1/31/07
Notes on the coming plague
Note #1:More than 300 cases of the highly infectious disease, which is spread by airborne droplets and kills 98% of those infected within about two weeks, have been identified in South Africa.
The disease is a new strain of extremely drug-resistant tuberculosis, or XDR-TB, and it is so dangerous that South Africa and the WHO are considering forcibly detaining infected patients until they die, to avoid regional or global catastrophe. Link.
Note #2:
Acinetobacter was the second most prevalent infection for soldiers in Vietnam, but the military did not expect to see it as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Researchers are still working to understand where it came from and how patients were infected.
And they say Iraq isn't another Vietnam.
So far, no active-duty soldiers have been killed, but they've brought the infection back to hospitals where it has killed five other people. Link.
On a relatively lighter note (with emphasis on "relatively"), check out this little dumb game Pandemic. There's really not a lot of input from the player (I typically don't have any points to spend on evolving my virus until day 40 or so), and basically you are just watching your virus kill 50 percent of the human population. I'm interested if anyone has a different approach, but my aim has been to keep the visibility of the virus low until it has infected all regions, and yet I've completely failed to infect Western Europe before they close their borders. Apparently, they don't have airports in Western Europe.
Twangy fence music post #4
There's a post about Jon Rose over at the Proceedings..., but nothing there explains the lighting.
Speaking of the Iranian threat
CNN.com has an article up right now with the breathless headline Iran role suspected in brazen Iraq attack. Without getting into a discussion of the claims made about Iranian influence, here's a catalog of the sources cited:
Done and done.
Addendum: Ogged has a more effective post making similar points.
- "two officials from separate U.S. government agencies"
Done and done.
Addendum: Ogged has a more effective post making similar points.
1/30/07
vastation
[Latin 'vastatio', from 'vastare', to lay waste, from 'vastus', empty, waste]
n.
A laying waste, depopulation or devastation.
n.
A laying waste, depopulation or devastation.
Please Hammer, don't hurt em
This has got to count as a good thing, I suppose, but Arlen Specter needs to hire a better speech writer.
Jeebus.
"The decider is a shared and joint responsibility," Specter said.
Jeebus.
A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, encoded in a sudoku, transcribed in a crossword
The other day I heard that, as of December, the US changed its policy toward Iranian agents encountered in Iraq. According to the report, the former policy had been 'catch and release' and the new policy is 'kill or capture'.
What? Until December of 2006 the US military's policy toward foreign agents found in Iraq was catch and release?! I'm pretty much a pacifist, and even I think those tactics sound irresponsibly naive. On the other hand, what does kill or capture mean? Are we talking about combat or summary executions? And, are we talking about limited term detention or are we talking about eternal confinement with some torture thrown in? And why, if the policy changed in December, is the Bush Administration crowing about it now?
Actually, the last question has a pretty simple answer. The Bush Administration is crowing about the new policy now because they're making a show of escalating the tension between the US and Iran.
That itself, though, is pretty strange. Leaving aside the fact that war with Iran would be a really bad idea, how does escalating the rhetoric against Iran and its religious fundamentalists square with a surge strategy in Iraq that basically amounts to the US taking the side of the Shia against the Sunni in Baghdad? Which is to say that there's something bizarre about the US simultaneously (a) turning up the heat against Iran, and (b) taking the side of Iran's Iraqi allies in the burgeoning Iraqi Civil War.
One possible answer to this puzzle, and the one I had pretty much resigned myself to accepting, is that the US powers that be still don't understand basic facts about the religious and sectarian divisions in that part of the world, and that this thoroughgoing ignorance has led to a massively incoherent policy.
This morning, though, I'm entertaining the possibility that what's going on is stupidity of an entirely different order. That is, I'm thinking that we're seeing the Clintonian political formula of triangulation applied as actual real military strategy. It goes like this. The US wants to be the dominant political actor in Iraq. To accomplish this, we have to disentangle the Shia from Iran, which means we must wage a serious campaign against Iranian influence. On its own, though, such a campaign wouldn't accomplish our goals because it would inevitably anger the Shiite majority -- in fact, we'll have to take on some Shiite militias in the name of freeing the rest of the Shia from foreign influence. Thus, we must triangulate by striking out against some group that's opposed to the Shia. Since we aren't going to strike out at ourselves or the Kurds, that leaves the Sunni. Sucks to be them.
What? Until December of 2006 the US military's policy toward foreign agents found in Iraq was catch and release?! I'm pretty much a pacifist, and even I think those tactics sound irresponsibly naive. On the other hand, what does kill or capture mean? Are we talking about combat or summary executions? And, are we talking about limited term detention or are we talking about eternal confinement with some torture thrown in? And why, if the policy changed in December, is the Bush Administration crowing about it now?
Actually, the last question has a pretty simple answer. The Bush Administration is crowing about the new policy now because they're making a show of escalating the tension between the US and Iran.
That itself, though, is pretty strange. Leaving aside the fact that war with Iran would be a really bad idea, how does escalating the rhetoric against Iran and its religious fundamentalists square with a surge strategy in Iraq that basically amounts to the US taking the side of the Shia against the Sunni in Baghdad? Which is to say that there's something bizarre about the US simultaneously (a) turning up the heat against Iran, and (b) taking the side of Iran's Iraqi allies in the burgeoning Iraqi Civil War.
One possible answer to this puzzle, and the one I had pretty much resigned myself to accepting, is that the US powers that be still don't understand basic facts about the religious and sectarian divisions in that part of the world, and that this thoroughgoing ignorance has led to a massively incoherent policy.
This morning, though, I'm entertaining the possibility that what's going on is stupidity of an entirely different order. That is, I'm thinking that we're seeing the Clintonian political formula of triangulation applied as actual real military strategy. It goes like this. The US wants to be the dominant political actor in Iraq. To accomplish this, we have to disentangle the Shia from Iran, which means we must wage a serious campaign against Iranian influence. On its own, though, such a campaign wouldn't accomplish our goals because it would inevitably anger the Shiite majority -- in fact, we'll have to take on some Shiite militias in the name of freeing the rest of the Shia from foreign influence. Thus, we must triangulate by striking out against some group that's opposed to the Shia. Since we aren't going to strike out at ourselves or the Kurds, that leaves the Sunni. Sucks to be them.
1/29/07
Sometimes it just turns out that way
Ladies take note: If I can find my long underwear, I'm wearing it today.In other weather related news, Heavy Weather
Speaking of post-apocalyptic sci-fi, Children of Men is a pretty good contribution to the genre, even though it sometimes hits you over the head with its politics.
1/25/07
Drosophila aqua pura
I found a dead bug floating in the glass of water that I keep on the nightstand. As icky as bugs are, you'd think they'd foul the taste of the water.
1/24/07
Put it on toast
You know what consistently surprises me about Top Chef? The apparent unanimity of taste among the judges. The last thing you expect to find, especially at the highest levels, is conformity of aesthetic opinion. Think about painters. It's uncontroversial to say that Van Gogh, Picasso, Rubens, Matisse, O'Keefe, Rembrandt and Vermeer were all great painters. Imagine, though, being shown one painting by each and then being asked to pick a winner. Do that to a panel of expert judges and what you'd expect is a debate. So what gives with Top Chef? There's some back and forth between the judges, but rarely any sharp disagreements. How can it be so easy for the judges to agree on a winner to each challenge? Honestly, I suspect that the producers play a larger role than is acknowledged.
Also, I think Marcel gets a raw deal. Yes, he's kind of annoying. On the whole, though, he strikes me as less of an asshole than the median Top Chef contestant.
Addendum: And, of course, ten minutes after I post this debate breaks out. Go figure.
Also, I think Marcel gets a raw deal. Yes, he's kind of annoying. On the whole, though, he strikes me as less of an asshole than the median Top Chef contestant.
Addendum: And, of course, ten minutes after I post this debate breaks out. Go figure.
Once again into the breach
Those of you who dig the police violence arguments should rush on over to Safety Neal's Fireside Chat, where Neal has posted a YouTube video of a student at UCLA being repeatedly tasered by police. To repeat the point I made in comments there, one of the things that's striking about the video is that the police officers remain calm and professional throughout. The repeated taserings, as agonizingly painful as they obviously are for the subject, are mere routine for the officers. Their mandate is to enforce compliance to their orders, and they are trained to escalate their use of violence until compliance is achieved.
Now, I don't deny that there is some wisdom in this kind of procedure. A good way to win a fight, after all, is to escalate your use of violence past the point your opponent is prepared to go. What I claim is rather that reliance on this model of conflict resolution leads to a lot of avoidable violence, and that this is bad for a lot of reasons. One obvious set of reasons has to do with consequences like pain, humiliation, and death. Another reason is that we fancy our country to be a democracy, and that form of government seems to require that citizens be accorded more respect than these kinds of procedures allow.
Now, I don't deny that there is some wisdom in this kind of procedure. A good way to win a fight, after all, is to escalate your use of violence past the point your opponent is prepared to go. What I claim is rather that reliance on this model of conflict resolution leads to a lot of avoidable violence, and that this is bad for a lot of reasons. One obvious set of reasons has to do with consequences like pain, humiliation, and death. Another reason is that we fancy our country to be a democracy, and that form of government seems to require that citizens be accorded more respect than these kinds of procedures allow.
Pharisaic
[Origin: 1610–20, from Latin 'Pharisaicus', from Greek 'Pharisaikós']
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Pharisees.
2. (lowercase) Hypocritically self-righteous and condemnatory.
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Pharisees.
2. (lowercase) Hypocritically self-righteous and condemnatory.
1/22/07
State of the Union Preview
Applause. Self-deprecating joke. Shout out to visiting dignitary from an American protectorate. Lie. Applause line. Applause line. Three more lies. Applause line. Unplanned democratic applause at an embarrasing admission. Lie. Lie. New program that sounds good, but actually isn't. Applause line. Applause line. Applause line. Lie. Applause line. Lie. Applause Line. Applause line. Applause Line. God bless America!
Weird news roundup!
According to new research, the Moon affects not only the tides of the oceans but also people, producing a range of symptoms from flare-ups of gout to bladder problems. It may even lie behind the causes of car crashes and affect people's hormonal balances.
| The Independent |
Oh come off it, scientists. Next you'll be telling us that astrology can assess the risk of car accidents.
Meanwhile, in India, a court has determined that, in at least one legal category, elephants enjoy the same legal status as humans. If that were to happen here, imagine the stress on our education system!
Lastly, in Greece, Zeus worship is on a comeback.
A tiny group of worshippers plans a rare ceremony Sunday to honor the ancient Greek gods, at Athens' 1,800-year-old Temple of Olympian Zeus. Greece's Culture Ministry has declared the central Athens site off-limits, but worshippers say they will defy the decision.
Unfortunately, even in revival of an ancient religion, the first thing you get is sectarian conflict:
Those who seek to revive the ancient Greek religion are split into rival organizations which trade insults over the Internet.
Sweet zombie Jesus, where will it end?
Quote of the morning
"I never thought the day would come when I'd miss John Ashcroft as Attorney General, but that day has come."
Kevin Drum
Kevin Drum
1/20/07
1/18/07
You get a few words alone in a room and with plenty of time on your hands and you can do almost your will on them
Would you believe that before writing that last entry I had never encountered a mention of the frequentative case? Would you go for noticed?
The first sentence of the Wikipedia entry tells you everything you need to know. "In grammar, a frequentative form of a word is one which indicates repeated action." Neat. So a repeated creak becomes a crackle. Also neat.
Would you believe that until I checked out the 'frequentative' article in the Wikipedia I had never heard of the Wiktionary? Would you go for Mark Dilley mentioned it to me but I never got around to checking it out?
Well, I can tell you this for real and for true. The Wictionary is at least as cool as the frequentative case.
----------
NB The title for this post is part of a fragment culled from one of Robert Frost's notebooks. I cribbed it from Harper's. It was on the same page as the Nabokov poem that had the word 'crepitate'. The other cool word in that poem was 'incarnadine', an adjective which means of the blood red color of raw flesh. The first sentence of the poem, comprising three lines, reads, "I found a lengthy word with a non-Russian ending, / unwittingly, inside a children's storybook, / and turned away from it with a strange kind of shudder."
The first sentence of the Wikipedia entry tells you everything you need to know. "In grammar, a frequentative form of a word is one which indicates repeated action." Neat. So a repeated creak becomes a crackle. Also neat.
Would you believe that until I checked out the 'frequentative' article in the Wikipedia I had never heard of the Wiktionary? Would you go for Mark Dilley mentioned it to me but I never got around to checking it out?
Well, I can tell you this for real and for true. The Wictionary is at least as cool as the frequentative case.
----------
NB The title for this post is part of a fragment culled from one of Robert Frost's notebooks. I cribbed it from Harper's. It was on the same page as the Nabokov poem that had the word 'crepitate'. The other cool word in that poem was 'incarnadine', an adjective which means of the blood red color of raw flesh. The first sentence of the poem, comprising three lines, reads, "I found a lengthy word with a non-Russian ending, / unwittingly, inside a children's storybook, / and turned away from it with a strange kind of shudder."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
