You're gonna have a good laugh at this one. Or at the very least, it will leave you smiling broadly. High fives for creative genius to FlywinEvolutions!
What nicer way to start the New Year than with a pleasant and informative wildlife documentary by David Attenborough. Sadly, David isn't available at the fees this site can afford to offer, but somebody else has gone to great pains to stick a feed consisting of a microphone and a stomach camera on the end of an optical fibre down into the burrow where that singular and semi-mythical beast, the Greater Highbrowed English Hitchens, is rumoured to hibernate until Groundhog Day. And to scare off any marauding moles and rouse the creature from its slumber, they uncorked a decent bottle of claret too.
Here Christopher answers questions from users of reddit.com, while simultaneously trying to see how high he can build a pile of books without them tumbling down and how far down the end of his nose he can get his specs to perch without them falling off the end. I sympathize with people who suffer from presbytism — and no, it's not a religion but an affliction that afflicts most of us who get past the age of 50 — and if it were in my power as a genie, I'd happily grant the Hitch younger, stronger eye muscles.
He obviously did this rather early in the morning before the sleep was out out his eyes and the acetaldehyde was cleared from his bloodstream, which explains away some of the rather drowsy, laboured, "I've-just-had-a-stroke" demeanour. But, well-polished thinker and speaker that he is, Hitch can do this sort of thing beautifully even when he's hungover.
There's a lot of utter bullshit in this first half hour about Iran, Afghanistan, Islam, the Caliphate and religion that I'm convinced he doesn't really believe but is only running through as an aid to remembering the substance of his regular brief as a neocon presstitute. But there is also a lot of genuine Hitchensian opinion and anecdote on view here that any true Hitch Watcher will find riveting.
And if you click on the screen and visit YouTube, you'll find some more of the same.
Well I never! Who would have thought our very own Duke of Decency, Oliver Kamm, would be getting involved in what is beginning to shape up as "TriggerGate"? And on the side of clarity at that!? Well if you did, you deserve a pat on the back. So, for your efforts at exposing the truth as well as damage limitation, well done, Ollie! As for Christopher, your handlers seem to have hung you out to dry with your pants around your ankles yet again, and the watchers are laughing not with you but at you.
New revelations about two documents leaked to The Times of London to show that Iran is working on a "nuclear trigger" mechanism have further undermined the credibility of the document the newspaper had presented as evidence of a continuing Iranian nuclear weapons programme.
A columnist for the Times has acknowledged that the two-page Persian language document published by The Times last month was not a photocopy of the original document but an expurgated and retyped version of the original.
A translation of a second Persian language document also published by The Times, moreover, contradicts the claim by The Times that it shows the "nuclear trigger" document was written within an organisation run by an Iranian military scientist.
Former Central Intelligence Agency official Philip Giraldi has said U.S. intelligence judges the "nuclear trigger" document to be a forgery, as IPS reported last week. The IPS story also pointed out that the document lacked both security markings and identification of either the issuing organisation or the recipient.
The new revelations point to additional reasons why intelligence analysts would have been suspicious of the "nuclear trigger" document.
On Dec. 14, The Times published what it explicitly represented as a photocopy of a complete Persian language document showing Iranian plans for testing a neutron initiator, a triggering device for a nuclear weapon, along with an English language translation.
But in response to a reader who noted the absence of crucial information from the document, including security markings, Oliver Kamm, an online columnist for The Times, admitted Jan. 3 that the Persian language document published by The Times was "a retyped version of the relevant parts of that original document".
Kamm wrote that the original document had "contained a lot of classified information" and was not published "because of the danger that it would alert Iranian authorities to the source of the leak".
In offering the explanation of the intelligence agency that leaked the document to The Times, Kamm was also damaging the credibility of the document. A document that had been both edited and retyped could obviously have been doctored by adding material on a neutron initiator....
|
Credible warnings or more weapons of mass deception from the boy who cried Wolfowitz?
The rabies shots obviously haven't worked, as Christopher is foaming at the mouth about Iran again. And apparently on top of all his other symptoms — including the profuse sweating, growling and dripping saliva at the sight of anyone in a turban, veil, cassock or habit (although fortunately those little Jewish hats don't seem to set him off) and the fear of water in his whiskey, he's developed the delusion that he knows a thing or two about nuclear physics. Indeed, he's trying to lecture his Slate readership on the uses and abuses of something called UD3.
Apparently, he picked up all the relevant knowledge from Catherine Philp, the diplomatic correspondent of The Times. How much more authoritative can you get than that?
I encourage you to view the Iranian documents for yourselves: The Times subjected them to considerable expertise before publishing them and is confident of their provenance. I quote here from an excellent summary by the newspaper's diplomatic correspondent Catherine Philp:
"UD3, when used in a neutron initiator, emits a stream of neutrons that ignite the core of a bomb, either weapons-grade uranium or plutonium. The stream of neutrons is released using high explosives to compress a core of solid UD3, creating fusion."
But this in turn presents a difficulty for the surreptitious bomb-makers, because the testing of such a trigger could not be explained away as a detonation of a conventional high-explosive weapon. In other words, it would allow monitors to detect the traces of UD3. The whole interest of the newly leaked documents lies precisely in the way in which a further level of cheating is therefore so carefully discussed. A smaller scale of test, according to the regime's scientists, could be attempted using titanium deuteride instead. By this means, a useful flow of neutrons could still be produced but without the incriminating trace elements. The apparent idea, according to one quoted expert, was "to test the match without burning it."
The chance that this is not a militaristic and messianic design intended to harden the carapace of the dictatorship and help extend its powers of regional blackmail seem ridiculously close to zero. Iran has had numberless offers from the West to help it acquire the faculties of peaceful nuclear energy and reduce its wasteful use of oil and gas. If it would permit the most elementary transparency, it could also be enabled to purchase uranium at far less cost on the open market, as other nations do. But the mullahs prefer to risk isolation and sanctions in order to construct off-the-record sites and to conduct deception operations that would be almost pathetically crude if they were not so self-evidently sinister.
The stridency and urgency in Hitchens's warnings are palpable, although you'll have to make your own minds up about whether they are either earnestly held or remotely credible. In so doing, please do bear in mind that the Boy who Cried Wolfowitz turned out to be dead wrong about Iraqi WMD and about the authenticity of the documents alleged to have proven Saddam was shopping for yellowcake in Niger. Embarrassingly for the contrition-free contrarian, Wikipedia now has a page entitled "Niger uranium forgeries". And furthermore, our boy is currently singing from the same talking-points hymnbook as the same "Bomb Iran!" choir that used to sing "Bomb Iraq!"
When scientifically illiterate journalists start pretending to talk science and using this as a basis for fanning the flames of war, it falls to real scientists to step in and inject a little proper science into the journalistic arena. And fortunately at this juncture we have Norman Dombey, professor emeritus of theoretical physics at the University of Sussex and occasional contributor to the London Review of Books on matters nuclear and weaponry. Norman, as some of us remember fondly, blew away the entire Hitchensian case on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as early as February 2004. (Even Tony Blair has since been forced to concede that the pesky things didn't exist, although he still thinks "We" did the right thing in removing Saddam.) So on at least two counts, Norman deserves to be listened to concerning Iran's bomb-making plans or lack of.
Here's his article in the Guardian for December 22, 2009. (Original here.)
This is no smoking gun, nor Iranian bomb
Nothing in the published 'intelligence documents' shows Iran is close to having nuclear weapons By Norman Dombey
even years ago Condoleezza Rice said "there will always be some uncertainty" in determining how close Iraq may be to obtaining a nuclear weapon, but "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud". Now the focus is on Iran, not Iraq. Iran's nuclear projects are in the news again. According to the Times last week, alleged "confidential intelligence documents" show Iran is working on testing a key final component of a nuclear bomb. The notes, the newspaper claims, describe "a four-year plan to test a neutron initiator, the component of a nuclear bomb that triggers an explosion". President Ahmadinejad yesterday denounced the documents as more American forgeries. But even if we take them as genuine, is this a real "smoking gun" – and what do the documents show anyway?
In my opinion they should be read recognising the long Iranian interest in the physics of nuclear fusion. Jim Callaghan, then British foreign secretary, visited Iran in March 1976. The shah told him that he was particularly interested in the UK's fusion programme and "if any opportunity arose whereby Iran could come in on the programme, they would be happy to do so". That interest has continued for more than 30 years. In 1993 Iran agreed with China to co-operate in the study of fusion and there is an continuing programme of work in Tehran.
Nuclear fusion is the mechanism whereby the sun shines and sustains life on earth. Nuclear reactors and atomic bombs rely on fission; hydrogen bombs rely on fusion. There are as yet no fusion reactors that produce energy because, even after 50 years of trying, more energy is needed to produce fusion than is obtained from the output. Nevertheless, industrialised countries persist in research in this field. At present the joint EU-US-Japan-China-India-Korea-Russia Iter project is building a fusion reactor prototype at Cadarache in France. Research in this area is allowed by the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
The "intelligence documents" published by the Times describe a four-year project, so if the Iranians were to build a neutron initiator for a nuclear weapon it is not being treated as a matter of urgency. By contrast, the Manhattan Project scientists arrived at Los Alamos in early 1943, and the Trinity test occurred in July 1945.
Then the documents state that "policy is to develop co-operation with research and university centres in order to carry out the projects outside of the centre" and that samples are to be produced "by mutual co-operation … [then presented] to other research centres for marketing purposes". It is unlikely that nuclear weapon projects would be distributed among several universities, or weapon parts marketed to research centres.
The documents call for two physicists with PhDs and two with masters degrees to carry out the work. That doesn't sound like a top priority national programme. That sounds more like a university research project.
Then there is uranium deuteride, or UD3. According to the Times: "Critically, while other neutron sources have possible civilian uses, UD3 has only one application – to be the metaphorical match that lights a nuclear bomb." That is a surprising statement. In fact the document's only mention of UD3 states that it would prefer not to use it but to replace uranium with titanium. That gives a clue about what the Iranians are doing.
Titanium deuteride is used to store deuterium gas so that the gas can be generated when it is heated. It seems to me, therefore, that the function of UD3 is to generate deuterium gas so that it can be used in a plasma focus neutron generator. The neutron generator could then produce isotopes for use by other laboratories, hence the reference to market samples. UD3 is not known to be used as a neutron initiator in nuclear weapons: it was not used as an initiator in American, British or Soviet weapons when those weapons were developed.
So why the emphasis on UD3 as a initiator for a weapon? First, Abdul Qadeer Khan, the disgraced Pakistani scientist who stole centrifuge designs from the Dutch uranium enrichment plant at Almelo and began Pakistan's weapon project, claimed that UD3 was used as an initiator by Pakistan. Second, Chinese physicists reported they had imploded UD3 using chemical explosives and thus obtained a beam of neutrons. So the argument is that China now uses UD3 as an initiator, passed the design to Pakistan, which in turn passed it to Iran.
This is possible, but not demonstrated by the documents. A neutron initiator for a weapon needs precise timing: this is difficult using implosion by chemical explosives. Khan is a highly unreliable source. The document does not discuss obtaining neutrons by implosion: it discusses using pulsed neutrons presumably obtained using oscillating magnetic fields.
Perhaps I am wrong. Both fusion and fission physics involve processes which can be used either in military or civil applications. But I have read nothing in the documents published by the Times to be able to conclude that they are describing an initiator for a nuclear weapon.
As we begin yet another year Watching Hitchens, we discover a new book that accuses us, Hitchens Watch, of rudeness. For real. More specifically, the author targets something I wrote on our site.
Of all the problems in the world (war, poverty, David Brooks, etc.) “Advice Columnist” Amy Alkon is chiefly concerned with, um, etiquette and the scourge of “rude” people in our midst. Condemning Internet bloggers who don’t use their real names in I See Rude People: One Woman’s Battle to Beat Some Manners into Impolite Society, Alkon writes about one of Sonic’s posts that featured a picture of her speaking with Christopher Hitchens (on pages 190-191). Let's pick it up here:
If, for some reason, you aren't able to post comments in your real name, first and last, can't you at least post as if you are? Post as if the person you're remarking on can call you on what you wrote - like I did in this email below to a journalist named Mark Grueter who didn't cover his tracks quite as well as he thought:
Mark,
I saw your comment about me on the entry "Call Off the Dogs" on yourHitchens site, pasted in just below, and I have a few questions.
Why is Hitch hitting on that dog?
Mark G 10.02.08 4:01 am #
Do you think I'm a "dog"?
Do you normally go around to women announcing to them what you think of their looks?
Would you say that to me if you were standing across from me in public?
Do you think that, perhaps because you disagree with some of my thinking, it's appropriate to post that about me?
Do you even know what my thinking is, or are you just following the crowd, and I'm the designated kickball?
Do you consider this "progressive" behavior?
Do you think the others on your site are more careful to hide their identities because they can attack people withoutaccountability?
I'm giving you the opportunity to answer because I'm putting this in my book. I want to know how a guy like you ends upbehaving like such a boor on the Internet.
- Amy Alkon
Surprise, surprise. Grueter never wrote back.
That’s her coup de grace. That’s the end of the chapter, her declaration of victory. Grueter, shamed to death. Unfortunately for Alkon and her publisher, I never received this or any other email from her. Whoops! Is it too late for a recall? Naturally, I would've replied.
Perhaps even more laughable is her apparent belief that I try to ‘cover my tracks’ with the deceptive codename Mark G! Ah, well, whaddaya expect from someone who writes this blog called Advice Goddess? Not brains, that’s for sure. Remember, she couldn’t find my email, even though I’ve posted it on this site. All you gotta do is a Google search ‘Hitchens Watch, Mark Grueter’ and voila, there it is. Or she could’ve just asked me in the Comments section.
Since I wasn’t given the chance to respond to Amy’s email, I’ll do so now. Hopefully she’ll update the book’s Second Edition (it’s bound to be a runaway best-seller).
Amy,
No, you’re not actually a dog. ‘Dog’ is also a popular slang term, believe it or not, used to describe ugly women like you (exhibit A, photo upper left). I do sort of regret using that word, though, as it turns out to have been a horrible insult to the canine breed. Yeah, I might insult you to your face in public, esp. if I saw you trying to starfu*k Christopher Hitchens. I know, it’s not your fault you have a hideous face. Your parents are to blame for spreading their rancid genes and broken chromosomes. But don’t pretend you’re above name-calling. I called you a dog; you called me a boor. Tit for tat. The far greater problem with our society is that people are liars. And they’re encouraged to lie by suckers like you who try to impose phony bourgeois, hypocritical manners on the rest of us. This is a rude world, and we deal with a rude subject on this site, so get over it. As Hitchens himself has said: “Civility is overrated.” If you don’t want people to insult you then don’t inflict yourself upon the public.
As for your “thinking,” I don’t know anything about it, don’t care, except that you don’t seem capable of thinking at all. As for the silly rhetorical question about “progressive” behavior, I feel bad. You thought I was one of those who call themselves progressive because liberal has negative connotations among stupid Americans, or something like that. Sorry, nope. Not one of them. I would like to know how a trivial episode like this could wind up in a book. But thanks for the material, anyway.
- Mark Grueter
|
Hitch flirts with conspiracy theory, retreats to WOT bunker
I like Hitch's Slate column this week. It's full of exclamation points, genuine outrage and even some good comedy (he dusts off his old "no spitting" recollection, you know, about how stupid the signs were in his boyhood). Commenting on the incident in the sky over Michigan where a Nigerian man allegedly tried to blow up the airplane he was on, Hitch is baffled:
But somehow the watch list, the tipoff, the many worried reports from colleagues and relatives, the placing of the name on a "central repository of information" don't prevent the suspect from boarding a plane, changing planes, or bringing whatever he cares to bring onto a plane.
Somehow. As for the rest of us, "the collective innocent," it just means longer lines, more pointless searching and idiotic rules.
For many years after the explosion of the TWA plane over Long Island...you could not board an aircraft without being asked whether you had packed your own bags and had them under your control at all times. These two questions are the very ones to which a would-be hijacker or bomber would honestly and logically have to answer "yes." But answering "yes" to both was a condition of being allowed on the plane! Eventually, that heroic piece of stupidity was dropped as well. But now fresh idiocies are in store. Nothing in your lap during final approach. Do you feel safer? If you were a suicide-killer, would you feel thwarted or deterred?
Good stuff. Back to the "somehow." Do any of these recent events make much sense? No. Even if he doesn't realize it, Hitch is flirting with the suggestion of a conspiracy when he writes:
Why do we fail to detect or defeat the guilty, and why do we do so well at collective punishment of the innocent? The answer to the first question is: Because we can't—or won't. The answer to the second question is: Because we can.
Maybe "we" need guys like Abdulmutallab around to continue rationalizing WOT? Just a thought.
Unfortunately, Hitch's piece comes apart in the last paragraph. The pointed questions, criticisms and derision disappear, replaced by some really dark and scary, dramatic and powerful propaganda about, well, see for yourself:
We had better get used to being the civilians who are under a relentless and planned assault from the pledged supporters of a wicked theocratic ideology. These people will kill themselves to attack hotels, weddings, buses, subways, cinemas, and trains...The future murderers will generally not be from refugee camps or slums (though they are being indoctrinated every day in our prisons); they will frequently be from educated backgrounds, and they will often not be from overseas at all. They are already in our suburbs and even in our military. We can expect to take casualties. The battle will go on for the rest of our lives. Those who plan our destruction know what they want, and they are prepared to kill and die for it.
The "battle," if that's what you insist on calling all this nonsense, does not have to go on for the rest of our lives. The US government could put an end to it, not by bombing Muslim countries, but by not bombing Muslim countries. Read Glenn Greenwald's latest analysis "Cause and Effect of the Terror War" of America's war on 5 Muslim countries.
Seems like every time, I drag my lazy butt into a comfy chair with a wine of my choice some moron decides his sticky little fingers should stray from his trousers to the trigger of a badly made explosive. This time it's yet another spoilt gulf brat with delusions of entitlement who tried to take a plane load of people to meet his unpleasant maker.
Our Chris puts it all down to religion, his brother puts it down to a lack of parental discipline. Whichever weakness, it causes me grief, personally and professionally.
Planes have an iconic position in our society, a higher body count would be met by hitting a train, a social security or post office, a sporting fixture or rock concert. All these venues have been targeted at times but it's planes that seize our imagination. This latest sad spoilt boy decided that an aluminium tube comprising 200 odd fellow travellers was the ideal venue for his theatre of the absurd and the obscene.
These men who are driven by a combination of stone age texts and post millennium disillusion have won in a sense. Every time grandma loses her knitting needles, airports put an extra $ security fee on your bill and a university cancels it's American conference - we have all lost.
This is why Chris's "War On Terror" is unworkable. The more we fight it, the more we lose our freedoms.
Perhaps the reason that planes are such an attractive target is that they are the clearest symbol of our new freedoms. Freedom to party, freedom to move and ultimately freedom to leave any binding social or religious constraints for a new beginning.
While "religion might poison everything" it's restraint on our freedom of movement that will ultimately minimise our lives.
“The enemies of intolerance cannot be tolerant." • "If it is an offense to justice to hold people who may have been victims of mistaken identity or of vendettas by other factions, then it is also an offense to justice to release psychopathic killers who believe that they have divine permission to throw acid in the faces of girls who want to attend school." • "Don't be such a lesbian!
”
