Question Mark Anglewing

Taken Friday afternoon, an anglewing - a Question Mark (Polygonia interrogationis) in its winter form (I had thought this an Eastern Comma, but on further research, no):

Moon

Remembering where he left it

But what use is it to know this?

You scored as Utilitarianism. Your life is guided by the principles of Utilitarianism: You seek the greatest good for the greatest number. “The said truth is that it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.” --Jeremy Bentham “Whenever the general disposition of the people is such, that each individual regards those only of his interests which are selfish, and does not dwell on, or concern himself for, his share of the general interest, in such a state of things, good government is impossible.” --John Stuart Mill More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page... Utilitarianism 75% Kantianism 65% Existentialism 60% Justice (Fairness) 55% Hedonism 55% Apathy 45% Strong Egoism 30% Nihilism 25% Divine Command 0% What philosophy do you follow? (v1.03) created with QuizFarm.com

the difference

From xkcd, this perceptive comic:

Family values, anyone?

Over at World Wide Webers, in a post about schism in the Episcopal Church, Karl notes in passing:

And--perhaps not coincidentally--the four leading Republican presidential candidates (Giuliani, McCain, Romney, and the as-yet-undeclared Gingrich) have nine divorces among them, whereas the four leading Democrats (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and the undeclared Gore) have each been married to the same spouse for decades.

Rhea Passes

Rhea passes in front of Saturn in this simply gorgeous color shot from February. Note the rings and their shadows at the top of the picture.

On to Cleveland!

The Final Four is set: Rutgers and LSU upsetting the number one seeds in their brackets, and North Carolina and Tennessee moving on in theirs.

So it's another Final Four for Pat Summitt's teams - that's seventeen now.

They played very well against Mississippi, pretty much cruising to a 36 point victory (98-62) - and that's with Candace Parker sitting the last 12 minutes. 49 rebounds - their early-season weakness - and points from eight players, including 24 for Parker, 16 for Spencer, 14 for Bobbitt (my favorite player and half again her average), 12 for Auguste, and 9 for Anosike.

As the CBS Wire report put it:

The Lady Vols shot 52 percent from the field and went 8-for-11 on 3-point attempts while limiting Ole Miss to just 32 percent shooting from the field. The Rebels were just 3-for-20 behind the arc.

No one can argue with Tennessee's incredible NCAA legacy, which is backed by a series of staggering numbers. The Lady Vols are the only team to be included in all 26 tournaments, in which they have a 96-19 record. They are 17-5 in regional championship games.

Ole Miss, which lost 81-69 when the Southeastern Conference rivals met in the regular season, had hoped to set a frantic pace with its full-court pressure and fast-break offense. But it was the Lady Vols who scored early and often to take control while completely disrupting the Rebels' plans.

Bobbitt hit 3s from opposite corners on the first two possessions. And Tennessee was off and running.

So now it's on to Cleveland and the Final Four.

Elections have consequences

I don't do this - well, I put some buttons in the sidebar. But I don't usually ask you to give money for political purposes.

But this is important. Much as I hate to think about 2008 starting so early, it has. And the Senate hangs by a thread: one seat.

Still, the Democrats have an advantage: only 12 Democratic incumbents are up for reelection in 2008, while 21 GOP senators are.

We've seen what the power of the subpoena and the committee chairs can do after only a few months. Let's not let it go.

Donate to the DSCC Now

It's the crime

Josh over at Talking Points Memo has another good point to make:

There's this old line the wise folks in Washington have that 'it's not the crime, but the cover-up.'

But only fools believe that. It's always about the crime. The whole point of the cover-up is that a full revelation of the underlying crime is not survivable. Let me repeat that, the whole point of the cover-up is a recognition that a full revelation of the underlying bad act is not survivable. Indeed, the cover-ups are usually successful. And that's why they're tried so often. Just look at this administration. They're the ultimate example of this truth.

Just consider Watergate -- the ur-scandal from which this bit of faux wisdom emanates. Of course, there had to be a cover-up. How long would Richard Nixon have lasted in the White House after he came forward and admitted that he had a private team of professional crooks breaking into the opposition party's headquarters and committing various other crimes at his behest? How would that have gone over?

Same here.

Enough of this shambling foolery. The controversy wasn't 'sparked' by the break down of the cover-up. The 'controversy' is about the underlying bad acts. To say that there's a scandal because the cover-up didn't work is no more than a dingbat truism -- something you really would expect from Miers.

This is about finding out what really happened. All the effort that has gone into preventing that tells you the tale.

LSU! UUUUUU-RAH

Yes indeed! The Lady Tigers have beaten UConn! Jimmy, the announcer, kept saying "UConn is proud, so proud! They're a second-half team!" but LSU is heading to the Final Four, and Geno's team is not.

73-50 - what a lovely, lovely Monday present.

(LSU had Sylvia Fowles and the rest will not, Jimmy says, but you know what? We have Candace Parker.)

Carnival of Maryland #3

It's the third
Carnival of Maryland
from the Land of Pleasant Living ®

We didn't get a large number of submissions, but what we got was choice. There's something for everyone here, I do believe, so look around and enjoy.

• Zechary White calls on us to Chat to help people - that's right: do good by chatting! What's not to like?


• Jeremy at The Voltage Gate offers us thoughts on celebrity, consumerism, and conservation for Climate Crisis Action Day


• Soccer Dad looks at a young actress seeking redemption and wonders


• Atilla at PIllage Idiot thinks the death penalty is hanging by a thread in the state, not that he's happy about it all things considered


• The Pubcrawler examines Maryland's possible smoking ban, and he's not happy either


• Jamailia at Ancestral Pile looks at where she comes from, and takes some pictures so we can see it, too


• And speaking of pictures, I have a sure sign of spring here at The Greenbelt.


• In fact, to prevent us having (gasp!) thirteen posts, I'll exercise host's privilege and show you an even surer sign


• Wash Cycle tells us about Street Smart 2007 - including just what the heck it is, besides a Good Idea


• Over at Any Given Tuesday is a heartfelt review of Happy Chichester (sounds like I might have to buy the album!)


• On the other hand, Butta tells us that in case we were wondering, it's still all about Eric Robertson - a battle of the bands


• Lenny at Mid Atlantic and Washington DC Art News invites us all to be exhibitors at the upcoming artDC fair


• Kevin at the Soundtrack Division of Old Silent Movies thinks there are more questions than answers at Bowling Brook


• And finally, monoblogue challenges me to post his look at why he thinks the Maryland GOP should stop playing - but this carnival isn't a political carnival; if he's in Maryland, and writes well, he's in.

That wraps it up for this Carnival. No host yet for next time - let Attilla at Pillage Idiot (pillageidiot AT hotmail DOT com) know if you'd like to host - but you can submit for next time via blogcarnival. See you then!

Definitely Spring

	Yep, it's defnitely here. Spring, that is. The pair of geese that showed last week up is nesting.

Last call for submissions

The next Carnival of Maryland will be right here. Submissions via blogcarnival by 9 pm Eastern tonight.

(I am at fault here - for some reason I thought the carnival was a Wednesday one, but it seems it's a Sunday one. I will get it up tonight! Mea culpa!)

It's not about Al

As Josh at TPM says:

This isn't a case where Alberto Gonzales has fallen short of the president's standards or bungled some process. This is the standard. The Attorney General has done and is doing precisely what is expected of him.

Consider this.

When Alberto Gonzales went up to the Hill earlier this year and answered questions about the US Attorney firings, he lied about why they'd been fired. When evidence revealed that what he had told the Senate was not true, he told the country in his televised press conference that he hadn't been directly involved in the process and thus had not knowingly misled the Senate. Friday's document dump showed that that too was a lie. These of course are only the most conspicuous examples and I leave aside the numerous instances of his aides lying on his behalf.

It is not too much to say that everything that has come out of Alberto Gonzales' mouth on this issue has been a lie. Sure, that sounds like hyperbole. But it's just a factual summary of what the public record now shows. On the very day his second lie was being exposed Gonzales was publicly claiming "it’s reckless and irresponsible to allege that these decisions were based in any way on improper motives."

And the president is fine with all of this. Fine with the fact that the Attorney General has not only repeatedly lied to the public but has also been exposed as repeatedly lying to the public. He's fine with at least two US Attorneys being fired for not giving in to pressure to file bogus charges to help Republican candidates.

Of course he's fine with it. Because it comes from him. None of this is about Alberto Gonzales. This is about the president and the White House, which is where this entire plan was hatched. Gonzales was just following orders, executing the president's plans. This is about this president and this White House, which ... let's be honest, everyone on both sides of the aisle already knows.

Read it all.

The Week in Entertainment

Film: Venus - this movie is wonderful on its own merits, and deepened by the awareness of what you're watching, which is a great actor at the probable tag end of his career, still great, playing a good actor at the very end of his. And yet, because it is Peter O'Toole, you never feel like you're watching his life (he's not reduced to playing dying grandfathers in made-for-tv movies, he's bloody well starring in a major motion picture playing a man reduced to playing dying grandfathers in made-for-tv movies and kicking butt while he does). He can still dominate a scene - that Oscar® nomination was well-and-truly earned.

Live: Smetana's The Bartered Bride in Baltimore - and what a wonderful evening it was. Excellent singing, nice staging, good orchestra, and funny.

TV: more March Madness. Scrubs.

Read: Finished Wild Sheep Chase, and read Harry Frankfurt's two little books, On Bullshit and On Truth

Ducks

The geese in the park share their pond with a pair of mallards.

Simple yes-or-no question? No.

In the Senate testimony the other day, Inhofe asked Gore:

Are you ready to change the way you live?

And he added this:

Now, the one thing I'd like to have you not use in response to this question, which is a yes or no question, is the various gimmicks.

I'm not going to get into the politics of this - a cursory perusal of my blog should tell you what I think of Gore, Inhofe, science, science-denialism and deniers, and so on. I want to talk about Inhofe's "yes or no question" - and why it isn't one, and why the "gimmick" isn't in the answer, but the question.

There's a material (or informal) fallacy* called "begging the question", or in Latin petitio principi. The Latin means "a request for the premise" (and "begging the question" isn't a good translation, as it leads people to think it means "leading to another question") and it involves an argument in which the conclusion is actually part of its own support. An example would be a lawyer arguing that since the defendents show no remorse, they should be punished: Claiming that they should show remorse assumes their guilt; if they are innocent, why should they be remorseful?

But petitio principi can be found in many other guises. One that is extremely common is this that Inhofe used: hiding a premise in a subordinate or embedded clause.

Many people think of subordinate or embedded clauses as those that are introduced by a subordinating conjunction (such as because, when, unless), or a relative pronoun (that, which). However those subordinate clauses are only one type of embedded clauses. Infinitive clauses (I want him to sing now), pariticipial (-ING) clauses (He started singing his favorite song), mixed (I wanted him to start singing my favorite song), and THAT clauses (I think that he is a good singer) are others. Clauses create separate assertions in a sentence which can be true or false independent of each other. For instance, it may be false that he is a good singer, but true that I think he is.

Sentences with more than one clause are called "complex" sentences. By definition, complex sentences are not simple.

Questions which hide a premise inside an embedded clause are thus not simple questions. Such a question has not one, but two (or more), assertions inside it, and thus (at least) two assertions to be questioned. It assumes something to be true and asks a question based on that assumption. Claiming the question is a simple "yes or no question" is disingenuous at best - in order to answer the question in that way, the respondent must assent to the truth of the embedded clause. **

The classic example of this is, of course, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" To answer either "yes" or "no" you must accept as true the premise that you have in fact beaten your wife in the past. There is no way to answer this "yes" or "no" which says "I have never beaten my wife." The answer "yes" only means that you have stopped, while "no" only means that you have not yet stopped.

This question is composed of not one, but two clauses: I beat my wife - I have stopped. Thus there is a matrix of four ways to break it down by truth and falsity:

a - I beat my wife / I have stopped beating her
b - I beat my wife / I have not stopped beating her
c - I never beat my wife / I have stopped beating her
d - I never beat my wife / I have not stopped beating her

As you can see, statements c and d are actually meaningless. They aren't right or wrong, true or false: they have no meaning. You cannot stop doing something you have never done, nor can you continue to do it. The statements are nonsense.

When asked such a question you cannot answer it "yes or no": you must go to the embedded clause and deal with that. If your questioner demands a "yes or no", ask him to rephrase the question into one that can in fact be so answered, one that is not predicated on a premise you do not grant. In short - call him on his dishonesty.

Because it is dishonest. It is either stupid or disingenuous to pretend that such a question is a simple "yes or no question". Inhofe isn't stupid. Whatever you may think about the way he goes about his business or organizes his thoughts or politics, you will have to admit that he's not stupid: willful ignorance is not stupidity, though it plays on the stupidity of others. Inhofe knows what he's doing. His disingenuousness is dishonest.

Are you ready to change the way you live?

The "principio" being "petioed" here, if you will, the premise being requested, the assumption being hidden, the question being begged, is that there is something wrong with the way Gore lives. Answering "yes" clearly assents to that assumption; answering "no" does, too. Gore attempted to answer the underlying assumption - the embedded clause question of "does the way you live need changing" - in a way which would make the surface question - are you ready to change? - meaningless. Inhofe wouldn't let him. But Gore wouldn't fall for the fallacy.

So Inhofe pretends that Gore wouldn't answer the question, when the simple fact is, there was no single question being asked.

* This is technically not a logical fallacy, because the conclusion does indeed in some way follow from the premises, being identical to one of them. However, using a statement to prove itself is still a fallacy: "It's good because it's good"is not a valid argument.

** Of course, such questions can be other than "yes or no": "When are you going to stop lying?" is another common example, if easier to deal with in practice.

Terrorized by "War on Terror"

Must reading: Zbigniew Brzezinski's Terrorized by War on 'Terror':

The "war on terror" has created a culture of fear in America. The Bush administration's elevation of these three words into a national mantra since the horrific events of 9/11 has had a pernicious impact on American democracy, on America's psyche and on U.S. standing in the world. Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us.

The damage these three words have done -- a classic self-inflicted wound -- is infinitely greater than any wild dreams entertained by the fanatical perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks when they were plotting against us in distant Afghan caves. The phrase itself is meaningless. It defines neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies. Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants.

The irony meter is broken

Mar 23 (AFP): Bush denounced the House of Representatives's passage of a 124-billion-dollar emergency spending package that includes an August 2008 withdrawal deadline, inserted by Democrats, as "an act of political theater."

First Freedom First: Blog against theocracy

This Easter weekend, if you're a blogger, you're invited to Blog against theocracy, or if you prefer it, for the separation of church and state and for religious freedom. Blue Gal is spearheading it, and anyone is welcome.

You don't even have to be non-religious: you only have to believe that separation of church and state is a Good Thing® - like the Founders meant it.

Poster from I Speak of Dreams (there are more over there).

Green Eyes

The whole ring system...

Thanks to Josh over at According to Colwell for this gorgeous shot:




It's on the Cassini page, and it's also over at NASA's planetary photo page. (The picture is a mosaic, and the over-exposed planet at the center has been digitally removed.)

The first indications

You ought to go check out Talking Points Memo's reminder that the key point about the attorney firings is not "how much did Gonzales know?" (that, as many have pointed it, is something of a strawman), but they don't think it's "what did Rove have to do with it?" either.

They want us to remember that little

change to the Patriot Act that was quietly inserted by Sen. Arlen Specter at the behest of the Justice Department ... [which], in essence, transferred the power to appoint interim USAs from the federal district courts to the attorney general and allowed the attorney general to install interim USAs indefinitely, thereby bypassing the Senate confirmation process.

As David says,

So contrary to earlier assertions, the attorney general was involved in the firings, and higher-ups in the Justice Department knew about the Patriot Act provision.

No surprise there, really. But keep this in mind. Everything the Justice Department has said that later turned out to be false was almost certainly known by the White House to be false, at the time the false statements were made, to the media, and most importantly, to Congress.

Yeah.

What we don't want to do is lose sight of what this is really all about: an attempt to install one party in permanent power.

And while you're over there, try this rundown on where we are and why this matters

There are many people in this conversation trying to avoid the issues, confuse the issues or just ignore them. And more than a few people are just plain confused. But it's not that complicated. Administration officials have repeatedly and demonstrably lied about the firings. And there is now abundant evidence of a pattern of using the president's power to hire and fire US Attorneys to stymie public corruption investigations of Republicans and use the Justice Department to harass Democrats by mounting investigations of demonstrably bogus 'voter fraud' claims. It's really that simple.

He's back

Spring must be here. Youngish birds, flowering trees, and -- the groundhog is awake!

Carnival of Maryland

The next Carnival of Maryland will be right here next Wednesday. Submissions via blogcarnival by 9 pm Eastern, Monday March 26 - any blogger in Maryland is welcome to submit on any topic concerning Maryland.

a peeve

It's bad enough when they say "Stay tuned for more <insert name of show here>" and you sit through the commercials to get nothing but credits. But I don't think they should be allowed to say it when absolutely nothing of, oh, let's say, Scrubs NBC!!! actually follows the commercials and instead you are catapulted straight into that Andy Parker thing.

Just sayin'.

le mot so very juste from John Oliver

"If Karl Rove had known that he would someday have to testify to under oath to Congress about the advice he gave the president, he would have had to limit that advice to things that weren't shameful, illegal, or spectacularly boneheaded."

And Stephen Colbert: "If the president's staff had to live in constant fear of being hauled in front of Congress then they wouldn't be able to give him the kind of advice that would make Congress want to haul them in in the first place."

I and the Bird

Jayne at Journey Through Grace does a wonderful job with I and the Bird #45.

Check out these especially: the weirdest looking bird I've seen at Aimophilia Adventures; some of the most beautiful ones at KeesKennis; pictures from an unexpected aerial chase at Bird Ecology Study Group; and a wintry spring break with colorful birds at lovely dark and deep.

By no means are these the only posts worth reading, though. Head over and enjoy!

Red in the park

Here are a couple of shots I got last week - one, a redwinged blackbird in the very late afternoon, and the other a cardinal.

another raptor first - and a puzzle

A couple of weeks ago I saw my first wild bald eagle. Today, while driving down Rt 32, I spotted a sharp-shinned hawk just sitting on a light pole. At least I'm pretty sure that's what it was - it was a large raptor, dark gray on the back and wings and light on the breast. At 60 mph you don't get a chance for a really good look! But if it was a sharp-shinned, then that's another first!

Also, inside the fenceline at work where I can't take pictures, the other morning I heard a vaguely familiar birdcall very close to me. Looking up, I saw a bird, about 15 feet away, maybe 18, sitting on the branch facing me but ignoring me totally as it repeatedly dug its beak into a hole. It was something unfamiliar to me - gray, with a broad white collar around its neck, and a slight apparent crest. It was also very fuzzy looking. I watched it for several minutes, trying to figure out what it was - some out of place western jay? Not a cedar waxwing, or a female cardinal - entirely the wrong color, neither buff nor greenish.

Then it turned around on the branch and its back was a familiar bright blue. It only paused there a moment before flying to another tree and joining a couple more like it and an adult blue jay. All I think is that the jays must have laid eggs back in the false spring we had, and managed to feed them over the brief bitter cold and snow, and that these were adolescents.

whence the sudden concern?

So the current president intends to veto a bill that would give DC a congressman because "it violates the Constitution".

I didn't know he cared.

it's all perfectly clear, of course

In the words of those who follow the president, Rove, Miers, and Gonzales in all their teachings: If they didn't do anything wrong, what have they got to be afraid of? If they don't have anything to hide, why won't they testify under oath? If they're innocent, why won't they talk on the record, with a transcript? If they're just "honest civil servants" - what have they got to hide?

OR favor...

Recently there's been a lot of talk about how people - especially federal prosecutors - serve at the pleasure of the president. Jon Stewart had a particularly biting riff on it, culminating in a judgment on what this current president seems to find pleasurable, judging by the people who serve...

But the fact is simple, as Ron Hutcheson and Marisa Taylor say at Truthout: though they are political appointees, they're supposed to follow the evidence wherever it leads, without fear or favor.

Even John Ashcroft knew that much: "You have to leave politics at the door to do this job properly."

Happy Birthday, Johann!

Today in 1865 in Eisenach, Germany, Johann Sebastian Bach was born. The world would be a poorer place without him.

My current favorite cd for the office is The Goldberg Variations, scored for a string quartet.

The Writer's Alamanac for today includes this note:

He started out as a professional church organist, and he developed a reputation as one of the best organists in the country. Members of his congregation were annoyed by his habit of improvising while playing hymns, which made it difficult for people to sing along.

It also has this one, which is inspiring and depressing in turn:

[In Leipzig, h]e had to write a cantata every month, so in order to get ahead of the deadlines, he wrote one every week for the first two years.

Rebounding wins tournaments

That's the way to keep up the streak - never lost in the first two rounds! Woot!

Parker had 30 points and 12 assits; Niki Anosike (isn't that a great name?) had 10 and 6, Hornbuckle 5 and 4, Spencer 11 and 3, and my favorite player of this year, Shannon Bobbit 10 and 3. UT had 12 offensive and 22 defensive rebounds to Pitt's 6 and 16 - UT struggled with rebounding early in the season.

Pat always says: Offense sells tickets, Defense wins games, and Rebounding wins tournaments.

(Too bad Maryland lost to Old Miss ...)

This is just plain annoying

I am really, really tempted to go outside and put a brick through a windshield and give that damned car alarm that has been going for the last hour and a half (with occasional 30 second pauses) something to be alarmed about.

lovely

marsh lightning
the tree's blossoms open
into egrets

--Martin Gottlieb Cohen

http://tinywords.com/haiku/2007/03/20

From Saturn to Jupiter

Cassini glances away from the Saturnian system to take a picture of Jupiter.

As the JPL Cassini-Huygens page says,Jupiter is imaged here from more than 11 times the distance between Earth and the Sun, or slightly farther than the average Earth-Saturn distance. As demonstrated by [the picture taken in September, see below] Pale Blue Orb, Earth is only about a pixel across when viewed from Saturn by Cassini. (The bulge in the enlargement of Earth is the moon.)

Four years on

So, it's been four years. I'm listening to the BBC and it's hard to tell exactly what good we've accomplished. I suppose the removal of Hussein counts, but all those unintended (though not unforeseen) consequences weigh down the other side of the scales. 86% of Iraqis, according to a BBC/ABC News, ARD German TV and USA Today poll, expressed concern about someone in their household being a victim of violence, with 65% extremely concerned aboutit; and only 18% of Iraqis have confidence in US and coalition troops. Although virtually no one wants Iraq to be partioned, some feel it's inevitable. Someone interviewed on World Update pointed out that people are all mixed together - Christians married to Muslims, Shia married to Sunnis, and so on: any divide would be messy (does Pakistan/India 1948 ring any bells?) and the resulting countries weak. At home, we have returning soldiers badly injured - many with traumatic head injuries - and more than before, thanks to the excellent battlefield medical care. But they return to crappy care in a military medical and VA system that is overstressed and underfunded, thanks to an administration that has been cutting their budget for six years. We have Osama bin Laden still at large, and al Qaeda still blowing things up, and Afghanistan still a battlefield. We have... You know what? I can't go on. If you have been reading even the mainstream media lately, you know what we have. And the worst part is, we didn't have to have any of it.

A quick drink

One thing that bugs me lately

It's the Lana Clarkson murder case.

Phil Spector is the suspect - not the victim. I know we're all obsessed with celebrity, but let's not lose sight of who actually died, however it happened.

The Week in Entertainment

TV: if it counts I managed to catch the last episode (so far) of Heroes on the NBC web site. Otherwise, it was March Madness, baby!

Read: vetted the Sir Cumference books before sending them on for my great-niece. Very nice! Read The Last Family in England, a nearly indescribable but excellent book, and began Murakami's Wild Sheep Chase.

Round One play in the Dayton Bracket: UT vs Drake

Awright. Here we go. UT has won the NCAA Championships 6 times, more than anyone else (UConn is next with 5); they have been to the tournament every single year it's been played - the only team who can boast that. In the Championship game nine times. The Final Four sixteen times, twenty for the Elite Eight. Been in the Sweet Sixteen twenty-four times - that's every year since there's been one. Seeded #1 18 times, 44-0 against teams seeded 4 and below...

A nice backhand basket by Monique Jones of Drake - they aren't lying down, that's for sure. However, the game is so one-sided (10-2) already that ESPN is cutting away to Delaware (12) v Michigan State (5). Just as well... I do have papers to grade.

Halftime score - 30-14, what they're calling a "sluggish start against Duke" but then "turning it on."

They've given us a minute or so - it's now 71-28 with less than 4 to play. UT had a 34-0 run to open the second half, with Hornbuckle and Parker stepping up. Stacey Dales speculates that UT has been focusing on defense in practice after the loss to LSU which didn't make Pat happy, and maybe took a while to refocus. Kara Lawson tells Trey Wingo that, no, Pat "probably wasn't even that intense" in the locker room; "you can't use it all all the time, not on a game like this" - and she should know.

Whatever, clearly UT has this one in the bank.

Yep - 76-37.

I suppose that for the average viewer, this close Delaware-Michigan State game (67-54 with 2:30 to go) has been more interesting than a UT blowout, but I wouldn't have minded watching it!

on the other hand

It's all very nice to talk about how Harvard has no scholarships and the student athletes can't miss class for sports, but let's not forget that it costs $44,000 a year to go to Harvard. So the school is willfully refusing to give a talented athlete with brains but no money a chance to get a Harvard education. We see all those commercials about how there are over 380,000 NCAA students and almost all of them "go pro in something other than sports" - but if you're not able to afford Harvard, your athletic ability won't take you there, like it will to other colleges where you might be able to make your way to a degree off your jump shot or your time in the 440.

I'm not saying Harvard should relax its academic standards. I'm just saying that there are some smart kids out there who will never get into the Ivy League... and might have, were things different. And that makes all this praise for Harvard's "no scholarships" ring just a little hollow. It's still snobbery, guys, even if the athletes themselves are admirable.

All right, we remember. So what?

How many times is this guy going to remind us that "Harvard is the team - the only team - to win in either tournament, men's or women's, as a number 16 seed"?

I mean, yes that was a remarkable achievement.

But it wasn't this team. None of these women were at Harvard then. In fact none of these women were even in high school yet.

That achievement, now, is equally heartening for any 16 seed.

And I hope UMBC steps up and busts UConn. (Not that I expect it, mind, but it would be sweet.)

For once there's point to it

Cal and Notre Dame are playing - it's a 2-point game (58-56) with 32 seconds to play and of course Cal is going to town working the clock, fouling and so on. Now, nothing drives me crazier than a team that's down by 6 or more doing this. Even if the other team doesn't make their free throws (and, in fact, here ND missed one), you will not have enough time to make up the deficit. Down by 2, you just might.

But I don't think Cal's going to pull it out - they're now down by 1 (60-59) and there's a half a second left ... make that 62-59 as she makes both shots. But it is barely possible for Cal to get a three here. So it's not impossible, so it's not damned annoying. In fact, it would be so cool if they won.

But what usually happens, happened: Cal got the shot off... but Notre Dame still won.

Music from days gone by ...

Down below I said nobody has to go back to fight GOP stuff to investigate, what's happening right now is enough to keep you busy. But if you want to go further back (still not to 2000), Frank Rich has, in today's NYT, an excellent recap of March 2003 - the days preceding Operation Iraqi Freedom. Lots of good quotes, and where-are-they-now updates. The administration doesn't look good, but the media looks as bad if not not worse.

Here are a few:

March 7, 2003

Appearing before the United Nations Security Council on the same day that the United States and three allies (Britain, Spain and Bulgaria) put forth their resolution demanding that Iraq disarm by March 17, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, reports there is “no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq.”. He adds that documents “which formed the basis for the report of recent uranium transaction between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic.” None of the three broadcast networks’ evening newscasts mention his findings.

[In 2005 ElBaradei was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.]

March 12, 2003

A senior military planner tells The Daily News “an attack on Iraq could last as few as seven days.”

“Isn’t it more likely that antipathy toward the United States in the Islamic world might diminish amid the demonstrations of jubilant Iraqis celebrating the end of a regime that has few equals in its ruthlessness?”

— John McCain, writing for the Op-Ed page of The New York Times.

March 16, 2003

On “Meet the Press,” Dick Cheney says that American troops will be “greeted as liberators,” that Saddam “has a longstanding relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al Qaeda organization,” and that it is an “overstatement” to suggest that several hundred thousand troops will be needed in Iraq after it is liberated. Asked by Tim Russert about ElBaradei’s statement that Iraq does not have a nuclear program, the vice president says, “I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong.”

“There will be new recruits, new recruits probably because of the war that’s about to happen. So we haven’t seen the last of Al Qaeda.”

— Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism czar, on ABC’s “This Week.”

[From the recently declassified “key judgments” of the National Intelligence Estimate of April 2006: “The Iraq conflict has become the cause célèbre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.”]

March 18, 2003

In one of its editorials strongly endorsing the war, The Wall Street Journal writes, “There is plenty of evidence that Iraq has harbored Al Qaeda members.”

[In a Feb. 12, 2007, editorial defending the White House’s use of prewar intelligence, The Journal wrote, “Any links between Al Qaeda and Iraq is a separate issue that was barely mentioned in the run-up to war.”]

And much much more!

Carnival of the Godless!

Carnival of the Godless #62 is up over at Black Sun.

I forgot to submit, but that hardly matters - there's plenty of good godlessness over there for your Sunday reading enjoyment.

Amont the good stuff I'd like to recommend Jeff's Creationists aren't stupid, the Atheist Ethicist's look at that special way of knowing, vjack's look at why why the atheist community hasn't been engaged by the "Jesus tomb", and Action Skeptic's amazing saga of the Bible Handkerchief.

There's a lot more, too, so head on over to Black Sun and check it out.

Facing the music

My brother - a lifelong Republican who despises the current president because "he's not a real conservative" - told me after the last election that while he was glad the Dems won, he hoped they weren't going to waste time just going after old scandals. I guess he's happy to realize that they aren't going to have any free time to do that - the new scandals just keep coming in.

Take Alberto Gonzales and the fired prosecutors. (And let me first lay to rest the whole "Clinton fired more!!!" 'defence'" - every president puts in new prosecutors when he takes over. Most presidents fire one or two along the way. No president mass-replaces them for "loyalty" three quarters of the way through - well, none but this one.)

I love the NYT's description of Al: consigliere to the Bush White House. When he was White House counsel, that was (sort of) his actual job, and he did it zealously, as he has always served Bush zealously even back in Texas, making sure he got out of jury duty so his DWIs wouldn't come up and helping him set a record number of executions and equally record number of dismissed clemencies, and has been rewarded for his loyalty by jobs such as Texas Secretary of State and Supreme Court Justice, and then when his boss moved to DC, he ended up as White House counsel. It's almost understandable that Gonzales wrote opinions for the White House justifying limitations on the Freedom of Information Act, warrantless wiretapping, torture, tribunals, renditions, and all the other "controversial" decisions this White House has made. His service was the ultimate lawyerly reward of Attorney General. (Considering that Miers was nominated for the Supreme Court of the United States, can anyone doubt that Gonzales was destined for the next empty slot - a final Bush legacy to the nation? That one wouldn't fly now; it's an ill wind indeed that blows no good at all.)

But the Attorney General isn't supposed to be the White House counsel. He's not supposed to get involved in the petty partisan politics that encompass such things as firing US attorneys - whose performance appraisals have been good - for the sins of not being "loyal Bushies" and not using their office to intimidate the other party.

If they really want to start digging into this, there's that whole and central question of what did Karl Rove do and when did he do it?.

And if that's not enough to keep them busy, they can tackle the FBI's violations of the law to obtain telephone records - "flawed" letters demanding information that had no proven relationship to counterterrorist investigations. Or the "problems" at Walter Reed, apparently only the tip of the VA iceberg. Or the military's ongoing lowering of enlistment standards as it tries to keep its numbers up to the tasks set before it (though, while "moral waivers" are granted to felons and the mentally disturbed, gays still need not apply). Or the friction developing in the special relationship between the US and the UK - exemplified by the "criminal" friendly-fire death of a British soldier and the subsequent handling of the incident. And the beat, as they say, goes on.

I could go on, but you get the picture. Nobody has to go back to 2000 to start whacking this administration with subpoenas. It's probably not making my brother happy, but me? I've got a smile on my face.

Sunday comic

Yeah, this is one of those "too true to be really funny" ones - I refer you to the news section of any daily paper if you don't believe me. (Select the comic for a larger version)

al-Iskander?

I was quite startled to see in Ben Yagoda's book If You Catch An Adjective, Kill It, in the chapter on Articles, the claim that Alexander the Great was "born Iskander, a common Muslim name" and that "Al-Iskander gives him the honorific The".

I really wonder what his source is for this. Every single place I look - including the OED - states that Alexander is a purely Greek name. As the OED says:

"From the Latin form of the Greek name Alexandros, from alexein 'to defend' + aner 'man', 'warrior' (genitive andros). The compound was probably coined originally as a title of the goddess Hera, consort of Zeus. It was also borne as a byname by the Trojan prince Paris. The name became extremely popular in the post-classical period, and was borne by several characters in the New Testament and some early Christian saints. Its use as a common given name throughout Europe, however, derives largely from the fame of Alexander the Great, King of Macedon (356–23 BC), around whom a large body of popular legend grew up in late antiquity, much of which came to be embodied in the medieval 'Alexander romances'."

Iskander may be a common Muslim name, but Alexander of course predated Islam by many centuries. Furthermore, an Arabic speaker of my acquaintance says "Iskander" isn't of Arabic origin. The name, she thinks, probably derives the reverse of Yagoda's assertion - that is, Arabic speakers deconstructing Alexander into al-Iskander and dropped the "al" for ordinary folks - and that the name then spread through the Arab-influenced world; though she admits that's a guess on her part, it sounds good to me.

It's a bit disconcerting to come across something so obviously wacko in a book which is otherwise well done, by a respected professional.

Mar 19: note: I contacted Dr Yagoda and asked him what his source was. He responded:

I honestly don't remember, but it seems to have been spurious. Thanks for setting me right--I will change in future editions (in the event that there are any).--BY

Four Stone Hearth

Four Stone Hearth is up at Aardvarchaeology. Another of the selective carnivals, this one takes the ten best about anthropology and archaeology.

I particularly recommend Henrik's discovery about his recent work digging up someone's ancestors ... someone named Henrik, that is; and Chris at Northstate's discussion of archaelogy and creationism.

Enjoy!

The Dove Who Came Inside

The Dove Who Came Inside

A mourning dove walked inside my apartment today,
Following a trail of sunflower seeds the finches left,
Who sit high on their feeder and eat with tossing heads,
Scattering seeds onto the deck below them, seeds left
For them themselves to eat, but the doves come too,
Walking with pigeons' grace and stabbing beak,
Amongst the hopping little bits of red and streaky brown
Seeming like dowagers or diplomats, larger but somehow
    weak.

At any rate, one walked inside this afternoon.
Realizing her mistake -- perhaps the warm on a cool day,
Perhaps the lack of breeze, or the carpet underfoot --
She turned to flee, and lost her bearings and the way.
She beat herself against the glass with flailing wings,
Throwing her broad buff breast into the sudden crystal air
Through which, she must have thought, she had just walked,
Threw herself again and yet again in panic to be out of there.
I heard those muffled thuds: the cat did, too,
Leaping from my lap to grab the dove with both her paws.
I was a step behind, and grabbed the cat, who sullenly let go
The lawful prize -- it's in the house, it's mine -- and from her
    jaws
Released one miau of protest, then hung limp and waiting.
The dove still beat herself against the glass, still tried
To force her way back whence she had come, still hoped
Her beating wings would this time carry her outside.

They say that birds can kill themselves that way.
I couldn't drive her, she only beat against the glass.
I took her in my hand--such still yet frantic eyes,
Such little weight for size, such tiny heart to beat so fast.
A finch the cat had brought inside once, who'd fled,
Leaving behind his tail, beneath the couch to hide
'Till I got home, had bitten me when I picked him up
Hard enough for blood to still be welling as he flew outside.
The dove's long beak, though, didn't move, nor she.
She was now panic frozen, was as still as death,
Except that beating heart, so fast against my fingers,
Except that frantic, panting breath.
Limp cat under one arm, still bird in one hand,
I walked back to the opened door, reached through my hand,
    then
Opened it as well: a little, little push against my hand,
Wings opening like a tiny thunderclap, and she was gone again.

I know this dove: she and her mate come daily,
Dignified among the finches, to sit like grownups at their meat.
She's back again, sitting on the railing by the flower box
Watching him and waiting for her turn to eat--
They do swap off. Any minute now he'll heave himself
Up off the feeder onto the rail, awkward yet assured,
And she will plop herself down into the sunflower seeds
And eat, while he watches and murmurs his co-ah coo coor.
Ah, now they've swapped off, she's eating now
With bobbing head, while he sits by the purple flower.
Her time inside, the cat, the glass, the fear,
It hasn't kept her gone beyond her time by even an hour.

I don't know if birds think, or what, or even how.
They must have memory at least, or how'd they know
To come back that first time for the sunflower seeds,
Before it was habit? She must remember something; even so
The dove who came inside has not stayed away.
Is it courage or stupidity that keeps her on her track?
Or is it simple hunger? She's walking on the balcony again,
Eating the seeds the finches scatter, looking ahead, not back...

(I wrote this a number of years ago; that cat died of old age six years past, and the downstairs neighbors' complaints caused the feeder to be taken down. But doves and finches are still all over the neighborhood.)

It's all in the stress

BBC America keeps advertising this program: Footballers' Wives Over Time - which I keep thinking must be one of those documentaries where they keep going back and filming the same people every year.

But then I look at the screen and it's really Footballers' Wives: Overtime.

Who is this announcer (he sounds American) who hasn't mastered the regressive shift in stess that happens in compounds? overtime, not over time. You know, like the White House, not some white house. Over isn't a nice little unstressed preposition here.

Overtime, fella. Overtime.

Oh, well, then

The BBC reports that:

Nine Afghan civilians have been killed in a bombing raid in Kapisa province, Afghan officials say.

US forces have confirmed carrying out an air strike in the area but say they have no accurate casualty information.

The news comes shortly after US forces were accused of killing 10 civilians during a shoot out on Sunday in Nangarhar province.

Journalists say US troops confiscated their photos and video footage of the aftermath of the violence. ... The Associated Press news agency says it will complain to the US military after journalists said US soldiers deleted footage of the aftermath of the Nangarhar violence.

Freelance journalists working for the Associated Press said troops erased photos and video showing a vehicle in which three people were shot dead during Sunday's incident in the eastern province of Nangarhar.

And as Matthew Pennington writes for the AP, the Army not only admits it, but says it was justified:

The U.S. military asserted that an American soldier was justified in erasing journalists' footage of the aftermath of a suicide bombing and shooting in Afghanistan last week, saying publication could have compromised a military investigation and led to false public conclusions.

Why? Well, let's let Col. Victor Petrenko explain it:

"When untrained people take photographs or video, there is a very real risk that the images or videography will capture visual details that are not as they originally were," he said. "If such visual media are subsequently used as part of the public record to document an event like this, then public conclusions about such a serious event can be falsely made."

That's not all:

The AP also raised concerns about the military's efforts to restrict its coverage of the Feb. 15 crash of a U.S. helicopter in southern Zabul province in which eight soldiers were killed and 14 wounded. Two AP journalists and their vehicle were searched extensively in an effort to prevent footage of the wreckage getting out.

But Petrenko has an answer for that, too:

Petrenko justified that action on the grounds of "operational security" exercised when "equipment, aircraft or component parts are classified."

He maintained that the U.S. military had no intention of curbing freedom of the press in Afghanistan. "We are completely committed to a free and independent press, and we hope that we can help encourage this tradition in places where new and free governments are taking root," Petrenko said. "It so happens that on these two recent occasions, military operational or security requirements were compelling interests that overrode the otherwise protected rights of the press."

It so happens... Oh, well, then. And he's so reassuring about "our" commitment to a free and independent press, how can we doubt him?

Yet, for some reason, I don't quite believe the good colonel. Oh, I don't doubt his sincerity - about part of it. One thing we've seen recently is that "untrained personnel" can, with their amateur footage, have a significant impact on "public conclusions". I don't at all blame the Army for wanting to control what people see. (After all, we don't want to "embolden" the enemy and "send the wrong message to the troops" now, do we?)

But - a couple of things occur to me.

First - you don't have a free and independent press sometimes. If the press is allowed to operate only when they take pictures that flatter the authorities, only when they report on things the government wants reported, they are neither free nor independent.

Second - this administration in particular, administrations in general, and armies almost invariably, want to control the way they are perceived. This does no one any good, including them, for refusing to look at the truth is never a way to correct flaws. Nor does the visible perception of hiding the truth breed confidence. I'm quite sure that a part of my inability to believe Col. Petrenko is the sheer number of times I have been lied to already.

And third - "untrained people"? They work for the Associated Press. They weren't rubbernecking Afghanis taking snapshots. They are professionals. They just didn't work for the army.

And in the end, that's what we want, isn't it? A free, independent media keeping tabs on what happens? Even Col. Petrenko is willing to say that.

Woof. He makes W look like our darling

Well, not darling, perhaps. But Edhud Olmert has a popularity rating of 3%. You read that right, three percent. His credibility rating is even lower - 2%.

Our own current president must be feeling just a touch of schadenfreude.

You know what I hate?

Going to a website and having the header load, and then sitting and waiting... and waiting... and waiting while the site tries to connect to ad.doubleclick.com . I can live with ads (especially with blockers) but sites that won't even load because the damned ad server is down or busy? I could scream. And sometimes do.

Yes, a day late but not at all short, it's Carnival of the Liberals 34 over at Brainshrub.

Ten excellent posts, the cream of the liberal blogosphere (and I'm not just saying that because one of mine is included. I especially recommend Terrance's post on gay families being Savaged and Bubbles' haiku on Coulter challenge (warning, some really rough language in some of these, but can you wonder?)

Spiritual? Sometimes, sure - why not?

from Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World (my emphasis).

Spirit comes from the Latin word "to breathe". What we breathe is air, which is certainly matter, however thin. Despite usage to the contrary, there is no necessary implication in the word 'spiritual' that we are talking of anything other than matter (including the matter of which the brain is made), or anything outside the realm of science. On occasion, I will feel free to use the word. Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.

We got a Congressman!

A fellow freethinker came into my office yesterday and punched the air, saying "We got a congressman!"

Yes, we do. Of course, some folks are going batshit about it, as a sign of the Apocalypse or something... I like the Christian Seniors idiotic "It is sad but not surprising that the current Congress has produced this historic first—one of its members has denied God," (they go on to say some truly rephrensible things, accusing liberals of wanting to throttle schoolchildren, for instance, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of liberals in Congress are Christians) but I think they're really afraid that those "historic firsts" often lead to seconds, and thirds, and...

A couple of other points - Pete Stark has been in Congress since 1973 - there's nothing specifically "this congress" about him.

And, as a commenter over at Pharyngula pointed out

The 110th Congress already had 1 Muslim, 2 Buddhists, and 30 Jews; add in an atheist, and the Christians are down to only 94% of the total membership!

Well. Put it that way and it's not so exacting - but still...

We got a Congressman! Woot woot!

Happy Birthday, James!

Today in 1751 James Madison was born. Father of the Constitution, I hate to think what he'd be saying now... but here's some of what he said back then:

In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

The people of the U.S. owe their independence & liberty to the wisdom of descrying in the minute tax of 3 pence on tea, the magnitude of the evil comprised in the precedent. Let them exert the same wisdom in watching against every evil lurking under plausible disguises, and growing up from small beginnings.

There are more instances of abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation.

The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.

I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.

Awake...

Samuel Johnson once said, "The happiest part of a man's life is what he passes lying awake in bed in the morning."

But Dr Johnson meant after he was supposed to be up and about. Not just lying there, awake and tired, long before the alarm goes off.

Damn cold medication.

Helene and Mimas

Helene and Mimas seem to rendezvous in this shot from Cassini. But really, Helene (32 kilometers, or 20 miles across) is 192,000 kilometers (119,000 miles) in the distance beyond the larger Mimas (397 kilometers, or 247 miles across).

Note how the limb of Mimas is flattened in the west, where we can see the rim of the large crater Herschel (named for the astronomer who discovered Uranus).

She had to think about it? And he did too?

In today's print edition of the New York Times as Clinton Offers Support for Gays in Military, though on their web site as Clinton Seesaws on Question of Gay Morality, is a story that begins like this:

Asked if she believed homosexuality was immoral, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, initially said Wednesday that it was for “others to conclude,” but later issued a statement saying she did not think being gay was immoral.

And goes on like this:

Asked on ABC News on Wednesday if she agreed with General Pace’s view that homosexuality was immoral, Mrs. Clinton said, “Well, I’m going to leave that to others to conclude.” She added, “I’m very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country, and I want make sure they can.”

Then on Wednesday night, a spokesman released a statement from Mrs. Clinton responding to the question: “I disagree with what he said and do not share his view, plain and simple,” she said. “It is inappropriate to inject such personal views into this public policy matter, especially at a time in which there are young men and women in such grave circumstances in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in other dangerous places around the world.”

This is something she had to think about? She could say that she is "very proud" the gays she knows, but she couldn't bring herself to say that no, she didn't agree that they were inherently immoral.

Not that she's alone.

A rival of Mrs. Clinton for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois was asked the same question three times on Wednesday and sidestepped the issue, according to an article in Newsday.

But a spokesman for Mr. Obama said last night that the senator disagreed with General Pace’s remarks and believed that homosexuality was not immoral.

One last note:

Joe Solmonese, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights group, said he was concerned about the initial responses of both Democratic senators and said his group would seek clarification from their campaigns on Thursday. He compared their comments unfavorably with the rebuke of General Pace by Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, who said he “respectfully but strongly” disagreed that homosexuality was immoral.

John Warner can disagree without stopping to think about it, but neither Hillary nor Obama can. O tempora, o mores ... what a world. What a world.

Oh, as for the general? He's beyond belief. His precious moral military almost never goes after adulterers unless they're officers sleeping with some other soldier's spouse. When was the last time you heard of an adulterer getting kicked out? 1997, I believe - Kelly Flynn, that pilot who slept with a sergeant's husband. Adultery per se is not a UCMJ offense, and it's harder now than it was (Bush in 2002 adopted a lot of changes to the MSM, probably gearing up for needing to keep all the soldiers he could, though to be fair most of the changes had been proposed under Clinton - though dropped) to prosecute adultery at all - and even when it is, it's a low-level offense, not a "punishable offense." Adulterers get their hands slapped. Pace is a moron, trying to push his morality on the rest of the world.

And speaking of that - I really hope Pace goes to Iraq someday, or Afghanistan, and has to have his butt saved by one of those immoral Canadian or British gay soldiers... preferably a married (and faithful) one.