Ancient eroticism, updated

I'm intrigued to hear that the ancient Indian work, the Kama Sutra, is being updated in a modern translation. Judging from an initial report, however, it appears it may be undergoing a politically correct reinterpretation at the same time.

The Kama Sutra is getting a modern makeover, with the new edition set to be more of a lifestyle guide to love and relationships than a "pornographic sex book".

The erotic drawings and sexual illustrations (warning: link is not safe for work!) that have accompanied various translations of the ancient Hindu text are gone from the new Kama Sutra published by Penguin, Britain's Sunday Telegraph reports.

Instead, the Kama Sutra will be a text-only, pocket-sized classy manual presented as a "lifestyle guide for the modern man and woman".

"Until now the Kama Sutra has always been presented as a scandalous, '60s, hippie-influenced pornographic sex book," said Alexis Kirschbaum, the editorial director at Penguin Books.

"But it was originally written as advice to a courtly gentleman on how to live a well-rounded life, not just a passionate life."

The Kama Sutra is believed to have been written in the third century by Indian sage Vatsyayana.

Previous English versions of the Kama Sutra have been widely based on the 19th century translation by explorer and orientalist Sir Richard Francis Burton, often featuring erotic illustrations to accompany the old-fashioned language.

The new edition, written by A.N.D. Haksar, an Indian scholar and translator of Sanskrit texts, will include updated chapter headings such as "Making A Pass", "Why Women Get Turned Off", "Girls To Avoid", "Is He Worthwhile", "Getting Rid of Him", "Easy Women", "Moves Towards Sex" and "Some Dos and Don'ts".

"The common perception of the Kama Sutra is that it is only about sex, but any honest reading of the book shows that it is about lifestyle and social relations between human beings," Haksar said.

There's more at the link.

I've never been all that interested in the Kama Sutra (particularly because, as George MacDonald Fraser once famously commented, position 36 turns out to be much the same as position 35, but with your fingers crossed!). Still, it is a very ancient work, and it's been misrepresented and mistranslated in the past. Perhaps it's time it was updated in the light of modern scholarship . . . but it'll still be a pity if that scholarship is infected with political correctness.

Peter

First photograph of a human being?

Via NPR we learn of an 1838 photograph that might include the first human beings to ever be recorded on film.

This is a Daguerreotype taken by the inventor of the process, Louis Daguerre, in 1838. It is a view of the Boulevard du Temple in Paris. To achieve this image (one of his earliest attempts), he exposed a chemically treated metal plate for ten minutes. Others were walking or riding in carriages down that busy street that day, but because they moved, they didn't show up. Only this guy stood still long enough—maybe to have his boots shined—to leave an image.




Other primitive forms of photography had preceded this picture by over a decade. But this anonymous shadowy man is the first human being to ever have his picture taken. There is also the very faint image of the bootblack bent over his work.

There's more at the link.

Now there's a fascinating piece of technological history! I wonder who the unknown pedestrian was, and the bootblack? I'm sure they never knew they were being recorded for posterity.

Peter

Light in the darkness?

I'm sure most of us have heard of Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD). It frequently afflicts those living in the Polar regions, where daylight doesn't exist (or lasts only a very short time) for long periods of the year.

In that light (you should pardon the expression!), I'm intrigued by an experiment being conducted by Philips AG in the Polar town of Longyearbyen (which we last encountered in 2008, when I wrote about a visa-less Iranian refugee who's opened the world's northernmost kebab kiosk up there). According to a Swedish report:

Philips travels to Longyearbyen, Norway, where winter lasts for four months and the sun doesn't rise at all in this period. A town where the local people look with dread to the winter months: a time of little enjoyment and confusion. A period when, without the differentiation of day and night, time itself is without meaning.

Enter Philips and the wake-up light with a simple mission: to restore residents Longyearbyen's daily routine and help them combat the negative impact of living without natural light for four months.

The wake-up light simulates sunrise, allowing users to, perhaps not surprisingly, wake up in an environment similar to a bright summer's day. The theory behind the experiment is that this will combat the negative effects of waking, living and then going to sleep in darkness and should help the user readjust to a more natural cycle.

The full footage for the experiment will be released in November. Will it work? Wait and see.

There's more at the link, and also at a special page for the experiment at Philips' Web site. Here's a quasi-advertising video report from Philips.

Here's blogger Mark Salzman demonstrating the Wake-Up Light for Sync.

That looks interesting not only for those affected by S.A.D., but also those who must work night shifts or other hours that interrupt their normal sleep cycle. I spent several years in my youth doing night work, and sleeping during the day with heavy drapes to block out the sunlight. I'm thinking something like this might have made waking up rather easier and less traumatic.

I'll be interested to learn how the residents of Longyearbyen rate the Wake-Up Light at the end of the experiment.

Peter

Lessons learned from horror books & movies

Patrick, writing over at Popehat, lists a number of lessons he's learned from American horror books and movies, including such gems as:

• If it sleeps an ancient slumber, don’t wake it up.
• If you have to climb up to the attic, don’t enter head first.
• “Do not call up that which you cannot put down.”
• When you meet a small, precocious child, beat it to death with a hammer. Just in case.

There are many more at the link. Good for a laugh in this Halloween season.





Peter

Understanding Southern talk

Bill Cosby runs into a cultural barrier or three . . .

Peter

A novel transport concept

An Australian designer has developed a unique concept vehicle. The Sydney Morning Herald reports:

A young Australian has won a prestigious car prize for designing a truck that mimics the movement of ants.

Bryan Lee, 24, created the Aid Necessities Transporter for a university project after hearing about the devastating natural disasters that stuck in Haiti and Chile early this year.




"There were a lot of natural disasters happening, and one of the main problems was the deliverance of medical supplies.

"So I thought that by solving that delivery problem, you can help [the victims] a lot more".

The design won Lee the tertiary design category at this month's Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce Target 2020 competition.

The former Monash University student, who now works at Ford Australia, contacted a United Nations soldier to get advice on what vehicles were needed for transporting aid in disaster zones.

But it was a documentary about the insect that he stumbled across that inspired him to develop the all-terrain vehicle.




"After seeing the ant, it seemed the most logical solution," he said from his office in Melbourne.

"Ants themselves already have a system to transport supplies back to their nest. Nature itself is a perfect source of design."

Lee designed a "two-faced vehicle" that moves on six wheels and has an abdomen-style cargo unit, which carry loads 10 to 15 times its own weight, much like the ant.




The ANT operates like a Autobot from the Transformer cartoons - converting from a supply truck to a mobile housing unit through an expansion of its side panels.

Each wheel is individually powered and has its own suspension, allowing it safely to negotiate different terrain, such as those encountered by humanitarian workers in areas where there is little or no infrastructure left.

While the ANT remains a concept, Lee is confident advances in technology - such as the development of in-wheel motors, whereby a vehicle is powered by its wheels, thus removing the need for a central engine - will make such machines a reality within the next decade.

There's more at the link, and more details can be found at this Web site. Here's a video clip of the vehicle concept.

It's certainly ingenious! At the moment it exists only as computer graphics and specifications. It'll be interesting to see whether some forward-looking manufacturer is willing to try to produce it.

Peter

Doofus Of The Day #407

Today's Doofus is from Queensland, Australia.

A 21-YEAR-OLD Bundamba man will face court after he allegedly tattooed an unwanted lewd image and slogan on his mate’s back.

Police allege the man, who was not a professional tattooist, talked his friend into having the tattoo while the friend was visiting him at home.

After the 25-year-old victim got home, he was horrified to discover the tattoo was far from what he expected.

Instead of a Yin and Yang symbol with some dragons, the tattoo featured a 40cm-long image of a penis and a slogan implying he was gay.

He contacted police and they charged the 21-year-old Bundamba man with assault occasioning bodily harm.

The tattoo victim now faces the pain and expense of having the tattoo removed with a laser.

Police allege the tattooing followed a disagreement between the pair that culminated with the Bundamba man taking offence at something the victim said.

Ipswich CIB Detective Constable Paul Malcolm said the victim was extremely upset.

“Apparently he went round to the other bloke’s house and somehow in the course of the conversation the subject of tattoos came up,” Const Malcolm said.

“The victim wasn’t interested at first but he was talked into it and he said he wanted a Yin and Yang symbol with some dragons.

“He rolled him on to his stomach and the bloke started doing the tattoo and there was another bloke standing there watching saying, ‘Mate, it’s looking really good’.

“He was told not to go out into the sun and not to show anyone for a few weeks.

“When he got home he showed it to the person he lives with and she said: ‘I don’t think it’s the tattoo you were after’.”

There's more at the link.

With friends like that, who needs enemies? I would say that the victim is probably feeling the prick of conscience by now . . . but that would be unkind, so I won't.





Peter

More luxury jets

Last year I wrote about luxury private jets on two occasions. Now a series of photographs in the Daily Telegraph shows more of the interiors of these private airliners, and what money can buy when money's no object. Here are three examples.








There are more at the link. The photographer discreetly refuses to say who owns the various aircraft aboard which he took these pictures. Conspicuous consumption indeed! Nice if you can afford it, I suppose . . . and such luxury probably goes a long way towards dissipating jet lag before it can start!

Peter

When dredgers earn danger pay!

I note that the New York Sanitation Department was planning to dredge the Narrows for a new waste transfer station serving the city. The operative word is 'was'.

Scattered under only 20 feet of water were eight World War II-era copper artillery shells -- including one five feet long -- designed to shoot down airplanes, and about 1,500 large-caliber machine-gun shells designed to explode on contact.

"What a find!" shouted Ritter as he climbed aboard the vessel. "They're all over the place. Hundreds of them."

Ritter and munitions experts believe the ammo came from the stockpile of 14,470 live rounds that splashed into the bay during a military accident on March 4, 1954.

The aircraft carrier USS Bennington, moored off the fort, had unloaded the firepower onto a barge tied to its side. But the barge broke free during a violent storm, overturned and drifted six miles to the Rockaways -- littering the muddy floor of the Narrows and Gravesend Bay with live ammo along the way.

“Unless there was an undocumented accident in the bay, what we found has to be from the Bennington,” Ritter said.

Experts said if the ammunition is live, it could be dangerous to anyone who tries to move it – or to any ship that goes off course into shallow waters and scrapes the sea floor.

The discovery raises serious safety concerns about whether the city should move forward with plans to dredge in Gravesend Bay off Bensonhurst -- a mile south of the Bennington accident site -- to build a waste-transfer station, said Assemblyman William Colton (D-Brooklyn).

Colton said if heavy machinery used to remove sediment from the bay’s floor disturbs the bombs “it could be a catastrophe” considering “there’s an oil depot nearby.”

Dredging could also loosen the shells from their resting place at the muddy bottom. Because they are encased in air-filled canisters, they could surface and drift to nearby beaches and shipping lanes.

The city’s Sanitation Department declined comment.

There's more at the link.

Er . . . yes, quite! Dredging explosive-filled mud might result in a great deal of sewage transfer - albeit not quite in the manner intended by the Sanitation Department!





Peter

Monday kitten!

Here's a cuteness-overload dose of 'Awww!' to start your week. Watch the two short clips in succession.

Peter

Women's rights versus 'asking for it' - who's to blame?

I've seen a number of articles in recent weeks, all written by women, emphasizing that a woman is (or should be) in total control of her body at all times. All the articles debunked the frequent occurrence of what they referred to as rape (in the context of 'date rape', or sex at a party while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and similar situations), and sought to place all the blame on the men concerned.

To illustrate the general tone of these articles, here's one from an Australian author.

I recall some very uncomfortable moments ... when people I assumed were like-minded about the simple idea that a woman has the right to say no at any point before or during sex revealed some alarming views to the contrary. Views like "if she goes back to a guy's hotel room, what does she expect?" And "it's her fault for putting herself in that situation in the first place". And "scrubbers who hang around football players deserve what they get".

Ugh. The logic here is ugly and warped. It's based on the premise that men cannot control themselves. That they are wild beasts who barge through any door whether it's open or closed. And that women surrender their right not to be sexually assaulted after 2am. Or when hanging around footballers. Or when agreeing to be alone with any man.

The most troubling aspect in this debate is the concept that any woman ever deserves to be sexually assaulted. Naively, I thought we'd progressed miles from the arcane idea of "asking for it", from the idea that a woman's clothing or sexual history had any bearing on her right to say no.

. . .

Back on the phone with my mum, both of us dismayed by some of the attitudes we'd heard expressed publicly, we decided it all came down to the concept of progressive consent. Not a catchy phrase, admittedly, but one that's absolutely crucial when it comes to navigating sex in any context. The premise of progressive consent is this: just because you agree to one thing, it doesn't automatically mean you agree to something else.

If you agree to go home with someone, it doesn't automatically mean you want sex. Maybe you just want to kiss. Maybe you want to decide when you get there. Maybe you agree to one type of sex, but not another. Maybe you agree to have sex with one guy, not two. Or two guys, but not four. Maybe you agree to have sex with the guy you like, but not with his mates watching. Maybe you agreed to have sex an hour ago, but now you don't want to. Now you want to go home. Or go to sleep. And obviously, both parties have the right of refusal at any point - not just the woman. Is that all so hard to understand?

There's more at the link. All the other articles I read were of similar tone.

Ladies, you may hate me for saying this, but there are a few great, big, hairy elephants in the living-room that the author above (and the others I've read recently) won't acknowledge. They include (but are not limited to) the following:

• The consumption of alcohol and/or hallucinogenic drugs, which we know full well will inhibit the operations of logic, rational thought, and moral restraint in both men and women;
• The 'crowd mentality' that can overtake individuals in a group setting (particularly when fueled by alcohol or drugs);
• Different cultural norms that inform and influence the actions of those formed in and by them.

I respectfully submit that these three elements, taken together, can make a mockery of a woman's right to permit or refuse sex. Note that I don't deny the woman's right to do so: I merely point out that under certain circumstances, it won't make a bit of difference to reality. Let me explain.

First, alcohol and drugs. A woman may be able to have a few drinks, or smoke a joint or two, or inhale a couple of lines of cocaine, and remain in control of her faculties. She may be able to decide that she no longer wants to continue flirting with the guy she's been teasing for the past hour or so . . . but is he similarly capable? If he's been drinking and/or doing drugs as well, his tolerance for those substances may be significantly less than hers. Sure, it'll be morally and ethically (and possibly legally) wrong for him to act on his impulses, but by now he neither knows or cares about that. He's reacting out of emotion and animal drive, not intellectually. Under such influences, he may no longer be capable of behaving rationally.

The 'crowd mentality' is another well-known factor. It can influence people to behave very differently to what they'd normally do, particularly if alcohol and/or drugs are an additional factor. Just look at 'street parties' that turn violent; night-club crowds that dissolve into a fighting mob of drunken revelers; celebrations after 'the big game' that degenerate into an orgy of burning vehicles and broken shop windows. The same thing can happen at an ordinary party. I've read more than a few newspaper reports about women who agreed to have sex with an individual at a party, in view of others, and it turned into a 'gang-bang' situation (to which the women hadn't agreed). I'm very sorry that they wound up in such a mess . . . but why the hell did they agree to public sex in the first place? In such an atmosphere, where normal moral and ethical inhibitions are lowered, it's all too easy for things to get out of hand. Those involved may not even realize that she didn't want them to join in. They may take her assent for granted . . . and they're usually in no condition (or mood) to listen to any objections.

Finally, cultural norms. Have you listened to so-called 'gangsta rap'? Notice how women are frequently referred to as 'bitch', 'ho' and the like? What does that tell you about the status of women in such a society? That's right . . . they're very low on the totem pole. They're seen as existing for the use (and abuse) of men. I've met many such men in my work as a prison chaplain (because, inevitably, many of them end up behind bars). Their attitudes are a fact of life . . . and such men are present in every single US town or city. They sometimes come into contact with others from different backgrounds, such as women who've been brought up to have more self-respect, and say 'no', and expect the men in their lives to honor their choice: but these men, from a very different background, have never had to take any notice of 'no' before. If you run into one at a street party, or drunken after-the-big-game celebration, he may not pay any attention to your protestations that you don't want to go all the way. If he thinks you've given him the slightest encouragement (even mild flirting), that justifies him, in his mind, to go to the limit - whether you like it or not. That's your purpose in life, as far as he's concerned. You're sex on the hoof, nothing more.

I'm afraid that women simply have to safeguard themselves against such dangers. Such safeguards include not going to places where you don't have any sort of safety net; not over-indulging in alcohol or drugs (in public, at least); not flirting with strangers; and being aware of differences in social background and ethos. If a woman insists that such factors are irrelevant, and that her choice must always be the dominant factor, she's living in cloud cuckoo land, I'm afraid. She's lost contact with reality.

I've worked with rape victims, and I'm all too horrifyingly aware of the devastating consequences of this crime. I grew up with three sisters, and have had a number of relationships with the opposite sex. I'm not blind to the rights of women, and was brought up to accept them as the norm. However, those rights didn't stop my parents teaching my sisters to dress, speak and behave appropriately, avoid potentially dangerous situations, and in general behave like ladies. Because they did so, and were taught to get out of a potentially harmful situation as soon as they detected it 'going downhill', none of them had any serious problems with men . . . unlike many of their friends and peers.

Let me try to express this conundrum by means of an analogy. I don't want to be run down by a drunk driver. Therefore, I try to practice defensive driving, including staying away from areas where I'm likely to encounter such drivers (e.g. bars in a roadside strip mall on a Friday night, and so on). By keeping clear of the danger, I'm being prudent. It won't help me to insist that I have the right to be on the road outside that bar-filled strip mall at any time I choose. Sure, I have that right: but if I choose to exercise it at certain times, and/or in certain places, I'm asking for trouble. I should - I do! - know better; therefore, I modify my behavior. Is that too hard to understand?

I'd like to hear from readers about this - particularly the ladies. Am I being unrealistic, or unfair, or sexist, in holding these views? Am I correct in thinking that it's a woman's responsibility to take such factors into account, and avoid such dangers if possible? I accept that sometimes the dangers can't be avoided, but one can minimize them by careful preparation and attention to detail. If one chooses not to do so, but rushes into potentially dangerous situations without care or concern, without planning or precautions . . . isn't the blame for anything that happens at least partially on one's own shoulders?

What say you, readers?

Peter

Afghanistan: a federal solution?

I've written before about the situation in which the USA finds itself in Afghanistan, most recently last month. Two reports in an Australian newspaper lend weight to what I've said before, and offer a possible alternative solution.

First, a senior Australian officer underlines the difficult operational conditions there.

THE Taliban have ''overwhelmed'' foreign troops and cannot be defeated by military means, one of Australia's top combat soldiers has warned.

Brigadier Mark Smethurst says securing Afghanistan could take decades, but success is uncertain without a fundamental change in strategy.

His critical assessment comes in a report that contrasts sharply with federal government claims of progress in Afghanistan.

While the key role of Australian troops is mentoring local forces, he says the Afghan army cannot operate independently, despite seven years of training, and the police are even worse.

The Afghan government is ineffective and has failed to deal with corruption, human rights abuses and a non-existent justice system. Aid distribution, he says, has been ''wasteful, ineffective and insufficient''.

Brigadier Mark Smethurst implicitly criticises the Howard government's approach, and poses questions about the present government's agenda.

While successive governments have stated we are in Afghanistan to deny al-Qaeda terrorists a base, the brigadier says the key reason is to maintain the US alliance.

In a paper that makes uneasy reading for MPs before this week's parliamentary debate on Afghanistan, he implies that if we haven't achieved our primary aim by 2012 - training Afghan troops - we should pull out.

"Compared with other counterinsurgency campaigns, the chance of a solution in the short term appears remote," he says. "Even with the strongest possible action and co-operation at the national level, it is difficult to see solutions emerging in less than 10 years unless proactive action is taken now."

Brigadier Smethurst is a highly regarded special forces officer, with service in East Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan in a 28-year career. At present deputy commander of Special Operations Command, he is tipped for a key coalition post in Afghanistan.

While his paper was written last year, he told The Sunday Age the basic tenets held true.

Called Creating Conditions for the Defeat of the Afghan Taliban: A Strategic Assessment, it was recently published online by the Australian Defence College.

He describes the Taliban as a ''very capable adversary'' who are winning the propaganda war and whose tactics had ''overwhelmed the coalition''.

The insurgents ''cannot be crushed by a conventional military campaign'', he says. As public support for the nine-year-old war in the West wanes, foreign efforts have made limited progress.

He calls for a co-ordinated military and political strategy aimed at providing security, building Afghan forces and creating a functioning Afghan government. Yet all three aims face massive obstacles, he writes.

. . .

He warns the coalition must not be seen to fail in Afghanistan, because of the boost it would give to the Taliban in nuclear-armed Pakistan. A solution lies between the extremes of defeating the Taliban and reconciling with them.

He says walking away from Afghanistan risks allowing the country to flourish as a breeding ground and haven for Islamic extremism.

There's more at the link. Brigadier Smethurst's study paper may be read in full here (link is to an Adobe Acrobat document in .PDF format). It's worth the time for those interested in the subject.

The second report outlines proposals by Dr. Hussein Tahiri for a new approach to a political solution in Afghanistan.

Western governments cannot afford to have [a] long term commitment in Afghanistan. The Taliban, the Afghan government and its people are well aware of this. In the absence of a long-term commitment, the coalition needs to adopt a different strategy.

One solution for a more stable and secure Afghanistan could be the formation of a federal state. A powerful central government in Afghanistan is the antithesis of its tribal structure. Afghanistan is a tribal society and is comprised of many different clans, tribes and ethnic groups. A tribal structure is not compatible with a strong central state.

Social organisation among many tribal societies including Afghanistan is based on segmentary lineages. Each tribe is divided into families, lineages, clans etc. In tribal societies, individual's loyalty is first to his/her family, then lineage, clan and tribe; and everything else comes afterwards.

In any clashes, family members find themselves against another family, and lineage against another lineage and so on. There is constant tendency towards fission and fusion, maintaining continuous balance. When threat comes from outside, then all tribes unite against the outside threat.

Tribes have an independent spirit. The tribal leaders see no one as equal to themselves and the tribal members see no one as their superior except their leaders. The tribal leader wants to be autonomous in their internal affairs and they resist any external interventions limiting their autonomy.

In the modern era and the development of the concept of nationalism, ethnicity is considered a natural evolution into nationhood. An ethnic group with shared history, culture, ancestry, territory and language has to a great extent replaced tribes and functions as a super-tribe. Hence, loyalty from tribes to ethnicity is transferable but it does not extend beyond this.

When it comes to Afghanistan, the West has ignored the Afghan spirit of resistance and sense of freedom, which stems from tribal mentality. Afghanistan is made up of many different peoples and ethnicities including the Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, Turkmans, Aimaqa and Nuristanis. While each of these groups are divided into their own sub-divisions, they each form a kind of super-tribe.

Such a divided society with different and often opposing loyalties does not allow a coherent and strong central government, particularly if it is dominated by one ethnic group, in this case is the Pashtuns. No tribe or ethnic group will be prepared to lose their independence in favour of a central government, especially if it is dominated by another ethnic group.

In 1809, Monstuart Elphinstone, the first British envoy to the then "Kingdom of Caubul", tried to convince a Pashtun elder that they would be better off to live under a monarch. The Pashtun elder told Monstuart: "We are content with discord, we are content with alarms, we are content with blood, but we will never be content with a master." The above statement well explains the situation of Afghanistan even today. The various Afghan ethnic communities will not be willing to accept the rule of a central government (a master) imposed by outside powers.

Hence, it is more plausible to form a federal state in Afghanistan where each ethnic group have their own parliament and state, which are linked through a loose federal state.

Again, there's more at the link.

Of course, if Dr. Tahiri's proposals are adopted, it would mean the end of Western support (at least in its current form) for the centralized government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. That would be difficult, given the billions of dollars in cash and years of political support that have been committed to him; but it might be the only solution in the longer term. There's also the fact that President Karzai and those loyal to him are sure to resist any attempt to diminish or circumscribe their authority. They would probably regard such attempts as placing their own lives in danger (and not without reason). I'm sure Dr. Tahiri's proposals will spark intense debate.

Both of the articles cited above, and Brigadier Smethurst's full study paper, are essential reading, in my opinion, for Americans seeking to understand the reality 'on the ground' in Afghanistan. Highly recommended.

Peter

Doofus Of The Day #406

Today's pair of Doofi come from Portland, Oregon.

It seems that every year, that city's police department holds a 'Shop With A Cop' back-to-school event. They give out vouchers worth about $150 to needy children, and dozens of cops escort them through a local store to select what they need for the new school year. This year there were reportedly 160-odd children in the store, and almost as many cops - big public relations exercise, and all that sort of thing.

Our heroes (?) apparently believed that all those cops would actually help them in their nefarious purposes, as no-one would expect anything criminal to happen in their presence.

Yeah, right.

While officers were helping out the kids, store security alerted the police they had their eyes on two young men packing their own backpacks with merchandise.

"Two guys came in and were picking through goods, cutting tags off and loading up their backpacks with blenders, shoes, clothes and tools," said Sgt. Pete Simpson, police spokesman.

A couple of Portland officers assisted security in making an arrest, as a clown making balloons continued to entertain the children gathered for the special shopping event.

The two young men stopped, Shane Alexander, 20, of Hillsboro, and Jason Vantress, 30, of Southeast Portland, were arrested and walked back to the store's security office in handcuffs.

"Initially, they said they were freaked out by all the cops there," Simpson said. "But then, they thought it would be a good time to steal, that police would be distracted."

Now officers and store security are scratching their heads.

"Common sense didn't play into their decision-making today," Simpson said. "As is so often the occasion with crooks, they think they're smarter than the average bear, and they're not."

There's more at the link.

It's scary to think that, given their demonstrated (albeit defective) planning skills, when these two Doofi were clapped behind bars, they probably raised the average IQ of the inmates . . .



Peter

Superstition still reaps its deadly harvest

A tragic incident in France seems to be raising as many questions as it does eyebrows.

A baby has died and 10 people have been injured after they jumped out of a second-floor flat window, apparently thinking they had seen the devil.

Police are investigating the incident which took place in the early hours in the small town of La Verriere, west of Paris.

The baby was four months old and officers said many of the injured were children.

"Thirteen people were in an apartment on the second floor when, at around 3am, one of the occupants heard his child crying," said Odile Faivre, the deputy prosecutor in Versailles.

"The man in question, of African origin, who was completely naked, got up to feed his child, at which point the other occupants took him for the devil.

"He was seriously wounded in the hand after being stabbed with a knife before he was thrown out of the apartment, via the door."

The 30-year-old man then tried to force his way back into the room.

"That's when the other occupants tried to escape by jumping out of the window, panicked by a fear of the devil," said Ms Faivre.

. . .

Seven of those injured - who were African, possibly from Angola - were taken to hospital for emergency treatment.

There's more at the link.

Other reports indicate that there were no 'hallucinogenic substances' found in the apartment, and no evidence of any weird quasi-religious rituals having taken place. European reporters and authorities seem at a loss to explain the incident.

Being an African myself by birth (albeit of the Caucasian variety), I can understand it all too well. Primitive superstition is alive and well on that continent, and has spread from there wherever its people go. I've personally witnessed 'witch-hunts' in African villages, resulting in serious injury or death to those so identified. (South Africa still has several villages in its northern provinces that are under 24-hour police protection. They're the only places where those accused of witchcraft may live in relative safety. If they leave those villages . . . ) Lawdog's seen it too: a goat put on trial, condemned to death, and actually executed for being a human being who transformed himself into an animal, and all that sort of thing.

Readers may remember Robert Heinlein's dictum (which was probably old before he was born): "You can take the boy out of the Bible Belt, but you can't take the Bible Belt out of the boy." The same applies to those from Africa and their primitive folk beliefs. It takes more than one generation to separate them . . . and sometimes, as in this case, the results are tragic.

Peter

Two clever advertisements

These two video advertisements for Jamesons Irish whisky tickled my funny-bone.

I don't drink Irish whisky very often, but next time I go to the pub, I think I might have to invest in a glass of Jameson's as a 'thank you' for the entertainment!



Peter

This must be a little embarrassing for Toyota . . .

Newsweek has published an article pointing out that the Toyota Hilux pickup is the most popular vehicle amongst terrorist groups and irregular militias throughout many areas of the world. Here's a short excerpt.

“The Toyota Hilux is everywhere,” says Andrew Exum, a former Army Ranger and now a fellow of the Center for a New American Security. “It’s the vehicular equivalent of the AK-47. It’s ubiquitous to insurgent warfare. And actually, recently, also counterinsurgent warfare. It kicks the hell out of the Humvee.” Anecdotally, a scan of pictures from the last four decades of guerrilla and insurgent warfare around the world—the first iteration of the Hilux appeared in the late ’60s—reveals the Toyota’s wide-ranging influence. Somali pirates bristling with guns hang out of them on the streets of Mogadishu. The New York Times has reported that the Hilux is the pirates’ “ride of choice.” A ragtag bunch of 20 or so Sudanese fighters raise their arms aloft in the back of a Hilux in 2004. Pakistani militants drive through a crowd, guns high, in 2000. It goes on. Nicaragua, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Liberia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq—U.S. Special Forces even drive Toyota Tacomas (the chunkier, U.S. version of the Hilux) on some of their deployments.

While Taliban leader Mullah Omar reportedly likes to roll in a Chevy Suburban and Osama Bin Laden is said to have preferred the Hilux’s bigger brother, the Landcruiser, when he was able to move freely, most Al Qaeda lieutenants drive Hiluxes, according to a New York Times report from the early 2000s. Even today, says Kilcullen, “It’s a bit of a sign you’re dealing with Al Qaeda when you come across them in Pakistan. They use the twin-cab version, because you can carry people and stuff in the back, and also mount a heavy weapon in the pickup.”




The truck even has a war named after it: the so-called “Toyota War” between Libya and Chad in the 1980s was dominated by fighters using the light, mobile Hilux. Indeed, Africa, says Kilcullen, is where the truck got its nickname as a fighting vehicle, “the technical.” “When [nongovernmental organizations] and the U.N. first went into Somalia,” he says, referring to a period in the 1990s, “they were not able to bring their own guards. So they got so-called ‘technical assistance grants’ to hire guards and drivers on the ground. Over time, a ‘technical’ came to mean a vehicle owned by a guard company, and then eventually to mean a Hilux with a heavy weapon mounted on the back.”

The Toyota is such a widespread and powerful weapon for insurgents, says Dr. Alastair Finlan, who specializes in strategic studies at Britain’s Aberystwyth University, because it acts as a “force multiplier.” It is “fast, maneuverable, and packs a big punch [when it’s mounted with] a 50-caliber [machine gun] that easily defeats body armor on soldiers and penetrates lightly armored vehicles as well.” It is particularly dangerous, he adds, against lightly armed special-forces operatives.

. . .

A former British special forces soldier, who asked not to be identified because he still consults on active operations, says he too has faced the Hilux, which he refers to as “the technical,” in both Iraq and Afghanistan. “I’d say the appeal is pretty simple,” he says. “You can’t underestimate the value of having a vehicle that is fast, will never break down, and is strong enough to mount a heavy weapon in the back.”

Exum, who has seen the Hilux in action across the Middle East, says the Toyota’s status is self-perpetuating. “Because everyone uses them, there are parts easily available, and mechanics everywhere know how to fix them. That kind of feeds on itself,” he says.

There's more at the link, including a gallery of Toyota pickups in various unsavory areas of the world (with equally unsavory crews).

I'm not surprised at the popularity of the Hilux. I've driven them across many thousands of miles of African bush and semi-desert terrain, and found them more reliable and trustworthy than just about anything else, including Land-Rovers, Jeeps and the like. I've always wondered why they haven't been introduced to the US market on a massive scale. They can carry an enormous load (far more than the average US pickup), they're tough as nails, and they're much more economical than the average V8-engined US equivalent (particularly when fitted with Toyota's excellent light diesel engine).

I wish US manufacturers would import a few examples of the Hilux, strip them down to component level, and study them carefully. They'd learn a lot - and hopefully they'd be able to improve their own vehicles to a considerable extent!

Peter

Doofus Of The Day #405

Today's award is presented to the National Endowment for the Arts. CNS News (which presented the NEA with its 'Golden Hookah Award' for the same reason) reports:

CNSNews.com presents this week’s “Golden Hookah” to the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for distributing $1.4 million in special economic “stimulus” grants to 37 “arts” organizations located in the City of San Francisco.

Money for the grants was slipped into the $787-billion economic "stimulus" law that President Barack Obama signed in February 2009.

While the NEA says the grants were awarded on the basis of artistic merit and excellence--and that political affiliation was in no way a part of the selection process--"arts" groups in San Francisco got more grants than any entire state except New York or California, taken as a whole.

One grant recipient in San Francisco claims credit for fostering the success of a group that puts on a live performance it describes as an experience in which “ethno-cyborgs create slow motion emblematic tableaux variants” and "some performers feel inclined to eroticize political violence.”

The Golden Hookah is the symbolic token that CNSNews.com confers on government agencies that win our “What Were They Smoking Award” for outrageous government spending. CNSNews.com presents the award weekly to a component of government that has distinguished itself in taking the hard-earned money of taxpayers and sending it up in smoke.

There's more at the link, including a video report on the NEA's grants.

I objected to most of the 'stimulus' expenditure on principle. To have it applied to an artistic and erotic 'stimulus' merely adds insult to injury! I think it's high time we killed all government funding for the arts. I value and appreciate some of them, and I'm willing to spend my own money to support those that interest me; but I object violently to having my tax dollars wasted in this fashion. Let the arts raise the money they need from their supporters and patrons, and stop mooching from the rest of us - and from our taxes!





Peter

The Falcon Lake Murder and Mexico's Drug Wars

STRATFOR has published a very interesting article with this title in the aftermath of the murder of David Hartley on Falcon Lake, TX, and the subsequent beheading of the chief Mexican investigator into the case, Rolando Villegas. Their analysis sheds additional light on the current state of the 'cartel wars' in Mexico. Here's an excerpt from 'The Falcon Lake Murder and Mexico's Drug Wars', republished with permission of STRATFOR.

... a reliable source in Mexico informed us that the Sept. 30 shooting death of U.S. citizen David Hartley on Falcon Lake — which straddles the U.S.-Mexico border — was a mistake committed by a low-level member of the Los Zetas drug trafficking organization. The source also informed us that those responsible for Hartley’s death are believed to have disposed of his body and that the Zeta hierarchy was conducting a damage-control operation to punish those responsible for the death and to distance the cartel from the murder. The source further reported that the murder of the lead Tamaulipas state investigator on the case, Rolando Armando Flores Villegas — whose head was delivered in a suitcase to the Mexican military’s Eight Zone headquarters in Reynosa on Oct. 12 — was a specific message from Los Zetas to Mexican authorities to back off from the investigation.

. . .

Viewing the murder as part of the bigger picture of what is occurring in Mexico makes it far easier to understand not only why David Hartley was killed, but why his body will likely never be found — and why his killers probably will not be held accountable for their actions, at least in the context of the judicial system.


The Changing Mexican Cartel Landscape

In STRATFOR’s annual Mexican cartel report published in December 2009, we noted the growing fracture between the Gulf cartel and its former enforcement arm, Los Zetas, which had become an independent drug trafficking organization. We noted that Los Zetas were becoming increasingly aggressive and that the Gulf cartel was struggling to fend off these advances. In fact, it looked as if Los Zetas were about to swallow up the Gulf cartel.

. . .

Since January, the Zetas have suffered significant organizational and territorial losses. By May 2010, Los Zetas reportedly had lost control of the strategic (and very lucrative) border crossing of Reynosa, Tamaulipas state, to the New Federation and had been forced to retreat north toward Nuevo Laredo and west toward the transportation hub of Monterrey, the capital of Nuevo Leon state and Mexico’s third-largest city.

. . .

All of these recent losses by Los Zetas must be considered part of a longer timeline. As early as 2007, STRATFOR began to discuss the toll that the cartel wars were taking on the enforcement arms of the various cartel groups, such as Los Zetas. The life of a cartel enforcer is often quite brutal and short: Enforcers constantly are in danger of being killed or arrested. In 2007, we noted how Los Zetas were looking to bring in fresh muscle to bolster their ranks, to include other former members of the Mexican military and police, former Guatemalan special operations forces (known as Kaibiles), and even members of street gangs like Mara Salvatrucha, aka MS-13. These young street gang recruits frequently are referred to as “Zetitas” or little Zetas.

Such replacements come with a price, however. The original Los Zetas were defectors from Mexico’s Special Forces Airmobile Group (known by the Spanish acronym GAFE), and as such were very well-trained and well-disciplined. As evidenced from the paramilitary training camps uncovered in Mexico and Guatemala, and the fact that Los Zetas reportedly have hired military instructors from a variety of countries (including Americans, Israelis, and some Europeans), the organization has attempted to train their new recruits. But the new generations of Zetas and Zetitas are simply not as well-trained or well-disciplined as the original Zetas. This basic level of training for new recruits has also suffered in recent months as the group has been under tremendous pressure to replace members who have been killed while some of its training facilities have been seized by the authorities. This means the organization has been compelled to use enforcers with very little training who are far less tactically adept than their Zeta masters. They are little more than thugs with guns.

And this brings us back to the Hartley case. Intelligence reports we received indicate that a group of poorly trained Zeta enforcers working to keep the Falcon Lake smuggling corridor safe from encroachment by the Gulf cartel and their New Federation partners killed David Hartley. When viewed within the analytical framework of what has happened to the Zetas over the past year, the intelligence fit. It makes sense to us that the Zetas would be employing poorly trained individuals for such duties, that those performing those duties would be jumpy and that these gunmen likely did kill Hartley without orders from the Zeta hierarchy.

Although some media outlets have portrayed the murder of an American citizen by a Mexican cartel organization as an unusual event, it is really quite common. In fact, 79 American citizens officially were reported murdered in Mexico in 2009, according to U.S. State Department figures, and the State Department notes that there were probably other cases that went unreported. For 2010, the State Department reports 48 American citizens have been murdered in Mexico through June 10. Our research has uncovered at least another six reported deaths since June 10 (including David Hartley), so unofficially the number of American citizens reported murdered in Mexico is approximately 54 for the year to date. While many of the Americans murdered in Mexico are undoubtedly involved in some way with the drug trade, others have no apparent link.

. . .

At the same time Mexico is being pressured by the U.S. government about the death of one American citizen, it is also are trying to come to grips with the fact that the lead Mexican investigator in the case was kidnapped and beheaded. This turn of events provides a fairly good illustration of the security environment in Mexico today.

. . .

Given the well-honed ability of the cartels to dispose of bodies and the fact that Los Zetas reportedly went into damage-control mode following David Hartley’s shooting, it was not at all surprising to receive a report indicating that that the gunmen who killed Hartley reportedly disposed of the body to destroy any potential evidence. We also received reports that Los Zetas No. 2 man, Miguel “Z-40” Trevino Morales, was angry about the murder of Hartley by poorly disciplined Zeta gunmen acting without permission, and is very unhappy with the attention the case has focused on his organization and their smuggling route through Falcon Lake.

While under heavy pressure from the New Federation and the Mexican government, which Los Zetas claim is helping the New Federation against them, the last thing Los Zetas needed was heavy pressure from the U.S. government. This might result in police operations to capture Zeta members and interference with the group’s smuggling activities.

In addition to the loss of personnel on the battlefield, Los Zetas also have lost control of valuable smuggling corridors like Reynosa. This means that any remaining corridors they control are even more important to the group and its ability to make money, which is needed to buy guns and hire and train new gunmen to protect the group against outside pressure by the New Federation and the Mexican government. Intensive law enforcement operations looking for Hartley’s body effectively shut down the Falcon Lake corridor. Due to the losses suffered by the organization from this chain of events, it is not surprising that we have received reports that Trevino wants to execute the gunmen who killed Hartley. This means that the shooters in all likelihood never will be found by authorities, much less arrested or brought before a court of law.

As organizations such as the VCF and Los Zetas become increasingly desperate in the face of attacks against them by their New Federation enemies and the Mexican government, they will likely become even more paranoid — and more dangerous to those not directly involved in the Mexican cartel wars. As this occurs, there will almost certainly be more cases of innocents caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.

There's more at the link. Highly recommended reading.

Once again, friends - if you don't have to go into (or near) Mexico, don't! It's not the place to go on holiday, even to purportedly 'safe' areas. Violence is now endemic there, and can erupt anywhere at any time. It can even reach across the US border . . . as Mr. Hartley and his wife so tragically found out the hard way. They weren't the first to experience this sort of trouble on Falcon Lake, but they were either unaware of previous incidents, or ignored them.

As long as 'innocents abroad' stray into the path of cartel gunmen, casualties will result.

Peter

Save the haggis, och aye!

Via Roberta X we learn that climate change is threatening the future of that famous food, the haggis.

A vital ingredient to make the traditional Scottish dish is becoming increasingly hard to find: sheep lung. Many sheep have been infected with Lung Worm, which does not affect the rest of the sheep’s body, [but] does render the lungs inedible.

Haggis (image courtesy of Wikipedia)

“Lung worm has been at a very low level and did not cause serious problems in sheep but with the changing climate and availability of the parasite it is becoming a problem,” said Sandy Clark, a veterinarian at the Scottish Agricultural College in Thurso.

But haggis fans need not worry. Scottish butchers are sourcing their sheep lungs from Irish farms instead, where Lung Worm has not been a problem.

There's more at the link.

Nae mair Haggis? Och, t' bluidy Sassenachs an' theer wurrms bid fair tae ruin oor great Scots tradition!

Ahem.

(Peter slaps himself on the cheek, stops channeling long-distant Scots ancestors, reverts to reality.)

Where was I? Oh, yes.

There is, of course, the question whether Irish sheep lungs can possibly substitute for the genuine Highland article. After all, the cheeky Irish still insist that whisky is their invention! Next thing you know, they'll claim that Robert Burns was channeling Saint Patrick when he wrote his famous 'Address To A Haggis'!



Peter

A brutally true video

Via HotAir we learn of this video clip from Citizens Against Government Waste. It's self-evidently (and painfully) accurate!

However, if you think most of our current crop of politicians (of all parties) will learn anything from it, despite its truth, there's a bridge in Brooklyn, NYC, I'd like to sell you. Cash only, please, and in small bills . . .





Peter