That quiz?  You know, the one I posted Monday?

Well, it's geographic.  And obviously it's got something to do with neighboring states.

And the answer was almost got by one participant!

Is not that teh awesome?

Chicagotribune.com ...

Suntimes.com ...

My home page came up genius, but then I throw around a lot of anthropolomologicolatical wordnesses.

Or... "But wait, gets better!"

Now the AFP has re-tagged the photo. The change control field says they only added "unspent" to the description, but in fact they deleted all reference to the rounds actually having been claimed to hit her house. Nice, they lie in the change control field. Sheesh.

See: http://minx.cc/?post=237239

So now it's captioned, "An elderly Iraqi woman holds up two unspent bullets at her house following an early coalition forces raid in the predominantly Shiite Baghdad suburb of Sadr City, 14 August 2007."

Meaningless. Might as well be, "A person holds up a broom following the moon landing." Or maybe this, or even this...

Also, sources are now indicating those are almost certainly not US military rounds, but plain old box civvy .223 rounds. Nice, nice, very nice. Oh so many morons use the same device.

My friend qwrrty is angry about the Libby commutation - as I think just about everyone has a right to be, and about which even many conservative libertarian types are pretty darned disapproving. Makes me angry, too. But then I already was angry at this administration - and this is a very small bit of straw to break the camel's back; more importantly, when there's 500lbs of crap on the camel, don't obsess about the straw. Even if it's the straw that breaks the back, it is just a straw compared to the 500lbs.

I think it's terrifying how quickly the press has almost forgotten to mention the actual big issues related to the administration in favor of the issue/story flavor of the day. I don't think Bush could have planned this one better - and maybe his coterie did plan for this effect. For every headline story on Libby, that's one more break in the drumbeat about all the other - some deeply pressing - issues. So, for example, holding US Citizens without habeas and without charges, wiretapping well beyond 4th Amendment provisions, and knowingly subjecting or submitting detainees to cruel and unusual punishment (torture-like methods) gets put by the wayside because some flunky gets caught out lying to investigators in an investigation that turns out to be moot.

Yes, Libby's case is important because it goes back to the rationales for invading Iraq, but... let's not call for impeachment over a (patently legal if morally wrong) commutation. Let's not scrabble in the dirt looking for reasons it might be impeachable, either. Bigger issues out there; limited time.

qwrrty calls the Pelosi crew gutless for taking impeachment off the table. And I think that is a fair characterization, but maybe "planless" is more like it. Where's the strategy to remake or even repair the America we had just 10 years ago, when Presidential calls for sweeping snoop powers (oh, yes, let's not give Mr. Clinton a free pass on chipping away at the 4th Amendment... please) got voted down, and that was the end of it? Back then, the reaction was not a "we'll do it anyway" disdain for the rule of law (to Clinton's credit). Now, instead I see a strategy to just burn through the next two years, crow about how munch money each candidate has raised to buy the Presidency, and try to get all three branches so a different set of special interests can have its time at the soda fountain.

You want to see what happens when a super-majority of seats gets grabbed by a giddy-to-be-in-power-again party that's not actually clean as a whistle, then please look at IL! We had a Republican party exposed as SO corrupt, and which was SO torn down by Fitzgerald, that in my district, the Repubs funded no opponent for US Congress, and none for most state seats either. And what did the Dems do once in office with a super-majority and governorship? They pass a few key items that could have been negotiated by a solid Dem front years ago, then go on an I'll-pass-yours-if-you'll-pass-mine, edge-issue legislation spree so crazy it boggles the mind (including mandating anti-bacterial scrub be used for all lunchtime handwashing by school children, put forward by a self-described germaphobe who is a compulsive handwasher... it passed, of course), thereby creating a backlash *within their own super-majority* from folks whose most controversial items didn't make it, thus undermining the party's ability to even get a simple majority together on no-brainer issues. Now they are unable to even pass a budget, despite TOTAL control of both houses and the governorship.

Gimme a leftie libertarian who knows how to ensure accountability for government funds or a conservative libertarian who thinks government should get out of people's minds, bedrooms and bodies. Those perfect people don't exist, but blend Howard Dean and Ron Paul and you might get someone like it. Get important stuff done, done efficiently, done well, and get it out of the game of nonsense minutia. Any idea how much time and how many bills are passed congratulating sports teams? Have a look. That's the work of a government pressed with weighty issues?

Scooter deserved the sentence; the Pres's commutation is patently legal and it even has precedent in circumstances akin to these (though about 80 years back), yet it was obviously self-serving, maybe payola, and really politically stupid. But it's over.

Warrantless wiretapping, the selective suspension of habeas, use of uncertain and very questionable interrogation techniques, and possibly extraordinary rendition continue. Today. Some of those are, or the actions supporting them are, if charges were brought, like as not to stand scrutiny as impeachable crimes.

Yet STOPPING those abuses is more important still. So in the end I agree with a comment in qwrrty's journal by qnetter - moving on means MOVING ON. We have to break the cycle of government run by moralistic urges executed by any means necessary. That includes when we think "our side" is right. No one gets a free pass on hypocrisy just because the other party was hypocritical or even evil, first.

If you're in academia, read academic papers, go to conferences, or just like conference papers, you should have a look at this presentation from the AAAS:

( CK )
Thanks to a certain list I am on for sharing this exciting development in academics.

Long, long... LONG work day today. My only break was brought on by a hour-and-change power outage. Hyooge contracts to review, one giant lease poorly edited and derived from some "contracts 'R' us" book, some emergency "can you do this" stuff, calls way before, and way after hours, and so on.

And in the midst of the flurry, around 4PM, I realized I hadn't received a particular bit of important information for our E&O coverage - a bit that someone had "committed" to get me by, um, yesterday. So I wrote her a little note.

[name],

Our insurer needs some forms for E and E and O.
...and on these forms we'd put our earnings, for E and E and O.
With a lawsuit here and a lawsuit there; here a suit there a suit
Everywhere a law suit,
So... our insurer needs some forms for E and E and O.

-[me]

Sing it to "Old MacDonald's Farm", and you'll get the idea...

It was a long day.

Scientists Revise Definition of "Month"

First full meeting of Annular Scientists in centuries changes meaning of month

February downgraded to "calendrical object"

At its first meeting in centuries, the Global Association of Annular Scientists (GAAS) tackled the rocky subject of what actually constitutes a "month". The month represents a long-standing issue among annular experts, despite revisions of calendars and additions of leap seconds to the annular calculus over the centuries.

The new definition of a month is said by GAAS members to be the first, proper, scientific definition ever. "The definition adopted today creates precise, unyielding boundaries that permit classification instead of ad hoc casting by feel," said GAAS spokesperson Mark Julian. "The new definition defines a month as an invariable calendrical autonomous unit invariably from 30 to 31 days, inclusive. February is clearly defined out, removing much of the issue people have long had with its variability, uniquely modest size, and funny spelling."

As February has 28 or 29 days sometimes, it falls below the minimum size under the revised definition of "month" and its variable nature also violates the new definitional boundary.

February, which was unique among the things termed months, had long bothered key annular scientists who viewed it as a glaring exception to a dated theory. "A theory that merrily encapsulates exceptions without re-examining the core hypothesis is not much of a scientific theory, now is it, then?" commented French Annulatician Alain Manac. Keeping the old definition, "would be like maintaining Ptolemy's Earth-centric model of the solar system in the face of mounting exceptions to the rule" added Julian. "Science must address anomalies as challenges to theory, not roadbumps to be explained away."

February, now classed as a "calendrical object" joins such oddities as the leap second and its own leap day in the bucket of temporal oddities.

Opponents of the change voiced strong opposition on a number of grounds. "The old definition was working fine for us, I mean, unless you were born on the 29th or something, or maybe like our competition you used a bad piece of computer code," insisted Gregory Dayes, president of software firm Time'R'Us, whose personal organizer software has been touted for its ability to deal with all the documented temporal anomalies. Juan Diem, a teacher at August Lakes high school in Georgia points out that "everything from textbooks to the mnemonics our kids are taught will have to change. The cost and confusion are going to be tremendous." His feelings were tempered, however, by one consideration: "But at least I won't have to hear that stupid 'rides a bicycle' line any more."

Just as you think I'm becoming profound,
I become ridiculous.
Isn't that profound?

If ever I find the quiet in myself,
I will profoundly express myself,
By shutting the fuck up.

Big news today with the arrests of seven in Miami as part of a year-long anti-terror sting operation. Not sure personally that these losers ever posed a real threat, but at least the feds were actively looking for dangerous wingnuts.

However, the media do seem to screw up breaking news in the most creative ways in their effort to get it online first.
( Oh, the horror, the horror. )

"If the risk or cost of testing failover is too high, the risk of actual failure is too high.”

That has become a catchphrase of mine. It made me wonder:

"If the risk or cost of testing a contingency plan is too high, the risk presented by actual disaster is too high.”

These may not be equivalent in value or accuracy. Discuss?