Riba Rambles:
Musings of a Mental Magpie

Posted by Lis Riba at 11:05 PM

The Hancock Tower is flashing red and blue stripes.

Oh, wait, I just found they issued a press release to explain it:

Steady Blue, clear view;
Flashing Blue, clouds due;
Steady Red, rain ahead;
Flashing Red, snow instead;
Flashing Blue and Red, when The Curse of the Bambino is dead!

Posted by Lis Riba at 9:20 AM

Picked up the Phoenix yesterday; found a boatload of other Shakespeare performances I need to announce on Bard In Boston.

I also came across the Phoenix's review of the Richard III I saw last week.

In their "Play by Play" listings, they say

John Kuntz [was] a theatrical but insufficiently dangerous or seductive Richard III

Dear Gd! At times, Ian and I felt genuine horror sitting that close to such an obvious sociopath. We certainly found his performance dangerous, seductive, and downright terrifying. How much more were they expecting?

Posted by Lis Riba at 8:15 AM

I guess I can skip it this week, because the New York Times wrote an article on the phenomenon. Read it and enjoy

Posted by Lis Riba at 8:52 PM

Somebody I know recently wrote:

I still don't understand the Modern Religion of Professional Sports.

Fernwithy recently came up with a good explanation. And since there may be others reading this who have a similar question, I thought I'd share this publically, rather than just post privately to that one person.

After talking about humans' tribal nature and how in modern America, tribes are largely a created concept, Fernwithy explains

Sports teams [...] serve as a heraldic banner for our created identities. So do historical sites, lists of Dead Famous People From Here, landmarks, and half a dozen other things, but sports gain fans like ongoing series gain fans, because they are ongoing stories.

Of course, that's just one aspect of a much longer and more complex essay, which I do recommend reading. But seriously, aside from scale, how is sports fandom that much different than, say, Trekkies or Whovians?

Ian and I were talking and came up with another aspect worth mentioning, and what, I think, is the appeal to me: It's about the drama.

That probably explains why I was so enthralled during the Sox/Yankee cliffhanger matchup, but less so during the World Series 4-0 sweep (which was dull when considered in isolation, but maybe less so if you consider it the climax to an 86-year-long story). I'm not much of a sportsfan during the regular season, but if the Red Sox make the postseason, I'm hooked. And I'm not a football fan, but I was on the edge of my seat (and then hooting and hollering) when I saw the Patriots score that touchdown during the final minute of that Super Bowl.

Sports are unscripted drama. In books, movies and television, people have already determined the outcome before you watch it. [I wonder if that's not part of the appeal of reality TV? The uncertainty.]

Anyway, just a few disjointed thoughts. Since beginning this post, Ian and I saw Sky Captain, and that's just begging to be a post of its own.

Posted by Lis Riba at 1:23 PM

Rather than following the crowd and writing about the Red Sox, Al Qaqaa or other election-related fury, I just found this story on Poynter and thought it worth sharing.

During the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and the continuing occupation, the Pentagon has refused to allow any pictures of returning flag-draped caskets of our deceased soldiers. The official reason for this policy is to respect the privacy of families who have lost loved ones, though many skeptics believe it's merely an attempt to avoid negative PR by making the death toll more visible.

Well, the National Annenberg Election Survey recently released results of a poll of active duty military and their families. Quoting from the press release:

The military sample also overwhelmingly disagreed with the Pentagon policy of barring photographs of flag-draped coffins being returned to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. Fiftyone percent of the sample said allowing photographs would increase respect for the sacrifices made by the military, and only 8 percent said it would reduce respect.
<snip>
Forty-seven percent of the actual service members and 56 percent of the family members said photographs at Dover would increase respect. Among the junior enlisted personnel (ranked E-4 and below) and their families, a category that has suffered 57 percent of the U.S. military deaths in Iraq, 60 percent said it would increase respect.

Other survey results are also interesting. 62% of the military sample think the Bush Administration underestimated how many troops would be needed to establish peace in Iraq. And an interesting set of questions on gays in the military and why or why not they should be allowed to serve openly.

[As seen in Romenesko's letter column, 10/27/2004]

Posted by Lis Riba at 1:06 AM

The Red Sox won the World Series. After 86 years, in four games, on the night of a full lunar eclipse.

I was in the car when it happened, listening on the radio to the final inning.

I'll confess to some mild disappointment. After the endless ordeal of the ALCS vs. the Yankees, the World Series itself seemed almost anticlimactically easy. At the very least, I'd been hoping the Curse could've been broken on home turf, at Fenway. A Halloween Game Seven Frightfest with Stephen King might've been nice, too, but I suppose I knew that'd be a longshot

BTW, I couldn't quite tell where they were coming from, but somebody (I think it was in Somerville) started setting off fireworks at 11:31, at the end of the first half of the ninth inning. Dudes, I know that victory seemed a foregone conclusion by that point, but couldn't you at least wait until it was official?

Any bets how large tomorrow's Herald headline will be? Do you think they'll have any room for a photo? Or will they just fit one word on the front page with a notice that the headline is continued on pages 2, 3, 4...

As I sit at my desk and type this, I hear cars honking victory cheers to one another and to the neighborhood at large.

Good night people, and pleasant dreams.

Posted by Lis Riba at 9:50 PM

For those in the proper hemisphere, the lunar eclipse has begun. The moon is about 50% eclipsed at the moment and visibily waning as we speak (or, as I write). Pretty cool...

Anyway, just a reminder to watch the skies.

Posted by Lis Riba at 6:56 PM

The folks over at corrente have made an excellent point. The past month, Blogger has been exceptionally flaky. Sometimes I can't access the site at all. Sometimes, publishing a post goes to an error page or it's incredibly slow. I've lost posts, I've accidentally double-posted. These are problems that I rarely had before the past month or so.

At any rate, Lambert asks what are the odds the problems will get even worse on election day? Who knows how many political bloggers all wanting to post updated election results all at once? That's a load problem waiting to happen.

Once again, I'm thankful that I'm hosting my own blog rather than relying on Blogspot. That means I can just manually edit the HTML page and upload them myself. And, I may be forced to do so. Then, after the rush, I can go back and convert them to proper posts in the Blogger database.

But, I also realized, that won't help those of you who rely upon the RSS feed for notification on new posts. Such as the currently 118 readers over on LiveJournal, and everybody else using aggregators.

I suppose this means I'll be giving myself a crash course in manual RSS-coding over the weekend, just to be on the safe side.

So, that's my backup plan in case Blogger gets overloaded on the holiday. I'm sure they won't be the only site or publishing software that may creak at the seams Tuesday night. Have you got any contingencies in mind?

Posted by Lis Riba at 12:45 PM

I feel like Mohammed. A small black cat has made herself cozy on my lap. There are loads of other things I should be doing right now, most of which require places other than my computer, but I don't want to get up and disturb her.

By the way, regarding tonight's game, I'll just point out that not only is there a full moon tonight (meaning the lunatics will be out in force), but there's a total lunar eclipse tonight over Boston and the ballpark.

In other rambly news (as I procrastinate standing), today's Guardian has an excellent article on fanfic and how it harkens back to oral tradition.

While I think my inclusion of misspellings of my name may help my rank in the search engine, it seems to break Google AdSense. When I check to see what ads it would serve my site, all I get are links to Liz Claiborne's "Elisabeth" line. Grumble.

Okay, the cat has just started bathing herself in my lap, and her breath reeks (we did take her to the vet's for a checkup; she needs a teeth-cleaning, but we don't have the cash for it right now) I thought that might be my chance to escape, but she seems to have fallen asleep again.

Doomed. I am doomed, I tell you...

Posted by Lis Riba at 9:21 AM

Breakfasted in the local diner this morning and flipped through the Herald. Here's what Joyce Jillson predicts for Cancers today:

There are doomsayers all around you, but don't believe a word of what they say, especially when the subject is the economy. Your qualifications make you perfect for a position that's just opening up.

I think I could get behind that. :)

Posted by Lis Riba at 11:15 PM

This week's Free Will Astrology horoscope has just been posted, and it has a surprising relevance to certain plans I'm working on:

Even Rob Brezsny acknowledges he doesn't have any predictive power beyond trying to motivate readers with positive self-fulfilling prophecies, but sometimes he seems so spot-on it's scary.

Posted by Lis Riba at 10:45 PM

For the record, I just noticed that the neighborhood Brooks pharmacy has begun putting out its Christmas wrapping and other trappings for the season that shouldn't be starting yet.

For goodness sake, people, it's still five days until Halloween! And we're still a month away from Thanksgiving. Can't stores be the slightest bit reasonable anymore?

Argh!

Posted by Lis Riba at 9:35 PM

I often describe myself using terms like infovore, information junkie, brain shark (can't stop moving), mental magpie, and the like.

But I should reserve the one I just came up with for written media, and never use it in spoken fora. After all, people are too likely to make incorrect judgements if I call myself "an infomaniac." [Say it aloud if you don't get it.]

And hey, it was somebody else in my Social Informatics class who coined the phrase "info-slut" -- I merely blogged it.

Posted by Lis Riba at 7:50 PM

Hmm... Non-election fluff...

So, I watched both parts of The Lost Prince on PBS. Each night, they had approximately 90 minutes of the drama followed by a half-hour non-fiction on the historical facts described in the episode.

As entertaining as the story was, I have to heap even more praise on those explanatory segments. Why hadn't anybody ever taught history in this manner? They made the start of World War I so much more comprehensible.

Hard to believe that barely 100 years ago, nearly all of Europe were monarchies. What's more, most of them were interrelated.

Queen Victoria had a dream that she could prevent war if all the royal families were family, so carefully arranged the marriages of her descendents to do so. But World War I demonstrated the fallacy of that argument.

And, we seem to have come back to modern politics, again. Because one of the assertions I've seen by neocons to justify Bush's invasion of Iraq is that "Democracies don't make war on each other." So, theoretically, if we can force other nations to be democracies, they'll no longer be a threat. Somehow that sounds just as specious as Victoria's Ruritarian dream.

Posted by Lis Riba at 7:05 PM

August 2003, I described the current crop of Republican leadership as having: "an attitude of win-at-all costs opportunism, using whatever argument is necessary at the time. No principles involved beyond victory. And they're supposed to be the conservative ones?"

A week later I elaborated: "They're not really operating based upon a guiding ideology beyond the desire to enrich themselves and their cronies."

And the following month, regarding the California recall, I pointed out: "It's more and more clear that they solely want power for its own sake (to enrich their cronies?) and not to better society as a whole. Because what they're doing is directly detrimental to society, and they don't care about that."

[I also thought I asked somewhere for examples where this administration chose the public wellbeing over benefits to themselves and their supporters. But I can't seem to find that post at the moment.]

Why am I rehashing all this?

Get a load of Al Gore, last week:

[F]or the Bush-Cheney administration, the will to power has become its own justification.

Sums it all up, doesn't it?

Powerful speech (courtesy of Seeing the forest). I wish I could just quote the whole thing; it seems to encapsulate so many seemingly disparate arguments I've been making over the past four years. Read it all, but here are just a few comments worth spotlighting:

Most of the problems [Bush] has caused for this country stem not from his belief in God, but from his belief in the infallibility of the right-wing Republican ideology that exalts the interests of the wealthy and of large corporations over the interests of the American people. Love of power for its own sake is the original sin of this presidency.

The surprising dominance of American politics by right-wing politicians whose core beliefs are often wildly at odds with the opinions of the majority of Americans has resulted from the careful building of a coalition of interests that have little in common with each other besides a desire for power devoted to the achievement of a narrow agenda. The two most important blocks of this coalition are the economic royalists, those corporate leaders and high net worth families with vast fortunes at their disposal who are primarily interested in an economic agenda that eliminates as much of their own taxation as possible, and an agenda that removes regulatory obstacles and competition in the marketplace. They provide the bulk of the resources that have financed the now extensive network of foundations, think tanks, political action committees, media companies and front groups capable of simulating grassroots activism. The second of the two pillars of this coalition are social conservatives who want to roll back most of the progressive social changes of the 20 th century, including women’s rights, social integration, the social safety net, the government social programs of the progressive era, the New Deal, the Great Society and others. Their coalition includes a number of powerful special interest groups such as the National Rifle Association, the anti-abortion coalition, and other groups that have agreed to support each other’s agendas in order to obtain their own. You could call it the three hundred musketeers – one for all and all for one. Those who raise more than one hundred thousand dollars are called not musketeers but pioneers.

<snip>

The essential cruelty of Bush’s game is that he takes an astonishingly selfish and greedy collection of economic and political proposals then cloaks it with a phony moral authority, thus misleading many Americans who have a deep and genuine desire to do good in the world. And in the process he convinces them to lend unquestioning support for proposals that actually hurt their families and their communities. Bush has stolen the symbolism and body language of religion and used it to disguise the most radical effort in American history to take what rightfully belongs to the citizenry of America and give as much as possible to the already wealthy and privileged, who look at his agenda and say, as Dick Cheney said to Paul O’Neill, “this is our due.”

The central elements of Bush’s political – as opposed to religious -- belief system are plain to see: The “public interest” is a dangerous myth according to Bush’s ideology – a fiction created by the hated “liberals” who use the notion of “public interest” as an excuse to take away from the wealthy and powerful what they believe is their due. Therefore, government of by and for the people, is bad – except when government can help members of his coalition. Laws and regulations are therefore bad – again, except when they can be used to help members of his coalition. Therefore, whenever laws must be enforced and regulations administered, it is important to assign those responsibilities to individuals who can be depended upon not to fall prey to this dangerous illusion that there is a public interest, and will instead reliably serve the narrow and specific interests of industries or interest groups.

<snip>

Massive incompetence? Endemic corruption? Official justification for torture? Wholesale abuse of civil liberties? Arrogance masquerading as principle? These are new, unfamiliar and unpleasant realities for America. We hardly recognize our country when we look in the mirror of what Jefferson called, “the opinion of mankind.” How could we have come to this point?

America was founded on the principle that “all just power is derived from the consent of the governed.” And our founders assumed that in the process of giving their consent, the governed would be informed by free and open discussion of the relevant facts in a healthy and robust public forum.

But for the Bush-Cheney administration, the will to power has become its own justification. This explains Bush’s lack of reverence for democracy itself.

The rest of the speech is available here. I give it my highest recommendation.

Posted by Lis Riba at 3:47 PM

Drudge's latest "exclusive" is that CBS News planned to air the story about the al Qaqaa explosives on Sunday night right before the election. Given the increasing availability and popularity of early voting, a last-minute scoop like that would miss many voters who had already cast their ballots. Doesn't seem terribly likely to me. [For that reason, I no longer believe the Bush administration has any more October Surprises to pull out of their hat. Maybe an increase in the terror alert, which studies have shown has a one week impact, but I think we're too far in the final stretch for anything bigger.]

By the way, Drudge's previous scoop about the NBC News crew appears to be firmly debunked by now, with Talking Points memo pointing out two news stories with more details on the visit in question: "There wasn't a search. The mission that the brigade had was to get to Baghdad. That was more of a pit stop there for us." and "it's not clear that those troops from the 101st were actually anywhere near the bunkers that reportedly contained the HMX and RDX." Okay?

Posted by Lis Riba at 3:35 PM

There's so much dark political material swirling around right now, I hope I can keep this up.

Courtesy of somebody I know on LiveJournal, some japes and jests from the original Hollywood Squares. Peter Marshall was the host asking the questions:

Q: Do female frogs croak?
Paul Lynde: If you hold their little heads under water long enough.

---

Q: If you're going to make a parachute jump, at least how high should you be?
Charley Weaver: Three days of steady drinking should do it.

---

Q: True or False, a pea can last as long as 5,000 years.
George Gobel: Boy, it sure seems that way sometimes.

---

Q: You've been having trouble going to sleep. Are you probably a man or a woman?
Don Knotts: That's what's been keeping me awake.

---

Q: According to Cosmo, if you meet a stranger at a party and you think that he is attractive, is it okay to come out and ask him if he's married?
Rose Marie: No, wait until morning.

---

Q: Which of your five senses tends to diminish as you get older?
Charley Weaver: My sense of decency.

---

Q: In Hawaiian, does it take more than three words to say "I Love You"?
Vincent Price: No, you can say it with a pineapple and a twenty.

---

Q: What are "Do It," "I Can Help," and "I Can't Get Enough"?
George Gobel: I don't know, but it's coming from the next apartment.

---

Q: As you grow older, do you tend to gesture more or less with your hands while talking?
Rose Marie: You ask me one more growing old question Peter, and I'll give you a gesture you'll never forget.

---

Q: Paul, why do Hell's Angels wear leather?
Paul Lynde: Because chiffon wrinkles too easily.

---

Q: Charley, you've just decided to grow strawberries. Are you going to get any during the first year?
Charley Weaver: Of course not, I'm too busy growing strawberries.

---

Q: In bowling, what's a perfect score?
Rose Marie: Ralph, the pin boy.

---

Q: It is considered in bad taste to discuss two subjects at nudist camps. One is politics, what is the other?
Paul Lynde: Tape measures.

---

Q: During a tornado, are you safer in the bedroom or in the closet?
Rose Marie: Unfortunately Peter, I'm always safe in the bedroom.

---

Q: Can boys join the CampFireGirls?
Marty Allen: Only after lights out.

---

Q: When you pat a dog on its head he will wag his tail. What will a goose do?
Paul Lynde: Make him bark?

---

Q: If you were pregnant for two years, what would you give birth to?
Paul Lynde: Whatever it is, it would never be afraid of the dark.

---

Q: According to Ann Landers, is there anything wrong with getting into the habit of kissing a lot of people?
Charley Weaver: It got me out of the army.

---

Q: It is the most abused and neglected part of your body, what is it?
Paul Lynde: Mine may be abused but it certainly isn't neglected.

---

Q: Back in the old days, when Great Grandpa put horseradish on his head, what was he trying to do?
George Gobel: Get it in his mouth.

---

Q: Who stays pregnant for a longer period of time, your wife or your elephant?
Paul Lynde: Who told you about my elephant?

---

Q: When a couple have a baby, who is responsible for its sex?
Charley Weaver: I'll lend him the car, the rest is up to him.

---

Q: Jackie Gleason recently revealed that he firmly believes in them and has actually seen them on at least two occasions. What are they?
Charley Weaver: His feet.

---

Q: According to Ann Landers, what are two things you should never do in bed?
Paul Lynde: Point and laugh.

Plus, one from the new series:

My all-time favorite question from Hollywood Squares, though, comes from one of the new ones, back when Bruce Vilanch was one of the squares. Tom pulls the next question out of the deck and immediately bursts into laughter. After he gets himself under control, he says, "I swear this was the next question in the pile, Bruce. Here it is: You are the most popular fruit in the world. What are you?" Bruce's response (once all the laughter died down, a good thirty seconds later): "Humble."

Keep smiling!

Posted by Lis Riba at 2:50 PM

Alternate title: Leave dissenting children behind

Kos received this email from Wisconsin:

A friend with a child in the Richland County,WI high school where George Bush appears today reports the following. Students were told they could not wear any pro-Kerry clothing or buttons or protest in any manner, at the risk of expulsion. After a parent inquired, an alternative activity will be provided, probably a movie being shown in an auditorium. (The school secretary reportedly said that students had the choice of just staying home if they didn't want to attend the Bush rally, but the principal subsequently offered an alternative.)

Kos replies, "If Bush comes to a high school, how dare his campaign dictate what students can wear?"

But there's a more fundamental right at stake. To me, this sounds like an unconstitutional abridgement of students' First Amendment rights.

Quoting from Tinker vs. Des Moines, a 1969 Supreme Court case:

• First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years.
• [Schools] have, of course, important, delicate, and highly discretionary functions, but none that they may not perform within the limits of the Bill of Rights. That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes.
• In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint. Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school," the prohibition cannot be sustained.
• In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of school are "persons" under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views.

Is that clear?

Added ten minutes later: When I showed this to Ian, he commented that if it were his school, he'd get several students all dressed more-or-less the same, but put one in a pro-Bush shirt, one in a pro-Nader shirt, one in a pro-Kerry shirt, maybe a Libertarian shirt. Make sure they all agree to behave in a similar, polite and reasonable manner. And then see who gets in and who's expelled, just to prove the unconstitutional content-based nature of these restrictions.

Posted by Lis Riba at 2:10 PM

• The Poor Man's storyboards for 'Wolves'
• Wolf Packs for Truth
• DNC: Eagle vs. Ostriches

Posted by Lis Riba at 1:56 PM

Yesterday, John Kerry asked:

Mr. President, what else are you being silent about? What else are you keeping from the American people? How much more will the American people have to pay?

Kerry was referring to the fact the administration just requested another $70 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan, but that's not the only matter left unresolved.

Two weeks ago, the federal government hit the debt ceiling, but rather than hold a vote to raise the limit, they decided to temporarily tap into pension funds. They'll hold the vote after the election to avoid unpleasant publicity.

Over on Altercation, Charlie Pierce asks:

Here is something I don't understand. Have you noticed how many probes/inquiries/investigations/important stories are being put off until after the election? Somehow, it's gotten into the heads of various government gumshoes -- and, worse, into the heads of some important journalism types -- that popping a big story before the election is somehow "unfair," and might "unduly influence" the outcome.
Hello?
These kind of things are supposed to influence the election.

Don't forget we're still awaiting results from the Valerie Plame grand jury (who leaked her name?) Back in June, the CIA completed an report on its culpability regarding 9/11, and yet House Intelligence Committee demands for copies go unanswered. We're still waiting on disputes over Cheney's Energy Commission (and which industry lobbyists helped shape it) to wend their way through the lower courts. Government scientists report being told not to release discoveries critical of administration policies. And on and on and on.

We are supposed to be a nation of informed voters? How can we trust an administration that would conceal so much from its citizenry?

Added later: Don't forget: reelection campaigns are supposed to be referenda on the incumbent's accomplishments. Funny how the Bush campaign keeps trying to distract voters from that.

Posted by Lis Riba at 1:11 PM

As I said yesterday, until the election I'm going to try to intersperse the darker and pessimistic political material with more pleasant thoughts.

Shelley, over at Burningbird often finds the most interesting, thought-provoking topics for discussion, frequently with a feminist slant.

Yesterday, she passed along a meme that hadn't yet made its acquaintance with my usual circles:

What would your blog look like if it were a room?
Please find a picture (painting or photo) and link to it or post it on your blog or just post a description and, in the comments here, post a link to your post.

 [Source: Lynn, Reflections in d minor]

As I was on my way to post about that, I discovered Shelley's latest post, on Beauty and the Beast. She links to a Terri Windling essay on some of the diverse variants in how the tale has been told. [Hey, any folklorists care to explain how the origins of this tale relate to "The Frog Prince"?] And if you like looking at fairy tales in this manner, I recommend Tam-Lin.org which has a tremendous amount of detail on that story.

Posted by Lis Riba at 11:45 AM

Regarding the missing munitions story which broke yesterday, some folks are trying to obfuscate matters by suggesting the site was looted before U.S. troops arrived.

From an Associated Press timeline:

• March 2003: Nuclear agency inspectors visited Al-Qaqaa for the last time but did not examine the explosives because the seals^* were not broken. The inspectors then pulled out of the country.
• March 2003: The U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq.
^* In January, IAEA inventoried the materials in the bunker and then put them under seal. As long as the seal was unbroken, we can know with confidence those materials weren't touched.

Now NBC is claiming one of their embedded newscrews entered the bunker on April 10, and the munitions weren't there -- as if that exonerated the administration.

First of all, the unit with NBC wasn't first to inspect the bunker.

Second, earlier troops did see the weapons:

A Pentagon "official who monitors developments in Iraq" told the Associated Press today that "US-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact."

So either the weapons vanished between the first troops to visit and the NBC crew, or NBC didn't know what they were talking about/looking at:

[M]ilitary and non-proliferation analysts say that a detachment of soldiers not specifically trained in weapons inspections work and certainly an NBC news crew simply wouldn't be in a position to make such a determination. We're not talking about a storage unit with a few boxes in it, but a massive weapons complex made up of almost a hundred buildings and bunkers.

Also, the notion that in the weeks before and during invasion, while under reconnaissance, Iraqis would've been able to move 380 tons of material from a known weapons site... Do you really think that might've slipped past us? Something like that would either have been a PR argument or simply a target for aerial counterattack.

Finally, The L.A. Times reports:

David Kay, the CIA's former chief weapons hunter in Iraq, believes that the material was looted in the immediate aftermath of the war.
He said he saw the facility in May 2003, "and it was heavily looted at that time. Sometime between April and May, most of the stuff was carried off. The site was in total disarray, just like a lot of the Iraqi sites."

Surely even an untrained NBC camera crew would've been able to recognize the signs of heavy looting. And they never remarked upon that before.

Either way, the munitions were there and intact one week before the invasion and were missing by April or May. And this exonerates the administration, how?

And that would still mean the administration knew about the loss for eighteen months; so why did they try to cover that up all this time? Why is Scott McClellan insisting they only knew about this story for ten days or so? Incompetence or deception: neither paints a terribly flattering portrait of those in charge.

Finally, Juan Cole explains why these missing munitions are more versatile and more dangerous than ordinary bombs, rockets, grenades, cannon shells and bullets which some are trying to equate them to.

[Stay tuned to Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo, from whence much of this summary was derived.]

Posted by Lis Riba at 9:48 AM

I know that many of you viscerally don't like Eminem, but get a load of his latest video. As Salon writes:

Eminem is an even less likely lefty hero than Howard Stern. But the just- released video for his new anti-Bush song "Mosh," makes Fahrenheit 9/11 look like a GOP campaign spot, and it will almost certainly reach an audience that wouldn't think of shelling out for a documentary.

The link to the video provided by Salon seems to be down at the moment, but Suburban Guerrilla found a Streaming Real Audio version.

In my opinion, it's worth seeing. Powerful and chilling. At first, I was a little worried about the intent of the "mob" Eminem was leading -- whether this might not be a counterproductive call for violence, or something -- but when I saw they were all lining up to vote, my heart just swelled with delight.

I hope (as Salon writes) "MTV has the guts to air it," and I earnestly hope it's effective in getting disaffected young voters to the polls.

[First seen this morning on Oliver Willis]

Posted by Lis Riba at 7:50 PM

After the previous downer, how about this film of Cats In Space! Yes, we're talking 100% genuine zero-gravity feline; no special effects or imitations.

Via Metafilter, which found it on Boing Boing.

According to Boing Boing, the file was found on an Air Force website for an online education class called "COCKPIT PHYSICS: Physics Instruction for the Twenty-First Century." So, they decided to bring a cat into the Vomit Comet and toss it around to see what happens.

Have you ever seen those slow-motion films of a cat falling? How it spins around and around in order to land on its feet? Well, what happens when there's no "down" to orient to? I expect the military doctors had to cope with a lot of lacerations once the cat got its bearings and realized who was doing what to it...

If you're still in need of a diversion, may I recommend the old classic: FunnyCats.wmv.

Posted by Lis Riba at 7:20 PM

We're being led by the gang who couldn't shoot straight. If the consequences weren't so dire, it might seem comical.

Kevin Drum explains about Zarqawi:

[In 2002, t]he Pentagon had come up with three separate plans to take out Zarqawi's camp but was turned down for political reasons. <snip> [T]he Pentagon drew up several detailed options, they wanted to go after the camp, they thought an attack would succeed, but the administration turned them down. <snip> Bush was afraid that eliminating a terrorist camp in Iraq would weaken his case for war. PR was more important than destroying a camp known to be a source of chemical weapons and global terrorist training.

So now Zarqawi is on the loose, and a greater danger than ever.

But Josh Marshall is the blog god today, in his reporting on missing munitions. His first post was last night, and he's been on a roll all day. To paraphrase:

Before we invaded, the world knew Iraq had 380 tons of high explosives (RDX and HMX). This was no secret, it was under IAEA seal. Munitions officers confirmed they were there immediately after the invasion. They're missing now. The White House and Pentagon have known they were missing for over a year, but tried to order Iraqis not to inform the IAEA that they had gone missing. The Bush administration also prevented the IAEA from reentering Iraq after the invasion to inventory and secure the material.

How much explosive material is unaccounted for? Apparently, less than one pound of RDX was necessary to take down Pan AM Flight 103 over Lockerbie. Our government just misplaced 380 tons. Phil Carter suggests the total power is equivalent to 2500-8000 times the explosions that destroyed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

It's very likely some of those car bombs our troops are dealing with can be traced back to this material. And who knows who else has gotten ahold of it?

As John Kerry has stated:

[O]ur country and our troops are less safe because this president failed to do the basics. This is one of the great blunders of the Bush policy in Iraq.
The unbelievable incompetence of this president and his administration has put our troops at risk. George W. Bush has failed the essential test of any commander in chief to keep America safe.
Every step of the way this administration has miscalculated – miscalculated about how many troops we need. Secretary Rumsfeld cavalierly dismissed the danger of looting -- and now we know the impact.
Make no mistake: our troops are the best-trained and best-led forces in the world, and they have been doing their job honorably and bravely. The problem is the Commander-in-Chief has not being doing his.

Look at what the Bush administration has achieved in its War on Terror. We can't afford any more such "victories." They don't deserve another chance. We need some competent leadership to get us out of this mess. Vote Kerry on November 2.

Posted by Lis Riba at 2:45 PM

While hanging out at the MIT Student Center, I found a stack of green booklets: GLAT: Google Labs Aptitude Test. Images are available online here, but it really has to be seen in all its test-booklet glory. [I'm particularly fond of questions 4 through 6 on Page 2, though they're all good.

I wonder whether the answers to these questions really make any difference to one's chances of getting a job at Google or if they're just supposed to amuse Google HR on slow days.

Still, it gave me a laugh. Nice to see companies recognize how stressful the jobhunt can be and take steps to lighten things up.

Posted by Lis Riba at 10:55 AM

Well, I'm sparing you all a whine about jobhunting, because I just found something cute. Every page on EBSCO Publishing's Career site include the following:

Is that your boss coming? Quick, click here

I suppose one must find humor where one can. Now back to the grind...

Posted by Lis Riba at 6:25 PM

Stage Beauty, a new film about Restoration theater, opened Friday in the Boston area. Longtime readers may remember I mentioned this (goodness has it already been) two months ago. While I still think the history as described in the synopsis and reviews seems a little suspect, I still want to see the film.

Ian isn't interested, but I wouldn't mind seeing it with somebody. Anybody interested in going with me? It's only playing at Kendall and West Newton, and for who knows how long. I can provide transportation if somebody is carless.

Any takers?

Posted by Lis Riba at 6:20 PM

Richard III by The Actors' Shakespeare Project
Playing through November 7 at the Old South Meeting House in Boston

Posted by Lis Riba at 2:30 PM

Just issuing a periodic reminder of the existence of Bard in Boston, a central site for listing Shakespeare-related events in the Boston area.

Anyone with a LiveJournal account may post a listing, and creating a LiveJournal account is free and easy.

I've just added announcements for two new events and there's a lot happening in the coming months, so check it out.

Posted by Lis Riba at 2:05 PM

I rather suspected she would be, considering how I've seen her picking fights with the sealed tub of catnip. But now I'm certain.

I decided to give the cats some catnip this morning. Put about a half-teaspoonful into glass ramekins, and placed them several feet apart on the floor. Boopsie, immediately planted herself above hers and began to eat of it.

Violet...

Violet curled up on her side, wrapping her forepaws around the ramekin, burying her face in to lick at it, and occasionally kicking it with her feet. Not the neatest means of eating catnip. Not only did much of it end up on her fur and the floor, but the ramekin itself kept sliding further and further away from her... and closer to Boopsie.

Eventually, Boopsie hissed to back Violet away and, having finished her own ramekin, proceeded to polish off Violet's. That was more-or-less okay with Violet, since she had enough catnip in her fur and on the floor to keep her happy.

Still, I had though Boopsie was a nip fiend since the first time I gave her catnip (when she was about Violet's age) I put a pinch on a saucer on the floor and eventually Lysoled that spot on the carpet after she was continuing to lick it three days later.

Ian left for Sunday school before I woke up this morning and has an Iolanthe rehearsal until 5pm. I had thought he might come home inbetween, but he didn't. [He did phone me from MIT to say hi (and find out what room rehearsal would be).] I miss him.

Posted by Lis Riba at 12:55 AM

Well, I picked Ian home from work and am about to go to bed. The game ended as I was driving through the Leverett Connector tunnel towards Storrow Drive, and I'll confess that for a brief while I was rooting for the clock, as I didn't want to get stuck in game traffic (I didn't). One problem with the radio is that if you're not careful, you may miss hearing which side is at bat. Really difficult hearing that somebody's ball is a 'high-flying... will it make it...' and you're not sure whether to root for a run or for it to be caught and out. I just thought 'Go Sox' and we won.

Via Julia, an amusing little quiz:

You Are a Pundit Blogger!

Your blog is smart, insightful, and always a quality read. Truly appreciated by many, surpassed by only a few.

Good night, people!