Magic Statistics

I kid you not: Some luckless cyberspace surfer from South Dakota arrived at my blog earlier this evening via the search engine ask.com. The search words entered were "put the magic in my marriage", and the blog post that turned up was "Mao killed more than Hitler and Stalin put together".

I think I'll stick with Google when I need to search the 'net.

Observation of a quasar nine billion light years away suggests that the current scientific understanding of black holes is incorrect.  Black holes do not exist but are actually "bizarre and compact balls of plasma called MECOs".

Rudolph Schild of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, led a team that observed a quasar situated 9 billion light years from Earth. A quasar is a very bright, compact object, whose radiation is usually thought to be generated by a giant black hole devouring its surrounding matter.

A rare cosmological coincidence allowed Schild and his colleagues to probe the structure of the quasar in much finer detail than is normally possible. Those details suggest that the central object is not a black hole. "The structure of the quasar is not at all what had been theorised," Schild told New Scientist.
. . .
A well accepted property of black holes is that they cannot sustain a magnetic field of their own. But observations of quasar Q0957+561 indicate that the object powering it does have a magnetic field, Schild's team says. For this reason, they believe that rather than a black hole, this quasar contains something called a magnetospheric eternally collapsing object (MECO). If so, it would be best evidence yet for such an object.

Other scientists, however, are not convinced, saying the evidence is interesting and suggestive but not compelling.

via Faith-Science News.

Previous related posts:

• Nuclear blast on a dead star
• The greatest of great balls of fire

Peter MacKay got off to a shaky start as Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs.  His anemic reaction to the Mohammed Cartoon Jihad—basically, “Let’s all calm down, respect each other, and just get along nicely”—seemed to parrot the typical line taken by the do-nothing foreign policy establishment.  Since then, however, he’s improved steadily, I think, and in the Lebanon conflict, he’s beginning to shine.

As evidence, consider the interview in Maclean’s online.  Mr MacKay gets in a few not-so-subtle digs at the foreign policy of the now-departed Liberal government.

Does what we're witnessing right now with Canada's response to the situation in the Middle East represent a fundamental shift in Canada's approach to the region in favour of Israel or just a particular response to a particular problem?

I think it's an evolution and a maturity on the part of Canada towards the often fluid and volatile situation in the Middle East. I wouldn't call it a shift, I would call it keeping up with current events.

“Evolution”?  From what, pray tell?  “Maturity on the part of Canada”?  Peter, surely you’re not implying that the old policies were immature.  Canada’s just “keeping up with current events”?  You mean, we weren’t before?

The notion that Canada is an honest broker and a neutral party in foreign affairs has been predominant for some time. Are we seeing more emphasis on asserting principles than on being a neutral party?

I would say that we are being responsive and assertive in our foreign policy direction, and that comes from the top and it comes from a recognition within the entire government that we have an important role to play in the world, we have important values that we stand for, and it's not enough to just talk about the importance of diplomacy and talk about protection of human life. In some cases it means actually being assertive, and in some cases even being ahead of other countries in making those declarations. We've seen it with the situation with Hamas in the Middle East as far as our decision to try to help the Palestinian people by diverting money not through the Palestinian Authority but directly through aid agencies and non-governmental organizations, we've seen it with the listing of the Tamil Tigers.

“Responsive and assertive”?  That’s a big change from the ancien régime in foreign affairs.  “It’s not enough to talk”—like the old guys used to, eh, Peter?  “Being ahead of other countries”?  Now there’s a thought that would have kept the Liberals awake at night, had it ever occurred to them.

Mr MacKay uses the word “assertive” twice in as many sentences.  Yes, things have definitely changed at the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs.

Keep up the fine work, Peter.

Zimbabwe’s Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa has tabled three draconian new laws designed to give President Robert Mugabe absolute control over the country and end any possibility of organised political opposition.

Alois Chaumba, the national director of the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace, said three new bills expected to be pushed through when parliament resumes in August will effectively put the country under undeclared martial rule, as Mugabe seeks to curb growing opposition to his rule spawned by Zimbabwe’s worsening economic hardships.

“It would seem there is a state of siege from the way the state apparatus is being used to deny people their freedoms,” said Chaumba.

The Interception of Communications Bill permits the government to monitor any telephone call and access any e-mail originating from or received in Zimbabwe.

The Suppression of Foreign and International Terrorism Bill makes it a crime punishable by life imprisonment to work toward Mugabe’s overthrow.  It does not appear to distinguish between peaceful and violent activities, thus criminalising political opposition, even criticism.  Some believe it also jeopardises journalists working for foreign newspapers.

The Non Governmental Organisations Bill grants the government power to suppress organisations critical of the regime or its policies, effectively outlawing agencies and activities of civil society.

These laws contravene Zimbabwe’s constitution, but legal scholars say there is no point challenging them in court because Mugabe has a track record of ignoring court rulings not to his liking.

With this legislative package, Robert Mugabe gives new meaning to the word “totalitarianism”.

Previous related posts:

• Mugabe to Annan: Get lost
• Zimbabwe hospital Hell
• Zimbabwe rounds up destitute street people

Duane Chapman, aka Dog the Bounty Hunter, is today featured in one of Britain’s oldest and (until now) classiest newspapers, the London Telegraph.  Dog’s wild, gritty, and popular TV show has made him the most widely known bounty hunter in North America, if not the world.  The show also features Dog’s Posse: wife Beth, sons Leland and Duane Lee, and Tim Chapman (close friend but no relation).

As a convicted felon—for murder, although he says he was just an accessory—Mr Chapman is prohibited from carrying a firearm, but that hasn’t stopped him from catching the bad guys.  He’s nabbed over 6000 outlaws and is the only private citizen to have apprehended a fugitive on the FBI’s most wanted list.

Dog the Bounty Hunter is now a hit on British TV as well, so a Telegraph reporter tracked him down at his home in Honolulu.

"I'll rip them in half," he said. "I want them to try it. Let 'em come. I can probably knock out any man alive."
. . .
With his bluster and resemblance to a character from a blood-soaked Hollywood epic, it would be easy to portray Mr Chapman as just a muscle-packed outgrowth of America's gung-ho spirit. He believes in God, admires Tony Blair and has a picture of President George W Bush on the wall. "I'm kind of a Republican, especially as I get older," he said.

But in many ways, Dog is far from being a stereotypical Right-winger. He does not use guns and favours liberal criminal justice reforms, such as ridding America's bulging prisons of minor drugs offenders.

He also believes in forgiveness and sometimes prays with the men he has just captured and tells them to change their ways. But he added: "I don't make that a habit because I ain't no Jesus freak. I'm not an evangelist, I'm a bounty hunter."

In fact, evangelical Christians find Dog a perplexing figure. "I know Christians get upset because I say 'Freeze motherf***er!' or whatever, but I told them that 'Freeze in Jesus's name!' doesn't work."

This is one evangelical Christian who does not find Dog “perplexing”.  I was a fan from the first time I watched his show.  My immediate reaction was, “Who would not just love this guy?”  (Escaped desperados excepted, of course.)

Joseph at felix hominum has the scoop.  Check it out.