The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) Editor in Chief, Dr. Gerald Weissmann, M.D. said "As it turns out, one of these bat species lives out its long life in Florida. Since bats are rodents with wings, this chemical clue as to why bats beat out mice in the aging game should point scientists to the source of this elusive fountain." [emphasis mine, to highlight the particularly egregious part of his statement].
Now everyone knows that Medical Doctors are smarter than the rest of us, but if Dr. Weissmann had been actually paying attention in undergraduate Zoology (or, if perhaps he'd been reading his own Journal), he might have a better understanding of phylogeny, especially since mice are a standard model for medical experimentation. Bats, are not "rodents with wings." In fact, bats aren't even close to rodents.
According to the standard (generally accepted) "Tree of Life," primates (lemurs, monkeys, chimps, and humans) are much closer to bats (Chiroptera) than to rodents (Rodentia).
The lesson here: people, especially highly educated specialists, can't keep from putting their feet in their mouths. And when they think their positions raise them to a position of expertise outside their own fields, we should be careful before just accepting what they spout.
(Other great examples of this: Politicians, Al Gore, any Hollywood star[or starlet], newscasters, and C-level executives)
Now everyone knows that Medical Doctors are smarter than the rest of us, but if Dr. Weissmann had been actually paying attention in undergraduate Zoology (or, if perhaps he'd been reading his own Journal), he might have a better understanding of phylogeny, especially since mice are a standard model for medical experimentation. Bats, are not "rodents with wings." In fact, bats aren't even close to rodents.
According to the standard (generally accepted) "Tree of Life," primates (lemurs, monkeys, chimps, and humans) are much closer to bats (Chiroptera) than to rodents (Rodentia).
The lesson here: people, especially highly educated specialists, can't keep from putting their feet in their mouths. And when they think their positions raise them to a position of expertise outside their own fields, we should be careful before just accepting what they spout.
(Other great examples of this: Politicians, Al Gore, any Hollywood star[or starlet], newscasters, and C-level executives)
I have recently encountered The Stupid on an epic scale. The Stupid is something that burns like acid fire, and it occasionally gets to the point of agony. I needed a word for the act of nurturing The Stupid, so I have created two words: Stupiditage, and it's ugly cousin Idiotage.
I think they're self-explanatory.
But you heard them here first.
I think they're self-explanatory.
But you heard them here first.
This morning, while getting ready for work, I caught the good "States Rights" folks on Fox News complaining because Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor thinks State and Local Law should supersede Federal "Law." They'd be complaining just as loudly if she was arguing that Federal Law supersedes state law, if the situation was reversed.
In this situation, they're complaining about how she thinks that state and local law should supersede the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They're right, but for the wrong reasons - she is a bad choice as a jurist if she thinks that the Constitution is just a Federal Law - it's not.
The problem is that the Constitution isn't "law" per se, but sits above the law, as a guarantor of rights. It is meta-law, sitting outside the law, governing what is and isn't law. The SCOTUS1 doesn't get to decide what the Constitution says (though she, and apparently the POTUS2 might like it to), the SCOTUS only gets to decide whether a particular law is permissible under the Constitution, and if so, whether it is applicable in a particular case or body of cases.
By the same token, I'm pretty sure that Sotomayor would find plenty of fault with any state or local legislation that ran counter to Federal legislation, which under the Constitution should be greatly more limited than it is - if that state or local legislation ran counter to her personal preferences. And this is what's wrong with her: A SCOTUS justice should not be an activist, and she clearly is.
-----
1 Supreme Court Of The United States
2 President Of The United States
In this situation, they're complaining about how she thinks that state and local law should supersede the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They're right, but for the wrong reasons - she is a bad choice as a jurist if she thinks that the Constitution is just a Federal Law - it's not.
The problem is that the Constitution isn't "law" per se, but sits above the law, as a guarantor of rights. It is meta-law, sitting outside the law, governing what is and isn't law. The SCOTUS1 doesn't get to decide what the Constitution says (though she, and apparently the POTUS2 might like it to), the SCOTUS only gets to decide whether a particular law is permissible under the Constitution, and if so, whether it is applicable in a particular case or body of cases.
By the same token, I'm pretty sure that Sotomayor would find plenty of fault with any state or local legislation that ran counter to Federal legislation, which under the Constitution should be greatly more limited than it is - if that state or local legislation ran counter to her personal preferences. And this is what's wrong with her: A SCOTUS justice should not be an activist, and she clearly is.
-----
1 Supreme Court Of The United States
2 President Of The United States
I just learned of an interesting character from the dawn of powered flight: Cromwell Dixon.
At the age of 14, he built (with the aid of his mother) what he called his "SkyCycle," a human-powered blimp - a gas bag with a suspended framework and propeller, driven by pedaling. His mother sewed the gasbag for him, but she let him do it. My parents let me do a few semi-suicidal things, but they never let me do anything nearly this cool.
It probably helped me survive to adulthood, though.
At the age of 14, he built (with the aid of his mother) what he called his "SkyCycle," a human-powered blimp - a gas bag with a suspended framework and propeller, driven by pedaling. His mother sewed the gasbag for him, but she let him do it. My parents let me do a few semi-suicidal things, but they never let me do anything nearly this cool.
It probably helped me survive to adulthood, though.
Over on Breitbart.com, there's a long, clear, well thought out and beautifully expressed post by a guy calling himself "BigHollywood." The article is titled "The Awakening of a Dumb Gay American." It is well worth a thoughtful read and slow, careful consideration.
It is telling that the one "counter argument" to his post that I saw (the lone dissenter from the first 50 or so responses) was in the category of the typical '[insert conservative name here] is stupid, duh' kind: a guy calling himself BOLTRIPPER wrote, "…dumb…yes most certainly….i’m off for my morning constitutional [sic]"1 - strangely enough, re-enforcing one of the most telling points made in the article itself!
I recommend you read it. Whomever you are, it's going to offend you, and that's OK, but listen to what he says anyway, because In My Arrogant Opinion it's a very, very important thing to hear.
1This is lifted verbatim from the response entry. Note the careful attention to spelling, punctuation, and grammar. It certainly does support the "intelligence" of the writer, and lends credence to his authority in branding BigHollywood as 'dumb.' Strangely, most of the responses to the blog post were well written, thoughtful, and clear. The presumably 'dumb' people who agreed with Big Hollywood (for dumb they must be to agree with someone so stupid) somehow managed to figure and use capitalization, punctuation and spacing. Go figure.
It is telling that the one "counter argument" to his post that I saw (the lone dissenter from the first 50 or so responses) was in the category of the typical '[insert conservative name here] is stupid, duh' kind: a guy calling himself BOLTRIPPER wrote, "…dumb…yes most certainly….i’m off for my morning constitutional [sic]"1 - strangely enough, re-enforcing one of the most telling points made in the article itself!
I recommend you read it. Whomever you are, it's going to offend you, and that's OK, but listen to what he says anyway, because In My Arrogant Opinion it's a very, very important thing to hear.
1This is lifted verbatim from the response entry. Note the careful attention to spelling, punctuation, and grammar. It certainly does support the "intelligence" of the writer, and lends credence to his authority in branding BigHollywood as 'dumb.' Strangely, most of the responses to the blog post were well written, thoughtful, and clear. The presumably 'dumb' people who agreed with Big Hollywood (for dumb they must be to agree with someone so stupid) somehow managed to figure and use capitalization, punctuation and spacing. Go figure.
Boy, am I glad I didn't see Twilight
 A few years ago, at the height of a period of insanity not-too-unlike-now, a couple of very bent men asked a very serious question: "What if all of the conspiracy theories are true?" The result was a trilogy of seriously mind-numbing (and utterly amusing) books that were ultimately bound up into a door-stop called Illuminatus! |
|---|
If you've followed this link over from IMAO (or are just looking at this picture wondering quietly to yourself "wha?"), here's what you need to know:
- Eris was the Greek goddess of discord. She is worshiped by the Discordians.
- Her weapon of destruction, wielded in response to the Original Snub is a golden apple (seen behind our terrorist friends, in a black pyramid NO LESS!)
- All truth can be found in Five Tons of Flax.
Fnord!
Disclaimer: I'm not sure what's up with Picasaweb right now, but it's really messing with the quality of the picture. The original is here, in the (extremely unlikely) event you want to see it with clear text.
This image blatantly stolen from (with credit given to): Ethics CrisisTo get an accurate translation, and a discussion on how translations really should be done, the image is a clickable weblink, and takes you to the Ethics Crisis journal entry that provides this bit of levity.
And remember, if you're cycling in Wales, consider guzzling cranberry juice.
 From: TVTropes.org, a collection of random useless trivia that can take up hours and hours of cross-reference following, interesting though useless information and stuff you just can't tear your eyes away from. I got sucked into the Anime Trope and I think I melted part of my left frontal and parietal lobes. Don't go there! I abjure thee! Stay away! Aargh!I learned another interesting internet word, too: Grenade (not from tvtropes.org, but it was cool anyway). |
|---|
Updated 2008.12.12 to include cool picture. The link is clickable and is direct sourced from TVTropes.org
Buried in this article is a little gem:
Now first off, the source of this quote is MSNBC, so it's not exactly a primary source, and we can take it with a small grain of salt for now. I'm going to hunt down the Duke University paper and see what I can find before I finish this rant. But before I do, I leave it as an exercise to the reader to consider this question: why are electric vehicles not "greener" than hybrids? And why are hydrogen vehicles not either?
Answers coming when (if) I can chase down the Duke paper (and some other primary sources on power generation costs, CO2 creation, and transmission losses per used kilowatt-hour).
More to come, if I get around to it.
But increased electricity use could drive up utility costs and ultimately force the construction of new plants. If electric utilities generate that power by burning natural gas, coal or oil, shifting to plug-ins would do little to address climate change or energy efficiency. In fact, researchers at Duke University suggest that regular hybrids may be more cost-effective than plug-ins for reducing CO2[sic] emissions (unless gasoline rises to $6 a gallon).
Now first off, the source of this quote is MSNBC, so it's not exactly a primary source, and we can take it with a small grain of salt for now. I'm going to hunt down the Duke University paper and see what I can find before I finish this rant. But before I do, I leave it as an exercise to the reader to consider this question: why are electric vehicles not "greener" than hybrids? And why are hydrogen vehicles not either?
Answers coming when (if) I can chase down the Duke paper (and some other primary sources on power generation costs, CO2 creation, and transmission losses per used kilowatt-hour).
More to come, if I get around to it.
- "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
- "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
- "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
- "He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future."
- "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face -- forever."
It seems that the origin of the word "whacked" in common parlance arose from the phrase "whacked in the head." This is how it was said a few years ago. "She acts like she was whacked in the head," or "did you get whacked in the head?" It meant, that he/she/you acted as though suffering from a concussion, the result of being hit hard enough in the head to cause brain trauma. From there, it degenerated to "he's acting whacked," and from there to "she's whacked," or the even more derivative "that's just whacked," to describe a thing or situation so bad it seems to be something one might hallucinate if suffering from said concussion.
Now we get to the actual abuse of the language. The annoyingly common usage now is "whack," as in "she's whack." Whack in this case is intended to be used as an adjective, but the language used is for the verb. It comes from the same laziness that creates such classics as "aks," as in "she aks him a question," or even "ast" as in "I ast you a queshun."
Whack is a verb, as in "it is good to whack things" or "whack him!" It is a mixture of laziness, ignorance, and bad grammar to say "he's whack." Come on, people!
Now we get to the actual abuse of the language. The annoyingly common usage now is "whack," as in "she's whack." Whack in this case is intended to be used as an adjective, but the language used is for the verb. It comes from the same laziness that creates such classics as "aks," as in "she aks him a question," or even "ast" as in "I ast you a queshun."
Whack is a verb, as in "it is good to whack things" or "whack him!" It is a mixture of laziness, ignorance, and bad grammar to say "he's whack." Come on, people!
A short civics quiz (for US citizens - if you're not, you might have to have majored in US History in college to know most of these) can be found here. It's an interesting exercise, and I recommend working through it. While you take it, you might think about this:
55% for college educators? I'm guessing they're Sociology profs, or maybe from the Education department. If they used History or Poly Sci (not impossible), I wouldn't be surprised, given the rest of the scores. Check out the findings at the end when you're done.
Caveat: Like all quizzes, read the answers CAREFULLY. I missed one because I missed a "not" in the answer.
The average score for all 2,508 Americans taking the following test was 49%; college educators scored 55%. Can you do better? Questions were drawn from past ISI surveys, as well as other nationally recognized exams..
55% for college educators? I'm guessing they're Sociology profs, or maybe from the Education department. If they used History or Poly Sci (not impossible), I wouldn't be surprised, given the rest of the scores. Check out the findings at the end when you're done.
Caveat: Like all quizzes, read the answers CAREFULLY. I missed one because I missed a "not" in the answer.
On a different discussion thread I got distracted from the conversation and launched into a tirade on where I'm going to go before I die. On my list so far (in no particular order) I have:
This is the current list, as well as I can remember it. It's a good enough version of the list that I think cross-posted it here. I'm up for suggestions of places I've left off, and why they should be included.
Most recently updated 9 Dec 08
- Iguassu (the amazing falls in the rain forest between Brazil and Argentina)
- Back to The Baltic (Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia) - Finland and Estonia were amazing. I want to see more of them, and their neighbors.
- Lake Biakal - largest freshwater body in the world, and a sea in its own right
- Mount Fuji (well, all of Honshu, in fact)
- The Great Rift Valley - One of the great tectonic plate intersections - a place where the land is being pulled apart, home of spectacular wildlife, incredible scenery, and several hundred volcanos
- The Great Barrier Reef - To dive here would be a dream. Preferably with a GOOD underwater camera
- Palau - ditto times two
- Iceland - midsummer holiday, when the sun never sets. Gulfoss and the blue lagoon, then a return for midwinter, when the sun never rises, to see the aurora.
- The Haggia Sophia Cathedral in Constantinople (no, not haggia sofia mosque in Istanbul - this is a religious thing)
- The ruins at Antioch (ditto: not the ruins at Antkya)
- As much as possible of Singapore
- Ditto for New Zealand
- The Forbidden City and Great Wall in Beijing
- Ankor Wat
- Key West, Florida (for diving, for sitting on the beach, for just being there)
- Antelope Spring, Utah: reportedly, this is some of the nicest North American fossil bed exposed to the general public - Eulethria kingii galore!
This is the current list, as well as I can remember it. It's a good enough version of the list that I think cross-posted it here. I'm up for suggestions of places I've left off, and why they should be included.
Most recently updated 9 Dec 08
- Mood:hopeful
The Indian Navy claims to have sunk a Somali pirate "mother ship." If so, this is a great bit of news. Unfortunately, the more 'mature' nations (the usual suspects - UK, France, the US, Germany, et al) have been relatively helpless in the face of the onslaught of these water-borne barbarians. The US has gone so far as to send the US Coast Guard (you know, the ones that are supposed to be guarding the United States Coast to Africa, because the US Navy 'doesn't know how to deal with piracy.'
This is double-speak. The US Navy knows exactly how to deal with pirates. International Law provides simple rules for dealing with pirates: if encountered, kill them and capture or destroy their vessels and weapons. If captured, immediate onboard trial, and summary execution. In the case of particularly notorious pirates, bring them back to port for trial and execution. Very, very simple. The Coast Guard is a police force. They are trained to arrest and detain, so of course, we're sending them into waters - where they have no jurisdiction - to arrest and detain criminals.
Leave it to the Indians to deal with the situation: this is a war against barbarian hordes, as pirates have always been viewed. When you find them, capture them if you can, and if you can't, destroy them with overwhelming firepower.
The BBC reported "The old ways of dealing with [pirates] are no longer possible." [ibid.] Strangely enough, "the old ways" seem to have worked just fine for the Indian Navy so far. Now, if the old school won't do it, maybe the Indians will - maybe they'll follow the one way that was proven in the past by a brand new navy and marine corps. In the late 18th and early 19th century, the Barbary Pirates were a plague on the established sea powers. The French, British and Spanish tiptoed around the problem for decades, losing thousands of ships to murderous, kidnapping, sea-borne, barbarian thugs.
The United States was forced to pay tribute for all of her vessels sailing in the area as well. According to the entry in Wikipedia on the Barbary Pirates:
[which it did]
Finally, in 1801, when Jefferson was elected president, he put into practice what he'd been saying for years, and refused to pay the tribute demanded of the new administration. Instead, he sent the navy and the US Marines, and very, very shortly thereafter, the Barbary Pirates problem was put down. It is of note that the pirate leadership only stayed put until they thought the US was weak, and immediately started up again (in 1815), and only a second visit by Admiral Decatur and a follow-up 9 hour bombardment by (British) Admiral Pellew's fleet finally put an end to the enslavement of Western Christians by the North African Muslim States (though it didn't stop them from enslaving Africans and selling them to Europeans and Americans - which became their major source of income for the next 40 years or so).
If India can follow in that same upstart vein, she can make a huge difference in the world. Good for you, going where the old school "can't." It's a very good start.
Update - 2008.12.06 - Turns out that the Indians blew the heck out of a "Thai Fishing Vessel." Or at least, that's the story that is circulating. There are some suspicious circumstances here. First off, and on the face of it, I'm going to ask, why was Thailand fishing in the Gulf of Aden in the first place? That by itself is a bit odd. Second, it took a week for this news to get out. On the other hand, the "crewmen" making the accusation claim to have been adrift in the open sea for a week since their ship was destroyed, so that last argument is a bit weak.
Regardless, the boat had just been boarded by pirates. The Indian navy responded as appropriate for the circumstances, if that's the case.
Or, my original enthusiasm and kudos may have been misplaced. Either way, their reaction to live fire from pirates was correct, even if the circumstances may have been misinterpreted.
This is double-speak. The US Navy knows exactly how to deal with pirates. International Law provides simple rules for dealing with pirates: if encountered, kill them and capture or destroy their vessels and weapons. If captured, immediate onboard trial, and summary execution. In the case of particularly notorious pirates, bring them back to port for trial and execution. Very, very simple. The Coast Guard is a police force. They are trained to arrest and detain, so of course, we're sending them into waters - where they have no jurisdiction - to arrest and detain criminals.
Leave it to the Indians to deal with the situation: this is a war against barbarian hordes, as pirates have always been viewed. When you find them, capture them if you can, and if you can't, destroy them with overwhelming firepower.
The BBC reported "The old ways of dealing with [pirates] are no longer possible." [ibid.] Strangely enough, "the old ways" seem to have worked just fine for the Indian Navy so far. Now, if the old school won't do it, maybe the Indians will - maybe they'll follow the one way that was proven in the past by a brand new navy and marine corps. In the late 18th and early 19th century, the Barbary Pirates were a plague on the established sea powers. The French, British and Spanish tiptoed around the problem for decades, losing thousands of ships to murderous, kidnapping, sea-borne, barbarian thugs.
The United States was forced to pay tribute for all of her vessels sailing in the area as well. According to the entry in Wikipedia on the Barbary Pirates:
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.
Jefferson reported the conversation to Secretary of State John Jay, who submitted the Ambassador's comments and offer to Congress. Jefferson argued that paying tribute would encourage more attacks.
[which it did]
Finally, in 1801, when Jefferson was elected president, he put into practice what he'd been saying for years, and refused to pay the tribute demanded of the new administration. Instead, he sent the navy and the US Marines, and very, very shortly thereafter, the Barbary Pirates problem was put down. It is of note that the pirate leadership only stayed put until they thought the US was weak, and immediately started up again (in 1815), and only a second visit by Admiral Decatur and a follow-up 9 hour bombardment by (British) Admiral Pellew's fleet finally put an end to the enslavement of Western Christians by the North African Muslim States (though it didn't stop them from enslaving Africans and selling them to Europeans and Americans - which became their major source of income for the next 40 years or so).
If India can follow in that same upstart vein, she can make a huge difference in the world. Good for you, going where the old school "can't." It's a very good start.
Update - 2008.12.06 - Turns out that the Indians blew the heck out of a "Thai Fishing Vessel." Or at least, that's the story that is circulating. There are some suspicious circumstances here. First off, and on the face of it, I'm going to ask, why was Thailand fishing in the Gulf of Aden in the first place? That by itself is a bit odd. Second, it took a week for this news to get out. On the other hand, the "crewmen" making the accusation claim to have been adrift in the open sea for a week since their ship was destroyed, so that last argument is a bit weak.
Regardless, the boat had just been boarded by pirates. The Indian navy responded as appropriate for the circumstances, if that's the case.
Or, my original enthusiasm and kudos may have been misplaced. Either way, their reaction to live fire from pirates was correct, even if the circumstances may have been misinterpreted.
I'm always looking for other peoples' work to emulate. There's yet another photographer here on LiveJournal that I just discovered: Virgo_Moon. VM lives in upstate New York, and has some spectacular scenery to work with, and does amazing things with it. I recommend looking over VM's work. I'm including a sample here for your viewing pleasure (cross-posted from VM's image store, so if it suddenly goes away, it's been taken offline.- Mood:impressed
President-elect Obama learned some very important lessons during the election. One of the most important was that he has some easily "misrepresented" relationships with some very unusual people (yes, I'm referring to Reverend Jeremiah Wright, unrepentent Weathermen militant terrorist activist William Ayers, and convicted money-laundering fraudster and sometime real-estate developer Tony Rezko, just for starters). He also learned that as the NY Times, NBC, CBS, and the Daily Kos have done in the past to anyone associated with Bush, the NY Post, Fox News, and the Free Republic will dig for any whiff of 'irregularity' in the past of anyone he brings to the Big Table in his administration (not that the level of stench surrounding Wright or Ayers is really in the 'whiff' category).
We also know that President-elect Obama can seem to be rather vindictive. For example, when three newspapers officially endorsed McCain, Obama put the reporters from those papers off the seats in the campaign plane that their papers had paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for them to occupy and report from. And when a news reporter asked Biden some painful questions and refused to let him laugh them off, the Obama campaign cancelled all remaining interviews with the station, saying "This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election."
Now on to Senator Clinton. During the campaign, Sentator Clinton said some very hurtful things about Senator Obama, and she fought until there was simply no possible way for her to win, even if superdelegates overrode the "will of the people." She accused him of 'representing a slum landlord' as a lawyer in Chicago. She even had the audacity to suggest that he doesn't have the experience to be president on the first day in office.
So, how do these two ideas relate? Well, the Clintons also have a history of what I earlier called "easily 'misrepresented' relationships with some very unusual people," and while they've shown some cunning (in the past), and been able to hide or misdirect interest in these relationships (often with direct collusion of the press), they aren't quite the darling of the press any more. "Obama is The One" now.
Consider this: Anyone working in the Obama administration will have to fill out a very, very intrusive questionnaire. Consider the political implications - if this document were to leak, what kind of leads might it provide to 'Clinton hunters?' Would she dare be misleading on it? It's going to be investigated, could she risk the discovery (and publicizing) of it if she did? What happens if she's brutally honest - about everything - or even isn't and she is publicly and noisily 'ruled out' as a potential candidate?
IMHO, her only choice is to plead off, claiming the need to "focus on the needs of her constituents" in the Senate. But even then, it'll be easy enough for the Obama campaign to confidentially let slip to a sympathetic ear that she knew that she couldn't pass the scrutiny of the questionnaire.
Again, IMHO, this is very, very shrewd.
We also know that President-elect Obama can seem to be rather vindictive. For example, when three newspapers officially endorsed McCain, Obama put the reporters from those papers off the seats in the campaign plane that their papers had paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for them to occupy and report from. And when a news reporter asked Biden some painful questions and refused to let him laugh them off, the Obama campaign cancelled all remaining interviews with the station, saying "This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election."
Now on to Senator Clinton. During the campaign, Sentator Clinton said some very hurtful things about Senator Obama, and she fought until there was simply no possible way for her to win, even if superdelegates overrode the "will of the people." She accused him of 'representing a slum landlord' as a lawyer in Chicago. She even had the audacity to suggest that he doesn't have the experience to be president on the first day in office.
So, how do these two ideas relate? Well, the Clintons also have a history of what I earlier called "easily 'misrepresented' relationships with some very unusual people," and while they've shown some cunning (in the past), and been able to hide or misdirect interest in these relationships (often with direct collusion of the press), they aren't quite the darling of the press any more. "Obama is The One" now.
Consider this: Anyone working in the Obama administration will have to fill out a very, very intrusive questionnaire. Consider the political implications - if this document were to leak, what kind of leads might it provide to 'Clinton hunters?' Would she dare be misleading on it? It's going to be investigated, could she risk the discovery (and publicizing) of it if she did? What happens if she's brutally honest - about everything - or even isn't and she is publicly and noisily 'ruled out' as a potential candidate?
IMHO, her only choice is to plead off, claiming the need to "focus on the needs of her constituents" in the Senate. But even then, it'll be easy enough for the Obama campaign to confidentially let slip to a sympathetic ear that she knew that she couldn't pass the scrutiny of the questionnaire.
Again, IMHO, this is very, very shrewd.
- Mood:speculative
I found out about these from Mythbusters (the episode where they tried to answer the question: "Can you put a shine on sh*t?" Turns out, that if it's handled properly, you can, though usually it's a shine put on MUD! For examples and a how-to, see Dorodango.com and for more information Google "dorodango" or "japanese shiny mud balls." It seems that dorodango are the Japanese equivalent of Mud Pies (literal translation: mud dumplings), only in Japan, you don't have to out grow it. They seem to be an interesting thing to keep kids busy, and if you're hard up for a souvenir, it could provide you with a dirt-cheap (though time consuming) reminder of some of the places you've been.
I am going to have to make one. Or maybe more than one, if it's cool enough.
I am going to have to make one. Or maybe more than one, if it's cool enough.
- Mood:contemplative
As always, HCW: Harsh Criticsm Welcome.
Caveat - this was from when I had owned the new camera for less than a week, so I'm going to blame any deficiencies on unfamiliar equipment - any good points, are (of course) due to my skill and experience. Not to mention great instructors and continual feedback.
Cross-posted to Photographers
- Mood:grateful
If you ever need a palette for the face you will need to hide from the authorities (you know, when you go to the black-market plastic surgeon to have your face redone before you go on the run), these are the folks you need: Faceresearch.org. They have a research project that (among other things) lets you build a composite of various people and show how the combination will appear. It's very cool, and rather eerie. The faces that are produced are rather attractive (though not stunning), and also nondescript - as one might expect - just what you'd need if you need to blend into the crowd.
Lots of fun, and worth a look. There are also opportunities to participate in interesting psychological experiments with things you probably have lying about your own home. Give it a try. Worst case: it'll be an hour or two of your life you can't have back. Best? Maybe you can find a new career in PsyOps.
Lots of fun, and worth a look. There are also opportunities to participate in interesting psychological experiments with things you probably have lying about your own home. Give it a try. Worst case: it'll be an hour or two of your life you can't have back. Best? Maybe you can find a new career in PsyOps.
- Mood:geeky
Profile
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
xaetognath- xaetognath
Syndicate
