I got a handful of notes from folks on the confession thread last week, all of them saying essentailly the same thing; most mainstream religions have the tradition of a memberconfiding in a priest/shaman, but other than Catholicism and Scientology, no one else requires it's members to do so.
not even, oddly enough, Satanism.
weird.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
A Failure of Education
There is a good editorial today in the NYT about the depths of time and how 14 billion years play out in cosmology and in evolution. This quote struck me as a truism:
Much has been made of a 2004 poll showing that some 45 percent of Americans believe that the Earth - and humans with it - was created as described in the book of Genesis, and within the past 10,000 years. This isn't a triumph of faith. It's a failure of education.
And that's really the way I see it. People ask me all the time, "what have you got against religion?". The answer is largely, every religion asks me to give up my freewill to their chosen representatives of their god and, usually soon afterward, the de-education begins.
Find me a religion where I can keep my scientific skepticism, keep my free will, keep meddlesome priests and shamans out of the line between me and the gods, and leaves me free to strongly hold the possibility that the gods don't exist at all, and maybe I would think about it.
So far, only free thinking allows me those choices.
Much has been made of a 2004 poll showing that some 45 percent of Americans believe that the Earth - and humans with it - was created as described in the book of Genesis, and within the past 10,000 years. This isn't a triumph of faith. It's a failure of education.
And that's really the way I see it. People ask me all the time, "what have you got against religion?". The answer is largely, every religion asks me to give up my freewill to their chosen representatives of their god and, usually soon afterward, the de-education begins.
Find me a religion where I can keep my scientific skepticism, keep my free will, keep meddlesome priests and shamans out of the line between me and the gods, and leaves me free to strongly hold the possibility that the gods don't exist at all, and maybe I would think about it.
So far, only free thinking allows me those choices.
Monday, August 22, 2005
Bainbridge
goes off his meds. Or I have. Or maybe both of us, I dunno. All I do know is that he's saying what I'm saying and it scares me (but only just a little).
It's time for us conservatives to face facts. George W. Bush has pissed away the conservative moment by pursuing a war of choice via policies that border on the criminally incompetent. We control the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and (more-or-less) the judiciary for one of the few times in my nearly 5 decades, but what have we really accomplished? Is government smaller? Have we hacked away at the nanny state? Are the unborn any more protected? Have we really set the stage for a durable conservative majority?
Meanwhile, Bush continues to insult our intelligence with tripe like this:
"Our troops know that they're fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere to protect their fellow Americans from a savage enemy," Bush said in his weekly radio address. {Ed: Full text here}
"They know that if we do not confront these evil men abroad, we will have to face them one day in our own cities and streets, and they know that the safety and security of every American is at stake in this war," he said.
I guess that's all he has left. After all, if Iraq's alleged WMD programs were the casus belli, why aren't we at war with Iran and North Korea? Not to mention Pakistan, which remains the odds-on favorite to supply the Islamofascists with a working nuke. If Saddam's cruelty to his own people was the casus belli, why aren't we taking out Kim Jong Il or any number of other nasty dictators? Indeed, what happened to the W of 2000, who correctly proclaimed nation building a failed cause and an inappropriate use of American military might? And why are we apparently going to allow the Islamists to write a more significant role for Islamic law into the new Iraqi constitution? If throwing a scare into the Saudis was the policy, so as to get them to rethink their deals with the jihadists, which has always struck me as the best rationale for the war, have things really improved on that front?
It's time for us conservatives to face facts. George W. Bush has pissed away the conservative moment by pursuing a war of choice via policies that border on the criminally incompetent. We control the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and (more-or-less) the judiciary for one of the few times in my nearly 5 decades, but what have we really accomplished? Is government smaller? Have we hacked away at the nanny state? Are the unborn any more protected? Have we really set the stage for a durable conservative majority?
Meanwhile, Bush continues to insult our intelligence with tripe like this:
"Our troops know that they're fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere to protect their fellow Americans from a savage enemy," Bush said in his weekly radio address. {Ed: Full text here}
"They know that if we do not confront these evil men abroad, we will have to face them one day in our own cities and streets, and they know that the safety and security of every American is at stake in this war," he said.
I guess that's all he has left. After all, if Iraq's alleged WMD programs were the casus belli, why aren't we at war with Iran and North Korea? Not to mention Pakistan, which remains the odds-on favorite to supply the Islamofascists with a working nuke. If Saddam's cruelty to his own people was the casus belli, why aren't we taking out Kim Jong Il or any number of other nasty dictators? Indeed, what happened to the W of 2000, who correctly proclaimed nation building a failed cause and an inappropriate use of American military might? And why are we apparently going to allow the Islamists to write a more significant role for Islamic law into the new Iraqi constitution? If throwing a scare into the Saudis was the policy, so as to get them to rethink their deals with the jihadists, which has always struck me as the best rationale for the war, have things really improved on that front?
Chaotic Attractor in the Markets
One of the members of Long Term Capital Management, Myron Scholes (of Black-Scholes fame) was a student of Eugene Fama, author of the Efficient Markets Hypothesis in 1965. LTCM worked well for many years when the markets were steady and predictable, but failed when a number of 4 or 5 sigma events hit, destabilized their models and sent the whole thing to hell in a hand basket. In Scholes defense, the 4 sigma events should have happened only once in 5000 years, so he made a pretty good bet. That said, there were anomalies in their data which should not have occurred in the history of the universe if the Central Limit Theorem held. One might conclude then that the CLT does not hold and only the weak-EMH holds (if at all).
However, with a lot of non-linear dynamics and fractal math behind me, I can't help but see these kind of high-sigma events not so much as a refutation of the EMH (which it obviously is), but as evidence that there is a low-order chaotic attractor in the markets. With some knowledge of what that attractor looks like, one might be able to do a little better than the EMH in building a model that works in the stable times and squeaks loudly when it sees the influence of an attractor. It obviously wouldn't work *during* the phase change, but it would let you know quite a bit beforehand that the part of the phase space the market was entering was known to be chaotic. It also would not tell you if, during a particular week, the change was going to happen or it was going to miss, i.e. is it really unstable or merely soon-to-be unstable, but it would be better than what currently exists.
Fama's refutation of the critiques of the EMH is here and worth a read, in part because it's not persuasive. Basically he says that EMH is the best we have, so it must me right. I think it's only partly right and it's possible to do better.
I am also, BTW, certain someone else has looked for the attractor in the markets, but I want to see how far I get before going to look up the answer.
However, with a lot of non-linear dynamics and fractal math behind me, I can't help but see these kind of high-sigma events not so much as a refutation of the EMH (which it obviously is), but as evidence that there is a low-order chaotic attractor in the markets. With some knowledge of what that attractor looks like, one might be able to do a little better than the EMH in building a model that works in the stable times and squeaks loudly when it sees the influence of an attractor. It obviously wouldn't work *during* the phase change, but it would let you know quite a bit beforehand that the part of the phase space the market was entering was known to be chaotic. It also would not tell you if, during a particular week, the change was going to happen or it was going to miss, i.e. is it really unstable or merely soon-to-be unstable, but it would be better than what currently exists.
Fama's refutation of the critiques of the EMH is here and worth a read, in part because it's not persuasive. Basically he says that EMH is the best we have, so it must me right. I think it's only partly right and it's possible to do better.
I am also, BTW, certain someone else has looked for the attractor in the markets, but I want to see how far I get before going to look up the answer.
Sunday, August 21, 2005
Iraqi Constituition: What's The F-ing Problem?
What the hell is the problem with the Iraqi constitution? How hard can this be? Take the US Constitution, do a search and replace on United States with Iraq and presto! Democracy!
What the hell is their problem over there? I'll give them a copy of Office 2003!
Here, I'll even get them started:
We the People of Iraq, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for Iraq.
Article. I.
Section 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of Iraq, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
Clause 2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of Iraq, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (See Note 2) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of Iraq, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative;
Clause 4: When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Section. 3.
Clause 1: The Senate of Iraq shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, (See Note 3) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Clause 2: Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies. (See Note 4)
Clause 3: No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of Iraq, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
Clause 4: The Vice President of Iraq shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
etc. and so forth.
The hang up seems to be that they are trying to set up an Islamic government, which they better not 'cause I don't think that's what we had in mind...
$200,000,000,000 for another Islamofacist haven? No way! Now I'm ready to invade the place and knock some sense into them.
What the hell is their problem over there? I'll give them a copy of Office 2003!
Here, I'll even get them started:
We the People of Iraq, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for Iraq.
Article. I.
Section 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of Iraq, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
Clause 2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of Iraq, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (See Note 2) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of Iraq, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative;
Clause 4: When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Section. 3.
Clause 1: The Senate of Iraq shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, (See Note 3) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Clause 2: Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies. (See Note 4)
Clause 3: No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of Iraq, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
Clause 4: The Vice President of Iraq shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
etc. and so forth.
The hang up seems to be that they are trying to set up an Islamic government, which they better not 'cause I don't think that's what we had in mind...
$200,000,000,000 for another Islamofacist haven? No way! Now I'm ready to invade the place and knock some sense into them.
Friday, August 19, 2005
Not the Way to do Science
The right way to do science is to criticize the idea, not the author. This is poor form and an embrassment.
Within hours of publication, senior scientists at the Smithsonian Institution -- which has helped fund and run the journal -- lashed out at Sternberg as a shoddy scientist and a closet Bible thumper.
"They were saying I accepted money under the table, that I was a crypto-priest, that I was a sleeper cell operative for the creationists," said Steinberg, 42 , who is a Smithsonian research associate. "I was basically run out of there."
An independent agency has come to the same conclusion, accusing top scientists at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History of retaliating against Sternberg by investigating his religion and smearing him as a "creationist."
Within hours of publication, senior scientists at the Smithsonian Institution -- which has helped fund and run the journal -- lashed out at Sternberg as a shoddy scientist and a closet Bible thumper.
"They were saying I accepted money under the table, that I was a crypto-priest, that I was a sleeper cell operative for the creationists," said Steinberg, 42 , who is a Smithsonian research associate. "I was basically run out of there."
An independent agency has come to the same conclusion, accusing top scientists at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History of retaliating against Sternberg by investigating his religion and smearing him as a "creationist."
Senate Approval Ratings
This is very interesting, the current Approve/Disapprove of all 100 Senators as rated in their states.
For MA its:
36 MA Kennedy, Edward D SR 61% 33% 28% Senator Approval Tracked for Kennedy, Edward
73 MA Kerry, John D JR 53% 40% 13% Senator Approval Tracked for Kerry, John
which is about what I would expect. I probably won't vote for Kerry (actually I've never voted for Kerry except for president) and Ted, of course, has my unconditional lifetime vote for as long as he wants to be Senator*.
Least popular is Santorum
100 PA Santorum, Rick R JR 42% 46% -4% Senator Approval Tracked for Santorum, Rick
For this rating I fully and whole blame Dan Savage.
*He was one of 3 Senators who had the balls to stand up to Bush-41's Flag Burning Constituional Amendment which passed the Senate 97-3, and I pledged my lifetime support.
For MA its:
36 MA Kennedy, Edward D SR 61% 33% 28% Senator Approval Tracked for Kennedy, Edward
73 MA Kerry, John D JR 53% 40% 13% Senator Approval Tracked for Kerry, John
which is about what I would expect. I probably won't vote for Kerry (actually I've never voted for Kerry except for president) and Ted, of course, has my unconditional lifetime vote for as long as he wants to be Senator*.
Least popular is Santorum
100 PA Santorum, Rick R JR 42% 46% -4% Senator Approval Tracked for Santorum, Rick
For this rating I fully and whole blame Dan Savage.
*He was one of 3 Senators who had the balls to stand up to Bush-41's Flag Burning Constituional Amendment which passed the Senate 97-3, and I pledged my lifetime support.
Thursday, August 18, 2005
New Toy!
I bought a DVD-RW drive today and have been burning disks like a mad-man. I've got 1.5 TB of storage on the main server and have been a little bit nervous about the quality of my backup procedures.
So far, so good!
So far, so good!
The Divine Comedy
I started reading Dante's Divine Comedy yesterday afternoon, finished it today.
Wow.
A great piece of fiction on a lot of levels. Part of Paradisio really sounds like an NDE.
Wow.
A great piece of fiction on a lot of levels. Part of Paradisio really sounds like an NDE.
The Smartest Person I Know
Background: I have a Meeting with Ballmer next month, part of the week where people get locked away with him for a few days, throw around ideas and think about where to take the company in the next few years. It's apparently a Big Deal and, in fact, is a Bigger Deal than I was expecting. Part of this Deal is doing a whole bunch of prep-work, i.e. write a bio so Ballmer knows who you are and your background, write a summary of 3 ideas you think might be interesting, fill out this Form a month in advance. Okay, fine. I'm working on the Form which is actually a form of Intelligence Test. One of the questions is; who is the smartest person you've met?
This is an Intelligence Test in that, I strongly suspect, if you fill in Ballmer or Gates, you will fail to progress to the meeting.
This is a Good Thing, but it did get me thinking about my answer.
First I want to distinguish between Intelligent and Smart. I know LOTS of intelligent people, based on types of friends I make, my education, work etc. I'm a good estimator of IQ to within 5 points (until you get over 165 where IQ is, for all intents and purposes, not reliably measurable). However, Intelligent is not necessarily smart. Many of the most intelligent people I know have crippling intellectual pathologies which prevent them from progressing, e.g. phobias, delusions, self-consistent/self-contained personal mythologies which reject any outside evidence (not religion here, but personal beliefs about their own intellectual infallibility), etc. This keeps a depressingly large number of highly intelligent folks from being smarter than they should be. I try to root this out when I see it but realistically I've never been successful. It's a waste and, unfortunately I have to strike those names from the roster.
Smart, on the other hand, is rarer and only loosely coupled to intelligence. It's impossible to measure objectively, but I look for things like knowledge from multiple disciplines, free thinking, novel approaches to problems using synthesis from other fields (i.e. not necessarily coming up with a new idea but recognizing similar problems in other fields and transferring solutions over). Further, rather than a strict hierarchy, I have a bin of the 100 smartest people I know (and another of the smartest 1000) and occasionally add or remove names form the bin. FTR, I am *not* in the bin of 100, but I am in the bin of 1000. To qualify, I need to have had a conversation with the person of more than a few minutes and exchanged a few ideas.
So, winnowing the bin down to 10, I was left with this list (in no order).
Stephen Hawking (astrophysicist)
Moti Yung (mathematician)
Daniel Blaize (poet)
Ted Harrison (astrophysicist)
Carl Sagan (astronomer, butthead-class)
John Flemming (financier-Morgan Stanley)
Paul Tsongas (politician)
Alan Greenspan (Federal Reserve Chairman)
Dennis Maroney (moral compass)
Alistair Reynolds (writer)
and now, it gets tough. Some of these folks I know well (Dennis, Ted) some I've only met once or a few times (Greenspan, Reynolds). It's tough to say, and tougher to rate. In the end though, I decided to look at whose thinking has most directly effected my actions, thoughts or views. That narrows it down to:
Ted Harrison
Carl Sagan
Alan Greenspan
Finally, taking into account intellectual diversity, practicality and just sheer talent at being smart it comes down to:
Ted Harrison
Which was not the answer I was expecting, but I am very comfortable with it. If I could end up as smart as Ted, I'd be a very happy camper.
This is an Intelligence Test in that, I strongly suspect, if you fill in Ballmer or Gates, you will fail to progress to the meeting.
This is a Good Thing, but it did get me thinking about my answer.
First I want to distinguish between Intelligent and Smart. I know LOTS of intelligent people, based on types of friends I make, my education, work etc. I'm a good estimator of IQ to within 5 points (until you get over 165 where IQ is, for all intents and purposes, not reliably measurable). However, Intelligent is not necessarily smart. Many of the most intelligent people I know have crippling intellectual pathologies which prevent them from progressing, e.g. phobias, delusions, self-consistent/self-contained personal mythologies which reject any outside evidence (not religion here, but personal beliefs about their own intellectual infallibility), etc. This keeps a depressingly large number of highly intelligent folks from being smarter than they should be. I try to root this out when I see it but realistically I've never been successful. It's a waste and, unfortunately I have to strike those names from the roster.
Smart, on the other hand, is rarer and only loosely coupled to intelligence. It's impossible to measure objectively, but I look for things like knowledge from multiple disciplines, free thinking, novel approaches to problems using synthesis from other fields (i.e. not necessarily coming up with a new idea but recognizing similar problems in other fields and transferring solutions over). Further, rather than a strict hierarchy, I have a bin of the 100 smartest people I know (and another of the smartest 1000) and occasionally add or remove names form the bin. FTR, I am *not* in the bin of 100, but I am in the bin of 1000. To qualify, I need to have had a conversation with the person of more than a few minutes and exchanged a few ideas.
So, winnowing the bin down to 10, I was left with this list (in no order).
Stephen Hawking (astrophysicist)
Moti Yung (mathematician)
Daniel Blaize (poet)
Ted Harrison (astrophysicist)
Carl Sagan (astronomer, butthead-class)
John Flemming (financier-Morgan Stanley)
Paul Tsongas (politician)
Alan Greenspan (Federal Reserve Chairman)
Dennis Maroney (moral compass)
Alistair Reynolds (writer)
and now, it gets tough. Some of these folks I know well (Dennis, Ted) some I've only met once or a few times (Greenspan, Reynolds). It's tough to say, and tougher to rate. In the end though, I decided to look at whose thinking has most directly effected my actions, thoughts or views. That narrows it down to:
Ted Harrison
Carl Sagan
Alan Greenspan
Finally, taking into account intellectual diversity, practicality and just sheer talent at being smart it comes down to:
Ted Harrison
Which was not the answer I was expecting, but I am very comfortable with it. If I could end up as smart as Ted, I'd be a very happy camper.
Ted Kennedy Story
Andrew Sullivan is on vacation (in p-town appearently although I haven't seen him) and has been lending out his site to various bloggers to fill in the time. Last week was Dan Savage who was amusing but intellectually light and, some would say, a little too gay all the time.
This week is Walter Kim, who is in quite a different vein. Yesterday he dropped a "drunken Ted Kennedy" story in, although I have to say, it wasn't as gratutious as it sounds.
Quick story. In the mid 1980s I went to a fancy Fifth Av. party for Senator Ted Kennedy. There were journalists there and lots of other bigwigs. The only time I'd seen Kennedy before was at a campaign stop in 1979 when he'd been seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. He might have won, but I realized at the party that it would have been a terrible thing because he was the drunkest human being I had ever encountered in my life, and chances were that it hadn't just started that night. Sure, he already had this reputation, but it was a vague reputation, all myth and gossip, while the intoxicated wreck in front of me was as vivid and specific as a car wreck. How many thousands of times, I wondered, had such behavior as I was witnessing been quietly countenanced by journalists, and how much other wild, scary stuff pertaining to other movers and shakers who had a shot at ruling the free world, say, had they deftly slipped into their back pockets in return for the right to attend such parties as this one?
This week is Walter Kim, who is in quite a different vein. Yesterday he dropped a "drunken Ted Kennedy" story in, although I have to say, it wasn't as gratutious as it sounds.
Quick story. In the mid 1980s I went to a fancy Fifth Av. party for Senator Ted Kennedy. There were journalists there and lots of other bigwigs. The only time I'd seen Kennedy before was at a campaign stop in 1979 when he'd been seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. He might have won, but I realized at the party that it would have been a terrible thing because he was the drunkest human being I had ever encountered in my life, and chances were that it hadn't just started that night. Sure, he already had this reputation, but it was a vague reputation, all myth and gossip, while the intoxicated wreck in front of me was as vivid and specific as a car wreck. How many thousands of times, I wondered, had such behavior as I was witnessing been quietly countenanced by journalists, and how much other wild, scary stuff pertaining to other movers and shakers who had a shot at ruling the free world, say, had they deftly slipped into their back pockets in return for the right to attend such parties as this one?
Pathos
This is a well-written piece of persuasive writing written in the style of Pathos (Persuasive rhetoric having three basic types of appeal, Logos, Ethos and Pathos with Pathos being the weakest and least effective of the three). I tend to write arguments in the logos mode and tend to immediately dismiss pathos as already being half-lost. Still, this is well-written (to the guy who drove over memorial crosses at Cindy Sheehan's protest in Crawford) and serves as a good example of the form when done properly:
Mr. Northern:
I am a Veteran of the Iraq war, having served with the 4th Infantry Division on the initial invasion with Force Package One.
While I was in Iraq,a very good friend of mine, Christopher Cutchall,was killed in an unarmoredHMMWV outside of Baghdad. He was a cavalry scout serving with the 3d ID.Once he had declined the award of a medal because Soldiers assigned to him did not receive similar awards that he had recommended. He left two sons and awonderful wife. On Monday night, August 16, you ran down the memorial cross erected for him by Arlington West.
One of my Soldiers in Iraq was Roger Turner. We gave him a hard time because he always wore all of his protective equipment, including three pairs of glasses or goggles. He did this because he wanted to make sure that he returned home to his family. He rode a bicycle to work every day to make sure that he was able to save enough money on his Army salary to send his son to college. At Camp Anaconda, where the squadron briefly stayed, a rocket landed inside a tent, sending a piece of debris or fragment into him and killed him. On Monday night, August 16, you ran down the memorial cross erected for him by Arlington West.
One of my Soldiers was Henry Bacon. He was one of the finest men I ever met. He was in perfect shape for a man over forty, working hard at night. He told me that he did that because he didn't have much money to buy nice things for his wife, who he loved so much, so he had to be in good shape for her. He was like a father to many young men in his section of maintenance mechanics. They fixed our vehicles with almost no support and fabricated parts and made repairs that kept our squadron rolling on the longest, fastest armor advance ever made under fire. He was so very proud of his son-in-law that married the beautiful daughter so well raised by Henry. His son-in-law was a helicopter pilot with the 1st Cavalry Division, who died last year. Henry stopped to rescue a vehicle belonging to another unit on what was to be his last day in Iraq. He could have kept rolling - he was headed to Kuwait after a year's tour. But he stopped. He could have sent others to do the work, but he was on the ground, leading by example, when he was killed. On Monday night, August 16, you took it upon yourself to go out in the country, where a peaceful group was exercising their constitutional rights, and harming no one, and you ran down the memorial cross erected for Henry and for his son-in-law by Arlington West.
Mr. Northern - I know little about Cindy Sheehan except that she is a grieving mother, a gentle soul, and wants to bring harm to no one. I know little about you except that you found your way to Crawford on Monday night in August with chains and a pipe attached to your truck for the sole purpose of dishonoring a memorial erected for my friends and lost Soldiers and hundreds of others that served this nation when they were called. I find it disheartening that good men like these have died so that people like you can threaten a mother who lost a child with your actions.
I hope that you are ashamed of yourself.
Perry Jefferies, First Sergeant, USA (retired)
I suspect that far from being ashamed of himself, Mr. Northern is quite proud of the fact he defended the president from his critics.
Mr. Northern:
I am a Veteran of the Iraq war, having served with the 4th Infantry Division on the initial invasion with Force Package One.
While I was in Iraq,a very good friend of mine, Christopher Cutchall,was killed in an unarmoredHMMWV outside of Baghdad. He was a cavalry scout serving with the 3d ID.Once he had declined the award of a medal because Soldiers assigned to him did not receive similar awards that he had recommended. He left two sons and awonderful wife. On Monday night, August 16, you ran down the memorial cross erected for him by Arlington West.
One of my Soldiers in Iraq was Roger Turner. We gave him a hard time because he always wore all of his protective equipment, including three pairs of glasses or goggles. He did this because he wanted to make sure that he returned home to his family. He rode a bicycle to work every day to make sure that he was able to save enough money on his Army salary to send his son to college. At Camp Anaconda, where the squadron briefly stayed, a rocket landed inside a tent, sending a piece of debris or fragment into him and killed him. On Monday night, August 16, you ran down the memorial cross erected for him by Arlington West.
One of my Soldiers was Henry Bacon. He was one of the finest men I ever met. He was in perfect shape for a man over forty, working hard at night. He told me that he did that because he didn't have much money to buy nice things for his wife, who he loved so much, so he had to be in good shape for her. He was like a father to many young men in his section of maintenance mechanics. They fixed our vehicles with almost no support and fabricated parts and made repairs that kept our squadron rolling on the longest, fastest armor advance ever made under fire. He was so very proud of his son-in-law that married the beautiful daughter so well raised by Henry. His son-in-law was a helicopter pilot with the 1st Cavalry Division, who died last year. Henry stopped to rescue a vehicle belonging to another unit on what was to be his last day in Iraq. He could have kept rolling - he was headed to Kuwait after a year's tour. But he stopped. He could have sent others to do the work, but he was on the ground, leading by example, when he was killed. On Monday night, August 16, you took it upon yourself to go out in the country, where a peaceful group was exercising their constitutional rights, and harming no one, and you ran down the memorial cross erected for Henry and for his son-in-law by Arlington West.
Mr. Northern - I know little about Cindy Sheehan except that she is a grieving mother, a gentle soul, and wants to bring harm to no one. I know little about you except that you found your way to Crawford on Monday night in August with chains and a pipe attached to your truck for the sole purpose of dishonoring a memorial erected for my friends and lost Soldiers and hundreds of others that served this nation when they were called. I find it disheartening that good men like these have died so that people like you can threaten a mother who lost a child with your actions.
I hope that you are ashamed of yourself.
Perry Jefferies, First Sergeant, USA (retired)
I suspect that far from being ashamed of himself, Mr. Northern is quite proud of the fact he defended the president from his critics.
Reunion!
I had dinner last night with the larger portion of my graduate class, which was lots and lots of fun. Mostly they all hang in the same circle and bump into each other on a semi-annual basis, but for me it was the first time I had gotten together with the group in 3 or 4 years. Lots of fun.
There's more history among us than many sibling have, so it's sometimes a little awkward and, of course, not everyone showed up (This one is still a little miffed at that one), but overall it was a great time.
One especially interesting thing: apparently the ID debate is coming to the Smithsonian in the next year. A group of GOP congressmen are threatening to substantively cut funding to it (and by extension the SAO) unless the Smithsonian "get on board" with ID. Travis would, no doubt, say this was a Good Thing since science (or anything else) shouldn't be funded with public money. As I've said before, I think this is a narrow, short-sighted and ultimately self-defeating view (countries that don’t' fund science get beat to the Moon by countries that do). OTOH, If this is really going to happen, it might be a chance to draw a bright line on the battlefield and show ID and the GOP as being anti-science. In a world where Koreans are cloning dogs, the Chinese are heading to the Moon, and India has more programmers, maybe it isn't such a great idea to start insisting that our R&D incorporate mythological elements. I could see this as another PBS-type debate with the strong, historical reputation of the Smithsonian coming into play against the more hysterical anto-science arguments.
We'll see I suppose.
There's more history among us than many sibling have, so it's sometimes a little awkward and, of course, not everyone showed up (This one is still a little miffed at that one), but overall it was a great time.
One especially interesting thing: apparently the ID debate is coming to the Smithsonian in the next year. A group of GOP congressmen are threatening to substantively cut funding to it (and by extension the SAO) unless the Smithsonian "get on board" with ID. Travis would, no doubt, say this was a Good Thing since science (or anything else) shouldn't be funded with public money. As I've said before, I think this is a narrow, short-sighted and ultimately self-defeating view (countries that don’t' fund science get beat to the Moon by countries that do). OTOH, If this is really going to happen, it might be a chance to draw a bright line on the battlefield and show ID and the GOP as being anti-science. In a world where Koreans are cloning dogs, the Chinese are heading to the Moon, and India has more programmers, maybe it isn't such a great idea to start insisting that our R&D incorporate mythological elements. I could see this as another PBS-type debate with the strong, historical reputation of the Smithsonian coming into play against the more hysterical anto-science arguments.
We'll see I suppose.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Taking Prudie to task
Finally, in catching up on my reading over this mini-vacation, I dashed off a note to Prudie for this advice of hers:
Dear Prudence,
Am I being prickly, or do I have a valid complaint? It drives me absolutely batty when I thank a waiter, sales clerk, or other paid service person and the response is "no problem." I paid you to bring me my meal or find those shoes in my size, and the fact that it was or wasn't a problem is of no interest to me. A few times I've actually responded that "I don't really care if it was a problem or not," which I know was wrong, but I was aflame with ire and it just came out. As for myself, whenever I am thanked, I always respond with, "You're welcome," "I'm happy to help," or "My pleasure." Is it too much to ask that others do the same?
—David M.
Dear Dave,
You have come to the right place. Prudie, herself, is a bit of a churl about that "No problem" business. It has, unfortunately, crept into the language and does not seem about to be displaced. Some phrases take hold and then go on to lose all meaning. Another regrettable example is the phrase "soul mate" which has become the supposed ultimate accolade to a spouse, fiancee, what have you. "No problem" is meant to be polite. That is, people who say it are not trying to be annoying, they are just linguistic sheep. In a hotel once, the music from a neighboring room was way too loud, and Prudie called the desk to ask them to please inform the offender. The answer of course was, "No problem." When there were no results, and Prudie called back to repeat the request, again there was the mindless "No problem." With exactly your feeling of "aaarrrgh," Prudie's response was, "Apparently you are mistaken, because it is proving to be a problem."
To which, the old grammar curmudgeon in me came out to say:
Dear Prudie,
I've read and enjoyed your column for a long time and, and often agree with your advice. I often find it practical and no-nonsense.
I'm writing about your advice to David M. on the use of "No Problem" as a response to thanks. I use this phrase quite a bit myself when the effort was, in fact, not actually a problem for me to do. People ask favors all the time, many of which are minor problems of some degree or another. For the small ones, "No Problem" is accurate, concise and reflects the degree of difficulty of the favor. This seems to me to be more honest and accurate than something like "My Pleasure", which often it is not (although when it is, I'll use that) and quite a bit less formal than "You're Welcome". I use it consciously and accurately and until I read your column I had no idea that anyone found it objectionable.
Accurately,
-Mark
Dear Prudence,
Am I being prickly, or do I have a valid complaint? It drives me absolutely batty when I thank a waiter, sales clerk, or other paid service person and the response is "no problem." I paid you to bring me my meal or find those shoes in my size, and the fact that it was or wasn't a problem is of no interest to me. A few times I've actually responded that "I don't really care if it was a problem or not," which I know was wrong, but I was aflame with ire and it just came out. As for myself, whenever I am thanked, I always respond with, "You're welcome," "I'm happy to help," or "My pleasure." Is it too much to ask that others do the same?
—David M.
Dear Dave,
You have come to the right place. Prudie, herself, is a bit of a churl about that "No problem" business. It has, unfortunately, crept into the language and does not seem about to be displaced. Some phrases take hold and then go on to lose all meaning. Another regrettable example is the phrase "soul mate" which has become the supposed ultimate accolade to a spouse, fiancee, what have you. "No problem" is meant to be polite. That is, people who say it are not trying to be annoying, they are just linguistic sheep. In a hotel once, the music from a neighboring room was way too loud, and Prudie called the desk to ask them to please inform the offender. The answer of course was, "No problem." When there were no results, and Prudie called back to repeat the request, again there was the mindless "No problem." With exactly your feeling of "aaarrrgh," Prudie's response was, "Apparently you are mistaken, because it is proving to be a problem."
To which, the old grammar curmudgeon in me came out to say:
Dear Prudie,
I've read and enjoyed your column for a long time and, and often agree with your advice. I often find it practical and no-nonsense.
I'm writing about your advice to David M. on the use of "No Problem" as a response to thanks. I use this phrase quite a bit myself when the effort was, in fact, not actually a problem for me to do. People ask favors all the time, many of which are minor problems of some degree or another. For the small ones, "No Problem" is accurate, concise and reflects the degree of difficulty of the favor. This seems to me to be more honest and accurate than something like "My Pleasure", which often it is not (although when it is, I'll use that) and quite a bit less formal than "You're Welcome". I use it consciously and accurately and until I read your column I had no idea that anyone found it objectionable.
Accurately,
-Mark
Roberts on the SCOTUS?
Also, in Slate, a good article on Roberts and why I have a hard time getting worked up into a lather about him.
The same conservatism that leads him to decry judicial overreaching in the privacy and civil rights contexts is part and parcel of a larger conservatism that distrusts reckless grandiosity. The same quality, in short, that kept Roberts from sneaking off into the woods to smoke may be the same quality that keeps him from torching Roe v. Wade. The Clarence Thomases of this world—men unafraid of tearing down centuries of constitutional scaffolding in order to impose their own theories of constitutional construction—are far scarier to me. Those are the guys who probably did barf off the clock towers in college; guys with the hubris and drive to change the world without going through the confirmation process first. Scalia doesn't care what anyone thinks of him, and Thomas is happiest when he's provoking outrage. Roberts cares a lot about looking temperate, and that isn't a bad thing in a judge.
When I want to alter the constitutional framework, I'll elect folk to do it. What I want are judges with a sense of, well, judgement.
The same conservatism that leads him to decry judicial overreaching in the privacy and civil rights contexts is part and parcel of a larger conservatism that distrusts reckless grandiosity. The same quality, in short, that kept Roberts from sneaking off into the woods to smoke may be the same quality that keeps him from torching Roe v. Wade. The Clarence Thomases of this world—men unafraid of tearing down centuries of constitutional scaffolding in order to impose their own theories of constitutional construction—are far scarier to me. Those are the guys who probably did barf off the clock towers in college; guys with the hubris and drive to change the world without going through the confirmation process first. Scalia doesn't care what anyone thinks of him, and Thomas is happiest when he's provoking outrage. Roberts cares a lot about looking temperate, and that isn't a bad thing in a judge.
When I want to alter the constitutional framework, I'll elect folk to do it. What I want are judges with a sense of, well, judgement.
Best Understatement of the Week
From Slate:
Matt LeBlanc opens up. The Enquirer must have something good on Matt LeBlanc, because the married Joey star sits down for a contrite photo session and interview in which he explains how he came to be groping a stripper in Canada. "The stripper was all over me," he says. "I was pretty drunk. … I could not wait to get home." Critics are calling the tale "improbable."
Matt LeBlanc opens up. The Enquirer must have something good on Matt LeBlanc, because the married Joey star sits down for a contrite photo session and interview in which he explains how he came to be groping a stripper in Canada. "The stripper was all over me," he says. "I was pretty drunk. … I could not wait to get home." Critics are calling the tale "improbable."
An Unrepentant Gravisist
Whenever the Creationist or ID tell me "Evolution is just a theory", I always respond with a version of, "yes, it is. Just like Relativity or Gravitation", which almost always ends the argument Usually my arguments with the religious simply end at this point, they generally know they are losing ground and stop digging.
Thus I remain an unrepentant gravisist.
Thus I remain an unrepentant gravisist.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Taking on Hillary with their 3rd stringer
I'm not a fan of Hillary Clinton and think she embodies, in a single human, everything that is currently wrong with the DNC. I think she's shallow, partisan and obsessed with her hair.
which is why I got a jolly when I read this Slate note:
Channel Surfing: On Tuesday, the New York Times explained why Westchester County district attorney Jeanine Pirro agreed to run for the Senate against Hillary Clinton: "Even in defeat, Ms. Pirro has told friends, her resulting fame could pave the way for another statewide office, or, perhaps, give her a greater role on television, where she has been a legal analyst for Fox News."
Although by no means impartial, The Has-Been considers it a breakthrough when a Senate race is now just a stepping stone to Fox News. In the past, prime seats at Fox and elsewhere were reserved for true has-beens looking for something to do after leaving Congress. Newt Gingrich, John Kasich, Martin Frost, and Susan Molinari are among the former members who have gone on to be part of the Fox family.
Skipping Congress to go straight into punditry has its advantages. Governing can be boring work. Fox pays better and earns higher ratings than C-SPAN, especially in the 18-44 demographic prized by advertisers. Besides, what can freshmen possibly get done, anyway?
Of course, Rick Lazio, the last guy to run against Hillary Clinton, went on to a brief stint as a guest host on Fox. But he did it the hard way, as a washed-up congressman.
Jeanine Pirro will never get as much airtime on Fox as Hillary Clinton. But if Pirro's strategy works, she'll pioneer a lucrative new career path for up-and-coming has-beens: like low-budget Disney sequels, we can bypass theaters and go straight to DVD and video.
Kiss and Make Up: Pirro will face stiff competition from conservative idol Rep. Katherine Harris, who announced her own Senate candidacy in Florida this week. Harris says she's deeply hurt by how press coverage of the 2000 recount misled the nation into thinking she was shallow, partisan, and obsessed with makeup. To dispel that impression, she staged an announcement that was shallow, partisan, and obsessed with makeup.
In her announcement speech, Harris called herself "conservative but progressive, pro-small business, pro-economy, and anti-tax." She attacked Sen. Bill Nelson as "one of the most liberal" Democrats in the Senate. Harris told reporters, "I'd like to say I trail by an eyelash" and recalled her childhood as a time "when blue eyeshadow was quite the fashion."
which is why I got a jolly when I read this Slate note:
Channel Surfing: On Tuesday, the New York Times explained why Westchester County district attorney Jeanine Pirro agreed to run for the Senate against Hillary Clinton: "Even in defeat, Ms. Pirro has told friends, her resulting fame could pave the way for another statewide office, or, perhaps, give her a greater role on television, where she has been a legal analyst for Fox News."
Although by no means impartial, The Has-Been considers it a breakthrough when a Senate race is now just a stepping stone to Fox News. In the past, prime seats at Fox and elsewhere were reserved for true has-beens looking for something to do after leaving Congress. Newt Gingrich, John Kasich, Martin Frost, and Susan Molinari are among the former members who have gone on to be part of the Fox family.
Skipping Congress to go straight into punditry has its advantages. Governing can be boring work. Fox pays better and earns higher ratings than C-SPAN, especially in the 18-44 demographic prized by advertisers. Besides, what can freshmen possibly get done, anyway?
Of course, Rick Lazio, the last guy to run against Hillary Clinton, went on to a brief stint as a guest host on Fox. But he did it the hard way, as a washed-up congressman.
Jeanine Pirro will never get as much airtime on Fox as Hillary Clinton. But if Pirro's strategy works, she'll pioneer a lucrative new career path for up-and-coming has-beens: like low-budget Disney sequels, we can bypass theaters and go straight to DVD and video.
Kiss and Make Up: Pirro will face stiff competition from conservative idol Rep. Katherine Harris, who announced her own Senate candidacy in Florida this week. Harris says she's deeply hurt by how press coverage of the 2000 recount misled the nation into thinking she was shallow, partisan, and obsessed with makeup. To dispel that impression, she staged an announcement that was shallow, partisan, and obsessed with makeup.
In her announcement speech, Harris called herself "conservative but progressive, pro-small business, pro-economy, and anti-tax." She attacked Sen. Bill Nelson as "one of the most liberal" Democrats in the Senate. Harris told reporters, "I'd like to say I trail by an eyelash" and recalled her childhood as a time "when blue eyeshadow was quite the fashion."
First documented real world Starcraft Fatality
Really!
A 28-year-old South Korean man died of exhaustion in an Internet cafe after playing computer games nonstop for 50 hours, the Reuters news service reported.
Lee, a resident in the southern city of Taegu who was identified only by his last name, collapsed Aug. 5 while he played the battle simulation game Starcraft, the news service reported. Lee had planted himself in front of a computer monitor to play online games, leaving over the course of three days only to go to the toilet and take brief naps on a makeshift bed.
Lee was quickly moved to a hospital, but died after a few hours, due to what doctors are presuming was a heart attack, police told Reuters. Lee had been fired from his job last month because he kept missing work to play computer games.
A 28-year-old South Korean man died of exhaustion in an Internet cafe after playing computer games nonstop for 50 hours, the Reuters news service reported.
Lee, a resident in the southern city of Taegu who was identified only by his last name, collapsed Aug. 5 while he played the battle simulation game Starcraft, the news service reported. Lee had planted himself in front of a computer monitor to play online games, leaving over the course of three days only to go to the toilet and take brief naps on a makeshift bed.
Lee was quickly moved to a hospital, but died after a few hours, due to what doctors are presuming was a heart attack, police told Reuters. Lee had been fired from his job last month because he kept missing work to play computer games.
The Wrong Trousers
From Sci-Fi Weekly
DreamWorks unveiled the first 15 minutes of its upcoming feature-length stop-motion animated film Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit to reporters on Aug. 5, though the movie is still being completed.
In the movie, the cheese-loving Wallace and his silent but smart dog Gromit battle garden-attacking rabbits as well as an evil were-rabbit who comes out when the moon is full.
Terry Press, a marketing executive for DreamWorks, said the film is being completed by Aardman Animations, the same team that created the hit Chicken Run, and that they are working full-time to finish the film. "There are 30 sets with 30 animators each working for a week for three seconds of footage," Press said. The plasticine (not clay) models are about one-eighth scale, and a few of the models were on display at the DreamWorks studios in Glendale, Calif.
DreamWorks chief executive Jeffrey Katzenberg said he was amazed as he watched director Nick Park and his crew of 250 people work on the movie with "the most painstaking craftsmanship and precision. I've been such a fan of these shorts over the years. Nick Park and his team have such amazing creativity."
Park won two Academy Awards for best animated short for his Wallace & Gromit films. The Wrong Trousers in 1993 and A Close Shave in 1996 won Oscars, and A Grand Day Out was nominated in 1991.
The new movie centers on the duo's efforts to save a neighborhood from ravaging rabbits with a pest-control company called Anti-Pesto. With the Giant Vegetable Competition looming the next week, neighbors are protecting their giant pumpkin, and Gromit has his prized super-sized cucumber. They are awakened by a funny Rube Goldberg contraption that is triggered by a garden gnome that gets them out of bed, fixes them coffee and gets them on their way to the pending emergency.
The head of the competition, Lady Tottington (voiced by Helena Bonham Carter), calls the team over to suck the rabbits off her estate. But they accidentally suck in her fiance, Lord Victor Quartermaine (voiced by Ralph Fiennes), and get him stuck in their pest vacuuming contraption.
"We're just in the last part of getting the movie finished," Katzenberg said. "We are very proud of it, and hope you enjoy it." The G-rated movie will be supported by a video game being released by Atari around the same time as the film's Oct. 6 release.
DreamWorks unveiled the first 15 minutes of its upcoming feature-length stop-motion animated film Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit to reporters on Aug. 5, though the movie is still being completed.
In the movie, the cheese-loving Wallace and his silent but smart dog Gromit battle garden-attacking rabbits as well as an evil were-rabbit who comes out when the moon is full.
Terry Press, a marketing executive for DreamWorks, said the film is being completed by Aardman Animations, the same team that created the hit Chicken Run, and that they are working full-time to finish the film. "There are 30 sets with 30 animators each working for a week for three seconds of footage," Press said. The plasticine (not clay) models are about one-eighth scale, and a few of the models were on display at the DreamWorks studios in Glendale, Calif.
DreamWorks chief executive Jeffrey Katzenberg said he was amazed as he watched director Nick Park and his crew of 250 people work on the movie with "the most painstaking craftsmanship and precision. I've been such a fan of these shorts over the years. Nick Park and his team have such amazing creativity."
Park won two Academy Awards for best animated short for his Wallace & Gromit films. The Wrong Trousers in 1993 and A Close Shave in 1996 won Oscars, and A Grand Day Out was nominated in 1991.
The new movie centers on the duo's efforts to save a neighborhood from ravaging rabbits with a pest-control company called Anti-Pesto. With the Giant Vegetable Competition looming the next week, neighbors are protecting their giant pumpkin, and Gromit has his prized super-sized cucumber. They are awakened by a funny Rube Goldberg contraption that is triggered by a garden gnome that gets them out of bed, fixes them coffee and gets them on their way to the pending emergency.
The head of the competition, Lady Tottington (voiced by Helena Bonham Carter), calls the team over to suck the rabbits off her estate. But they accidentally suck in her fiance, Lord Victor Quartermaine (voiced by Ralph Fiennes), and get him stuck in their pest vacuuming contraption.
"We're just in the last part of getting the movie finished," Katzenberg said. "We are very proud of it, and hope you enjoy it." The G-rated movie will be supported by a video game being released by Atari around the same time as the film's Oct. 6 release.
The Whole of the Law while standing on one Foot
Judism: Do on to others as they would do on to you.
Catholicism: Jesus is coming, look busy.
(I saw the latter on a T-Shirt in p-town last weekend and realized what a compact, complete satement it was)
Catholicism: Jesus is coming, look busy.
(I saw the latter on a T-Shirt in p-town last weekend and realized what a compact, complete satement it was)
Confession
I joined in a "discussion" on Travis' blog yesterday on the journalist's privilege of not revealing sources.
Travis said:
I don’t have a firm opinion on Miller, but I lean towards the stance that jailing her is the right thing. At the federal level, journalists do not have special privileges, and I think that at no level SHOULD they have special privileges. If we’re going to give the state power to compel testimony from folks about crimes, and if we’re going to make it a crime to learn classified information on the job and then leak it, then we should jail everyone who is witness to leaked information and then fails to testify about it (with the obvious legal exceptions: testimony against self or a spouse, and testimony by a priests or lawyer who learned the information in confidence).
To which I replied:
I agree with everything you wrote if you replace the word “Journalist” everywhere with “Journalists and Priests”. Otherwise I think you are still make exceptions for non-governmental employees, just arguing over which group holds your special interest.
The logic being that, until it's proven that a) god exists and b) priests are actually his representatives, they should not be granted any special rights that the rest of the citizens don't have.
Afterwards I was thinking about this and wondered what religions, other than Catholicism and it's minor variants, have confession as an integral part of their services. An hours work poking around the web (I am on vacation this week) came up with one and only one other established religion that uses confession to control their flock:
Scientology
At this point, even I won't comment any further except to say if you know of another that isn't a version of Catholicism (e.g. Greek Orthodox), shoot me a mail. Please. I need to be less appalled by this than I current am.
Travis said:
I don’t have a firm opinion on Miller, but I lean towards the stance that jailing her is the right thing. At the federal level, journalists do not have special privileges, and I think that at no level SHOULD they have special privileges. If we’re going to give the state power to compel testimony from folks about crimes, and if we’re going to make it a crime to learn classified information on the job and then leak it, then we should jail everyone who is witness to leaked information and then fails to testify about it (with the obvious legal exceptions: testimony against self or a spouse, and testimony by a priests or lawyer who learned the information in confidence).
To which I replied:
I agree with everything you wrote if you replace the word “Journalist” everywhere with “Journalists and Priests”. Otherwise I think you are still make exceptions for non-governmental employees, just arguing over which group holds your special interest.
The logic being that, until it's proven that a) god exists and b) priests are actually his representatives, they should not be granted any special rights that the rest of the citizens don't have.
Afterwards I was thinking about this and wondered what religions, other than Catholicism and it's minor variants, have confession as an integral part of their services. An hours work poking around the web (I am on vacation this week) came up with one and only one other established religion that uses confession to control their flock:
Scientology
At this point, even I won't comment any further except to say if you know of another that isn't a version of Catholicism (e.g. Greek Orthodox), shoot me a mail. Please. I need to be less appalled by this than I current am.
Ba-dum-da
Field correspondant Susan relates this true life tale about life in Sommerville:
I met a guy who had an entire church organ in his one-bedroom apartment. (It was disassembled.) I asked him where he got it.
Yes, you guessed it.
An organ donor.
I met a guy who had an entire church organ in his one-bedroom apartment. (It was disassembled.) I asked him where he got it.
Yes, you guessed it.
An organ donor.
Monday, August 15, 2005
Touchy Feel New Age Crapola
I'm never a fan of New Age crap. You will never find me channeling my "energy", I will never lose sleep over my "chakras". So stuff like this usually seems to me the sign of a weak mind.
"And I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say. But," he added, "I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life." In addition to the two-hour bike ride, Bush's Saturday schedule included an evening Little League Baseball playoff game, a lunch meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a nap, some fishing and some reading. "I think the people want the president to be in a position to make good, crisp decisions and to stay healthy," he said when asked about bike riding while a grieving mom wanted to speak with him. "And part of my being is to be outside exercising."
On Friday, Bush's motorcade drove by the protest site en route to a Republican fund-raising event at a nearby ranch.
Bush is an Ass.
"And I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say. But," he added, "I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life." In addition to the two-hour bike ride, Bush's Saturday schedule included an evening Little League Baseball playoff game, a lunch meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a nap, some fishing and some reading. "I think the people want the president to be in a position to make good, crisp decisions and to stay healthy," he said when asked about bike riding while a grieving mom wanted to speak with him. "And part of my being is to be outside exercising."
On Friday, Bush's motorcade drove by the protest site en route to a Republican fund-raising event at a nearby ranch.
Bush is an Ass.
The Lost Weekend
It was a hot, rainy, sticky weekend on the Cape this week, and mostly I stayed inside. One of the housemates brought a new puzzle game I had never seen before called Sudoku.
It's very addicting and lots of fun. What surprised me was the depth of inference logic that was generated by the very simple rule set. It's especially good if you like to do very detailed work. One error and it might be awhile before you realize something is wrong, and even longer to figure out where.
Not having internet at the house on the cape, I started writing a program to solve and generate puzzles, but the Sudoku site has that as well.
Enjoy!
It's very addicting and lots of fun. What surprised me was the depth of inference logic that was generated by the very simple rule set. It's especially good if you like to do very detailed work. One error and it might be awhile before you realize something is wrong, and even longer to figure out where.
Not having internet at the house on the cape, I started writing a program to solve and generate puzzles, but the Sudoku site has that as well.
Enjoy!
Friday, August 12, 2005
Added to my Favorites List
Pretty good so far. This person seems like someone I could have an actual conversation with, rather than just batting down DNC or GOP talking points. It's nice to see some intellectual honesty on the other side of the fence.
The Cunning Realist.
The Cunning Realist.
Take this test
This test.
Really! It's pretty good and you only need a very basic understanding of physics to pass. Some of the questions are interesting and, if I were still teaching, I'd steal shamelessly from this.
Not as good as the Flying Circus of Physics though. We used to get into knock-down arguements over some of the questions in there. DO yourself a favor though, if you get it, get the version with answers. Trust me, you'll get more sleep if you do.
Really! It's pretty good and you only need a very basic understanding of physics to pass. Some of the questions are interesting and, if I were still teaching, I'd steal shamelessly from this.
Not as good as the Flying Circus of Physics though. We used to get into knock-down arguements over some of the questions in there. DO yourself a favor though, if you get it, get the version with answers. Trust me, you'll get more sleep if you do.
Science rachets forward
One of my favorite subjects in grad school was planetary science and atmospheric physics. The only reason I didn't do my Ph.D. in it was because the only professor who taught it, Pete Schlerob, refused to take any students. His view was, basically, if you could actually do advanced math, don't waste your time in geology. I argued with him about this a bit, especially in the modeling of atmospheric physics, but to no avail. Regardless, it's still been a hobby of mine, especially in the realm of numerical simulation of the radiative transfer in the upper atmosphere.
This is a good article in the NYT Science section this week on how the most conservative (mean primarily in the scientific way) scientists have re-evaluated some of the data and found, a little to their surprise, that it supports the idea of climate change, not the other way around.
I hold, in general, that this is a reasonable position as it's a complicated subject.
Now two independent studies have found errors in the complicated calculations used to generate the old temperature records, which involved stitching together data from thousands of weather balloons lofted around the world and a series of short-lived weather satellites. A third study shows that when the errors are taken into account, the troposphere actually got warmer. Moreover, that warming trend largely agrees with the warmer surface temperatures that have been recorded and conforms to predictions in recent computer models.The three papers were published yesterday in the online edition of the journal Science.
All of that said, we're way past the point where we should be having this debate. The evidence for Climate change and global warming has been strong for decades, strong enough to prompt common sense steps to halt it. We've not done this as a population. We need to think about ways of cooling the planet, regardless of whether it's "natural" or "man-made" in origin. Remember, if it's "natural" that doesn't necessarily mean we as species could survive it. Nature doesn't really care if mankind is around in the big picture, and will crush us like the brontosaurs with no compunction.
We need to get moving on this. We need a plan to start scrubbing the carbon and hexaflorines out of the air, or we may wake up in a couple of decades and find it's too late.
This is a good article in the NYT Science section this week on how the most conservative (mean primarily in the scientific way) scientists have re-evaluated some of the data and found, a little to their surprise, that it supports the idea of climate change, not the other way around.
I hold, in general, that this is a reasonable position as it's a complicated subject.
Now two independent studies have found errors in the complicated calculations used to generate the old temperature records, which involved stitching together data from thousands of weather balloons lofted around the world and a series of short-lived weather satellites. A third study shows that when the errors are taken into account, the troposphere actually got warmer. Moreover, that warming trend largely agrees with the warmer surface temperatures that have been recorded and conforms to predictions in recent computer models.The three papers were published yesterday in the online edition of the journal Science.
All of that said, we're way past the point where we should be having this debate. The evidence for Climate change and global warming has been strong for decades, strong enough to prompt common sense steps to halt it. We've not done this as a population. We need to think about ways of cooling the planet, regardless of whether it's "natural" or "man-made" in origin. Remember, if it's "natural" that doesn't necessarily mean we as species could survive it. Nature doesn't really care if mankind is around in the big picture, and will crush us like the brontosaurs with no compunction.
We need to get moving on this. We need a plan to start scrubbing the carbon and hexaflorines out of the air, or we may wake up in a couple of decades and find it's too late.
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Details ommitted in the original story
I saw this today and was horrified, laughed at the right spots and drew no conclusions.
Investigators first learned of the farm after the man died at Enumclaw Community Hospital July 2. The county Medical Examiner's Office ruled that the death was accidental and the result of having sex with a horse.
A surveillance camera picked up the license plate of the car that dropped the man off at the hospital, which led detectives to the farm and other people involved, said sheriff's Sgt. John Urquhart.
Deputies don't believe a crime occurred because bestiality is not illegal in Washington state and the horse was uninjured, said Urquhart.
Dan Savage, OTOH, fills in the missing detail
The first reports about the death-by-horse didn't include the exact cause of death, and like many people, I assumed the man had been fatally kicked in the head [Mark: I hadn't assumed this] when he attempted to mount the killer horse. This was not the case. The man died, a horrified world soon learned, of a perforated colon... [Mark: I hadn't assumed this either, but it was a nagging hunch.... ]
nagging hunch! ha! I kill me!
wait...
Investigators first learned of the farm after the man died at Enumclaw Community Hospital July 2. The county Medical Examiner's Office ruled that the death was accidental and the result of having sex with a horse.
A surveillance camera picked up the license plate of the car that dropped the man off at the hospital, which led detectives to the farm and other people involved, said sheriff's Sgt. John Urquhart.
Deputies don't believe a crime occurred because bestiality is not illegal in Washington state and the horse was uninjured, said Urquhart.
Dan Savage, OTOH, fills in the missing detail
The first reports about the death-by-horse didn't include the exact cause of death, and like many people, I assumed the man had been fatally kicked in the head [Mark: I hadn't assumed this] when he attempted to mount the killer horse. This was not the case. The man died, a horrified world soon learned, of a perforated colon... [Mark: I hadn't assumed this either, but it was a nagging hunch.... ]
nagging hunch! ha! I kill me!
wait...
Backup Early, Backup Often
Penny Aracde has a great strip today on the virtures of backing up your files.
The commentary is also fairly amusing.
He brought it to me like a wounded thing, scorched around the front, as though it had fallen through the atmosphere. I can assure you that the fight in the strip is a complete fabrication, because he knew what he held there and he knew what it represented. He began to bargain with me in that way one does, I'll never do it again, oh, please mister, but the machine didn't die because he was bad, and no amount of promised good behavior laid toward some future deed would return the thing to life.
The commentary is also fairly amusing.
He brought it to me like a wounded thing, scorched around the front, as though it had fallen through the atmosphere. I can assure you that the fight in the strip is a complete fabrication, because he knew what he held there and he knew what it represented. He began to bargain with me in that way one does, I'll never do it again, oh, please mister, but the machine didn't die because he was bad, and no amount of promised good behavior laid toward some future deed would return the thing to life.
The Dog Bomb
And, this isn't the first time this has been tired!
On a barren stretch of road in northern Iraq, a dog rigged with explosives approaches a group of Iraqi police officers. Detonated by remote control, the bomb tears the dog apart but doesn't harm the cops.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-dogs10aug10,0,2727461.story?coll=la-home-headlines#Scene_1
Oh I think *economically* it makes sense since human life is economically more valuable than dog life, still it fills be with an unfamiliar emotion...
... I think that emotion is outrage.
and I think it's not unfamiliar.
"The Russian Dog Mine is described in The Book of Heroic Failures* Volume I. The weapon was supposed to work as follows: The dogs were kept hungry, and they were only fed underneath running tanks, to familiarize them with the high noise level. The dogs were then trained to get used to carrying a large weight of explosives (T.N.T.) strapped to their backs and sides. In operation, the dogs would be taken to the battlefield, and released when enemy tanks were clearly visible. The dogs would run underneath the enemy vehicles, expecting to be fed, and the device would be set off with catastrophic results for the tank, and the unsuspecting animal, of course. In actual use, the device did not work as planned. The dogs had been trained underneath Soviet tanks, and they only expected to be fed there, not underneath enemy vehicles. As a result, when they were first deployed in 1941, the dogs immediately made a beeline for the nearest Soviet vehicles. Apparently, an entire tank division had to be withdrawn from the combat zone until the infantry had shot all the uncontrollable mine dogs."
On a barren stretch of road in northern Iraq, a dog rigged with explosives approaches a group of Iraqi police officers. Detonated by remote control, the bomb tears the dog apart but doesn't harm the cops.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-dogs10aug10,0,2727461.story?coll=la-home-headlines#Scene_1
Oh I think *economically* it makes sense since human life is economically more valuable than dog life, still it fills be with an unfamiliar emotion...
... I think that emotion is outrage.
and I think it's not unfamiliar.
"The Russian Dog Mine is described in The Book of Heroic Failures* Volume I. The weapon was supposed to work as follows: The dogs were kept hungry, and they were only fed underneath running tanks, to familiarize them with the high noise level. The dogs were then trained to get used to carrying a large weight of explosives (T.N.T.) strapped to their backs and sides. In operation, the dogs would be taken to the battlefield, and released when enemy tanks were clearly visible. The dogs would run underneath the enemy vehicles, expecting to be fed, and the device would be set off with catastrophic results for the tank, and the unsuspecting animal, of course. In actual use, the device did not work as planned. The dogs had been trained underneath Soviet tanks, and they only expected to be fed there, not underneath enemy vehicles. As a result, when they were first deployed in 1941, the dogs immediately made a beeline for the nearest Soviet vehicles. Apparently, an entire tank division had to be withdrawn from the combat zone until the infantry had shot all the uncontrollable mine dogs."
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
What do W and FDR have in common?
Among many other things, they both love vacations!
Vacationing Bush Poised to Set a Record
The August getaway is Bush's 49th trip to his cherished ranch since taking office and the 319th day that Bush has spent, entirely or partially, in Crawford -- nearly 20 percent of his presidency to date, according to Mark Knoller, a CBS Radio reporter known for keeping better records of the president's travel than the White House itself. Weekends and holidays at Camp David or at his parents' compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, bump up the proportion of Bush's time away from Washington even further.
It's a good thing there isn't a war on or something.
Or maybe vacationing is the way we need to support the troops!
Snarkiness aside, it goes in my column of evidence that W thinks he's a King, not a President.
Vacationing Bush Poised to Set a Record
The August getaway is Bush's 49th trip to his cherished ranch since taking office and the 319th day that Bush has spent, entirely or partially, in Crawford -- nearly 20 percent of his presidency to date, according to Mark Knoller, a CBS Radio reporter known for keeping better records of the president's travel than the White House itself. Weekends and holidays at Camp David or at his parents' compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, bump up the proportion of Bush's time away from Washington even further.
It's a good thing there isn't a war on or something.
Or maybe vacationing is the way we need to support the troops!
Snarkiness aside, it goes in my column of evidence that W thinks he's a King, not a President.
Monday, August 08, 2005
Self-Serving? Naaaaww...
Kate Hudson, actress and bolemic resident of Flatland, had this to say on the subject of Monogamy:
I don't believe (monogamy) is realistic," Hudson, 26, tells TV's Access Hollywood. ... "If you focus your attention on that, then you are always wondering if your husband or men are out there cheating on you. ... If for some reason, that's what he has to go do, I just don't want to know. As long as things are good in our house, just please, don't get caught."
hmm.. Hot 26 year-old actress expresses her views on the subject the Christian Right assumes the gays are going to destroy by even contemplating. If *I* were a hetrosexual male between 18-36, she'd have my attention. Well, now that that I'm (theoretically) paying attention to Kate, I wonder if there is anything else she might have have to say. Any other wisdom. Perhaps she'd like to inform my view of stem-cell research, or help me understand the intracies of string theory....
oh, wait... what's this? She has a New Movie!
Just last September, while shooting Skeleton Key in New Orleans, Hudson told PEOPLE about the state of her marriage in the wake of the arrival of Ryder: "We're sharing something so gigantic now. I think it's the best we've ever felt being together."
Maybe if I see the movie, I'll be all the richer for it...
I don't believe (monogamy) is realistic," Hudson, 26, tells TV's Access Hollywood. ... "If you focus your attention on that, then you are always wondering if your husband or men are out there cheating on you. ... If for some reason, that's what he has to go do, I just don't want to know. As long as things are good in our house, just please, don't get caught."
hmm.. Hot 26 year-old actress expresses her views on the subject the Christian Right assumes the gays are going to destroy by even contemplating. If *I* were a hetrosexual male between 18-36, she'd have my attention. Well, now that that I'm (theoretically) paying attention to Kate, I wonder if there is anything else she might have have to say. Any other wisdom. Perhaps she'd like to inform my view of stem-cell research, or help me understand the intracies of string theory....
oh, wait... what's this? She has a New Movie!
Just last September, while shooting Skeleton Key in New Orleans, Hudson told PEOPLE about the state of her marriage in the wake of the arrival of Ryder: "We're sharing something so gigantic now. I think it's the best we've ever felt being together."
Maybe if I see the movie, I'll be all the richer for it...
Mean Time to Nausea: 15 Seconds
Sunday, August 07, 2005
Arguing and the ACLU
This is an outstanding thread on Volokh about not just the ACLU (with references to conservative cases), but on the bounds of rational vs. irrational discourse. Really well done.
I've never understood the knee-jerk reaction to some subset of conservatives/right-wing folks to the ACLU. The freedoms they defend are for all of us and, although they are not perfect, I'm very glad they exist even when I don't agree with them.
I've never understood the knee-jerk reaction to some subset of conservatives/right-wing folks to the ACLU. The freedoms they defend are for all of us and, although they are not perfect, I'm very glad they exist even when I don't agree with them.
New Art
I was visiting the (now wholely owned) house of and old friend of mine and noted that the walls were, to put it politely, bare. Well painted for sure, but somewhat bare. I haven't done enough art lately and this was all I needed to put away Civilization III and do some art. The first of these new pieces is finished, here. I'm nost sure how many of this type I will do, but it's a chance to try a different style, and I want to do some work with a Cape Cod theme.
At least until Civ IV comes out in October :)
Enjoy.
At least until Civ IV comes out in October :)
Enjoy.
Steven Vincent, Pro-Iraq writer, killed in Basra
This is worth a read (forget for a moment it came from Kos). Vincent had been in Iraq awhile and, to my mind, expressed a pretty reasonable view of success and the current situaion. Take your pre-conceptions offline for a moment and read this. It's much better than the usual partisan right "see no evil" or the left's "see no good".
Saturday, August 06, 2005
In a Mirror, Darkly
From a week ago Sunday on This Week, George Stephanopoulous interviews Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and makes Santorum his bitch (emp. mine):
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s move on to another controversy you stirred up, the question of the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic church. You made a statement in July 2002 which has drawn a lot of fire.You said, in a publication called Catholic On-Line, When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While there’s no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.
You’ve reaffirmed that just a couple of weeks ago. Ted Kennedy, John Kerry say you have to apologize. Mitt Romney, Republican governor, says basically you don’t know what you’re talking about.Do you still stand by that statement?
SANTORUM: Look, the statement I made was that the culture influences people’s behavior. I don’t think anyone…
STEPHANOPOULOS: Isn’t that what conservatives used to say about liberals, when they used to say they were trying to excuse criminals?
SANTORUM: I think what I’m saying is that the culture of liberal sexual freedom and the sexual revolution of the 1960s and ’70s had a profound impact on everybody and their sexual mores. It had a profound impact on the church.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you singled out Boston in…
SANTORUM: I singled out Boston in 2002. In July of 2002, that was the epicenter. We did not know…
STEPHANOPOULOS: That is simply not true. I went back and looked at all of these clips. We had stories in 1994, going back all the way to 1984 in Louisiana, in just about every archdiocese in the country.I just don’t understand why you stick by this, because we now know it was widespread. It was in every city in the country.
SANTORUM: Well, at the time, we did not know it was in every city of the country.
STEPHANOPOULOS: We knew a lot of that.
SANTORUM: It was — look at the press reports. It was the epicenter.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I have them right here.
SANTORUM: I think it’s taking it out of context…
STEPHANOPOULOS: Los Angeles Times, January 29, 1994, it cites instances of abuse in Santa Fe and Chicago, as well as Lafayette, Louisiana, and Camden, New Jersey. 1994.
SANTORUM: I understand that it was in other places. All I’m talking about, at the time, what everyone was focused on at the time was Boston.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you stand by it?
SANTORUM: Look, I will admit that Boston is — that using Boston at the time was appropriate. Now, I would not say it would be appropriate. I would say that Boston right now would — we’d say a whole lot of other cities in the country and a whole lot of problems.But if you read the article, that was one of about four or five things that I said…
STEPHANOPOULOS: I did read it.
SANTORUM: … and I talked about the problems within the church.I wrote the article in 2002. Ted Kennedy and John Kennedy wrote no articles in 2002 criticizing this church. I went out and talked to bishops. I went out and talked to cardinals. I was very concerned. I was offended and hurt by a church that betrayed me by not doing what they should have done, and I was angered by that, and I spoke out about it, and I spoke loudly about it. The senators from Massachusetts did nothing. They spoke nothing. They sat by and let this happen.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you’re standing your ground.
Let’s talk…
SANTORUM: And I’m standing my ground because I tried to fight to change the church.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s move on to another controversy you stirred up, the question of the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic church. You made a statement in July 2002 which has drawn a lot of fire.You said, in a publication called Catholic On-Line, When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While there’s no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.
You’ve reaffirmed that just a couple of weeks ago. Ted Kennedy, John Kerry say you have to apologize. Mitt Romney, Republican governor, says basically you don’t know what you’re talking about.Do you still stand by that statement?
SANTORUM: Look, the statement I made was that the culture influences people’s behavior. I don’t think anyone…
STEPHANOPOULOS: Isn’t that what conservatives used to say about liberals, when they used to say they were trying to excuse criminals?
SANTORUM: I think what I’m saying is that the culture of liberal sexual freedom and the sexual revolution of the 1960s and ’70s had a profound impact on everybody and their sexual mores. It had a profound impact on the church.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you singled out Boston in…
SANTORUM: I singled out Boston in 2002. In July of 2002, that was the epicenter. We did not know…
STEPHANOPOULOS: That is simply not true. I went back and looked at all of these clips. We had stories in 1994, going back all the way to 1984 in Louisiana, in just about every archdiocese in the country.I just don’t understand why you stick by this, because we now know it was widespread. It was in every city in the country.
SANTORUM: Well, at the time, we did not know it was in every city of the country.
STEPHANOPOULOS: We knew a lot of that.
SANTORUM: It was — look at the press reports. It was the epicenter.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I have them right here.
SANTORUM: I think it’s taking it out of context…
STEPHANOPOULOS: Los Angeles Times, January 29, 1994, it cites instances of abuse in Santa Fe and Chicago, as well as Lafayette, Louisiana, and Camden, New Jersey. 1994.
SANTORUM: I understand that it was in other places. All I’m talking about, at the time, what everyone was focused on at the time was Boston.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you stand by it?
SANTORUM: Look, I will admit that Boston is — that using Boston at the time was appropriate. Now, I would not say it would be appropriate. I would say that Boston right now would — we’d say a whole lot of other cities in the country and a whole lot of problems.But if you read the article, that was one of about four or five things that I said…
STEPHANOPOULOS: I did read it.
SANTORUM: … and I talked about the problems within the church.I wrote the article in 2002. Ted Kennedy and John Kennedy wrote no articles in 2002 criticizing this church. I went out and talked to bishops. I went out and talked to cardinals. I was very concerned. I was offended and hurt by a church that betrayed me by not doing what they should have done, and I was angered by that, and I spoke out about it, and I spoke loudly about it. The senators from Massachusetts did nothing. They spoke nothing. They sat by and let this happen.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you’re standing your ground.
Let’s talk…
SANTORUM: And I’m standing my ground because I tried to fight to change the church.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
...and perhaps a change of venue too?
"The White House dropped the phrase `war on terror' when polls showed no one thought we were winning it. They think they know how to make it more popular. They're going to stop calling it `war on terror' and start calling it `Shrek 3.'"--Argus Hamilton, comedian and columnist (Via Time magazine)
Swiped from Kos where is other amusing snarkiness.
Swiped from Kos where is other amusing snarkiness.
Monday, August 01, 2005
If you immediately know the candlelight is fire...
... then the meal was cooked a long time ago.
I finally get it!
I finally get it!
Who's Who
I was placed in Who's Who this week.
ohhh!!! ahhhh!!
I know this because the publisher called me and offered me, for the miserly sum of $900 + tax, the following package, exclusive to Who's Who members:
A leather-bound copy of Who’s Who 2006
A wood veneer plaque with my name and company logo laser inscribed! laser!
A 100 word biography and my photo in WW-2006
Other goodies.
Me:"I'm thrilled! I'd love to do this with the 'Deluxe Package'"
Salesguy: "Terrific! Let me just..."
Me: "Unfortunately, my participation in the Federal Witness Protection Program prohibits me from appearing in such compendium, especially those international in scope. You did say this was the Worldwide Who's Who, right?"
Salesguy: "Yes! yes! World wide. Did you say..."
Me: "ah, yes, well my hands are tied then"
…
I am such an ass.
Although I might go to the trophy shop and make a plaque now...
ohhh!!! ahhhh!!
I know this because the publisher called me and offered me, for the miserly sum of $900 + tax, the following package, exclusive to Who's Who members:
A leather-bound copy of Who’s Who 2006
A wood veneer plaque with my name and company logo laser inscribed! laser!
A 100 word biography and my photo in WW-2006
Other goodies.
Me:"I'm thrilled! I'd love to do this with the 'Deluxe Package'"
Salesguy: "Terrific! Let me just..."
Me: "Unfortunately, my participation in the Federal Witness Protection Program prohibits me from appearing in such compendium, especially those international in scope. You did say this was the Worldwide Who's Who, right?"
Me: "ah, yes, well my hands are tied then"
…
I am such an ass.
Although I might go to the trophy shop and make a plaque now...
Friday, July 29, 2005
A Wag at Work
There is a case of Hienekin in the soda fridge at work this morning. On it there is a sign which reads, "Do not Eat before the All Hands Social tonight at 5pm"
Someone corrected the sign to read "Eat Drink"
A few minutes later some wag changed it to "Eat Drink Be Merry "
Someone corrected the sign to read "
A few minutes later some wag changed it to "
Raw, Hot, Steaming Pile of Marketing (goodness)
It's rare, but once in awhile a co-worker says something so sincerely, so honestly and so fundementally at odds with anything rational humans would call productive that it borders on a Zen Koan.
For example, a co-worker sent this today, very sincerely beleiving it would get us to buy into his expensive $50 million (as yet unfunded) project:
"This is one more reason for projects like Solution Integrator, which add value to the customer centric business model, and make the partner centric business model more attractive to enterprise customers."
I'm.... quite stunned.
For example, a co-worker sent this today, very sincerely beleiving it would get us to buy into his expensive $50 million (as yet unfunded) project:
"This is one more reason for projects like Solution Integrator, which add value to the customer centric business model, and make the partner centric business model more attractive to enterprise customers."
I'm.... quite stunned.
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Students for an Orwellian Society
This is really beautiful.
War Is Peace
Oceania (commonly called the US and Britain) is at war with Afghanistan Iraq. Oceania has always been at war with Afghanistan Iraq.
Eurasia (commonly called Russia, Pakistan, etc.) is allied with Oceania in war against Afghanistan. Eurasia has always been allied with Oceania.
US Congressman Charlie Rangel has been arguing for a return of military conscription (“The Draft”) as—so he tells the public— a way of reducing war.
It's not easy to capture someone killed the year before—until you harness the power of Ingsoc. When you've got Ingsoc on your side, though, it's so easy that the US did it again.
Three cheers for Homeland Security drone patrols!
In order to fight terrorism, we must cause it, says Donald Rumsfeld.
It's okay that there were no “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq; that's not why we went to war. It's equally okay that there are so many of them in Oceania.
The Nobel prize committee has been considering nominating George Bush and Tony Blair for their prestigious Peace prize.
Just like in 1984's Room 101, the Miniluv operations in Guantánamo Bay were authorized to “exploit[] a prisoner's phobias, sometimes using muzzled dogs in interrogations.” Doubleplusgood!
According to the Bush administration, the Duelfer report which conclusively showed that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq actually justifies the war in Iraq.
“I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace.” — George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States
“Protecting [an] Islamic cultural center” involves fighting a war inside it, as the New York Times on the Web shows.
Picked up in the Infinitely Fertile Fields of Research of Lee.org
War Is Peace
Oceania (commonly called the US and Britain) is at war with Afghanistan Iraq. Oceania has always been at war with Afghanistan Iraq.
Eurasia (commonly called Russia, Pakistan, etc.) is allied with Oceania in war against Afghanistan. Eurasia has always been allied with Oceania.
US Congressman Charlie Rangel has been arguing for a return of military conscription (“The Draft”) as—so he tells the public— a way of reducing war.
It's not easy to capture someone killed the year before—until you harness the power of Ingsoc. When you've got Ingsoc on your side, though, it's so easy that the US did it again.
Three cheers for Homeland Security drone patrols!
In order to fight terrorism, we must cause it, says Donald Rumsfeld.
It's okay that there were no “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq; that's not why we went to war. It's equally okay that there are so many of them in Oceania.
The Nobel prize committee has been considering nominating George Bush and Tony Blair for their prestigious Peace prize.
Just like in 1984's Room 101, the Miniluv operations in Guantánamo Bay were authorized to “exploit[] a prisoner's phobias, sometimes using muzzled dogs in interrogations.” Doubleplusgood!
According to the Bush administration, the Duelfer report which conclusively showed that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq actually justifies the war in Iraq.
“I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace.” — George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States
“Protecting [an] Islamic cultural center” involves fighting a war inside it, as the New York Times on the Web shows.
Picked up in the Infinitely Fertile Fields of Research of Lee.org
Responsible Disclosure
In an email conversation today on the this interesting article:
LAS VEGAS – The annual Black Hat computer-security conference has become a forum for experts to disclose vulnerabilities in tech products, often rankling the products' makers. But few companies go to the lengths that Cisco Systems Inc. did this week to suppress information about a flaw in its software that directs Internet traffic.
Cisco threatened legal action to stop the conference's organizers from allowing a 24-year-old researcher for a rival tech firm to discuss how he says hackers could seize control of Cisco's Internet routers, which dominate the market. Cisco also instructed workers to tear 20 pages outlining the presentation from the conference program and ordered 2,000 CDs containing the presentation destroyed.
In the end, the researcher, Michael Lynn, went ahead with a presentation, describing flaws in Cisco's software that he said could allow hackers to take over corporate and government networks and the Internet, intercepting and misdirecting data communications. Mr. Lynn, wearing a white hat emblazoned with the word "Good," spoke after quitting his job at Internet Security Systems Inc. Wednesday. Mr. Lynn said he resigned because ISS executives had insisted he strike key portions of his presentation.
XXX: It's irresponsible! Like yelling fire in a movie theatre or [...]
Mark: or "Jihad" in a crowded mosque...
LAS VEGAS – The annual Black Hat computer-security conference has become a forum for experts to disclose vulnerabilities in tech products, often rankling the products' makers. But few companies go to the lengths that Cisco Systems Inc. did this week to suppress information about a flaw in its software that directs Internet traffic.
Cisco threatened legal action to stop the conference's organizers from allowing a 24-year-old researcher for a rival tech firm to discuss how he says hackers could seize control of Cisco's Internet routers, which dominate the market. Cisco also instructed workers to tear 20 pages outlining the presentation from the conference program and ordered 2,000 CDs containing the presentation destroyed.
In the end, the researcher, Michael Lynn, went ahead with a presentation, describing flaws in Cisco's software that he said could allow hackers to take over corporate and government networks and the Internet, intercepting and misdirecting data communications. Mr. Lynn, wearing a white hat emblazoned with the word "Good," spoke after quitting his job at Internet Security Systems Inc. Wednesday. Mr. Lynn said he resigned because ISS executives had insisted he strike key portions of his presentation.
XXX: It's irresponsible! Like yelling fire in a movie theatre or [...]
Mark: or "Jihad" in a crowded mosque...
Live Every Day as if Your Hair is on Fire
-Buddhist proverb
A followup thought from the previous post (below).
This advice was given to me in grad school by my advisor and was one of the few things he said that actually turned out to be useful. Birthday 41 is next week and, to be frank, I didn't expect to live this long so my expectations of additional years is 0. I've been clinically dead twice and, after the last time, I've always tried to live with the expectation that if I need to get something done, I'd better do it sooner rather than later. Much sooner. It's a philosophy which really helps prioritize the important things and helps brush away the seemingly important but long term trivial (e.g. filling out forms at work vs. actually fixing people's security problems). It also encourages a higher level of risk taking than average, leading me to travel to around the world, quit jobs I don't like, ignore people who waste my time etc.
It's good advice and I highly recommend it. There is never a guarantee the sun will rise tomorrow.
There is also an interesting paradox here with religion, although I may be conflating personality with religious tenants. I'm an atheist and don't believe in an afterlife, so it would seem that my priority should be extending my lifespan at all costs. Instead I've opted for the "enjoy it while you can" model, which has led (immodestly said) to a richer more interesting life than the alternative.
OTOH, many Christians I know, who are as certain of the afterlife as they are of the sunrise, tend to go to greater lengths to avoid some risks and are strong advocates of life extension/digital uploading etc. in order to keep living as long as possible. Given that Heaven is supposed to be.. well... heaven, I've never understood the mania to avoid death. I went to UMass with an astronomer/born-again who spent hours each day trying to eliminate any possibility of consuming food she might have been allergic to, biking 50 or 60 miles and in general going to great lengths to extend her human life as long as possible. And I never got a very convincing reason why. She didn't think she was going to Hell, that much was certain.
Dunno. I'm not saying one way is better than the other in general, I am saying I know what works for me.
A followup thought from the previous post (below).
This advice was given to me in grad school by my advisor and was one of the few things he said that actually turned out to be useful. Birthday 41 is next week and, to be frank, I didn't expect to live this long so my expectations of additional years is 0. I've been clinically dead twice and, after the last time, I've always tried to live with the expectation that if I need to get something done, I'd better do it sooner rather than later. Much sooner. It's a philosophy which really helps prioritize the important things and helps brush away the seemingly important but long term trivial (e.g. filling out forms at work vs. actually fixing people's security problems). It also encourages a higher level of risk taking than average, leading me to travel to around the world, quit jobs I don't like, ignore people who waste my time etc.
It's good advice and I highly recommend it. There is never a guarantee the sun will rise tomorrow.
There is also an interesting paradox here with religion, although I may be conflating personality with religious tenants. I'm an atheist and don't believe in an afterlife, so it would seem that my priority should be extending my lifespan at all costs. Instead I've opted for the "enjoy it while you can" model, which has led (immodestly said) to a richer more interesting life than the alternative.
OTOH, many Christians I know, who are as certain of the afterlife as they are of the sunrise, tend to go to greater lengths to avoid some risks and are strong advocates of life extension/digital uploading etc. in order to keep living as long as possible. Given that Heaven is supposed to be.. well... heaven, I've never understood the mania to avoid death. I went to UMass with an astronomer/born-again who spent hours each day trying to eliminate any possibility of consuming food she might have been allergic to, biking 50 or 60 miles and in general going to great lengths to extend her human life as long as possible. And I never got a very convincing reason why. She didn't think she was going to Hell, that much was certain.
Dunno. I'm not saying one way is better than the other in general, I am saying I know what works for me.
Universal Remote Watch
I'm turning 41 next week and my son has gotten me something cool for my birthday, a watch with a universal remote control!
I've always wanted to control the universe and now I can do it from my watch! How cool is that?
I've always wanted to control the universe and now I can do it from my watch! How cool is that?
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Now THIS is something to brag about...
??? This just raises all sorts of terrible questions
One of the TOP 8 Flatulence sites for New Zealand
One of the TOP 8 Flatulence sites for New Zealand
On the Beat with the Grammar Police
From the WaPo:
Heir CutsThe Congressional Budget Office recently found that, contrary to what we've always believed, only a couple of dozen or so farmers would benefit from repeal of the estate tax -- dubbed the "death tax" because of its painful effects on the dead.
"painful effects on the dead"
?????????
Heir CutsThe Congressional Budget Office recently found that, contrary to what we've always believed, only a couple of dozen or so farmers would benefit from repeal of the estate tax -- dubbed the "death tax" because of its painful effects on the dead.
"painful effects on the dead"
?????????
Yelling Fire in a crowd
"It's interesting that people laugh when you say, 'My probation officer doesn't let me have candles or fire-related objects anymore' to a room full of financial services people."
...
" but it's more interesting when you say it to a room full of developers and a third or so nod knowingly..."
...
" but it's more interesting when you say it to a room full of developers and a third or so nod knowingly..."
Agreeing with people I don't like.
I'm always somewhat suspicious when I agree with people I don't like, and this view of Michael Savage leaves me with an uneasy feeling that I've missed something. Like when I agree with Derbyshire...
The Savage Nation vs. the Bushbots
"What makes Bush a conservative?" Savage asked when I got him on the phone the other day. "On the economy, Bush has got more governmental workers than anybody before him. He's ballooned the government."
As regards the so-called "war on terror," Savage points out that you can't win a war when you're afraid even to name the enemy.
"He's never mentioned Islamofascism," said Savage.
...
As for the rest of the radio talkers, "They may as well work for the Republican Party. There's nothing interesting if you can predict what a man's going to say by just going to the GOP Web site."
He's certainly got that right. Listening to an endless rehash of Karl Rove's talking points, leavened by a few Teddy Kennedy- is-a-drunk jokes, is not very entertaining.
I read something recently which, while I can't verify, seems true, i.e. there is more diversity of opinion in the left side of the blogosphere than on the right in part becuase the right needs to follow the approved talking points to keep the sharade going. The left is free to throw stones at everything or (in exceptionally rare cases) actually propose new, innovataive ideas. Not that I've seen many of those from the left but, to be fair, I haven't seen them from the right either.
The Savage Nation vs. the Bushbots
"What makes Bush a conservative?" Savage asked when I got him on the phone the other day. "On the economy, Bush has got more governmental workers than anybody before him. He's ballooned the government."
As regards the so-called "war on terror," Savage points out that you can't win a war when you're afraid even to name the enemy.
"He's never mentioned Islamofascism," said Savage.
...
As for the rest of the radio talkers, "They may as well work for the Republican Party. There's nothing interesting if you can predict what a man's going to say by just going to the GOP Web site."
He's certainly got that right. Listening to an endless rehash of Karl Rove's talking points, leavened by a few Teddy Kennedy- is-a-drunk jokes, is not very entertaining.
I read something recently which, while I can't verify, seems true, i.e. there is more diversity of opinion in the left side of the blogosphere than on the right in part becuase the right needs to follow the approved talking points to keep the sharade going. The left is free to throw stones at everything or (in exceptionally rare cases) actually propose new, innovataive ideas. Not that I've seen many of those from the left but, to be fair, I haven't seen them from the right either.
Book Review: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
Eh.. In for a penny, in for a pound and all. I read it on the plane from Seattle to Atlanta. A qucik read, very dark, lots of deaths, waaaay too much hype.
Someone I might like to vote for
... providing his views are compatible with mine. I certainly like his attitude:
Schmidt commends Hackett for his service, but believes Hackett should "stand with the president" by "supporting the Iraqi war effort and our troops that are over there," her campaign manager Joe Braun said. (Through Braun, Schmidt declined to speak with Salon.)
When asked to answer that charge, Hackett is blunt: "The only way I know how to support the troops is by going over there." He doesn't hesitate to criticize Schmidt's support of the war: "All the chicken hawks back here who said, 'Oh, Iraq is talking bad about us. They're going to threaten us' - look, if you really believe that, you leave your wife and three kids and go sign up for the Army or Marines and go over there and fight. Otherwise, shut your mouth." (Emphasis added.)
Schmidt is one of those republicans who is patriotic to the president, not the country. I like seeing one of them called on it. The Hackett/Schmidt election is Aug 2nd.
Schmidt commends Hackett for his service, but believes Hackett should "stand with the president" by "supporting the Iraqi war effort and our troops that are over there," her campaign manager Joe Braun said. (Through Braun, Schmidt declined to speak with Salon.)
When asked to answer that charge, Hackett is blunt: "The only way I know how to support the troops is by going over there." He doesn't hesitate to criticize Schmidt's support of the war: "All the chicken hawks back here who said, 'Oh, Iraq is talking bad about us. They're going to threaten us' - look, if you really believe that, you leave your wife and three kids and go sign up for the Army or Marines and go over there and fight. Otherwise, shut your mouth." (Emphasis added.)
Schmidt is one of those republicans who is patriotic to the president, not the country. I like seeing one of them called on it. The Hackett/Schmidt election is Aug 2nd.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Reasoning by Analogy
One of my pet peeves is reasoning by analogy. Don't get me wrong, it's often a useful pedagogical tool and has some place in science and argument. My problem is that people use it too freely and often grossly overextend analogies and come to strange conclusions.
For example, in Reason this week there is an mildly interesting article on creationism:
So what "speculations" do creationists wish to destroy? In his talk, "Fossils, the Flood and the Age of the Earth," Dr. Tas Walker, a former Australian mining engineer, takes a whack at old Earth geology. Walker says that Noah's Flood is needed to produce fossils. Why? The conventional explanation for how fossils form is that, say, a dinosaur dies, falls into a swamp or ocean, and sinks to the bottom; there the bones are covered by layers of silt and eventually turn into stone.
Walker says that this scenario is very unlikely. He illustrates his point with the humble example of what happens to a dead fish in an aquarium. Dead fish don't sink; they are eaten by other aquarium denizens, leaving nothing to fossilize. As further evidence, Walker adds that nature documentaries showing the bottom of the oceans do not find it littered with the bodies of dead fish waiting to be fossilized. The only way to fossilize a dead fish in an aquarium is to dump a bunch of concrete on it before it's eaten. QED, Noah's Flood was the moral equivalent of dumping concrete on all the fossilized animals found in rocks today.
Since it doesn't happen in my fish tank, it must be impossible even if you have trillions of organisms over millions of years...
He should be made to wear an asshat.
For example, in Reason this week there is an mildly interesting article on creationism:
So what "speculations" do creationists wish to destroy? In his talk, "Fossils, the Flood and the Age of the Earth," Dr. Tas Walker, a former Australian mining engineer, takes a whack at old Earth geology. Walker says that Noah's Flood is needed to produce fossils. Why? The conventional explanation for how fossils form is that, say, a dinosaur dies, falls into a swamp or ocean, and sinks to the bottom; there the bones are covered by layers of silt and eventually turn into stone.
Walker says that this scenario is very unlikely. He illustrates his point with the humble example of what happens to a dead fish in an aquarium. Dead fish don't sink; they are eaten by other aquarium denizens, leaving nothing to fossilize. As further evidence, Walker adds that nature documentaries showing the bottom of the oceans do not find it littered with the bodies of dead fish waiting to be fossilized. The only way to fossilize a dead fish in an aquarium is to dump a bunch of concrete on it before it's eaten. QED, Noah's Flood was the moral equivalent of dumping concrete on all the fossilized animals found in rocks today.
Since it doesn't happen in my fish tank, it must be impossible even if you have trillions of organisms over millions of years...
He should be made to wear an asshat.
odor of sanctity
From TJIC, Chief Potantate of Research for TJICistan:
google on the phrase "odor of sanctity":
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22odor+of+sanctity%22&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial
Rogue catholic priests; people who believe in The Matrix (and speak ofdying as "leaving this space-time continuum" ; Medieval swedishsaints...and a George W Bush campaign speech.Yowza.
Left unanswered is why Travis was pursuing this line of inquiry...
google on the phrase "odor of sanctity":
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22odor+of+sanctity%22&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial
Rogue catholic priests; people who believe in The Matrix (and speak ofdying as "leaving this space-time continuum" ; Medieval swedishsaints...and a George W Bush campaign speech.Yowza.
Left unanswered is why Travis was pursuing this line of inquiry...
Econometrics of Airports
Adding to my list of "Things the Market tends to Screw-Up because people don't make rational choices".
Airport Delays
Take airports like Atlanta, Washington-Dulles, and Newark, which are dominated by a single carrier. If the tragedy of the commons theory bore out, then these airports would be less tardy, because a dominant carrier has an incentive to take into account the delays that it causes by crowding the runways. That's why the solution that economists always offer for the tragedy of the commons is to give one entity an exclusive property right. Yet Atlanta, Dulles, and Newark are among the top 10 tardiest airports in the country. In a study of more than 65 million flights over 12 years, economists Christopher Mayer at Columbia Business School and Todd Sinai at Wharton business school recently found only a small correlation between the dominance of a single carrier at an airport and the length of flight delays.
Mayer and Sinai's study also identified the real culprit: the deliberate overscheduling of flights at peak periods by major airlines trying to increase the amount of connecting traffic at their hub airports. Major airlines like United, Delta, and American use a hub-and-spoke model as a way to offer consumers more flight choices and to save money by centralizing operations. Most of the traffic they send through a hub is on the way to somewhere else. (Low-cost carriers, on the other hand, typically carry passengers from one point to another without offering many connections.) Overscheduling at the hubs can't explain all delays—weather and maintenance problems also contribute. But nationally, about 75 percent of flights go in or out of hub airports, making overscheduling the most important factor.
Airport Delays
Take airports like Atlanta, Washington-Dulles, and Newark, which are dominated by a single carrier. If the tragedy of the commons theory bore out, then these airports would be less tardy, because a dominant carrier has an incentive to take into account the delays that it causes by crowding the runways. That's why the solution that economists always offer for the tragedy of the commons is to give one entity an exclusive property right. Yet Atlanta, Dulles, and Newark are among the top 10 tardiest airports in the country. In a study of more than 65 million flights over 12 years, economists Christopher Mayer at Columbia Business School and Todd Sinai at Wharton business school recently found only a small correlation between the dominance of a single carrier at an airport and the length of flight delays.
Mayer and Sinai's study also identified the real culprit: the deliberate overscheduling of flights at peak periods by major airlines trying to increase the amount of connecting traffic at their hub airports. Major airlines like United, Delta, and American use a hub-and-spoke model as a way to offer consumers more flight choices and to save money by centralizing operations. Most of the traffic they send through a hub is on the way to somewhere else. (Low-cost carriers, on the other hand, typically carry passengers from one point to another without offering many connections.) Overscheduling at the hubs can't explain all delays—weather and maintenance problems also contribute. But nationally, about 75 percent of flights go in or out of hub airports, making overscheduling the most important factor.
RTS
Yea!
KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, Florida (CNN) -- Discovery roared into the skies over Florida Tuesday morning as NASA returned to shuttle space flight for the first time since the 2003 Columbia disaster.
Under a blue, nearly cloudless sky, the spacecraft lifted off at 10:39 a.m. ET, as scheduled.
"Liftoff of space shuttle Discovery, beginning America's new journey to the moon, Mars and beyond," said George Diller, the voice of shuttle launch control.
The launch followed days of troubleshooting to fix a faulty fuel sensor in its external tank that led to cancellation of a planned launch on July 13.
KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, Florida (CNN) -- Discovery roared into the skies over Florida Tuesday morning as NASA returned to shuttle space flight for the first time since the 2003 Columbia disaster.
Under a blue, nearly cloudless sky, the spacecraft lifted off at 10:39 a.m. ET, as scheduled.
"Liftoff of space shuttle Discovery, beginning America's new journey to the moon, Mars and beyond," said George Diller, the voice of shuttle launch control.
The launch followed days of troubleshooting to fix a faulty fuel sensor in its external tank that led to cancellation of a planned launch on July 13.
Best Comics on the Web
Sort of. There's some good stuff here but the notable absence of Penny Arcade makes me think it's under-represented.
OTOH, Girl Genius is there.
I also like Sketch Battle.
OTOH, Girl Genius is there.
I also like Sketch Battle.
SHA-1
Wrote this in about an hour for one of our publications next month. Comments welcome. It's a first draft and I'm still thinking about what people should do about it other than not panicing.
How Broken is SHA-1 and What are the Implications for Banking Security?
Mark Horvath, Microsoft Corporation
A recent paper by Xiaoyun Wang, Yiqun Lisa Yin, and Hongbo Yu, Finding Collisions in the Full SHA-1 (http://www.infosec.sdu.edu.cn/paper/sha1-crypto-auth-new-2-yao.pdf) has raised some questions about the strength of the SHA-1 hashing algorithm and it’s application in the commercial space, specifically in the areas of financial cryptography and online banking applications. In this discussion I’ll talk about three things, what is SHA-1, what does it mean to say it has been “broken” and what should the FS community do about this news?
SHA-1 is one of dozens of algorithms called hashing functions, mathematical operations which take an arbitrary sized text (any where from 1 to 2^64 bits) and reduce it down to a specifically sized, nearly unique signature. In the case of SHA-1, that’s 160 bits. The algorithm is written in such a way that’s it’s very sensitive to any changes in the input text and changing so much as a single character will produce a completely different result. So, I could feed in any document, say a mortgage application, and I would get 160 bits that would be unique to the information in that document. This provides a record or signature that I could use to verify the information later. Anytime I ran the algorithm on the document or an exact copy, I would get the same signature. On the other hand, if I changed a few characters in it (say from owing $200,000 to $000,200) and re-ran SHA-1, I would get a completely different signature. This, combined with a little public key cryptography, allows us to create digital signatures so that electronic documents can be verified at anytime to make sure that they have not changed.
I said that the signature was “nearly unique”. That’s because the algorithm takes arbitrary sized documents and reduces them to the same sized 160 bit signature. There is a chance that another document could hash to the same set of output bits, which is called a collision. Because of the nature of the algorithm, the two texts would likely look very different, one looking like a mortgage, the other looking very much like garbage. In a space 2^64 documents, very few of them look like normal or plain text with words, sentences etc. Most of look like the results of monkeys hitting random keys at typewriters. The exact probability of a collision depends very much on the details of the algorithm, which is where the problem comes in. Up until now it was believed that it would take 2^80 operations to get a collision in what is called a brute-force search, i.e. trying every possible input text to get a match.
Imagine you had a cluster of 1000 computers dedicated to the task, each one capable of trying 1,000,000 tests per second. (this is the approximate computing power of a large settlement network like SWIFT or DTCC). It would take 12,089,258,196,114,629.1747 seconds to “break” the algorithm, or 38,500,822 years, 3 months 11days, 1 hour and 25 minutes (give or take a minute). That’s a while. And that’s for one document! I’m sure over the course of 38 million years Moore’s law would help, or you could add more computers to the cluster, but generally it’s considered “secure” in that no one outside the NSA would waste that many resources on changing a mortgage.
The point of the Wang, Yin and Yu paper is that the probability isn’t 280 it’s more like 2^69, or 2^11 ( 2048 ) times more likely. This means it would take only 5,902,958,103,571.5961 seconds or 187992 or so years. Worse, but still a very long time. And this is assuming hardware and programming skills outside the access of governments or worldwide finance institutions.
The real concern here is not the drop of 2048 in ease of breaking the algorithm, it’s that the algorithm has been shown to have a weakness. It’s not impossible that the algorithm, with further study, might have additional problems, thus dropping the security still further.
It’s important to remember that this is a mathematical algorithm and it is not specific to any given vendor’s implementation of it on their software. Everyone using SHA-1, whether it be on Linux, Windows, VAX, Unix, FORTRAN, COBOL or even coded into the firmware of hardened cryptographic devices like Cylink, RSA, nCypher, SPYRUS or those used by NSA is, if they implemented it correctly, effected by this result. Hence this is a community problem, which needs to be solved through the normal security and cryptographic standards processes.
So what is an FSI Security professional to do? At this stage, the important thing is to avoid panic and recognize the problem for what it is, i.e. the normal cryptographic vetting process. As of this writing there has not been any demonstrated, successful attack on any text hashed using SHA-1 (although you might want to watch for one in the next 100,000 years or so). Good security policy would suggest the following actions:
Inventory where you are currently using the SHA-1 hashing algorithm in your digital signatures.
Other hashing algorithms exist, some much stronger than SHA-1, so start considering what it would take for your organization to switch in the future.
Work with your software vendors and see what they suggest.
Keep informed of the latest developments on security algorithms and see how SHA-1 and other tools develop.
Again, let me repeat, there is no cause for any kind of panic or mass exodus from SHA-1, but it is something to keep in mind over the next few years when upgrading your security systems.
Mark Horvath, Microsoft Corporation
A recent paper by Xiaoyun Wang, Yiqun Lisa Yin, and Hongbo Yu, Finding Collisions in the Full SHA-1 (http://www.infosec.sdu.edu.cn/paper/sha1-crypto-auth-new-2-yao.pdf) has raised some questions about the strength of the SHA-1 hashing algorithm and it’s application in the commercial space, specifically in the areas of financial cryptography and online banking applications. In this discussion I’ll talk about three things, what is SHA-1, what does it mean to say it has been “broken” and what should the FS community do about this news?
SHA-1 is one of dozens of algorithms called hashing functions, mathematical operations which take an arbitrary sized text (any where from 1 to 2^64 bits) and reduce it down to a specifically sized, nearly unique signature. In the case of SHA-1, that’s 160 bits. The algorithm is written in such a way that’s it’s very sensitive to any changes in the input text and changing so much as a single character will produce a completely different result. So, I could feed in any document, say a mortgage application, and I would get 160 bits that would be unique to the information in that document. This provides a record or signature that I could use to verify the information later. Anytime I ran the algorithm on the document or an exact copy, I would get the same signature. On the other hand, if I changed a few characters in it (say from owing $200,000 to $000,200) and re-ran SHA-1, I would get a completely different signature. This, combined with a little public key cryptography, allows us to create digital signatures so that electronic documents can be verified at anytime to make sure that they have not changed.
I said that the signature was “nearly unique”. That’s because the algorithm takes arbitrary sized documents and reduces them to the same sized 160 bit signature. There is a chance that another document could hash to the same set of output bits, which is called a collision. Because of the nature of the algorithm, the two texts would likely look very different, one looking like a mortgage, the other looking very much like garbage. In a space 2^64 documents, very few of them look like normal or plain text with words, sentences etc. Most of look like the results of monkeys hitting random keys at typewriters. The exact probability of a collision depends very much on the details of the algorithm, which is where the problem comes in. Up until now it was believed that it would take 2^80 operations to get a collision in what is called a brute-force search, i.e. trying every possible input text to get a match.
Imagine you had a cluster of 1000 computers dedicated to the task, each one capable of trying 1,000,000 tests per second. (this is the approximate computing power of a large settlement network like SWIFT or DTCC). It would take 12,089,258,196,114,629.1747 seconds to “break” the algorithm, or 38,500,822 years, 3 months 11days, 1 hour and 25 minutes (give or take a minute). That’s a while. And that’s for one document! I’m sure over the course of 38 million years Moore’s law would help, or you could add more computers to the cluster, but generally it’s considered “secure” in that no one outside the NSA would waste that many resources on changing a mortgage.
The point of the Wang, Yin and Yu paper is that the probability isn’t 280 it’s more like 2^69, or 2^11 ( 2048 ) times more likely. This means it would take only 5,902,958,103,571.5961 seconds or 187992 or so years. Worse, but still a very long time. And this is assuming hardware and programming skills outside the access of governments or worldwide finance institutions.
The real concern here is not the drop of 2048 in ease of breaking the algorithm, it’s that the algorithm has been shown to have a weakness. It’s not impossible that the algorithm, with further study, might have additional problems, thus dropping the security still further.
It’s important to remember that this is a mathematical algorithm and it is not specific to any given vendor’s implementation of it on their software. Everyone using SHA-1, whether it be on Linux, Windows, VAX, Unix, FORTRAN, COBOL or even coded into the firmware of hardened cryptographic devices like Cylink, RSA, nCypher, SPYRUS or those used by NSA is, if they implemented it correctly, effected by this result. Hence this is a community problem, which needs to be solved through the normal security and cryptographic standards processes.
So what is an FSI Security professional to do? At this stage, the important thing is to avoid panic and recognize the problem for what it is, i.e. the normal cryptographic vetting process. As of this writing there has not been any demonstrated, successful attack on any text hashed using SHA-1 (although you might want to watch for one in the next 100,000 years or so). Good security policy would suggest the following actions:
Inventory where you are currently using the SHA-1 hashing algorithm in your digital signatures.
Other hashing algorithms exist, some much stronger than SHA-1, so start considering what it would take for your organization to switch in the future.
Work with your software vendors and see what they suggest.
Keep informed of the latest developments on security algorithms and see how SHA-1 and other tools develop.
Again, let me repeat, there is no cause for any kind of panic or mass exodus from SHA-1, but it is something to keep in mind over the next few years when upgrading your security systems.
The Rule of Law
A real conversation:
XXX: "Hey, they shot the guy responsible for the London bombings!"
Mark:"Really? How did they know it was him?"
XXX: "They had his picture and he ran when they tried to stop him. Must be him."
Mark:"One doesn't know that. Besides I didn't think the Brits carried guns"
XXX: "Some do. And they aren't afraid to use them. He would have gotten death anyway if he'd been convicted. This saves time."
Mark: "If they got the right guy..."
XXX:"Must be him, he ran!"
Obviously, it was the wrong guy. This was one conversation which neatly wrapped up my views of our efforts on terrorism and on extra-constitutionalism.
XXX is a brit ex-pat I work with.
XXX: "Hey, they shot the guy responsible for the London bombings!"
Mark:"Really? How did they know it was him?"
XXX: "They had his picture and he ran when they tried to stop him. Must be him."
Mark:"One doesn't know that. Besides I didn't think the Brits carried guns"
XXX: "Some do. And they aren't afraid to use them. He would have gotten death anyway if he'd been convicted. This saves time."
Mark: "If they got the right guy..."
XXX:"Must be him, he ran!"
Obviously, it was the wrong guy. This was one conversation which neatly wrapped up my views of our efforts on terrorism and on extra-constitutionalism.
XXX is a brit ex-pat I work with.
Something Fun
Newly released at MGB last week, MS Virtual Earth. Not too shabby and approximately in line with the Google equivalent.
Friday, July 15, 2005
Warnings Laptops Should Have
All laptops should come with the following sticker, which can only be removed by physically destroyng the computer:
WARNING: While looking at pornography in a crowded airport, always place your back against or towards an outside wall. Placing your back towards the crowd will likely result in that same crowd knowing you are watching hot lesbian pornography in an airport, some of who may inform local officials.
I'm just saying...
WARNING: While looking at pornography in a crowded airport, always place your back against or towards an outside wall. Placing your back towards the crowd will likely result in that same crowd knowing you are watching hot lesbian pornography in an airport, some of who may inform local officials.
I'm just saying...
Calling Bullshit
I agree fairly strongly with this piece by Paul Krugman. I keep waiting for someone, anyone, to start calling bullshit. Friends of mine who, 2 years ago, would argue one side are now arguing the other on the same topics. While it's fine to come to a principled change of opinion, it's hard to this is the light of them suggesting, "I never said that", or "That's not what I meant".
I first realized that we were living in Karl Rove's America during the 2000 presidential campaign, when George W. Bush began saying things about Social Security privatization and tax cuts that were simply false. At first, I thought the Bush campaign was making a big mistake - that these blatant falsehoods would be condemned by prominent Republican politicians and Republican economists, especially those who had spent years building reputations as advocates of fiscal responsibility. In fact, with hardly any exceptions they lined up to praise Mr. Bush's proposals.
...
But Mr. Rove understood that the facts were irrelevant. For one thing, he knew he could count on the administration's supporters to obediently accept a changing story line. Read the before-and-after columns by pro-administration pundits about Iraq: before the war they castigated the C.I.A. for understating the threat posed by Saddam's W.M.D.; after the war they castigated the C.I.A. for exaggerating the very same threat.
I first realized that we were living in Karl Rove's America during the 2000 presidential campaign, when George W. Bush began saying things about Social Security privatization and tax cuts that were simply false. At first, I thought the Bush campaign was making a big mistake - that these blatant falsehoods would be condemned by prominent Republican politicians and Republican economists, especially those who had spent years building reputations as advocates of fiscal responsibility. In fact, with hardly any exceptions they lined up to praise Mr. Bush's proposals.
...
But Mr. Rove understood that the facts were irrelevant. For one thing, he knew he could count on the administration's supporters to obediently accept a changing story line. Read the before-and-after columns by pro-administration pundits about Iraq: before the war they castigated the C.I.A. for understating the threat posed by Saddam's W.M.D.; after the war they castigated the C.I.A. for exaggerating the very same threat.
Book Review: Iron Sunrise
Charles Stross, 2004
This is the sequal to Singularity Sky, which I liked a great deal and this one is as good or better. It picks up right after Singuality Sky leaves off, with some of the same folks, UN-for-Profit agents Rachel and Martin (who is also an agent of the post-singularity non-quite godlike intelligence the Eschaton). It starts with an act of horror, the inducing of a supernova reaction into a populated star, Moscow, and follows the action trying to figure out who and why this happened. It's pretty good, introduces new characters and threats (one of which seems to be based on the Mormoms and their worship of the unborn).
Good, light reading.
This is the sequal to Singularity Sky, which I liked a great deal and this one is as good or better. It picks up right after Singuality Sky leaves off, with some of the same folks, UN-for-Profit agents Rachel and Martin (who is also an agent of the post-singularity non-quite godlike intelligence the Eschaton). It starts with an act of horror, the inducing of a supernova reaction into a populated star, Moscow, and follows the action trying to figure out who and why this happened. It's pretty good, introduces new characters and threats (one of which seems to be based on the Mormoms and their worship of the unborn).
Good, light reading.
Book Review: Olympos
2005, Dan Simmons
I'm travleing a lot, so I'm reading a lot. I make it a point not to try to work on airplanes but to do pleasure reading as much as possible. I read Dan Simmon's second half of the Illium story called Olympos. I tried to explain to Jim what it was about:
It's set in the year 5000 or so, there are only a couple of 100,000 actual physical people left on the planet after everyone of the post-humans ascended or something. The remaining humans are basically post-literate circuit boys and girls who live for exactly 100 years in bliss then supposedly ascend. Makes sense right? It turns out that they are just killed and all the posts are gone, except for a handful which are trapped in a blue beam of light in Jerulislam. Well, there are also real Olympian gods living on a real Olympus on a terraformed Mars (which is also host to a race of photosynthisizing beings called zeks which spend their time making Easter Island Statues for some reason). The Olympian Gods shuttle back and forth through spacetime to Troy in 2000 BC where they are staging the real Trojan War. Somehow the immortal gods with real powers haven't read the Illiad and they have resurrected a bunch of 20-22nd centruy Homer scholars to document it for them (since they also can't read anymore). In the mean time it turns out the entire cast of Shakespear's Tempest are are/post humans/computer avatars and are sort of running the Earth's infrastrucutre but seem to be running it into the ground. Oh and mechanical life has been evolving all this time on the moons of Jupiter since it started as a mining colony in the 21st century. They're investing what the hell is going on with Mars since in 5000AD it's been teraformed and there are gods living on it and the gods are somehow threatening quatum reality. Then it gets weird...
Jim: I see. How long has this been going on.
Mark: I read the first one last year....
Jim: No. How long have the brain worms been back?
Mark: ... I can see why you might think that...
Olympos builds on Illium in the usual Dan Simmons way, introduces more plot complications (inlcuding, I think, several pointless ones) but does, in fact, wrap the whole package up into a single, comphrensive story that almost makes sense. Almost. If you like Dan Simmons, you'll like this but if you've never read him, go ready Hyperion, which is better, makes more sense, and gives you a better feel of what Dan is like at his height. The Illium story is good, but it seems like an echo of Hyperion.
I'm travleing a lot, so I'm reading a lot. I make it a point not to try to work on airplanes but to do pleasure reading as much as possible. I read Dan Simmon's second half of the Illium story called Olympos. I tried to explain to Jim what it was about:
It's set in the year 5000 or so, there are only a couple of 100,000 actual physical people left on the planet after everyone of the post-humans ascended or something. The remaining humans are basically post-literate circuit boys and girls who live for exactly 100 years in bliss then supposedly ascend. Makes sense right? It turns out that they are just killed and all the posts are gone, except for a handful which are trapped in a blue beam of light in Jerulislam. Well, there are also real Olympian gods living on a real Olympus on a terraformed Mars (which is also host to a race of photosynthisizing beings called zeks which spend their time making Easter Island Statues for some reason). The Olympian Gods shuttle back and forth through spacetime to Troy in 2000 BC where they are staging the real Trojan War. Somehow the immortal gods with real powers haven't read the Illiad and they have resurrected a bunch of 20-22nd centruy Homer scholars to document it for them (since they also can't read anymore). In the mean time it turns out the entire cast of Shakespear's Tempest are are/post humans/computer avatars and are sort of running the Earth's infrastrucutre but seem to be running it into the ground. Oh and mechanical life has been evolving all this time on the moons of Jupiter since it started as a mining colony in the 21st century. They're investing what the hell is going on with Mars since in 5000AD it's been teraformed and there are gods living on it and the gods are somehow threatening quatum reality. Then it gets weird...
Jim: I see. How long has this been going on.
Mark: I read the first one last year....
Jim: No. How long have the brain worms been back?
Mark: ... I can see why you might think that...
Olympos builds on Illium in the usual Dan Simmons way, introduces more plot complications (inlcuding, I think, several pointless ones) but does, in fact, wrap the whole package up into a single, comphrensive story that almost makes sense. Almost. If you like Dan Simmons, you'll like this but if you've never read him, go ready Hyperion, which is better, makes more sense, and gives you a better feel of what Dan is like at his height. The Illium story is good, but it seems like an echo of Hyperion.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
On the Road Again
FTR, I'm leaving today on a two week road show to Spokane, Vegas, Seattle and Atlanta (oh joy). Not that it will effect this blog much.
Ultra Fox
This is a weird spin on the Rove thing from Fox. Basically John Gibson is suggestion that Karl Rove is a hero for out a CIA operative. Taking this logic a bit futher then, in his view any political operative should be able to burn any intelligence operative if it advances the president's agenda. Somehow I don't see this logic sitting well with the Right if the president were a Clinton.
I say give Karl Rove a medal, even if Bush has to fire him. Why? Because Valerie Plame should have been outed by somebody. And if nobody else had the cojones to do it, I'm glad Rove did — if he did do it, and he still says he didn't.
I say give Karl Rove a medal, even if Bush has to fire him. Why? Because Valerie Plame should have been outed by somebody. And if nobody else had the cojones to do it, I'm glad Rove did — if he did do it, and he still says he didn't.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
I want Yesterday's Future Today!
An interesting, somewhat amusing in a Lileks kind of way, look at the future that wasn't.
It wasn't that long ago that we had a future. I mean, we have one now; the world isn't going to crash into the Sun or anything like that. What I mean is that we had a future that we could clearly imagine. The future wasn't tomorrow, next week, next year, or next century. It was a place with a form, a structure, a style. True, we didn't know exactly what the future would be like, but we knew that it had to be one of a few alternatives; some good, some very bad. The future was a world with a distinct architecture. It had its own way of speaking. It had its own technology. It was for all intents and purposes a different land where people dressed differently, talked differently, ate differently, and even thought differently. It was where scientists were wizards, where machines were magically effective and efficient, where tyrants were at least romantically evil rather than banal, and where the heavens were fairyland where dreams could literally come true.
It wasn't that long ago that we had a future. I mean, we have one now; the world isn't going to crash into the Sun or anything like that. What I mean is that we had a future that we could clearly imagine. The future wasn't tomorrow, next week, next year, or next century. It was a place with a form, a structure, a style. True, we didn't know exactly what the future would be like, but we knew that it had to be one of a few alternatives; some good, some very bad. The future was a world with a distinct architecture. It had its own way of speaking. It had its own technology. It was for all intents and purposes a different land where people dressed differently, talked differently, ate differently, and even thought differently. It was where scientists were wizards, where machines were magically effective and efficient, where tyrants were at least romantically evil rather than banal, and where the heavens were fairyland where dreams could literally come true.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Music in your head
I discovered very recently that most people don't hear music all the time. This has been a surprise to me on pretty much every level as I've always assumed that people hear different kinds of music, pretty much all the time. It came up in conversation about two years ago with some friends who, when I asked about what music they heard in their head, looked at me really weird. It came up again when I had the brain worms as the music had stopped for the first time ever and, when I told the neurologist, we had a discussion about it. He confirmed that that was pretty much the way everyone was and asked me questions about how I dealt with it. "Easily," I said. "I've never not heard it, so it's something I'm used to"
Today the NYT had an interesting article confirming, yet again, that my brain is very different from the standard issue one.
FTR, tonight it's dance music although earlier it was Christmas songs (the most common).
Today the NYT had an interesting article confirming, yet again, that my brain is very different from the standard issue one.
FTR, tonight it's dance music although earlier it was Christmas songs (the most common).
Lightning Bolt!! Lightning Bolt!!
File this under "Things in 2022 which don't seem as such a good idea during this interview as they did in 2005 when I did them".
Monday, July 11, 2005
My Day in Haiku
From an email thread with Kenny McBride, the Industry Manager for Microsoft Capital Markets. Some of it is fairly internal stuff, e.g. the Charlotte reference is to Kenny's management who is based there instead of NY for very poor reasons. Also my old job as Industry Technical Strategist (ITS) was filled today by someone who is basically a cronie for the new manager.
I was in a standards body meeting on the phone all day:
Mark:
ACORD XML
Exciting like a forest fire
Or watching paint dry
Kenny:
Standards Bodies
Knitting needles in the eyes
But far more painful
Discussing the New Charlotte-based management for Kenny's current and my old team
Mark:
The old VSU
Sinks near needle sharp pines
As the hot air cools
Kenny:
Management Styles differ
I was just going to suggest that
Lets build a scorecard
Mark:
Great suggestion Ken!
Be more proactive and feel
the paradigm shift!
Kenny:
Red Yellow Green
The Killer Deck creeps silently
From Building 22 into trash
Mark:
ITS still open?
Many qualified candidates
Live close to Charlotte
Kenny (with not so strict adherence to the forms)
ITS Just Closed
Sitting on the dock of a bay
Ideal incestuous incremental improvments
Mark:
Ring a bell, yell, shout!
Sing the praises of surprise
predestination
Kenny:
An offsite will enable
B’s to hire C’s
All in order to please
Mark:
Let’s have a meeting!
If we gaze at our navel,
profits will follow!
Kenny:
Glib vertical pretences
Make the innocent all work and no play
In then out of the fray
Mark:
Adults speak caution
but every child also knows
“I can drive this car”
I was in a standards body meeting on the phone all day:
Mark:
ACORD XML
Exciting like a forest fire
Or watching paint dry
Kenny:
Standards Bodies
Knitting needles in the eyes
But far more painful
Discussing the New Charlotte-based management for Kenny's current and my old team
Mark:
The old VSU
Sinks near needle sharp pines
As the hot air cools
Kenny:
Management Styles differ
I was just going to suggest that
Lets build a scorecard
Mark:
Great suggestion Ken!
Be more proactive and feel
the paradigm shift!
Kenny:
Red Yellow Green
The Killer Deck creeps silently
From Building 22 into trash
Mark:
ITS still open?
Many qualified candidates
Live close to Charlotte
Kenny (with not so strict adherence to the forms)
ITS Just Closed
Sitting on the dock of a bay
Ideal incestuous incremental improvments
Mark:
Ring a bell, yell, shout!
Sing the praises of surprise
predestination
Kenny:
An offsite will enable
B’s to hire C’s
All in order to please
Mark:
Let’s have a meeting!
If we gaze at our navel,
profits will follow!
Kenny:
Glib vertical pretences
Make the innocent all work and no play
In then out of the fray
Mark:
Adults speak caution
but every child also knows
“I can drive this car”
1A8X1 - AIRBORNE CRYPTOLOGIC LINGUIST
This is my son's current career goal. He's definately decided to join the millitary, but I can't kick about this too much (especialyl after all the government work we did at CertCo).
Specialty Summary. Operates, evaluates, and manages airborne signals intelligence information systems and operations activities. Performs and supervises identification, acquisition, recording, translating, analyzing, and reporting of assigned voice communications. Provides signals intelligence threat warning support and interfaces with other units. Performs and assists in mission planning. Maintains publications and currency items. Maintains and supervises communication nets. Transcribes, processes, and conducts follow-up analysis of assigned communications. Related DoD Occupational Subgroup: 232
Specialty Summary. Operates, evaluates, and manages airborne signals intelligence information systems and operations activities. Performs and supervises identification, acquisition, recording, translating, analyzing, and reporting of assigned voice communications. Provides signals intelligence threat warning support and interfaces with other units. Performs and assists in mission planning. Maintains publications and currency items. Maintains and supervises communication nets. Transcribes, processes, and conducts follow-up analysis of assigned communications. Related DoD Occupational Subgroup: 232
Error 421: Can't resolve statements
Reading this WaPo article on Plame, I can't resolve these two statements:
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove spoke with at least one reporter about Valerie Plame's role at the CIA before she was identified as a covert agent in a newspaper column two years ago, but Rove's lawyer said yesterday that his client did not identify her by name.
with
Rove gave Cooper a "big warning" that Wilson's assertions might not be entirely accurate and that it was not the director of the CIA or the vice president who sent Wilson on his trip. Rove apparently told Cooper that it was "Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip,"
I suppose, technically, he didn't say her name was Valerie Plame, he said the person was Wilson's wife. I don't think that cuts it though. We're back to the days of splitting legal hairs when there is clearly a larger issue.
Rove's an ass and I have no sympathy for people who do what he did. Outting an agent is wrong, the man should be tried for treason.
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove spoke with at least one reporter about Valerie Plame's role at the CIA before she was identified as a covert agent in a newspaper column two years ago, but Rove's lawyer said yesterday that his client did not identify her by name.
with
Rove gave Cooper a "big warning" that Wilson's assertions might not be entirely accurate and that it was not the director of the CIA or the vice president who sent Wilson on his trip. Rove apparently told Cooper that it was "Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip,"
I suppose, technically, he didn't say her name was Valerie Plame, he said the person was Wilson's wife. I don't think that cuts it though. We're back to the days of splitting legal hairs when there is clearly a larger issue.
Rove's an ass and I have no sympathy for people who do what he did. Outting an agent is wrong, the man should be tried for treason.
An Ecclesiastical Question Finally answered
Something like what I once asked a nun in Cathechism before I was banned from attending.
Herr Doktor Kaptain!
PhD, a grad school comic strip. Blisteringly accurate and funny! Like this or this motivation graph
It's a well documented fact that my 3rd and 4th year of grad school I ate nothing but Captain Crunch and drank nothing but (cheap) beer and Jack Daniels.
Sundays would be a special day for church and I would do both together.
It's a well documented fact that my 3rd and 4th year of grad school I ate nothing but Captain Crunch and drank nothing but (cheap) beer and Jack Daniels.
Sundays would be a special day for church and I would do both together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)