Zeitvergeudung (A Waste Of Time)

2008-02-03T00:05:00.000-08:00

General Dismay

2006-04-14T12:04:00.000-07:00

If *any* number of egregious errors of Rumsfeld et. al., as reported by the Generals of our nation's military forces, could *possibly* make the administration's defenders change their mind, I'd like to know how much more it would take than these critics:

Major General John Batiste, commander of a division in Iraq - "I believe we need a fresh part in the Pentagon."
Marine Lt. General Gregory Newbold, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff - "We need fresh ideas and fresh faces. That means, as a first step, replacing Rumsfeld .."
Army Major General Paul Eaton, overseer of training of Iraqi troops - "Rumsfeld must step down."
General Charles Swannack, Commander 82nd Airborne - "We need a new secretary of defense."
Marine General Anthony Zinni, CENTCOM commander - Asked who should step down "The Secretary of defense to begin with."
Major General Jon Riggs - ">“They only need the military advice when it satisfies their agenda. I think that’s a mistake, and that’s why I think he should resign.”
Army General Eric Shinseki

You can dismiss complaints from Pete, as a partisan against Bush. But I'd urge anyone who cares more about the country and our military men and women to read the extent and breadth of the comments below from generals of our military forces, and tell me then if they don't think Rumsfeld et. al. are a serious, serious problem.

'For that reason, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent statement that "we" made the "right strategic decisions" but made thousands of "tactical errors" is an outrage. It reflects an effort to obscure gross errors in strategy by shifting the blame for failure to those who have been resolute in fighting. The truth is, our forces are successful in spite of the strategic guidance they receive, not because of it.' (Newbold)
I think a weakened, fragmented, chaotic Iraq - which could happen if this isn't done carefully - is more dangerous in the long run than a contained Saddam is now ... I don't think these questions have been thought through or answered," (Zinni)
"The cost of flawed leadership continues to be paid in blood. We need fresh ideas and fresh faces, and that means as a first step, replacing Rumsfeld and many others unwilling to fundamentally change their approach." (Newbold)
"In sum, he has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to America's mission in Iraq. Rumsfeld must step down." (Eaton)
"I think we are paying the price for the lack of credible planning, or the lack of a plan. We're throwing away 10 years worth of planning, in effect, for underestimating the situation we were going to get into, for not adhering to the advice that was being given to us by others, and, I think, getting distracted from Afghanistan and the war on terrorism that we were committed to when we took on this adventure." (Zinni)
"I think we need senior military leaders who understand the principles of war and apply them ruthlessly, and when the time comes, they need to call it like it is. (Swannack)
"We grow up in a culture where accountability, learning to accept responsibility, admitting mistakes and learning from them was critical to us. When we don't see that happening it worries us. (Zinni)
"I think that our executive and legislative branches of government have a responsibility to mobilize this country for war. They frankly have not done so. We're mortgaging our future, our children, $8 to $9 billion a month." (Batiste)
"And I believe he has culpability associated with the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and, so, rather than admitting these mistakes, he continually justifies them to the press ... and that really disallows him from moving our strategy forward." (Swannack)
"Rumsfeld has put the Pentagon at the mercy of his ego, his Cold Warrior's view of the world and his unrealistic confidence in technology to replace manpower. As a result, the U.S. Army finds itself severely undermanned - cut to 10 active divisions but asked by the administration to support a foreign policy that requires at least 12 or 14." (Eaton)
We just heard the secretary of state say these were tactical mistakes. They were not tactical mistakes. These were strategic mistakes, mistakes of policies made back here." (Zinni)
When they knew the plan was flawed, saw intelligence distorted to justify a rationale for war, or witnessed arrogant micromanagement that at times crippled the military's effectiveness, many leaders who wore the uniform chose inaction. A few of the most senior officers actually supported the logic for war. Others were simply intimidated, while still others must have believed that the principle of obedience does not allow for respectful dissent. The consequence of the military's quiescence was that a fundamentally flawed plan was executed for an invented war, while pursuing the real enemy, al-Qaeda, became a secondary effort. (Batiste)
"Only General Eric Shinseki, the army chief of staff when President George W. Bush was elected, had the courage to challenge the downsizing plans. So Rumsfeld retaliated by naming Shinseki's successor more than a year before his scheduled retirement, effectively undercutting his authority. The rest of the senior brass got the message, and nobody has complained since." (Eaton)
"Everyone pretty much thinks Rumsfeld and the bunch around him should be cleared out.” (Riggs)
"I think America's media is being made a scapegoat for what's going on out there. At last count, I think something like 80 journalists have been killed in Iraq." (Zinni)
Rumsfeld himself, responding to Generals saying it would take 200,000 troops to control Iraq after Saddam's downfall: "wildly off the mark...I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us to keep requirements down."
"Donald Rumsfeld is not competent to lead America's armed forces." (Eaton)

Selling the Soul of America to the Devil

2006-04-07T21:05:00.000-07:00

That's what conservative, fundamentalist Christians have done, in the name of electing an administration and congress that would support their specific religious agendas of anti-abortion and removal of the wall between church and state. Oh, if those outcomes were the only thing they bought for our soul, I might even make the trade! Instead, they have sold our souls for tens of thousands of deaths in Iraq, hundreds of thousands of wounded, corruption as far as the eye can see in the Republican congress, a deficit that has surpassed our ability, EVER, to repay it, global warming run rampant, failed diplomacy and loss of respect around the world, and an incompetent, lying baffoon sitting in the oval office with his finger on the button.

Well, thank you very much. I hope you're happy. And all to get yourselves two more seats on the Supreme Court. Congratulations. It really must be worth it, eh? If I and those like me bear the blame for Bill Clinton and his weanie, you bear the blame for all this.

Here's a question: Do you really think GOD is happy about all this? Really? REALLY? God wants to melt the polar ice caps? God wants 71 innocent Iraqis blown up in a mosque while worshiping him? God likes it when our leaders lie? For shame.

Spot the Changes!

2006-02-17T09:36:00.000-08:00

World's Largest Satanic Society to Meet

ST. LOUIS (AP) - If a satanic issue has made headlines, chances are that satanists will be talking about it as the world's largest satanic society meets in St. Louis.

The American Association for the Advancement of Satanism expects up to 9,000 satanists, journalists, policy makers and citizens to converge here and examine issues including Katrina, stem cell research, evolution and global warming. About 200 meetings and lectures are planned during the five-day meeting, which was scheduled to begin Thursday night.

Dr. Gilbert Omenn, president of AAAS, said the public's understanding of satanism is a crucial element of heated political, social, religious and technical debates.

"Satanic thinking is absolutely essential to preserving democracy," Omenn said.

Cheney Bares it all on Fox News

2006-02-15T17:37:00.000-08:00

Well, Pete, it wasn't on Rush's show, and Brit never leveled a question to Cheney about how the liberal press was blowing the whole thing out of proportion, but Cheney did manage to slip this in:

CHENEY: Well, Scott does a great job and it's a tough job. It's especially a tough job under these conditions and circumstances. I had a bit of the feeling that the press corps was upset because, to some extent, it was about them -- they didn't like the idea that we called the Corpus Christi Caller-Times instead of The New York Times. But it strikes me that the Corpus Christi Caller-Times is just as valid a news outlet as The New York Times is, especially for covering a major story in south Texas.

HUME: Well, perhaps so....

Complete transcript at:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185012,00.html

And don't stop after that part, at the very end of the interview, Hume asks Cheney probably the most interesting question of the day. You can tell right away that Hume is setting Cheney up to offer an alibi in case Cheney is indicted for leaking classified information (on Plame or whatever):

HUME: Let me ask you another question. Is it your view that a vice president has the authority to declassify information?

CHENEY: There is an executive order to that effect.

HUME: There is.

CHENEY: Yes.

HUME: Have you done it?

CHENEY: Well, I've certainly advocated declassification and participated in declassification decisions. The executive order --

HUME: You ever done it unilaterally?

CHENEY: I don't want to get into that. There is an executive order that specifies who has classification authority, and obviously focuses first and foremost on the president, but also includes the vice president.

The Official List of Bands that SUCK

2006-02-09T17:47:00.000-08:00

The list of Grammy winners is now up on Grammy.com, and it lets me see who definitely SUCKS this year. Also, note that I only care about the Pop/Rock categories.

As a first reminder, the Evans Law of Grammy Awards states, "If your band wins a Grammy, you suck." There are no exceptions to this law, which is why it's a law, not a theory. If you disagree with the law, too bad. You might as well try disagreeing with gravity. If you really, really disagree with the law, you should know that you are mistaken.

Second, the Evans Law of Grammy Awards only applies to a band's CURRENT work (that which has been nominated). So, for example, if the Rolling Stones win a Grammy this year, it does not mean they sucked in 1964, just now (and mostly since 1973).

Third, the Evans Law of Grammy Awards does not work in reverse. That is, if your band, though nominated, does NOT win a Grammy, that does NOT mean you DON'T suck. Of course, it doesn't mean you DO suck either.

So here are my observations on the winners:

For Record of the Year, Green Day and their album, "Boulevard of Broken Dreams" SUCK. My son will probably disagree, but there you have it.

For Album of the Year, U2 and their "How to Dismantel an Atomic Bomb" SUCK. See below for more U2 sucking.

For Song of the Year, U2 also SUCKS.

For Best New Artist, somebody named John Legend SUCKS.

For Best Female Pop Vocal Performance, Kelly Clarkson SUCKS. Sheryl Crow, however, does not necessarily suck.

For Best Male Pop Vocal Performance, Stevie Wonder SUCKS, though Paul McCartney may not.

For Best Pop Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal, Maroon 5 SUCKS. The White Stripes narrowly escaped sucking here (though they aren't so lucky later on).

For Best Pop Collaboration With Vocals, it turns out that Gorillaz (featuring De La Soul) SUCK. This was a surprise to me, as I actually like the song, "Feel Good Inc." Still, the LAW is the LAW. I must be mistaken about it. It really must SUCK. (See how this works?)

The next couple of awards are for pop instrumentals, but I don't care about those. Skipping ahead...

For Best Pop Vocal Album, the SUCKER is... Kelly Clarkson ("Breakaway"). See? THE LAW KNOWS ALL!

Dance and Traditional Pop? Who cares.

Here we go:

For Best Solo Rock Vocal Performance, Bruce Springsteen SUCKS, but Neil Young may not.

For Best Rock Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal, U2 SUCKS.

To save time, U2 also sucks for Best Rock Song and Best Rock Album. Again! The Law works!

Here's one that really shook me to the core: For Best Hard Rock Performance, System of a Down SUCKS. Now I know, this is hard to accept. But think of it this way: Grammys are awarded to bands that have, in some way, appeased the faceless corporate taskmasters who rule modern music distribution. In some way, System of a Down has, therefore, demeaned itself. It has sunk to the zipper-level of corporate greed, so to speak, and performed its duty. I don't like to say that. I like every single song I've ever heard from SOD, but there you go. In this category, you can look upon the other nominees as having dodged a bullet. They include Audioslave, Nine Inch Nails, Robert Plant, and Queens of the Stoneage. Chris Cornell of Audioslave knows all about this. Soundgarden's big album of the nineties, "Superunknown," won a Grammy. That was a clear signal that Soundgarden had moved too close to the mainstream. To their credit, they broke up soon after. THE LAW AFFECTS ALL!

Next, for Best Metal Performance, Slipknot SUCKS.

Another shocker: For Best Alternative Music Album, The White Stripes SUCK. See my lament for System of a Down, above. The message is equally as clear for the Stripes: Get away from the center! BEWARE THE LAW!

The rest of the awards are for R&B, rap, and other musical categories that I just don't listen to.

Some Larger Questions Behind the Bush Abuses

2006-02-07T11:31:00.000-08:00

About three years ago, while my team was working on an e-mail system for a large financial corporation, we met with the makers of a product that made responding to customer e-mail more efficient by applying fancy logic to automatically match the customer's e-mail to our set of pre-defined answers. The package applied Natural Language Programming (NLP) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) logic to the e-mail text, and would continually learn, as human beings -- customers and call center agents -- confirmed or disconfirmed its guesses. The result was that the application could find relevant information where humans would not have guessed -- e.g. sometimes as little as the tense or conjugations used could be relevant factors in understanding what the customer wanted to know.

During this particular meeting, the CEO and founder of the company, an ex-Israeli Intelligence agent, dropped the fact that their product was used by one nation's government to monitor large amounts of e-mail, looking for clues to anti-government activities. Of course he would not tell us which nation, though my friend Sudhir, who is much better at reading between the lines than I, later told me with some confidence that it was the Phillipines. In any case, it went without saying that it must be a relatively totalitarian regime -- one without anything like the civil rights protections and concern for individual liberties of the United States.

Since then we have learned that similar systems are being used to monitor thousands of communications of Americans with persons overseas without a warrant. The Bush administration has tried to lead citizens to believe that these are only calls involving al Qaeda suspects, but we can logically conclude that the surveillance has extended well beyond the kind of linkages we would normally associate with such phrases, let alone the legal definition of "probable cause." Further, this sort of data minining is aimed less at monitoring known suspects and more at *identifying* suspects -- from data trends human beings alone would normally not notice. Putting aside, for the moment, the apparent lack of productiveness of this NSA tapping and the administration's self-serving deceptions, there *should* be a robust debate about this topic, involving the administration, the Congress, and ultimately, the American people.

That is, given that we can have in place checks and balances consistent with the Constitution and a reasonable barrier to abuse, how willing should we be to let software cull vast numbers of communications for patterns -- *before* the communicating parties are likely suspects in any criminal behaviors -- in order to diminish the odds of egregious crimes? What kind of "hit rate" would be needed to justify the intrusion? If no human looked at particular message (and the old "corpus" of messages would eventually be destroyed) until computer analysis revealed that at least party was 40% likely to be involved in planning terrorist activities, would it be acceptable for the computers to monitor *all* voice and email communications? 60% likely? 90% likely? If the system could identify an estimated 2 terrorist planners a year, would that justify computers sifting through everyone's electronic communications? How should we modify the laws (or even the Constitution?) to deal with these scenarios?

One thing that I hope we all agree upon is that we should not simply give the President the ability to describe some scenario as being "at war" and subsequently ignoring any laws or checks as long as he simply tells us it's in the interest of national security. But we should be making some open decisions based on a slippery continua of rights and safety. Where would you draw the line?

Re: All the Hub-bub About the Cartoon Versions of Muhammed

2006-02-02T08:03:00.000-08:00

Jeez, why all the fuss? You'd think we were showing photographs of their Lord submerged in urine or something.

Spot the Changes!

2006-02-02T07:59:00.000-08:00

From the NY Times:

Senate Panel Rebuffed on Documents on U.S. Spying

WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 — The Nixon administration is rebuffing requests from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for its classified legal opinions on President Nixon's domestic spying program, setting up a confrontation in advance of a hearing scheduled for next week, administration and Congressional officials said Wednesday.

Quote of the Day

2006-01-30T21:41:00.000-08:00

"And by the way, anytime you hear the United States government talking about wiretap -- it requires, a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand -- when you think PATRIOT Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value our constitution." -- George W. Bush, April 2004

Test Your Knowledge!!!

2006-01-29T17:24:00.000-08:00

Do you think you know current events? Try and answer the questions below. The correct answers, as supplied by prominent American spiritual leader and pedagogue Rev. Pat Robertson, are below.

Being nice to Episcopalians is being nice to spirit of _________________
What is the most terribly treated minority in the history of the world? ________________
What American organization teaches children all forms of bestiality? _______________
What was the common name for a proposed Constitutional Amendment with the goal of increasing child murder and witchcraft? _____________
The practice of homosexuality in Florida is likely to cause which of the following results?
The National Organization of Women (NOW) holds that all women must be __________ ?
Many of the people around Hitler were Satanists and _______________ ?
One group not bound by the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court is what? _______________ ?
An instrument that is used productively by Christians but is destructive in the hands of non-Christians is ________________ ?
Who deserves the blame for the 9/11 attacks on Americans?

ANSWERS

The Antichrist
"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them."
(The 700 Club, 4/14/91)
Christians in America
"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history."
(1993 interview with Molly Ivins)
Planned Parenthood:
"It is teaching kids to fornicate, teaching people to have adultery, every kind of bestiality, homosexuality, lesbianism-everything that the Bible condemns."
(The 700 Club, 4/9/91)
The "Equal Rights Amendment"
"It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."
(3-page letter to voters of Iowa during Nov. '93 elections, describing a proposed equal rights amendment to the state constitution:)
B
"It will bring about terrorist bombs, it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor."
(Quoted by AP, Seattle Times 6/10/98)
Lesbians
"NOW is saying that in order to be a woman, you've got to be a lesbian."
(The 700 Club, 12/3/97)
Gays
"Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals--the two things seem to go together."
(The 700 Club, 1/21/93)
U.S. Congress (and Pat Robertson)
"I am bound by the laws of the United States and all 50 states...I am not bound by any case or any court to which I myself am not a party...I don't think the Congress of the United States is subservient to the courts...They can ignore a Supreme Court ruling if they so choose."
(Quoted in Washington Post, June 27,1986)
The U.S. Constitution
"The Constitution of the United States, for instance, is a marvelous document for self-government by the Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian people and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society. And that's what's been happening."
(The 700 Club, 12/30/81)
C
Jerry Falwell and Robertson discussing the 9/11 attacks on The 700 Club:
Falwell: 'I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."''
Robertson: "Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government.
(The 700 Club, 9/13/01)

Things I think are true but I can't prove...

2006-01-25T18:16:00.000-08:00

Pete once sent around an email where scientists described truths of nature that they could not prove scientifically but which they none the less felt were true. Here are two that I've come to contemplate recently.

First: Given the existence of Space/Time, and its central understanding that Space is Time and Time is Space (ie, both can be bent by gravity), the following must be true: If there are three measurable dimensions of space, there must be three measurable dimensions of time. What this means, I don't really know. Stephen Hawking refers to the "arrow of time" in his famous book. If my insight is true, then not only is the Hawking arrow a line, not a ray, but there must be two other arrows of time perpendicular to the known one. Hooo boy! This is fun.

Second: It is my hunch that while Evolution is driven by natural selection, natural selection is driven by the exploitation of NEW habitats by established species more than it is driven by a change in habitat/environment in a species' "home habitat" (for lack of a better term). Environmental change (either of climate or geology) -- even slight changes -- more often than not results in the extinction of a species rather than its evolution. Without change, a large population mutating at random will absorb its mutations rather than profer survival advantages upon them. However, if there is a stable population of a species in a home habitat, offshoots of the main population are free (given the opportunity) to migrate to new habitats, where their evolutionary fitness can be tested. If a mutation in the smaller offshoot population proves to help the offshoot adapt, then the "new species" thrives, strengthening the mutations. Mammoths don't grow thicker coats after they migrate, they migrate and those with thicker fur then survive to reproduce. Thus the Mammoths are able to migrate further and further north. If there are no mutations that help the offshoot population adapt, they will die off, leaving the home population intact and capable of spawning new migrations. Cool, huh?

Okay, have at them.

Let me address one criticism of the second "truth" right away by saying that, yes, I can see how you may think that evolution can happen in both home and offshoot populations, that nothing I've said proves that home populations are incapable of evolving in response to environmental change. My response is to say (to my strawman argument I just set up) that Evolution never "responds" to anything. Mutation is random and unguided. Selection events merely weed out the unviable varieties. Hah!

And as far as the first "truth" goes, remember, these are things that I feel must be true, even though I can't prove them. So I can't prove I'm right about three-dimensional time either.

Finally, these posts have nothing to do with the fact that a strange book arrived in the mail for me yesterday, titled, "Pro-Evo", written by someone named, "Tomatom". I suspect Pete is behind that mailing in one way or another. But the guy that wrote that book is just plain nuts. More about the book in another post to come.

-Chuck

Bush on Brokeback Mountain

2006-01-24T12:00:00.000-08:00

Bush was asked whether he has seen Brokeback Mountain yet by one of the questioners. That's gotten around, I'm sure, but I like the intro to the question that the media has edited out:

BUSH: Is that a Washington Nationals hat?

QUESTION: Wisconsin, actually.

BUSH: OK, yes.

QUESTION: "W" is for Wisconsin.

You're a rancher. A lot of here in Kansas are ranchers. I was just wanting to get your opinion on "Brokeback Mountain" if you've seen it yet.

(LAUGHTER)

You would love it. You should check it out.

BUSH: I hadn't seen it. I'd be glad to talk about ranching, but I haven't seen the movie.

(LAUGHTER)

I've heard about it.

(LAUGHTER)

I hope you go, you know...

(LAUGHTER)

I hope you go back to the ranch and the farms is what I was about to say.

(LAUGHTER)

I hadn't seen it.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

Haikorrection

2006-01-17T20:04:00.000-08:00

I posted these haiku to the e-mail group. These were works of fiction, and any similarities between any person, living or dead, or any electronic forum, is strictly coincidental.

No invitation;
No rights for the Waterites
In Chucktatorships

Words cannot escape
Chuck's electronic gulag
Let me on the blog

I search my e-mail.
There is no invitation.
I hate Chuck's ass face.

Even though there was absolutely no correlation between my fictional work and any recognizable elements of my real life, I subsequently felt artistically compelled to add just one haiku:

NO INVITATION!
BASTARD! BASTARD! BASTARD! BAS--
Oh wait... there it is.

Peoples Choice Awards - Sponsored Awards!

2006-01-11T12:46:00.000-08:00

No awards show could be a bigger waste of time than this one. I clicked to the show twice last night for about 30 seconds each time, and it was excrutiatingly bad. Bad writing, bad performances, bad everything. I just read an article about the "winners" and noticed the following three "awards" at the end of the list:

Crest Whitestrips Fans Favorite Smile: Cameron Diaz.

Nice 'N Easy Fans Favorite Hair: Faith Hill.

Olay Total Effects Fans Favorite Look: Jennifer Aniston

Sponsorships of middling pop-culture award show honors! How cool is that?

Here's my call for predictions:

Will we see the same kind of sponsorship of awards for the Oscars® in the next five years?

Specific prediction dates.

Spot the Changes!

2006-01-06T16:08:00.000-08:00

DNA Offers New Insight Concerning Cat Intelligent Design

Original Article By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: January 6, 2006, NY Times

Researchers have gained a major insight into the intelligent design of cats by showing how the intelligent designer impelled them to migrate to new continents and develop new species as he, at the same time, caused the sea levels to rise and fall.

About nine thousand years ago - two thousand years after the intelligent designer first caused the cat family to appear in Asia - these successful predators invaded North America by crossing the Beringian land bridge connecting Siberia and Alaska (itself a product of the intelligent designer's amazing supernatural powers!), a team of geneticists writes in the journal Science today.

Later, the intelligent designer caused several American cat lineages to return to Asia. With each migration, the intelligent designer morphed the pantherlike patriarch of all cats into a rainbow of species, from ocelots and lynxes to leopards, lions and the lineage that led to the most successful cat of all, even though it has mostly forsaken its predatory heritage: the cat that has induced people to pay for its board and lodging in return for frugal displays of affection.

This new history of the family, known as Felidae, is based on DNA analyses of the 37 living species performed by Warren E. Johnson and Stephen J. O'Brien of the National Cancer Institute and colleagues elsewhere.

Before DNA, taxonomists had considerable difficulty in classifying the cat family. The fossil record was sparse and many of the skulls lacked distinctiveness. One scheme divided the family into Big Cats and Little Cats. Then, in 1997, Dr. Johnson and Dr. O'Brien said they thought most living cats fell into one of eight lineages, based on the intelligent design element known as mitochondrial DNA.

Pat Robertson, the Gift that Keeps on Giving

2006-01-05T16:17:00.000-08:00

For the complete article, click the title to this post.

Robertson Links Sharon Stroke, God's Wrath

NORFOLK, Va. (AP) - Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson suggested Thursday that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke was divine punishment for "dividing God's land."

"God considers this land to be his," Robertson said on his TV program "The 700 Club.""You read the Bible and he says 'This is my land,' and for any prime minister of Israel who decides he is going to carve it up and give it away, God says, 'No, this is mine.'"

Sharon, who ordered Israel's withdrawal from Gaza last year, suffered a severe stroke on Wednesday.

In Robertson's broadcast from his Christian Broadcasting Network in Virginia Beach, the evangelist said he had personally prayed about a year ago with Sharon, whom he called "a very tender-hearted man and a good friend." He said he was sad to see Sharon in this condition.

He also said, however, that in the Bible, the prophet Joel "makes it very clear that God has enmity against those who 'divide my land.'"

Sharon "was dividing God's land and I would say woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the EU (European Union), the United Nations, or the United States of America," Robertson said.

In discussing what he said was God's insistence that Israel not be divided, Robertson also referred to the 1995 assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who had sought to achieve peace by giving land to the Palestinians. "It was a terrible thing that happened, but nevertheless he was dead," he said.

...

Steven Wright

2006-01-03T11:59:00.000-08:00

From a "quotes of the day" type thing:

"Last night I stayed up late playing poker with Tarot cards. I got a full house and four people died."

I've always enjoyed Steven Wright. You don't see much of him anymore, and I wonder if he still does standup. Even though all his jokes are one-liners, they are fantastic. My favorite for a long time has been:

"I put instant coffee in a microwave oven and I almost went back in time."

Another:

"The first time I read the dictionary I thought it was a poem about everything."

Schadenfreude

2006-01-03T08:41:00.000-08:00

From this morning's New York Times at:

Click here.

"Jack Abramoff will plead guilty to three felony counts in Washington today as part of a settlement with federal prosecutors, ending an intense, months-long negotiation over whether the Republican lobbyist would testify against his former colleagues, people involved with the case said."

Lot's of Republicans involved, including Tom Delay! What fun!

Welcome to Zeitvergeudung!

2005-12-29T16:45:00.000-08:00

Zeitvergeudung is German for "A Waste of Time". More to come!