salt layers penetrates through fractures and breaks into the salt layers and bulges the bottom of the sea floor. Such 'mud diapirs' exist on the bottom of many oceans. Thus, such finds are not as spectacular as the baseless statement that the legendary Atlantis has been discovered.
belowStreetLevel has kindly said some nice things about this blog, for which I thank them, but I want to direct readers to their post linking to yet another Ted Rall monstrosity: A cartoon in which Rall tries to make fun of President Bush, but in his incompetent, malevolent way, viciously ridicules physically and mentally handicapped kids instead.
Ted, handicapped children bring a lot of joy into this world. You, on the other hand, don't.
Addendum: The following story (excerpt only) appeared in Editor and Publisher on November 18, 2004:
WashingtonPost.com is no longer running the cartoons of hard-hitting liberal Ted Rall.
Rall said he thinks the site dropped his work because of a Nov. 4 cartoon he did showing a drooling, mentally handicapped student taking over a classroom. "The idea was to draw an analogy to the electorate -- in essence, the idiots are now running the country," he told E&P.
"That cartoon certainly drew a significant amount of negative comment from our users," said WashingtonPost.com Executive Editor Doug Feaver when contacted by E&P. But he added that the decision to drop Rall was a "cumulative" one that had been building for a while.
"Ted Rall does very interesting work," Feaver said. "Some of it is not funny to an awful lot of people. We decided at the end of the day that it just did not fit the tone we wanted at WashingtonPost.com."
David at The Sparse Matrix does me the honor of linking to and discussing a recent column I wrote (available on our website in the form of a short paper).
The column was part of a debate Knight-Ridder published on November 3 -- they asked one liberal and one conservative to each write a 650-word op-ed on what the President should do over the next four years. The pieces were marketed as a set.
I was the conservative, Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and Policy Research was the liberal.
The piece was a bit bit tricky to write, not least because it was due noon the day after the election, and thus had to be written while votes were being tallied. (I decided to take a chance and write it as if Bush would win.) It also was tricky because it is impossible to describe every important issue a President should cover over four years using just 650 words or less.
I covered the war and economic prosperity, because you just have to. Then I tossed in Social Security, health care/Medicare, taming the federal regulatory monster (or, at the very least, reducing its growth), and legal reform.
David at the Sparse Matrix believes I should have added two more. I think he's right about the first issue he raised. The second issue was new to me. I'd heard of private space exploration, of course, but I had no idea that anyone among the feds wanted to squash it like a bug. Sometimes I suspect government sees its role as crushing every ounce of spirit humanity has (excepting that related to laviscious artwork and banal thoughts on public broadcasting). I hope David will continue to cover this issue in his blog, as I'd hate to see the federal government stop private space exploration.
My piece generated a lot of really vicious hate mail. I didn't even bother having it posted in our hate mail samples file. A lot of it was worse than what's in the sample file, even after I responded politely just to see if the sender would get a little bit abashed when he realized a real person was on the other end of his venting. You wouldn't believe the nasty things that were said. Even the critics who didn't call me names said I was a liar (people who disagree with my point of view on Social Security seemed particularly likely to dismiss the entire issue by screaming "liar! liar!."
People also were upset because some of the newspapers ran the piece under a headline saying Bush had a mandate. I didn't write the headlines and didn't address the mandate issue, but I got both barrels for it anyway.
I mention all this as one more bit of evidence that the left really has lost its mind since November 2. My piece was, after all, published as part of a tandem with a liberal author (copies of Mark Weisbrot's piece can be found in the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, the Cincinnati Enquirer, or his organizations's website, among other places) who was pretty critical of Bush and the right, so it isn't as if both sides weren't represented.
So, anyway, I enjoyed reading the Sparse Matrix's take, especially as my morals and my intelligence weren't slammed even once in the entire piece. Refreshing!
The Heritage Foundation's Nile Gardner, who is closely following the United Nations oil-for-food scandal, is predicting (on Fox's O'Reilly Factor tonight) that Kofi Annan may go down because of the scandal.
If Gardner is right, I hope Annan takes the whole U.N. organization down with him.
Addendum: Everything I Know Is Wrong has an informative post up on oil-for-food, covering new comments on the controversy by William Safire of the New York Times and Lou Dobbs of CNN.
I wonder what Ted Rall will say now?
On a more sane note, blog readers might be interested in an op-ed Dr. Rice contributed to Project 21's national op-ed syndication service, New Visions Commentaries, last year. It is a good piece (by the way, folks are welcome to reprint it -- assuming they give full credit to the author, Dr. Rice, of course) that makes me feel encouraged about her nomination to the very important post of Secretary of State.
The National Legal and Policy Center has submitted a shareholder resolution to Verizon Comunications requesting that the Verizon "Board of Directors to establish a policy precluding future financial support of Jesse Jackson, the Citizenship Education Fund, Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, and/or any other nonprofit organization founded, headed or primarily identified with Jesse Jackson."
Among several reasons for the action given by the NLPC are, according to the shareholder resolution:
The Company's relationship with Jesse Jackson creates controversy and impacts the Company's corporate image, brands and reputation. The news media has critically examined the relationship and will continue to do so as long as the Company is publicly identified with Jackson.The resolution has been proposed for consideration at Verizon's 2005 annual meeting.
In order to demonstrate a sincere commitment to diversity, rather than supporting Jesse Jackson, the Company should support individuals and organizations that promote genuine civil rights and economic empowerment.
CodeBlueBlog continues to try to unravel the mystery surrounding Yasser Araft's cause of death, while fisking -- in a highly amusing way -- statements made on the matter by the late terrorist's associates.
I was planning to blog about Ron Bailey's new piece on global warming in Reason, but I see that Sean at Everything I Know Is Wrong has just done so.
So, instead, I recommend Sean's piece -- and I would have done so even if Sean hadn't ended it by kindly linking to the National Center's own Global Warming Information Center.
From an article by Irwin M. Stelzer in the November 22 issue of the Weekly Standard:
More than one of the policy wonks scattered throughout the administration is giving serious thought to a radical change proposed almost 10 years ago by Charles Krauthammer (a contributing editor to this journal): marginalization of the U.N. At a conference last week in Washington, sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, Krauthammer re-floated that idea. The U.N. can't be eliminated, its gleaming tower converted to higher-value uses. So parallel institutions should be created. Over time, these new institutions -- which will consist only of the world's democracies, if Soviet dissident and Israeli minister Natan Sharansky has his way with the Krauthammer proposal -- will replace the U.N., which will wither into irrelevance.Interesting.
That won't mean that America will always have its way. But it will mean that the new body will consist of nations whose main incentive is to produce better lives for their voters, rather than create external enemies as excuses for impoverishing their people. Right now, the development of these alternative institutions is only a gleam in the eye of far-thinking policy types. Rather as the U.N. was in the 1940s.
From a Morton Kondrake column in the November 8 Roll Call (excerpt):
"...Democrats need to understand where Evangelicals are coming from, what George Bush's faith is all about and stop being either terrified by or (often) bigoted against what they imagine conservative Christians are all about.There's lot's more, not all of which I agree with, but it is thought-provoking.
A prime example of condescending bigotry was the widely read Oct. 17 New York Times Magazine hatchet-job against Bush, "Without a Doubt," by Ron Suskind, which likened Bush's "faith-based presidency" to the Islamic extremist movement.
If fair-minded secular Democrats went to church -- they are open to the public, by the way -- here's some of what they'd learn:
Lesson No. 1: Far more than abortion, evolution or homosexuality, Evangelical Christianity is about love, redemption, forgiveness, charity, humility, hope and self-sacrifice.
The best Evangelicals I know truly change lives - they turn around people who are addicted to drugs and pornography. They give the despairing and the guilt-ridden reason to persevere. They restore marriages. They transform criminals in prison.
They try to follow Jesus, who, if they studied him a little, no Democrat could possibly be scared of. I think this is what Bush's faith is all about - not arrogance or mindless certitude, but humility and a sense of duty.
Lesson No. 2: Evangelicals are scared, too. They are scared of the fruits of secularism and the deterioration of the culture in which they're trying to raise their children. Of hip-hop lyrics that encourage rape and murder. Of PG-13 movies and "family hour" sitcoms that tell children that if they're not having sex at 16, they're out of it. Of the scuzzy showbiz people who often surround Democrats."
* "Theophobia" refers to people with an irrational fear of religion or religious persons.
Good thinking, Mrs. Hassan, new mom of twins named "Yasser" and "Arafat." Maybe one will grow up to be a mass murderer, and the other, a thief.
Just warms your heart, doesn't it?
I missed this when it was announced October 29, and suspect others who followed this case (which received a lot of attention from conservative talk radio) may have as well.
Roll Call, October 29, 2004 (excerpt):Addendum: Reader Eric F. recommends this Seattle Post-Intelligencer story on the Boehner-McDermott case:
Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) has been ordered to pay Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) $60,000 in damages, plus "reasonable" attorney's fees that could total more than $500,000, a federal judge ruled...
The groundbreaking case stems from a December 1996 phone call among House GOP leaders to discuss strategy for handling the ethics case against then-Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). Boehner, who at the time was GOP Conference chairman, took part in the call using a cellphone while parked at a northern Florida restaurant. The call was electronically intercepted by a Florida couple, Alice and John Martin, who eventually gave a copy of the tape to McDermott. He then gave the tape to three newspapers.
In March 1998, Boehner sued McDermott, alleging that the Washington Democrat had violated both federal and Florida wiretapping statutes by leaking the tape to the media. Since that time, there have been numerous legal twists and turns in the case, including a 1999 decision by Hogan to dismiss it that was later overturned by an appeals court, which then sent the case back to Hogan. Settlement talks in 2002 collapsed, and the two sides continued to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on their legal teams, shelling out approximately $900,000 overall, according to the latest estimates.
In his decision to award Boehner both statutory and punitive damages totaling $60,000, Hogan criticized McDermott's "outrageous conduct in this case." Hogan added: "The Court finds that Defendant's conduct was malicious in that he intentionally disclosed the tape to the national media in an attempt to politically harm the participants through an invasion of their privacy."
Boehner's attorney, Michael Carvin of the firm Jones Day, said he expects that McDermott will eventually have to cover all of Boehner's legal bills. "You always have nibbling at the margins, but we have a good reasonableness argument here," said Carvin. "We're quite pleased" with the ruling.
Another interesting tidbit on McDermott's fine -- he's getting lots of help ("heavy lifting") paying it off: McDermott's Allies Line Up to Help Him Pay Damages.I liked the end of the piece:
Funny (but not surprising) how the PI turns it around and makes the issue into a Republican issue.
The judge's ruling was a double blow because Boehner, a seven-term congressman who is chairman of the House Education Committee, said he was willing to settle for a much lower amount.Addendum II (11/20/04): Apparently, it is not resolved. McDermott plans an appeal.
"I told him there are three issues," Boehner told the P-I in August. "Admit you were wrong. Apologize. And since I was suing him for $10,000, I wanted him to make a donation to charity. He couldn't bring himself to do it."
Yet another strike against the European Union.
One begins to get the impression that Europeans horrified by the re-election of President Bush are not just horrified at the U.S. vote tally, but that George W. Bush was allowed to run for office at all.
Hat tip: The Sparse Matrix.
Addendum: It occurs to me that Belgium is one of the "good" nations in the United Nations. Food for thought.
From Power Line: Garrison Keillor "jokes" that born-again Christians should not be allowed to vote, while the New York Times runs a piece ruminating on the implications of assassinating President Bush.
I know this is the silly season, but I truly expected less silliness from people/institutions who actually have (had?) reputations to protect.
Addendum: Keillor, writing on his website (viewed November 15, 2004) clarified his opinion somewhat in response to a letter. The following is the letter and that part of Keillor's response dealing with the subject of Christians voting:
Dear GK -Keillor then went on to another subject entirely, his memories of singing the Star Spangled Banner.
I listened this week to the post-election show and enjoyed your comment about wanting a Constitutional amendment to prevent born-again Christians from voting but would like to clarify a little. Born-again is a little imprecise, don't you think? I consider myself born again, that is born again of the Spirit (see John 3:5). But even as I laughed, I thought, no, he means post-millenialists. Those are the ones that think the sooner the world goes to hell in a handbasket, the sooner they get to the rapture. However, there are plenty of "born-agains" who care deeply about the world, would like to repair it, are even political activists. I really wasn't offended, because as an evangelical Christian I've gotten used to being lumped in with people whose application of their faith is abhorrent to me - I opine that they haven't read the Scriptures carefully and I venture to say that Mr. Bush has not really understood many things about Jesus very well at all. If I thought this dreadful situation was permanent, I'd not get out of bed in the morning. But I believe that somehow God wins, wins every battle and rights every wrong and wipes away every tear, and doesn't need the Constitution to do it. And I love you and your show - it's been part of my life for so long I can't remember not hearing your voice.Caroline SatoCaroline,
I grew up among post-millenialists and probably that's why I conflated them with born-agains in one big ball of wax and I apologize for my inaccuracy. However, I don't think that the term "post-millenialist" would instantly register with our public radio audience, so one is forced to use shorthand. Thanks for your thoughts...
So, after reflection, Keillor says he does not advocate a constitutional amendment taking the vote away from all born-again Christians -- just some of them. Thanks for the clarification.
Addendum (11/20/04): I received the following e-mail regarding Ms. Sato's (and Garrison Keillor's) use of terms:
Caroline Sato is incorrect. It's dispensational premillennialists who believe the world is going to hell in a handbasket. They believe in an always imminent rapture. Postmillennialists believe that through the preaching of the gospel, the world can be transformed.
(For more on Mr. DeMar's views on this issue, go here.)