Back in 2 weeks

I should have mentioned it before I left, but I'm in DC for 2 weeks seeing my family. Actual posting will resume sometime after November 8th, but you may get lucky and see some pics of my pumpkin carving.

No really, they're pretty awesome. I did a Michigan helmet, Rush's starman, an autobot symbol, and tomorrow I'm doing Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam. I never thought it possible either, but the guys I'm working with are serious artists, and using their methods you can put basically any design you can imagine on a pumpkin.

Borat clip

Here's the first four minutes of Borat's movie. Watch it while you can.

I would use heaphones if you're at work.

Voting

Here I go again, breaking one of my blog rules by talking politics. But it's election time. Long and boring alert.


Keeping in mind that the Republicans have already made their bed -- in short, they abandoned their good qualities, competent defence and frugality -- I'm upset at the Democrats. All they can do is say they won't be Republicans.

I want to know how, exactly, in detail, they plan to solve the Iraq problem. I want to know down to the nitty gritty, how they plan to reform FEMA to prevent another failed disaster response. What is their plan? I want to read at least the summary of what it is they're going to do (I'd like to hear the same from Repubs as well, but all we get there is "stay the course", though I notice in the last day Bush has moved away from that).

Instead I found this. You couldn't have summed up the problem with the overall Democratic strategy any better: we don't suck as bad as Republicans. Hell, it's probably true, but you can't run on that. No way am I going to reward that. It's not fair to base your vote on one poster from the internet, but parsing from my deluge of NPR, I sense this as the prevailing message coming from Dems.

"See the war? We didn't do that, except when we voted for it," is not a platform from which to woo skeptics.

Now I have to vote for the Libertarians again, you morons. You only had to climb a curb an inch high, to explain your ideas for solving all these problems you rightly attribute to poor leadership on the Repub's part. I can be forgiven for suspecting you don't have a plan other than taking power.

When it comes to the major parties in national offices, I refuse to vote against a party or candidate, I will only vote for one. Otherwise I protest vote, which isn't much better than abstaining. I don't have a default party, so I have to protest vote, again. I do this every time it seems. The last major party candidate I voted for was Al Gore, and it barely felt right then, because I was half voting against Dubya.

I don't particularly love the Libertarians, though I am a subscriber to Reason. I don't think the Libertarian Party proper ought to run any office higher than county or state house/senate. But since I know they won't win, at least the winner will see that a certain, hopefully non-trivial, percentage of his/her constituents lean libertarian enough to vote for them. That ought to help shape their policy.

For the record, because their actions of late have been so atrocious, I'm not voting for any Dem in any State of Washington office for the forseeable future. I doubt any of them really care, but that's what they get for blatantly throwing an election. I wouldn't vote Repub in Florida either. I've struggled with whether democracy exists in Washington, and if I should bother voting. Obviously, I've decided to vote, but I expect them to throw any close races to the Dems [editor's note: after voting, there were only a few cases where this came up, and I voted for the liberals anyway].

But I'm not adverse to voting for Dems on the national level. I'll give the Dems points for not pretending like they're going to reform the government. The Repubs took both houses with the promise of extensive reform, one which they obviously felched on. Funny how having money and influence increases one's appetite for such (there are tons of examples I don't feel like looking up).

But those aren't really the kind of points you want to rack up. That's basically saying, well they told us they were going to keep fleecing us, so it's our fault for voting them in anyway. Not exactly the feeling you want your voters to have, but slightly better than telling your voters you're going to stamp out corruption and then taking to it with enthusiasm. Is it any wonder I despise both parties? My options are thieving liars, versus thieves. Great.

I just realized I was wrong about the last major party candidate I voted for. I recall, I voted for Barak Obama for Senator from Illinois in the last election before I left. Now there's a Democrat I can follow. Why isn't he plastered all over the place? He's openly considering a 2008 presidential run. He should do it.

Charisma, stage presence, oratorical skills, call it what you will, but one thing undeniable from both sides is that one of Bush's key drawbacks is his mangling of the english language. And that hunched over cackling thing he does, that Jon Stewart hilariously mocks him for (worksafe video). Whether it's fair to go after Bush for his poor speaking skills or not, no leader of the free world ought to open himself up to such ridicule as this (worksafe video).

It's so baldfaced obvious that I can't believe I'm even saying this, but a real leader speaks his own language masterfully. How else are we going to win back the affection of the westernized democracies of the world (I would argue that we don't want the affection of the governments of the Irans, Sudans, and North Koreas)? You can't tell me that all the Iraq nonsense wasn't much more palatable coming from Blair's or Powell's lips than Bush's.

We need a leader who acts like one. Yes it's a form of comfortable window dressing rather than substance, but I'm confident that I can find someone with both substance and charisma. Reagan: heavy on charisma, light on substance. Bill Clinton: heavy on charisma, and moderate on substance (I say that because Clinton was a centrist who didn't over-delegate, but he didn't stick his neck out much either, your mileage may vary). Note that I'm just trying to show how you can assess a leader's qualities somewhat easily.

Clinton edges Reagan out in this one, I think, though it's impossible to really gauge, and that's not my point anyway. What I'm trying to say is that we shouldn't have to vote on charisma, but we do. Comparing two great leaders such as these forces you to come down to issues, and that's as it should be. I'm confident in saying Reagan was right for his time, and Clinton was right for his.

But let's look at charisma some more. Compare John Kerry to oh, Howard Dean. Kerry is about as inspiring as my coffee table. Dean at least made you shout at the TV, whether you loved him or hated him (go ahead and get your Yeeeaaarrrggghhh! jokes in so we can continue). How about W Bush and Rudy Giuliani? These are no brainers.

Joe Lieberman or Barak Obama. Dennis Kucinich or Hillary Clinton. These are so obvious, I don't know why I even have to say it. Why do obvious losers, like Kerry or Dole, keep getting nominated? It's because in the absence of a charismatic leader, voters settle on the least offensive candidate (plus in Kerry's case, most people thought his competition was weak, but that's not an excuse).

Good leaders: Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton. Bad leaders: Nixon, Carter, W Bush. Note that I'm not going by policy here, but inspiration.

Roosevelt only led America from regional power to superpower, and saved the free world in the process, from a wheelchair. Despite his misguided New Deal, he was so popular we had to change the Constitution. Kennedy called the Soviet's bluff and got the missiles out of Cuba. He started the Apollo Program and founded the Peace Corps. He openly cheated on his wife with a celebrity and still was considered a great man in his own time, a nearly impossible feat.

Reagan held the country in his hand. He could plunge the country into debt, move medium range nukes into Europe, stare the Soviets down, smack the table and shout Nyet!, and the country loved him for it. He's an American hero, an actor! Bill Clinton could tell you he felt your pain while ending the welfare state, and you'd believe him. He could seduce your sister and break up her marriage, and you'd still love him. Even feminists like him.

Nixon couldn't sweat his way out of a paper bag (I think history will be kinder to him than we are, and you know I have a thing for centrists -- he did found the EPA and OSHA -- but there's no debate about his lack of charisma). Jimmy Carter seems like a nice guy, but you don't go on national TV and say the country has a crisis of confidence, especially when you're the frickin' President. Lead, you dumbass. Dubya? Just read the news.

There's a salesman's adage that goes, if everyone likes it, it won't be a hit. The products/entertainment that succeed are loved by some and hated by others. Take for example: Hummers, Project Runway, and Rush.

I think there's an analogy to politics. No one is inspired by a flip flopper, by someone who tries to make everyone happy. That's one of the only things I'll give W; he sticks to his guns and isn't afraid to piss slightly less than half the country off, bad as his policy can be. That he pisses off considerably more, if polls are to be trusted, is a consequence of the reality of his policy decisions taking form.


And if I may get a couple years ahead of myself and be so bold/stupid as to make predictions: I know Hillary is going to run for President anyway, but please, please, Democrats, don't nominate her. She won't win. She's a loony right lightning rod. She's the equivalent of a mecha-Dubya with a Cheney-Rove-hybrid-clone on steroids at the controls.

The literal demonizing is so advanced, she's more or less satan. I'm not saying I would loathe a Hillary presidency, but she's not a winner. She may prove me wrong, however. Her ambition is unmatched. I like centrists and she's (IMO) wisely hewing to the Clinton Doctrine. I don't find her inspiring, but she would make a good VP.

You Dems need a Rove. Play the frickin' game already. I'm tired of one party winning just because it's better organized, though I don't find that in itself a negative quality. Let's level that playing field.

Why isn't Oliver Willis on your strategy team? I don't much go for his brand of gotcha politics, but you must see that he thinks strategically and acts out of love for his country.

He's playing the game, and he's good at it. I hope you at least read him, all you high level Dem campaigners who I'm sure are reading this (James Carville is calling his office as we speak).

Granted that I have zero zilch experience with running any campaign more complicated than a high school student council run for prez, here's what I would do with Hillary. I would let her run, make her look like the winner, let the right expend all its energy going after her, and then slide some Obama/somebody combination in there at the second to last minute that no one could refuse (Gore? McCain?).

I personally don't think Barak is a veep. I think he's a natural leader and needs to be up top. But I would vote for Gore/Obama. That's a winner. McCain, Lieberman, or Giuliani with Obama would be a slam dunk obvious winner, but none of those would make it past the primaries, assuming they could form a team anyway.

Lieberman is justifiably disliked by Dems for being disloyal, but he's more or less a centrist, and centrists win national elections. Center-right is better than hard-left. He doesn't have the charisma to pull it off though, hence Obama. The others wouldn't make it because they're pro-war.

I want to break my other rule and talk about the war for just a second. It's far too early to tell of course, but I don't think a dove can win the Presidency (aka "cut and run"). The candidate who wins will be someone who can get us out of Iraq and make it look like a glorious victory.

Well, either that or actually, ya know, winning the war, which I suppose isn't entirely hopeless. But I don't think the American people will stand for the sort of measures that would be necessary to take control at this point, i.e. a doubling or so of the troops there. So much for Rumsfeld's minimalism.

How could you pull either one off, pulling out or clamping down? Eloquence. Charisma. McCain could do that. Obama could do that. Kerry? Nope. Gore? Possibly. Dubya? Please.

You probably think I'm crazy for mixing Repubs and Dems, but I don't see much difference at all between them (discounting the fringes), and I see a combined ticket as the ultimate centrist. It's more or less arbitrary which party wins the White House, as long as no one party controls all the levers in Washington. Compared to the divisive politics in other countries, our major parties are almost identical.

You may think I'm putting too much emphasis on charisma, at the expense of policy. Reagan is one of the most loved of all the Presidents, and also may have been the least qualified for the post. Even W had more credentials (aka grooming). But that doesn't mean he wasn't effective. A charismatic ideologue can go a long way (er, so can an uncharismatic ideologue, but we're not going there).

Like his legacy or not, Reagan was a leader. He got shit done, and the majority of Americans felt good about it. That's about as good a job description for "President" as I can think of. Same with Clinton, though he wasn't quite as forceful on the world stage (which is neither here nor there). You can't ask for much more than that.

I'm not discounting the importance of issues: the war, the environment, the war, civil liberties, the war, taxes, the war, etc. Perhaps I'm naively assuming that any leader who is inspiring will have plausible solutions to these problems, so I don't care much which party this magical candidate comes from. I can dream.

What I want to see is the Legislative and Executive branches split between the parties, and right now that means voting for Democrats. It doesn't matter much which party controls which, so long as the power is divided and the President is an inspiring leader domestically and globally, someone who can make America's case on the world stage while making us feel good about it. Like it or not, we lead a large portion of the world, and that has to be taken into account now more than ever.



Wow, I almost talked myself into voting Democratic. Well, I'm putting my ballot in the mail tomorrow, so I'll let you know what I decide.


UPDATE: Not really an update since I haven't published this post yet, but whatever.

I voted for the Libertarian for Senator. Cantwell (Dem) has the race locked up by about 10 points, so I didn't see the harm. I also voted for an Independent for the House seat. There's no chance of the Dem losing considering that my district is basically Seattle, but there was no way I was voting for a guy who visited Saddam Hussein in 2002. Oppose the war, fine, but that's going way over the line. Jerk.

There were a bunch of common sense ballot measures that I voted for, like forcing any for-profit sports team to fairly compensate the city for services, etc. There was a bizarre measure to basically shut down strip clubs that I voted against.

There were a bunch of judges and whatnot running unopposed that I abstained from. I'm not going to bother looking them up if they're going to win anyway, but I'm also not going to vote for them. If someone runs a successful write-in campaign for city council position 8 or whatever, I'm not going to stand in their way.

I raised an eyebrow at the few measures that put in place emergency measures in case of a disaster. They're good ideas and I voted for them, but it was a bit disconcerting to see contingencies for what to do if several city council members are killed, or what to do if city hall is destroyed.


I also voted against evey tax increase and for every decrease, though I doubt it matters much. If I thought for a second the sales tax increase was really for what they claim it is, and that it was temporary, then maybe I'd vote for it.

But sales tax in Seattle is already a usuress 8.8% (yes, I know actual usury is higher, it's 12% in Washington, I'm using a rhetorical trick called "hyperbole"). That's why you'll never see me grocery shopping in Seattle, but in one of our close neighbors. Could Seattle's economy absorb another 0.1% drain? Yeah, probably. But I'm not going to vote for it.

There was also a measure to eliminate the estate tax (aka "death" tax) in the state, which I voted for (not to be confused with the federal estate tax, which is another matter). I was conflicted about this one, but I went with my instincts.

Most people see this as benefiting the Bill Gates of the world, because the tax only applies to estates of $1.5 million or more, but I disagree. Gates et al have hordes of lawyers who have squirreled his fortune away into so many trust funds and shelters that his heirs and benefactors will see almost all of it. He can afford that kind of protection.

It's the middle class who pays this tax the most, because most don't even realize they could set up a trust that doesn't "die" when the principle trustee actually dies. The funds or properties or whatever it is, is owned by the trust, not a person. So when the rich person dies, the trust continues, and can continue to distribute its funds as the main trustee sees fit, thereby avoiding the estate or "death" tax. All it needs is to have a mechanism for electing a new main trustee (the proper terms are escaping me right now), and you can hand that money down in perpetuity.

I'm harping on this because this is one of the main ways the medium guy gets screwed in America. You might think $1.5 million is so high it doesn't apply to you, but look again. That's not as much money as you may think it is. Add up all your parents' properties and stuff plus the nestegg they probably didn't tell you about, and you'd be surprised.

Anyone with a good paying job should have saved up at least that much over the course of their life anyway. You are putting money into your retirement, aren't you? Don't make me come over there and smack you.

I'm not going to list numbers, but I was able to sock away a year's salary in about 4 years. Let's say I made 50k a year (not true, but close enough). That means in 30 years I would have $1.5 million, assuming no raises and not counting for appreciation which you can expect to be about 5-10%, unless you do something stupid like put too much money in one stock. Knowing all four of my readers, I know you guys are going to make more than that, so a $1.5 million estate isn't implausible at all.

This is hardly rigorous, but I think it serves well as a back-of-the-napkin calculation. I'm still wondering if I did the right thing here, but I think it's more defensible than voting to keep the estate tax. I look forward to the input of my lawyer and semi-lawyer readers.

Obviously Washington and Seattle need to get revenue from somewhere, and since Washington lacks an income tax, it makes sense they'd make up for it in sales, property, or estate tax. But there's no way I'm voting for an increase. That's like voting for a ban on mini-skirts (or for smaller dicks, from the women's perspective). It just doesn't make any sense.

If the various levels of government want to re-allocate funds or [gasp!] be more efficient, then go ahead, but they have enough net as it is. I expect the results to be opposite of how I voted, however.


I hope the fact that I kind of ripped up the envelope and taped it back together doesn't invalidate my vote. I would assume my ballot would be invalidated if either the Senate or House race somehow became close. But I didn't vote for the Repub, so it will probably still count.

I'm surprised that we have to pay postage on absentee ballots. Isn't that a form of poll tax? It's only 63 cents, and you can drop them off for free at any polling place, but still. File that one next to "Why isn't election day a holiday?"

I always sign up for absentee ballots. That way I can sit at home and peruse the internet for information while I vote. Plus I actually won't be in Seattle on election day anyway, though I didn't know that when I requested an absentee ballot. I don't know why everyone doesn't do it this way, like the entire State of Oregon.


Thoughts? Please continue the discussion.

Censoring Iraq

I don't usually go for the war topic here, but when someone as pro-war and sympathetic to the military as Michael Yon takes them to task so vociferously, I take notice.

Sorry for the extended quotes. There's lots more there that I left out. Emphasis is mine.

...

For generations journalists have been allowed to "embed" with various U.S. military units, including infantry outfits. Infantry is perhaps the most dangerous, underpaid, and unglamorous job on the planet. Infantrymen are called grunts, trigger-pullers, cannon fodder, and ground-pounders. Long hours, low pay, and death, death, death. If they survive, they get a welcome-home party. Sometimes. And that's it: Thanks. In World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, reporters were given wide latitude to travel with the infantry, even if few could stand it for long. Up to last year, this war was no different. A journalist could stay out with the infantry for as long as he could take it. I spent most of 2005 in Iraq, and most of that was with infantry units in combat.

...

I believe now as I did then: The government of the United States has no right to send our people off to war and keep secret that which it has no plausible military reason to keep secret. After all, American blood and treasure is being spent. Americans should know how our soldiers are doing, and what they are doing while wearing our flag. The government has no right to withhold information or to deny access to our combat forces just because that information might anger, frighten, or disturb us.

By allowing only a trickle of news to come out of Iraq, when all involved parties know the flow could be more robust, the Pentagon is doing just that. ...

This information blockade is occurring at the same time that the Pentagon is outsourcing millions of dollars to public relations firms to shape the news. ...

Our military enjoys supremely onesided air and weapons superiority, but this is practically irrelevant in a counterinsurgency where the centers of gravity for the battle are public opinion in Iraq, Afghanistan, Europe, and at home. The enemy trumps our jets and satellites with supremely onesided media superiority. The lowest level terror cells have their own film crews. While al Sahab hums along winning battle after propaganda battle, the bungling gatekeepers at the Combined Press Information Center (CPIC) reciprocate with ridiculous and costly obstacles that deter embedded media covering our forces, ultimately causing harm to only one side: ours. And they get away with it because in any conflict that can be portrayed as U.S. military versus media, the public reflexively sides with the military [editor's note: I think that depends on who you ask].

...

Although the number of embeds is in constant flux, on the day of Major Pool's report there was approximately one independent journalist for every 75,000 troops. Most embeds last for a matter of days. So, how are our troops doing in Iraq? Afghanistan? Who knows?

The bulk of the reporting on Iraq comes from the "Baghdad News Bureaus"--the mainstream media correspondents who, because of the danger, generally gather information from the safety of their fortresses by using Iraqi stringers. But there are people who would go to war and report on our troops. ... Yet when Walt and I requested embeds, Lieutenant Colonel Barry Johnson, the director of the Combined Press Information Center, dismissed both requests out of hand.

Apparently being openly pro-military and pro-war doesn't tow the line enough. It's bizarre and counterproductive behavior on the Pentagon's part. Surely they know this is a media war, and that public perception is the fulcrum upon which success and failure teeter? Do they?

Maybe this is why Yon can't get approved for an embed:

During the beginning of the war, when some of us called an insurgency an insurgency, our patriotism was questioned. Is there any question now? Are there just a few "dead-enders" that we are still "mopping up"? When I called a civil war a civil war a full year ahead of the media, out came the dogs. When I predicted success in Mosul even while the guns were hot, many mainstream journalists thought I was hallucinating. But these were all things I learned from being embedded for months with our troops. There was tremendous progress in Iraq in 2005, and I reported it, all while warning about the growing civil war that could undermine everything. ...

Early this spring, when I reported from Afghan farms about this year's bumper opium crop, people thought I was using that opium. Now it is common knowledge that the opium trade is fueling a Taliban comeback. Mark this on your calendar: Spring of 2007 will be a bloodbath in Afghanistan for NATO forces. Our British, Canadian, Australian, Dutch, and other allies will be slaughtered in Afghanistan if they dare step off base in the southern provinces, and nobody is screaming at the tops of their media-lungs about the impending disaster. I would not be surprised to see a NATO base overrun in Afghanistan in 2007 with all the soldiers killed or captured. And when it happens, how many will claim they had no idea it was so bad and blame the media for failing to raise the alarm? Here it is: WARNING! Troops in Afghanistan are facing slaughter in 2007!

Yikes. When Yon says something like that, you better listen.

If our military cannot win the easy media battles with writers who are unashamed to say they want to win the war, there is no chance of winning the hearts and minds of Afghans and Iraqis, and both wars will be lost.

Let's hope he's overstating it, but I fear he isn't.

Just an observation

Women, you don't want a thoughtful nice guy. You want a loudmouth prick who barges into your personal space and spits outrageous lies about himself until you drop your panties.

That's how whoring yourself out on Craigslist as a handyman becomes a "home remodeling business". Aren't you even the least bit curious how one guy can run three separate businesses and yet still have time to hang around bars shitfaced on Tuesday nights until 2am?

You couldn't sense a solid man if he bit you on the ass. You want to know why all men are dicks? Because that's what you want. You don't fuck nice guys. You fuck assholes with stories. You brought this upon yourselves.

Now I'm off to unlock my inner jerk so I can get laid, you stupid bitches.

animosity? surely not!

Pork

No, I'm not talking about earmarks or pork in the politically wasteful sense. I want to discuss that wonderful, magical animal that gives us bacon, ham, and pork chops.

Why is pork the greatest of all the meats? Is it because it's juicy, succulent and delicious? Yes, of course. When cooked right, and not burned. My trichnosis obsessed mother tainted my early experiences with pork, but there's something more to it.

It's forbidden fruit. Muslims and Jews won't eat it, and to my bewilderment, neither will one of my friends for non-religious, non-vegetarian reasons. I'm certainly not the first to say, they have no idea what they're missing. Every bite is that much more enjoyable knowing that I am among the elite few who gets to ingest such a lovely meal.

Right now I'm supping on two-inch thick chops that were marinated for three days in soy sauce, brown sugar, sherry, fresh garlic, and fresh ginger. I reduced the marinade and used it to carmelize the outside to a perfect sugary crisp. The juicy middle is bursting with garlic and ginger flavor. It's, and I don't say this lightly, fabulous. No wonder there's so much trouble in the Middle East.

It amazes me when people let god be a negative factor in their lives. What gives? Pork up you dumb shits! And encourage sluttetry among your women while you're at it. We'll all be alot better off.

Fucking with telemarketers

Ever since I went 100% cellphone, this hasn't been a problem. Either way, I think we can all get some satisfaction out of the greatest telemarketer fuck-with of all time (audio, starts immediately, worksafe, but I'd put on the heaphones rather than let this one play outloud).

Skewed perception

I've posted a few times on 'before and after' shots of models, where they airbrush out all the imperfections. Keeping in that vein, here's an interesting time lapse video (worksafe) on the whole process, from attractive woman to "hot" billboard model, including the photoshopping. Fascinating, really.

As the video states, no wonder our perception of beauty is distorted.

I still likes me the hot ladies, of course, but this level of beauty is clearly unnattainable.

Saturn has ring of pearls

Scientists have discovered a "ring of pearls" around Saturn's northern hemisphere.

Hee, hee! Ring of pearls! Get it?

[wait for it, wait for it]

Too bad there's no ring of pearls around Uranus (ba dum bum).


Obviously not much to talk about.

Traveling again

I'm on the way to DC for a funeral. Not the best of pretenses to be traveling under, but at least I get to see family I haven't seen in a long time, plus some old friends along my travel route.

United screwed me over with the online checkin again. Last time I tried to checkin online, after they sent me an email reminding me to do so, and it wouldn't let me. Of course I got a crap seat.

This time I got no reminder email, and it slipped my mind. When I remembered, I figured they'd stopped that service and I'd have to checkin at the airport regardless. To be safe I tried anyway, and lo and behold, not only can you checkin online for this flight, but all the seats were taken.

I may not make my flight at all. I am currently on standby. This won't be much of a consolation to my bereaved family out east. Why I continue to fly on United Airlines is a mystery.

At least I avoided a connection at O'Hare this time. O'Hare is a great place to kill time, but who wants to kill time at an airport? Other than that, I effin' hate O'Hare. I have nothing against the workers there, it's just unbelievably off the scale too big.

Take any good sized regional airport and multiply it by 5 (there are actually 5 separate terminals, each of which is the size of a "normal" airport terminal). And may god help you if you've got to switch terminals. Let's just say you better have at least an hour layover.

Because of O'Hare's immense size, too many planes are trying to use too few runways and every single flight is delayed. I've been on the plane waiting for takeoff when the captain announced that we were number 40 something in line. I've circled the airspace no less than three times waiting to land. One of my friends from Chicago considered the flight time on his ticket to be the time he should arrive at the airport, assuming every flight was going to be at least 30 minutes late. He never missed a flight.

Instead I got Denver for my transfer, an airport I haven't been to since spring break my senior year in highschool, 10.5 years ago. It was brand new then and I recall it fondly, but that's mostly because security didn't confiscate my booze (I was 18).

Since I probably won't be blogging at all for a week, I'll leave you with this nugget of wisdom on the difference between men and women (video, worksafe as long as you don't follow any links). Maybe there's something to the Arab way of looking at things afterall...

And I thought military specs from the 70's were bafflingly arcane

Don't know how true this is, but it sure is a good story.

Does the statement, "We've always done it like that" ring any bells?

The US standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches. That's an exceedingly odd number. Why was that gauge used?

Because that's the way they built them in England, and English expatriates built US Railroads. Why did the English build them like that?

Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used.

Why did "they" use that gauge then?

Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons, which used that wheel spacing.

Okay! Why did the wagons have that particular odd wheel spacing?

Well, if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would break on some of the old, long distance roads in England, because that's the spacing of the wheel ruts.

So who built those old rutted roads? Imperial Rome built the first long distance roads in Europe (and England) for their legions. The roads have been used ever since. And the ruts in the roads?

Roman war chariots formed the initial ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagon wheels. Since the chariots were made for Imperial Rome, they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing. The United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches is derived from the original specifications for an Imperial Roman war chariot. And bureaucracies live forever.

So the next time you are handed a specification and wonder what horse's ass came up with it, you may be exactly right, because the Imperial Roman army chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the back ends of two war horses.

Now, a twist to the story. When you see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are solid rocket boosters, or Serbs.

The Serbs are made by Thiokol at their factory at Utah. The engineers who designed the Serbs would have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the Serbs had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site.

The railroad line from the factory happens to run through a tunnel in the mountains.

The Serbs had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track, as you now know, is about as wide as two horses' behinds.

So, a major Space Shuttle design feature of what is arguably the world's most advanced transportation system was determined over two thousand years ago by the width of a horse's ass.

Edited a bit for spelling and spacing. Lifted from here.

UPDATE: Of course Garlic had to go and ruin my fun.

Lunch slots

Put in your zip code and let the lunch slots machine give you three restaurant options. I could see this being useful.

5000 years of Middle East history in 90 seconds

Interesting animated map showing who has controlled the Middle East from 3000 BC to now.

Appeasement

To those out there who thought the Danes shouldn't have shown the Mohammed cartoons, or the blame for the riots after the Pope made some provocative comments lies squarely with the Pope, or that Comedy Central was wise in forcing South Park to black out the innocuous image of Mohammed, I present you with the predictable result of your philosophy:

'Ban Harry Potter or face more school shootings'

A woman who maintains that the Harry Potter books are an attempt to teach children witchcraft is pushing for the second time to have them banned from school libraries.

Laura Mallory, a mother of four from the Atlanta suburb of Loganville, told a Georgia Board of Education officer that the books by British author J.K. Rowling, sought to indoctrinate children as Wiccans, or practitioners of religious witchcraft.

Referring to the recent rash of deadly assaults at schools, Mallory said books that promote evil - as she claims the Potter ones do - help foster the kind of culture where school shootings happen.

That would not happen if students instead read the Bible, Mallory said [editor's note: I wonder exactly how influential the Wiccan faith is in the Amish community?].

...

Gee, sure is a nice grade school full a kids ya got here. Would be quite a shame if somethin' were to happen to it.

Congratulations. You've taught every nut with a conviction that the most effective way to get what you want is to threaten violence, even indirectly. Reap/sow, etc.

Allergy free cat

These supposedly allergy free kittens are only $5000.

I say "supposedly" because I had one not long ago and I didn't think they were "allergy free" at all. In fact, I sneezed through the entire meal.

Is using the cavuto underhanded? Hey, I'm just askin' here

The credit probably actually goes to an unknown writer, but Jon Stewart coined the word "cavuto" on The Daily Show. It refers to a question mark put at the end of a sentence in order to make it appear that you're not asserting that statement, it's just up for discussion.

Neil Cavuto does this alot. The prime example is in this video, wherein he innocently asks the question if Bush is "The best President?"

I won't spoil the jokes, just go watch it.

Saudi comedy mocks fundamentalists

Since I recently posted on how Muslims/Arabs should tolerate humor at their expense, it seems only fair to point out this popular Arab show that pokes fun at their own extremists. This is exactly what they need. And it comes from the Saudis, no less.

Earlier this week “Tash” devoted its hour-long program on extremism. In one segment, titled “Terrorism Academy” (based on the popular programs like “Star Academy” where people compete before a panel of judges [editor's note: we call this "American Idol"]) the host, a Lebanese woman in a flirtatious evening gown, awards the winner a belt of explosives.

Of course, it's not all fun and games over there.

According to some Jeddawi residents, the show has been attacked by local imams. One resident said a preacher strongly criticized the show’s producers on a cassette sermon being distributed: “The preacher said ‘May Allah throw them into hell’.”

On the other hand, there are the supporting crowd who argue what was said is nothing but the truth.

“We control our own image, not the West. The show was making fun of terrorists by satirizing their warped perceptions of Islam. I think the show was a defense of Islam, personally,” said Abu Nasser, adding that Saudis should have more of a sense of humor about issues that affect their lives.

This is very healthy for Muslim/Arab society. A strong adaptable society is one which allows unfettered mockery. Here's another article with more detail about the show's skits.


And in other news, AL Qaeda has a 94% disapproval rating in Iraq. If you merely scratch the surface on Middle Eastern affairs, you'll see that they're not all about "death to the infidel" and all that. The majority are normal peaceful people over there.

Hopefully this post dispells at least some Islamophobia anyone was harboring. That said, it doesn't bother me at all if our guys torture an honest to god terrorist. Fuck them, I always say.