Who is Killing the Anti-Hosni Mubarak Protesters?

Egypt is in a period of conflict right now that started a couple of weeks ago. Thousands of people are in the streets demonstrating against the president Hosni Mubarak. Many people have been injured, and some killed.

Whenever you have violent conflict, you also have confusion. To give an example, recently there was a political gathering in Tucson, Arizona where a lone gunman appeared, shot Democratic representative Gabrielle Giffords in the head, then proceeded to shoot and kill several other people gathered around, until he was subdued and taken to jail. In the days that followed, everyone tried to make some sense out of what happened. Some claimed the killer was nothing but a mentally deranged person killing randomly. Others claimed it was a right wing gun nut trying to assassinate a liberal political figure. Yet others claimed the gunman was a pro-Democrat left-wing liberal according to the books in his reading list and statements he made on Youtube. The debate rages on even now.

Until now, the conflict in Egypt was simple. People in the street are assumed to be against Hosni Mubarak, I guess they want him to step down. Police and secret agents want him to stay in power. The army seems neutral, just following orders but not wanting a massacre.

Yesterday, things in Egypt got confusing. Thousands of armed, horse-mounted Mubarak supporters flooded into the streets, killing some Anti-Mubarak supporters. The question is, who are these pro-Mubarak supporters? Some Egyptians claim they are nothing but the secret police in plain clothes, following Mubarak's orders. Some of the Pro_mubarak supporters were found to have Police ID badges. But the government claims that all those badges are fakes, that no police are participating in the "peaceful" Pro_Mubarak rally. What is the truth?

I noticed something a bit strange about the Mubarak supporters. They call themselves "Real" Egyptians, kind of like conservatives in the USA who call themselves "real" Americans. I'm not saying there is any connection, other than the choice of rhetoric.

From CNN: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/02/03/egypt.protests/

Supporters of Mubarak, who had been largely silent since the unrest began, came out in full force Wednesday -- in one case wielding whips and thundering through the crowd on horses and camels.

"What you are seeing is the demonstration of the real Egyptian people who are trying to take back their country, trying to take back their street," said businessman Khaled Ahmed, who described himself as "pro-Egyptian."

Is this Pro_Mubarak rally a genuine grass roots movement? If pro-Mubarak supporters really are killing anti-Mubarak supporters, then that's just one more reason to get rid of Mubarak. But if the killers are just crazy people, then Mubarak is not to blame. If we go by American logic, one way to find out would be to examine the books that the Pro-Mubarak killers are reading. For example if they are reading "The Communist Manifesto", "Animal Farm", or "Mein Kampf", we can assume they are pretty much like Jared Loughner, the shooter in Arizona. (i.e. left wing liberal, definitely not a right wing gun nut.)

But I seriously doubt that any Egyptians care what books are being read by these killers. In Egypt, I guess they like to keep things simple. If you kill an anti-Mubarak protester, that automatically makes you a pro-Mubarak supporter. What you say or read is unimportant compared to who you are killing. I sometimes have to admire that kind of clear thinking.

Will Watching Fox News Mean Jared Loughner can Plead Insanity?

It's time for an update on the Jared Loughner case. He is the crazy guy who allegedly shot and killed people at a Democratic rally in Tucson in January 2011.

In the early hours of the case, many liberals and Democrats said that the killing was because the political rhetoric was too heated, and called for toning it down. Especially Sarah Palin, who had cross hairs on her website targeting the primary victim, Gabrielle Giffords. And because Gabrielle had mentioned these cross hairs long before the shooting, saying that "there would be consequences". And the whole issue was already an open sore because of various liberals, Democrats and lefty types who had already been shot and killed in the last few years.

Again in the early going, the conservatives fought back hard, claiming that Jared Loughner was in fact a left wing liberal, and that rhetoric on the liberal side was just as violent as that on the right.

Now we have had three weeks to settle down. In that time, the rhetoric about shooting liberals has been toned down, and we know a little bit more about the case.

He may plead insanity, and if so, certain things need to be proven.

Detectives have been able to determine that Jared intended to perform a political assassination, and that he was aware that the death penalty was associated with this act. That's because he looked up these search terms on his computer before committing the murders. This makes him appear sane (legally).

On the other hand,

"if delusional disorder caused Loughner to believe that when he attempted to assassinate Rep. Giffords and shoot the others, he was acting on orders from God, or that the shootings were necessary to save the universe, mankind, or himself for that matter, the insanity defense remains viable. "

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-29/is-jared-loughner-crazy-evaluating-the-insanity-defense/

Would an insanity plea be possible if  "the the shootings were necessary to save the universe, mankind, or America"?   If so, then the constant refrain on Fox News that the Democrats only purpose is to destroy America, could have some bearing on the case. It may make the difference between a death penalty and an insanity defence.

It raises the possibility in my mind that Jared Loughner can shoot people and plead insanity because he listened to the most popular news channel in the country.

Hating on the Hatch

Here is the Wikipedia entry. Interesting comment in there that hatches are only popular in Europe and a few parts of Asia! There was no citation available for this opinion, though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatchbacks

The first hatchbacks were introduced in North America when I was in Africa in about 1969-1972. When I got back home, I had a lot of other changes to distract me from the fact that some cars now had a hatch instead of a fixed rear window.

The Honda Civic started out as a hatchback in the seventies. Now we can't get a Civic hatchback in North America, even though they are available in Europe. I am told the reason for this is that Americans hate hatchbacks. But I love them, and have never bought a sedan type car ever. I did a bit of research into the supposed hate for the hatches.

From comments on the Internet:

• America is a big uncrowded country and hatchbacks are for crowded places like Japan and Europe.
• Hatchbacks tell the world I'm too cheap to buy a car with a real trunk.
• Americans don't like taking things in the rear. (Good one!)
• It's a teenage car (heard that one in real life too, but not about me thankfully)
• Ford Pintos were hatchbacks, and they used to blow up in a ball of fire when rear ended, so logically all hatchbacks do the same.

Enough of Internet comments. Now for some things left unsaid. There is the gay consideration, as there is with every issue from wearing hockey helmets to putting mustard on a hot dog. How gay are hatchbacks? Not particularly, if you check Gaywheels.com top ten list.
http://www.gaywheels.com/ten_most-researched_rides_at_g.htm

Now in my own opinion, the real reason why hatchbacks are out of favour compared to sedans in America is that if you need to dispose of a dead body of someone you just shot, a trunk is the ideal place. Same deal for pickup trucks. Why does no one mention this on the Internet?

Seriously, though, a practical consideration of storage space. The trunk on a sedan is better than a hatchback in case you ever get in an accident, because if you keep them in the trunk, your tool kits and axe collection will not be flying into the passenger cabin. But on the other hand, if you don't have to worry about an accident, you are more likely to be able to fit large objects into the back of a hatch than a sedan.

Another practical difference is that a hatchback's back window gets dirty on a wet road. Same for station wagons, SUVs, and minivans. Sedan back windows stay remarkably clean, and I have never seen one with a wiper/washer setup.

We are getting a few new hatchbacks this year like the 2011 Ford Fiesta and 2012 Focus. Soon the Fiat 500. And we have a fair number of decent hatchbacks to choose from. Other hatches include the Mini, the VW Golf, Mazda3, Mazda2, Audi A3, Kia (Forte and Rio), Toyota Matrix, Scion Xb, Nissan Cube, Volvo C30, Nissan Versa, Subaru Impreza, Honda Fit, and Smart Fortwo.

Picture: one of the first hatchbacks, a Citroen from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatchbacks

Monday, Wash Motorcycle Jacket

So far it's been a poor winter for motorcycling. I couldn't get out in December or January. The day after tomorrow we're going to have the biggest storm of the year so far, and after that, the 2 week forecast says no thawing in sight.

Mary Ann is out of town to visit her relatives, so my entertainment for the day is to wash my motorcycle jacket. Early last season I bought a high-visibility green Scorpion Commander motorcycle jacket. You get noticed on the highway, with that colour, and I think that's a safety benefit. Unfortunately it does not take long before the jacket starts to look dirty, and the last day I went riding in November, I got caught in the rain. The road spray makes the jacket look dirty, and there are also black marks, it looks like they are caused by rubbing something. Anyway, it's dirty and a bit of wiping seems to make it worse. So I decided to try a real cleaning. I am going to write about it in this blog. Disclaimer: I do not know that your jacket and machine will work the same as mine, and in fact I don't even know if my jacket or washing machine are going to survive. That's why I waited till Mary Ann was out of the house.

The label inside the jacket says "machine wash, cold". We have a Bosch front-load washing machine that has a whole bunch of settings more complicated than that, so I had to get out the owner's manual and read it a bit. I finally decided to set it to the "permapress cold" cycle (suitable for synthetic fabrics), and set the spin cycle to 1000 rpm.

Before starting, I took out the liners and the armour. All the shoulder and elbow pads are the same, so I should not have to worry about mixing them up. The back armour is actually not armour at all, it's a bit of light foam. I would not trust it to protect my spine in an impact. Anyhow that's another issue, right now I'm supposed to be cleaning the jacket. Next I stuffed the jacket into the machine all by itself, after turning the sleeves inside out (that was a suggestion in the Bosch manual, no idea why.). I set the spin to 1000 rpm (max). Then I put about half a cap of high efficiency detergent in the soak tray and and the wash tray.

One thing is for sure, I would not have the patience to do this jacket by hand. The washing machine just tumbles it back and forth gently coaxing the dirt out while I sit down and write my blog.

My final stage would be to hang it on our wooden drying rack. Our house is very dry in the winter, and we never need to use the dryer for anything. Besides, I don't think a dryer is even recommended.

OK, right at the top I should have mentioned "Empty the pockets". I forgot, and I'm pretty sure I have some gas station receipts in one of the pockets.

The jacket is out of the washing machine now. The two front pockets still had water in them, as they are meant to be waterproof. The rest of the jacket is spun dry. I found a few receipts and papers in one pocket, but not shredded. In some other pockets I found four packets of desiccant that came with the coat.

Pic 1: That's our washing machine with my jacket inside.
Pic 2: I am surprised the jacket is so clean, but then this washing machine always seems to do a good job. When the jacket is dry and I get it outside in the sunshine, it should be just like new (i.e. blinding)

Advertising Standards of Canada Skewer Themselves in an Ad

Last night I watched a commercial on TV that I am going to nominate for an academy award in the category of Fearless Advertising. This ad was an example of "That Idea is so Crazy that it just might work". I did not notice at the time which program carried the ad, as it only struck me this morning. But the only program we watched on TV last night was "Tipping Point" by David Suzuki. And this program was about the Alberta Tar sands.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/entertainment/movie-guide/Oilsands+debate+pushes+Alberta+documentary+deadline/4173975/story.html

The advertisement was a silly one from the Advertising Standards of Canada, where a teenage girl is caught by her father, sneaking out of her bedroom window, and she hires three mimes to announce that "I was going to the library". The punch line of the ad is "Dressing it up doesn't make it true". The video of the ad is on this link, in case you have not seen it.

http://www.adrants.com/2011/01/canada-calls-for-truth-in-advertising.php

Honestly nothing clicked for me right away, but later I remembered. I have written a blog about this organization, about how they OK'd an advertisement claiming toxic sludge was "like yogurt". So according to the Advertising Standards, that's not a lie. But according to most people it is a lie.

http://lostmotorcycles.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-is-oil-sand-sludge-essentially-like.html

After a ruling like that, they should hang their heads in shame, caught in the act of lying. But apparently that's not the way advertising people think. Their motto must be "When caught in a lie, repeat it louder and longer, right to their face".

It seems they have an actual code of conduct, which you can read online. I assume it is kind of a study guide to deception for advertising people.

http://www.adstandards.com/en/standards/the14Clauses.aspx

Their advertisement is a perfect parody of what the Advertising Standards people did themselves. Caught in a lie, they called in the mimes and the party balloons to announce that they never lie. And of course they must run it during an Alberta Tar sands documentary. Why not? Despite what they say, all advertising is based on "Dressing it up will make it true"

The documentary itself was quite hard hitting about the oil sands, and I would think the oil companies will not be liking it very much. It exposed their fraudulent water quality monitoring. Of course, what can you expect when the only people to monitor the water are hired by the oil companies. They apparently did no monitoring, and claimed that any sludge in the Athabasca river was naturally occurring because the river flowed through bituminous soil, and always had. Also, there were no toxic outflows into the river, as all water borne toxins were held back behind dams in toxic pools. Finally, an independent scientist got tired of being lied to by the oil people and did a scientific investigation where he found a way to separate the naturally occurring toxins from those falling out of the air from the processing plants. His evidence was enough for our Conservative Environment Minister, John Baird, to admit that we didn't have exactly a "World class" pollution monitoring system. And knowing the Conservatives are funded by and based in the oil area, that is quite a humbling admission.

Another part of the documentary I found interesting was the connection to James Cameron and Avatar. I did not notice when I saw the movie, but several of Avatar's depictions of mining on the planet Pandora were inspired by the Alberta Tar Sands, apparently done by a background artist from Alberta. And so the movie was similar enough to the Tar Sands that James Cameron later made a trip to Alberta to see the Tar Sands for himself. I didn't know about that tie in when I saw the movie last year. But it was very clear after seeing "Tipping Point". When I was watching Avatar, I was thinking it was based on Talisman Oil in the Sudan, where they actually helped the Sudanese government bomb natives who got in their way. That is obviously not happening in the Canada Tar Sands project.

My 2 blogs about Avatar:
http://lostmotorcycles.blogspot.com/2010/01/judge-for-yourself-if-avatar-3d-is.html
http://lostmotorcycles.blogspot.com/2009/12/subliminal-message-of-avatar-3d.html

Luddites of the Future

Things change in our modern world. If you think about sailing ships from 1000 AD to 1800 AD, there was very little change in those 800 years. A sailor from 1000 AD could have probably figured out a sailing ship in 1800 AD without too much trouble. But in the last 100 years, the changes have been enormous and its mainly due to technology driven by scientific discoveries.

Human societies have not naturally evolved in to keep up with such a fast pace of technological change. People are more comfortable with gradual change, where people can raise their children with more or less the same values, skills, knowledge that they had themselves. When change occurs too rapidly, parts of society retreat mentally into the past.

How can we tell when and if we are retreating into the past? I'm guessing that religion can be in indicator. People who convert to religions that oppose scientific advances would be an indication that science is moving too fast for them.

Just as people in the early 20th century opposed electricity in general, today people oppose new green energy wind turbines.

I am not trying to pass judgment and say just how fast science is supposed to advance. I agree that at times it goes too fast, and I can think of some examples: The atomic bomb, drilling for oil over a mile under water, the technology for cloning humans, cell phones in cars, nuclear power plants, genetic engineering, the AK47 assault rifle, poison gas, biological warfare, air travel. All seem to exceed human civilizations ability to control them properly.

Today, we can see evidence that some people think things are changing too fast. There are religions and political movements in the USA that would like to take us back to America's golden age. (Probably the cowboy era)

• Opposed to new immigrants coming in
• opposed to restricted gun use
• opposed to destruction of the environment (pesticides and clear cutting for example)
• Opposed to equal opportunity programs for minorities
• Opposed to finding alternate green sources of energy
• Opposed to the theory of evolution proposed by Darwin
• Do not believe in Global warming
• Opposed to gay marriage
• Wants a return to the gold standard for currency.
• Opposed to modern contraceptive methods and abortion.
• Need a return to old time religion, before people challenged the words of God in the Bible.
• Opposed to modern culture, such as movies, dance, immodest dress, long hair.
• Then again, some believe that the world is going to end soon anyway, and none of this really matters.

The above points generally define conservatives.

Luddites is another word for people who resist change. Named after Ned Ludd, these people were scared of losing their jobs as weavers, and so destroyed the new mechanical looms in England, that could be operated by unskilled labour to do the work of many skilled craftsmen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddites

It could be argued that technology was moving too fast in Britain at the time of the Luddites, and that's why the Luddites appealed to so many people. At some point during the Napoleonic wars, there were more British soldiers fighting Luddites at home, than fighting the French in Europe. Speaking of which, there was also a war going on, increasing the economic stress on the country.

Just to be fair to Luddites, here is a paper that argues the point that Luddites were not opposed to technological change per se, just opposed to reductions in their economic situation. (being laid off, having the prices of cloth undercut, wages reduced, etc.) And they broke machines to enforce their bargaining power with the factory and mill owners.
http://libcom.org/history/machine-breakers-eric-hobsbawm

You could probably argue that there are Luddites among liberals and among conservatives. I do not own a cell phone, and I have wind-up windows in my car with manual door locks, and I generally call myself a liberal these days. Change will surely come, and some people better get used to it faster than the currently are.


Picture Dog sled (but I photoshopped the GPS): http://wanderlustandlipstick.com/wander-tales/adventure/hike-up-modern-dog-sledding/

Picture Modern Igloo http://pixdaus.com/single.php?id=271162

Forget About the Price of Tea in China. Think Buick.

I was surprised to find out that GM sells more vehicles in China than in the USA. So, imagining hordes of Silverado pickup trucks with gun racks and cowboy hats cruising downtown Shanghai, I went to look up some confirmation.

While it is true that GM sells more vehicles in China than the USA, there are several related facts that make it less surprising. First is that these vehicles may not be "made in the USA", and their brand names may not be recognized by American customers. There is an active partnership between GM and several Chinese companies.

But there is also the story of Buick. The typical Buick owner in America is basically an old fart who can't afford a Cadillac, in China the Buick nameplate is revered. This may be due to the last Chinese Emperor, Pu Yi, having owned a 1932 Buick Tudor.

Picture: Hopefully the Emperor had the good taste to not pimp out his ride as much as this. From this web site http://www.verztec.com/blog/?p=346

From the Wikipedia entry for Pu Yi. I have to confess, it is way too complicated for me to figure out from this, exactly why this guy should set the standard for the Chinese car buying public. In the article I did notice that he was the one who kicked the Eunuchs out of the Imperial Palace. Don't know if that was bad or good. Then he was the emperor reputedly collaborating with the Japanese invasion before WW2, and was captured by the communists and spent time in jail. And somewhere in there, he had a Buick. Then, apparently by some mysterious butterfly effect, GM ends up selling more cars in China than in the USA. Well, I don't get it.

So, GM is selling a lot of Buick branded cars in China. In many cases these cars are rebadged Opels from Germany or Holdens from Australia.

Nice to know that even in China, the marketing of the automobile is based on the sizzle and not the steak.

While I may have been surprised, the "China Car Times" was not, with the headline "No Shocking news: GM sells more cars in China than it does in the USA"

In the China Car Times, the writer is pleading for someone to enlighten them as to why Buicks are not revered in the USA as much as in China. I have no answer for them. Other than the obvious, of course.