Monday, September 24, 2007

So that’s all right then.

REMARKS BY PRESIDENT OF IRAN MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD

MODERATOR: JOHN COATSWORTH, ACTING DEAN, SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, COLUMBIA, UNIVERSITY INTRODUCTION BY LEE BOLLINGER, PRESIDENT, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK
1:50 P.M. EDT, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2007


 

FULL TEXT:

(Note: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments are through interpreter.)

MR. BOLLINGER: I would like to begin by thanking Dean John Coatsworth and Professor Richard Bulliet for their work in organizing this event and for their commitment to the School of International and Public Affairs and its role -- (interrupted by cheers, applause) -- and for its role in training future leaders in world affairs. If today proves anything, it will be that there is an enormous amount of work ahead of us. This is just one of many events on Iran that will run throughout the academic year, all to help us better understand this critical and complex nation in today's geopolitics.

Before speaking directly to the current president of Iran, I have a few critically important points to emphasize. First, in 2003 the World Leaders Forum has advanced Columbia's long-standing tradition of serving as a major forum for robust debate, especially on global issues. It should never be thought that merely to listen to ideas we deplore in any way implies our endorsement of those ideas or our weakness of our resolve to resist those ideas or our naivety about the very real dangers inherent in such ideas. It is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open our public forum to their voices; to hold otherwise would make vigorous debate impossible.

Second, to those who believe that this event should never have happened, that it is inappropriate for the university to conduct such an event, I want to say that I understand your perspective and respect it as reasonable. The scope of free speech in academic freedom should itself always be open to further debate. As one of the more famous quotations about free speech goes, it is an experiment as all life is an experiment. I want to say, however, as forcefully as I can that this is the right thing to do, and indeed it is required by the existing norms of free speech, the American university and Columbia itself.

Third, to those among us who experience hurt and pain as a result of this day, I say on behalf of all of us that we are sorry and wish to do what we can to alleviate it.

Fourth, to be clear on another matter, this event has nothing whatsoever to do with any rights of the speaker, but only with our rights to listen and speak. We do it for ourselves. We do it in the great tradition of openness that has defined this nation for many decades now. We need to understand the world we live in, neither neglecting its glories nor shrinking from its threats and dangers. It is inconsistent with the idea that one should know thine enemy -- I'm sorry -- it is consistent with the idea that one should know thine enemies, to have the intellectual and emotional courage to confront the mind of evil, and to prepare ourselves to act with the right temperament. In the moment, the arguments for free speech will never seem to match the power of the arguments against, but what we must remember is that this is precisely because free speech asks us to exercise extraordinary self-restraint against the very natural but often counterproductive impulses that lead us to retreat from engagement with ideas we dislike and fear. In this lies the genius of the American idea of free speech.

Lastly, in universities we have a deep and almost single-minded commitment to pursue the truth. We do not have access to the levers of power, we cannot make war or peace, we can only make minds, and to do this, we must have the most fulsome freedom of inquiry.

Let me now turn to Mr. Ahmadinejad.

First, on the brutal crackdown on scholars, journalists and human rights advocates. Over the past two weeks, your government has released Dr. Haleh Esfandiari and Parnaz Azima and just two days ago, Kian Tajbakhsh, a graduate of Columbia with a PhD in Urban Planning. While our community is relieved to learn of his release on bail, Dr. Tajbakhsh remains in Tehran under house arrest, and he still does not know whether he will be charged with a crime or allowed to leave the country.

Let me say this for the record, I call on the president today to ensure that Kian will be free to travel out of Iran as he wishes. (Applause.) Let me also report today that we are extending an offer to Kian to join our faculty as a visiting professor in Urban Planning here at his alma mater in our Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, and we hope he will be able to join us next semester. (Applause.)

The arrest and imprisonment of these Iranian Americans for no good reason is not only unjustified, it runs completely counter to the very values that allow today's speaker to even appear on this campus, but at least they are alive.

According to Amnesty International, 210 people have been executing In Iran so far this year, 21 of them on the morning of September 5th alone. This annual total includes at two children, further proof, as Human Rights Watch puts it, that Iran leads the world in executing minors.

There is more. Iran hanged up 30 people this past July and August during a widely reported suppression of efforts to establish a more democratic society. Many of these executions were carried out in public view, a violation of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, to which Iran is a party. These executions and others have coincided with a wider crackdown on student activists and academics accused of trying to foment a so-called "soft revolution." This has included jailing and forced retirement of scholars. As Dr. Esfandiari said in a broadcast interview since her release, she was held in solitary confinement for 105 days because the government believes that the United States is planning a velvet revolution in Iran.

In this very room, last year we learned something about velvet revolutions from Vaclav Havel, and we will likely hear the same from our World Leaders Forum speaker this evening, President Michelle Bachelet of Chile. Both of their extraordinary stories remind us that there are not enough prisons to prevent an entire society that wants its freedom from achieving it.

We at this university have not been shy to protest the challenge -- and challenge the failures of our own government to live by our values, and we won't be shy about criticizing yours. Let's then be clear at the beginning. Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator. And so I ask you -- (applause) -- and so I ask you, why have women, members of the Baha'i faith, homosexuals and so many of our academic colleagues become targets of persecution in your country? Why, in a letter last week to the secretary-general of the U.N., did Akbar Ganji, Iran's leading political dissident, and over 300 public intellectuals, writers and Noble Laureates express such grave concern that your inflamed dispute with the West is distracting the world's attention from the intolerable conditions in your regime within Iran, in particular the use of the press law to ban writers for criticizing the ruling system? Why are you so afraid of Iranian citizens expressing their opinions for change?

In our country, you are interviewed by our press and asked to speak here today. And while my colleagues at the law school -- Michael Dorf, one of my colleagues, spoke to Radio Free Europe, viewers in Iran a short while ago on the tenants of freedom of speech in this country -- I propose further that you let me lead a delegation of students and faculty from Columbia to address your universities about free speech with the same freedom we afford you today. (Applause.)

Secondly, the denial of the Holocaust. In a December 2005 state television broadcast, you described the Holocaust as "a fabricated legend." One year later, you held a two-day conference of Holocaust deniers. For the illiterate and ignorant, this is dangerous propaganda.

When you have come to a place like this, this makes you, quite simply, ridiculous. You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated. You should know -- (applause) -- please -- you should know that Columbia is the world center of Jewish studies -- us a world center, and now in partnership with the -- Institute of Holocaust Studies.

Since the 1930s, we provided an intellectual home for countless Holocaust refugees and survivors and their children and grandchildren. The truth is that the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history. Because of this, and for many other reasons, your absurd comments about the debate over the Holocaust both defy historical truth and make all of us who continue to fear humanity's capacity for evil shudder at this closure of memory, which is always virtue's first line of defense. Will you cease this outrage?

The destruction of Israel. Twelve days ago you said that the state of Israel cannot continue its life. This echoed a number of inflammatory statements you have delivered in the past two years, including in October 2005, when you said that Israel "should be wiped off the map", quote-unquote. Columbia has over 800 alumni currently living in Israel. As an institution, we have deep ties with our colleagues there. I have personally spoken -- personally, I have spoken out in most forceful terms against proposals to boycott Israeli scholars (in/and ?) universities, saying that such boycotts might as well include Columbia. (Applause.)

More than 400 -- more than 400 -- more than 400 college and university presidents in this country have joined in that statement.

My question then is, do you plan on wiping us off the map too? (Applause.)

Funding terrorism: According to reports of the Council on Foreign Relations, it's well-documented that Iran is a state sponsor of terror that funds such violent groups as Lebanese Hezbollah, which Iran helped organize in the 1980s, Palestinian Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. While your predecessor government was instrumental in providing the U.S. with intelligence and base support in the 2001 campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan, your government is now undermining American troops in Iraq by funding, arming and providing safe transit to insurgent leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr and his forces. There are a number of reports that you also link your government with Syria's efforts to destabilize the fledgling Lebanese government through violence and political assassination.

My question is this: Why do you support well-documented terrorist organizations that continue to strike at peace and democracy in the Middle East, destroying lives and the civil society of the region?

The proxy war against the United States troops in Iraq -- in a briefing before the National Press Club earlier this month, General David Petraeus reported that arms supplies from Iran, including 240- millimeter rockets and explosively formed projectiles, are contributing to, quote, "a sophistication of attacks that would by no means be possible without Iranian support." A number of Columbia graduates and current students are among the brave members of our military who are serving or have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. They, like other Americans with sons, daughters, fathers, husbands and wives serving in combat, rightly see your government as the enemy.

Can you tell them and us why Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq by arming Shi'a militia targeting and killing U.S. troops?

And finally Iran's nuclear program and international sanctions: This week, the United Nations Security Council is contemplating expanding sanctions for a third time, because of your government's refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment program. You continue to defy this world body by claiming a right to develop a peaceful nuclear power, but this hardly withstands scrutiny when you continue to issue military threats to neighbors. Last week, French President Sarkozy made clear his lost patience with your stall tactics, and even Russia and China have shown concern.

Why does your country continue to refuse to adhere to international standards for nuclear weapons verification, in defiance of agreements that you have made with the U.N. nuclear agency? And why have you chosen to make the people of your country vulnerable to the effects of international economic sanctions, and threaten to engulf the world in nuclear annihilation? (Applause.)

Let me close with a comment. Frankly -- I close with this comment frankly and in all candor, Mr. President. I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions. But your avoiding them will in itself be meaningful to us. I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mindset that characterizes so much of what you say and do. Fortunately I am told by experts on your country that this only further undermines your position in Iran, with all the many good-hearted, intelligent citizens there.

A year ago, I am reliably told, your preposterous and belligerent statements in this country, as at one of the meetings at the Council on Foreign Relations, so embarrassed sensible Iranian citizens that this led to your party's defeat in the December mayoral elections. May this do that and more. (Applause.)

I am only a professor, who is also a university president.

And today I feel all the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for. I only wish I could do better. Thank you. (Cheers, extended applause.)

MR. COATSWORTH: Thank you, Lee.

Our principal speaker today is His Excellency the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Mr. President. (Applause.)

INTERPRETER: The president is reciting verses from the Holy Koran in Arabic. (Not translated.)

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Oh, God, hasten the arrival of Imam al- Mahdi and grant him good health and victory, and make us his followers and those who attest to his (rightfulness ?).

Distinguished Dean, dear professors and students, ladies and gentlemen. At the outset, I would like to extend my greetings to all of you. I am grateful to the Almighty God for providing me with the opportunity to be in an academic environment, those seeking truth and striving for the promotion of science and knowledge.

At the outset, I want to complain a bit on the person who read this political statement against me. In Iran, tradition requires that when we demand a person to invite us as a -- to be a speaker, we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment, and we don't think it's necessary before the speech is even given to come in -- (applause) -- with a series of claims and to attempt in a so-called manner to provide vaccination of some sort to our students and our faculty.

I think the text read by the (dear ?) gentleman here, more than addressing me, was an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience here, present here. In a university environment, we must allow people to speak their mind, to allow everyone to talk so that the truth is eventually revealed by all. Most certainly he took more than all the time I was allocated to speak. And that's fine with me. We'll just leave that to add up with the claims of respect for freedom and the freedom of speech that is given to us in this country.

In many parts of his speech, there were many insults and claims that were incorrect, regretfully. Of course, I think that he was affected by the press, the media and the political sort of mainstream line that you read here, that goes against the very grain of the need for peace and stability in the world around us.

Nonetheless, I should not begin by being affected by this unfriendly treatment.

I will tell you what I have to say, and then the questions he can raise and I'll be happy to provide answers. But for one of the issues that he did raise, I most certainly would need to elaborate further so that we for ourselves can see how things fundamentally work.

It was my decision in this valuable forum and meeting to speak with you about the importance of knowledge, of information, of education. Academics and religious scholars are shining torches who shed light in order to remove darkness and the ambiguities around us in guiding humanity out of ignorance and perplexity. The key to the understanding of the realities around us rests in the hands of the researchers, those who seek to undiscover (sic) areas that are hidden, the unknown sciences. The windows of realities that they can open is done only through efforts of the scholars and the learned people in this world. With every effort, there is a window that is opened and one reality is discovered.

Whenever the high stature of science and wisdom is preserved and the dignity of scholars and researchers are respected, humans have taken great strides towards their material and spiritual promotion. In contrast, whenever learned people and knowledge have been neglected, humans have become stranded in the darkness of ignorance and negligence. If it were not for human instinct, which tends towards continual discovery of the truth, humans would have always remained stranded in ignorance and no way would have discovered how to improve the lives that we are given. The nature of man is, in fact, a gift granted by the Almighty to all. The Almighty led mankind into this world and granted him wisdom and knowledge as his (kind ?) gift, enabling him to know his God.

In the story of Adam, a conversation occurs between the Almighty and his angels. The angels called human beings an ambitious and merciless creature and protested against his creation, but the Almighty responded, quote, "I have knowledge of what you are ignorant of," unquote. Then the Almighty told Adam the truth, and on the order of the Almighty, Adam revealed it to the angels.

The angels could not understand the truth as revealed by the human beings.

The Almighty said to them, quote, "Did not I say that I am aware of what is hidden in heaven and in the universe?" unquote. In this way, the angels prostrated themselves before Adam.

In the mission of all divine prophets, the first sermons were of the words of God, and those words "piety," "faith" and "wisdom" have been spread to all mankind. Guiding the holy prophet Moses -- may peace be upon him -- God says, quote, "And he was taught wisdom, the divine book, the Old Testament and the New Testament. He is the prophet appointed for the sake of the children of Israel, and I rightfully brought a sign from the Almighty. Holy Koran -- (inaudible word) -- sura," unquote.

The first words which were revealed to the holy prophet of Islam call the prophet to read, quote, "Read, read in the name of your God, who supersedes everything," unquote. The Almighty, quote again, "who taught the human being with the pen," unquote; quote, "the Almighty taught human beings what they were ignorant of," unquote.

You see in the first verses revealed to the holy prophet of Islam words of reading, teaching and the pen are mentioned. These verses in fact introduce the Almighty as the teacher of human beings, the teacher who taught humans what they were ignorant of. And another part of the -- (inaudible word) -- on the mission on the holy prophet of Islam -- it is mentioned that the Almighty appointed someone from amongst the common people as their prophet in order to, quote, "Read for them the divine verses," unquote; and, quote again, "and purify them from ideological and ethical contaminations," unquote; and, quote again, "to teach them the divine book and wisdom," unquote.

My dear friends, all the words and messages of the divine prophets, from Abraham and Isaac and Jacob to David and Soliman and Moses to Jesus and Mohammed, delivered humans from ignorance, negligence, superstitions, unethical behavior and corrupted ways of thinking with respect to knowledge and a path to knowledge, light and rightful ethics.

In our culture, the word "science" has been defined as "illumination." In fact, the "science" means "brightness" and the real science is a science which rescues the human being from ignorance to his own benefit. In one of the widely accepted definitions of science, it is stated that it is the light which sheds to the hearts of those who have been selected by the Almighty; therefore, according to this definition, science is a divine gift, and the heart is where it resides.

If we accept that "science" means "illumination," then its scope supersedes the experimental sciences, and it includes every hidden and disclosed reality. One of the main harms inflicted against science is to limit it to experimental and physical sciences; this harm occurs even though it extends far beyond this scope.

Realities of the world are not limited to physical realities. And the material is just a shadow of supreme realities, and physical creation is just one of the stories of the creation of the world. Human being is just an example of the creation that is a combination of the material and the spirit.

And another important point is the relationship of science and purity of spirit, life, behavior and ethics of the human being. In the teachings of the divine prophet, one reality shall always be attached to science. The reality of purity of spirit and good behavior, knowledge and wisdom is pure and clear reality. It is -- science is a light. It is a discovery of reality, and only a pure scholar and researcher, free from wrong ideologies, superstitions, selfishness and material trappings, can discover the reality.

My dear friends and scholars, distinguished participants, science and wisdom can also be misused, a misuse caused by selfishness, corruption, material desires and material interests, as well as individual and group interests. Material desires place humans against the realities of the world. Corrupted independent human beings resist acceptance of reality and even if they do accept it, they do not obey it.

There are many scholars who are aware of the realities but do not accept them. Their selfishness does not allow them to accept those realities. Did those who in the course of human history wage wars not understand the reality that lives, properties, dignity, territories and the rights of all human beings should be respected? Or did they understand it but neither have faith in nor abide by it?

My dear friends, as long as the human heart is not free from hatred, envy and selfishness, it does not abide by the truth, by the illumination of science and science itself. Science is the light and scientists must be pure and pious. If humanity achieves the highest level of physical and spiritual knowledge, but its scholars and scientists are not pure, then this knowledge cannot serve the interest of humanity, and several events can ensue.

First, the wrongdoers reveal only a part of the reality which is to their own benefit and conceal the rest, as we have witnessed with respect to the scholars of the divine religions in the past too. Unfortunately today we see that certain researchers and scientists are still hiding the truth from the people.

Second, scientists and scholars are misused for personal, group or party interests. So in today's world, ruling powers are misusing many scholars and scientists in different fields, with the purpose of stripping nations of their wealth.

And they use all opportunities only for their own benefit.

For example, they deceive people by using scientific methods and tools. They, in fact, wish to justify their own wrongdoings, though, by creating nonexistent enemies, for example, and have insecure atmosphere. They try to control all in the name of combatting insecurity and terrorism. They even violate individual and social freedoms in their own nations under that pretext. They do not respect the privacy of their own people. They tap telephone calls and try to control their people. They create an insecure psychological atmosphere in order to justify their warmongering acts in different parts of the world.

As another example, by using precise scientific methods and planning, they begin their onslaught on the domestic cultures of nations, the cultures which are the result of thousands of years of interaction, creativity and artistic activities. They try to eliminate these cultures in order to separate the people from their identity and cut their bonds with their own history and values. They prepare the ground for stripping people from their spiritual and material wealth by instilling in them feelings of intimidation, desire for imitation and mere consumption, submission to oppressive powers, and disability.

Making nuclear, chemical and biological bombs and weapons of mass destruction is yet another result of the misuse of science and research by the big powers. Without cooperation of certain scientists and scholars, we would not have witnessed production of different nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Are these weapons to protect global security? What can a perpetual nuclear umbrella threat achieve for the sake of humanity? If nuclear war wages between nuclear powers, what human catastrophe will take place? Today we can see the nuclear effects in even new generations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima residents which might be witness in even the next generations to come. Presently, effects of the depleted uranium used in weapons since the beginning of the war in Iraq can be examined and investigated accordingly. These catastrophes take place only when scientists and scholars are misused by oppressors.

Another point of sorrow, some big powers create a monopoly over science and prevent other nations in achieving scientific development as well.

This, too, is one of the surprises of our time. Some big powers do not want to see the progress of other societies and nations. They turn to thousands of reasons, make allegations, place economic sanctions to prevent other nations from developing and advancing, all resulting from their distance from human values, moral values and the teachings of the divine prophet. Regretfully, they have not been trained to serve mankind.

Dear academics, dear faculty and scholars, students, I believe that the biggest God-given gift to man is science and knowledge. Man's search for knowledge and the truth through science is what it guarantees to do in getting close to God, but science has to combine with the purity of the spirit and of the purity of man's spirit so that scholars can unveil the truth and then use that truth for advancing humanity's cause.

These scholars would be not only people who would guide humanity, but also guide humanity towards the future, better future. And it is necessary that big powers should not allow mankind to engage in monopolistic activities and to prevent other nations from achieving that science. Science is a divine gift by God to everyone, and therefore it must remain pure. God is aware of all reality. All researchers and scholars are loved by God.

So I hope there will be a day where these scholars and scientists will rule the world and God himself will arrive with Moses and Christ and Mohammed to rule the world and to take us towards justice.

I'd like to thank you now, but refer to two points made in the introduction given about me, and then I will be open for any questions.

Last year, I would say two years ago, I raised two questions. You know that my main job is a university instructor. Right now as president of Iran I still continue teaching graduate and Ph.D.-level courses on a weekly basis. My students are working with me in scientific fields. I believe that I am an academic myself, so I speak with you from an academic point of view.

And I raised two questions. But instead of a response, I got a wave of insults and allegations against me, and regretfully, they came mostly from groups who claimed most to believe in the freedom of speech and the freedom of information. You know quite well that Palestine is an old wound, as old as 60 years.

For 60 years, these people are displaced; for 60 years, these people are being killed; for 60 years, on a daily basis, there's conflict and terror; for 60 years, innocent women and children are destroyed and killed by helicopters and airplanes that break the house over their heads; for 60 years, children in kindergartens in schools, in high schools are in prison being tortured; for 60 years, security in the Middle East has been in danger; for 60 years, the slogan of expansionism from the Nile to the Euphrates has been chanted by certain groups in that part of the world.

And as an academic, I ask two questions, the same two questions that I will ask here again. And you judge for yourselves whether the response to these questions should be the insults, the allegations and all the words and the negative propaganda, or should we really try and face these two questions and respond to them? Like you, like any academic, I, too, will keep -- not get -- become silent until I get the answers, so I am awaiting logical answers instead of insults.

My first question was, if, given that the Holocaust is a present reality of our time, a history that occurred, why is there not sufficient research that can approach the topic from different perspectives? Our friends refer to 1930 as the point of the departure for this development; however, I believe the Holocaust, from what we read, happened during World War II after 1930 in the 1940s. So, you know, we have to really be able to trace the event.

My question was simple. There are researchers who want to push the topic from a different perspective. Why are they put into prison? Right now there are a number of European academics who have been sent to prison because they attempted to write about the Holocaust, so researchers from a different perspective, questioning certain aspects of it -- my question is, why isn't it open to all forms of research? I have been told that there's been enough research on the topic. And I ask, well, when it comes to topics such as freedom, topics such as democracy, concepts and norms such as God, religion, physics even or chemistry, there's been a lot of research, but we still continue more research on those topics. We encourage it. But then why don't we encourage more research on a historical event that has become the root, the cause of many heavy catastrophes in the region in this time and age? Why shouldn't there be more research about the root causes? That was my first question.

And my second question -- well, given this historical event, if it is a reality, we need to still question whether the Palestinian people should be paying for it or not. After all, it happened in Europe. The Palestinian people had no role to play in it. So why is it that the Palestinian people are paying the price of an event they had nothing to do with?

The Palestinian people didn't commit any crime. They had no role to play in World War II. They were living with the Jewish communities and the Christian communities in peace at the time. They didn't have any problems. And today, too, Jews, Christians and Muslims live in brotherhood all over the world, in many parts of the world. They don't have any serious problems.

But why is it that the Palestinians should pay a price, innocent Palestinians? For 5 million people to remain displaced or refugees of war for 60 years are -- is this not a crime? Is asking about these crimes a crime by itself? Why should an academic, myself, face insults when asking questions like this? Is this what you call freedom and upholding the freedom of thought?

And as for the second topic, Iran's nuclear issue -- I know there's time limits, but I need time. I mean, a lot of time was taken from me.

We are a country. We are a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency. For over 33 years we were a member state of the agency. The bylaw of the agency explicitly states that all member states have the right to the peaceful nuclear fuel technology. This is an explicit statement made in the bylaw. And the bylaw says that there is no pretext or excuse, even the inspections carried by the IAEA itself -- that can prevent member states' right to have that right.

Of course, the IAEA is responsible to carry out inspections. We are one of the countries that's carried out the most amount of -- level of cooperation with the IAEA. They've had hours and weeks and days of inspections in our country. And over and over again, the agency's reports indicate that Iran's activities are peaceful, that they have not detected a deviation, and that Iran has -- they've received positive cooperation from Iran. But regretfully, two or three monopolistic powers, selfish powers, want to force their word on the Iranian people and deny them their right. They keep saying -- one minute. (Laughter, applause.)

They tell us you don't let them -- they won't let them inspect. Why not? Of course we do. How come is it anyway that you have that right and we can't have it? We want to have the right to peaceful nuclear energy. They tell us, "Don't make it yourself. We'll give it to you."

Well, in the past, I tell you, we had contracts with the U.S. government, with the British government, the French government, the German government and the Canadian government on nuclear development for peaceful purposes. But unilaterally, each and every one of them canceled their contracts with us, as a result of which the Iranian people had to pay the heavy cost in billions of dollars.

Why do we need the fuel from you? You've not even given us spare aircraft parts that we need for civilian aircraft for 28 years, under the name of the embargo and sanctions, because we are against, for example, human rights or freedom? Under that pretext you deny us that technology?

We want to have the right to self-determination towards our future. We want to be independent. Don't interfere in us. If you don't give us spare parts for civilian aircraft, what is the expectation that you'd give us fuel for nuclear development for peaceful purposes?

For 30 years we've faced these problems; for over $5 billion to the Germans and then to the Russians, but we haven't gotten anything, and the worst have not been completed. It is our right, we want our right, and we don't want anything beyond the law, nothing less than what international law. We are a peaceful-loving nation. We love all nations. (Applause, cheers, booing.)

MR. COATSWORTH: Mr. President, your statements here today and in the past have provoked many questions which I would like to pose to you on behalf of the students and faculty who have submitted them to me.

Let me begin with the question to which you just --

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: (In English.) It is one by one, one by one.

MR. COATSWORTH: One by one, it is, yes. (Applause.)

The first question is: Do you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state?

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: We love all nations. We are friends with the Jewish people. There are many Jews in Iran living peacefully with security. You must understand that in our constitution, in our laws, in the parliamentary elections, for every 150,000 people we get one representative in the parliament. For the Jewish community, one-fifth of this number they still get one independent representative in the parliament. So our proposal to the Palestinian plight is a humanitarian and democratic proposal.

What we say is that to solve the 60-year problem we must allow the Palestinian people to decide about its future for itself. This is compatible with the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations and the fundamental principles enshrined in it. We must allow Jewish Palestinians, Muslim Palestinians and Christian Palestinians to determine their own fate themselves through a free referendum. Whatever they choose as a nation everybody should accept and respect. Nobody should interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian nation. Nobody should sow the seeds of discord. Nobody should spend tens of billions of dollars equipping and arming one group there.

We say allow the Palestinian nation to decide its own future, to have the right to self-determination for itself. This is what we are saying as the Iranian nation. (Applause.)

MR. COATSWORTH: Mr. President, I think many members of our audience would be -- would like to hear a clearer answer to that question, that is -- (interrupted by cheers, applause).

The question is: Do you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state? And I think you could answer that question with a single word, either yes or no. (Cheers, applause.)

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: And then you want the answer the way you want to hear it. Well, this isn't really a free flow of information. I'm just telling you where I -- what my position is. (Applause.)

I'm asking you, is the Palestinian issue not an international issue of prominence or not? Please tell me, yes or no. (Laughter, applause.)

There's a plight of a people.

MR. COATSWORTH: The answer to your question is yes. (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Well, thank you for your cooperation.

It is -- we recognize there is a problem there that's been going on for 60 years. Everybody provides a solution, and our solution is a free referendum. Let this referendum happen, and then you'll see what the results are. Let the people of Palestine freely choose what they want for their future. And then what you want in your mind to happen, it will happen and will be realized. (Applause.)

MR. COATSWORTH: Which was posed by President Bollinger earlier and comes from a number of other students. Why is your government providing aid to terrorists? Will you stop doing so and permit international monitoring to certify that you have stopped?

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Well, I want to pose a question here to you. If someone comes and explodes bombs around you, threatens your president, members of the administration, kills the members of the Senate or Congress, how would you treat them? Would you award them or would you name them a terrorist group? Well, it's clear. You would call them a terrorist.

My dear friends, the Iranian nation is a victim of terrorism. For -- 26 years ago, where I work, close to where I work, in a terrorist operation, the elected president of the Iranian nation and the elected prime minister of Iran lost their lives in a bomb explosion. They turned into ashes.

A month later, in another terrorist operation, 72 members of our parliament and highest ranking officials, including four ministers and eight deputy ministers, bodies were shattered into pieces as a result of terrorist attacks. Within six months, over 4,000 Iranians lost their lives, assassinated by terrorist groups, all this carried out by the hand of one single terrorist group. Regretfully that same terrorist group, now, today, in your country, is being -- operating under the support of the U.S. administration, working freely, distributing declarations freely. And their camps in Iraq are supported by the U.S. government. They're secured by the U.S. government.

Our nation has been harmed by terrorist activities. We were the first nation that objected to terrorism and the first to uphold the need to fight terrorism. (Applause.)

MR. COATSWORTH: A number of questioners, sorry, a number of people have asked.

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: We need to address the root causes of terrorism and eradicate those root causes.

We live in the Middle East. For us, it's quite clear which powers sort of incite terrorists, support them, fund them. We know that. Our nation, the Iranian nation, through history has always extended a hand of friendship to other nations. We're a cultured nation. We don't need to resort to terrorism.

We've been victims of terrorism ourselves, and it's regrettable that people who argue they're fighting terrorism, instead of supporting the Iranian people and nation, instead of fighting the terrorists that are attacking them, they're supporting the terrorists and then turn the fingers to us. This is most regrettable.

MR. COATSWORTH: A further set of questions challenge your view of the Holocaust. Since the evidence that this occurred in Europe in the 1940s as a result of the actions of the German Nazi government, since that -- those facts are well-documented, why are you calling for additional research? There seems to be no purpose in doing so, other than to question whether the Holocaust actually occurred as an historical fact. Can you explain why you believe more research is needed into the facts of what are -- what is incontrovertible?

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Thank you very much for your question. I am an academic, and you are as well. Can you argue that researching a phenomenon is finished forever, done? Can we close the books for good on a historical event? There are different perspectives that come to light after every research is done. Why should we stop research at all? Why should we stop the progress of science and knowledge? You shouldn't ask me why I'm asking questions. You should ask yourselves why you think that it's questionable.

Why do you want to stop the progress of science and research? Do you ever take what's known as absolute in physics? We had principles in mathematics that were granted to be absolute in mathematics for over 800 years, but new science has gotten rid of those absolutism, gotten -- forward other different logics of looking at mathematics, and sort of turned the way we look at it as a science altogether after 800 years. So we must allow researchers, scholars to investigate into everything, every phenomenon -- God, universe, human beings, history, and civilization. Why should we stop that?

I'm not saying that it didn't happen at all. This is not (the ?) judgment that I'm passing here. I said in my second question, granted this happened, what does it have to do with the Palestinian people? This is a serious question. They're two dimension. In the first question, I --

MR. COATSWORTH: Let me just -- let me pursue this a bit further. It is difficult to have a scientific discussion if there isn't at least some basis -- some empirical basis, some agreement about what the facts are. So, calling for research into the facts when the facts are so well-established represents for many a challenging of the facts themselves and a denial that something terrible occurred in Europe in those years. (Applause.)

Let me move on to -- (pause).

Mr. President, another student asks, Iranian women are now denied basic human rights, and your government has imposed draconian punishments, including execution on Iranian citizens who are homosexuals. Why are you doing those things?

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Those in Iran are genuine true freedoms. The Iranian people are free. Women in Iran enjoy the highest levels of freedoms. We have two deputy vice -- well, two vice presidents that are female at the highest levels of speciality; specialized (roles ?) in our parliament and our government and our universities, they are present in our biotechnological fields and our technological fields. There are hundreds of women scientists that are active in the political realm as well.

It's not -- it's wrong for some governments, when they disagree with another government, to sort of -- try to spread lies that distort the full truth. Our nation is free. It has the highest level of participation in elections. In Iran, 80 percent -- 90 percent of the people turn out for votes during the elections, half of which -- over half of which are women, so how can we say that women are not free? Is that the entire truth?

But as for the executions, I'd like to raise two questions. If someone comes and establishes a network for illicit drug trafficking that affects the (use ?) in Iran, Turkey, Europe, the United States by introducing these illicit drugs and destroys them, would you ever reward them? People who lead the lives -- cause the deterioration of the lives of hundreds of millions of youth around the world, including in Iran, can we have any sympathy to them? Don't you have capital punishment in the United States? You do, too. (Applause.)

In Iran, too, there's capital punishment for illicit drug traffickers, for people who violate the rights of people.

If somebody takes up a gun, goes into a house, kills a group of people there, and then tries to take ransom, how would you confront them in Iran with -- in the United States? Would you reward them? Can a physician allow microbes, symbolically speaking, to spread across a nation? We have laws. People who violate the public rights of the people by using guns, killing people, creating insecurity, sell drugs, distribute drugs at a high level are sentenced to execution in Iran, and some of these punishments -- very few are carried in the public eye, before the public eye. It's a law based on democratic principles. You use injections and microbes to kill these people, and they are executed or they're hung, but the end result is killing.

MR. COATSWORTH: (Off mike) -- and drug smugglers. The question was about sexual preference and women. (Applause.)

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country. (Laughter.) We don't have that in our country. (Booing.) In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have it. (Laughter.)

But as for women, maybe you think that being a woman is a crime. It's not a crime to be a woman. Women are the best creatures created by God. They represent the kindness, the beauty that God instills in them. Women are respected in Iran. In Iran, every family who's given a girl is given -- in every Iranian family who has a girl, they're 10 times happier than having a son. Women are respected more than men are. They are exempt from many responsibilities. Many of the legal responsibilities rest on the shoulders of men in our society because of the respect culturally given to women, to the future mothers. In Iranian culture, men and sons and girls constantly kiss the hands of their mothers as a sign of respect, a respect for women, and we are proud of this culture.

MR. COATSWORTH: (Off mike) -- one is, what did you hope to accomplish by speaking at Columbia today?

And the second is, what would you have said if you were permitted to visit the site of the September 11th tragedy?

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Well, here I'm your guest. I've been invited by Columbia, an official invitation given for me to come here, but I do want to say something here.

In Iran, when you invite a guest you respect them. This is our tradition required by our culture, and I know that American people have that culture as well.

Last year, I wanted to go to the site of the September 11th tragedy to show respect to the victims of the tragedy, show my sympathy with their families, but our plans got overextended. We were involved in negotiations and meetings `till midnight, and they said it would be very difficult to go visit the site at that late hour of the night. So I told my friends then that we need to plan this for the following year, so that I can go and visit the site and to show my respects. Regretfully, some groups had very strong reactions, very bad reactions. It's bad for someone -- to prevent someone to show sympathy to the families of the victims of the September 11 event -- tragic event.

This is a respect from my side. Somebody told me this is an insult. I said: What are you saying? This is my way of showing my respect. Why would you think that? Thinking like that, how do you expect to manage the world and world affairs? Don't you think that a lot of problems in the world come from the way you look at issues because of this kind of way of thinking, because of this sort of pessimistic approach towards a lot of people because of certain level of selfishness, self-absorption that needs to be put aside so that we can show respect to everyone, to allow an environment for friendship to grow, to allow all nations to talk with one another and move towards peace?

I wanted to speak with the press. There is 11 September -- September 11 tragic event was a huge event. It led to a lot of many other events afterwards. After 9/11, Afghanistan was occupied and then Iraq was occupied, and for six years in our region there is insecurity, terror and fear. If the root causes of 9/11 are examined properly -- why it happened, what caused it, what were the conditions that led to it, who truly was involved, who was really involved -- and put it all together to understand how to prevent the crisis in Iraq, fix the problem in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.

MR. COATSWORTH: A number of questions have asked about your nuclear program. Why is your government seeking to acquire enriched uranium suitable for nuclear weapons? Will you stop doing so?

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Our nuclear program, first and foremost, operates within the framework of law, and second, under the inspections of the IAEA, and thirdly, they are completely peaceful. The technology we have is for enrichment below the level of 5 percent level, and any level below 5 percent is solely for providing fuel to power plants. Repeated reports by the IAEA explicitly say that there is no indication that Iran has deviated from the peaceful path of its nuclear program. We're all well aware that Iran's nuclear issue is a political issue; it's not a legal issue.

The International Atomic Energy Organization -- Agency has verified that our activities are for peaceful purposes. But there are two or three powers that think that they have the right to monopolize all science and knowledge. And they expect the Iranian people, the Iranian nation, to turn to others to get fuel, to get science, to get knowledge that's indigenous to itself -- to humble itself. And then they would of course refrain from giving it to us too.

So we're quite clear on what we need. If you have created the fifth generation of atomic bombs and are testing them already, what position are you in to question the peaceful purposes of other people who want nuclear power? (Applause.) We do not believe in nuclear weapons, period. It goes against the whole grain of humanity.

So let me just tell a joke here. I think the politicians who are after atomic bombs or are testing them, making them -- politically they are backward, retarded. (Applause.)

MR. COATSWORTH: I know your time is short and that you need to move on.

Is Iran prepared to open broad discussions with the government of the United States? What would Iran hope to achieve in such discussions? How do you see, in the future, a resolution of the points of conflict between the government of the United States and the government of Iran?

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: From the start, we announced that we are ready to negotiate with all countries. Since 28 years ago, when our revolution succeeded and we established -- we took freedom and democracy that was held at bay by a pro-Western dictatorship, we announced our readiness that besides two countries, we are ready to have friendly relations and talks with all countries of the world. One of those two was the apartheid regime of South Africa, which has been eliminated, and the second is the Zionist regime. For everybody else around the world, we announced that we want to have friendly, brotherly ties.

The Iranian nation is a cultured nation. It is a civilized nature. It seeks, it wants, new talks and negotiations. It's for it. We believe that in negotiations and talks, everything can be resolved very easily. We don't need threats; we don't need to point bombs or guns; we don't need to get into conflict if we talk. We have a clear logical about that.

We question the way the world is being run and managed today. We believe that it will not lead to viable peace and security for the world, the way it's run today. We have solutions based on humane values and for relations among states. With the U.S. government, too, we will negotiate. We don't have any issues about that, under fair, just circumstances with mutual respect on both sides.

You saw that in order to help the security of Iraq, we had three rounds of talks with the United States. And last year, before coming to New York, I announced that I am ready, in the United Nations, to engage in a debate with Mr. Bush, the president of the United States, about critical international issues. So that shows that we want to talk, having a debate before the world public -- before all the audience, so that truth is revealed, so that misunderstandings and misperceptions are removed, so that we can find a clear path for brotherly and friendly relations. I think that if the U.S. administration -- if the U.S. government puts aside some of its old behaviors, it can actually be a good friend for the Iranian people, for the Iranian nation.

For 28 years they've consistently threatened us, insulted us, prevented our scientific development, every day under one pretext or another. You all know Saddam the dictator was supported by the government of the United States and some Europeans countries in attacking Iran. And in -- he carried out an eight-year war, a criminal war. Over 200,000 Iranians were -- lost their lives. Over 600,000 Iranians were hurt as a result of a war. He used chemical weapons; thousands of Iranians were victims of chemical weapons that he used against us. Today, Mr. Nobal Vinh (ph), who is a reporter, an official reporter, international reporter, who was covering U.N. reports in U.N. for many years, he is one of the victims of the chemical weapons used by Iraq against us.

And since then, we've been under different propaganda sort of embargoes, economic sanctions, political sanctions. Why? Because we got rid of a dictator? Because we wanted the freedom and democracy that we got for ourselves? But we can't always tell. We think that if the U.S. government recognizes the rights of the Iranian people, respects all nations, and extends a hand of friendship with all Iranians, they too will see that Iranians will be one of its best friends.

Will you allow me to thank the audience a moment?

I -- well, there are many things that I would have liked to cover, but I don't want to take your time any further. I was asked, would I allow the faculty and Columbia students here to come to Iran? From this platform, I invite Columbia faculty members and students to come and visit Iran, to speak with our university students. You are officially invited. (Applause).

University faculty and the students that the university decides are the student association's chosen select are welcome to come. You're welcome to visit any university that you choose inside Iran. We'll provide you with a list of the universities. There are over 400 universities in our country, and you can choose whichever you want to go and visit.

We'll give you the true platform. You can -- we'll respect you 100 percent. We will have our students sit there and listen to you, speak with you, hear what you have to say.

Right now in our universities on a daily basis, there are hundreds of meetings like this. They hear, they talk, they ask questions, they welcome it.

In the end, I'd like to thank Columbia University. I had heard that many politicians in the United States are trained in Columbia University, and there are many people here who believe in the freedom of speech, in clear, frank conversations; I do like to extend my gratitude to the managers here in the United States -- at Columbia University -- I apologize -- the people who so well-organized this meeting today. I'd like to extend my deepest gratitude to the faculty members and the dear students here. I ask Almighty God to assist all of us to move hand in hand to establish peace and future filled with friendship and justice and brotherhood. Best of luck to all of you. (Applause.)

MR. BOLLINGER: I'm sorry that President Ahmadinejad's schedule makes it necessary for him to leave before he's been able to answer many of the questions that we have or even answer some of the ones that we posed to him. (Laughter, applause.) But I think we can all be pleased that his appearance here demonstrates Columbia's deep commitment to free expression and debate. I want to thank you all for coming to participate. (Applause.)

Thank you.

END.


 

I Thought That This Was Well Put

Comment by David M. Schizer, Dean, Columbia Law School

A controversy has developed about the invitation extended to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran by the Columbia School of International and Public Affairs.   Although Columbia Law School was not involved in arranging this invitation, we have received many inquiries about it.

This event raises deep and complicated issues about how best to express our commitment to intellectual freedom, and to our free way of life.  Although we believe in free and open debate at Columbia and should never suppress points of view, we are also committed to academic standards.  A high-quality academic discussion depends on intellectual honesty but, unfortunately, Mr. Ahmadinejad has proven himself, time and again, to be uninterested in whether his words are true.  Therefore, my personal opinion is that he should not be invited to speak.  Mr. Ahmadinejad is a reprehensible and dangerous figure who presides over a repressive regime, is responsible for the death of American soldiers, denies the Holocaust, and calls for the destruction of Israel.  It would be deeply regrettable if some misread this invitation as lending prestige or legitimacy to his views.  

Our university is a pluralistic place, and I recognize that others within our community take a different view in good faith, and that they have the right to extend invitations that I personally would not extend.  I know that we will learn from each other in discussing the difficult questions prompted by this invitation.

Google and GM

General Motors is in the news today because our friend Buzz has called a pox on the General's House. By now, everyone knows that. But did you know that with GM's market cap of US$20 billion, GM's Market Cap is one 1/9thth of Google's US$177 billion? Now that is unsettling.


(In the interests of full disclosure I should note that Google hosts this blog for free. You may also, of course, email me at mjrabin@gmail.com.)

An Early Birthday for the ‘Travelling Companion’ Sputnik 1


As good a reason as any to post one of these great stamps!

A half century ago – well not quite that yet, October 4th in the Gregorian calendar -- the mighty CCCP sent Sputnik 1 -- equipped with a transponder that sent the letters 'Hi' in Morse Code! – into space. A few months later they sent the dog Laika into space on Sputnik II with no provision for the poor dog's return. And so, as popular mythology would have it, the space race began. I still feel sorry for Laika, however. The dog is understood to have died from heat exhaustion well before the canine's spacecraft burned up on re-entry.

Saturday, September 22, 2007

Das Leben der Anderen, Other People’s Lives


Das Leben der Anderen

The day before the wall fell down in 1989 really does not seem so long ago, but watching Das Leben der Anderen (2006) made it seem both infinitely long ago and only yesterday. In many ways, it really was a simpler age. You had East and West, watching each other's every moves with the conventional state apparatus of armies, secret services, government and realpolitik diplomacy. Das Leben der Anderen reminded me both of this and just how horrible the world behind Churchill's Iron Curtain had to be so that it might maintain its charade of success. Now it seems as if we are the new GDR surveying our lives to maintain our charade but who we are monitoring is without any conventional state apparatus and such an asymmetry is untenable. I am not saying anything novel or profound. I am only sharing the feelings that the above film evoked in me. Not as subtle nor as heart rending as early Kieslowski, it is still an example of film making that makes a mockery of just about everything I saw this year in the cinema. Der Untergang, the fictional account of the last days of Hitler's reign, is the only other film I can remember having recently seen to possess the same power.

Friday, September 21, 2007

Unfounded Glee (and some smugness) at the Looney’s Newfound Equality With the Greenback


 

Is it just me or are others finding the reportage of the Looney becoming par with the US$ revolting? I just wanted to note a couple of things.

  1. The loonies strength is not real strength, but only strength relative to the US$ which through US mismanagement has fallen against almost all currencies, particularly the Euro. I understand Venezuela to be an exception. The reason for the US$'s decline is simple. You can't have both guns and butter and Bush would seem not to care a jot for the fiscal and social health of the nation that he is charged with.
  2. The loonie, with Canada's abundant and currently fashionable resources and resource based economy, ought to have traded higher than the US$ long ago.
  3. I will think of more.

So quit the damn gloating!

MJR

PS Am very much looking forward to our next visit to the US. For one thing, it will be that much easier in the malls, restaurants and grocery stores to know what goods are costing us. The old trick of adding GST and PST to the sticker price is no longer necessary.


 

PPS www.blog.snappingturtle.net has a much better discussion of this. Mine is merely a rant.

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Karl Rove forced to live on babies (compliments of The Onion)



http://www.theonion.com/content/radio_news/unemployed_karl_rove_forced

Has Civilisation Been For Naught?


Saw this story on the BBC today:

US family tries life without toilet paper
By Kim Ghattas
BBC News, New York

It is mid-afternoon in an airy, lower-Manhattan flat, on the ninth floor of a posh-looking building with a doorman.

It is a bit dark and there are no lights on. There is a strange quiet feel to the flat, perhaps due to the lack of any appliances - no fridge humming, no TV interference, even no air conditioning, though it is hot and humid outside.

Walk into the bathroom, and you will notice that there is no toilet paper, no bottles of shampoo or toiletries.

In the kitchen, berries and cheese are laid out on the counter and there are candles on the dining table.

This is the home of No-Impact Man, aka Colin Beavan, who describes himself on his blog as a "guilty liberal who finally snaps, swears off plastic... turns off his power... and while living in NYC turns into a tree-hugging lunatic who tries to save the polar bears".

He has dragged his wife, Michelle, and young daughter Isabella, along for the ride.

"The concept is that we should have no net environmental impact, which is, of course, technically not feasible," says Colin.

"So the idea is that we would reduce our negative impact and increase our positive impact."

The first stage of the one-year experiment was to reduce rubbish. The family buys only second-hand goods and takes a hamper to the market.

Colin uses a glass jar he picked up from the trash as a reusable cup when he orders take-out coffee or juice.

Food is bought every other day from the nearby farmers' market on Union Square, and put in the hamper without wrapping.

The family then stopped using all carbon-producing transport, so they now walk or cycle.

They then shut down electricity in the flat - no more dishwasher, fridge or washing machine.

Now they are trying to reduce the amount of water they use, from the 80-100 gallons (303-379 litres) a day used by the average American, down to seven.

The more the experiment advances, the more drastic the changes become.

"I was a typical American consumer - I shopped a lot, I ate most of my meals in take-out containers, I took cabs everywhere," said Michelle, a journalist with a weekly business magazine.

Although she still goes to the office every day (on her bike), uses the elevator to get to the 43rd floor, turns on her computer and uses a mobile phone, she has had to redesign her whole life.

"It has been a shock to the system."

Michelle admits there were times when she regretted agreeing to the no-impact experiment, but says it has been one of the best adventures of her adult life.

"In essence, the project has really slowed down time, which is pretty amazing considering how fast time has become, and especially with us living in New York - you come home to a quiet, soothing cocoon."

For news from the outside world, there is the solar-powered crank-up radio, although the family rarely uses it.

A solar panel on the roof provides power for a laptop and one light.

From the kitchen, Colin brings out a wooden box with air holes on the sides. He opens the lid and scoops up a handful of dark brown matter that looks and smells like earth. In fact, it's a combination of fruit and vegetable peels and worms.

"This is the compost box, the worms take the food scraps and they turn it into compost," explains Colin.

What happens in the toilet, where there's no toilet paper?

"What I'll tell you, is this: There are many places all over the world that don't use toilet paper," is all he will say at first.

He then adds that because people wash, it is a lot more hygienic.

For detergents, laundry, body soap and toothpaste, they use a combination of vegetable oil, baking soda, vinegar and borax.

The Beavans realise that not everybody can afford to embark on a similar radical experiment or live like that long-term.

They also make clear that it is an experiment, and they have had their doubts about what works and what really makes a difference.

They insist they do not want to force their ideas on anyone else, but they feel happy about the difference it has made to their own lives.

Their life is now centred around the kitchen table, as well as activities such as riding bikes together.

"While there are a lot of people who think that we're freaks, our friends have been really supportive, and they do come over and play Scrabble with us in the dark," Michelle says.

But is it really possible to have no impact on the environment while living in a city where any resident is inevitably part of the system?

"There's no question that this city has an infrastructure and some of the impact of the city itself should get credited to us," said Colin.

"But the fact is that it is actually easier to live an efficient life in this city, and this is well documented. Here in New York, we emit about a third of the carbon per member of the population of the rest of the country, and it's because of the efficiencies of scale of this city."

The Beavans say that when the experiment is over, they will not simply revert to their old way of living.

"We're not going to bring the air-conditioner back. We're going to continue to ride our bikes everywhere. The fridge will come back, but will be used minimally," says Colin.

Michelle cannot wait to turn on the washing machine again. Hand-washing clothes has been the toughest change and a chore that has meant laundry is often not done, though Isabella enjoys stomping the clothes in the bathtub.

Colin is planning to write a book about his year as No-Impact Man - his publishers are looking at sustainable ways of publishing.

It may be a worthwhile experiment in the eyes of some, or a total waste of time by a tree hugger for others. But whatever you think of the Beavans, somehow when you leave their flat it feels like there is only one option - to walk down the nine flights of stairs.


While I don't disagree that we ought to economize on our use of power and other precious resources -- indeed, I took the better way just the other day -- going without toilet paper seems like a 5758 (lunar, Jewish calenday) year old slap in the face of all that is holy in civilization. Did God not give us dominion over th earth and His creatures? At least that is what I understand The Book to say.

The BBC helpfully adds a link to this idiot's blog




WWhile I may be no electrical engineer, it seems to me a laptop and an internet connection cannot be run off solar power. So just how does he maintain his blog?

Also, if this misguided moron, in his defense, is heading to an internet cafe with his manky dumpster found mason jar for a caffeine top up, isn't he just shifting his environmental impact to Starbucks?

Lastly, though he may have a loving wife, are the kids kosher with this?

Which reminds me, Saturday is Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish Calendar. So do make sure to atone for your sins. I know I will be atoning for your sins, but for 'health reasons' I will be abstaining from the fast.

I will however cut King David off from his traditional after Saturday morning soccer treat. You have to learn sometime. Indeed, playing a match on an empty stomach never hurt anyone either, so 'breakfast' is out of the question too. In any event, I only have coffee in the morning.

PS I had thought of using a picture of maggots enjoying the Beavan's compost but thought better of it.


Friday, September 14, 2007

Betcha You Don't Have one of These at Home!




Our Bamboo Shark is still in his (or her's) Mermaid Case.




According to the Internet, they can take up to 4 months to hatch. We don't know how old our egg is, but judging by the yolk we have a good few weeks left. Then the fun begins!

You Can't Keep a Good Man Down






O.J. Simpson questioned in Vegas hotel break-in
Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:05 PM EDT145

By Dan Whitcomb

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Las Vegas police questioned O.J. Simpson after a memorabilia dealer told them the former football star and murder defendant robbed him at gunpoint in a Las Vegas casino hotel room, police and other sources said on Friday.

Simpson was questioned about Thursday night's hotel room confrontation but was not taken into custody, a Las Vegas police spokeswoman said. She said the matter was still under investigation and declined to provide further details.

A lawyer for Ron Goldman, the father of one of two people Simpson was accused of stabbing to death in 1994, said the sports memorabilia dealer, Alfred Beardsley, had reported the robbery to police.

"I was told by Mr. Beardsley that he was robbed at gunpoint by O.J. Simpson in a hotel room in Las Vegas," said Goldman lawyer David Cook. "He has given a report to the Las Vegas police."

Beardsley did not immediately return messages left by Reuters but told celebrity Web site TMZ.com in an interview that Simpson and his associates stormed into his hotel room, guns drawn, and took items of memorabilia connected to Simpson.

An attorney for Simpson could not immediately be reached for comment and a number at his home in Florida was disconnected. Simpson was believed to be in Las Vegas.

The report of a break-in and Simpson's possible involvement comes the same day his ghost-written book, "If I Did It," hit retail shelves.

The book includes a chapter in which Simpson gives a hypothetical account of how he might have killed his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ron Goldman, on June 12, 1994.

Simpson, a star running back turned television pitchman and actor, was acquitted of the murders in 1995 at the end of a sensational criminal trial in Los Angeles.

A California jury later ruled in a civil suit brought by the victims' families that he was responsible for their deaths and ordered him to pay $33.5 million in damages.

(Additional reporting by Bob Tourtellotte)

Thursday, September 13, 2007

The East did Such a Fine Job, How I miss it!



From Scientific American

World's Top 10 Most Polluted Places

Russia, China and India contain the most areas where toxic pollution and human habitation collide with devastating effects

Sumqayit in Azerbaijan gained the dubious distinction this week of being added to Blacksmith Institute's top 10 list of the world's most polluted sites. Yet another heir to the toxic legacy of Soviet industry, the city of 275,000 souls bears heavy metal, oil and chemical contamination from its days as a center of chemical production. As a result, local Azeris suffer cancer rates 22 to 51 percent higher than their countrymen and their children suffer from a host of genetic defects ranging from mental retardation to bone diseases.

"As much as 120,000 tons of harmful emissions were released on an annual basis, including mercury," says Richard Fuller, founder of Blacksmith, an environmental health organization based in New York City. "There are huge untreated dumps of industrial sludge."

Fuller says the list includes "places that are highly polluted in the developing world, where children are dying in droves or living with chronic disease… areas of desolation and disgust at what man has wrought." Joining Sumqayit as the worst polluted:

* Chernobyl, Ukraine — The fallout from the world's worst nuclear power accident continues to accumulate, affecting as many as 5.5 million people and leading to a sharp rise in thyroid cancer. The incident has also blighted the economic prospects of surrounding areas and nations. "Belarus is very agricultural," says Stephan Robinson, a director at Green Cross Switzerland, an environmental group that collaborated on the report. "Through Chernobyl, they lost access to world markets for their produce."

* Dzerzinsk, Russia — A center of Cold War chemical manufacturing, the city's 300,000 residents have one of the lowest life expectancies in the world thanks to waste injected directly into the ground. "Average life expectancy is roughly 45 years," Robinson says. "Fifteen to 20 years less than the Russian average and about half a Westerner's."

* Kabwe, Zambia — The second largest city in this southern African country was home to one of the world's largest lead smelters until 1987. As a result, the entire city is contaminated with the heavy metal, which can cause brain and nerve damage in children and fetuses. "Measurements of children's blood levels of lead average over 50 micrograms per deciliter and some were over 100," Fuller says. "For every 10 points above 10 micrograms per deciliter [(the U.S. Centers for Disease Control standard for treatment)] that your blood level goes up, your IQ drops."

* La Oroya, Peru — Although this is one of the smallest communities on the list (population 35,000) it is also one of the most heavily polluted due to lead, copper and zinc mining by U.S.-based Doe Run mining company.

* Linfen, China — a city in the heart of China's coal region in Shanxi Province, its three million inhabitants choke on dust and drink arsenic that leaches from the fossil fuel. In addition, "it is difficult to see," Robinson says, "the air is heavily polluted."

* Norilsk, Russia — This city above the Arctic Circle contains the world's largest metal smelting complex and, therefore, some of the world's worst smog. "There is so much pollution going into the air from this place that there is no living piece of grass or shrub within 30 kilometers of the city," Fuller says. "Contamination [with heavy metals] has been found as much as 60 kilometers away."

* Sukinda, India — Home to one of the world's largest chromite mines—used to make steel stainless, among other things—and 2.6 million people, the waters of this valley contain carcinogenic hexavalent chromium compounds courtesy of 30 million tons of waste rock lining the Brahmani River. "Hexavalent chromium is very toxic and very mobile," notes David Hanrahan, Blacksmith's London-based director of global programs.

* Tianying, China — The center of Chinese lead production, this town of 160,000 qualifies as one of the eight most polluted areas in the country, according to the Chinese government. Lead concentrations in the air and soil are 8.5 to 10 times above national health standards and lead dusts local crops at levels 24 times higher than such health standards.

* Vapi, India — This town at the end of India's industrial belt in the state of Gujarat houses the dumped remnant waste of more than 1,000 manufacturers, including petrochemicals, pesticides, pharmaceuticals and other chemicals. "The companies treat wastewater and get most of the muck out," Hanrahan says. "But there's nowhere to put the muck, so it ends up getting dumped."


Blacksmith Institute compiled the list, which extends to 20 more sites in the "Dirty 30," by comparing the toxicity of the contamination, the likelihood of it getting into humans and the number of people affected. Places were bumped up in rank if children were impacted. No U.S. or European sites made the list thanks to a mop-up of lingering human health hazards over the past several decades, but that does not mean the developed world is not a contributor. "The nickel we use in our cars or elsewhere is likely to have come from Norilsk," Fuller notes. "And some of the lead in our car batteries will have come from one of these places."

Despite the massive pollution, it would be relatively easy and cheap to clean up the most dangerous hazards at these contaminated sites, Fuller argues. Economic development has already led to construction of cleaner new plants in some places and small efforts and investments can net major gains, he says.

For example, it costs just $15,000 to save an estimated 350 lives by simply digging up radioactive contaminated soil from the Mayak plutonium facility that had been deposited on the shore of the Techa River in the Russian town of Muslyomova. Similar cost-effective efforts are underway across the globe. "For about $200, the cost of a refrigerator, we are able to save someone's life," Fuller says, citing a recent Blacksmith analysis conducted with the help of Mount Sinai School of Medicine and Hunter College in New York City as well as Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. "Small amounts of money have gone an awfully long way to cleaning some of these up."

But there are also many sites this survey likely overlooks; Fuller conservatively estimates that, at worst, they have captured only one third of the world's most polluted areas because of spotty coverage in central Asia and Central and South America. After all, Sumqayit made the list this year for the first time. "We were quite surprised," he admits, "to have new additions to the list that we'd never heard of."

At Least it's Environmentally Friendly!




"It is environmentally friendly, compared to a nuclear bomb, and it will enable us to ensure national security and at the same time stand up to international terrorism in any part of the globe and in any situation," says Alexander Rukshin, deputy chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces.



Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Who Needs Nukes When You Have Fuel Air Bombs?



My old professor Kenneth Minogue at the LSE once told me over a pint that Russia would soon rise again. I scoffed at the idea. This was in the middle of the economic collapse following Sachs failed 'shock therapy.' My thoughts at the time were that Russia was so mixed up economically, politically, socially and everywhere that you could imagine that it would take at least a century before Russia posed a threat to anyone other than itself. My old roommate -- who maintained he was one of the few complete persons having been born in Mother Russia and raised in the Fatherland -- agreed with Minogue. Minogue knew. Arkadi knew. Russia is always a threat. It merely takes time off occasionally to lick its wounds.


Russia Says It Tested World's Most Powerful Air Bomb (Update1)
By Michael Heath
Sept. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Russia tested the world's most powerful air-delivered vacuum bomb that generates a shockwave similar to a nuclear blast, the armed forces said, as the country moves to reassert its global military power.
The bomb is ``comparable to a nuclear weapon in its power and efficiency,'' Alexander Rukshin, deputy chief of the Russian General Staff, said on state television yesterday. Unlike a nuclear bomb, it doesn't leave radioactive contamination, he added.
The weapon is four times more powerful than the Massive Ordinance Air Blast bomb tested by the U.S. military and known as the ``Mother of All Bombs,'' according to the report by broadcaster Perviy Kanal. This prompted the Russian designers to call their device ``the Father of All Bombs,'' it said.
Russia is reasserting its military power with a new intercontinental ballistic missile, upgrades to its air force and the expansion of its navy. It wants to counter the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's expansion in eastern Europe and U.S. plans to deploy anti-missile defense in the region.
The Russian leadership is ``showing the strength of the administration,'' Christopher Langton, senior fellow of conflict and defense diplomacy at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies research group said at a news conference today in response to a question about the bomb.
``It's important to note the presidential elections in March next year,'' he said. Vladimir Putin could be the first Russian president ``to leave office under normal circumstances,'' so he wants to leave ``on a high,'' Langton said.
Ultrasonic Shockwave
The new weapon disperses a cloud of explosive material that is set off by a charge and produces ``an ultrasonic shockwave and an incredibly high temperature,'' Perviy Kanal said on its Web site. After the blast, ``the soil looks like a lunar landscape,'' according to the report.
The new bomb carries fewer explosives than the U.S. device, while the temperature at the center of its blast is twice as high and the area of damage much greater, Perviy Kanal said.
``This has made it possible to reduce the accuracy requirements and made it cheaper, which is necessary in the current situation,'' Yuri Balyko, head of the Defense Ministry's 30th Central Research Institute, told the channel.
The new weapon will allow Russia ``to ensure the nation's security and at the same time battle international terrorism in any situation and in any region,'' Rukshin said.
Russia's Defense Ministry said the bomb ``doesn't contradict a single arms treaty,'' the channel reported. ``Russia isn't unleashing a new arms race,'' it added.
President Putin last month ordered a permanent resumption of strategic bomber flights around the world, ending a 15-year suspension of long-range air patrols. The move is to protect Russia's shipping routes and ``economic zone,'' he said.

No Mention in Pravda, Strangely



When they were still friends, 1919






Russian town asks citizens to multiply
September 12, 2007, 06:52 PM
Other news, Russia
ULYANOVSK, Russia, Sept. 12 (UPI) — Couples in a Russian community were doing their patriotic duty Wednesday by trying to increase the country's population.

Ulyanovsk's Gov. Sergei Morozov declared the day Family Contact Day as part of a proposal under which families could receive prizes for having babies on Russia Day, The Moscow Times reported. Wednesday was nine months before the June 12 holiday.

The Give Birth to a Patriot on Russia Day initiative aligns with Russian President Vladimir Putin's call to counter a declining population by increasing the number of birth.

The initiative is directed at improving the demographic situation in the region, a Morozov spokeswoman said.

Families who have children on June 12 could win valuable prizes, the spokeswoman said.

BBC's Newsround (for Kids) on 9/11

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_1610000/newsid_1612600/1612653.stm

Guides: 11 September 2001 attacks

Last Updated: Friday June 29 2007 10:33 GMT

Why did they do it?

The way America has got involved in conflicts in regions like the Middle East has made some people very angry, including a group called al-Qaeda - who are widely thought to have been behind the attacks.

In the past, al-Qaeda leaders have declared a holy war - called a jihad - against the US. As part of this jihad, al-Qaeda members believe attacking US targets is something they should do.

When the attacks happened in 2001, there were a number of US troops in a country called Saudi Arabia, and the leader of al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, said he wanted them to leave.



Subsequently corrected, Newsround explained the holocaust without mentioning Jews.

L'Shona Tova

The Great Chinese Firewall, Real or Imagined?

I have heard the key
Turn in the door once and turn once only
We think of the key, each in his prison
Thinking of the key, each confirms a prison
--T. S. Eliot

(Any excuse to post a picture of the bentpig's auto-icon is good enough for me.)

I thought this made interesting reading:

China's 'Eye on the Internet' a Fraud

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/chinas-eye-internet-fraud-14190.html

The "Great Firewall of China," used by the government of the People's Republic of China to block users from reaching content it finds objectionable, is actually a "panopticon" that encourages self-censorship through the perception that users are being watched, rather than a true firewall, according to researchers at UC Davis and the University of New Mexico.

Examples of words tested by the researchers and found to be banned included references to the Falun Gong movement and the protest movements of 1989; Nazi Germany and other historical events; and general concepts related to democracy and political protest.

...

"Imagine you want to remove the history of the Wounded Knee massacre from the Library of Congress," Crandall said. "You could remove 'Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee' and a few other selected books, or you could remove every book in the entire library that contains the word 'massacre.'"

By analogy, Chinese Internet censorship based on keyword filtering is the equivalent of the latter -- and indeed, the keyword "massacre" (in Chinese) is on the blacklist.

Those were the DOS days (Notice the 5 1/4 inch floppies that really flop)

Friday, September 7, 2007

Rant (in borrowed verse) of the day

To go with the Penguin or the Beast of Redmond, that is the question.
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous Vista
Or to take arms against a sea of Linux Distros,
And by opposing end them?

Is Osama Growing Younger?

Greatest Screen Saver Ever!



250 meters by 30 this very impressive fishy screen saver has been installed in the ceiling of a new mall in Beijing. I'd go to see it!

Thursday, September 6, 2007

I told you Putin is getting bolshy






UK jets 'chase Russian bombers'
The UK's Royal Air Force has launched fighter jets to intercept eight Russian military planes flying in airspace patrolled by Nato, UK officials say.

Four RAF F3 Tornado aircraft were scrambled in response to the Russian action, the UK's defence ministry said.

The Russian planes - said to be long-range bombers - had earlier been followed by Norwegian F16 jets.

Russia recently revived a Cold War-era practice of flying bomber jets on long-range patrols.

A Norwegian officer, Lt Col John Inge Oegland, told the BBC the Russian Tupolev Tu-95 Bear bombers flew in international airspace from the Barents Sea to the Atlantic, before turning back.

Two Norwegian F-16s shadowed them on Thursday morning and another two went up later, he said.

There have been several similar incidents in recent months, Lt-Col Oegland added.

"Norway is following the increased Russian activity in the far north with interest," he told the BBC News website.

He said the Russian flights were not causing alarm in Norway. "Our systems are adequate", he said, when asked whether Norway was bolstering its security in the area.

Story from BBC NEWS:

Must Reading: (Incidentally, this Blog is hosted for free by Google)


Inside the Googleplex

Aug 30th 2007 | SAN FRANCISCO
From The Economist print edition

It is rare for a company to dominate its industry while claiming not to be motivated by money. Google does. But it has yet to face a crisis

IN AMERICA a phenomenon might claim to have entered mainstream culture only after it has been satirised on “The Simpsons”. Google has had that honour, and in a telling way. Marge Simpson types her name into Google's search engine and is amazed to get 629,000 results. (“And all this time I thought ‘googling yourself' meant the other thing.”) She then looks up her house on Google Maps, goes to “satellite view” and zooms in. To her horror, she sees Homer lying naked in a hammock outside. “Everyone can see you; get inside,” she yells out of the window, and the fumbling proceeds from there.

And that, in a nutshell, sums up Google today: it dominates the internet and guides people everywhere, such as Marge, to the information they want. But it also increasingly frightens some users by making them feel that their privacy has been intruded upon (though Marge, technically, could not have seen Homer in real time, since Google's satellite pictures are not live). And it is making enemies in its own and adjacent industries. The grand moment of Marge googling herself, for example, was instantly available not only through Fox, the firm that created the animated television show, but also on YouTube, a video site owned by Google, after fans uploaded it in violation of copyright.

Google evokes ambivalent feelings. Some users now keep their photos, blogs, videos, calendars, e-mail, news feeds, maps, contacts, social networks, documents, spreadsheets, presentations, and credit-card information—in short, much of their lives—on Google's computers. And Google has plans to add medical records, location-aware services and much else. It may even buy radio spectrum in America so that it can offer all these services over wireless-internet connections.

Google could soon, if it wanted, compile dossiers on specific individuals. This presents “perhaps the most difficult privacy issues in all of human history,” says Edward Felten, a privacy expert at Princeton University. Speaking for many, John Battelle, the author of a book on Google and an early admirer, recently wrote on his blog that “I've found myself more and more wary” of Google “out of some primal, lizard-brain fear of giving too much control of my data to one source.”

Google itself has been genuinely taken aback by such sentiments. The Silicon Valley company, which trumpeted its corporate motto, “Don't be evil”, before its stockmarket listing in 2004, considers itself a force for good in the world, even in defiance of commercial logic. Its founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, and Eric Schmidt, its chief executive, have said explicitly and repeatedly that their biggest motivation is not to maximise profits but to improve the world.
Too many sermons

Such talk can make outsiders wince. Book and newspaper publishers, media companies such as Viacom, businesses which depend on Google's search rankings and a lengthening queue of others are tired of moralising sermons. Some feel their own livelihoods are threatened and are suing Google. Even some employees (called “Googlers”) or former employees (“Xooglers”) are cynical. Google is “arrogant” because it feels “invincible”, says a Xoogler who left to run a start-up firm. The internal attitude towards customers, rivals and partners is “you can't stop us” and “we will crush you”, he says. That “kinder, gentler” image is “mythology” and, he reckons, Google gets away with it only because of its impressively high share price.

That share price has quintupled since 2004, making Google worth $160 billion. The company has not yet had its tenth birthday. Yet Piper Jaffray, an investment bank, expects it to have revenues of $16 billion and profits of $4.3 billion this year. With so much money pouring in sceptics say it is easy to ignore shareholders and talk about doing good instead of doing well. But what happens when earnings fall short of Wall Street expectations or some other disaster strikes? Yahoo! and other rivals have gone through such crises and been humbled. Google has not.
Fifty cents at a time

Google's success still comes from one main source: the small text ads placed next to its search results and on other web pages. The advertisers pay only when consumers click on those ads. “All that money comes 50 cents at a time,” says Hal Varian, Google's chief economist. For this success to continue, several things need to happen.

First, Google's share of web searches must remain stable. Thanks to its brand, this looks manageable. Google's share has steadily increased over the years. It was about 64% in America in July, according to Hitwise. That is almost three times the volume of its nearest rival, Yahoo!. In parts of Europe, India and Latin America, Google's share is even higher. Only in South Korea, Japan, China, Russia and the Czech Republic does it trail local incumbents.

Second, Google must maintain or improve the efficiency with which it puts ads next to searches. And here its dominance is most impressive. In a recent analysis by Alan Rimm-Kaufman, a marketing consultant, it took a whopping 73% of the budgets of companies that advertise on search engines (versus 21% and 6%, respectively, for Yahoo! and Microsoft). It charged more for each click, thanks to its bigger network of advertisers and more competitive online auctions. And it had far higher “click-through rates”, because it made these ads more relevant and useful, so that web users click on them more often.

Perhaps most tellingly, advertisers do better with Google. Mr Rimm-Kaufman found that Google's ads “converted” more often into actual sales, which tended to be larger than those originating from Yahoo! or Microsoft. This is astonishing, given that Yahoo! has just spent a year on an all-out effort, codenamed Panama, to close precisely these gaps.

But even lucrative “pay-per-click” has limits, so Google is moving into other areas. It is trying (pending an antitrust inquiry) to buy DoubleClick, a firm that specialises in the other big online-advertising market, so-called “branded” display or banner ads (for which each view, rather than each click, is charged for). And Google now brokers ads on traditional radio stations, television channels and in newspapers of the dead-tree sort.

Sceptics point out that with each such expansion, Google reduces its profit margins, because it must share more of the revenues with others. If a web surfer clicks on a text ad placed by Google on a third-party blog, for instance, Google must share the revenue with the blogger. If Google places ads in newspapers or on radio stations, it must share the revenues with the publisher or broadcaster.

Yet Google does not look at it that way. Its costs are mostly fixed, so any incremental revenue is profit. It makes good sense for Google to push into television and other markets, says Mr Varian. Even if Google gets only one cent for each viewer (compared with an average of 50 cents for each click on the web), that cent carries no variable cost and is thus pure profit.

The machinery that represents the fixed costs is Google's secret sauce. Google has built, in effect, the world's largest supercomputer. It consists of vast clusters of servers, spread out in enormous datacentres around the world. The details are Google's best-guarded secret. But the result, explains Bill Coughran, a top engineer at Google, is to provide a “cloud” of computing power that is flexible enough “automatically to move load around between datacentres”. If, for example, there is unexpected demand for Gmail, Google's e-mail service, the system instantly allocates more processors and storage to it, without the need for human intervention.

This infrastructure means that Google can launch any new service at negligible cost or risk. If it fails, fine; if it succeeds, the cloud makes room for it. Thus Google can redefine its goals almost on a whim. Its official strategy recently became “search, ads, and apps”—the addition being the apps (ie, software applications). Sure enough, after a string of acquisitions, Google now offers a complete alternative to Microsoft's entrenched Office suite of programs, all accessible through any web browser. A new technology, called Google Gears, will make these applications usable even when there is no internet connection. And Google is hawking these applications not only to consumers but also to companies. Ultimately it does so because, thanks to its supercomputer, it can.

With Google's cashflow and infrastructure, the freedom to do anything it fancies gives rise to constant rumours. Often, these are outrageous. It used to be conventional wisdom that Google would build cheap personal computers for poor countries. This turned out to be nonsense, because Google does not want to make hardware. Now there is talk of a “Gphone” handset. This is also unlikely because Google is more interested in software and services, and does not want to alienate allies in the handset industry—including Apple, which shares board directors with Google and uses Google software on its iPhone.

Sometimes the rumours are both outrageous and true. Google is experimenting with new ways of bringing broadband connections to consumers, by blanketing parts of Silicon Valley with Wi-Fi networks. It is planning to enter an auction for valuable radio spectrum in America, and thinking of radically new business models to make money from wireless data and voice networks, perhaps a free service supported by ads.
If it goes wrong, how?

Beyond its attempts to expand into new markets, the big question is how Google will respond if its stunning success is interrupted. “It's axiomatic that companies eventually have crises,” says Mr Schmidt. And history suggests that “tech companies that are dominant have trouble from within, not from competitors.” In Google's case, he says, “I worry about the scaling of the company.” Google has been hiring “Nooglers” (new Googlers) at a breathtaking rate. In June 2004 it had 2,292 staff; this June the number had reached 13,786.

Its ability to get all these people has been a competitive weapon, since Google can afford to hire talent pre-emptively, making it unavailable to Microsoft and Yahoo!. Google tends to win talent wars because its brand is sexier and its perks are fantastically lavish. Googlers commute on discreet shuttle buses (equipped with wireless broadband and running on biodiesel, naturally) to and from the head office, or “Googleplex”, which is a photogenic playground of lava lamps, volleyball courts, swimming pools, free and good restaurants, massage rooms and so forth.

Yet for some on the inside, it can look different. One former executive, now suing Google over her treatment, says that the firm's personnel department is “collapsing” and that “absolute chaos” reigns. When she was hired, nobody knew when or where she was supposed to work, and the balloons that all Nooglers get delivered to their desks ended up God knows where. She started receiving detailed e-mails “enforcing” Google's outward informality by reminding her that high heels and jewellery were inappropriate. Before the corporate ski trip, it was explained that “if you wear fur, they will kill you.”

Google is a paradise only for some, she argues. Employees who predate the IPO resemble aristocracy. Engineers get the most kudos, people with other functions decidedly less so. Bright kids just out of college tend to love it, because the Googleplex in effect replaces their university campus—with a dating scene, a laundry service and no reason to leave at weekends. Older Googlers with families tend to like it less, because “everybody, even young mums, works seven days a week.”

Another Xoogler, who held a senior position, says that by trying to create a “Utopia” of untrammelled creativity, Google ended up with “dystopia”. As is its wont, Google has composed a rigorous algorithmic approach to hiring, based on grade-point averages, college rankings and endless logic puzzles on whiteboards. This “genetic engineering of their workforce,” he says, means that “everybody there is a rocket scientist, so everybody is also insecure” and the back-stabbing and politics are reminiscent of an average university's English department.

Then there is the question of what all these people are supposed to do. “We kind of like the chaos,” says Laszlo Bock, the personnel boss. “Creativity comes out of people bumping into each other and not knowing where to go.” The most famous expression of this is the “20% time”. In theory, all Googlers, down to receptionists, can spend one-fifth of their time exploring any new idea. Good stuff has indeed come out of this, including Google News, Gmail, and even those commuter shuttles and their Wi-Fi systems. But it is not clear that the company as a whole is more innovative as a result, as it claims. It still has only one proven revenue source and most big innovations, such as YouTube, Google Earth and the productivity applications, have come through acquisitions.

In practice, the 20% time works out to be 120% time, says another Xoogler, “since nobody really gets around to those projects for all their other work.” The chances of ideas being executed, he adds, “are basically zero.” What happens to the many Googlers whose ideas are rejected? Once their share options are fully vested they consider leaving. The same phenomenon changed Microsoft in the 1980s, when allegedly T-shirts popped up saying FYIFV (“Fuck you, I'm fully vested”). Already some are going to even “cooler” start-ups, such as Facebook or Twitter.

This week George Reyes, Google's finance chief, said he would retire. At 53, he is a multi-millionaire. Mr Reyes has maintained the company's policy of not providing guidance to Wall Street on future earnings, although his comments on growth prospects have moved its share price.
As Nick Leeson was to Barings...

Besides the slow risk of calcification that comes with growth, there is also the risk that Nooglers will dilute Google's un-evil values. Worse, Google might inadvertently pick up a rogue employee, as the late Barings Bank notoriously did with Nick Leeson. Indeed, Google is fast becoming something like a bank, but one that keeps information rather than money. This applies equally to its rivals, but Google is accumulating treasure fastest. Peter Fleischer, Google's privacy boss, argues that the risk of a malicious or negligent employee leaking or compromising the data, and thus the privacy of users, is minimal because only a “tiny” number of engineers have access to the databases and everything they do is recorded.

But the privacy problem is much subtler than that. As Google compiles more information about individuals, it faces numerous trade-offs. At one extreme it could use a person's search history and advertising responses in combination with, say, his location and the itinerary in his calendar, to serve increasingly useful and welcome search results and ads. This would also allow Google to make money from its many new services. But it could scare users away. As a warning, Privacy International, a human-rights watchdog in London, has berated Google, charging that its attitude to privacy “at its most blatant is hostile, and at its most benign is ambivalent”.

At the other extreme, Google could decide not to make money from some services—in effect, to provide them as a public benefit—and to destroy data about its users. This would make its services less useful but also less intrusive and dangerous.

In reality, the balance must be struck somewhere in between. Messrs Schmidt, Page and Brin have had many meetings on the subject and have made several changes in recent months. First, says Mr Fleischer, Google has committed itself to “anonymising” the search logs on its servers after 18 months—roughly as banks cross out parts of a credit-card number, say. This would mean that search histories cannot be traced to any specific computer. Second, Google says that the bits of software called “cookies”, which store individual preferences on users' own computers, will expire every two years.

Not everybody is impressed. The server logs will still exist for 18 months. And the cookies of “active” users will be automatically renewed upon expiry. This includes everybody who searches on Google, which in effect means most internet users. Then there is the matter of all that other information, such as e-mail and documents, that users might keep in Google's “cloud”. Mr Schmidt points out that such users by definition “opt in”, since they log in. They can opt out at any time.

As things stand today, Google has little to worry about. Most users continue to google with carefree abandon. The company faces lawsuits, but those are more of a nuisance than a threat. It dominates its rivals in the areas that matter, the server cloud is ready for new tasks and the cash keeps flowing. In such a situation, anybody can claim to be holier than money. The test comes when the good times end. At that point, shareholders will demand trade-offs in their favour and consumers might stop believing that Google only ever means well.

From the files of bad aquarium decor

A prize for whoever identifies what's wrong with this video.

Wednesday, September 5, 2007

Damn: I wish I wrote this one






Go Through Iran'
WASHINGTON, DC—Almost a year after the cessation of major combat and a month after the nation's first free democratic elections, President Bush unveiled the coalition forces' strategy for exiting Iraq.

Bush announces the pullout of Iraq through Iran.

"I'm pleased to announce that the Department of Defense and I have formulated a plan for a speedy withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq," Bush announced Monday morning. "We'll just go through Iran."

Bush said the U.S. Army, which deposed Iran's longtime enemy Saddam Hussein, should be welcomed with open arms by the Islamic-fundamentalist state.

"And Iran's so nearby," Bush said. "It's only a hop, skip, and a jump to the east."

According to White House officials, coalition air units will leave forward air bases in Iraq and transport munitions to undisclosed locations in Iran. After 72 to 96 hours of aerial-bomb retreats, armored-cavalry units will retreat across the Zagros mountains in tanks, armored personnel carriers, and strike helicopters. The balance of the 120,000 troops will exit into the oil-rich borderlands around the Shatt-al-Arab region within 30 days.

Pentagon sources said U.S. Central Command has been formulating the exit plan under guidelines set by Bush.

Enlarge Image Bush Map

"The fact is, we've accomplished our goals in Iraq," said General George Casey, the commander of coalition forces in the Iraqi theater. "Now, it's time to bring our men and women home—via Iran."

Questions have been raised about the unprecedented size of the withdrawal budget.

"I'm asking Congress to approve a $187-billion budget to enable us to exit as smoothly as possible," said Casey, whose budget request includes several hundred additional M1A1 Abrams battle tanks, 72 new C-130 cargo planes, and two brigades of artillery. "We're concerned about the safety of our troops, so we need to have the capacity to deal with insurgent forces all the way from the Iraqi border through to Tehran."

Casey has requested a budget increase for the Pentagon, so that the government can reward recruits who serve in the U.S. mission to exit Iraq.

Enlarge Image Bush Jump

Some of the Iranian citizens U.S. troops will meet as they pass through Iran.

"The plan also includes a minor stopover for refueling and provisional replenishment in Syria," Casey said. "But I don't expect we'll need more than 50,000 additional troops for that stretch of the Iraq pullout."

Bush's plan has met with widespread support.

"The people who said Iraq was a quagmire and that the president would never get our troops out are now eating crow," said Sean Hannity on his popular radio show Tuesday. "Of course, I don't expect anyone will have the honor to come forward and actually admit that they were wrong to question our commander-in-chief."

Sioux Falls, SD's Dianne Haverbuck, who has two sons in the military, said she was pleased to hear of the impending exit.

"Don and Kenneth have already been in Iraq an extra four months, so it's so good to hear that they'll finally be leaving that dangerous place," Haverbuck said. "I can't tell you how happy I was when the president said—what was it? I wrote it down. 'Getting our troops out of the Middle East and back home to their families is a viable long-term goal.'"

"I can't wait to see the boys," Haverbuck added.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-Khamenei welcomed the exit plan.

"Let the Allied armies come to Iran," Khamenei said. "I believe I can assure you that, if they do withdraw here, their brothers-in-arms in the Islamic Republican Army, the Revolutionary Guards Corps, the Quds special forces units, and the Basij Popular Mobilization Army will no doubt do everything they can to make the troops' trip back home memorable."

Thursday, August 30, 2007

This one never gets old

What's the deal with the Russian Spam these days? Are others suffering similarly?

Регистрация


ПБОЮЛ, ООО, ИП, ЗАО
В Москве, России и большинстве стран ближнего и дальнего зарубежья.
Различные организационно-правовые формы собственности (ООО, ОАО, фонд, некоммерческие организации, союзы, ЗАО, АО)
Регистрация филиалов и представительств в странах СНГ и за рубежом.
Юридическое сопровождение бизнеса.
Лицензии.
Банкротство. Ликвидация.
Печати и штампы.
Готовые фирмы (в день обращения)



ЛЮБАЯ СЛОЖНОСТЬ
(495) 638*58_58

Pravda. It's nice to know some things just don't change




Russian bombers and submarines continue to make unpleasant surprises for NATO
30.08.2007 Source: Pravda.Ru URL: http://english.pravda.ru/russia/politics/96504-russia_nato-0

The resumption of flights for Russian strategic bombers made NATO express serious concerns on the matter. In addition, NATO closely watches tests of a new Russian submarine. This news made "the most democratic country in the world" see that Russia is an equal rival for NATO. The NATO command is seriously concerned about the surprises that Russia makes.

When Russia’s strategic aviation recommenced flights in the areas of its traditional patrolling the Pentagon and European headquarters were shocked to learn the news. Russian aircraft have not patrolled the air space above the Atlantic waters within the past fifteen years, which made NATO believe that it held the absolute power there.

There are even some hysteric statements saying that the recommencement of flights by strategic aviation of the Russian Federation may mean the start of a new cold war. But some experts scoff at Moscow’s attempts to scare Europe with its outdated airplanes as they call the Russian strategic bombers.

Russia currently tests a new submarine called Amur in the Baltic Sea. The NATO Navy is closely watching the test, and the more information the NATO command gets about the submarine and the test the gloomier it grows.

The non-nuclear submarine of the Amur class is a fourth generation submarine that can deliver salvo missile attack at various targets. The level of its acoustic field is several times lower than it is registered with the world’s most noiseless submarines of the Kilo class.

The submarine is equipped with a new generation radioelectronic arming. What is more, the construction of the submarine allows supplying it with special power installations with chemical generators that help considerably increase its submerged endurance and cruising range.

Amur can operate in any part of the world ocean with the exception of areas covered with solid mass of ice, under any weather conditions, in shallow and deep waters. The Amur armament consists of ten vertical containers with cruise or anti-ship missiles together with missiles to hit surface targets. There are also four torpedo-tubes with multi-purpose torpedoes to deliver against a ship or above-water targets at short range. Amur can deliver a massive missile attack within at least two minutes.

Because of the low noise that makes it hard to detect such submarines experts in the West call them ‘the black hole in the ocean’. Chief designer of the project Yury Kormilitsyn said that the submarine was designed as an underwater hunter able to destroy any targets, surface battleships, transport ships or submarines, to deliver torpedo and missile attacks, to set mine barriers, and also to destroy targets with the help of soldier swimmers.

NATO experts fear that the submarine will be exported to other countries such as Venezuela that contends against the USA for domination in Latin America.

It is quite logic that Russia is actively reviving its military industrial complex and recommencing patrolling of the strategic aviation. In the past years, the West traditionally treated Russia as a weak part that regularly proposed peace initiatives and demanded peace for its own security. So, the West saw the role of Moscow as that of a petitioner.

But when Russia exhausted all the opportunities to make all countries friends it decided to pursue its own interests. That made the West and Europe first of all realize that Moscow would have its own way independently and may act even contrary to Europe’s interests.

After the breakup of the USSR the USA felt its global responsibility that later transformed into unrestricted domination over the world that allowed Washington to apply a neoconservative doctrine and intrude countries with unwanted regimes. Now the structure of the one-pole world is coming tumbling down.

Russia is not the only country that disagrees with the present-day model of the world order, and Moscow knows how to make others hear its opinion. Russia can definitely be an equal rival to NATO in the sky and at sea.

Vladimir Anokhin
Pravda.ru

Some new acronyms (courtesy of the NYT)

GI -- Google it
MOP -- Mac or PC?
FCAO -- five conversations at once
IIOYT -- is it on YouTube?
DYFH -- did you Facebook him/her?
BIOI -- buy it on iTunes
CMOS -- call me on Skype
GGNUDP -- gotta go, no unlimited data plan
WLF -- with the lady friend
JUOC -- jacked up on caffeine
12OF -- twelve-o'clock flasher (refers to someone less
than competent with technology, to the extent that every
appliance in the house flashes "12:00")
SML -- send me the link
RHB -- read his/her blog
MBLO -- much better-looking online
KYST -- knew you'd say that
NBL -- no battery left
CTTC -- can't talk, teacher's coming
TWD -- typing while driving
CMT (CMF, CMM, CMB) -- check my Twitter (Facebook,
Myspace, blog)
CYE (CYF, CYM, CYB)--check your email (Facebook, Myspace,
blog)
And a few just for iPhone owners:
WIWYA -- when I was your age
YKT - you kids today
CRRE -- conversation required; remove earbuds
WDO? -- what are you doing online?
NIWYM -- no idea what you mean
NCK -- not a chance, kid
B2W -- back to work
LODH -- log off, do homework
DYMK? -- does your mother know?
IGAT -- I've got abbreviations, too

Mini Restaurant Review: Fune on Simcoe Street



Went to Fune today.

100 Simcoe
Toronto, ON
(416) 599-3868

I first went there when I was taken by M2. It used to be good. But they really seemed to have pushed out the boat since last time I went. Indeed, it may have been the best Sushi I have ever had. Either that or I have been eating substandard fair. In any event, I recommend it highly. Get there before 12 and tell them I sent you. You’ll at least get a quizzical look on the house.