Scott Aaronson has adopted a sensible attitude towards the controversy over string theory, announcing in a new posting entitled Mercenary in the String Wars that his allegiances in this “War” are for sale to the highest bidder. I encourage all my extremely wealthy financial backers to take him up on this.
He seems to have reached this decision after enjoying an all-expenses-paid vacation in the Bay Area courtesy of the Stanford string theorists, despite having a great deal of sympathy for the criticisms being made of string theory. While there, he gave a talk for which he makes his notes available, on the topic of Computational Complexity and the Anthropic Principle. It’s quite entertaining, although the fact that anyone is seriously debating the kind of issues Scott discusses is a good indication of how far off the rails string theory has gone.
Scott seems surprised to discover that, in private discussion, string theorists are far more reasonable than he expected from their writings, from the behavior of string theory bloggers like Lubos, and from his conversations with Greg Kuperberg, who is convinced that string theory critics are “intellectually non-serious” (I forgot to mention in my last posting that Kuperberg was someone else I had in mind when quoted in 02138). His experience agrees with my own, that in private conversation I find that most string theorists and I agree much more than one would guess. In such a context I’ve just about always found them more than willing to admit that the current situation of string theory is disturbing, progress has ground to nearly a halt, and that the whole landscape business is extremely problematic. That these attitudes are not well reflected in the public utterances of string theorists I think is due to several factors. Given the problems facing the theory, many find it best to just avoid being quoted publicly, and those who do talk to the press feel that their field is to some extent under unfair attack in the media and they should make their best effort to defend it. Those who spend their time vigorously defending string theory as a healthy research program, attacking its critics on blogs and elsewhere, often represent only a tail in the statistical distribution of views and behaviors of the string theory community.
I also suspect that one reason Scott found the Stanford string theorists behaving more reasonably than he would have guessed is that the last year or so has not been kind to their early hopes that statistical calculations would allow some sort of real predictions to emerge from the anthropic landscape. It has become increasingly clear that this kind of idea just can’t work, for reasons that have been extensively discussed here.
I predict a lively discussion in the comment section over at Scott’s blog, and encourage people to use that venue. Already John Preskill has weighed in with what he thinks is an unintentional double entendre about Susskind: “When I listen to Lenny Susskind, I really believe that information can come out of a black hole.”
Update: Scott is pretty funny, but I have to admit that Lubos is completely hilarious.
string theory critics are “intellectually non-serious”… this sounds alot like the language used by neoconservatives against critics of the Iraq war. Interesting parallel.
I think that
a) judging string theorists from Lubos, and
b) judging string theory from our anthropic vacuum
are equally misguided approaches. One event is not enough to meaningfully test a statistical distribution.
hack,
Because of my desire to keep politics out of this blog I’ve avoided so far giving into the temptation to draw parallels between the string and Iraq fiascos, but it is hard to resist. In both cases most sensible people agree things are going badly, with those in authority resisting calls for pulling out and accusing their critics of not providing a tolerable alternative. Also, in both cases most people I know think not much is going to improve until Nov. 2008, when US presidential elections, and LHC experimental results, both promise about a 50% chance of some positive changes in the situation.
Pingback: Scott Aaronson on the String Wars | Cosmic Variance
It is easy to criticize a scientific endeavor, if it is speculative it is crazy, if it is not speculative, it is going nowhere, or it is not cutting edge, the speculations might or might not develop into facts, if they dont they an easy target, crazy speculations which were obviously never going to work, if they do, they are often incremental, something you can brush off as insignificant, it doesnt achieve all you had hoped, well that happens all the time, science is normally incremental, Peter Woit, you find it so easy to criticize the science of others, what about your own, has it progressed more than all those whom you so easily criticize? Oh, wait a minute, you don’t seem to have any science, well that explains a few things.
The anthropic principle seems to have weird effects on people. I wonder whether people really argue in those terms? And, at Stanford?
What’s going to happen when those graduates start reaching the higher rungs at Hewlett Packard? I don’t know… I think those slides gave me a horrible hangover…
wazoo said:
What’s going to happen when those graduates start reaching the higher rungs at Hewlett Packard?
What do you _think_ will happen? The usual stuff: Winning contracts, eliminating co-workers, mooching and smooching, the odd superfluous management book; maybe some pretexting and an invitation to a board of enquiry. Business is quite unlike physics. It is even quite unlike engineering.
While “Computational Complexity and the Anthropic Principle” is certainly not a great contribution to string theory (IMHO of course), it certainly is fun reading. Though I’m not sure whether, assuming that “There is no physical means to solve NP-complete problems in polynomial time” holds in the universe (which I agree with), the sentence “There is no way to reach a solution to an NP-complete problem in polynomial time in the multiverse” is necessarily true or even meaningful. Where is Greg Egan when you need him?
…but for this evening I have the Complexity Zoo to admire.
Scott Aaronson’s talk mixing the everett multiverse and the anthropic principle is…breathtaking…Not-Even-Wrong “physics” of monumental proportions.
The huge complexity zoo makes it starkly clear that complexity theory is a very young field. Those guys need a classification theorem that will reduced the number of complexity classes by a factor of 10, at least.
Those guys need a classification theorem that will reduced the number of complexity classes by a factor of 10, at least.
I’ve heard that complaint more often than I can remember, but I’ve never found it particularly well thought-out. Do chemists need a classification theorem that would reduce the number of elements — say, by collapsing nitrogen with helium? The bottom line is that there are a lot of complexity classes because there are a lot of models of computation. Furthermore, we know that collapse can’t be the general rule of the Complexity Zoo — for example, since P!=EXP, we must have either P!=NP or NP!=PSPACE or PSPACE!=EXP (and most likely all three of them).
If you’re serious about wanting a classification theorem, can you tell me anything concrete about what such a theorem should look like? This blog is no place for critics and naysayers — I want to see a positive proposal! 🙂
Scott,
chemistry has the periodic table, which is a classification and probably just the sort of “reduction” that anon was talking about.
Yes, but it’s a messy classification, where some rows contain 2 elements, others 8, and others 18, and the properties of an element can be deduced from the column it’s in except when they can’t…
I could give you a “classification” of complexity classes in exactly the same sense. Here, I’ll even start: P is to NP is to BPP, as E is to NE is to BPE, as EXP is to NEXP is to BPEXP…
Actually, Hack, neoconservatives have started directing the accusation of “non-seriousness” against the Bush administration. Don’t ask me why it took so long. From “Neo Culpa” in Vanity Fair:
Thomas Friedman, NYT pundit and pontificator, had a bunch of rules for the Middle East in his column, which I have presented here removing one sentence.
“Rule 1: What people tell you in private in the Middle East is irrelevant. All that matters is what they will defend in public in their own language. Anything said to you in English, in private, doesn’t count. …. In the Mideast, officials say what they really believe in public and tell you what you want to hear in private.”
I’m wondering whether Friedman Rule 1 is applicable in a wider circle than just the Middle East.
(w.r.t. “… in private conversation I find that most string theorists and I agree much more than one would guess.”).
Stop! Stop! Enough politics! This is getting like Lubos’s blog!
Surely there can be few means of evidencing the “non-seriousness” of a scientific discussion than for its participants to decend into political analogies of which they generally have little expertise. “Not Even Wrong” is an admirable, serious discussion maintained by a remarkable man.
The political infection is a mistake. A very big mistake.
OK, OK, no more politics. But at least no one has brought up global warming….
Hi Peter,
In a comment above you indicate your belief in the possibility that experimental results from the LHC could lead to an improvement in the string theory situation.
Do you believe we might actually discover TeV scale strings, black holes, or extra dimensions?
It seems that if we “only” discover some kind of supersymmetry, or Higgs (even if it is not the standard Higgs but something more exotic), that will have no impact on string theory (other than sociological) because any such scenario can likely be embedded in some version of string theory.
To summarize: it’s really hard for me to imagine any experimental result that would have an impact on string theory.
A String Theorist,
What I meant about the LHC was not that it would have anything to say about string theory, but that it might tell us something exciting and unexpected, most likely about electroweak symmetry breaking. If this happens, many theorists would just drop string theory and work on whatever new direction the experiments are indicating. This would improve a lot the situation of particle theory, not the situation of string theory.
To summarize: it’s really hard for me to imagine any experimental result that would have an impact on string theory.
For almost 20 year, Ed Witten repeatly stated that string theory makes one prediction, supersymmetry (and one postdiction, gravity). Hence if SUSY is disproven at the LHC, there are two possibilities:
1. Witten was right and string theory is wrong. Then there seems to be no point in pursuing string theory.
2. Witten was wrong. Since Witten’s enthusiasm was the main reason for being interested in string theory in the first place, there seems to be no point in pursuing string theory.
Perhaps the so-far-unsuccessful scientific effort to detect gravitational waves – which I think is at least as old as the first string revolution – can be examined for clues as to how patient one needs to be with respect to scientific discovery?
general relativity was proposed in 1915, made a firm postdiction for the perihelion of Mercury and a few firm predictions; the first one was quantitatively confirmed in 1919 (just after WWI, that caused some delay).
String theory predicts supesymmetry, maybe around the weak scale, maybe a bit above, maybe around the string scale (which could be anywhere below the Planck scale), maybe at any intermediate scale, maybe split, maybe super-split (on 1st April).
Arun, I think there is some difference.
no, I specifically mean LIGO!
Am I reading Lubos right? Is he preparing himself for leaving academia?
I’d guess that Lubos is actually searching desperately for an excuse, feeling he’s likely to be fired soon.
$2 for scott
lubos’s low-degree of psycosocial intelligence (esp., inability to detect sarcasm/clearly identifiable marks of non-seriousness) leads me to conclude that he has asperger’s syndrome. he should be checked.
Two short comments. First, the interesting question about Motl is what next. He is not stupid, which either means he has some plan for the future that fits in with his behavior, or he is stupid (see a) or he has a cushy job lined up somewhere else (Czech Republic??) where his behavior and lack of production will not make a difference so he can indulge himself.
Scott Aaronson makes a fundamental mistake. While the periodic table may appear messy to a physicist, it is a huge reduction from the number of possible molecules, and the key organizing principle in chemistry. As a minor note, the original table, based on reactions with oxygen and hydrogen WAS rectangular, however there are a large number of other forms which may appeal to you (in roughly chronological order)
“There is no way to reach a solution to an NP-complete problem in polynomial time in the multiverse” is necessarily true or even meaningful. Where is Greg Egan when you need him?”
Or Charles Stross, or Rudy Rucker, or Vernor Vinge, all of whom write great fiction about such questions.
I have Aspergers Syndrome myself and studying theoretical physics. And I can say, Lubos is a hard case of this desease.
I have run in similar problems on internet forums as he does on his blog.
When discussing about things in which feelings of other persons would be involved, everyone could see my “mathematical thinking style” unable to recover emotions of other people (at least as fast as a normal people should)
An extreme case, where this lack of empathy is seen, is this post of lubos:
http://mrigmaiden.blogspot.com/2006/08/zero-divergence-blogroll.html
Although the grandma of the poster has died, lubos attacks the physical ideas of this female student. He relies on physics having no connection to how the attacked person might feel.
From my experiences, I have learned, that it is best for a person with AS, only to comment seldom on things where feelings of toughts of others are involved. And when, then one has to put words like “I think” or “in my opinion” Or “maybe” or “as I understand” in ones sentences. This is, because the mathematical thinking style makes a person with AS believe, he/she knows the world for sure.
But this isnt. Since persons with AS have only a rather small connection to others feelings, and so, they miss important facts in their analysis.
One can live with AS almost without being seen as excentric. But only if one represses oneself on discussions that could be connected with others feelings.
If I would open a blog and discuss opinions of sociology or personal feelings on what others are doing (calling people working on LQG as crackpots is not a scientific statement), It would be my death.
But exactly this is the problem here:
It is correct, that LQG is not developed that far as string theory is (because of the lower number of researchers). So lubos is calling researchers in this field as crackpots. Because they are working on a theory that is not developed that much. His mathematical analysis leads to a conclusion and then he insults the researchers.
It is correct, that most females have not so much scientific interests than males. This statement can be based on sociological data as on brain functional analysis. Lubos sees this, and now tries to find more facts. He then looks for IQ studies of woman, and states this loudly. Without thinking, that he will insult some women. (But however, it is not intelligence, but different interests, (it can be shown that woman are, on the average, more interested in living objects), why, regrettably, so few woman study physics. Here lubos has lack of knowledge of sociological data, but he presents his poor evidence loudly as facts. With no care, of insulting anyone. Sentences, like “I think” or “Maybe it is” or “this might be an interesting result”, or any sign of open-mindedness for other meanings are not present.
This is typical for AS. A person with a mathematical mind takes some data as axioms. And then, all other opinions are wrong.
And he will present his thinkings without any knowledge how others feeling.
I think for him it would be the best, simply to SHUT DOWN HIS BLOG IMMEDIATELY and concentrate himself working on some papers. He has ruined his life with his blog.
In Munich, I’ve heared Suesskind complaining personally about Lubos Blog! If Lubos would not have this blog, almost everyone would employ a former Harvard professor. (But of course, Lubos won’t shut down his blog, because he thinks that he was always right, seeing no insults he has made. He writes that he “does not enjoy elementary human rights now”, and this shows no insight, that he has done something wrong)
Lubos should furthermore only comment on sociological items, when he has thought of seriously, what others might think of his sentence.
This is something, one can expect from an intelligent man, even if he has AS or not.
And then, when he finds out, that he has no or not much ideas of, what others might think on his sentences, he should go to a therapist, who gives him some hints).
Then he should try to train this ability.
For Lubos, this is the only way to go.
A first check if he should go to a doctor is this test from Cambridge:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aqtest.html
This kind of “diagnosis-at-a-distance” doesn’t strike me as particularly serious. On the other hand autism, in any of its different forms and degrees, does not explain, for example, why should anyone write a long piece of gratuitous, deceitful publicity for Micros*ft in their own blog. Just plain stupidity of the garden variety is more than enough for that.
Demographically speaking, people afflicted with Asperger syndrome are relatively rare. Guys like Lubos, look for one and you’ll find dozens.
Hans, that’s very insightful. I’d never thought of Lubos like that but it makes a lot of sense. Lubos does not recognize certain behaviors that he displays are exactly the same sorts of behaviors he criticizes in others.
I’ve had some run-ins with some climate scientists (and one or two journalists and mad bloggers) but I have never, ever wished them physical harm. The idea that Lubos could wish that of Peter Woit is beyond reprehensible, its inhuman.
I think Lubos could shut down the blog, if and only if, he could be convinced that the blog was detrimental to his work even if it is remarkably popular. If I was looking to employ Lubos, then I’d insist that he shut down the blog.
I know a professor at Harvard who told me that he is not allowed to run a blog nor respond to people on blogs. I’ve no idea how or why Lubos gets away with it.
There IS a crisis in physics and nobody knows how to begin to solve it. A theory of quantum gravity that makes testable predictions is as elusive today as it was in Einstein’s time.
Eyek wrote
>Demographically speaking, people afflicted with Asperger syndrome are relatively rare.
No. It affects 0,05% in the general population.
Most of these people become mathematicians or physicists or engineers.
In physics they aren’t rare. At least, they are as rare as people in academic positions on western universities whishing others to die because they have other opinions.
Again: This post here:
http://mrigmaiden.blogspot.com/2006/08/zero-divergence-blogroll.html
indicates behaviour that only someone without empathy can have.
For example, these points of behaviour would led to a diagnosis by a doctor (DSM-IV):
#1) Restricted repetitive & stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities, as manifested by at least one of the following:
## 1A) encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus.
(Lubos hates LQG and does String theory only. I think he is preoccupied with string theory to an abnormal intensity. Some would say he is a “String theory fanatic”. That does count here.)
He fullfills one criteria of #1. so we go to step #2
# 2 The disturbance causes clinically significant impairments in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
(When others think his behaviour is rude, or excentric, and telling him this often, and Harvard forbids him to write what he wants, this could count as a significant impairment. At least then, when Lubos becomes unemployed and does not get a job, because of his blog. It is to say here, that many professors with AS do not fulfill the point above. But this point is not present in many other diagnostic criteria. That is, we could use the criteria by Gilbert or ICD10, were this is not present, if we want him diagnosed)
# 3 There is no clinically significant general delay in language
(Lubos speaks fluently and theres no reason to believe he had suffered from language delay in the past)
# 4 There is no clinically significant delay in cognitive development other than in social interaction
(Lubos is a bright guy. Otherwise he would not be able to do string theory)
# 5 Qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following
## 5A) lack of social or emotional reciprocity
(Aaronsons post was humour. This is seen by most healthy adults. But not by lubos, who lacks appropriate emotional reciprocity and takes Aaronsons post in fact by word)
To fully qualify for a diagnosis, he must now fulfill one of the following points:
## 5B) marked impairments in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as and gestures to regulate social interaction
## 5C) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
## 5D) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interest or achievements with other people
Of course, I cannot check B,C,D online! But I think he fulfills 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5A.
For a doctor, it would be important now, if he also fullfills 5b or 5c or 5d. He only needs to fullfill one point and then case closed.
Or one could look at maybe DSM-IV or ICD-10 where other diagnostic criteria are stated. Maybe there IS case closed then.
I must admit I was stunned to read Lubos’ reaction to Aaronson’s post. Something’s wrong with that young man.
Please, please, enough about Lubos’s supposed psychological problems, this isn’t on-topic or worth this much discussion, and mostly seems to me rather ill-informed anyway. I have no idea what he’s alluding to about leaving academia. The most amazing thing about him has always seemed to me the fact that his string theory colleagues seem to consider him a serious scientist, the best young one they can hire, and to this day, as far as I know, have not taken any steps to try and bring his point of view on string theory into some sort of alignment with reality.
Arun,
I don’t really see any relation between LIGO and string theory. One has known what sorts of gravitational waves GR predicts for a long time, they have been indirectly observed in binary pulsars, and direct observation is a very tough technical problem. The current LIGO has always been known to not be sensitive enough to definitely see a signal.
Sorry, for these discussion about Lubos. It will never occur on this Blog anymore.
I made this post because people out there, who are to give him a new job, after his time at Harvard is over, can understand Lubos better.
Lubos may feel, that no one would give him a new job in academia because of his behaviour. He may feel, that he is in some sense “outside” of the community. And therefore, he writes that he looks forward to leave it.
It is important for future employers to recognize, that they deal with someone, whose papers should be read with greatest interest, but his insulting writings on other people are simply not to be taken seriously or as rude. It is important for employers, that Lubos does not intend to be rude, naive, or odd in any way.
I think, Lubos just thinks he makes (mathematically) correct statements.
One should judge him on his papers and on nothing else.
I would give him a research scientist position, were he can write papers without influence of anything social other than simple situations as lecturing, for example (here one speaks logically derived sentences to a silent audience. He will have no problems with lecturing).
It is important to have a non perturbative string theory. And this part of his research might be the reason for giving him a job at Harvard.
He should be given a position, were he can develop this further.
Thanks, Hans — I have no idea if your analysis is correct, but it did help to put Luboš’s apparent vitriol against me and others in a different light.
Scott Aaronson makes a fundamental mistake. While the periodic table may appear messy to a physicist, it is a huge reduction from the number of possible molecules, and the key organizing principle in chemistry.
In exactly the same sense, the “zoo” of complexity classes is a huge reduction in the number of possible computational problems, and the key organizing principle in theoretical computer science. The zoo and the periodic table are both relatively messy, but still much simpler than the alternatives.
Hans,
No offense intended but maybe you should go post all this stuff on Motl’s blog where he might have a think on it. Whether he has AS or not, you do seem to have some helpful insight into his behavior so maybe you will know how to get things across to him in a way that will help.
Cheers.
I think this won’t help. He would simply delete my comments, without any thinking.
The problem is, that he belives he is strictly correct. He thinks simply:
String theory=most developed theory of Gravity
=>String Theory=Science
=>critics of String Theory=anti-scientists.
Anti scientists=crackpots
As a scientist one must fight against crackpots
=> one must fight strongly against any critique of String theory.
That is all. There is no space for other opinions, meanings and thinkings or even humour in his mental structure.
Maybe his colleagues tried often, to explain him, that there are allways different opinions out there. Maybe they have given up, because telling him this has no effect on him. (At least Susskind, who, in Munich, projected a big photo of a prof. Lubos Motl, Harvard, with his beamer, that was signed with the phrase “Susskind is senile”, seemed to found it strange, that such statements are in a blog from a Harvard professor. I think, in Stanford, he won’t get a job these days).
To say that there’s a point in life, which he misses completely is, in my opinion best done by a friend (if he has such) or a colleague, whom he has some respect of. At best of course a String theorist.
And not an anonymous crackpot coming from a crackpot blog of the internet.
Also: In a one to one conversation, these problems might be not present. Since here, one has a wider context (as facial expressions), which makes it easier detect, if some words are not appropriate as in online writings.
It might be, that in a one to one conversation, he is seen by his colleagues as merely a “shy” man. So one could forgive his colleagues, when they dit not tell him something.
Also, I think although Lubos is not allowed by Harvard, to comment on “not even wrong”, he even might read this postings here, just for couriosity. Here, he can read them twice, without deleting them.
Aaronson might complain to Harvard because lubos called him “the ultimate example of a complete moral breakdown of a scientist”
and “a corrupt piece of moral trash. ”
I think such a complain should be made to Harvard. In it it should be emphasized, that no one can take Lubos seriously after reading his texts. Aaronson could write, that Harvard should protect Lubos from himself by shutting down his blog which continues to contain insults.
No. It affects 0,05% in the general population.
Five in ten thousand is what most people would call “relatively rare”.
At least, they are as rare as people in academic positions on western universities whishing others to die because they have other opinions.
“Empathy-impaired” persons are not necessarily afflicted with AS. Many other conditions can lead to a lack of empathy. Even more so, non-empathic people are not necessarily mentally ill, just as non-musical people are not necessarily deaf.
I understand your viewpoint, and your opinion on this might well be correct, but I think it takes more than bad net.behavior and over-the-top blogposts to diagnose someone with a mental illness or personality disorder.
Well, I think this is rather going off topic here.
I simply wanted to give Lubos or employers of Lubos some advice. Not more. And this will definitely be the last reply on that topic.
We should discuss on physics now.
But to answer Eeyek shortly:
He wrote:
“non-empathic people are not necessarily mentally ill”
It is a spectrum. One says, that “non-empathic” people are ill, when they run into problems with environment or their lack of empathy is simply striking. That’s all.
To answer the second point:
I have met people diagnosed with AS on internet forums. Unfortunately some hard cases behaved in a way, exactly with the same writing style (when it comes to social naivity, misunderstanding, (unfortunately) aggression, insults, fanaticism on topics, collecting data, repeating facts, repeating contents) as I see it from this Harvard professor. The reason for my conclusion comes from at least 70 samples with AS. The fact that I’ve seen exactly this behaviour only and I emphasize ONLY in harder cases with AS, is the reason for calling him unfortunately a “hard” case in the post above.
I don’t want to go into detail here, even if I could do it easily, because this is a physics blog.
Maybe Lubos has no AS. But then he would be a very good imitator of a harder case of this disease. It is difficult to imitate a disability.
Just for fun: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=111
Lubos now says, that he might go to Kenya
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/lumidek/6952878876388094292/?src=hsr#689412
Wonder, if they need there any sort of a stringtheorist. At least, it was Czech fighter jets which they definitely wanted in Kenya.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Kenya
Would have cost them Sh 12.3 billion. Maybe they think Lubos gives a good warlord (or what so ever).
Well, as Lubos has some experience with countries whereis not much freedom of speech as was in former communist czech and as is in Kenya till today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4765250.stm
I don’t think one really has to fear about him there.
Fine by me, especially if he has no access to the internet there.
Do not underestimate Kenya’s head of Internal Security Michuki. He knows very well that String Theory is currently our only hope for the development of gravity guns, or wormholes generators for rapid troop deployment, just to name a few.
Be sure that Security chief Michuki did read the literature and books on advanced physics directed to the general public. Without doubt he has the means and will to provide Dr. Motl with his own secret lab in the jungle to lay the basis for a grandiose vision of a great pan African empire.
For Dr.Motl, Africa will be just as good as any starting place to free the world of Climate fanatics, Islam, feminist, liberals, democrats, communist and worst of all: crackpots (String theory skeptics). There are already signs of an emerging united African front (including Mogadishu warlords) in the struggle against the latter.
(Read the text associated with the Image here)
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/12/intellectuals-beat-allah-in-somalia.html
Regards, Hans