Some scientists are now theorizing that the dinosaurs weren’t wiped out by a single asteroid strike, but by a barrage of them. Others are skeptical.

It wouldn’t necessarily surprise me. Sometimes asteroids, and particularly large comets, are more of a cloud of bodies than a discrete single one. Recall the multiple impacts on Jupiter a few years ago when it crossed the path of Shoemaker-Levy.

Punditwatch notes that on Fox News Sunday, Juan Williams blathered:

“I?m worried about the fact that that some people are willing to demonize anybody who questions this war effort as if they?re stupid.?

Gee, and here I thought that to “demonize” someone was to make them like, well, a demon. You know, a devil. An evil-type person.

Of course, I guess there’s nothing to prevent them being both evil and stupid.

Just kidding, and given that it was spoken rather than written, maybe I’m being a little too hard on him here.

But still, Juan is worried about “some people.” Which people? It might help his cause if he’d admit that many who oppose the war actually are stupid, or at least their arguments for doing so are (particularly the pearls of wisdom handed down from the sages of Sunset Boulevard).

What he should really be worried about is that, while there are reasoned cases to be made against the war (though I disagree with them), they’re very rarely articulated, and the stupid ones seem to dominate mind share, even in reportage and editorials in the Paper Formerly Known as the Paper of Record. Most of the “anti-war” sentiment seems to be motivated mostly by anti-Bush sentiment and, in extreme cases, anti-American sentiment.

And of course (as an aside) the notion that the fiasco in the UN is of our making is ridiculous. If a country believes that it’s in its national interest to support a dictator, then no amount of diplomacy, or acceptance of Kyoto Treaties, will change its mind. That’s the fundamental flaw of those believe that all differences can be reconciled by simply talking it out, and that creatures like Saddam can be persuaded to give up his weapons, if only we give him enough time.

One other comment on the most recent proposals to, instead of deposing Saddam, “simply” increase the inspections regime: I heard a debate between Richard Perle and former Congressman Tom Andrews on Blitzer’s show yesterday. When Perle challenged Andrews about how insensitive he was to the plight to the Iraqi people, it clearly stung. I wish that more people would do this. Let’s look at the rush transcript:

PERLE: I see no sensitivity in your argument to the plight of the Iraqi people, none whatsoever. And it’s tragic, because Iraqis are (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

BLITZER: Go ahead and respond.

ANDREWS: We feel very strongly that Saddam Hussein has to be contained, disarmed and that the people of Iraq must be protected. You don’t have to invade and occupy to protect innocent men, women and children. We have seen this time and again.

We’re calling for…

PERLE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

ANDREWS: Please, if you will. Some of our members have stood up just two days ago and said “We’d like to have Saddam Hussein indicted as a war criminal.” We’re talking about placing human rights monitors throughout Iraq so that he can’t continue to create the havoc inside of Iraq.

There are whole series of things, Wolf, that we can…

BLITZER: We’re almost out of time. Richard, go ahead and respond to that.

PERLE: Well, I think it’s just hopelessly impractical. I don’t think this is a serious approach to the protection of the people of Iraq who have been murdered in substantial numbers by Saddam Hussein and who will continue to be murdered by him as long as he’s in power.

This sounds to me like a desperate off-the-cuff comment to defend himself against the (apparently unexpected) charge of being insufficiently solicitous of the welfare of the Iraqi people.

Let me amplify on Mr. Perl’s comment, because Wolfie can’t cut me off.

Let’s repeat: “You don’t have to invade and occupy to protect innocent men, women and children. We have seen this time and again.”

Note that there are no examples of any case in which women and children have been protected without “invading and occupying”–it’s just stated as though everyone has seen it, time and time again.

“Some of our members have stood up just two days ago and said ‘We’d like to have Saddam Hussein indicted as a war criminal.'”

Fine, indict him. Who will deliver the indictment? As Lileks once said, knock real loud on the palace door. Sometimes they’re down in the basement biowarfare lab gassing bunnies, and don’t hear you the first time.

OK, so you’ve indicted him. Now what? Will there be a trial? Will it be in absentia? If so, and he’s convicted, how will he be punished? Will that be in absentia, too? Will he get a severe long-distance frowning?

Oh, you mean you’d like him to show up and actually be in the dock, and be able to actually punish him if convicted?

How will that occur, Tom and friends? Will we simply invite him, and hope he shows? Do you have an actual plan for getting him to accept the invitation, that doesn’t involve “invading and occupying”? If so, what is it?

“We’re talking about placing human rights monitors throughout Iraq so that he can’t continue to create the havoc inside of Iraq.”

You’re “talking about placing human rights monitors throughout Iraq”?

You’re pretty good at “talking about” stuff, Tom and friends.

I know this will seem like a silly question, but suppose Saddam doesn’t want “human rights monitors throughout Iraq”? Have you “talked about it” with him? What if, after a pleasant conversation over tea, and a group hug, Saddam says, “no, thank you anyway, my noble friends, but the Iraqi people have no need or interest in human rights monitors, though we’ll be happy to accept some human shields to protect our palaces and oil refineries.”

Now what, Tom and friends? Do you have a plan for putting in the “human rights monitors” that doesn’t involve “invading and occupying” or at least maintaining an imminent (as in “on almost a moment’s notice”) threat of one?

If the latter, who will pay to maintain the force we’ve built up there indefinitely? Who will pay for the additional forces that we’ll have to build up to deal with other problems (like Korea) to compensate for the fact that we have so many tied down in the Middle East indefinitely?

Can we charge Saddam for that? If so, how do we get him to pay? What if he doesn’t want to?

Should we charge the French? Will they pay?

Really?

How about the families of the servicemen who will be separated from them for months or years, with no end in sight? How about the morale of men and women who have trained to do a job, and now have to sit there, waiting, their training edge deteriorating weekly, and then daily, afraid that they will have to go in and fight in chem suits in the sweltering heat of August, while Saddam continues to build up weapons in hidden places because even though we know that you’d really really like for the “weapons inspectors” to be a combination of the great Kreskin and Sherlock Holmes, let’s face it, they’re not?

But let’s ignore all that, and continue to play along.

Suppose that, by some miracle, after sufficient “talking about” things, the human rights monitors are actually placed in Iraq? How many will there be? Will they be on every street corner? The abuses are widespread enough that it’s difficult to see how anything else will do, if you want to actually prevent them.

And how much force will they be allowed to carry to do so? From what I hear, Saddam’s goons are pretty brutal. I don’t think they’ll desist from abducting and raping or torturing someone, or dousing them with gasoline and setting them ablaze, simply because a “human rights monitor” asks them nicely, or even if they frown while making a stern request, or even (heaven forfend) a demand.

Oh, you mean that the monitors aren’t there to prevent abuses, but only to “monitor” them (i.e. observe and report them to somebody)?

I guess that makes sense, given their name. I just kind of figured or hoped that, you know, as “inspectors” really apparently means “detectives” or “mind-readers” to you folks, that maybe “monitors” meant something else. As in, something that might actually be helpful to the long-suffering Iraqi people.

But then, how will the Iraqi people actually be protected, rather than have their “civil rights monitored”? Will there be armed blue helmets on the ground, to whom the monitors can report, and if necessary, actually prevent abuses? How many of those will there be? Remember that there would have to be at least as many as Saddam’s minions, which if you count the army, number many tens of thousands.

So now we have a Saddam with no control over his ability to develop weapons, no control over his army, no ability to enforce his whimsical and cruel dictates. Just what is his job, and how will he carry it out? What is the point in leaving him “in power,” if he’s to be granted none? And why would he agree to it?

Moreover, in what way does this situation differ from an “occupation”?

As far as I can see, (assuming that it’s effective at all, and not merely more pretending to solve the problem with “inspectors” and “monitors”) the only difference is that it’s an occupation by UN forces instead of US coalition forces, and that it’s somehow magically accomplished, by some inspecified means, without an “invasion.” And of course, if Tom and friends don’t mean to actually be able to prevent human rights abuses, but only to “monitor” them, then it’s simply a cynical ploy to pretend that they actually give a damn about the Iraqi people, when called on it on news shows.

So, stupid, naive, or something else, Juan? I report, you decide.

[Update at 7 PM PST]

Vegard Valberg agrees that the notion of leaving the troops in place to enforce continued “inspections” is a leftist scam, with the cost accruing to the Anglosphere and the benefits accruing to the socialists and apparent lovers of fascist dictators (though what’s most important, of course, is hatred of Amerikkka, globalism, and capitalism).

Though the Professor beat me to it (it helps to be in a time zone three hours ahead…), I’d like to note that, as we are about to embark on the next phase in the war against the poisonous ideology that fueled them, it is a year and a half since the atrocities of September 11, 2001.

I guess we only make a big deal of it on integer anniversaries.

I’m out of town for the weekend. Nothing new before Tuesday…

Jack Straw really put it to the French at the UN today.

The Anglosphere solidifies further.

North Korea is making new threats.

Once again, I want to extend my eternal gratitude to those people who have been determined to prevent us from having a missile defense for the past two decades.

North Korea is making new threats.

Once again, I want to extend my eternal gratitude to those people who have been determined to prevent us from having a missile defense for the past two decades.

North Korea is making new threats.

Once again, I want to extend my eternal gratitude to those people who have been determined to prevent us from having a missile defense for the past two decades.

It’s a shame that more people don’t get a good physics education–if they did, perhaps it would be more difficult to engage in sophistry and chicanery by using physics terms.

For instance, the word “energy” is well defined in physics. It is the ability to perform work, and can be quantified as the product of a force applied through a distance. As an example, dragging a block that requires ten pounds of force to move it, for ten feet, requires one hundred foot pounds of energy. Power is defined as the rate at which energy is expended (that is, the energy divided by the time required). Dragging the block quickly requires more power than doing so slowly.

Unfortunately, people who don’t understand this are taken in by charlatans–purveyors of rocks, under the delusion that certain minerals in certain shapes contain “energy” and “power” that can in turn by transmitted to their owner. This, despite the fact that they contain no quantifiable energy at all, or any apparent means to provide an energy transfer to a human being, at any rate whatsoever.

Another misunderstood concept is that of stability. Stability has a precise meaning to a physicist (and controls analyst). If, in a given position, a body is perturbed (that is, moved) slightly, and it returns to the original position on its own, it is said to be stable. If, on the other hand, a slight perturbation causes it to move away from the original position, it is said to be unstable. There is a third state, called neutral stability, which occurs if the disturbance results in the object staying in the new, perturbed position.

In the simplest physical terms, think of the stable condition as a ball at the bottom of a valley, the unstable one as a ball at the top of a hill, and the neutrally stable one as a ball on a flat surface.

Push the stable ball up the hill a bit, and it will roll back down to the bottom where it started. Push the unstable ball at the top of the hill a bit, and it rolls down the hill, away from its original position, ending up at the bottom, and then stable in its new location. The neutrally stable one on the flat surface, of course, will stay wherever you put it.

Note also that the definition might depend on the direction of the push. If a ball is on top of a plateau, on the edge, it could be neutrally stable in the direction away from the slope, but unstable in the direction toward the slope.

Like the word “natural,” one should not assign intrinsic value judgements to any of these physical states. There is no benefit to the ball being stable in its valley if you want it in, say, your own valley, the next one over.

Similarly, sometimes instability can be useful.

A stable airplane will fly “hands off” and this is how airliners and most general-aviation aircraft are designed, for added safety. But many modern fighter aircraft are designed to be aerodynamically unstable, because it turns out that this is a way to maximize performance. The penalty for flying an unstable aircraft is that it requires active and continuous control to keep it going in the direction you want it to, and pointing in the direction you want it to, and that generally means control by a computer, which results in another potential failure mode. Unstable aircraft are much more difficult (but not impossible) to fly (it actually turned out that the Wright’s original flyer was not an aerodynamically stable design). But there is no inherently right or wrong way–it’s just a matter of your requirements and designing to meet them.

If an entity is in a desirable state, then it’s also desirable that that state be stable, so it’s easy to keep it that way. If, on the other hand, the state is undesirable, stability is a bug, not a feature.

Getting from a stable state to an unstable one, or another stable one, requires the input of energy. If the ball is in the wrong valley, it has to be rolled up and over the hill, so it can roll down into the right one.

All of which is a high-falutin’ way, of course, of explaining why I want to throw something at the television when I see some windy bEUreaucrat on the East River attempting to send shivers down our collective spine by talking about the risk to “stability” of the Middle East if we remove Saddam’s cleated boot from the collective neck of the Iraqi people.

Obeisance to the false god of “stability” has gotten us, and the people of the Middle East, into the current mess.

In 1991, the first Bush administration hoped that Saddam’s regime was actually unstable, and a little push would result in his overthrow, while maintaining the “stability” of a unitary Iraq. Unfortunately, it turned out to be stable, and the little roll up the hill provided by the end of the first phase of the Gulf War (we’re actually about to enter the third, and hopefully final phase) wasn’t sufficient to get it over the hump into another stable regime. Unfortunately, the hill that it had to go up to remove Saddam proved higher than they thought, and they weren’t willing to expend the additional energy required to get it out of his stable valley, to the tragedy of the Kurds, Shi’ites and other Iraqi people over the past dozen years.

Now, again we’re told, as we were then, that removal of Saddam may “destabilize” the region. Unfortunately, the analogy for this perverse love of the status quo would be an airplane, a stable configuration, in straight and level flight, with a madman for a pilot. Ahead of it is a mountain.

Much better, for now to have a maneuverable, albeit unstable, fighter. It will require much more energy to get to that state, in this case in the form of American boots on the ground, and it will require careful and constant command and control, until we can get it over the hill, out of the valley of tyranny, and ultimately into one of liberal democracy.

And for those who think that liberal democracies are intrinsically unstable configurations, consider. Yes, France is on its Fifth Republic in a couple hundred years. But the US is still running fine, albeit with some problems, on its first. That’s the kind of stability that we want to see in the Middle East.

Martin Hutchinson provides a useful history of the UN, and an explanation of why it was a mistake for the Administration to think that it would help to go there before removing Saddam. I disagree with his headline, though. The disaster was mitigated by the fact that the uselessness of the UN as an institution, at least for collective security, is now abundantly clear.