Here and There

No, not the kind taken by me. Unfortunately.

The NASA rovers are going crazy over at Earth’s outbound neighbor, and they’re sending back more of those grainy, sometimes color-separated, always-pasted-together photos of the planet’s lifeless, dry landscape.

Of course, this kind of event brings out the super-geek in me. I just think it’s astounding, given the day-to-day failings I see in people all around me (myself included), that humans could acquire the technology to propel something millions of miles to another planet, landing that thing on that planet, through its less-than-friendly atmosphere, and then having that thing move around on the hostile surface. The fact that we can see what the land-crawlers see is nearly beyond belief.

…Somewhat unrelated, and owed simply to the fact that I was looking up info on this point, I just learned that our entire solar system, dwarf planets, kuiper belts, asteroids and all, revolves around the center of the Milky Way.

It’s all the more reason to see the sound argument of the macrocosm and microcosm.

Fox blowhard Roger Ailes asserts that Bill Clinton’s reaction to Chris Wallace’s loaded question betrays the former president’s contempt for all journalists.

Here’s a Frankensteined version of Wallace’s question, sans Clinton interruptions (courtesy of a transcript of the interview via Fox):

There’s a new book out [that] talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, bin Laden said, “I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of U.S. troops.” Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the Cole. And after the attack, the book says that bin Laden separated his leaders, spread them around, because he expected an attack, and there was no response.

I understand that hindsight is always 20/20. … [but] why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?

Connect the dots? Is Wallace operating under the same set of extrajudicial rules (or no rules) that the Bush administration has used since 9/11? That can’t be the case, because he acknowledges himself that hindsight is clear.

Clinton’s anti-terror team was working on proving that the African embassy and Cole bombings were in fact al Qaeda workings, and even tried to get bin Laden in August of 1998 (dismissed as so much wagging of the dog’s tail).

But the GOP had the country conveniently tied up in a scandal later known as Lewinski. Apparently, for some in power, a stain on the dress, and the truthfulness of the president concerning said stain, were more important.

And of course, everything changed when the World Trade Center buildings were destroyed.

Now Ailes is saying “I frankly think the assault on Chris Wallace is an assault on all journalists.” There may be some merit in that, as I’m sure he and Fox are hearing copious amounts of drivel on the subject. But the question wasn’t fair. It wasn’t, as Clinton asserted, legitimate. It was suggestive and misleading.

A fair question might’ve been: “Why, as president, weren’t you able to defeat al Qaeda?”

Still, Clinton did his best at defending his record, short of offering a real-time reading of Richard Clarke’s book Against All Enemies. That book is currently at the top of my “to read” list, Clinton is still my favorite ex-president, and if he hates journalists enough to launch an assault on every single one of them, I will quit my job.

I don’t get it. Bush gets pissed off at a leaked story that ran in The New York Times and Washington Post earlier this week claiming the Iraq war has actually caused more terrorism. So he declassifies parts of the leaked report, which say, essentially, the same thing.

Huh?

Maybe the “combative” Bush saw Bill Clinton’s appearance on Fox the other day, and thought the way to garner sympathy was to put on the boxing gloves.

Will someone please remind him that his words and actions should have merit?

Saw Michel Gondry’s The Science of Sleep last night. It was one of those very-close-to-perfect moviegoing experiences, and I feel compelled to write something about it.

The movie elegantly blended plot with superficial elements, leaving behind an effective and thoroughly enjoyable experience.
What I mean is that the film was filled with visual and aural wonders, yet also maintained a tangible storyline, as well as some commentary on life.

The performances were great, too. As Stephane, Gael García Bernal again proves his expanding range, taking on a comically plagued individual, playing him slightly more comically than tragically. Stephane’s multi-linguality and “condition” render him a most sympathetic character.

Charlotte Gainsbourg (daughter of Serge) did well with Stephanie, whom we see as more or less a dual-personality. See the film and you’ll know what I mean.

The supporting cast was so amusing. Notable were Guy (Alain Chabat) and Serge (Sacha Bourdo), at times taking the comedic elements of the movie over the top.

It’s a movie as much about waking life as it is about dreams, about the way the two depend on each other and are forever symbiotically tied together. It questions the divisions between our cerebral experiences both in and out of sleep.

The Science of Sleep lacks the name-recognition afforded to Gondry’s last effort, The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. But it makes up for it in getting every element of excellent filmmaking right. It makes you laugh, it might make you cry, and most of all, it makes you think, though not too deeply.

If only it didn’t exist…

There’s a lot of press about (Bill) Clinton’s appearance on Fox News the other day. Finally found the video, which gave me chills.

The so-called opposition party in this country needs more of the kind of balls Clinton displays, not only here, but in various settings and through various media.

Remember?

As these formerly high-ranking military officers call for Rumsfeld to step down, I’ve got to wonder if there’s anything to do to save the situation in Iraq. It’s really quite sad, and sad to think that all the civilian deaths on Iraqi’s side, and military deaths on the US’s side, could be for nothing. Though I do like what I’ve seen concerning the idea of splitting the country up into autonomous states (Iraq, not the US, though that’s not a bad one to ponder also).
Meanwhile, ordinary Americans still aren’t being asked to sacrifice at all, five years after 9/11 and three-and-a-half after the start of the Iraq war. I realize this is no revelation, and has been beaten to a pulp in the press (well, some really tiny, insignificant, remote outpost of the press, anyway). It’s just that I’m especially mindful of it after reading these articles.

Another report has been announced that tells many people what they already guessed: that the war in Iraq has actually caused terrorism, not stanched it.

The Times report contains some really remarkable (and telling) viewpoints concerning this whole quote-war-unquote issue. One of my personally least favorites (and comical if it weren’t so tragic) comes from the leader of the U.S. Senate, Mr. “She’s not a vegetable” himself:

But the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee, used language that echoed that of President Bush, saying that “either we are going to be fighting this battle, this war overseas, or it’s going to be right here in this country.”

Equally laughable was the ludicrous notion of one crusty old Republican doing his best to defang the report’s implications of the current administration:

[...] Alexander M. Haig Jr., the former secretary of state for President Ronald Reagan, belittled the report as the product of liberal journalists [...]

I wish today’s GOP members took things like war and non-partisan government reports serious enough not to play politics with them.

This blog has been the victim of an apparently widespread spam campaign for at least the last few weeks.

The spam comes in the form of comments with (curiously) no links, and they all contain “blogspot.com” in their commenter domains. (The matter preceding “blogspot” always has something to do with casinos, it seems.) They were somehow getting past both my Spam Karma filter and this blog’s requirement that users register in order to leave comments. Vicious, indeed.

Today, I heard from SpamKarma’s creator, who pointed me to his latest beta, and so far, so good.

I hope whoever is reading this hasn’t experienced any sort of interruption. If so, just know I’m doing my best to assure continuity and ease-of-use for the site.

Thanks.

Pretty hilarious story in the Times about couples sharing a bed.

I’ve always been a fan, and it turns out I’m in the majority:

The National Sleep Foundation, a nonprofit group in Washington that supports education and research on sleep and sleep disorders, estimates that 61 percent of Americans share their bed with a significant other. And while the very presence of another person in bed increases the chance of sleep disruption, 62 percent of those polled in the foundation’s annual sleep study said they preferred to bed down with their partner.

Very informative and relevant is the part of the article that touches on couples’ ability to either stay together or break-up based on whether they enjoyed sharing a bed, or were annoyed by the bedtime habits of their partners.

Ultimately, there’s no point to make here. Bedding together is very much a “to each, their own” issue.

And for the record, yes, I prefer to spoon.

I’m not saying it’s excusable, but this new bill, which cleared the House today, is just one more hurdle for the lazy, for those who probably wouldn’t vote anyway, and will now be certain not to.

It would require voters to show proof of citizenship in order to vote. Fine, I don’t mind.

But “non-citizens” should have some say, especially those with children in the public school system.

I’m not pretending to have the answer to complicated voting and citizenship issues. I’m just saying that I don’t like this solution.

A new poll shows widespread displeasure with Congress, but no overwhelming willingness to back a change in control yet, due largely to the Democratic Party’s lack of message:

In the poll, 50 percent of voters said they will support a Democrat in the fall Congressional election, compared to 35 percent who said they would support a Republican. But the poll found that Democrats continue to struggle to offer a case for control of government to be turned over to them; only 38 percent of all respondents said the Democrats have a clear plan for how they would run the country, compared to 45 percent who said the Republicans had offered a clear plan.

I’m really sick of Democrats blowing it. If it happens again, it should serve as a nail in the coffin for the party. After all, they’re only half to blame for losing elections like this one.

Very cool discovery announced today by the journal Nature.

Additionally, readable article in today’s NY Times.

They’re saying this early “human” may have lived in a time after we began walking upright, on two legs, yet still used fore legs (arms) to walk on occasion. Those strong arms also allowed the species to climb and swing through trees. Ape-men (or, in this case, baby girls), indeed.

And this was a relatively complete fossil:

Dr. Alemseged’s team spent much of the last five years extracting the rest of the specimen from the surrounding stone with dentist’s drills and picks. The tedious work exposed the full cranium and jaws, the torso and spinal column, limbs and the left foot.

Also noteworthy is a discovery of a bone that could signify early speech in the baby afarensis:

The presence of a hyoid bone was a surprise. It is a rarely preserved bone in the larynx, or voice box, that supports muscles of the throat and tongue. The bone in the infant appeared to be primitive and more similar to those found in apes than humans, the scientists said, but is the first hyoid found in such an early human-related species and thus important in research about the origins of human speech.

I remember reading in Bill Bryson’s A Short History of Nearly Everything how difficult it is for anything to fossilize. That alone makes this discovery important. But especially the bits mentioned above give paleoanthropologists more evidence for theories on the early development of an ancestor species.

I really don’t like flies. Why do they seem to buzz at the most inopportune times?

Come on, Hugo. Bush is a terrible president, sure. But can we just scrap all the angel and devil and god talk for a minute?

It reminds me a little of bothering to hate someone you just merely don’t like. Someone who’s not worth the emotional expense of hatred.

I guess I’m just a little sick of Bush-bashing. True, I’m guilty of it from time to time. And it’s necessary to express our honest feelings and opinions.

I just don’t know how constructive it is to engage in name-calling, or to say Bush is dumb. I don’t think he’s dumb. I think his head is a little cloudy (guilty) and that his ideology is extreme. He actually believes what he says about bringing democracy to the Middle East, or that loggers have a right to keep cutting down trees, polluters can keep polluting.

But it’s truly time to start looking forward. It’s time to move beyond Bush.

It’s not a nice thing to do, evidenced by the reaction of some members of the Hungarian populace.

I’ve always wondered what it was about the American people that makes them so … yes, passive about situations in which the government’s actions are questionable. Sure, I believe in checks and balances, but in a sense, a powerful protest in which citizens storm the grounds of any state agency demanding the resignation of their (key idea here) government is a powerful tool the people have, as long as it’s done non-violently. Apparently, Hungarian protestors’ passions got the better of them, and I don’t by any means condone that.

But I don’t need to hash out a laundry list of the crazy shit the U.S. government has done over the years. Once again I wonder: Where’s the outrage?