Saturday, September 03, 2005
Off to Copenhagan
I'm heading to Denmark this afternoon so bloggin will be light for the next week or so. I've never been there before so if anyone has suggestions as to where to go, what to see, where to eat etc. fell free to post them here or send me an email. I'd be grateful.
Not 9/11, but not in the good way
I criticized both Kos and the POTUS last week about comparing New Orleans and 9/11 and, to a large degree I stand by that. 9/11 was something about which we had little credible warning, changed the way we perceived the world, was a tragic cost of thousands of lives and was a unique turning point in American history (and later histrionics). I don't think New Orleans is anything like that, although I think the body count will be higher and damage to the economy will be longer term and more serious.
Why mention this? Well, here's the link with 9/11 in my mind. It's now obvious we were wildly under prepared for this. This is bad for three reasons:
1) This shouldn't have been a surprise. I've been to NOLA and pretty much the first thing that occurs to you is "Jesus Christ, I below sea level. This doesn't seem wise". And yes, I know all about the Dutch and their country, in fact I'm a huge fan (and I'm heading there this afternoon). The Dutch are one thing we are not. Competent about water. When they build, they build for centuries. When we build we build for decades. Big difference. The problem here, after 9/11 we still can't handle disasters for which we should already be prepared.
2) The were no operant plans for emergency. Assume this was, in fact a surprise. Ignore the *should* statement above and assume for whatever reason, the levees broke. If you're a democrat, imagine a terrorist blew it up, if your a republican, blame protesting liberals trying to save the wetlands prevented the government from doing proper maintenance. And, if you're TJIC, well... imagine the incompetence of government stayed the just hand of the markets and it's the fault of collectivism. Whatever you chose. Before 9/11 this type of surprise was squarely in the charter of FEMA and I could lay the fault there, find the problem, correct it and do better next time. While I am for a very limited government, disasters natural and otherwise, are one of the few things I think are actually part of the government's duty to the electors. If it fails at that, there isn't much justification for it's existence in peacetime. But in this case we have not only FEMA but Homeland Security as well. We have 2 agencies with huge resources and DHS has been planning for responses to terrorist actions for 4 years! And they were clueless! Despite more resources, we are less prepared for a surprise or terrorist attack than we were 4 years ago. It's the only conclusion the data supports.
3)You read this far? Thanks! I am, btw, about to say something insensitive The third point is, if terrorists are planning another attack on US soil, they are watching the NOLA circus and cumming in their collective pants. They can't help but see a country full of soft targets. Easy, cheap ways of not only causing a panic, but extending the ensuing chaos. If I were a terrorist (or when they are on our side we call them CIA Field Agents), I'd be figuring how to take advantage of the chaos to really cause some damage. Make the post disaster a real horror. Set off bombs, shoot people etc. That way, next time there is a disaster, people will panic easier causing even more problems. It becomes a sort of terrorist, self-fulfilling prophecy. Natural disaster, assume terrorist response, panic, chaos! The response to NOLA has highlighted to people planning to do us harm that we haven't learned anything since 9/11 despite spending more money.
That's the harm I see here and that's why I am beginning to think that the NOLA Disaster is in fact in the 9/11 bin after all.
Why mention this? Well, here's the link with 9/11 in my mind. It's now obvious we were wildly under prepared for this. This is bad for three reasons:
1) This shouldn't have been a surprise. I've been to NOLA and pretty much the first thing that occurs to you is "Jesus Christ, I below sea level. This doesn't seem wise". And yes, I know all about the Dutch and their country, in fact I'm a huge fan (and I'm heading there this afternoon). The Dutch are one thing we are not. Competent about water. When they build, they build for centuries. When we build we build for decades. Big difference. The problem here, after 9/11 we still can't handle disasters for which we should already be prepared.
2) The were no operant plans for emergency. Assume this was, in fact a surprise. Ignore the *should* statement above and assume for whatever reason, the levees broke. If you're a democrat, imagine a terrorist blew it up, if your a republican, blame protesting liberals trying to save the wetlands prevented the government from doing proper maintenance. And, if you're TJIC, well... imagine the incompetence of government stayed the just hand of the markets and it's the fault of collectivism. Whatever you chose. Before 9/11 this type of surprise was squarely in the charter of FEMA and I could lay the fault there, find the problem, correct it and do better next time. While I am for a very limited government, disasters natural and otherwise, are one of the few things I think are actually part of the government's duty to the electors. If it fails at that, there isn't much justification for it's existence in peacetime. But in this case we have not only FEMA but Homeland Security as well. We have 2 agencies with huge resources and DHS has been planning for responses to terrorist actions for 4 years! And they were clueless! Despite more resources, we are less prepared for a surprise or terrorist attack than we were 4 years ago. It's the only conclusion the data supports.
3)You read this far? Thanks! I am, btw, about to say something insensitive The third point is, if terrorists are planning another attack on US soil, they are watching the NOLA circus and cumming in their collective pants. They can't help but see a country full of soft targets. Easy, cheap ways of not only causing a panic, but extending the ensuing chaos. If I were a terrorist (or when they are on our side we call them CIA Field Agents), I'd be figuring how to take advantage of the chaos to really cause some damage. Make the post disaster a real horror. Set off bombs, shoot people etc. That way, next time there is a disaster, people will panic easier causing even more problems. It becomes a sort of terrorist, self-fulfilling prophecy. Natural disaster, assume terrorist response, panic, chaos! The response to NOLA has highlighted to people planning to do us harm that we haven't learned anything since 9/11 despite spending more money.
That's the harm I see here and that's why I am beginning to think that the NOLA Disaster is in fact in the 9/11 bin after all.
Friday, September 02, 2005
Progress on Looking Backwards
I've shown the outline to 4 or 5 folks now, all of who have had a lot of constructive criticism, much of which I've incorporated. I've got the major plot points through 2030 and some threads up through 2150. Lots of progress in a short period of time.
After I get back form Sibos next weekend, I'm going to shell out for the web help I need. I'm expecting the first pages to appear before the equinox.
BTW, I had actually destroyed New Orleans in 2009 by this same method. I was there in 2003, looked at the leveys, looked at the sea, shook my head and thought the obvious.
I've since excised the New Orleans bit. The details weren't critical to the story, and I think now it would come off badly.
After I get back form Sibos next weekend, I'm going to shell out for the web help I need. I'm expecting the first pages to appear before the equinox.
BTW, I had actually destroyed New Orleans in 2009 by this same method. I was there in 2003, looked at the leveys, looked at the sea, shook my head and thought the obvious.
I've since excised the New Orleans bit. The details weren't critical to the story, and I think now it would come off badly.
The Deist Creed
TJIC, over in TJICistan seems to be on the threshold of becoming a functioning Deist. This is a good thing all in all and, in my opinion, the more deists, the better.
Pretty much the only thing that separates atheists and deists is the need to account for where the universe came from. Deists tend to believe god made the universe for some purpose, wound it up, then let it go to see what happens. I've played enough SimCity to understand the appeal to both the god and the deist. Atheists, OTOH, tend not to worry about the purpose of the universe and either don't care about it or are comfortable not knowing. I'm in that last category. I don't think the universe has a purpose, and I can live with that knowledge. I may be wrong but, frankly, the rules have been set up in such a way that I'll never know the purpose if there is one because it's not discoverable from the inside (there's a whole, very cool branch of set theory to deal with math like this). Instead of worrying or lamenting this, I just use the time I would have wasted on something constructive. Or I waste it blogging.
And, I always keep in mind the Deist's Creed (by the philosopher Homer),
“Alone! I’m alone! I’m a lonely insignificant speck on a has-been planet, orbited by a cold indifferent sun!”
Pretty much the only thing that separates atheists and deists is the need to account for where the universe came from. Deists tend to believe god made the universe for some purpose, wound it up, then let it go to see what happens. I've played enough SimCity to understand the appeal to both the god and the deist. Atheists, OTOH, tend not to worry about the purpose of the universe and either don't care about it or are comfortable not knowing. I'm in that last category. I don't think the universe has a purpose, and I can live with that knowledge. I may be wrong but, frankly, the rules have been set up in such a way that I'll never know the purpose if there is one because it's not discoverable from the inside (there's a whole, very cool branch of set theory to deal with math like this). Instead of worrying or lamenting this, I just use the time I would have wasted on something constructive. Or I waste it blogging.
And, I always keep in mind the Deist's Creed (by the philosopher Homer),
“Alone! I’m alone! I’m a lonely insignificant speck on a has-been planet, orbited by a cold indifferent sun!”
Is It Legal to Shoot a Looter?
Which is a good question. The answer appears to be, "No". If you shoot a looter who is not threatening you, i.e. if you take the law into your own hands and go defend the nearby Piggly Wiggly and manage to kill someone, you could be prosecuted if caught. The following citation is from Louisiana Law. Other states may have different rules, but in LA at least they have thought this through and made a decision against vigilantism.
Note, it is perfectly legal to defend yourself and your property, just not legal to deputize yourself and go on a hunting party.
Thanks to volokh.
Perhaps you'd care to provide a cite?
yes, perhaps I spoke to loosely, just citing the common law rule. Obviously, different states have different rules with different nuances about when deadly force is justifiable. Louisiana's law is La. Rev. Stat. 14:20.
A homicide is justifiable:
(1) When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger.
(2) When committed for the purpose of preventing a violent or forcible felony involving danger to life or of great bodily harm by one who reasonably believes that such an offense is about to be committed and that such action is necessary for its prevention. The circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fear of a reasonable person that there would be serious danger to his own life or person if he attempted to prevent the felony without the killing.
(3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle. The homicide shall be justifiable even though the person does not retreat from the encounter.
(4)(a) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle. The homicide shall be justifiable even though the person committing the homicide does not retreat from the encounter.
my quick read of that suggest that defense of property, by itself, does not justify deadly force in Louisiana. A quick glance at the case annotations on Westlaw suggest that the touchstone is a "reasonable belief in danger."
Note, it is perfectly legal to defend yourself and your property, just not legal to deputize yourself and go on a hunting party.
Thanks to volokh.
Perhaps you'd care to provide a cite?
yes, perhaps I spoke to loosely, just citing the common law rule. Obviously, different states have different rules with different nuances about when deadly force is justifiable. Louisiana's law is La. Rev. Stat. 14:20.
A homicide is justifiable:
(1) When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger.
(2) When committed for the purpose of preventing a violent or forcible felony involving danger to life or of great bodily harm by one who reasonably believes that such an offense is about to be committed and that such action is necessary for its prevention. The circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fear of a reasonable person that there would be serious danger to his own life or person if he attempted to prevent the felony without the killing.
(3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle. The homicide shall be justifiable even though the person does not retreat from the encounter.
(4)(a) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle. The homicide shall be justifiable even though the person committing the homicide does not retreat from the encounter.
my quick read of that suggest that defense of property, by itself, does not justify deadly force in Louisiana. A quick glance at the case annotations on Westlaw suggest that the touchstone is a "reasonable belief in danger."
A Good Start
I was reading some conflicting opinions on shooting looters over at Volokh and ran across this statement which, while perfectly valid, seemed a little self-absorbed given the scale of what is going on down there:
5,000 - 6,000 lawyers (1/3 of the lawyers in Louisiana) have lost their offices, their libraries, their computers with all information thereon, their client files - possibly their clients, as one attorney who e-mailed me noted. [T]hey are scattered from Florida to Arizona and have nothing to return to.
in related news, both astronomers in New Orlenas have lost their Sun Sparc workstations and several exobyte tapes of infrared data from NGC-2264. Updates as news trickles in...
5,000 - 6,000 lawyers (1/3 of the lawyers in Louisiana) have lost their offices, their libraries, their computers with all information thereon, their client files - possibly their clients, as one attorney who e-mailed me noted. [T]hey are scattered from Florida to Arizona and have nothing to return to.
in related news, both astronomers in New Orlenas have lost their Sun Sparc workstations and several exobyte tapes of infrared data from NGC-2264. Updates as news trickles in...
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Word Verification On
The War begins....
I received a bunch of ad-bot generated comments today, so I turned word verification on. It might slow the bo's down, and I appologize for the inconvienence.
I received a bunch of ad-bot generated comments today, so I turned word verification on. It might slow the bo's down, and I appologize for the inconvienence.
Sigh. Fair is Fair (or A is A,take your pick)
In this case A is for Ass.
Yesterday I picked at Kos for his hyperbolic, over the top assessment of the Katrina damage. Today, the President made the same stupid hyperbole:
"this is a natural disaster the likes of which our country has never seen before ... New Orleans is more devastated than New York was" after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.”
It’s not that I enjoy poking at the President, I passed that phase a long time ago. It’s that I’m so … deeply disappointed in him.
Yesterday I picked at Kos for his hyperbolic, over the top assessment of the Katrina damage. Today, the President made the same stupid hyperbole:
"this is a natural disaster the likes of which our country has never seen before ... New Orleans is more devastated than New York was" after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.”
It’s not that I enjoy poking at the President, I passed that phase a long time ago. It’s that I’m so … deeply disappointed in him.
An Instance of the Fingerpost
"And after you have put Aristotle to your proof? And, no doubt, found him wanting. Then what? Will you submit the monarchy to your investigations? The church, perhaps? Will you presume to put Our Savior himself to your proofs? There lies the danger, sir? Your quest leads to atheism, as it must unless science is held firmly in the hands of those who wish to strengthen the word of God, rather than challenge it."
"Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou?" Isaiah 45:9
Iain Pears, A Question of Precedence, pg. 75
"Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou?" Isaiah 45:9
Iain Pears, A Question of Precedence, pg. 75
Father of Supply Side Economics, Dead at 69
After coining the phrase "supply-side economics" in 1976 as an editor of The Wall Street Journal editorial pages, Wanniski wrote his seminal book The Way The World Works. Named one of the 100 most influential books of the 20th century by the editors of the National Review, the book revealed Wanniski's discovery of the cause of the Crash of 1929. His lucid reporting that the U.S. Senate's floor votes on the Smoot-Hawley tariff legislation coincided day-to-day with the October 1929 financial market collapse was the first persuasive explanation of that pivotal event, and began the rehabilitation of classical economics that Wanniski dubbed "supply-side" to distinguish from the "demand-side" Keynesian and monetarist theories.
I'm not endorsing him, but he did have a strong effect on the economic policy of the country.
I'm not endorsing him, but he did have a strong effect on the economic policy of the country.
Apache Rant
Sorry folks, I said something unkind about Apache the other day.
I meant to add this link.
People ask me if I worry about open source code displacing code made by professionals for hire.
I answer, "no".
The markets value the experiste of professional coders and, by proxy, qa testing, development, source code management in a way I don't see the open source folks every emulating in a robust, long-term sustainable way. We have to pay software engineers well because 95% of software engineering is boring, tedoius and not fun. It's also the reason it works well.
Also, this came out today. I'm not generally a fan of either "bug statistics" or "TCO studies". I liken them to Astrology, Tarot Reading and anything from Accenture becuase they can mean whatever you think they mean. Still, it's nice to see the other side get their head in the can for a long, cool swirly once in a while.
I meant to add this link.
People ask me if I worry about open source code displacing code made by professionals for hire.
I answer, "no".
The markets value the experiste of professional coders and, by proxy, qa testing, development, source code management in a way I don't see the open source folks every emulating in a robust, long-term sustainable way. We have to pay software engineers well because 95% of software engineering is boring, tedoius and not fun. It's also the reason it works well.
Also, this came out today. I'm not generally a fan of either "bug statistics" or "TCO studies". I liken them to Astrology, Tarot Reading and anything from Accenture becuase they can mean whatever you think they mean. Still, it's nice to see the other side get their head in the can for a long, cool swirly once in a while.
Jury Duty Today
I missed Jury Duty last January and now I'm compelled to show up today lest I have problems with my driver's license, fines etc.
Ugh.
I hope at least I get something interesting like the Trial of the Monarch.
Ugh.
I hope at least I get something interesting like the Trial of the Monarch.
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Moving, Shaking
I'm having lunch on September 13th with Mary Matalin and James Carville. Not really interesting in their overall politics, I think they are probably both interesting people and I'm sure there is a lesson here in "learning to live with the other sides obviously flaws in logic and reason".
Should be fun!
Should be fun!
President Surveys Damage
Cheap, but I did laugh out loud:
“It’s devastating,” POTUS said as he watched, according to Scott McClellan. “It’s got to be doubly devastating on the ground.”
Care of Wonkette
“It’s devastating,” POTUS said as he watched, according to Scott McClellan. “It’s got to be doubly devastating on the ground.”
Care of Wonkette
Kos Goes Hyperbolic
Kos goes more than a little overboard today:
This is the greatest disaster to hit our nation in most of our lifetimes. Worse than 9-11. New Orleans is underwater. Biloxi is 90 percent destroyed. Who knows how many dead. Who knows how many homeless. Who knows how many jobless. We have a bona fide refugee crisis on our hands.
Worse than 9/11?? Sorry Kos, you need to get a grip.
He also makes an excellent point about who does and does not have anything to gain here. I might be overly cynical but I don' t think the point he makes is the one he's intending to make.
This is the greatest disaster to hit our nation in most of our lifetimes. Worse than 9-11. New Orleans is underwater. Biloxi is 90 percent destroyed. Who knows how many dead. Who knows how many homeless. Who knows how many jobless. We have a bona fide refugee crisis on our hands.
Worse than 9/11?? Sorry Kos, you need to get a grip.
He also makes an excellent point about who does and does not have anything to gain here. I might be overly cynical but I don' t think the point he makes is the one he's intending to make.
Help with the book
Thanks everyone! I've had more than a couple of offers of help with the page and at least one volunteer to edit. I'm surprised and humbled by the response! Thanks again!
Experimental Evolution
Interesting article on the comparison of recently mapped chimp DNA vs. Human DNA.
Another experimental triumph of evolution.
Creationists continuously push god into the unexplained gaps of the evolutionary sequences, and it is getting to be increasingly tighter fit.
Maybe in a few years, we can the mythology out of the science class room.
Another experimental triumph of evolution.
Creationists continuously push god into the unexplained gaps of the evolutionary sequences, and it is getting to be increasingly tighter fit.
Maybe in a few years, we can the mythology out of the science class room.
Relativity
A Great Paper on the Science Behind Economic Choice
Thanks to Dr. Lori Allen. I've posted it here. Ignore the math.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
No, but I wish I had
From Geoff:
Are you writing the Windows ads now?
in summation: its a guy talking about how he uses his computer to draw underground comics, and his character is a mild-mannered businessman by day, but at night he’s a crime solving mathematician called “The Actuary”, who doesn’t always get his man, but always gets the girl.
Here’s the video
mms://library.soa.org/SOA001003.wmv
No, I didn't write this, but I really wish I had. I love this ad. This might be the first MSFT ad I like since the "I saved a nickel" one we made for Capital Markets.
Are you writing the Windows ads now?
in summation: its a guy talking about how he uses his computer to draw underground comics, and his character is a mild-mannered businessman by day, but at night he’s a crime solving mathematician called “The Actuary”, who doesn’t always get his man, but always gets the girl.
Here’s the video
mms://library.soa.org/SOA001003.wmv
No, I didn't write this, but I really wish I had. I love this ad. This might be the first MSFT ad I like since the "I saved a nickel" one we made for Capital Markets.
Help!
One thing at which I think I'm fairly decent is calling in a professional when I'm in over my head. I spent some time last night working on the first few pages of my "Looking Backwards" project and managed to bang out text for the first 4 or 5 pages (2006-2007). That's all fine.
However, as most of you know, I *stink* at website design. When I tried to get all the text into a web page that looked decent, I *sort of* succeeded. Example here. Not great. It's okay, but when I try to do the next issue, I basically have to do it again from scratch. What I need is a style-sheet or template or something and, frankly, I don't have the time or interst to sit down and dig through a 500 page manual on templates. Fortunately for me, the market has an answer.
Anyone know a good web designer I could rent to put together a template for me?
However, as most of you know, I *stink* at website design. When I tried to get all the text into a web page that looked decent, I *sort of* succeeded. Example here. Not great. It's okay, but when I try to do the next issue, I basically have to do it again from scratch. What I need is a style-sheet or template or something and, frankly, I don't have the time or interst to sit down and dig through a 500 page manual on templates. Fortunately for me, the market has an answer.
Anyone know a good web designer I could rent to put together a template for me?
Setting New Standards in Corrupt Behavior
Wow. Even Clinton didn't go this far and he's been my model for the most corrupt use of the pardon, ever.
Ernie Fletcher (R) Governor of Kentucky, has pardoned everyone except himself in a wide spanning corruption scandal in Frankfort, KY. The state apparently has merit laws which require some level of measured competence for state jobs, which the governor and his staff ignored. Here is a good background/analysis piece.
What's interesting is how this backfires, unless it's the Governor’s intent to get impeached. By removing the threat of prosecution, the defendants can no longer claim the 5th Amendment if they were to be recalled by the AG (since the 5th only applies if the defendant might go to jail if he/she testifies). If the witnesses refuse to testify or lie, the AG can hit them with contempt or perjury charges. It seems likely they will talk in such a circumstance, which cannot be good for the Governor.
Ernie Fletcher (R) Governor of Kentucky, has pardoned everyone except himself in a wide spanning corruption scandal in Frankfort, KY. The state apparently has merit laws which require some level of measured competence for state jobs, which the governor and his staff ignored. Here is a good background/analysis piece.
What's interesting is how this backfires, unless it's the Governor’s intent to get impeached. By removing the threat of prosecution, the defendants can no longer claim the 5th Amendment if they were to be recalled by the AG (since the 5th only applies if the defendant might go to jail if he/she testifies). If the witnesses refuse to testify or lie, the AG can hit them with contempt or perjury charges. It seems likely they will talk in such a circumstance, which cannot be good for the Governor.
Monday, August 29, 2005
Finally working on writing a book
I've always wanted to write a book and I've made a couple of stabs at it over the years. My current, aborted effort is called "10 Rude Things I Learned to Do with my Mouth", which lies 1/3 completed on my hard drive.
Coming back from Columbia on Friday, I had an idea I liked so much, I flipped open the laptop and started writing an outline. I mentally worked out the major plot lines, then started writing a timeline to fill in a few of the missing events. This triggered a period of Focus for me, a time when the entire world vanishes and I'm fully concentrating on whatever I'm doing. When I came out of it, it was 6 hours later, I was at JFK and hadn't slept a wink on my red eye.
At dinner Saturday night with Jim I went over some of the basic story elements, detailed part of the timeline and asked for feedback. He was surprised at how it hung together and encouraged me to write more of it down. Yesterday morning I got up around 8, started writing, looked up a few minutes later and it was 2pm. Drove home from the cape and started writing again last night. I sent a copy of the draft to Geoff and reviewed it with him over the phone. The plot is such that it contains many elements I thought would upset his political sensibilities and figured he'd be a harsh critic. Instead he said he thought the offensive elements were handled in a sensitive way which were required for later events in the plot. This surprised me. I've since sent a copy to one or two trusted friends for review.
So what's the book about? Well, the Future. One of my favorite books in the 90s was a collection of NYT front pages for important dates in history. It was cool for several reasons. One the page where the headline reads "Lindbergh cross Atlantic!" it was a bunch of smaller stories where you can see the economic problems of the 20's and 30's shaping up. Hints if you will about what's coming. Obvious in retrospect, but not at the time. I always thought this would be a great way to study history.
So, that's the form of my book. It's a retrospective of the period from 2006-2156, as seen by the further future. Given my travel schedule and work, I figured I could commit to a page a week in this style and I'll be able to publish each page (or two or three) on my website each week. Each page will be the front page of the New York News, and will document America's history through 150 years of development. I have thought a lot about the future, the rate of change of technology, the course of science, politics, religion and entertainment, and I think this is a good way to express some of those ideas from a higher level than is usually involved in a narrative plot. There are some basic rules:
1) No magical technological breakthroughs. All the science is as real as I can make/understand it. Any scientific or medical advance must flow logically from what has come before.
2) No Deus Ex Machina plot devices. You may not always agree with how I resolve some crises, but it's done through the usual organs of power the state has (or will have as I think there will be some new organs which get developed).
3) Not every article on the front page is Important. In fact, most are not, just like a real paper.
Okay, so what will the plot involve?
Some hints (not in chronological order):
The political world though 2020 involves many of the usual suspects.
At some point, a major world power which is not the US, lands on the Moon.
Life extension technology is developed, but has some surprising consequences
Congress becomes a tri-cameral legislative body with the addition of the Corporate Senate.
Climate change becomes an important topic
America fights another Civil War.
The Fatima Prophecy happens.
A method of cheap access to orbit is developed
A major country manages to send and return a probe to several nearby stars.
Several major churches split off new, different churches
The US loses a major city to a nuclear terrorist
A kind of "digital telepathy" is invented and allows people to see what others are thinking.
A man wins the lottery and claims he sent the winning numbers to himself from the future
The Russians die off
A president is assassinated.
Clarence Thomas becomes the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
An asteroid is due to hit the Earth in October of 2028...
and a lot, lot more.
Coming back from Columbia on Friday, I had an idea I liked so much, I flipped open the laptop and started writing an outline. I mentally worked out the major plot lines, then started writing a timeline to fill in a few of the missing events. This triggered a period of Focus for me, a time when the entire world vanishes and I'm fully concentrating on whatever I'm doing. When I came out of it, it was 6 hours later, I was at JFK and hadn't slept a wink on my red eye.
At dinner Saturday night with Jim I went over some of the basic story elements, detailed part of the timeline and asked for feedback. He was surprised at how it hung together and encouraged me to write more of it down. Yesterday morning I got up around 8, started writing, looked up a few minutes later and it was 2pm. Drove home from the cape and started writing again last night. I sent a copy of the draft to Geoff and reviewed it with him over the phone. The plot is such that it contains many elements I thought would upset his political sensibilities and figured he'd be a harsh critic. Instead he said he thought the offensive elements were handled in a sensitive way which were required for later events in the plot. This surprised me. I've since sent a copy to one or two trusted friends for review.
So what's the book about? Well, the Future. One of my favorite books in the 90s was a collection of NYT front pages for important dates in history. It was cool for several reasons. One the page where the headline reads "Lindbergh cross Atlantic!" it was a bunch of smaller stories where you can see the economic problems of the 20's and 30's shaping up. Hints if you will about what's coming. Obvious in retrospect, but not at the time. I always thought this would be a great way to study history.
So, that's the form of my book. It's a retrospective of the period from 2006-2156, as seen by the further future. Given my travel schedule and work, I figured I could commit to a page a week in this style and I'll be able to publish each page (or two or three) on my website each week. Each page will be the front page of the New York News, and will document America's history through 150 years of development. I have thought a lot about the future, the rate of change of technology, the course of science, politics, religion and entertainment, and I think this is a good way to express some of those ideas from a higher level than is usually involved in a narrative plot. There are some basic rules:
1) No magical technological breakthroughs. All the science is as real as I can make/understand it. Any scientific or medical advance must flow logically from what has come before.
2) No Deus Ex Machina plot devices. You may not always agree with how I resolve some crises, but it's done through the usual organs of power the state has (or will have as I think there will be some new organs which get developed).
3) Not every article on the front page is Important. In fact, most are not, just like a real paper.
Okay, so what will the plot involve?
Some hints (not in chronological order):
The political world though 2020 involves many of the usual suspects.
At some point, a major world power which is not the US, lands on the Moon.
Life extension technology is developed, but has some surprising consequences
Congress becomes a tri-cameral legislative body with the addition of the Corporate Senate.
Climate change becomes an important topic
America fights another Civil War.
The Fatima Prophecy happens.
A method of cheap access to orbit is developed
A major country manages to send and return a probe to several nearby stars.
Several major churches split off new, different churches
The US loses a major city to a nuclear terrorist
A kind of "digital telepathy" is invented and allows people to see what others are thinking.
A man wins the lottery and claims he sent the winning numbers to himself from the future
The Russians die off
A president is assassinated.
Clarence Thomas becomes the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
An asteroid is due to hit the Earth in October of 2028...
and a lot, lot more.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Where the hell is Horvath?
The next six weeks. Not So Good
August 25-27 :Cartagena, Columbia
August 28-29: Boston
August 30-31: Detroit
September 1-2 Boston
September 3-9 Copenhagen, Denmark
September 10-11 Cape Cod
September 12-15 New York
September 16-17 Boston
September 18-21 London, UK
September 22-25 Boston
September 26 -> Redmond(Ballmer)
October 1 -> Move to Corporate Housing.
I'm thinking I might move to corporate housing on the 15th of October instead of the first. I still need to pack my delicates!
August 25-27 :Cartagena, Columbia
August 28-29: Boston
August 30-31: Detroit
September 1-2 Boston
September 3-9 Copenhagen, Denmark
September 10-11 Cape Cod
September 12-15 New York
September 16-17 Boston
September 18-21 London, UK
September 22-25 Boston
September 26 -> Redmond(Ballmer)
October 1 -> Move to Corporate Housing.
I'm thinking I might move to corporate housing on the 15th of October instead of the first. I still need to pack my delicates!
The Road to Cartagena
I'm off to Cartagena tomorrow at 4am and, it should be noted for the record, I'm doing it over Jim's express objections. Jim is not the kind of person to object to this kind of thing lightly and I had to pause for a few minutes when he said, "you look terrible". At the height of the brain worms, when I could bearly string a noun and verb together and forgot to bathe for 3 days he said I was "fine". I almost cancelled but:
1) I am no longer contagious
2) I feel better than I did this morning
3) no new infections have opened
4) some of the open ones are no longer oozing puss
5) I promised my colleagues I would do this.
conclusion: I am still on this hook for this. The goal line for this is low. At a minimum I need to do a 30 minute presentation I have done before. If I meet the chairman of the central bank for dinner tomorrow, it's bonus. Breakfast with Banco Azteca? Double bonus! Other meeting, double, secret bonus! If I truly feel ill, I will cancel everything but the talk, however I really think the zithromax is kicking in and should be fine.
What could go wrong?
1) I am no longer contagious
2) I feel better than I did this morning
3) no new infections have opened
4) some of the open ones are no longer oozing puss
5) I promised my colleagues I would do this.
conclusion: I am still on this hook for this. The goal line for this is low. At a minimum I need to do a 30 minute presentation I have done before. If I meet the chairman of the central bank for dinner tomorrow, it's bonus. Breakfast with Banco Azteca? Double bonus! Other meeting, double, secret bonus! If I truly feel ill, I will cancel everything but the talk, however I really think the zithromax is kicking in and should be fine.
What could go wrong?
Gritty Reality
The Impetigo problem is not going well. A bunch of new spots hung out their shingles and are open for the business of misery last night. My face looks red, greasy (from the ointments) and is covered in a fine, gritty sandlike substance that lends a "day at the beach" quality to my day.
Tomorrow at 4am I need to get up and get on a plane for Cartagena. The good news is, I'm not contageous any more. The bad news is, well, 12 hours on a plane.
Ugh.
Tomorrow at 4am I need to get up and get on a plane for Cartagena. The good news is, I'm not contageous any more. The bad news is, well, 12 hours on a plane.
Ugh.
Philadelphia Random Walk
Wherein it's revealed that Geoff's mother is, in fact, an actual mother:
Geoff:Things that used to terrify me now are nothing. The other day I went for a walk at about 1130pm and just walked around downtown and came back about 130am. Not really having anywhere to go, but just wanting to get out of the room for awhile. I walk through whatever Penn calls that park that borders Walnut st late at night too, usually after a movie or getting ice cream with friends. Just for fun I went from my place, to 42nd St, down a few blocks and back, again just to get out. Its pretty nice down there, mostly because its UPenns campus and they can afford to take care of things, but it also borders West Philly which isnt such a nice place in the daytime.
Becky: Ok... let me understand this..... You INTENTIONALLY go out at night to places that aren't "exactly" on my list of Places You May Go in Philadelphia?!?!?!?!? Son, is this like the "Well, I jumped out of the moving car and I didn't get hurt so I'll try a moving train next time" approach to life or what??? You want your mom to have stomach ulcers and gray hair??? I'm very glad that you are adjusting to Philadelphia life, but you gotta remember the rules....
1. ALWAYS cross with the little blinky guy. No matter what. 2. And walk in groups of 20. (It used to be
2, but like gasoline prices, everything is going up). Note that you do NOT need to hold hands crossing the street anymore, it tends to get you beat up.
3. Don't look like a tourist. (Learned this one from years in NY with your Aunt Debbie)
4. Always change your underwear......
Geoff:Things that used to terrify me now are nothing. The other day I went for a walk at about 1130pm and just walked around downtown and came back about 130am. Not really having anywhere to go, but just wanting to get out of the room for awhile. I walk through whatever Penn calls that park that borders Walnut st late at night too, usually after a movie or getting ice cream with friends. Just for fun I went from my place, to 42nd St, down a few blocks and back, again just to get out. Its pretty nice down there, mostly because its UPenns campus and they can afford to take care of things, but it also borders West Philly which isnt such a nice place in the daytime.
Becky: Ok... let me understand this..... You INTENTIONALLY go out at night to places that aren't "exactly" on my list of Places You May Go in Philadelphia?!?!?!?!? Son, is this like the "Well, I jumped out of the moving car and I didn't get hurt so I'll try a moving train next time" approach to life or what??? You want your mom to have stomach ulcers and gray hair??? I'm very glad that you are adjusting to Philadelphia life, but you gotta remember the rules....
1. ALWAYS cross with the little blinky guy. No matter what. 2. And walk in groups of 20. (It used to be
2, but like gasoline prices, everything is going up). Note that you do NOT need to hold hands crossing the street anymore, it tends to get you beat up.
3. Don't look like a tourist. (Learned this one from years in NY with your Aunt Debbie)
4. Always change your underwear......
Gift Giving Season
This is an excellent blog on quirky, unusual items for purchase. It's definately made my Christmas shopping easier this year.
For example, I can get TJIC out of the way now! And maybe Geoff.
For example, I can get TJIC out of the way now! And maybe Geoff.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
In Praise of Atheism
Last post before I head to bed (and hopefully the healing embrace of Zithromax). I found something I want read at my funeral:
For nearly as long as there have been villages, there have been village atheists, the hypervigilant debunkers who lovingly detail the many contradictions, fallacies, and absurdities that flow from belief in holy writ. As a strictly intellectual proposition, atheism would seem, on the face of things, to have wiped the floor with the believing opposition.
Still, village atheists are as numerous, and as shrill, as they’ve ever been, for the simple reason that the successive revolutions in thought that have furthered their cause—the Enlightenment and Darwinism—have been popular busts. As the secular mind loses mass allegiance, it becomes skittish and reclusive, succumbing to the seductive fancy that its special brand of wisdom is too nuanced, too unblinkingly harsh for the weak-minded Christer, ultraorthodox scold, or wooly pagan.
The faithful, meanwhile, take some understandable offense at this broad caricature of their mental capacity and ability to face life’s harder truths. So each side retreats to its corner, more convinced than ever that the other is trafficking in pure, self-infatuated delusion for the basest of reasons: Believers accuse skeptics and unbelievers of thoughtless hedonism and nihilism; the secular set accuses the believoisie of superstition and antiscientific senselessness.
For nearly as long as there have been villages, there have been village atheists, the hypervigilant debunkers who lovingly detail the many contradictions, fallacies, and absurdities that flow from belief in holy writ. As a strictly intellectual proposition, atheism would seem, on the face of things, to have wiped the floor with the believing opposition.
Still, village atheists are as numerous, and as shrill, as they’ve ever been, for the simple reason that the successive revolutions in thought that have furthered their cause—the Enlightenment and Darwinism—have been popular busts. As the secular mind loses mass allegiance, it becomes skittish and reclusive, succumbing to the seductive fancy that its special brand of wisdom is too nuanced, too unblinkingly harsh for the weak-minded Christer, ultraorthodox scold, or wooly pagan.
The faithful, meanwhile, take some understandable offense at this broad caricature of their mental capacity and ability to face life’s harder truths. So each side retreats to its corner, more convinced than ever that the other is trafficking in pure, self-infatuated delusion for the basest of reasons: Believers accuse skeptics and unbelievers of thoughtless hedonism and nihilism; the secular set accuses the believoisie of superstition and antiscientific senselessness.
Finally, I have an Opinion
Alert the media!
Seriously, I have not really had an opinion on the Judith Miller case but, if true, this forces my hand. Surprisingly I come out against the government. Reason Magazine has the scoop.
Testimonial privileges require a court to weigh the government's evidence as to why they need her testimony. Yet Judith Miller was tried, convicted and sentenced to prison based exclusively upon written evidence from witnesses whose identities and testimony were kept secret from her and her lawyers. They were given no opportunity to defend her against, question, or rebut the secret evidence the courts relied upon exclusively in convicting her. Indeed, a full eight pages of the D.C. Court of Appeals decision discussing and analyzing this secret evidence was redacted from the published opinion.
Judith Miler is unique, the first American ever to be sent to jail based on facts she never saw and a federal appellate opinion she was not permitted to read. She won't be the last. Make no mistake: This will happen again and again whenever a case involves "national security,""the war on terror," or any combination thereof. This is too big a weapon for the executive branch to ignore, especially since it was fashioned by the most prestigious of the U.S. Courts of Appeals and approved by the Supreme Court. Let's face it. If they can do it to a reporter for The New York Times, they sure as hell can do it to anyone else.
Okay, I now think Judith Miller should go free. Any trial that involves secret witnesses isn't actually a trial.
I'm starting to get the sense that, generations from now, people will be looking at our current governement in the same way we now look at the Italian governement of the 30's and 40's. A warning which is best heeded sooner rather than later.
Seriously, I have not really had an opinion on the Judith Miller case but, if true, this forces my hand. Surprisingly I come out against the government. Reason Magazine has the scoop.
Testimonial privileges require a court to weigh the government's evidence as to why they need her testimony. Yet Judith Miller was tried, convicted and sentenced to prison based exclusively upon written evidence from witnesses whose identities and testimony were kept secret from her and her lawyers. They were given no opportunity to defend her against, question, or rebut the secret evidence the courts relied upon exclusively in convicting her. Indeed, a full eight pages of the D.C. Court of Appeals decision discussing and analyzing this secret evidence was redacted from the published opinion.
Judith Miler is unique, the first American ever to be sent to jail based on facts she never saw and a federal appellate opinion she was not permitted to read. She won't be the last. Make no mistake: This will happen again and again whenever a case involves "national security,""the war on terror," or any combination thereof. This is too big a weapon for the executive branch to ignore, especially since it was fashioned by the most prestigious of the U.S. Courts of Appeals and approved by the Supreme Court. Let's face it. If they can do it to a reporter for The New York Times, they sure as hell can do it to anyone else.
Okay, I now think Judith Miller should go free. Any trial that involves secret witnesses isn't actually a trial.
I'm starting to get the sense that, generations from now, people will be looking at our current governement in the same way we now look at the Italian governement of the 30's and 40's. A warning which is best heeded sooner rather than later.
Department of Why Didn't I Think of That
I need to get me some of these.
Bill Moyer, 73, wears a "Bullshit Protector" flap over his ear while President George W. Bush addresses the Veterans of Foreign Wars. (AP Photo/Douglas C. Pizac)
I know the First Amendment recognizes my freedom of speech, but does it recognize my freedom from speech?
Impetigo
Yesterday I woke up with a little scratch on my face. It was a little tichy, and it seemed like it was in one or two small area. I scratched a little, but not too much and thought it was a strange little rash.
Today it was all over the side of my face and kept oozing a clear fluid, which then crusted to form a honey-like substance. Not good.
So, I called a professional thia morning, went and saw him and got a diagnosis. "You've got Impetigo, it's a type of staph infection." Eek! "Good thing you came in. Staph infections do awful things to diabetics".
Result: cream and Zithromax (the pills they usually give me when I need a root canal or pneumonia)
Worse news: it won't effect my trip to Columbia on Thursday. Damn!
Today it was all over the side of my face and kept oozing a clear fluid, which then crusted to form a honey-like substance. Not good.
So, I called a professional thia morning, went and saw him and got a diagnosis. "You've got Impetigo, it's a type of staph infection." Eek! "Good thing you came in. Staph infections do awful things to diabetics".
Result: cream and Zithromax (the pills they usually give me when I need a root canal or pneumonia)
Worse news: it won't effect my trip to Columbia on Thursday. Damn!
Supporting the Troops
Agent X: I have *so* had a successful plan
Mark: Name one
Agent X: What about my plan to send movies to the troops overseas?
Mark: That's not so much a plan as it is piracy
Agent X: Well, a) it's not piracy and b)... yes.
...
Mark: Name one
Agent X: What about my plan to send movies to the troops overseas?
Mark: That's not so much a plan as it is piracy
Agent X: Well, a) it's not piracy and b)... yes.
...
EMH: Mathematical History
This is excellent, go read it. It's now on my list of "Things You Need to have Read Before you talk to me about Economics"
Christianity is a Religion of Love
(refrain) Christianity is a Religion of Love
repeat until exhaustion.
OTOH,
Robertson urges U.S. to kill Chavez
VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. -- Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson called Monday for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, labeling him a "terrific danger" to the United States.Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former presidential candidate, said on "The 700 Club" that the U.S. must not let Chavez make Venezuela a "launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."
Chavez has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of President Bush, accusing the U.S. of conspiring to topple his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. U.S. officials have called the accusations ridiculous."You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."
Venezuela is a major supplier of oil to the United States.
Robertson said the U.S. failed to act when Chavez was briefly overthrown in 2002, and added:"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."
Attempts to reach a Robertson spokeswoman were unsuccessful Monday evening.
Those wacky Christians. When dialouge doesn't work, lets just murder our opponents.
repeat until exhaustion.
OTOH,
Robertson urges U.S. to kill Chavez
VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. -- Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson called Monday for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, labeling him a "terrific danger" to the United States.Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former presidential candidate, said on "The 700 Club" that the U.S. must not let Chavez make Venezuela a "launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."
Chavez has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of President Bush, accusing the U.S. of conspiring to topple his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. U.S. officials have called the accusations ridiculous."You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."
Venezuela is a major supplier of oil to the United States.
Robertson said the U.S. failed to act when Chavez was briefly overthrown in 2002, and added:"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."
Attempts to reach a Robertson spokeswoman were unsuccessful Monday evening.
Those wacky Christians. When dialouge doesn't work, lets just murder our opponents.
Iraq Constitution Draft online
This is what we went to war for???
1. Islam is a main source for legislation.
-- a. No law may contradict Islamic standards.
-- b. No law may contradict democratic standards.
-- c. No law may contradict the essential rights and freedoms mentioned in this constitution.
2. This constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the Iraqi people and guarantees all religious rights; all persons are free within their ideology and the practice of their ideological practices.
3. Iraq is part of the Islamic world, and the Arabs are part of the Arab nation.
This is big trouble. I'm no fan of the war, but Jesus McFuck, don't pull out until this nonsense gets fixed. If we leave with this as our last word, we'll regret it for generations. We will have created a fully-compliant, wholly owned subsidiary of Iran.
1. Islam is a main source for legislation.
-- a. No law may contradict Islamic standards.
-- b. No law may contradict democratic standards.
-- c. No law may contradict the essential rights and freedoms mentioned in this constitution.
2. This constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the Iraqi people and guarantees all religious rights; all persons are free within their ideology and the practice of their ideological practices.
3. Iraq is part of the Islamic world, and the Arabs are part of the Arab nation.
This is big trouble. I'm no fan of the war, but Jesus McFuck, don't pull out until this nonsense gets fixed. If we leave with this as our last word, we'll regret it for generations. We will have created a fully-compliant, wholly owned subsidiary of Iran.
Andrew Sullivan
I finally got to meet AS last weekend in p-town. He had to be pointed out to me at Spiritus as a) he didn't quite look like what I was expecting and b) he was 3 sheets to the wind (and enjoying himself immensely). We did not talk about politics.
I mention this only becuase, on his site today, is the other half of the story:
Monday, August 22, 2005
APOLOGIES: The wonderful idea of celebrating my last weekend of bloggatical got, well, a little out of hand the last two nights, and I'm a little too hung over today to write anything too coherent. Sorry. I don't know why I leave the big blow-out to the last two days of a vacation but ... there you are. See you in the morning ... fresh as a wilted daisy.
I mention this only becuase, on his site today, is the other half of the story:
Monday, August 22, 2005
APOLOGIES: The wonderful idea of celebrating my last weekend of bloggatical got, well, a little out of hand the last two nights, and I'm a little too hung over today to write anything too coherent. Sorry. I don't know why I leave the big blow-out to the last two days of a vacation but ... there you are. See you in the morning ... fresh as a wilted daisy.
Nuclear Arms
On a more serious topic:
Before the Iraq invasion in 2003, I had conversations with pro-war folks, notably Travis and Geoff, about the possibility that Iraq had nuclear weapons. I went on record as saying I thought there was zero chance, largely because I've talked to a number of Iraqi scientists and weapons inspectors and they all said the same thing, i.e. they were faking progress on weapons to keep Saddam happy and their families alive. Very similar to what Hiezenburg did during WWII. I believed them. The pro-war crowd implied they were lying to us not Saddam and "do you really want to take that risk". I did, but we didn't.
2 years later: there were no nuclear WMD, Iraqi scientists were faking results.
New prediction:
From the NYT today:
EARLIER this month Bush administration officials leaked to the press what they said was a new official estimate of when Iran might be able to build a nuclear weapon. Speaking anonymously, they told reporters that American intelligence agencies now believe it would take at least 6 and maybe as many as 10 years before that fateful day arrives.
I don't buy this for the same reasons I didn't buy the Iraqi story. Building a bomb isn't that hard and enriching the uranium, while tedious, isn’t' that hard either. Also, the Iranian students/scientists I knew were all working hard, getting good grades and had every intention of going back to Iran and building weapons. Hell, there were 2 Iranians in my nuclear weapons design class at Penn State in 1985. They got A's. The scientists I talked to in 2001 were sober, serious, and seemed to think they were going to need nukes soon.
Personally, I think they already have some and are not far from building arbitrary quantities of more.
My concern now is that the army is stretched thin, exhausted from the Iraq war, and the american appitite for taking war to other countries is gone. I think Iran thinks we are too wasted from this to go after them, and they now have a free pass. Our credibility with the rest of the world on this issue is for shit. Far from detering Iran, I think the Iraq War has emboldened them.
Before the Iraq invasion in 2003, I had conversations with pro-war folks, notably Travis and Geoff, about the possibility that Iraq had nuclear weapons. I went on record as saying I thought there was zero chance, largely because I've talked to a number of Iraqi scientists and weapons inspectors and they all said the same thing, i.e. they were faking progress on weapons to keep Saddam happy and their families alive. Very similar to what Hiezenburg did during WWII. I believed them. The pro-war crowd implied they were lying to us not Saddam and "do you really want to take that risk". I did, but we didn't.
2 years later: there were no nuclear WMD, Iraqi scientists were faking results.
New prediction:
From the NYT today:
EARLIER this month Bush administration officials leaked to the press what they said was a new official estimate of when Iran might be able to build a nuclear weapon. Speaking anonymously, they told reporters that American intelligence agencies now believe it would take at least 6 and maybe as many as 10 years before that fateful day arrives.
I don't buy this for the same reasons I didn't buy the Iraqi story. Building a bomb isn't that hard and enriching the uranium, while tedious, isn’t' that hard either. Also, the Iranian students/scientists I knew were all working hard, getting good grades and had every intention of going back to Iran and building weapons. Hell, there were 2 Iranians in my nuclear weapons design class at Penn State in 1985. They got A's. The scientists I talked to in 2001 were sober, serious, and seemed to think they were going to need nukes soon.
Personally, I think they already have some and are not far from building arbitrary quantities of more.
My concern now is that the army is stretched thin, exhausted from the Iraq war, and the american appitite for taking war to other countries is gone. I think Iran thinks we are too wasted from this to go after them, and they now have a free pass. Our credibility with the rest of the world on this issue is for shit. Far from detering Iran, I think the Iraq War has emboldened them.
Confession Update
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.
not even, oddly enough, Satanism.
weird.
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)