About the particle on the housecat & the bear—cute to see a picture that shows the whole scene.
My sister saw a bear chased off once, at our cabin in Northern idaho. Going out to feed the kittens in the evening, arms full of cat food dishes, kittens all around her feet. She heard a hiss & the kittens vanished under the cabin; looked up & there was the bear coming down the trail towards her, less than 10 feet away. The 2 mama cats (mother & daughter) puffed up their fur and leaped at the bear; it turned tail & ran away.
Always thought that meant "Don't mess with the mama", but maybe not since another cat has done it too.
Quote from Bill Moyers:
"A free press is one where it’s okay to state the conclusion you’re led to by the evidence."
That is what is so completely lacking in journalism recently. Not to mention, as has been pointed out, the lack of qualifications to develop a conclusion.
In fact, we have the same effect as a totalitarian-style intimidation of the press, caused by the ownership of all the press by those whom it should be investigating.* And a repudiation of the whole concept of a free press as the guardian of democracy.
Or perhaps it's simpler: an intended dismantling of our democracy itself, completely deliberate. (As the nutbar t-shirt says, I resent being made to feel paranoid like this, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.)
*Non Sequitur has been doing a good job of commenting on this all along.
OK, so I got curious about the original form of the phrase, since I am used to thinking of the amendment in the "liars" form.
Wikipedia here says that the attribution to Disraeli as the originator of the phrase is only in Mark Twain's autobiography. The earliest known use was by a president of the Royal Statistical Society.
So, there are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics, but there are 4 kinds of liars: liars, damned liars, statisticians, and statistical ignoramuses.
I think I'll put it on a t-shirt.
"Liars, damned liars, and statisticians" and statistical ignoramuses, the worst of all.
Way upthread:
I guess it really depends on how "far" the elements have to be from passing through an animal form. Anything you eat is going to contain atoms that at one time were part of an animal.
No kidding. Plants are not vegetarians.
Vegetarian silk is raw silk or silk noil, for which the silkworms are allowed to escape from the cocoons. It has a nice texture which I prefer to the smoother silks. It is readily available; lots of new silkworms will be needed, after all, I guess.
One of the things that makes me crazy about organic labelling definitions is the label on bags of sand in the nursery. Who knew that sand was organic? In my memory it's the very definition of inorganic.
(Yes, they probably mean it has no pesticides on it, and I hope they mean it has the salt washed off, but they should say that.)
California's secretary of state, McPherson (R), just before the holiday weekend, recertified Diebold voting machines, including apparently the extremely hackable paper ballot counting machines that are used for "safe" paper ballots. This does not seem to be getting any media attention.
This was done with no public hearings, and after promising to wait for the federal review he asked for.
ref state senator Debra Bowen at DailyKos
Isaac Asimov wrote a memorable review of Velikovsky in which he said he wouldn't complain about the history and archaeology because those weren't his subjects, but when it came to the hydrocarbons in the comet's tail suddenly a few pages later turning into carbohydrates and falling as manna on the Israelites, that was chemistry and he had to say something about it. Hydrocarbons, (oil), do not spontaneously turn into carbohydrates (doughnuts), and anyone who says they could doesn't know what he is talking about. (paraphrased)
I just looked it up, the Asimov article was probably titled "Worlds in Confusion"
Teresa — Very sorry to see this one too. After being offline for so long, coming back and reading about the cylert was bad, now this.
Dave Bell— Sometimes it seems like you're exactly right, they do try to kill us off before we cost the insurance companies too much money.
Did you see that Michael Moore is looking for health system horror stories?
here
I think we (in the US) all need to take steps to be part of the process on election day. All of us for whom that is possible. In the old days (my Mom's experience), it was all partisan, vote-counters and observers alike, so it may have to be through the Democrats, or a 3rd party which will be on the ballot. This is a very red county in its powerful types, so I have some doubt about the access which a democrat can get. Anybody with recent experience on how to do this?
candle—hmm. Well, he was a biology professor. Maybe he was talking about Latin and Greek species names? Or not.
Anyway, even if there were a standard system of emphasis, it would be overridden by the much more interesting subject of emphasis altering meaning, as was mentioned above. My sister and I used to play a game with simple sentences—seeing how many different and contradictory meanings we could get out of one sentence by altering the emphasis:"He gave that to me." But I don't remember that we ever considered 2 syllable words where the different meaning is accompanied by different emphasis.
This is a good place to check an assumption. We were in England in 1960. The other kids could not hear the difference between "uh HUH"and "UH uh". I had assumed that even if that were generally true then elsewhere in the world, by now, with movies, English speakers would all hear that. But are there non-US places where English is not so much a language of emphasis?
candle — A biology professor I had used to say "We USually accent the antepenULtimate SYLlable." (US)
Probably should have put my rewrite of a paragraph of the state of the Union here — it's more relevant to the discussion than over on the open thread.
Eric — Loved your take on the state of the Union. I was surprised and relieved when 1984 arrived and it was nothing like. But here we are halfway down the slope.
Of course I did not listen to the state of the union last night — I can't stand non-stop lies, like I knew would be happening. (Do you suppose his buddies the pharmaceutical companies are happy about their blood pressure medicine sales?) But I heard this passage on the news tonight, and looked up the text. While I was listening to it, it occurred to me that it was equally true, or rather much more true, with just a few words changed....
STATE OF THE UNION 2006 george w. bush
"No one can deny the success of freedom, but some men rage and fight against it. And one of the main sources of reaction and opposition is radical Islam – the perversion by a few of a noble faith into an ideology of terror and death. Terrorists like bin Laden are serious about mass murder – and all of us must take their declared intentions seriously. They seek to impose a heartless system of totalitarian control throughout the Middle East, and arm themselves with weapons of mass murder. Their aim is to seize power in Iraq, and use it as a safe haven to launch attacks against America and the world. Lacking the military strength to challenge us directly, the terrorists have chosen the weapon of fear. When they murder children at a school in Beslan … or blow up commuters in London … or behead a bound captive … the terrorists hope these horrors will break our will, allowing the violent to inherit the Earth. But they have miscalculated: We love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it.
In a time of testing, we cannot find security by abandoning our commitments and retreating within our borders. If we were to leave these vicious attackers alone, they would not leave us alone. They would simply move the battlefield to our own shores. There is no peace in retreat. And there is no honor in retreat. By allowing radical Islam to work its will – by leaving an assaulted world to fend for itself – we would signal to all that we no longer believe in our own ideals, or even in our own courage. But our enemies and our friends can be certain: The United States will not retreat from the world, and we will never surrender to evil."
STATE OF THE UNION 2006 george w. bush altered words from the point of view of the rest of the world
"No one can deny the success of freedom, but some men rage and fight against it. And one of the main sources of reaction and opposition is radical fundamentalist Christianity – the perversion by a few of a noble faith into an ideology of terror and death. Terrorists like Bush, Cheney, & Rumsfield are serious about mass murder – and all of us must take their declared intentions seriously. They seek to impose a heartless system of totalitarian control throughout the Middle East, America, and the world, and arm themselves with weapons of mass murder. Their aim is to seize power and oil in Iraq, and use it as a safe haven to launch attacks against Iran, Syria, and the rest of the Middle East, and the world. ... The terrorists have chosen the weapon of fear. When they murder patients at a hospital in Fallujah… or blow up commuters in Baghdad … or torture and kill a bound captive … the terrorist Bush administration hope these horrors will break our will, allowing the violent to inherit the Earth. But they have miscalculated: We love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it.
... If we were to leave these vicious attackers alone, they would not leave us alone. They would simply move the battlefield to our own shores. There is no peace in retreat. And there is no honor in retreat. By allowing radical fundamentalist Christianity to work its will – by leaving an assaulted world to fend for itself – we would signal to all that we no longer believe in our own ideals, or even in our own courage. But our enemies and our friends can be certain ... we will never surrender to evil."
May I repeat something I said a month or two ago? It's relevant again here.
Seems funny to me that these neocons who don't believe in teaching evolution and Darwin in science classes all seem to believe firmly in "neosocial darwinism: the survival of only the richest".
BBC News — Space Designs from ants and squirrels
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4378162.stm
interesting
Adrienne — I'd like to second or third the recommendation for Lois McMaster Bujold, and suggest either The Warrior's Apprentice (in Young Miles) or Shards of Honor (which you might have to find in Cordelia's Honor), which also contains Barrayar). Those are both good introductions to the series, and contain some very varied views of militarism. Barrayar is fantastic too, but it takes place during a 'civil' war.
A later intro point to the series is Komarr; less explicitly military, but contains a look at the generation-later consequences of a breach of honor (slaughter of unarmed captives) and both sides of the origin of the quarrel. And the folly of end-of-the-world-revenge. Also an amazing portrayal of betrayal in a marriage.
Allison — There's the classic Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress which contains some unusual blueprints for family: line marriage for instance. I think that's a sidelight of the book though.
Without evolution, it's hard for me to think of a reason for horseshoe crabs to have trilobite larvae, but they do. Isn't that great, living trilobites?
One of Darwin's contemporaries had what he thought was a wonderful way to reconcile the biblical timetable since creation (at that time counted as 3000) years, I think) with the fossils in the rocks. He thought god had created the universe in play, fossils and all. He was crushed when nobody liked his ideas. But he was a lot more logical and intelligent than the 'intelligent design' types. That is a way to reconcile biblical literalism with the scientific evidence.
3000 years—there's recorded history a lot further back than that... say, you suppose that's why the Bush administration was so willing to see the library and archaeological museum in Iraq wiped out? Don't just deny the evidence, destroy it? (Joke, I hope)
Teresa — That textile site is wondeful —dangerous to the budget, that is. Thank you.
Open thread, 2 things:
Was wondering what would be the correct collective noun for a bunch of books (besides library, that is), and thought of course, the one traditionally used for cats: clowder. I believe it meant clutter. Very appropriate for those of us who never have enough bookcases, and live with piles of books with cats roosting on them.
Also, just thought of this: "Intelligent design — it falsifies science and trivializes faith".
Perhaps in this form: " Falsify Science & trivialize Faith, promote 'intelligent design' ".
(I think I thought of it. If I read it somewhere, it would be somewhere referenced here — please let me know. The high school English teacher always said not to paraphrase in our notes, since we might reparaphrase back to the original in our final draft because it sounded right. No guarantees relying on human memory.)
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2006 | 15 |
| 2005 | 68 |
Total: 83 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Mina W:
Show all comments by Mina W.