*Updates*

To appease certain persons who claim that my blog reveals absolutely nothing about me and that they have absolutely no idea what's happening in my life, I am about to offer an update of what's happening. Which brings the number of posts about me happily into the double digits.

1. I've gotten a temporary lease of life yesterday (or so I thought) when the deadline for the submission of my moot memorial was extended to Monday. Unfortunately, my weekend schedule of fun and decadence was premised (I love this term) upon me actually being free that weekend.

2. Our team has actually made it into the CCS (Chancellor Challange Shield) finals. This actually holds some value for me not least because of the makeover vouchers (though the prize money would be great for pocket money) but also because I couldn't even make it past the prelim rounds back in J2 (2001), although we did go on to win the VCS that Saturday.

Anyway, the aim of this blog was to hopefully be for the edification of the general public and for me to blow off steam at some of the truely bad articles and argumentations I've read. Originally, it was to be an objective and funny source of opinion and commentary on burning issues (literal or metaphorical) of the day. I hope that it has still maintained sembalance of objectivity in that I can at least admit the arguments of my opponents. But the funny comes and goes.

And while I would seriously love to blog about what happens in law school (I'm formulating a TV script based on life in Law School along the lines of the West Wing. It's actually working out somewhat), I would seriously hope not to make too many enemies or hate fans as would likely be the case if I went along that merry little path. Maybe I'll start a private blog....

So yes, Peace!

I promise to post something on This House Would Legalise Animated Child Pornography soon, once I'm finished with the Australian judgements on Loss of Chance anyway.

*What have I gotten myself into*

Often called to mind when one is at the summit and just tipping over the edge into the abbyss, this mental notice and frame of mind is not exclusive to Information Ministers under Saddam.

But when it is readily called to mind and speech under different circumstances manifold over a singular day, it becomes like T2's Hasta La Vista baby.

At any rate, you much beloved (or otherwise) author is a mite busy with certain things like law school, debate, law school, readings i.e. law school, tutorials i.e. law school and moots i.e. law school. See the pretty widdle patterns there? Anyway, entered into a moots and am finding the water up to my nose.

It should be over soon. Hopefully. In the meantime, think about why This House Would Legalise Animated Child Pornography.

Peace.

*General Knowledge and General Fallout*

If my general workload doesn't lighten up anytime soon, and it shows no signs of lessening, I might to start declaring more lazy blog and no-blogging days. And of course that would spoilt my chances of getting nation (if not international recognition) of my blog, followed by product placements and endorsements and an invitation to write for The Economist. *Snort* yeah right...

Anyway, the NUS Student's Political Association is running a general knowledge cum current affairs quiz, of which yesterday was the preliminary round consisting of 35 MCQ and 15 short answer questions. To be honest, it wasn't particular hard nor was it utterly easy, mostly because my knowledge of the hard science is quite dismal and I have little head for numbers. Anyway, I have great faith in my teammates, Chew Lin and David a.k.a. Singapore's Second Brainiest Scholar and hopefully we'll learn that we make it to the finals on Tuesday.

But moving on with the story, one thing or anothe led me to recount a story which involved me setting such a quiz for the incoming batch of J1 debaters which included luminaries such as the entire first team of ACS(I) as well as speaking members of top schools like RI, MGS etc. It wasn't a fiendishly hard quiz in my opinion but its focus was heavily exclusive on geo-politics, current affairs and history i.e. stuff that you require as the basis of a successful debating career. It included questions like what and when was the Uruquay Round and what the heck was the Banana Wars about. The top score eventually went to Dennis Yeo of ACS(I) of about 68%.

Anyway, this got me and Her talking about creating a new test (because my computer had been hit twice by hard disk failure and a virus leading to a massive loss of data) and over dessert we did.

A sample question (first one with the correct answer gets a cup of tea from me): Rude without the R. Explain the significance of this person's theories to the issue of property rights. Bonus points for linking it to the Environmental Movement.

Peace!

BBC.com: Medics attack use of homoeopathy

*Knocks head against door*

How credulous could the BBC conceivably be?!! Could they not under the miracle that is homoeopathy?!!! Do they not understand how absolutely mind-boggling the concept is?!! How could they not understand the fact that a solution SO SO incredibly DILUTE that at 'normal' homeopathic solutions, it contains one part active ingredient in 50 earth sized pools of solvent can actually CURE SOMETHING!!!

That was sarcasm in case you didn't realise it =P.

But seriously though, I still think that BBC takes the idea of 'balanced' news way way too far and most media unfortunately give too much credence to woo-woo pseudo-science. The basis of journalism I feel is objectivity, which means sometimes you should point out when something is just bollocks.

Allows me to quote from Quackwatch.org and their description of how homeopathic 'remedies' are made. Hold onto your seat when you read it. The author disclaims all liability for any personal injuries and/or damages to any articles of chattel from the result of laughing too hard and falling off your chair, or the sudden desire to slam your head repeatedly against furniture so the awful knowledge can be removed from your cranium.

"Homeopathic products are made from minerals, botanical substances, and several other sources. If the original substance is soluble, one part is diluted with either nine or ninety-nine parts of distilled water and/or alcohol and shaken vigorously (succussed); if insoluble, it is finely ground and pulverized in similar proportions with powdered lactose (milk sugar). One part of the diluted medicine is then further diluted, and the process is repeated until the desired concentration is reached. Dilutions of 1 to 10 are designated by the Roman numeral X (1X = 1/10, 3X = 1/1,000, 6X = 1/1,000,000). Similarly, dilutions of 1 to 100 are designated by the Roman numeral C (1C = 1/100, 3C = 1/1,000,000, and so on). Most remedies today range from 6X to 30X, but products of 30C or more are marketed.

A 30X dilution means that the original substance has been diluted 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times. Assuming that a cubic centimeter of water contains 15 drops, this number is greater than the number of drops of water that would fill a container more than 50 times the size of the Earth. Imagine placing a drop of red dye into such a container so that it disperses evenly. Homeopathy's "law of infinitesimals" is the equivalent of saying that any drop of water subsequently removed from that container will possess an essence of redness. Robert L. Park, Ph.D., a prominent physicist who is executive director of The American Physical Society, has noted that since the least amount of a substance in a solution is one molecule, a 30C solution would have to have at least one molecule of the original substance dissolved in a minimum of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of water. This would require a container more than 30,000,000,000 times the size of the Earth."

This is why active ingredients sometimes include things are arsenic. It's impossibly safe. In fact, on two separate occasions, scientists and skeptics have made 15C dilutions of arsenic and gulp them down. And no, they're not dead yet for very obvious reasons.

Peace!

Answers in Genesis: CreationWise

Answers in Genesis: After Eden

Internet Infidels Database: Paradoy of CreationWise and After Eden

*Warning: The above links might portray humour offensive to some*

Just a quick background, Answers in Genesis (AiG) is a Christian Fundamentalist Organisation which believes in the absolute literal word of God i.e. the Bible. As the name suggests, they take the Books of Genesis (and the rest really) to be absolute literal fact. Hence God did actually create the Earth in 6 literal days, there was a worldwide catastrophic flood (though oddly enoug the Egyptians seemed to have done fine), there was an ark (which given the literal measurement in the Bible would not have supported all the purported life it carried) and all the animals in the world were in it (the more sophisticated argument is that there were in reality 16,000 'kinds' of animals from which we see the diversity of life we see today. *beat* just don't ask what a kind is or what the carnivours ate after the flood or during it for that matter) and the flood just happened to neatly sort out the fossil record.

And oh yes, humans lived with dinosaurs on a earth that's only about 6000 years old.

In fact they are so exclusive that if you believe that the earth is more than 6000-10000 years of age, you're an Old Earth Creationist and are not allowed into their organisation.

Anyway, the first two links to CreationWise and After Eden are comic strips that are based upon their own narrow sectarian beliefs. I think most rational Christians will be offended much less anyone else not of their 'faith'.

The third link comes from a forum thread in the Internet Infidels Database which has pretty good articles BUT again a WARNING, some (or most) people might find their parodies as offensive as the originals themselves.

So yes, Thursdays are now henceforth known as lazy post day.

Peace!

IHT.com: Alarm and Disarray on Rise in China

Certain snippets of news heard/watched/read today in various media, print and visual. China's population set to be overtaken by India. China scambling to deal with the problems of banned carsinogen used. Hong Kong unhappy with the above and setting up stricter laws and checks to deal with it.

And now this.

And so I posed a question to my mom and I asked her that given the current situation and the above facts, where would you choose to invest? China or India? Her answer was India without even missing a beat and the reasons she gave were remarkably similar to my, in sentiment if not phrasing.

What do Investors want? The most obvious answer would be that given a certain risk level, the highest returns on that given risk. And thus assuming that you had to invest over the short, medium and long term in the above two countries, the gut feel (and the smart money once the FDI numbers start coming in) would be I think on India.

Putting aside the fact that there are more English speakers in India than in China, or the fact that British colonial rule has created a culture that's more aligned with the 'West' than the rather prickly one that China has, I think it really boils down to an issue of trust i.e. who would you trust more given the quality and quantity of political culture and institutions in terms of accountability and transparency?

Let's not scoff at democracy. It's still the most responsive (some would argue too responsive) to the needs and desires of the people. The ballot box in India works. Nothing more so than the manner in which the highly favour BJP were kicked out and Congress elected in BECAUSE the majority of the urban and rural poor felt that the India Shining idea was a sham and that the BJP were not making life better for the majority of people. Of course, it helps that Congress is a legitimate and worthy opposition party.

Contrast this to China where the social contract seems to be breaking apart. According to the public security minister, Reuters was told of the 74,000 mass incidents (demonstrations and riots) that occurred in 2004, up by more than 27% from 2003, and in stark contrast to the 10,000 that occured a decade ago. There's a reason why people react violently and start massing in numbers and that's when it is felt that there's little accountability by the officials and when it is also felt that they have no way of making their grievances felt and acted upon effectively.

When one culture is based on the rule of law, more so at least than the other, where corruption is institutionalised and the maxim that the emperor is far away (such that the officials can come out and play) still remains very prevelant, it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that ceteris peribus, all things being equal, the first culture will be able to leverage on that advantage.

I've read Gordan Chang's book, "The Coming Collapse of China" and I personally think it's premised too much on annecdotal evidence and it really overstates the case (especially his dire prediction that the Party that was born from blood will only be able to end that way). However, his puts his finger on the pulse of the faultlines of China. Growing income inequity, the party responding with slogans and words, having lost not only its revolutionary credentials but its spirit as well. The anger of the rural poor and the ubran migrant workers. Anger felt elsewhere being fed against the party. But even assuming that China manages to tide all these problems, without more fundamental reforms, the coming decade might belong to her, but the decade after will be inheirited by India.

P34c3

*Too tired to update*

Slept at 3 in the morning, off to school 4 1/2 hours later, classes till noon and debate at 6 p.m. A debate where my partner and I propounded on the right of homosexuals to marry but not have children. Aye, what a tangled web we weave. So a more serious entry will be entered tomorrow once I've actually had some sleep.

However, I do have this to say. Why is it that the TCS 8 local dramas seem to have sunk to new lows of melodrama and truely utterly irksome, tiresome, trite and insipid tripe they call their prime time dramas. I hope for our collective sakes and sanity that they are not actually popular. As it is, I can hardly watch more than 30 seconds of it before my gastric reflux acts up and a splurt of acid goes up my stomach/esophagus into my throat, burning like the dickens and driving me to new heights of physical pain and mental torments I have yet to encounter since NS.

I have finally come to the realisation that what truely gets my gall isn't so much their sledge hammer moralising (although Touched by an Angel seriously drives me nuts...you know...touched in the head and all) but the fact that they treat their audience like absolute idiots who cannot follow more than one thread plotline or more sophisticated characters than the one dimensional morality figures that they play. In fact, the audience must be so dumb that we need dramatic music to tell us how to figure out what's happening on the screen. Either that or ensuring that the actors play stereotypical roles which call for a limited set of expression, each of which is readily understandable e.g. evil smirk, evil laugh, shy expression, good girl being taken advantage of shriek.

And because reality is just to complicated to encapsulate on the screen or maybe because we need a daily dose of inculcation of good moral and family values, the script reads like a 16th century morality play populated by figures of Charity, Greed, Avarice, Morality, Lust. And as such realism takes a back seat to atrocious music and gag worthy lines. Whatever semblance of nuance is scrubbed away like dirt in a surgery theatre. Humanity is JUST too difficult to portray, the idea of a person being capable of a variety of actions seems to be beyond the shows. The ideas of morality is clear cut and just so easily assimilated, as if ANY moral issue where to be so readily resolved.

Aaron Sorkin is my master now and I seriously despair of ever being able to watch a local made for tv drama with a decent fraction of its watchibility.

Peace.

CNN.com: Northwest states unite on car emissions

This really happened. A couple of months back, I was part of the NUS English Debating Team that when Down Under to the (relatively) sunny coast of Brisbane and this was the second morning we were there which meant that they were going to feed us breakfast. Anyway, fast-forward half-an-hour, one newspaper and a couple bowls of cornflakes later, we were joined by a member of another contingent, this one from one of the Australian Universities.

At any rate, between my reading of Snoop Dogg's attempt to end the 'beef' (feud) between the East Side and West Side (a literal war that has claimed many lives and a piece of trivia that came in useful) and commentary on the England-Australia Cricket match forthcoming was an article which stated that certain states in America were considering using ethanol as an additive to fuel (which is theoretically more environmentally friendly).

Anyway I have no idea how it came up...wait...here's what happened.

S: So anyway, certain states in America are legislating a E5 (which means adding 5% ethanol to the fuel) for all vehicles in the state. And I think it's a pretty good idea. Hopefully we start seeing E10 or even E30s sometime soon.

*Silence at the table*

S: (beat) *Clears throat* well this is a particular interest of mine, environmental standards and ethanol levels.

*More silence at the table and some weird looks*

S: This is really sad isn't it?

*Concuring silence at the table*

S:*sigh* back to my corn wheaties.

The reason I happened to bring that up was to reiterate that I am an environmentalist. It's just that my reading of Lomborg, my opposition to the Kyoto Protocol and my belief that the market can handle what is a seeming complex problem coupled with a belief that the world is not going to hell in a handcart has led a number of people to assume that I'm evil. Yes, I'm evil in certain respects but definately not because I'm not an environmentalist. This article is a very good example of how wealth promotes a better environment rather than the converse. Once you actually have enough money to stop having to worry where your next meal is coming from, you can actually start demanding better as opposed to simply adequate quality environment.

Now, the fact is, the biggest contributors to carbon dioxide pollution is not cars but energy production and heavy industries. However, considering the very cheap (by relative standards) gasoline prices in America and their perchant for gas-guzzling SUVs, cars are perhaps one of the biggest contributors in terms of disproportionality.

Theoretically, this is a pretty good fix. The price increases will probably be split between the consumers and the auto-industry. The auto-industry pays for the pollution it's causing with its factories and product and consumers pay for the cleaner air that they demand. Admittedly, the auto-industry is going to take a bigger hit since there already is a glut of cars on the market. But this is good in the long run and perhaps is a chance of certain carmakers to reinvent themselves and stop competing on SUVs and attempt to convert the consumers to smaller and more efficient cars.

But honestly, it isn't that the auto-industry is deliberately pushing inefficient cars, but that consumers want bigger and more power cars that tend to be more inefficient in contrast to the econo-box models. Case in point, simply look at the changing car taste patterns in Singapore. People do want bigger cars. So why should we penalise firms for responding to the wants of the people?

But having said that, this should be a big boot up the car-maker's butts and would be a good spur for more radical innovation as opposed to legislation. Companies should really view this in their own favour as this would forestall even more extreme reactions whether from the state or the environment movement.

If you got frustrated at the equivocation and wishy washiness of the previous few paragraphs, good, that's the way policy is suppose to be. There are very very few unnuanced moments and few where it can be readily said to have an absolute good or absolute evil. And those moments tend to be ones where the body-count starts racheting upwards.

Anyway, there's debate training tomorrow after at 6 p.m. at the Faculty of Law. We're meeting outside the moot-court. Come by and watch or participate. We're doing something on homosexual rights.

Peace.

EW.com: Most Embarrassing Sex Scenes

*The joys of sex*

One of the good things of blogging on sex (or esoteric stuff for that matter) is that once in a while you get people coming onto your site while using such search terms. My highest hit count from any particular search term thus far has been from sexually related search terms. Well, hopefully, whatever was written on those post was helpfully educational.

Anyway, the article over at EW.com is a giggling blast and shows the full comic potential of sex. I don't necessarily agree with the CNN's perspective on this subject, they calling in on the basis of "(t)he studios avoid(ing) graphic depictions of sex that will run into opposition from the movie ratings board, network TV censors, or the DVD department at Wal-Mart. When sex does appear in mainstream movies, it's glossed over and presented as a gauzily lit event that finds the man and the woman harmoniously in sync." And hence, "No wonder Hollywood directors are finding it less troublesome to present sex in comedic terms, as an activity that's awkward, unsatisfying, and above all, humiliating."

Let's face it, after the manner in which we don't glorify and mystify and taboo(ify) sex, I personally think that it's no a bad idea to demonstrate at it's very heart all the possible hijinks of sex. After all, if one reads Mills and Boons or some really bad fan fiction out there on the net, one would be led in the belief that all things will come together on THE NIGHT. Nevermind the fact that the manner in which the Abstinence Crowd wants to teach about sexual relations, the only possible, conceivable and feasible manner for ANYTHING to go right would be dependant on some form of Divine Intervention.

On a more serious related note, the dictomy between sexual relations and violence in the viewpoint of the public is never greater played out than in what can be sold in some of these big departmental stores. Some how, the depiction of sexual intercourse between computer figures is more worthy of an "Adult-Only (AO)" rating than outright graphic violence with all manner and assortment of weapons which only rates a "Mature-Only" rating i.e. 17 and above. The game which I'm referring to here is of course Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and in particular it's later incarnation with the Hot Coffee Mod.

Are we to expect that by the age of 17, a teenager would have no concept of sexuality or for that matter no sexual experiences in whatever shape or form that may take? Why the concern over activities or acts that take place between two consenting adults (or more, I try not to be judgemental that way) that cause no harm when less concern is demonstrated over something that causes REAL hurt and harm. How could slashing a breast cause less concern than stroking one?

It is always staggering how our media are more willing to depict blood & gore than they are to depict the human form nude especially when one considers there to be more redeeming qualities in sex than there is in violence. The 70s perhaps had it right, make love and not war. I'm of the personal opinion that sexual permissiveness in a culture might be a very good thing. The earlier children are expose to intimacy, the earlier the link between nurturing, relationships and good as well as the converse between violence, hurt and bad, will generate and develop.

There really isn't much hope for there to be any depiction of natural realisitic and graphic accounts of sexual relations on the screen anytime soon. So I guess a comic account of it will have to suffice for now. But I hope society will begin to see what's the more natural good.

Peace.

International Crisis Group on Zimbabwe

Marvellous report. Very worth a read. Take note in particular their recommandations taken directly from the above website below. Personal comments prefaced by a >.

RECOMMENDATIONS

To pursue constructive change through regional diplomacy:

1. South Africa should work with Nigeria and other African states, if possible through the African Union's Peace and Security Council and with the support of other African institutions, to establish a mission of distinguished former African presidents to explore with President Mugabe, ZANU-PF, the MDC and other political forces in Zimbabwe a political transition strategy, which might involve a dignified option for withdrawal of President Mugabe from an active political role, creation of a credible government of national unity, a period for new or revised political groupings to form and, ultimately, properly internationally supervised elections.

> It sounds terribly good on paper but runs into immediate political problems. The African Union (AU) is generally embarassed by Zimbabwe's Mugabe BUT South Africa has consistantly shown their support for Mugabe's party to the point to 'recognising' the 'validity' of their elections (rigged and more than tinged with outright threats and use of starvation as a political tool). The oddest remark that was made by South Africa was how the International Community was focusing on Zimbabwe but ignoring other nations. Talk about trying to change the subject.

And lest we forget, Mugabe has tremendous anti-colonisation/Independence credencials having fought successfully against the colonial powers. This brought him to power and leaders in other African nations have not forgotten this. Not to mention there still remains this fear that opposing Mugabe might allow him to portray them as the new puppets to the neo-colonialist West.

Furthermore, it's not as if there isn't an opposition force that has been trying more than valiantly at the risk of beatings or worse in an attempt to win power via the ballot box. So I find it next to impossible to see how it might even be a viable solution to try to reach a settlement by sitting all the parties down in an attempt to find a political compromise. Especially when there has been a systemic corruption of the political institutions and the disruption and destruction of civil society. Mugabe has turned his iron fist on opposition supporters in towns and has destroyed their homes and deprived them of shelter in an attempt to further consolidate his power. I simply don't see him stepping down anytime soon.

Having said that, however, the US did manage to solve the North-South problem in Sudan (which resulted in the East-West problem but at least it's a different problem). There needs to be a credible threat and as long as the US is too busy and the AU to weak without South Africa that's going to be a pipe-dream.

2. The Zimbabwe government, ZANU-PF and the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) should adopt open and constructive attitudes to efforts by South Africa, Nigeria, other African states and African institutions to mediate an end to the national political stalemate.

> *Snigger* well duh, talk about empty platitutes. The MDC is more than keen to cooperate but the ZANU-PF?

3. South Africa should also apply conditionality concerning at least economic reform to the credit line it proposes to extend to Zimbabwe and require a monitoring mechanism so it can assure itself that the conditions are being met and the money is being used for the intended purposes.

> Good one, it's not as if withdrawing that aid is going to suddenly improverish the people seeing as how aid is manipulated by the government for political ends where and when it's not simply stolen outright.

4. The United States, the European Union and its Member States, the members of the UN Security Council, and the wider international community should support the efforts of South Africa, other African states and African institutions to conduct meaningful regional diplomacy with Zimbabwe, including efforts to pursue political mediation such as that outlined in recommendation 1 above.

> Agreed. This is already happening but the US already has its platter full with the War on Terror and Sudan. And the EU? Well...it's the EU after all...

To build political capacity:

5. South Africa and other African states, African institutions, the United States, the European Union and its Member States, and other interested members of the international community should engage in stepped up programs of assistance to democratic forces with a view to developing over time a stronger civil society, a more democratic polity and a generally more effective political class.

> Yup! Absolutely! And since Zimbabwe doesn't qualify for the latest rounds of G8 debt relief, it offers the opportunity of tying that to democratisation. See here for further thoughs.

6. Zimbabwe civil society should seek the unity and regeneration of the pro-democracy movement, including by supporting elections for the leadership of the opposition at the earliest possible time.

> Well yes, but how one could legitimately ask. When starvation is used as a political tool i.e. not accepting more food aid and parcelling what's available to supporters, people in a desparate attempt to survive do end up supporting the ZANU-PF. It's going to take a very long time and in the short run, one could see all sorts of awful possibilities including the fact that a free and fair elections could benefit ZANU-PF the ruling party on the simple basis that they are the best organised. All there need to do really is to make a show of reform and people have a disturbing tendancy to buy that. This has been an unfortunate result of democratisation in certain sub-Saharan and Ex-Communist Central Asian states.

To maintain international pressure for constructive change:

7. The United States, the European Union and its Member States, the members of the UN Security Council, and the wider international community should:

(a) expand targeted sanctions such as visa refusals and asset freezes against senior government and ruling party figures and implement them more rigorously until there is meaningful progress on human rights and political reform;

> Didn't help in Myanmar...but then again, if the AU chips in, we don't have a situation like here where ASEAN provides them with a lifeline.

(b) encourage independent expert investigations, including by special rapporteurs, of allegations of serious human rights abuse, such as misuse of food aid for political purposes and torture of detained political opponents, with a view to pursuing remedial measures in the appropriate international forums; and

> We already know how bad the situation is, in fact when genocide occured in Sudan, every other nation except for the US refused to call a spade a spade.

(c) give no developmental assistance until there has been some meaningful progress toward political and economic reform, and then only upon the condition that specific further benchmarks are met.

> Why not? It's not as if the aid is helping the people anyway.

Peace.

*Kickstart*

Too sleepy to blog right today so here's some last minute advertising for Kickstart.

The NUS Debating Team is hosting its welcome tea this weekend! for more information, see below:


Dear All,

Have you wanted to explore the world and meet some great people? Here is your opportunity to do just that-- with the NUS Debating Team!

In the years past we have travelled to South Africa, Sydney, Melbourne, Bangkok. This year, we are looking forward to tournaments in Dublin, Manila and Wellington.

Not only do you get an opportunity to travel, you also pit your wits against the most nimble minds in the region or the world! In the process you learn about the many pertinent issues that affect you and the world around you.

So what are you waiting for!

To learn more, come join us at our welcome tea.
Event: Kickstart 2005
Date and Time: 20 August 2005, 11am
Venue: Function room 3

For more information, please email us at nusdebates@gmail.com

CNN.com - Israeli troops begin forced?Gaza evictions - Aug 17, 2005

What is there to say really? This is one area of land that is steeped in faith, religion, culture, tradition but most of all, this is a place drenched with the blood of martyrs and terrorists, saints and sinners from all walks of life and possible from the ends of the earth.

This is not so much a dangerous area but a tragic one. The two most dangerous places on earth goes to Kashmire and the Taiwanese Straits. Israel and Palestine are simply steeped in pathos.

Right or wrong, for better or for worse, the supposedly uber-hawk Sharon has faced down the settlers and their lobby and pulled out from some parts of the Gaza. To some, especially the settlers, this is nothing less than a betrayal, not just a political one but also a religious one. To the more secular minded, this is a pullout in the face of terror, a tacit admission that given enough horror, even the Israelis must bow to suicide bombers and the inevitabilities of 'martyrs'. That unlike the IRA, it's impossible to negotiate with an organisation that is devoted to your destruction. And Of course, if you were Palestinian and cannot conceive of politics in this region as anything but a zero-sum game, then this is merely a tactical retreat by Sharon as part of his larger strategy to consolidate and crush all opposition by using the West Bank Wall to starve out the isolated enclaves of Palestinians.

To others, it is a step in the right direction. An acknowledgement that since nothing else has worked why not just do something else. A hope perhaps that like Egypt in the 70s, there can be peace for land. A prayer that maybe this will finally shame the authorities in Palestine to do their jobs and stop allowing terrorist to dictate their foreign policy. And who knows? Maybe the intifada will finally be over and there will be peace in the Middle East.

But maybe, it's just too hot with not enough water and nary a hope for peace.

*This is an re-enactment*

To the surprise of many, not least yours truely, I found myself running not just for office but an elected one (as opposed to the unopposed interviews I've had thus far). Not just faced with the prospect of an election, the author found himself having to make a stump speech this afternoon in the form of an actual rally. 5 minutes speech and 10 minutes Q&A. Here's a dramatic enactment of what happened this afternoon, it's almost as exact as I can remember it

FLASHBACK: EARLIER THIS AFTERNOON.

S, a young idealist law student with a perchant of wanting a Lamborghini and a desire to save the world walks out of the Law Club towards SR 6 where the rally is to be held. He holds in his hands his speech and a stack of (6, wait 5 because he just stuck one on the fire-hose reel door) electioning posters.

There is a small crowd outside SR 6. Excited murmers can be heard. S spots his girlfriend, CL, who doubles up as his political consultant and editor. CL walks towards him and they move off into a small alcove to iron out some last details

S: Hey! Glad you could make it. Thanks for coming.

CL: Well yeah, I had time before classes anyway. So is there some form of seating arrangement or can I seat next to you?

S: I'm not entire sure but I doubt there's one. And yes, please seat next to me. I'm going second. So what do you think? Stick rebuttal points into my speech?

CL: Right. (beat) So what sort of girlfriendly noises shall I make during your speech later?

S: (momentarily thrown off) Um...right. (Hastily sticks his speech in front of her) vet my speech?

CL rapidly scans through the pages silently while S leans against the wall and drums his fingers nervously.

S: Well?

CL ignores him and continues reading till she gets to the last page. S continues drumming his fingers.

CL: Junk the last bit.

S: Huh? Wha?

CL: The last sentence.

S: But?!

CL: It doesn't flow.

S: But but!

CL: It doesn't flow, you build it up to a plateau and then it crashes.

S: But I wanted to end on a note of bipartisanship! "No matter who you vote for, please get out the vote and get your friend to vote as well".

CL: Precisely! It doesn't make sense after the build up. Put it somewhere else in your speech.

S: But! (with a resigned sigh) Fine...

S takes back his speech, takes out his pen and starts striking off the last paragraph.

CL: (Smiles) I was supposed to come and act like a submissive political wife and my first words ends up asking you to amend your speech. (beat) Hee!

S: Oh well. (beat)And while I'm at it I think I should tone down the first bit?

CL: Yes.

S: No point dissing NUSSU so soon right?

CL: Yes.

S: At least not in the first sentence.

CL: Yes.

With another sigh, S strikes out the word "ineptitude" and replaces it with "unresponsive".

S: You don't think it's too West Wing do you?

CL: Nope. Do you?

S: Well... I was trying to channel Aaron Sorkin. But this is an election for well, you know and not you know...

CL notices a lady standing next to S muffling a giggle.

CL: You know her?

S: Um...law colleague.

Well anyway, I'm running for Law's rep to NUSSU. My election posters are up in the faculty and it has a relatively late draft of my speech so it's close to what I said in SR 6. If you're a law student, please vote for me. If you have a friend who's a law student, ask her to vote for me!

Peace!

*On National Education Part Duex*

Six years ago, I sat down in a Lecture Room at ACS(I) to do a National Education survey. Six years later, today, I sat down in a Lecture Room in NUS to do an IDENTICAL National Education survey.

The questions and the formatting was still the same and the only thing that has changed was me. To wit, the last six years of experience which had me 'witness' and 'experience' the Asian Economic Crisis, The Chinese Indonesian Crisis, six racial harmony days, a War on Terror, the liberation of Afghanistan from the Taliban, an end to Saddam Hussein, the French in ardent defence of their version of Secular Humanism, the London Bombings and the European Response.

So while I think on balance, my answers ought to have been consistent with the viewpoints I held a scant six years ago, nevertheless the thing that struck me was the number of Don't Knows that I shaded. For I had found myself spending too much time analysing what the meaning of harmony meant and what connoctations respect had. In the end, when I couldn't figure out the exact shade of nuance I was looking for and having no ability to explain what might seem to be racist views, I took the easier way out by shading option 5 - Don't Know.

For harmony can be achieve in many fashions e.g. by pretending the problem does not exist and getting everyone (or the majority of the populace) to believe in that illusion, thereby making it the social reality. Or by clamping down severely on all forms of speech such that no conceivably speech involving race can come to the fore. And without fire, oil can never combust, hence 'harmony'. Or by allowing criticisms, sometimes even hateful ones BUT by inculcating the values of tolerance and liberalism in others and strongly rebutting such speech, harmony can also be attained.

Similarly, respect is a very loaded word and I cannot accertain what the drafter's intention was to be. As my friend succintly put it, I may tolerate your view but it does not necessarily mean I respect it. In fact I might adamently disrespect your view but I will still grit my teeth and bear it, this sums up my feelings against fundamentalists and such groups and opinions as they might advocate.

But while we're still on the issue of race, allow this poor author to share a little real life annecdote from his life. He takes a class called Comparative Legal Tradition and a questions that was put forth by the lecturer today was this, "Why does the author (of the book we had been allocated to read) think that race is a bad form of categorisation?" Quoting from the book, I replied that it was because of the intermixing of races which made it a bad form of categorisation. This led to an interesting discussion of the nature of race in Singapore and the ackwardness that this sometimes generated, for example in the entire learning of mother tongue bit or the sometimes really odd classifications that result.

It was then that I decided to make a comment since I felt very strongly on this topic. I said that I felt the government erronously equated ancestary with race, that just because I was born of 'chinese' parents, therefore I was 'chinese'. And the lecturer to my delight talked about the paranakan (Straits Born Chinese) to which I belonged particularly on my father's side. And as we know, we called ourselves the Queen's Chinese, were terribly anglophile in outlook and had more in connection with the malays (our native tongue was a mixture of english, malay and dialect) than with the Chinese per se.

Unfortunately, it seemed that I was not as clear as I had hoped myself to be for a fellow colleague made an entirely valid question when he queried that in the absence of ancestory, what the heck was 'race' then. The following was my clarification, that it really ought to be about ethnicity and the culture that one was brought up in rather than to whom one was born to. The example I gave is the one currently on TV called Full Circle which is about a pair of twins separated at birth and brought up in different cultures. I personally felt this made them 'chinese' and 'malay' to use crude racial terms. Because at the end of the day, the time by which we could use race as a convenient shorthand for culture is long gone and we really ought to relook this aspect.

So the next time someone asks you for your race, just tell them "Human".

Peace!

*On National Education*

There's just something terribly odd with the manner in which this sentence is phrased, "You have been selected to do a compulsory national education survey". I think it's the sentiment more than the syntax obviously.

Guess I'll just find out tomorrow. By which time I would have hopefully come up with a post on National Education.

Peace.

CNN.com - Justice: 'Serious flaws' in death penalty - Aug 7, 2005

I think my opinions on the death penalty (pretty much against it) hasn't changed much since I made a short speech (as part of a class activity) back in ACS(I) when I was Secondary 2. Prior to that I was pretty much ambivalent to the claims of the death penalty, it would hardly affect me after all. But on the back of an issue book on capital punishment from the library, I decided that I couldn't really support this particular system of punishment after all.

In a prior post I listed a series of questions on what I thought ought to be the major underpinnings of any decision with regards to capital punishment. Interwoven in these questions in the original post were personal opinions/answers which were removed for brevity's sake (never thought I would say that did you?).

1. On what basis are you basing your theory of the general part of the criminal system on i.e. a theory of punishment and responsibility? Is it retributivist or utilitarian?

2. On what basis are you basing your theory of the special part of the criminal system on i.e. what acts ought to be criminalised?

3. What's the basis for a state's right to kill? Does that right extend beyond the right of self defence into criminal law? If so, why or why not?

4. Even assuming that it is justifiable (I believe in using it for convicted terrorist for example), does it do more harm than good?

5. Even assuming that it is good and justifiable for say murder and terrorism, does the same logic (philosophical or empirical) apply to crimes that do not directly take lives, say drug trafficing and corruption (admitted only countries like China and Vietnam are doing it)?

6. And even assuming points 3, 4 and 5, what about the possibility of executing an innocent person? Does the possibility justify the usage of the punishment ever?

Till now, I haven't seen anything that demonstrates that the death penalty is indeed an effective deterrent. More effective than say enforcement. In fact having read Freakonomics, I pretty much more convinced than ever that punishment plays a pretty small role in determination of whether a crime would be committed.

My concern with what Justice Stevens says (coming from what can be garnered from the article) is that it is limited to the legal procedures and processes that lead to the condemnation of a person's life. If so, the obvious question is whether it is inconceivable that a system cannot be designed that could overcome these flaws. But more than that, it neglects to address the theological and philosophical underpinnings of this peculiar mode of punishment. Granted, as a utilitarianist, I don't give much of a fig but still...

But when a Supreme Court Justice comes out to speak on a particular issue, it never hurts to listen. So with that remarkable bit of understatement I'll end this little post.

Peace.

*Countdown to School*

Not unlike King Henry (or was it George) the call rings out, "once more unto the breech dear friends, once more". And so begins yet another academic year in Law.

Hopefully I will be able to maintain some semblance of blogging this time round.

Peace. See ya around.

Dispatches from the Culture Wars: ACLU Archives

The ACLU has largely been mischaracterised as some form of evil organisation that seeks to restrict the religious freedoms of others (read particular sub set of Christianity, maybe because these groups are the most politically activist). So it might come as surprise to some that in the defence of Civil Liberties, religious freedom is a very very important part of it.

There is no dicotomy between being against school prayer but for school Children to organise bible study classes using school facilities. The reason is that the separation of Church and State simply means that the government will not attempt to establish a state religion or to promote or discrimate for or against one religion over another. In other words, a sort of neutrality based upon secularism. Thus as long as the activities pertain to religious freedom (particularly the freedom to worship which is what the original colonies are about) there really isn't a big problem.

The problem comes when there are religious activities (notably prayer or even the pledge of alligence) which clearly promulgate a statement of intent of faith in the judeo-christian construct. Imagine in Singapore if something along the lines of In God(Or Allah or Brahma) We Trust were to be inserted into our pledge. Even school prayer was a very touchy issue for me.

Of course one could refuse to go along, but classmates notice and comment and evengelise (today's ST forum involved a secondary school student upset at the evangelism of the Christian community in his school). I couldn't get out of chappel without my parent's consent despite the fact that I held no truck with the entire doctrine. All I ask is for those not of the particular faith to put themselves in our shoes.

At any rate, I believe that a line between Church(or Temple) and State is not entirely possible but we should try our hardest anyway. For if your arguments are going to be premised on a narrow subset of a particular doctrine, why should that be forced down my throat. Harm(or utility) is a good concept not matter how critics attempt to focus on one small section and blow up the controvesy. Sort of like anti-evolution critics.

Peace.

U.S. Newswire : Releases : "Focus Pleased by Retraction of False Statements by Evolution Advocate..."

Ah yes...my beloved fundie group 'strikes' again. So they consider modern evolution "an intellectually bankrupt education policy". I'm going to be kind here and draw some links for them and try not to ascribe too many things to their organisation.

1. I'm going to presume that their idea of evolution is narrowly restricted to biological evolution (as opposed to say cosmological evolution). The reason being is that thus far I've only seen them attack biological evolution and not any others. Although if they believe in a LITERAL Genesis story then I'll add cosmology to their list as well.

2. I'm not going to naively (yeah right) presume that their attack is on evolution per se but the policy that teaches only evolution and not 'teaching the controvesy' i.e. teach Intelligent Design alongside Evolution.

Nevertheless ID is simply bad science because they have not given anything unfalsifiable i.e. since it cannot be disproven, it cannot in the scientific sense of the word be proven. Sort of like a theory that a pink invisible hamster created the world and that it's omniscience and cannot be directly tested by naturalist means.

Given that that is the case, the idea that teaching this alongside real science and a theory that has been and is tested EVERY SINGLE TIME someone does a research paper on biology is disturbing. After all why not teach the Demon Theory of Illness. There are groups who believe that diseases cause germs (not the other way round).

More to the point on ID itself, the stuff held up as being Irreducibly Complex (taking one part away destroys its function e.g. mousetrap) has been shown to be anything but so. 20 proteins needed for blood-clotting? What about 16 (oops so 20 is no longer the magic number)? Even if 16 is the new magic number, how about recent research suggesting how this could be achieved? But before we even get there, how do we identify what is considered Irreducibly Complex. And should the proponents tell us the mechanism by which such things are created? Poof! The Intelligent Designer did it is hardly good science, it doesn't spur any new discoveries or reserach.

Just because something looks complex doesn't mean it cannot be achieved by a small gradual changes over a long period of time.

But I wonder what the local chapter of Focus on the Family thinks about Evolution...

Addendum: I sent off an email to the local chapter(?) of Focus on the Family at family@focus.org.sg, taken off their main website and it bounced. Anyone with their working email address?

James Randi Educational Foundation - Home Page

James Randi is a professional magician and he's terribly forthright about it. He says that what he does are all tricks which is more than I can say about many the confidence tricksters who use basic psychology and illusions and the willingness to prey (sounds like another word which conventional wisdom has held to be effacacious but is not) upon the despair and desparation of others.

Sometimes, however, as William Blake put it, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." There was/is a particular method of communication called Facilitated Communication which was once thought to be capable of giving (severely) autistic children the capacity to communicate when there once seemed no hope. The project succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of many parents who thought there was no hope for their children. Where the children was once non-communicative, there now wrote poetry and stories and did advanced math. Unfortunately, after a series of henious 'accusations' by the children of seuxal abuse by their parents, a series of rigourous double blind test test showed that the words that were communicated were not that of the children but the facilitators holding their hands. This was what the PBS reported in their expose.

In particular, do note the USD 1 MILLION prize for any verifiable claim (to be done by a neutral 3rd party) of the paranormal by any person(s). Many have claimed to be able to perform some paranormal feat, only some have been willing to put their words to the test, even fewer have actually gotten their act together to get to the preliminary test. NONE have gotten past it.

And the commentary archives are nearly all that I have been reading fro the past 3 days. Worth the time and effort. I know my viewpoint has changed somewhat since. =)

The world could do with a lot more rationality and a lot less fallacious unsubstatiated beliefs. When people believe that the moon landing is a hoax. When enduring beliefs of alien kidnappings persist. When people would much rather accept a nebulous unverfiable claim to hard science. When self-delusion is a lot more comforting that reality. Is it a wonder that a form of madness pervades our lives?

For a dose of insanity and crankiness, check out Crank Dot Net and peer into the depths of depravity that is the human mind. Were that tuned and turned towards a betterment of society instead...

I hope for peace.

To all my faithful readers,

I have a confession to make. I actually have with me, an invisible pink hamster that has the incredible ability to speak and communicate INCREDIBLY ACCURATE PROPHECIES.

Already Hammy has touched the lives of many for whom he has revealed itself to, being a fountain of knowledge and wisdom and PROPHECY. But the condition of his help is that they must never reveal who they are or their luck will change and they will die horrible excrutiating deaths. So the following are some of their testimonies:

Hammy has changed my life! ~ Anon

Hammy foresaw that I had problems in my life and told me how to change them! ~ Anon

Hammy correctly predicted that my gambling addiction was causing pain and suffering to my loved ones! ~ Anon

Hammy has granted special dispensation to let me tell you my readers how all these events came about. It started one morning when I saw a pink hamster that no one else could see and that hamster talked to me!

It told me that it had a vision that I had encountered some particularly onerous problems that week. I gasped for who could have foreseen that a person could have had suffered some problems that might seem onerous by dint of its proximity!!!! I was hooked.

It then stated that the problems was caused by family, love or money and I gasped agained. WHO? Who could have so accurately predicted that the problems had to come from one of those sources?!! I mean the fact that I hadn't scored well on my last test MUST be an indication that it was due to discord and quarrels with my family or girlfriend or the fact that I couldn't afford to buy that special pen that would have scored me an A.

At my stunned expression, it then made another amazing statement, it said that it sensed the letter L was somehow important. How could it have known that my surname was Lee or that I was studying Law or that the last book I read before the test was Lord of Chaos or that I was feeling Low that evening. It was simply remarkable!!!

But I bring great tidings to your my faithful readers tonight, Hammy has by dint of its merciful nature granted us some of its amazing knowledge to aid the world and your lives.

1. There will be discord in the Middle-East.

2. There will be tensions and anxiety in London. The number of people seeking help and solace will increase.

3. Some of you will face problems.

4. (This will require some interpretation, the answer of which will be crystal clear tomorrow). As the centre rises from one end and sets in the other, the damage by the flowers will triumph over the best of intentions.

Peace,
The Great Scamdini
p.s. If you wish to have exclusive access to Hammy, it has indicated that a small donation to the author would not be remiss for procurement of its services.

*Too lazy to blog today*

Nuff said. Updates will resume shortly.

*Democracy and Economic Growth*

This is not so much a new post but really an addendum to some earlier posts I have made with regards to debt relief for democratisation whereby I argued that democracy is not so much a noun but a verb or process and that while there is an 'end point' the myraid of end points conceivable means that there are quite a number of alternative paths that one could take based on a few simple premises (kinda like Buddhism really). So it's really all about processes, procedures and institutions that create and advocate transparency and accountability.

Also, I'm too lazy to do a separate post for the stuff below which I sent to the Young Republic. So here it goes...

Given that the many forms of successful governments (democratic or not) have always been premised on this whole notion of accountability whether it be procedural or through some personal ethic intrinsic to upright confucian scholar-government officials, the question really becomes which mode of governance better encourages procedural transparency and accountability.

Thus, examples like the Weimar Republic or even Nepal does not demonstrate Democracy's weakness (in whichever form since the types of functioning democracies run the gumult from Anglo-Saxon style to Scandinavian ones) per se but the weakness of Nascent
Democracies, where the tendancy RIGHT NOW IN REALITY is that rapid democratisation (mostly because it is mishandled) tends to lead to a situation of inflated expectations that are disappointed because of the relative weaknesses of governmental institutions as well as the sort of anti-democratic bureucratic culture (lack of respect for rule of law, corruption, creation of personal fiefdoms) that a reforming government offen butts up against e.g. Nigeria and soon I fear, Lebanon. Of course, making these political and economic problems a lot worse now is the medical epidemic of AIDS which blights entire generations by removing people in their prime.

But given the underlying assumptions that is required of an effective ruling government, a FUNCTIONING democracy is always inevitably better than any other system. Yes there will be tremendous problems getting there sometimes but shouldn't our efforts be towards promulgating it? Beyond a certain point (in terms of education and wealth), we know that democracy is self sustaining and strengthening as is unfortunately more nefarious forms of (non)governance. Actually, if one looks at India, sometimes the culture of democracy becomes so entrenched that regardless of what happens, Democracy survives.

We don't need to start invasions to impose democracies but we sure can support nascent democracies with a mixture of sticks and carrots to bolster their economic position and hence political credentials. The alternative would be to hope that the autocrats and dictators would eventually through historical forces give up their power and make a peaceful transition to a democracy. Even ignoring the fact that civil and political liberties will be diminshed if not crushed during this period, the evidence that such a form of government is necessarily better for the economy hasn't even a strong correlation or much less causative link. Not to mention the fact that without the opportunity for a peaceful change of regime, the chances that the transition will be done through violence increases exponentially.

Anyhow, if anyone is curious, the summary of policy papers (challenge and opposition) at Copenhagen Consensus are a great starting point and are more than able than anything I could conceivably set out in a short post (or come to think about it, maybe even a long one).

Peace!

HubbleSite - NewsCenter

One word: Awesome (I was going to use the word awful, then I realised that I was thinking of its 19th Century meaning of awe inspiring.)

So here's the pop quiz of the day, in what way is the Hubble Telescope related to patents? It might or might not surprise you.

The Hubble Telescope is situated in space and is thereby different (duh) from your land/earth based telescopes. Coupled with the fact that it is freaking sensitive (powerful) and not susceptible to the sort of interference that being earthbound telescopes are, makes its data particularly valuable. And obviously then people want to use it. The problem of course is that it is one telescope and given that it is a finite valuable resource, demand exceeds supply.

So like any governmental project (or the utilisation of government resources as anyone working with the civil service would know) you need to write a report in excrutiating detail, explaining why you deserve time on the Hubble. Amongst the pesky questions asked is how the research cannot be done on earthbound telescopes, but there you go in the government's bid to ensure the best returns on taxpayers' money.

Thus as should be painfully and blatently evident by now, time on the Hubble is a very valuable resource that must be preceded by time taken off to write that report. Such time as could have been used for other research. So the trade-off exists, time now for research or trading it off for the possibility of Hubble time later (which should sound familiar to students of economics).

Thus in order to be fair to such people who have taken time off to write that report and to prevent others from having a free lunch (by not having to write the research proposal and getting the info and potentially drawing the right conclusions first), the proposing group gets exclusive rights to such data for a year, after which it will become public domain.

Cool huh? Peace.

A critique of Einstein

Apparently there's a whole bunch of them out there advocating some mixture of what might be loosely termed under the umbrella of so-called 'common sense science'. They being so-called because they attempt to refut areas of science which to the layperson might seem utterly preposterous.

But what is 'good' about this particular article is the manner in which the author forthrightly states, "His theory of relativity sends the message that all things are relative in the cosmos, with the strong implication that the realms of morality, truth and culture are relative. I dissent. I disagree that morality, truth and culture are purely relative." Thereby demonstrating where his real opposition to the theory lies. It's not the science but the confounded post-modernist thinking!

It's bad enough denying something which with a little thinking does make sense (General and Special Theory of Relativity) but to attempt to parlay it (fallaciously) into the larger cultural war stinks not only of opportunism but more disturbingly, an implication that science must necessarily take a back seat to his form of 'morality' i.e. fundamentalist protestantism. A morality that asserts its universality and spits upon any others that dares the affront of thinking otherwise. Dissent is fine, except when it's against them.

Thus to them, the fact that science operates outside of religion (in the sense that it seeks not answers of the supernatural) and ought to do so free from the interference of religion is not an issue. For the subsumation of all work towards the greater glory of their particular doctrine is all that matters. We see this trend very strongly in the anti-evolutionist stance taken by the creationist and explemplified even by the more 'scientific' Intelligent Design advocates in the 'Wedge Document' leaked by the Centre for Science and Culture (formerly Centre for the Renewal of Science and Culture).

I remember being told how Einstein came upon his theory. He said, imagine sitting on board a train with a mirror held in front of you. As the train approaches the speed of light, can you still see yourself? Assuming that the speed of light remains constant (I don't quite understand the math but it looks fine to me), then time must necessary dilate (slow). Proof? Global Positioning System (GPS) sattelites (because they orbit Earth at a great speed that Newtonian physics takes a back seat) require relativity imputted into their programs so their clocks remain accurate, thereby allowing the accurate triangulation that gives our accurate position.

For a much more extensive review of current literature and especially the erronous ones, check out the rather quaintly named Some Scientifically Inaccurate Claims Concerning Cosmology and Relativity.

As long as the peer review system holds, I think I'm going to trust that particular system where publication will only occur when the paper is subjected to a rigourous level of checking for logic and facts by people qualified to do so. The fact that this system has created holes in the theory in a bid to discover a better theory speaks well of it. Railing against accepted scientific law without proposing a valid counter model which has anything near the predictive value of Einstein's theory will have to remain the rantings of fringe groups. Publish or die.

Peace.