One Step Beyond

When I was twelve, a TV-movie was released in Britain entitled Threads. It's one of the few movies that has genuinely scared me; it terrified me. Even now there are scenes in the movie that make me break out in a cold sweat.

I suffered the very same reaction when I read about the latest escapades of the schoolyard bully GWB and his cronies. For those who haven't heard this story yet, the US government is currently considering a change to their National Defense Policy and their stance on the use of nuclear weapons. It's been in the pipeline since 2001, when President Bush requested research into the subject.

As things stand, the US is bound by its own policies in such a way that means that they can not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries. In other words, if the US is engaged in an armed conflict with a country believed to not possess nuclear capability (such as Iraq), then the US may not, by its own law, use such weapons themselves. This is pretty much in accordance with the non-proliferation treaty, by which all nuclear capable countries agreed to reduce nuclear stockpiles and in essence work towards a WMD-free future. An applaudable agreement.

If the suggested change in policy goes through then it will radically change the way that US forces could wage war. Or to be more exact, could be ordered to wage war by their Commander-in-Chief, the President. In effect, the policy change would give the US the power to launch nuclear-capable WMDs against any nation, regardless of that nation's own nuclear capability. Even more frightening is the wording of the report (it's a large .pdf, so if you're on low bandwidth be warned).

The report itself basically suggests a shift in strategy that would allow the use of nuclear weapons in a number of somewhat hazy ways. These include using nukes to end a war successfully for the US and her allies (though who in their right mind would want to stand next to the kid with the biggest firecracker in the world?), to demonstrate the willingness and ability to use nukes as a deterrent (now it's not enough to have the stick, you need to prove you can use it...) or even just because the target can hold up against a non-nuclear attack. It would effectively turn nukes into strategic battlefield weapons, a project that the US started working on in the sixties, if I remember correctly.

On it's own, this shift would be worrying, but when you consider that in 1999 the US Senate voted against ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (the one that made all nuclear tests internationally illegal for all time) then it gets a whole lot worse. It paints a grim picture.

Imagine the scenario we have in Iraq at the moment. Front-line troops are ordered to withdraw from several cities known to contain terrorist cells and a few hours later those cities are hit by nuclear-armed cruise missiles. The argument would be that the terrorists have proved impervious to conventional attack, thus leaving no other choice.

Now I know that's an exaggerated example of the proposed policy in action, but we've already had the revelation that Bush sent the troops in the first place because God told him to. Could he use the same influence to launch nukes? And even if GWB has been relieved of command when the policy changes, it still means that the US then has the power to launch nukes whenever it feels there is no other alternative.

In the original draft of the report from 2002, several countries are listed by name as potential threats (in other words priority targets): Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria and China. It's well known that the US suspects that all of these countries already have nuclear-capable WMDs, so would they be immediate targets for a strike if the policy changes? To be honest, I'm not sure.

I've lived with the pseudo-threat of nuclear armageddon for most of my life. I'm too young to remember the Cuban Missile Crisis, but seeing Threads as a kid, watching the city I lived in suffer from a nuclear attack, made me a little nervous to say the least. Growing up and learning the science and technology behind nukes just made it worse, and the smaller and more precise they get, the more nervous I get. Sure, they make a big bang and tend to destroy the target, but what about the after-effects? Who's going to deal with those?

I really hope that this change doesn't happen. There's already at least one online petition being signed, but you need to be a professional physicist to sign it, so I've decided to start my own. As well as linking to it from this post, I'm adding it as a permanent link. Please sign it, and ask others to sign it. The more people who show concern, the more power the people have.

Anyway, I have some writing to do, so I'm going to sign off.

Be well Sleepsville. I promise my next blog will be more light-hearted.

Addendum: If you're wondering why the second signature on the petition's been voided, it's because I accidentally signed twice. D'oh!

A Blast From The Past

I was doing a little random browsing tonight and on a whim I decided to have a look at my old blueyonder website, fully expecting it to have been purged by now. Imagine my surprise when I realised it's still there.

I never really got very far with the site, and a lot of the ideas I had for it fell by the wayside, but if you want an insight into the origins of this blog you might want to take a quick look. It's called Studio-69 and you know what, I may just be tempted to resurrect some of it at a later date.

I warn you now, it's not all that amazing....

Be well Sleepsville. I'm off to hang my head in shame.

Better By Design

According to the Bible, God created pretty much everything that exists on this planet (and most of space, apparently) in just six days. According to modern scientific belief, it took a little longer than that. And since then pretty much the entire human race has been arguing over which version of events is right.

Today, there's a story about this very argument on BBC News. Apparently, The Dover Area school board of Pennsylvania have made the teaching of the so-called intelligent design theory compulsory, while at the same time effectively removing evolution from the curriculum as unproven. In fact, this state of affairs (pardon the pun) seems to be quite prevailing in the USA, with over twenty states promoting the teaching of intelligent design as accepted fact.

Okay, let's look at both sides of the argument...

In his paper, The Origin Of The Species, Charles Darwin suggests that the diversity of life upon this planet is a direct result of the forces of evolution. Evolution works by the simple principle of "survival of the fittest" ... sort of. As mutations enter a given gene pool, those individuals with the most effective mutations live an easier or longer life, thereby propagating the mutation until it becomes a natural trait of the species in question. If you believe Darwin, then the reason we have ten digits, two eyes, a nose and all the component parts that we do is down to evolution. As the mutations increase, species split into individual breeds, and from there go on to form new species that either flourish and prosper or fail and die. Darwin used the fossil records at his disposal to classify and catalogue this process, effectively creating an evolutionary family tree for every living critter he could find. Her even went on a little cruise to examine the plants and animals in their native habitat. Scientific research suggests that this process (correctly labeled as a theory ... more about that in a bit) is ongoing, taking place all around us every day.

Creationists (people who believe in the intelligent design theory) hold with the Bible's account of where life came from. They say that gaps in the fossil record prove that Darwin's wrong, and that there is far too much diversity for it all to have happened Darwin's way, preferring instead the 'six days and a rest' approach used by God. Admittedly, there are those from within this camp who are willing to accept that evolution may have played a part in it somewhere but in most cases God did all the work and anybody who says otherwise is wrong.

To be honest, I'm surprised that this argument is still running. In the last hundred years or so, the fossil records have constantly been growing as new discoveries are made. In China, huge numbers of hitherto unknown prehistoric animals are being found almost on a daily basis, while in N. America the Utah Badlands still offer up a veritable cornucopia of ancient (long-dead) lifeforms. Even the biological history of the human race is being questioned regularly, and both schools of thought still continue to hold blindly to their own beliefs. Who's right and who's wrong?

Part of the problem stems from the fact that evolution is a theory. Now to most people the word theory is something that has been speculated but not proved. Unfortunately, that's actually a hypothesis, not a theory. A theory (in scientific terms, which is how it's used when applied to evolution) is a little more solid than that. According to dictionary.com, a theory is...

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

The important points here are that a theory explains "...a group of facts or phenomena..." and that it has usually been "...repeatedly tested or is widely accepted...". The theory of evolution has been studied, tested, re-evaluated and expounded upon repeatedly since Darwin, and the more strange and wonderful critters we dig up out of the ground, the more we understand that family tree that Darwin started.

The other problem is that evolution doesn't hold with the teachings of the Bible ... or does it?

In 1996, Pope John Paul II sent a message to the Pontifical Academy Of Sciences regarding this very subject, in which he accepts that "...the Encyclical Humani generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation..." For my own part, I simply turned to the Bible and re-read Genesis 1:11-26, where I discovered that every plant and animal was brought forth from either the ground or the sea. Now, I personally love the image of some omniprescient deity walking around and magically creating life but couldn't Genesis simply be another way of describing the evolution process. After all, even Darwin suggested that life originally came from the oceans. So in conclusion, the former Pope was willing to accept the plausibility of evolution (even if he was cautious about it) and the Bible itself tells us that life was brought forth from the waters of the ocean and from the earth. So why are the creationists so dead set on denouncing evolution?

At the end of the day, there are strong arguments on both sides. Yes, the idea of everything being created in six days is a little ludicrous but the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally; it's a guide-book for life, not the actual word of God (or Gods). At the same time, there are big gaps in the fossil records and evolution can't explain the most important question of all ... where did life come from?

An interesting side note to this whole debate concerns a group known as the Raelians. These people believe that life on earth was created by intelligent design but instead of God, they believe that we were put here by aliens. Most creationists have renounced this group as being crazy, but surely they're on the same side?

I don't think this debate is ever going to end, to be honest. It's been going on since long before the infamous Scopes Trial in 1925 and unless God (or the Elohim of Raelian myth) turn up one day to put the story straight, all three sides of the argument can be considered to be theory. They all explain most of the story but they all seem to fall down in one way or another. Maybe none of them are right. Or maybe they all are. I'll let you read the sources and make up your own mind.

Keep evolving Sleepsville. There is a light at the end of the tunnel.

"Sing-a-song of Sixpence..."

Just a quick post tonight before I wend my weary way to bed. I was scanning the news and I found a report about the RIAA's ongoing battle against music piracy. It makes for some interesting reading.

For those who don't know about this one, it basically boils down to the Recording Industry Association of America's attempt to squeeze as much money as possible out of the music industry. For the last few years they've targeted their sights on users of peer-to-peer (P2P) software, arguing that thanks to file-sharing technology P2P networks are the primary source of music piracy. This has in turn led to 14,000 people being accused of illegal music-sharing and now face fines and/or criminal prosecution.

Now, I can understand why the RIAA would target P2P networks. I won't lie; I've used such software myself in the past and know first-hand how easy it is to download entire albums from such places. For those looking to make a quick profit, such software can indeed make it easy to compile a massive collection in days. At the same time, fans of pop-music can, at the click of a mouse-button, download the latest album by their favourite artist without having to pay a penny (other than ISP charges, etc). As an artist myself (writer) I can understand the desire to protect the financial interests of the bands that make the music. If only it were that simple.

Firstly, the RIAA isn't looking out for the bands. They're looking out for their own financial interest, pure and simple. The bands themselves are getting screwed by the music industry, even those who rallied against Napster a few years ago. According to industry claims, the dissemination of illegally copied music is hurting sales on a massive scale. Sounds like a fair claim, so I checked their marketing data (so you don't have to).

In the 2004 Yearend Stats, the RIAA nicely gives us a breakdown of shipped media for the last ten years. If you compare the figures for the last couple then there is a definite drop-off going on (though CD sales in 2004 were up from 2003). This is most noticeable when you compare the totals, where you see a decline in units shipped of approximately fifteen percent since 1997. It all does point to an alarming trend. But what of the revenue?

Well, since 1994, the Total Retail Value has changed by a little over five percent. Upwards, from $10.8m to $11.4m. Yep, that's right, the retail value of entertainment media in general since 1997 has increased despite a large slump in sales. The Music industry would have you believe that the increase in unit price - from $13.17 on CDs, $13.19 for entertainment media in general in 1997 to $14.93 per CD and $16.63 for general media in 2004 - is as a result of the slump, but couldn't it just as easily be the other way around? That the hike in price has caused the slump? I don't know, you tell me.

The other problem with targeting P2P networks is that it's so easy to fake who you are on them. The news report that started this rant lists defendants who attest that they don't know how to use P2P, or they've never heard the user-names before. And there are dozens of tales of children being prosecuted. Kids. WTF is the world coming to? I thought organised crime was illegal.

I won't spoil the story for you, but if you want to see just how nasty the corporate world can get, please read it. It's given me a whole new slant on the background for my series, and I think I may well have to refine my angle on the corporate future.

Please don't let corporate bully tactics beat you. If you're innocent, fight the bastards. If you let them scare you, they win. Their big corporate machine don't mean jack when it gets down to people, and if you've got the press on your side, as the people in the Wired News article have, you've got a damn good chance of winning.

On the flip side, piracy is still piracy, and I don't advocate it. If you hear an album you like, buy it. Buy it in a store sale, buy it in a second-hand store, or buy it a yard-sale, but buy it. The same goes for movies (VHS and DVD), books, games, software ... whatever. If you like it, own an original.

Sleep well Sleepsville. I'm off to bed.

Six Of One...

One of my earliest posts on this blog was a particularly vehement rant about the futility of violence. Recently I reitirated my point with my remembrance of the final act of WWII. And today I read on the BBC about the continued escalation of tensions in the Middle East.

In the last couple of days there have been a number of stories linked to Iraq. The first that caught my attention was on Saturday. It was the headline (which originally read "US launches assault in west Iraq"; I wonder why they changed it) that initially drew me to the story, and I had a reaction all ready to publish here on Sunday when I noticed that the text had been changed. I can appreciate that journalism, especially on the internet, is organic but along with an update of just what was going on, the tone and perspective of the story had changed.

Even with the change of sympathies, this story is kind of shocking, if you want my opinion. A thousand US troops have been sent into the field to hunt down terrorists. I can't even begin to count how many things are wrong with that whole concept, especially when you consider that the world's best intelligence agencies have trouble with that game of hide-and-seek every day. Suddenly the average US soldier is expected to be capable of doing a better job than entire teams of CIA, British Intelligence and Mossad experts have ever done? Or is it simply the philosophy of "...kill enough people and eventually we'll get the right ones..."?

The report suggests that so far the fatalities stand at eleven... or maybe nineteen; it's not exactly clear. US Military PR suggests "...it killed eight "armed terrorists" on the first day of Operation Iron Fist...", but the report then goes on to tell us "...Hospital officials in the town of Qaim said 11 people were killed in US air attacks, including an ambulance driver..." I'm guessing that the fact that these casualties are quoted as being from air attacks, they don't include the eight "armed terrorists". A thought occurs... how did they know they were definitely terrorists? "Armed opposition" I can accept, along with "armed combatants", "armed insurgents" and at a very extreme push "armed soldiers", but where's the justification for "terrorist"? Is it just because they're not US troops?

The report goes on to confirm that so far the US-led offensive has done nothing to slow down extremist activity in the area. The whole region is a hotbed, and as I've said before a lot of the problem stems from the fact that the bullies can't stop their fist-waving. I was given more of a reminder of this when I read the news tonight. In the latest story from the Middle East, the british government are now suggesting that Iran have direct involvement in the continued hostilities.

Unfortunately, in this instance I can see the justification for such an accusation, but I do seriously question the sense behind making such a statement to the press. Is there any proof? I doubt it. But if it is true (and I seriously hope that as the full story suggests it is just a dissident faction) I can also understand Iran's stance, especially in light of the recent discussions over their nuclear program. The bullies have pushed them around for a long time, so who would blame them for pushing back?

The biggest problem is that there is no magic solution. There's very little stability in the whole region with the US and her lap-dogs ruling the roost, but there's no real evidence to suggest that there'd be any more stability if the troops went home. A hundred different factions are trying to rule a thousand different cultures, and nobody's stepped forward yet to help them do it peacefully. I'm even beginning to suspect that things are just going to continue spiralling downwards until the keg explodes. It's a scary thought.

Anyhew, I'm off to write about the world after that happens.

G'nite Sleepsville. Pleasant dreams.

Using Their Noodles

I was skimming through the international news, skimming over the five-hundredth report about the playground bully's latest escapades in Iraq (more about that later ... I'm researching) when I found an interesting story on the BBC.

Ostensibly it's about the latest paying space-traveller, Gregory Olsen. I've got to admit, this guy isn't just taking a holiday up there; from what I can see he's the head of a big electronic sensor company in the States and is taking along some research projects to make the trip productive. I really hope that he gets good data from the whole experience, and that he has a lot of fun as well. And yes, I am a little jealous.

But it was the last paragraph of the story that caught my eye the most...

Apparently, as well as performing some essential maintenance, etc, the two highly-trained, highly-respected crew members of ISS Expedition 12 will also be undertaking what must be their most nerve-wracking mission ever. They will, at great risk to their own self-esteem, be filming a Japanese Instant Noodle advertisement.

While I applaud the business sense behind this move, is the ISS really in such dire need of funding that they have to start hiring the place out as a film studio?

Just a little food for thought, Sleepsville.