Library internet filters won't work
Today the Supreme Court said that libraries can be required by law to put Internet filters on their computers to block patrons from viewing "adult" material. I don't think this will work. There appears to be no way a program can distinguish "adult" from non-"adult". Words won't work. Words such as suck, screw, ass, and ball have, in addition to their filterable meanings, other meanings that have absolutely nothing to do with sexual activity, for example. Not even breast or naked will work because these words have non-sexual meanings, for example, the chicken breast. It will instead block access to non-"adult" sites, for example sites on naked-eye astronomy, meaning astronomy without a telescope. These filters want you to have your clothes on, but your telescope has to be on too? Further, knowing these filters are in existence, both legitimate web site owners and porno site owners will change their words to avoid the filters; for example, fcuk, baull and so forth. Our language will be debased and distorted as we will not be able to say screw as in a light bulb any more but will have to say something like smew. Furthermore, filter makers will reconstruct these sites to block these words, and then porno site owners will avoid these blocked words, and so forth. It is just like with spam. Eventually, pornographic web sites will be harmless because they will be 100% gibberish and the pictures will be featureless blurs. And maybe so will all other sites. I agree with people who say that people will not access "adult" sites in a public place, where the neighbor down the street could be watching. Maybe we need to protect children from sexually explicit sites. But we also need to ensure that our language stays clear with words chosen to express a thought of the expresser rather than to avoid a filter. I urge municipalities, state governments, and Congress not to pass laws that would require libraries to install filters.
A Journey through Blogrealm
Blogtrek
Blogtrek
2003/06/26
2003/06/23
Yet another dead-for-a-ducat strike
Over the weekend the US again tried to take out the deposed Iraqi leadership, including perhaps Saddam himself, with a strike near the Syrian border. That makes three dead-for-a-ducat strikes that the US has made on Iraqi leadership. I get the name for this type of action from Shakespeare's Hamlet, in the scene where Hamlet is griping to the Queen and others about conditions in Denmark and then he hears a scream behind a curtain. Thinking it is the King who killed his father, the rightful King, he takes a swing with his dagger at the curtain and kills not the King, but Polonius, while saying "How now a rat? Dead for a ducat, dead!" Hamlet's strike did not turn out well. He did not take out the King, and he killed innocent people in the process.
Is that what's happened to the three dead-for-a-ducat strikes in Persian Gulf War II? One thing's for sure. At least two of these strikes were failures (with respect to an individual, say Saddam). This is because you can kill a person only once. If the first dead-for-a-ducat strike succeeded, then the second two were certain failures. Of course, each of these strikes could have taken one element out from the set {Saddam, Qusai, Udai}. But it isn't likely.
The thing that's for sure now is that the US campaign in Iraq is not going well. The oil has yet to flow and the drilling equipment is in bad shape, American soldiers are being killed almost every day, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and the new prosperous democratic Iraq is taking shape very slowly.
Over the weekend the US again tried to take out the deposed Iraqi leadership, including perhaps Saddam himself, with a strike near the Syrian border. That makes three dead-for-a-ducat strikes that the US has made on Iraqi leadership. I get the name for this type of action from Shakespeare's Hamlet, in the scene where Hamlet is griping to the Queen and others about conditions in Denmark and then he hears a scream behind a curtain. Thinking it is the King who killed his father, the rightful King, he takes a swing with his dagger at the curtain and kills not the King, but Polonius, while saying "How now a rat? Dead for a ducat, dead!" Hamlet's strike did not turn out well. He did not take out the King, and he killed innocent people in the process.
Is that what's happened to the three dead-for-a-ducat strikes in Persian Gulf War II? One thing's for sure. At least two of these strikes were failures (with respect to an individual, say Saddam). This is because you can kill a person only once. If the first dead-for-a-ducat strike succeeded, then the second two were certain failures. Of course, each of these strikes could have taken one element out from the set {Saddam, Qusai, Udai}. But it isn't likely.
The thing that's for sure now is that the US campaign in Iraq is not going well. The oil has yet to flow and the drilling equipment is in bad shape, American soldiers are being killed almost every day, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and the new prosperous democratic Iraq is taking shape very slowly.
Coja el alcohol!
The translator in Google seems tremendous. You put a web page or a text into a blank, select the type of translation, hit a button, and here! (or voilá!) the page or text in the other language. Babelfish has constructed this translator, which is also used on Alta Vista. But how good is it? It translates most everything OK but it still is a long way from producing fluent prose, and it may never get there. There are some egregious examples using it. For example, try "Catch the spirit!", which was a slogan of a Toastmaster district a few years ago. You get "Coja el alcohol!" and your thought is "Hey! Wrong kind of spirit(s)!" This was noticed by Leon Bloy of Argentina in his blog of last year, when he noticed that religious statements had hilarious or even sacrilegious translations into Spanish. For example, "holy spirit" translates into "alcohol santo". The holy liquor, I suppose. What's more, Sr. Bloy points out that Babelfish doesn't even know the Spanish word "santo". If you put that into Babelfish, from Spanish to English, you get "santo" and a comment that it can't be translated. And you get sentences like "Esta página está para el alcohol santo"; that is, "This page is for the holy alcohol." Sr. Bloy has many other egregious examples, and I refer you to his entertaining blog, which is written in Spanish. Babelfish has trouble with other languages as well. For example, I typed in once "planes or something" in an attempt to describe something in the sky. In Spanish I got "planos o algo", and in German I got "Flachen odor etwas." Apparently Babelfish thinks that planes in English are geometrical planes or two-dimensional manifolds, instead of airplanes. To get the latter, you have to say "airplane" and then Babelfish will give you "Flugzeuge".
No, Babelfish is helpful but don't try to converse with someone using it unless you edit it first. It's much worse than a spelling checker.
The translator in Google seems tremendous. You put a web page or a text into a blank, select the type of translation, hit a button, and here! (or voilá!) the page or text in the other language. Babelfish has constructed this translator, which is also used on Alta Vista. But how good is it? It translates most everything OK but it still is a long way from producing fluent prose, and it may never get there. There are some egregious examples using it. For example, try "Catch the spirit!", which was a slogan of a Toastmaster district a few years ago. You get "Coja el alcohol!" and your thought is "Hey! Wrong kind of spirit(s)!" This was noticed by Leon Bloy of Argentina in his blog of last year, when he noticed that religious statements had hilarious or even sacrilegious translations into Spanish. For example, "holy spirit" translates into "alcohol santo". The holy liquor, I suppose. What's more, Sr. Bloy points out that Babelfish doesn't even know the Spanish word "santo". If you put that into Babelfish, from Spanish to English, you get "santo" and a comment that it can't be translated. And you get sentences like "Esta página está para el alcohol santo"; that is, "This page is for the holy alcohol." Sr. Bloy has many other egregious examples, and I refer you to his entertaining blog, which is written in Spanish. Babelfish has trouble with other languages as well. For example, I typed in once "planes or something" in an attempt to describe something in the sky. In Spanish I got "planos o algo", and in German I got "Flachen odor etwas." Apparently Babelfish thinks that planes in English are geometrical planes or two-dimensional manifolds, instead of airplanes. To get the latter, you have to say "airplane" and then Babelfish will give you "Flugzeuge".
No, Babelfish is helpful but don't try to converse with someone using it unless you edit it first. It's much worse than a spelling checker.
2003/06/22
Spam Gibberish
It is now my opinion that eventually spam will become gibberish. It will mean absolutely nothing. The reason is this. When spam originated, its intent was to have the recipient buy something or do something (like pass a chain letter or a diatribe) for the sender. It was like mass marketing. Therefore, words like free, credit, mortgage and so forth appeared in the body and subject of spam. This made a good way of detecting spam: if it had free in the subject, then it was spam. Of course then we have to spell free as frie or something like that in the subject of emails to prevent spamkillers from classifying them as spam and deleting them.
Well guess what? The spammers have figured this out too. Now they send gibberish strings like lnwfdlnvple in their subjects, have email addresses that start with numbers such as 18339829, and misspell viagra as v_iagra. This means they are delivering less fruitful content and more nonsense. We defend ourselves against the fruitful content that they do have by using these as keywords. They respond by messing up these words or replacing them with gibberish. This will keep up over and over again in a cycle until the spammers send a completely random string of symbols in both the subject and the body. So spam emails will be 100% gibberish.
If this is a majority of the email traffic in the world, this email traffic will become the greatest emitter of white noise ever devised.
It is now my opinion that eventually spam will become gibberish. It will mean absolutely nothing. The reason is this. When spam originated, its intent was to have the recipient buy something or do something (like pass a chain letter or a diatribe) for the sender. It was like mass marketing. Therefore, words like free, credit, mortgage and so forth appeared in the body and subject of spam. This made a good way of detecting spam: if it had free in the subject, then it was spam. Of course then we have to spell free as frie or something like that in the subject of emails to prevent spamkillers from classifying them as spam and deleting them.
Well guess what? The spammers have figured this out too. Now they send gibberish strings like lnwfdlnvple in their subjects, have email addresses that start with numbers such as 18339829, and misspell viagra as v_iagra. This means they are delivering less fruitful content and more nonsense. We defend ourselves against the fruitful content that they do have by using these as keywords. They respond by messing up these words or replacing them with gibberish. This will keep up over and over again in a cycle until the spammers send a completely random string of symbols in both the subject and the body. So spam emails will be 100% gibberish.
If this is a majority of the email traffic in the world, this email traffic will become the greatest emitter of white noise ever devised.
2003/06/16
District 77
What are numbers used for? 0 represents nothing. 1 represents unity, a single, alone object. 2 represents a pair, a duo, polarity. 3 is a triangle. And then we have 4, 5, and so forth. What do we use them for? We say that there are 3 apples on the chair. We say there are 4 apples on the table. So there are 3 + 4 or 7 apples in the room. We also talk about the fullback on the football team, Number 18, and the right tackle, Number 9. The quarterback is number 27, so does it mean anything when we say that if we add the right tackle to the fullback, we get the quarterback? No, that's not the intended meaning of these numbers. These numbers are more like labels, helping us to tell the players apart. We could have very well used letters, such as I, R, and Z for the players. We call these numbers nominal, as the expression 9 + 18 = 27 is meaningless for football jersey numbers, and even the expression 18 < 27 (the right tackle is less than the quarterback) is nonsense. The numbers are simply labels.
But maybe not always. Toastmasters District 48 comprises clubs in central and northern Alabama. District 29 is on the Gulf Coast: northern Florida, southern Alabama, and southern Mississippi. Toastmasters International for next year has combined these two districts into a single district. What are they going to call the new District? They are going to call it District 77. I note that 29 + 48 = 77. So, Toastmasters, can we add District numbers? It certainly is a neat way of remembering the new district number. Why not go all the way and get The Number of Toastmasters? Add all the district numbers together and get F + 3003. One of the districts is labeled "F". If we take F = 0 (it is the zeroth district, which makes it firster than the first district), then The Toastmaster Number is 3003. The slogan for this year should have been "3003 in 2003!" Of course it still does not make sense, even if 29 + 48 = 77. You see, 77 is the next number to give to a district: there are 77 districts, including F. That's why it was selected.
What are numbers used for? 0 represents nothing. 1 represents unity, a single, alone object. 2 represents a pair, a duo, polarity. 3 is a triangle. And then we have 4, 5, and so forth. What do we use them for? We say that there are 3 apples on the chair. We say there are 4 apples on the table. So there are 3 + 4 or 7 apples in the room. We also talk about the fullback on the football team, Number 18, and the right tackle, Number 9. The quarterback is number 27, so does it mean anything when we say that if we add the right tackle to the fullback, we get the quarterback? No, that's not the intended meaning of these numbers. These numbers are more like labels, helping us to tell the players apart. We could have very well used letters, such as I, R, and Z for the players. We call these numbers nominal, as the expression 9 + 18 = 27 is meaningless for football jersey numbers, and even the expression 18 < 27 (the right tackle is less than the quarterback) is nonsense. The numbers are simply labels.
But maybe not always. Toastmasters District 48 comprises clubs in central and northern Alabama. District 29 is on the Gulf Coast: northern Florida, southern Alabama, and southern Mississippi. Toastmasters International for next year has combined these two districts into a single district. What are they going to call the new District? They are going to call it District 77. I note that 29 + 48 = 77. So, Toastmasters, can we add District numbers? It certainly is a neat way of remembering the new district number. Why not go all the way and get The Number of Toastmasters? Add all the district numbers together and get F + 3003. One of the districts is labeled "F". If we take F = 0 (it is the zeroth district, which makes it firster than the first district), then The Toastmaster Number is 3003. The slogan for this year should have been "3003 in 2003!" Of course it still does not make sense, even if 29 + 48 = 77. You see, 77 is the next number to give to a district: there are 77 districts, including F. That's why it was selected.
Promoting from within
One of the frustrations I found out in my younger work life was places where the management promoted from within. That is, when a higher ranking position became open, they selected someone of the next lower rank in the same office to fill the position. This effectively shuts out outsiders; people who work outside the office unless they are willing to start all over at entry-level positions. I have seen that happen too.
However, promoting from within can be a blessing when it occurs in your own office. That is how I got promoted in the 1980s. However my present office apparently does not promote from within any more. Because of that, people are leaving. One announced that she was taking a higher-ranking position elsewhere because they would not promote from within in her office.
This brings up a paradox. If your own office won't promote from within, then you have to go elsewhere for your promotions. After some job-hunting, you find a suitable promotion somewhere else. But guess what? That new office is no different. Eventually you will have to move again to find a suitable promotion. It does not promote from within. No, when a high ranking position comes up, they choose an outsider. The evidence for that is you.
The paradox is that you are dissatisfied with your office because it does not promote from within, but this forces you to hunt for a position, which by force of logic also does not promote from within, so you have not satisfied your goal. It seems like you can never satisfy your goal. The only way out, it seems, is the hard way: find an entry-level position at a place which does promote from within and go there, taking a temporary cut in salary if need be. I know several people who have done that.
One of the frustrations I found out in my younger work life was places where the management promoted from within. That is, when a higher ranking position became open, they selected someone of the next lower rank in the same office to fill the position. This effectively shuts out outsiders; people who work outside the office unless they are willing to start all over at entry-level positions. I have seen that happen too.
However, promoting from within can be a blessing when it occurs in your own office. That is how I got promoted in the 1980s. However my present office apparently does not promote from within any more. Because of that, people are leaving. One announced that she was taking a higher-ranking position elsewhere because they would not promote from within in her office.
This brings up a paradox. If your own office won't promote from within, then you have to go elsewhere for your promotions. After some job-hunting, you find a suitable promotion somewhere else. But guess what? That new office is no different. Eventually you will have to move again to find a suitable promotion. It does not promote from within. No, when a high ranking position comes up, they choose an outsider. The evidence for that is you.
The paradox is that you are dissatisfied with your office because it does not promote from within, but this forces you to hunt for a position, which by force of logic also does not promote from within, so you have not satisfied your goal. It seems like you can never satisfy your goal. The only way out, it seems, is the hard way: find an entry-level position at a place which does promote from within and go there, taking a temporary cut in salary if need be. I know several people who have done that.
2003/06/15
CNN's strange idea of 0%
Today a question came up on http://www.cnn.com, asking whether states be allowed to regulate sex between consenting adults. I answered "no" to that. To me, consenting sex is a private affair in which the government should stay out. So I clicked the No radio button and hit "Vote". It said "This page can't be displayed". I tried it on Netscape. I got "This page can't be found on this server", or something like that. I clicked "view results". I got Yes, 100%, No, 0%. Huhh?? It cannot be zero because I just entered a "No" vote. Doesn't my vote count? From now on I am going to take the results of CNN polls with a grain of salt. It seems that CNN doesn't know what 0% is.
Today a question came up on http://www.cnn.com, asking whether states be allowed to regulate sex between consenting adults. I answered "no" to that. To me, consenting sex is a private affair in which the government should stay out. So I clicked the No radio button and hit "Vote". It said "This page can't be displayed". I tried it on Netscape. I got "This page can't be found on this server", or something like that. I clicked "view results". I got Yes, 100%, No, 0%. Huhh?? It cannot be zero because I just entered a "No" vote. Doesn't my vote count? From now on I am going to take the results of CNN polls with a grain of salt. It seems that CNN doesn't know what 0% is.
Some real spam
I got an unsolicited email this morning from Mike Evans who has written a book called Beyond Iraq and is apparently trying to use email to hawk it. In so doing, I believe he's spamming. This is because I found this notice at the end of the email:
You are subscribed to the Pastor Update list, keeping you up-to date on items of interest to Churches and Pastors. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply use this link: http://www.nmailer.com/unsub/index.html?e=aa_42-5214
Huhh?? I never subscribed to any pastor list. Where does he get the idea that I am a pastor of some sort? He says I can stop the messages by clicking that link; I think he got part of that email address of his by doing a takeoff or spoof on author Norman Mailer. I am not going to click on that link since I have been warned that this will merely confirm to spammers that this is a valid address. I tried to reply directly and got a "can't deliver" squawk from the postmaster.
In any case, this isn't any book that I would be interested in. Its full title is: Beyond Iraq: The Next Move: Ancient Prophecy and Modern Day Conspiracy Collide. The words "ancient prophecy" indicates to me that the author uses religion and the Bible to make assertions about our present world instead of the scientific method. There is no way that the Bible is the immutable work of God; it is a collection of human writings from an era that may have little relevance to the present world. I agree with the one-star rating on Amazon.com (where the book has the incredible rank of 10) that says that any book with "ancient prophecy" in its title is not worthy of serious consideration. I wouldn't say "any", but rather "almost any", but I agree with the rater and agree that it deserves the lowest rating. I did read some pages of the book and they seem to be a rehash of Planeattack and other recent events; nothing new. A better book to read, in my opinion, is the one I referred to earlier by Clyde Prestowitz, Rogue Nation.
In any case, I regard the message as spam and hope that I don't get any more messages like this. Further, anybody hawking a book to me by sending me a spam message telling me that I have subscribed to a list that I never subscribed to may very well find a one-star review of his book in Amazon.com.
I got an unsolicited email this morning from Mike Evans who has written a book called Beyond Iraq and is apparently trying to use email to hawk it. In so doing, I believe he's spamming. This is because I found this notice at the end of the email:
You are subscribed to the Pastor Update list, keeping you up-to date on items of interest to Churches and Pastors. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply use this link: http://www.nmailer.com/unsub/index.html?e=aa_42-5214
Huhh?? I never subscribed to any pastor list. Where does he get the idea that I am a pastor of some sort? He says I can stop the messages by clicking that link; I think he got part of that email address of his by doing a takeoff or spoof on author Norman Mailer. I am not going to click on that link since I have been warned that this will merely confirm to spammers that this is a valid address. I tried to reply directly and got a "can't deliver" squawk from the postmaster.
In any case, this isn't any book that I would be interested in. Its full title is: Beyond Iraq: The Next Move: Ancient Prophecy and Modern Day Conspiracy Collide. The words "ancient prophecy" indicates to me that the author uses religion and the Bible to make assertions about our present world instead of the scientific method. There is no way that the Bible is the immutable work of God; it is a collection of human writings from an era that may have little relevance to the present world. I agree with the one-star rating on Amazon.com (where the book has the incredible rank of 10) that says that any book with "ancient prophecy" in its title is not worthy of serious consideration. I wouldn't say "any", but rather "almost any", but I agree with the rater and agree that it deserves the lowest rating. I did read some pages of the book and they seem to be a rehash of Planeattack and other recent events; nothing new. A better book to read, in my opinion, is the one I referred to earlier by Clyde Prestowitz, Rogue Nation.
In any case, I regard the message as spam and hope that I don't get any more messages like this. Further, anybody hawking a book to me by sending me a spam message telling me that I have subscribed to a list that I never subscribed to may very well find a one-star review of his book in Amazon.com.
Wesley Clark for President?
Here is now another possible candidate for President in 2004. He is former Gen. Wesley Clark, former NATO chief. Would he make a good candidate? Could he win? And how would his candidacy affect the election?
First of all, which party would he run as? He has not said yet. But I would recommend that he not run as a Democrat. He does not have charisma, and that is the only way a Democrat can materially affect the election, according to the Lichtman keys. If he were to run as a Democrat, then what was going to happen will happen; probably Bush's reelection. I therefore would recommend that he run as a Republican or as an independent. In either of these ways he could topple keys against the President. If he ran as a Republican opposing Bush for the nomination, he could prevent Bush from getting 2/3 of the vote on the first ballot, costing him the challenge for the nomination key (Key 2). If he ran as an independent, he would be a third prarty candidate. If he got 5% of the vote or more, that would cost Bush Key 4. Or he could run on the Republican line, fail by a close margin to upset Bush, then run as an independent against him and topple both Keys 2 and 4. If this were the case, and the Democrats select Hillary, that would be six keys against Bush, and Hillary would be our next President.
How likely is all this? Not very at this point, but things could change. The fact remains though that I want Gen. Clark to run either as a Republican or as an independent.
Here is now another possible candidate for President in 2004. He is former Gen. Wesley Clark, former NATO chief. Would he make a good candidate? Could he win? And how would his candidacy affect the election?
First of all, which party would he run as? He has not said yet. But I would recommend that he not run as a Democrat. He does not have charisma, and that is the only way a Democrat can materially affect the election, according to the Lichtman keys. If he were to run as a Democrat, then what was going to happen will happen; probably Bush's reelection. I therefore would recommend that he run as a Republican or as an independent. In either of these ways he could topple keys against the President. If he ran as a Republican opposing Bush for the nomination, he could prevent Bush from getting 2/3 of the vote on the first ballot, costing him the challenge for the nomination key (Key 2). If he ran as an independent, he would be a third prarty candidate. If he got 5% of the vote or more, that would cost Bush Key 4. Or he could run on the Republican line, fail by a close margin to upset Bush, then run as an independent against him and topple both Keys 2 and 4. If this were the case, and the Democrats select Hillary, that would be six keys against Bush, and Hillary would be our next President.
How likely is all this? Not very at this point, but things could change. The fact remains though that I want Gen. Clark to run either as a Republican or as an independent.
Discovery Channel spams?
I found a disconcerting thing when I went to CNN this morning. Immediately a large black square threw up in my face, and I heard a loud boom. I do not expect that when I visit a news site. I expect the news. This booming black square was caused by the Discovery Channel throwing a popup ad in my face. I have seen lots of popup ads on the Web; sites insist on putting these in user's faces instead of using space on the web site itself. One can use Norton Internet Security to block ads in general on the Web, and AnalogX's Pow! and Panicware's Popup Stopper can be used to get rid of popup ads, (although Pow! on occasion pows a legitimate page). Most of these popup ads come from telemarketers or spammers; in fact, popup ads, in my opinion, are a form of spam. Therefore, when the Discovery Channel does it, it spams.
That is disturbing behavior, coming from a place as highly respected as the Discovery Channel. Still, spam is spam, we need to get rid of spam, and Discovery's popup ads, like all popup ads are spam. Therefore I have emailed the Discovery Channel about this ad and am going to boycott the channel as long as they throw this booming ad in my face; further, I shall urge my friends and associates not to watch the Discovery Channel. There are other educational channels I can turn to: PBS, Arts and Entertainment, and Animal Planet, to name a few. When the popup ads stop, I will consider watching Discovery Channel again.
I found a disconcerting thing when I went to CNN this morning. Immediately a large black square threw up in my face, and I heard a loud boom. I do not expect that when I visit a news site. I expect the news. This booming black square was caused by the Discovery Channel throwing a popup ad in my face. I have seen lots of popup ads on the Web; sites insist on putting these in user's faces instead of using space on the web site itself. One can use Norton Internet Security to block ads in general on the Web, and AnalogX's Pow! and Panicware's Popup Stopper can be used to get rid of popup ads, (although Pow! on occasion pows a legitimate page). Most of these popup ads come from telemarketers or spammers; in fact, popup ads, in my opinion, are a form of spam. Therefore, when the Discovery Channel does it, it spams.
That is disturbing behavior, coming from a place as highly respected as the Discovery Channel. Still, spam is spam, we need to get rid of spam, and Discovery's popup ads, like all popup ads are spam. Therefore I have emailed the Discovery Channel about this ad and am going to boycott the channel as long as they throw this booming ad in my face; further, I shall urge my friends and associates not to watch the Discovery Channel. There are other educational channels I can turn to: PBS, Arts and Entertainment, and Animal Planet, to name a few. When the popup ads stop, I will consider watching Discovery Channel again.
2003/06/12
The Messy No-Hitter
I am not much of a fan of sports. When the sports comes on the network channels, I switch to another channel. I resent it, further, when basketball or football games go longer than they should and start wiping out the local news on the weekends. Fortunately I have the Web here to find the news whenever the networks see fit to bomb them out with sports.
However I do have an affinity for baseball, which dates from my childhood days. I especially like finding unusual things about baseball. For example, what I might term the minimum games (some would say "extreme" games, but that word is used far too often). These are the shutout, the no-hitter, and the perfect game. A pitcher (or team) shuts out the opponent when the opponent scores no runs. A pitcher earns a no-hitter if the opponent gets no hits. A perfect game is where no one on the opposing side at all reaches first base. Such a game must be 27 straight outs. Recently a no-hitter was pitched by a committee of pitchers.
A pitcher always wins a shutout, since a team must score runs to win. A pitcher always wins a perfect game, since a team must get runners on base to score runs to win. However, a pitcher need not win a no-hitter. It is easy to get on base without a hit. Usually a no-hitting pitcher will win, but sometimes he doesn't. In 1961 Harvey Haddix of the Pittsburgh Pirates pitched 11 straight perfect innings. That's right, 33 straight outs against the Milwaukee Braves. Unfortunately, the Pirates could not score and so the score remained 0-0 and Haddix had to continue to pitch and pitch. In the 12th inning, the Braves got runners on base and won with a 3-run homer (actually that was a 1-run double, but that's another story). So the longest number of perfect innings was pitched by a pitcher who lost.
Today I saw a web page which has a collection of what are called "messy" no-hitters. This included the one in 1990 by Andy Hawkins in which he pitched an 8-inning no-hitter but allowed the White Sox to score 4 runs, while his Yankees reversed the pattern and got no runs on 4 hits. But the one that took the cake was one in 1967 between Detroit and Baltimore. Barber of the Orioles pitched 8 2/3 innings in which the Tigers did not get a single hit. But they did walk 10 times, got hit by the pitcher twice, and were the recipient of a wild pitch once. Further, Barber pitched 300 pitches, about half of which were balls. But what stuck out about this game was his statement afterwards: "They probably didn't get a hit because I didn't throw anything close enough to the plate." It shows that sometimes an achievement is not that much of an achievement, but it also shows there is more than one way of achieving your goals in baseball. This game shows that it may be possible to throw all out-of-zone pitches and still win, provided you get them to swing once in a while into strikes and outs. I will mention other baseball situations like this in future blogs; they show that goals in baseball are not that clear-cut.
I am not much of a fan of sports. When the sports comes on the network channels, I switch to another channel. I resent it, further, when basketball or football games go longer than they should and start wiping out the local news on the weekends. Fortunately I have the Web here to find the news whenever the networks see fit to bomb them out with sports.
However I do have an affinity for baseball, which dates from my childhood days. I especially like finding unusual things about baseball. For example, what I might term the minimum games (some would say "extreme" games, but that word is used far too often). These are the shutout, the no-hitter, and the perfect game. A pitcher (or team) shuts out the opponent when the opponent scores no runs. A pitcher earns a no-hitter if the opponent gets no hits. A perfect game is where no one on the opposing side at all reaches first base. Such a game must be 27 straight outs. Recently a no-hitter was pitched by a committee of pitchers.
A pitcher always wins a shutout, since a team must score runs to win. A pitcher always wins a perfect game, since a team must get runners on base to score runs to win. However, a pitcher need not win a no-hitter. It is easy to get on base without a hit. Usually a no-hitting pitcher will win, but sometimes he doesn't. In 1961 Harvey Haddix of the Pittsburgh Pirates pitched 11 straight perfect innings. That's right, 33 straight outs against the Milwaukee Braves. Unfortunately, the Pirates could not score and so the score remained 0-0 and Haddix had to continue to pitch and pitch. In the 12th inning, the Braves got runners on base and won with a 3-run homer (actually that was a 1-run double, but that's another story). So the longest number of perfect innings was pitched by a pitcher who lost.
Today I saw a web page which has a collection of what are called "messy" no-hitters. This included the one in 1990 by Andy Hawkins in which he pitched an 8-inning no-hitter but allowed the White Sox to score 4 runs, while his Yankees reversed the pattern and got no runs on 4 hits. But the one that took the cake was one in 1967 between Detroit and Baltimore. Barber of the Orioles pitched 8 2/3 innings in which the Tigers did not get a single hit. But they did walk 10 times, got hit by the pitcher twice, and were the recipient of a wild pitch once. Further, Barber pitched 300 pitches, about half of which were balls. But what stuck out about this game was his statement afterwards: "They probably didn't get a hit because I didn't throw anything close enough to the plate." It shows that sometimes an achievement is not that much of an achievement, but it also shows there is more than one way of achieving your goals in baseball. This game shows that it may be possible to throw all out-of-zone pitches and still win, provided you get them to swing once in a while into strikes and outs. I will mention other baseball situations like this in future blogs; they show that goals in baseball are not that clear-cut.
2003/06/11
Does Hillary Clinton have charisma?
Now the fuss in the media is about Hillary Clinton. She just finished publishing a book and she has appeared on 2 TV shows including a Larry King show. According to her the adventuring of her husband to other women did hurt the marriage a bit but the marriage survived it; she and her husband were united against the prosecutors and the hypermedia who sought to blow the crisis up for whatever they can get. But now the question is: can Hillary run against Bush in 2004 and defeat him? She is not an announced candidate and is possibly eyeing 2008 instead, but a sizeable draft-Clinton movement could persuade her to change her mind. How would she stack up against Bush?
A Democrat in a race against an incumbent can influence the race in only one way by him or herself, namely by being charismatic. This is the one Lichtman key that a Democrat can control. So is Hillary charismatic? I'd say so. Look at all the people who come wanting her to sign their copy of her book. Look at all the media attention. Why? To me she is an excellent speaker, and she seems to champion the cause of women everywhere, because she is assertive and speaks her mind. She is especially popular with them and can be expected to take much of their vote if she ran against Bush. However, she is abrasive at times and for some reason men find her threatening. I don't find her threatening. But as long as there exist men that find her threatening, that may be a point against her being charismatic. But just about every charismatic politician - both Kennedys, William Jennings Bryan and so forth have had an unusual number of enemies. So that may not say that she is not charismatic. In my opinion she is; at least she is more so than any of the Democrats now running. If so, then if she runs, she will cause Bush to lose Lichtman Key 13. This means that only two more keys are needed to topple Bush. If the economy totters - and the rising costs of oil and gas could do that - and if something else happens, such as a scandal, a major riot, or a third party candidate getting more than 5% of the vote, then Bush will be defeated in 2004. It still is a long shot, but I believe that it is the best chance the Democrats have. 2008, schmoo-thousand eight. The Democrats need to persuade Hillary to enter the 2004 race, and to enter it now.
Now the fuss in the media is about Hillary Clinton. She just finished publishing a book and she has appeared on 2 TV shows including a Larry King show. According to her the adventuring of her husband to other women did hurt the marriage a bit but the marriage survived it; she and her husband were united against the prosecutors and the hypermedia who sought to blow the crisis up for whatever they can get. But now the question is: can Hillary run against Bush in 2004 and defeat him? She is not an announced candidate and is possibly eyeing 2008 instead, but a sizeable draft-Clinton movement could persuade her to change her mind. How would she stack up against Bush?
A Democrat in a race against an incumbent can influence the race in only one way by him or herself, namely by being charismatic. This is the one Lichtman key that a Democrat can control. So is Hillary charismatic? I'd say so. Look at all the people who come wanting her to sign their copy of her book. Look at all the media attention. Why? To me she is an excellent speaker, and she seems to champion the cause of women everywhere, because she is assertive and speaks her mind. She is especially popular with them and can be expected to take much of their vote if she ran against Bush. However, she is abrasive at times and for some reason men find her threatening. I don't find her threatening. But as long as there exist men that find her threatening, that may be a point against her being charismatic. But just about every charismatic politician - both Kennedys, William Jennings Bryan and so forth have had an unusual number of enemies. So that may not say that she is not charismatic. In my opinion she is; at least she is more so than any of the Democrats now running. If so, then if she runs, she will cause Bush to lose Lichtman Key 13. This means that only two more keys are needed to topple Bush. If the economy totters - and the rising costs of oil and gas could do that - and if something else happens, such as a scandal, a major riot, or a third party candidate getting more than 5% of the vote, then Bush will be defeated in 2004. It still is a long shot, but I believe that it is the best chance the Democrats have. 2008, schmoo-thousand eight. The Democrats need to persuade Hillary to enter the 2004 race, and to enter it now.
CD Pollution
The ability to store and process data has grown tremendously in the last 15 years. In 1988 a typical computer had about 20 MB of disk space. Today's computers have 20 GB - that's a thousand times more. However, our ability to efficiently store the data on appropriate media has not kept pace very well. In fact it has become distorted so badly that it threatens the environment. In the old days, you stored your data on a 360,000 byte 5.25-in floppy disk. Then came the 3.5-in disk which can hold 1,440,000 bytes. The hard disk came next with 20,000,000 bytes of data. If you wanted to take some data somewhere in 1994, you would have used 3.5-in floppy disks. In 1995 or so came the Iomega Zip disk™. All at once 100,000,000 bytes were available on a disk only slightly thicker than a floppy! But what happened to about 10,000,000 bytes, or 10 MB? There was nothing convenient to put it on. If your data was 1.45 MB and could not be split onto two floppies, you had to use a Zip disk and put your data on 100 MB of storage space, or a little like having a mouse in a cathedral. One thing was OK, however. The 100 MB was expensive; it was about $1.20 a disk.
Things have gotten worse since then. The recordable compact disc came next. Now you can record your own data CDs. Each CD contained a whopping 650,000,000 MB of data, on a disk that now costs a mere 40 cents. Think of it. 6 cents per 1,073,741,824 bytes. An encyclopedia can easily fit onto such a disc. They come in two forms: CD-R and CD-RW. The CD-R is the dirt cheap one, but once you record on it, it is recorded on it forever, much as on an ordinary music CD that you buy in the store. You can't change or erase it. Copying data to such a disc is fast. It takes only about 5 minutes to store half a gigabyte. So if you want to back up your files, you buy Cds at the store. You buy cds every time you want to back up your data, and you throw the old CDs away. This is where it gets wasteful. Because it is cheap to record once and only once, once its usefulness has ended, it gets thrown into our landfills or whatnot and it piles up there, creating pollution. CD-Rs are not the most environmentally friendly medium. Further, if a file on a zip disk was a mouse in a cathedral, a 1.45 MB file on a compact disc is a wasp in a cathedral. An enormous amount of capacity goes wasted. Why not a Zip disk? Because they are much more expensive.
There is another type of compact disc, the CD-RW, only twice as expensive as CD-Rs. These are friendlier to the environment. You create and delete files on them the way you would on a floppy or hard disk drive. However, these are impossibly slow, and they can be read only on CD-RW drives. I tried to back up files recently to a CD-RW and every time it would get hung up on the 25th megabyte and not do any more. I had to give up on it and use CD-Rs and pollute the environment. Why can't they make a better CD-RW? I hear instead they are making DVD discs with 5 GB or so of capacity. That's right, now your 1.45 MB file is a flea in a cathedral. We get better ways of saving hundreds of megabytes or gigabytes onto a medium to stay forever and forever, but we still have nothing efficient for 10 MB worth of data. Computer manufacturers, surely you can give us better options than these.
The ability to store and process data has grown tremendously in the last 15 years. In 1988 a typical computer had about 20 MB of disk space. Today's computers have 20 GB - that's a thousand times more. However, our ability to efficiently store the data on appropriate media has not kept pace very well. In fact it has become distorted so badly that it threatens the environment. In the old days, you stored your data on a 360,000 byte 5.25-in floppy disk. Then came the 3.5-in disk which can hold 1,440,000 bytes. The hard disk came next with 20,000,000 bytes of data. If you wanted to take some data somewhere in 1994, you would have used 3.5-in floppy disks. In 1995 or so came the Iomega Zip disk™. All at once 100,000,000 bytes were available on a disk only slightly thicker than a floppy! But what happened to about 10,000,000 bytes, or 10 MB? There was nothing convenient to put it on. If your data was 1.45 MB and could not be split onto two floppies, you had to use a Zip disk and put your data on 100 MB of storage space, or a little like having a mouse in a cathedral. One thing was OK, however. The 100 MB was expensive; it was about $1.20 a disk.
Things have gotten worse since then. The recordable compact disc came next. Now you can record your own data CDs. Each CD contained a whopping 650,000,000 MB of data, on a disk that now costs a mere 40 cents. Think of it. 6 cents per 1,073,741,824 bytes. An encyclopedia can easily fit onto such a disc. They come in two forms: CD-R and CD-RW. The CD-R is the dirt cheap one, but once you record on it, it is recorded on it forever, much as on an ordinary music CD that you buy in the store. You can't change or erase it. Copying data to such a disc is fast. It takes only about 5 minutes to store half a gigabyte. So if you want to back up your files, you buy Cds at the store. You buy cds every time you want to back up your data, and you throw the old CDs away. This is where it gets wasteful. Because it is cheap to record once and only once, once its usefulness has ended, it gets thrown into our landfills or whatnot and it piles up there, creating pollution. CD-Rs are not the most environmentally friendly medium. Further, if a file on a zip disk was a mouse in a cathedral, a 1.45 MB file on a compact disc is a wasp in a cathedral. An enormous amount of capacity goes wasted. Why not a Zip disk? Because they are much more expensive.
There is another type of compact disc, the CD-RW, only twice as expensive as CD-Rs. These are friendlier to the environment. You create and delete files on them the way you would on a floppy or hard disk drive. However, these are impossibly slow, and they can be read only on CD-RW drives. I tried to back up files recently to a CD-RW and every time it would get hung up on the 25th megabyte and not do any more. I had to give up on it and use CD-Rs and pollute the environment. Why can't they make a better CD-RW? I hear instead they are making DVD discs with 5 GB or so of capacity. That's right, now your 1.45 MB file is a flea in a cathedral. We get better ways of saving hundreds of megabytes or gigabytes onto a medium to stay forever and forever, but we still have nothing efficient for 10 MB worth of data. Computer manufacturers, surely you can give us better options than these.
2003/06/10
Kugel and the International Space Station
Last night I went to a meeting of the Richmond Astronomical Society. Afterwards, a bunch of us congregated at the Science Museum of Virginia, where the meeting was held, to look at the Earth water kugel. This is a huge, 45-ton or so ball resting on a fountain so that it is supported by the water. The kugel can be spun on this as the water cushion behaves like Teflon. Some of us wanted it to stay still and point at an angle of 23 degrees, so that it was oriented like the real Earth. Not only that we wanted it to spin precisely at the same rate the Earth spins. But later at night I gave the globe a few good heaves and it was spinning rapidly on an axis that was not the polar axis.
We hung around a little later because someone found on the web that the International Space Station (ISS) was going to make a pass at 2133 (9:33 pm) on 2003 June 9. At 2132, sure enough, between the eyes of Gemini (Castor and Pollux), the station appeared. It was brighter than Arcturus but fainter than Jupiter. It passed from right to left, towards the south, and went high, near where the moon was. It came within a moon's radius of Spica, then it went on down to the southern horizon and winked out when it hit the Earth's shadow. It was worth waiting on a work night to see. I had seen the Shuttle and ISS before but every time is a sight to behold. A steady beacon (not flashing like an airplane) drifting across the sky, brighter than just about anything else in the sky, something that our grandparents never saw during their youth. Like the Mars probe, it beckons us out to space, to make it a station on our way to exploring the heavens.
Last night I went to a meeting of the Richmond Astronomical Society. Afterwards, a bunch of us congregated at the Science Museum of Virginia, where the meeting was held, to look at the Earth water kugel. This is a huge, 45-ton or so ball resting on a fountain so that it is supported by the water. The kugel can be spun on this as the water cushion behaves like Teflon. Some of us wanted it to stay still and point at an angle of 23 degrees, so that it was oriented like the real Earth. Not only that we wanted it to spin precisely at the same rate the Earth spins. But later at night I gave the globe a few good heaves and it was spinning rapidly on an axis that was not the polar axis.
We hung around a little later because someone found on the web that the International Space Station (ISS) was going to make a pass at 2133 (9:33 pm) on 2003 June 9. At 2132, sure enough, between the eyes of Gemini (Castor and Pollux), the station appeared. It was brighter than Arcturus but fainter than Jupiter. It passed from right to left, towards the south, and went high, near where the moon was. It came within a moon's radius of Spica, then it went on down to the southern horizon and winked out when it hit the Earth's shadow. It was worth waiting on a work night to see. I had seen the Shuttle and ISS before but every time is a sight to behold. A steady beacon (not flashing like an airplane) drifting across the sky, brighter than just about anything else in the sky, something that our grandparents never saw during their youth. Like the Mars probe, it beckons us out to space, to make it a station on our way to exploring the heavens.
Mars Bound
We are headed to Mars again. Once again a rocket has taken off, carrying with it a probe to plunk down a Martian golf cart on the planet and rover all over the place observing and testing, with the objective of finding water, and maybe life itself, if they exist on the Red Planet. I saw this launch today. I came to a hard point in my work today so I went downstairs to the cafeteria to get a snack. On the way I saw the TV screen and a rocket on it, and I heard 15, 14, 13, 12, … . Whaaa?? I thought this may have been a recording. But it said "LIVE". This was the real thing. The launch that had been postponed because of bad weather. I realized that that is indeed what I heard. I heard "15, 14, 13, 12, … . Not only that, but I heard "11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, Ignition, and we have liftoff". It really happened, at exactly 1400 (2 pm) today, 2003 June 10. I next saw a camera on the spacecraft video behind, and I saw the ground receding. This was exciting. It was just like the movielet "Powers of Ten". First the landing strip appeared. Then the coastline. Then the vast expanse of ocean and a cloak of clouds, and finally the curve of our planet itself. It no longer was a scene in central Florida. It was a view of our planet, our blue marble, from space. It was the world this probe was leaving behind, going out and finding out if indeed there is water, or life, on one of our neighboring worlds, Mars, in the Great Year of Mars, when the planet is closer to us than at any time in the past 50,000 years. Because of this it will take only 7 months to reach its destination on 2004 January 4. Maybe then, in the fourth year of this Millennium, if we are lucky, we may find out if indeed, we are truly alone. I am looking forward to it and hope they succeed this time.
We are headed to Mars again. Once again a rocket has taken off, carrying with it a probe to plunk down a Martian golf cart on the planet and rover all over the place observing and testing, with the objective of finding water, and maybe life itself, if they exist on the Red Planet. I saw this launch today. I came to a hard point in my work today so I went downstairs to the cafeteria to get a snack. On the way I saw the TV screen and a rocket on it, and I heard 15, 14, 13, 12, … . Whaaa?? I thought this may have been a recording. But it said "LIVE". This was the real thing. The launch that had been postponed because of bad weather. I realized that that is indeed what I heard. I heard "15, 14, 13, 12, … . Not only that, but I heard "11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, Ignition, and we have liftoff". It really happened, at exactly 1400 (2 pm) today, 2003 June 10. I next saw a camera on the spacecraft video behind, and I saw the ground receding. This was exciting. It was just like the movielet "Powers of Ten". First the landing strip appeared. Then the coastline. Then the vast expanse of ocean and a cloak of clouds, and finally the curve of our planet itself. It no longer was a scene in central Florida. It was a view of our planet, our blue marble, from space. It was the world this probe was leaving behind, going out and finding out if indeed there is water, or life, on one of our neighboring worlds, Mars, in the Great Year of Mars, when the planet is closer to us than at any time in the past 50,000 years. Because of this it will take only 7 months to reach its destination on 2004 January 4. Maybe then, in the fourth year of this Millennium, if we are lucky, we may find out if indeed, we are truly alone. I am looking forward to it and hope they succeed this time.
2003/06/09
V
I see they are bringing V back. They are going to publish a sequel. This story came out in the mid 1980s as a very, very long TV movie, exceeded in length only by the dragging episodes of a movie later in the decade that envisioned a US taken over by Soviet communism. V was about aliens who come in huge flying saucers over the cities and say that they are trying to protect our civilization, while preparing to eat us. People have compared the aliens or "visitors" to Nazis. The visitors take the form of lizards with human suits. A revolt against them was stirred up by Julia, whose forces chased them off into the wild black yonder near the end of the movie.
I am not sure this is the type of movie to bring back now. It is violent and favors small groups revolting against a society. While that may seem good, remember that the foremost group in our world doing that right now is al Qaeda. Many people, including perhaps most Arabs, will see the rebels as like al Qaeda and the visitors as like the US. The same holds true of Star Wars, where the Jedi Knights take the part of al Qaeda, and the Foundation trilogy of Isaac Asimov, featuring a rebel organization called the Foundation. Indeed, the translation of this book into Arabic translates "Foundation" as "al Qaeda". I would favor instead a movie which has people (or extraterrestrials) coming together and negotiating a brighter future for all.
I see they are bringing V back. They are going to publish a sequel. This story came out in the mid 1980s as a very, very long TV movie, exceeded in length only by the dragging episodes of a movie later in the decade that envisioned a US taken over by Soviet communism. V was about aliens who come in huge flying saucers over the cities and say that they are trying to protect our civilization, while preparing to eat us. People have compared the aliens or "visitors" to Nazis. The visitors take the form of lizards with human suits. A revolt against them was stirred up by Julia, whose forces chased them off into the wild black yonder near the end of the movie.
I am not sure this is the type of movie to bring back now. It is violent and favors small groups revolting against a society. While that may seem good, remember that the foremost group in our world doing that right now is al Qaeda. Many people, including perhaps most Arabs, will see the rebels as like al Qaeda and the visitors as like the US. The same holds true of Star Wars, where the Jedi Knights take the part of al Qaeda, and the Foundation trilogy of Isaac Asimov, featuring a rebel organization called the Foundation. Indeed, the translation of this book into Arabic translates "Foundation" as "al Qaeda". I would favor instead a movie which has people (or extraterrestrials) coming together and negotiating a brighter future for all.
2003/06/04
Dixie Chicks
I was elated when I heard that Madonna had performed an anti-material, anti-war album, only to meet disappointment when I heard that Madonna was sending out decoys which have not her songs but the epithet "What the f are you doing?" That's the hit song of the year, by the way. "What the f*** are you doing", by Madonna.
Now I hear that the Dixie Chicks have disappointed me. I was encouraged by them because they took a stand against our administration. But then their lead singer Maines wore a T-shirt at a recent awards ceremony reading F.U.T.K., which means, I take it, "Futk you, Tony Keith". So this is an acronym that contains itself. Well, not quite. I misspelled a word to avoid some of these filters, but imagine what if Keith's first name had been Chris. Now who was Tony Keith? I looked on the Internet and found that he wrote a song called "The Red, White and Blue", and I read the lyrics. They were pro-American and expressed an angry mood, like many Americans had after Planeattack. Maines criticized these lyrics, and Tony Keith replied by saying that the Dixie Chicks were not in his league. So Maines replied with the T-shirt. It caused quite a stir. I don't think it was appropriate. I think that word beginning with f is grossly misused; most of the time it is not used to mean sexual intercourse. Maines showed herself as trite by putting that on her shirt and wearing it to the awards ceremony.
It's the same sort of thing that Madonna did, in a different context. This is the second famous woman that I have heard of in recent days use the f word. To me the f word shows the user to be rurale, as it shows the user can't find words to mean more than that. I won't buy Dixie Chicks albums either.
I was elated when I heard that Madonna had performed an anti-material, anti-war album, only to meet disappointment when I heard that Madonna was sending out decoys which have not her songs but the epithet "What the f are you doing?" That's the hit song of the year, by the way. "What the f*** are you doing", by Madonna.
Now I hear that the Dixie Chicks have disappointed me. I was encouraged by them because they took a stand against our administration. But then their lead singer Maines wore a T-shirt at a recent awards ceremony reading F.U.T.K., which means, I take it, "Futk you, Tony Keith". So this is an acronym that contains itself. Well, not quite. I misspelled a word to avoid some of these filters, but imagine what if Keith's first name had been Chris. Now who was Tony Keith? I looked on the Internet and found that he wrote a song called "The Red, White and Blue", and I read the lyrics. They were pro-American and expressed an angry mood, like many Americans had after Planeattack. Maines criticized these lyrics, and Tony Keith replied by saying that the Dixie Chicks were not in his league. So Maines replied with the T-shirt. It caused quite a stir. I don't think it was appropriate. I think that word beginning with f is grossly misused; most of the time it is not used to mean sexual intercourse. Maines showed herself as trite by putting that on her shirt and wearing it to the awards ceremony.
It's the same sort of thing that Madonna did, in a different context. This is the second famous woman that I have heard of in recent days use the f word. To me the f word shows the user to be rurale, as it shows the user can't find words to mean more than that. I won't buy Dixie Chicks albums either.
Weapons of Mass Destruction
One of the purposes that the US administration had in attacking Iraq was to get rid of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Now we know that at one time he had them because he used then against the Kurds and the Iranians. So the US and Britain attacked and overthrew the Saddam regime and looked for those weapons of mass destruction but did not find any, at least not yet. He got rid of them long ago or a short time ago, or he got rid of them while the inspectors were doing their job, or maybe he had moved or hid them, although that seems most likely. But the failure to find them has turned out to be a disappointment in Persian Gulf War II and its aftermath. This failure to find them has inspired me to write two items - a song and a nursery rhyme. The nursery rhyme goes:
The US Army
Went to Iraq
To find for George Bush some weapons of mass destruction.
But when they got there,
Iraq was bare,
And so for George Bush they found none.
In this rhyme, say "weapons of mass destruction" fast and all at once as though it were a single syllable word such as "war". Same way with the song:
Oh where oh where are those weapons of mass destruction
Oh where oh where can they be
Where's that gas and those germs and the glow in the dark
Oh where oh were can they be.
One of the purposes that the US administration had in attacking Iraq was to get rid of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Now we know that at one time he had them because he used then against the Kurds and the Iranians. So the US and Britain attacked and overthrew the Saddam regime and looked for those weapons of mass destruction but did not find any, at least not yet. He got rid of them long ago or a short time ago, or he got rid of them while the inspectors were doing their job, or maybe he had moved or hid them, although that seems most likely. But the failure to find them has turned out to be a disappointment in Persian Gulf War II and its aftermath. This failure to find them has inspired me to write two items - a song and a nursery rhyme. The nursery rhyme goes:
The US Army
Went to Iraq
To find for George Bush some weapons of mass destruction.
But when they got there,
Iraq was bare,
And so for George Bush they found none.
In this rhyme, say "weapons of mass destruction" fast and all at once as though it were a single syllable word such as "war". Same way with the song:
Oh where oh where are those weapons of mass destruction
Oh where oh where can they be
Where's that gas and those germs and the glow in the dark
Oh where oh were can they be.
2003/06/01
Would you pose nude to get a driver's license?
In Florida there has been this issue about a woman who had her picture taken for a driver's license. She was a Muslim and wore the veil all the time in public. She insisted on wearing it for her driver license photo. However, Florida authorities ruled that that was not valid. She would have to expose her face to have a valid photo taken. That seems reasonable enough. Having the face visible is needed for identification.
But look at it from the woman's point of view. Would you pose nude to get a driver's license? Suppose the law required you to have your nude picture taken and placed on your license because clothes can prevent one from identifying you. You sure would object, wouldn't you? Well, this is how this woman feels. We have our taboos on nudity; these may not be reasonable but we live with them. They say we need to cover certain parts of our anatomy, mainly in the crotch and buttocks, and for women, the breasts. For this Muslim woman, the taboo area includes her face as well. To her, going out in public without a veil on is like one of us bare-faced individuals going out without anything on. Looking at it from this view, don't you see her point?
Of course, issues like this are rarely simple, and this is no exception. The same Muslim religion that requires her to wear a veil also forbids her from driving; that's a male privilege. So she should not be getting a license to begin with, unless she breaks with the teachings of her sexist religion, in which case why the veil on the driver's license? What Florida is saying, then, is that if your religion allows you to drive, then in order to drive, you need to expose your face. This could violate someone's religious views or scruples, and it's possible that a case could come up which does just that. But in this case it appears that it doesn't. I see the woman's point but if she wants to drive, she needs to consider removing the veil.
In Florida there has been this issue about a woman who had her picture taken for a driver's license. She was a Muslim and wore the veil all the time in public. She insisted on wearing it for her driver license photo. However, Florida authorities ruled that that was not valid. She would have to expose her face to have a valid photo taken. That seems reasonable enough. Having the face visible is needed for identification.
But look at it from the woman's point of view. Would you pose nude to get a driver's license? Suppose the law required you to have your nude picture taken and placed on your license because clothes can prevent one from identifying you. You sure would object, wouldn't you? Well, this is how this woman feels. We have our taboos on nudity; these may not be reasonable but we live with them. They say we need to cover certain parts of our anatomy, mainly in the crotch and buttocks, and for women, the breasts. For this Muslim woman, the taboo area includes her face as well. To her, going out in public without a veil on is like one of us bare-faced individuals going out without anything on. Looking at it from this view, don't you see her point?
Of course, issues like this are rarely simple, and this is no exception. The same Muslim religion that requires her to wear a veil also forbids her from driving; that's a male privilege. So she should not be getting a license to begin with, unless she breaks with the teachings of her sexist religion, in which case why the veil on the driver's license? What Florida is saying, then, is that if your religion allows you to drive, then in order to drive, you need to expose your face. This could violate someone's religious views or scruples, and it's possible that a case could come up which does just that. But in this case it appears that it doesn't. I see the woman's point but if she wants to drive, she needs to consider removing the veil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)