The Most Useless Current Discussion in Science
What's in a name? A few days back the astronomers classified the planets in a way so that there were twelve of them. Then they reclassified so that there were eight. They actually had a conference for this. So much effort for so little. Things such as roundness, and curves of orbits were considered in determining the classification. To me it seemed that people had made up their minds whether they wanted Pluto as a planet or not and based their criteria for classification on that instead of it being the other way around. But who cares? If a body is interesting because it has some interesting properties, and I do not mean Sharapova, then it should be investigated if not then no one will care about it. Raising it to the status of planet or degrading it to a planetoid is just silly bookkeeping.
It was reported that, "It was unclear how Pluto's demotion might affect the mission of NASA's New Horizons spacecraft, which earlier this year began a 9 1/2-year journey to the oddball object to unearth more of its secrets." (See http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/08/24/pluto.ap/index.html ). Now this is a rather silly thing. If Pluto has some interesting qualities that need exploration then it should be explored whether today it is classified as a planet or not. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet and sewage by any other name would still be pretty bad.

A Matter of Opinion
It has been said that the pope does not agree with Manuel II’s statement which he had quoted in his speech. After reading the transcript of the whole speech (http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=46474 ) it is unclear why he would use it if not to agree with it. He calls the emperor erudite and as far as I can tell is trying to make the point that the emperor was trying to make.
If he wanted to have a debate he has one now on his hands. If he wanted a dialogue then he is now further away from his goal than before the speech. If one begins with the approach that I am right and you are wrong then dialogue is dead on arrival. He painted Christianity as a religion where rational thought goes hand in hand with God and Islam as a religion where God is transcendent. Both are only subcultures. He obliquely makes the point that this is the reason for violence in Islam. There are certainly Christians who believe in the transcendence of God and Muslims who want to conjoin rationality with God. Why not bring up many of the incidents from Christianity to make the point that he was trying to make? Have not certain groups belonging to all religions at some point advocated violence? This is one of the central problems of religions: Each group apparently has a direct line to God and it seems he is telling them the so called truth while the other group’s line has been connected to the devil.
However, if the pope meant what he said then he should stick to it. That is his opinion and he is entitled to it. If people wish to oppose him then as long as they do it nonviolently it is their right to do so.
The colleague who mentioned, "there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist" appears to be more rational than the either side here.

Postscript: The media coverage on this issue was really bad. Everyone repeated the quote without actually making an attempt at explaining the context of the quote.

The Way Forward

On March 24, 2006 I wrote about Iraq:

"1. Divide the country into three states. The shia state, the Sunni state, The Kurdish state. Let each run their daily lives and local policies.
2. Divide oil revenues between the three states based on population. This way oil is not controlled by "whoever's land" it is on but is a national asset divided equally among the people. The ratios can change based on a census every 5 years.
3. The military has equal numbers from all three states.
4. Each state has its own assembly. An initial constitution must be approved by two thirds majority of each state's assembly and the national assembly. Any change would require the same measure. That is if it is not acceptable to any one state it is not acceptable.
5. Elections are every six years for the state and national assemblies. Prime minister's serve for two years each. One shia, one sunni, one kurd. The "national assembly" would consist of the national assembly and the state assembly of the state from where the prime minister is chosen. The ratios of the assemblies must be such that the prime minister has the majority to carry out most of the governments work (except for changes in constitution which has been highlighted above). And these five points are part of the constitution.

If the Iraqi leadership is sincere it should have no problem adopting such a measure. But if people are going for an oil grab and a military grab it would be pretty obvious.
I don't think it is workable because I don't think that the leadership or the people are sincere but if they can adopt such measures and then stick to them then they may have something to work with. Infact if they do not adopt such measures the US should force such measures in the initial constitution since Iraqi's will always have the choice to change it if all three states agree."

On May 1, 2006 I wrote:
"Apparently Biden has come out with a proposal to divide Iraq into three autonomous zones, yes you guessed it, one for the Sunnis, one for the Shias and one for the little Kurds who live down the lane."

At the time Biden's proposal was panned. Now the environment is looking more hospitable for it, with the second proposal I mentioned also being discussed by some people, including Al Franken on Air America.

The military and constitutional proposal's have not been talked about yet but that will come. These proposal's will not solve everything since it is very hard for people to get along if they hate each other. Infact they will initially even isolate the three feuding parties but that is the first step to reconciliation of any sort.