Also from Fark: Congress has proposed a national day of prayer and fasting over the Iraq war, "Recognizing the public need for fasting and prayer in order to secure the blessings and protection of Providence for the people of the United States and our Armed Forces during the conflict in Iraq and under the threat of terrorism at home." I can't really complain about this, other than to note that the very first clause in the Bill of Rights reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." I recognize that there is a long tradition of the government drawing fine-line distinctions between "respecting the establishment of religion" and "respecting an establishment of religion." I just think it's time we outgrew that sort of idiotic double think. The First Amendment says "don't do" what Congress is now doing. The historical precedent doesn't change the meaning of this simple sentence. I also like the language, "to secure the blessings of providence..." It sounds almost like a military operation or business acquisition. "US forces today secured the port of Umm Qasr, as well as an air base and the blessings of Providence. Says Providence: 'It's time to get with the winning team.'"

Best Fark headline ever: "Syria sets up Iraq the bomb. Rumsfeld: "All Syria are belong to US."

What war? I'm more interested in the fact that back pain has been linked to brain shrinkage. The study is at Northwestern University, and the article says that

The measurements revealed that people with chronic pain had less gray matter -- overall and in a part of the brain called the thalamus. Not only was there less gray matter in terms of volume in pain sufferers, but the tissue was also less dense, Apkarian said.

That's it. No more piano moving for me.

While we're sort of on the subject of freedom and censorship of speech, here's a quote from Tom Stoppard that I got from the Funny Times (the actual newspaper version):

I agree with everything you say, but I would attack to the death your right to say it.

Saddam's palaces are probably bombed to pieces by now. It's a shame; they look amazing. I hope they manage to save some of those buildings during this war. So much money went into building them that they are practically a national resource for Iraq. Like the castles of Prince Ludwig in Germany. Most of Saddam's palaces were built after the Gulf War in 91. This is a great indication of Saddam's priorities (which are not atyipcal of dictators): the worse the conditions for his country, the more palaces he builds.

Damn!

Sure am glad to be in Canada today, instead of Dayton. Look at this forecast!

The military action in Iraq has brought out the disconnected, reactionary sloganeering of the common person, right on cue. There's a woman at work whose husband is in the Navy. He has not yet been shipped to the middle east, but it's very possible that he will be. Let's call this woman Cliche Girl. She likes to leave her radio on populist FM stations with unlistenable junior-high-mentality extroverts as morning show people, and country or hip-hop formats. The morning show people were playing Michael Moore's Academy Awards speech and chortling, and Cliche Girl, upon hearing Moore, says, "He better shut his fuckin' mouth. Our troops are over there fighting for his right to say things like that." ?!??!??!? I don't know where to begin. 1) No they're not. The Bush Administration's stated purpose is for the "liberation of the Iraqi people." We're supposed to view the U.S. as the world's morally superior peace-keeper and hero, or, at the very least, a bespectacled schoolmarm rapping the knuckles of the Bad Countries. I cannot find a single document or press release, official or unofficial that cites, as a reason for attacking Iraq, statements made by Saddam Hussein outlining his conviction that he wishes to rid the world of Americans who criticize their government's policies. In a larger sense, in the Islamist-vs.-American-rationalist worldview sense, this very well may be a bone of contention, as the Koran is designed to guide every single aspect of one's life, probably including criticism of the government, and I doubt properly constructed sharia has much room for dissent. This could, in a larger sense, remember, be cited as a reason an Islamist country views the U.S. as evil and corrupt. But this has not translated to action on Iraq's part. We've come once again to the Iraq-Qaeda connection, which, based on evidence presented by the Bush Administration, is flimsy to non-existent. It's a huge jump for Cliche Girl to pronounce that the objective of the military action is, instead of the control of huge petroleum deposits, to make sure that Michael Moore can publicly shame George W. Bush. Which leads directly to... 2) How can she reconcile the notions that the war is being fought for his right to say things and that he should also not say those things? What if, instead of just mouthing platitudes, she had said, "The single goal of the American soldiers is to make the world safe for Michael Moore to criticize the American government's policies, so he'd better not criticize the American government's policies."? Would it have made her pause? Would she have been able to get the words out? Luckily, she has FM morning people with silly on-air names (Chainsaw, I think) to think for her.

I knew when I saw the headline on Fark that this story had to be about Passions:

SAY hello to daytime's newest, albeit strangest, supercouple. An orangutan named Precious made her debut last week on NBC's "Passions," and will soon begin having carnal thoughts of lust in the afternoon with her love interest, the soap's resident hunk Luis Lopez-Fitzgerald. Quirky characters mixed with classic love stories is one reason the barely four-year-old soap has quickly become No. 1 among teen girls. The notion of pairing Precious with Luis is what sets it apart from daytime's other offerings. [link]

Incredible: a Weblog from Baghdad. Highlights:

half an hour ago the oil filled trenches were put on fire. First watching Al-jazeera they said that these were the places that got hit by bombs from an air raid a few miniutes earlier bit when I went up to the roof to take a look I saw that there were too many of them, we heard only three explosions. I took pictures of the nearest. My cousine came and told me he saw police cars standing by one and setting it on fire. Now you can see the columns of smoke all over the city... The images we saw on TV last night (not Iraqi, jazeera-BBC-Arabiya) were terrible. The whole city looked as if it were on fire. The only thing I could think of was “why does this have to happen to Baghdad”. As one of the buildings I really love went up in a huge explosion I was close to tears. today my father and brother went out to see what happening in the city, they say that it does look that the hits were very precise but when the missiles and bombs explode they wreck havoc in the neighborhood where they fall. Houses near al-salam palace(where the minister Sahaf took journalist) have had all their windows broke, doors blown in and in one case a roof has caved in. I guess that is what is called “collateral damage” and that makes it OK? We worry about daytime bombing and the next round of attacks tonight with the added extra of the smoke screen in our skies.

You have to respect the consistency and determination of a man like Michael Moore. He was alternately boo'ed and cheered at the Oscars last night when he accepted his award for "Bowling for Columbine," which some have called the "Best Documentary of All Time." When asked about his controversial speech, he said, "I'm an American, and you don't leave your citizenship when you enter the doors of the Kodak Theatre. What's great about this country is that you can speak your mind." I was watching when he gave his speech, and I believe the booing kicked in when he said, "We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elects a fictitious president." What Michael Moore said was true. Bush won the election due to the accidents of the methods used to tally the votes, and through agressive legal action which ultimately led to his effective appointment by the US Supreme court and the Florida legislature. It is true that, had Gore won his requested recount, he still would have lost. A more thorough recount was completed, however, and it seems pretty clear that, in precise literal terms, more people in Florida voted for Gore than for Bush. About 200 more. Many in the Bush camp have complained that the counting of "overvotes" and "pregnant chads" is an absurd liberal trick. In statistical terms, however, it is a simple fact that counting such such ballotts cannot bias the results toward one candidate or another. An "overvote" is a ballott in which a candidate's name is both punched and written in. Obviously the voters in these cases display a clear intention to vote for their doubly-selected candidate. A "pregnant chad" is a ballott in which a chad has been depressed but not fully detatched. The machines interpret these as empty votes. It is, however, more likely that the voter indended to vote for the candidate than to cast no vote at all. Counting these ballotts does not, in principle or in fact, create any statistical bias. It is merely a procedure for fairly counting the vote of every citizen. When I make this argument, people often respond with some jab at "Gore-worshippers," assuming that I am some sort of Gore sheep. Honestly, though, I did not even vote for Gore. I may prefer Gore to Bush, but I don't really like him that much. I am not that interested in Gore per se. I am interested in factual statements and fair elections, and I am fairly convinced that Bush was not constitutionally elected. That's different from saying Bush should step down. I also think the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was not constitutionally ratified, but I don't think we should get rid of it. I think, instead, that we should acknowledge that our system has erred and make sure it doesn't happen again.

The New York Times has an article about a crazy inventor who has come up with an amplifier that "directs sound much as a laser beam directs light." The device can target amplified sound directly at a single individual. "instead of sending out a column of sound, they can now project a single sphere of it, self-contained, like a bubble." His buyers include Coke and Pepsi, Walmart, and other companies that want to beam hideous, personalized advertisements directly into peoples' brains. The Navy has also showed a lot of interest in the device, which they can use to incapacitate intruders with the sound of a baby crying played backwards at 120 dB, right in the guy's ear. Apparently the sound is so shrill that it creates a splitting migraine. Even a deaf man would be brought to his knees. [link] I found myself wondering whether this device could be used for underwater communication. Ordinary electromagnetic communication doesn't work underwater. Submarines have to use the Extremely Low Frequency band to send and receive messages, such as "don't launch the nuclear missiles." The inventor, Elwood G. Norris, was raised Mormon and was married in the Temple. He's 64, and he parted ways with the LDS Church at about age 50.

After serving in the Air Force, he spent 16 years living in Salt Lake City and achieved the level of high priest. He wore the ''sacred undergarments,'' married his first wife in the Temple, the works. But by the early 90's, having previously written a book on Mormonism, he had lost his faith and now has a 1,000-page manuscript stashed away that, he says, takes strong issue with the Book of Mormon.

I allowed myself over the past couple of days to get caught into this assrific conversation on a Foppery comments thread. [link to comments] It seemed to be the intellectual equivalent of "calling me out," the internet version of howling and poop-throwing. I've decided to take the high road and refrain from any more retorts. Walking away from a pointless fight is supposedly a noble gesture, but there is that pinch of pride in knowing you didn't get the last word. I'm pretty sure, though, that this guy would keep it going forever if he had the chance. By contrast, I've had ocassional friendly debates with the conservative author of a weblog called Joe Pixel. I feel obligated to present this as evidence that some conservatives can actually engage in focused, civil conversation with someone whose views differ. Having said that, I also want to put forward a question: how does someone turn into a nauseating, snickering, insulting clone of Bill O'Reilly? Is it a genetic pre-disposition, or perhaps exposure to some brain-altering chemical agent?

The local CBC news affiliate estimates 15,000 people attended the Edmonton march yesterday [link]. I had estimated 2,000. I did some calculations to produce a more accurate estimate. During the march, I walked from the front of the line to the back of the line taking pictures. It took me about an hour. If I estimate, conservatively, the density of the crowd and the rate at which I passed them, I arrive at about 10,000. That's a lot for a town about the size of Salt Lake City. But I think the population here is nearly 100% anti-war. I've met two people so far who are vaguely sympathetic to the Iraq war. I guess the Alberta Premier makes 3...