Riba Rambles:
Musings of a Mental Magpie

Posted by Lis Riba at 5:00 PM

I've read a number of interesting articles about the animal kingdom recently, which I'm going to put together into one post.

I'll start off small and formal, with a peck of stories about penguins.

After six years nesting together, Roy and Silo (the gay penguins in New York's Central Park Zoo) have split up. A new female penguin named Scrappy moved into the exhibit and moved in with Silo. [Source: New York Times]

Brokeback Penguins, anyone?

Meanwhile, other animal behaviorists have discovered the existence of Penguin prostitution.

In each case, a female penguin left her mate and made her way to a single male at his nest. She stood nearby and gazed at him. When he flirted with her in the penguin way, giving her a sidelong glance and bowing his head, she followed suit. The hopeful male then stepped off his platform of stones, allowing her to waddle on. Leaving no uncertainty about what she was there for, she lay face down on the nest, and the male mounted and mated with her. Afterward, she got up, picked up a stone with her beak, and without further ado, went back to her own nest. In half of the cases, the female returned to the same single male for a second stone, although they did not mate again. In one instance, a female made off with a total of ten stones.

All together now from It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown: "I got a rock."
[Thanks to Teresa Nielsen Hayden for the links.]

And, hopefully you all remember last month I blogged about Nils Olav, the Edinborough penguin recently promoted to Colonel in Chief of the Royal Norwegian Guard.

[He's a military man. My inner-yenta wonders whether he'd prefer lonely Roy or those Adelaide girls...]

Oh yeah, few weeks ago, the New York Times reported that conservatives have taken to March of the Penguins

Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review, told the young conservatives' gathering last month: "You have to check out 'March of the Penguins.' It is an amazing movie. And I have to say, penguins are the really ideal example of monogamy. These things - the dedication of these birds is just amazing."

Staying with the color scheme and aquatic theme, but rather larger, let's turn our attention to whales, who have been devising some interesting tricks to keep those enormous stomachs full.

Scientists attribute recent declines in the sea otter population to hungry whales unable to find more substantive food. To quote a 1998 Science News article:

Researchers first witnessed whale attacks in the early 1990s. 'In one case, a whale just came up and opened his jaws and swallowed the otter,' Estes says. Another whale stirred up a wave that washed otters off rocks into the jaws of waiting killers. Other whales leapt from the water and slammed onto otters, stunning them before gulping them down.

This recent NPR story describes another technique researchers have seen:

It's a bizarre way of hunting, where these killer whales have learned to swim upside down, below a sea otter that's resting on the water's surface. These giant pectoral fins come up on either side of the sea otter. The mouth comes up, takes the sea otter, grabs it and gulps it down. It's gone.

What an image.

But even well-fed whales in captivity are interested in a little variety. How about... seagull?

An enterprising young killer whale at Marineland has figured out how to use fish as bait to catch seagulls and shared his strategy with his fellow whales. First, the young whale spit regurgitated fish onto the surface of the water, then sank below the water and waited. If a hungry gull landed on the water, the whale would surge up to the surface, sometimes catching a free meal of his own. Within a few months, the whale's younger half-brother adopted the practice. Eventually the behavior spread, and now five Marineland whales supplement their diet with fresh fowl, said Michael Noonan, a professor of animal behavior at Canisius College in Buffalo, N.Y.

[Source: The Left Coaster (which uses the tale to score political points).]

Sticking with the cetaceans for a moment.
If you haven't heard the rumors of armed dolphins patrolling the Gulf after Katrina, here's the gist:

Armed dolphins, trained by the US military to shoot terrorists and pinpoint spies underwater, may be missing in the Gulf of Mexico.

[Source: The Observer]

And now that you have heard it you should also know the story's been debunked [Also Snopes]

Last and most definitely not least, we come to the cephalopods.

Aww... Look at the cute widdle baby octopus! So teeny!
Of course, that's not the big story this week.

By now you've probably read the stories on the latest giant squid discovery. You may even have seen the photos. But have you watched the video? [courtesy of CNN] Furthermore, the paper itself is online (in PDF format) if you want further details of where, when and how. [via PZ Myers]

I'll just close by excerpting a disturbing post from Ian regarding Intelligent Design:

What if we're not the point? What if the reason that we can choke, have blind spots, have crappy knees and so forth, is that we're SUPPOSED to be disposable? What if the whole purpose of humanity is to break up the surface of the world, and then cause global warming to cause great, warm, shallow seas to cover large swaths of the world, so that the creature that the "Intelligent Designer" ACTUALLY designed can take over?

You know, the one with eyes WITHOUT blind spots, because they're outgrowths of the skin, instead of the optic nerve? The one that can't choke, because it has gills? Has no joint problems because it has no joints?

Now, the only reason why octopuses HAVEN'T developed actual sapience, I think, is because of their 1) darn short lifespans and 2) dying after breeding. But if an octopus developed that actually stayed ALIVE after breeding, and then actually RAISED its offspring, well, THAT would be a creature an intelligent Intelligent Designer could be proud of designing.

I, for one, welcome our new oceanic overlords.*

Posted by Lis Riba at 12:25 PM

From a recent interview with the cast and crew of Serenity:

Q: How much did you guys have to practice or work out to get back into the characters and get back into the mind space you were in?

Morena Baccarin: Well, I had a lot of sex.

Gina Torres: God bless you.

Morena Baccarin: I had to say it. It had to be [said]. There's the whore thing. Now it's done and over with.

And sometimes a picture speaks a thousand words. Get a load of these photos from the Serenity premiere.

Goofballs...

Posted by Lis Riba at 12:20 PM

Scary thoughts come from insufficient sleep.

So I was thinking about Simon and River (from Firefly and Serenity) as I drifted off last night. And I thought... Simon's an excellent trauma surgeon, but what he really needs to help River is a good diagnostician. Then it hit me:

Gregory House on Serenity... <geeeeeh>

Scarily enough, I think he'd fit in with the crew. Wouldn't necessarily get along -- a lot of butting heads -- but that's perfectly normal for him.

This morning, I found an interview with Adam Baldwin in which he described how he envisions Jayne's backstory. So Ian and I talked about one of my regrets of the TV show's premature cancellation, which is the lost opportunities for learning more about the characters' upbringing. I mean, you know if the series continued, we'd eventually meet members of their extended families. [It's an aspect movies are too short to delve into, and one of the things I appreciate about fanfic.] We know Kaylee's father is a mechanic, and while he may be good he's probably not as gifted as Kaylee herself. She, as I said, has that spark of genius.

Which then got me thinking of Girl Genius crossovers...

These are all so wrong.
Maybe I should suggest some of them for the next round of It Hurts My Brain (the pairing list that ate fandom).

On the other hand, even Joss has gotten into the crossover spirit, as this interview demonstrates:

Q: In a fight between River and Buffy, who wins?

Whedon: Wow. Nobody has ever asked me that, and I'm shocked. And ultimately, ... I can't say. I'm going to have to watch. ... Because Buffy's got the super strength, but River's got all kinds of crazy training. She's not a superhero in the same way, but she's very focused. Its tough. It's a smackdown. Be there.

We will, I'm sure.

Posted by Lis Riba at 7:50 AM

A few words of wisdom (to myself) that I've been meaning to post.

First, this week's Free Will Astrology horoscope:

"Dear Prayer Warriors: I desperately need assistance in calming my emotional body. It's clear to me that I either overreact or underreact to many situations, particularly those that surprise me. So please beg the Creator to send me a surge of divine steadiness, because I can't afford to do this anymore. It makes me ill. It makes my family crazy. It throws my values into a tailspin. -Born under the Sign of the Crabby Crab."
Dear Crabby Crab: The Prayer Warriors will beseech the Supreme Wow to help you (and every other Cancerian who's interested) to master the art of neither feeling too much nor too little but just the right amount and just the right kind. It's portentous that you asked now: The astrological omens suggest it's a perfect moment to make great progress toward this goal.

Boy, does that ever describe me of late. I've been under a lot of pressure with both home and work duties that I've been feeling particularly emotionally fragile right when I can least afford to be. Running on empty, as it were. Here's hoping that I can add more serenity to my life than just a two-hour movie...

Also, a cookie fortune I got recently provided another much-needed message:

This was another much-needed message which I can find multiple applications in my life.

Paraphrasing a friend's comment: ‘sometimes being a responsible adult sucks.’ I have so many responsibilities, there's always something hanging overhead. Even when I enjoy myself, I've still got so many nagging pressures to bring me down and diminish my pleasures. [That's one of the reasons I've forsaken press tickets for King Lear even though I definitely want to see the play. While I enjoy writing reviews of shows that inspire me, the obligation to review makes it a chore.]

I really can't afford to go to London, but I've been dreaming about this for three or four years now and am going anyway. There are probably far better ways I could spend the time and money. And so, one of the meanings I take from this is not to let myself nor others suck the joy out of this trip.

There's lots more I'd like to write about both of these, but like the White Rabbit, I'm late and time is short... If any of y'all wish to offer your own advice or lessons-learned based on these fortunes, I'd love to hear it.

Posted by Lis Riba at 9:15 PM

Would everybody please join me in wishing a

I'm sorry I couldn't call you today. I've been out of the house running errands all evening and when I finally got home I looked at the time and realized it was too late to phone. I'll break a few rules and call you from work tomorrow. And, of course, I'll see you on Saturday.

So, congratulations on sixty miraculous years. May Gd bless you with many more.

Posted by Lis Riba at 12:30 PM

I love my husband very, very much. And every so often he writes something that I feel deserves a wider audience. Those who already read his LiveJournal have probably already seen this. But for the rest of you, may I present:

Social Darwinism, William Jennings Bryan, Intelligent Design, and the Cult of Self-Reliance

Okay. That has got to be the best subject header I've ever put on a LJ post. Pity the body isn't going to quite live up to it.

I love William Jennings Bryan. I feel that it's a great pity that he's primarily remembered for his role in the Scopes Monkey Trial. (And, to a lesser extent, for the "Cross of Gold" speech, which is a fantastic speech, but somewhat wonky economics (switching to a bimetalic standard would increase inflation, which was certainly good for farmers in the short term, as they regularly had their farms mortgaged up to the hilt, but I'm not convinced it would be good for anyone in the long term).)

In any case, I think that Bryan's role as an anti-evolutionist makes a lot more sense when you look at it in context. Bryan wasn't, really, arguing against Darwinism per se -- what he had a problem with was social Darwinism -- the notion that, because Darwin had demonstrated that the fittest flourish, there was no moral responsibility for the fortunate to help the less fortunate. That, in fact, you had a moral responsibility to let the poor, weak, and unfortunate die, for the good of the species. He ended up arguing against the whole theory of evolution in order to argue against social Darwinism.

Nowadays, of course, we realize that social Darwinism doesn't follow necessarily from evolution. For two good reasons: first, we now realize that evolution doesn't grade individually, but as a group. Helping out the weak, injured, and just plain unlucky is, for the most part, an evolutionarily positive characteristic. But more importantly, science doesn't tell you what's ethical, nor do ethics tell you what's scientifically true. Science simply tells you "what is" -- it doesn't tell you what is right.

But the ideas of "social Darwinism" still exist today. When Hurricane Katrina hit, and we saw the horrific images from New Orleans, most conservatives reacted the same way -- by pulling out their wallets, writing checks to the Red Cross, opening their homes to displaced people, and so forth. But there was a disturbing minority current -- not just among right-wingers, although that's where I mainly saw it -- suggesting that the folks who were harmed brought it upon themselves: choosing to live below sea level, tolerating the corruption in the Louisiana state and local governments, not having the assets to get themselves out of the city.

That's the argument of social Darwinism right there. We now call it "self-reliance".

What I find disturbing and strange is that the Bush administration itself uses the self-reliance rhetoric which is today's version of social Darwinism, while also supporting Intelligent Design -- today's version of Creationism.

"Intelligent Design" isn't simply "Creationism with aluminum siding." It's Creationism with the implicit call for moral and ethical behavior -- which was Creationism's tiny shred of worth -- removed.

I disagree with the last sentence in his first paragraph, but otherwise he presents a side of the issue I hadn't consciously considered before. What do you think? Comment here or in Ian's journal directly.

Posted by Lis Riba at 12:15 PM

Last week, I asked if anyone wanted to join us in watching Serenity tomorrow, opening night.

The Showcase Cinemas Woburn finally announced their movie times, and we're going to the 7:15 pm showing. I've already emailed those who already contacted me to confirm we're buying tickets for them. Anybody else who's interested, get your own tickets and come meet us at the theater. [Let me know to expect you so we can save seats/a place in line.]

With rush hour traffic, I don't think we'll have time to get together for dinner before the movie, but hopefully we can grab a bite somewhere afterwards.

Less than 30 hours. I'm so excited...

Posted by Lis Riba at 5:54 PM

Via Dorrie6:

This comes from the shooting script of "The Message," one of the later episodes, though no real spoilers beyond the identities of the characters:

Hold a still frame on Simon and Kaylee, staring intently at something in a big jar that we can't see very well. Wait a beat.

SIMON: Yep. That's a cow fetus.

KAYLEE: Guess so... Does seem to have an awful lot of limbs...

SIMON: It's mutated. Most of the breeding on the outer planets was done by shipping DNA scrip instead of animals. The first herds were grown in labs, then set loose. Every now and then...

KAYLEE: But cow? How do you figure?

SIMON: It's upside down.

She cranes her head upside down, looks. Nods, sagely...

KAYLEE: Okay, then. Cow.

SIMON: And I'm out twelve bits. I really know how to show a girl a... disgusting time.

KAYLEE: Oh, it's sweet. Poor little thing never even saw the light of day, now it's in show business!

He looks at her, admiringly.

SIMON: You manage to find the bright side to every single thing.

KAYLEE: (coming closer) Also, we get the booth to ourselves for five whole minutes...

SIMON: (glances at jar) We are not alone, remember?

KAYLEE: (taking his hands) He won't squawk. Tell me more good stuff about me.

SIMON: (smiles) Well, you're kind of a genius when it comes to machines... you always say what you mean, and your eyes...

KAYLEE: Yeah? Eyes, yeah?

SIMON: I don't know how to... (joking) Plus, every other girl I know is either married, professional, or closely related to me, so you are more or less literally the only girl in the world.

Those famous eyes of her darken considerably. She draws back.

KAYLEE: That's a hell of a thing to say.

SIMON: I was joking...

KAYLEE: No, no, I get it. Back on Osiris you probably had nurses and debutantes crawling all over you. But down here at the bottom of the barrel, there's just me.

SIMON: That is not even --

KAYLEE: Well, I'm glad I rated higher than dead bessie here. [Nee GAO-soo NA niou, TA yo shwong mei-moo?] < Why don't you tell the cow about its beautiful eyes? >

She is storming out just as Wash and Zoe are coming in. Simon watches Kaylee despairingly.

WASH: Oh my god, it's grotesque! Oh, and there's something in a jar.

He ogles the fetus as Zoe come up to Simon.

ZOE: Scared her away again, did you?

SIMON: This may come as a shock, but I'm actually not very good at talking to girls.

ZOE: (not unkindly) Why, is there someone you ARE good at talking to?

WASH: (in the background, to the jar) Do not fear me. Ours is a peaceful race, and we must live in harmony...

Of course, once I start quoting Wash, other quotes come to mind. Here's just a short one from "Objects in Space" that so encapsulates his character:

WASH: Psychic? That sounds like something out of science fiction!

ZOE: You live in a spaceship, dear.

WASH: So?

Joss Whedon quotes are like chips. You can't pick just one.

PS: If you ever have a chance to watch the full blooper reel (yes, I've found a version online that's longer than what's on the DVD) get a load of Wash's comments about Zoe during "Bushwhacked." I'd heard Alan Tudyk ad-libbed that scene, but I didn't realize they chose the lines they used ("The legs. Oh, yeah. Definitely have to say it was her legs.") because that was the only part suitable for broadcast.

Posted by Lis Riba at 11:10 PM

Hey, Ayesha, did you see this? Archeologists are claiming to have discovered Odysseus' tomb. It's not on the modern Ithaca, but rather a smaller island nearby.

Archeologists have long and often times looked for evidence of Odysseus on modern Ithaca, but never found anything significant from the Bronze Age. This led many scholars to dismiss Homer's version of Ionian island geography as strictly a literary creation.

But two pieces of fairly recent evidence suggest archeologists were looking in the wrong place. In 1991, a tomb of the type used to bury ancient Greek royalty was found near the hamlet of Tzannata in the hills outside Poros. It is the largest such tomb in northeastern Greece, with remains of at least 72 persons found in its stone niches.

One find there is particularly telling. In Book XIX of the "Odyssey," the just-returned and still disguised Odysseus tells his wife (who may or may not realize who she's talking to; Homer is deliberately ambivalent) that he encountered Odysseus many years earlier on the island of Crete. He describes in detail a gold brooch the king wore on that occasion.

A gold brooch meeting that precise description lies now in the archeological museum at Argostoli, the main city on Kefalonia, 30 miles across the island from Poros. Other gold jewelry and seals carved in precious stones excavated from the tomb offer further proof the grave outside Poros was used to bury kings.

Greek archeologists also found sections of ancient city walls extending for miles through the hills around and well beyond Poros. These surround both the village and a steep adjacent hill which bears evidence it once served as an acropolis, what the Greeks called hilltop forts in most of their major cities. The stones of the walls date to about 1300 B.C., the approximate time of events described in the "Iliad" and "Odyssey."

Most likely, the royal capital at Ithaca was a much larger city than Poros or any other town on either modern Ithaca or Kefalonia. It would have needed a major source of water. There is none on modern Ithaca, but streams abound near Poros, where there is also a small man-made lake. This area had the necessary water. The island now called Ithaca likely did not.

Several other ancient settlements found elsewhere on Kefalonia also suggest the island was a major population center at the time of Odysseus.

And Homer described two major landmarks near ancient Ithaca: He says it sat beneath an impressive mountain, the "tree-clad Mt. Neriton," which dominated views from the "wine-dark sea" for many miles around. That description fits Mt. Aenos, just above Poros, the highest peak in the Ionian islands. Homer also describes the legendary Cave of the Nymphs as within a day or two walk from the city of Ithaca. A spacious, dark cave with large stalactites and deep blue water matching Homer's description is currently a tourist attraction about 15 miles northwest of Poros.

[via RedAxe]

Posted by Lis Riba at 10:42 PM

I never did finish my post about John Roberts. It's probably too late now, but here are a few of my reasons for opposing him:

1) I think the ruling that cemented my negative opinion was United States v Jackson, as described by TalkLeft

To quote Jeralyn,

The majority opinion by Judge Rogers found the officer's justification for searching the trunk of a car for proof of ownership was illogical and strained at best, and based solely on his alleged experience in having found missing license plates in the trunk of cars in the past.

Judge Roberts dissented:

[M]y colleagues’ insistence that police should have further questioned Jackson amounts to prescribing preferred investigative procedures for law enforcement. We have neither the authority nor the expertise for such an enterprise. [...] In the end, I would leave the judgment as to what lines of inquiry ought to be pursued to the officer himself, and judge probable cause on the facts as they are, rather than on what they might have been had the officer pursued a different course.

I wholeheartedly subscribe to the sentiments expressed in the concurring opinion about the Fourth Amendment’s place among our most prized freedoms. See Conc. Op. at 1, 5. But sentiments do not decide cases; facts and the law do. There is no dispute here on the law: if the officers had probable cause, they did not need a warrant; if they did not have probable cause, no warrant would issue in any event.

Considering that one of the biggest problems with the current executive branch seems rooted in its power-grabbing nature and a demonstrated unwillingness to share power with the other two branches of government (seen most recently here), the deference to authority shown here (or with regards to tribunals in Guantanamo) makes me extremely uncomfortable.

2) From what I've read of his biography, he gives the impression of someone who's had everything handed to him. Never had to struggle against prejudice or other institutional obstacles to get ahead.

Now I'm not saying that one has to be a minority to grok minority concerns, but there's a certain sense of empathy and understanding that seems lacking here in everything I've read about Roberts.

3) These words from a TPM Cafe commenter struck me quite strongly:

For the past nine or so years, I have heard many, many people voice the view that Bush will moderate if X is done (I live in Texas so I had an additional few years with the man). Usually the formula goes like this: Because the consquence of Bush doing ___ would be ___ he will choose a moderate path to satisfy everone involved. Invariably, Bush defied these predictions by not taking the moderate path but instead playing to the extreme right and relying on Rove to redefine his extreme position as moderate.

Or as the Rude Pundit writes more bluntly, John Roberts is no stealth nominee

John Roberts is a known quantity for one simple reason: he was nominated by George W. Bush. And to trust these vicious bastards for a moment is to end up with a shiv in your ribs. [...]

Is there anyone, Democrat or Republican, who thinks that Roberts got out of interviews with Rove and Cheney without them knowing exactly how he would rule on every goddamn issue that might come up, from Roe v. Wade to enemy combatant cases? Rove and Cheney may be "masterful" politicians, but, to be sure, they are not subtle men. Shit, the fact that Rove even interviewed Roberts means that the political operation was under way.

4) Roberts was selected in the same manner and by the same people who nominated Mike Brown to FEMA, Chertoff to Homeland Security, Bolton to the UN, and scores of other unqualified candidates. Bush nominees no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt. We should reject them all just on principle.

I know I had more links, but I can't find them now and it's too late for me to hunt them down.

What I don't get is how the Democrats in the Senate can be so blind about Roberts. Everybody I've spoken to gets it. How can a Democrat from a safe state like Vermont let the President get his way? Further reading for those who need it:

• Complicity Doesn't "Keep Your Powder Dry"

  If Democrats are unhappy with, but vote for, a stealth nominee with a miniscule record of actual rulings, who refused to answer any questions during his hearings, and who claims that everything he wrote and did in the past reflected the views of his clients and bosses rather than his own views, then how are they ever going to oppose these characteristics in any nominee in the future? If Democrats vote for Roberts, they will make it clear that they sanction the Bush administration to propose someone for O'Conner's seat who also doesn't have to have an actual record, and who also doesn't have to answer questions.

  Furthermore (I forget who made this comment) if the next nominee is a minority of whatever sort, and they give hir closer scrutiny than they did Roberts, the GOP will have a field day accusing Dems of racism/sexism/religious bigotry after giving the white guy a pass.
• On Roberts, Who is More Pathetic: The Media or the Democrats? by David Sirota
• What's a Democrat to do?
• Chief Justice Roberts: What Went Wrong

PS: One incentive for Bush to withdraw the Roberts nomination and defer further Court appointments to his successor. Without a Chief Justice, he can't be impeached.

Posted by Lis Riba at 7:30 PM

Well, our downstairs apartment is occupied again.

Two women and five cats moved in on Friday.
Their previous permanent residence was New Orleans.

I didn't post about this when we made the agreement, because... well, it just felt tacky.

While it's not actually covered by the levels of tzedakah, it feels gauche to draw attention to onesself for doing the right thing. Besides, just because we met through HurricaneHousing.org, I don't think that one event should define who they are.

Still, since they arrived I've found myself wishing I had opened up a bit more a bit earlier. Because despite the incentive of incipient tenants to hold over the contractors heads, the downstairs still wasn't complete when they arrived. Maybe if we'd been more open, we could've gotten more help ahead of time with cleanup or furnishings or other needs.

But, we didn't and they're here now and things seem relatively smooth. We found out yesterday there's no heat or hot water, so need to lean on the contractor to finish the task so they can get the city inspector's approval so we can turn it back on...

But this does mean that our own ordeal after the fire is nearly complete. We'll need the mortgage company to inspect the work and get the money from them to pay off the contractor (and pay off our in-laws who helped us pay the first-half to the contractor because we've been short of money). And there are other small hassles with insurance, but we're getting there...

Small world note: After we made arrangements with these women, some coworkers were talking about ways to help Katrina victims. One coworker said New England wasn't too far away for housing hurricane victims -- and mentioned that she'd been in talks with two women who had five cats, but hadn't heard back from them, so presumably they found other housing. How many such households were there in NOLA, I wondered? Turns out we were both in talks with the same family. Makes a certain amount of sense -- if you're looking for housing, you don't just approach one person at a time. Still, kinda amusing in a small world sense.
Also makes me feel somewhat worse about the condition of the downstairs apartment, given that they may have bypassed other (possibly better) options for our place.

And that's one of the many many things going on in my life.

PS: Interesting household trivia: Ian and an orange tabby are the only males currently living in the house.