Shakesville

Sea Monster!

Okay, so I'm a massive nerd. I don't care. This is really exciting:

Giant Squid Photographed for First Time

TOKYO - The giant squid can be found in books and in myths, but for the first time, a team of Japanese scientists has captured on film one of the most mysterious creatures of the deep sea in its natural habitat.

The team led by Tsunemi Kubodera, from the National Science Museum in Tokyo, tracked the 26-foot long Architeuthis as it attacked prey nearly 3,000 feet deep off the coast of Japan's Bonin islands.

"We believe this is the first time a grown giant squid has been captured on camera in its natural habitat," said Kyoichi Mori, a marine researcher who co-authored a piece in Wednesday's issue of the Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

Twenty-six feet long. Mama mia. And it's probably not even full grown. And if that's not enough to give you the creeping horrors:

Mori said the giant squid, purplish red like its smaller brethren, attacked its quarry aggressively, calling into question the image of the animal as lethargic and slow moving.

"Contrary to belief that the giant squid is relatively inactive, the squid we captured on film actively used its enormous tentacles to go after prey," Mori said.

Gotta love the hyperbole. But this is really interesting. Scientists have thought for a long time that giant squid just kind of hang there in the ocean, waiting for prey to get too close, then grab. Now we know that they're active hunters.

Who's up for scuba diving?

"It's the holy grail of deep sea animals," he said. "It's one that we have never seen alive, and now someone has video of one."

While part of me wistfully realizes that some of the mystery of the giant squid is now gone, I'm still really excited by this news. I'm eagerly awaiting the first Discovery channel documentary on the giant squid. In Imax! I'm just not holding my breath.

"Our reaction is one of tremendous relief that the so-called ... race (to film the giant squid) is over ... because the animal has consumed the last eight or nine years of my life," O'Shea said of the film.

Nine years for a little scrap of video. Wow. I guess that hour long special is a while away!

Update: Someone had better call Falwell; he's something new to condemn. "God created Squid Adam and Squid Eve, not Squid Adam and Squid Steve!"

(I'd like to be under the sea, in an octopus' cross-post in the shade...)

Give ’Em Hell, Harry!

Okay, this is hilarious, but actually quite cool. Harry Reid has “unveiled a new online campaign headquarters – GiveEmHellHarry.com – to provide Americans with the tools to make an impact on the fight for control of the U.S. Senate.” From the press release:

GiveEmHellHarry.com’s formal launch will be supported by paid advertising including billboards in three key western states – Albuquerque, New Mexico; Phoenix, Arizona; and Helena, Montana – reaffirming his commitment to winning in the American west.

The name of the site was inspired by an event that occurred during Harry Truman’s successful 1948 presidential campaign. While delivering a speech on a whistle stop tour in Seattle, a supporter yelled to Truman, “Give ‘em hell, Harry!” Truman responded, “I don’t give them hell, I just tell the truth and they think it’s hell.”

Check it out.

I think the Agenda bit is pretty darn dull (I know; I’m a broken record), but it’s got a few pretty nifty features, too. Have a poke around the site and let me know what you think. I’m interested to hear other reactions.

Mulch Me When I Die

I’ve been following this story for awhile, to see if the proposal actually came to fruition, and so it has. Next year, Jonkoping, Sweden will turn its crematorium into what’s known as a promatorium—in which bodies will be freeze-dried, treated with liquid nitrogen, and gently vibrated for about a minute until they shatter into a powder. A vacuum removes the water, a metal separator picks out metals such as artificial hips and dental fillings, and the remaining powder is then put into a biodegradable box and placed in a shallow grave where it disintegrates in a year or less. I want to be promated!

People are to be encouraged to plant a tree on the grave. It would feed off the compost formed from the body, to emphasise the organic cycle of life.

The national burial law is currently being updated to accommodate a practice that is expected to spread across the country over the next few years.

The technique was conceived by a Swedish biologist, Susanne Wiigh-Masak, 49, who said: "Mulching was nature's original plan for us, and that's what used to happen to us at the start of humanity - we went back into the soil.

"But we need to tell people in this day and age that this can once again be a dignified and comfortable option." …

Jonkoping's motivation for converting its crematorium into a promatorium is mainly practical. According to European environmental laws, it faced a multi-million pound bill for the installation at its 50-year-old crematorium of a new gas-cleaning system and furnace.

The alternative was the much cheaper conversion and a more environmentally friendly procedure.

Come on—how cool is that?! It’s like the ultimate recycling project; give all my usable bits to people who need them (eyes, kidneys, liver, whatever) and then bury me in a potato box and plant a tree. Make it an apple tree, so you can have a glass of delicious cider and toast my tasty death every autumn.

Spin Debunkin’

First, head over to Blogenlust, where John takes a look at how many “top aides” of Zarqawi’s we’ve captured or killed in the last two and a half years.

Then, check out this article in The Independent, which examines the exaggerated tales of Katrina chaos. (Thanks to Grumpy Old Man for the pointer.)

A Tale of Two Headlines

One: Grand Jury to Wrap Up DeLay Investigation

The Texas grand jury investigating House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's state political organization was completing its term Wednesday after demonstrating a recent interest in conspiracy charges that could bring more indictments.

Two: Bush close to second Supreme Court pick

McClellan did not say whom Bush was considering or when he would formally announce his choice, but political observers predict it will happen hot on the heels of what is expected to be Roberts' easy confirmation.

I’m going to go out on a wacky limb and predict that if there are newsworthy indictments in Texas today, we’ll find out pretty darn quickly who Bush’s next SCOTUS nominee is.

Godlessness and Goodness

Britain’s Times Online reports on a study published today that has found secularism tracks with societal functionality and refutes the contention of many advocates of religion that a belief in a higher power and/or religious practice is integral to maintaining a safe and healthy society. In fact, the opposite appears to be true:

In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.

The study focused solely on first world nations. Abstract:

Large-scale surveys show dramatic declines in religiosity in favor of secularization in the developed democracies. Popular acceptance of evolutionary science correlates negatively with levels of religiosity, and the United States is the only prosperous nation where the majority absolutely believes in a creator and evolutionary science is unpopular. Abundant data is available on rates of societal dysfunction and health in the first world. Cross-national comparisons of highly differing rates of religiosity and societal conditions form a mass epidemiological experiment that can be used to test whether high rates of belief in and worship of a creator are necessary for high levels of social health. Data correlations show that in almost all regards the highly secular democracies consistently enjoy low rates of societal dysfunction, while pro-religious and anti-evolution America performs poorly.

I’ve only had time to skim the full article (here), so I can’t vouch for it, although it appears to be confirming data from similar studies comparing US social issues with other western democracies, independent of the additional layer of religious correlations. Anyway, I pass it on for your consideration without much comment, because I thought it was interesting.

On a side note: From a philosophical perspective, I think the type and tenor of religion that tends to be favored in the US has a lot to do with both why it lingers and why it correlates with higher rates of murder, suicide, promiscuity, and abortion. And snake bites, if you get my drift.

It’s no coincidence religious liberals in America tend not to be of third-generation protestant splinter denominations.

UPDATE: Lively discussion about this going on over at Pharyngula. Thanks to Coturnix for the pointer.

Heh

Groper for sale.

More Trouble for Diebold

BradBlog's got the scoop.

The Edge

Mannion has written an excellent post about Lincoln’s Melancholy, which is a well-known attribute of the man in question as well as a new book. I haven’t read the book, though I intend to, so I won’t comment much on Lincoln, but instead note that I have a friend just like the friend of his that Mannion describes, a friend who carries with him his own melancholy, which is, in reality, clinical depression.

My friend knows he’s depressed, and he knows I know it, too, but we don’t talk about it. Instead, I make an absolute arse out of myself trying to make him laugh, and revealing my deepest happinesses, such a strangely difficult thing for me to do, in an effort to make him want to feel such happiness down to his bones, too, instead of experiencing things in the detached, worried way he usually does. He worries too much about his children, who are fiercely resilient as most children are, and about whether he will disappoint his friends, especially those who cannot be disappointed—because they know his secret, in spite of the happy-go-lucky guy he pretends to be. He sometimes gets into spirals, where a worry about one thing turns into a worry about the next, and it all muddles up into a ball of frustration that makes him feel he can’t solve any of it, even though most of it will solve itself, if he could ever just give it time.

The thing is, he’s a writer, and there is, of course, a rich tradition of thought (as alluded to with the reference to Styron in Mannion’s post) that depression, and indeed other afflictions and the addictions appropriated to mask them, are the very things that drive an artist’s artistry, and that seriously addressing something like depression may stifle the muse. Would I be as interesting, as thoughtful, as creative, if I weren’t afflicted? It’s a terrible thing to be scared of one’s potential cure, to worry that the cure might be worse than the disease.

I know what it feels like.

My friend’s fear of fixing his depression is recognizable to me, I once hummed the same melody in a different key, stuck as I was for a very long time at a very young age in a place of dangerous darkness. When I stumbled back into the sunlight, all I could think about was wanting to go back into the dark, which was, if nothing else, familiar, and offered circumstances that made being a basketcase acceptable. All I knew how to do was be troubled and tormented, and I wrote very well from that place. I knew myself in that place, because I became an adult there. At 19, I didn’t know if I could ever be happy and healthy and still be interesting.

As it turns out, I could still be interesting (at least to myself, if no one else). It was the happy and healthy part that was tough; there was no pill to help me.

I don’t know that my friend and I will ever talk about these things. I think he knows I’ll listen if he volunteers, and I hope he does, sometime. I would like to tell him that even when the cure has been offered and accepted, the scars of affliction linger. It is a warning, yes—be prepared—and an assurance: You will always be brilliant. The man who inspires me now, even while on the edge of tears, will inspire me still, even if he gets the help he needs, and I find him instead on the edge of a smile.

Anti-War: Where are the Dems?

The Green Knight gets it exactly right.

Just as the GOP, in its continual angry whining about victimization, refuses to admit that it is in fact the governing party, so the Democrats, with their complacent bland spinelessness, refuse to admit that they are the opposition party…

The anti-war mainstream is at a critical moment right now. It could really use the help of one of the big parties in Washington. But if the Democrats won't be a part of the anti-war mainstream, then they have no right to complain about what the anti-war mainstream becomes. Lead, follow, or get out of the way, guys.

Really excellent post. Go read the whole thing.

Brownie Speaks

As has been widely reported, erstwhile FEMA chief Bad Bad Brownie Brown has been put back on the federal payroll as a consultant to (I shit you not) help evaluate how FEMA responded to the disaster. Today, he's testifying before the kangaroo congressional committee put together by the House GOP to do what will surely be a thorough and unbiased investigation of the government’s handling of the Katrina disaster. Brownie, as you'll no doubt recall, did a heckuva job according to the man whose boozing he allegedly revealed to The Enquirer in a fit of pique as payback for the scapegoating he got, but this morning has told the committee he made "specific mistakes,” such as not persuading Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin to better coordinate their efforts.

That’s a great answer, isn’t it? It’s like he’s already on a job interview, figuring out how to answer that “What’s your greatest weakness?” question with something that sounds like a covert strength, except here, it’s answering a question about his own failures by pointing to the greater failures of others. It’s total bullshit, and everyone knows it’s bullshit, but the people who have the ability to do something about it just don’t care.

In any case, he’ll no doubt hold Bush and any other higher-ups, like Skeletor Chertoff, unaccountable, which is for what that fat consultancy fee is really paying. That and keeping the president’s nightly tumbler swims out of the papers.

We Have A Scapegoat

Look! We're finally punishing that bad apple!

England to be Sentenced for Detainee Abuse

FORT HOOD, Texas - Lynndie England's case moves to the sentencing phase today. She was convicted yesterday of taking part in abusing detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. She faces up to nine years in prison.

Army Pfc. England, the 22-year-old reservist who appeared in photos smirking amid naked prisoners at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison, stood at attention as she learned of her conviction.

-snip-

England became the most recognizable of the nine Abu Ghraib soldiers charged in the prison scandal after photos showing her with a naked detainee on a leash and pointing to detainees in other demeaning poses became public.

Her trial was the last in the scandal; two other soldiers were convicted in trials and six made plea deals. Several of those soldiers testified at England's trial.

Prosecutors used graphic photos of England to support their contention that she was a key figure in the abuse conspiracy, a scandal that badly damaged the United States' image in the Muslim world despite quick condemnation of the abuse by
President Bush.

So, she was the most recognizable soldier, and somehow became a "key figure." I don't deny that England deserves to be punished for what she did, but doesn't this stink of scapegoat-ism? Punish the person that most Americans will recongnize from a photo, and suddenly everything is taken care of.

Meanwhile, the most recognizable face from the whole mess is getting off scott free.

How long will it be before we start having real investigations into the activities of the very tippy-top of the Bush administration? They're obviously guilty as sin, and yet remain untouchable. No wonder blogging is starting to give me migraines.

(Cross-post, you've got the cutest little baby face...)

Interesting

Remember Paul Hackett, the Iraq Veteran who ran for and nearly won a special election for a congressional seat in Ohio earlier this year? Well…

Ohio may be in for its liveliest U.S. Senate race in a long time.

Though many Democrats were dis appointed when established elected officials like Reps. Sherrod Brown, Ted Strickland and Tim Ryan decided to forgo a Senate run next year, an even more interesting prospect ap pears to be gearing up to challenge Republican Sen. Mike DeWine's bid for a third term.

Paul Hackett…has all but decided to take on DeWine, sources in Washington and Ohio say.

[…]

In his congressional race, Hackett's ferocious criticism of Bush made him a darling of liberal bloggers, who inspired donors nationwide to pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into his campaign. Hackett at various points called Bush a "chicken hawk" and a "son of a bitch."

Damn straight. Go get ’em, soldier.

It’s Not Penance Unless You’re Sorry, Though

This is just outrageous. After utterly failing to do its job in the aftermath of Katrina, necessitating private organizations and citizens to help those in crisis, FEMA has announced it will “use taxpayer money to reimburse churches and other religious organizations that have opened their doors to provide shelter, food and supplies to survivors of hurricanes Katrina and Rita.” Notice that any nonreligious organizations who may have helped (which includes groups having provided much-needed emergency medical care) are shit outta luck, not to mention, say, a small restaurateur who fed and sheltered people on his own dime. And while I feel for small churches who took in survivors and have, as a result, experienced huge electric and water bills, the federal government ought to be negotiating with the utility companies to waive the bills, for anyone who provided refuge, sustenance, and/or medical care for survivors, rather than handing out money to churches. But I guess that wouldn’t really serve to further ingratiate President Überpatriot Christian Cowboy to his faith-based devotees.

"I believe it's appropriate for the federal government to assist the faith community because of the scale and scope of the effort and how long it's lasting," said Joe Becker, senior vice president for preparedness and response with the Red Cross.

Civil liberties groups called the decision a violation of the traditional boundary between church and state, accusing FEMA of trying to restore its battered reputation by playing to religious conservatives.

"What really frosts me about all this is, here is an administration that didn't do its job and now is trying to dig itself out by making right-wing groups happy," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State…

For churches, synagogues and mosques that have taken in hurricane survivors, FEMA's decision presents a quandary. Some said they were eager to get the money and had begun tallying their costs, from electric bills to worn carpets. Others said they probably would not apply for the funds, fearing donations

"Volunteer labor is just that: volunteer," said the Rev. Robert E. Reccord, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's North American Mission Board. "We would never ask the government to pay for it."

[…]

Becker said he and his staff at the Red Cross also urged FEMA to allow reimbursement of religious groups. Ordinarily, Becker said, churches provide shelter for the first days after a disaster, then the Red Cross takes over. But in a storm season that has stretched every Red Cross shelter to the breaking point, church buildings must for the first time house evacuees indefinitely.

Even so, Lynn, of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said that federal reimbursement is inappropriate.

"The good news is that this work is being done now, but I don't think a lot of people realize that a lot of these organizations are actively working to obtain federal funds. That's a strange definition of charity," he said.

Lynn added that he accepts the need for the government to coordinate with religious groups in a major disaster, but not to "pay for their good works."

"We've never complained about using a religious organization as a distribution point for food or clothing or anything else," Lynn said. But "direct cash reimbursements would be unprecedented."

Even the plonking Salvation Army is lobbying for reimbursement.

Even more than the annoyance that my tax dollars are going to churches, or the annoyance that solutions which would not blur the line separating church and state are ignored for the political positioning of a deservedly unpopular president, is my blind fury at the fact that this is further evidence that privatization does not work. Over and over we hear from conservatives how liberals want to turn the entire country into a nanny-state and make government responsible for things that private individuals, charities, and corporations could (and should) do. Over and over we hear the underfunding of social programs to pay for the tax breaks which favor the wealthy, the tax breaks for corporations, and the increasingly frustrating tax exemption for churches, synagogues, mosques, and religious organizations, justified by the conservative mantra that private individuals, charities, and corporations will step up, given the money to do so, and fill the role liberals would have the government play. Well it isn’t bloody happening! Conservatism doesn’t fucking work. End of story.

How I look forward to the day when I can again pay my fair share of taxes to a government that uses it to keep buying civilization, rather than trying to destroy it.

FristWatch

Or, “I am not a crook.”

See the Amazing Fristini squirm here. And another interesting little tidbit, SEC Chairman and political crony Christopher Cox has recused himself from the investigation, since his campaign committee donated to Frist’s 2000 reelection campaign. What a guy.

Strip Tease

Via Pandagon, a fun little comic strip generator. Here’s my submission:

Click here to enlarge. (If you make your own, be sure to leave a link in comments.)

Cringe-Inducing

This sounds just so, so, so horrible; I can’t even imagine how painful it would be to watch. Something tells me that twenty minutes in, I’d be begging for a sharp object I could use to gouge out my eyes. (Emphasis mine.)

Lloyd Grove says Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) loyalists "are kicking themselves for cooperating last year with filmmaker Steve Rosenbaum on Inside the Bubble, a potentially devastating behind-the-scenes look at the Massachusetts senator's failed presidential campaign."

"I'm also told that Hillary Clinton partisans are licking their chops to see the film, which 'could end up being the silver bullet that kills Kerry's presidential chances for 2008."

The film won't be seen publicly until Thursday, but a press release claims the movie "turns a harsh but deeply revealing mirror on the campaign ... a disorganized, contentious, self-absorbed team that thought they could win by 'not making mistakes,' and keeping their candidate in the public eye without clarifying a position on anything."

Key highlights from those who've seen it privately: "Clinton scowling and rolling her eyes over an apparent Kerry gaffe during a presidential debate; Kerry pretending to interview himself and babbling in Italian while waiting for a real interview to begin; Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) cursing at reporters during a campaign stop, and Kerry message guru Robert Shrum confidently declaring a few days before the 2004 election: 'Zogby just announced who's gonna win. Us!'"

Reason #1,336,892 why Bob Shrum needs to be exiled to Loserville, Nerdovia, pronto, never to have his name even distantly associated with another Democratic presidential contender for the remainder of his useless days.

And while I admit that “babbling in Italian” is probably not as empirically idiotic as flipping off the camera while one waits to go live, as our current president is wont to do, or giving one’s do a saliva slickdown, a habit of Wolfie’s made famous by Michael Moore, it still sounds pretty damn dopey. Nothing I’d personally hold against a fella running for president, but, then again, I’m pretty damn dopey myself.

Cindy Sheehan Arrested

Cindy Sheehan and perhaps as many as several dozen other anti-war protesters have been arrested while protesting outside the White House. After marching along the pedestrian walkway on Pennsylvania Avenue, they sat down on the sidewalk, at which point they were warned by police several times that they were in violation of the law and would be arrested if they did not move. When they refused, police began making arrests, taking Sheehan into custody first as protesters chanted, “The whole world is watching.”

This follows on the heels of the march and rally which took place this weekend in DC, more information about which can be found here and here.

Keep Arguing Choice

LeMew has written a great post on the inescapable logical conclusion of the conservative argument against abortion rights: fetuses are rights-bearing subjects; adult women are not. Superb bit of arguing there; check it out.

One of his (presumably conservative) commenters attacks the premise, with the protestation: “Like it or not, abortion involves a clash of rights. Right to live vs. right to control one's body. Believing that the first should trump in this particular situation does not mean believing that ‘adult women’ have no rights at all. That is just silly.”

(Bemused aside: note the phrase adult women having been put into quotes; I’m not even sure what that’s meant to convey, although there’s clearly no need for them to make his point, such as it is.)

Such a comment (disingenuous though it is, rejecting the implied premise that the rights of fetuses would trump women’s in this situation, as opposed to, say, taking away their right to vote) is indicative of why we need well-argued posts like LeMew’s countering both the inherent flaws and shocking sexism of conservative arguments against abortion rights. We must continue to produce and absorb the passionate, thoughtful posts from feminist bloggers (women and men) who explain why securing abortion rights cannot be flippantly reduced to the “right to control one’s body,” as though the only difference between aborting an unwanted pregnancy and carrying a fetus to term is who makes the decision, rather than two entirely different sets of possible consequences for the person surrounding the womb. Keep arguing choice. Pro-choice is pro-women’s rights.

Pastafarians

Via Avedon, who notes you can get it here.