I'm changing the subject line from that of the Presidential debate ("Debate Post-Mortem") for good reason: Cheney wiped the floor with Edwards!
Actually, I think Edwards did a decent job, stylistically. I don't think there was as much substance there as Cheney had, but who knows what a liberal would say. Cheney was clear, coherent, in control of the facts, and concise, not throwing in extraneous words that weren't necessary.
So I can imagine the other side thinking that Edwards won, but I'm excited with Cheney's performance.
Now, I didn't get to hear the second half of the debate, which I'm told was more on domestic issues, and in which Edwards did better than the first half. So my opinion is limited by what I saw.
Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton: Three mentions that I picked up on, and I was out for half of it, remember.
Vietnam, Vietnam, Vietnam: Also three mentions of Kerry having served in Vietnam that I picked up on. Did you know Kerry was in Vietnam? I'd never heard...!
On the casuality numbers in Iraq: Oh my goodness--I about thought Cheney was going to walk over and slap Edwards in the face for that "America bears 90%" line. Cheney pointed out that our Iraqi allies(!) bear 40 or 50% of the casualties (I forget which), and Edwards repeatedly refused to acknowledge this. Cheney got righteously indignant on the
Iraqis' behalf! Good for him.
Conclusion: Good job for Cheney, not bad for Edwards (style, at least). Won't matter too many hills of beans on the election, but it might help Bush amongst those who are real political junkies. On the other hand, fewer political junkies are undecided at this point.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Friday, October 01, 2004
Debate Post-Mortem
Actually, that subject line sounds worse than I meant it. I think Kerry
won on style, certainly after the first few questions were out of the way.
At the beginning, Bush was in command of the facts and stuck to them,
while Kerry wandered off into the woods with his irrelevant, rambling
answers.
Then they apparently decided to switch styles. Well, not precisely, but
Kerry expressed himself more articulately, if not necessarily logically,
while Bush sounded too plaintive (I was listening on the radio), stumbled
over his words (not unexpected, and I didn't mind too much), and kept
repeating the same phrases over and over. I didn't like him saying
(again, plaintively), "It's hard work," repeatedly. That's not a
justification on any issue, although you can employ that once or twice in
the context of explaining why our efforts must continue, despite setbacks.
Several times I thought he (Bush) should have ended his statement or rebuttal early, after he'd made his solid points, rather than fill up the rest of his time with words that didn't contribute to the meaning and just distracted from a good answer. If he'd done that, he would have looked a lot better on style, as well.
Just saw this on NRO's Corner:
MY DRINKING GAME [Michael Graham]
I have a fifth of Bushmill's Irish Whiskey that I will down the moment
Bush looks at Kerry and says "Nice tan."
Posted at 10:02 PM
I almost spit out my Coke when I read that just now.
Personally, I was itching for Bush to respond to one of Kerry's Vietnam
references with, "Did you serve in a war somewhere? Was it Vietnam?
Really?! Wow--I'd never known that before!"
I counted FIVE references by Kerry to his Vietnam service, if you don't
count a sixth that was brought up after Lehrer mentioned it first. Five
invocations of Vietnam that had absolutely no relevance, other than to
stick them into the discussion--"I know what it's like to be in a tough
situation. I was in Vietnam..." or something like that.
Conclusion (for now)? I give it to Kerry on style. It's been a long time since I'd had academic debating, and I don't remember how these things were scored. Does the logic of your answer matter? I think Bush had the better answers to the questions, but then, I already agree with him on most of these things.
won on style, certainly after the first few questions were out of the way.
At the beginning, Bush was in command of the facts and stuck to them,
while Kerry wandered off into the woods with his irrelevant, rambling
answers.
Then they apparently decided to switch styles. Well, not precisely, but
Kerry expressed himself more articulately, if not necessarily logically,
while Bush sounded too plaintive (I was listening on the radio), stumbled
over his words (not unexpected, and I didn't mind too much), and kept
repeating the same phrases over and over. I didn't like him saying
(again, plaintively), "It's hard work," repeatedly. That's not a
justification on any issue, although you can employ that once or twice in
the context of explaining why our efforts must continue, despite setbacks.
Several times I thought he (Bush) should have ended his statement or rebuttal early, after he'd made his solid points, rather than fill up the rest of his time with words that didn't contribute to the meaning and just distracted from a good answer. If he'd done that, he would have looked a lot better on style, as well.
Just saw this on NRO's Corner:
MY DRINKING GAME [Michael Graham]
I have a fifth of Bushmill's Irish Whiskey that I will down the moment
Bush looks at Kerry and says "Nice tan."
Posted at 10:02 PM
I almost spit out my Coke when I read that just now.
Personally, I was itching for Bush to respond to one of Kerry's Vietnam
references with, "Did you serve in a war somewhere? Was it Vietnam?
Really?! Wow--I'd never known that before!"
I counted FIVE references by Kerry to his Vietnam service, if you don't
count a sixth that was brought up after Lehrer mentioned it first. Five
invocations of Vietnam that had absolutely no relevance, other than to
stick them into the discussion--"I know what it's like to be in a tough
situation. I was in Vietnam..." or something like that.
Conclusion (for now)? I give it to Kerry on style. It's been a long time since I'd had academic debating, and I don't remember how these things were scored. Does the logic of your answer matter? I think Bush had the better answers to the questions, but then, I already agree with him on most of these things.
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Da Vinci team next?
Fox News just had John Pike (of Global Security) on, saying that a Canadian team, "Da Vinci," is planning to make their first X-prize flight within a couple of days, I think. I'm not familiar with them, and I'm excited for an American team to win the X-prize, but I'm excited that there's going to be some real competition.
The private manned space industry can only be helped by having active competition within its ranks.
The private manned space industry can only be helped by having active competition within its ranks.
Ansari Cup?
Fox News' William Lajeuness is interviewing Rick ...Somebodyoranother about the X-Prize. The reporter just asked him about suggestions that the group that put up the X-Prize might come up with a regular event--the "Ansari (sp?) Cup," perhaps. Give annual awards for speed and altitude.
This strikes me as an excellent idea. I'm reminded of the early 20th century aviation competitions, which of course are in the minds of the entrepeneurs involved with the X-Prize, as well.
There are some objections that this is all a bad idea, because at some point, somebody's going to die. This strikes me as a frustratingly risk-averse mindset. Of *course* somebody's going to die someday. In the early days of aviation, a *lot* of people died. The early deaths did not prevent people from continuing to work in this field, nor did they destroy the industry. Here we are in the 21st century, taking planes regularly. The industry survived and thrived.
This strikes me as an excellent idea. I'm reminded of the early 20th century aviation competitions, which of course are in the minds of the entrepeneurs involved with the X-Prize, as well.
There are some objections that this is all a bad idea, because at some point, somebody's going to die. This strikes me as a frustratingly risk-averse mindset. Of *course* somebody's going to die someday. In the early days of aviation, a *lot* of people died. The early deaths did not prevent people from continuing to work in this field, nor did they destroy the industry. Here we are in the 21st century, taking planes regularly. The industry survived and thrived.
Apogee!
SpaceShipOne is now at the apogee of its flight! I'm watching the Fox camera, which is able to follow it all the way to the top of its flight. Very weird to be able to see a resolved spacecraft while it's actually in space.
It's coming down pretty fast now, getting bigger and bigger in the TV. Wow--the fins are really maneouverable. He's tilting them up by 45 deg., easily, now moving them back to horizontal.
It's coming down pretty fast now, getting bigger and bigger in the TV. Wow--the fins are really maneouverable. He's tilting them up by 45 deg., easily, now moving them back to horizontal.
Drop lauch at about 11:15 AM EDT
Fox News is reporting that SpaceShipOne will separate from its mothership, White Knight, at about 11:15 AM EDT.
SpaceShipOne: First X-Prize Launch
Burt Rutan's SpaceShipOne has just taken off in the Mojave Desert for the first *qualification* flight for the Ansari X-Prize. His first space flight the other month was just with a one-man crew, while the X-Prize flights require either a three-man crew, or carrying the equivalent weight.
The carrier plane, White Knight, just took off a few minutes ago, and it will do the drop launch about 35-40 minutes from now.
If this is successful, Rutan will need to do repeat this within two weeks to win the prize.
I'll be blogging this to the extent that I can, today.
The carrier plane, White Knight, just took off a few minutes ago, and it will do the drop launch about 35-40 minutes from now.
If this is successful, Rutan will need to do repeat this within two weeks to win the prize.
I'll be blogging this to the extent that I can, today.
Monday, August 30, 2004
Ron Silver at GOP Convention
I missed the actor Ron Silver's speech at the Republican National Convention, but Drudge has a link to the whole text. Boy, that's a good speech. Fiesty, and he's not mincing words on the terrorist war.
Ron Silver's had a reputation as a liberal, but some weeks ago, I heard him on John Bachelor's show on WABC out of New York (AM 770, 10 PM - 1 AM, weeknights) discussing his support for President Bush on the war (terrorism in general and Iraq in particular, I think). I was really surprised, and he might have made some mildly conservative arguments on other topics as well. Tonight, Tony Snow on Fox asked Silver about his politics after the speech, expressing the same surprise I had. Silver said that he still is a liberal on some things, but not on others. I'm trying to remember--did the Democrats have any conservatives speak at their convention? Or Republicans? They had Ron Reagan, but I'm pretty sure he's no Republican. He's certainly not a conservative; that's been known for a long time. The Republicans have so far had former NYC Mayor Ed Koch, a Democrat who is voting for Bush, Ron Silver, a formerly liberal actor, and they'll be getting Sen. Zell Miller, another Democrat voting for Bush. Interesting.
And the whole thing about the moderates being front & center in this convention? Well, as long as they don't compromise on policy in the speeches, I'm happy with them. John McCain did a good job tonight. A mostly serious speech, and it had some rousing moments.
But wow! Rudy Giuliani! I came in just after he started, and it was mesmerizing. This was the best speech I've seen in a long, long time. It was funny, his criticisms of Kerry were lighthearted, and he had the enthusiasm, the passion that I really like to see in a rousing political speech. Wow!
Ron Silver's had a reputation as a liberal, but some weeks ago, I heard him on John Bachelor's show on WABC out of New York (AM 770, 10 PM - 1 AM, weeknights) discussing his support for President Bush on the war (terrorism in general and Iraq in particular, I think). I was really surprised, and he might have made some mildly conservative arguments on other topics as well. Tonight, Tony Snow on Fox asked Silver about his politics after the speech, expressing the same surprise I had. Silver said that he still is a liberal on some things, but not on others. I'm trying to remember--did the Democrats have any conservatives speak at their convention? Or Republicans? They had Ron Reagan, but I'm pretty sure he's no Republican. He's certainly not a conservative; that's been known for a long time. The Republicans have so far had former NYC Mayor Ed Koch, a Democrat who is voting for Bush, Ron Silver, a formerly liberal actor, and they'll be getting Sen. Zell Miller, another Democrat voting for Bush. Interesting.
And the whole thing about the moderates being front & center in this convention? Well, as long as they don't compromise on policy in the speeches, I'm happy with them. John McCain did a good job tonight. A mostly serious speech, and it had some rousing moments.
But wow! Rudy Giuliani! I came in just after he started, and it was mesmerizing. This was the best speech I've seen in a long, long time. It was funny, his criticisms of Kerry were lighthearted, and he had the enthusiasm, the passion that I really like to see in a rousing political speech. Wow!
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Critique of the 9/11 Commission Report
David Rivkin and Lee Casey have a very long, detailed critique of the 9/11 Commission's report on National Review Online today. I haven't had the chance to read it, but at first glance it seems worthy of printing out for a careful read later.
Friday, August 06, 2004
Not that we're surprised
I watched part of that PBS series, "Wide Angle," last night. They had on a documentary about North Korea, filmed within the country. The film crew got to see a lot of things that no outside film crew had been allowed to before, although they certainly didn't have free rein and were constrained in whom they were allowed to interview.
One thing jumped out at me--in Pyongyang, all of the apartments have the state's radio station (of course, there is only the state's radio station) piped into the kitchen. The residents can turn the volume up or down...but not off.
Does everybody remember their 1984? Everybody had the (2-way) TV in their apartments that they could turn down but never turn off.
Was this also true in the Soviet Union of the late 1940s (when Orwell wrote his book)? I don't mean a 2-way TV, but any TV or radio. Did Soviet subjects have a TV or radio that they couldn't turn off? If not, then either Orwell was frighteningly prophetic, or the Dear Leader actually got some of his ideas from an anti-Communist novel.
One thing jumped out at me--in Pyongyang, all of the apartments have the state's radio station (of course, there is only the state's radio station) piped into the kitchen. The residents can turn the volume up or down...but not off.
Does everybody remember their 1984? Everybody had the (2-way) TV in their apartments that they could turn down but never turn off.
Was this also true in the Soviet Union of the late 1940s (when Orwell wrote his book)? I don't mean a 2-way TV, but any TV or radio. Did Soviet subjects have a TV or radio that they couldn't turn off? If not, then either Orwell was frighteningly prophetic, or the Dear Leader actually got some of his ideas from an anti-Communist novel.
Send the Elgin Marbles to Tennessee?
The Social Affairs Unit is a British blog I was just introduced to, through the New Criterion. An intriguing post by Prof. Christie Davies is on there from earlier this week, suggesting that the famed Elgin marbles might be bought from the British Museum and sent to Nashville!
Now, this isn't an agreed-upon plan, but it's been suggested by "Greek-American multi-billionaire Evyenios Papadakis" as a compromise to the fight over possession of the marbles. (For historical background, Elgin took the marbles from the Parthenon in the early 1800s, while Greece was under Ottoman rule. The Greeks want them back, while the British Museum argues they were taken legally and does not want to give them up.) The Greeks want to place the marbles back in the open air Parthenon, and part of the British Museum's argument is that they will quickly degrade in the smoggy Athenian air (although there has been an offer to put them in a sealed room).
Mr. Papadakis toured the American South last year, particularly Alabama and Tennessee, and he was impressed both by the "sophisticated charm of the South" (Social Affair's words, but I appreciate them!)...and Nashville's full-scale replica of the Parthenon (the only such in the world). Ahah! thought he. A relatively smog-free city with a replica of the Parthenon.
I'll let you read the rest. It's a very interesting idea, and the Social Affairs Unit seems to think there's a chance the British Museum would accept the sale. I can't judge for myself, but it would be an exciting opportunity for my state.
On a related tangent, the Parthenon and Centennial Park in Nashville sits on some old family land. Cockrill Springs, where the paddle boats splash around next to the Parthenon, still bears the name of that branch of the family. A family friend is a sculptor and helped her nephew to build the two-storey-tall statue of Athena within the Parthenon, only completed a few years ago (the Parthenon has been there for over a century). I can't remember if the Elgin marbles are recreated within its walls as well, but I'm sure the city would be more than happy to have the originals.
Now, this isn't an agreed-upon plan, but it's been suggested by "Greek-American multi-billionaire Evyenios Papadakis" as a compromise to the fight over possession of the marbles. (For historical background, Elgin took the marbles from the Parthenon in the early 1800s, while Greece was under Ottoman rule. The Greeks want them back, while the British Museum argues they were taken legally and does not want to give them up.) The Greeks want to place the marbles back in the open air Parthenon, and part of the British Museum's argument is that they will quickly degrade in the smoggy Athenian air (although there has been an offer to put them in a sealed room).
Mr. Papadakis toured the American South last year, particularly Alabama and Tennessee, and he was impressed both by the "sophisticated charm of the South" (Social Affair's words, but I appreciate them!)...and Nashville's full-scale replica of the Parthenon (the only such in the world). Ahah! thought he. A relatively smog-free city with a replica of the Parthenon.
I'll let you read the rest. It's a very interesting idea, and the Social Affairs Unit seems to think there's a chance the British Museum would accept the sale. I can't judge for myself, but it would be an exciting opportunity for my state.
On a related tangent, the Parthenon and Centennial Park in Nashville sits on some old family land. Cockrill Springs, where the paddle boats splash around next to the Parthenon, still bears the name of that branch of the family. A family friend is a sculptor and helped her nephew to build the two-storey-tall statue of Athena within the Parthenon, only completed a few years ago (the Parthenon has been there for over a century). I can't remember if the Elgin marbles are recreated within its walls as well, but I'm sure the city would be more than happy to have the originals.
Thursday, July 29, 2004
Wars of necessity; honesty
Kerry said, and has said in several speeches lately, that he would never send troops into a war just because we wanted to but only because we needed to.
Well, it sounds good, but I believe there are many cases in which one should not let a strategic situation go so far that it becomes necessary to go to war. In some cases, if you can go to war on your own schedule, rather than on your enemy's, you have the advantage. But if you leave war as only an option of last resort, then you could find yourself in a far more dangerous situation.
Now, let's see... I presume from what Kerry said, that he has opposed all of those recent wars the United States has fought, that we did not have to fight: Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia, and the Persian Gulf War.
He might have opposed the Gulf War (I can't remember, but it was a republican in office, after all), but the others were favorites of many liberals. I'd like to look up his voting record on these. We had to fight none of these wars. Let's see if his actions have matched his words...
By the way, he said that as President, he would restore honesty and integrity to the office. Tell the truth. Ugh!--the nerve of that comment, and I don't like the implication that Bush is dishonest in the least (especially coming out of a Clinton defender). But we'll worry about that slam later. The critical thing is his claim of his own honesty.
Let's see: Kerry had, as a young sailor-turned-activist, taken part in this so-called "Winter Soldier Investigation." That's the scheme in which the activists claimed to have interviewed soldiers and recorded incidents of atrocities they perpetrated. Kerry then promulgated these accusations in his testimony before Congress.
Well, some (I don't know the percentage) of these accusations have since been shown to be false. Made up.
OK, now when Kerry testified before Congress, did he know that some of this was false? Was he lying? Was he misleading Congress?
Maybe he thought it was all real. After all, Kerry said he committed atrocities himself. So if he thought it was real, and he believed it when he testified before Congress, should we give him a pass?
After all, Kerry says Bush "mislead us into war!" Hmmm...if Bush believed the evidence of Iraqi WMD, should Bush get the same pass on that that Kerry wants for himself? Hmmm, indeed.
Well, it sounds good, but I believe there are many cases in which one should not let a strategic situation go so far that it becomes necessary to go to war. In some cases, if you can go to war on your own schedule, rather than on your enemy's, you have the advantage. But if you leave war as only an option of last resort, then you could find yourself in a far more dangerous situation.
Now, let's see... I presume from what Kerry said, that he has opposed all of those recent wars the United States has fought, that we did not have to fight: Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia, and the Persian Gulf War.
He might have opposed the Gulf War (I can't remember, but it was a republican in office, after all), but the others were favorites of many liberals. I'd like to look up his voting record on these. We had to fight none of these wars. Let's see if his actions have matched his words...
By the way, he said that as President, he would restore honesty and integrity to the office. Tell the truth. Ugh!--the nerve of that comment, and I don't like the implication that Bush is dishonest in the least (especially coming out of a Clinton defender). But we'll worry about that slam later. The critical thing is his claim of his own honesty.
Let's see: Kerry had, as a young sailor-turned-activist, taken part in this so-called "Winter Soldier Investigation." That's the scheme in which the activists claimed to have interviewed soldiers and recorded incidents of atrocities they perpetrated. Kerry then promulgated these accusations in his testimony before Congress.
Well, some (I don't know the percentage) of these accusations have since been shown to be false. Made up.
OK, now when Kerry testified before Congress, did he know that some of this was false? Was he lying? Was he misleading Congress?
Maybe he thought it was all real. After all, Kerry said he committed atrocities himself. So if he thought it was real, and he believed it when he testified before Congress, should we give him a pass?
After all, Kerry says Bush "mislead us into war!" Hmmm...if Bush believed the evidence of Iraqi WMD, should Bush get the same pass on that that Kerry wants for himself? Hmmm, indeed.
More on criticism=patriotism
I thought of another analogy on this patriotism redefinition. Patriotism is a love of your country. Criticism could be constructive and come from love, but it could also come from hatred.
Think of when one person criticizes another. One could criticize out of a love for the other (mother for child, for instance). You'd probably be able to tell that by the tone of voice.
One could also criticize out of hatred. Enemies criticize each other all of the time. You can tell that by the tone of voice, too.
So criticism by itself is no indication of love, or of patriotism. The motive, often evidenced by the tone of voice and the style of delivery, is what is key.
Think of when one person criticizes another. One could criticize out of a love for the other (mother for child, for instance). You'd probably be able to tell that by the tone of voice.
One could also criticize out of hatred. Enemies criticize each other all of the time. You can tell that by the tone of voice, too.
So criticism by itself is no indication of love, or of patriotism. The motive, often evidenced by the tone of voice and the style of delivery, is what is key.
He should have stopped halfway through
I thought the first half of Kerry's speech was pretty good in its message. Optimistic, vaguely hawkish, undivisive. Encouraging!
But then he realized he was speaking to a crowd of liberals. The second half of the speech got me riled up and yelling at the TV. Didn't do me much good, since he went right on in the same tack. [Oop--here he goes back to Vietnam, somehow on a tangent about race. But the line "all in the same boat" works pretty well.]
Snide. Negative. Divisive.
What in the heck was that crack about not using the Constitution for political purposes?! Just now, I am thinking he might have been trying to refer to the Federal Marriage Amendment, but it's taken me a good 20 minutes to puzzle that one out. If that's what he meant, then I've got to ask him how many of our 27 Amendments have no political ramifications? The only one I can think of offhand might be the 27th itself (Congressional pay-raises), and that's mostly because it took what? 200 years to be ratified?
The very end was pretty bad. Some attempt to redefine "patriotism" to mean any anti-American attitude. Now I think it's perfectly appropriate to criticize the government, the President, the Congress, the courts, or any of it, wartime or peacetime. I'm a good anti-government conservative and think we have no obligation to support what the government does, even if it is in wartime.
But it is not true that criticism is necessarily patriotic. Criticism of your government is patriotism neutral. It will in many cases be unpatriotic.
Patriotism is a love of your country, and there are some on the radical left (probably some on the right, too, although I can't think of an example offhand) who are unpatriotic. This whole criticism=patriotism formula is illogical. One does not imply the other. It's like saying "beach towels = patriotism". It's a non-sequitur.
But then he realized he was speaking to a crowd of liberals. The second half of the speech got me riled up and yelling at the TV. Didn't do me much good, since he went right on in the same tack. [Oop--here he goes back to Vietnam, somehow on a tangent about race. But the line "all in the same boat" works pretty well.]
Snide. Negative. Divisive.
What in the heck was that crack about not using the Constitution for political purposes?! Just now, I am thinking he might have been trying to refer to the Federal Marriage Amendment, but it's taken me a good 20 minutes to puzzle that one out. If that's what he meant, then I've got to ask him how many of our 27 Amendments have no political ramifications? The only one I can think of offhand might be the 27th itself (Congressional pay-raises), and that's mostly because it took what? 200 years to be ratified?
The very end was pretty bad. Some attempt to redefine "patriotism" to mean any anti-American attitude. Now I think it's perfectly appropriate to criticize the government, the President, the Congress, the courts, or any of it, wartime or peacetime. I'm a good anti-government conservative and think we have no obligation to support what the government does, even if it is in wartime.
But it is not true that criticism is necessarily patriotic. Criticism of your government is patriotism neutral. It will in many cases be unpatriotic.
Patriotism is a love of your country, and there are some on the radical left (probably some on the right, too, although I can't think of an example offhand) who are unpatriotic. This whole criticism=patriotism formula is illogical. One does not imply the other. It's like saying "beach towels = patriotism". It's a non-sequitur.
Kerry served where?!
In the first half of Kerry's speech, I was astonished at the number of times he referred to his military service. Did Bob Dole refer to his this often? I remember him being teased about it in the press in '96. I've got to admire Kerry for volunteering for combat duty, really. I hope I'd have the guts to do the same. I think I would.
It's refreshing to hear how the other Democrats have suddenly gotten such a profound respect for the military and Vietnam veterans especially. Never saw it in the left before now. Let's hope it stays with them from now on, but I really doubt it. Too many on the far Left hate the military with a passion, and they seem to be gaining influence within the Democratic party.
It's refreshing to hear how the other Democrats have suddenly gotten such a profound respect for the military and Vietnam veterans especially. Never saw it in the left before now. Let's hope it stays with them from now on, but I really doubt it. Too many on the far Left hate the military with a passion, and they seem to be gaining influence within the Democratic party.
America can do better! Help is on the way!
Kerry's been repeating these two lines in a pretty effective mantra in this section of the speech. Interestingly, the camera (FNC) has cut over to a section of the crowd where they're obligingly holding up pairs of prefab signs with these phrases printed on them. Nicely scripted, but having the signs ready beforehand is too slick for my tastes. No doubt the GOP will have too much slickness in places, too.
USA! USA!
Wow--a chant of "USA! USA! USA!" has just risen up from the Democratic conventioneers. I'm truly surprised. Or would that be questioning their patriotism? And we all know that's what those mean, evil conservatives do to liberals. John Kerry just said so. Or implied so.
Come to think of it, this chant just rose up after Kerry played the patriotism card. Could the Democrats be a touch sensitive about this? Maybe they think there might be something to it, and they'd better cover, quickly? Nah.
Come to think of it, this chant just rose up after Kerry played the patriotism card. Could the Democrats be a touch sensitive about this? Maybe they think there might be something to it, and they'd better cover, quickly? Nah.
Kerry's troop plan
Watching Kerry's acceptance speech. He's finally laying out some tiny bits of what he means by his "smart" plan for winning the war on terrorism. One thing caught my ear: he would add "40,000" troops to the armed forces, "not in Iraq" [emphasis in original]. Really? I thought he'd been harping on the concept (a not unreasonable one) that we were stretched too thinly in Iraq and needed a lot more soldiers there. And he's not going to add troops to Iraq?
Found it!
Here's who armed Iraq (1973-1990):
USSR: 57% (value of weapons transfers in 1990 dollars)
France: 13
China: 12
Czechoslovakia: 7
Poland: 4
Brazil: 2
Egypt: 1
Romania: 1
Denmark: 1
Lybia: 1
USA: 1
[Many other countries follow, at <1% each.]
Data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Chart by the Dissident Frogman
It's awful how the United States created Saddam in our own twisted, evil image. Us and those darned warmongering Danes.
USSR: 57% (value of weapons transfers in 1990 dollars)
France: 13
China: 12
Czechoslovakia: 7
Poland: 4
Brazil: 2
Egypt: 1
Romania: 1
Denmark: 1
Lybia: 1
USA: 1
[Many other countries follow, at <1% each.]
Data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Chart by the Dissident Frogman
It's awful how the United States created Saddam in our own twisted, evil image. Us and those darned warmongering Danes.
Who armed Iraq?
I'm linking this for my own reference at the moment. I'm trying to find an excellent graphic I saw a year ago that had a breakdown of foreign aid to Iraq, by country, over the past few decades. I seem to recall that, contrary to the claims of the Left that "we" created/armed/built/are-responsible-for Hussein's Iraq, American aid was in fact down at the level of Denmark's. And was dwarfed by, I think, France's, China's, and the Soviets'.
Does anybody know where that bar chart was? Saw it somewhere on the internet...
In the meantime, let me post this link to Iraq Watch, which has some relevant material.
Incidentally, this whole train of thought came from Lilek's recent argument with a French magazine reporter.
Does anybody know where that bar chart was? Saw it somewhere on the internet...
In the meantime, let me post this link to Iraq Watch, which has some relevant material.
Incidentally, this whole train of thought came from Lilek's recent argument with a French magazine reporter.
More on Dan Okrent and the [gasp!] liberal New York Times
Donald Luskin has an interesting column on Dan Okrent and his NYT column admitting the Times has a liberal bias. He's both critical of Okrent for not going far enough and defensive of him, recognizing the potentially precarious position he is in. Okrent has to field reader complaints, but the Times has a pretty liberal readership, and Okrent is said to get even more letters complaining the Times is not liberal enough.
I think Okrent punted in his column the other day, not laying out the problem quite right. Luskin points out some of the other issues that should have been taken into account. But I'm willing to cut Okrent some slack after reading this.
I think Okrent punted in his column the other day, not laying out the problem quite right. Luskin points out some of the other issues that should have been taken into account. But I'm willing to cut Okrent some slack after reading this.
Sunday, July 25, 2004
The New York Times is a liberal paper?! I don't believe it...
Daniel Okrent, the New York Times' "Public Editor," has written a column admitting that the Times is liberal. "Of course it is," he begins his article.
Few of us on the Right are surprised, of course. And I say that with my characteristic understatement.
I'm debating whether or not to send this article off to a colleague here at State. This fellow professor told me straight-out last night, "The New York Times is not liberal." Funny how Okrent's first line is the perfect rejoinder.
This came up in the context of a debate on the Iraqi War. He had insisted that the American media had been pro-war, ex ante, including the Times. I think he later backed off of this a little and said that the Times was "vaguely centrist," but I've forgotten some of the discussion now.
Stupid, stupid, stupid... I'm scolding myself, now. When you're at a party of ten college professors, don't get into a discussion on politics! You're one of only two conservatives there, and you're going to be outnumbered. Besides, when was the last time you managed to change a professor's opinions about anything?
I avoided jumping in when the crowd started cooing about how wonderful Farenheit 911 is [insert eye-roll], but what dragged me in was one of them saying in very serious tones how dishonest it was of "the Right" to talk about military casualty rates in Iraq that separated combat casualties from other deaths.
I explained that there is a peacetime casualty rate from things ranging from training accidents to traffic deaths, and that it is proper to separate the causes of death when discussing this. I don't think I got through. By the end of it, he was coming up with very specific scenarios involving bent cotter pins on live grenades that somehow only go off accidentally in war zones. Weird. And then the segue into the solidly Right-wing media...
In case any of you were wondering, this is one of the reasons I don't put my full name out in public on this blog. I figure, why let a tenure committee do a Google search and get into a political debate where it doesn't belong?
Of course, since last night, some of them have at least an inkling that I'm not a Fellow Traveller...
Few of us on the Right are surprised, of course. And I say that with my characteristic understatement.
I'm debating whether or not to send this article off to a colleague here at State. This fellow professor told me straight-out last night, "The New York Times is not liberal." Funny how Okrent's first line is the perfect rejoinder.
This came up in the context of a debate on the Iraqi War. He had insisted that the American media had been pro-war, ex ante, including the Times. I think he later backed off of this a little and said that the Times was "vaguely centrist," but I've forgotten some of the discussion now.
Stupid, stupid, stupid... I'm scolding myself, now. When you're at a party of ten college professors, don't get into a discussion on politics! You're one of only two conservatives there, and you're going to be outnumbered. Besides, when was the last time you managed to change a professor's opinions about anything?
I avoided jumping in when the crowd started cooing about how wonderful Farenheit 911 is [insert eye-roll], but what dragged me in was one of them saying in very serious tones how dishonest it was of "the Right" to talk about military casualty rates in Iraq that separated combat casualties from other deaths.
I explained that there is a peacetime casualty rate from things ranging from training accidents to traffic deaths, and that it is proper to separate the causes of death when discussing this. I don't think I got through. By the end of it, he was coming up with very specific scenarios involving bent cotter pins on live grenades that somehow only go off accidentally in war zones. Weird. And then the segue into the solidly Right-wing media...
In case any of you were wondering, this is one of the reasons I don't put my full name out in public on this blog. I figure, why let a tenure committee do a Google search and get into a political debate where it doesn't belong?
Of course, since last night, some of them have at least an inkling that I'm not a Fellow Traveller...
Monday, July 19, 2004
Space Telescope Director not to try for another term
The Space Telescope Science Institute, which operates the Hubble Space Telescope, had an all-hands meeting on Friday. Director Steve Beckwith announced some results from the National Academies advisory report on the Hubble Servicing Mission ideas (don't rule out a manned shuttle mission) and then dropped a bombshell--he's not going to seek a renewal of his term as director.
Nobody asked any questions after this--there was something of a stunned silence, I'm told--and the rest of the day involved a lot of office gossip about the reasons for this. The weekly "Director's sherry" that afternoon was interesting...
I see that the Baltimore Sun has beaten me to putting this report in print. I'll look up the link later.
Nobody asked any questions after this--there was something of a stunned silence, I'm told--and the rest of the day involved a lot of office gossip about the reasons for this. The weekly "Director's sherry" that afternoon was interesting...
I see that the Baltimore Sun has beaten me to putting this report in print. I'll look up the link later.
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
New report on Hubble repair project
The American Astronomical Society just sent out this e-mail to its members. The National Academies (formerly the National Academy of Sciences--I worked for them, but I still haven't gotten used to the name change) has issued a report on the proposed Hubble robotic servicing mission. Apparently, they think that important decisions on the feasability are probably at least a year in the waiting. I'm hopeful, but we'll see how this all goes.
I'm reproducing the e-mail below in its entirety, including the link to the full National Academies report.
I'm reproducing the e-mail below in its entirety, including the link to the full National Academies report.
Subject: AAS Informational Email 2004-11
National Academy Releases HST Servicing Interim Report
Summary: The Committee on the Assessment of Options for
Extending the Life of the Hubble Space Telescope delivered
an interim report, allowed under the charter of the
committee, to NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe on
July 13, 2004.
The interim report 1) recognizes the importance of the
Hubble Space Telescope scientifically and that a servicing
mission will enable significant scientific returns, 2) the
proposed robotic servicing mission will be challenging and
requires significant effort to accomplish and 3) key
decisions on whether such a robotic servicing mission is
possible or not cannot currently be made and will likely
not be able to be made for at least a year.
The full report is available online at the AAS web pages:
http://www.aas.org/policy/InterimHSTReport.pdf
Impact: This interim report is likely to have two major
impacts and could have a secondary, but important third
impact. The first is that a robotic servicing mission can
now be officially viewed as valuable for the science
results that a serviced Hubble can provide. The second is
that whether to undertake such a mission cannot be decided
due to technical issues for at least a year. A secondary
impact that the report may have is that significant
investments in the technical aspects of a servicing mission
can now be made by NASA, in addition to the current level
of effort being pursued.
AAS members are encouraged to share the report with their
Representatives and Senators so they can remain fully
informed on this important issue.
___________________________________________________________
Mailed to US members from aas.org at 4:00pm
14 July 2004
New report on Hubble repair project
The American Astronomical Society just sent out this e-mail to its members. The National Academies (formerly the National Academy of Sciences--I worked for them, but I still haven't gotten used to the name change) has issued a report on the proposed Hubble robotic servicing mission. Apparently, they think that important decisions on the feasability are probably at least a year in the waiting. I'm hopeful, but we'll see how this all goes.
I'm reproducing the e-mail below in its entirety, including the link to the full National Academies report.
I'm reproducing the e-mail below in its entirety, including the link to the full National Academies report.
Subject: AAS Informational Email 2004-11
National Academy Releases HST Servicing Interim Report
Summary: The Committee on the Assessment of Options for
Extending the Life of the Hubble Space Telescope delivered
an interim report, allowed under the charter of the
committee, to NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe on
July 13, 2004.
The interim report 1) recognizes the importance of the
Hubble Space Telescope scientifically and that a servicing
mission will enable significant scientific returns, 2) the
proposed robotic servicing mission will be challenging and
requires significant effort to accomplish and 3) key
decisions on whether such a robotic servicing mission is
possible or not cannot currently be made and will likely
not be able to be made for at least a year.
The full report is available online at the AAS web pages:
http://www.aas.org/policy/InterimHSTReport.pdf
Impact: This interim report is likely to have two major
impacts and could have a secondary, but important third
impact. The first is that a robotic servicing mission can
now be officially viewed as valuable for the science
results that a serviced Hubble can provide. The second is
that whether to undertake such a mission cannot be decided
due to technical issues for at least a year. A secondary
impact that the report may have is that significant
investments in the technical aspects of a servicing mission
can now be made by NASA, in addition to the current level
of effort being pursued.
AAS members are encouraged to share the report with their
Representatives and Senators so they can remain fully
informed on this important issue.
___________________________________________________________
Mailed to US members from aas.org at 4:00pm
14 July 2004
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
Anti-Communists and Anti-Anti-Communists
Went over to the (nearly-)local Borders bookstore this weekend and saw some great classics out on the front display tables, under a sign, "Summer Reading." Ahh, The Grapes of Wrath, 1984, One Hundred Years of Solitude, For Whom the Bell Tolls, and the like. Good choices (I've read all of the above except for 100 Years...), and I like that they're pushing, in large part, the greats of 20th century English-language literature.
I flipped through 1894 and saw the brief description of Orwell in the front fly sheets. A lot about his social and political attitudes, but without any mention of his anti-Communism. Hmmm... Then I saw new introduction by Thomas Pynchon. Skimmed the first part of it, hoping to find some insights into Orwell as a leading left-wing anti-Communist of his time.
Nope. Oh, Pynchon mentions anti-Communism, all right, but only to disparage it. Apparently, only the simplistic (I think that was his word) read Animal Farm and 1984 as embodying anti-Communist ideas. The right wing in the US, having already decided in their stupid-minded way that 1984 was against Stalin, the Soviet Union, and Communism in general, tried their best to read Animal Farm in the same way. How ignorant of them! When in fact, it was they who behaved in the way lampooned in the book, with their pavlovian reactions to Communist buzzwords and symbols. Imagining a so-called "threat" of worldwide Communist expansion abroad and spies and plants at home...
What profound nonsense. I put down the book angrily at that point, mad that Pynchon could actually use 1984, of all books, as a chance to attack those who, like Orwell himself, correctly saw the threat to freedom that Communism represented.
I wonder what Orwell himself would say about this. It's not quite "War is Peace," or "Slavery is Freedom," but it gets me mumbling that it's coming close to that point.
I flipped through 1894 and saw the brief description of Orwell in the front fly sheets. A lot about his social and political attitudes, but without any mention of his anti-Communism. Hmmm... Then I saw new introduction by Thomas Pynchon. Skimmed the first part of it, hoping to find some insights into Orwell as a leading left-wing anti-Communist of his time.
Nope. Oh, Pynchon mentions anti-Communism, all right, but only to disparage it. Apparently, only the simplistic (I think that was his word) read Animal Farm and 1984 as embodying anti-Communist ideas. The right wing in the US, having already decided in their stupid-minded way that 1984 was against Stalin, the Soviet Union, and Communism in general, tried their best to read Animal Farm in the same way. How ignorant of them! When in fact, it was they who behaved in the way lampooned in the book, with their pavlovian reactions to Communist buzzwords and symbols. Imagining a so-called "threat" of worldwide Communist expansion abroad and spies and plants at home...
What profound nonsense. I put down the book angrily at that point, mad that Pynchon could actually use 1984, of all books, as a chance to attack those who, like Orwell himself, correctly saw the threat to freedom that Communism represented.
I wonder what Orwell himself would say about this. It's not quite "War is Peace," or "Slavery is Freedom," but it gets me mumbling that it's coming close to that point.
Thursday, June 17, 2004
Euro-Palestine?
Jay Nordlinger brings up a chilling political campaign poster in today's "Impromptus":
"Vote Euro-Palestine: Peace in Europe depends on justice in the Middle East."
This sounds like an open threat to the Europeans. Or am I missing something? OK, they've got high levels of Middle Eastern immigration, and now there are enough in place to make a threat like this plausible.
But think about this for a second: what is the threat? Violence breaking out across Europe? Burning synagogues (those that haven't been burned already, let's say)? Killing Jews? Killing Christians? Terrorism?
This is a political campaign! Could you imagine such a threat being made in an American campaign?! That wouldn't be tolerated. I'm reminded of the "No justice, no peace!" slogans from the Los Angeles riots of 1992(?), but those weren't part of an election campaign, except as they were roundly slammed by leading politicians. Wasn't that Clinton's Sister Souljah moment, in fact?
On the other hand, maybe "Euro-Palestine" is too small for anybody in Europe to have either noticed them or taken anything they say seriously. Maybe Nordlinger just stumbled across one of the few posters they managed to plaster up.
Maybe.
"Vote Euro-Palestine: Peace in Europe depends on justice in the Middle East."
This sounds like an open threat to the Europeans. Or am I missing something? OK, they've got high levels of Middle Eastern immigration, and now there are enough in place to make a threat like this plausible.
But think about this for a second: what is the threat? Violence breaking out across Europe? Burning synagogues (those that haven't been burned already, let's say)? Killing Jews? Killing Christians? Terrorism?
This is a political campaign! Could you imagine such a threat being made in an American campaign?! That wouldn't be tolerated. I'm reminded of the "No justice, no peace!" slogans from the Los Angeles riots of 1992(?), but those weren't part of an election campaign, except as they were roundly slammed by leading politicians. Wasn't that Clinton's Sister Souljah moment, in fact?
On the other hand, maybe "Euro-Palestine" is too small for anybody in Europe to have either noticed them or taken anything they say seriously. Maybe Nordlinger just stumbled across one of the few posters they managed to plaster up.
Maybe.
Herman Wouk is back!
I had a weather delay when flying out to Denver the other day for the American Astronomical Society conference, so I poked around the bookstore in the Cincinnati airport and noticed a new novel by Herman Wouk, A Hole In Texas. I'm a fan of Wouk's, although I'd never read any of his books before, only seeing the movie versions--The Caine Mutiny (Humphrey Bogart!), "The Winds of War," and "War and Rememberance," the latter two as TV miniseries back in the '80s.
And I was excited to see that his novels in the 90s, The Hope, and The Glory, both dealt with Israel. But I never picked them up--all in good time.
I worried at first that the title was some kind of political commentary. No! Far from it; the "hole" in reference is the tunnel left by the cancelled Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) in 1993. The novel takes place today, with the premise that the Chinese discover the Higgs boson. Out of the blue. This isn't a spoiler--it tells you that much on the dust jacket.
The Higgs boson is a theorized particle that explains the existence of mass. The confirmation of its existence or non-existence would be a very, very big deal. For those who don't remember, after spending billions of dollars on the SSC and actually starting construction (including digging the infamous hole), Congress abruptly pulled the rug from under the project in 1993, costing a few billion(?) more. I actually worked on the SSC as an undergraduate in the summer of 1993, helping design a particle detector that would have gone on the project (not a detector that would have looked for the Higgs boson, though). I can't remember if I started before the funding was cut or not, but it happened right about that time.
The novel's main character is a former particle physicist, cut loose from the SSC, who is now working on the Terrestrial Planet Finder, a space telescope project at NASA's Jet Propulsion Labs. (This is a real project, by the way.) A furor erupts over the Chinese discovery, and our hero is caught up in the middle of it. NASA management is worried about budget priorities. Personalities conflict. Science spills into politics and international intrigue. Scandal erupts.
It's a great novel. I need to read Wouk's others to see how it compares (Mom said it is very different), but I enjoyed it and was impressed by the little details. A comment made about the lone American car at a Beverly Hills party, for instance ("Dr. Livingstone, I presume!").
He gets the physics right. His brother (to whom the book is dedicated) is a Ph.D. in physics, Caltech, class of '42. Hmmm...Manhattan Project? A lot of those young Caltech physics doctors of that era worked on it. I'd be really curious to know if Wouk's brother did, too.
I'm eager to write a review of it in some physics journal or science magazine. Need to get more of a background on Wouk's writing, first.
And I was excited to see that his novels in the 90s, The Hope, and The Glory, both dealt with Israel. But I never picked them up--all in good time.
I worried at first that the title was some kind of political commentary. No! Far from it; the "hole" in reference is the tunnel left by the cancelled Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) in 1993. The novel takes place today, with the premise that the Chinese discover the Higgs boson. Out of the blue. This isn't a spoiler--it tells you that much on the dust jacket.
The Higgs boson is a theorized particle that explains the existence of mass. The confirmation of its existence or non-existence would be a very, very big deal. For those who don't remember, after spending billions of dollars on the SSC and actually starting construction (including digging the infamous hole), Congress abruptly pulled the rug from under the project in 1993, costing a few billion(?) more. I actually worked on the SSC as an undergraduate in the summer of 1993, helping design a particle detector that would have gone on the project (not a detector that would have looked for the Higgs boson, though). I can't remember if I started before the funding was cut or not, but it happened right about that time.
The novel's main character is a former particle physicist, cut loose from the SSC, who is now working on the Terrestrial Planet Finder, a space telescope project at NASA's Jet Propulsion Labs. (This is a real project, by the way.) A furor erupts over the Chinese discovery, and our hero is caught up in the middle of it. NASA management is worried about budget priorities. Personalities conflict. Science spills into politics and international intrigue. Scandal erupts.
It's a great novel. I need to read Wouk's others to see how it compares (Mom said it is very different), but I enjoyed it and was impressed by the little details. A comment made about the lone American car at a Beverly Hills party, for instance ("Dr. Livingstone, I presume!").
He gets the physics right. His brother (to whom the book is dedicated) is a Ph.D. in physics, Caltech, class of '42. Hmmm...Manhattan Project? A lot of those young Caltech physics doctors of that era worked on it. I'd be really curious to know if Wouk's brother did, too.
I'm eager to write a review of it in some physics journal or science magazine. Need to get more of a background on Wouk's writing, first.
Professors' office door decorations
School's out! School's out!! And I can finally...catch up on paperwork. Nuts. But luckily my travel expense reports are about finished, the one student who needs to make up the final should show up at 10 AM tomorrow, and my key request form should be quick to do (I need a decent printer in my own office; it's a pain to run down to the computer lab, which is often locked.). The travel expense reports are intimidating sometimes, and after this month's American Astronomical Society conference in Denver, I almost wound up needing to spend $200 out of pocket. If they're this limiting on my travel budget when I'm not even staying in a hotel (thank goodness I've got friends to stay with), I can only wonder how far short I'll be when I go to a conference in Germany next year.
Tenerife. I want to go to a conference in Tenerife for once.
On to the topic of this post (This post is increasingly like a Simpson's episode, where the main story follows fifteen minutes of red herrings. Sometimes literally.). Daniel Drezler asks what North American professors are sticking on their office doors. I've added mine to the comments there, which I'll elaborate upon here.
My door: sign with office hours and a scribble from a student saying "We love Dr. Hamilton!" (I got a big head over that one and left it up).
The abstract from my latest conference submission (good ole' State is not the biggest research instution, so this seems a bigger deal).
A poster of Chandra X-ray Telescope images, entitled, "Seeing the Universe in a Whole New Light." A Jewish friend at Goddard had that poster on her door with the everything below the title covered over by war-on-terrorism-related political cartoons. One that brought tears to my eyes was of the inside of a pillbox or bunker. Uncle Sam is racing up to the gun ports with his submachine gun ready, and a man labeled "Israel," already in position, is saying, "Welcome, brother!"
Reminds me (the poster, not Ilana's cartoon)--I need to go on and get moving on that x-ray astronomy research. Data analysis awaits!
Cartoons--"When Astronomers Collide." This is a Joy of Tech one, with astronomers angrily debating whether Sedna is a planet (see link below). My favorite quote, "You're all just a bunch of planet bigots!" Also, two strips of Day by Day. One on late nights at the office and the other on Mars.
Oh--and excerpts from the "Tea Club" Quote Board from back at Goddard Space Flight Center www.smart.net/~kmukai/tclub/quotes2002.html (I'm the "Tim" there; also see the 2003 Quote Board for some more of my quotes.). Very inside humor. My students laugh occasionally but they don't really get the references. Definitely not the references. Check it out for yourself and see why.
Tenerife. I want to go to a conference in Tenerife for once.
On to the topic of this post (This post is increasingly like a Simpson's episode, where the main story follows fifteen minutes of red herrings. Sometimes literally.). Daniel Drezler asks what North American professors are sticking on their office doors. I've added mine to the comments there, which I'll elaborate upon here.
My door: sign with office hours and a scribble from a student saying "We love Dr. Hamilton!" (I got a big head over that one and left it up).
The abstract from my latest conference submission (good ole' State is not the biggest research instution, so this seems a bigger deal).
A poster of Chandra X-ray Telescope images, entitled, "Seeing the Universe in a Whole New Light." A Jewish friend at Goddard had that poster on her door with the everything below the title covered over by war-on-terrorism-related political cartoons. One that brought tears to my eyes was of the inside of a pillbox or bunker. Uncle Sam is racing up to the gun ports with his submachine gun ready, and a man labeled "Israel," already in position, is saying, "Welcome, brother!"
Reminds me (the poster, not Ilana's cartoon)--I need to go on and get moving on that x-ray astronomy research. Data analysis awaits!
Cartoons--"When Astronomers Collide." This is a Joy of Tech one, with astronomers angrily debating whether Sedna is a planet (see link below). My favorite quote, "You're all just a bunch of planet bigots!" Also, two strips of Day by Day. One on late nights at the office and the other on Mars.
Oh--and excerpts from the "Tea Club" Quote Board from back at Goddard Space Flight Center www.smart.net/~kmukai/tclub/quotes2002.html (I'm the "Tim" there; also see the 2003 Quote Board for some more of my quotes.). Very inside humor. My students laugh occasionally but they don't really get the references. Definitely not the references. Check it out for yourself and see why.
Antenovias
Apropos of Eugene Volokh's post on men whose best friends are women, I've got to put myself in that category as well. I'm in a rather unusual subset of it, though, in that my best friends are generally my ex-girlfriends. (Thankfully, no bad break-ups, ever.) In fact, my most recent ex and I were instant-messaging a few weeks ago when she said she didn't like the sound of "ex-girlfriend," that it had bad connotations. Too harsh, in most people's minds.
So I coined the pseudo-Spanish "antenovia," from "novia anterior," which would literally mean "former girlfriend," if I'm not misusing "anterior." I was looking for something in Italian (seems appropriate for dating words), but I really don't know the language.
Anway, now I want to popularize the word. It should be used with friendly connotations. The kind of ex-girlfriend who gives you (good) dating advice over the phone in a long, rambling, late-night conversation. This particular antenovia is, in fact, the one I turned to a lot when Beth died. Beth also fit the antenovia mold, for that matter.
So I encourage everybody--go out there and spread the term!
So I coined the pseudo-Spanish "antenovia," from "novia anterior," which would literally mean "former girlfriend," if I'm not misusing "anterior." I was looking for something in Italian (seems appropriate for dating words), but I really don't know the language.
Anway, now I want to popularize the word. It should be used with friendly connotations. The kind of ex-girlfriend who gives you (good) dating advice over the phone in a long, rambling, late-night conversation. This particular antenovia is, in fact, the one I turned to a lot when Beth died. Beth also fit the antenovia mold, for that matter.
So I encourage everybody--go out there and spread the term!
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
Back from partes incognitae
OK, I'm back to posting. I've been in a mood since Beth died, and I still am, honestly. But I might as well get back to normal life. And blogging. Blogging isn't exactly normal life... for most of us, anyway...
By the way, did I get the declension right above? Nuts--"from" would be the equivalent of "ex," so I shouldn't have used the nominative... [Fade to incoherent Latin mumbling]
By the way, did I get the declension right above? Nuts--"from" would be the equivalent of "ex," so I shouldn't have used the nominative... [Fade to incoherent Latin mumbling]
Sunday, April 18, 2004
Thursday, April 15, 2004
Planetary debates
Great cartoon from "The Joy of Tech" recently. Especially funny to me because it closely tracks a discussion co-blogger Jeff (a planetary astronomer) and I had two weeks ago.
The background you need on this one is that an object, named Sedna, has been discovered orbiting the Sun, far beyond Pluto. Sedna's about 3/4 of Pluto's size, but that's pretty big for a minor planet. Probably an ice-ball, like most trans-Neptune objects, but it's red. There had been some debate as to whether to consider it a minor planet or a regular ol' planet. Now, it's almost certainly going to be considered only a minor planet, but this got some of the "Pluto's not a real planet, either!" crowd animated again.
The background you need on this one is that an object, named Sedna, has been discovered orbiting the Sun, far beyond Pluto. Sedna's about 3/4 of Pluto's size, but that's pretty big for a minor planet. Probably an ice-ball, like most trans-Neptune objects, but it's red. There had been some debate as to whether to consider it a minor planet or a regular ol' planet. Now, it's almost certainly going to be considered only a minor planet, but this got some of the "Pluto's not a real planet, either!" crowd animated again.
Tuesday, April 13, 2004
Rep. Davy Crockett, Constitutionalist
Excellent article by the Wall Street Journal's John Fund on Davy Crockett's insistence on limited government and following the Constitution. Man, I wish we could vote for him to represent us today!
As a Tennesseean, I've a fondness for him, anyway, but this really makes a strong case for him as a Congressman. I have always gotten a satisfied laugh out of his famous statement to his former constituents (after being narrowly voted out of Congress),
I've long been looking for a chance to use this line. ...except I'm not going to Texas anytime soon, and I don't have any reason to tell anyone to go to hades just now. Ahh, someday, someday...
As a Tennesseean, I've a fondness for him, anyway, but this really makes a strong case for him as a Congressman. I have always gotten a satisfied laugh out of his famous statement to his former constituents (after being narrowly voted out of Congress),
You may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas.
I've long been looking for a chance to use this line. ...except I'm not going to Texas anytime soon, and I don't have any reason to tell anyone to go to hades just now. Ahh, someday, someday...
Monday, April 12, 2004
Right Wing Watch
Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch is being watched himself by the ever-vigilant eagle-eyes at Right Wing Watch, apparently because he spoke at the 2004 Conservative Political Action Conference in D.C.
As Spencer himself admits,
Serious subject but good satire. I'm getting a decent laugh out of imagining that scene...
As Spencer himself admits,
I will never forget the day that Right Wingers crashed martini-laden golf carts into the Pentagon and World Trade Centers, all the while shouting "Reagan Akhbar! We will make your buildings as flat as your taxes!"
Serious subject but good satire. I'm getting a decent laugh out of imagining that scene...
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
Motivations
Didn't get much practical work accomplished yesterday, although I was able to straighten out what I don't understand about a statistical test I'm using in this paper I've been writing for...over a year, anyway. I'm less and less convinced this portion of the paper is useful, and I'd rather cut it out.
In the midst of trying to concentrate on the calculation, I kept getting distracted by the 3 1/2 tons of loose papers and Post-it notes forming tough layers of sediment on top of my desk and, in fact, all over the floor. Travel reimbursement forms from the AAS conference in January are still waiting to be submitted, and the receipts are separated by type...also on the floor, sharing some real estate with a couple of 4" telescopes that should be taken down, since I haven't used them in months.
It's amazing, when there's work to be done, how clean my office gets! I stayed here for a few hours after everyone else had left, straightening things up. It worked, and now I can finally concentrate on that paper...if I ever get off the internet.
In the midst of trying to concentrate on the calculation, I kept getting distracted by the 3 1/2 tons of loose papers and Post-it notes forming tough layers of sediment on top of my desk and, in fact, all over the floor. Travel reimbursement forms from the AAS conference in January are still waiting to be submitted, and the receipts are separated by type...also on the floor, sharing some real estate with a couple of 4" telescopes that should be taken down, since I haven't used them in months.
It's amazing, when there's work to be done, how clean my office gets! I stayed here for a few hours after everyone else had left, straightening things up. It worked, and now I can finally concentrate on that paper...if I ever get off the internet.
More on caffeine
Just to add on to what I posted below, the nearest Starbucks is over an hour's drive away, but it's often worth it for the white chocolate mocha they have. That's my regular cup whenever I go in there, now. I'm afraid I must fit into Professor Mendelsohn's "Marc Antony" category.
Of course, there's the local shop right next to campus, and they do a good job, so I'm fairly regular, there. But I've not found a comparable white mocha anywhere else.
Of course, there's the local shop right next to campus, and they do a good job, so I'm fairly regular, there. But I've not found a comparable white mocha anywhere else.
Caffeine in higher education
I was alerted to this via friends back at NASA/Goddard. An article in the Chronicle of Higher Education has a funny...and somewhat frightening...look at the use of caffeine among professors. And it's not just coffee that makes an appearance, but lots of Diet Coke, as well.
The author got the idea from The Volokh Conspiracy, where our conspirators have been debating the awakening potentialities of Diet Coke vs. regular Coke and coffee for a while, now.
I feel like I'm barely even in the minor leagues, compared to these guys! Read for yourself.
The author got the idea from The Volokh Conspiracy, where our conspirators have been debating the awakening potentialities of Diet Coke vs. regular Coke and coffee for a while, now.
I feel like I'm barely even in the minor leagues, compared to these guys! Read for yourself.
Friday, March 26, 2004
Sad news
Sorry I've been AWOL on the blog, folks. Laziness. And I'm afraid my first post since the hiatus isn't a cheerful one.
My former girlfriend, Dr. Beth Holmes, died suddenly on Tuesday from a congenital heart problem. She was a fellow astrophysicist, a post-doc at the Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena. She was 30 years old.
I'm going to her funeral and viewing Sunday and Monday. I'm sure this isn't going to be easy.
I'll be back with more to write in the very near future.
My former girlfriend, Dr. Beth Holmes, died suddenly on Tuesday from a congenital heart problem. She was a fellow astrophysicist, a post-doc at the Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena. She was 30 years old.
I'm going to her funeral and viewing Sunday and Monday. I'm sure this isn't going to be easy.
I'll be back with more to write in the very near future.
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
Mars, the angry, red, squishy planet?
So NASA is supposed to make a "major announcement" about Mars today! The speculation is that it's water, or evidence of past water.
A friend says that last week, they (yes, the ubiquitous "they") dug a trench with the rover's wheels and found the soil "sticky," like beach sand. And Space.com had an interview with a PI from the Viking project, who says that early morning images of the rover tracks show "high reflectivity," as if water had seeped up (and frozen, of course) overnight.
Of course, we'll know for sure what they're thinking in a few hours...
A friend says that last week, they (yes, the ubiquitous "they") dug a trench with the rover's wheels and found the soil "sticky," like beach sand. And Space.com had an interview with a PI from the Viking project, who says that early morning images of the rover tracks show "high reflectivity," as if water had seeped up (and frozen, of course) overnight.
Of course, we'll know for sure what they're thinking in a few hours...
Once more into the breach, dear friends, once more!
So Aristide has been overthrown twice, now. Is that some kind of a world record?
I'm actually asking--is there any other national leader who has ever been overthrown twice, by coup, rebellion, or whatnot? Historically or in the modern world? And I don't mean through legal means, like losing an election or being impeached and kicked out.
I'm actually asking--is there any other national leader who has ever been overthrown twice, by coup, rebellion, or whatnot? Historically or in the modern world? And I don't mean through legal means, like losing an election or being impeached and kicked out.
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Privatize the Hubble?!
Dennis E. Powell suggests this in National Review Online today. The concept of putting together a private foundation to fund HST (Hubble Space Telescope) operations is interesting in principle, and I believe that the Keck Observatory in Hawaii is private, funded with oil money.
But Powell's prescription has a serious flaw:
First of all, I think he misunderstands that, with the exception of calibration work, all of the images taken by the Hubble are done as part of research projects. There are a few collaborations, such as the Hubble Deep Field projects, which release the raw data almost immediately. But all of the rest of Hubble's observations are proprietary for 12 months (occasionally for other lengths of time).
Secondly, and more importantly, the idea of charging user fees would not work well at all. The reason is that when an astronomer has his HST observing proposal accepted by the Space Telescope Science Institute (which operates HST), Space Telescope pays him a research grant to analyze his data. There is no (or there would be extremely little) grant money out there that could be used for paying Space Telescope to use HST; rather, the grant money flows the other way.
All of the other observatories, whether they are space-based (like HST or Chandra) or ground-based (like the Keck or Gemini) work the same way. If they let you use the telescope, they pay you to analyze the data.
This is generally your year's salary, sometimes multiple years' salary. A number of astrophysicists (including a lot of "contractors" at NASA) are paid by nothing else but what their observing proposals bring in for them. For others who are professors (ahem!), they're paid to teach, so any any time they spend on research must again come out of grant money, which is paid by the observatories. A large research university might have some amount of start-up money to fund a professor's research until he can get a grant, but that's limited. For those who work for NASA itself (which might even be a minority at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, where I recently worked), with civil service jobs, charging user fees to them means it comes straight out of the government's pocket, anyway. And for those of us contractors who were pure researchers funded by agencies like the National Research Council and others, well again, the user fees are usually going to come out of the government's pocket. No savings to the taxpayer.
The idea of more private money going into astrophysics is one I'd like to see happen, but it would have to be set up to pay the astrophysicists, rather than to charge them.
But Powell's prescription has a serious flaw:
The U.S. government could sign over the pink slip on Hubble to the foundation, which would then set about the task of raising money to keep it aloft. How? Donations certainly would figure in: a few bucks from private individuals, perhaps some corporate money. While the majority of the telescope's images could continue to be freely available to everyone, there could be user fees charged to those for whom particular pictures are taken, as, say, part of a research project. Grants have been written for far-less-worthy projects.
First of all, I think he misunderstands that, with the exception of calibration work, all of the images taken by the Hubble are done as part of research projects. There are a few collaborations, such as the Hubble Deep Field projects, which release the raw data almost immediately. But all of the rest of Hubble's observations are proprietary for 12 months (occasionally for other lengths of time).
Secondly, and more importantly, the idea of charging user fees would not work well at all. The reason is that when an astronomer has his HST observing proposal accepted by the Space Telescope Science Institute (which operates HST), Space Telescope pays him a research grant to analyze his data. There is no (or there would be extremely little) grant money out there that could be used for paying Space Telescope to use HST; rather, the grant money flows the other way.
All of the other observatories, whether they are space-based (like HST or Chandra) or ground-based (like the Keck or Gemini) work the same way. If they let you use the telescope, they pay you to analyze the data.
This is generally your year's salary, sometimes multiple years' salary. A number of astrophysicists (including a lot of "contractors" at NASA) are paid by nothing else but what their observing proposals bring in for them. For others who are professors (ahem!), they're paid to teach, so any any time they spend on research must again come out of grant money, which is paid by the observatories. A large research university might have some amount of start-up money to fund a professor's research until he can get a grant, but that's limited. For those who work for NASA itself (which might even be a minority at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, where I recently worked), with civil service jobs, charging user fees to them means it comes straight out of the government's pocket, anyway. And for those of us contractors who were pure researchers funded by agencies like the National Research Council and others, well again, the user fees are usually going to come out of the government's pocket. No savings to the taxpayer.
The idea of more private money going into astrophysics is one I'd like to see happen, but it would have to be set up to pay the astrophysicists, rather than to charge them.
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
No "stupid" conservatives on Duke faculty
I almost cannot believe this. Yes, this conforms to the worst stereotypes of leftist academics, and it's exactly what we conservative professors worry about, but I always thought that these depictions were at least slightly exaggerated.
No more. Duke's conservative paper, The Chronicle, has published a list of the political affiliation of many professors in humanities departments. Not surprisingly, it was heavily skewed towards the Democrats, with some departments having no Republicans at all. I'm not shocked about that.
What does shock me is the defense offered by some of Duke's department chairmen. They range from the naive-sounding:
To the mealy-mouthed, bringing up irrelevant or misleading "facts":
To (pay attention to this one!) the asinine:
And there was at least one chairman who recognized that these attitudes, if they were widespread, could be a problem:
Note that line about ridding conservatives of their hypocricies. That pretty closely matches a comment made by a student writing for my alma mater's (Rhodes') student paper a decade ago. She wrote that the purpose of a liberal arts education was to challenge students' beliefs and attitudes.
Oh, really? To challenge their beliefs about the Riemann zeta function? Their preconceived notions about the construct state of the Hebrew verb? Their attitudes towards the Lagrangian & Hamiltonian approaches to classical mechanics? Their prejudices concerning the Northern Renaissance use of scale in painting to indicate importance rather than perspective? And perhaps their hypocrisies in regards to the relationship of Babylonian gods to natural laws in the Enuma Elish. ...And let's not forget that Duke's liberal students are free of any hypocrisies, having been reared in splendid isolation by Tibetan monks for their first seventeen years.
What utter nonsense.
(Link via Southern Appeal)
No more. Duke's conservative paper, The Chronicle, has published a list of the political affiliation of many professors in humanities departments. Not surprisingly, it was heavily skewed towards the Democrats, with some departments having no Republicans at all. I'm not shocked about that.
What does shock me is the defense offered by some of Duke's department chairmen. They range from the naive-sounding:
"My sense is that a University community represents all opinions, and somehow just your party affiliation seems a very odd way of sampling it," said Maureen Quilligan, chair of the English department, noting that she has never received any complaints of professors' bias in her department. "Besides, there are many differences within Republicans and within Democrats, and Republicans certainly are not the only conservatives."
To the mealy-mouthed, bringing up irrelevant or misleading "facts":
John Thompson, chair of the history department, similarly questioned DCU's usage of party registrations to make their point. "The interesting thing about the United States is that the political spectrum is very narrow," he said, noting that other countries, such as Canada, represent a much broader sampling of political leanings. As such, he said, the question of political affiliation in the United States becomes relatively trivial.
To (pay attention to this one!) the asinine:
"We try to hire the best, smartest people available," [Robert] Brandon [chairman of the philosophy department] said of his philosophy hires. "If, as John Stuart Mill said, stupid people are generally conservative, then there are lots of conservatives we will never hire.
"Mill's analysis may go some way towards explaining the power of the Republican party in our society and the relative scarcity of Republicans in academia. Players in the NBA tend to be taller than average. There is a good reason for this. Members of academia tend to be a bit smarter than average. There is a good reason for this too."
And there was at least one chairman who recognized that these attitudes, if they were widespread, could be a problem:
"In at least one case, a department chair has said they thought the function of Duke was to rid conservative students of their hypocrisies," [Michael] Munger [chairman of the political science department] said. "If that attitude were widespread, then yes, we would need to hire more conservatives." Munger noted, however, that he did not believe the attitude to be widespread.
Note that line about ridding conservatives of their hypocricies. That pretty closely matches a comment made by a student writing for my alma mater's (Rhodes') student paper a decade ago. She wrote that the purpose of a liberal arts education was to challenge students' beliefs and attitudes.
Oh, really? To challenge their beliefs about the Riemann zeta function? Their preconceived notions about the construct state of the Hebrew verb? Their attitudes towards the Lagrangian & Hamiltonian approaches to classical mechanics? Their prejudices concerning the Northern Renaissance use of scale in painting to indicate importance rather than perspective? And perhaps their hypocrisies in regards to the relationship of Babylonian gods to natural laws in the Enuma Elish. ...And let's not forget that Duke's liberal students are free of any hypocrisies, having been reared in splendid isolation by Tibetan monks for their first seventeen years.
What utter nonsense.
(Link via Southern Appeal)
Thursday, February 05, 2004
More e-mail from Sept. 11, 2001
And here's a follow-up to that earlier one:
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 11:48:09 -0400
[...]
Subject: Class Cancellation
Dear All:
We just received notification that the Chancellor is suspending all normal
operations of the University, including classes. Please inform your faculty
of this decision and close down your classes in an orderly fashion. Please
post an appropriate cancellation notice on classrooms in your
building/vicinity.
University personnel will continue to serve the needs of students remaining
on campus.
Please listen to local media for further information on the status of
tomorrow's classes.
NJC
N. John Cooper
Dean of the Faculty and College of Arts and Sciences
University of Pittsburgh
More e-mail from Sept. 11, 2001
And here's a follow-up to that earlier one:
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 11:48:09 -0400
[...]
Subject: Class Cancellation
Dear All:
We just received notification that the Chancellor is suspending all normal
operations of the University, including classes. Please inform your faculty
of this decision and close down your classes in an orderly fashion. Please
post an appropriate cancellation notice on classrooms in your
building/vicinity.
University personnel will continue to serve the needs of students remaining
on campus.
Please listen to local media for further information on the status of
tomorrow's classes.
NJC
N. John Cooper
Dean of the Faculty and College of Arts and Sciences
University of Pittsburgh
E-mails from September 10th
I'm in the midst of cleaning out my computer's in-box and saving the e-mails to free up space. I have gotten down to 2001.
It is interesting to take a look at what e-mails were coming and going on September 10th, 2001. There is such a complete and utter obliviousness to the disaster that's about to occur that it gives me an odd feeling looking at them now. I was about to say that there was a "cheerful" obliviousness to them, but in fact, that's not really the case. After all, we didn't know just how good things were that day compared to the next, and so we were content to be annoyed with trivialities and the minor things that bug us in normal life.
Going through the messages from Sept. 11 itself, I thought the following message was interesting. I was just finishing grad school at this point, to give you the context.
It is interesting to take a look at what e-mails were coming and going on September 10th, 2001. There is such a complete and utter obliviousness to the disaster that's about to occur that it gives me an odd feeling looking at them now. I was about to say that there was a "cheerful" obliviousness to them, but in fact, that's not really the case. After all, we didn't know just how good things were that day compared to the next, and so we were content to be annoyed with trivialities and the minor things that bug us in normal life.
Going through the messages from Sept. 11 itself, I thought the following message was interesting. I was just finishing grad school at this point, to give you the context.
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 11:08:42 -0400
[...]
Subject: Classes Under Current Security Conditions
Dear All:
We have received several calls about whether classes can or should be
cancelled under the currently existing extraordinary national security
conditions.
Until we receive instructions from the Chancellor I assume that classes
will continue, but faculty should exercise commonsense if they or their
students are under particular stress (e.g. relatives in affected cities or
in the military).
NJC
N. John Cooper
Dean of the Faculty and College of Arts and Sciences
University of Pittsburgh
Phone: 412-[...]
FAX: 412-[...]
STAYED TUNED, THIS COULD CHANGE.
Later Jewish countries
David Bernstein over at the Volokh Conspiracy has a really interesting post on sovereign Jewish states after the failed revolt against Roman rule in Judea in 135 AD.
He lists four examples before the modern state of Israel. I'm always fascinated by these details of history, and most of these examples, I dare say, aren't well known.
He lists four examples before the modern state of Israel. I'm always fascinated by these details of history, and most of these examples, I dare say, aren't well known.
What would the Massachussetts Supreme Court do...
The Mass. Supreme Court has just issued an advisory opinion that for the legislature to create "civil unions" will not satisfy the court's demand that it authorize marriages for same-sex couples.
So...I wonder...what would the court do if the legislature failed to act on this commandment? I'm no lawyer, but would it be possible for the US Supreme Court to order the Congress to pass a law? That seems to me to be outside its jurisdiction. And I know that many states do not have the exact same checks and balances amongst their branches that the Federal Government does. But could the Mass. Supreme Court do anything if the state legislature sits on its hands?
So...I wonder...what would the court do if the legislature failed to act on this commandment? I'm no lawyer, but would it be possible for the US Supreme Court to order the Congress to pass a law? That seems to me to be outside its jurisdiction. And I know that many states do not have the exact same checks and balances amongst their branches that the Federal Government does. But could the Mass. Supreme Court do anything if the state legislature sits on its hands?
Wednesday, February 04, 2004
More book quotes: empire, adventure, and archaeology
In the mood for quotes from literature and books right now. There's a great nonfiction book I picked up at a used bookstore a while back, The Ruined Cities of Mashonaland: being a record of exploration and excavation in 1891, J. Theodore Bent, F.S.A., F.R.G.S.
It's the story of the first scientific expedition to the ruins of Great Zimbabwe, by the archaeologist who led the team. It's great as a book of archaeology and even more as a travelogue (sp?). The descriptions of passing out from the Cape Colony and the last remnants of Western civilization into the wild and sparsely explored lands of what are now Zimbabwe are fascinating, as well as the insight they give into the way the British Empire spread in this area (by trade agreements, it seems).
Near the end, Bent undertakes an embassy to the chief 'Mtoko from the "Chartered Company" (the South Africa Company, I think?). I'll let his introductory paragraphs to Chapter X speak for themselves:
Wow...this is the kind of thing I would have expected to find in Conrad, say.
It's the story of the first scientific expedition to the ruins of Great Zimbabwe, by the archaeologist who led the team. It's great as a book of archaeology and even more as a travelogue (sp?). The descriptions of passing out from the Cape Colony and the last remnants of Western civilization into the wild and sparsely explored lands of what are now Zimbabwe are fascinating, as well as the insight they give into the way the British Empire spread in this area (by trade agreements, it seems).
Near the end, Bent undertakes an embassy to the chief 'Mtoko from the "Chartered Company" (the South Africa Company, I think?). I'll let his introductory paragraphs to Chapter X speak for themselves:
There is always a charm to us connected with the investigation of a country the name of which conveys nothing to anybody, and which is a blank on the map. This I think was one of the chief incentives to us to accept the diplomatic post of presenting a gift of forty pounds' worth of goods from the Chartered Company to the Chief 'Mtoko.
We gathered that 'Mtoko was a powerful chief, dreaded by the natives, whose country lay about 120 miles to the north-east of Fort Salisbury; that he ruled over a large and almost unknown district reaching on the west to the territories under the influence of the Portuguese satellite Gouveia; and that his father, who had lately died, had entered into a treaty with the Chartered Company which gave them paramount influence, but that the present chief and his subjects, who were reported to have customs of an exceedingly primitive order, had as yet had no official dealings with the Company. This was about all the information we could gather.
The following is an exact copy of my credentials:--
To the Chief Matoko
The British South Africa Company, Salisbury.
September 21, 1891.
My Friend, -- Mr. Selous has told Mr. Rhodes, the Big Induna of all white men in this country, all about you, and he has sent his friend Mr. Bent to see you and your people, and to give you some presents from him; and also to tell you that you are now under the Great White Queen, and that the Portuguese will not trouble you any more.
You and your people will now live in peace and security.
I am, you Friend,
F. Rutherford Harris,
Secretary.
Wow...this is the kind of thing I would have expected to find in Conrad, say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
