That Rascal Rove!

Apparently (according to all the president's men that is), Karl Rove, the jovial White House assistant chief of staff, has done no wrong in the Valerie Plame case.

The reasoning? He didn't mention her by name! What he seems to have told several reporters is that the wife of former U.S. diplomat Joseph C. Wilson IV was the CIA undercover agent who got him sent to Niger to check out the yellowcake uranium story.

Imagine his shock that anyone could figure out who he was talking about from such sparse information! It's also being said that, while he might have mentioned all this in passing, it may have been another person who leaked the story. In other words, while Karl tried like hell to leak the story, he might not have succeeded before another source managed the trick.

I think pretty soon we'll see that he in fact is completely innocent.
In the same sense that Henry (will no one rid me of this troublesome priest) II was innocent of the murder of Thomas Beckett. In modern terms, "Plausible Deniability". The Bush White House is big on deniability. Or is it just big on denial?
When Sherman Adams was found out (he was flat out selling access to President Eisenhower; hey, it was a simpler time), Ike fired him without comment, without fuss. I would urge the same for this president, except that I like to watch the hullaballoo. Remember this? I will restore honor to the White House; G. W. Bush, 2000.

Whilst We Fight This Heroic War...

It might be good to remember that not everybody enjoys the combat as much as the President and his warhawks seem to. Heres the original of the rousing Revolutionary War marching song that the President seems to be marching to. With, of course, God On His Side...

"With a peculiarly American style of optimism, the tune of Johnny I Hardly Knew Ye was played at a quicker tempo, and the words changed to portray the homecoming that every soldier and his loved ones would like to experience: When Johnny Comes Marching home Again, hale, hearty, and victorious, honored by the entire population of his hometown. Ah, if only 'twere always so!" Quoted from:

Songbook

You can listen to the tune here

Johnny I Hardly Knew Ye

While goin' the road to sweet Athy, hurroo, hurroo
While goin' the road to sweet Athy, hurroo, hurroo
While goin' the road to sweet Athy
A stick in me hand and a drop in me eye
A doleful damsel I heard cry,
Johnny I hardly knew ye.With your drums and guns and drums and guns, hurroo, hurroo
With your drums and guns and drums and guns, hurroo, hurroo
With your drums and guns and drums and guns
The enemy nearly slew ye,
Oh my darling dear, Ye look so queer,
Oh Johnny, I hardly knew ye.
Where are your eyes that were so mild, hurroo, hurroo
Where are your eyes that were so mild, hurroo, hurroo
Where are your eyes that were so mild
When my heart you so beguiled,
Why did ye run from me and the child?
Oh Johnny, I hardly knew ye.
Where are your legs that used to run, hurroo, hurroo
Where are your legs that used to run, hurroo, hurroo
Where are your legs that used to run
When you went for to carry a gun?
Indeed your dancing days are done,
Oh Johnny, I hardly knew ye.
I'm happy for to see ye home, hurroo, hurroo
I'm happy for to see ye home, hurroo, hurroo
I'm happy for to see ye home
All from the island of Sulloon,
So low in flesh, so high in bone,
Oh Johnny, I hardly knew ye.
Ye haven't an arm, ye haven't a leg, hurroo, hurroo
Ye haven't an arm, ye haven't a leg, hurroo, hurroo
Ye haven't an arm, ye haven't a leg
Ye're a helpless shell of a man on a peg,
Ye'll have to put with a bowl out to beg,
Oh Johnny, I hardly knew ye.
They're rolling out the guns again, hurroo, hurroo
They're rolling out the guns again, hurroo, hurroo
They're rolling out the guns again
But they never will take our sons again,
No they never will take our sons again,
Johnny I'm swearing to ye.

Those Terrorists ~ Them!

When bombs go off in London, it's a terrorist attack.


When bombs go off in Baghdad, it's us defending ourselves against the evildoers.

Don't mistake me; I am very well aware that the methods used by al Quaeda and its fellow travellers are intended to harm and kill innocent (well, uninvolved) civilians. Our interest is to harm and kill armed opponents. The uninvolved civilians we kill are just the unfortunate "collateral damage" any war creates.
Do you believe the people in Iraq understand that difference? Or the people in the middleast who get their news from al Jazeera? I think what they see is people who look and sound like them attacking people who look and sound different and who invaded and are occupying their country. I think that most Americans would probably side with American "insurgents" who would take up arms against an invading and occupying foreign army. Except possibly people like Dick "Other Priorities" Cheney and likeminded archcons, or neocolonialists.
I was watching Newshour a little while ago. At the end of each newscast they spend a few moments in silence while showing photos of the American servicepeople killed that day in Iraq and Afghanistan (remember Afghanistan?). I was struck by the sense I felt of how my country had betrayed the trust of those dead soldiers. The way we cynically and unjustifiably sent them to Iraq to pursue an unjust cause. A cause, furthermore, that cannot succeed. I recall a recent presidential candidate, whose name I believe was George W. Bush, who pledged not to engage in "nation building". I wonder how things would have gone had he been the one appointed to the presidency?

Has The War Ended?

I read a lot of newspapers, and I watch a lot of TeeVee news. God only knows why, I suppose it's an addiction. In my recent channelsurfing, I've noticed that Fox News (an interesting conflation of words indeed) is reporting well-nigh nonstop on the overwhelmingly important events in Aruba (BBC Report)
I think what they say is true; if a missing person report gets a lot of news coverage, odds-on the missing person is young, blonde, and pretty.

Others, sorry, just not newsworthy!
Iraq has fallen, so to speak, off the map. To listen to and decide, based on FNN reporting, would be to conclude that the war in Iraq is over. I presume we won. However, looking around on the web, or in the (back pages) of the newspapers, I find that US military people are dying in Iraq at a higher rate than ever before, and that Iraqis are certainly doing the same (Yahoo News). I suppose all this increased destruction has to do with the increasing numbers of Operations taking place in that poor benighted country. If we keep operating on Iraq at this rate, pretty soon the patient is likely to expire completely.
One wonders; after thumping the drums for the war for so long, has Fox News decided to declare victory and go home? Or are they simply hoping it will go away if they stop reporting it? Sort of a solipsist view that seems to be pretty much inline with their normal operation.
In another cute story, House whip Tom (The Hammer)DeLay defended Karl Rove's pugnacious comments about spineless liberals. And I suppose it helped, considering that no one in recent history has been able to state things as competely incredibly astoundingly as Tom DeLay (with the possible exception of Anne Coulter of course).
Still, being defended by Mr. DeLay

Kansas City Star

seems to me a bit like being kissed by Don Corleone.
I am personally enjoying it all.
Except for the senseless stupidity of the war(s).
Parenthetically, I have to say that when George (W.) Bush set out to restore the luster of his father George (H.W.) Bush's legacy, I didn't believe it possible. But he has certainly succeeded at that! His father's incumbency now seems like a veritable golden age, compared to his son's.

What Last Throes?

The vice president, Dick Cheney, in spite of evidence, in spite of the testimony of his own military commanders

Top Commander Says Insurgency Still Strong

continues to insist that the Iraqi insurgency is "on its last legs", "in its last throes", "there is no guerilla war".

Its kind of reminiscent of

William Buckley
in the time of Vietnam, who for years cited the evidence of

Captured Enemy Documents

to claim that the VC (Viet Cong, for the young among you) were in their last throes. It seemed unlikely at the time, and history has shown it to be wrong at the time. In fact, the successor to the leader of the VC was just in Washington DC, meeting with the President. Something I don't believe Bill Buckley has managed lately.
The last time Buckley's column cited the captured enemy documents, his column was followed (in the Los Angeles Times, anyway) by one of my all time favorite columns by Art Buchwald. In Buchwalds column, he interviewed the manager of North Vietnams Captured Enemy Document Factory Number 1. The poor manager was in a terrible state. It seems the demand for Captured Enemy Documents was surging, as more and more US officials and newsmen wanted them, while at the same time the US military kept bombing his factory and shutting down production. He was talking to Buchwald in hopes of getting him to intervene with the military so that they'd stop bombing his factory, which had by that time assumed a critical function for North Vietnam, as their primary source of foreign money and was also critical for the US, as providing propaganda cover to keep the war going.
I think it was too much for Buckley, and he went on to other things, like going sailing.
A good thing, in my opinion.
Perhaps Dick Cheney has been reading some of those old Captured Enemy Documents. Or, since we have progressed a great deal since the 1970's, we are getting our information directly from Captured Enemies themselves. Note: We do not torture them; we aren't like that, we don't do that, and if we do, they deserve it anyway.

Abu Graib - Model of American Military Justice
Its more important to believe everything your President tells you than the evidence in this picture, no?

Tom Friedman's Visionary Car

Tom Friedman, the Pulitzer-winning columnist for the New York Times, is one of my favorite reads. He is articulate, knowledgeable, and literate. Qualities I think not sufficently prized in these times. He is however, perhaps not entirely numerate. Here he talks about a visionary automobile which will save us from energy dependence:

Tom Friedman's 500MPG Option

I think Thomas has been shopping in the Something-For-Nothing aisle of the supermarket.
Like most, I am not one to let facts get in my way, but the facts here are a little too large to ignore.
. Electricity Generation (US): 3,870 gigawatt/year
. Power to move a car 1 mile: 2 KW (highly approximate)
. Oil Consumption (US): 20 million barrels/day
. Gasoline Consumption (US): 12.5 billion gallons/year
. Theoretical yield of ethanol from corn: 120 gallons/ton
. Water required to process biomass: 25 gallons H2O/ gallon C2H5OH
Thus;
1. To charge 100 million cars that have travelled an average of 20 miles would place a load on the electric grid of 4 gigawatt/day, 1400 odd GW/year. To put it poetically, What Is The Sound of 100,000,000 Cars Plugging Into The Grid? Answer; The Sound Of Silence (as every circut breaker in the country flips).
2. To replace eighty percent of the gasoline currently consumed with ethanol would require us to produce 10 billion gallons of ethanol (assuming ethanol produced the same energy per gallon as gasoline, which it doesn't; it produces about 2/3 the energy) would require 80 million tons of thirsty corn which would take 30 milion acres to grow along with some amount of irrigation water which I didn't look up. After harvest, shipment, delivery; generating ethanol from the corn would require 250 billion gallons of water! Most of this water can be reclaimed, but it would take some amount of energy to purify it, in addition to the energy required to process the corn to begin with.
In fairness to Thomas, and everyone who spotted my primary assumption here; ethanol can be made from any biomass. It Thailand, there's a village school that's generating cooking gas (CNG) from elephant ummm, byproduct. Two elephants can supply a village of 200 people! Mixed paper, a common recyclable, can produce about 90% as much ethanol/ton as corn.
Still, looking at the numbers (found in these locations):

World Resource Institute database

a report on ethanol Pproduction

I think Thomas should stick to Iraq. He's wrong there too, when he talks about a way to "do it right", because there is no way for us to impose rightness (whatever that means) on that country, but it is his area of expertise.

Just Wandering/Wondering

I was doing some driving around the state (California) yesterday. Now, California is historically mostly part of Mexico. In school the children are taught about Fr. Junipero Serra, the priest who brought civilization to the primitive indians of the state. The schools don't actually mention the methods used in the civilization process, but the record is there. All that aside, one result of the original exploration is that most place names are religion-based. We have cities such as: San Bernardino ~ Saint Bernard; Santa Monica ~ Saint Monica; San Jose ~ Saint Joseph; Santa Barbara ~ Saint Barbara; San Francisco ~ Saint Francis; Santa Teresa ~ Saint Teresa; San Juan ~ Saint John; Santa Clara ~ Saint Clare.
A lot of Saints!

Recalling this caused me to wonder. If women can be saints, why can't women be priests?
One person I asked said it was because saints were all dead, so it was safe to include women. Surely, though, that cannot be. A fundamental tenet of the Church is that we all get to have life eternal, albeit in a condition I personally would not care to have to endure. So, again, Why Can't A Woman Be A Priest?
Just wondering.

The Downing Street Memo Oh My!

You know, I spent a considerable number of years trying to find a cure for reality. I never succeeded. I think though that George W. Bush must have found the answer. One thing is certain - If he's aware of reality, he sure doesn't base his actions on it!
Perhaps if I try a little harder, I, too, can succeed in banishing old reality from my life.
The latest citation from Chairman W.

"There's nothing farther from the truth," Bush told reporters as Blair stood at his side. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," Bush said in response to a question about the memo. "It was our last option." Reuters, June 8 2005.
There are so many things wrong with this sentence it's hard to know where to start. I think George is hoping the more literate portion of the audience will be distracted by the infelicity (to put it mildly) of the grammar. I personally noticed the bald-facedness of the claim. Sometime in January of 2002 I noted that the war was "on", and that while the president was claiming then as now that "War is our last option", it was also his first and his only option. As was pretty clear to the million people marching in opposition to the fantastically idiotic idea that we'd be a welcome invader in Baghdad.
Now there's nothing farther from the truth than that!

We all need an Eskimo sometimes

Back in '96 (that's 1996, not 18.. or 17.. or..) I was having a tough time. I was working as a fisherman that year, not exactly getting rich. I'd headed offshore to go for Albacore, on my nice new (1960 vintage) boat, Seabreeze

Somewhere (well, I can look up the exact co-ordinates; I wasn't 'lost at sea', really) about 800 miles west of Eureka I caught an old floating hawser in my prop, blew out my engine. Not much I could do out there, except spend a lot of time checking my bilge pumps, putting out distress calls, the usual thing for anyone floating around the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
After what seemed forever, but was actually just four days, I caught a lucky bounce off the ionosphere, and got hold of US Coast Guard Station Brookings. It took a few more days, but a Coast Guard ship finally got to me, about the time the weather was getting really iffy. They took me in tow, and in a few more days I wound up tied to an abandoned fishbuyers dock in Eureka California. Having had little-to-no sleep for weeks, I pretty much collapsed. Spent about 15 hours dead out.
But time has a way of moving along no matter my state of consciousness, so next morning I had no choice but to wake up and try to get things set to rights.
I was standing in the wheelhouse, surveying the chaos, when a cheerful little woman with sensible walking shoes and a slouch hat, looking perhaps a little like Miss Marple, came striding by along the beatup old dock. She waved and gave me a cheerful "Good Morning!". I growled at her. She said "What a beautiful boat you have!" (she had a remarked tendency to speak in exclamation points). I said it was a piece of junk (well, something a bit stronger than 'junk') with a blown engine, unusable, a disaster, etc. She persisted in engaging me in cheerful chatter until, finally, in exasperation at her impenetrable cheeriness, I said: Look, I wouldn't even have a way to get around, except a friend is letting me use his truck.
She said, without even a pause "Oh, you have a friend!"
I must have blinked, or blacked out, or something, because when I looked next, she had disappeared. I wanted to say thank you, or something, but, having delivered her message, she could then depart. That was my eskimo, back in July of 1996.

Culture of Life!

The president (the Culture Of Life President) has said he'll veto the stem cell research bill currently being passed by the congress. He's against the destruction of life to preserve life (Unless of course it's foreigners lives). Along with the other right-to-lifers, or rather the manipulators who believe they can get people to give them money and power if they piously proclaim a love of life, the president seems to think its not okay to generate stem cells from human ova to cure disease and save lives. But it is okay to simply destroy the ovum.
Now, in case 1, the ovum, and the cells created from it, continue to live, participating in the life of the person they assist in continuing to live. In case 2, the ovum is discarded. Dies. Is dead.

This is the Culture of Life!

Is it the intent of the Culture-Of-Lifers to define the killing of an ovum (a "potential" life) as murder? Consider that women are born with something in the neighborhood of 68,000 or so oocytes, of which some number will become fertile ova. Of those, some number between zero and 60 will become living humans. Note: 60 is the number of children Hecuba legendarily bore Priam. Thus Homer's reference to "Hecuba's o'erteemed womb". I personally think 60 is an unrealistic number of children for any one woman to give birth to. Especially since of that number only one survived the fall of Troy. I guess because the Grecians didn't believe in the president's Culture Of LIfe. All the rest of the eggs will be discarded. Will the normal monthly menstrual process of discarding an unfertilized ovum become an act of murder? Or is it an act of murder to allow the ovum to die rather than to save it, culture it, and use it to save a life? Which is it Mr. President Bush?
I leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide if letting sperm cells to die rather than making each-and-every-one into a living being is also murder. If so, then certainly men are far more murderous than women could possibly be. Lets face it, Onan wasn't the only one.

The Frist For President Option

Well now we're getting to witness a bigtime dispute in the Senate. I think this is something we see more often in the junior side of the congress, but it's always nice to know that the Hon. Sen's can mix it up too.
The stuff I'm seeing in the news tells me, unsurprisingly, that there's little interest in considering the difference (a major one, to me) between when the president nominates someone to serve in the administration and when he nominates someone to serve in the judiciary. These are, or used to be, two separate-but-equal branches of the U.S. Govt. I think there are some among our leaders who don't get that. Or, there are some among our leaders who like to make noise and light and smoke and hope we don't look behind the curtain. But then, the Hon. Tom DeLay is probably not yet evolved as far as most of us. He's certainly no argument for Intelligent Design. There, I finally got a chance to use that one.
So, I have to agree with those who say that the president has the right to appoint his own "employees". They're really our employees, but he's the manager, after a fashion, of our executive branch. I have come to the point where I pretty much assume that anyone the current president nominates is probably unfit for the position, but then that's my opinion of the manager of the executive branch as well. As a sort of philosophical/social/governing principle, the presidents direct employees should be his to choose unless they're well on the road to being certifiable (in the bad sense). Case in point: John Bolton. Not yet certifiable, as far as I can tell. I suspect he's just a few quarts of Kentucky Mash away from rehab, but 'til then, let the president inflict the guy on the UN. His prerogative.
About the judicial branch. The independent judiciary that causes Fox "News" people and others of that ilk to foam at the mouth: the appointees ought not to be the president's to appoint in the same sense as the executive appointees. I even considered advocating getting the judges to appoint the judges. That, I suspect would be replacing like with like pretty much forever. Eventually the judicial branch would be pretty much a fossil. Instead of being populated with, it sometimes seems, fossils. So, let us not tinker with the original modus. Let the president and the senate do the appointing. I think though, that the two other branches, executive and legislative, should be co-equal in staffing the judicial branch.
As to how the senate should rule itself in vetting presidential nominees, I confess I have no clue whatsoever. My preference would be that everybody is always approved by consensus. Actually, by consensus among us all: president, congress, court, and even us day laborers. That won't happen, so let's admit that we need to have a representative system of governance. Let the representatives represent. Wish they'd do a quieter job of it.
A little less posturing, and a little more governing, guys!

Happy Birthday To Me!

This blog is one year old!

Some numbers in the news indicate that there are some seven million bloggers (thus, some seven million blogs) in what has cleverly been called "Blogspace". Maybe 7.1 million since I started writing this. Given the nature of folk, especially of geeks, that probably means there are some millions of orphan blogs - weblogs that got started, then abandoned. All in all, this is probably a good thing. Since I started posting here, I find myself embroiled in isssues of coherence. I am prone to interrupt my plain old ordinary thinking and begin trying to structure my thoughts in blogspeak. I think this is not a good thing. This morning, as I was beginning the day, I realized I'd been posting here for a year, and immediately thought about how I could say something about how I'd been posting for a year. Talking about talking. Thinking about thinking. Much in the way that, when holding a camera, one changes from being a viewer of scenes to being in a sense a servant of one's camera, looking for photographic capturability (or words to that effect).
I have a funny feeling that bloggers (not necessarily writers, but bloggers at least) end up somehow feeling impelled to go global with their thoughts. Say something cosmic. At least for me, I wind up adding more and more sidebars to whatever original topic I started with. Mixing my metaphors, so to speak.

And I'm not alone. Check out this site:

Mickey Kaus' commentary

Micky Kaus is probably Blogger One in blogspace. He even has his URL on Drudge Report. Though, if Matt Drudge considers himself to be a blogger, perhaps he is Blogger1. Or, perhaps we have already progressed to metaBlogging. I don't know. Here, you see, I've fallen into my own mixed metaphor.
So, while my blog has not yet become an orphan - Happy Birthday To Me!

The Ministry of Disinformation

According to an article posted by the Associated Press in todays paper, the US is warning that the increase in bombings and killings in Iraq is a "desperate attempt ... to discredit the newly formed Iraqi government." Also some words about "mostly directed against innocent Iraqi civilians", and "failing attempts". According to the body count (We Don't Do Body Counts: Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, U.S. Army, 2004), the numbers show fifteen Iraqi soldiers and 5 civilians. The American army spokesman can't count, apparently. Or else he's in the grip of the governments disinformation campaign.
The campaign that makes claims like, for instance: "Democracy Is On The Move."
Claims like: The Iraqi government is a democratic institution, where in reality every job in the government is allocated based on the religious or ethnic identity of the aspirant. That kind of government used to be called a theocracy. But then, the theocracy in Washington, D.C. thinks it's a democracy.
Claims like: The Iraqis have a right to choose their own destiny." As opposed to the destiny being dictated by Halliburton, et. al.
Claims like: "It was a tough decision, but I had to take it." (Tony Blair, British PM, 2005). Where tough, in this case means Really Stupid". PM Blair proudly announces that he made the wrong decision, but it was all right, because it was very hard on his brain.
Claims like: "The Iraqi people are beginning to see the benefits of a free society." (George W. Bush, United States President, 2005). Nobody asked George what, in his opinion, those benefits were.
It's really too bad that Paul Wolfowitz found new employment at the World Bank. He could have made better use of his talents as the Minister of Disinformation. The government needs a higher class of disinformation, and Wolfowitz is full of it. So is the president, but he already has a job in the government.

What Am I Missing?

I heard this morning that President Bush, not a deep thinker, I am beginning to think, is proposing a modification to his storied Energy Plan.. In order to "reduce dependence on foreign energy sources", the addition to the old plan is as follows:

A.

Build oil refineries on empty military bases.

B.

Import more oil for the refineries to process.

With thinking like this, it is no wonder that the administration has been fighting the courts for years (courts full of unchristian activist judges, no doubt) to keep the identity of the contributors to the original "Plan" secret.

As a way to reduce dependence on foreign oil suppliers, this kind of proposal ranks right up there with Richard Nixon's "Secret Plan To End The War".

Giant Turkey: First Flight.

Yesterday was First Flight for the Airbus A-380,

also known as the Giant Turkey. Prelude to a year or more of test flights. It's big enough, but probably not ugly enough, to qualify for legendary status. As I remarked a while ago ( ), I don't think there's any airport in the world that can get 800-plus people, all wanting to go to the same place, through security in less than forty eight hours. With the turkey forced to wait at the gate for that long, profits are likely to be a lot less fat than the aircraft.


Its competition, the Boeing 787

(Boeing is almost out of X's for their 7X7 series; what will they do then?) Dreamliner, is much prettier, but is it big enough? It appears that the tag "fuel efficient" will be a pretty good thing for the plane.
I have to confess a personal preference for large planes, but with few passengers. Also, nonstop flights. The idea of flying from hub to hub to hub, because it's more convenient for the airline and who-gives-a-rat-about-the-convenience-of-the-passengers, upsets me deeply. I vote for the nonstop flight aboard a quiet uncrowded plane.
Here's hoping!

Now the Spanish have gone and done it!

Spain!
First, they opted out of George W. Bush's Iraqi war. Now, they are allowing gays to marry!
I guess they have decided to adopt the motto Make Love Not War, an American saying from the Vietnam war period. During George's drinking years. Perhaps that's why he doesn't recall it.

I think George prefers the motto Oh! What A Lovely War. Actually, it's the title of a stage play, made into a movie in 1969. Also during the president's drinking years. He probably doesn't remember it either. The title is a just the littlest bit ironic, since it shows the generals of WW I having a great time, savoring the power, the prestige, the fame, the fortune. All the while the troops are fulfilling their designation of Cannon Fodder, dying by(literally) the millions at the western front. It's difficult to follow of course, since it's a British film, but it may still have instructive value today, more's the pity.

A more recent movie with some thrilling (well, chilling) war scenes, seeming almost to be more about the Iraq war than about WW I, A Very Long Engagement is well worth viewing. It's French, naturally.

Can't seem to find an American war movie that isn't just a John Wayne movie at heart. Well, except for Saving Private Ryan, which has been banned from viewing as being too violent! Don't want to have violence on our flatscreen teevee now, do we! OhNo! Keep it confined to the countries we invade and occupy.


I see I've wandered from the initial topic a bit.
Originally I just wanted to inquire if President Bush is worried that the Spanish are going to destroy his marriage just the way he claims allowing an American citizen to marry his boyfriend (or, to marry her girlfriend) will.
Personally, I think divorce destroys more marriages than marriages do.
But then, I'm not married.

Crappy Engineering...

Your Mobile Phone - the ultimate in technology gone mad!

To begin: The physical handset is totally wrong! Look at handset A. It's upside down! Try to use this device as it is currently designed. Try to key in a number. Better yet - try keying in a text message. Remember, the cool people all key SMS (Short Message Service) text one-handed. For a rightie like me w-x-y-z-9, or worse yet, {all-the-shift-number-key-special-characters-plus-0}, create a huge risk of dropping the device. Causing portential breakage or worse yet complete and utter humiliation

Now look at handset B. The keys are much much easier to reach. Additionally, the display is now in the palm of the hand, shaded from the blinding tropical sun.

So, why has the original handset been engineered in such a crappy fashion?


Now as to the functionality:

Things you can do!

1. Audio (Sound): You can make or recieve a phone call. Yes, you can still do this, though you'll probably get a message just as you do when calling from a fixed phone. Still, this is a desirable function in a mobile phone. In addition to using the mobile phone as a phone, you can: Download and use a crappy little "polyphonic ringtone" - typically a clip from a movie theme song, to replace the sound of a ringing phone. Download and use a crappy little "ringback tone". This is a sound that someone who calls your mobile will get to hear. It's not so that a caller can rejoice in hearing your musical selection; it's so that your caller can be impressed with what a hi-tech kinda guy you must be, to know how to pay money to get your phone to make a sound you personally will never get to hear. You can download crappy little music files you can listen to on your crappy little earbuds.
All in all - your phone can now a guarantee that neither you nor any innocent bystander will ever have to endure a quiet environment again.


2. Video (Pictures): With the wonderful new capabilities of todays handset you can: Snap a crappy little picture with your crappy little camera. You can display the crappy little snapshot on your crappy little LCD screen. You can record a crappy little video clip with your CL camera. Playback the CL video clips on your CL screen. Dowload movie shorts, either from your computer, or from your crappy little internet connection. Market research seems to indicate that the most popular movie dowloads are about eight minutes long, and are soft-porn lapdances and the like. Coming soon - a teevee reciever. Now you will be able to watch Fox News, or better still, Survivor-Somewhere-Or-Another (or any of the other crappy little virtual reality shows).
Imagine being able to watch Lord of the Rings on your CL screen - you should be able to get about one Orc-Per-Pixel.

3. Data (Data): You can store phone numbers. This is also a desirable function. Additionaly, you can send or recieve crappy little text (SMS )messages. Almost as soon as you can do this, you probably will begin getting spam messages (spaSMS). You cannot block these messages! Your handset has within its bowels (several layers down in the menu system) a crappy little 4-function calculator. You also have things like MS Office, so you can create crappy little spreadsheets using your crappy little keypad. Or you can create a crappy little Word document, laboriously keying in your text. You can store your credit card information, to allow you to use your handset as a crappy little automatic purchase device. It will also broadcast your personal credit information to Bluetooth snoopers in your vicinity. It may also make the information available to Pharmers browsing your crappy little un-firewalled always-on internet connection. Which you can also use to send those CL snapshots and CL video clips to your friends from anywhere in the world. Or you can surf the net, using the crappy little browser on your crappy little LCD screen.

All In ALL, the modern 3G, or even the 2 1/2 G mobile phone represents convergence with a vengeance (convengeance?). An ill-assorted set of functions plastered together in an ill-designed box. Not to sound like a Luddite, but for the moment, I still prefer to use a camera for pictures, a videocam for videos, an iPod for music, a computer to compute.
I'll keep the phone for phoning.

Thank You

Pope JP The Great ---

Pope JP II has been interred. Something from Shakespeare comes to mind, but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. PJP II will be a tough act to follow. Perhaps the next pope won't even try - but don't bet on it.
THeres a lot of talk now about the possibility of a pope from Latin America, or perhaps from Asia, or perhaps even from Africa. But don't bet on it. Before his death, JP II hand-picked his successor, PJP III. He tipped it off by having

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone announce the banning of The DaVinci Code, the first book to gain such a distinction in many years. Like earlier books on the Vatican List, sales are bound to soar; except pretty much everybody has already read the book. For the few who haven't read it, it presents a competing myth regarding the life of Jesus. Don't want to spoil it, so I won't say any more.
I wish the Church didn't have such a tin ear, though. It seems to have been made a requirement for all the media interviewees recalling the pope's life to remark on how much he "loved the young people". The Vatican should know better: when a squeaky-voiced pop star talks like that he gets arrested. As were a huge number of the pope's former employees; in spite of his insistence that they were above secular law. The love of JP II's priests for "the young people" was so prevalent, and so scandalous, that JP II finally had to give up on the idea of priestly immunity, and allow them to face prosecution in the secular courts.
Note: I don't think JP II "loved the young people" in any inappropriate way; I just think the comments about his "love for the young people" demonstrates that the Church hierarchy is in denial as to the extent that their employment policies attract a disproportionate number of sexually deviant "lovers of the young people" to the priesthood.
Perhaps Pope JP III will revisit the issues of celibacy and ordination of women. But don't bet on it.

Conscription Time?

The military is now finding itself unable to meet its quota of new hires.

"The war-strained all-volunteer U.S. military has a growing manpower problem and a cross-section of Washington policymakers has proposed a solution -- increase the size of the regular military by 30,000, 40,000 or even 100,000 or more." (AP, April 7)

The Pentagon spinners have been instructed to say this is because of the great economy made possible by George W. Bush's tax cuts leading to too many better opportunities for - ahem - draft-age men and women. I don't buy it for a moment. I think it's more a matter of the pool of available soldiers feeling some resistance to the idea of getting their asses shot off in a foreign land.
Due to the shortage of troops available to occupy the restive provinces of the New American Century, there is renewed talk of a draft. Filling the ranks of the military with conscriptees. Ironically,

Charlie Rangel (Congressman from NYC) introduced a bill in the congress to reinstate the draft (see my post 10/8/2004), though with a few changes. His actual purpose was to start a debate about the inherent inequity of sending a preponderantly poor and minority military to defend the wealth and privilege of the rich. Thus the irony. The reinstated draft may well bear the name of "the Rangel Act".
In any case, I say No Draft! Why should more Americans have to go overseas to protect our puppet governments? We're spending plenty of money to set them up; they should have to provide their own cannon fodder! A significant part of the $200,000,000,000-and-counting we have spent on Iraq has gone to creating an internal army. I say Sign 'Em Up! Make 'em U.S. Army auxiliaries. Like the Gurkhas of the British Empire, we can instill a myth-based sense of loyalty and eliteness. Teach 'em to look down on the "locals". Send them to Afghanistan, Syria, Iran (though geez, a new Iraq-Iran war, I donno), wherever else we want to pre-empt the attempt by another country militarize the way we already have. It worked for the Roman Empire for centuries. It worked for the British Empire for quite a while. Maybe it can work for the American Empire, too.
So, Sign 'Em Up!
Let's try to get some value for the money we've spent on our military adventuring. Something better than a few presidential photo-ops.

Flying: The old and the new

102 years of flight

On December 17, 1903, in Kittyhawk N. Carolina, Orville Wright flew about 100 meters in this aircraft. No one else has ever been able to get it off the ground.

Steve Fossett flew his Global Flyer around the world single handed nonstop on March 5-6-7, 2005

Question Time

Once again, I see, We Aren't Asking Enough Questions.

These questions, appearing in no particular order, aren't the life/death kind of questions. Just inquiries.

Here goes:

Why does "Russian" always appear next to (tennis madonna) Maria Sharapova's name? Look at her. Listen to her speak. Check out her residence address. She not only doesn't live in Russia, she doesn't even live in Georgia! In fact, she lives in Florida, next door to the United States. Is she getting a promotional fee from Russia for name placement?

Which is more environmentally damaging: a golf course or a cruise ship? If you answer this one, I'd appreciate it if you'd list the criteria you use to define "environmental damage", as this is a tricky subject.

Why does the government think paying more money to people who work is bad (wage inflation), but paying more money to defense contractors for missiles that don't work (star wars) is good?

Why does the President think it's a bad idea for Russia to sell military rifles to a South American democracy (Venezuela) but it's a good idea for the United states to sell military planes to a South Asian dictatorship (Pakistan)? Especially considering that the dictatorship is arguably the world's greatest proliferator of nuclear weapons today?

After the Vatican explained extensively why Pope John Paul II wasn't kept alive by application of "heroic measures", have the parents of Terri Schiavo decided the Pope was a murder victim like their daughter?

Given the predictions of rising sea levels, how long do you think it will be before Florida consists entirely of "the Florida Keys"? How many billions in federal tax dollars will be spent building dikes around Florida to try to hold back the Atlantic Ocean? Should we contract out the job to King Chanute? How much do you think he would charge?

How many people believe Paul Wolfowitz has actually changed his thinking from believing that poor people should be invaded and occupied, exhorted to pump cheap oil for America; to believing that poor people should be assisted to improve their lives?

How inept is the United States government in its imperial ambitions if they can't even get their puppet government in Iraq to select a parliamentary leadership?

If the United States succeeded in destroying every vestige of cocaine production in the entire world: how many cocaine addicts would get clean, how many would find another drug to get stoned on? How much tax money should we spend to do this? Or to try and fail to do this?

In the United States it's an article of faith (well, among some anyway) that Ronald W. Reagan "destroyed communism". It seems there's competition though. In Europe (well, in Poland certainly) it's an article of faith that Pope John Paul II "destroyed communism". Whose mythical description in the history books of 2050 C.E. do you think will carry the description Destroyer of Communism?

Do you suppose the Chinese are feeling a little screwed? Just when they can afford a car, they can no longer afford the fuel! In the long run this will probably be a GOOD THING, as it will save them from the kind of traffic jams they enjoy in Southern California.

Everyone Wants To Go To Heaven...

But Nobody Wants To Die...

Terri Schiavo has died. I don't know if it happened yesterday, or if it happened years ago. Apparently the doctors who examined her thought she was dead long ago. Judges who looked at the evidence of the doctors agreed. Tom DeLay disagreed. But then, Rep. DeLay is a thoroughly disagreeable man, many would say. Bill Frist disagreed. He is (was) of course, a doctor. Sufficiently skilled it seems to diagnose a persons condition from a photograph. Sort of like the shamans of the Phillipine Islands who perform magical cures by passing amulets over a sick persons picture. We selected a true gem when we put Dr. Frist in the U. S. Senate! Also, George W. Bush disagreed. He believes we should always "err on the side of caution when it comes to the life of an American." Not an Iraqi life, or an Afghan life, or, indeed, any Evildoer's life. Americans, of course cannot be Evildoers. "That's not Us; That's not What We Do." Everyone NOT an American appears to be either an Evildoer in George's mind, or at least an Evildoer Suspect. Except of course for his good friends Tony Blair and Vladimir Putin. Also, the Catholic Church disagreed. More about the church later, perhaps.
In what should seem bizarre, but has rather come to be expected, some number among those who favor life-at-any-cost are threatening to kill Michael Schiavo. And his lawyer. And a judge or two as well. With Tom DeLay enabling them with what sounds a lot like a Warning From God, or from God's Enforcer, violence is likely. But then, this is Florida. Remember the to-do about the little Cuban boy, Elian Gonzalez, who was eventually returned to his father in Cuba? How awful it was to allow his father to Abduct Him And Take Him To A Communist Country! Some said at the time that it was a sign of the End Of It All. Probably the same people who are saying that the "murder of Terri Schiavo is The Beginning Of The End."

The Pope is dying. May already be dead by the time I post this.
Aside: A remarkable statement on the TeeVee read "Heart failure: a signal that the cardiac system is failing."
Despite being somewhat retro, Pope John Paul II did affirm church dogma saying that heroic measures to sustain life (see Terri Shiavo, above) are not required. To illustrate, the Pope himself elected not to return to hospital. Perhaps he feared suffering the fate of Terri Shiavo.
Rather than fearing death, though change, especially when one has not seen even a picture of the future (even supposing one has read the Divine Comedy, or any number of religious writings) is always a little fearsome, some would say death should not be feared, but embraced. Seeing it is inevitable, that's probably a reasonable attitude.
Herewith, a quote. No, not Thanatopsis. Also, perhaps not very accurate. Though, since it is from the Greek, perhaps I can just say it's my own translation. Or, it would be, if I could read Greek.
"Do you think I have less divination that the swan? For swans, when they know they are dying, sing then louder than ever, not from fear or in pain, but in joy, knowing that they go to the God (Apollo, I think) they serve." Don't think divining rod here, think Spark Of Divinity, or soul. Attributed to Socrates by Plato.
Now, along with a fear of death, or of any unknown, there is also the fear of loss. There are millions (at least) of catholics and other christians who are feeling considerable fear, or at least a deep sense of loss, at the imminent passing of their personal link to their God. The Pope is thought by some to be the representative of God On Earth. He is believed to somehow have a better connection to the Lord than you or I do. I must confess that I am completely unable to comprehend an Almighty God that exists more in some places less in others. Is more attentive to some of His creatures, less so toward others.
Of course, I Could Be Wrong. God may have long ago adopted a modern management style; delegating some fucntions of His Universe to the Pope, delegating others (killing evildoers, perhaps) to George W. Bush. Still other jobs have been outsourced, I suppose, to various Imams, or to Osama bin Laden. And, of course, much is required of whoever currently occupies Jerusalem, where God is more immediately present than elsewhere in His creation.
As I say, I am completely baffled by the idea that this Almighty God needs people to help him in his labors. Especially, if you look at the efforts of his aides, to make certain that other people do as they are told.
By God, or by those who claim to speak in His Name?
Okay, I'm finished now...

Upstairs - but no Downstairs...

Back in the 1970's, when the rest of us were watching "Upstairs, Downstairs"...

it appears that George W. Bush was only watching "Upstairs,"...

Now George is travelling the country, touting his "ownership society". After a few years of investing in high-class stocks and bonds, he says, we will all be part of the ownership society. We'll have a nest-egg to leave to our children, who will be even richer!
To date, none dare call it what it is - the biggest Ponzi scheme in history. When we sell off our nest-egg for money to buy our food, pay our rent, and, most of all, pay our medicare premiums(!), who is going to redeem our bonds, buy our stocks? Why, our children! How much will they pay for these things? The more you make from your "personal account", the more they will pay to buy from you. Except for the brokers who skim their take from all this activity, who is going to make anything from the whole transaction?

When all is said and done, wealth is still created by work. Work in the classic physical science sense of expenditure of energy over distance, and also in the economic sense of making (or growing, or raising, or providing) something that has value for another. In short - someone has to do the work!
Thus, if there is no ",Downstairs" to perform work for "Upstairs," there won't be any wealth for anyone...

Try telling that to George...
This is in line with the misperception that I see voiced (see ... voiced...? Oh, well...) by some in the news. You know, when they insist that "our schools should teach everyone computer science." Donno about you, but I don't want a computer scientist to repair my car. Or my roof. Or grow my food. And I am a computer scientist!

Very Interesting!

You may call me naive but...
Isn't raising interest rates to counter inflation a little bit like fighting for peace or, ummm, fornicating for chastity?
"I want to keep prices down, so I'm going to increase the price of the Ultimate Commodity - money!"
Huh?
I understand the stated underlying principle is that increasing the cost of money - the cost of borrowing, that is - will supposedly dampen demand for 'consumer goods'.
Good Idea; Too Bad It's Wrong!
Raising interest rates to reduce demand would do very nicely in that mythical market: You know, the one where the marketplace is always right; everything is bought and sold at a price agreeable to both participants; supply meets demand; stocks always reflect the true value of corporations, etc. The very definition of a capitalist economy.
We don't have a capitalist economy though. Haven't for a long time now. What we have today is a consumerist economy. In this economy consumption, therefore spending, is driven primarily by two factors; need, and desire. In this economy increasing the cost of borrowing has very little to do with driving consumption. Raising the price of food, for instance, does nothing to reduce peoples' need for food. Raising the price of a luxury SUV does very little to reduce peoples' desire for one. Cost is at most a secondary factor here. Demand is largely inelastic. Expectation trumps reality.
What raising interest rates - will - do is to keep people (and institutions, and governments) buying, not selling, bonds. Despite the vice president's saying that US government bonds "aren't worth the paper they're printed on", they do represent an island of predictability in a sea of uncertainty. So far.

At the moment, what Alan Greenspan is doing is walking a tightrope (and doing it very well, thank you) of increasing interest rates in step with inflation, so as to make it appear that he is countering inflation, while disguising the inflationary influence his rate increases have on the economy.
The President thanks you, Alan Greenspan.

Brain-Dead Congress

Good morning Dear Reader!
I was going to say something about our idiot-child congress and their obsessive infatuation with 'roid-riddled baseballers, but...
All it would have amounted to would have been a few hundred words best summed up as: Who Cares!
Instead, there's this...
The president, George W. Bush, talks big about The Sanctity Of Marriage.
But!
When it comes right down to it, George believes his judgement regarding Terri Schiavo (a woman whom he has never met, either before or after her brain death) is superior to that of her husband. Also superior to her doctor's judgement, and the judgement of the courts in his own brother's state (well, perhaps he has reason for that)...
Now, George has long since taken over the High and the Low Justice throughout the world; arresting and imprisoning people from various countries without allowing them recourse to courts of law. In some cases torturing and killing them. Not with his own hands, mind; rather using his employees in the CIA and the DOD as surrogates.
It's okay though - each and every such person is an evildoer, or at least a potential evildoer, and deserves his fate. Besides, George is following the instructions of his Father to destroy them all. Not his father; his Father.
Moving ahead; George is now assuming the Droit de Seigneur; the right to dispose of his subjects in any way he sees fit. Some might say this is all an attempt to divert attention from the deadly morass of Iraq. I favor the idea that it's an attempt to displace discussions of the brain-dead congress with discussions of the now (through no fault of her own) needlessly notorious brain-dead Terri Schiavo. In any event, let us hope George doesn't decide to exercise this droit in the more classical sense - it would make Lady Laura awfully angry.
It might make George's Dominatrix, Madam Condi, pretty happy, though.

Ready for a tin chapeau...

I'm starting to think I'm almost ready for a tinfoil chapeau.
I'm a "consumer of news" - I read newspapers, I listen to news radio, I watch news on teevee. I discuss the news, I write about the news; A news junkie, you might say.
But lately, the news just seems to leave me confused. I can't consume it at all. I can neither chew it nor swallow it. It's either a case of early senility or near-total cognitive dissonance. The latter, I hope. Though perhaps it's time to begin thinking of memory loss as my friend, rescuing me from too much toxic information.
Two weeks ago, I saw that supposedly mythical headline in the paper: Man Bites Dog. Yes. I checked. It wasn't April First. It was a Reuters byline; not a company known for extreme levity. And just today, a report, on page one, no less, about a Cambodian farmer who discovered he has a Holy Cow! (!) A witch saw the cow, fell down, and, upon recovering, told the farmer she saw the spirit of a Holy Cow from Thailand in his Holy Cow. However, and this is the really interesting part, the local governor said the farmer was wrong. "We had a Holy Cow around here just a few years ago - they don't show up again so soon."
What is one to think? Holy Dog, Man Bites Cow, Mad Cows... It's all too much for me.
Then, in what might seem a more normal kind of news, we see that South Korea is threatening action against Japan, because of some little rocky islets unfortunately situated between the two countries. Meanwhile, Japan is theatening action against --- North Korea! Apparently because North Korea is refusing to return the remains of Japanese citizens it abducted some decades ago. Not, mind you, because of the kidnapping; because Korea stubbornly refuses to return the right set of bones. Not wanting to be left out, North Korea is threatening to take action against, you guessed it, South Korea! Seemingly for holding war games. Which could not possibly be (and here I agree) to defend itself against anyone other than North Korea. Unless it's to "take action" against Japan.
A perfect triangle, though not in any sense a love triangle.
The United States, meanwhile, is threatening to take action against pretty much anybody and everybody. Mostly to stop them from doing things the United States already does better than they can do anyway. We hear concerns about China's massive military buildup. They've increased their military budget to thirty billion dollars. I suspect they're actually budgeting in renmimbi; but we'll use dollars for clarity. If clarity in such a thing is possible. At the same time, the US is increasing its military budget by thirty billion dollars.

Speaking of the US congress: What are they up to now? "Congress shall make the laws of the country." So I was taught in school. Just laws to govern a just society, one would presume. Though, historically, when the congress actually did create just laws it was pretty much an accidental confluence of parochial interest and the common welfare. But then I have become pretty cynical about the entire legislative process. Some would say I was born a cynic. Anyway: now the congress has decided it's terribly important to find out every least detail about the use of steroids by professional baseball players. Why? Who cares? What common good is served by this 'investigation'? If someone wants to trade his future health for a few years of enhanced physical performance, who am I to say he can't? Such tradeoffs have always taken place. In a classical simile - it's the choice of Achilles - who chose early death and eternal fame over a long and normal life. Not that I can think of any baseball player who is likely to win fame as eternal as Achilles. Except for the Babe. Ruthian is a word destined to remain in the language (I believe) as long as will Herculean. So why is congress investigating this miniscule issue? Because there is some significance to society? Because they are concerned about the health of baseball players? Because they want to preserve the purity of baseballers as role models? Because it's a tremendous photo opportunity? Gee; tough call.
Then there's the current topper: Tom DeLay talking about saving the 'life' of a brain dead woman. Now, I know some of you will say that Rep. DeLay knows more about brain death than most doctors, but I do not believe he has ever actually experienced it first hand, no matter how his actions seem to indicate that he has. Again, what is the national purpose served by congress butting into medical issues? Do you really trust your congressman more than you trust your doctor? Is that why when you feel sick you call your congressman? Or does your congressman make you feel sick?
Well, that's enough diatribe for one day.
Hope to be posting again soon.

I'm Shocked!

Shocked! To discover misfeasance in our government!

So now, it turns out, the government is going through a bunch of contortions (read: distortions) to make scientific studies/reports/opinions read the "right" way. I'm shocked! Shocked! To find out that such a thing would go on in this country!
We all like to think, I believe, that scientists and suchlike are selfless seekers after the truth. This definitely falls under the heading of "Good Idea; Too Bad It's Wrong"
Much as I'd like to attribute this to the current administration as yet-another-example of the perfidy of the president and his neo-con-neo-religio-cabinet-without-portfolio; this is not a new story.
Example: In or about 1994 (pretty sure it was '94, but I'm too lazy to look it up). National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) biologists were about to release a "Biological Opinion" regarding the impact of the Columbia River dams (18, count 'em 18!) on the river's salmon populations.




Long in the works, and containing the results of years of investigation and observation, the summary of the report concluded that yes, the dams did in fact have an impact on the salmon fisheries. Hardly a surprising result.

{A quote from a Pacific Northwest National Laboratory report:
"This is a fishery biologist's opportunity to provide specifications for use in turbine design," said Duane Neitzel, Pacific Northwest project manager. "Turbines are integral to the operation of hydroelectric dams, but they also can injure fish." Turbine passage can be considered one of the more fatal routes that fish take through hydroelectric dams. Mortality rates range from 4 to 20 percent, depending on factors such as type of turbine and type of fish.}

Also, not the result desired by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), or a number of other Columbia River Basin industries who faced some impacts of their own as a potential fallout from this report. Well. If you look at the report today, you will find the conclusion reads that the dams do not have an impact on the salmon fisheries; a conclusion so at odds with common sense, to say nothing of being in utter contradiction to the body of the report - some fifty years of observation and study that it beggars the imagination to understand how such a statement could be inserted.
Here's what happened.
The team of biologists studied the years of census data (salmon census, not people census), analyzed the data, built a model based on the data. Wrote the report, including the data and the analysis. Added a conclusion that said the dams did have an impact.
Sorry, not acceptable. Enter the political appointee. In this case, Western States Director of NMFS

Rollie Schmitten (The Honorable, as he liked to have himself referred to in many many many press releases). He returned the Opinion to the team of biologists. It ended up being a very simple fix, due to the wonders of modern word processing. No need to retype the document. Simply insert "not" between "do" and "have".
Now, this Rollie Schmitten (The Honorable) had previously been a lobbyist for Washington and Oregon lumber companies. He showed such promise in that job that he was hired by the government to represent the interest of the citizens, presumably all the citizens, not just the citizens who happened to own logging rights. The appointing authority?

Then-President Bill Clinton.
With the conclusion that the dams (18 dams!) had no impact on the salmon, the BPA was relieved of any need to further mitigate the effect of dam operations beyond the current operations. It also means that the area industries are, to a degree, inocculated from having to change the way they operate. The cities can continue to light their signs, the farmers can continue to take subsidized water, the aluminum refiners can continue to get cheap electricity. The salmon can continue to be ground into burger by the turbines.
Later that year, President Clinton promoted The Honorable Rollie Schmitten to National Director, National Marine Fisheries Service.
Well done, Rollie!
Oh: About the bioligists who wrote, and then changed the report. Why did they allow this to happen? Simple. They, like most of us, have a degree of economic self-interest. They like to eat pretty much on a regular basis. They have mortgages. They have children to school. They are subject to pressure applied by their employer (read blackmail).



Galileo caved; can you expect greater fortitude from a government employee, be he scientist or accountant or army general?

What About Justice?

Now that John Ashcroft has left the Department Formerly Known As Justice, Will new Attorney General Roberto (Burning Bamboo Sliver) Gonzalez free

Lady Justice from her winding sheet? Literally and figuratively? Did anyone on the Senate Judiciary Committee ask him this at his confirmation hearings? If so, who? If not, why?

Going Around

Well, the news is filled with stories and photos of Ellen MacArthur, who just completed a solo round-the-world sailing venture, in record time. Much less than 80 days.

This was not an easy thing to do. It takes a lot of determination, drive, whathaveyou, to be willing to go through the sleep deprivation, the sensory deprivation, the fear. I've been on the water for long periods, and it really isn't a good place to be alone.

Acknowledging all that, I have to say that I have always had a difficult time believing that operating machinery (a hi-tech speed-sailing-yacht, a Formula 1 or Indy car, hydrocarbon-belching dirt bike, etc.) can be classed as a sport. Seems more like a chore to me ---

As well, going in a circle seems non-productive to me. A Formula 1 race consists of cars made up to look like cigarette cartons starting at Point A, proceeding past Point A some number of times, and ending at ... Point A! The idea is to do this faster than the other cigarette cartons. I strongly believe that if I never left Point A to begin with, I would arrive there in very nearly zero elapsed time, thus easily winning the race. And saving a lot of energy in the bargain.

Ellen began some 70-odd days ago in Falmouth, and is today back in Falmouth. What has changed is, of course, that she is now a celebrity. This in spite of her horribly choreographed "spontaneous" victory dance. I can imagine her blushing when she views it on the to-be-often-repeated-on-BBC film clips. A celebrity! Is it at all possible that celebrity, rather than accomplishment, was her goal from the getgo? You think? There is today (probably always has been) a considerable human wish to be famous. Rich, too. Today, we are able to pursue celebrity far more easily than before. Wierd and wonderful TeeVee shows enable us to become famous overnight, in return merely for spending a few days in a box filled with scorpions, or somesuch heroic stupid endeavor. I guess, thinking about it, I'd really rather sail in a circle around the world than sit in a box full of scorpions. Or appear on a TeeVee show that encouraged such kinds of activity.

So, congratulations Dame Ellen! Hope the aftermath isn't too much of a letdown.