Fact: Yesterday, a 23 yo Nigerian man attempted to ignite a flammable substance aboard flight DL253, a short time before landing in Detroit. Other passengers saw a bright light and a sound of fireworks before the man was stopped and the device extinguished.

The plane departed from Amsterdam. The first news reports in the Netherlands described the situation as “failed attempt to light a firecracker on board a plane departed from Schiphol;” “man controlled by other passengers after lighting a piece of fireworks;” and “the perpetrator was injured by fire, no-one else wounded.”

Curious, I used my brains:

• the materials in a plane cabin are fireproof;
• the other passengers heard and saw fire + a combustion device needs containment to become explosive (this is opposed to chemical explosives which do not need containment) + chemical explosives do not burn;
• if there was a deliberate intent to cause heavy flight disruption, the man could have fired his device in the plane's toilets where other passengers could not have controlled him.

In other words, while the motive of the man is not clear and we do not know the exact nature of his device, his actions where not well thought-out, and of limited risk for the plane and the passengers (burns are not deadly) — at least not of any more risk than a heavily drunk passenger breaking his wine bottle and using the glass shards as a weapon.

I would suggest the following exercise: when reading about this event, consider only the first-hand accounts by witness passengers on-board, and try to dismiss entirely any account from ‘US officials’. The contrast between the facts above and what follows is striking.

Soon after the situation was known in the US, the tone of the news reports there became different: “terrorism attack on US-bound plane;” “terrorist attempts to fire a bomb aboard a plane, heroic action from other passengers to stop him;” and “Moslim terrorist declares he was directed by Al-Qaeda”. The news reports in the Netherlands are then modified: “intelligence reports in the US indicate that…” and “US sources report that…”

Also, the plane was isolated upon landing in a remote area of Detroit's airport and all passengers and crew were interrogated by the FBI. Presumably, the perpetrator was subject to “advanced interrogation techniques.” Whether his “admission” that he was acting for Al-Qaeda is true or merely the wishful thinking of his interrogators will be lost with the torture logs, obviously.

Meanwhile, in an opportunistic move the White House declares that terrorism control in airports worldwide must be strengthened.

But this is Christmas. You should be celebrating, so nothing to see there. Move along.

Liu Xiaobo is on trial. The verdict is due on Dec 25th, 2009, when western media is on holiday so as to reduce international attention on the case.

Liu Xiaobo is a human rights activist and signatory of Charter 08, a groundbreaking manifesto requesting the modernization of the Chinese state. He is charged for “inciting subversion of state power.” Foreign officials support him and Charter 08, and criticize the trial; meanwhile the Chinese government decries diplomatic meddling. Liu Xiaobo faces 15 years in prison for wishing to improve the world.

But there is nothing to see there of course, move along. Your are celebrating Christmas tomorrow!

Recently: http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-falsify-data/.

Simultaneously, found on the Independer:

Climate models, which is what the "scientists" use cannot produce evidence. They give a large number of "what if" scenarios. Picking one of these because it fits with the political message is snake-oil selling; not science.
Go check the meaning of "chaotic" in the mathematical sense. A dynamic, complex, chaotic system - Earth's climate - cannot be predicted with any certainty, because each element can undergo a small variation which can have a large effect on the whole. This means there are an infinite number of possible outcomes, none of which are any more certain than any other.
Further, climate models exclude two of the most important climate factors - behaviour of oceans and clouds - because computers lack the power to make the necessary calculations.
It is not possible to predict climate with any certainty at any point in the future.
To say scientists have produced evidence of what a 2C - or any other value - will do to the Earth's climate is nonsense.
The models are programmed with the assumption that CO2 can only have a strong positive forcing effect; which is not supported in the peer reviewed scientific literature.
The result of computer models which rely on an assumption cannot be used to prove that assumption.
In any case observation over the past 11 years shows the Earth's climate is not warming by the 0.2C per decade predicted by the IPCC - in fact it is cooling.
If you are interested in fact rather than fiction go here: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/hadley-november/

In the Netherlands, you should register via the Donor Register. In all countries, the most important is to tell about your choice to your friends and family! They will support your decision and/or accept the request to donate if you end up in a position to donate without being able to give your consent.

Of course, there are discussions about the lack of organ donors, on one side, and whether donors should receive compensation on the other side. The current system supports voluntary donations without compensations. This calls for discussion and thinking.

Seen on Metafilter this year and previously

In response to shortfalls in organ donation, policy is undergoing a serious rethink in several countries. In Australia, the government has just lifted a ban on animal-to-human transplants. In the UK, the Chief Medical Officer has called for presumed consent, while in Israel a new law gives donor card carriers a legal right to priority treatment if they should require an organ transplant. Many are looking to Spain, which leads the world, having seen the number of deceased donors per million people - a commonly used benchmark - increase from 14 in 1989 when a new system was put in place to 34.2 last year.

If you think that you or your family should get paid for your organs:

[…] Of the episode of the Twilight Zone where a family is given a little button to push. When pressed, someone they "don't even know" will die and the family will get a million dollars. Arguments ensue, but eventually they press the button. A man shows up to drop off the money and collect the button. The man assures them that the button will now be given to someone they "don't even know." Zing!
If you allow organ selling, you generate a market that will encourage harvesting.
If you imagine that you are not a member of the organ pool because you're middle-class, you're assuming the wealthy won't preferentially choose to buy well-fed, healthy organs for transplants.
In a world where white, newborn orphans get adopted first, that's just naive.
If people are allowed to shop for organs, you're putting yourself in the store display window right beside the third-world labourer. And you're pretty tempting - you don't have HIV, you probably haven't been exposed to poisons your whole life, you probably haven't suffered malnutrition or parasitic infection. You're organs are probably in very good shape compared to 90% of the planet. Furthermore, there's someone out there who:

1. Doesn't care who you are.
2. Has the money to buy your organs.

Register now, advertise your choice, donate later!