Mike Gravel immediately assumes the title for 'best name in the race.' It sounds like he should be a small-town P.I.

I'm #1! I'm #1!

Ironic, since I did not watch the debate, and so I have nothing substantive to say. I have to wait until other people say something, so I can react to it.

Third Post! Hot Grits! Naked and Petrified! Etc!

Even more ironic. I was GOING to be #1, but I took too long in checking my spelling. Dang.

[Reposting from previous boodle for the sake of having at least one on-topic comment today]:

I watched the debate online. My overall reaction, especially at first, was that this is a high-quality group of candidates, and I feel comforted to think that one of them is likely to be our next President.

I liked it when Gravel went off on his rants, "We spend more on defense than the rest of the world put together! Who are we afraid of??!" and "Why are we building up our nuclear arsenal? Who are we going to nuke?" But he was a little scary, not very Presidential.

I liked it when Kucinich whipped out his copy of the Constitution and waved it around. I think they should have had a "show of hands" question: How many of you either have the Constitution memorized OR carry a copy with you at all times? (You think Hillary has it memorized? I wouldn't put it past her.)

I didn't like it when Biden responded to a non-terrorist-related question by emphasizing his determination to employ a military response to future theoretical 9/11 type attacks.

Barack looked very young, and failed to impress me with his rhetoric. Edwards was smooth, but so was Hillary--and everybody was fairly comfortable. It was kind of funny how the moderator would lay down the rules--answer in one sentence, limit to 20 seconds, now we're going to talk about health insurance--and then all of the candidates would completely ignore him and talk as long as they wanted on whatever subject they pleased.

I especially liked the Love Fest aspect of the debate--that they referred back to what other candidates had said, and not in a negative way. They need to keep that up.

Enjoyed the debate and getting to know the candidates more. For my own amusement I separated the candidates into "scientist" and "non-scientist," as I think some scientific thinking is good in a well-rounded, well-educated leader. I assigned Clinton, Obama, Biden, and Edwards into the non-scientist category but I'm not sure about Clinton. Not sure about Gravel in this regard. All the others I deemed "scientist."

ScienceTim, the trick is to type 'First', hit submit, then compose your real post...

By the way, the transcript is at

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/us/politics/27debate_transcript.html?pagewanted=print

(Does WaPo have it too? I didn't check. I'm so NOT brand-loyal)

I'd say non-scientist jumper. He's studied economics, don't know if he's earned a degree. Also, his parents are French-Canadian immigrants, so you just know he'll stand no chance against repugnicant immigrant French bashers in the general.

I still think debates should include the knight in armor with the rubber chicken for dealing with unhelpful answers.

:-)

They should use the Ig-Nobel Prize method -- if anyone goes on too long, a little girl comes out on stage and starts to whine "I'm bored! Please stop," repeatedly, and in increasingly strident voice.

...or maybe a large fish, Scotty. *L* (I made my daughter sit through last Friday's Flying Circus on PBS hat shwed the vignette you referred to. Her overall reaction was I don't get it. I replied: That's why it's funny. Retort: You're wierd.

I guess I have a lot of catching up to do regarding the Democratic candidates. For a second, I thought Mike Gravel was Gertie Gravel's long lost great grandson and that Joel was going to mention that Moon Maid was in tow.

I didn't watch the debate either but I do have a few non political questions/comments.

Joel said that Edwards had the best haircut, who dressed the best? I guess Hillary has a few more options then the rest of the group.

Which one of the canidates do you think would be able to throw a strike at opening day of of the first Nationals game in 2009?

If Hillary is elected what will she be refered to as? Mrs. President, Madame President, Ms. President.

What about Bill, will he be the first Gentleman, the first man, the first dude or just Da Man?

I will shut up now, back to the political discussion.

Kim... drop me a line if you want me to share my tips on getting to know the admissions departments. I'm at boodler [at] mac [dot] com.

I'll be in your area this weekend. A friend with a condo in Va Beach has invited me to join her. I'd say let's get together but she doesn't know about my imaginary life yet.

I guess she'll find out this weekend. There's too many "a friend of mine says..." that come out these days and then I have to explain how I know someone named Loomis in San Antonio when a friend tells me her stepson is excited to be attending Loomis-Chaffee next year.

by the way I'll third (or is fourth or fifth) the Community College route. I changed my curriculum twice I and found something I love. Business Data Processing. With just an AA I've been able to prove myself, get several good raises, and since I work with proprietary data I have a lot more job security than most in this field.

...and now for something completely different...iPods are the new cheat sheet

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/ats-ap_top16apr27,0,7592167.story?coll=la-ap-topnews-headlines

TBG - thanks so much! I will. If you confess to your friend, let me know. I'm off this weekend and live very close to the beach and would love to drop by to actually meet a boodler. It sounds like you picked a great weekend. The weather report is very promising.

It's funny, I'm always popping of with some bit of info from the boodle and my husband used to say "How do you know that?"
Now he just says, "How do they know that?"

I just wanted to take general umbrage. I miss a few hours (okay, also an evening) for some meetings and you go through an ENTIRE KIT and start a NEW one! How am I supposed to keep up with this dizzying pace? I'm still catching up with the college bees.

Speaking of generals, how about Lt. Col. Yingling's well-reasoned tirade againt the generals who failed us in Iraq? Link somewhere in the WaPo story (non-math, non-linky). If this was already discussed yesterday, my apologies.

Mike Gravel?

Who is Mike Gravel?

And I'd like to know exactly what Alaskan Gravel rode down to become a Democratic Prsidential contender.

bc

SCC: "Presidential"

bc

Too much fluff 'n' puff in the Kit for my taste, not enough on the issues. Cute, cute, cutesy. So, we're reduced to analyzing how the candidates perform under the stage lights, rather than what comes out of their mouths? Truth squading, anyone?

And Gravel doesn't have a right to his anger? Umm, how many warheads of mass destruction do we need? Follow the news from Livermore. What do you think is an appropriate number? (Thought provoking section in Hitchen's book about becoming a contrarian and the phrase "speaking truth to power": Those in power already know the truth and what we're being fed is not memory-disorder confabulations, but baldfaced lies.)

From an April 24 article in the WaPo by Hebert:

Under a treaty with Russia, the United States has agreed to reduce the number of deployed warheads in active status to between 1,700 and 2,200 by 2012. Another roughly 4,000 warheads are believed to be in reserve, although the exact number is classified.

Re Moyers: Joel has the audacity to point fingers at NYT's Judith Miller when the Washington Post hires former Bush speechwriter Mike Gerson as a columnist? Don't know whether to laugh or cry.

I consider myself a reasonably well informed citizen. I subscribe to the newspaper, I listen to NPR when my iPod isn't with me, I read Wonkette, and I even know the difference between Tommy Thompson, Fred Thompson, and John Thompson (midwest governor, b-list actor, and basketball coach respectively, only two of which are running for president). But I have no idea who Mike Gravel is except that his name sounds like the villain in a Donald Westlake novel. What are his credentials?

Obama is the baby of the bunch being a mere first term senator to Hillary's two. And Barack has never been a First Lady, so Senator Clinton has him on life experience credit.

I have heard of Chris Dodd, but I'm probably confusing him with the former senator Virginia that like to engage in Clinton-Lewisky-ish behavior with beauty pageant contestants. Who shouldn't be confused with the Virginia governor that just decided to run for President. But as a Republican.

I am so confused.

South Carolina-to-New Jersey Keans descendants of Boston Colony merchant Robert Keane and his wife Ann Mansfield? (re: Washington letter)

SCC: "former senator from Virginia". Chuck Robb if Wikipedia is to be trusted.

Some mild umbrage to report as yet again, Canada gets no respect. Obama, name the US's three main allies. Um, the EU...and Japan. And then he comments on China, which he then adds isn't actually an ally.

I suppose we get incorporated by his reference to NATO which of course is not the same as the EU.

SonofCarl - I understand your umbrage. It's like when an actor receives a reward and thanks his hairdresser and agent, but not his wife. Nobody likes to be taken for granted.

Or maybe he just knows something about Canada that we don't.

There have been rumors, you know.

Dodds of Connecticut:

Thomas Dodd was one of the lead prosecutors during the Nuremberg war crimes tribunals before he was elected to the United States Senate. Chris Dodd is the first Connecticut son to follow his father into the Senate and the youngest person ever elected to the United States Senate in Connecticut history. He is also the first Connecticut Senator popularly elected to five terms.

Dad had problems with alcoholism. Catholic--Irish immigrant grandparents. Chris spent two years in the Peace Corps in DR, so speaks Spanish. Undergrad degree in English, law degree out of Kentucky. Many important committee positions in the Senate--Senate Foreign Relations included. Connecticut's senior senator.

RD: "Or maybe he just knows something about Canada that we don't."

Uh oh. Here we go again. ;)

This Gravel question is still bothering me.

Is he some random addition to the pile of Dem Canidates or is he some real blue-chip; Gravel, I mean.

bc

Thank you, SonofCarl for reminding me I thought the same about neglect of Canada in Obama's reply. In fact, it set off a whole long rant to which I subjected my neighbor.

I'm taken aback that JA mentioned Edwards' haircut. It must have been on his mind because of the recent press coverage of what Edwards pays for a haircut, and not because JA was looking for ideas.

I would respect Edwards more if he would get a Marine cut to show his support and solidarity with our troops. Not to mention he desperately needs to get past the haircut issue.

Dropping by to answer Tim's question from college bees re: involuntary removal of a presidential appointee. We could have him shot.

But you probably wanted a legal solution.

I didn't see the debate. As a proud presidential-politics junkie, I find I'm unusually resistant to the absurdly early trappings of the 2008 race. Now if we could move this thing up, vote in November 07, and change administrations, I'd pay attention. In fact, as long as we're changing the schedule and starting the debates, why not have the vote in July?

Yes, a puffy, fluffy, substanceless kit but I'm finishing 7000 words that are somewhat more substantive on the presidential campaign and what I kitted today was all I had time for. Just fyi.

Gravel is a two-term senator from Alaska who last was an elected official in, I believe, 1981. Played a key role in ending the funding for the Vietnam War. I do not know how, exactly, candidates are considered real enough or serious enough to merit inclusion on the stage.

Cool article about Hawkins. The guy is brilliant, wealthy, famous, and gets to ride in nifty aircraft. Yet he is also immobilized in a wheelchair.

I keep trying to decide if I am jealous or not.

I, for one, am a fan of the puffy, the fluffy and the substanceless.

And not because I'm blonde.

It's not puffy and without substance, Joel. It's very clever. It's simply a different kind of piece from what some would like.

The Post did not exactly "hire Gerson as a columnist," by the way. The Writers Group syndicates columnists. Many work for other news organizations, as a matter of fact (such as Ellen Goodman). Will, Krauthammer, Gerson etc. have never set foot in the building as far as I know. We also syndicate Kathleen Parker -- but she doesn't work here.

There is a whole 'nother class of columnists who are in fact employed full time by the post -- such as Gene Robinson. That's how I understand it.

Wikipedia's article on Mike Gravel appears unvandelized at the moment. In it there is a link to another Wikipedia article on what's happened so far in the various calls to impeach Bush.

I have decided that Clinton is in actuality a Cyberdyne Systems model T-444, developed under specs submitted by Skynet. I can say no more.

A reference to Howard Beale implies much nonfluffpuff. Members of the 4th estate should purchase a copy and watch it yearly. There is lots to think about after watching it (Network) even after all these years. And people quit shouting "squeal like a pig" to Ned Beatty after his role in Network.

I didn't actually see the debate. The omission by Obama that was apparently newsworthy was Isreal, so I was curious on what he did say. I'll be the first to admit that whether or not Isreal makes his list is significant.

If you win an award and you go out of your way to thank (or not thank) your hairdresser (you know, the one some other hairdressers deny has a right to exist), fair enough, that's news.

Joel, the details of the relationship with Gerson are moot. The more fundamental objection to the accusation in question is that is based on the false premise that you, personally, are culpable for all decisions made within your organization. This is very unfair. It only works if your employer is, (wait for it) a monolithic entity.

Which the Washington Post most assuredly is not.

I thought the guy Gravel(sp) was going to go over and slap Obama. He got hyped real bad. Obama cooly replied that he wasn't going to bomb anything now. I thought he lost it(Gravel). Most of the candidates, and this is what I looked at after the actual debate, just seemed to be playing it safe. Edwards with his lawyer persona I'm sure is cool anywhere he sits. I suspect it comes with being a lawyer. My impression of Edwards is that he's too good to be true, but I could be totally wrong. I get the impression he works it for the camera, but they all do that.

I believe under that veneer of "nice-ness" is one tough cookie, Edwards that is.

Of course, I'm waiting on that moment. One does not have a working experience for the job of President, so I'm waiting for that moment when something happens, and one of the candidates will show true Presidential quality. I view it as being thrown off a roof or high place and landing on your feet. I know, I know, I could be waiting a long time. And considering we have quite a bit of time to go, who knows what just might jump out.

Thanks for the information, JA.

I forgot the Christmas Rose (helleborus) on yesterday's spring flower report. They bloom in the spring in these latitudes. I found one this morning hidden under an asphalt shingle blown away by last Monday's storm.

omni says of Gravel: "Also, his parents are French-Canadian immigrants, so you just know he'll stand no chance against repugnicant immigrant French bashers in the general."
Well, I think we hate the French as much as everyone else. You see, we understand what they say. Just kidding SF, we hate only the arrogant loud-mouthed ones... And I have a special place in my heart for French women, from Fanny Ardent and Miou-Miou to Marion Cotillard.

Gravel would be 78 in Nov 08. That is a little ripe, no?

Yep two term Senator from 1969-1981. Primarily known on the national stage for having put into the public record the Pentagon Papers in 1971.

Most but not all of it were leaked to Neil Sheehan of The New York Times in early 1971 by a former State Department official Daniel Ellsberg.

The quote from Gravel suggests he doesn't quite have his facts right. The US isn't "building up" its nuclear arsenal. It is replacing it with newer weapons that are much less likely to malfunction and vastly more resistant to theft and misuse.

That puffy, fluffy, substance-less, was one zinger, was it not?

I think the kit is good, but I'm partial to JA's writing. Short does not necessarily mean less. And I won't even go there with the examples. I think I need to get out more.

The cutesy, fluffy kit and boodle is in response, I think, to the cutesy, fluffy fact that we're watching a debate among presidential candidates a year and a half before the election. We all know where these candidates stand, and which ones aren't really saying anything yet, and which ones aren't really contenders but will say what they really mean. It's not very easy to have a substantive discussion about this debate, in my opinion. There was a 99 percent chance going in that it would be absolutely meaningless and forgotten by Saturday. And those odds appear to have held true.

None of this is meant to belittle the nearly terrifying set of real issues one of these candidates will eventually face. But to say that this debate is the event that should prompt a real discussion is a little much.

Hence, Mike Gravel, private eye, is the lede in the kit.

Shrieking, I am so laughing at your comment. A little ripe, no?

Just got home from Doc visit #1: piece a cake--only two tubes of blood. That's like not even a flesh wound. Got two hours until leaving for the big one, doc visit #2.

OK, some catch up: Slyness, I use "exeunt" for four reasons:

1) It sounds Shakespearean, whereas the singular doesn't (as much);
2) It encompasses the editorial "we";
3) It encompasses the royal "we" (see Queen Elizabeth webbed-finger wave);
4) I can't very well leave my entourage behind, now, can I?

So Novak and Krauthammer are given space to spew to balance the wisdom of Broder and Wills. We're doomed.

Very interesting bit about the Washington letter. I wonder how many undiscovered letters might still be out there. And if any of them mention using the Potomac to open the West.

Now that would be bad timing.

If I wanted a paper that only expressed one point of view I would read the Washington Times.

RD, I quoted from memory. The transcript has his quote as "We're expanding our nukes." I think his point is valid. We're going in the wrong direction, if what we want is a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons in the world.

*******

Speaking of fluffy, and Cassandra's comment, Terry Shine's Timeline this week is about a "corporate fluffer"--motivational consultant, I guess you'd call it, Shine's comparing the corporate motivator position to the job of getting p0rn stars ready to perform. "Fluff Daddy" is the headline, and the memorable quote is:

============
9:52:32 a.m.: You can't fluff me, I add.

9:52:41 a.m.: "He's telling the truth," Tiara's voice calls out from behind me. "I've known him for four years. He can't be fluffed."

============

http://www.southflorida.com/citylink/sfe-cl-042507timeline,0,1441803.story

>I'll be the first to admit that whether or not Isreal makes his list is significant.

Can someone please tell me why Israel is considered one of our biggest allies?

Jeezy-peezy. We need the "Daily Humor Observations" tag line back even though the blog is rarely 2 out of 3. Of course, this is a superficial look. If you want mind numbing wonkery, go to DailyKos or TPM, they have it in droves.

What the US is considering doesn't "expand" the arsenal. The net destructive capability isn't changed.

That said, I too strongly support a vastly reduced arsenal. And I kind of liked the intensity of Gravel. Goodness knows the mismatch between our bloated capability of mass destruction and the reality of the threats facing us is obscene.

I simply don't like it when people assert something that isn't true.

SCC: I *also* support. Although when it comes to a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons to something reasonable, I think it is hard to hold this opinion "too strongly."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AI8mC8XucY&mode=related&search=

Here's Ned laying down the law to Howard Beale.

Remember the movie we were writing for Joel, where everyday would end on the presidential porch, and where flyaway hair mattered?

Of course hair matters.

It's funny how perceptions can differ. From the U.K.'s Times
"A crisp and sure-footed performance by Hillary Clinton last night ..."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1713018.ece

Here's a guy who won't see a star on his shoulder for a while:
« An active U.S. Army officer (Col. Paul Yingling) warns that the United States faces the prospect of defeat in Iraq, blaming American generals for failing to prepare their forces for an insurgency and misleading Congress about the situation here."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070427.wusiraq0427/BNStory/International/home
Ouch. Although calling it a "defeat" is a little strong since it suggests that a "victory" is possible.

Ha, Mudge! Since I'm one of your most ardent groupies, I can't argue with your logic.

Back to the political: I gather that George Tenet is trying to rescue his reputation before posterity, claiming that he wasn't so stupid (when he said "It's a slam-dunk") as to believe that the evidence was solid for the existence of WMD's in Iraq. No, he meant that it was a slam-dunk to sell the war to the American people on the basis of the claim of WMD's (which he knew were almost certainly not there). So... in what way is this better?

Going back to RD Padouk's question from two boodles back (or was it just one?) about whether we can disagree with a person without harboring the notion that he is evil, duplicitous, stupid, ignorant, or I forget what else: Tenet is making a play to earn the judgment of history as duplicitous, manipulative, and, heck, wicked, rather than be judged an idiot and a toady. Call him a villain, call him a liar, but don't call him an incompetent half-witted lickspittle lap dog (or late for dinner).

Lovely. Such an improvement. And this is the Administration that claimed that its primary qualification for high office was superior moral sensibility, plus the all-important personal relationship with God. When you got the Big Guy's ear, you can make things happen. You know the Man. You make some calls, and you're golden. Except God switched to an unlisted number and encrypted his line, so W can't even tap it (try as he might).

Thanks for the laugh on "understanding what they're saying", SD.

I got nothing on the debate. Nil. Zippo. But that ally question is important. Hopefully next time he gets asked it, he'll be quicker to answer.

His answer on the ambiguous ally status of China is correct though.

Allies in the sense of NATO or other treaties/military cooperation.

Australia
Belgium
Bulgaria (the proud nation they are)
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
France (Oh yeah!)
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Israel (good, SoC- we send them aid)
Japan
Kuwait (didn't we go helping them?)
Lativa
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Norway
Portugal
Romania
Saudi Arabia (we have bases there-- although since 9/11 hijackers were predominantly Saudi, tensions are not good.)

Slovakia
Slovenia
South Korea
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom

I would say that NATO does not cover all of Europe, so it's an oversimplification to list the E.U. as an ally.

Any European state can join the NATO in matters of defense, but member states can set criteria.. hence Cyprus cannot join as long as it has dispute with Turkey.

India is not an ally, but an agreement on civilan nuclear use was signed recently, so it is an big step in US-India relations.

This triggers a "Who wants to be a Foreign Policymaker" a la Monty Python.

"You get a call from the Estonian prime minister.
a) Do you declare war on him
b) Say "Hello Ally"
c) tell your friend to stop prank calling you with made-up titles from foreign countries
d) Ask how it's going down there in the tropics
e) Ask how cold the winter has been
f) break out in a cold sweat in case there's problems with the Russians again.

"If you win, you get slapped in the face with a large halibut. If you lose, you get slapped in the face with a three-day old sturgeon. You have 30 seconds to respond, starting... now.
Go!"

or just scroll to the top and look at Joel riding the blogolopagus, or whatever it is we call it. if after looking at that for one second you think this is a serious blog...well then there is something seriously wrong with your eyes.

'Bertie Gonzales, on the other hand, appears to be following the strategy that incompetent half-witted lickspittle lap dogs don't get charged with perjury and sent off to jail. Although, if we could get a murder conviction against him (how 'bout for all those people who succumbed to "innovative" methods of interrogation?), he himself would have to agree that his incompetence and stupidity could be no defense against the death penalty.

Hmmmm. I seem to be feeling bitter today. More coffee, that's the ticket.

hat trick writes:
We all know where these candidates stand, and which ones aren't really saying anything yet, and which ones aren't really contenders but will say what they really mean....None of this is meant to belittle the nearly terrifying set of real issues one of these candidates will eventually face. But to say that this debate is the event that should prompt a real discussion is a little much.

This passage from NYT Tom Friedman's April 25 column comes to mind (WHEN does the *real* discussion begin, the serious debate over the set of real issues?):

O.K. class, it's time for another news quiz. I'll give you the question and you tell me who asked it and why it was significant. Ready? Here goes:

"Mr. President, how would you rate yourself as an environmentalist? What specifically has your administration done to improve the condition of our nation's air and water supply?" You'll never get it. ... The questioner was James Hubb, a member of the audience at the second presidential debate between George W. Bush and John Kerry at Washington University in St. Louis on Oct. 8, 2004.

What's the significance? It was the only question about energy or environmental policy that was posed in any of the three presidential debates in 2004. Hard to believe when you consider the salience of these issues today. Is it any wonder we still don't have a serious energy policy?

Moyers: Another sidebar. Business interests playing the patriotism card and putting pressure on media to slant coverage. Wish Moyer would name corporate names.

Yes, yes. Hearst's Express-News carries on occasion Rich Lowry, Mona Charen, Kathleen Parker, Reuben Navarette-- formerly of California's Central Valley, Boston Globe's Ellen Goodman and Miami Herald's Leonard Pitts and others and they're not part of the local op-ed staff. Some of these "guests" really make me grit my teeth, especially when the readers are given no information about what organizations or think tanks with which some of these writers are affiliated or their backgrounds.

Did not watch the debates, as this is much too soon for me to start spinning wheels, cognitively. If I lived in Iowa, perhaps...What are the Richardson verdicts here? I know his persona and work from the energy community; how did he comport himself?

I don't care that much about the haircut stuff, save for this: Edwards champions a populist stance, which the three-figure haircut immediately undercuts (pardon the punning).

Reasons we are allies with Israel:

1. Guilt for looking the other way while the Holocaust was gathering steam.
2. Cold war buffer against encroaching socialism in Arab countries.
3. Eurocentric chauvinism since most residents trace ancestry to there.
4. Strong Jewish lobby active in politics.
5. Affection by millenialist Christians awaiting the endtimes.
6. Reliable test bed for weaponry and proxy for covert and overt military actions.
7. Closest thing to a real democracy in the region.

Any and all of these hypotheses are debatable and possibly mutually exclusive.

More inexplicable is why the rest of the world hates them so much. There are 1 billion (and growing) Muslims and 20 million Jews in the world (tops). Are they really that big of threat to anybody?

So, is Mexico an ally?

I did notice the conspicuous absence of Mexican troops in Afghanistan in '02. But I'm specially trained to notice things that aren't there. What was up with that omission?

Having said that, after Obama's failure to mention Canada last night (or Mexico), I went into a reverie wherein I concluded that perhaps our proper response to 9-11 would have been to immediately begin to make love with Mexico. This would have served several purposes. Among these would have been a replacement strategy for Rumsfeld's and Bush's plan to confuse the enemy by doing something totally unexpected. Which was the Iraq invasion / occupation.

Absorb Mexico. Minimum wage laws, Social Security, the whole ball of wax for our new brethren. This even longer-term geopolitical strategy, if initiated soonest, would have indeed confounded all our enemies.

my 1:17 was in repsonse to yello's 12:36, hit submit, got called away but the post was help, so I posted again, and it got through. I wonder what the filter has against p h a g u s.

SCC: help=>held. as bc would say: feh!

Sorry. I should have posted this yesterday *and* today.

Cue the music from Jaws.

Shouldn't "immediately begin to make love with Mexico." be ..... make love with what's left of Mexico?

I dunno, Boko. What's your take on the country? I have not traveled in Mexico for a long time.

We are so excited, here at our nation's aerospace agency's Center nearest to the Capital -- the Queen will be here in a week or so. I need to go brush up on my protocol. Memorize DeBrette's Peerage, or whatever it's called. Learn appropriate Britishisms to help her feel comfortable. Don't you think it would be swell to have some kind of mass assemblage call out to her "Pip, pip! Cheerio! Stiff upper lip and all that, love!" ?

I must go buy some loose tea.

>make love to Mexico

I would like to say that Canada has a headache in case anyone else has any ideas. We're really okay with not being mentioned if this is the alternative.

ScTim: learn all the words to
1) God Save the Queen and
2) Always Look on the Bright Side of Life....
Number 2 is a great one for whistling.

And, you can sew a vest out of a Union Jack flag...all nice touches.

Good one SoC

Of Obama, JA write, "...a shame since he has the world-class baritone"

Does Obama sing? What are other's impressions about voice quality?

Hilary sounds, in many cases, teacherly and strident. I want her to lower the register immediately, otherwise, I feel as if vitamins or cod liver oil approach.

Dennis K, sounds reedy and earnest and very vegetarian.

SoC, all Canada has to say that they're just too frigid for that sort of tomfoolery.

Lucky Tim! Royals are coming!
Give Liz the best from me. She is our own Queen of Canada after all.
She's a rather small women, resist the temptation to treat her like your frail old grandmother. Avoid touching her even to help her out in stairs and such. A distant relative got in trouble for putting his arm around her shoulders.
http://www.answers.com/topic/louis-garneau
In the old country he would have been beheaded and quartered at four horses but here he was treated with a collective gallic shrug.

It's okay, SoC; Canada snores, anyway. No offense. Or is it "offence?" ;)

What is Her Majesty's policy on unsolicited backrubs? Someone should brief Dubya. We have few enough allies as it is.

J.R.R. Tolkien has a new book out: THE CHILDREN OF HÚRIN. I'm adding this to my will read list. Can't wait for the movie.

forgot the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/19/AR2007041902308.html?hpid=features1&hpv=local

Omni -- thanks for pointing to that treasure. Such a great read for summer upcoming.

Tim, just remember to speak only when spoken to, and to address Her Majesty as "Ma'am" in your replies.

Her Majesty: Ah, and you, are you poor too?

Tim: Yes, Ma'am.

And never turn your back to her. If you follow these simple directions, your head will stay attached to your neck.

Oh, I forgot. If she gives you something (a decoration, say) don't say "Ta, ducks."

Yoki -- does ScTim bow, with the heel click?

Do ScTim's female colleagues courtesy?

Ma'am! Just Ma'am!? Are you sure? (Of course you are.)
Don't we get to say,
Your majesty
Oh Virgin Queen, oops, wrong QE.

---
Yoki, do Canadians have a queen, these days? Commonwealth, yes? You have a Queen AND a Prime Minister?....she is still on the coins, right?

Canada is a Commonwealth Realm with Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state.

What would happen with Quebec if it ever actually secedes?

Interestingly, I had a conversation with a now retired fed'l worker (from DOE) who told me that for all his otherwise worthy credentials Richardson was a very, very nasty guy -- this guy told me that if Richardson was nominated he (the guy) would *not* vote for him. Don't know if this means that he would not vote at all or turn to the dark side. I've known this guy for a number of years and respect his judgment. Hmmmm.

I still like Edwards, haircut or not. Geez, it's not like he can't afford it (upon cleaning up the books about which entity actually is paying for said haircut). Besides, he's worked hard for what he's got, which is a helluva lot more than can be said for "little boy."

And Shriek -- I *must* (yes, *must*) rise to the bait -- does being quartered at four horses mean that they were "quarter horses"? (*running, ducking and hiding*)

And the obverse side of all Canadian coins bear the effigy of the Canadian monarch, who is Queen Elizabeth II.

They can keep her if that ever happens (not likely in HM ERII lifetime). It will be like Queen Britney, daughter of King Bill by then.
Trudeau kept ER II in his 1982 constitution to appease some members of his cabinet. Early draft left her out.

Queen Britney, hehe.

Yes, our Prime Minister is the Head of Government, and the Queen is the Head of State (represented in the country by the Governor General, when she's not napping).

I actually know those protocols because when the Queen was in Alberta two years ago, I was presented to her, along with about 1000 other people, in my capacity as a Calgary A-lister. We were all herded into an ante-room and briefed by her protocol officer and the equivalent from our Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I practiced curtsying for days beforehand (and did it beautifully, if I do say so myself).

When I was living in Quebec, my French-Canadian friends did not call the Queen "The Queen" but "Your Queen."

She'll be out on her ear if Quebec ever separates.

And all this sort of amuses me, because I'd be glad to see her out on her ear any time, from the whole country. Except for the usefulness of having a Head of State who is not the Head of Government. I don't know how we'd manage that, if we were a republic.

Gianetta.
Then one of us will be a Queen,
And sit on a golden throne,
With a crown instead
Of a hat on her head,
And diamonds all her own!
With a beautiful robe of gold and green,
I've always understood;
I wonder whether
She'd wear a feather?
I rather think she should!
All.
Oh, 'tis a glorious thing, I ween,
To be a regular Royal Queen!
No half-and-half affair, I mean,
No half-and-half affair,
But a right-down regular,
Regular, regular,
Regular Royal Queen!

Marco.
She'll drive about in a carriage and pair,
With the King on her left-hand side,
And a milk-white horse,
As a matter of course,
Whenever she wants to ride!
With beautiful silver shoes to wear
Upon her dainty feet;
With endless stocks
Of beautiful frocks
And as much as she wants to eat!
All.
Oh, 'tis a glorious thing, I ween,
To be a regular Royal Queen!
No half-and-half affair, I mean,
No half-and-half affair,
But a right-down regular,
Regular, regular,
Regular Royal Queen!

Tessa.
Whenever she condescends to walk,
Be sure she'll shine at that,
With her haughty stare
And her nose in the air,
Like a well-born aristocrat!
At elegant high society talk
She'll bear away the bell,
With her "How de do?"
And her "How are you?"
And "I trust I see you well!"
All.
Oh, 'tis a glorious thing, I ween,
To be a regular Royal Queen!
No half-and-half affair, I mean,
No half-and-half affair,
But a right-down regular,
Regular, regular,
Regular Royal Queen!

Giuseppe.
And noble lords will scrape and bow,
And double themselves in two,
And open their eyes
In blank surprise
At whatever she likes to do.
And everybody will roundly vow
She's fair as flowers in May,
And say, "How clever!"
At whatsoever
She condescends to say!
All.
Oh, 'tis a glorious thing, I ween,
To be a regular Royal Queen!
No half-and-half affair, I mean,
No half-and-half affair,
But a right-down regular,
Regular, regular,
Regular Royal Queen!
Oh, 'tis a glorious thing, I ween,
To be a regular Royal Queen,
A right-down regular Royal Queen!

-- The Gondoliers Act 1 finale

All my gay friends sing that!

Yoki saw a very amusing program the other night. Aussie artist and performer Rolf Harris painted the Queen for her 80th birthday.
Its the first time they filmed a portrait sitting. They chatted of course about the weather and the queen commented that everytime she goes to Edmonton, no matter how hot and sunny it has been, the weather turns rainy and cold. She is right. The last time she was here it was downright miserable.

I hope Washington has splendid weather for her visit. Whatever else on thinks of my queen, she is a woman to admire.

oops, forgot this.

http://www.rolfharris.com/art/artbiography1.htm

SCC, should be 'Yoki, ' Dagnabbit

Part of job description: "Sit for portraits."

Yoki -- according to Bacon numbers, I am now number 2 to the QE2? Meaning, I met you at the First Annual InterContinental Boodle Porching Hour of Canadian-US-ian Love Festing?

You curtsied before the Queen? Am I jealous? Sorta! But then, I share your sentiments, regarding republicanism (note the lower case R). Besides, my Irisher relies would have a FIT. We are required to resist the Queen until the nine countries return to Erin. Sorry for the rant.

I have never courtesied. Ever. Perhaps I won't have the chance. Was it fun? Did you wear a formal dress? Looks hard to curtsy in a pencil or a-line skirt....

Gilbert & Sullivan? It must be Friday afternoon.
You realize a casual reader might take the Queen reference back up to the Kit rather than realize we'd moved on to Her Majesty.

Curtseying: English Yoga.

Keep the stiff upper lip going and think of England.

Those are the only thoughts rattling in my skull today. Thank god for Fluff Friday.

The new Canadian constitution does a neat trick. The Queen (or King) in Right of Canada is not proclaimed when the new Monarch gets her U.K. title in Westminster. This is the Queen's Privy Council (i.e. the prime minister, his cabinet and a pinch of civil servants) that (who?) proclaims the new Queen in right of Canada. There are very little conditions attached, so Avril Lavigne or Yoki could be the next Queen of Canada.

scc. in RightS, among others

Gilbert and Sullivan combined with the idea of Canada having a king...

....
Our great King of Canada, man,
When he to rule our land began,
Resolved to try
A plan whereby
Young men might best be steadied.
So he decreed, in words succinct,
That all who flirted, leered or winked
(Unless connubially linked),
Should forthwith be beheaded,
Beheaded, beheaded,
Should forthwith be beheaded.
And I expect you'll all agree
That he was right to so decree.
And I am right,
And you are right,
And all is right as right can be!

Chorus.
And you are right.
And we are right,
And all is right, is right as right can be!
Pish-Tush & Chorus.
And all is right as right can be,
Right as right can be!

I understand that many people around the world (I'm looking north while I type) have a problem with the Queen, but I am truly looking forward to her visit.

The Queen is the ultimate example of being famous for being famous. I find her both endearing and amusing.

Perhaps it is because I had a British Grandmother who would Broach no Criticism of either The Queen or the Queen Mother. (But you didn't want to get her started on that Mrs. Simpson.)

Or perhaps it is just the damage done to my psyche by early exposure to those wicked parodies performed by Carol Burnett.

RD, I remember Carol Burnett, but not her Queen parody.
For me, there's "Keeping up Appearances" where Hyacinth Bucket (Bou-quet) slavishly copies the Queen's fashion in her deluded quest to be socially superior.

I'm continually amazed that the British allow their tax dollars to support the lavish lifestyle of the Royal Family. It's incredible. But, then again, I'm an American.

I do, on the other hand, love British culture. Especially the beautiful gardens and the tea. I'm a huge fan of Victorian decor. Love the Toile. Or is that French?

For me, it's her parody of Gone With The Wind, with the curtain rod left in the dress.

Was there a Muppet episode where they parodied the Queen? Or am I thinking of something else?

I always feel sad for public figures who have no privacy, especially when their children misbehave. And the world watches, analyzes, posts pics, etc.

At least my family linen hangs in quiet suburban backyard, with only the neighbors to peak in on: extremely boring. Furthermore, they must make an effort to look between careworn but full, Italian cypress trees to the West and a tangle of azalea-forsythia-honeysuckle to the East. And my linen is nothing, compared to the fripperies and furbelows of the Saxe-Coberg aka Windsor linen: colorful stuff, there.

Aloha, (As if I am an expert :) )
Toile is French.
Chintz may be what you are thinking of. Yoki or other can help us identify fabric species.

BTW, faxing amazing amounts of perfect garden dirt to any boodler with a green thumb: the City of { } mixed up my order for 2 cubic yards and dumped 4 cubic yard on my driveway. Beautiful stuff: but the excess of riches means lots of lifting and shoveling. Better start that now.

Ah, thanks CP. I thought about it more after I posted and I think you're right about the Chintz.

The British taxpayers don't do much subsidizing. Most of the Royal Family's income is from their estates. And most of them, except for the Monarch and the Heir Apparent, pay taxes rather than suck them.

Even the whole security detail, the travel expenses, etc.? So, do the Windsors own Buckingham and Kensington Palaces and all the other property they live in or do these places belong to England?

And even then, the Civil List covers expenses relating to their official duties. My understanding is that the revenue from the Crown Estates, which George III gave up for the Civil List, is much greater than the Civil List costs. IIRC, the Prince of Wales does pay income taxes on his revenue from the Duchy of Cornwall.

Yes, I'm a geek.

some of the palaces belong to the family and some to the country. Of course entertainment/security etc is payed for from tax revenue, but I don't see that it costs any more for Royals than for other heads of state.

While I am not a rabid monarchist, I do think she suits us quite well and I don't see any reason to get rid of the institution in her lifetime. Her father did the job because it was a duty he was left with, as did she, and I just admire her for doing with the hand she was given. I sort of feel that it is our duty to honour that in return.

I was actually wondering just this morning what will happen with the new generation. After her death, or at the very least after Charles', I think the monarchy's role will be very different and I think the young gents standing in the wing will be the people driving the change.
Before we get rid of the Queen, lets do something sensible about the senate.

CP, Can you fax that stuff in a little lower, or smaller shovels or something. I'm not that tall, but I do know the value of good soil.

I believe Sandringham and Balmoral are the only two properties that are privately held by the Royal Family. The others - Windsor, Buckingham Palace, Holyrood House, etc - are held by the Queen, excuse me, The Queen, in trust for the nation.

Slyness, I'm enchanted by your knowledge! Confused, but enchanted.

Fripperies. Again with the Fripperies.

Thanks for all the Royal information. I am in awe of your knowledge.

I don't think poorly of the British Monarchy, I am just continually surprised at how much the British people support the perpetuation of the institution. Although, I do understand the strength of tradition and appreciate the fact that the British Monarchy has stood the test of time.

Pursuant to Omni's maps from yesterday, I saw a Red winged black bird this morning. The snow is melting fast in the back, and the signs of spring are everywhere. Before Monday, I fully expect to see little green leaves.

Unless it snows.

Just in time for everyone going home (here in DC at least) for what I hope is a lovely weekend: I've added some linky stuff and a partial transcript to the kit.

And leaving the royals for a bit of this.

Did anyone see the video of President Bush dancing and trying to play the drums? They're showing it on CNN. It is a sight to see.

That Terry Shine piece is hilarious...Thanks kbertocci for the link (I added it to the kit too).

RD -- just for you to contemplate and take up with Mudge later, as to outright banning of such fabrics:

British fripperies are likely to be chintz.

USian (I hate using 'American' for US-stuff) fripperies are blue gingham (think Dorothy in the W of Oz).

Our Canadian boodlers can identify Canoucki fripperies. Perhaps some sport Toile fripperies for the Quebecois....

DR -- I asked Scotty to set the fax on "Wide Load" but I guess he skipped out before toggling that switch.

Back to the dirt pile....

Joel, all this excessive linkiness is unusual on a Friday afternoon (nice but unusual). Do I detect weed avoidance issues?

I think I am going to try to drag mrdr out to the fire pit this evening. There must be some semi-dry wood out there somewhere. There are some spruce branches around from the snow last week so we will be able to start the fire and failing dry wood, I'm sure there are bits of lumber in the shop to burn. A fire also means the infamous wine known at our house as porch climber (better known as swill). Gotta get some of that.

I will now trade the "blogging tool" for a shovel, clippers, wheelbarrow, blowtorch, etc....

Yoki, I was six when I saw The Queen in Vernon, BC in the summer of 1959. She wore a small white hat and looong white gloves. It was 96 that day, and the Mounties, in full dress uniforms, were dropping like flies. I was hooked and have never stopped.

Take it easy in the yard, Joel. Don't bend over too much and throw out your back. That's the hazard I have to be careful about when I garden...

"The quote from Gravel suggests he doesn't quite have his facts right. The US isn't 'building up' its nuclear arsenal. It is replacing it with newer weapons that are much less likely to malfunction and vastly more resistant to theft and misuse.

"Posted by: RD Padouk | April 27, 2007 12:23 PM"

At least, that's the line put out by the government known for honesty and probity, by the same people that built an untested missile defense system, and by an establishment that may be seeking an alternative route to bunker-buster development. For the good of the country y'know.

blow torch, JA. My, my, the weeds don't stand a chance with you. Don't set the house on fire. I'm sure you've seen the commercial where the guy lights the grill and the fire consumes everything, house included.

Great thing to have is one of those grabber things they sell at Home Despot. You know, it's got a gun handle at one end of a three-foot pole and a two-fingered robot hand at the other. Most people use it for stuff like fishing errant socks out from behind the dryer. I have found the grabber-thing to be very useful when weeding. You first use your shovel to loosen the dirt around the weed, then pull the weed (gently as to not break the root) with the grabber-thing. Simple. No back strain. I pretend I'm doing my community service (joke. That's a joke).

Happy Weekend, Everyone.

You know, all kidding aside, anyone seen martooni?

Nope. No sign of martooni (or danghippie). Hope he's okay.

Back from the community leadership retreat and all is well with the world, though the boodle did seem a bit testy early on today.

While Mr. F and I were both away, Frostdottir managed to complete placement testing and register at St. Petersburg College for two summer classes. Her college career started with the writing of a check on her own account with money she earned. If all goes as planned she'll finish two very inexpensive years and then find the right fit to finish a four year degree. Dare we hope debt free?

CP-your tangle of azalea, honeysuckle and forsythia sounds both delightful and infuriating. My experience with honeysuckle is that tangle becomes strangle when one's back is turned.

Didn't get to see the debate but I'm off to figure out who I would have liked.

>martooni

It sounded like he was really kicking on some projects the other day. Be of good cheer.

He's probably doing a Jackson Pollack right now.

That should have been-I'll figure out which candidate I would have liked as soon as I assemble the roto tiller. No worries about weeds. I have a country quilted lawn. A chemical free acre. The birch trees should have little green mouse ears for leaves by Sunday.

Dear Mr.and/or Ms. 5:42 No, not the same "people" at all. Totally different organizations within the government.

And if you take it as a given that Federal Employees do nothing but lie, then this is the wrong blog for you.

CP - I understand that "fripperies" refers to good decent things, but I still can't get the items sold by "Fripperies LTD" (No, I'm not gonna link to it) out of my mind.

Trust me, I've tried.

My neighbor across from me is celebrating her birthday today. She is 94 years old. I went over to wish her happy birthday, and I asked, "what are you going to do today to celebrate?". Not one thing, she answered. I said aren't you going to do something, I mean it's your birthday. She said I'm breathing, that's the celebration. Can't argue with that. This little woman takes out her own trash, and takes this huge trash container to the curb every week. The container weighs more than she does. She has flowers galore in her little spot, and pulls weeds all the time. Clean on both sides. She called maintenance to tell them her refrigerator was not cold enough, her ice cream was melting. They sent someone, and the guy told her that stuff with sugar in it was hard to keep cold. I said to her, did he tell you that with a straight face. She said he's lost his mind. She talks trash, and her mind is very sharp, considering her age. This is the same woman that doesn't want smokers, smoking on her porch or in front of her apartment. And she told them so. They throw the butts in her little garden and she has to pick them up.

I suspect that if I live to be that old, I won't know which end is up. I hardly know that now.

Cassandra - what a beautiful story. And I can't help but think she is also grateful that such a kind women lives across from her.

>Federal Employees do nothing but lie

Funny, I was thinking how would you know they had that many in the first place... I'd be bluffing for sure. Or understating it. Besides which, I'm not sure if it matters that there are 400 warheads or 4000.

400 sent aloft would be bad enough, mmm'kay?

Unless of course we get ahead in the mine-shaft gap.

SCC: *woman* not women. Although you clearly do the work of more than one woman. Yeah, that's it. Not a typo, a compliment....

Actually EF, I think 40 would be more than enough.

Come to think of it, I think we could get by with 4.

The rest could just be like "Q bombs."

BTW - A "Q-Bomb" is a bomb that everyone thinks is real but is actually a dud. It is from the book "The Mouse that Roared."

Gravel spoke more passionately then I have seen a political figure speak in a long, long time. I hope that the "bubble" in DC heard
all of the Americans rise from their sofas and say "hear, hear Gravel! Who the heck are you?" He's the topic on all of the local blogs today and 20-30 something's are listening, along with this 50 something who looked up his platform and agrees with all of this ideas. I hope the media gives him the coverage he deserves.

Cassandra, that sounds like some of my relatives. I'd like to be like that at 96, too. But I suspect I won't know which way is up long before that.

>The rest could just be like "Q bombs."

You just have to keep the mouse in there on the Q.

"The Mouse That Roared" is a great movie, I have it on DVD. Nothing like Peter Sellers in multiple roles.

Frostie...mouse ears on birches....darling and true. 10 pts for you. As for the tangle, yes, can become a strangle. I try to lop at the base of the honeysuckle to let it die in and among the better branches of the azalea. But, that corner is part of an Oriole haunt. So, a tangle gives them cover. I told one neighbor that the hovel was my hedgerow.....she likes all things English, and perhaps this quaint name is working.

Q-bombs: yes, I remember them. Funny in a horrible sort of way.

EF/RD - Mouse roaring
Frostie -- Mouse-eared leaves, on birches.

Fun. BTW: entire family of cotton tails in the tangle, now. Frosti, I will try to keep three small chickens there starting this fall. Grand experiment to see how long this takes for the neighbors to notice and complain. A friend is moving to CA in August and informed me that the chickens will adopt me.

Both "The Mouse that Roared" and "The Mouse on the Moon" were great books and very funny movies. Brilliant satire and surprisingly wise.

Now I think it's time to pour myself a nice glass of Pinot Grand Fenwick wine.

Thanks, RD. A nice compliment, and especially coming from you. And I don't mean that in a bad way. (smile)

My daughter called me earlier, and asked what was I going to do this evening. I told her, the same thing I do every evening, watch the news, look at television, go to bed. After getting off the phone with her, I thought about how lonely is that. And I cried. Just a few tears. And then I prayed. I said to God that He knows where I am and what is going on with me. I asked for peace and comfort no matter where I am in this life, and no matter what is going on with me. I don't usually assess my situation in this life, just try living one day at a time, but I think because my daughter asked, it made me think about it. That is not a bad thing, we all should do that. It allows us to know that we have a great need of God through Christ. And that this world of itself can never satisfy the soul.

I am off to bed. Still slightly sore. And the bed has become my new friend. It must be the stuff they used to put me to sleep. I need the rest. Have a good weekend my friends. Give God some of your time, show your family that you love them, and get some rest. I love you all. Peace.

CP-If the chickens are small, and brown or mottled, they may pass for wild birds. How many city/burb dwellers know a chicken from a chicken hawk?

Mike Gravel won the debate, hands down!

The "On Faith" blog has an interesting piece on Einstein's ideas about God and religion:

"[Einstein said] 'Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in fact, religious.'

". . . 'I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.'

". . . Einstein tried to express these feelings clearly, both for himself and all of those who wanted a simple answer from him about his faith. So in the summer of 1930, amid his sailing and ruminations in Caputh, he composed a credo, 'What I Believe,' that he recorded for a human rights group and later published. It concluded with an explanation of what he meant when he called himself religious: 'The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man.'

"People found the piece evocative, even inspiring, and it was reprinted repeatedly in a variety of translations. But not surprisingly, it did not satisfy those who wanted a simple, direct answer to the question of whether or not he believed in God. For some, only a clear belief in a personal God who controls daily life qualified as a genuine faith. 'The outcome of this doubt and befogged speculation about time and space is a cloak beneath which hides the ghastly apparition of atheism,' Boston's Cardinal William Henry O'Connell said. This public blast from a Cardinal prompted the noted Orthodox Jewish leader in New York, Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein, to send a very direct telegram: 'Do you believe in God? Stop. Answer paid. 50 words.' Einstein used only about half his allotted number of words. It became the most famous version of an answer he gave often: 'I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.'

"It may not have satisfied everyone. But it satisfied many. For like Einstein there are many of us who share an awed intimation of a God, manifest in all that exists, a sense that remains mysterious but real."

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2007/04/einstein_and_the_mind_of_god.html

Dear Cassandra, I understand. You have my affection and admiration. God bless, dear one. The dark part of the faith journey contains riches, yet so much of the path of sorrow is shrouded in loneliness. Keep mining. For so often here, you share what you find. We are better for it.

Dreamer: thank you for that. Einstein is my hero for both the powers of reason and awe.

I am hoping to do ten more wheelbarrows tonight, yet still, the magnificant pile confirms the engineering observation:
materials have their angle of repose.

This evening,I have enjoyed tiny rainbows in the wake of a sunny sprinkle. So like Mr. Martooni's fairy doors. A full rain would lower the pollen count mightily, but not having that, I am happy for the mini-festival of rainbowlets.

Frosti -- I'll pretend the chickens are rare pets of some birdie-sort. I hope the ammonia of their droppings is not the real problem.

RD -- toast us all. Fax over pino grigio since this is hot, hard work.

dr, re your 5:15, I can't speak for other boodlers but as a young man, anyway, I never had weed avoidance issues.

> but as a young man, anyway, I never had weed avoidance issues.

*snort*!

Kurt Vonnegut celebration here tonight. Note the sixth paragraph. True to form.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20070428/D8OPAG480.html

bill, thanks for that.

My honeysuckle is threatening to snatch people as they walk by the yard. I'll have to cut it back. It got the better of a pyracantha last year - not sure if it's going to recover. CP, I can take some of that dirt off your hands (so to speak). Exciting day tomorrow - I'm going to get moonflowers and morning glories started. How are yours doing? RD?

I'm still feeling lagged. I remember when flying across the country barely phased me. Now I need a week to recover.

re: "Too much fluff 'n' puff in the Kit for my taste, not enough on the issues. Cute, cute, cutesy. So, we're reduced to analyzing how the candidates perform under the stage lights, rather than what comes out of their mouths? Truth squading, anyone?"

Posted by: Loomis | April 27, 2007 11:16 AM
----

Must we go over this again? Loomis, over the years you have repeatedly demonstrated your inability and/or unpreparedness and/or unwillingness to leap nimply from the silly to the absurd, with occasional scenic views of the serious, tragic, and touching.

It's sometimes a little uncomfortable, misplaced, strange, or just plain mean; but it's very definitely you, and it's honest!

It is actually quite peaceful to post random thoughts during the usual down time every night. Hope I am not being a hog. Was not able to read the kit on Gliese 581c until tonight. From Wiki:

"The planet is relatively close, at 20.5 light years (193.9 trillion kilometres) from Earth in the constellation of Libra." Well, shoot, let's pop over there this weekend and see what's goin' on.

bill, I feel the same way, except sometimes I wish I could post my witty comments during the day (yeah, right!). Like, I was going to say to Slyness, referring to herself as a geek, that at least she's a royal geek (and I mean that as a compliment, even though it sounds snarky).

omni, thanks so much for the heads up on the Tolkien book. I have it on order from the library - and it would make a good birthday present for my kid (although he might get it for himself).

Loomis - I feel like I need to clarify my point a little, then I promise that I'm done. Obviously, you wanted to discuss issues that the Kit did not address. Fair enough. But the essence of your remark seemed to be, "This isn't what I wanted to read." Well, so what? So are most things that are written by most people on most days, I'll bet. Why bring it up?

You're certainly free to throw anything against the wall to see what sticks, but why take the gratuitous shot at the Kit, when you obviously wished to discuss other things entirely?

Bob S. your impression of talking to a wall was most impressive!

Re. Gliese 581c, bill everything: "Well, shoot, let's pop over there this weekend and see what's goin' on."

Road trip! I'll drive.

I bet I can knock a couple of hours off of anyone's best time there.

bc

I am really disappointed that the accent is on the second syllable of "Gravel." Also, it appears that some people might call him "Maurice." (Yuck, yuck)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Gravel

Bob S. I have learned that certain people by virtue of their inevitability in the Boodle shall be countenanced, regardless of the reasonableness of their views. Let's be kind and move on.

bc, I do hope they have Waffle Houses along the way. I crave a double hashbrown, scattered and smothered with a cup of joe to go.

I should add that RD's Q bombs and Mice, and LiTs Burnett GWTW parody with the curtain rod, were my votes for Memories of the Day.

Dreamer, if you still haven't picked up Ken Wilber's collection of writings by 20th century scientists (mainly physicists) "Quantum Questions" yet, I still recommend it to you. Included in the volume are two Einstein pieces, "Cosmic Religious Feeling" and "Science and Religion." Good stuff, but Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and Jeans are excellent, and Eddington really quite funny.

bc

>I bet I can knock a couple of hours off of anyone's best time there.

We'll see rabbit, we'll see.

bill everything, c'mon, man, we can't stop at every Waffle House between here and Gliese 581c; we gotta make TIME, dude.

No rest 'till Gliese!
No rest 'till Gliese!

[sorry for the Beastie Boys tune cootie]

bc

bc, the good news is that it only take one trip to a Waffle House to stop that Jones for a good long while

Bob S. writes, "but it's very definitely you, and it's honest!"

I, for one, enjoy Linda's honesty, and her "Loomisness." Her writing is interesting and passionate, and some of that might be lost if her primary objective was to be a people pleaser.

I don't find Loomis especially mean. As I've said before, often the responses to her posts are far meaner than what she wrote in the first place. And as I've also said before, we should be able to cope with what she writes. I think some people have labeled Loomis a certain way, to the extent that they interpret anything she writes in the worst way possible, failing to recognize when she might be talking tongue-in-cheek, and seeing meanness even when there is none. Some days, Loomis really doesn't have to say much at all before someone takes the opportunity to attack.

On the other hand, there are boodlers for whom the opposite seems to be true. They can say all manner of insulting things, and people will just say, "Are you having a bad day?" or "Are you OK?" (or even "Yeah, what he/she said!") It would be nice if that kind of compassion and understanding could be extended to *everyone* -- and especially to someone who has been a part of this blog almost from day 1, and who has made an enormous contribution to it.

Loomis, I hope you will continue to stick around, although I know you don't really need me to tell you that -- you seem to take it all in your stride, and I admire you for that.

bc, I have indeed read "Quantum Questions" -- on your recommendation, actually. You're right -- good stuff.

I seem to recall that while I was reading it, I was reminded of these thoughts from that Bleepin' scientist Jeffrey Satinover:

"If quantum mechanics is used to push spirituality too far -- goes overboard -- then I think there's a legitimate reaction against it that is harmful both to the spirit of science and to spirituality. If the flakiness factor gets too high -- or the cheese factor -- then people will run away from it, and it's insustainable. The proof just won't be there. On the other hand, there is something, I believe, that's very subtle and important if it is approached properly. . . . The completely classical, purely mechanistic view of the world . . . has stripped us of almost any vivid sense that the world, the Universe, is actually alive. . . .[Quantum mechanics] is the one scientific discovery . . . that stands in rigorous opposition to the proposition that everything in the Universe can be explained by a prior cause. . . . there is contained, even in the most rigorous quantum mechanics, the first glimmer of hope that there's something outside the Universe, that it's not just a mechanical system. From that perspective, it doesn't require building some gigantic, overreaching system of spirituality. One can stick with it as it is and build very cautiously and slowly. It may take 200 years . . . but it will be something really solid."

". . . . Maybe it has something to do with mysticism; maybe it has absolutely nothing to do with mysticism. . . . If you go up to quantum mechanics and try to get it to give you that answer, it's going to get angry at you . . . It sets up this boundary that says, Look, the world is unbelievably mysterious -- you think you understand it? You ain't even got close to it. Don't think you can slap some favorite familiar category on it and make it conform to that, because it's not going to conform to that either. It's going to be just as upsetting to the mystic as to the materialist. . . . It shouldn't give solace to anybody unless you're the kind of person who loves genuine mystery."

-- Jeffrey Satinover, on the DVD "What the Bleep!? Down the Rabbit Hole: Quantum Edition"

Jeffrey Satinover is a homophobic psychiatrist who counts Clarence Thomas as one of his heroes.

Nevertheless, Boko, perhaps he has some valid points as far as quantum physics is concerned.

I'm not familiar with his views on homosexuals or on Clarence Thomas. (And I wonder if maybe you've distorted his position a tad.)

Here's WhatTheBleep.com says about him, or perhaps what he says about himself -- it looks to me like this site is approved by the people mentioned. The person in this bio does not strike me as a top-drawer physicist, even if he's probably pretty smart and comes across well:

Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. (psychiatry), (www.satinover.com) M.S. (physics, doctoral candidate in physics). For over twenty years, Dr. Satinover has been an author and practicing psychiatrist. He was until recently a teaching fellow and doctoral student in the department of physics at Yale University, where he has completed a master's degree as a member of the Theoretical Condensed Matter Physics group and Yale's newly-established W. H. Keck Foundation Center for Quantum Information Physics. His area of research is in supersymmetric many-body theory as applied to quantum computation. His most recent book, The Quantum Brain, explores the interface of neuroscience, computation, artificial intelligence and quantum mechanics. He is presently completing his doctorate in physics at the Laboratoire de Physique de la Matiere Condensee at the University of Nice, Sophia Antipolis, under the direction of Didier Sornette, pursuing new techniques in the prediction of chaotic time series, with applications to biological systems, climate change and markets.

Dr. Satinover is past president of the C.G. Jung Foundation of New York, a former Fellow in Psychiatry and Child Psychiatry at Yale University and William James Lecturer in Psychology and Religion at Harvard University. He is the author of the chapter on Jungian psychotherapy in the just-released Encyclopedia of Psychotherapy (Academic Press). He speaks widely on matters of public and educational policy and also on the interface of science and religion. He is one of three co-authors of a program of rigorous educational reforms that were adopted by the San Diego Independent School District, the nation's sixth largest. He has been asked on a number of occasions to consult to Congress and to prepare Supreme Court amici briefs. From time to time his talks are broadcast on C-Span. He served in the United States Army National Guard as a combat helicopter Flight Surgeon for the State of Connecticut and later as an Army Reserve psychiatrist.

Dr. Satinover also designs market-neutral trading strategies for hedge funds that integrate statistical and adaptive (i.e., neural network, genetic algorithm and evolutionary programming) methods with extremely rigorous data collection, error-trapping and analysis.

Dr. Satinover has written five books that have been translated into nine languages worldwide. George Gilder, best-selling author and publisher of the Gilder Technology Report says that "The Quantum Brain is the first great book of the 21st century-and the first definitively 21st century book... A heroic and historic new vision that will be read with admiration and amazement in centuries to come...a promethean work." Jack Tuzsynski, Professor of Theoretical Condensed Matter Physics at the University of Alberta has hailed it as, "A great feat... Like no other book I know. The Quantum Brain... set[s] new standards for popular science writing. A tapestry of insights from... mathematics, computer science,...quantum physics, cell biology and more. Even the most active players in the fields of artificial intelligence or neurophysiology will find new information in this book."

Dr. Satinover has also written the book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. He teaches Constitutional Law and Civil Liberties part-time in the Department of Politics at Princeton University (resuming in the Fall of 2005).

Dr. Satinover lives in Weston, Connecticut, his home for twenty-two years, with his wife, Julie. They have three daughters, Sarah, Anni and Jenny.

Thanks for that bio, LTL-CA.

Satinover would probably be the first to admit that he isn't a top-drawer physicist. But you're right, he does come across well.

In an audience Q&A session at a Bleepin' conference that appears on the "Rabbit Hole" DVD, someone asked him the following question (and I'm paraphrasing here): Part 1 of my question is, as a psychiatrist, what do you think quantum physics can tell us about multiple personality disorder? And part 2 is, what inspired you to become a physicist so late in life, after you already had a successful career in psychiatry?

Satinover's answer: Multiple personality disorder. Ha! (Although I think he did go on to attempt a more serious answer to the question.)

Dr Satinovers interests are Velikovskian in range and his conclusions are as valid.

Satinover's ( the stats maven) book "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth" cites Paul Cameron's work estimating the life span of gay men.

Cameron's method had the virtue of simplicity, at least. He and two co-authors read through back numbers of various urban gay community papers, mostly of the giveaway sort that are laden with bar ads and personals. They counted up obituaries and news stories about deaths, noted the ages of the deceased, computed the average, and published the resulting numbers as estimates of gay life expectancy.

What do vital-statistics buffs think of this technique? Nick Eberstadt at the American Enterprise Institute sums up the reactions of several of his fellow demographers: "The method as you describe it is just ridiculous." But you don't have to be a trained statistician to spot the fallacy at its heart, which is, to quote Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistician John Karon, that "you're only getting the ages of those who die." Gay men of the same generation destined to live to old age, even if more numerous, won't turn up in the sample.

Impressive, neh?

Oops. The explanation of Cameron's method was from Slate.

>George Gilder, best-selling author and publisher of the Gil