They'll be handy in Arkansas:
Former US president Bill Clinton has been offered 40 goats and 20 cows for his daughter by a love-struck African government official.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
A Nice Pair Of Hooters
Update: In the interest of contributing more juvenilia, I hereby suggest that the target consumers for these boxers are optimistic men, novelty lovers, and Bill Clinton.
Sunday, July 17, 2005
Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince
I finished this last night, after 11 hours (including meal and breaks).
For most of the book, the main plot is about searching for a plot: It is basically a murder mystery in reverse, leading up to the shocking, though not terribly surprising, death of a major character. "Half-Blood Prince" also ties up several loose ends from earlier volumes, "Chamber of Secrets" in particular, while providing heavy doses of exposition for the final tome. The rest of the book is the more familiar chronicling of life in the wizarding world, which from a logical standpoint is overshadowed by the growing forces of darkness, but from a dramatic standpoint is therefore no longer as fascinating.
J.K. Rowling's writing improved in some ways, being less gimmicky and continuing her pattern of treating the reader as wiser with each book. At the same time, her style is looser, less interested in providing a tight narrative. I love the book, but several chapters could have used a trim.
Apart from the brutal third act, the book is not as dark as "Order of the Phoenix". Although the deaths pile higher than ever before, there is, as one character opines, a bit more love in the world. And a bit more humor: There are dozens of throwaway gags, with more hits than misses, and the magnificently odd Luna Lovegood returns. Plus Harry does not SHOUT as much, having thankfully learned how to handle some of his angst; indeed, a scene where he calmly yet firmly expresses his loyalties stands out in my mind as one of the most genuinely mature passages in the series--Rowling apparently recognized this too, as she provides a reprise.
Now, how long till book seven?
Buy Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
For most of the book, the main plot is about searching for a plot: It is basically a murder mystery in reverse, leading up to the shocking, though not terribly surprising, death of a major character. "Half-Blood Prince" also ties up several loose ends from earlier volumes, "Chamber of Secrets" in particular, while providing heavy doses of exposition for the final tome. The rest of the book is the more familiar chronicling of life in the wizarding world, which from a logical standpoint is overshadowed by the growing forces of darkness, but from a dramatic standpoint is therefore no longer as fascinating.
J.K. Rowling's writing improved in some ways, being less gimmicky and continuing her pattern of treating the reader as wiser with each book. At the same time, her style is looser, less interested in providing a tight narrative. I love the book, but several chapters could have used a trim.
Apart from the brutal third act, the book is not as dark as "Order of the Phoenix". Although the deaths pile higher than ever before, there is, as one character opines, a bit more love in the world. And a bit more humor: There are dozens of throwaway gags, with more hits than misses, and the magnificently odd Luna Lovegood returns. Plus Harry does not SHOUT as much, having thankfully learned how to handle some of his angst; indeed, a scene where he calmly yet firmly expresses his loyalties stands out in my mind as one of the most genuinely mature passages in the series--Rowling apparently recognized this too, as she provides a reprise.
Now, how long till book seven?
Buy Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Young Belarus Rallies For Freedom
This sounds promising:
"I am 23 years old. I was 19 when I joined Zubr. I was still a student at the Belarusian literature faculty," said the strong-voiced blonde, sitting in a Minsk cafe.
Shortly after the founding in January 2001 of the Zubr group (named after the European bison found in Belarus' forests) "we carried out our first action -- carrying posters of the disappeared in public," she recalls.
The pictures included those of reporter Dmitry Zavadsky and politician Viktor Gonchar, both kidnapped and, according to the opposition, killed by the authorities.
Since then, Tustsik has participated in a series of "performances" intended to "stir up public opinion."
The group declares its aims as establishing democracy in Belarus.
They are aiming high. Now to keep it up.
"I am 23 years old. I was 19 when I joined Zubr. I was still a student at the Belarusian literature faculty," said the strong-voiced blonde, sitting in a Minsk cafe.
Shortly after the founding in January 2001 of the Zubr group (named after the European bison found in Belarus' forests) "we carried out our first action -- carrying posters of the disappeared in public," she recalls.
The pictures included those of reporter Dmitry Zavadsky and politician Viktor Gonchar, both kidnapped and, according to the opposition, killed by the authorities.
Since then, Tustsik has participated in a series of "performances" intended to "stir up public opinion."
The group declares its aims as establishing democracy in Belarus.
They are aiming high. Now to keep it up.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Funding The London Olympic Games
As they should, the Games will go forward despite the terrorist attacks. But Johnathan Pearce at Samizdata made some observations about the power of the state prior to the bombing that are worth noting as Londoners press forward, if only to prevent being hit in the pocketbook on both defense and entertainment. This suggestion seems credible:
Asset-backed securities are an increasingly common source of funding in our capital markets. Even pop star David Bowie, demonstrating the sort of business savvy common in the pop world, has issued bonds using his record sales as collateral. Why not issue "Olympic Bonds" with 20 or 30-year maturities to pay for the Games?
And more good wishes from across the sea, Britain.
Asset-backed securities are an increasingly common source of funding in our capital markets. Even pop star David Bowie, demonstrating the sort of business savvy common in the pop world, has issued bonds using his record sales as collateral. Why not issue "Olympic Bonds" with 20 or 30-year maturities to pay for the Games?
And more good wishes from across the sea, Britain.
Confused?
There may be an explanation:
We appear to be witnessing a new experience of male insecurity and confusion. Half of all men in the research agreed that their role in society is unclear. This ranged from 36 percent of Indian men to a staggering 64 percent of French men."
Likewise, 50 percent of American men surveyed stated they were unsure of their place in society, the report stated.
Personally, I blame Barry Manilow.
We appear to be witnessing a new experience of male insecurity and confusion. Half of all men in the research agreed that their role in society is unclear. This ranged from 36 percent of Indian men to a staggering 64 percent of French men."
Likewise, 50 percent of American men surveyed stated they were unsure of their place in society, the report stated.
Personally, I blame Barry Manilow.
Saturday, July 09, 2005
Friday, July 08, 2005
Chicken Hawks Up
"'But if there are many of these ruffians,' said Merry, 'it will certainly mean fighting. You won't rescue Lotho, or the Shire, just by being shocked and sad, my dear Frodo.'" - J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
As a pejorative referring to someone who supports a war but does not fight in it, might "chickenhawk" be perilously broad?
Because I am, as defined here, a chickenhawk myself, you may take the following cum grano salis, but I take it as something worth writing.
The armed forces are not for everyone, for reasons that may have nothing to do with cowardice or confidence in the fight. People have emotional limitations, or physical limitations, or obligations that, while no greater than their perceived duties as citizens, weigh too heavily on their wills. These people speak out precisely because they acknowledge that they are unable to be soldiers, or sailors, or airmen, or marines, but they do want to contribute. They spread the word, they arrange care packages, they secure the fort at home--all through the belief that this support is preferable to none. Those who put their lives on the line for what is right are the personification of nobility, and I cheer them and argue for them for doing what others, including me, can not or will not. But for what I do, I hope touches those men and women made of stronger stuff than me.
Update: Eve Garrard, writing at Normblog: For we can equally ask of those who were and remain against the war whether they were themselves, in their own or their children's persons, prepared to incur the consequences attendant on that war not having been waged.
As a pejorative referring to someone who supports a war but does not fight in it, might "chickenhawk" be perilously broad?
Because I am, as defined here, a chickenhawk myself, you may take the following cum grano salis, but I take it as something worth writing.
The armed forces are not for everyone, for reasons that may have nothing to do with cowardice or confidence in the fight. People have emotional limitations, or physical limitations, or obligations that, while no greater than their perceived duties as citizens, weigh too heavily on their wills. These people speak out precisely because they acknowledge that they are unable to be soldiers, or sailors, or airmen, or marines, but they do want to contribute. They spread the word, they arrange care packages, they secure the fort at home--all through the belief that this support is preferable to none. Those who put their lives on the line for what is right are the personification of nobility, and I cheer them and argue for them for doing what others, including me, can not or will not. But for what I do, I hope touches those men and women made of stronger stuff than me.
Update: Eve Garrard, writing at Normblog: For we can equally ask of those who were and remain against the war whether they were themselves, in their own or their children's persons, prepared to incur the consequences attendant on that war not having been waged.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Words Fail: London
My prayers up front to the victims of the London attacks, my solidarity behind the survivors, and my contempt upon the perpetrators.
As for those already wondering whether Britain will fight or, like Madrid, fold: At this point, I don't give a damn. Many are certain to make a stand against this evil, in some way at some time, so let the bastards worry about what the United Kingdom is going to do next. The rest of us, Britons specifically and especially, have more urgent concerns.
Deepest condolences and love to you, People of Great Britain.
Update: It didn't take long for the "you have yourself to blame" crowd to spill their bile in England.
Update II: A heartfelt message to the Secret Organisation of al Qaeda in Europe: Screw yourselves.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Zarqawi Not A Lefty
Foul-mouthed terrorist Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi has harsh words concerning right-wingers unhinged enough to try comparing members of the anti-war crowd to "freedom fighters" like himself.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Wanted: Judicial-Free Supreme Court Justice
There are limits to how broadly one can reasonably define conditions for a judicial appointment...
A Republican planning document provided to The Washington Post described the need to avoid disclosing the nominee's "personal political views or legal thinking on any issue."
Barring personal politics is appropriate, but taking the 'legal' out of the judiciary? Nope. Uh-uh. And Republicans are going to burn themselves if planning like this keeps up. The decline of the judicial branch is already under way, and a centrist or libertarian could help reverse the trend, but political tricks like the above will only increase the statist hegemony no matter how worthy the appointee. It should be about the law, period. A short-term "up-or-down vote" or condemnation of "judicial activism" or issue-based nomination means little if the process continues a long-term rot.
A Republican planning document provided to The Washington Post described the need to avoid disclosing the nominee's "personal political views or legal thinking on any issue."
Barring personal politics is appropriate, but taking the 'legal' out of the judiciary? Nope. Uh-uh. And Republicans are going to burn themselves if planning like this keeps up. The decline of the judicial branch is already under way, and a centrist or libertarian could help reverse the trend, but political tricks like the above will only increase the statist hegemony no matter how worthy the appointee. It should be about the law, period. A short-term "up-or-down vote" or condemnation of "judicial activism" or issue-based nomination means little if the process continues a long-term rot.
Monday, July 04, 2005
July 4, 2005
To celebrate Independence Day, how about a few words on the United States of America's national anthem? It is awkward to sing, its third stanza openly offends our British brethren, the religious fourth stanza openly offends our neighborhood atheists, and the entire thing uses the tune of an old song about beer and sex. As a national anthem, it is terrifically problematic. So here is a reassuring commentary from the late, great Isaac Asimov, reprinted in its entirety...
I have a weakness--I am crazy, absolutely nuts, about our national anthem.
The words are difficult and the tune is almost impossible, but frequently when I'm taking a shower I sing it with as much power and emotion as I can. It shakes me up every time.
I was once asked to speak at a luncheon. Taking my life in my hands, I announced I was going to sing our national anthem--all four stanzas.
This was greeted with loud groans. One man closed the door to the kitchen, where the noise of dishes and cutlery was loud and distracting. "Thanks, Herb," I said.
"That's all right," he said. "It was at the request of the kitchen staff."
I explained the background of the anthem and then sang all four stanzas.
Let me tell you, those people had never heard it before--or had never really listened. I got a standing ovation. But it was not me; it was the anthem.
More recently, while conducting a seminar, I told my students the story of the anthem and sang all four stanzas. Again there was a wild ovation and prolonged applause. And again, it was the anthem and not me.
So now let me tell you how it came to be written.
In 1812, the United States went to war with Great Britain, primarily over freedom of the seas. We were in the right. For two years, we held off the British, even though we were still a rather weak country. Great Britain was in a life and death struggle with Napoleon. In fact, just as the United States declared war, Napoleon marched off to invade Russia. If he won, as everyone expected, he would control Europe, and Great Britain would be isolated. It was no time for her to be involved in an American war.
At first, our seamen proved better than the British. After we won a battle on Lake Erie in 1813, the American commander, Oliver Hazard Perry, sent the message "We have met the enemy and they are ours." However, the weight of the British navy beat down our ships eventually. New England, hard-hit by a tightening blockade, threatened secession.
Meanwhile, Napoleon was beaten in Russia and in 1814 was forced to abdicate. Great Britain now turned its attention to the United States, launching a three-pronged attack. The northern prong was to come down Lake Champlain toward New York and seize parts of New England.
The southern prong was to go up the Mississippi, take New Orleans and paralyze the west. The central prong was to head for the mid-Atlantic states and then attack Baltimore, the greatest port south of New York. If Baltimore was taken, the nation, which still hugged the Atlantic coast, could be split in two. The fate of the United States, then, rested to a large extent on the success or failure of the central prong.
The British reached the American coast, and on August 24, 1814, took Washington, D. C. Then they moved up the Chesapeake Bay toward Baltimore. On September 12, they arrived and found 1000 men in Fort McHenry, whose guns controlled the harbor. If the British wished to take Baltimore, they would have to take the fort.
On one of the British ships was an aged physician, William Beanes, who had been arrested in Maryland and brought along as a prisoner. Francis Scott Key, a lawyer and friend of the physician, had come to the ship to negotiate his release. The British captain was willing, but the two Americans would have to wait. It was now the night of September 13, and the bombardment of Fort McHenry was about to start.
As twilight deepened, Key and Beanes saw the American flag flying over Fort McHenry. Through the night, they heard bombs bursting and saw the red glare of rockets. They knew the fort was resisting and the American flag was still flying. But toward morning the bombardment ceased, and a dread silence fell. Either Fort McHenry had surrendered and the British flag flew above it, or the bombardment had failed and the American flag still flew.
As dawn began to brighten the eastern sky, Key and Beanes stared out at the fort, tyring to see which flag flew over it. He and the physician must have asked each other over and over, "Can you see the flag?"
After it was all finished, Key wrote a four stanza poem telling the events of the night. Called "The Defence of Fort M'Henry," it was published in newspapers and swept the nation. Someone noted that the words fit an old English tune called "To Anacreon in Heaven" --a difficult melody with an uncomfortably large vocal range. For obvious reasons, Key's work became known as "The Star Spangled Banner," and in 1931 Congress declared it the official anthem of the United States.
Now that you know the story, here are the words. Presumably, the old doctor is speaking. This is what he asks Key
Oh! say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof thro' the night that our flag was still there.
Oh! say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave,
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
"Ramparts," in case you don't know, are the protective walls or other elevations that surround a fort. The first stanza asks a question. The second gives an answer
On the shore, dimly seen thro' the mist of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep.
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream
'Tis the star-spangled banner. Oh! long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
"The towering steep" is again, the ramparts. The bombardment has failed, and the British can do nothing more but sail away, their mission a failure.
In the third stanza, I feel Key allows himself to gloat over the American triumph. In the aftermath of the bombardment, Key probably was in no mood to act otherwise.
During World War II, when the British were our staunchest allies, this third stanza was not sung. However, I know it, so here it is
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
The fourth stanza, a pious hope for the future, should be sung more slowly than the other three and with even deeper feeling.
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation,
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n - rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, for our cause is just,
And this be our motto--"In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
I hope you will look at the national anthem with new eyes. Listen to it, the next time you have a chance, with new ears.
And don't let them ever take it away.
--Isaac Asimov, March 1991
Happy Fourth, America!
I have a weakness--I am crazy, absolutely nuts, about our national anthem.
The words are difficult and the tune is almost impossible, but frequently when I'm taking a shower I sing it with as much power and emotion as I can. It shakes me up every time.
I was once asked to speak at a luncheon. Taking my life in my hands, I announced I was going to sing our national anthem--all four stanzas.
This was greeted with loud groans. One man closed the door to the kitchen, where the noise of dishes and cutlery was loud and distracting. "Thanks, Herb," I said.
"That's all right," he said. "It was at the request of the kitchen staff."
I explained the background of the anthem and then sang all four stanzas.
Let me tell you, those people had never heard it before--or had never really listened. I got a standing ovation. But it was not me; it was the anthem.
More recently, while conducting a seminar, I told my students the story of the anthem and sang all four stanzas. Again there was a wild ovation and prolonged applause. And again, it was the anthem and not me.
So now let me tell you how it came to be written.
In 1812, the United States went to war with Great Britain, primarily over freedom of the seas. We were in the right. For two years, we held off the British, even though we were still a rather weak country. Great Britain was in a life and death struggle with Napoleon. In fact, just as the United States declared war, Napoleon marched off to invade Russia. If he won, as everyone expected, he would control Europe, and Great Britain would be isolated. It was no time for her to be involved in an American war.
At first, our seamen proved better than the British. After we won a battle on Lake Erie in 1813, the American commander, Oliver Hazard Perry, sent the message "We have met the enemy and they are ours." However, the weight of the British navy beat down our ships eventually. New England, hard-hit by a tightening blockade, threatened secession.
Meanwhile, Napoleon was beaten in Russia and in 1814 was forced to abdicate. Great Britain now turned its attention to the United States, launching a three-pronged attack. The northern prong was to come down Lake Champlain toward New York and seize parts of New England.
The southern prong was to go up the Mississippi, take New Orleans and paralyze the west. The central prong was to head for the mid-Atlantic states and then attack Baltimore, the greatest port south of New York. If Baltimore was taken, the nation, which still hugged the Atlantic coast, could be split in two. The fate of the United States, then, rested to a large extent on the success or failure of the central prong.
The British reached the American coast, and on August 24, 1814, took Washington, D. C. Then they moved up the Chesapeake Bay toward Baltimore. On September 12, they arrived and found 1000 men in Fort McHenry, whose guns controlled the harbor. If the British wished to take Baltimore, they would have to take the fort.
On one of the British ships was an aged physician, William Beanes, who had been arrested in Maryland and brought along as a prisoner. Francis Scott Key, a lawyer and friend of the physician, had come to the ship to negotiate his release. The British captain was willing, but the two Americans would have to wait. It was now the night of September 13, and the bombardment of Fort McHenry was about to start.
As twilight deepened, Key and Beanes saw the American flag flying over Fort McHenry. Through the night, they heard bombs bursting and saw the red glare of rockets. They knew the fort was resisting and the American flag was still flying. But toward morning the bombardment ceased, and a dread silence fell. Either Fort McHenry had surrendered and the British flag flew above it, or the bombardment had failed and the American flag still flew.
As dawn began to brighten the eastern sky, Key and Beanes stared out at the fort, tyring to see which flag flew over it. He and the physician must have asked each other over and over, "Can you see the flag?"
After it was all finished, Key wrote a four stanza poem telling the events of the night. Called "The Defence of Fort M'Henry," it was published in newspapers and swept the nation. Someone noted that the words fit an old English tune called "To Anacreon in Heaven" --a difficult melody with an uncomfortably large vocal range. For obvious reasons, Key's work became known as "The Star Spangled Banner," and in 1931 Congress declared it the official anthem of the United States.
Now that you know the story, here are the words. Presumably, the old doctor is speaking. This is what he asks Key
Oh! say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof thro' the night that our flag was still there.
Oh! say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave,
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
"Ramparts," in case you don't know, are the protective walls or other elevations that surround a fort. The first stanza asks a question. The second gives an answer
On the shore, dimly seen thro' the mist of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep.
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream
'Tis the star-spangled banner. Oh! long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
"The towering steep" is again, the ramparts. The bombardment has failed, and the British can do nothing more but sail away, their mission a failure.
In the third stanza, I feel Key allows himself to gloat over the American triumph. In the aftermath of the bombardment, Key probably was in no mood to act otherwise.
During World War II, when the British were our staunchest allies, this third stanza was not sung. However, I know it, so here it is
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
The fourth stanza, a pious hope for the future, should be sung more slowly than the other three and with even deeper feeling.
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation,
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n - rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, for our cause is just,
And this be our motto--"In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
I hope you will look at the national anthem with new eyes. Listen to it, the next time you have a chance, with new ears.
And don't let them ever take it away.
--Isaac Asimov, March 1991
Happy Fourth, America!
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Comet Get It
NASA's Deep Impact is mere hours away from target.
Elijah Wood is nowhere in sight.
Update: Success!!!
Elijah Wood is nowhere in sight.
Update: Success!!!
Since I've Been Gone...
Sorry for being out of circulation for so long. I had an exam and have more projects underway, but here are some notes to help catch up on my missed postings...
You may recall that Aaron of Free Will has an interest in personal responsibility. Well, while cleaning out my bookmarks, I rediscovered his magnificently sharp assessment of our waning parental culture.
With Live 8 fresh in people's minds, it is worth noting that the solution to extreme poverty is in the grasp of the impoverished nations themselves--from public health to the environment, if they discourage corruption and embrace economic development--and to caution that some wealth is illusionary.
Senators take money from special interest groups? You don't say!
Quite a few people think that liberals have pretty much lost their forward-looking perspective.
Does Neverland Ranch have one of these?
Right Wing News has a must-read interview with outspoken columnist Mark Steyn, whose recently penned commentary on the rise of China is truly fascinating.
You may recall that Aaron of Free Will has an interest in personal responsibility. Well, while cleaning out my bookmarks, I rediscovered his magnificently sharp assessment of our waning parental culture.
With Live 8 fresh in people's minds, it is worth noting that the solution to extreme poverty is in the grasp of the impoverished nations themselves--from public health to the environment, if they discourage corruption and embrace economic development--and to caution that some wealth is illusionary.
Senators take money from special interest groups? You don't say!
Quite a few people think that liberals have pretty much lost their forward-looking perspective.
Does Neverland Ranch have one of these?
Right Wing News has a must-read interview with outspoken columnist Mark Steyn, whose recently penned commentary on the rise of China is truly fascinating.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
