Calvin Twofer

First, a collection of rare Waterson ephemera;

Second, science education from Calvin’s dad; here’s some samples:

Calvin: Why do my eyes shut when I sneeze?
Dad: If your lids weren’t closed, the force of the explosion would blow your eyeballs out and stretch the optic nerve, so your eyes would flop around and you’d have to point them with your hands to see anything.

Calvin: How do bank machines work?
Dad: Well, let’s say you want 25 dollars. You punch in the amount and behind the machine there’s a guy with a printing press who makes the money and sticks it out this slot.
Calvin: Sort of like the guy who lives up in our garage and opens the door?
Dad: Exactly.

Calvin: What causes the wind?
Dad: Trees sneezing.

Calvin: Why does ice float?
Dad: Because it’s cold. Ice wants to get warm, so it goes to the top of liquids to be nearer to the sun.

Calvin: How do they know the load limit on bridges, Dad?
Dad: They drive bigger and bigger trucks over the bridge until it breaks. Then they weigh the last truck and rebuild the bridge.

Calvin: Dad, how come old photographs are always black and white? Didn’t they have color film back then?
Dad: Sure they did. In fact, those old photographs ARE in color. It’s just the WORLD was black and white then.
Calvin: Really?
Dad: Yep. The world didn’t turn color until sometime in the 1930s, and it was pretty grainy color for a while, too.
Calvin: That’s really weird.
Dad: Well, truth is stranger than fiction.
Calvin: But then why are old PAINTINGS in color?! If the world was black and white, wouldn’t artists have painted it that way?
Dad: Not necessarily. A lot of great artists were insane.
Calvin: But… but how could they have painted in color anyway? Wouldn’t their paints have been shades of gray back then?
Dad: Of course, but they turned colors like everything else in the ’30s.
Calvin: So why didn’t old black and white photos turn color too?
Dad: Because they were color pictures of black and white, remember?

Calvin: Dad, will you explain the theory of relativity to me? I don’t understand why time goes slower at greater speed.
Dad: It’s because you keep changing time zones. See, if you fly to California, you gain three hours on a five-hour flight, right? So if you go at the speed of light, you gain MORE time, because it doesn’t take as long to get there. Of course, the theory of relativity only works if you’re going west.

Fearmongering with the Brits

Or, the Terra Plot That Wasn’t. Ol’ Rob points us at this:

So far, no one has been charged in the alleged terror plot to blow up several airplanes across the Atlantic. No evidence has been produced supporting the contention that such a plot was indeed imminent. Forgive me if my skepticism just ratcheted up a little notch. Under a law that the Tories helped weaken, the suspects can be held without charges for up to 28 days. Those days are ticking by. Remember: the British authorities had all these people under surveillance; they did not want to act last week; there was no imminent threat of anything but a possible “dummy-run,” whatever deranged guest-bloggers at Malkin say. (Correction, please.) Bush and Blair discussed whether to throw Britain’s airports into chaos over the weekend before the crackdown occurred.

Then we have the following comment from Craig Murray. Craig Murray was Tony Blair’s ambassador to Uzbekistan whose internal memo complaining about evidence procured by out-sourced torture created a flap a while back. He is skeptical. Money quote:

None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn’t be a plane bomber for quite some time.

In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.

What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a year – like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just Muslims. Like me. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests.

Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot to blow up multiple planes – which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani dictator have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way. Trouble is it always tends to give the interrogators all they might want, and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert torture. What it doesn’t give is the truth …

We then have the extraordinary question of Bush and Blair discussing the possible arrests over the weekend. Why?

Oh, I dunno. Could it be plummeting approval ratings certain to get a bump if you scare the populace enough?

Andy continues:

I’d be interested in the number of plotters who had passports. How could they even stage a dummy-run with no passports? And what bomb-making materials did they actually have? These seem like legitimate questions to me; the British authorities have produced no evidence so far. If the only evidence they have was from torturing someone in Pakistan, then they have nothing that can stand up in anything like a court. I wonder if this story is going to get more interesting. I wonder if Lieberman’s defeat, the resilience of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the emergence of a Hezbollah-style government in Iraq had any bearing on the decision by Bush and Blair to pre-empt the British police and order this alleged plot disabled. I wish I didn’t find these questions popping into my head. But the alternative is to trust the Bush administration.

Been there. Done that. Learned my lesson.

Dept. of Branding Failures

So, yesterday, Heathen HQ was running low on some office crap, so we ventured forth to acquire binder clips, paper clips, printer paper, etc. There’s an office supply store not far from our lair, so we went there.

We looked at phone systems there, too. The sales drone was unable to tell us anything about a particular model of phone, so we figured we’d check out the web site. Once back in the office, we fired up a new Firefox window and realized something that we’re sure makes marketing idiots and advertising charlatans cringe:

We have no idea if the store in question was an OfficeMax or an OfficeDepot. We know that the one on West Gray is of one type, and the one on Kirby is the other, but we can’t tell a difference. It gets worse: we know one of them has (had?) a fairly slick “rubber-band man” ad campaign, but we can’t for the life of us remember which one it is. Nor do we care.

We’ve worked on projects that including branding and corporate communication tracks. We know people spend lots of money on this stuff. What boggles us is that these two apparent competitors have spent money on branding and advertising with so little to show for it. Maybe they know people don’t really care which store they go to, but other businesses faced with that same commodification problem have found solutions (think airlines and frequent flier programs). It seems foolish that they persist in essentially the same namespace with no differentiation to speak of.

Are the folks at OfficeMaxDepot HQ just braindead? Or does it really not matter to them? Does the larger of the two (Depot) feel that its smaller doppelganger isn’t enough competition to worry about? What’s going on here?

Best. Software. EVAR.

Or, at least, InformationWeek’s nominations. We think they’re mostly right.

In summary:

12. The Morris Worm
Or, how to singlehandedly bring down the Internet accidentally. Everyone hated it, but it sure was clever.
11. Google search rank
Hard to argue this hasn’t changed the (Western) world.
10. Apollo guidance system
They went to the moon on less computing power than we have in our iPod, for cying out loud.
9. Excel
Made good on Visicalc’s promise, and made spreadsheets friendly and powerful for the masses. Perhaps Microsoft’s best work ever.
8. Mac OS (pre-OS X)
Cribbed as it was from Xerox, it still changed the way computers worked. Apple’s ad line from that era said it all: “The computer for the rest of us.”
7. SAAbre system
Or, how American managed to steal market share by letting everyone use their system. Very clever.
6. Mosaic browser
Mosaic was the first graphical browser; it moved the web from a land of nerds to something everyone could use.
5. Java (Feh.)
We’re not so sure about this one. (We kid; Java’s VM approach and “write once, run everywhere” philosophy took a while to really come through, but its benefits are inassailable.)
4. IBM System 360 OS
The grandaddy of Big Iron systems — and the first real general-purpose operating system.
3. The gene sequencing software at the Institute for Genomic Research
Dude, they’re unraveling DNA. Nuff said.
2. IBM’s System R
System R was the precursor to relational databases, which is to say the smarts that underlie virtually every database system now in use anywhere — from Oracle to MySQL to PostGres.
1. Unix in general and BSD 4.3 specifically
Without Unix, we’d have no Internet. Without BSD, we’d probably have no free and Free software movement, no OS X, etc.
The single Greatest Piece of Software Ever, with the broadest impact on the world, was BSD 4.3. Other Unixes were bigger commercial successes. But as the cumulative accomplishment of the BSD systems, 4.3 represented an unmatched peak of innovation. BSD 4.3 represents the single biggest theoretical undergirder of the Internet. Moreover, the passion that surrounds Linux and open source code is a direct offshoot of the ideas that created BSD: a love for the power of computing and a belief that it should be a freely available extension of man’s intellectual powers–a force that changes his place in the universe.

If you haven’t heard of some of these, you’re not geeky enough to have an opinion. ;)

Fundies are winning

From NYT:

In surveys conducted in 2005, people in the United States and 32 European countries were asked whether to respond “true,” “false” or “not sure” to this statement: “Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals.” The same question was posed to Japanese adults in 2001.

The United States had the second-highest percentage of adults who said the statement was false and the second-lowest percentage who said the statement was true, researchers reported in the current issue of Science.

Only adults in Turkey expressed more doubts on evolution. In Iceland, 85 percent agreed with the statement.

Science sums it up:

The acceptance of evolution is lower in the United States than in Japan or Europe, largely because of widespread fundamentalism and the politicization of science in the United States. (emph added)

Sigh.

More on TSA Irrelevance

First, take a peak at what security guru Bruce Schneier has to say:

Hours-long waits in the security line. Ridiculous prohibitions on what you can carry onboard. Last week’s foiling of a major terrorist plot and the subsequent airport security graphically illustrates the difference between effective security and security theater.

None of the airplane security measures implemented because of 9/11 — no-fly lists, secondary screening, prohibitions against pocket knives and corkscrews — had anything to do with last week’s arrests. And they wouldn’t have prevented the planned attacks, had the terrorists not been arrested. A national ID card wouldn’t have made a difference, either.

Instead, the arrests are a victory for old-fashioned intelligence and investigation. Details are still secret, but police in at least two countries were watching the terrorists for a long time. They followed leads, figured out who was talking to whom, and slowly pieced together both the network and the plot.

The new airplane security measures focus on that plot, because authorities believe they have not captured everyone involved. It’s reasonable to assume that a few lone plotters, knowing their compatriots are in jail and fearing their own arrest, would try to finish the job on their own. The authorities are not being public with the details — much of the “explosive liquid” story doesn’t hang together — but the excessive security measures seem prudent.

But only temporarily. Banning box cutters since 9/11, or taking off our shoes since Richard Reid, has not made us any safer. And a long-term prohibition against liquid carry-ons won’t make us safer, either. It’s not just that there are ways around the rules, it’s that focusing on tactics is a losing proposition.

It’s easy to defend against what the terrorists planned last time, but it’s shortsighted. If we spend billions fielding liquid-analysis machines in airports and the terrorists use solid explosives, we’ve wasted our money. If they target shopping malls, we’ve wasted our money. Focusing on tactics simply forces the terrorists to make a minor modification in their plans. There are too many targets — stadiums, schools, theaters, churches, the long line of densely packed people before airport security — and too many ways to kill people.

Security measures that require us to guess correctly don’t work, because invariably we will guess wrong. It’s not security, it’s security theater: measures designed to make us feel safer but not actually safer.

Airport security is the last line of defense, and not a very good one at that. Sure, it’ll catch the sloppy and the stupid — and that’s a good enough reason not to do away with it entirely — but it won’t catch a well-planned plot. We can’t keep weapons out of prisons; we can’t possibly keep them off airplanes.

The goal of a terrorist is to cause terror. Last week’s arrests demonstrate how real security doesn’t focus on possible terrorist tactics, but on the terrorists themselves. It’s a victory for intelligence and investigation, and a dramatic demonstration of how investments in these areas pay off.

And if you want to know what you can do to help? Don’t be terrorized. They terrorize more of us if they kill some of us, but the dead are beside the point. If we give in to fear, the terrorists achieve their goal even if they were arrested. If we refuse to be terrorized, then they lose — even if their attacks succeed.

And follow that with the disclosure from Homeland Security that x-ray machines can’t find explosives, but of course we’ll still have to take off our shoes:

Findings from the report, obtained by The Associated Press, did not stop the Transportation Security Administration from announcing Sunday that all airline passengers must remove their shoes and run them through X-ray machines before boarding commercial aircraft. (…)

In its April 2005 report, “Systems Engineering Study of Civil Aviation Security — Phase I,” the Homeland Security Department concluded that images on X-ray machines don’t provide the information necessary to detect explosives. Machines used at most airports to scan hand-held luggage, purses, briefcases and shoes have not been upgraded to detect explosives since the report was issued.

We are allowing ourselves to be ruled by fools and idiots.

NYT on TSA

From this story:

Yolanda Clark, spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration, part of the Homeland Security Department, disputed criticism of the agency, saying that the screeners were well trained and effective.

More important, she said, they are “just one of many” levels of protection. There is more robust security than in 2001, she said, including more luggage X-ray machines, air marshals and chemical detection devices.

Her agency, created two months after 9/11, had a rocky start — millions wasted in the rush to hire, reliance on dubious contractors, even an inability to pay people on time, according to several government reports.

Among the most serious problems that were discovered was that the agency hired hundreds of screeners with criminal records, in some cases for felonies as serious as manslaughter and rape. Reports of thefts soared as more bags than ever were inspected by hand. [Emph. added.]

“T.S.A. was so focused on meeting the Congressional deadlines that they cut a lot of corners,” said Clark Kent Ervin, who was inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security in 2003 and 2004.

Ms. Clark, the spokeswoman, said those early problems were corrected long ago. But critics say problems remain with salaries, training and attrition.

The starting salary for screeners is less than $24,000, and some are hired without high school diplomas. People who do specialized work like reading X-rays are no better paid those who ask people to take their shoes off.

Each year, fewer than 20 percent of screeners leave the job, Ms. Clark said. But the agency has such trouble keeping up with those losses that this year it began paying a $500 bonus to anyone who lasts a year.

Ms. Clark said the screeners receive 60 hours of classroom training and 40 hours on the job, as well as periodic retraining. Some 18,000 of them received special training in recognizing explosives and bomb parts.

Yet the Government Accountability Office reported in April that investigators slipped bomb components past checkpoints at all 21 airports tried. The components could be combined onboard to make an explosive — the very strategy British authorities say plotters in England planned to use.

Ms. Clark declined to address the specifics of that report, but she called it flawed.

Passengers have their own tales of lapses. At Kennedy International Airport on Friday, two travelers, Lee and Annie Barreiro of Florida, said that they had recently taken a steak knife past a security checkpoint in their hometown airport. “They let a lot get through,” Mr. Barreiro said.

We repeat: THE TSA HAS ZERO TO DO WITH SECURITY. All the extra hassle added at the airport security checkpoint since 9/12/01 has been a complete waste of time and is getting no better. We are wasting resources we could be using on drastically more effective and less intrusive security measures that might actually do some good.

Good Question

The Axis of Nielsen-Hayden wonders how far we’ll go in banning liquids on planes, and so do we.

It’s folly to think we can keep all hazardous substances off planes. Richard Reed got on board with explosives three months after 9/11, for crying out loud. All you really need to know is that people in prison get weapons, and flight can never be as tightly controlled a prison, so what hope is there, really, of solving the problem (such as it is) with this kind of “filter?”

Surprise, Surprise, the Government Lies

Via JWZ, we find this summary of the obvious and neglected truth of the London affair:

The alleged U.K. terror plot has been investigated for months by British intelligence, and the idea that the airliner attacks were planned for today seems to be nothing more than political fabrication and media hysteria.

Tony Blair and George W. Bush even planned the terror freakout in a series of phone calls that began last Friday and continued through the weekend. Blair and Bush put the finishing touches on their diabolical operation in a phone call early Wednesday, the Associated Press revealed today.

That’s right: While millions of travelers are going through absolute hell today because of the sudden terror “news,” it was last week when the U.S. president and U.K. prime minister began their cold calculations on how to get the maximum political benefit from the months-old investigation.

(There are links to wire stories in the original text; click thru.)

Mr Z also points out this spot-on analysis of the facts of the case, which really point out how hysterical everyone is being. The cops were tracking them. They were aware of their movements. There was no way they were going to let the plot come to fruition. Everything worked as it’s supposed to, and the bad guys got snatched, and nothing blew up, and none of that had anything to do with taking your goddamn shoes off in airports. Real cops caught these guys, not mouth-breathing TSA yokels.

Of course, none of this will matter at airports, where the idiot child of 9/11 will still insist we surrender our nail clippers and shampoo in gestures utterly devoid of any efficacy whatsoever.

Best. Gibson. Joke. EVAR.

Found on the Well, but originally from ThePoorMan. The money shot is here:

Q: Gibson apparently blew a 0.12 on a breathalizer, which is only 150% the legal limit. What is that, like 3 beers? I barely even mention the Jews until I’ve put away a 20-pack. Is Gibson a wuss? A: No. Alcohol affects different people differently, and different people metabolize alcohol in different ways. A volume of alcohol which would impair one person’s judgement would leave another person entirely unaffected. One person could tolerate a blood alcohol level of 0.10, while this same concentration would make another person violently ill. It is entirely dependent on the individual. Additionally, breathalizers are notoriously inaccurate. However, it is possible to determine a person’s blood alcohol level very precisely by noting who they believe to be the source of all the world’s problems:
blood alcohol level presumed source of all world’s problems
0.00-0.08 people who don’t listen to each other
0.09 that guy over there who keeps looking at you sideways like he’s got some kind of a fucking problem and wants his teeth kicked out
0.10 your so-called “friends” who act like they’re your friends to your face but really they aren’t really your real friends
0.11 the government
0.12 the Jews < ----- Mel was here
0.13 the Belgians
0.14 the English monarchy
0.15 the media
0.16 the Jew media
0.17 the Belgian government Jew media police
0.18 the International Society of Ham Radio Enthusiasts
0.19 the DMV
0.20 the KGB
0.21 the KLF
0.23 Emerson, Lake & Palmer
0.24 Emerson and Lake, but not Palmer. Palmer’s all right, man. Those other guys, they think it’s all about that fucking woo-woo stuff, and they think they’re so great, but it’s not about that bullshit, you know? Palmer, man, you’re all right. You’re all right. And you know what? I don’t care how gay it sounds: I fucking love you, man!
0.25 Emerson, Lake & The Jews
0.26 Geddy Lee*
0.27 + Canada
* This is actually true.

Very nice work.

The TSA remains staffed by IDIOTS

From CNN, where they suspect that carry-on trips have just become a thing of the past:

Air travelers might have to get used to stuffing lipstick and lotion into their luggage rather than carry it with them in the wake of a plot to destroy airliners with liquid-based explosives, security experts say.

The Transportation Security Administration issued new rules banning nearly all liquids, including beverages, lotions and hair gels, from being taken on planes after British authorities arrested at least 24 suspects in the plot.

Jamie Bowden, a former terminal manager at London’s Heathrow Airport, said the new rules may be here to stay.

“I think certainly here in the U.K. and certainly in the States as well, people are now getting used to kind of a new way of travel,” Bowden told CNN on Friday. “So that I think, although the airlines certainly don’t want these kinds of restrictions, if they believe through government intelligence that it’s much safer to fly like this, that may be a new way that people are going to have to get used to flying.”

The TSA hasn’t indicated how long the restrictions would remain in place but said on its Web site that “these measures will be constantly evaluated and updated as circumstances warrant.”

U.S. Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Michigan, said the plot “eliminates the days of carry-on baggage,” according to The Associated Press.

Nancy McKinley of the International Airline Passengers Association said the new rules are going to be a “huge adjustment,” especially for business travelers.

“The challenge is going to be with the airlines on all the luggage [that] is checked and can it actually get to the destination in a reasonable amount of time once you get there — how long do you have to wait for it and all of that,” she said.

McKinley said some airports are urging people to arrive three hours before their flights.

“That’s going to be difficult for business travelers, too. That takes a big hunk out of your day,” she said.

A senior congressional source said authorities believe the plotters planned to mix a British sports drink with a gel-like substance to make an explosive that they possibly could trigger with an MP3 player or cell phone.

The components of the bomb would appear harmless until they were combined aboard the planes. (Full story)

Now stop for a minute. That has always been true. They have essentially zero hope of catching a well-disguised bomb, and anything with a battery can be turned into a detonator. This is never going away as a threat, and it’s a threat you have to deal with every time you’re in a room full of people.

The TSA has not banned U.S. passengers from carrying laptops, cell phones, MP3 players or BlackBerrys onto planes.

McKinley said it would “just be a nightmare” for business travelers if they did.

“If they try to take laptops and cell phones and put them into checked baggage, that creates a whole new problem,” she said. “Because in the past, those type of things (were) not covered. If your luggage is lost and you have something like that in your luggage, it’s not covered.”

McKinley said she was confident that the restrictions eventually would be eased, once screening technology catches up with the threat.

MORE bullshit. Screening hasn’t caught anything of note — the shoe bomber, for crying out loud, was caught by his seatmate, and this UK thing was caught by good old-fashioned police work, not McDonald’s-reject TSA goons.

“I mean there are studies going on right now to get more equipment, more updated equipment that can be changed out so that it doesn’t become archaic, and I think that’s where the focus has got to go,” she said.

Great! More wasted time!

Fortunately, at the end of the story, we get a voice of actual reason:

Rafi Ron, former head of security at Tel Aviv, Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport, said screeners should focus more on finding suspicious people than on hunting for potential terrorist tools.

“It is extremely difficult for people to disguise the fact they are under tremendous amount of stress, that they are going to kill themselves and a lot of people around them in a short amount of time, and all the other factors that effect their behavior,” Ron said.

The Israelis know something about terrorism and security even if they’ve become overfond of collective punishment and the bombing of civilians. We probably ought to listen here.

My earlier post stands as well. We’re behaving like idiots where airport security is concerned, and in the process allowing people to THINK we’re doing something when in fact we’re doing less than nothing. It’s like no one involved at TSA knows anything at all about security. It’s theater designed to appease the masses, and has zilch to do with keeping anyone safe.

New Cruelty

Due to the annoying behavior of comment spam vultures, comments will now be closed 7 days after the last comment. This shouldn’t affect any actual behavior here.

Terrorists Win.

In response to the foiled attack today, the U.K. government has banned all hand luggage from airplanes. No laptops. No books. No MP3 players. Nothing but limited toiletries, keys, baby food, and medically necessary items.

The point of terrorism is to make us afraid. The UK response to a foiled plot is to create an unspecified period during which fliers are arbitrarily deprived of iPods, novels and dignity.

If this is a good idea now, then why won’t it still be a good idea in a year? A decade? After all, terrorist plots will always exist in potentia (can you prove that no terrorist plots are hatching at this moment?) Until they handcuff us all nude to our seats and dart us with tranquilizers, there will always be the possibility that a passenger will do something naughty on a plane (even then, who knows how much semtex and roofing nails a bad guy could hide in his colon?).

Terrorism isn’t about killing people. You’re still more likely to die in a traffic accident than as a result of a terrorist bomb in Israel; in the U.S., lightning poses a greater risk than terror attack. Terrorists know this. Their point is to disrupt our way of life, to make us afraid, and to make us overreact. And on that front, they’re winning, and have been doing so since 9/12/01.

Best and Only Golf Post We’ll Ever Link To

Achewood‘s Chris Onstad has this to say, which we love a whole lot. If you don’t click through, at least read his closing grafs:

The clubs I use now were the clubs he treated himself to the year I was born, 1975. (The year my daughter was born, I treated myself to a brewery tour and a banjo. Say what, B? More Testors? Yeah, it’s premium, but you get what you pay for, brahhh.) They’re ancient Wilson-Staffs with ancient engineering. There’s no perimeter weighting, personally adjustable counterbalancing (what in the name of all that is holy is TaylorMade up to?!) or FancyShaft technology. I think the shafts are filled with Cutty Sark, and the heads of the woods are actual wood, made from wood, with, like, a knothole as a sweet spot, and a small tap at the rear of the hosel.

I will be the first to admit that I am annoying about not playing with modern clubs. You ever watch that America’s Test Kitchen cooking show, with Christopher Kimball, where he wears a bow tie and acts like he is angry that no one cooks pancakes like Abraham Lincoln anymore? And he always spent the weekend helping a neighbor pull an old red tractor out of mud? That is how I am about my golf clubs. I struggled hard to learn how to get the ball down the fairway, and now here’s this generation of two-lesson junior Chrysler salesmen with silver drivers the size of chowder-in-a-sourdough-bowl slapping three hundred yard tee shots without so much as taking off their beer helmets and bluetooth earpieces. These guys swing at the ball like they were trying to kill a mouse with a broom, and their Titleist flies straight and true. Pretty soon all we’re going to have to do is pull up to the pro shop, punch a button that says “9 HOLES,” insert fifty bucks, and the machine will spit out a card that reads, “PAR! GOOD JOB. 25% OFF ON CHICKEN WINGS AND ALL BIG BERTHA MERCHANDISE!”

Excellent. More young relatives to corrupt.

Our stepsister Dr MBT popped out a pair of TWINS yesterday, six pounds and change apiece. Given how thin their father is due to the unfortunate combination of “cardiology fellowship” and “triathalon training,” we figure the kids now weigh a nontrivial fraction of their pop (and certainly more than his bicycle). Anyway, we digress. Here’s a pic; the one hitting the O2 is my stepsister:

MBT and 2 more

Congrats to all, and welcome to Anna Beth and Joshua Webster. We hope to meet you soon.

Things that make us happy

Scalia told the GOP to get stuffed, so Tom DeLay stays on the ballot in Sugarland despite the Republicans’ desperate attempts to replace him.

Even better: the Chronicle is reporting (and we use the term loosely) that DeLay will withdraw completely from the race to facilitate a GOP write-in campaign, which they apparently view as their best chance to retain the seat.

In what sense is this morally defensible?

Israel also threatened to attack UN peacekeepers if they attempted to repair bomb-damaged bridges in southern Lebanon. UN officials contacted the Israeli army to inform them that a team of Chinese military engineers attached to the UN force in Lebanon intended to repair the bridge on the Beirut to Tyre road to enable the transport of humanitarian supplies.

According to the UN, Israeli officials said the engineers would become a target if they attempted to repair the bridge.

Nice. And these are supposed to be the good guys? (From here.)

On military smears

Wade Sanders over at Military.com has a bit to say about Curt Weldon’s aggressive smearing of his opponent, Rear Adm. Sestak.

Smear agents view the political process as a game, where the facts and accuracy are secondary considerations to winning that game. They are secure in the knowledge that candidates, as public figures, realistically have no legal remedy. And, at their own peril, they complacently assume that no one will turn the same scrutiny on their own military service. Their credo is that no matter how outrageous the lie, repeat it often enough and enough people will believe it and veterans, whose honorable service has earned them public respect and the right to seek public office, can be destroyed.

No doubt, politics have always been tough and dirty. But, today, any chance to attack an opponent is not only fair game, in some circles it has become an essential part of a winning strategy. Take the case of recently retired Rear (two star) Admiral Joseph A. Sestak, Jr., locked in a hotly contested race against the Republican incumbent, Curt Weldon, in Pennsylvania’s 7th Congressional District. Responding to a request from the American Legion, Sestak wore his naval uniform, that of a three star (Vice) admiral at a recent Memorial Day parade. Weldon and the Pennsylvania Republican Party instantly attacked, claiming Sestak was not entitled to wear any uniform, or the uniform of a that rank.

This is the same Weldon who less than a year ago stood on the floor of the House of Representatives and passionately railed against the smearing of a military officer, declaring it was “…so outrageous, it makes me sick at my stomach . . . they are destroying the reputation of a decorated career member of the United States military . . . if we let that happen then no one who wears the uniform will feel protected because we have let them down.”

Apparently, Weldon and his staff failed to do their homework, or they disregarded the law. Sestak was a Vice Admiral in his last job, confirmed by the Senate, and worked directly for then Chief of Naval Operations, Vernon Clark. Shortly after he was reassigned by Clark’s successor, Admiral Mike Mullens, he chose to retire at the two star level. Had Weldon, his team, and the state Republicans read the law, they would know that his wearing the uniform of a three star admiral was fully authorized by law.

Section 772(e) USC: “A person not on active duty who served honorably in time of war in the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps may bear the title, and, when authorized by regulations prescribed by the President, wear the uniform, of the highest grade held by him during that war.”

The United States Code is backed up by the Secretary of Defense’s Instruction 1334.01, which includes undeclared wars, and Navy regulations. Since Sestak was confirmed as a Vice Admiral during the Iraq War, he was, and is, perfectly entitled to wear that uniform at military funerals, memorial services, weddings, and inaugurals, parades on national or state holidays; or any other parades or ceremonies of a patriotic character in which any Active or Reserve United States military unit is taking part. That’s the law.

This begs the question: just how much is the reputation of a decorated, respected military officer worth to Weldon and the other smear agents. Surely it must deserve the time it takes to access the readily available law and learn the truth. Perhaps it was hoped that no one would invest the time. This kind of deliberate or negligent attack is, to cite Weldon, “…so outrageous, it makes me sick at my stomach.” Weldon and the state Republican Party need to step up and apologize for their lame attempt at discrediting a man who has earned the respect of all patriotic Americans.

On Account of We Were Curious, Comparative Religions Division

For professional reasons, we have 5 cases of halal MREs in our office. The manufacturer is a client, and we needed to do some RFID tag testing.

Said firm is also a supplier of kosher MREs, which led us to wonder about the similarities. Fortunately, [Wikipedia is on the case]. Short summary:

  • Jews can drink, but can’t have cream sauces.
  • Muslims can’t drink, but appear to have no prohibitions about meat and dairy together.
  • Fewer animals are kosher than are halal.
  • Both have specific rules regarding slaughter that must be followed; they are similar, but not the same. (To our untrained eyes, it sounds like it’s possible for a single animal to meet both sets of rules, as we didn’t see any contradictions.)
  • Neither can have blood or pork.
  • There are special rules for kosher at Passover, but halal requirements are the same all the time.

All this is much more complex than the dietary restrictions of our ancestral people. Actually, we’re pretty sure those just boiled down to if you see someone from church at the liquor store, don’t wave.

Dept. of Late Realizations

It’s amazing how much better you feel when you finally get around to putting your fucking apache config files into a goddamn source control repository so cocksucking Apple can’t accidentally fuck them up with their qualitard admin tools.

Dept. of Additional Awesome Friday Tunes

Miles and co. from 1959. Jazz fans know this already, but the quiet dude in the back with the sax is, of course, John Coltrane. The whole combo at this point (Kind of Blue era) is like a who’s who of jazz greats. In addition to Davis and Coltrane, they had Wynton Kelly on piano, Paul Chambers on bass, Jimmy Cobb on drums, and Cannonball Adderly also on sax.

It’s particularly cool that, when Coltrane takes his solo, you can see Davis slip off to the side for a smoke.

Dept. Under Appreciated Albums from the Vault

Album Cover In 1992, Keith Richards released Main Offender, the second of his two solo records. Unlike its predecessor (1988’s Talk is Cheap), it spawned no Top 40 hits, and sold poorly. Inevitably compared to Mick’s solo outings, we think it’s aged much better. Instead of preening, wiggling Jagger, we get full-on Keef, uncut by the other half of the Glimmer Twin collaboration. Open chords, simple arrangements, and a rock fucking solid band.

It’s all you need, really. Here’s a taste; the record’s still in print if you want more: Wicked As It Seems (8MB mp3)

Bush & Co. Still Trying To Create Secret Courts

Check it:

A draft Bush administration plan for special military courts seeks to expand the reach and authority of such “commissions” to include trials, for the first time, of people who are not members of al-Qaeda or the Taliban and are not directly involved in acts of international terrorism, according to officials familiar with the proposal.

The plan, which would replace a military trial system ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in June, would also allow the secretary of defense to add crimes at will to those under the military court’s jurisdiction. . .

Um, NO. What is it about the Constitution that these clowns hate so much?