Motivation - Still Lacking

So…I was going to lampoon His Highness for the thoughtless remark he made yesterday about banning Mickey Dee’s. More better, and more to the point, here’s what Mr. Crittenden has to say:

Antiquated, costly symbol of Britain’s past Imperial glory slams modern, popular, highly profitable and tasty symbol of America’s global cultural imperialism.*

Next week: stay tuned as object of much ludicrous, lavish medieval pageantry involving lots of ermine, gilt coaches and puffy pants condemns colonial upstart nation’s electronic entertainment industry.

My snark is just SO lacking, by comparison.

Here’s a “Good News” story… Sanctions that Work:

In the recent cases of North Korea and Iran, a new variety of U.S. Treasury sanctions is having a potent effect, suggesting that the conventional wisdom may be wrong.

These new, targeted financial measures are to traditional sanctions what Super Glue is to Elmer's Glue-All. That is, they really stick. Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt doesn't even like to call them sanctions, preferring the term "law enforcement measures." Explains Stuart Levey, Treasury's undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence: "Sanctions are scoffed at. They have a bad history."

Authority for the new sanctions, as with so many other policy weapons, comes from the USA Patriot Act, which in Section 311 authorizes Treasury to designate foreign financial institutions that are of "primary money laundering concern." Once a foreign bank is so designated, it is effectively cut off from the U.S. financial system. It can't clear dollars; it can't have transactions with U.S. financial institutions; it can't have correspondent relationships with American banks.

This explains, in part, why Iran recently converted its financial reserves from dollars to Euros and has been trying to establish a Euro-based oil bourse since 2005. Economic warfare, in other words. But as Ignatius notes, today’s financial markets are so intertwined and inter-dependent (thanks to globalization) that there’s not a lot that can be done to blunt the effect of these financial actions. As the Iranians and Norks are learning.

Oh, and just as an aside…the vehicle that makes those “sanctions with teeth” possible? The USA PATRIOT Act. You know, that constitution shredding, privacy invading, martial-law enabling, egregious affront to freedom loving Americans… Q&O has more on this line of thought.

Today’s Pic(s): Can a bridge be beautiful? Well, yes…according to the American Institute of Steel Construction. And this bridge over the Rio Grande near Taos is, by acclamation of the aforementioned AISC, “Most Beautiful Steel Bridge, Long Span Division.” I wonder if there was an awards show when this accolade was handed out? No matter. It is pretty, ain’t it?

(PS: The photo of the bridge itself is kinda dark, but I wanted to highlight the dramatic sky in the background.)

May, 2004.

I'm Sorry. It was ME, All Along.

So…In the comments to “Disgust” (below), Laurie mentions that Glen Beck picked up on the fact that Algore’s Tennessee mansion is a mega-consumer of energy. Mr. Beck ain’t the only one. Here’s a list of people blogging about this (from memeorandum’s 2/27/2007 1400 hrs EST page):

Think Progress:
Gore Responds To Drudge's Latest Hysterics

Link Search: Google, Ask, Technorati, Sphere, and IceRocket

Discussion: WorldNetDaily, Riehl World View, Tennessean.com, Hot Air, Blogometer, CBS News, Shakespeare's Sister, The Carpetbagger Report, ABCNEWS, The Sundries Shack, The Huffington Post, Iowa Voice, Polimom Says, Sister Toldjah, The Anonymous Liberal, Don Surber, TigerHawk, Redstate, FreeMarketNews.com, Captain's Quarters, Wizbang, Stop The ACLU, ShopFloor.org, Liberal Values, News Bloggers Blog, NewsBusters.org, Drudge Report, Ace of Spades HQ, Barcepundit, Roger L. Simon, Reason Magazine, On Deadline, Jules Crittenden, Tennessee Guerilla Women, Blue Crab Boulevard, Oliver Willis and The Political Pit Bull

And that’s just the Big Dogs! Last night this lil brouhaha was the lead item; today it’s been bumped down to the bottom because of its age. But, I digress.

I found something useful and interesting at the Think Progress link. In the body of the TP post is a link to a site that allows you, encourages you, to calculate your personal “carbon footprint.” So I did. My results (a screenshot from that website) are on the right, click for larger.

I’m shocked! Shocked, I tell you! My carbon footprint is “larger than average,” even though my car gets about 30 miles per gallon, I drive about half the miles an average American drives in a year, my entire frickin’ domicile is probably less than 20% of the square footage of any of the eight bedrooms in Algore’s home and my aggregate utility bill is about three percent of Algore’s. I’m biased, of course, but I feel I live pretty damned frugally and a helluva lot, a WHOLE HELLUVA LOT, more modestly than most. And yet my carbon footprint is “larger than average?” Or could it be an inconvenient truth that this site’s sole purpose is to induce guilt?

Oh, Hell. It’s all my fault and I’m SO sorry the planet’s gonna burn up. Forgive me; I knew not what I was doing.

Update 2/27 - 1320 hrs: Do NOT miss The Anchoress on this subject. Excellent points, excellent writing, and excellent linkage.

@6

Today’s Pic: Part of the SFO skyline, taken from a balcony at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. My boss and best bud John and I were there to see a centennial exhibition of Ansel Adams’ photography, which was…how to put it?...phenomenal. To say the absolute least.

August, 2001.

Back in a bit.

Disgust. And What Passes for "Art" in these Parts.

So. I wake up this morning and the top item at memeorandum is the oh-so-predictable “Al Gore Takes Home the Statue!” Cue the breathless gushing and the “Draft Al!” posts at the blogs of the usual suspects. Spare me. Please. But, no. What we’ll get is mindless gushing on the order of this sort of krep:

Gore has created a whole new career for himself as a media mogul with the help of his celebrity friends. He is leading a revolution in socially responsible media, and as his credibility grows in Hollywood, more and more celebrities are jumping on the bandwagon.

[…]

Ever since he has declared himself a “recovering politician” a vast portion of the American public seems to hang on his every word and looks ready to follow him into a twenty-first century environmental battlefield in Toyota Priuses. Would we really be paying this much attention to Al Gore if he weren’t surrounding himself with chiseled Hollywood faces?

[…]

What does it mean when Al Gore becomes more effective as a celebrity than a statesman? For one, it seems to justify the larger role Hollywood has begun to take in politics. If “Inconvenient Truth” can help fix global warming then who’s going to scoff at Brad and Angelina when they make quixotic statements about ending world hunger. After all, at least people will listen to them.

I think I’m going to be ill now… Ya know, after reading the discharge from which I excerpted the above I’ve simply lost all enthusiasm for blogging today.

I think I’ll go scrub down the bathroom.

Today’s Pic(s): I went outside the other day and attempted to catch an unusual sunburst effect of the sun hiding behind an overcast gray sky. Well, I was less than successful, as you can see by looking at the original photo. But…I created an interesting effect while playing around with one of the images and thought I’d share it. Artsy-fartsy, ain’t it?

Outside my door on February 22, 2007.

Democrat Cluelessness

They just don’t get it, period, full-stop, end-of-report:

It was one bullet point in the plan for the Pelosi Congress's "first 100 hours," two sentences in the Democrats' 31-page "New Direction for America" document released last June: In order to "Defeat terrorists and stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction, we will . . . . Double the size of our Special Forces" (emphasis added).

Sounds nifty, doesn't it, like a bumper sticker reading "Outlaw War Now!" And, indeed, top-notch warriors play an invaluable role in any war but are most useful in the sorts of guerrilla actions and antiterrorist activity that will probably dominate the military's missions for the next generation. There are just two problems.

First, doubling can only be accomplished by going a disastrous route – making special ops no longer special. Second, false solutions crowd out real ones. Much can be done to improve the quality of our armed forces, but this Democratic proposal doesn't make the grade.

That’s Michael Fumento, a former paratrooper, writing in this week’s Weekly Standard (and on his blog). He goes on to explain to any clueless Dem who might read the Weekly Standard, and clueless Republicans (yes, there are more than a few out there), who will read the article, just why one cannot “double the size of our Special Operations Forces.” Hint: it’s because they’re special. “Special,” in the Dem lexicon, has more to do with things like the Special Olympics than Special Forces. I despair of the Dems ever understanding the difference.

(h/t: Chap)

A Screw-Up, Collectivism, Nostalgia, and Gossip

How Murtha f!cked up: Murtha Stumbles on Iraq Funding Curbs;Democrats Were Ill-Prepared for Unplanned Disclosure, Republican Attacks:

The story of Murtha's star-crossed plan illustrates the Democratic Party's deep divisions over the Iraq war and how the new House majority has yet to establish firm control over Congress. From the beginning, Murtha acted on his own to craft a complicated legislative strategy on the war, without consulting fellow Democrats. When he chose to roll out the details on a liberal, antiwar Web site on Feb. 15, he caught even Pelosi by surprise while infuriating Democrats from conservative districts.

Then for an entire week, as members of Congress returned home for a recess, Murtha refused to speak further. Democratic leaders failed to step into the vacuum, and Republicans relentlessly attacked a plan they called a strategy to slowly bleed the war of troops and funds. By the end of the recess, Murtha's once promising strategy was in tatters.

Tom Andrews, a former House member and antiwar activist who helped Murtha with his Internet rollout, fumed: "The issue to me is, what is the state of the backbone of the Democratic Party? How will they respond to this counterattack? Republicans are throwing touchdown passes on this because the Democrats aren't even on the field."

Maybe the reason they’re not on the field is because they can’t find the frickin’ stadium. Or, in other words: when is a mandate not a mandate? I don’t believe the Dems are as united as the fringe-Left assumes. The fact that there are more than a few Blue Dog Democrats who are upset with Murtha is reassuring, to me. And infuriating to the nutroots. Let ‘em fume. A significant backlash to the defeatist “end the war” crowd is developing…just in the nick of time.

Do you know anyone who doesn’t use Wikipedia? Neither do I. It’s amazing to think the world’s most famous wiki (there are many) is but six years old and is eclipsing “standard” encyclopedias, such as Britannica. From an article by Cass Sunstein in yesterday’s WaPo:

In the past year, Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that "anyone can edit," has been cited four times as often as the Encyclopedia Britannica in judicial opinions, and the number is rapidly growing. In just two years, YouTube has become a household word and one of the world's most successful Web sites. Such astounding growth and success demonstrate society's unstoppable movement toward shared production of information, as diverse groups of people in multiple fields pool their knowledge and draw from each other's resources.

Professor Sunstein’s article isn’t just about Wikipedia. He also examines and praises “open source” projects (not limited to software development), and his main theme is about the emergence of the collectivization of knowledge. Professor Sunstein obviously thinks this is a good thing, other have their doubts:

A core belief of the wiki world is that whatever problems exist in the wiki will be incrementally corrected as the process unfolds. This is analogous to the claims of Hyper-Libertarians who put infinite faith in a free market, or the Hyper-Lefties who are somehow able to sit through consensus decision-making processes. In all these cases, it seems to me that empirical evidence has yielded mixed results. Sometimes loosely structured collective activities yield continuous improvements and sometimes they don't. Often we don't live long enough to find out. Later in this essay I'll point out what constraints make a collective smart. But first, it's important to not lose sight of values just because the question of whether a collective can be smart is so fascinating. Accuracy in a text is not enough. A desirable text is more than a collection of accurate references. It is also an expression of personality.

For instance, most of the technical or scientific information that is in the Wikipedia was already on the Web before the Wikipedia was started. You could always use Google or other search services to find information about items that are now wikified. In some cases I have noticed specific texts get cloned from original sites at universities or labs onto wiki pages. And when that happens, each text loses part of its value. Since search engines are now more likely to point you to the wikified versions, the Web has lost some of its flavor in casual use.

And that’s just part of the beginning of Jaron Lanier’s Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism, a quite thoughtful and provocative essay. (h/t: lgf)

There are always two sides (at least) to every story. I’m a big fan of Wikipedia, but I also approach its more controversial topics (read that: political) with a sense of skepticism. I don’t take the wiki as “the last word” on these topics, they represent one opinion out of many, and that opinion may or may not be correct. I’ll make any decisions on controversial topics based on what I find at the wiki, along with what I find elsewhere. On the other hand, if I want data about the P-47, including production numbers, where the aircraft was deployed, and technical specifications, I’ll consult the wiki and usually stop there. Occasionally I may follow an external link cited on the wiki page…but that’s more a function of expanding upon the information given by Wikipedia, not skepticism. On the whole, I believe Wikipedia has done more good than harm. And I’d damned sure hate to see it go away.

Laurie e-mails this link which she thought would “… appeal to your (my) sense of appreciation of form and figure.” And she’s right. It does. Dang, but looking at those pics makes me oh-so-nostalgic for Former Happy Days when air travel was glamorous, and something of an occasion. Today it’s just an ever-so-slightly more upscale version of Greyhound. And that is not a compliment. Stewardesses Flight attendants just ain’t the same these days. But neither is the food. Nor are the passengers.

Most, if not all, males in my generation had a common fantasy: a wild tryst with a beautiful stew where you find yourselves thrown together for a brief moment in time…in some equally-glamorous place like Tokyo, Istanbul, or maybe Karachi. I never realized that fantasy, although I came close… close to the point of declining a dinner offer at our destination because I was being met at the airport by My Beloved, The (future, at the time) Second Mrs. Pennington. Given the way things turned out, I might have been better off going to dinner that night.

On second thought, nah. {sigh}

I don’t normally “do” this sort of stuff, but I found this fascinating: Oscar’s Big Production Number: Keeping Ex-Lovers Apart.

HEARTS cease to race. Engagements are broken. Marriages end. And when they do, it is not unusual for otherwise rational adults to behave like jilted teenagers, willing to do whatever it takes — make long detours, flee a club — to avoid running into their object of affection-turned-affliction.

You can bet your Oscar pool, though, that none of the celebrities attending the Academy Awards tonight will be ducking behind a massive gold statue or sprinting down the red carpet to evade a former flame.

Why would they? While the majority of heartbroken Americans must devise their own sophomoric strategies for dodging former sweethearts, celebrities have publicists to deftly manage their Ex Capades.

“Make no mistake about it, these things are very choreographed,” said Ronn Torossian, president and chief executive of 5W Public Relations, whose clients have included Sean Combs, Snoop Dogg and Pamela Anderson.

Wow, am I ever glad I’m not in the movie biz, or in any sort of business where The Second Mrs. Pennington and I might run into each other by accident. My “sophomoric strategy for dodging” TSMP is pretty simple: I stay the Hell out of Colorado.

Today’s Pic: Two friends and I on a daytrip to Matamoros, Mexico from Brownsville, TX. The RV park I stayed in during my Brownsville sojurn had a relationship with a Mexican business English school and encouraged park residents to spend a day with the students. Anywhere from four to six students would take participants from the park around Matamoros, showing us the high spots (and skipping the low), and engage us in conversation. Quite an interesting time. (Me, a Canadian Snowbird friend, and a student. Can’t remember names.)

February, 2000.

Paying the Price

So. I mentioned I was up late the night before last when I put up yesterday’s placeholder post. I didn’t mention just how late I was up, nor did I mention the time I actually rolled out of bed. For the record, I was up until 0330 yesterday morning and was awakened by SN1 calling to chat around 1000 that same morning.

One pays a price for such behavior…and the price is: falling asleep while watching the news just after 1800 hrs, and having your eyes pop open eight hours later at 0200. And there’s not a thing you can do to get back to sleep, because, well… you’re done. I tried and gave up at 0300 or so. It’s gonna be a long day, methinks.

Wild, wild weather today. We’re under a “high wind warning” until about 1800 hours this evening and let me tell you: the wind is fierce! El Casa Móvil De Pennington is doing some serious rockin’ to and fro…I just might have to go out and buy some Dramamine. It’s that bad.

“Well, how bad is it, really, Buck?” you ask? This bad…

I should shoot a video and post it, coz it’s a real “you had to be there” kinda thing.

Not much in today’s news, so let’s flog a dead horse. Peggy Noonan, writing in yesterday’s WSJ:

Mrs. Clinton has never gone after a fellow Democrat quite the way she's going after Mr. Obama, and it's an indication of how threatened she is not only by his candidacy but, one suspects, his freshness. He makes her look like yesterday. He makes her look like the old slash-and-burn. I doubted he could do her serious damage. Now I wonder.

What Mrs. Clinton is trying to establish is this: to criticize her--to speak of her critically as a human being, as a person with a record and a history and a style and attitudes--is, ipso facto, to be dirty, and low, and destructive. To air and raise questions about who she is, how she operates, and what can be inferred from her past actions is by definition an unjust act.

But Americans have always--always--looked at and judged the character and personality of their candidates for president. And they have been right to do so. It mattered that Lincoln was Honest Abe, Washington had no personal lust for power, that FDR was an optimist and a manipulator, that Adams was a man of rectitude and no small amount of stubbornness. These facts, these aspects of their nature, had policy implications and leadership implications. They couldn't be more pertinent. They still are.

Ol’ Hill has a lot to live down. Barack drew blood, and it ain’t gonna be the last time it happens during this long, long campaign season. As Bill Kristol said in a Weekly Standard article: “It was a bad week for Hillary.” Understatement, that.

Paul Mirengoff, on the other hand, thinks this dust-up is insignificant:

The candidates' spat will have no impact on the race -- think of it as the first inning of an exhibition baseball game. But just as exhibition games help managers assess their talent, the candidates (especially Hillary) should be wondering about the judgment of the staff member[s] who bit so hard on Geffen's comments and the aftermath.

The point is well-taken…in that it was Hillary’s staff, and not her, that apparently over-reacted. But, knowing organizations as I do, I find it incredibly hard to believe Hillary couldn’t stop this train wreck long before it happened. It is her staff, after all. And I believe this event was significant, if only for the fact it removed Hillary’s aura of inevitability, as Mr. Kristol noted.

And so it goes…

Today’s Pic: Yesterday I put up a pic of Inger Jirby’s back gate. Here’s a shot of her kitchen, which is probably of interest to me and me only. But hey! It’s my blog, right? Check out that stove…

Taos. May, 2004.

News...Good, Bad, and Indifferent. Plus: Plane Pr0n!

Good News/Bad News… First, the good:

House Democrats have pulled back from efforts to link additional funding for the war to strict troop-readiness standards after the proposal came under withering fire from Republicans and from their party's own moderates. That strategy was championed by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) and endorsed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

[…]

Murtha doomed his own plan in part by unveiling it on a left-wing Web site, inflaming party moderates.

"Congress has no business micromanaging a war, cutting off funding or even conditioning those funds," said Rep. Jim Cooper (Tenn.), a leading Democratic moderate, who called Murtha's whole effort "clumsy."

Calling Murtha’s plan “clumsy” is way too kind. “Stupid” and “treasonous” are two adjectives that come to my mind, but then I’m not a Democrat like Rep. Cooper. Murtha might have made a go of it, if it wasn’t for his oh-so-idiotic crowing and pandering to the anti-war Left. In which case we can be thankful for his poor judgment, which I ascribe to advancing senility. But just because Murtha failed in this heavy-handed attempt to undercut the President’s prosecution of the war doesn’t mean he won’t stop trying. He’s nothing if not persistent.

And now the bad news:

Senate Democratic leaders intend to unveil a plan next week to repeal the 2002 resolution authorizing the war in Iraq in favor of narrower authority that restricts the military's role and begins withdrawals of combat troops.

Good luck on that idea, Senate Democrats. You might have a problem maintaining your majority status if you go that route.

Jules Crittenden gives us his take on the Good News/Bad News meme here. And Captain Ed holds forth on the unfolding Democrat strategies to end the war without victory.

Interesting times, these. Too damned interesting, if you ask me.

The World’s Finest Precision Aerial Demonstration Team has released their 2007 schedule. And El Paso is the closest they’ll come to me this year. But they are performing in Bulgaria and Romania… Ankara, Turkey, too. I used to live there once upon a time. Fat lot of good that does me now.

In other Air Force news… Air Force magazine has a pretty good piece on the F-22 titled The Raptor in the Real World. Yeah, it’s a puff-piece, but so? The F-22’s capabilities are the stuff fighter pilots’ wet dreams are made of…

A dozen F-22s, flown by a cadre of handpicked pilots and kept in shape by the 27th’s best maintainers, went to Northern Edge, a two-week joint-force wargame in Alaska. Participants included 5,000 troops in Army ground units, Marine Corps ground units, Navy Aegis cruisers and aircraft, and Air Force aircraft ranging from fighters and search and rescue helicopters to E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft.

Col. Thomas Bergeson, the 1st Operations Group commander, said it was the largest exercise for him in 20 or so years. In one Northern Edge engagement, USAF and its sister services put more than 40 fighters in the air at once, as well as E-2C Hawkeye and E-3 AWACS aircraft.

To confront the F-22-led “Blue Air” collection, the joint force mustered its best “Red Air” threat—front-line F-15s, F-16s, and Navy F/A-18 Super Hornets. The F-22’s team blitzed the opposition with a favorable 241-to-two kill ratio. What’s more, the two lost aircraft were F-15Cs, not F-22s. The Raptors came through the engagements untouched.

[…]

“They [the Red Air adversaries] couldn’t see us,” Tolliver said. This was true even when the opponents were assisted by AWACS. “And that’s what makes the F-22 special,” Tolliver went on. “I’m out there and I have weapons like an F-15C or an F-16, but ... I’m basically invisible to the other guy’s radar.”

The 241-to-two record was amassed over two weeks of air engagements. Tolliver noted that, in such battles, Red Air units were allowed to regenerate and return to the fight, but lost Blue forces could not. Even with such handicaps, in the largest single engagement, F-22-led forces claimed 83 enemies to one loss, after facing down an opposing force that had generated or regenerated 103 adversary fighters.

More at the link, including Plane Pr0n!!!

More “Red-on-Red” stupidity:

Should we Fox?

"Fox," as in partner with the Fox News Channel. Liberal bloggers and the online political powerhouse MoveOn.org launched a campaign Thursday to persuade the Nevada Democratic Party to boot Fox News as the broadcaster of the state's August Democratic presidential debate.

The reason, according to an online letter MoveOn sent to 2 million of its members Thursday, is that "Fox is a mouthpiece for the Republican Party, not a legitimate news channel. The Democratic Party of Nevada should drop Fox as its partner for the presidential primary debate." Joining the chorus Thursday was liberal filmmaker Robert Greenwald, the director of the anti-Fox film, "Outfoxed," who released a video online of Fox's coverage of Democratic candidates.

But the Nevada party organizers -- and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean -- said Thursday that while they may not think much of Fox's reporting, they want to reach out to viewers of the largest cable news network, one with double the number of prime-time viewers of CNN.

[…]

Bloggers like Matt Stoller of mydd.com are more worried about what the network's post-debate spin could be. When Fox broadcast a Democratic candidate debate in September 2003, Stoller noted that the network's post-debate story was headlined, "Democratic Candidates Offer Grim View of America." It cut away early from the show, Stoller said, giving conservative pundit William Bennett first crack at post-debate analysis.

Well, Matt…you can run, but you can’t hide. Your party’s view of America is grim, isn’t it? There is one thing about Fox: they tend to call a spade a spade. Lefties don’t like that. Nunh-unh. Not at all. So I can understand their angst. Kinda sorta.

Hey!! I got an idea!! Put the debate on Versus! Hasn’t that worked for the NHL? No? Well, hell. I thought that idea was at least as good as anything coming out of MoveOn…maybe better.

Austin Bay, writing in TCS Daily on “The Real News Behind the Surge:”

The relentless, focused targeting of Shia and Sunni extremist organizations is a far more important feature of what Iraqis are calling "the new security plan" than more U.S. troops. The coalition's effort to better integrate the economic and political development "lines of operation" with security operations could have greater long-term effects.

Part and parcel of “focused targeting” is keeping pressure on Mookie and the Mahdi Army. Col. Bay talks a lot about that, and brings up the relevant history, in case you may have forgotten. Would that Dubya had done this about a year ago. But… “better late,” eh?

Another quiz thingie, this time it’s Which Famous Guitarist are You?

That's a copy 'n' paste jpg... coz the tables in these thangs never show the bars as filled. At any rate, it's good to know I'd be more like Hendrix if I actually played the guitar!
To take the quiz go here: Which famous guitarist are you?

@5

Today’s Pic: A blue gate leading into the home and gallery of Inger Jirby, a Swedish artist who lives in Taos. Ms. Jirby has a wonderful gallery and an impressive home.

Given the weather here in P-Town has been sooo spring-like of late, I thought a Spring photo would be appropriate for today.

May, 2004.

Up way too late last evening…and stayed in bed way too late this morning. Back in a bit.

Big Fun

Schadenfreude: scha·den·freu·de. Pronunciation: [shahd-n-froi-duh]

–noun
satisfaction or pleasure felt at someone else's misfortune.
See also: Hillary is Sistah Souljah'ing the entire Democratic Party¹ and It's Her Party, And She'll Cry If She Wants To².

1:

It started with Hillary's unique experience on 9/11 - the day she witnessed the world falling apart while the rest of us went to Disneyland. Then yesterday we heard about how Hillary thinks terrorism is a bad thing, while her fellow Democrats think it's no big deal. And today we get an earful about those nasty rich Hollywood Jews - oh, sorry, I mean fags.

Could Karl Rove have written a better script?

It's becoming increasingly clear that Hillary isn't running as a new Democrat, she's running as as (sic) a non-Democrat. Her strategy seems to be attacking everything and everyone associated with the Democratic party, and especially its base - and using Republican talking points, at that - in order to somehow position Hillary as a modern-day Diogenes, independent, above-the-fray, alone in the wilderness, forever on the look-out for honest politics.

In other words, Hillary is Joe Lieberman.

2:

The longer answer is that Hillary looks about ready to self-destruct. She got rattled by the loss of her exclusive connections to Hollywood, which has made clear that they will not commit solely to her. With Obama scoring big in his Tinseltown debut, Hillary understands that a major portion of her husband's contributions has just dried up. Instead of redoubling her efforts to woo the celluloid titans back to her side, she blew her stack and demanded ridiculous penance from a competitor who hadn't sinned against her.

In fact, Obama has decided to allow Hillary to look as bad as she can, issuing a classy response this evening:

My sense is that Mr. Geffen may have differences with the Clintons. That doesn’t have anything to do with our campaign… I’ve said I’ve had the utmost respect for Senator Clinton. I consider her an ally in the Senate. And will continue to consider her that way throughout the campaign…

Hillary apparently felt that the 2008 primary campaign would be little more than a coronation, and the general election a Restoration. Instead, she finds herself in the first tough election of her life, and she's starting to crack under the pressure. This reaction seems very much like the disillusionment of arrogance.

Lotsa stuff happens in the primaries, lotsa stuff gets said that is either (a) retracted later and written off as “campaign rhetoric” or (b) ignored all together. Still and even, Hillary looks pretty inept here, at best. Or worse, she looks like what I think she really is: a vindictive shrew. And that’s too bad, because I really would like to see her get the Democratic nomination. She’d be a whole Helluva lot easier to beat than a few of the other guys running. But…I’m savoring the moment, as it were. Couldn’t have happened to a more deserving gal.

Well now. It’s about time: When Tush Comes to Dove; Real women. Real curves. Really smart ad campaign.

In part, Dove's strategy is not unlike the Body Shop's old eco- and animal-friendly stance: Buy our products because you like them, but also because you're making a righteous statement. To buy Dove is to cast a vote for more "real curves" in advertising.

But there's a dirty little secret here. Because, in the end, you simply can't sell a beauty product without somehow playing on women's insecurities. If women thought they looked perfect—just the way they are—why would they buy anything?

[…]

Short-Term Grade: A. These ads are real attention getters—everyone's talking about them. On that level, they're a smashing success. Also, Dove now owns the "friend of the everywoman" angle. Smart move on their part to spot this open niche and grab it. Finally, if I can get sappy for a moment, it is sort of nice to see the unperfect have their day in the sun.

Overall Grade: D. Sadly, this is not a winning play for the long haul. If Dove keeps running ads like this, women will get bored with the feel-good, politically correct message. Eventually (though perhaps only subconsciously), they'll come to think of Dove as the brand for fat girls. Talk about "real beauty" all you want—once you're the brand for fat girls, you're toast.

Snarky enough for ya? I suspect the author (a woman) may be right when it comes down to the bottom line about the efficacy of the ad campaign, but in the end I really don’t know. I agree with her point about the beauty industry plying their trade on the backs of women’s insecurities, and I’ve always thought that sad, if not inherently evil. Thus, my “about time” comment.

I was unaware this ad campaign even existed (what with living way the hell out here in the boonies) until I saw one of the campaign’s models on the news yesterday. I’ve not seen any Dove ads on TV (you can see one here) and there aren’t all that many billboards on the highways around here. And I don’t read women’s magazines. So pardon me if I’m discussing something that may be common knowledge in the metropolitan areas of the country. It’s news here in P-Town, at least within the geezer demographic.

But…back to that model I saw on the news. I don’t remember her name, but she is a 62-year-old vivacious blond that I wouldn’t mind having on my arm…anywhere, any time. And yes, she was certainly… uh … “more plump” than your average model-spokesperson. And that’s a good thing, at the risk of repeating myself, yet again. Long-time readers know I go on about this subject from time to time and are aware I prefer the full-figured female form. I’m just glad to see someone in America’s beauty industry apparently agrees and is coming around.

Good on ya, Dove.

More on that Tony Snow/White House correspondents roundtable I wrote about yesterday, in today’s WaPo:

"If there is a flash of tempers between me and Tony, it's not about him and me, it's nothing personal," said Gregory, whose televised clashes with Snow have become legend.

Snow grinned. "What you see quite often at the briefings are sharp exchanges, but David's right: It's not personal," the press secretary agreed. "I not only like but admire everybody else sitting up here on this podium. It is a real pleasure and a privilege to work with them, to get to know them. . . . It is a wondrous thing."

Other than this, the article is chock full of anecdotes for those of you who missed the show itself, including the Crawford/400 degrees bits. And about that quote above… I wrote yesterday that Snow and Gregory got along well “for two guys that hate each other.” And yes, I did see the exchange quoted above. I just don’t believe it. Coz…politicians and reporters and even press secretaries LIE, ya know. Just sayin’.

It was such a beautiful day yesterday here in P-Town, and we’ll have a re-run today. Relatively calm winds and a high of about 70 degrees or so. Yesterday was one of those odd sort of days when one runs both the AC and the furnace. It must have been 90 degrees inside El Casa Móvil De Pennington when I got home yesterday afternoon. I tried to just grin and bear it after opening up the windows, but couldn’t. So I flipped on the AC for about an hour. And then two hours later the furnace kicked on. It feels like Spring, it does!

Today’s Pic(s): A couple of shots at the Audubon Sabal Palm Sanctuary in Brownsville, TX, (scroll down just a bit at the link) including YrHmblScrb in the most elaborate duck-blind I’ve ever seen. The blind overlooks the duck pond, which is home to not only ducks, but nearly every conceivable sort of water fowl known to man. I’m not a “birder,” but I can (and did) appreciate the solitude of the bird-watching environment. A great place for quiet contemplation, which I was given to at that period in time. “Given to” understates the case more than a bit, but ‘tis quite another story!

February, 2000.

Miscellaneous Meanderings

I’ve mentioned (in passing and otherwise) that I think the current Apple ad campaign (PC vs. Mac) is clever. Well, now…it turns out that the ads aren’t quite as original as I thought; they’re just a variation on an 11-year-old theme. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose!

If you check out the link…that’s me on the left back in 1996, for all intent and purposes. Except I’m better looking.

So…is it just me, or is anyone else revolted by all the Anna Nicloe krep? Fox News is the absolute worst when it comes to this story. I quit watching Greta van Susteren along about the time she took up residence in Aruba (not that I ever watched her a whole lot to begin with), but now I see she’s hurried on down to Florida, the better to get “on the scene” coverage of the flap over the disposition of Anna Nicole Smith’s body, fer God’s Sake. And the ANS flap was the lead story on “Hannity and Colmes” last evening.

WHO THE HELL CARES? I mean, really… Sometimes it seems we have no dignity left as a culture. Sheesh.

Immediately after muttering a few epithets in the general direction of the telly last evening, I flipped the channel to C-SPAN to see what was going on and struck pay dirt. Tony Snow was moderating a roundtable discussion featuring White House correspondents, and it was pretty good. Interestingly, Snow was seated right next to David Gregory. You may have heard there’s a bit of friction between these two guys. But, Hey! Let’s let bygones be bygones…

Not surprisingly, Snow's first question went to David Gregory, who has earned a reputation as an outspoken showman in the Bush White House. Snow asked Gregory how often he wishes he could have a do-over at the end of the day. Gregory replied that he never wants his reporting to be personal and added that tempers tend to flare unintentionally in the heat of the moment. Gregory's diplomatic response set the tone for the evening—it would be a friendly, not contentious, discussion.

And so it was (friendly, not contentious), and quite entertaining, too. Snow and Gregory managed to laugh at each others’ jokes and generally seemed to get along rather well. For two guys who hate each other, that is.

One little gem: “Crawford is the best-kept secret in Washington.” That’s according to Sheryl Stolberg of The New York Times. That lil bit was revealed when she was talking about how “everyone” always feels sorry for her when she mentions she’s going to Crawford during Dubya’s annual vacation. The rejoinder, from an off-camera participant: “Yeah, except for the fact it’s always 400 degrees down there…” Well, Hell. It’s Texas! In August! What do you expect?

Ed Morrisey, on Tony Blair’s announcement about Brit troop withdrawals from Iraq:

While Blair will allow the British forces to reduce through the end of fresh rotations into Basra, the US has started to send three times as many troops into Baghdad than what the Brits have in the entire country now. The progress in Basra will get overshadowed by the surge and the battle where the sectarian insurgencies meet in the Iraqi capital.

This is the natural denouement of the Iraqi campaign, however. As the Iraqis can take over security responsibilities for their provinces, the Western powers will pull back and pull out, although the British forces will remain in smaller numbers to provide assistance to the Iraqis. The US will do the same when Baghdad and Anbar come under better control. The Brits have succeed (sic) in their mission, and they now can shift their forces accordingly. (emphasis mine)

What he said. Basra is not Baghdad nor Anbar. Blair is only doing what he can (and should) do, and what we will do, once we’re able. We’ve never said anything else.

New target for the netroots nutroots: California Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher. Right off the bat, let me say I don’t particularly care for Ms. Tauscher…simply because she voted “yes” on the non-binding resolution condemning the surge. Which, if you think about it, is reasonably “progressive,” nu? But not enough for the nutroots. Here’s a sample of the reaction to the WaPo article from one of the blogs conspiring to overthrow Tauscher, aka the reality-based community….you know, the diversity crowd:

This morning Juliet Eilperin and Michael Grunwald delievered a Valentine's box of confections in a nice Washington Post wrapper to Ellen Tauscher and, nevermind the date; it was very timely. A number of Bay Area-based activists and bloggers are determined to challenge one of the Democratic Party's most egregious corporate whores and Bush enablers in 2008 this side of Joe Lieberman.

[…]

Starting on October 10, 2002 with Roll Call 454 on H.J. Res. 114, the final resolution authorizing Bush to use force against Iraq, Tauscher didn't vote with Nancy Pelosi and other progressive Democrats– and the majority of Democrats in the House; she voted with Tom DeLay and Roy Blunt and the worst reactionary, warmongering scum in the Congress to give Bush the authority to do what he's done in Iraq.

“Corporate whore.” “War-mongering scum.” Keep it up, guys. I just love it when you talk dirty. So does the rest of America. Not. (Don’t believe me? Connecticut. 2006. Who’s your Daddy?)

And so it goes…

@4

Today’s Pic: A rerun of sorts. Back in October I posted the view behind the altar at St. Philips Episcopal Church in Tucson. This is a view of one of the covered walkways, taken from one of the courtyards, of which there are more than a few, and all are relaxing places to just “be.”

February, 2004.

Back in a few.

Babble and (Minor) Temptation

Fascinating reading, this: How Toyota Conquered the Car World. Fascinating on a number of levels, e.g., business (marketing, management, manufacturing, and process), gear-head (history and product), and Toyota’s impact on the US auto industry. You’ll enjoy this article even if you’re familiar to the point of overload with Toyota and its concepts, such as kaizen. Good stuff, indeed.

Curious note: Word accepts “kaizen” without flagging the word as misspelled {try it!}. Toyota has even made a believer out of Bill Gates!

We ALL do it… And there’s (ahem) truth in this WaPo article:

Feldman's experiments show that stern-faced judicial proceedings about perjury are as remote from the realities of human behavior as President Bush is from the Nobel Peace Prize. For one thing, lying plays a more complex role in human relationships than the black-and-white legal view recognizes. It is also so commonplace in everyday life that putting people on trial for lying is somewhat like putting them on trial for breathing.

Experiments have found that ordinary people tell about two lies every 10 minutes, with some people getting in as many as a dozen falsehoods in that period. More interestingly -- and Libby might see this as the silver lining if he is found guilty -- Feldman also found that liars tend to be more popular than honest people. (Ever notice how popular politicians somehow change their minds on controversial issues such as the war in Iraq at the exact moment that public opinion on those issues changes?)

[…]

Now most of the lies that Feldman is talking about do not involve national security and stakes as high as war. They are mostly designed to please others -- "It doesn't look like a toupee at all," "The muffins were great," "What an adorable baby!" -- and as harmless bouts of self-promotion, as in, "Yeah, I used play lead guitar for the Police," and, "Nelson Mandela was telling me the other day . . . ."

“The check’s in the mail…” “She didn’t mean a thing to me!” “No, it doesn’t make you look fat.” And so on. Lying as a fact of life, in other words. I’ve told my share, but none lately (that I can think of. Right now. At this moment.). It’s an interesting sort of dichotomy: as I’ve grown older I’ve both softened my bluntness as a function of respecting other people’s feelings, and yet feel empowered to be truthful, even if and when it hurts. I suppose it’s my own personal brand of “situational ethics.” And in that sense I’m just the same as everyone else, nu?

Psycho-babble in the NYT:

Flaming has a technical name, the “online disinhibition effect,” which psychologists apply to the many ways people behave with less restraint in cyberspace.

In a 2004 article in the journal CyberPsychology & Behavior, John Suler, a psychologist at Rider University in Lawrenceville, N.J., suggested that several psychological factors lead to online disinhibition: the anonymity of a Web pseudonym; invisibility to others; the time lag between sending an e-mail message and getting feedback; the exaggerated sense of self from being alone; and the lack of any online authority figure. Dr. Suler notes that disinhibition can be either benign — when a shy person feels free to open up online — or toxic, as in flaming.

The emerging field of social neuroscience, the study of what goes on in the brains and bodies of two interacting people, offers clues into the neural mechanics behind flaming.

Neural mechanics, my @ $ $. How about simple stupidity? Or the fact that some people are just idjits, on-line or off? Not to belabor the point, but I’ve found that people generally act the way they’re pre-disposed to act. Nice folks will be nice and a-holes will be…well…A-holes. Just sayin’.

So…I get these love-notes from Amazon about once a week (Buy! Buy now! Based on your past purchases, we know you’ll like this! Free shipping!). Today this comes in the mail. And I’m sorely tempted. A digital SLR has been on my wish-list for quite some time now and I’ve been doing the usual “analysis,” to wit: “is it really better than what I’m using now?” “what does an SLR do that my G5 doesn’t?” and, of course… “is it worth the money?” That last question always stops me dead in my tracks, especially considering that I’d spend about $1,350.00 after adding a lens and a usable storage card (read that: at least 1GB), at the very least. Still and even…I’m SO tempted!!

Today’s Pic: The other-worldly landscape of Porcelain Basin in Yellowstone. As you can tell from the (grainy, first-generation digital) pic, I was virtually alone the day I went. I don’t believe I encountered another soul during my meanderings down the elevated walkway and across the basin. Why? Because it was about 40 degrees that day. So…I could dawdle all I wanted without fear of blocking the path for others. Brilliant colors, brilliant day.

May, 2000.

And now it’s off to the laundromat. Arrrrgh!

Gutenberg's Help Desk

(hat tip: Insty) In which case: Heh.

A Holler Day

It’s a Holler Day! So go on out in the back yard and Holler!!

As noted: Today is Presidents Day.

Presidents Day is the common name for the United States federal holiday officially designated as Washington's Birthday. It is celebrated on the third Monday of February.

As the official title of the federal holiday, Washington's Birthday was originally implemented by the federal government in 1880 in the District of Columbia and expanded in 1885 to include all federal offices. As the first federal holiday to honor an American citizen, the holiday was celebrated on Washington's actual birthday, February 22. In 1971 the federal holiday was shifted to the third Monday in February.

I feel a Geezer Rant coming on. But. I shall resist. Do you have the day off today? I have a feeling a lot, if not most, of my Frequent Readers have the day off, given they’re military folks of one sort or another. Presidents Day is another one of those “Federal” holidays, like Columbus Day and Veterans Day. And by that I mean there’s no mail delivery, schools and government offices are closed, but the rest of the world gets up and goes to work. Same stuff, different day. I liked life better when we got the actual day we’re supposed to celebrate off. Sure, the three-day-weekend legislation was (and is) a good thing. Yet something is lost… At least that’s my opinion. Your mileage most certainly may vary.

So. To Jimmuh, George H.W., Bubba, and Dubya: Enjoy your Day, eh?

Today I learned something about Presidents Day I had not known before. It’s been a tradition, since 1862 (and an annual event since 1893), for a Senator to read Washington’s Farewell Address to the Senate to commemorate Presidents Day. After giving the address the selected Senator signs the little leather-bound book that records the names of all who have given the address to the Senate. Just for the record, the annual reading of the address will take place on February 26^th of this year. (“The Senate will convene at 2:00 p.m. and Senator Corker (ed: R-TN) will read Washington's Farewell Address.”)

Were I a senator, and were I selected to deliver Washington’s Address on the 26^th, I would emphasize the following passages:

The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of american, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the Independence and Liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

In other words: E Pluribus Unum. Certain politicians need this reminder.

I had one particular politician in mind when I wrote the above: Jack Murtha. Bob Novak has a good column in today’s WaPo about Mr. Murtha. I quote:

After 16 undistinguished terms in Congress, Rep. John P. Murtha at long last felt his moment had arrived. He could not keep quiet the secret Democratic strategy that he had forged for the promised "second step" against President Bush's Iraq policy (after the "first step" of a nonbinding resolution of disapproval). In an interview last Thursday with the antiwar Web site MoveCongress.org, he revealed plans to put conditions on funding of U.S. troops. His message: I am running this show.

Mr. Novak goes on to argue that Murtha is indeed running the show, as improbable as that may seem. But. Beware, Jack. Don’t forget the Law of Unintended Consequences. You may be in charge today, but there’s another election in 2008. For all the bad that’s said and written about American voters, we do have long memories. And we’re watching you like a frickin’ hawk (no pun intended, but it fits).

Why it’s hard to do business in Russia:

MOSCOW, Feb. 15 — A Russian judge convicted a provincial school headmaster on Thursday for using pirated Microsoft software in school computers, but declined to impose any penalty, saying that Microsoft’s loss was insignificant compared with its overall earnings.

[…]

Cheap, pirated software is ubiquitous in Russia, even as the country grows rich from oil profits. Pirated movies and music are sold openly; trademark protections are also widely violated, although less openly, and counterfeit cigarettes, pharmaceuticals and other consumer goods are common.

How insignificant was Microsoft’s loss in this case? About $9,700.00. But, it’s not the money, as they say. It’s the principal of the thing. It’s going to be a long time, if ever, before widespread rule of law comes to the former Soviet Union. Especially in the realms of intellectual property and patent law, just to name two areas. Software piracy isn’t considered a “real” crime in Russia. I never saw a single legal copy of Windows or Office during my trips to Russia. Not one. Just sayin’.

But wait…there’s more! From the International Herald-Tribune:

MOSCOW: In a Feb. 13 story about the trial of a Russian teacher charged with using pirated Microsoft software in school computers, The Associated Press, based on a Russian TV report from the courtroom, erroneously reported that the defendant refused an out-of-court settlement from Microsoft. Microsoft said it made no such offer.

The Russian prosecutor offered to settle the case if the defendant apologized, and Microsoft's representative said the company did not object. But the defendant refused. (emphasis mine)

I’ll be danged.

Today’s Pic: SN3 is ten years old today. My, how time flies!!

These are the first pics ever taken of The Birthday Boy, and they are scans, not digital photos. The pics of TSMP and SN3 were taken at home; the pic of SN3 and I was taken in the hospital.

Rochester, NY. February, 1997.

Happy Birthday, Bob-O!!

This is Gonna Leave a Mark

Doomsday? That would be April 13, 2036. Maybe.

A £150 MILLION space mission should be launched to deflect an asteroid which is set to pass dangerously close to Earth, experts warned yesterday.

The call for action to protect the world from Apophis - named after the Egyptian god of destruction - came from a coalition of astronauts, engineers and scientists with close links to US space agency NASA.

Scientists have estimated the asteroid has a one-in-45,000 chance of striking Earth on 13 April, 2036. Travelling at 28,000mph it could release 80,000 times the energy of the Hiroshima bomb.

OK guys, that’s only $293,095,235.61, not a lot of bucks considering real estate values in, say, Chicago. And vicinity, like Detroit. Maybe we can get an earmark to take care of this… after all, we have about 30 years to figure this out. Whoops! Maybe not!

In order for the gravitational tractor to work effectively, Lu said, international authorities would have to decide to use it long before an anticipated impact.

"You want many years or even decades of notice," he said. "It's like billiards—when you make a slight change before the bank shot, it creates a big change [in where the ball goes]."

[…]

Schweickart, the former astronaut, thinks the United Nations needs to draft a treaty detailing standardized international measures that will be carried out in response to any asteroid threat.

His group, the Association of Space Explorers, has started building a team of scientists, risk specialists, and policymakers to draft such a treaty, which will be submitted to the UN for consideration in 2009.

The UN? We’re gonna let the UN take care of this? We’re f!cked…

(graphic: Nat Geo)

Words That Matter

From Representative Sam Johnson’s (R-TX) speech to the House during floor debate on the Iraq resolution:

“You know, I flew 62 combat missions in the Korean War and 25 missions in the Vietnam War before being shot down.

“I had the privilege of serving in the United States Air Force for 29 years, attending the prestigious National War College, and commanding two air bases, among other things.

“I mention these stories because I view the debate on the floor not just as a U.S. Congressman elected to serve the good people of the Third District in Texas, but also through the lens of a life-long fighter pilot, student of war, a combat warrior, a leader of men, and a Prisoner of War.

“Ironically, this week marks the anniversary that I started a new life – and my freedom from prison in Hanoi.

“I spent nearly seven years as a Prisoner of War in Vietnam, more than half of that time in solitary confinement. I flew out of Hanoi on February 12, 1973 with other long-held Prisoners of War – weighing just 140 pounds. And tomorrow – 34 years ago, I had my homecoming to Texas – a truly unspeakable blessing of freedom.

[…]

“So – little did I know back in my rat-infested 3 x 8 dark and filthy cell that 34 years after my departure from Hell on Earth… I would spend the anniversary of my release pleading for a House panel to back my measure to support and fully fund the troops in harm’s way….and that just days later I would be on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives surrounded by distinguished veterans urging Congress to support our troops to the hilt.

“We POWs were still in Vietnam when Washington cut the funding for Vietnam. I know what it does to morale and mission success. Words can not fully describe the horrendous damage of the anti-American efforts against the war back home to the guys on the ground.

I just finished watching the re-run of Rep. Johnson’s speech on C-SPAN. You really should…Read the whole thing.

Heroes and Villains

One of my heroes is profiled in today’s NYT:

Chris Chelios is having another fine season as a top-four defenseman for Detroit, averaging 19 minutes of ice time a game. There is nothing unusual in that — except that Chelios is 45, making him the second-oldest player to compete in the N.H.L.

“I never thought I’d be in that situation 10 years ago,” Chelios said Thursday by telephone from Phoenix. “To be right behind Gordie Howe is kind of neat.” Howe played in the N.H.L. when he was 52.

“I’ve just been fortunate,” said Chelios, who has 182 goals, 936 points and 2,823 penalty minutes in 1,528 regular-season games over 23 seasons. “I think genetics, Lady Luck, my trainers. I’ve had some pretty significant knee injuries that I never thought I’d be able to overcome. It sounds crazy, but basically I feel as good as I did 10 years ago.”

With ALL due respect to Chelios, I can’t see him doing what Howe did: i.e., playing a complete season with an NHL team (the Hartford Whalers, aka the Carolina Hurricanes) at age 51. What Gordie did was amazing, given he played in every game, racked up 41 points (15 goals, 26 assists), served 42 penalty minutes, and was even selected for the All-Star game that year. At age 51. Still and even, it wouldn’t surprise me if Chelios did manage to pull that off. It’s only six years from now…

Also in today’s NYT: “The L Word… Leftward, Ho?”

“A potentially liberal moment,” Mr. Frank says, “assuming that liberal politicians can seize the moment and get beyond their usual plague of incompetence.”

Oh, snap. Liberal optimism, thy name is caution and caveat.

But it is optimism nonetheless, and well-founded, too, say Mr. Frank and a broad spectrum of political thinkers and leaders. And, they say, the evidence goes beyond the obvious indicators — the ascendance of Democrats in the House and Senate, President Bush’s second-term belly-flop and poll numbers showing the Democratic Party trending left and the nation’s political center trending Democratic.

[…]

Even in the sweetest of times, liberals tend to be congenitally averse to walking tall, as if they’re always half-expecting to be one step away from getting decked by a falling piano.

Years of ridicule, battering and electoral defeat will do that. The liberal imprint has been trashed by generations of conservative candidates and commentators drilled in every unbecoming association (“tax and spend liberal,” “big government liberal,” “ivory tower liberal,” “limousine liberal,” “commie, hippie, purple haired, weak kneed, bleeding heart, limp-wristed, weepy eyed, take your choice liberal”).

Ah, yes. Their “…usual plague of incompetence” and being “congenitally averse to walking tall.” Big problems, those. These past week’s events, capped with the ignominious vote of no-confidence in the President’s Iraq policy (among other things), would seem to reinforce the perception of the Left’s incompetence and an inability to walk the walk, wouldn’t they? There are valid reasons the Right have assigned all those pejorative labels to Lefties, or, in other words…they got them the old fashioned way: they earned ‘em.

Conan O’Brien makes teh funny: “According to a new survey, 26 percent of people say they have a crush on someone they work with. Unfortunately, the survey was taken at NASA.”

Today’s obligatory Barack bashing…

Take a look at Obama's arguments for a speedy US withdrawal. Speaking on the Senate floor on January 30, he asserted that "redeployment remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi government to achieve ... political settlement between its warring factions".

The key is "to give Iraqis their country back", since "no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war". He repeated these words when he announced that he was running for the presidency last weekend.

But Obama's claim that an American withdrawal would somehow "pressure the Sunni and Shia to come to the table and find peace" is a fraud.

On the contrary, an American withdrawal is much more likely to lead to an escalation of the conflict that is tearing Iraq apart. In a devastating paper for the Brookings Institution, Daniel L Byman and Kenneth M Pollack have pointed out that, given the vast potential for violence that exists in the Middle East, we ain't seen nothin' yet.

And then there’s this, from Rich Lowry:

Obama is smart enough to be able to talk intelligently about nearly anything, but it usually feels like he's a glib amateur. He has a troubled relationship to policy plans, which risks making his campaign of hope against cynicism seem merely hackneyed verbiage. It's hardly a new idea to attack the political process as too small-minded, money-grubbing and negative. In fact, it's commonplace.
Obama insists that he doesn't need more policy because he's written two books. But only if Obama were running on "finding himself" would his (beautiful) memoir of his early life, Dreams From My Father, be a detailed manifesto. His new book, The Audacity of Hope, has policy in it, but it's scattershot thoughts about addressing all of the nation's problems, not detailed plans.

More to follow in the coming days/weeks/months/year. Dang, it’s just too early! (PS: he’ still not smoking, though, from all indications. Me too.)

Today’s Pic(s): My father’s automotive lust object—the incomparable Mercedes-Benz 300SL. This particular example is in the National Auto Museum (otherwise known as The Harrah Collection) in Reno, NV. I’ll have to admit: The Ol’ Man had excellent taste in automobiles. Kinda runs in the family, it does.

May, 2000.

DC-4 Over Midtown, 1939.

From a site with a huge and oh-so-interesting collection of black and white photos of New York City, beginning at the turn of the last century and continuing up to the early 60s. The photos are large and the site has a “broadband recommended” disclaimer. But: do go. Some excellent shots of the way we were. And I do mean excellent.

The caption to this particular photo says “DC-4 Over Midtown, 1939. Hood’s Daily News Building lower right.” I originally thought the aircraft pictured was not a DC-4. And it turns out I was sorta right…it’s a DC-4E, the “E” standing for “experimental.” This is the DC-4 I’m familiar with, the model with the single vertical stabilizer.

(hat tip: James. Who else?)

Geeky Stuff, Voting with One's Feet, and Cars

A good read… “The Story of Sergey Brin…How the Moscow-Born entrepreneur cofounded and changed the way the world searches.” If you’re not familiar with the name, Mr. Brin, son of Russian immigrants, is a co-founder of Google. A lengthy (i.e., about a 10 minute read) biographical sketch with lots of detail. Good stuff.

Got broadband? Frequent readers know I bemoan the state of my ‘net connection, in terms of both reliability and speed, but most particularly speed. I pay for a 384 Kbps connection but only rarely do I actually get close to 384 Kbps. There have been times when my connection speed, as measured by CNet, is down around dial-up speeds. I was getting 263.8 Kbps when I wrote this post, which isn’t all that bad, but insufficient to support streaming video (think: YouTube; and see the graphic on the right). And, now that the digression has passed, I don’t consider 384 Kbps to be “broadband.” But, it looks like I’m wrong:

The July, 2005, FCC report that he was citing, which promoted and defended the state of broadband access in the U.S., has received pointed criticism for defining a "high-speed" line as one delivering service of at least 200 Kbps in at least one direction, and for defining a ZIP code as "covered" by broadband access even if just a single broadband line is active in that region. It is true that 200 Kbps was, even in 2005, a minimal definition of "broadband," but it's a level that's largely inadequate for delivering much of what is commonly accepted as "broadband-level service," such as streaming video and swift downloads of large files. It seems clear that measuring "broadband access" by even the relatively modest speeds of 1Mbps or higher would drastically cut the estimate of U.S. broadband penetration.

And that’s the thrust of this article: When It Comes To Broadband, U.S. Plays Follow The Leader. Aside from “dumbing down” the definition of broadband, it turns out that the US isn’t in the same league as South Korea, Japan, and many countries in Northern Europe when it comes to the numbers of broadband access lines (relative to population), connection speed, and, believe it or not, price. That’s a sorry state of affairs for a country that prides itself on being a technological leader.

Hey Yucca Telecom!! Where’s my fiber connection?

A little fall-out from the William “Obscene Amenities for Mercenaries” Arkin flap: retired Army Col. Ken Allard severs his ten-year relationship with NBC.

But has anyone else noticed the network's precipitous retreat from journalistic and ethical standards? Not only were no apologies given and no pink slips issued for Arkin's outburst, but on his MSNBC show last week, Keith Olberman went out of his way to defend this "valid criticism" of our military.

[…]

But sometimes the only way to show where you really stand is to vote with your feet. And so with great reluctance and best wishes to my former colleagues, with this column I am severing my 10-year relationship with NBC News.

Good on ya, Colonel! Col. Allard mentions the odious Olbermann in passing…he of the recently-renewed contract with MS-NBC and apparent Arkin apologist. I didn’t know ol’ Keith was going to bat for Arkin, but Hey! …they’re two peas in a pod, as far as I’m concerned. In the press release about Olbermann’s contract renewal, NBC had this to say:

"Keith Olbermann is a tremendous talent and a superb broadcaster," said NBC News President Steve Capus. "He is an asset to NBC News and the timing of this announcement couldn't be better given the momentum Keith's program is enjoying right now."

Good luck with your new tired old Left-wing liberal strategy, NBC. I suppose it does sell.

“What’s for dinner?” That perennially vexing question of the day, everyday, was solved quite nicely last evening. Granddaughter Felicity and her boyfriend René were in P-Town yesterday and took me out to dinner in Felicity’s brand new GMC Acadia. Dinner was a “thank-you” for the GM employee discount Felicity used to take a couple of thousand dollars off the Acadia’s purchase price. Felicity remarked she thought it odd that everyone in SN1’s family drive GM products, yet I do not…and I’m the source of that employee discount. Yeah, it is passing strange. And likely to remain that way, too. Although I really, really want to buy GM, I can’t bring myself to select the Solstice/Sky over the Miata. And there’s gonna be a new Miata in El Casa Móvil De Pennington’s driveway sometime later this year.

The Acadia is nice, though. So was dinner…a nice rib-eye washed down with a couple of pints of Fat Tire. And good conversation, too!

Stuff that Caught My Eye Today

Credit where credit is due…the NYT has a good write-up on Firedoglake’s coverage of the Libby trial. My POV and FDL’s couldn’t be further apart—that’s simply not possible—but they’ve done good things in gaining recognition for bloggers. The FDL bloggers have impeccable credentials, which were more than likely responsible for getting them their official “passes” to the trial. Too bad the FDL’ers are just plain wrong.

I’ve spent way too much time today chasing up reaction to yesterday’s UNICEF report, An Overview of Child Well-Being in Rich Countries (a large—52 page—pdf file), which ranks the US next-to-last (just above Britain) where children’s welfare is concerned. From the report’s executive summary:

This Report Card provides a comprehensive assessment of the lives and well-being of children and young people in 21 nations of the industrialized world. Its purpose is to encourage monitoring, to permit comparison, and to stimulate the discussion and development of policies to improve children’s lives.

The report’s “Main Findings”:

• The Netherlands heads the table of overall child wellbeing, ranking in the top 10 for all six dimensions of child well-being covered by this report.
• European countries dominate the top half of the overall league table, with Northern European countries claiming the top four places.
• All countries have weaknesses that need to be addressed and no country features in the top third of the rankings for all six dimensions of child well-being (though the Netherlands and Sweden come close to doing so).
• The United Kingdom and the United States find themselves in the bottom third of the rankings for five of the six dimensions reviewed.
• No single dimension of well-being stands as a reliable proxy for child well-being as a whole and several OECD countries find themselves with widely differing rankings for different dimensions of child well-being.
• There is no obvious relationship between levels of child well-being and GDP per capita. The Czech Republic, for example, achieves a higher overall rank for child well-being than several much wealthier countries including France, Austria, the United States and the United Kingdom.

I spent nearly two hours seeking out conservative reactions to this report and couldn’t find any. One possible explanation is the fact this report originates with the UN and is by definition, suspect and beneath comment. Other than that, I have no clue. There is plenty of reaction on the Left, however, most of it expressed from the usual and predictable America-hating POV. Case in point, if you care: Shakespeare’s Sister.

My reaction? I find the report troubling. There is bound to be an element of truth in anything, if one looks hard enough. Even given the fact this is a UN report (snort!), and the applicable “lies, damned lies, and statistics” disclaimer, I think we should take notice.

On the other hand…if the lesson is “social welfare states are preferable to capitalist states,” as one could reasonably conclude from a quick perusal of the report, then forget it!

Found while looking for reax to the UNICEF story: this post at Cassandra’s place. Totally and completely unrelated, of course. But if it doesn’t make you laugh, then I feel sorry for you. No clues…just check it out.

Update on the whereabouts of Muqtada…

BAGHDAD, Iraq - An adviser to Iraq's prime minister said Thursday that radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is in Iran, but denied he fled due to fear of arrest during an escalating security crackdown. Sami al-Askari said al-Sadr traveled to Iran by land "a few days ago," but gave no further details on how long he would stay. A member of al-Sadr's bloc in parliament, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of fear of reprisals, said he left three weeks ago.

"I confirm that Muqtada al-Sadr is in Iran on a visit," said al-Askari. "But I deny that his visit is a flight."

Although there are plenty of disclaimers in the article, as well. Captain Ed says…

Sadr's supporters insist that he is still in Iraq, but no one has seen the non-reclusive Shi'ite firebrand in weeks. If Sadr remains in Najaf, as his mouthpieces claim, all he has to do is show himself. He could call a press conference or hold a rally; the US wouldnt stop him from either activity, and it would prove that he didn't tuck tail and run from the new US/Iraqi security program for Baghdad.

Askari never spoke to why Sadr went to Iran, nor why most of his Mahdi command went with him. Iraq has plenty of space for such meetings, and the southern third of the country is sympathetic to the Shi'ite political cause. What could Sadr and the Mahdis do in Iran that they could not in Najaf or Basra? Perhaps they could not count on unfettered access to Iranian counsel and protection outside of Iran, now that the US has stepped up its action against Iranian agents in Iraq and Maliki withdrew his political protection from Sadr City.

“Come out, come out, wherever you are…” So we can shoot you.

Frequent readers may wonder why I’m silent on the continuing debate in the House of Representatives on the Democrat resolution condemning the President’s strategy in Iraq. My reason? Lots of folks are writing on this subject and I don’t have anything meaningful or unique to add to the conversation. I find the whole exercise to be repugnant beyond belief, especially given the fact the “debate” is contrived. If the Democrats wanted a true debate, they’d be open to considering the various amendments the Republicans have proposed. But that doesn’t mesh with their agenda, which is to discredit the President and curry favor with the current majority of the notoriously fickle American public, as expressed in various opinion polls.

For shame.

@@@

Placeholder.

Today’s Pic: A shot in the Modern and Contemporary Gallery at the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston. I’ve posted a few other shots of this fine museum before. Truly a jewel in Houston’s crown.

April, 2000.

Back in a few.

Apropos of Nothing…

So, I’m sitting here, by the window, watching the snow come down. Which I’ve been doing for about the past hour and a half. It’s not too, too windy so the snow is doing that drifting, swirling, dancing sort of thing. Mesmerizing. I could do this all day and probably will.

I’m also on my second and soon (very soon) to be third glass of Beaujolais. Out of nowhere this guy I used to know pops into my head, or rather, one of his sayings does.

“No one’s happier than a wino who can afford his own wine.”

How utterly frickin’ true.

Up Waaay Too Early...

So…did he stay? Or did he go? First there was this:

Feb. 13, 2007 — While members of the U.S. House of Representatives take turns weighing in on President Bush's planned troop surge in Iraq, the focus in Iraq is not on the arrival of more U.S. troops, but the departure of one of the country's most powerful men, Moqtada al Sadr and members of his army.

According to senior military officials, al Sadr left Baghdad two to three weeks ago and fled to Tehran, Iran, where he has family.

And then there was this:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Supporters of Muqtada al-Sadr said Wednesday that the radical Shiite cleric was still in Iraq, denying a report that he fled to Iran ahead of a security crackdown targeting his militia.

An Iraqi government official said al-Sadr was in the Shiite holy city of Najaf Tuesday night, when he received delegates from several government departments. The official, who is familiar with one of those meetings, spoke on condition of anonymity because he has no authority to disclose information on his department's activities.

Given all the brouhaha about Iran’s involvement in, and support of, the Iraqi “insurgency,” it would be interesting indeed if al-Sadr has fled to Tehran. But then again… birds of a feather, and all that. I’m sure al-Sadr and Ayatollah Khamenei have a lot more in common than, say al-Sadr and Bashar Assad. Like a taste for expensive Austrian firearms? (On sale!! Only $3,999.99! Each.)

The other shoe dropped. Both Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan have resigned from the Edwards campaign. Both claimed their resignations were personal decisions and Edwards wasn’t involved. Yeah, right. Sure. Ummm-hmm.

One thing about l’affaire Marcotte/McEwan bothers me, though. Ms. Marcotte has put up several samples of the hate mail she’s received, and the content and tone is troubling, indeed. This is America, where everyone, regardless of how repugnant their views may be, are free to express those views. Slimeballs who feel a need to insult and threaten people, in the vilest manner, for speaking their mind(s) just don’t get it. I’m embarrassed for these people, and most of all, ashamed that they are on my “side.” That sort of behavior simply hands the Left ammunition to use against the Right (which Marcotte also has used, in spades). Not to mention the fact that it’s frickin’ illegal, too…the threats, that is.

Just sayin’.

Apropos of nothing, but Iowahawk just happened to find Ms. Marcotte’s brand new, updated résumé. And it’s a hoot. L’affaire Marcotte has been a frickin’ goldmine for Mr. Burge.

This is rich… (from Drudge, in its entirety):

HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER ICE STORM
HEARING NOTICE
Tue Feb 13 2007 19:31:25 ET

The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?”

The hearing will be rescheduled to a date and time to be announced later.

DC WEATHER REPORT:

Wednesday: Freezing rain in the morning. Total ice accumulation between one half to three quarters of an inch. Brisk with highs in the mid 30s. North winds 10 to 15 mph...increasing to northwest 20 to 25 mph in the afternoon. Chance of precipitation near 100 percent.

Wednesday Night: Partly cloudy. Lows around 18. Northwest winds around 20 mph.

Well, the House may have cancelled its hearing, but the Senate did not. I watched the Barbara Boxer-led circus of a hearing on C-SPAN last evening and it was a real hoot. But only for a moment, until I realized Ms. Boxer has legislation in the hopper (I searched for info on her pending bill but couldn’t find anything; perhaps her allusion to pending legislation was more of a threat than a reality.). Good Senator Boxer barely tolerated Senator Inhofe and his pointed questions to the “expert panel” Ms. Boxer had invited to testify. Here are a couple of excerpts from Senator Inhofe’s opening statement:

Some companies are coming together in an attempt to profit from government intervention where they have failed in the marketplace. Economists call this rent-seeking. But I think the Wall Street Journal was right. They are climate profiteers. These companies will gain market-share against their competitors while the economy flattens and jobs are sent to China – which in an ironic twist of fate will soon become the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide on the planet. Madame Chairman, not all companies have joined the climate profiteers. Most will be its victims, particularly small businesses that will no longer be able to compete. But the biggest losers won’t be businesses, but American consumers.

This proposal and others like it may be written in the form of government regulatory mandates, but for all practical purposes, it is really a regressive tax on the American economy, where select powerful companies profit at the expense of seniors, the working class and the poor. These groups already pay disproportionately more of their monthly budget for energy, and this situation will only worsen under proposals like we see today. Let me be clear -- this is the biggest tax hike in U.S. history.

[…]

And then there are the political leaders. Prime Minister Stephen Harper reportedly once called the Kyoto accord a "socialist scheme" designed to suck money out of rich countries. And just last week, Czech President Vaclav Klaus made clear his disdain for politics parading for science when he said "Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor.

You don’t have to agree with my position on the science to question the wisdom of the cap and trade approach. These proposals will do little and cost much. Moreover, as White House spokesman Tony Snow stated last week, "there is a carbon cap system in place in Europe, we are doing a better job of reducing emissions here," Snow said.

All the links are good, but you might recognize the WSJ op-ed, if you chase that particular link. I posted a link to the op-ed and excerpts from same on January 29^th. Boxer wasn’t impressed with Senator Inhofe’s comments, invoking the “The science is settled. There’s no more debate” argument. But I sure am glad there’s a voice of reason left in the Senate.

I can relate: “I've been chewing Nicorette strenuously." That would be Barack, quoted in an article about his attempt to quit smoking (as I noted back on February 1^st). From that same article (which is pretty good, BTW):

"For someone who's known to be a smoker and for a senator who's photographed all the time, it's odd that there aren't actually pictures of him smoking," said Wonkette editor Alex Pareene.

Not really, though — Wonkette has also tried in vain to obtain smoking photographs of House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, an unrepentant chain smoker whose Barclays aromatically fill the area outside his Capitol Hill office as if it were an enormous marble ashtray.

Other rumored present or past smokers in political life — first lady Laura Bush, former Vice President Al Gore — have assiduously kept any signs of the habit away from any prying shutterbugs.

Algore smoking strikes me as just plain weird, but Laura? Laura smoked? No sh!t? Major digression here, but I find that lil rumor to be extremely interesting. The digression is the image that comes to mind…which reinforces one of my minor secrets, that being that I think the First Lady is hot. A friend of mine (female) was once taken aback when I mentioned that fact. “Laura??? HOT???” she said, incredulously. Well, yeah. I’m not the only one…Dubya thinks so, too.

But…back to Barack. I most definitely relate to the Nicorette thing. Three weeks today and I’m still on the wagon. I wonder who’s gonna fall off first? Barack, or me? Glad I’m not running for President.

Today’s Pic: Freezin’ my @$$ off in Yellowstone. I’m posting this pic because my hair is just about this long at the moment. I have absolutely NO idea why I’ve let it get this long again. The last time I was in the barber chair was May of last year. And I’ve put the beard back on, too. Goin’ for that contemporary Old Hippie look, I guess.

May, 2000.

Happy Valentines Day!

A re-run from last year: Creepy Valentines. As the sample on the right indicates, they are indeed creepy.

It looks like a good day to stay in and cuddle with your valentine. Drink hot chocolate by the fire. Stare out the window at the snow drifting down. Wish you were in the Bahamas. Or maybe the Cayman Islands.

I know I’m not going anywhere today:

It could be worse, as they say. Like here:

Got that? A foot of snow by the end of the day...and more to come! Wow!

The Usual Load of Bollocks

On the lighter side of “Climate Change…”

Global Warming Shovel Hot Item in New York Stores
by Scott Ott

(2007-02-11) — Wal-Mart and Home Depot stores in upstate New York report brisk sales of the new Global Warming Shovel which hit store shelves just in time for this week’s 9.5-foot snowfall.

The shovels, made of a rigid form of lightweight GORE-TEX®, are specifically designed to remove the kind of snow spawned by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, “no matter how deep it gets,” according to the manufacturer.

Later this week, the company will also roll out its new Kyoto Mittens, “guaranteed to protect the wearer from the inconvenient truth of global warming-induced frostbite.”

But there’s seriousness at the links.

So…in serious news, there’s lotsa buzz about the tentative agreement with the Norks about their nuclear program. About half-way down the page in that AP release is this lil gem:

But the deal drew strong criticism from John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., who urged President Bush to reject it.

"I am very disturbed by this deal," Bolton told CNN. "It sends exactly the wrong signal to would-be proliferators around the world: 'If we hold out long enough, wear down the State Department negotiators, eventually you get rewarded,' in this case with massive shipments of heavy fuel oil for doing only partially what needs to be done."

I’m of the feeling we should all be “very disturbed.” Kim Jong-Il’s track record when it comes to honoring agreements and treaties is all but non-existent. What makes our negotiators think he’ll hold to this one? I’m all for diplomacy…when it works. Unfortunately, it never seems to work at all when it comes to the world’s bad actors. Or am I reading the wrong sort of history books?

More on the agreement here. Richardson at DPRK Studies isn’t impressed, either. And I get the feeling he knows a whole helluva lot more about this than I do. (h/t: ROK Drop, via Mudville)

Jack Cafferty: “I’m confused, Wolf.”

Truer words were never spoken. The “I’m confused” bit, not the other krep. When someone has to ask about the difference between shooting down Russian Hinds and shooting down US helicopters that individual is indeed confused... to put it mildly. Cafferty is around Number Three (with a bullet) on my personal list of people I love to hate actively dislike. You didn’t ask, but I’ll tell you…Number One is Keith Olbermann; Number Two is SWWNBN. Now you know.

Bernard Lewis, on Iran:

Does the Iranian regime believe that a military attack on its nuclear sites would strengthen it? Do they think that it can be avoided - that they can manage to keep the West from attacking them?

My guess is that they do not expect to be attacked. Remember, they have no experience of the functioning of a free society. The sort of self-criticism and mutual criticism that we see as normal is beyond their understanding and totally outside their experience. What we see as free debate, they see as weakness and division and fear.

Therefore I think they have a very low estimate of the forces that oppose them, whether in the US or Israel or elsewhere. They expect to have it their way, whatever way they choose.

Part of a Q&A session hosted by The Jerusalem Post.

Seating himself in the center of The Jerusalem Post's conference room, Prof. Bernard Lewis preferred to eschew any kind of opening remarks, and instead simply invited our questions. Arguably the preeminent Islamic historian and scholar of his age, Lewis, who turned 90 last May, handled the resulting avalanche with absolute equanimity.

Do I have to say it? Read the whole thing… (h/t: Chap)

@@

Today’s Pic Silliness: I’m sure A&A aren’t going to like one of these pics, now that they are “young ladies” and no longer girls. On the other hand, they both have well-developed senses of humor, which is a prerequisite of surviving life with their father. Here we are in a Seattle pub, doing our very best “Got Milk?” impressions. The milk didn’t go so well with the beer, which was brewed on the premises and was excellent in quality. I love brew pubs.

Seattle. June, 2000.

Back in a few.

Making the Rounds...

(click for larger)

...today, via e-mail. This politically-INcorrect map of the USA. Pretty danged funny, IMO. And it's not completely politically incorrect. Note the authors labeled CA and NY as "Gays." That's fairly PC.

Just a Couple of Things on Climate Change

The NY Sun: Global Warming Turns Ugly.

When the left is out to smear an opponent, any brand of tar will do. Consider Vice President Gore's mantra, which has been picked up by much of the press, that global warming skeptics are "deniers" — as in Holocaust deniers. You might expect that liberals would be leery of attempts to liken an opponent to the nuts who deny that Hitler murdered 6 million Jews. "Are you now or have you ever been a denier?" But no, the moral paragons of Beverly Hills appear set to deliver an Oscar to Mr. Gore for his bravery in telling supposedly inconvenient truths.

Mr. Gore has been caught at this sort of thing before. In 1994, Ted Koppel disclosed on "Nightline" that Mr. Gore had called to suggest he investigate various global warming skeptics for their ties to the coal industry and other interests. Mr. Koppel said he had refused. He went on to chastise Mr. Gore publicly for "resorting to political means to achieve what should ultimately be resolved on a purely scientific basis."

Just so. But Mr. Gore and others still seem unable to restrain their bile. The Washington Post recently quoted Mr. Gore as referring to a prominent Republican senator as a "denier." All of which makes one wonder: Do these people have as much confidence as they pretend to have in their theories about why the globe may be heating up? (emphasis mine)

That, to me, is the whole point. If the facts substantiate your case, why not stand upon them? If your theories are so danged bulletproof, why not welcome discussion and debate on the subject? Why make statements like “the debate is over,” when clearly, it is not? Why ask why…

Related: Scenes from the Climate Inquisition. Excerpt:

But the climate inquisition may prompt a backlash. One straw in the wind was the bracing statement made by Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of Britain's leading climate scientists. "I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric," Hulme told the BBC in November. "It seems that it is we, the professional climate scientists, who are now the skeptics. How the wheel turns. . . . Why is it not just campaigners, but politicians and scientists, too, who are openly confusing the language of fear, terror, and disaster with the observable physical reality of climate change, actively ignoring the careful hedging which surrounds science's predictions? . . . To state that climate change will be 'catastrophic' hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science."

The backlash is indeed developing. This is a good thing, unless you happen to be an apocalyptic evangelizer like Algore. More, not less, debate is needed… especially when you have politicians like Nancy Pelosi saying “government would have to impose a mandatory cap to reduce greenhouse emissions by 50%, a move that would bring government ever more deeply into the heart of the economy.”* And that, folks, is the essence of the debate. Not whether or not climate change is happening (I believe it is, FWIW), but why it's happening, and what to do about it, if anything. Mandatory emissions caps, assorted carbon tax proposals and emissions trading schemes are all potential economic catastrophes, especially when the government Democratic party is involved.

(*: from that NY Sun editorial, above)

Today’s Pic: Not being one to abandon a trend in its early stages, here’s another pic from the cross-country trip SN1 & Family and I took during July 2000. Granddaughters Anastasia and Amanda took some time away from the grown-ups as we were enjoying adult refreshments in a very nice little outdoor café somewhere in Upstate NY, near Lake George.

Update 02/12/2007, 1438 hrs: dc, in the comments:

I am sick up and fed with the Left trying to redistribute wealth, again. Via "Carbon Credits".

Algore won't give up his opulent lifestyle, and neither will Ms. Pelosi. Soooo, neither will I. Besides, if, indeed, this global warming B.S. is real, then all of the planet will warm up and food and plant growth will take off. Think of it... the rain forests will burst to life, expanding at an explosive rate! The added CO2 will encourage plants with the photosynthesis thing, causing fresh new oxygen.

And red wine will be cultivated again, in the UK.

Oh, and that charlatan Algore will still be criss-crossing the planet in his ozone wrecking jet. Tilting at yet another windmill. I notice he is getting a little "fluffy".

Of course, none of the above will happen. Except the criss crossing jets.

I wish that Al and Nancy would go live with some REAL third world types. You know, the folks who have to burn Yak Dung to cook food and heat their Yurts. Maybe after a couple of years, they would change their attitudes, and start planning some more dams and Nuclear Power plants.

After all, if it's good enough for us, I say it's good enough for Yak Herders!

I just had to bring this up front, coz dc says it better and with more humor than I. Hey dc, want a job? Or an avocation?

Still Mired Down...

I’m still in a bit of a funk when it comes to “meaningful” blog posts. You know, things like Putin reviving the Cold War, Obama’s formal announcement (yeah, like that’s news), or even another incidence of academic political correctness winning the day. Wait. Back up. Let’s reconsider that last item:

The feminist takeover of Harvard is imminent. The Harvard Crimson reported yesterday that the university is about to name as its new president Drew Gilpin Faust, dean of the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study. Harvard’s Corporation, which is likely to recommend Faust to the university’s Board of Overseers for confirmation, could not have more clearly repudiated Lawrence Summers’s all-too-brief reign of meritocracy and academic honesty, or more openly signaled that Harvard will now be the leader in politically correct victimology.

Faust runs one of the most powerful incubators of feminist complaint and nonsensical academic theory in the country. You can count on the Radcliffe Institute’s fellows and invited lecturers to proclaim the “constructed” nature of knowledge, gender, and race, and to decry endemic American sexism and racism.

And from that “powerful incubators” link in the preceding quote…

…beneath the ubiquitous “discourses,” “constructions,” and “negotiated meanings”—behind the coy hyphens, parentheses, and slashes—lies the belief that there is no such thing as the “self,” or “truth,” or “males” and “females,” or “good” and “bad,” that all are arbitrary categories designed by an oppressor class of white male heterosexual capitalists to keep a victim class of minorities, women, and poor people silenced and powerless?

That particular paragraph describes the mindset of Harvard’s (rumored) new president. Hell, she was instrumental in shaping what can only be called a radical point of view and is in the vanguard of the “movement,” so to speak. My reaction?

Good Lord. It’s hard to see how the pendulum can swing any further to the left, or to imagine a more egregious offense to the values that made this country what it is today, or rather what it was...back when “traditional values” were the norm and well before we began lionizing the “victim class(es).” I only hope that some sort of backlash is forming, somewhere. Coz it’s way past time for the pendulum to begin its swing back towards reality. The fate of western civilization hangs in the balance, and I’m not being melodramatic. Not in the least.

So. Let’s lighten up. In the “Fun with Site Meter” department, I offer you the leading search terms resulting in EIP visits from Googlers for the past 45 days or so:

“My Lil Reminder” in its various permutations (IIVP): 136
“USAFA Cadet Requests F-15 Ride” IIVP: 59
“YGBFSM” IIVP: 39
“Petticoat Punishment” IIVP: 29
“Heidi Cullen” IIVP: 15
People Looking for Becky’s Place but Winding Up at EIP Instead (“Hemipenes”): 2

And the strangest search term these past days:

“Woah-Oh Oh-Woah-Oh-Oh-Woah Woah-Oh-Oh-Woah-Oh-Oh techno song lyrics.”

Could you just hum a few bars? I might have that. Somewhere. On the other hand…techno has lyrics? Who’d thunk it?

On the other, other hand, I’m surprised this got any hits at all:

“who sings, "live on the edge" for pontiac commercial.”

Why? Because the commercial in question is a Ford ad, Sparky.

I loves me some Site Meter!

I forgot to make another entry in the “nothing lasts forever” department this past week. This time it was my beloved trusty HP LaserJet 5P printer, a device that made no demands, worked first-time, every time, was economical to operate, and so on. Until about a month ago, when it refused to power up when I hit the switch. No blown fuses or other obvious indications of ill-health, just a quiet death. That printer served me quite well…for well over ten years (more like 12), as a matter of fact. But it’s gone now, replaced with a shiny new HP D7360 ink-jet photo printer, which will do double-duty printing the odd document here and there, like the annual 1040s or directions from Google Maps. And the price was more than right, too: only $129.00 at Office Max. I’ve wanted a photo printer for the longest time. And now I finally have one. This time the philosophical “nothing lasts forever” statement was good news.

The weather is always good for a paragraph or two when all else fails, and it’s gonna be pretty good today: partly cloudy with a forecasted high of 67. That sounds like top-down weather, doesn’t it? I think I just might get out in it today and see if I can’t get a February sunburn. That would be interesting, nu?

Today’s Pic: Granddaughters Anastasia and Amanda running to avoid getting wet while SN2 looks on, as a very cool fountain in Seattle dances in time to classical music. The girls unsuccessfully avoided the water, I should add: they got soaked. There are speakers arranged around the periphery of the fountain, and the music varies from up-tempo classical to pop (technical details here). The water jets in the fountain are choreographed to “perform” in conjunction with the music. Way-cool. Way-wet, too!
June, 2000.

Day Off? Or Off Day?

Today’s Pic: Irises in a Taos flower garden. May, 2004.

I might be back later. But at the moment I don’t have a single thing to say. Zilch. Nada. Sometimes it bees like that…

Just More...uh...Stuff

A Comparison of Live Hotmail, Gmail and Yahoo Mail. The money graf:

Overall we prefer Gmail over all other webmail applications because performance (speed) is consistently fast, and emails can be tagged making search much more effective. They also offer more storage and other features, and it’s free. However, Yahoo and Live Hotmail offer more mainstream Outlook-like user interfaces (although Live Hotmail does not allow you to access other email accounts from their application), whereas Gmail takes some time to get used to. If you are looking for speed and tagging is important, Gmail is for you. If you are looking for the closest thing to Outlook online, go with Yahoo Mail.

There’s a neat three-way comparison chart of available features, too.

Envy:

Everyone suspected that the investors, founders and early employees of YouTube made tidy sums when it was acquired by Google for $1.65 billion in stock late last year.

[…]

A founder and YouTube’s chief executive Chad Hurley received 694,087 shares of Google and an additional 41,232 in a trust. Based on Google’s closing price yesterday of $470.01, the shares are worth more than $345 million.

Another founder, Steven Chen, received 625,366 shares and an additional 68,721 in a trust, for more than $326 million.

[…]

When the deal was announced in October, YouTube was less than two years old and had about 70 employees. Several of the early employees are listed in the filing statement as owning thousands of Google shares.

That’s a lot of beer. And a Ferrari. Or three. Assuming the stock recipients are selling their stock. And they are.

So…I’m a little slow sometimes (ed: sometimes? How about MOST of the time? Shuddup!). I’m watching C-SPAN this morning, and Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army Chief of Staff, is testifying before the House Appropriations Defense sub-committee. He’s looking pretty sharp in his new Army Dress Blues. “Dress Blues?” Yep. Complete with Civil War era rank epaulettes. I didn’t realize the Army has changed its uniform, but they did—last summer. You can see it here.

Lileks to the rescue! I’m fond of describing myself as socially moderate and conservative when it comes to fiscal and national defense matters. But…what exactly is a “social moderate,” anyway? James provides the definitions, thusly:

Social liberal: believes Howard Stern should be able to say the F word not just on satellite radio, but broadcast as well.

Social moderate-liberal: same as above, but wishes Howard wouldn’t say it so much.

Social moderate: believes Howard Stern should not say the F word on broadcast radio, but has no desire to control the content of satellite channels to which people freely subscribe.

Social moderate-conservative: Howard should definitely not say it on broadcast radio, and while he probably has the right to say it on satellite, Senate hearings into decency on cable and satellite stations isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Social conservative: doesn’t believe Howard Stern should say the word, and if you subscribe to satellite radio, you’re supporting Howard Stern, and have no right to call yourself a social conservative.

Yep. That’s me!

He kept them…but you probably already know this. The NYT:

Mr. Edwards announced on Thursday, after 36 hours of deliberation, that he would keep on his campaign staff two liberal feminist bloggers with long cybertrails of incendiary comments on sex, religion and politics.

Deliberations over the fate of the two bloggers, Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, created a crisis in Mr. Edwards’s nascent campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008 and illuminated the treacherous road ahead as candidates of both parties try to harness the growing power of the online world. The case of the two women had left Mr. Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, with difficult choices.

Difficult choices, indeed. On the one hand, if Edwards had fired them, the nutroots would have had his head, figuratively speaking. They were already going down that road. On the other hand, his disingenuous rationale for keeping them just reinforces his hypocrisy, and that of the two bloggers in question. Marcotte’s and McEwan’s “apologies” said, basically, “it was just satire, we weren’t serious.” In pig’s eye. They were damned serious, and that’s the frickin’ problem. Jeff Goldstein says it best:

Of course it was her intent. Just as it was McEwan’s intent. And worst of all, Edwards knows it. That he has pretended to take the two at their word, in an ostentatious gesture of “trust,” is precisely the kind of staged treacle that makes people doubt the sincerity of politicians; and that both Marcotte and McEwan have assured their own personal Patriarch that they’ll behave, now that he’s promoted them to the grownups’ table, is, to put it bluntly, one of the most pathetic public surrenderings of personal integrity I’ve ever seen.

Seriously. We should feel bad for them.

That is, were we to actually believe they meant any of it. Because how this plays out for the netroots is this way: either they are cheering on an ideological sellout, or they are knowingly and happily embracing an opportunistic liar. So. Congrats to them. Once again, they’ve covered themselves in white hot sticky glory!

What he said.

Today’s Pic: More Adolphus. The pic on the right is an interior shot of the ex-girlfriend in front of one of those Flemish tapestries, and the exterior (at the top) is a more-detailed shot of some of the stonework on the façade.

Lou mentioned in yesterday’s comments that she would post about the Adolphus on her blog. And she has. Great story, that!

Still February of 2004. Still in Dallas. As always, click the pic for the larger version(s).

Baroque

Today’s Pic: An architectural detail on the Hotel Adolphus in Dallas. From their web site:

A baroque masterpiece opened in 1912, The Adolphus Dallas hotel ushered in a grand new era of sophisticated Dallas lodging. Amid such treasures as early Flemish tapestries and a Victorian Steinway once owned by the Guggenheims, you can recall the splendor of bygone days and almost feel the presence of the famous guests who stayed here before you. Once you are shown through our carriage doors, you may just feel like royalty yourself.

One of the better hotels I’ve stayed in…it really is “a baroque masterpiece,” inside and out.

February, 2004.

Late Night? Early Morning?

re: the title...you decide.

Open to all…with certain limitations:

Although Google posted in Gmail's help that "anyone in the world is now welcome to create a Gmail account at mail.google.com/mail/signup", Google's definition of the world was pretty limited.

Gmail is now a public beta in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, Brazil, Australia, Russia and Japan, according to BBC. If you live in one of those places, you can go to Gmail.com, and look for "Sign up for Gmail" or you can visit this page to create an account.

I’ve used GMail for well over two years now, or is it three? One forgets. But…I really like it, and that’s an understatement. As I’ve said before: Google’s gonna own the world. It’s just a matter of time.

Speaking of Google…this is fun. And photos! I never had any reason to go to the Googleplex while I lived in SFO, but now I wish I had.

A breath of fresh air… “Global Warming and Hot Air.” In yesterday’s WaPo. Excerpts:

You could be excused for thinking that we'll soon do something serious about global warming. Last Friday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- an international group of scientists -- concluded that, to a 90 percent probability, human activity is warming the Earth. Earlier, Democratic congressional leaders made global warming legislation a top priority; and 10 big U.S. companies (including General Electric and DuPont) endorsed federal regulation. Strong action seems at hand.

Don't be fooled. The dirty secret about global warming is this: We have no solution. About 80 percent of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas), the main sources of man-made greenhouse gases. Energy use sustains economic growth, which -- in all modern societies -- buttresses political and social stability. Until we can replace fossil fuels or find practical ways to capture their emissions, governments will not sanction the deep energy cuts that would truly affect global warming.

[…]

Anyone who honestly examines global energy trends must reach these harsh conclusions. In 2004, world emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2, the main greenhouse gas) totaled 26 billion metric tons. Under plausible economic and population assumptions, CO2emissions will grow to 40 billion tons by 2030, projects the International Energy Agency. About three-quarters of the increase is forecast to come from developing countries, two-fifths from China alone. The IEA expects China to pass the United States as the largest source of carbon dioxide by 2009. (Emphasis mine)

Which, in part, is why the infamous Kyoto Protocol does not make any sense, and why the Senate, during the Clinton administration’s tenure, rejected the Kyoto Protocol by a vote of 95-0. As the President said in a 2001 letter to Senators Hagel, Helms, Craig, and Roberts:

As you know, I oppose the Kyoto Protocol because it exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the U.S. economy. The Senate's vote, 95-0, shows that there is a clear consensus that the Kyoto Protocol is an unfair and ineffective means of addressing global climate change concerns.

The President is correct. The Kyoto Protocol is just so much window dressing, a sort of “feel good” initiative that doesn’t accomplish a dang thing…even if the nations that signed on (I’m looking at you, EU) actually complied with the protocol. And yet we have idjits like Chirac threatening the US with sanctions additional taxes on our exports if we don’t sign on to Kyoto, and Kerry mumbling about the US being a “pariah” because, in part, we didn’t ratify Kyoto. I know I’m digressing here, but…dang!

Here’s another right-on-target essay on the subject at Café Hayek.

This short-run basic human pleasure most Americans get from warmer weather helps people feel good about being skeptical about the data and the science. How seriously can you take the scientific consensus when there's a debate about whether to use 90% or 99% as the likelihood that we're changing the earth's climate? That's not science. That's politics. How seriously can you take the scientific consensus when there are serious scientists suggesting the whole thing is a hoax. Jeff Jacoby lists a few here. And there are others. These folks aren't saying the estimates are off by 10%. They're saying the whole thing is a hoax. How seriously can you take the scientific consensus when you know that a lot of the experts are on the government and foundation funding gravy train and their livelihood depends on remaining on the right side?

That WaPo editorial and the Café Hayek essay pretty much have the goods. There are a few bits I don’t agree with in the WaPo op-ed, but…on the whole: Recommended. As is the Café Hayek piece.

Interesting… Hackers attack heart of the net. You didn’t notice, did ya?

Hackers have attempted to topple key parts of the internet's backbone, in one of the most significant attacks of recent years.

The target was servers that help to direct global internet traffic.

In the early hours of Tuesday three key servers were hit by a barrage of data in what is known as a distributed denial-of-service attack.

There is no evidence so far of damage, which experts are saying is testament to the robust nature of the internet.

[…]

The servers involved were each operated by a separate body – the US Defense Department, the net’s oversight body ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) and UltraDNS, which manages traffic for websites ending in “org” and some other suffixes.

On the other hand, you just might be part of the problem:

Do you know what your computer was doing the other night?

That's the question a lot of security professionals and analysts would like to put to users. On Tuesday, the 13 servers that help manage worldwide Internet traffic were hit by a denial-of-service attack that nearly took down three of them. Analysts say the hackers' used possibly millions of zombie computers to wage the attack -- and they expect that army is populated with the desktops and laptops of unknowing users around the world.

"Individuals have contributed to this problem without knowing it," says Graham Cluley, a senior technology consultant with Sophos. "People heard about hackers doing these things, but guess what? It may have been your computer doing part of the hacking. ... People need to take more responsibility over the cleanliness of their PCs."

One cannot over-emphasize the importance of good virus protection software. I’ve been in the biz for a long time, yet somehow I became “part of the problem” a few years back. Even though I’ve always run anti-virus and anti-spyware software someone managed to hack my AOL password and use my computer to send literally hundreds of spam messages. I was shocked. And how did I know? AOL “locked” my account and I had to call them to get back on-line. That wasn’t pleasant. Thank God the spam was just ordinary, run of the mill stuff…and not porn, or worse... What could be worse, you ask? Democrat propaganda comes to mind. Just sayin’.

Iowahawk. Iowahawk!! Yes!!

The Pandagon Papers

[Strong content warning - ed.]

To: Senator John Edwards
From: Amanda Marcotte
Re: Job Offer

Dear Senator Edwards:

I am f***ing delighted to accept your offer of the position of Official Blogger for the Edwards 2008 presidential campaign. Please find attached my f***ing W-2 form.

I would like to express my heartfelt thanks for this totally f***ing awesome opportunity to help you take America back from f***ing BushCo and the other f***tard bible-humping extremists that have turned this once great nation into a goddamn rape factory for their snakehandling Jesus Camp hatebots.

In closing, I am so f***ing proud to be a part of this campaign, and f***ing gratified to know that I'll be working for someone who f***ing understands the importance of reaching out to progressive bloggers like myself. I look forward to contributing in any way I f***ing can. You won't be f***ing sorry!

F***ing Sincerely,
Amanda Marcotte, "Pandagon"

Merely the first of seven notes from Ms. Amanda to Candidate Johnny. Read the rest. Or not, if you’re offended by the f-bomb, of which there are many. But, Hey! That’s Ms. Marcotte’s style, ain’t it? And be sure to chase Iowahawk’s links, coz he’s distilled the essence of the issue…wonderfully.

"Is that OS2?" "No! It's Windows 386..."

It just looks like OS2. And…each window has its own virtual 8086 machine, with 640K of memory! Wow!!

If you’re (a) older and (b) been in the tech biz for a while, this is guaranteed to give you nightmares. On the other hand, it’s just plain funny! An official Microsoft ad, this is. One wonders where it ran, because it's seven minutes long. Certainly not on TV... perhaps a promo for corporate IT managers? At any rate, I don't remember it. But then again, I wasn't originally in the "desktop" world. I do remember the old blue-screen, white font MS-Word (for DOS) you see briefly in the ad.

(h/t: Gizmodo)

Current Events...

Dang, but it took me a looong time to “make the rounds” today. The blog rounds, that is. Three hours of doing nothing but…and I’ve yet to begin with “Current Events,” which, apropos of nothing, was one of my favorite subjects in grade school. Perhaps I’ll be able to make something of that last thought, but probably not.

Lex must have had a slow day at work yesterday, because he certainly was prolific where the blog is concerned. As were his commenters. I probably spent at least an hour and a half of the aforementioned three hours at his place. That said, Lileks has added a new item to his “Institute of Official Cheer” sub-site: “Funny Books, Dubious Moments in Comic History.” The first installment is hilarious, as one might expect.

A tempest in a teapot… “Edwards’s Bloggers Cross the Line, Critic Says.” It is definitely a slow news day when this is the lead item at memeorandum (the 1500 hrs 2/07/2007 page; it changes hourly), and when there are 39 links to folks blogging about it, both right and left. And that doesn’t include the six related items and their links under the lead NYT article. I’m not going to count ‘em all, but geez!… there must be over 100 Big Dog bloggers writing on this subject today. Anyway. If you care, here’s what the flap is about:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 — Two bloggers hired by John Edwards to reach out to liberals in the online world have landed his presidential campaign in hot water for doing what bloggers do — expressing their opinions in provocative and often crude language.

[…]

The two women brought to the Edwards campaign long cyber trails in the incendiary language of the blogosphere. Other campaigns are likely to face similar controversies as they try to court voters using the latest techniques of online communication.

[…]

She (ed: Marcotte) has also written sarcastically about the news media coverage of the three Duke lacrosse players accused of sexual assault, saying: “Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.”

“Often crude language” is being kind. Very kind. Amanda Marcotte, and many more than a few of her sisters on the Left, is a veritable potty mouth. I don’t find that trait attractive at all, in either women or men, but especially in women. Perhaps I’m living in the 19^th century, I dunno. But it is what it is…

Oh, and as for Edwards and his campaign? This is just one more incident of bad judgment and half-baked ideas. Caveat emptor.

Other than that, I couldn’t frickin’ care less.

On the other hand, Confederate Yankee has some pretty danged good observations on this brouhaha. Excerpts:

The Edwards campaign should have been cognizant of the liabilities of hiring these two particular bloggers, as they are indeed perfect examples of a very popular subset of liberal bloggers that have produced a body of work that will offend many of those potential voters who have not made up their minds, have an open mind, or can be persuaded to change their minds to vote for Edwards in the Democratic primaries. That the "wingnut Christofascist base"—liberal code for Republican conservatives—are not going to be voting in the Democratic primaries is completely irrelevant.

Democrats, many of whom are conservatives, and a majority of which are Christians and "breeders", are going to be choosing the Democratic Presidential candidates. Most of them don't read blogs, but many do read the newspapers, and they are likely to be offended that Edwards hired a pair of bloggers that mock their core values with the strongest possible language.

The kind of derisive language Marcotte, McEwan and her fellow travelers is widely accepted in their reality-based online community, but it is shocking enough to the supermajority of Americans that have never read a liberal blog, that even an ABC News blog questioned whether or not Marcotte's comments qualify as hate speech, and whether or not hiring Marcotte and McEwan means Edwards condones such speech.

What he said. Malkin has more, including a rumor that the Edwards campaign has fired Marcotte and McEwan. Too late, Johnny. The cat’s out of the bag. Firing them just makes you look as stupid (or dumber, actually) as you really are. Just sayin’.

Just how stupid can politicians get? This stupid. QED.

Further on Pelosi’s Air Force…from the Washington Times:

Mrs. Pelosi wants a larger aircraft that can fly to her home district of San Francisco nonstop. She also wants to be able to ferry other members of the congressional delegation, family members and her staff.

The speaker's request is being handled by her chief counsel, Bernard Raimo, a veteran Democratic lawyer on Capitol Hill.

"Who she can take is being worked out, outside the Air Force," said Ed Gulick, an Air Force spokesman at the Pentagon.

He said the Air Force is studying what types of planes are available for long, cross-country flights. Currently, three planes assigned to the 89th Airlift Wing at Andrews Air Force Base can make such nonstop flights year-round -- the C-32, C-40B and C-37.

Such VIP planes are in high demand.

"She's effectively taking a bird out of the fleet," said a defense source. "It will most directly impact the House, because they're the heavy users of the large aircraft. Congress looks at that Andrews fleet as their Hertz rent-a-car."

Larger than what?, you may ask… Well, larger than “an Air Force commuter-type jet” Denny Hastert used to fly back and forth to Illinois. Personally, I don’t think she wants a C-37. Too small for the family, ya know.

Further, further… Oh, those wild and crazy Lefties!! This is funny.

There’s a lot more in the current events space, but it’s waaay past time for me to get off the frickin’ computer and get out and enjoy another really nice day…

@

February’s first placeholder post. Last month we used exclamation points to designate placeholders, this month we’ll use ampersands. Back in a few, but in the meantime…

Today’s Pic: This is the pic I should have posted yesterday when I was in motorhead mode. A twofer, if you will. Baby pictures. And My Baby.

(Full disclosure: The Vette was TSMP’s car, her daily driver (except in winter) until she became “large with child” and we switched cars…I got the Vette, she got the Impala. Which she hated (the Impala), but that’s another story altogether. Strangely enough, I kept both the Impala and the Vette when the divorce went down. By that time TSMP had a Dodge Durango…)

Rochester, NY. August 1998.

I Forgot...

… to tell all y'all about the weather. Yesterday was beautiful, and today will be more of the same, only warmer. I had to run some errands over in the Big(ger) City^TM yesterday and I was able to run around with the top down... for the first time this year.

Yes. This is the way life should be. And it ain't gonna freeze tonight, either.

What's Up with THIS, I Wonder?

I've had seven discrete hits from the People's Republic of China this morning. All from different IP addresses.

Now...if I were paranoid...

Agendas

The Big Story (sorry, Mr. Gibson. It won’t happen again.) on memeorandum today, in various and sundry permutations, is how the Bad Men in the Rethuglican party are perpetuating the war-machine, preventing the kindly, paternalistic (maternalistic, too!) Democrats from taking the first steps to Bring Our Kids Home! On the other hand, could it be the Media mischaracterizes Senate Resolution vote?

Contrary to the implication of these "news" reports, the Democrats are attempting to end debate on a single resolution (and need 60 votes to do it) and force a vote on that single resolution without allowing others to be considered. By opposing cloture (which would stop debate), the Republicans are actually keeping debate open.

Or, said another way, Democrats want to prevent other resolutions from being considered. Republicans are attempting to keep debate open to force Democrats to consider and debate other resolutions and amendments.

Agenda? Does the MSM have an agenda? Quelle horreur! Who’d a thunk it… But, back to the issue… As I read somewhere: “Welcome to the majority, Senator Reid.” We can slow-roll you, too.

Further on Richardson’s speech at the DNC this past weekend… David Broder writes in the WaPo:

The stars of the weekend, judging from reactions in the ballroom and the lobby, were not Obama and Clinton but former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico.

Both of them played to the antiwar sentiments of this liberal-leaning audience by demanding that those now in Congress do more than pass resolutions decrying President Bush's decision to send more troops to Iraq. Edwards wants to pull out 40,000 soldiers now; Richardson said that Iraq "is not worthy of one more lost American life."

[…]

Unlike Edwards, Richardson dwells on his varied experience as a member of Congress, ambassador to the United Nations, energy secretary, diplomatic troubleshooter and now a reelected governor. Others may talk about extending health care, improving schools, creating jobs; he says he's already done it. Vilsack made a similar claim about his eight years as governor of Iowa, but Richardson could give him lessons in speech-making.

The full text of Billy’s speech is at the “Richardson said” link above. Here’s the meat:

You would think that when the Congress realized they were lied to, they would have done something about it. Well, they still can.

Once our troops are gone, we still have a role to play. We have a moral responsibility to bring the Sunni and Shia together in a national reconciliation conference. And we have a strategic interest in organizing a regional conference with all of Iraq’s neighbors, including Syria and Iran, to help stabilize Iraq.

But more than anything else, we have a moral obligation to those Americans who have laid down their lives.

Some say we cannot let their sacrifice be in vain. But you will never convince me that those slain patriots would have wanted a single additional life to be lost just to validate their own sacrifice.

Instead, the moral obligation is to honor their service by bringing their mission to a close. By ending the bloodshed … and finally letting the Iraqi people set their own course.

Those would be the principles of my presidency. And those would be the ideals I would seek.

Oh, Bill. You are SO wrong.

So, a mere three days after posting a link to the “War and Peace” of food healthy eating articles, I’m gonna let you in on a secret: I love this stuff. And this stuff, too. If you chase the links, you’ll note the nutrition info says a serving is a “half-cup.” What they really mean is half of a four-ounce container, a mere two ounces, at 150 calories per serving. Eat the whole four ounce “cup” and you get 300 calories. I think this is why I like this stuff so much…it’s rich—rich like Mom used to make. Real eggs, real sugar, real milk, no sweeteners, no artificial or substitute anything. Damn, it’s good!

Today’s Pic: Lotsa motorhead talk going on over at Lex’s new collaborative blog adjunct, including posts from Kris and SJS. And, in that vein, I’ll offer up a pic of one of my favorite cars. I’m tempted to say this one is the best car I’ve ever owned…but I’d be excluding that ’96 Impala SS (mine was black), the ’82 Beemer 320i, the ’67 Chevelle SS396, and, of course, The Green Hornet. Decisions…

Rochester, NY. January, 1999.

Update: For the googlers who come around looking for Impala pics, there's a 1996 Impala SS brocure here.

Web 2.0 ... The Machine is Us/ing Us

Mike finally got me off the dime when he posted the video above. The Web 2.0 video, by Michael Wesch, Assistant Professor of Cultural Anthropology at Kansas State (now there’s a title!), was produced as a response to this video. Watch ‘em both, and tell me which one is the more instructive, not to mention entertaining and user-friendly.

A couple of asides…you may wonder why (or you may not) I hadn’t embedded video in the past. Answer: bandwidth, or lack of same. It takes me a lot of time to view any given video due to the slow speed of my connection, so I tend to pass most of ‘em by. If I do choose to watch a vid, my M.O. is to let a vid “play through” in a minimized window with the sound on mute, and then replay it once it’s been written to a temp file…and will play all the way through without buffering. That’s a right-royal pain in the nether regions and a powerful disincentive when it comes to videos. I went and refilled my coffee cup (and did a couple of other things, too) while the Web 2.0 vid was playing.

But…no more. If I find a video that I do like, and I take the time to actually watch it, I’ll share it directly.

That second aside (I said “a couple”)? After watching the Web 2.0 video I had a twinge of regret that I’m not still “in the biz.” Yeah, the hours were long. Yeah, those hours were affecting my health. But, Dang! It sure was exciting to be in the right place at the right time.

Assassins! (of Various Stripes)

Mossad working in Iran? Perhaps. The Times (UK) picked up on an article that says the Mossad assassinated a leading Iranian nuclear scientist.

A PRIZE-WINNING Iranian nuclear scientist has died in mysterious circumstances, according to Radio Farda, which is funded by the US State Department and broadcasts to Iran.

An intelligence source suggested that Ardeshire Hassanpour, 44, a nuclear physicist, had been assassinated by Mossad, the Israeli security service.

[…]

According to Radio Farda, Iranian reports of Hassanpour’s death emerged on January 21 after a delay of six days, giving the cause as “gas poisoning”. The Iranian reports did not say how or where Hassanpour was poisoned but his death was said to have been announced at a conference on nuclear safety.

[…]

Hassanpour won Iran’s leading military research prize in 2004 and was awarded top prize at the Kharazmi international science festival in Iran last year.

Gosh. I wonder if it’s true? If so…that’s too bad. I’m appalled.

/sarcasm

Lileks celebrated ten years (!!) of Bleats this past Friday. Ten, count ‘em: ten. I am SO impressed.

I was living at 5226 Girard Avenue South, writing on an underwhelming Performa with a 630 X 480 screen; no iTunes, rudimentary video-in, no TiVo, no broadband. The site was hosted on AOL. Yet we were happy. Why, we didn’t know we were poor. The main index page had a link to the Gallery of Regrettable Food, which was about 30 pages long with tiny grainy graphics. I didn’t have a scanner – I imported graphics by shooting them with a video camera and using a rudimentary screen-capture card to get the image into Photoshop. Of course, back then we called it “Rotogravure Shop,” and we wore onions on our belts as was the custom in those times. If you’d told me that I’d get a book out of the Gallery in four years, I would have been delighted. In 1997 I had come to believe my career had stalled for good, after all. I started the Bleat because “web diaries” were all the rage, and the website - begun a year earlier – had become my primary means of filling my empty hours.

I had a lot of empty hours.

I knew he’d been around that long, but never really thought about it. Ten years is a long danged time to maintain a daily blog, let alone one that continues to be as interesting as his.

And, just in case you missed it: James eviscerates, and I mean frickin’ eviscerates, our friend Arkin at the WaPo. Here. Just a quick sample (re: Arkin’s “Those Hoover's and Nixon's will use these kids in uniform as their soldiers.”):

This is the most singularly incomprehensible passage I have read from a mainstream media journalist in my entire life. And I’ve written a few that might win second place. I don’t know where to begin. Hoover’s?

Hoover’s? I write for a second-tier regional daily, and if I woke tomorrow to find I’d posted that paragraph on a company blog I would open my veins in a warm bath.

[…]

You have your orders from the Post’s muller-in-chief: commence pondering. Oh, and we’d be talking about something different if we had a draft, which we don’t, but somehow this all applies anyway. Did I mention Abu Ghraib? I did. Okay. Fine.

Fricken’ Hoover. Hate that guy. Don’t you?

I know I said I hoped Iowahawk’s screed on Arkin would be the last word on/about that twit. But. Do NOT miss this one!

But, back to the ten years thing…1997: it was the best of times (SN3 was born), it was the worst of times (TSMP began plotting her departure). And so it goes…

Up for another quiz thingie? By way of blog-buddy Kris, I give you:

Your Taste in Music:

80's Alternative: Highest Influence 90's Alternative: High Influence Classic Rock: High Influence Progressive Rock: High Influence 80's Pop: Medium Influence

How's Your Taste in Music?

As I said over at Kris’ place: “Hmmm. Missing from the list, and big, BIG, faves: The Stones, Van Morrison, Lyle Lovett, Joni Mitchell, Warren Zevon, The Band, Bowie, Costello... I could go on (and on!), but I won't.” Actually, I will. There’s no classical (I’d list a few composers) on the list, no jazz artists (that I recognized, anyway), and danged few country artists. So..take it with a grain of salt. A BIG grain.

The Captain is good today.

Super Bowl commercials generate a lot of foolish analysis, perhaps as much foolishness as contained in the advertisements. This year provided plenty of that in several varieties, reflecting the efforts of ad agencies to make the biggest impression in their greatest competitive event. However, none of it comes close to matching the idiocy of the analysis provided by the New York Times, whose ad analyst blamed the war in Iraq for making commercials more violent: (Extensive excerpt from the linked NYT article)

[…]

Oh, for Pete's sake. Did any of the commercials feature IEDs or suicide bombers? How does a face slap equate to the battle against religious fanatics in Baghdad? How do two hitchikers holding beer, an axe, and a chainsaw evoke the street-by-street battles in Anbar?

The answer is that they don't.

And you know what I’m gonna say next: Read the whole thing.

My take on the whole Bowl experience:

The game, as a football game: C+. The game, as a Super Bowl: A-. The first half was highly entertaining, the second half, not so much. I couldn’t care less who won.

The ads: D+, C- (take your pick). More MadAv dreck. My fave: The Bud Light “hitchhikers” ad. “But he’s got a chainsaw!!” sez the guy in the backseat, fondling his axe. Other than that: Feh.

The half-time show: A-frickin’-PLUS! Best Super Bowl half-time show I’ve ever seen. Really. Prince just wow’ed me. And the producers’ grades are off the charts, as in A+++, simply because (a) they pulled it off in the (Purple) rain, and (b) no one got electrocuted.
Bravo! (for the half-time show, which should be obvious, nu?)

Just sayin', ya know. I never have been big on the Super Bowl.

Today’s Pic: So, all y’all like those baby pics, eh? That makes it easy on me, coz I have a ton of ‘em. SN3 on the couch in the family room, Rochester, NY. September, 1998.

Mostly Moonbats

The Heritage Foundation has released its 2007 Index of Economic Freedom (click the image for the full-size graphic). Here are the Top Ten Nations, with the degree of economic freedom they possess, according to The Heritage Foundation:

1. Hong Kong (89.3%)
2. Singapore (85.7%)
3. Australia (82.7%)
4. United States (82.0%)
5. New Zealand (81.6%)
6. United Kingdom (81.6%)
7. Ireland (81.3%)
8. Luxembourg (79.3%)
9. Switzerland (79.1%)
10. Canada (78.7%)

Last place? North Korea. Surprised? I thought not. (h/t: Glenn and TaxProf Blog)

Last week I put up a post about Bill Richardson shortly after he declared his presidential candidacy. We had some discussion in the comments to that post, and, in so doing I said I could and would vote for the governor if someone put a gun put to my head and forced me to vote for a Democrat, any Democrat. Well, no more.

"As someone who served in Congress for 14 years, I know the power they hold, should they choose to wield it," New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson told the DNC yesterday at the Hilton Washington hotel. "The Congress passed a resolution authorizing war. They need to pass another one that overturns that authorization and brings our troops home by the end of the calendar year."

That’s from today’s WaPo. I watched the speech in real-time on C-SPAN yesterday and that wasn’t all he said. Unfortunately I didn’t take any notes, but The Guv completely destroyed what little credibility he had with me. Just sayin’.

Gov. Richardson was followed by a complete and total moonbat who made Richardson look like Reagan, by comparison. That guy? Former Senator Mike Gravel… Once again, from the WaPo:

Former senator Mike Gravel (Alaska), the fourth speaker at yesterday's session, was perhaps the harshest of any of the candidates in denouncing those Democrats who supported the war initially. But he did little to advance his dark-horse candidacy, according to party activists, by delivering a 25-minute speech, the longest of the weekend and 18 minutes longer than the routinely ignored seven-minute time limit imposed by the DNC.

“Harsh” isn’t the word I’d use to describe Gravel; other words —such as “demented,” “crazed,” and the previously-used “moonbat”— are much more appropriate. That boy really turned me off when he claimed Eisenhower’s warning about the military-industrial complex had come to pass and that the MIC was in complete and total control of the country. It got worse from there… What I couldn’t believe is all the applause he received from the audience. Perhaps they were just being polite, I don’t really know. But a Democratic party that entertains people like Gravel, even for a moment, is not a serious party.

And speaking of serious/not serious, here’s a tiny little article about the songs the various candidates selected as intro/outro music for their DNC speeches. Remember how I went on about not liking the fact Chevy uses Mellencamp’s “This Is Our Country” as the theme song for their new truck ads? Well, now I have another reason not to like that frickin’ song. John Edwards is using it as his “theme song.” The article I linked isn’t all-inclusive, as it omitted the fact that the moonbat Gravel used Lennon’s “Power to the People” as his music. Is that frickin’ predictable, or what?

Speaking of moonbats… Here’s Captain Ed on the (in)famous and moneyed George Soros:

It's hard to get surprised by Leftist characterizations of conservatives as fascists The epithet flows so freely that even members of the Senate have used it, the last time by an ex-Klansman. The latest version of the insult comes from George Soros, speaking at the Davos Economic Forum last week about the situation in Iraq. Claiming that the US needs to cleanse itself from conservatives, Soros compared the process necessary to that used by the US in Germany:

He went on to say that Turkey and Japan are still hurt by a reluctance to admit to dark parts of their history, and contrasted that reluctance to Germany's rejection of its Nazi-era past. "America needs to follow the policies it has introduced in Germany," Soros said. "We have to go through a certain de-Nazification process."

This is highly inflammatory and, quite frankly, anti-American. (Emphasis mine)

No kidding! I’ll bet Barack cringed when he read the comments Soros made at Davos. Coz Soros has given Barack a lot of money… That aside, I’m beginning to think there must be something in the water at Davos…

No comment: “Science Panel Calls Global Warming ‘Unequivocal’.” Well, no comment beyond this.

Resist.

(h/t: Donald Sensing)

Today’s Pic: I know. I said no more baby pics. But…just one more. This one was my wallpaper for the longest time.
August, 1998.

Another Sort of Sunrise

Today’s Pic: The view from my office in Rochester. 0606 hrs, April 30, 1998. I was usually an “early guy.” You can get a lot done when it’s quiet and before the cycle of endless (and most often meaningless) meetings begins…

I think I need to take a road trip. I’m scraping the bottom of the photo barrel, eh?

Good Stuff

Here are the first three paragraphs of the most useful and informative thing I’ve read in (quite literally) years:

Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

That, more or less, is the short answer to the supposedly incredibly complicated and confusing question of what we humans should eat in order to be maximally healthy. I hate to give away the game right here at the beginning of a long essay, and I confess that I’m tempted to complicate matters in the interest of keeping things going for a few thousand more words. I’ll try to resist but will go ahead and add a couple more details to flesh out the advice. Like: A little meat won’t kill you, though it’s better approached as a side dish than as a main. And you’re much better off eating whole fresh foods than processed food products. That’s what I mean by the recommendation to eat “food.” Once, food was all you could eat, but today there are lots of other edible foodlike substances in the supermarket. These novel products of food science often come in packages festooned with health claims, which brings me to a related rule of thumb: if you’re concerned about your health, you should probably avoid food products that make health claims. Why? Because a health claim on a food product is a good indication that it’s not really food, and food is what you want to eat.

Uh-oh. Things are suddenly sounding a little more complicated, aren’t they? Sorry. But that’s how it goes as soon as you try to get to the bottom of the whole vexing question of food and health. Before long, a dense cloud bank of confusion moves in. Sooner or later, everything solid you thought you knew about the links between diet and health gets blown away in the gust of the latest study.

The article, “Unhappy Meals,” appeared in last weekend’s NYT Magazine, and by God, the NYT does get some things right once in a while. When Michael Pollan (the author) says he wants to keep things going for “a few thousand more words” he isn’t exaggerating. Not at all. But those “few thousand” words are well worth the time you’ll invest to read them, if you choose to do so. I hope you do.

The article is long, and as such, isn’t suitable for reading at work on your coffee break. I’m not a terribly fast reader and I tend to pause often to consider something, anything, that’s been said, or to chase a link, if I’m reading on-line. That said, I think I read the whole thing in about 45 minutes. And then I saved the web page for future reference. As I opened with: this is the best, most useful article I’ve read in years. I really mean that.

And another thing, apropos of this article: I owe The Second Mrs. Pennington an apology. She’s been going on for years about the virtues of healthy eating, and I tended to smile gratuitously and nod my head up and down, all the while thinking she’d gone over the edge. (That was back in Former Happy Days; we don't talk at all now.) And, in a small way, it was true…the bit about going over the edge. But that’s TSMP, in her very own, inimitable way. She’ll grab hold of something and ride it for all it’s worth, sometimes often to excess. But she was right about this one.

I apologize, Paula.

(Not that she’ll ever know, but hey...I’m on the record. Publicly, even.)

Groundhog Day

…and he didn’t see his shadow. So theoretically spring is on the way, at least in Gobbler’s Knob. Just what an oversized rodent in Pennsylvania has to do with weather in Portales is beyond me. But, Hey! America.

This is interesting…in an academic sort of way. I’m somewhat surprised to find my beloved USAF could be unconstitutional. Really.

Who claims that Textualism and Originalism lead to the Conclusion that the Air Force is Unconstitutional?

Commenters on my recent post about the constitutionality of the Air Force wonder whether there really are any serious constitutional law scholars who use the supposed unconstitutionality of the Air Force as an argument against originalism. A quick (and by no means comprehensive) Westlaw search reveals several examples. The use of the Air Force as an argument against originalism and textualism is not just a straw man. It's actually quite common.

Here's a sampling:

And serious arguments follow. Take that, Scalia! (Full disclosure: the preceding Scalia comment was tongue-in-cheek. I generally agree with the man. As a matter of fact, he just might be my favorite Supreme. Sorry, Diana, Mary, and Flo.)

You have to be living under a rock if you haven’t heard about that twit William Arkin and the several WaPo columns he’s written the past couple of days. You know, the ones in which he called members of the military “mercenaries,” and his subsequent rant against the folks who (rightly so) expressed outrage over his original column, and the third one where he apologized (sorta). Much, perhaps too much, has been written about this idiot, but Iowahawk, in his own special way, has the absolute best post on the subject. A few excerpts:

Equal Time: The Arkin Controversy

In compliance with the Fairness Doctrine and other proposed federal rules aimed at balancing online media opinions, I am introducing Iowahawk's new "Equal Time" feature. From time to time, I will be opening these pages to those with opposing viewpoints, where we will be debating the various top issues of the day. Please welcome today's guest dissenter, retired US Marine Corps LTC Mike Williams, as we debate today's Equal Time question: "Should Washington Post Military Analyst William Arkin Be Beaten Like the Repulsive Sack of Shit He Is?"

The Iowahawk View

Washington Post Military Affairs correspondent William Arkin recently stirred controversy with a blog post that termed active duty soldiers "mercenaries" who are "indulged" and given "obscene amenities" who should be "explained... why it isn't up to them to disapprove" of anti-war opinions. After the initial dustup, Arkin responded to critics by calling them "arrogant and intolerant," and after time for reflection, termed soldiers "worse" than mercenaries, and secretly harboring desires for a military coup.

Some policy analysts have proposed that in response, Arkin should be beaten for being the repulsive sack of shit he is. We at Iowahawk strongly disagree, and for a number of compelling reasons.

[…]

Rebuttal: LTC (Ret.) Mike Williams

Iowahawk's "case" is so weak and misguided, on so many levels, that I scarcely know where to begin. So let's take it point-by-point: First, vigorous public beatings of repulsive shit sacks are not necessarily at odds with the First Amendment, as long as no taxpayer dollars are involved. I agree that all due effort should be taken to insure that any beatings Mr. Arkin receives are only by private sector individuals, using privately-supplied tire irons. Further, any inconvenience Mr. Arkin experiences would be temporary, and he would be free to return to writing his column after recuperation and reconstructive dental surgery.

I hope this is the last word on Arkin… really, I do. We all have much better things to do than worry about an ill-informed, opinionated (I repeat myself) moonbat who just happens to have a column in a newspaper with a national readership. Nothing unusual about that, now, is there? And just for the record: no tire irons, please. Good ol’ fashioned fists would do nicely.

Signs of the Impending Apocalypse, Part XXVI:

OSLO, Norway - Former Vice President Al Gore was nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his wide-reaching efforts to draw the world's attention to the dangers of global warming, a Norwegian lawmaker said Thursday.

"A prerequisite for winning the Nobel Peace Prize is making a difference, and Al Gore has made a difference," Conservative Member of Parliament Boerge Brende, a former minister of environment and then of trade, told The Associated Press.

Algore has made a difference? How, pray tell? C’mon…tell me! Enquiring minds wanna know!

Jeebus Crow…an Oscar nomination and now this. Further from the AP:

The winner is traditionally announced in mid-October, with the prize always presented on the Dec. 10 anniversary of the death of its creator, Swedish industrialist Alfred Nobel.

About which Kos hissownself says:

The prize will be announced in mid-October. So say Gore scores an Oscar and Nobel in the same year, he can announce in November and still become THE story in the primaries. It's not as if he'll need the full year to get his name recognition up or make the case for his candidacy. He would instantly raise gobs of cash (I'd bet on tens of millions in the first 24 hours) and become the media sensation of the winter. He would instantly make hundreds of millions spent by his primary opponents obsolete. Talent would flock to him, decimating the staffs of his opponents.

Talk about worst-case scenarios. And here we were worrying about Hillary… I’ll bet she’s just beside herself over this development.

This is pretty rich:

The office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pressing the Bush administration for routine access to military aircraft for domestic flights, such as trips back to her San Francisco district, according to sources familiar with the discussions.
The sources, who include those in Congress and in the administration, said the Democrat is seeking regular military flights not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives and for other members of the California delegation. A knowledgeable source called the request "carte blanche for an aircraft any time."
"They are pressing the point of her succession and that the [Department of Defense] needs to play ball with the speaker's needs," one source said. The request originally went to the Pentagon, which then asked the White House to weigh in.

Why, Hell Yes! Give her a C-130 of her very own. A standard C-130, with the “troop configuration” aluminum scooped-out bucket seating, manned by aircrew from the California ANG, with PAX earplugs optional. Nothing else would be available, of course. All other airlifters would be otherwise engaged doing real work, like moving troops and supplies to the sandbox. Take it or leave it, Nancy. There’s no such thing as “Air Force Three.”

(Full disclosure, in case you didn’t chase the link: Hastert was provided military aircraft for trips to and from Illinois while he was Speaker. So there is a precedent.)

Today’s Pic: A rerun, of sorts. A sunrise pic from last August. I took 67 shots of the sunrise on August 16^th and posted numbers 66 and 67 that same day. This is number 46.

Loss

Molly Ivins is dead at 62, from breast cancer. The NYT obit is here. I didn’t appreciate her brand of humor or her politics, but it’s a sad, sad thing to leave this life so early. There is one thing I admire about Ms. Ivins, however:

In 1976, her writing, which she said was often fueled by “truly impressive amounts of beer,” landed her a job at The New York Times.

I like that.

Meanwhile, over at Firedoglake the natives are busy canonizing the late Ms. Ivins. A few choice bits from the comments:

bigspoiledbaby says:
January 31st, 2007 at 5:10 pm

Goddammit, how much more must America lose and why does it seem that the fascists will survive to inherit our country?

St. Molly of Austin, rest in peace for a few days, then please….intercede for your beloved America!

enough says:
January 31st, 2007 at 5:28 pm

Oh Molly. We’ll miss you so very very much.

Go in peace. Your job was well done. We have our feet back on the ground now, we have the House and the Senate now. We have a decent chance to take our country back now. Thank you for fighting so hard to get us this far.

I’ll never forget you.

57 says:
January 31st, 2007 at 6:01 pm

Who says nothing good can come from Texas?
Molly has joined the firmament equal to or greater then Will Rogers.

More than a few folks provided their favorite Ivins quotes, or links to same. And up in the main body of the post, FDL celebrated Ivins by quoting some of her columns. I particularly liked this one:

The president of the United States does not have the sense God gave a duck — so it's up to us. You and me, Bubba.

I don't know why Bush is just standing there like a frozen rabbit, but it's time we found out. The fact is WE have to do something about it. This country is being torn apart by an evil and unnecessary war, and it has to be stopped NOW.

This war is being prosecuted in our names, with our money, with our blood, against our will. Polls consistently show that less than 30 percent of the people want to maintain current troop levels. It is obscene and wrong for the president to go against the people in this fashion. And it's doubly wrong for him to send 20,0000 (sic) more soldiers into this hellhole, as he reportedly will announce next week.

What happened to the nation that never tortured? The nation that wasn't supposed to start wars of choice? The nation that respected human rights and life? A nation that from the beginning was against tyranny? Where have we gone? How did we let these people take us there? How did we let them fool us?

It's a monstrous idea to put people in prison and keep them there. Since 1215, civil authorities have been obligated to tell people with what they are charged if they're arrested. This administration has done away with rights first enshrined in the Magna Carta nearly 800 years ago, and we've let them do it.

This will be a regular feature of mine, like an old-fashioned newspaper campaign. Every column, I'll write about this war until we find some way to end it. STOP IT NOW. BAM! Every day, we will review some factor we should have gotten right. . . .

A perfect illustration of why the FDLers love her and I don’t.

RIP, Molly.

It’s been a week today and I’m still off the evil weed cigarettes, still haven’t cracked the Partagas stash. It’s still very early days, but at least I haven’t done that backsliding thing immediately. Thank you, Nicorette.

So. Just by sheer coincidence (and thanks to the inimitable Lileks, he of the cigarillos taken under the gazebo in the summer), I came across a couple of items on smoking yesterday, wouldn’t you know. And they’ll continue to pop up just like clockwork for the foreseeable future, too. Life’s like that.

The first: Barack Obama is a smoker. No sh!t.

But Obama's semisecret weapon amounts to a double-edged sword. After all, what sort of successful Democratic politician smokes nowadays? Smoking is GOP old-school. House Minority Leader John Boehner regularly smokes cigarettes—which helps explain why he didn't hesitate to hand out tobacco-industry campaign checks on the House floor some years back. But Democrats shun the demon weed, at least in public. One of the first acts of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was to ban smoking in the Speaker's Lobby, long the haunt of nicotine-crazed legislators. (The most famous Democratic tobacco addict doesn't even smoke. Former President Clinton likes to chomp on cigars—and, as the Starr report detailed, to occasionally use them for other purposes. Sometimes a cigar is not just a cigar.)

So, it's understandable that Obama, according to his aides, has been trying to kick the filthy habit as he gears up for a possible presidential campaign. The senator is refreshingly honest about his penchant for cigarettes: When asked about it by the Chicago Tribune in 2005, he replied, "The flesh is weak." When asked whether Obama still smokes, his spokesman, Tommy Vietor, hedged. "I haven't seen him for a month, so I don't know," Vietor said in late December. Vietor later declined to comment for this piece. (emphasis mine)

That Starr report link is pretty danged graphic, but I’m probably not telling you anything you don’t already know. Back to Barack… I really don’t give a damn if Barack, or anyone else, for that matter, smokes. I don’t think most Lefties are that tolerant, however. Because they know what’s good for you, even if you don’t…and they’re not shy about telling you, either. Still and even, I think this just has to be the most unique, if not bizarre, reason to quit I ever heard… “Well, I decided to run for President, so I guess I better quit.” Takes the cake, that does.

The second item is quite old, a Times Online (UK) item from March of 2005 titled “Up in Smoke.” (No, Sparky, not that Up In Smoke) It’s a bit of nostalgia, and Boy-Howdy, do I ever relate.

Not very long ago, the whole world smoked, no room was truly furnished unless it contained an ashtray, and all of waking life was measured out in cigarettes. Doctors smoked in their consultation rooms. Chefs smoked in restaurant kitchens. Mothers smoked while dandling their babies. Mechanics smoked in oil-flecked garages. Athletes smoked on the sidelines. Teachers smoked in classrooms. Patients smoked in hospital solariums. Television presenters smoked on camera. Shoppers smoked in the produce aisle at the supermarket. We smoked in the rear halves of airliners, in the balconies at movie theatres, between courses at formal dinners, on crowded dance floors while gyrating, on elevators despite the signs, on the subway if the hour was late enough. We smoked in the office and at the beach, in the waiting room and at the hair salon, in the art gallery and at the stadium. We smoked in bed: just after waking and just before sleep, after making love and sometimes during it. We often smoked without being aware we were smoking.

[…]

In Europe - actually, in most parts of the world other than the US - everyone was perpetually offering everyone else a smoke. Sit down at a table with three people and instantly out come four packs, an expertly gradated trio of ends poking out of a corner of each, and of course you have to take one, even if it’s a brand you abhor, just as they must take yours. To refuse would be an act of aggressively bad manners, like spurning the proffered tea in an Arab country or the bread and salt in Russia. In America, by contrast, prison yard customs prevailed. The pack was kept in a shirt pocket and one pill was drawn out at a time and inserted into the owner’s mouth. This was not viewed as a breach of etiquette since, it was reasoned, everyone you encountered would already have his or her own pack. Keeping your pack to yourself was a sterling example of the American ethos, like fencing your land and shooting trespassers and considering that basic societal benefits belong to those who can afford them. (Ed: gotta get that snark in, doncha?)

[…]

Bohemians and intellectuals predictably went for Camels or Luckies. Raymond Loewy’s Lucky Strike package was a triumph of design, even after the green background was excised in the Forties so that the dye could be saved for the war effort. In the Twenties it was stylish for cigarettes to allude to the Near East, hence Murads, Fatimas - and Camels, now the last survivor of the trend. (Philip Marlowe and Sam Spade smoked Fatimas.) Supposedly, there were dirty pictures concealed within the image of the camel on the package, but though I nodded yes when they were pointed out to me, I was never able to make them out. Both Camels and Luckies appealed to a certain purism, to a nostalgia for fedoras and speakeasies, to a peculiar impression that the brands were so elemental as to be something like produce, not really commercial brands at all. Nothing was better at conveying cosmopolitan style and culture in America than possession of a pack of Gauloises, or Gitanes. The aroma of black caporal tobacco was so distinctive you didn’t need to flash the pack to stand out in a crowd. (Ed: You sure didn’t. Gauloises and Gitanes stink, in a manner that’s simply beyond the stink of an ordinary cigarette and is, essentially, indescribable. Anyone who has ever been to Paris, or anywhere else in France, knows this for a fact. It begins when you ask yourself “What the Hell smells in here?”)

[…]

Anyway you can’t smoke any more. You can’t smoke anything - not low tar, not Sher Bidis, not all-natural additive-free tobacco in unbleached paper. It’s not yet illegal to possess the materials and implements for smoking, nor to consume them in the privacy of your own home, but it is increasingly difficult to smoke in public places, even outdoors, even in Europe. It’s true that a certain dark anti-glamour lingers outside the restaurant doorway, as you and people you will never meet again enjoy the rough comradeship of exile, puffing away in your thin jackets in February as if you were doing something heroic. It’s true that in a few Western settings - student life, for example, or among fashion models - smoking remains almost normative. It’s true that if you produce a pack of cigarettes in the right place and at the right time entire roomfuls of confirmed quitters will line up to bum one. And of course everyone knows at least one defiant and unapologetic smoker. In general, though, and especially in prosperous suburbs, you can expect passers by to glare at you with undisguised contempt, however discreetly you light up.

Barack, take note of that last paragraph. Or perhaps he’s already read the article. At any rate, every single thing in the above paragraphs is true, with the possible exception of smoking during sex. After sex? Most certainly. During? I don’t think so.

I’m old enough to remember the days when smoking was cool, the days when, as noted above, everyone did it. I learned “British Rules” on smoking when I lived in London. Not coincidentally, The Second Mrs. Pennington’s and my consumption rate doubled or tripled, even, when we went out on the town or down to the pub. We realized this almost immediately and developed subterfuges to counter the expense, which could be considerable. There were nights when the two of us would go through five packs of cigarettes, simply because all our mates were eager to accept our cigarettes when offered. I would routinely pass on the cigarettes offered in return, having never developed a fondness for Players Navy Cut or Rothschilds. We figured out what the Brits didn’t like (Trues, IIRC) and we’d both bring a pack of those along to offer around. Naturally, the offered smokes would be declined. Thus: money saved. I’m embarrassed to admit this, but it’s true.

Being the good Bohemian I aspired to be in my youth, I began with Luckies. I even did the James Dean thing by rolling them up in the sleeve of my tee shirt while on the job as a landscaping contractor’s assistant in high school. Yes, I began in high school. We all did the JD thing, and we all smoked Luckies, too. It was the thing to do. Over the years I moved from brand to brand, changing about every ten years or so. At the end (last week, ha!) I was smoking American Spirits, one of those “all-natural additive-free tobacco in unbleached paper” brands described above. Well, the paper is bleached, I think. And the damned things were still killing me, in spite of their “naturalness.” God willing, I’ll make it stick this time.

Even though I’ve excerpted from the article heavily, there’s much, much more. Here’s the closing graf:

Maybe there are ex-smokers out there who feel uncomplicated relief at having quit. I doubt there are many, however. Your cigarette was a friend - the sort of friend parents and teachers warned you against, who would lead you down dark alleys and leave you holding the evidence when things went wrong - but a friend nevertheless. It’s terribly sad that you can’t enjoy a smoke now and again without tumbling into the whirlpool of perdition, the way you can take a glass of spirits on the weekend with no danger that by Monday you will end up filtering the shoe polish after exhausting the cooking sherry. But just as an alcoholic remains an alcoholic even after decades of abstinence, so a smoker is a sinner forever after. You have breathed fire. You have experienced one of the deepest satisfactions of life: the first cigarette of the day in tandem with the first cup of coffee. (Ed: Or the two glowing cigs in the dark after wild, wild sex!) You have felt that knee-trembling rush upon taking the first drag after suffering an enforced separation from cigarettes - after a trip to the moon, for example. Your friend has come running to your side in the worst moments, and has been there to cheer you on in the best. You have tasted of the fruit of good and evil. Now that you have chosen the path of righteousness, can it be that the decision is fixed and irrevocable? Is it possible that smoking will be legislated or taxed out of existence? Is it possible that the Earth will be wiped so clean of tobacco that, like opium, it will be difficult to find without undertaking hazardous journeys in troubled regions? Is it possible that you will never again be able to enjoy the comfort of knowing that you have traded five minutes of life for five minutes of serenity? We may all have stopped smoking, but we continue to burn.

If you’re a smoker, or even an ex-smoker who doesn’t mind a trip back to Former Happy Days, go have a read. And smoke ‘em if ya got ‘em! Uh, no. Don’t.

Today’s Pic: “Support the Troops!” (as long as they… bring money.)
Port Canaveral, FL. Commissioning week for the USS Mason, March 2003.