Speaking of democracy, I received a hilarious email today from an Iraqi freind. It's a video of El-Qadafi. Imagine, for a minute, that he's a professor of political science. If any Arab leader needs to go, this demented dummy must be sent to an asylum.

Che, I concur with much of what you have penned. Ultimately, civilian control of the military is the only way to sustain free society. (The EU stipulates that this is one of the conditions and benchmarks that Turkey must meet if it wishes to join the European Union.) You have painted an unflattering (and inaccurate) portrait of the Turkish military. As in Egypt, the Turkish military is the most revered institution in that country. And contrary to the opinion of some ill-informed commentators, many of the coups that you mentioned were hardly unpopular. The military almost never clings on to power for long periods of time. Some of those coups were unfortunate, but necessary-- it involved the removal of islamist demagogues. Erdogan is hardly the first islamist politician. (Some even argue that he's too moderate to be called an islamist). Though the leaders of the AK party have unsavory islamist ties, they are much more moderate than most commentators would admit. And remember, a few years ago Erdogan's AK came perilously close to being disbanded and banned from politics altogether. The Constitutional Court - similar, though not entirely analogous, to the Supreme Court in the US - ruled against banning them by one meager vote. In my view, I think it's a good thing they survived political banishment. Fortunately, the AK doesn't advocate openly for Shariah law. Otherwise, they would have been rightly jailed and banned many moons ago. As far as their governance is concerned, it would be disingenuous to say that Turkey did not make progress under their rule. I have to call a spade a spade. But this economic progress has precious little to do with islamist ideas than sound economic principles. Hell, if islamists had their way, they'd probably criminalize interest (riba) and place all manner of limitations on free-market principles. The gradual rise of the economic status of Turkey, it's emerging economy, has nothing to do with islamist ideas.

It cannot be said that SSC suffers from any unique utopianism if, and only if, their proximate goal is self-determination and autonomy. And of course opportunists and turncoats abound. "Every man", as Thomas Moore said, "has his price". Opportunists, history teaches us, are always transactional and never transformational. The question isn't whether some opportunist politician can shift the opinion of SSC on secession. He can't. The question is whether it is at all possible for Somaliland to persuade other tribes that secession is a boon and not a bane. Tribal jingoism won't do. Epic narratives about the revolt against sinister D-Block oppressors holds no currency with this group. How do you convince them to join you? You have to use economic incentives and socio-geographic proximity to woo them. I have grave doubts that even such efforts will be sufficient. What then? Militarism will create more tribal vendettas and grievances. If SSC merely wants to remain a self-autonmous region in Somalia, their goal is, given the status quo, less romantic and airy than secession. If NG were a betting man, I'd advise him to put his money on SSC refusing to secede, regardless of the overtures of Somaliland. But then again, public persuasions are unpredictable things.

^ Realpolitik requires temporary arrangements of this sort. Besides, I hope the military allows for freedom of the press, upholds individual liberties, and many of the familiar principles of free society. The things I have mentioned in my previous post aren't open to debate. People are free to hold whatever opinions they deem persuasive. But they are not free to enact such opinions into law, especially if it involves grotesque mob rituals like stoning.

Frankly, I did not expect to see a suggestible Nomad like BOB express skepticism about the provenance of tribes. This quality of doubt (and independence of thought) is commendable. Oral history is notoriously unreliable. And tribal memes, unlike genes, are not subject to same constraints of biology. Oftentimes, higher tribal groups are a reflection more of political allegiances than deep familial ties. As you move away from the basic family unit and extended family groups, you'll find that social relations and tribal associations have increasingly little to do with ancestry proper. Tribal narratives are mostly fictive.

"Tonight we party. Let's leave the analysis for tomorrow. Tahya Masr", says one Egyptian. Heh.

Che, xuquuqda insaanka ayuunbaa la diidayaa in lagu tunto ama lagu tacaddiyo. Gacan iyo lug cidi laga goyn maayo. Qof nool si dugaagnimo iyo waxshinimo ah dhagax nafta looga qaadi maayo. Qofku ra’yi walba wuu dhaliili karaa-- tu siyaasadeed iyo tu diimeed. Naagtu waa xor oo nafteeda iyo nolosheeda siday doonto bay ka yeeli, iyo wixii la mid ah. Siyaasadda iyo qayb walba oo nolosha bulshada way ka qayb geli kartaa, wax mamnuucayaa ma jiro. Intaas haddaad tidhi waa ‘militant’, maan fahmin waxaad ‘militant’ ulajeeddo.

Layzie, it is not likely that you will see Al-Shabaab type islamists in Egypt. Or at least that's the conventional wisdom. Besides, Egypt's military will probably follow the Turkish model -- strong secular army that upholds secular ideals. The public support for benighted views such as lopping off limbs and torture-through-stoning will wane over time.

Good Mubarak should be gone. But the care-taker government (and the ultimate lever of powers) should lie with the military (for now). I think TIME Magazine's Fareed Zakaria, a shrewd economist and political commentator, pretty much captures my view on this issue. Egypt will inch towards liberal democracy. But even our secular and liberal Egyptian friends ought to remain cognizant of the fact that Egyptians espouse some rather primitive, inhumane views. There's still a glimmer of hope. Egypt is a vast, complex country and is in the midst of unprecedented change. There are certainly troubling signs. When the Pew Research Center surveyed the Arab world last April, it found that Egyptians have views that would strike the modern Western eye as extreme. Pew found that 82% of Egyptians support stoning as a punishment for adultery, 84% favor the death penalty for Muslims who leave the religion, and in the struggle between "modernizers" and "fundamentalists," 59% identify with fundamentalists. That's enough to make one worry about the rise of an Iranian-style regime. Except that this is not all the Pew surveys show. A 2007 poll found that 90% of Egyptians support freedom of religion, 88% an impartial judiciary and 80% free speech; 75% are opposed to censorship, and, according to the 2010 report, a large majority believes that democracy is preferable to any other kind of government.-- Fareed Zakaria, TIME

Awoowe JB, indhaweyd kumaan arag, welcome back. Qolyahan wax-ma-garatada ah ayaan hiteeyay oo hiifay dooddooda. Run ahaantii waxaad moodaa qaarkood inay had iyo jeer mucjiso raadinayaan – miyaanay ahayn wax lala yaabo? Desperate for proof? Haddii aanay mucjiso helin, mid sakhiif ah bay abuurayaan. Mid baa khudaarta ama laxooxa magaca Eebbe ka dhex arkaya; Mid kalaa dhurwaa ciyaya kolkuu maqlo khushuucaya oo odhanaya: Dhurwaagu wuu tasbiixsanayaa. Kuwan imika ‘golden ratio’ la wareegaya tabtaas weeyaan. Intay aqoon-darro iyo khuraafaat la yimaadaan ayeey dhawr eray oo saynis ah nafaqo ka dhiganayaan. Silver ratio intaanad weydiin, waxaad weydiisaa xisaabta beenta ee video-ga ku jira muxuu ku saleesanyahay, oo ‘golden ratio’ muxuu u taagan yahay.

Good grief. The stup!d, it burns. This has all the hallmarks of a Harun Yahya pseudoscience production. One would have to be illiterate and innumerate to see any science or mathematics in it. The daft proselytizer invents numbers. I'm not sure the producers even understand what the golden ratio is.

Bump.

Is there something unique about human intelligence or, for that matter, consciousness? Or do such phenomena merely represent a series of complex computations and calculations? Aren't humans, after all, very complex machines-- machines, as science tells us, with no inner ghosts or souls? No one seriously believes that there is more to our minds than our brains, which is a physical thing (machine) itself. What does it mean to 'think', or to have 'intelligence'? Perhaps the Turing test is ever elusive. Nomads, I ween, remember the reactions that greeted the loss of chess grandmaster Kasparov to IBM's Deep Blue. However, as complex and cognitively strenuous as chess seems, it exhibits nowhere near the complexity required to apprehend and analyze the intricacies of language. Should machine outsmart and outperform Man next week, it will be another milestone in AI technology. HAL 9000- some paranoid observers remark - isn't far behind. That's a tad alarmist and histrionic in my view. In any event, I think there's still a long way to go, but my hope is our intuitions of uniqueness, our anthropocentric arrogance, will suffer another blow.

IBM's Supercomputer 'Watson' Wins Jeopardy Practice Round By Ian Paul, PCWorld It will be man vs. machine part 2 on Jeopardy next month, and if Thursday's friendly match up was a sign of things to come, the humans are in trouble. Former Jeopardy champions Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter lost by $1000 to IBM's Watson DeepQA-based supercomputer during a three-category Jeopardy practice round Thursday night. The trio will officially square off for a $1 million grand prize during two Jeopardy matches that will air February 14-16. Who is Watson? Watson is IBM's latest supercomputer based on the company's DeepQA software, which combines natural language processing, machine learning and information retrieval. The device is packing 15 terabytes RAM, about 2,880 processor cores that can perform 80 trillion operations a second, and is the size of 10 refrigerators according to Wired. Watson will have to rely on its self-contained databases for answers, and won't be hooked up to the Internet during the Jeopardy challenge. On stage, a computer monitor will be the only part of Watson people will see, and just like his competitors Watson will have to trigger a buzzer before it can answer a question. When Alex Trebek calls on Watson it will answer in a computer generated voice that is eerily reminiscent of HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey. Many experts are saying the challenges Watson had to overcome to play Jeopardy are far more complex than the challenges IBM's chess-playing computer, Deep Blue, faced when it defeated chess grandmaster Gary Kasparov in 1997. In Chess, there are only so many possible moves you can make to respond to your opponent, and all your moves are defined within a clear set of rules. Jeopardy, on the other hand, will require Watson to handle a much bigger challenge: decoding human language with all its nuances, implied meanings and colloquial expressions. As David Ferrucci, IBM's lead manager for Watson, recently told IDG News, "Natural language processing is so difficult because of the many different ways the same information can be expressed." That's why the mere fact that Watson is able to compete in Jeopardy--let alone win--is considered a significant milestone for artificial intelligence. If you want to learn more, check out IDG News' great write up on the challenges Watson faces next month. Also, check out this Engadget video from Thursday night's practice round:

The original article is too daffy to deserve a serious response, instead I’ll make a few passing remarks about the feminist movement. Like any educated and egalitarian person, I think the feminist movement has, for the most part, been a force for greater good. In fact, I fancy myself a feminist (or pro-feminist) in a lot of ways. But my admiration and empathy for the earlier waves of this movement do not extend to the eccentric, faux-feminism agitations of subsequent feminist ‘thinkers’. There are, to be sure, some irrational and insufferable feminists. I imagine earlier feminists would suffer from second-hand embarrassment were they read to read the muddled thoughts and mangled words of their successors. Fortunately, these fatuous feminists are wasting away in obscure humanities departments of still more obscure universities. Their silly ideas invariably invite hoots of derision from scientists and rationalists. I’m referring to the sort of daffy feminists who refer to Newton’s Principia as a ‘sex manual’; who whine that E=mc2 is a ‘sexed equation’; and so forth. It’s not only physics that triggers these bizarre outbursts, but even basic findings in biology. For instance, these bimbos blithely claim that are no species with a dominant male hierarchy. This belies an astounding, even embarrassing, ignorance of ethological studies (studies of animal behavior). With very few exceptions, most mammalian species have stronger, more dominant, and more aggressive males. And this is precisely what we would expect given the theory of sexual selection and the sexual dimorphism of such animals. Yes, male-dominance is a mere accident of nature, but it is pervasive one just the same. The competition among males for resources (food and females) is most fierce – a kind of arms race where bigger and bigger males eliminate less adaptive, smaller males. Many well-intentioned, albeit dim-witted, feminists often try to confute these empirical facts as it does not neatly cohere with their naive and romantic view of Nature. Nature isn’t egalitarian or, for that, matter sexist. It just is. Moreover, these daffy feminists worry that allowing for the fact of male dominance in animal populations would lead to supporting it in human populations. Complete non-sequitur. Description and prescription need not overlap. Most Nomads, I suspect, recall the brouhaha that erupted over the words of then Harvard University president Lawrence Summers. He proposed several hypotheses to explain the under-representation of women in high-end science and mathematics professions. One hypothesis suggested that social pressures (discrimination, discouragement etc.) did not adequately account for the substantial differences in achievement. In other words, it's not all nurture; nature plays a role. Perhaps innate sex-differences better account for such gender disparities. This is an empirical claim—something that scientists should study openly and freely. Asking empirical questions of this kind, however, elicited an all-too-familiar response from some feminist quarters: sound and fury. Insufferable feminists won the public relations war. Summers later resigned. The science of ‘gender science’ is not completely settled, but the evidence strongly favors, as Pinker et al have demonstrated, a biological basis for why mathematical geniuses are more likely to be male than female.

loool. Love Matar's masterful satire. I think the other one was funny as well. لكن لو تفكر تخطط تقرر تشغلي مخك وتفتح جدال وتبدأ تشاكل وتعمل مشاكل وتنكش مسائل وتسأل سؤال وعايز تنور وعايز تطور وتعمللي روحك مفرد رجال ساعتها حجيبك لايمكن اسيبك وراح تبقى عبره وتصبح مثال حبهدل جنابك واذل اللي جابك وحيكون عذابك ده فوق الاحتمال وامرمط سعادتك واهزأ سيادتك واخلي كرامتك في حالة هزال وتلبس قضيه وتصبح رزيه وباقي حياتك تعيش في انعزال حتقبل, ححبك, حترفض, حلّبك, حتطلع حتنزل: حجيبلك جمااااال

Che, I think you misconstrued my argument. I don’t give much credence to the false dichotomy between liberal autocracy (Mubarak) and illiberal theocracy (Muslim Brotherhood). Fortunately, there are more options to be had; if not immediately, then in the near future. Liberal democracy is certainly an option. Developing countries have been edging towards this system of governance for a few decades. Given Egypt’s history, it might take a bit longer for it to develop robust civic and democratic institutions to complement their elections . In any event, my contention is not merely true, but perhaps trivially true. Egyptians don’t have to choose between ‘evil theocracy’ and ‘secular dictatorship’. The can opt for liberal democracy. And the arrow of history firmly points in this direction.

The Muslim Brotherhood's most influential thinker was the Egyptian Sayyid Qutb. He was hanged in 1966, but not before he had managed to turn out a vast amount of writings. He showed almost superhuman courage and was, in many respects, a formidable man. But he was also a racist, a bigot, a misogynist, an anti-Semite and a fervent hater of most things American. As if to prove that familiarity breeds contempt, he had spent about two years in the United States. Majority rule is a worthwhile idea. But so, too, are respect for minorities, freedom of religion, the equality of women and adherence to treaties, such as the one with Israel, the only democracy in the region. It's possible that the contemporary Islamists of Egypt think differently about these matters than did Qutb. If that's the case, then there is no cause for concern. But Hamas in the Gaza Strip, although recently moderating its message, suggests otherwise. The article ElPunto posted is an even-handed and accurate description of Qutb's bizarre ideaology, and the unfavorable ramifications that can result from this revolt. (Tempermentally, I'm a most cynical curmudgeon-- though I'm not as wary of the weasel Ikhwanis this time around.) Educated, middle class Egyptians who want Mubarak to leave scarcely want his dictatorship replaced with the xenophobic, chauvinist islamism of Qutb. Yes, the Muslim Brotherhood has evolved somewhat throughout the years. But there are unmistakable traces of the original virus in their system. The notion of 'majority rule' is rendered meaningless if it entails loss of freedom and self-autonomy (in the guise of Shariah); intolerance and ignorance can never become a subsitute for freedom and enlightenment. Illiberal democracy is, indeed, far worse than liberal autocracy. I surmise that the Egyptian military, like the Turkish military, is too politcally astute to countenance the Ikhwanis to transform Egypt into a 'state of hate'.

Kaagan nasakhan ee Nuune la baxay, inaad luqadda carabiga bar-barad ku tahay waa midaan ogaa adeer, ee dadyowga kalaan doonayay inaan tusiyo inaad tahay mid madhan ee meel daran ka bowsaday. Walee inaad weligaa adab, balaaqa, iyo bayaan diraaseesay u malayn maayo, naxwaha iyo sarfiga iska daayoo. Sowdigan fahmi waayay waxaan soo qoray, oo waxaad-ba u heysataa inaanu fasiix ahayn (carabigu mid Saxaabi iyo mid kharbaan uma kala baxee taasi waxa aaminsan Soomaalida aqoon-darrada heysa oo carabi gacan ku rimis ah ku hadasha; fasiix iyo caami buu kala leeyahay). Caku qof aqoon-darro iyo indha-adayg isku darsaday. Hantaatac badan dulqaad uma hayo ee intaa haa inoogu ekaato, awoowe.

^ Awoowe, that's the beauty of these protests. It's not some parochial protest for this God or that God. Instead, it is about the universal needs and rights of humans. You have secular Egyptians, Coptic Egyptians, and Muslim Egyptians all expressing their anxieties about the banes of totalitarian government. And it's a good thing that weasel groups like the Islamic Brotherhood are on the sidelines. The last thing Egypt needs are divisive religious demagogues.

أليس هراء الأنوك النوني من باب "رمتني بدائها وانسلت" , وإلّا فما معنى قوله المبتذل"مرفوع القلم" ؟ ثم ما معنى تعليقه الساذج عن النصب والخفض , و هل كنا بصدد درس نحوي أصلاً حتى يورد مثل هذا الكلام؟ فكأنه يريد أن يوهم القراء (وخاصة بسطاء العقول) أنه يحسن علم النحو والصرف . وكأني بهذا الأنوك يتفاصح أمام الحمقى , يملأ فاه من القاف والطاء ,فتراه تارة متشدقاً وأخرى متنفخاً ,يحاول أن يشرح علامات النصب والجر , غير أنه لكيع لا رسوخ له في اللغة ولا سليقة له في الفصاحة ولا عرق له في البيان. هذا, ولا إخال الأنوك النوني مستوعباً ما كتبته آنفاً عن حكايات "مس الجن" التي تعجّ بالسخافات والترهات ‘ ولعمري كيف يفهم النوني علميْ الأحياء والطب وهو من هو في الجهل– قليل الثقافة , كثير السخافة . فمن الذي رفع عنه القلم يا تُرى؟ N.B. I'm reminded of something NGONGE said about the Arabic proficiency of Somalis. Nuune's Arabic is probably a bit like Rudy's English. I think NG should translate these correspondences. The algorithms that underpin Google translator are just too dumb to decipher polished language.

Che, I don’t think you can have a viable democracy without having a viable economy. Lipset's landmark paper on the relationship between economic development and democracy was unassailable. He had marshaled a compelling case for the view that economic development must precede democracy. There is no other way to sustain liberal democracy. Countries that democratize before they reach certain economic thresholds are, more often than not, doomed to fail. It is argued that there notable exceptions. But these so-called exceptions are exceptional only in a trivial sense. The generality of the law is persuasive. To be honest, Somaliland is far from a liberal democracy. One doesn't have to be a student of political science to see that. And I think it would be naive to expect them to liberalize their political system before they liberalize their economy. With regards to Siyaad, he would have had a different historical profile had he managed to modernize Somalia. I don't think he was smart enough to take the long-term view. He was a consummate opportunist, with no discernible economic or political philosophy.

Interesting developments. Will Mubarak go the same way as the tyrant of Tunisia? Or will these protests culminate in the same tragic fate of the Tiananmen Square protests? I hope Egyptians do not relent.

The ruthless dictator was deposed in 1991. Is Somalia better off twenty years later? Well, not all of Somalia, but certain regions are only marginally better off. Somaliland is one such region; Puntland is another. Of course, these regions are better off inasmuch as they enjoy a semblance of autonomy and peace. But these regions are haunted by the same economic scourge that afflicts all Somalis (and all Africans). I suspect Somaliland and Puntland do not enjoy higher per capita GDP, lower child mortality, higher life expectancy, higher literacy, or any number of socioeconomic indicators that are used to analyze economic and social development. There’s no real economy to speak of in either region. Stoic mentioned ‘sophisticated’ developments in Somaliland. Let’s not lower the bar too much. I think you can find such ‘sophisticated’ developments in Puntland and the Deep South as well.