Kill Something and Eat It....March 15

At the Mungowitz house, we snack high on the food chain. I don't know if God gave man dominion over the beasts of the field, but She certainly gave me an ATM card and big-ass cart to drive along the Kroger meat aisle. That may be even better than dominion.

A lot of the beasts of the field, and the forest, and the oceans, and the air.... they all smack my plate, and they are soon sacrificed to my enjoyment. And nutrition. Meat is GOOD for you, and the reason it tastes good is that thousands and thousands of years of evolution have selected for taste buds that are pleasurably stimulated by the taste and texture of meat. No other way to get that many calories, AND that much iron and protein, so quickly. MMMMmmmm...burgers.

Kgrease has a lot of friends who are vegetarians, and they have my greatest respect. They are (for the most part; Andy Rutten is an exception) healthier than I am. They make a choice, and they stick to it, and they don't say a thing to me when I get 120 ounce Porterhouse. (Yes, the big-ass cart full of meat leads to my big-ass ass). 240 pounds of pro wrestling GIIIIRTHYness.

I support vegetarians, and make sure I only suggest restaurants with good vegetarian alternatives, and at my house I serve vegetarian dishes. My wife is mostly a vegetarian, though she eats chicken now and then.

This is how MOST big problems should be handled, in my opinion. Abortion: clear example. I think abortion is dead wrong, a sin, a terrible mistake, a psychological blot that the woman can never wash away. I also think that that is my opinion, and I should keep it to myself. You ask me, I'll tell you: Abortion is wrong, don't do it. But if you don't ask, you'll never hear a peep. And I certainly wouldn't use the coercive powers of the state to FORCE you or your partner to bear a child that isn't wanted.

But...no. The folks at PETA have long plowed the "meat is murder" furrow. Then, two years ago...it's a Holocaust. (Coturnix and I don't agree on much, but we are pretty much on the same PETA-page). (And, as Coturnix points out, there are very legit concerns about cruelty to animals. SPCA is the answer...)

So: strike back. The suggestion is that we make March 15 INTERNATIONAL EAT AN ANIMAL FOR PETA day. If you want to see the proposed language for a letter to the PETAnians, check it out. (Yes, this is two years old, but LET'S REVIVE THE HOLIDAY!)

Check THIS out. Irony is dead.

Here's the thing: It's fun to think that the PETArians are just cute whack-jobs, with funny, radical views. That's not true. They are fascists, dangerous lunatics, and terrorists. They attack humans to "save" animals, even though in many cases those animals exist only because humans care for them. Yes, in order eventually to eat them, or use them in labs, but the only reason the animals exist is because we want them to.

And, on March 15, let's each reduce that animal population by one. I have tried to train my sons to be responsible carnivores. They don't just eat meat; they are happy to help kill the animal.

As I read this, I realize that a lot of vegetarians are going to be offended. I am a little sorry about that, because you are for the most part good people, seriously committed to doing the right thing as you see it. But if you are reading some cheesy blog looking for reasons to be offended, you may want to get a life. I hear WalMart is having a sale on lifes, cheap. (Wait, you probably don't go to WalMart, either. Damn!)

(nod to Anti-C, though he is surely blameless for provoking this outburst)

UPI and Google: A match made in...Detroit?

I was cruising UPI, looking for news.

Came across this:
Detroit's Hotel Pontchartrain to be auctioned
DETROIT, Feb. 12 ( UPI)- The 413-room Hotel Pontchartrain, a Detroit downtown waterfront landmark that has suffered with a weak occupancy rate, will be sold at auction. 09:40 Feb 12, 2005

Then I noticed the GOOGLE ads, on the entire left side of the display. It went like this:

Ads by Goooooogle
Hotel Pontchartrain
Rates 70% off - Get 4% back on this hotel. Book online now.
www.Lodging.com

Pontchartrain Hotel
Find Travel Info Including Hotel Reviews, Rates, Comparisons & More!
www.TripAdvisor.com

Pontchartrain Hotel
Feb & Mar low rates in New Orleans Check online or call 1-800-573-6821
www.1-800-573-6821.com

Pontchartrain Hotel
From $78. 1000's of Hotels on ORBITZ. Book Great Rooms for Less!
www.ORBITZ.com

Hotel Pontchartrain
Get Great Hotel Deals with One-Stop Comparison. Try SideStep Now!
SideStep.com

So, the deal is this: If you look at a news story that says a hotel is going bankrupt, GOOGLE assumes you want to go there. Okay, it is a bit much to expect the AI to be able to tell good news from bad news. But isn't it a little eerie that the ads shown respond to your news item selections?

So...I google "Larry Page is a dildo" and...voila! Up comes an ad for "The Dildo Store" (you are going to have to look up that URL for yourself, you sick thing).

So Bloggy Together

Denizens of Blogania (present company, especially readers, excepted) may not be the most social people. When you consider how we flame each other in the virtual world, there may be some questions about how we actually deal with each other in the "real" world.

That's why it was great that there was such a successful meeting of blogadacios (and -as) in Chapel Hill yesterday. The good Coturnix describes it, and comes eerily close to how I would expected it to go, also: Expect to go and sit in a corner passively. But, Coturnix ended up (ick!) actually talking to people. And I suppose that was the beauty of the event: there are people behind those keyboards.

Of course, Coturnix really has done some good work in providing a forum for group work.

And Ed Cone also gives a description. For a carpetbagging Mets fan, Ed is all right. This bit of constitutional revisionism is a little over the top, perhaps.

I'm really sad I didn't get to go. This darned job thing. I need to win the lottery, soon. Got any good numbers? Oh, wait, NC has no lottery. Never mind.

Paul Miller: Statesman

I don't always....often....well, ever....see eye to eye on Paul Miller on most policy matters.

But he is way out front on the Electoral Fairness Act in North Carolina.

That's Rep. Paul Miller (D-Durham, District 29), I mean.



Here's the bill.

It got killed last time. A story about it. And another. And a Green view.

You can keep track of its progress, or not, here.

The changes in 163-96 and 163-97 are the key ones. Going from 2% to just 0.5% of the electorate is a much lower bar for ballot access. And going from 10% to 2% for staying on the ballot means that "third" parties can spend their tiny little amounts of funds on campaigning, instead of trying just to get back on the ballot.

Is there some self-interest in this? Sure; I fully expect to run for Governor of the State of North Carolina on the Libertarian Party ticket in in 2008. But that's not the reason Rep. Miller put this terrific bill in the hopper. He disagrees with me just as much as I disagree with him.

This bill benefits the Greens, the Libertarians, and any other group that wants to have a voice in the state. Look, we may not have a chance to win. But all the more reason we shouldn't have to wear a gag.

Support HB88, the Electoral Fairness Act, and give some credit to Representative Paul Miller.

Cone-y Island

Yikes! My main man at the N&R lays down some smack.

Me? I like comment # 7

The solution, obviously, is to commission an old professional wrestler from Raleigh to write editorials now and then. Otherwise, this "diversity" bit is clearly just a brazen attempt to discredit those of us on the right. N&R, you don't have to hire someone from the majors, or even triple AAA. But you might want someone who owns a glove.

Okay, yes, I'm kidding. But there has to be someone in Greensboro who doesn't send in his editorials written in crayon on lined paper.

W's Reading List

It is difficult for me to admit, but I find the constant smug claims that Prez W is stupid to be hard to take.

You can say that his program on SocSec reform is bad, that you disagree with it. Or you can say that Bush is stupid, and then just congratulate yourself on having won the argument.

Ms. Newmark has views on W's reading list. Interesting points. ATSRTWT

The "rain for food" program was also corrupt

The U.N....ick. Is there nothing that they won't sell?

I think we need a new international agency. Kick the U.N. to the curb.

Another photo, of the UN at work:

Just an Announcement....

Michael Badnarik
2004 Presidential Candidate
Libertarian Party
THIS THURSDAY!!!! Feb 10.....

How I Spent My Summer Vacation:
Being Excluded from Debates…

Breedlove Room, Feb 10, 12 noon

Duke University
Come hear about the 2004 Presidential Campaign,
from a Candidate!

Bring a Friend! Make a Friend!

Q-o'-d-w-IV: He takes whiskey drink, he takes a vodka drink....

"I don't fall down. That son of a b*tch knocked me over." -- John Kerry on a Secret Service who got in his way while he was snowboarding.

I guess we'll see: will he get up again?

(From John Hawkins' quotelist)

(And...I'm pretty sure this is not an urban legend THIS time! Still, isn't it funny how UL's "fit" the way people are, or that the (mis)quoter thinks they are. So, the question: is John Kerry plausibly the source of such a quote, so we believe it? Or did the Bushies do such a great job of character assassination that we don't even know what Kerry is really like? I pick (a), but...)

When Urban Legends Are Forecasts

Coturnix was kind enough to point out that the guaranteed-to-make-you-tsktsk story about the Berlin waitress was an urban legend. Not too surprising. The story is a little too pat, and there were no direct German references in the Telegraph's story. (But it also appeared in WorldNet; that PROVES it is true, right?) (Yes, I'm kidding).

But, on reading the snopes-ter's discussion, one encounters this:

Most German-language sources on this topic point to an 18 December 2004 article from the Berlin newspaper Tageszeitung, which (as far as our rusty command of German allows us to discern) does not report that women in Germany must accept employment in brothels or face cuts in their unemployment benefits. The article merely presents that concept as a technical possibility under current law — it does not cite any actual cases of women losing their benefits over this issue, and it quotes representatives from employment agencies as saying that while it might be legally permissible to reduce unemployment benefits to women who have declined to accept employment as prostitutes, they (the agencies) would not actually do that. (Emphasis mine).

Reliance on the forebearance of government agencies for our safety is a slender reed. When a dependency is created, it is not surprising that that dependency will be exploited for political, personal, and "it's for your own good" reasons.

Still and all: good on ya, Coturnix, for correcting the error. And, sorry about the html disaster. That's why i never change anything: I know for sure it would be the end of me.

I hate myself....

...for linking this. It is manipulative, cynical, and shallow.

(Wait; I like all those things! Never mind. Laugh, you will. Channel Yoda, I will.)

Anyway: Fat Kid on Glenn Reynolds. Also linked about a million other places, but I found it at SigNoth. Good on ya, Robert!

The Death of Universities

There are two kinds of people in universities.

1. People whose idea of work is going to meetings.

2. People whose idea of work is what we do BETWEEN meetings. You know, stuff like thinking, reading books and articles, writing new research.

Here's the problem: American universities are being absolutely taken over by by people of type 1. As a department chair, I can protect my faculty against some of this, but only some.

Whole floors of academic buildings are being converted from faculty office space (ie, place where work is actively done) to administrative office space (ie, places where work is actively prevented).

I have to deal with faculty, and graduate students, every day who can't believe the ridiculous, counterproductive, and petty edicts from above. They assume that I am the source.

The problem is not top level administrators, who (at Duke, at least right now) are the best I have ever seen. The problem is mid-level administrators who, knowing nothing about research, decide it is a "product" that needs to be managed and measured. And of course, we need to meet about it, a lot. Because that is what work is.

I can always just lay low. But what will happen to the new generation? A lot of the time faculty spend doing "nothing" is the most productive time they spend.

SOTU

On the State of the Union Speech:

The origins are Constitutional: "The President shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." Article II, Sec. 3, U.S. Constitution

But...Presidents from Thomas Jefferson (elected 1800, first SotU in 1801) onward, for the next 112 years, delivered their reports in written form. The next President to appear before Congress was Woodrow Wilson, in 1913.

The first "national" SotU was in 1923, delivered in the well of Congress in 1923, and broadcast live via radio to large parts of the nation. The first President actually to call the speech "The State of the Union" was FD Roosevelt, in 1935.

This is the only time that our President addresses Congress directly, though of course many members of Congress attend the inaugural speeches. The difference is that for the SotU the Congress is the formal audience, and the rest of us are just onlookers. Other systems, such as the British, are very different. Tony Blair addresses the House of Commons, and answers questions at 12 noon for half an hour every Wednesday when Parliament is sitting.

Some thoughts on the speech itself:
***********************************************
George Bush seemed confident, but not comfortable. He spoke like a diction coach had told him to slow down, and to "en-NUN-ci-ate" every syllable.

He made several main points. One of the first was on immigration. This was a complex proposal, but he rushed through it.
America's immigration system is also outdated -- unsuited to the needs of our economy and to the values of our country. We should not be content with laws that punish hardworking people who want only to provide for their families, and deny businesses willing workers, and invite chaos at our border. It is time for an immigration policy that permits temporary guest workers to fill jobs Americans will not take, that rejects amnesty, that tells us who is entering and leaving our country, and that closes the border to drug dealers and terrorists.

This was clearly intentional, so that the proposal could end as an applause line. But he proposed (1) guest workers, (2) no amnesty, (3) close borders to "drug traffickers and terrorists." That is a lot of stuff to cover in 5 seconds. He got his major applause line, but I wonder if people were scratching their heads.

On Social Security...this was the closest to "Question Time" in the British Parliament I have ever heard! Usually, members of the Congress either applaud, or just sit on their hands. But in this case, there were lots of cries of "no!" and shouts of disagreement when the President said that Social Security would be in trouble by 2027, and bankrupt by 2042. Very unusual to hear "NO!" during the SOTU address, but the President seemed to expect it. He was not flustered, where sometimes he IS flustered by hecklers he does not expect. But, in the transcript, no mention of the catcalls, though every "applause" line IS mentioned....

So here is the result: Thirteen years from now, in 2018, Social Security will be paying out more than it takes in. And every year afterward will bring a new shortfall, bigger than the year before. For example, in the year 2027, the government will somehow have to come up with an extra $200 billion to keep the system afloat -- and by 2033, the annual shortfall would be more than $300 billion. By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt. If steps are not taken to avert that outcome, the only solutions would be dramatically higher taxes, massive new borrowing, or sudden and severe cuts in Social Security benefits or other government programs.

The Democrats are apparently going to fight him on this, but I don't know why they have chosen to fight him on the specific date when Social Security will go bankrupt. No question of if, but only when. Voters are likely to side with the Republicans on this, unless Democrats come up with a clearer counterattack strategy.

Lots of ideological red meat for the religious right, on banning gay marriage, limiting stem cell research, etc.

Not much of a legislative agenda; much of his plan seems to be to invoke Constitutional amendments. Politically effective, but not an ambitious set of policy initiatives.

atsrtwt

UPDATE: I have to agree with the guys at Jujitsu Generis....This isn't any fun. Why can't the Democrats say what they believe: The government is better at spending your money, for your own good, than you are? At least then we could have a debate. Calling a small mutual fund "roulette" is...sad.

She needs help, NOW!

But I suppose the National Organization for Women actually supports this. The only freedom they care about is abortion rights. Having to sell your body must be okay. Everything is better in Europe, after all.

Still, check this out:

A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual services'' at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year.
Prostitution was legalised in Germany just over two years ago and brothel owners – who must pay tax and employee health insurance – were granted access to official databases of jobseekers.
The waitress, an unemployed information technology professional, had said that she was willing to work in a bar at night and had worked in a cafe.
She received a letter from the job centre telling her that an employer was interested in her "profile'' and that she should ring them. Only on doing so did the woman, who has not been identified for legal reasons, realise that she was calling a brothel.
Under Germany's welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job – including in the sex industry – or lose her unemployment benefit. Last month German unemployment rose for the 11th consecutive month to 4.5 million, taking the number out of work to its highest since reunification in 1990.
The government had considered making brothels an exception on moral grounds, but decided that it would be too difficult to distinguish them from bars. As a result, job centres must treat employers looking for a prostitute in the same way as those looking for a dental nurse.
When the waitress looked into suing the job centre, she found out that it had not broken the law. Job centres that refuse to penalise people who turn down a job by cutting their benefits face legal action from the potential employer.
"There is now nothing in the law to stop women from being sent into the sex industry," said Merchthild Garweg, a lawyer from Hamburg who specialises in such cases. "The new regulations say that working in the sex industry is not immoral any more, and so jobs cannot be turned down without a risk to benefits."

(atsrtwt)

(nod to Craig Depken , my partner at DoL)

But do they like pole dances?

Monkey see, monkey see some more.

A study.....

Where the Heck Were You?

We missed you....

(nod to Renan)

Review of Playmakers "Copenhagen"

COPENHAGEN REVIEW (Playmakers, Chapel Hill)

Michael Frayn’s Copenhagen is a risky play. The apparent subject, the fearsome ethical burden on the scientists who created the technology of killing, risks preachiness. And the matter of the play is difficult. You have to want to pay attention. It’s as if “The West Wing” were being filmed in the physics department.

The play itself, as Frayn has acknowledged, is based on Thomas Powers’ book, Heisenberg’s War. Sympathetic readers have called Powers’ book a “shadow history;” historians have called it worse. Some have objected that the matters presented as “facts” in the play are too kind to Heisenberg, and that the truth is rather darker. My own view is that, if you go to a play thinking you will learn history, you might want to stay home and watch Biography on A&E.

The play’s central conceit is that we can see Heisenberg's visit to Bohr in Nazi-occupied Denmark in 1941. The two men described this reunion very differently after the war. The two, along with Max Born, had revolutionized atomic physics together in the 1920s with the “Copenhagen Interpretation.” Bohr and Heisenberg sometimes worked, or argued, together, but more often finished their work apart and published it separately.

Still, whether you see it as collaboration or antagonism, their work shook physics to its core. Their work on quantum mechanics, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, and Bohr’s complementarity theory, were profoundly unsettling. Quantum theory introduced what seemed like randomness into Newton’s deterministic world, uncertainty sharply circumscribed what we can know about world, and complementarity resurrected the ancient controversies about dualism. An electron could be absolutely a wave, and yet equally absolutely a particle. A man might be entirely good, and yet be something else entirely. The perspective of the observer literally affects the world being observed.

Quantum mechanics challenges our imagination. It violates common sense, denying cause and effect as we understand it. The idea that “everything can be understood and explained by reason” has been the headwater of science since the Renaissance. Quantum mechanics is disturbing, both because it violates the idea that everything is Newtonian, and because it is unreasonably useful in making predictive statements about subatomic particles.

Frayn depicts Niels Bohr, accurately, as having seen Heisenberg's 1941 visit as hostile, maybe even a try at picking his brain on fission research, or a spy mission to discover the status of the Allied research on atomic weapons. Heisenberg later claimed that he simply came to ask a question, to ask Bohr as the “Pope” of science an ethical question: Does "a physicist have the moral right to work on the practical exploitation of atomic energy." In fact, in the play Frayn even allows Heisenberg to claim that he offered reassurance that Germany was not building an atomic bomb. But Bohr misunderstood his intentions and became alarmed and angry. These two versions of the facts are presented in the play, and conceived by the players, as “drafts” of history, which must be rewritten by the players before our eyes until they reach a satisfactory, publishable conclusion.

It is a mistake to see the repeated flashbacks, or “drafts” as more and more accurate history. The play is about modernity. Humanity wriggles in a cleft stick of its own creation. We are entrapped by awful powers, waging increasingly desperate wars. These wars are not just fought among nations, but against the elements, the environment itself.

We are left to wonder about the place of mankind in this world. Bohr starts the query: "If people are to be measured strictly in terms of observable quantities...," only to be interrupted by Heisenberg: "Then we should need a strange new quantum ethics. There'd be a place in heaven for me. And another one for the SS man I met on my way home."

Playmakers’ Copenhagen rewards study, and reflection. This production, with only the three characters, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, and Bohr’s wife, Margrethe, is challenging and satisfying. All three characters are strongly acted; each viewpoint crucial to the outcome.

Greg Thornton’ Bohr is persuasive, charismatic, and effective. We have to believe that this person is capable of being the world’s leading physicist, of being a good husband, and yet being able to forget the names of his own children. Thornton brings this off without visible effort, and carries the play’s exposition easily, often speaking his thoughts without seeming awkward or stilted.

Ultimately, the success of the play comes down to the Heisenberg character, the flawed prodigal whose welcome is such a problem for Bohr as father. Todd Weeks, as Heisenberg, has to touch our sympathies without grabbing for them. His performance got stronger and stronger as the play went on, as the successive drafts are rewritten. Weeks’ Heisenberg, under Drew Barr’s direction, engages us without losing his enigmatic quality.

We are told over and over again that the most important perspective here is that of Margrethe; the physics must be explained “so that Margrethe can understand.” In the end, it is clearly true that Margrethe’s understanding is the most important. But it is not her understanding of the lectures and fulminations of prickly scientists that matter. She has listened to those all her life. She is the real voice, and the sensibility, of the play. Nicole Orth-Pallavicini does a wonderful job in the role, making us see her admiration for her husband, and yet revealing that she alone fully understands his flaws.
In fact, she delivers the line that defines the central moment of the play. In Drew Barr’s direction, the line is delivered quickly, almost as an aside, and the conversation immediately turns to something else. But her insight strikes like a hammer, cutting through the ethical webs and justifications Heisenberg has built to salve his conscience.

The line is delivered after another discussion of the accidental death of the Bohr’s son, Christiane. Three separate times, at different places in the play, we are told of the tragic death on a sailing outing. The tiller comes over hard, knocking the boy into the frigid ocean water. The desperate attempt to save him, bringing the boat around and flinging the life ring towards him. Just a few feet from the life ring, such a small thing, the boy falters, and drowns, with his father looking on unable to help.

We think we understand the metaphor, the random strike of natural forces, the killing powers unleashed but not controlled by man. The boy is a sacrifice; we get it. But that’s not it, or at least not all of it. In the final draft, we learn that Bohr had to be held back. In his desperation to save the boy, he would have jumped into the water, probably sacrificing his own life. Bohr had to be held back. As Margrethe murmurs, not really to Heisenberg but to the audience: “You held yourself back.” Heisenberg may well not have been able to have stopped the study of bomb. But he held himself back. Don’t we all?

Gun Control Nazis

I wrote two blog entries earlier, but deleted them, because things just didn't add up. Glad I waited. JMPP didn't.

'Cause, there was this Fox News story about Michael Moore's bodyguard being arrested for trying to carry an unlicensed gun onto a plane.

That is not exactly what happened. Here appears to be the accurate story.

Some observations, now that I have thought about this.

1. Michael Moore thinks that we should not have guns. At least, not handguns. But he employs a guy who has a handgun. Does this mean that only people who are rich enough to have some caddy, who is also armed, should have access to the means of protecting themselves? This is actually a side issue, though, at least in my opinion.

2. The real deal is that...The security guard did NOTHING wrong, not a firetrucking thing. The gun is licensed and fully registered, and he is correctly documented for concealed carry. He just didn't happen to have a license in New York. But he was trying to leave New York, and anyway airports are now federal territory. The gun was locked, unloaded, and in his checked baggage, not carry on. Further, on presenting himself at the check-in counter, he immediately informed the agent (in accordance with the law) that he had the gun.

BOTTOM LINE: There is an excellent chance that some cop, after after asking some questions and finding out that the poor guard worked for Michael Moore SOMETIMES, decided to be a jerk and arrest him. Apparently this Dickhead Tracy (or someone) also immediately called Fox News, who equally immediately wrote a misleading and nearly libelous story.

This is what happens when you have laws that intrude on personal liberties, including those guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. (And this wasn't even a private weapon. The guy is a professional security guard). Cops, with nothing to do and a sense of personal importance, get to pursue their own little political agendas (in this case, conservative: "Arrest him! Call Fox News!"). It's tempting to think that the real bad guy here is the cop, but in fact it is the law. End the increasingly sticky web of laws and rules that are designed to "help" us, but are really just mechanisms of discretionary and arbitrary social control. You may think you want gun control, and racial epithet control, and bugger all control, but police discretion will always be used to punish the least powerful in society. Life-arrangers always say, "Gosh, that is not what I meant to have happen," but that is what always happens. If you don't want to go to Chicago, don't get on that train.

Michael Moore should be embarrassed. Not because he employs a man with a gun; I'm sure there are actual threats against Moore, and he has every right to protect himself. No, Moore should be ashamed that a man with a legitimate need for a gun got jerked around by people enforcing regulations Moore avidly supports. It's not an accident, it's not an abuse, it is the thing itself.

Inauguration Highlights

On Bush 2.0...

Biggest Bush speech component:

Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill, and would be dishonorable to abandon. Yet because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well - a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.

You know, I believe in the freedom thing, but that "burns those who fight its progress" thing... that's a little aggressive than I'm happy with. Fire is not always good. I'm not buying the Bush/Hiter comparison, I'm just saying that you shouldn't play with fire.

Best protest highlights:

Houston: We have an equation: W+Ahnold=disaster. I bet this guy thinks he supports democracy. The problem is that so many people are too stupid to hold the correct views. Democracy means, "Do what I say." My advice? Throw in an intercept, and some elasticities (what is the disaster responsiveness of W, compared to Ahnold? Surely not equal, right?) Should be something more like A+m1*W+m2*Ahnold=disaster; might need to use some MLE technique, since disaster is a qualitative variable, and the effects are likely to be nonlinear.

At least this guy knew what he was doing; trite, perhaps, but it's a real protest. I have always liked people who angrily burn the American flag, since they apparently hate the only country that allows this kind of protest, and support other nations where such a display would get them imprisoned. Here, they are having a little trouble with the flame of revolution. There are plenty of Sunnis who would be happy to help. Of course, then they'd burn YOU, and hang you from a bridge. That's not a problem, is it?

The upside down flags are a sign of distress. But then what does this upside down drum mean? Distressing music, and costumes? And what is going on with the dancers? Usually, when I see someone make that kind of move, it's a woman, and she's holding on to a pole. (I've actually NEVER seen that; Mrs. Kgrease would not approve).

Best smirk: GWB, for pretty much the whole day. I know, he can't help it, but good lord. When he smiles, he looks pretty good. But that crooked smirk is so obnoxious. It's an old problem; check this from 1999.

Best line: Overall, the best moment was when Paula Zahn, on CNN, summed up the atmosphere as she saw it: "So many balls, so little time." The other people on camera just stared at their shoes. In a way, she's right, of course. Hey, hey, Paula.

What the Heck?

What is Shujaat on about with this?

Things I liked:
1. The most excellent soundtrack.
2. The butt cracks of the American soldiers. Very realistic.
3. The disembodied foot trying to vote. Very Fellini.

But, what is going on here? The poor guy trying to vote is killed by the Americans, showing their ass. They kill him twice. Then he gets nailed by the insurgents. After they cut him up, the foot goes to vote. Is democracy gaining a toehold?

Won't you help me? I'm a simple professional wrestler. I don't understand deep stuff.

Moonves Does NOT Rule Out Mungowitz to Replace Rather

CBS poobah Leslie Moonves apparently did not specifically rule out hiring Jon Stewart to replace Dan Rather. Drudge ran a picture, suggesting this means that Stewart might be hired.

But, here is something everyone appears to have missed. NOWHERE did Moonves specifically rule out hiring K. G. Mungowitz to replace Dan Rather. (See?) Coincidence? I think not. This means that I have about the same chance as that preening dickhead Stewart of getting Rather's chair. I can't wait.

I wanna be a cowboy, baby....

I don't read Dem Underground much, but (see #10) they did nail this.

Hard to tell that story from something on "The Onion." BTW: Today is Kid Rock's birthday. Martin would be so pleased.

Speaking of Democratic Underground--here is IMAO's description:
DU is actually a digital bulletin board and not a blog. It was started by Shannon Daughty of the University of Georgia as psychological experiment of what happens when a number of people suffering for diagnosable paranoid delusions interact online. So far, results are inconclusive.

Q-o'-d-w-III: Sophie's Choice...Not

"On the subway, Peter asked, 'Shouldn't we consider having triplets?' And I had this adverse reaction: 'This is why they say it's the woman's choice, because you think I could just carry triplets. That's easy for you to say, but I'd have to give up my life.' Not only would I have to be on bed rest at 20 weeks, I wouldn't be able to fly after 15. I was already at eight weeks. When I found out about the triplets, I felt like: It's not the back of a pickup at 16, but now I'm going to have to move to Staten Island. I'll never leave my house because I'll have to care for these children. I'll have to start shopping only at Costco and buying big jars of mayonnaise. Even in my moments of thinking about having three, I don't think that deep down I was ever considering it." -- Amy Richards, an abortion rights advocate, describes her decision to kill two of her babies, leaving her with a single baby, instead of having triplets

(From John Hawkins' quotelist)

I think when people talk about "the life of the mother" as a justification for abortion, they don't mean that going to Costco is the same as death. I don't often find Michelle Malkin interesting, but here is some follow-up.

BONUS: A new definition of liberal, from Steve Margolis, through Newmark's Door. That Steve...

Tough Act to Follow. Apparently.

Remembering MLK.

Jesse Jackson does the fire and brimstone thing.

Excerpt from the AP story:

"You can be out of slavery and out of segregation and have the right to vote and starve to death without access to capital and industry," Jackson said.

He added, "You got the birthday. But do you have the legacy? The legacy is to fight for jobs, justice, health care, education and end to war."

"It's easy to admire Dr. King," Jackson told the 650 people at the church. "It's a challenge to follow him."

Apparently actually following the good Dr. is in fact such a challenge that the Rev. gave up some time ago. Running a "Pay me or I'll call you racist" extortion racket is a full time job.

Bill Cosby, by contrast, is angry. Angry at Detroit.

Cosby urged Detroiters to "march against" the problems facing the city.
"Get up. Do something," urged the 67-year-old Cosby. "Get up. Remove this reputation. You've got a reputation and it stinks."

Cosby has been traveling across the country in the past few months, speaking to predominantly black audiences about the need for personal responsibility and better parenting skills in African-American homes.

"The poverty and victim pimps will tell you, you don't have time to go out to the schools" to demand a better education for your children, Cosby said.

"Poverty and victim pimps"? I think he means Jesse Jackson.

What is the legacy of Dr. King? What should we do?