Prosthetic Wernicke's Area

Turkey sampling

2009-07-25T11:34:00.004-04:00

Here is a log of our travels in Turkey. It's sort of journal-y, but I'll try to make it fun.

(1) JFK --> Munich.

We were blessed with the presence of approximately 100 Jehovah's Witnesses on our flight -- as you presumably already knew, there was a gigantic JW convention in Munich. After briefly considering a conversion, we decided to board the Munich-->Istanbul flight.

JWs smile at strangers; I find this behavior very creepy.

(2) 4 days in Istanbul.

Much time was occupied by the canonical sights (churches, mosques, palaces, bazaars, Galata Tower, Bosphorus sea ferry), most of which are incredible. I was too tired to develop a novel perspective on them.

We also visited the (perhaps slightly less well-known) Basilica Cistern, which supplied water for the palace of Justinianus. Now it's a gigantic cool (temp-wise and other-wise!) underground room with a few feet of water at the bottom. At some point it was used to store corpses.

OK, it seems kind of wrong to include this, but it seems just as wrong to omit it. In the Grand Bazaar we observed a man with the following properties:
- possibly blind;
- probably retarded;
- visibly crippled; and
- a midget.

San Diego Republicans waiting in line for sea ferry: "Obama has spent more than all previous presidents combined." You won't believe this, but the husband works in computers, and the wife teaches dance.

Our hostel shower had zero shower curtains, so showering resulting in water all over the bathroom floor. By the third night, our bathroom required re-caulking, and we had to shower in a different bathroom while the caulk dried. I'm virtually certain we left bathroom #2 in need of a re-caulking.

Wouldn't it be easier to simply install a shower curtain?

Yes.

Isn't it strange that some bathrooms in the hostel had shower curtains?

Yes! I know!

We took an overnight bus (along the western coast) to Izmir. It's pretty nice that some guy comes around with lemon-scented rubbing alcohol, glasses of water and soda, snacks, and tea/coffee (though at midnight, really?), but the roads are so jostle-y! Also, the driver is maniacal and hopped up on Nescafe.

(3) 1 day in Izmir.

Izmir is a city and it is OK. We smoked nargile and played backgammon on the waterfront. We also slept a lot on account of (see above).

(4) 3 days in Selcuk (Efes).

We visited Efes soon after arriving. The total volume of ruins in Efes is maybe small compared to those in Rome, but in Efes there is a high concentration of very well-preserved Roman city in a smallish area. I especially enjoyed the marble roads. I don't even have marble in my apartment.

In Selcuk we lost our innocence: we bargained with a shopkeeper boy for water, and with a laundromat owner. We also learned that you are especially supposed to bargain for bus tickets.

There is a beautiful (and cheap!) cafe run by the municipality on a big lawn in town.

We discovered a nighttime flea market. This is a good institution for a place which is boiling by 10am. Also, it explains the fact that during the day, there is not much visible economic activity.

Met some squat toilets. Should you build a squat toilet? flowchart.

While swimming in the Ege Deniz, we noticed a wild pig approaching our lounge chairs. As I swam out to chase it away, it snatched up the bag of Turkish delight left by our neighbors. Minutes later our neighbors returned and wondered about their missing bag. I said "pig" and "oink oink" to no avail. Allison pretended to be a pig and they understood.

Please don't feed the wild pigs on the beach.

Minutes later, one of the porcine theft victims emerged from the sea with a substantial gash on her leg. Rough few minutes.

Soon after the swim, we hitched a ride (just a few miles) back to our bus stop. At first the car didn't stop for us because there were 6 people in 5 seats, but they shuffled around and we squeezed in.

Overall, Selcuk = my favorite.

(5) morning bus to Pamukkale (Hierapolis), day there, overnight bus (due east) to Cappadocia.

Without shower facilities for 24 hours (but with the usual heat), cleanliness required some creativity. Solution: bathing in calcium-rich pools in the Travertines.

More ruins.

(At night) two young girls with sunglasses and scarves covering their faces, walking with exaggerated limps, trying to collect money in large purses. Chased out of one convenience store. Very strange.

(6) 4 days in Cappadocia (specifically, Goreme).

Goreme (similar comments apply to nearby towns) is a town carved out of volcanic rock. For example, you can stay in a "cave hotel," which is literally a room carved out of a gigantic heap of volcanic rock. (We stayed in a noncave hotel; both options convex.) More interestingly, the Open-Air Museum consists of a bunch of churches (=carved rock painted with various dyes). Most interestingly, we visited an underground city (Derinkuyu) -- 8 levels of ant colony on human scale.

We broke our Turkish breakfast streak (Tb = cucumber, tomato, olives, fruit, cheese, hard-boiled egg, bread)!

There are three major types of rock formation:
- conical;
- boulder resting atop cone (boulder thrown there a long time ago by nature, followed by differential erosion); and
- ridiculously phallic.

One day we hiked for about five hours alongside mountains and in valleys.

(7) 2 days in Istanbul.

By this point we are pros at Turkey and super-pros at Istanbul, except our maps don't have enough detail to get us to the Chora Church (Kariye Camii). Therefore we ask some people in the neighborhood. Therefore 5 Turkish boys (ages 10-12, they allege) offer to show us the way. Therefore we think we must be very close. We are wrong. They lead us for 15-20 minutes through small winding roads, the whole time shooting paper projectiles out of PVC blow-guns. Upon arrival we reward them with 2 liters of Coca-Cola (NB they wisely refuse our Turkish delight -- we were the strangers with candy!!). The sugar/caffeine drives them more or less insane, they promise to show us another church when we're done with Chora, but when we exit the church they are nowhere to be found.

This is mainly a relief.

A cab driver gave us a scenic tour of the seaside. Since this wasn't requested and increased the distance traveled by a factor of 3 or 4, we did not pay the amount shown on the meter. He yelled at us and we got out. Scored one for America!

Our plan to take public transportation (=PT) to the airport the night before our flight (which leaves at 6:40am, too early for PT) is foiled by PT's closing at 10pm. We stay out on Istiklal Caddesi and (among other things) look for stamps for our postcards. We fail to find stamps, but we succeed in finding a guy who promises to mail our postcards the next day and refuses to accept any money!

Seriously, metro closes at 10pm? Are we a city or not answer me now I need to know.

Do let me know if you receive a postcard.

Overheard

2008-11-08T14:36:00.003-05:00

(1) circa 2002-03, New Haven CT

Student 1: What's your schedule like this year?
Student 2: I'm taking Classes A, B, C, and D.
S1: How's the workload?
S2: Well, it's fine right now, but in the span of three days I will have to turn in eighty pages of writing. Kind of unbelievable.
S1: Huh, well, Welcome to Yale!

(2) October 29, 2008, men's locker room attached to Columbia University pool (in the Dodge Fitness Center)

Background. In the pool there are 2 "slow" lanes, 2 "medium" lanes, and a few "fast" lanes. At peak times there are 4+ swimmers per lane. (This results in unintentional touching and I do not like it and maybe I'll discuss it later? but what is there to say except old man junk?)

General observation. Some of these regular recreational swimmers take themselves pretty seriously. At the beginning of the school year, many complained the pool was so crowded because everyone thinks "if Phelps can do it, they can," and surely this excitement will die down, and won't that be great when it's just us, the authentic recreational swimmers in the pool. (Of course this sort of posturing is often done with certain objects flopping all about. I would argue this adds an extra element of surreality.)

Particular event. Guy is complaining about how another swimmer in his "fast" lane wasn't fast enough, and how he kept having to flip over the slow swimmer at the wall, but it was OK, he knew the lifeguard on duty and therefore wouldn't get in trouble. (You know you've made it when: you can be sort of rude in a pool and get away with it. These corridors of power are sadly closed to me.) He concludes thusly:

"This is an Ivy league university, I think we can spell f-a-s-t."

What's a total jerk and wears a black dress shirt to work?

2008-08-25T15:45:00.005-04:00

An unnamed colleague and your faithful correspondent approached a free food event near the math department.

Server Dude: Are you with the School of Social Work?
Unnamed Colleague: No, we're with the math department.
SD: Sorry, this event is for the School of Social Work. (smugly) Maybe the math department will have an event next week.

I love this consolation because it's completely made-up and also totally irrelevant: SD has no idea what any department has planned -- he is after all a server, and in any case I would like free food both now and in the future.

Me: Do you know when you're going to clean all this stuff up?
SD: (hesitates but does not reveal any information) (again, smugly) It's not that kind of event.

I see; it is the kind of event where you are a douchebag and throw away leftovers and feel extremely powerful in your slightly dressy uniform.

UC&Me: (grab cheeseburgers from unguarded tray while leaving)

Is that a Photoshopped moustache?

2008-01-04T20:00:00.000-05:00

Our next battle:

Hitler and the Hyenas

vs.

A Sad Old Lady

(Hyenas refers to first-tier candidates; everyone else has his mouth open in an out-of-touch fashion, or is auditioning for the murderer lead in a Woody Allen film.)

Just in case He's not hiring, I suppose.

2007-07-06T20:35:00.000-04:00

overheard on subway:

Man #1: (shuffles some objects; a guide to finding employment becomes visible to all)

Man #2: [pleasantry]

Man #1: (shuffles some more objects; Holy Bible now visible)

Man #2: Now that's the real job finder right there.

Man #1: [expresses agreement]

Man #2: You could also check out the internet.

On the bright side...

2007-07-05T21:32:00.000-04:00

...it may make sense for Zimbabweans to wipe their Zimbooties (?) with $100 bills:

[Times correspondent] Michael [Wines], last year when Zimbabwe’s inflation was a comparatively enviable 900 percent, you wrote about how the local $500 bill was just enough to buy toilet paper — not a whole roll, mind you, but a single sheet. Now that inflation is five times what it was back then, how are people surviving at all?

Zimbenjis? Too soon?

Of all of the dudes in the world, why this one?

2007-05-17T14:01:00.000-04:00

I personally don't have anybody else in mind to lead the Consumer Product Safety Commission, but if I were making the decision, some of the qualities I would look for in an applicant would be:

wise

will not receive gigantic sum of money from people whose behavior (s)he will be regulating

looks good in bathing suit

I mean honestly what are the odds that this guy is the best person in the country for this job come on they can't be that good.

Kind of makes you wonder why a certain math department's IM squad hasn't managed to beat a certain association of black business school students

2007-05-02T14:58:00.000-04:00

Doesn't it?

Lifting the seat is common courtesy.

2007-01-03T11:20:00.000-05:00

Happy New Year:

[The US military] acknowledged that soldiers and interrogators had kicked the Koran, had stood on it and, in one case, had inadvertently sprayed urine on a copy.

In other news, one hazard of Guantanamo is that urine is inadvertently sprayed, like, at all.

Look at what you started, Alanis Morissette.

2006-11-24T13:34:00.000-05:00

Thanks to friends at FJM for finding this gem, but given their silence on the first two paragraphs, I wonder if they are slipping. (?!)

An unheralded irony exists in a strange parallel between the film industry and the game of baseball.

Reading this sentence is like stubbing your toe, except your toe is your brain.
Is it wrong to interpret the byline "Dean Chiungos is a fantasy writer for MLB.com" to mean, "In his fantasies, Dean Chiungos is a writer"? No, such an interpretation is not wrong, for at least two reasons.

(A) The combination of "irony" and "strange parallel" is redundant.

(B) The irony is not so much "unheralded" as it is "nonexistent." As a corollary of (A) above, the parallel is not so much "strange" as it is "tenuous and ultimately nonexistent."

(I suppose it would be awkward to open an article with, "A nonexistent irony exists...")

Here comes the irony! It's about to be heralded!

In the movies, the year's best supporting actor gets an Oscar just for playing a role over a finite period of time. But in baseball, the season's best supporting man has long gone unrecognized despite actually playing -- and living -- a role on a daily basis.

This is some serious fucking irony. Let's parse its many layers.

(1) The actor just plays a role, WHEREAS the ballplayer actually plays a role.

(2) The actor does so over a finite period of time, WHEREAS the ballplayer does so on a daily basis.

Actors do not act daily. Their characters don't even matter in every day of the story portrayed in the film. Ballplayers play over infinite stretches of time.

If you subtract (number of baseball games played by David Eckstein this year) from 365, you will obtain a positive integer. Try it for yourself.

More topical arithmetic. Let f be the "writer indicator" function, defined on all humans as follows:
f(person)=0, if the person is not a writer.
f(person)=1, if the person is a writer.
Then: (f(Dean Chiungos) - 1) is a negative integer.

(3) As if that weren't enough to make ironic the heretofore lack of baseball award analogous to Best Supporting Actor, the ballplayer also lives the role (WTF?!), unless of course Chiungos meant:

in baseball, the season's best supporting man has long gone unrecognized despite actually living

which would, like (1) and (2), be a funny way to contrast supporting actors and supporting ballplayers.

Baseball is our national pastime. A commitment to capitalism makes our economy strong. Respect for free speech gives our democracy vitality.

If Dean Chiungos was paid to write the paragraphs in question, what does that say about the American Empire?

Quiz: Hooded Sweatshirts

2006-11-10T13:16:00.000-05:00

Match the stimulus to the response.

Stimuli:
Number One
Number Two
Number Three

Responses:
A. LOL
B. Reeaalllly?
C. Ummmm what?

(answers below)

Answers:
1. B
2. A
3. C

Touché, nutritiondata.com

2006-10-19T15:54:00.000-04:00

Finally, someone's made this joke in print.

What the hell?

2006-10-18T16:45:00.000-04:00

It's about freaking time.

Youngsters in a suburban Fort Worth, Texas, school district are being taught not to sit there like good boys and girls with their hands folded if a gunman invades the classroom, but to rush him and hit him with everything they've got -- books, pencils, legs and arms.

Legs and arms? Really?

"Getting under desks and praying for rescue from professionals is not a recipe for success," said Robin Browne, a major in the British Army reserve and an instructor for Response Options, the company providing the training to the Burleson schools.

Bonus points for information about the campaign donations made by Response Options.

Browne recommends students and teachers "react immediately to the sight of a gun by picking up anything and everything and throwing it at the head and body of the attacker and making as much noise as possible. Go toward him as fast as we can and bring them down."

Probably you don't need to tell kids to make noise when a gunman enters the room. (Too soon?)

Response Options trains students and teachers to "lock onto the attacker's limbs and use their body weight," Browne said. Everyday classroom objects, such as paperbacks and pencils, can become weapons.

Dear students,
Do not apply these lessons to the classroom bully.
Love,
Response Options

"We show them they can win," he said. "The fact that someone walks into a classroom with a gun does not make them a god. Five or six seventh-grade kids and a 95-pound art teacher can basically challenge, bring down and immobilize a 200-pound man with a gun."

The distinction between carrying a gun and being a god is not quite an argument for this policy.

"It's harder to hit a moving target than a target that is standing still," said 14-year-old Jessica Justice, who received the training over the summer during freshman orientation at Burleson High.

What about Linda Liberty and Sara Safety? Amanda American?

Lassiter questioned, however, whether students should be included in the fight-back training: "That's going to scare the you-know-what out of them."

Yes, I know. Shit. This training will scare the shit out of kids.

"I feel like our kids should be armed with the information that these types of possibilities exist," [president of the Parent-Teacher Organization at Norwood Elementary in Burleson Stacy] Vaughn said.

Personally I think they oughtta run drills.

Tim McCarver is paid to make comments about baseball games.

2006-10-07T23:26:00.000-04:00

Your challenge: reconcile this fact with the following gem, delivered at 11:14 p.m. during the broadcast of Game 4 of the Mets-Dodgers NLDS.

I think baseball should ultimately do something for the setup man instead of just calling him a setup man. There should be a hold or something statistically to denote the value of a setup man. Not enough's been done.

Hear, hear.

Friends of "moobs": jobs

2006-10-03T11:59:00.000-04:00

Some hang out here.

Some make the news.

Some are right here:

blactor/blactress (Denzel and Halle won Bests in the same year)

blaccountant

blactuary

blacademic

hispanoramic photographer

honduran duran cover band member

Ooh, ooh, I know. It's Jeter.

2006-09-28T21:29:00.000-04:00

ESPN SportsNation wants to know:

Jeter vs. Reyes: Who's more valuable?

I know. It's Jeter.

Jeter and Reyes, New York's two All-Star shortstops, have had stellar seasons, good enough to merit MVP consideration in their respective leagues.

The truth of this claim depends heavily on whether placing someone 18th or 19th on the ballot counts as "consideration." Reyes isn't even the most valuable player on his team. Beltran is way more valuable, and Delgado and Wright are quite valuable as well. But Jeter and Reyes do play the same position in the same city.

They've been catalysts in the lineup, on the field and on the base paths, leading the Yankees and the Mets respectively into the playoffs with the best records in their leagues.

Strictly speaking, the base paths are part of the field.

But which one is more valuable to his team?

Jeter.

Jayson Stark makes the case for Jeter:

The essence of Derek Jeter's greatness has never had anything to do with whether he has better "tools" than all those more "talented" players on those other 29 teams. And it has never had anything to do with almost all the stuff his critics bring up -- not his Zone Rating or his OPS or his VORP or anything else.

In particular, it has nothing to do with measurements which demonstrate that he is less valuable than Jayson Stark believes. By the way, Jayson, you should play a little hard to get. Also a little reasonable. DJ has been good at getting on base this year. Getting on base helps the Yankees score runs. Runs are valuable to the Yankees.
Also, I REALLY hate it when writers use nonsarcastic quotation marks where they should have made arguments.

Jeter is a great player because he's one of those rare people who understands everything there is to understand about The Big Moment, lives to rise to that moment and actually feeds off all the Yankee craziness that reduces other guys (not mentioning any particular third basemen here) to overcooked manicotti.

You could in principle support this statement with statistical evidence. But DJ-fellating and baseless Arod-bashing will also suffice.

So who cares if Jose Reyes is faster, or scores more runs, or inspires more pickoff throws?

I agree these are retarded ways of measuring a player's value.

If I'm trying to win the World Series, I'll take Jeter over any shortstop in baseball.

This sentence does not follow from the previous one. Like, at all. You were given the correct side of the argument and you showered Jeter with kisses. Fair enough.

Jerry Crasnick for Mr. Reyes:

Jose Reyes' impact on a game transcends conventional measures.

Did your bullshit detector go off? If not, you might want to change its batteries. By the way, what's the deal with smoke detectors? They're always so freaking sensitive.

It shows in the way opposing pitchers speed their deliveries, infielders rush their throws, and Paul Lo Duca -- the Mets' No. 2 hitter -- sees lots and lots of fastballs.

These impacts are not so much "unconventional" as they are "insignificant."

It's manifested in his 63 stolen bases.

This is a manifestly conventional measure. It also happens to be manifestly stupid. Homeboy is 63 for 80 in SB attempts.

But Joey Gathright can fly, too, and nobody fears him. Reyes has 66 extra-base hits, he's batting .406 with runners in scoring position and two outs, and he's a monster leadoff presence with his rare blend of speed and power.

.406 is impressive, but it's in 69 at-bats. That is not very many at-bats. Also, his .353 OBP is less monstrous than it is 46th in the National League. Jeter's .414 mark is good for 5th in the AL.

Of course, Derek Jeter is terrific, but if he goes down, the Yankees can always plug in Alex Rodriguez at shortstop and go out and trade for Aramis Ramirez.

Aside from the Aramis Ramirez non sequitur, I agree with this point: it's bizarre to compute Jeter's VORP as a shortshop and Arod's as a third baseman. Arod plays better shortstop than does Jeter, and if the Yankees are better overall with DJ at SS and Arod at the hot corner, Arod's value shouldn't suffer because he's more versatile.

Reyes is the Mets' resident irreplaceable part. And just think how good he'll be when he turns 24.

You are free to predict that Reyes will someday be a very valuable player. Some nameless kid from the D.R. will also eventually be very good at baseball. For the foreseeable future Albert Pujols will be more valuable than Jose Reyes.

I think he's better and I'm not even sexually attracted to him.

Dance Dance Revolution

2006-09-27T12:34:00.000-04:00

School's back in season, so principals will demonstrate yet again they are much older than their students.

High school's dances grind to a halt

Teeheehee.

A furor over what Concord High School administrators call an "overtly sexual" style of dancing at school dances has split the school community: There are those who defend the students' right to dance however they want and those who believe the moves are just plain inappropriate.

Principal Gene Connolly is with the latter group. He said the school will cancel all remaining dances, including the upcoming homecoming dance, unless students step forward to help halt the "grinding."

Coming out against grinding sounds like a great way to get a date ... watching TV with your mom on the couch! Oh, snap.

"This style of dancing is wrong," Connolly told parents at a Parent-Teacher-Student Organization meeting Tuesday night. "If you were to see it, you would be equally offended."

Asked by parents to describe the dance, Connolly offered this: The girl leans forward and the boy puts his pelvis against her backside. Then, he thrusts.

Wait, Connolly thrusts?! NO, asshole, the verbs attached to the subject Connolly are in past tense.

"It's feigning a sex act," Connolly said.

According to Connolly, students began grinding at Concord High dances about three years ago. Administrators tried to intervene, pointing out that the school handbook says all dance styles "must comply with standards of modesty and safety" and mandates that dance partners face each other.

I'd like to enforce the rule that partners must face each other. "No twirling her, son." "Pause! I need to get out my protractor to see if you two are technically facing each other!" "I am a huge fascist tool."

When that didn't work, administrators met with the student senate last year and drafted a "dance memo of understanding."In the memo, the students acknowledged that current dance trends "can appear sexual." They also said the administration "has made it clear that they do not want to police our dancing styles."

Damn! Sounds like no such enforcement position exists.

"We all know where the line is and when we are crossing it," the memo says. "There will be no specific 'rules' to follow regarding how we dance. However, should someone's dancing make others feel uncomfortable, they will be kindly asked to stop. . . . Should they refuse to do so, they will be asked to leave."

FUN FACT #1: we do not all have the same line and we do not all know where others' lines are.
FUN FACT #2: I like to dance with a severed head of Muhammad; is that alright?

The situation came to a head Saturday at the first dance of the year, which was attended by 350 students. By the time the first slow song was played, a half-dozen boys had been warned repeatedly to quit grinding, staff and students said. When they persisted, the boys were asked to leave. About 150 students followed.

Do the girls get to stay?
Also, I am nearly positive the students who left went home and caught up on reading. Definitely none of them had actual sex.
Wait a minute...they do want to police student dancing.

The students headed to the parking lot, Nicholson said, but changed their minds after being told they couldn't congregate on school grounds. Someone suggested they go to White Park instead, but the police were already there. So the students proceeded to Rollins Park, where Nicholson said they played music and danced.

At Rollins Park, it is much harder to sneak in a brown bag.

Senior Caitlind Cooper was one of the students who gathered at the park. Addressing the PTSO and Connolly on Tuesday night, she objected to the way the situation was handled.

"We go to a dance to have fun, and you telling us how to dance is not fun," Cooper said.

Heehee.

Some parents agreed. Tom and Cathy Cooper said they feel teenagers today are acting no different than they themselves did decades ago. Tom Cooper said he feels an obligation to remember what his parents said about the way he danced in high school.

"If you remember Elvis Presley - there's a grinder," Cooper said.

True or false: Tom Cooper is old.

"Eventually, things may change and this may be considered mild," said parent Cheryl Hunter. "But right now, it's inappropriate."

In other words, eventually you and people like you will be dead, and some of today's grinders will have fresh beef with their children.

Related news:

Although a recent National Center for Health Statistics survey found that more than half of all teenagers engage in oral sex, teen pregnancy rates have plummeted since the early 1990s. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the percentage of high school students who reported having sexual intercourse dropped from 54 percent in 1991 to 47 percent in 2005.

What about the National Center for Feigned Health Statistics? I think they found that feigned sexual intercourse is up.

Miths V: Topologists

2006-09-22T12:58:00.000-04:00

As Grisha made news for solving the famous conjecture and subsequently refusing the Fields Medal, various media had opportunities to characterize topology among the branches of mathematics. Here's the NYT snapshot:

The conjecture is fundamental to topology, the branch of math that deals with shapes, sometimes described as geometry without the details. To a topologist, a sphere, a cigar and a rabbit's head are all the same because they can be deformed into one another. Likewise, a coffee mug and a doughnut are also the same because each has one hole, but they are not equivalent to a sphere.

You might recall the article had two images: one of Grisha's face morphing into a sphere, and another of a rabbit decorated with latitudinal and longitudinal lines indicating how it might be deformed into a sphere. Topology is often called “rubber geometry” because two objects are topologically indistinguishable if (roughly) a rubber version of one could be transformed without tearing into the other. So in particular, spheres of different radii are the same topologically. They are different geometrically since the sphere of larger radius is “flatter,” in a sense that can be made precise.

Okay, great. Let's be a little bit pedantic.

To a topologist, a sphere, a cigar and a rabbit's head are all the same.

Properly, a sphere, a cigar and a rabbit's head are all the same as topological spaces. Who knows about the mental states of those who study topology, and anyway why would those mental states carry over to the daytime topologist's night- or family-life?

The World According to a Topologist, According to an AS reader of the above Times article

Topologist at the day care center
Topologist: I'm here to pick up my child.
Supervisor: Okay, she's napping now. I'll go wake her up.
Top: No, let her sleep. I'll take another child.
Sup: Excuse me?
Top: They're topologically indistinguishable!!

Topologist at the bike shop
Top: Do you have any deals on used bikes?
Hippie Bike Shop Dude: Well, we have a great Schwinn, but one of the wheels was bent out of shape when the last owner ran over the bike with his car.
Top: Did the wheel break into two pieces?
HBSD: No.
Top: Hm, okay. Did the rim snap at any point?
HBSD: Nope, it's just bent, man. P.S. I am high.
Top: Okay, I'll take it.
HBSD: Do you want us to fix it, or do you have some expertise yourself?
Top: I'm no mechanic, but it's fine. The accident did not affect the bike topologically.

Topologist on trial
DA: So you admit to stabbing the victim four times in the chest?
Top: Yes.
DA: Ummm, okay.
Top: I never stabbed all the way through, so I didn't change the victim's homeomorphism type!! Not guilty, y'all's got to feel me.

Topologist after receiving the first transplant of its kind
Doctor: Okay, you're all set.
Top: Take it off.
Doc: I'm sorry, why?
Top: You topologically altered the braindead guy to obtain this organ.
Doc: Really, that's it? You understand you're quite lucky to've received this transplant. Your reason is a little bizarre.
Top: Also it is freaking me out that I have to touch this thing every time I pee.

The voters had pizza last week.

2006-09-21T15:27:00.000-04:00

Is, ought, whatever. The article is called “Why Santana isn't the AL MVP,” but Jayson Stark means “Santana will not win the AL MVP.”

Our buddy, Buster Olney, has presented an eloquent MVP case for Santana over the last couple of weeks.

I'm no Buster-lover, but at least he had the courtesy to argue that Santana has been, during the 2006 baseball season, the player of most value to his team. It's a quick trip from there to the conclusion that he should win the MVP.

Now it's time for The Other Side of that Case:

Clever. Did you notice the capitalization? That's clever. Jayson Stark is clever. Let's look at the first set of arguments Mr. Stark marshals:

Starting pitchers won three of the first eight MVP awards handed out by the Baseball Writers Association. But in the last 60 years, things have changed just a mite.
We're now up to 121 MVP trophies handed out in that time. Starting pitchers have won seven of them.

Interesting. Still I am wondering: has Johan Santana been the player most valuable to his team, the Minnesota Twins, in the 2006 baseball season? I began to read your article under the assumption you would answer this question.

But in the division-play era -- which has lasted 38 seasons -- the trend is so obvious, even your great-grandma could see the writing on this wall and not even need her reading glasses.

Funny. Jayson Stark is funny. Clever and funny. Also he has an excellent sense of when an argument is relevant to a conclusion.

Of the 75 MVP awards in this era, starting pitchers have won exactly two more than beer vendors, mascots and even resin bags. Vida Blue (1971) and Roger Clemens (1986) are the only starters since 1969 to win an MVP. And since Clemens won, his fellow starters are 0 for two decades.

Also he does not smell bad.

But it says, right there on the instructions to voters, that "all players are eligible for MVP, and that includes pitchers and designated hitters." So because we take that into consideration, we wouldn't say we would never favor a starting pitcher for this award.

It would just take an extraordinary season and an extraordinary set of circumstances.

Okay, so...

The pivotal question, then, is as basic as a 3-and-0 fastball: Is Santana's year extraordinary enough to convince voters to rank it above all the compelling position-player seasons on the table, from a field that includes Derek Jeter, Jermaine Dye, David Ortiz and even Santana's own teammate, Justin Morneau? Now let's look at that topic.

So you're admitting that everything you've written so far has nothing to do with the conclusion you'd like to draw. This is awesome.

2. "TRIPLE CROWN" IS NOT A SYNONYM FOR "MVP"
One big item on Santana's MVP qualification list is the surest sign that he has clearly been the very best starting pitcher in his league:

If the season ended in the next 30 seconds, he would win the prestigious "Pitcher's Triple Crown" -- by leading the league in wins, strikeouts and ERA.

Also WHIP. Also Times He Had Sex with Your Wife. Did I mention that since his first few mediocre starts Johan Santana has been OFF THE FREAKING HEEZY?

In the division-play era, six pitchers have won the Triple Crown. None of them won the MVP award. Their average finish in the MVP voting: sixth. Only Pedro Martinez (23-4 for the 1999 wild-card Red Sox) made the top three.

I THOUGHT WE AGREED WE WERE SUPPOSED TO COMPARE (WITH RESPECT TO VALUE PROVIDED TO TEAM) THE POSITION PLAYERS YOU LISTED TO SANTANA. I'll take this opportunity to point out that none of the position players are that compelling, another fact that should be part of your comparison.

But if the season ended today, Santana also would win the Quadruple Crown, since he leads the league in the fourth major category -- innings pitched. No AL pitcher has won The Quad since Hal Newhouser in 1945. And -- whaddaya know -- Newhouser did win the MVP.

What we have to remember, though, is that there weren't as many hitting megastars to compete with back then, since Joe DiMaggio, Ted Williams and so many of their fellow patriots were off to war, trying to win something slightly more significant than trophies.

BOY does the end of this sentence make me hate you. Like, a lot.

So it was a really, really different era in all kinds of ways.

You're using a WWII reference to hide a bad argument. Not cool. Didn't some pitchers go to war too? Are you saying that because the overall quality of baseball dropped as players went overseas to win something more important than trophies, it was easier for pitchers to be of value to their teams? 'cause if so, U R wrong.

But we're willing to consider that parallel. Except if we do, we also have to consider the fate of the three NL quadruple-crown winners in the division-play era: Steve Carlton in 1972, Dwight Gooden in 1985 and Randy Johnson in 2002. And those three finished fifth, fourth and seventh in the MVP voting, respectively.

More irrelevant history -- great.

Bob Brenly, who managed Johnson in 2002, told us he doesn't remember any talk of the Unit as MVP back then -- even in a monstrous year (24-5, with 334 strikeouts) for a team that finished first. Of course, Curt Schilling also pitched for that club. And Brenly admits that "when I was sitting in that dugout, I didn't concern myself much with those individual awards."

What's more, a manager who doesn't give a shit about the MVP doesn't remember talk of the Unit receiving the award. You should've asked Grisha Perelman what he thinks about Johan Santana.

But maybe something like an argument is coming.

Nevertheless, Brenly says that with all due respect to Santana, "to me, an MVP is a guy who is out there doing something every day to help his team win." And we agree with every word of that quote.

Great as Santana is, he has had an impact on 32 games this year. Jeter, Dye and Morneau are going to have an impact on 150 games, give or take a few. And while that's not Santana's fault, it's also tough to compete with.

This is not quite true -- Johan often throws 7-8 innings and allows the bullpen to rest. Also, your criterion transparently makes it impossible for a pitcher to win the award.
Shouldn't you take into account the degree to which the players influenced the games? (Yes.) Did you? (No.)

3. WINNING PERCENTAGE DOESN'T EQUAL MVP
Santana's No. 1 selling point as an MVP candidate is a stat that homes right in on the heart of his "value" to his team:

When he pitches, the Twins always win.

This is a direct result of his being awesome at baseball.

Heading into his start Thursday in Boston, his team is 26-6 (.813 winning percentage) when he pitched -- and 64-55 (.538) when anyone else pitched.

Damn, that's good.

Since April 27, when Santana righted himself after an 0-3 start, those numbers get even more insane. The Twins are an off-the-charts 25-3 (.893 winning pct.) in his 28 starts since then. But we should note that their record with anyone else out there (58-46, .558) is also better than it was early on.

Like, really fucking good.

Santana is, beyond question, a huge difference maker.

You're stealing from Colbert! This is bullshit!

That's an argument any rational human should feel obliged to agree with, at least on some level

Content-free verbal masturbation, yours courtesy of Jayson Stark.

Which is why Santana at least deserves a place on every voter's ballot.

The only real issue is which place.

YES, in fact this is the very same issue which your title suggests you would have addressed by now.

But this is also an argument you can play some fun tricks with. The Tigers are playing .741 baseball (23-8) when Kenny Rogers pitches. The Cardinals are playing .667 baseball (20-10) when Chris Carpenter pitches. The Padres are playing .667 ball (14-7) when Woody Williams starts. The Phillies are an .800 team (8-2) when Randy Wolf pitches. There's also a big drop-off for all those teams when other pitchers pitch. That alone doesn't make them plausible MVP candidates.

In these cases the winning percentage is tied up with things other than the pitchers being awesome at baseball, no offense to Chris Carpenter.

Or say Santana had gotten hurt in July, but Francisco Liriano had stayed healthy all year. Until Liriano's last two starts of the year, when he wasn't himself, the Twins won nearly 80 percent of Liriano's starts, too (11-3).

If he'd kept that up the rest of the year, but Santana had gone down, would Liriano be the leading MVP candidate? And if the answer is yes, doesn't that indicate that, for at least half the season, Santana had a fellow pitcher in his rotation who was nearly as good -- and valuable -- as he was?

I find this hilarious. If someone with a different name had effectively switched roles with Santana, would he have been MVP? Isn't this the same question as whether Santana should be MVP?
It's both weird and unfair that your argument involves imagining Santana was injured. I would like to imagine that David Ortiz and Travis Hafner are OPSing .950 for the purposes of my argument that Johan Santana should be MVP.

We had the Elias Sports Bureau research two questions for us: (1) Over the last 20 years, which 10 pitchers' teams had the best record on days they pitched? And (2) over that same period, which 10 pitchers' teams had the biggest disparity in record when other pitchers pitched?

You can see those charts for yourself. But here's what we learned:

Best team record with an individual starter (1987-06, min. 25 starts)
Record Pitcher Year Team MVP finish
27-3, .900 Randy Johnson 1995 Mariners 6th*
29-5, .853 Mike Hampton 1999 Astros 21st*
22-4, .846 John Smoltz 1998 Braves No votes*
27-5, .844 Roger Clemens 2001 Yankees 8th*
25-5, .833 David Wells 1998 Yankees 16th*
29-6, .829 Bret Saberhagen 1989 Royals 8th
29-6, .829 Bob Welch 1990 A's 9th*
24-5, .828 Pedro Martinez 1999 Red Sox 2nd*
24-5, .828 Jason Schmidt 2003 Giants 22nd*
*team made playoffs | Source: Elias Sports Bureau

• Santana's 2006 season didn't even make the top 10 in the "best record" study. Which means there were at least 10 pitchers in that time whose teams had even better records when they started than Santana's team does this year. So that makes it tougher to consider his season "extraordinary." And of those other 10, only one (Pedro in '99) was even a factor in the MVP discussion.

• All 10 of those pitchers on the "best record" list pitched for teams that either made the playoffs or were alive until the last week of the season. Outside of Pedro, though, none of the other nine wound up higher than sixth in the MVP election (Randy Johnson's finish, for the '95 Mariners). And from there, they dropped off all the way to Not Receiving One Stinking Vote status (John Smoltz's fate, for the '98 Braves).

• We can work Santana into the top 10 by using that "Compared With Other Pitchers" list. But even using that criterion, his 2006 season still ranks only 10th. So again, we ask: Was this a season so above and beyond other great pitchers' seasons that it merits an MVP award? It's tough to conclude it was. And again, even with this slightly different list, only Pedro was a blip on the MVP screen.

Did Elias know what you were up to? Did you mention you were going to make bizarre inferences from their statistics?

Looking back through those theoretically parallel seasons, we remember the arguments for Martinez in '99 being similar to the case for Santana this year. But in reality, the pitcher whose season was closest to Santana's this year was Johnson in '95.
...

So the Unit was a man who had an even bigger impact than Santana. And he did it in a season when Ken Griffey Jr. got hurt, removing the most logical Mariners MVP candidate from the entire discussion. Yet Johnson still finished behind five players in the MVP vote -- including two (Edgar Martinez and Jay Buhner) on his own team.

Okay.

It was Johnson -- whose team went 15-1 in his last 16 starts -- who pitched them back. But when the MVP debate began, "I never heard his name, to be honest with you," McLaren said.

You never heard it because Martinez hit .356 that year and Buhner mashed 40 homers. And above all, you never heard it because it sold the position players on that team short to suggest it was a pitcher who made those Mariners what they were.

So spin that scenario forward to the 2006 Twins and answer us this: Why isn't Joe Mauer this team's Edgar Martinez? Why isn't Morneau their Jay Buhner?

Pressing rewind on an argument is not the same as winning it.

And why haven't more people noticed that Morneau has driven in more runs (125) than any Twin in history whose name wasn't Killebrew? Why haven't more people noticed that, since June 8, Morneau has hit .374, and knocked in as many runs as Ryan Howard (87 -- tied for the most in baseball)?

I think people have noticed, but RsBI is a pretty stupid statistic. I AM NOT SURPRISED IT IS THE ONE TIME YOU MENTION THE POSITION PLAYERS YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO DEFEND.

That, to us, is what an MVP front-runner looks like. And there isn't an ounce of disrespect to the always-spectacular, always-mesmerizing Johan Santana when we tell you what he looks like:

The Cy Young shoo-in that he is. Period.

Nor an ounce of logic. Snap!

Too soon?

2006-09-15T15:18:00.000-04:00

On Hand #1, this is awful.

On Hand #2, the coach's name is in fact Downs.

What's the deal with: course titles in the Women's and Gender Studies Department

2006-09-14T23:31:00.000-04:00

Take a look at the titles of the courses offered by the Women's and Gender Studies Department at Columbia University. Now guess which one is most hilarious. (Yes, there is a correct answer.)

Have an answer?

If you guessed G6001, then holy shit are you correct. The embedded colon is a little awkward, and Object should be Objects, so let's be fair and parse the official title (click W, then Fall2006), Theoretical Paradigms in Feminist Scholarship: Bodies, Objects, Sex.

Theoretical Paradigms in Feminist Scholarship

Now. I have never enrolled in a course offered by any WGS department at any university, but my understanding is that, being offered at universities, WGS courses tend to focus on Scholarship. So why waste a title word on it?

Now. I have never held a serious job with a serious company, but my understanding is that, being largely full of shit, some businesspeople like to throw around words like “paradigm” as though the words carried content. So why throw it around in a course title?

Even if we are generous and do not vomit upon reading Paradigm, we are not obligated to accept unconditionally the presence of the word Theoretical. I'm no Paradigm expert, but it seems Theoretical is already built into the definition, at least connotatively -- serving as pattern or model.

IN CONCLUSION, a more concise way of saying “Theoretical Paradigms in Feminist Scholarship” is:

Feminism

Bodies, Objects, Sex

I have no complaints about any of the three items here listed.

Jacob Luft is paid to write about baseball and yet he is not good at writing about baseball.

2006-09-13T19:25:00.000-04:00

See for yourself.

Talk baseball all season long with SI.com's Jacob Luft in Baseball Chatter, a journal for hot topic debates, Sabermetric ramblings and reader-driven discussions. (emphasis mine)

The R in SABR stands for Research. So this oughtta be great.

With the MVP races in both leagues going down the wire, you are going to hear and read a lot about "big hits" and "clutchness" in the next few weeks.

Come on dude, get with it! Clutchiness!

Those moments are fun and I enjoy them as much as the next baseball fan, but they help to obscure an important point about baseball that seems to have been lost amid all the talk of "clutchness" lately: early runs are more important.

(1) The next baseball fan thinks big hits win games, so you probably enjoy those moments less.
(2) The “important point” is not so much “lost” as it is “wrong.”

Riddle me this: Given the choice, would you rather have your team score first in a game or last? I asked a Yankees fan and rabid Alex Rodriguez-hater in the office this question the other day: Without knowing anything else that happens in a particular game, would you rather have A-Rod hit a three-run home run in the first inning of a game or the ninth inning? In other words, would you rather be guaranteed a three-run first inning and most likely a 3-0 lead to start the game or take your chances and hope that a three-run home run in the ninth will win or tie the game?

(1) The last sentence could just as well read:
In other words, would you rather take your chances that a three-run first inning lead will hold up for the rest of the game, or be guaranteed three runs late in the game?
(2) WHAT KIND OF INANE QUESTION IS THIS? Man reaches first base to lead off an inning. It is useful to ask: how much better is Man on Second, 0 Out versus Man on First, 0 Out? If you could press a button which would leave Man on Second, 0 Out 70% of the time and None On, 1 Out the other 30%, would you press the button? This is a question about base stealing and an answer recommends a strategy.
But a definitive answer to Luft's question matters not at all. Whenever teams are at bat, they try to score. As much as possible. Like, always. Like, Arod doesn't decide to open the game with a 3-run HR and think about bitches the rest of the game.
(3) Would you rather look like Jacob Luft or think like him?

If you answered ninth inning instead of first, then you have been drinking way too much of the clutchness Kool-Aid. Baseball is a lot like hockey and soccer in this respect: scoring first is huge.

Yes, so tell your favorite team: when it's up at the plate, try to score.
I'm surprised he mentioned soccer because that example makes more transparent two ways in which this argument is retarded. First, the better team will tend to score first more often. More importantly, as reader Eddie so eloquently puts it, these are all sports where NOT MANY POINTS ARE SCORED AT ALL AND THEREFORE OF COURSE THE PERSON WHO SCORES FIRST USUALLY WINS. Mr. Luft, your SABR membership card, please?

I looked up every team's record in 2006 when it scores first in a game compared to when its opponent scored first.

This probably took a few minutes. Some better things you could've done with that time:

taken a stroll
listened to a song
practiced writing your name in cursive
thrown some darts
held down your Backspace key until what you'd written until now was gone

But we'll look at the fruits of your labor.

Here's what I found (through Monday's games; teams are in order of current standings):

American League
Team, Record when scoring first (Record when opponent scores first)
East
New York: 55-22 (31-34)
Boston: 50-25 (26-42)
Toronto: 51-22 (24-47)
Baltimore: 43-28 (17-53)
Tampa Bay: 32-44 (25-42)

Central
Detroit: 59-25 (27-33)
Minnesota: 53-17 (31-42)
Chicago: 48-30 (35-31)
Cleveland: 52-25 (16-49)
Kansas City: 31-29 (23-61)

West

Oakland: 50-21 (32-40)
Los Angeles: 56-25 (21-42)
Texas: 41-24 (32-47)
Seattle: 41-24 (27-50)

The aggregate winning percentage of AL teams when they score first is .647. The aggregate winning percentage of AL teams when they don't score first is .375. Compare those figures to the AL's aggregate winning percentage in all games: .513. (It's not .500 because of interleague play.) You end up with a deviation of plus-133 when scoring first and minus-139 when not scoring first. (Again, interleague play ruins the symmetry of this.) This is all assuming my arithmetic is correct, and I'm about as good as math as you would expect for a history major.

Majoring in history is no excuse for poor arithmetic. Plus it's not your arithmetic that's bothersome, it's your tragically poor grasp of statistics. Also, you meant “at math,” but I'm as good at proofreading my work published in nationally distributed magazines as you would expect for a math major.
By the way, Jacob Luft, I think you are a bad writer -- just wanted to make that clear.

National League
Team, Record when scoring first (Record when opponent scores first)
East
New York: 64-18 (24-36)
Florida: 51-26 (22-45)
Philadelphia: 47-26 (25-45)
Atlanta: 47-28 (22-46)
Washington: 45-25 (16-58)

Central
St. Louis: 53-21 (23-46)
Cincinnati: 45-17 (26-55)
Houston: 53-25 (17-47)
Milwaukee: 37-21 (28-58)
Pittsburgh: 33-25 (26-61)
Chicago: 43-22 (14-65)

West
Los Angeles: 47-22 (25-44)
San Diego: 45-25 (29-43)
San Francisco: 53-30 (19-41)
Arizona: 48-18 (20-57)
Colorado: 46-21 (21-55)

Let's do the same drill here. The NL's aggregate winning percentage when scoring first: .671. When not scoring first: .308. Overall, the NL's winning percentage is about .487. So the deviation is plus-184 for scoring first and minus-179 for not scoring first.

OK. The analysis:

You can see the value in this statistic when you look at the bad teams. The Nationals' overall winning percentage is .431. But when they score first, they are a .642 ballclub. Even the Pirates and Royals are winning teams when they score first. In fact, there is only one team in the majors with a losing record when it scores first: Tampa Bay (.421). Nobody else is close to that bad. (I'm not really sure how this happened. The Devil Rays have allowed a ton of runs, but not the most in the league, and certainly not by as wide a margin as you would expect for them to be this bad when scoring first.)

HEY DIPSHIT, did you notice that bad teams tend to have fewer games played in which they score first? You even ordered the teams by record! It is so painfully obvious only a braindead history major wouldn't ... nevermind.
Also, the Rays' pen is bad, but two AL teams have worse bullpen ERA. TB's higher BAA means they've probably allowed more inherited runners to score. Isn't doing this sort of research part of your job? U R like sucky.

But to expect any of this empirical evidence to have any sway in the MVP voting would be unrealistic.

Unrealistic, yes. To desire this, moronic.

After all, this is an era of small-sample size theater, when we focus on ridiculous statistics like "batting average in close-and-late situations." Do you know who the current leader is in that silly statistic? Florida's Wes Helms, who has 19 hits in 45 at-bats (.422). Ladies and gentlemen, your King of Clutch for 2006 is a bench player on a team stocked primarily with rookies.

I know you write to feed the kids, but I hope your (conjecturally tiny) brain appreciates that Wes Helms has nothing to do with whether BA in close/late is a ridiculous statistic. (Were it a useful statistic, it would just mean he's undervalued; the shit about rookies is obviously irrelevant.) The small sample size point, I agree with.

I'm not saying clutch hitting doesn't exist at all. For the most part, I do believe clutchness exists, but only to the extent that most good hitters are still good in critical situations, just as they are during other points of a game.

But this is no extent at all! Also, your article is called “The myth of clutch” and this is your evidence? HIRE THIS MAN. Treated with maximum generosity, the list of records you previously assembled should be interpreted to mean clutch hitting doesn't matter. Now you're acting like you presented evidence to say clutch hitting doesn't exist! WTF?!

David Ortiz is clutch. George Brett was clutch.

So clutch hitting is not a myth. I'm very confused.

I'll take my chances with either of those two guys in a close-and-late situation, but I wouldn't mind having any other great hitter up either: Willie Mays, Tony Gwynn, Mike Schmidt, etc.

You're hurting for words, a? A (seemingly arbitrary) list of three great (but not especially clutch) players, first and last names? Three more: Bonds, Ruth, Clemente. Three more: Mantle, Pujols, Brett. FUCK! Already mentioned Brett, sorry.

And don't be so quick to discount the value of add-on runs in the middle innings.

I know: runs are runs, no matter when they're scored...

Breaking a game open early with a home run is more valuable than a late, "clutch" home run.

...and you lost me. Also, it's bullshit that you put quotation marks around clutch. Punctuation is a poor substitute for argument.
I guess the problem with sportswriting is that you cannot express the (correct) opinion that early and late runs are equally good (or that offense and defense are equally important); for some reason you have to pick something.
This practice is bad for sportswriting. You know what's good for sportswriting (but bad for punters)? Shit like this. (Thanks to reader Donovan for the tip. See, if you show me something, maybe I will write about it, unless you are Boris.)
Let's finish up here.

It means the other team is going to use mop-up pitchers the rest of the game and allow your hitters to feast even more. It puts the game away early so you don't have to worry about winning it later and it means less stress for your starting pitcher and your bullpen.

I chose the clutch/late home run, but I told my bullpen and starting pitcher, so they're not feeling any stress.

I'm so hungry I could eat a ...

2006-09-12T21:54:00.000-04:00

Stock up on horse meat!

Riding a broad wave of bipartisan support, the House on Thursday approved a bill to ban the slaughter of horses in the U.S. for human consumption.

NOW, I don't want to get off track, but when the House rides a wave of bipartisan support, does that mean the House rides itself? A President, for example, being aligned with a particular party, might properly be said to ride a wave of bipartisan support. Or maybe the bill rode the wave of support. But the House? That's not on.

"This whole slaughtering process is an illicit, concealed, inhumane process as it relates to horses," said [Rep. Ed] Whitfield [R-KY], one of the bill's co-sponsors and its most vocal champion on the House floor.

“Illicit” is a funny word choice. Is it really concealed? Really?! I gather the process is inhumane as it relates to horses -- but is it also concealed as it relates to horses?

About 90,000 horses were slaughtered in the U.S. last year.

Let's record this for later: ninety thousand.

The opponents of the bill:

"What are you going to do with 90,000 unwanted horses? Who's going to provide for their care?" asked [former Texas Rep. Charles] Stenholm, who was the top-ranking Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee until 2004. "It's not in the best interest of the horses. There is nothing in the bill that provides for the humane treatments of horses."

Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns echoed those concerns Wednesday in a letter to House Agriculture Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.). Johanns wrote that passage would likely lead to "a reduction in the humane treatment of horses."

Johanns should know, if only because (wow, this is awkward) he'll be responsible for unwanted horses!

`The Secretary shall assume responsibility for any equine that is unwanted by an owner.'.

Onto the bill's supporters:

"We're looking at an industry that, beginning to end, is extremely cruel," [deputy legislative director and a lobbyist for the Society for Animal Protective Legislation Chris] Heyde said.

“Beginning to end” means something when the industry includes raising the animals, but it's a bit empty to point out the slaughter industry is cruel.

In the U.S., horse meat is sometimes used as feed for zoo animals.

Just recording for later.

More coverage of the support squad:

"It is one of the most inhumane, brutal, shady practices going on in the U.S. today," said Rep. John Sweeney, R-N.Y., a sponsor of the ban.

You know you don't have rights when: your slaughter is described as “shady.” But Sweeney scores points with the kids for speaking their language.

Sweeney argued that the slaughter of horses is different from the slaughter of cattle and chickens, because horses are American icons.

I have always supported legislation banning the slaughter of baseball players and jazz musicians for this very reason. They are fucking icons. Sing it, Rep.

Another way in which the slaughtering practices differ: 90,000 kinda sorta doesn't matter.

"They're as close to human as any animal you can get," said Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C.

The interviewer caught Spratt administering a true/false exam. This one's false.

wise campaign contributions
horseshit

A quick look at the revised text:

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON SHIPPING, TRANSPORTING, MOVING, DELIVERING, RECEIVING, POSSESSING, PURCHASING, SELLING, OR DONATION OF HORSES AND OTHER EQUINES FOR SLAUGHTER FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION.
`(1) The term `human consumption' means ingestion by people as a source of food.'
`(4) The term `slaughter' means the killing of one or more horses or other equines with the intent to sell or trade the flesh for human consumption.'.

So our icons may be consumed at the zoo? Lawmakers are, like, so weird.

If you'd like nightmares, learn what justifies laws to the lawdrafters themselves:

`(1) horses and other equines play a vital role in the collective experience of the United States and deserve protection and compassion;

This overstates the distinction between horses and livestock.

`(2) horses and other equines are domestic animals that are used primarily for recreation, pleasure, and sport;

Ummmm, okay.

`(3) unlike cows, pigs, and many other animals, horses and other equines are not raised for the purpose of being slaughtered for human consumption;

Not only is this basically the same as `(2), it's a laughable example of the naturalistic fallacy.

`(4) individuals selling horses or other equines at auctions are seldom aware that the animals may be bought for the purpose of being slaughtered for human consumption; and

I don't believe this. Anyway THEN FUCKING TELL THEM.

`(5) the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture has found that horses and other equines cannot be safely and humanely transported in double deck trailers;'; and

Can I bring Secretariat to the slaughterhouse in my Radio Flyer then?

`(8) the movement, showing, exhibition, or sale of sore horses in intrastate commerce, and the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation in intrastate commerce of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption, adversely affect and burden interstate and foreign commerce;'.

HUH? Seems the author requires a prosthetic Wernicke's area.

The "Seriously, September Eleventh" Awards

2006-09-11T23:10:00.000-04:00

Courtesy of reader Lauren, an awards show devoted to Bush's I-Swear-The-Proximity-of-the-Midterm-Elections-is-Just-a-Coincidence
speech.

We'll start the evening with every liberal's favorite, the This is Why
They Hate Us Award:
"Yet on that awful day, we also witnessed something distinctly
American: ordinary citizens rising to the occasion, and responding
with extraordinary acts of courage."

The Royal We Award goes to:
"On September the 11th, we resolved that we would go on the offense
against our enemies - and we would not distinguish between the
terrorists and those who harbor or support them."

The Get Those Soldiers Some Levers Award goes to:
"They are thrown into panic at the sight of an old man pulling the
election lever ... girls enrolling in school ... or families
worshiping God in their own traditions."

The Glass Houses Award goes to:
"They know that given a choice, people will choose freedom over their
extremist ideology. So their answer is to deny people this choice by
raging against the forces of freedom and moderation."

The There's Only One Beirut, Right? Award goes to:
"From Kabul to Baghdad to Beirut, there are brave men and women
risking their lives each day for the same freedoms that we enjoy. And
they have one question of us: Do we have the confidence to do in the
Middle East what our fathers and grandfathers accomplished in Europe
and Asia?"

The Tell it To Darfur Award goes to:
"Yet America has confronted evil before, and we have defeated it -
sometimes at the cost of thousands of good men in a single battle."

And last but not least, the I Guess It's Not Too Soon for 9/11 Porn
Award goes to:
"The attacks were meant to bring us to our knees, and they did - but
not in the way the terrorists intended."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's face it: they were the Twin Towers. (Eh? Eh?)

A good way to tell how conservative someone really is: Jimmy is on his knees. What is he doing?

Keepin' it real. For example.

Nothing against the French, but the jokes would almost make themselves.

Sometimes mere words produce a visceral reaction.

2006-09-11T22:31:00.000-04:00

Last week you might have seen this sign on the Columbia campus.

then I stole it

then I took a picture of it

it's also a funny way to communicate that I do not own a scanner

apparently it is also time for awful puns

sometimes the reaction is cringe

Sorry, Lalekhet. How do Ya Lekhet now?

Maybe she is not the perfect woman after all.

2006-09-11T17:15:00.000-04:00

Want to learn about women and math?

Want to learn about Maria Sharapova and math?

Sharapova last night hung in there on long points, even attacked the net when necessary. She went for it, struck 20 winners and willingly paid the price with 24 errors. If she is not a master of pace or angles quite yet, she is only 19. She surely owns the energy and discipline to capture several more majors on a tour currently devoid of genius.

(emphasis mine) And if she is a master? Fuck, she's 28. ANYWAY, brace yourself for a classic:

"I lost the last four times I played with Justine, so I figured I had to flip it 360, do just the opposite," Sharapova said. She is not a geometry major.

LOL. Also, you mean “rotate.” OR (principle of charity) you mean, “I had to flip it 360, THEN do just the opposite,” which is redundant but technically correct. OR (principle of I'm an asshole) you mean 360 radians (roughly 20626.5 degrees = 106.5 degrees + you are dizzy), or yet another unit of measure.

I'm going to flip it 360, then have a ham sandwich.

More Maria news: during the men's final Sunday, Dick Enberg remarked that Sharapova was “so photogenic,” which is like saying someone is intelligent by noting they perform well on standardized tests.

U + Me = Us

P.S. Please don't buy for me NASCAR For Dummies, in other words, NASCAR. While you're at it, don't buy for me this here book either.

Rolling Back Artistic Expression and Political Speech; Women

2006-09-09T02:48:00.000-04:00

Tonight's Featured Matchup

Two-time Best Pot Song winner Sean Paul
versus
Big Box Behemoth Walmart

First, meet The Challenger.

S.P. won a Doobie in 2002 for “Gimme the Light”. To win a second Doobie, you might need politically controversial lyrics, for example:

Everyday we be burnin not concernin what nobody wanna say
We be earnin dollars turning cause we mind deh pon we pay

First Sean Paul reveals his libertarian streak. Then he speaks in some sort of code.

Some got gold and oil and diamonds all we got is Mary J
Legalize it, time to recognize it

Many mentions of drug use in rap/hip-hop/reggae amount to little more than glorification of getting messed up, and sometimes misogyny gets in the mix. (This is not to suggest women can't rhyme right back; more on this later.)

But here S.P. is engaging in real political speech! He's talking about justice! and what's more, he means it. From the High Times article:

Sean Paul has had run-ins with zealous police while practicing what he calls a "holy sacrament." He often wonders why his financially strapped homeland does not take fuller advantage of its number-one cash crop.

"The present government is talking about decriminalizing it," he says, skeptically. "Weed would do so much for the economy of my country. Just stop arresting people. Let it be."

Our Defending Champion reacts.

Check out the new and improved version:

Everyday we be burnin not concernin what nobody wanna say.
We be earnin dollars turning cause we mind de pon we pay.

BTW I hope the second line means something violently opposed to the goals of those for whom Walmart is bowdlerizing. However, I have no idea what it is to mind de pon we pay. BRACE YOURSELF FOR THE ALTERED LYRICS:

More than gold and oil and diamonds girls we need dem everyday.
Recognize it, time we realize it.

Dear Walmart,

I understand that economically you are probably a good thing. However, I am wondering if maybe you could sell printers for $24 delivered, and those gigantic pickle buckets for sixty-two cents, while at the same time being less of a dick. If not, I would like to understand in greater detail the circumstances which connect your excellent pickle and printer prices to the prickish pressure you impose on pop stars.

PLMK ASAP.

Thanx!
Joe

P.S. $24 is a good price, but less absurd than I'd imagined.

I mean to convey that the current legal regime arbitrarily preferences certain natural resources over others. The results for my people have been disastrous. The current arrangement seems to me economically bizarre.
For those of you in the Midwest: I like bitches.

Related Notes I

I'm not a frequenter of the Walmart website, but it seems the Smiley Face Best Known for Rolling Back Prices has a less prominent status than (s)he did a few years ago. We all remember his/her less savory rollbacks; perhaps Walmart's PR peeps caught wind of the satire.

Related Notes II

It's not uncommon to hear complaints about how sex and violence is portrayed in, for example, rap music. If there is a class of songs which children should be shielded from, likely it would concern sexually explicit lyrics, in particular lyrics which glorify the degradation of one gender.

At least female rappers may reply with explicit lyrics of their own, a beautiful example of speech being countered by yet more speech. But still many rap albums demand Parental Advisory. WHY IS IT, THEN, that I might walk into a fast-food restaurant in midday and hear Mambo Number Five?

It's artistically inferior to even mildly competent rap music. Mambo's content is miserable and Mr. Bega uses language as well as Idahoans use chopsticks. PLUS MAMBO IS BAD FOR WOMEN. Read this trash!

A little bit of Monica in my life,
A little bit of Erica by my side.
A little bit of Rita's all I need,
A little bit of Tina's all I see.
A little bit of Sandra in the sun,
A little bit of Mary all night long.
A little bit of Jessica here I am,
A little bit of you makes me your man!!!!!!!!
Mambo number five.

Whereas thoughtful rappers like Biggie glorify the chase and explain how women drive them crazy, in Mr. Bega's world, women are practically thought of as spices.

IMHO this is bullshit. I would love to flip over the table in front of me, but my computer rests on top of it.

Related Notes III/Readers' Challenge

What is this product, exactly? It seems these plants must not contain THC. In earnest, what is the deal? Is Can of Bud awesome, or a grownup version of the kid in middle school who sold oregano? NOTE THE NON-RHETORICAL NATURE OF THIS QUESTION.

The can is round. The buds are round.

How I could be of use to Jay-Z

2006-09-06T00:34:00.000-04:00

I could offer some advice regarding dealing with authority figures.

The year is '94 and in my trunk is raw
In my rear view mirror is the mother fuckin law
I got two choices y'all pull over the car or
Bounce on the devil put the pedal to the floor
Now I ain't tryin to see no highway chase with jake
Plus I got a few dollars I can fight the case
So I...pull over to the side of the road

Excellent choice.

And I heard "Son, do you know why I'm stoppin you for?"

Be respectful and you'll be on your way.

'cause I'm young and I'm black and my hat's real low?
Do I look like a mind reader sir, I don't know
Am I under arrest or should I guess some mo?

Oh boy. Definitely do not guess any mo.

"Well you was doin fifty five in a fifty four"
"License and registration and step out of the car"
"Are you carryin a weapon on you? I know alot of you are"

What I would've said: Officer, going one mile per hour over the speed limit hardly justifies pulling me over. Moreover, a 54 mph speed limit is unfair. I hadn't seen a sign in a while, and since speed limits are usually multiples of 5, I assumed the limit was 55. We're on a highway, after all. Plus, all these cars around us are going so much faster.
Also, how are your kids doing? And what's the deal with criminals? I mean, do they wanna go to prison? It's like, come on!

I ain't steppin out of shit all my papers legit

What I would've done:
1. Stepped out of shit, in particular, out of the car.
2. Backed up claims of legit papers with license and registration.

"Do you mind if I look 'round the car a little bit?"
Well my glove compartment is locked so is the trunk in the back
And I know my rights so you gon' need a warrant for that

Good spirit, but the officer doesn't need a warrant. In fact, reasonable suspicion is enough, and your combativeness is getting uncomfortably close to arousing such suspicion. (Yes, even in a car.)

"Aren't you sharp as a tack? You some type of lawyer or
something, somebody important or somethin?"

(quietly, to self): Who trained you, the ACLU?

Nah I ain't passed the bar but I know a little bit
Enough that you won't illegally search my shit

SWEET RHYME, but I recommend against using profanity while speaking with the cop. After all, you are trying to get out of trouble, not write a rap song.

"We'll see how smart you are when the K-9's come"

No, it was not the ACLU who trained you.

I got 99 problems but a bitch ain't one

Again, do not arouse reasonable suspicion. Thanx, the mngmnt.

With my guidance, a more manageable 98 problems

Ten questions for your day off

2006-09-04T13:39:00.000-04:00

On Labor Day, relax by considering questions even an oscillating fan could answer, may he rest in peace.

I have an oscillating fan at home; it looks like it's saying 'Noo...' so I like to ask it questions that a fan would say 'no' to. "Do you keep my hair in place?" "Do you keep my documents in order?" "Do you have three settings?" Liar! My fan fuckin' lied to me! Now I will pull the pin up. Now you ain't sayin' shit!"

1. Is the Wu-Tang Clan anything to fuck with?

2. a. Is Andy Rooney in touch?
b. Insightful?
c. Incandescent ?

Did you ever notice that I'm annoying?

3. Should I subscribe to Psychology Today?

4. a. Should I wear this trucker hat backwards?
b. At all?

Did you ever notice that I'm annoying?

5. Do you want to come over and watch NASCAR?

6. How about a game of tic-tac-toe?

WTF happened here?

7. Do I look fat?

8. Does Chinatown smell great?

9. Wouldn't you rather be in Times Square right now?

10. Is Albert Pujols assailable?

Dear pitcher,
You'll get 'em next time.
Love, Albert

“Buster” is right

2006-09-03T02:30:00.000-04:00

[Get it?]

Were the season to end tomorrow, Buster Olney would vote for Jermaine Dye for AL MVP. Worse candidates (namely, Derek Jeter) will likely receive first-place votes, but my issues with Mr. Olney are more particular.

The player that Jermaine Dye has become is the player he once was.

AHHH make it stop. This sentence hurts.

Late in the 2001 season, he drove in runs the way he does now, hit for power, performed like a leader. But in the playoffs against the Yankees that year, Dye fouled a ball off his left leg and crushed a bone, and that MVP-type player disappeared.

"It took him a long time to come back," Oakland general manager Billy Beane said yesterday. "What he was then, in the second half of the season, was unbelievable." What Dye is now is incredible. This week, White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen shook up his lineup, moving Dye up to the No. 3 spot, dropping Jim Thome to fourth and Paul Konerko to fifth. The reason for doing this, Guillen explained, is because Dye has more speed, and while batting behind Thome and Konerko, Dye is sometimes roadblocked on the bases.

So far the evidence for Dye being the league's MVP: he has come back from an injury sustained FIVE years ago [this has nothing to do with value, plus it's been FIVE YEARS]; his old GM and his current manager like him.

The shit about being roadblocked is great. In his career Dye has 41 SB, 21 CS. Since the breakeven point is around 70-75%, at his career clip he's actually more valuable to the White Sox when (those assholes!) Thome and Konerko and roadblocking him. In fairness, he's 7-for-10 this year. Whoopdee-fucking-doo.

But Guillen could have made the move entirely because of Dye's hitting ability. The guy is an RBI machine right now. At a time when the White Sox pitching has been inconsistent, sometimes more of a problem than a solution, Dye has been the anchor to the team. Chicago played 29 games in the month of August, and Dye drove in runs in 18 of those, including eight multi-RBI games. He drove in 30 runs in August.

Jermaine Dye:
2006 to date: 0.393 OBP, 0.646 SLG
July 2006: 0.393 OBP, 0.708 SLG, 96 AB
August 2006: 0.390 OBP, 0.682 SLG, 110 AB

A stronger argument is that he's been very good at the game of baseball in the second half of the season, assuming (as you do, Buster) that it matters at what stage of the season the White Sox earn their wins. Dye's been slugging the shit out of the ball, fine, but what distinguished August from the other months is that more people were on base (sometimes roadblocking, no doubt) while he was at the plate. RsBI is not a very good way of measuring how good at baseball is Jermaine Dye, nor anyone else.

"He's a production guy," a scout said yesterday. "He flourishes in a style where he attacks the baseball, rather than taking a lot of pitches. When you get right down to it, runs and RBI are the most important stats in baseball, and he's one of the best at that. He is healthy, he is hitting the ball the other way better than he did earlier in his career, and now he's got power to all fields."

Wait, that's it? No more numbers? You're back to quotes from people who think Jermaine Dye is, like, really neat? And forget managers; now it's a scout who thinks runs and RBI are the most important stats in baseball?!?!?!?! WHAT ABOUT BATTING AVERAGE, HAIRSTYLE, AND NUMBER OF CHILDREN?!?!?!?! Idiot.

OH, and this is actually kinda funny, David Ortiz and Travis Hafner are beating Jermaine Dye in the following categories: runs; RBI. By at least ten. Both players. In both categories. Like, “X's Y total is at least ten higher than Jermaine Dye's Y total” is true when: X=David Ortiz, Y=runs; X=David Ortiz, Y=RBI; X=Travis Hafner, Y=runs; X=Travis Hafner, Y=RBI.

The MVP voting in the AL is a close call. As of today, if I had a ballot, Dye would be the MVP, followed by: 2. Derek Jeter, 3. David Ortiz, 4. Travis Hafner, 5. Johan Santana, 6. Justin Morneau, 7. Joe Mauer, 8. Mariano Rivera, 9. Vladimir Guerrero and 10. Paul Konerko.

I don't know how one factors in position (SS, DH, SP, RP), but for now I'll just point out two features of your list.

(1) You have erroneously listed Derek Jeter second. Fun facts:
Travis Hafner: 0.439 OBP, 0.659 SLG
Manny Ramirez: 0.442 OBP, 0.628 SLG
Derek Jeter: 0.420 OBP, 0.484 SLG
Jason Giambi, DJ's fucking teammate: 0.413 OBP, 0.580 SLG

It is a close call, but its closeness has this much to do with Derek Jeter: zero.

(2) YOU FAILED TO LIST MANNY RAMIREZ IN YOUR TOP TEN.

Dye drove in a run against the Rays on Thursday, but the White Sox lost.

Um...okay. Wow, this is awkward. Seen any good movies lately? Uhh, I think I have to be somewhere now, but I'll talk to you later. No, I'll call you. Yeah, I can let myself out.

Comments regarding three Sharper Image products

2006-09-02T19:58:00.000-04:00

1. The Dazer II Ultrasonic Dog Deterrent

Used extensively by outdoor professionals including mail carriers, couriers, animal-control personnel and meter readers

(a) “extensively”? Could I have the language of origin? Part of speech and definition? Could you use it in a(nother) sentence?
(b) “animal-control personnel” fits seamlessly with the other listed professions in the context of this product, eh?

The Dazer II is a humane substitute for pepper spray, mace or physical force.

Plus it's much lighter than a baseball bat or gun.

2. MicroTRAKgps-powered Locate 1

If your car went missing, could you find it right away? If your teen is told not to drive too far or too fast, how would you know? If you're managing a sales fleet, could you assure yourself they're making timely calls? The answer is "yes" to all these questions and more — with a hidden tracker from MicroTRAKgps™.

I agree. Other questions regarding this product to which the answer is "yes" include:

Is it not so vaguely creepy?

Are there better ways to spend $499.95 plus the cost of update services?

Does the slogan “Secretly track anything that moves!” evoke private parts?

Would it be awkward to explain how you knew your child or sales fleet had violated your wishes?

Is it more or less retarded?

3. The Professional Series Ionic Breeze GP Silent Air Purifier with Ultraviolet Germicidal Protection

No beef with air purifiers or killing germs; just wondering what is Professional about this product. Professional-grade kitchen knives or basketball shoes are neat because you're using the very same product used by individuals whose livelihoods depend on that product performing well, WHEREAS your livelihood doesn't depend on the product's performance. WHO ARE THE PROFESSIONAL AIR BREATHERS and can I get an interview and what are the benefits?

Miths IV/No Major League Baseball Player Nor Reader Left Behind: Robinson Jose Cano

2006-09-02T13:22:00.000-04:00

2005-2006 (through Friday)

Situation	AB	H	HR	RBI	BB	HBP	SO	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS
Overall	894	278	22	113	31	5	111	0.311	0.338	0.466	0.804
Close and Late	137	42	1	11	5	0	18	0.307	0.331	0.409	0.740
RISP	238	57	7	93	12	2	32	0.239	0.282	0.387	0.668

His numbers are much better this year. This season he'd have my vote for MVRC (Most Valuable Robinson Cano), but I'm not a sportswriter and that's not a real award. If his BA improves by another 34 points next season, M-V-P chants might be in order. Plus, he's turning, what, 14 next year? You can't expect a kid who's just been bar mitzvah-ed to draw walks, though you can expect him to do the (apparently controversial) electric slide.

Be regular, Big Papi's beating heart, or witness the yoinking of your MVP award by Robi-Wan Canobi (as far as I know, I just made that up).

Watch the tefillin, Jorge

This Administration won't dignify just anything

2006-09-01T13:09:00.000-04:00

The British TV network More4 will broadcast a docudrama depicting an assassination of W. The network head has described “Death of a President” as an “extraordinarily gripping and powerful piece of work”:

“It’s not sensationalist, or simplistic but a very thought-provoking, powerful drama,” [network head Peter Dale] said. “I hope people will see that the intention behind it is good.”

Now. I understand political violence is a sensitive subject, but (obviously) the film isn't advocating violence. Dale explains:

“It’s a pointed political examination of what the war on terror did to the American body politic.”

The film hasn't been aired yet, so the White House can't say too much. Plus, I understand the desire to marginalize films made by, say, Michael Moore. But this?

The White House declined to comment on the network’s announcement, saying it would not dignify the program with a response.

Somewhere in the White House, someone knows the film will make serious criticisms of this Administration's war on terror. How fitting to respond to a depiction of political violence with a refusal to engage in actual political debate.

BUT THERE'S MORE. What do the people think?

A new film depicts President Bush being assassinated. Should it be shown? * 25704 responses
50% Yes, it's a good display of free speech.
44% No, the filmmakers have gone too far.
5.1% Perhaps -- but not in the United States.

Sure, MSNBC readers might not be representative. Sure, responses to a voluntary survey are tainted. But even when primed to think of the term “free speech,” 44% of (some group of people, likely including many Americans) think a depiction of an assassination shouldn't be shown. Probably the response would've been different if more vivid language had been used (Should its airers be prosecuted? Should the government prevent the network from airing it in the US? Should airing it be illegal?), but still, WTF?

Miths III/Readers' Request: David Americo Ortiz

2006-09-01T11:41:00.000-04:00

2002-2006 (through Thursday)

Situation	AB	H	HR	RBI	BB	HBP	SO	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS
Overall	2528	735	186	584	369	13	527	0.291	0.384	0.590	0.974
Close and Late	354	113	37	111	50	3	85	0.319	0.408	0.729	1.137
RISP	725	221	30	369	139	1	131	0.305	0.417	0.530	0.947

His middle name is like America, but masculine!

Note the AB/HR disparity (or what amounts to the same thing, the SLG disparity) in Close and Late versus Overall.

Also, Big Papi was still fastened to a foundation in 2002, but even then he was better in Close and Late. During 2003-present, in contrast, he's been off the chain.

My mom picked this out for me

Media Review: Astrology

2006-08-31T18:30:00.000-04:00

1. A follow-up on that nutty French soccer coach.

According to MSNBC:

Domenech was ridiculed for his aversion to players born under the Scorpio sign, including such experienced players as Arsenal midfielder Robert Pires.

“I do not base myself only on astrology, but in the end, it can have an influence on my decisions,” he said.

After beating Spain, Brazil and Portugal, no one doubts his strategy now.

This last sentence is false. For example, I doubt the strategy to the extent it is influenced by astrology. You know who else should? You. Also, everyone else.

“I agree, sometimes it did not seem to be self-evident,” he said.

Maybe there's a language barrier here, but is Domenech actually suggesting that most of the time (or even any of the time) the truth of astrology is self-evident? Please excuse me while I clean up the cerebral cortex which has inconveniently exploded all over my monitor.

2. NYT snarks it up.

My favorite part:

“Pluto does not take prisoners,” [Richard Brown, an astrologer in Toronto] said. “World War II was your essential Pluto moment.”

Jigga what?

3. The Skeptic's Dictionary takes a shot.

(a) I like the portmanteau in the website name.

(b) I would have gone with “http://skepdic.com/astrology.html” rather than “http://skepdic.com/astrolgy.html,” but, like, whatever, it's cool.

(c) The reader comment “Astrology is Bigotry” is a little bizarre. I agree that astrology has no scientific basis. Bob Steiner combines this premise with the definition:

Bigotry, n. Prejudgment of a person based upon an accident of birth over which the person has no control, and which has no scientific validity.

to deduce that astrology is bigotry. My problem is that this definition seems to have been pulled from somewhere between Mr. Steiner's belly button and his kneecaps. It's pretty boring, but you can see for yourself: five reputable online dictionaries don't say anything about scientific validity in their definitions of bigot(ry):

one
two
three
four
and five

Personally, I would've gone with one of these:

Astrology is carcinogenic. Carcinogenic is an adjective meaning “cancer-causing” or “having no scientific validity.”

Astrology fucked your mom. Fucked your mom is a phrase meaning “engaged in sexual intercourse with the woman who gave birth to you” or “having no scientific validity.”

Astrology chokes in clutch situations. Clutch situations is a baseball term meaning “in the seventh inning or later of a one-run or tie game”or “rigorous scientific trials.”

4. Cosmo girl! or maybe CosmoGIRL! (I have no clue how to punctuate magazine titles like this) has a deal for you.

Daily Horoscope on your Cell Phone: $2.49 per month, charged directly to your phone bill.

I can beat this offer. Suppose a typical horoscope is 250 characters. For $2.00 per month, every day I will text you a completely random string of 250 characters, including but not limited to letters, numbers, punctuation marks, and spaces. My offer is better for two reasons.
(a) It saves you $0.49 per month.
(b) Since the strings of symbols which daily appear on your cell phone will be incomprehensible, you will not read them in an attempt to glean meaning. Therefore you will not absorb as having a shred of truth a load of bullshit, whereas there is a nonzero probability you will absorb some bullshit if you subscribe to Cosmo(...)'s service.

5. Notorious B.I.G. speaks the truth in his timeless classic “Big Poppa.”
[thanks to reader Aaron for assistance on this one]

Most of these niggaz think they be mackin but they be actin
Who they attractin with that line, "What's your name, what's
your sign"?
Soon as he buy that wine I just creep up from behind
And ask what your interests are, "who you be with"?
Things to make you smile, what numbers to dial

He gets it. This is no surprise as Ready to Die is one of the ten best albums of all time.

Images of Long Island (Nova Scotia)

2006-08-30T15:23:00.000-04:00

Any correspondents in Chicago?

2006-08-30T00:23:00.000-04:00

Your assignment, if you choose to accept it: check out the DEA's Target America exhibit. Want to learn more? Check out the DEA's press release.

Before or after we parse said release, enjoy:
(a) Good work by our friends at the Post.
(b) The rebuttal -- N.B. don't get distracted by the sexy eyes.

Target America Opens at the Museum of Science and Industry

The Museum of Science and Industry. Why, of course.

Most Americans are unaware of the tremendous costs associated with the production, sale and use of illegal drugs.

I'm sure this exhibit is a boon to awareness, but another explanation is that we don't have a color-coded way of communicating the Drug Threat Level. On April 20, for example, the DEA oughtta be waving some brightly-colored flag.

The costs to society, estimated at more than $60 billion a year, are assumed by all of us in some way—in users’ lost productivity, their health care, criminal justice costs, child welfare costs and the impact drug use has on our own health and safety.

It's just a press release, fine, but if you don't explain how you arrived at a number like this, you might as well say illegal drugs cost society 14,000 unicorns and 800 Tim Teufel rookie cards each year. I'm looking at you, “users’ lost productivity,” “criminal justice costs,” and “our own health and safety.” [more on this later]

Target America : Opening Eyes to the Danger Drugs Cause , presented by McDonald’s, is a powerful exhibit developed by the Drug Enforcement Administration Museum.

(1) I wanted to say McDonald's blows, but even the nutjobs at The Nation have some nice things to say about Mickey Dizzle.
(2) I humbly suggest this exhibit be moved from the Museum of Science and Industry to the Drug Enforcement Administration Museum.
(3) Bonus: what percentage of visitors to the DEA Museum are stoned out of their minds?

Science and Industry dude is about speak. I'll copy it all in the name of Fairness.

“We are pleased to bring the Target America exhibit to Chicago ,” said David Mosena , President and CEO of the Museum of Science and Industry. “Our mission to inspire and educate the community includes addressing tough topics that are real and relevant, and increasing understanding of issues like drug abuse. This exhibit not only teaches young people about the dangers of using drugs, but it also exposes them to the science and technology behind drugs and drug enforcement—the effects drugs have on the body, the chemists who work with the DEA to analyze drug samples, and the advanced technology that is used to apprehend those involved in the drug trade.”

More on the justification shortly, but for now, “inspire”?! I think you meant “intimidate” or maybe “I'm surprisingly douchey for a guy who runs a science and industry museum.”

The exhibit begins with an in-depth look at drug production, trafficking and money laundering—in a historical and present-day context—from trading opium on the Silk Road in the 1800s to the Columbian cocaine trade that exists today. Guests will also discover the many intricate ways different drugs are produced throughout the world. Displays illustrating drug production include a recreated jungle cocaine lab, an Afghan heroin factory and a toxic methamphetamine hotel “cook” room.

This actually sounds pretty interesting, if a little Hell House-y. [You're very welcome.]

Displays that focus on trafficking show how drugs are smuggled in soles of shoes; soaked into fabrics; or even swallowed by drug “mules,” people who perform the dangerous and sometimes lethal task of swallowing balloons full of drugs to transport the illegal cargo. The exhibit also explains where drug money goes and how it is secretly laundered, very often through wire transfers, and sometimes to the financial benefit of terrorist groups around the world.

OK, if this counts as science and industry, here are some suggestions for subjects of a “real and relevant” exhibit:

stem-cell research

global warming / climate change

how explosives are smuggled onto planes

how we lost 241 Americans to a truck bomber

how money is laundered and how we catch people who launder money, whether or not they're getting people high

how terrorism is financed (versus how drug money sometimes financially benefits terrorists, PS the drug war is good for terrorists and mobsters)

[without sacrificing national security] how we track terrorists

a history of Saddam Hussein's ties to terrorist groups

the effects of (GASP) legalizing drugs

a history of museums being steamrolled by organizations trying to ride the coattails of the war on terror by campaigns of conflation

The opium and heroin connections of Afghanistan’s Taliban regime are explored, as are the interrelationships between drugs and terrorism. A special tribute to victims of September 11 th includes a towering sculpture made from pieces of the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

I cannot stress this enough: VOMIT

A section special to the Chicago exhibit highlights the evolution of drug enforcement technology in Chicago, from an old-time Chicago Police Department “call box” to today’s high-tech POD surveillance cameras that transmit video wirelessly.

This sounds like interesting history, but I'm not sure why it gets to be near pieces of the World Trade Center.

From there, the exhibit explores the devastating effects drugs have on our society. Guests view actual wreckage from a drug-related car accident, a tenement crack-house environment, and the bedroom of a young teen who has accessed a Web site that sells illegal drugs.

OK, drugs are bad. OBVIOUSLY they should be illegal. PS September 11th.

The terrible toll drugs take on the body is highlighted as well. Guests view common patterns of brain activity in addicts and learn how MRI machines are helping scientists uncover the secrets of addiction and recovery. An interactive display allows guests to compare the effects of certain “rewards” in a normal brain versus an addicted brain, and discover how addictions take control of the brain’s reward circuit, gradually altering motivation and desire. Another interactive display allows guests to hear true stories of addiction and recovery from addicts themselves.

This sounds like interesting science. WTC chunks should fit right in.

The exhibit touches upon the damage that drug production has on our environment, which is not often addressed. This includes the clear cutting of the rain forests in Central and South America to plant coca fields, the destruction of natural forests in the U.S. to grow marijuana and the dumping of hazardous waste products into the water table after the manufacture of methamphetamine.

I wanted to say: Hahahahaha McDonald's, you have got to be fucking kidding me.

But there are pesky facts = press releases from organizations I trust.

At the end of the exhibit, guests reach the exhibit’s “Discovery Corner,” an area that offers many resources on how the cycle of drug abuse and drug-related violence can be broken with awareness, outreach and treatment.

Sounds good, though maybe these efforts fail to reach their targets in the Museum of Science and Industry.

"Target America is a powerful display showing how drugs eat away not just at individual users, but entire families, communities and our nation,” DEA Administrator Karen Tandy said. “Drugs cost all of us dearly: from financing terrorism
Remark: drugs are lucrative for terrorists because they're illegal

and causing crime,
Remark: in part because drug prices are higher when drugs are illegal

to increased health care costs,
Remark: not to mention the cost of imprisoning those fuckers!

danger on the highways,
Remark: alcohol is legal though driving under the influence is not
Remark: I wish our DEA administrator would keep arguments like this to herself

economic loss
Remark: we could collect revenue by taxing drugs
Remark: if you're counting as losses money that finances drug habits that would otherwise be part of the legitimate economy, you are using circular reasoning
Remark: if you're counting losses due to financial markets being closed after September 11th, fuck you

and family breakdown.
OKAY, DRUGS ARE BAD, GOT IT, btw, families of victims of September 11th

In conclusion, a quick quiz. Which public official uttered the following line?

"If you quit drugs, you join the fight against terror in America."

(a) some DEA windbag
(b) George W. Bush
(c) John Ashcroft
(d) Alberto Gonzales

answer

Here is a good example of something you shouldn't buy for me.

2006-08-28T00:20:00.000-04:00

Courtesy of Brookstone, the wireless remote cooking thermometer.

What's more, the motherfucker talks.

Grilling on the BBQ is a great way to entertain. Constantly standing next to the grill, however, is not.

Gosh, the tension is killing me. I love to grill. I hate standing next to a grill. It's quite a conundrum! Merchant Brookstone, do you have a solution?

Now you can have the freedom to mingle with our remote meat thermometer for BBQ.

Brookstone again! with its finger on the pulse of America.

A voice prompt alerts you when your entrée is “Almost Ready” and “Ready.”

I wish there were a vibrate mode too. That way I could discreetly sneak out of a large lecture to remove my barbecued items from my barbecue grill.

It’s one of the hottest BBQ gifts you can give!

Clever!

A remote meat thermometer for BBQ takes the guesswork out of grilling.

It's an obvious point, but this sentence is just as true if you remove “remote.” Do not interpret this remark as a request for an old-fashioned meat thermometer.

Brookstone BBQ gifts sizzle with innovation.

Touché.

Remote meat thermometer for BBQ works from up to 300 feet away.

IT'S ABOUT FUCKING TIME. My current remote meat thermometer kicks out at around 220 feet, and many times I have found myself wanting to be another 75 or even 80 feet from my grill.

I wonder: when I hear “Almost Ready,” do I have enough time to comfortably traverse 300 feet? Does the remote device know how far I am from the grill? The next version of this product should be GPS-powered. Brookstone, don't tell me you don't have the technology!

Bonus Safety Recommendation: if there are kids around, make sure there is an adult within 300 feet of any grill in use, remote meat thermometer-equipped or not.

Belt clip for added freedom.

Typical meat thermometers come with less freedom. Also, they fail to support our troops. Good Americans buy the remote meat thermometer and receive two installments of freedom: freedom to mingle, and freedom to use one's hands while mingling. (Note the hand usage freedom is added by the belt clip.)

Display backlight for convenient night grilling.

But it's so dark at night! Is it safe to grill then? Yes!

Brookstone, how did you miss this opportunity to promote your handle mount grill light which “literally brightens any meal”? As far as BBQ gifts go, I must agree it's “a truly brilliant idea that puts the spotlight on your cooking!”

What's the deal with: Dippin' Dots

2006-08-26T16:06:00.000-04:00

For years I have wondered about the neurological makeups of the set of geniuses which invented theIce Cream of the Future. I have some questions for them, but since they're no longer Prosthetic Wernicke readers, I will accept answers from anyone.

What is “dippin'” or even “dipping” about your dots? We, your potential but almost certainly not actual customers, can't dip the dots into anything. At best we can dip our spoons into the dots, but then you'd need to produce “dippin' spoons.” But that product name would fail to be: alliterative, irredundant, a referencer of anything well-established.

I have noticed that in the decade or so since your product hit the market, the future has only gotten closer. However, sales and consumption of your product don't seem to be increasing with time. So I wonder: when is the future? And, WHAT THE HELL HAPPENS IN THE FUTURE THAT WE WANT/NEED ICE CREAM TO BE SERVED AS A COLLECTION OF SMALL SPHERES RATHER THAN A SINGLE SCOOP OF CREAMY GOODNESS? Your Small Spheres Format has a number of disadvantages: inferior texture, inability to deftly handle chunks of (say) cookie dough or brownie, likelier to spill out of a cup or spoon, more expensive (I would imagine) to manufacture. So whatever happens in the future must be serious enough to outweigh these concerns. Or, are you trying to make ice cream crappier so that we consume less of it, and if so, why did you enter the business of selling ice cream/future ice cream?

ALSO, in light of the fact that you predict future consumers of ice cream will want a bunch of tiny spheres, why do you sell Dots 'n Cream? One projection goes: Future = Dots, Distant Future = Dots 'n Cream, Distanter Future = Cream, which is to say, the Distanter Future is now, PS your product blows. This would mean you're admitting defeat! So the scenario must be: Present = Cream, Future = Dots, Distant Future = Dots 'n Cream, because the Dots and Cream mated to produce an evolutionarily superior offspring.

FINALLY, How many members are in your club? What's the deal with them? How much does membership cost? What are the benefits? Do I get something for my keychain?

When kids try to sneak breast milk and gasoline onto planes, wash their mouths out with SoaP.

2006-08-23T12:06:00.000-04:00

Confession: last night I saw SoaP. Some comments.

[Spoiler alert: you already know how it ends, but I will reveal aspects of the movie which are more hilarious if you don't know they're coming.]

Opening Credits
Most movies just flash the names of the people most essential to the film's creation, but SoaP is not most movies. After “Samuel L. Jackson” fades, “Snakes” materializes in the center of the screen. Seconds later “On A Plane” shows up right underneath. NICE.

Awareness of Own Far-Fetchedness
(a) After learning from Agent Flynn that the plane is infested with poisonous snakes, Agent Harris prefaces his request for a snake expert with an incredulous “I can't believe I'm saying this.”
(b) Stewardess Claire is quite aware of her disbelief upon asking the passengers if any among them knows how to fly a plane. (Both pilots die.)
(c) When Sammy utters the picture's most memorable line (“That's it! Enough is enough! I have had it with these motherfucking snakes on this motherfucking plane!”), we too have had it with the snakes and (more generally) the movie -- about 85 minutes have elapsed and 20 more is all we can take.

Mentions of Interrogation Techniques
Two.

Snake/Penis Humor
Three.
First human victims are a young couple trying to gain membership in the Mile High Club.
Next victim is a man who's begun to urinate after referring to his penis as “big boy.” The snake pops out of the toilet and goes right for the good stuff.
A sleeping old drunk woman is aroused by a slitherer, then killed by it.

Stereotypes: Black Guys
Groups of three black guys may consist of one rap star and two childhood friends, both of whom are quite fat.
When someone loses his cool in a tense situation, it's the black guy, and he reaches for a gun.
When someone loses his cool in a tense situation, the older black guy knows how to snatch the gun back and restore order.
Tough black guys like to cheesily bond with white surfer guys.

Stereotypes: White Surfer Guys
White surfer guys drink Red Bull and lots of it.

Stereotypes: Asian Guys
Asian mob bosses like to karate fight in their spare time.
Asian mob bosses are ridiculously fit.
Asian kickboxers are actually quite sensitive.

Stereotypes: Venomous Snake Traffickers
VSTs tend to be white, male, unshaven, scraggly-haired.
VSTs tend to wear trucker hats without a trace of irony. Also, tight jeans.
VSTs own shotguns.

Stereotypes: Pompous Older British Men
POBM are pompous.
POBM are often suffocated by boa constrictors and you feel the least bad for them because they were douchebags all along.

Stereotypes: Eastern European Women
EEW like olive oil.
EEW carry their babies in a sling. The sling is in the front.
EEW have hot accents.
EEW are hot.
EEW have expertise in removing snake venom.

The Tuesday Night Audience at 23 St and 8 Ave
HOLY CRAP did the audience blow. The theater was only 25-40% full, but that's enough to know when the audience is reacting to something. Some things and how the audience reacted:

Thing	Reaction
opening credits: “On a Plane” fades in	silence
Eddie Kim (Asian mob boss) kills prosecutor with baseball bat; we see only the swings and blood splattering all over his white suit	not laughter
interrogators to WSG (the witness): we know you were there, your fingerprints are all over it; plastic bag with Red Bull can and magazine tossed onto table	not laughter
stewardess tells WSG his decision to testify against Eddie Kim is “hot?”	not laughter
urinating man appears to have huge snake for a penis	not laughter
Sam Jackson tazes snakes	not laughter
Flynn: We need to create a barrier between us and the snakes	not laughter
Flynn explains to WSG why WSG can't leave safe area: if you die, this was all for nothing	not laughter
airhead lady defends her suggestion to take pictures of the snakes so experts can have proper antivenoms ready (POBM had mocked her): it's called email, dickwad	not laughter
boa constrictor makes surprise appearance by falling through some sort of ceiling	not laughter
POBM hurls airhead's yappy dog at boa	not laughter
Flynn delivers indelible “...motherfucking snakes on this motherfucking plane!” line	applause without laughter
after Sam declares he's going to “open some windows” (OMG he meant by firing bullets at them!), one snake flung from the cockpit wraps around airhead's neck; sensitive kickboxer rips it off	laughter! no, JK, the reation was in fact: not laughter

I checked again, and the audience seemed to be composed of humans, not (say) androids or electric sheep. This experience was reminiscent of my watching in a bar full of strangers the World Cup Final. The TV announcer mentioned the French coach refused to have (some astrological sign)s on his team and strongly preferred not to field (some other astrological sign)s. Wide-eyed and agape, I thought, AREN'T YOU BATSHIT INSANE IF YOU EXCLUDE FROM THE POOL FROM WHICH YOU WILL CREATE A WORLD-CLASS SOCCER TEAM TEN PERCENT OF THE POPULATION BASED SOLELY ON THE BIRTH MONTH OF THAT TEN PERCENT? but no one else in the bar seemed to notice. (At least they might have been tuning out the announcer; there is no tuning out Samuel L. Jackson.)

Questions about Love and Dating for the 21st Century: Technology

2006-08-23T00:34:00.000-04:00

Rate* the following behaviors according to the scale:
Totally cool / Cool enough / Acceptable / Unacceptable / Atrocious

Justify** your ratings.

1. Coming out of the closet (revealing that you are sexually attracted to members of the very gender of which you are a member) via clicking the appropriate boxes on a website such as facebook or myspace (or friendster, which Demetri Martin points out has itself gotten kinda gay).

2. Internet dating as a sociological experiment.

3. Internet dating in earnest.

4. Answering “Atrocious” to the previous prompt solely due to a freaking bizarre experience endured by a friend in middle school.

5. Breaking off contact with someone solely because his/her emails are awfully written, ASSUMING YOU WOULD OTHERWISE SUSPECT NOTHING TO BE WRONG WITH PERSON IN QUESTION'S NOODLE.

6. Giving so-called “bedroom eyes” to strangers until one of them tries to contact you here.

7. Creative uses of the apostrophe.

8. Creative uses of the testicles.

9. Attempting to secure a first date via text message.

10. Breaking off contact with someone solely because (s)he persists in arguing about a factual question*** which could be resolved immediately by the Internet, ASSUMING INTERNET ACCESS IS READILY AVAILABLE.

11. Exchanging cutesy text messages with a significant other while seated in a room with said other IN ADDITION TO friends who have expressed interest in carrying on a conversation.

12. Breaking off contact with someone solely because (s)he does not use gmail.

13. Being sexually attracted to an Apple product.

* e.g. by making a comment.
** e.g. by making a funny.
*** e.g. who won the NL MVP in 1991? or, is there a God, and if so, what's the deal with Jerusalem?

Miths II: Alexander Emmanuel Rodriguez

2006-08-21T23:19:00.000-04:00

2002-2006 (through Sunday)

Situation	AB	H	HR	RBI	BB	HBP	SO	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS
Overall	2897	866	213	587	417	57	629	0.299	0.398	0.573	0.971
Close and Late	389	101	24	81	66	6	96	0.260	0.375	0.519	0.895
RISP	797	233	51	361	153	16	191	0.292	0.416	0.537	0.953

2006 Close and Late:
14/65, 2 HR, 10 RBI, 7 BB, 1 HBP, 19 SO; .215/.297/.369/.666

Those are awful numbers, though 65 AB is a small sample. Oh, also, the recent media pressure can't plausibly claim credit.

First 23 PA 2006 Close and Late:
2/20, 0 HR, 0 RBI, 2 BB, 1 HBP, 5 SO

Analyzing miths: is Derek Sanderson Jeter a Clutch Hitter?

2006-08-20T23:37:00.000-04:00

2002-2006 (through Saturday)

Situation	AB	H	HR	RBI	BB	HBP	SO	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS
Overall	2891	894	80	350	294	52	495	0.309	0.383	0.452	0.835
Close and Late	365	94	10	54	51	11	70	0.258	0.365	0.381	0.746
RISP	656	204	15	266	102	11	130	0.311	0.412	0.433	0.845

Stats culled from ESPN.

Close And Late - results in the 7th inning or later with the batting team either ahead by one run, tied or with the potential tying run at least on deck.

RISP - Runners in Scoring Position

The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

2006-08-20T15:55:00.000-04:00

Excepting Kid Rock's sexy getup, none of these are actually flags, which leads to the question: would (sadness!) it have been illegal to desecrate these items? Printed images of the flag? Electronic images of flag desecration seem to clearly fail being “physical,” but how might we unambiguously separate .jpg from .flag? No wonder the amendment failed.

"Countless men and women have died defending that flag," said Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., closing two days of debate. "It is but a small humble act for us to defend it."

Humble. Exactly.

The Katrina amendment?

I'm tardy. He's a windbag.

2006-08-18T10:35:00.000-04:00

Six months ago, Richard Cohen over at the WaPo penned an (ostensibly serious) column called, “What Is the Value of Algebra?” Though I'm tardy, I would like to respond.

N.B. All of the column's text reappears here, though I will interrupt frequently and at times obnoxiously.

I am haunted by Gabriela Ocampo.

Last year, she dropped out of the 12th grade at Birmingham High School in Los Angeles after failing algebra six times in six semesters, trying it a seventh time and finally just despairing over ever getting it. So, according to the Los Angeles Times, she "gathered her textbooks, dropped them at the campus book room and, without telling a soul, vanished from Birmingham High School."

Gabriela, this is Richard: There's life after algebra.

In truth, I don't know what to tell Gabriela. The L.A. school district now requires all students to pass a year of algebra and a year of geometry in order to graduate. This is something new for Los Angeles (although 17 states require it) and it is the sort of vaunted education reform that is supposed to close the science and math gap and make the U.S. more competitive. All it seems to do, though, is ruin the lives of countless kids. In L.A., more kids drop out of school on account of algebra than any other subject. I can hardly blame them.

All that such reforms seem to do is ruin the lives of (a finite and discernible number of) kids if one focuses only on those who fail. But if math/science scores improve overall, to another anecdote collector, the reforms might seem to enhance education. It would be really neat if we had tools for analyzing situations in which there are both winners and losers, and if those tools were other than (a) use of emotional anecdote; (b) rhetoric.

Whether or not these specific reforms are wise, your method of analyzing them is most certainly unwise.

[Foreshadowing] Whether these specific reforms are too hard on students is a quite distinct issue from whether algebra should be part of such reforms.

I confess to be one of those people who hate math. I can do my basic arithmetic all right (although not percentages) but I flunked algebra (once), barely passed it the second time -- the only proof I've ever seen of divine intervention -- somehow passed geometry and resolved, with a grateful exhale of breath, that I would never go near math again. I let others go on to intermediate algebra and trigonometry while I busied myself learning how to type. In due course, this came to be the way I made my living. Typing: Best class I ever took.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not advocating replacing algebra with typing, and instead are exorcising adolescent demons in a column published by the Washington Post.

Here's the thing, Gabriela: You will never need to know algebra. I have never once used it and never once even rued that I could not use it.

Have you, Mr. Cohen, considered that you are quite lucky to be able to support yourself by your writing talents alone? That the experiences of a columnist at one of the nation's top papers might not generalize to your subject?

You will never need to know -- never mind want to know -- how many boys it will take to mow a lawn if one of them quits halfway and two more show up later -- or something like that.

Word. Those textbook writers are such clowns for trying to relate possibly intimidating and abstract material to the mundane lives of students. Those writers are of course really saying, “Algebra is justified by its applications to these word problems. Don't remember the techniques and try to apply them elsewhere, just remember how to solve these silly examples. You are learning nothing more than how to find lawn-mowing times.”

Most of math can now be done by a computer or a calculator. On the other hand, no computer can write a column or even a thank-you note -- or reason even a little bit. If, say, the school asked you for another year of English or, God forbid, history, so that you actually had to know something about your world, I would be on its side. But algebra? Please.

I don't know how you determined what comprises “most of math” if you struggle with percentages, or why a human's ability to program a machine to do a task says anything about the level of reasoning involved in the task, to say nothing of the reasoning required to create a machine which can complete certain tasks much more quickly than any human can. [If computers kinda suck at voice-recognition, is it high reasoning to type what others?] Sometimes (gasp!) humans and their computers work in tandem. Sometimes computers offer evidence for what humans have thought for a long time. Anyway computers haven't made humans obsolete.

Probably you had in mind more down-to-earth instances of math, in which case your use of “now” is a little bit confusing. But fine -- computers have made great strides. So what? Humans (still) need to convert the real world into a language a computer understands. Then humans (still) need to convert the computer's results into a statement about the real world. BONUS: struggling with problems a calculator could do might build one's quantitative sense. DOUBLE BONUS: at best you're arguing for computer education to replace math; probably they should both be taught.

As a show of goodwill, I concede your point about thank-you notes.

Gabriela, sooner or later someone's going to tell you that algebra teaches reasoning. This is a lie propagated by, among others, algebra teachers. Writing is the highest form of reasoning. This is a fact. Algebra is not. The proof of this, Gabriela, is all the people in my high school who were whizzes at math but did not know a thing about history and could not write a readable English sentence. I can cite Shelly, whose last name will not be mentioned, who aced algebra but when called to the board in geography class, located the Sahara Desert right where the Gobi usually is. She was off by a whole continent.

Let's start with a technical point, Mr. Writer, Sir. Your pair of sentences:“This is a fact. Algebra is not.” could be construed as meaning that algebra is not a fact. This would be both an awkward and incorrect thing to say.

Your use of the word “fact” is at best creative and at worst wrong. Likewise with “proof” and “lie.”

Why do you single out algebra? If writing, not algebra, is the highest form of reasoning, surely it's the case that writing, not geography, is the highest form of reasoning. Oh, right, Richard Cohen has no geography demons, and Richard Cohen's demons should be the basis for education policy.

Also, I asked around, and none of my friends have ever suffered in the workplace or in higher education for not being able to identify a particulat desert on a map.

I loooooove that your “proof” of the “fact” that writing, not algebra, is the highest form of reasoning, consists in the fact* that you went to school with kids who were good at math but bad at writing and geography. You're again being (almost laughably) unfair, Richard. Algebra isn't the best because (you claim) mastery doesn't spill over to writing ability. OK, fine. If writing is the highest form of reasoning, by the test you apply to algebra, shouldn't it be the case that all of the best writing students are naturally whizzes at math and geography?

Not only is your reasoning unfair, it's circular. You assume either writing or algebra is the highest form of reasoning; whatever. Your reason for asserting the highest form of reasoning is writing, not algebra, is that algebra doesn't teach the highest form of reasoning, which is writing. This argument makes approximately no sense whatsoever.

Fact: baseball is the best sport.
Proof: I went to high school with some people who were really good at football but could not hit a curveball to save their lives. What's more, these kids couldn't make omelets for shit. QED.

*I'm trusting you here!

Look, Gabriela, I am not anti-algebra.

You have a funny way of showing it!

It has its uses, I suppose, and I think it should be available for people who want to take it. Maybe students should even be compelled to take it, but it should not be a requirement for graduation. There are those of you, and Gabriela you are one, who know what it is like to stare at an algebra problem until you have eyeballed a hole in the page and not understand a thing you're seeing . There are those of us who know the sweat, the panic, the trembling, cold fear that comes from the teacher casting an eye in your direction and calling you to the blackboard. It is like being summoned to your own execution.

Algebra should be available, maybe compulsory. You suppose it has its uses. REVOLUTIONARY CONCESSIONS. You know, I think schooling through grade 12 should be available, maybe compulsory. As yet another show of goodwill, I'll one-up you: I think writing “readable English sentences” should be compulsory, maybe mandatory for graduation. But really this is on you (!); if this column has any substance underneath your rhetoric and appeal to emotion, you really (like, REALLY) should have answered the following question:

Should there be language/writing requirements for graduation?

On this subject you've said only:

If, say, the school asked you for another year of English or, God forbid, history, so that you actually had to know something about your world, I would be on its side.

So we may “ruin lives” over your favorite subjects, but not mine? Or, you have a general problem with policies which you view as too harsh on kids and are using your column (which the Washington Post Company has been kind enough to publish) to expose your innumeracy to the world?

Perhaps you are right in suggesting that calling students to the blackboard is bad pedagogy -- if publicly failing at math sours one's view of the subject, publicly being “off by a whole continent” is likely to ruin geography. I'm forgetting my point here...wait for it...wait...OH RIGHT, the point made by your story has nothing to do with algebra. Whoops!

Almost 20 years ago, I wrote a similar column about algebra. Math teachers struck back with a vengeance. They made so many claims for algebra's intrinsic worth that I felt, as I once had in class, like a dummy. Once again, I just didn't get it. Still, in the two decades since, I have lived a pretty full life and never, ever used -- or wanted to use -- algebra. I was lucky, though. I had graduated from high school and gone on to college. It's different for you, Gabriela. Algebra ruined many a day for me. Now it could ruin your life.

A (final) incredibly irritating feature of your column is that you treat writing and algebra as utterly distinct subjects. In writing courses students (ideally) learn to communicate their ideas to others. In math courses students (ideally and among other things) learn to communicate their mathematical ideas to others. Every equation is a sentence. Every manipulation of an equation is the assertion that one sentence implies another. Every word problem involves translating words into symbols, manipulating those symbols, then translating the answer back into words.

Sounds a lot like reasoning, doesn't it?

Your complete reliance on anecdote without a shred of analysis or fact is nauseating.

Grade: F

moron search engine understand not combustion

2006-08-17T12:37:00.000-04:00

One's relationship with a search engine is like one's relationship with a priest, doctor, lawyer, or journalist. In other words, keep Slate away from your medical records and your churches.

jokes about dick cheney
So far, Mr(s). AOL User-Person, I like you.

jokes about dick cheney but not george bush
Okay, not anymore. Plus, you have used one preposition and one conjunction, whereas you should have used zero and zero, respectively.

dick cheney creep
dick cheney dickhead
I too resort to name-calling when I can't think of anything funny, but in the future you can just think these things and not type them into a search engine.

where is iraq
This is earnest if nothing else. If something else, ignorant.

where is lebenon
Let me know if you ever figure this one out.

his bullets
his bullies
Hezbollah is a transliteration. You is a moron.

bush appruval
Ouch.

bush approvel
Why did you change the “a”? You almost had it! You almost passed a fifth grade spelling test!

bush drops below
I would really hate computers if I had to come up with phrases to replace words like “approval.” Alternatively, I would learn how to spell words like “approval.”

love thine enemas
Hahahahaha, that's pretty funny. Maybe you've been kidding all along.

love thine enemies
bible quote of the day
insperation from bible
This is awkward.

george bush great president
george w bush great president
dream on
I choose to view these as a unit.

places like crawford but without cindy sheehan
I'm not sure what you mean by “like.” Did Sheehan really ruin the city for you?

crawford the town not cindy crawford
Probably you should have dropped “cindy” altogether and left “sheehan.”

like crawford tx but not so hot
best places to retire not hot
best places to retire global warming
global warming mith
global warming myth
Someone is a little defensive about his/her pseudoscience.
mith ?!?!?! really?!?!?!

crawford hot
cindy crawford hot
Are you taking suggestions from the search engine?

rice hot
rice hot not recipes
rice naked
rice nude
Stare at this: Condoleezza
Now, try to spell: the first name of the Secretary of State.
Finally, do this: reveal that you want to see Condi naked.

bible quotes resisting temptation
Sorry, I couldn't.

Money-saving tips: beverages edition

2006-08-17T10:31:00.000-04:00

Combine	With	To Obtain

We've got tons of steel in the air. The last thing we need is a crate of 500 poisonous reptiles.

2006-08-16T12:54:00.000-04:00

Only two days separate us from learning how Samuel L. Jackson will handle serpents on his (matriarch-grabbing) airborne vessel! The producers have copied the marketing strategy known as Intense Appeal to Two Disjoint Segments of the Population, also used to promote Deep Blue Sea. In no particular order those Segments are:

(1) people who are:
(a) scared senseless out of proportion to beasts
(b) excessively nervous about an uncertain future

(2) people with:
(a) instinctive irreverence
(b) a willingness to be entertained rather than disgusted at objectively putrid art
(c) ten dollars both they and an African child can do without

While I won't see Snakes on a Plane (SoaP), genealogically I see it as seventh in a line begun by a giant gorilla. With the possible exception of a certain rabid dog, each member of the line is superior (evolutionarily, not cinematically) to its predecessor. Each points towards the formula: Frightening Creature + Intimidating Feature of Modernity = $$ + Amygdala Action. N.B. these aren't all putrid.

Film	Beast	Modernity	Opposable Thumbs	Sorry, I Don't Speak Grunt
King Kong (1933)	giant gorilla	New York City	gorillas are real	fell for a lady; giant gorillas are not real; probably stinky
Godzilla (1954)	dino-mammalian savage	nuclear weapons	targeted and mature IFM	modernity solely responsible for the creature, so no organic associations with Godzilla to exploit; not a real creature
Jaws (1975)	great white shark	suburban sprawl/marine biology	human response to threat plays prominent role; excellent Beast	closing beach might have averted disaster, so terror tenuous
Cujo (1983)	rabid St. Bernard	domestic problems put into perspective	creature undergoes transformation to become fearsome; bats (also scary) involved	humans in no way responsible for said change; IFM lacking; no Soviets; Beast evokes only Fear, no Awe
Jurassic Park (1993)	dinosaurs	um, THEY MADE FUCKING DINOSAURS WITH A COMPUTER	science-y; dinosaurs win; Samuel L. Jackson	Beast and Modernity effectively the same idea
Deep Blue Sea (1999)	genetically engineered sharks	genetic engineering; Alzheimer's research	naturally scary Beast enhanced by Modernity; Samuel L. Jackson	fuel for opponents of stem-cell research; LL Cool J
SoaP (2006)	snakes	airplanes	naturally scary Beast enhanced by Modernity without being science-y; Symbol of Modernity now moderner than ever; Samuel L. Jackson	snakes not trained to attack only the witness; planes associated with lawbreaking groups other than the mob

The Red-Headed Stepchildren

The Net (1995): An enthusiastic web user's identity is stolen.
In its favor: Made before the internet or identity theft hit it big.
Not part of the line because: No Beasts, though the cast tried its hardest.

Anaconda (1997): A National Geographic crew is kidnapped by a snake hunter.
In its favor: The snake vomits captured prey so that it may kill again.
Not part of the line because: The snake did nothing with the crew's equipment; snake hunter is Ancient, not Modern.

The Day after Tomorrow (2004): Sudden changes in climate make America uninhabitable.
In its favor: Liberal slant; NASA official confuses time-scale on a chart; Weather as Beast is prescient; used marketing strategy of SoaP; Jake Gyllenhaal; putrid.
Not part of the line because: Weather is actually a threat; makes no sense that Dennis Quaid needs to get to NYC minutes before helicopters arrive.

SoaP in context.

In yet other SoaP news:
Yet at one point, executives at New Line Cinema renamed the release “Pacific Air 121,” because they didn’t want to give away the plot.

Surely “plot” can't mean “storyline.” The executives must mean “plot” with its sinister/scheming connotation, as in, they didn't want to reveal their plan to produce a crappy film and peddle it via the Beast+Modernity algorithm outlined above, thereby securing buckets of money in exchange for a crappy film.

But Sam, whose appearance in three consecutive Beast+Modernity films might not be a coincidence, “was appalled”:

“Nobody wants to see ‘Pacific Air 121,’ ’’ he told Entertainment Weekly. “That’s like saying ‘Boat to Heaven.’ ”

The T-shirt equivalent of Brien Taylor

2006-08-13T22:55:00.000-04:00

Today I witnessed the wearing by a stranger of this shirt [drag your cursor over the picture and click on the closeup of the graphic]. Like Brien Taylor, upon first glance the article of clothing was filled with promise. The Yankees' first overall pick never made it to the majors in part because of an injury sustained in a barfight. How could a t-shirt match this disappointment?

(1) I'm the wrong person to assess this sort of thing, but it might be true that the FOIL method sticks with people more than most things uttered by secondary school math instructors. If true, I accept this as an argument in favor of teaching FOIL. Nevertheless, the FOIL method is pedagogically bankrupt. The proper name for the rule by which one multiplies a sum (a₁ + ... + a_n) by another sum (b₁ + ... + b_n) is (possibly many applications of) the distributive law. The distributive law says a(b+c)=ab+ac. Applying it twices gives the equation (a+b)(c+d)=a(c+d)+b(c+d)=ac+ad+bc+bd. Teaching the FOIL method is bad because it replaces with a trick the axiom which relates the operations of addition and multiplication.

If most people would answer the question “Why does FOIL work?” by mentioning the distributive law, I would be happier. But not only is this unlikely, once a student understands how the distributive law allows one to find an expression equivalent to (a+b)(c+d), the trick is unnecessary.

Finally, the FOIL method singles out the multiplication of two binomials. An expert FOILer might be at a loss to find an expression equivalent to (a+b+c)(d+e+f), say. (You could FOIL twice, but then you SO have a crush on the distributive law it's, like, ridiculous.) But it's clear how to proceed if multiplication of binomials it taught by the distributive law; likewise with expressions involving more than one multiplication symbol.

In fact people like to study sets with addition and multiplication operations which are related by a distributive law, and emphasizing the distributive law gives context that FOIL does not.

(2) Even if you like the FOIL method, which you shouldn't, why would you glorify its application to the multiplication (a+b)(a+b)?! This might give the reader the misleading impression that FOIL is only good for simplifying (a+b)², when in fact it works for (a+b)(c+d). Is it possible that not only does the shirt's designer know how to multiply only binomials, (s)he knows only how to square a binomial?! Eek.

Also (this is a minor point), once one chooses to simplify (a+b)², it's irresistible to write a² + 2ab + b² in the stead of a² + ab + ba + b². In arbitrary rings multiplication need not be commutative (e.g. multiplication of matrices is not), yet the distributive law (and therefore FOIL) must hold. Writing (a+b)(c+d)=ac+ad+bc+bd gives one less of a chance to assume multiplication is commutative.

This is “the perfect shirt to wear to your algebra tests” until c+d is distinct from a+b. So the knowledge on this shirt should be good for an F, which by the way is the grade earned by this shirt in the Execution category.

(3) (a+b)(a+b) is not an equation. It's an expression. An equation asserts that two expressions are equal. The equation the FOIL method asserts is (a+b)(a+b)=a² + ab + ba + b² (=a² + 2ab + b² if the ring is commutative). Maker of this shirt, you didn't have many words to choose. You should have chosen the right ones.

(4) In your description, you are missing some commas. The period doesn't belong inside the parentheses. By what gimmicks did you learn grammar?

Yao, watch Shark Week.

2006-08-12T15:16:00.000-04:00

As an extension of our policy of not negotiating with terrorists, we really ought not to appease these killing machines either:

NBA star Yao Ming recently pledged to give up eating shark's fin soup, a Chinese delicacy, as part of a campaign to promote wildlife protection in his homeland.

Who at ESPN decides whether this is classified under ESPN Outdoors (where you'll find it) or, say, ESPN NBA? I'm not sure they have a consistent policy. This falls under ESPN NFL, rather than, say, ESPN Robberies or ESPN Justice. It's not the case that ESPN Justice would suffer from a dearth of stories.

If an NBA player does something outdoors-y, the ESPN Outdoors department takes over. It follows that when an NFL player does something justice-y, ESPN Justice should take the reins.

[While we're at it, why does news about Barbaro's health qualify as sports news at all?]

Maybe ESPN Outdoors took control because of the story's depth:

The campaign promotes the protection of animals besides sharks. A Chinese television commercial shown at Yao's news conference features him leaping from a basketball court to block a bullet fired at an elephant.

I know what you're wondering. The answer is yes.

Your mom wins championships!

2006-08-10T23:24:00.000-04:00

I respectfully disagree with Ivan Maisel's argument that in college football, defense no longer wins championships. To clarify, I don't think defense wins championships; I think the question he engages is inane. Of course defense (alone) doesn't win championships. It never did. Outscoring Your Opponent is the key to winning championships. OYO itself is composed of two parts: Points Scored (suggestively, “Offense”) and Points Allowed (“Defense”). If PS - PA is positive, you win. This holds even if PS is small (Offense is bad) or PA is large (Defense is bad). Observe the formula PS - PA involves a sort of comparison between Offense and Defense.

Perennial pigskin paradigm questioned

Oh boy, you're pretty proud of that, aren't you? Ouch.

How many coaches have you heard say, "If they can't score, they can't win." The problem is, in the 21st century, they can score.

If I am understanding correctly, and I may not be because of the distracting missing question mark at the end of the first sentence (what is your livelihood again?), you are arguing that because offenses have improved, defenses are less important. Moreover, you regard this inference as self-evident.

I find your use of the term “21st century” pompous and annoying.

I'm not sure we can be friends.

Defense wins championships? Look again. USC scored 55 points to humiliate Oklahoma and win the 2004 national championship.

Hmm, I see. If only Oklahoma had found some way of reducing the number of points scored by USC, thereby keeping USC's point total below its own. Is there a component of a football team devoted to keeping the opponent's point total as low as possible? 'cause that would be really helpful.

Your question mark key totally works.

A championship? Defense can't guarantee even a winning season. Ask Tennessee. The Volunteers last season finished seventh in Division I-A in total defense, allowing 298.2 yards per game. They finished second in I-A in rushing defense, giving up only 82.5 yards per game. And those stats went unsullied by a bowl game, because Tennessee finished 5-6.

I would bet anything Tennessee Outscored Its Opponent only 5 out of 11 times!

Texas and USC, on the other hand, finished in the top three in total offense.

Measured by points/game, Texas' defense was 4th, USC's 27th. Tennessee? 18th.

By yards/game, Texas' defense was 6th, USC's 40th. Also, you are lying. Tennessee finished 12th by this metric. Also, why do you single out rushing defense? If they were 7th (as in 12th) overall and 2nd in rushing, perhaps they were worse in passing. In fact you won't find them in the top 50, 215.7 being greater than 209.5.

So you are totally full of shit with respect to Texas; its defense was very good. You are mostly full of shit with respect to Tennessee, having engaged in both lying and emphasizing an irrelevant fact.

Were you a better journalist/columnist, you would have mentioned how USC's defense performed last year. It actually supports your point! But only better, not good: the rankings in isolation don't tell the whole story. You'd probably want to take account of strength of schedule. You'd also want to consider how the data is distributed. 60 yards/game separate the 1st and 14th ranked defenses; 45 yards/game separate the 14th and 40th(=USC) ranked defenses. It should be noted that USC led the nation in turnovers gained, explaining the disparity in points/game and yards/game. In the end, the points matter.

But you like yards/game. Let's do that.

Arizona State finished 4th in offense yards/game and ended 7-5 after beating Rutgers in the Insight Bowl.

Minnesota finished 5th in offense yards/game and ended 7-5 after losing in the Music City Bowl.

IT GETS MUCH BETTER.

Michigan State finished 6th in offense yards/game and ended 5-6. These stats also went unsullied by a bowl game, to borrow your awkward phrase, person who earns income by writing. Notice a few things:

6th is actually 6th

6th is better than 12th

6th is better than 7th, a comparison we might need to make if you are allowed to lie to make your point

Do you have room for dessert? Hawaii was 11th in offense yards/game and finished 5-7.

By Mr. Maisel's own logic, offense doesn't even guarantee a winning season. In conclusion, his method of using facts/lies to support his point fails miserably.

But let's see what the other side has to say. You were kind enough to interview them, Ivan, which in part makes up for the lying you did above.

"Look at the game. The best offense ever," [Ole Miss coach Ed] Orgeron said, referring to Matt Leinart, Reggie Bush & Co., "couldn't win it."

"If you look at the play of the game for the national championship, it was still a fourth-and-two," [Ohio State coach Jim] Tressel said, referring to when the Longhorns stuffed the Trojans' LenDale White at the Texas 45 with 2:09 to play and USC leading, 38-33. "It still comes down to that."

The master of alliteration replies:

Yes, but isn't that the equivalent of praising the pitching in a 15-13 Yankees' victory because Mariano Rivera got the last out?

Good analogy, but you are missing the point. Sure, it's the equivalent of praising Mariano after a bloodbath. It's also the equivalent of using one event to decide a question which should be decided by observing many events, describing their outcomes numerically, analyzing those numbers, and converting some numbers thus obtained into explanations.

Dear Sirs:
You should be interested in what wins games in general, not just what wins championships. Even if you only care about championships, you should still analyze the entire seasons of the major contenders, not just one game between two of them. Even if you only care about championship games, you should analyze more than one of them. Even if you only care about one championship game, you should analyze more than one of its plays. Finally, even if you only care about one play in one game, I believe that play pitted one (1) offense against one (1) defense. The defense prevailed in this instance, agreed. PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THIS MEANS DEFENSE IS MORE IMPORTANT.
Your reasoning is poor and it doesn't support your position. You are as wrong as the sorry excuse for a writer who interviewed you ALTHOUGH, it seems, you are (unlike said writer) not a liar. Then again, I am learning your opinions from said liar, so I can't be positive.
Good luck next season.
Regards.

But back to your arc, author:

The advent of the passing game in general and the spread offense in particular has changed the eternal equation of the game.

Ooh, again, if only teams could react to improvements in offense!

If offense hasn't shoved defense off its throne, it has forced it to move over and share. Defense, by itself, is no longer enough.

DEFENSE BY ITSELF WAS NEVER ENOUGH. I HATE YOU.

Statistics back up the theory that offenses are moving the line of scrimmage farther forward than ever before. The average amount of total offense per game, points per game, and yards per play for all I-A teams has reached a level in each of the last five seasons that it had never reached prior to 2001.

You are using the word “statistics” to intimidate readers. You could have just stated those statistics and drawn your conclusions, but instead you chose to start by asserting authority without justification. Incidentally, I am not intimidated, see, e.g., all of the crap regarding Texas, USC, Tennessee above.

Now you're going to interview West Virginia coach and offensive innovator Rich Rodriguez, who's going to say all aspects of the game are important. Then Nebraska coach Bill Callahan is going to observe that "You gotta score points nowadays." But before all of that happens, you, Ivan Maisel, are going to embarrass yourself:

But before we all whip out our calculators and compare football cosines...

Did you mean for this to be homoerotic? What about mathematically illiterate? You succeeded on both counts.

In other sports news, the Boston Red Sox have decided to spend their past five games (a) losing two games to the Tampa Bay Devil Rays to prepare for (b) getting swept by the Kansas City Royals. Yes, these Kansas City Royals. Rufffff.

We should have been sipping insulin months ago.

2006-08-10T22:12:00.000-04:00

Earlier we compared an afternoon of imagined violence/sex to five days of actual pizza. Today we tackle imagined versus actual security.

Setting aside for the moment the possibility that forced ingestion of carry-on liquids won't work, another major issue remains. Why is the liquid policy being instituted only now?

We've known about these particular fuckers for months, and planes have been blown up before. As a previous character might say, as an American in 2001 yourself, you've seen what happens when we underestimate the enemy.

That we are forcing passengers to drink their liquids means we (think we) might catch someone trying to make a plane go boom. So:

(1) why didn't we start this on, say, September 12, 2001?
(2) if that's asking too much (which it's not), why didn't we start as soon as we were onto these dudes?

Perhaps we were worried we'd give away that we were onto them, but then again the whole premise of any search is that some of the bad guys might escape our vigilant tracking. (Anyway that objection makes question (1) burn more brightly.)
Maybe another terror cell also had the bright idea to blow up a plane with some liquids. Wouldn't they deserve to be caught too?

How simple things once were

Post Script

2006-08-10T13:41:00.000-04:00

Kleenex, Band-Aid, Jacuzzi, move over. We have a new winner.

Secretaries react when someone tries to blow our shit up.

2006-08-10T07:30:00.000-04:00

And we react to their remarks.

British Home Secretary John Reid said the operation was aimed at bringing down "a number of aircraft" -- reportedly at least ten -- "through mid-flight explosions, causing a considerable loss of life." The plot, he said, "was a very significant one indeed."

Actually, he said, “Police believe the alleged plot was a very significant one indeed,” but I don't see how you, writer for the Washington Post, would have access to that information.

UPDATE: words from London's Deputy Police Commissioner, Paul Stephenson. Apparently the WaPo is listening.

Back to Mr. Reid: I always thought “indeed” connoted reflection; you don't conclude a remark with “indeed” unless you've thought things through at least once. Mr. Reid's comment therefore worries me. There isn't time for careful judgment and reflection in the post 9-?? (drawing a blank on the date) world, certainly not enough to warrant an “indeed.” These are times for hasty decisions/invasions and losing one's cool. (I stand by this paragraph whether “indeed” belongs to Mr. Reid or the police.)

Also, “significant”? Nice work, Blandosaurus Rex. Why not excite the population with more vivid and suggestive language? That might make it easier to convince them of the wisdom of various hasty decisions/invasions.

Next up, Michael Chertoff. Chertoff enters the game with an on-base percentage of .371.

"To defend further against any remaining threat from this plot, we will also raise the threat level [for all commercial aviation operating in or destined for the United States] to High, ..."

It seems you are keen on protecting us from terrorism, dear Secretary, but it's a little bit vague to say the threat level is “High.” Could you maybe describe the situation in terms more readily understood? More primitive terms. Speak to the People, Michael. We are all very nervous about being blown up.

", or Orange ..."

THANKS MAN, that really helps. True or false: our coded system is a clever way of getting George W. Bush to finally learn his colors.

One last thing:

The TSA said passengers who need to bring medicine and baby formula on board planes would need to present those items for inspection at checkpoints. In Britain, passengers were being asked to taste these liquids in the presence of security guards.

Cough syrup, chloraseptic spray - fine. But even insulin?

One last last thing:

Invest.

The Mario Minister

2006-08-09T23:44:00.000-04:00

If I may simplify this article, and I may because it's about video games, it's a sandwich:

Bread: generic discussion about Mario's role in video game industry

Meat: the Palamore family's relationship with Mario
Bread: Mario history and context

We'll get to the meat soon enough, but first a query: how was the Palamore family selected? More generally, when a reputable newspaper runs a fluff piece, are its journalists held to ethical standards? If Jose Antonio Vargas (author) went to college with Brad Palamore (subject), or even worse, if the pair played video games together, could we trust Mr. Vargas to be objective?

On several occasions in college, friends of mine who wrote for the school paper called me for quotes. I understand the practice. If it's awkward to talk with a stranger, it must be all the worse to talk with a stranger about some nearly-guaranteed-to-be-inane topic. Plus you could meet the stranger later. Anyway, soon I started mentally replacing “Students” with “Friends of the Clown who Penned this Junk” while reading the school paper; eventually I started physically replacing the school paper with books and magazines. To this day I have not stopped.

Mr. Vargas, may I borrow your segue? (What about your sweet graphic?)

It's all Mario, all Nintendo, all the time at the Palamore residence in Arlington, where it's not entirely clear who's the biggest Mario fan.

Oh man, I hope we get to the bottom of this by the article's end!

Is it 8-year-old Matthew, who proudly declares, "I have Mario's voice," and spontaneously says " Mamma mia! "?

Imma Wario. Imma gonna win. LOVE THAT SHIT. Matthew, if you're ever in the city, give me a ring. “Mamma mia!” would be a ladykiller, but you'll need a freaking serious fake ID. So far you are awesome and have my vote.

Or Curtis, 10, who goes on and on about "Super Mario Sunshine"?

While I like the name Curtis, I have absolutely no idea what he's talking about. “Sunshine” is a little suspicious, especially coming from a second-born son*.

Or 12-year-old Chris, who can't decide which of the family's eight Mario games is his favorite?

In this day and age, I think we need a biggest Mario fan who knows where he stands on the tough questions. I bet Chris voted for Mario Kart before he voted against it. Also he probably looks like Death. PS September Eleventh.

STYLISTIC ASIDE: notice how Vargas deftly alternates strategies as he reveals the ages of the children. First we meet “8-year-old Matthew,” then “Curtis, 10,” and finally “12-year-old Chris.” The monotony is so well averted you almost forget you are reading quotes from children about video games.

Or is it Brad -- the boys' 30-year-old dad, a minister at the Arlington Church of Christ -- who jokingly introduces himself as "Luigi" and has very fond memories of a five-day binge of pizza and "Super Mario Bros." on his Nintendo Entertainment System when he was 10?

This paragraph should have been a list, and soon it will be. Here are some properties of the quantity “Brad Palamore”:

Basics: human, male, 30 years old

First child had at: age 18

Occupation: minister

Introduces himself as: Luigi

Apparently thinks people will understand the reference and find it funny when he: introduces himself as Luigi

Engaged in fraternity brother-like behavior at: age 10

Exercise for the reader: describe in greater detail a five-day pizza binge. Devote at least 100 words to each of the five days.

Silence! The quantity speaks.

"The thing about Mario is, you can play it with your kids," says Brad Palamore, a self-described "Nintendo dad."

(1) If by “the thing” Mr. Palamore intends “that which distinguishes it from other activities,” this claim is either patently false or patently sad.

(2) While I don't aspire to be a “Nintendo dad,” that's a big improvement on “Luigi.”

But he is about to clarify (1):

"You don't have to worry about what they're seeing on the screen because as a kid yourself, you've seen what goes on in a Mario game."

GRAMMATICAL ASIDE: “...as a kid yourself, you have seen...” means you are a kid. Like, now. Like, in 2006, you are a kid. Probably he meant:

...as a kid yourself, you saw...
OR
...as a kid, you saw...
OR the clumsier
...having been a kid (yourself), you have seen...

Were I interviewing a college friend/video game buddy for a newspaper article, I would grant him/her perfect grammar. Furthermore, I would tweak his/her statements to make their meanings both clear and correct. Mr. Vargas, you're an honest man.

OKAY, so his ministership might be accompanied by a taste for video game censorship. This is stupid, but fine. Let's meet him on his turf and assume children can't tell fact from fiction, which incidentally is false. It remains to decide: is Mario good for children?

Positives: Important Lessons

If you see a mushroom which appears to be moving along the ground with no assistance from another force, eat it.

Likewise, eat fluorescent flowers.

Jump on your enemies, unless they have a spiky shell, in which case shoot fire at them.

If you are unable to shoot fire at your enemies, run past them.

Negatives: False Notions

Every now and then, plumbers run into dragons.

Also princesses.

Plumbers are related to pipes in the following way: they (plumbers) go into them (pipes) and are then transported to different worlds.

Not only did Plumbers and Dinosaurs once Roam the Earth simultaneously, they got along so swimmingly that plumbers were frequently able to ride on the backs of dinosaurs.

If you need to break some bricks and can't find a sledgehammer, go ahead and “bop it with your head.” [Vargas' glorification, not mine]

One other thing, Mr. Palamore. Aren't you a little worried about the five-day pizza binges?

*If you can't access that, here are the first two paragraphs. I like gay people, kids, and gay kids. I found the following article interesting and thought this would be a good time to mention it, that's all.

Brothers in arms

Jun 29th 2006 | TORONTO
From The Economist print edition
Some men are gay because their mothers have already had many sons

RAY BLANCHARD, a researcher at Toronto's Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, was reviewing some data a few years ago when he noticed something odd: gay men seemed to have more older brothers than straight men.

Intrigued—and sceptical—he decided to investigate. He recruited 302 gay men and the same number of heterosexual controls and inquired about their families. How many siblings did they have, of what sex, and how had the births been spaced? How old had their parents been when they had had them? Dr Blanchard found that only one detail seemed to predict sexual orientation: the more elder brothers a man had, the more likely he was to be gay. Neither elder sisters nor younger siblings of either sex had any effect, but each additional elder brother increased his chance of being gay by about 33% from the population average of one man in 50.
...

Shark Week has passed, but catch reruns next week before the sharks catch you.

2006-08-09T00:07:00.000-04:00

Its airer implores us to keep cool:

Given the drama and horror of a shark attack, it's easy to forget how rare they are, and how widely scattered. For example, in 2005, there were only 58 confirmed unprovoked shark attacks on humans worldwide, four of which were fatal.

Shall we?

Given the drama and horror of a shark attack, it's easy to forget how rare they are,

It is easy to “forget” how rare they are, especially when an institution such as (say) the Discovery Channel devotes an entire week to terror tactics masquerading as education. Their show titles, their descriptions:

Perfect Shark (Imagine a shark that can attack with the force and speed of a bus - the perfect shark?)

Shark Rebellion (The Brazilian city of Recife is under siege. Its sharks have suddenly become man-eaters.)

Shark Attack Survivors (Learn the secrets of the most deadly and misunderstood marine predator in the world.)

and how widely scattered.

Again I object to the choice of the word “forget,” which distributes -- Discovery Channel is trying to evade responsibility for its role in hyping shark attacks and attributes widespread irrational fear to “forgetfulness” rather than sensationalist manipulation of an unusually fear-stricken populace.

Also, I would like to know how the drama and horror cause one to form beliefs about the geographical distribution of shark attacks.

For example, in 2005, there were only 58 confirmed unprovoked shark attacks on humans worldwide, four of which were fatal.

OMG can you please do a show about the provoked ones?!?!

In its defense, the Discovery Channel page above contains a link to the International Shark Attack File, whose staff has, in its unbounded wisdom, computed for you “The Relative Risk of Shark Attacks to Humans Compared to Other Risks.”

The ten Other Risks are:

alligator attacks
lightning strikes
tornadoes
animal-related fatalities
injuries associated with home-improvement equipment
biting injuries occurring annually in New York City
bicycle-related injuries and fatalities
beach injuries and fatalities
dog attack fatalities
hunting incident fatalities

We bear witness to an unimaginably helpful act of data collection. Now people can compare the risk of being attacked by a shark to the risk of some other bad thing whose probability they understand just as poorly. ISAF, your work is done.

Plus, ISAF's tables suggest more people die on bikes than from shark attacks. If that were true, wouldn't an institution such as (say) the Discovery Channel devote a week to bike accidents? My kids will be riding bikes, not sharks, International Shark Attack File.

What do you get for the team with a $200 million payroll?

2006-08-08T23:31:00.000-04:00

Craig Wilson couldn't hold down an everyday job with the Pittsburgh Pirates, bottom-dwellers of the NL Central and owners of the second-worst* record in all of baseball. Yet he does start for the New York Yankees, AL East leaders and owners of the second-best record in all of baseball.

I can't quite picture how the argument goes, but I think these facts can be used to show that at least one of the following teams (Pirates, Yankees) is retarded. Challenge: use these facts to fashion an argument for abolishing the DH. (Maybe it would be cleaner and less controversial to abolish the Pirates.)

* and OMIGOD are the Kansas City Royals an awful baseball team which happens to play in the major leagues.

Did Jose Canseco name Ned Lamont?

2006-08-08T16:35:00.000-04:00

Does this election not feel like spring training?

I won't claim Mr. Lamont's run has been uninspiring. His success gives the lie to those who claim the world's doors are closed to tall, handsome, Harvard- and Yale- educated multimillionaires. Instead I would like to draw your attention to words uttered by a perhaps sleep-deprived and tense Ned earlier today:

“I started out this race as an asterisk,’’ he said. “Here we are seven or eight months later and we’re leading the senator. We’re going to win today.’’

In reverse chronological order, the would-be senator asserts:

(3) "We’re going to win today.’’

confident, crisp, succinct

excellent diction

Grade: A-

(2) “Here we are seven or eight months later and we’re leading the senator.’’

reminder of the hard work the campaign has required

perhaps a noningratiating thank-you to volunteers

Grade: A

(1) “I started out this race as an asterisk.’’

What?

I tried to make sense of this use of “asterisk.’’ Then I tried again. But it seems “dark horse’’ (or maybe “underdog’’) and “asterisk,’’ like most pairs of words, have different meanings. While “dark horse’’ is marked with an asterisk on its thesaurus.com page, that asterisk appears to mean “informal or slang,’’ not “this symbol has the same meaning as the word it is presently decorating.’’
There is a deeper problem with the sentence (1). Ned does not claim that he started out the race with an asterisk next to his name. Then we might charitably interpret his remark as intending to evoke a table of this type:

Candidate	Vote
Joe Lieberman (D)	55%
Alan Schlesinger (R)	30%
Ned Lamont* (D)	10%

*has no fucking chance, though is tall, handsome, Ivy-educated, spectacularly wealthy

Or a similar one, much studied by liberals in preparation for the 2004 election:

Candidate	Vote
George Bush (R)	47.9%
Al Gore (D)	48.4%
Ralph Nader* (G)	2.7%

*is gigantic douchebag

But Mr. Lamont didn't say his name came with an asterisk; he said he started out the race as an asterisk. In other words, he was himself the piece of ink chiefly used to indicate an omission or to refer to a footnote. This is a startling revelation and is clearly more significant than the Lieberman camp blaming Lamont supporters for crashing its server. Here's hoping Barry Bonds' head doesn't explode and Bud Selig neither makes him pee into a cup nor imprisons him:

Player	HR	Notes
Barry Bonds	772
Hank Aaron	755	never hit 50
Steve Balboni	181	LOL

I suppose Ned never said which asterisk he was. I call the one next to Barry.