Prosthetic Wernicke's Area

Turkey sampling

2009-07-25T11:34:00.004-04:00

Here is a log of our travels in Turkey. It's sort of journal-y, but I'll try to make it fun.

(1) JFK --> Munich.

We were blessed with the presence of approximately 100 Jehovah's Witnesses on our flight -- as you presumably already knew, there was a gigantic JW convention in Munich. After briefly considering a conversion, we decided to board the Munich-->Istanbul flight.

JWs smile at strangers; I find this behavior very creepy.

(2) 4 days in Istanbul.

Much time was occupied by the canonical sights (churches, mosques, palaces, bazaars, Galata Tower, Bosphorus sea ferry), most of which are incredible. I was too tired to develop a novel perspective on them.

We also visited the (perhaps slightly less well-known) Basilica Cistern, which supplied water for the palace of Justinianus. Now it's a gigantic cool (temp-wise and other-wise!) underground room with a few feet of water at the bottom. At some point it was used to store corpses.

OK, it seems kind of wrong to include this, but it seems just as wrong to omit it. In the Grand Bazaar we observed a man with the following properties:
- possibly blind;
- probably retarded;
- visibly crippled; and
- a midget.

San Diego Republicans waiting in line for sea ferry: "Obama has spent more than all previous presidents combined." You won't believe this, but the husband works in computers, and the wife teaches dance.

Our hostel shower had zero shower curtains, so showering resulting in water all over the bathroom floor. By the third night, our bathroom required re-caulking, and we had to shower in a different bathroom while the caulk dried. I'm virtually certain we left bathroom #2 in need of a re-caulking.

Wouldn't it be easier to simply install a shower curtain?

Yes.

Isn't it strange that some bathrooms in the hostel had shower curtains?

Yes! I know!

We took an overnight bus (along the western coast) to Izmir. It's pretty nice that some guy comes around with lemon-scented rubbing alcohol, glasses of water and soda, snacks, and tea/coffee (though at midnight, really?), but the roads are so jostle-y! Also, the driver is maniacal and hopped up on Nescafe.

(3) 1 day in Izmir.

Izmir is a city and it is OK. We smoked nargile and played backgammon on the waterfront. We also slept a lot on account of (see above).

(4) 3 days in Selcuk (Efes).

We visited Efes soon after arriving. The total volume of ruins in Efes is maybe small compared to those in Rome, but in Efes there is a high concentration of very well-preserved Roman city in a smallish area. I especially enjoyed the marble roads. I don't even have marble in my apartment.

In Selcuk we lost our innocence: we bargained with a shopkeeper boy for water, and with a laundromat owner. We also learned that you are especially supposed to bargain for bus tickets.

There is a beautiful (and cheap!) cafe run by the municipality on a big lawn in town.

We discovered a nighttime flea market. This is a good institution for a place which is boiling by 10am. Also, it explains the fact that during the day, there is not much visible economic activity.

Met some squat toilets. Should you build a squat toilet? flowchart.

While swimming in the Ege Deniz, we noticed a wild pig approaching our lounge chairs. As I swam out to chase it away, it snatched up the bag of Turkish delight left by our neighbors. Minutes later our neighbors returned and wondered about their missing bag. I said "pig" and "oink oink" to no avail. Allison pretended to be a pig and they understood.

Please don't feed the wild pigs on the beach.

Minutes later, one of the porcine theft victims emerged from the sea with a substantial gash on her leg. Rough few minutes.

Soon after the swim, we hitched a ride (just a few miles) back to our bus stop. At first the car didn't stop for us because there were 6 people in 5 seats, but they shuffled around and we squeezed in.

Overall, Selcuk = my favorite.

(5) morning bus to Pamukkale (Hierapolis), day there, overnight bus (due east) to Cappadocia.

Without shower facilities for 24 hours (but with the usual heat), cleanliness required some creativity. Solution: bathing in calcium-rich pools in the Travertines.

More ruins.

(At night) two young girls with sunglasses and scarves covering their faces, walking with exaggerated limps, trying to collect money in large purses. Chased out of one convenience store. Very strange.

(6) 4 days in Cappadocia (specifically, Goreme).

Goreme (similar comments apply to nearby towns) is a town carved out of volcanic rock. For example, you can stay in a "cave hotel," which is literally a room carved out of a gigantic heap of volcanic rock. (We stayed in a noncave hotel; both options convex.) More interestingly, the Open-Air Museum consists of a bunch of churches (=carved rock painted with various dyes). Most interestingly, we visited an underground city (Derinkuyu) -- 8 levels of ant colony on human scale.

We broke our Turkish breakfast streak (Tb = cucumber, tomato, olives, fruit, cheese, hard-boiled egg, bread)!

There are three major types of rock formation:
- conical;
- boulder resting atop cone (boulder thrown there a long time ago by nature, followed by differential erosion); and
- ridiculously phallic.

One day we hiked for about five hours alongside mountains and in valleys.

(7) 2 days in Istanbul.

By this point we are pros at Turkey and super-pros at Istanbul, except our maps don't have enough detail to get us to the Chora Church (Kariye Camii). Therefore we ask some people in the neighborhood. Therefore 5 Turkish boys (ages 10-12, they allege) offer to show us the way. Therefore we think we must be very close. We are wrong. They lead us for 15-20 minutes through small winding roads, the whole time shooting paper projectiles out of PVC blow-guns. Upon arrival we reward them with 2 liters of Coca-Cola (NB they wisely refuse our Turkish delight -- we were the strangers with candy!!). The sugar/caffeine drives them more or less insane, they promise to show us another church when we're done with Chora, but when we exit the church they are nowhere to be found.

This is mainly a relief.

A cab driver gave us a scenic tour of the seaside. Since this wasn't requested and increased the distance traveled by a factor of 3 or 4, we did not pay the amount shown on the meter. He yelled at us and we got out. Scored one for America!

Our plan to take public transportation (=PT) to the airport the night before our flight (which leaves at 6:40am, too early for PT) is foiled by PT's closing at 10pm. We stay out on Istiklal Caddesi and (among other things) look for stamps for our postcards. We fail to find stamps, but we succeed in finding a guy who promises to mail our postcards the next day and refuses to accept any money!

Seriously, metro closes at 10pm? Are we a city or not answer me now I need to know.

Do let me know if you receive a postcard.

Overheard

2008-11-08T14:36:00.003-05:00

(1) circa 2002-03, New Haven CT

Student 1: What's your schedule like this year?
Student 2: I'm taking Classes A, B, C, and D.
S1: How's the workload?
S2: Well, it's fine right now, but in the span of three days I will have to turn in eighty pages of writing. Kind of unbelievable.
S1: Huh, well, Welcome to Yale!

(2) October 29, 2008, men's locker room attached to Columbia University pool (in the Dodge Fitness Center)

Background. In the pool there are 2 "slow" lanes, 2 "medium" lanes, and a few "fast" lanes. At peak times there are 4+ swimmers per lane. (This results in unintentional touching and I do not like it and maybe I'll discuss it later? but what is there to say except old man junk?)

General observation. Some of these regular recreational swimmers take themselves pretty seriously. At the beginning of the school year, many complained the pool was so crowded because everyone thinks "if Phelps can do it, they can," and surely this excitement will die down, and won't that be great when it's just us, the authentic recreational swimmers in the pool. (Of course this sort of posturing is often done with certain objects flopping all about. I would argue this adds an extra element of surreality.)

Particular event. Guy is complaining about how another swimmer in his "fast" lane wasn't fast enough, and how he kept having to flip over the slow swimmer at the wall, but it was OK, he knew the lifeguard on duty and therefore wouldn't get in trouble. (You know you've made it when: you can be sort of rude in a pool and get away with it. These corridors of power are sadly closed to me.) He concludes thusly:

"This is an Ivy league university, I think we can spell f-a-s-t."

What's a total jerk and wears a black dress shirt to work?

2008-08-25T15:45:00.005-04:00

An unnamed colleague and your faithful correspondent approached a free food event near the math department.

Server Dude: Are you with the School of Social Work?
Unnamed Colleague: No, we're with the math department.
SD: Sorry, this event is for the School of Social Work. (smugly) Maybe the math department will have an event next week.

I love this consolation because it's completely made-up and also totally irrelevant: SD has no idea what any department has planned -- he is after all a server, and in any case I would like free food both now and in the future.

Me: Do you know when you're going to clean all this stuff up?
SD: (hesitates but does not reveal any information) (again, smugly) It's not that kind of event.

I see; it is the kind of event where you are a douchebag and throw away leftovers and feel extremely powerful in your slightly dressy uniform.

UC&Me: (grab cheeseburgers from unguarded tray while leaving)

Is that a Photoshopped moustache?

2008-01-04T20:00:00.000-05:00

Our next battle:

Hitler and the Hyenas

vs.

A Sad Old Lady

(Hyenas refers to first-tier candidates; everyone else has his mouth open in an out-of-touch fashion, or is auditioning for the murderer lead in a Woody Allen film.)

Just in case He's not hiring, I suppose.

2007-07-06T20:35:00.000-04:00

overheard on subway:

Man #1: (shuffles some objects; a guide to finding employment becomes visible to all)

Man #2: [pleasantry]

Man #1: (shuffles some more objects; Holy Bible now visible)

Man #2: Now that's the real job finder right there.

Man #1: [expresses agreement]

Man #2: You could also check out the internet.

On the bright side...

2007-07-05T21:32:00.000-04:00

...it may make sense for Zimbabweans to wipe their Zimbooties (?) with $100 bills:

[Times correspondent] Michael [Wines], last year when Zimbabwe’s inflation was a comparatively enviable 900 percent, you wrote about how the local $500 bill was just enough to buy toilet paper — not a whole roll, mind you, but a single sheet. Now that inflation is five times what it was back then, how are people surviving at all?

Zimbenjis? Too soon?

Of all of the dudes in the world, why this one?

2007-05-17T14:01:00.000-04:00

I personally don't have anybody else in mind to lead the Consumer Product Safety Commission, but if I were making the decision, some of the qualities I would look for in an applicant would be:

wise

will not receive gigantic sum of money from people whose behavior (s)he will be regulating

looks good in bathing suit

I mean honestly what are the odds that this guy is the best person in the country for this job come on they can't be that good.

Kind of makes you wonder why a certain math department's IM squad hasn't managed to beat a certain association of black business school students

2007-05-02T14:58:00.000-04:00

Doesn't it?

Lifting the seat is common courtesy.

2007-01-03T11:20:00.000-05:00

Happy New Year:

[The US military] acknowledged that soldiers and interrogators had kicked the Koran, had stood on it and, in one case, had inadvertently sprayed urine on a copy.

In other news, one hazard of Guantanamo is that urine is inadvertently sprayed, like, at all.

Look at what you started, Alanis Morissette.

2006-11-24T13:34:00.000-05:00

Thanks to friends at FJM for finding this gem, but given their silence on the first two paragraphs, I wonder if they are slipping. (?!)

An unheralded irony exists in a strange parallel between the film industry and the game of baseball.

Reading this sentence is like stubbing your toe, except your toe is your brain.
Is it wrong to interpret the byline "Dean Chiungos is a fantasy writer for MLB.com" to mean, "In his fantasies, Dean Chiungos is a writer"? No, such an interpretation is not wrong, for at least two reasons.

(A) The combination of "irony" and "strange parallel" is redundant.

(B) The irony is not so much "unheralded" as it is "nonexistent." As a corollary of (A) above, the parallel is not so much "strange" as it is "tenuous and ultimately nonexistent."

(I suppose it would be awkward to open an article with, "A nonexistent irony exists...")

Here comes the irony! It's about to be heralded!

In the movies, the year's best supporting actor gets an Oscar just for playing a role over a finite period of time. But in baseball, the season's best supporting man has long gone unrecognized despite actually playing -- and living -- a role on a daily basis.

This is some serious fucking irony. Let's parse its many layers.

(1) The actor just plays a role, WHEREAS the ballplayer actually plays a role.

(2) The actor does so over a finite period of time, WHEREAS the ballplayer does so on a daily basis.

Actors do not act daily. Their characters don't even matter in every day of the story portrayed in the film. Ballplayers play over infinite stretches of time.

If you subtract (number of baseball games played by David Eckstein this year) from 365, you will obtain a positive integer. Try it for yourself.

More topical arithmetic. Let f be the "writer indicator" function, defined on all humans as follows:
f(person)=0, if the person is not a writer.
f(person)=1, if the person is a writer.
Then: (f(Dean Chiungos) - 1) is a negative integer.

(3) As if that weren't enough to make ironic the heretofore lack of baseball award analogous to Best Supporting Actor, the ballplayer also lives the role (WTF?!), unless of course Chiungos meant:

in baseball, the season's best supporting man has long gone unrecognized despite actually living

which would, like (1) and (2), be a funny way to contrast supporting actors and supporting ballplayers.

Baseball is our national pastime. A commitment to capitalism makes our economy strong. Respect for free speech gives our democracy vitality.

If Dean Chiungos was paid to write the paragraphs in question, what does that say about the American Empire?

Quiz: Hooded Sweatshirts

2006-11-10T13:16:00.000-05:00

Match the stimulus to the response.

Stimuli:
Number One
Number Two
Number Three

Responses:
A. LOL
B. Reeaalllly?
C. Ummmm what?

(answers below)

Answers:
1. B
2. A
3. C

Touché, nutritiondata.com

2006-10-19T15:54:00.000-04:00

Finally, someone's made this joke in print.

What the hell?

2006-10-18T16:45:00.000-04:00

It's about freaking time.

Youngsters in a suburban Fort Worth, Texas, school district are being taught not to sit there like good boys and girls with their hands folded if a gunman invades the classroom, but to rush him and hit him with everything they've got -- books, pencils, legs and arms.

Legs and arms? Really?

"Getting under desks and praying for rescue from professionals is not a recipe for success," said Robin Browne, a major in the British Army reserve and an instructor for Response Options, the company providing the training to the Burleson schools.

Bonus points for information about the campaign donations made by Response Options.

Browne recommends students and teachers "react immediately to the sight of a gun by picking up anything and everything and throwing it at the head and body of the attacker and making as much noise as possible. Go toward him as fast as we can and bring them down."

Probably you don't need to tell kids to make noise when a gunman enters the room. (Too soon?)

Response Options trains students and teachers to "lock onto the attacker's limbs and use their body weight," Browne said. Everyday classroom objects, such as paperbacks and pencils, can become weapons.

Dear students,
Do not apply these lessons to the classroom bully.
Love,
Response Options

"We show them they can win," he said. "The fact that someone walks into a classroom with a gun does not make them a god. Five or six seventh-grade kids and a 95-pound art teacher can basically challenge, bring down and immobilize a 200-pound man with a gun."

The distinction between carrying a gun and being a god is not quite an argument for this policy.

"It's harder to hit a moving target than a target that is standing still," said 14-year-old Jessica Justice, who received the training over the summer during freshman orientation at Burleson High.

What about Linda Liberty and Sara Safety? Amanda American?

Lassiter questioned, however, whether students should be included in the fight-back training: "That's going to scare the you-know-what out of them."

Yes, I know. Shit. This training will scare the shit out of kids.

"I feel like our kids should be armed with the information that these types of possibilities exist," [president of the Parent-Teacher Organization at Norwood Elementary in Burleson Stacy] Vaughn said.

Personally I think they oughtta run drills.

Tim McCarver is paid to make comments about baseball games.

2006-10-07T23:26:00.000-04:00

Your challenge: reconcile this fact with the following gem, delivered at 11:14 p.m. during the broadcast of Game 4 of the Mets-Dodgers NLDS.

I think baseball should ultimately do something for the setup man instead of just calling him a setup man. There should be a hold or something statistically to denote the value of a setup man. Not enough's been done.

Hear, hear.

Friends of "moobs": jobs

2006-10-03T11:59:00.000-04:00

Some hang out here.

Some make the news.

Some are right here:

blactor/blactress (Denzel and Halle won Bests in the same year)

blaccountant

blactuary

blacademic

hispanoramic photographer

honduran duran cover band member

Ooh, ooh, I know. It's Jeter.

2006-09-28T21:29:00.000-04:00

ESPN SportsNation wants to know:

Jeter vs. Reyes: Who's more valuable?

I know. It's Jeter.

Jeter and Reyes, New York's two All-Star shortstops, have had stellar seasons, good enough to merit MVP consideration in their respective leagues.

The truth of this claim depends heavily on whether placing someone 18th or 19th on the ballot counts as "consideration." Reyes isn't even the most valuable player on his team. Beltran is way more valuable, and Delgado and Wright are quite valuable as well. But Jeter and Reyes do play the same position in the same city.

They've been catalysts in the lineup, on the field and on the base paths, leading the Yankees and the Mets respectively into the playoffs with the best records in their leagues.

Strictly speaking, the base paths are part of the field.

But which one is more valuable to his team?

Jeter.

Jayson Stark makes the case for Jeter:

The essence of Derek Jeter's greatness has never had anything to do with whether he has better "tools" than all those more "talented" players on those other 29 teams. And it has never had anything to do with almost all the stuff his critics bring up -- not his Zone Rating or his OPS or his VORP or anything else.

In particular, it has nothing to do with measurements which demonstrate that he is less valuable than Jayson Stark believes. By the way, Jayson, you should play a little hard to get. Also a little reasonable. DJ has been good at getting on base this year. Getting on base helps the Yankees score runs. Runs are valuable to the Yankees.
Also, I REALLY hate it when writers use nonsarcastic quotation marks where they should have made arguments.

Jeter is a great player because he's one of those rare people who understands everything there is to understand about The Big Moment, lives to rise to that moment and actually feeds off all the Yankee craziness that reduces other guys (not mentioning any particular third basemen here) to overcooked manicotti.

You could in principle support this statement with statistical evidence. But DJ-fellating and baseless Arod-bashing will also suffice.

So who cares if Jose Reyes is faster, or scores more runs, or inspires more pickoff throws?

I agree these are retarded ways of measuring a player's value.

If I'm trying to win the World Series, I'll take Jeter over any shortstop in baseball.

This sentence does not follow from the previous one. Like, at all. You were given the correct side of the argument and you showered Jeter with kisses. Fair enough.

Jerry Crasnick for Mr. Reyes:

Jose Reyes' impact on a game transcends conventional measures.

Did your bullshit detector go off? If not, you might want to change its batteries. By the way, what's the deal with smoke detectors? They're always so freaking sensitive.

It shows in the way opposing pitchers speed their deliveries, infielders rush their throws, and Paul Lo Duca -- the Mets' No. 2 hitter -- sees lots and lots of fastballs.

These impacts are not so much "unconventional" as they are "insignificant."

It's manifested in his 63 stolen bases.

This is a manifestly conventional measure. It also happens to be manifestly stupid. Homeboy is 63 for 80 in SB attempts.

But Joey Gathright can fly, too, and nobody fears him. Reyes has 66 extra-base hits, he's batting .406 with runners in scoring position and two outs, and he's a monster leadoff presence with his rare blend of speed and power.

.406 is impressive, but it's in 69 at-bats. That is not very many at-bats. Also, his .353 OBP is less monstrous than it is 46th in the National League. Jeter's .414 mark is good for 5th in the AL.

Of course, Derek Jeter is terrific, but if he goes down, the Yankees can always plug in Alex Rodriguez at shortstop and go out and trade for Aramis Ramirez.

Aside from the Aramis Ramirez non sequitur, I agree with this point: it's bizarre to compute Jeter's VORP as a shortshop and Arod's as a third baseman. Arod plays better shortstop than does Jeter, and if the Yankees are better overall with DJ at SS and Arod at the hot corner, Arod's value shouldn't suffer because he's more versatile.

Reyes is the Mets' resident irreplaceable part. And just think how good he'll be when he turns 24.

You are free to predict that Reyes will someday be a very valuable player. Some nameless kid from the D.R. will also eventually be very good at baseball. For the foreseeable future Albert Pujols will be more valuable than Jose Reyes.

I think he's better and I'm not even sexually attracted to him.

Dance Dance Revolution

2006-09-27T12:34:00.000-04:00

School's back in season, so principals will demonstrate yet again they are much older than their students.

High school's dances grind to a halt

Teeheehee.

A furor over what Concord High School administrators call an "overtly sexual" style of dancing at school dances has split the school community: There are those who defend the students' right to dance however they want and those who believe the moves are just plain inappropriate.

Principal Gene Connolly is with the latter group. He said the school will cancel all remaining dances, including the upcoming homecoming dance, unless students step forward to help halt the "grinding."

Coming out against grinding sounds like a great way to get a date ... watching TV with your mom on the couch! Oh, snap.

"This style of dancing is wrong," Connolly told parents at a Parent-Teacher-Student Organization meeting Tuesday night. "If you were to see it, you would be equally offended."

Asked by parents to describe the dance, Connolly offered this: The girl leans forward and the boy puts his pelvis against her backside. Then, he thrusts.

Wait, Connolly thrusts?! NO, asshole, the verbs attached to the subject Connolly are in past tense.

"It's feigning a sex act," Connolly said.

According to Connolly, students began grinding at Concord High dances about three years ago. Administrators tried to intervene, pointing out that the school handbook says all dance styles "must comply with standards of modesty and safety" and mandates that dance partners face each other.

I'd like to enforce the rule that partners must face each other. "No twirling her, son." "Pause! I need to get out my protractor to see if you two are technically facing each other!" "I am a huge fascist tool."

When that didn't work, administrators met with the student senate last year and drafted a "dance memo of understanding."In the memo, the students acknowledged that current dance trends "can appear sexual." They also said the administration "has made it clear that they do not want to police our dancing styles."

Damn! Sounds like no such enforcement position exists.

"We all know where the line is and when we are crossing it," the memo says. "There will be no specific 'rules' to follow regarding how we dance. However, should someone's dancing make others feel uncomfortable, they will be kindly asked to stop. . . . Should they refuse to do so, they will be asked to leave."

FUN FACT #1: we do not all have the same line and we do not all know where others' lines are.
FUN FACT #2: I like to dance with a severed head of Muhammad; is that alright?

The situation came to a head Saturday at the first dance of the year, which was attended by 350 students. By the time the first slow song was played, a half-dozen boys had been warned repeatedly to quit grinding, staff and students said. When they persisted, the boys were asked to leave. About 150 students followed.

Do the girls get to stay?
Also, I am nearly positive the students who left went home and caught up on reading. Definitely none of them had actual sex.
Wait a minute...they do want to police student dancing.

The students headed to the parking lot, Nicholson said, but changed their minds after being told they couldn't congregate on school grounds. Someone suggested they go to White Park instead, but the police were already there. So the students proceeded to Rollins Park, where Nicholson said they played music and danced.

At Rollins Park, it is much harder to sneak in a brown bag.

Senior Caitlind Cooper was one of the students who gathered at the park. Addressing the PTSO and Connolly on Tuesday night, she objected to the way the situation was handled.

"We go to a dance to have fun, and you telling us how to dance is not fun," Cooper said.

Heehee.

Some parents agreed. Tom and Cathy Cooper said they feel teenagers today are acting no different than they themselves did decades ago. Tom Cooper said he feels an obligation to remember what his parents said about the way he danced in high school.

"If you remember Elvis Presley - there's a grinder," Cooper said.

True or false: Tom Cooper is old.

"Eventually, things may change and this may be considered mild," said parent Cheryl Hunter. "But right now, it's inappropriate."

In other words, eventually you and people like you will be dead, and some of today's grinders will have fresh beef with their children.

Related news:

Although a recent National Center for Health Statistics survey found that more than half of all teenagers engage in oral sex, teen pregnancy rates have plummeted since the early 1990s. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the percentage of high school students who reported having sexual intercourse dropped from 54 percent in 1991 to 47 percent in 2005.

What about the National Center for Feigned Health Statistics? I think they found that feigned sexual intercourse is up.

Miths V: Topologists

2006-09-22T12:58:00.000-04:00

As Grisha made news for solving the famous conjecture and subsequently refusing the Fields Medal, various media had opportunities to characterize topology among the branches of mathematics. Here's the NYT snapshot:

The conjecture is fundamental to topology, the branch of math that deals with shapes, sometimes described as geometry without the details. To a topologist, a sphere, a cigar and a rabbit's head are all the same because they can be deformed into one another. Likewise, a coffee mug and a doughnut are also the same because each has one hole, but they are not equivalent to a sphere.

You might recall the article had two images: one of Grisha's face morphing into a sphere, and another of a rabbit decorated with latitudinal and longitudinal lines indicating how it might be deformed into a sphere. Topology is often called “rubber geometry” because two objects are topologically indistinguishable if (roughly) a rubber version of one could be transformed without tearing into the other. So in particular, spheres of different radii are the same topologically. They are different geometrically since the sphere of larger radius is “flatter,” in a sense that can be made precise.

Okay, great. Let's be a little bit pedantic.

To a topologist, a sphere, a cigar and a rabbit's head are all the same.

Properly, a sphere, a cigar and a rabbit's head are all the same as topological spaces. Who knows about the mental states of those who study topology, and anyway why would those mental states carry over to the daytime topologist's night- or family-life?

The World According to a Topologist, According to an AS reader of the above Times article

Topologist at the day care center
Topologist: I'm here to pick up my child.
Supervisor: Okay, she's napping now. I'll go wake her up.
Top: No, let her sleep. I'll take another child.
Sup: Excuse me?
Top: They're topologically indistinguishable!!

Topologist at the bike shop
Top: Do you have any deals on used bikes?
Hippie Bike Shop Dude: Well, we have a great Schwinn, but one of the wheels was bent out of shape when the last owner ran over the bike with his car.
Top: Did the wheel break into two pieces?
HBSD: No.
Top: Hm, okay. Did the rim snap at any point?
HBSD: Nope, it's just bent, man. P.S. I am high.
Top: Okay, I'll take it.
HBSD: Do you want us to fix it, or do you have some expertise yourself?
Top: I'm no mechanic, but it's fine. The accident did not affect the bike topologically.

Topologist on trial
DA: So you admit to stabbing the victim four times in the chest?
Top: Yes.
DA: Ummm, okay.
Top: I never stabbed all the way through, so I didn't change the victim's homeomorphism type!! Not guilty, y'all's got to feel me.

Topologist after receiving the first transplant of its kind
Doctor: Okay, you're all set.
Top: Take it off.
Doc: I'm sorry, why?
Top: You topologically altered the braindead guy to obtain this organ.
Doc: Really, that's it? You understand you're quite lucky to've received this transplant. Your reason is a little bizarre.
Top: Also it is freaking me out that I have to touch this thing every time I pee.

The voters had pizza last week.

2006-09-21T15:27:00.000-04:00

Is, ought, whatever. The article is called “Why Santana isn't the AL MVP,” but Jayson Stark means “Santana will not win the AL MVP.”

Our buddy, Buster Olney, has presented an eloquent MVP case for Santana over the last couple of weeks.

I'm no Buster-lover, but at least he had the courtesy to argue that Santana has been, during the 2006 baseball season, the player of most value to his team. It's a quick trip from there to the conclusion that he should win the MVP.

Now it's time for The Other Side of that Case:

Clever. Did you notice the capitalization? That's clever. Jayson Stark is clever. Let's look at the first set of arguments Mr. Stark marshals:

Starting pitchers won three of the first eight MVP awards handed out by the Baseball Writers Association. But in the last 60 years, things have changed just a mite.
We're now up to 121 MVP trophies handed out in that time. Starting pitchers have won seven of them.

Interesting. Still I am wondering: has Johan Santana been the player most valuable to his team, the Minnesota Twins, in the 2006 baseball season? I began to read your article under the assumption you would answer this question.

But in the division-play era -- which has lasted 38 seasons -- the trend is so obvious, even your great-grandma could see the writing on this wall and not even need her reading glasses.

Funny. Jayson Stark is funny. Clever and funny. Also he has an excellent sense of when an argument is relevant to a conclusion.

Of the 75 MVP awards in this era, starting pitchers have won exactly two more than beer vendors, mascots and even resin bags. Vida Blue (1971) and Roger Clemens (1986) are the only starters since 1969 to win an MVP. And since Clemens won, his fellow starters are 0 for two decades.

Also he does not smell bad.

But it says, right there on the instructions to voters, that "all players are eligible for MVP, and that includes pitchers and designated hitters." So because we take that into consideration, we wouldn't say we would never favor a starting pitcher for this award.

It would just take an extraordinary season and an extraordinary set of circumstances.

Okay, so...

The pivotal question, then, is as basic as a 3-and-0 fastball: Is Santana's year extraordinary enough to convince voters to rank it above all the compelling position-player seasons on the table, from a field that includes Derek Jeter, Jermaine Dye, David Ortiz and even Santana's own teammate, Justin Morneau? Now let's look at that topic.

So you're admitting that everything you've written so far has nothing to do with the conclusion you'd like to draw. This is awesome.

2. "TRIPLE CROWN" IS NOT A SYNONYM FOR "MVP"
One big item on Santana's MVP qualification list is the surest sign that he has clearly been the very best starting pitcher in his league:

If the season ended in the next 30 seconds, he would win the prestigious "Pitcher's Triple Crown" -- by leading the league in wins, strikeouts and ERA.

Also WHIP. Also Times He Had Sex with Your Wife. Did I mention that since his first few mediocre starts Johan Santana has been OFF THE FREAKING HEEZY?

In the division-play era, six pitchers have won the Triple Crown. None of them won the MVP award. Their average finish in the MVP voting: sixth. Only Pedro Martinez (23-4 for the 1999 wild-card Red Sox) made the top three.

I THOUGHT WE AGREED WE WERE SUPPOSED TO COMPARE (WITH RESPECT TO VALUE PROVIDED TO TEAM) THE POSITION PLAYERS YOU LISTED TO SANTANA. I'll take this opportunity to point out that none of the position players are that compelling, another fact that should be part of your comparison.

But if the season ended today, Santana also would win the Quadruple Crown, since he leads the league in the fourth major category -- innings pitched. No AL pitcher has won The Quad since Hal Newhouser in 1945. And -- whaddaya know -- Newhouser did win the MVP.

What we have to remember, though, is that there weren't as many hitting megastars to compete with back then, since Joe DiMaggio, Ted Williams and so many of their fellow patriots were off to war, trying to win something slightly more significant than trophies.

BOY does the end of this sentence make me hate you. Like, a lot.

So it was a really, really different era in all kinds of ways.

You're using a WWII reference to hide a bad argument. Not cool. Didn't some pitchers go to war too? Are you saying that because the overall quality of baseball dropped as players went overseas to win something more important than trophies, it was easier for pitchers to be of value to their teams? 'cause if so, U R wrong.

But we're willing to consider that parallel. Except if we do, we also have to consider the fate of the three NL quadruple-crown winners in the division-play era: Steve Carlton in 1972, Dwight Gooden in 1985 and Randy Johnson in 2002. And those three finished fifth, fourth and seventh in the MVP voting, respectively.

More irrelevant history -- great.

Bob Brenly, who managed Johnson in 2002, told us he doesn't remember any talk of the Unit as MVP back then -- even in a monstrous year (24-5, with 334 strikeouts) for a team that finished first. Of course, Curt Schilling also pitched for that club. And Brenly admits that "when I was sitting in that dugout, I didn't concern myself much with those individual awards."

What's more, a manager who doesn't give a shit about the MVP doesn't remember talk of the Unit receiving the award. You should've asked Grisha Perelman what he thinks about Johan Santana.

But maybe something like an argument is coming.

Nevertheless, Brenly says that with all due respect to Santana, "to me, an MVP is a guy who is out there doing something every day to help his team win." And we agree with every word of that quote.

Great as Santana is, he has had an impact on 32 games this year. Jeter, Dye and Morneau are going to have an impact on 150 games, give or take a few. And while that's not Santana's fault, it's also tough to compete with.

This is not quite true -- Johan often throws 7-8 innings and allows the bullpen to rest. Also, your criterion transparently makes it impossible for a pitcher to win the award.
Shouldn't you take into account the degree to which the players influenced the games? (Yes.) Did you? (No.)

3. WINNING PERCENTAGE DOESN'T EQUAL MVP
Santana's No. 1 selling point as an MVP candidate is a stat that homes right in on the heart of his "value" to his team:

When he pitches, the Twins always win.

This is a direct result of his being awesome at baseball.

Heading into his start Thursday in Boston, his team is 26-6 (.813 winning percentage) when he pitched -- and 64-55 (.538) when anyone else pitched.

Damn, that's good.

Since April 27, when Santana righted himself after an 0-3 start, those numbers get even more insane. The Twins are an off-the-charts 25-3 (.893 winning pct.) in his 28 starts since then. But we should note that their record with anyone else out there (58-46, .558) is also better than it was early on.

Like, really fucking good.

Santana is, beyond question, a huge difference maker.

You're stealing from Colbert! This is bullshit!

That's an argument any rational human should feel obliged to agree with, at least on some level

Content-free verbal masturbation, yours courtesy of Jayson Stark.

Which is why Santana at least deserves a place on every voter's ballot.

The only real issue is which place.

YES, in fact this is the very same issue which your title suggests you would have addressed by now.

But this is also an argument you can play some fun tricks with. The Tigers are playing .741 baseball (23-8) when Kenny Rogers pitches. The Cardinals are playing .667 baseball (20-10) when Chris Carpenter pitches. The Padres are playing .667 ball (14-7) when Woody Williams starts. The Phillies are an .800 team (8-2) when Randy Wolf pitches. There's also a big drop-off for all those teams when other pitchers pitch. That alone doesn't make them plausible MVP candidates.

In these cases the winning percentage is tied up with things other than the pitchers being awesome at baseball, no offense to Chris Carpenter.

Or say Santana had gotten hurt in July, but Francisco Liriano had stayed healthy all year. Until Liriano's last two starts of the year, when he wasn't himself, the Twins won nearly 80 percent of Liriano's starts, too (11-3).

If he'd kept that up the rest of the year, but Santana had gone down, would Liriano be the leading MVP candidate? And if the answer is yes, doesn't that indicate that, for at least half the season, Santana had a fellow pitcher in his rotation who was nearly as good -- and valuable -- as he was?

I find this hilarious. If someone with a different name had effectively switched roles with Santana, would he have been MVP? Isn't this the same question as whether Santana should be MVP?
It's both weird and unfair that your argument involves imagining Santana was injured. I would like to imagine that David Ortiz and Travis Hafner are OPSing .950 for the purposes of my argument that Johan Santana should be MVP.

We had the Elias Sports Bureau research two questions for us: (1) Over the last 20 years, which 10 pitchers' teams had the best record on days they pitched? And (2) over that same period, which 10 pitchers' teams had the biggest disparity in record when other pitchers pitched?

You can see those charts for yourself. But here's what we learned:

Best team record with an individual starter (1987-06, min. 25 starts)
Record Pitcher Year Team MVP finish
27-3, .900 Randy Johnson 1995 Mariners 6th*
29-5, .853 Mike Hampton 1999 Astros 21st*
22-4, .846 John Smoltz 1998 Braves No votes*
27-5, .844 Roger Clemens 2001 Yankees 8th*
25-5, .833 David Wells 1998 Yankees 16th*
29-6, .829 Bret Saberhagen 1989 Royals 8th
29-6, .829 Bob Welch 1990 A's 9th*
24-5, .828 Pedro Martinez 1999 Red Sox 2nd*
24-5, .828 Jason Schmidt 2003 Giants 22nd*
*team made playoffs | Source: Elias Sports Bureau

• Santana's 2006 season didn't even make the top 10 in the "best record" study. Which means there were at least 10 pitchers in that time whose teams had even better records when they started than Santana's team does this year. So that makes it tougher to consider his season "extraordinary." And of those other 10, only one (Pedro in '99) was even a factor in the MVP discussion.

• All 10 of those pitchers on the "best record" list pitched for teams that either made the playoffs or were alive until the last week of the season. Outside of Pedro, though, none of the other nine wound up higher than sixth in the MVP election (Randy Johnson's finish, for the '95 Mariners). And from there, they dropped off all the way to Not Receiving One Stinking Vote status (John Smoltz's fate, for the '98 Braves).

• We can work Santana into the top 10 by using that "Compared With Other Pitchers" list. But even using that criterion, his 2006 season still ranks only 10th. So again, we ask: Was this a season so above and beyond other great pitchers' seasons that it merits an MVP award? It's tough to conclude it was. And again, even with this slightly different list, only Pedro was a blip on the MVP screen.

Did Elias know what you were up to? Did you mention you were going to make bizarre inferences from their statistics?

Looking back through those theoretically parallel seasons, we remember the arguments for Martinez in '99 being similar to the case for Santana this year. But in reality, the pitcher whose season was closest to Santana's this year was Johnson in '95.
...

So the Unit was a man who had an even bigger impact than Santana. And he did it in a season when Ken Griffey Jr. got hurt, removing the most logical Mariners MVP candidate from the entire discussion. Yet Johnson still finished behind five players in the MVP vote -- including two (Edgar Martinez and Jay Buhner) on his own team.

Okay.

It was Johnson -- whose team went 15-1 in his last 16 starts -- who pitched them back. But when the MVP debate began, "I never heard his name, to be honest with you," McLaren said.

You never heard it because Martinez hit .356 that year and Buhner mashed 40 homers. And above all, you never heard it because it sold the position players on that team short to suggest it was a pitcher who made those Mariners what they were.

So spin that scenario forward to the 2006 Twins and answer us this: Why isn't Joe Mauer this team's Edgar Martinez? Why isn't Morneau their Jay Buhner?

Pressing rewind on an argument is not the same as winning it.

And why haven't more people noticed that Morneau has driven in more runs (125) than any Twin in history whose name wasn't Killebrew? Why haven't more people noticed that, since June 8, Morneau has hit .374, and knocked in as many runs as Ryan Howard (87 -- tied for the most in baseball)?

I think people have noticed, but RsBI is a pretty stupid statistic. I AM NOT SURPRISED IT IS THE ONE TIME YOU MENTION THE POSITION PLAYERS YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO DEFEND.

That, to us, is what an MVP front-runner looks like. And there isn't an ounce of disrespect to the always-spectacular, always-mesmerizing Johan Santana when we tell you what he looks like:

The Cy Young shoo-in that he is. Period.

Nor an ounce of logic. Snap!

Too soon?

2006-09-15T15:18:00.000-04:00

On Hand #1, this is awful.

On Hand #2, the coach's name is in fact Downs.

What's the deal with: course titles in the Women's and Gender Studies Department

2006-09-14T23:31:00.000-04:00

Take a look at the titles of the courses offered by the Women's and Gender Studies Department at Columbia University. Now guess which one is most hilarious. (Yes, there is a correct answer.)

Have an answer?

If you guessed G6001, then holy shit are you correct. The embedded colon is a little awkward, and Object should be Objects, so let's be fair and parse the official title (click W, then Fall2006), Theoretical Paradigms in Feminist Scholarship: Bodies, Objects, Sex.

Theoretical Paradigms in Feminist Scholarship

Now. I have never enrolled in a course offered by any WGS department at any university, but my understanding is that, being offered at universities, WGS courses tend to focus on Scholarship. So why waste a title word on it?

Now. I have never held a serious job with a serious company, but my understanding is that, being largely full of shit, some businesspeople like to throw around words like “paradigm” as though the words carried content. So why throw it around in a course title?

Even if we are generous and do not vomit upon reading Paradigm, we are not obligated to accept unconditionally the presence of the word Theoretical. I'm no Paradigm expert, but it seems Theoretical is already built into the definition, at least connotatively -- serving as pattern or model.

IN CONCLUSION, a more concise way of saying “Theoretical Paradigms in Feminist Scholarship” is:

Feminism

Bodies, Objects, Sex

I have no complaints about any of the three items here listed.

Jacob Luft is paid to write about baseball and yet he is not good at writing about baseball.

2006-09-13T19:25:00.000-04:00

See for yourself.

Talk baseball all season long with SI.com's Jacob Luft in Baseball Chatter, a journal for hot topic debates, Sabermetric ramblings and reader-driven discussions. (emphasis mine)

The R in SABR stands for Research. So this oughtta be great.

With the MVP races in both leagues going down the wire, you are going to hear and read a lot about "big hits" and "clutchness" in the next few weeks.

Come on dude, get with it! Clutchiness!

Those moments are fun and I enjoy them as much as the next baseball fan, but they help to obscure an important point about baseball that seems to have been lost amid all the talk of "clutchness" lately: early runs are more important.

(1) The next baseball fan thinks big hits win games, so you probably enjoy those moments less.
(2) The “important point” is not so much “lost” as it is “wrong.”

Riddle me this: Given the choice, would you rather have your team score first in a game or last? I asked a Yankees fan and rabid Alex Rodriguez-hater in the office this question the other day: Without knowing anything else that happens in a particular game, would you rather have A-Rod hit a three-run home run in the first inning of a game or the ninth inning? In other words, would you rather be guaranteed a three-run first inning and most likely a 3-0 lead to start the game or take your chances and hope that a three-run home run in the ninth will win or tie the game?

(1) The last sentence could just as well read:
In other words, would you rather take your chances that a three-run first inning lead will hold up for the rest of the game, or be guaranteed three runs late in the game?
(2) WHAT KIND OF INANE QUESTION IS THIS? Man reaches first base to lead off an inning. It is useful to ask: how much better is Man on Second, 0 Out versus Man on First, 0 Out? If you could press a button which would leave Man on Second, 0 Out 70% of the time and None On, 1 Out the other 30%, would you press the button? This is a question about base stealing and an answer recommends a strategy.
But a definitive answer to Luft's question matters not at all. Whenever teams are at bat, they try to score. As much as possible. Like, always. Like, Arod doesn't decide to open the game with a 3-run HR and think about bitches the rest of the game.
(3) Would you rather look like Jacob Luft or think like him?

If you answered ninth inning instead of first, then you have been drinking way too much of the clutchness Kool-Aid. Baseball is a lot like hockey and soccer in this respect: scoring first is huge.

Yes, so tell your favorite team: when it's up at the plate, try to score.
I'm surprised he mentioned soccer because that example makes more transparent two ways in which this argument is retarded. First, the better team will tend to score first more often. More importantly, as reader Eddie so eloquently puts it, these are all sports where NOT MANY POINTS ARE SCORED AT ALL AND THEREFORE OF COURSE THE PERSON WHO SCORES FIRST USUALLY WINS. Mr. Luft, your SABR membership card, please?

I looked up every team's record in 2006 when it scores first in a game compared to when its opponent scored first.

This probably took a few minutes. Some better things you could've done with that time:

taken a stroll
listened to a song
practiced writing your name in cursive
thrown some darts
held down your Backspace key until what you'd written until now was gone

But we'll look at the fruits of your labor.

Here's what I found (through Monday's games; teams are in order of current standings):

American League
Team, Record when scoring first (Record when opponent scores first)
East
New York: 55-22 (31-34)
Boston: 50-25 (26-42)
Toronto: 51-22 (24-47)
Baltimore: 43-28 (17-53)
Tampa Bay: 32-44 (25-42)

Central
Detroit: 59-25 (27-33)
Minnesota: 53-17 (31-42)
Chicago: 48-30 (35-31)
Cleveland: 52-25 (16-49)
Kansas City: 31-29 (23-61)

West

Oakland: 50-21 (32-40)
Los Angeles: 56-25 (21-42)
Texas: 41-24 (32-47)
Seattle: 41-24 (27-50)

The aggregate winning percentage of AL teams when they score first is .647. The aggregate winning percentage of AL teams when they don't score first is .375. Compare those figures to the AL's aggregate winning percentage in all games: .513. (It's not .500 because of interleague play.) You end up with a deviation of plus-133 when scoring first and minus-139 when not scoring first. (Again, interleague play ruins the symmetry of this.) This is all assuming my arithmetic is correct, and I'm about as good as math as you would expect for a history major.

Majoring in history is no excuse for poor arithmetic. Plus it's not your arithmetic that's bothersome, it's your tragically poor grasp of statistics. Also, you meant “at math,” but I'm as good at proofreading my work published in nationally distributed magazines as you would expect for a math major.
By the way, Jacob Luft, I think you are a bad writer -- just wanted to make that clear.

National League
Team, Record when scoring first (Record when opponent scores first)
East
New York: 64-18 (24-36)
Florida: 51-26 (22-45)
Philadelphia: 47-26 (25-45)
Atlanta: 47-28 (22-46)
Washington: 45-25 (16-58)

Central
St. Louis: 53-21 (23-46)
Cincinnati: 45-17 (26-55)
Houston: 53-25 (17-47)
Milwaukee: 37-21 (28-58)
Pittsburgh: 33-25 (26-61)
Chicago: 43-22 (14-65)

West
Los Angeles: 47-22 (25-44)
San Diego: 45-25 (29-43)
San Francisco: 53-30 (19-41)
Arizona: 48-18 (20-57)
Colorado: 46-21 (21-55)

Let's do the same drill here. The NL's aggregate winning percentage when scoring first: .671. When not scoring first: .308. Overall, the NL's winning percentage is about .487. So the deviation is plus-184 for scoring first and minus-179 for not scoring first.

OK. The analysis:

You can see the value in this statistic when you look at the bad teams. The Nationals' overall winning percentage is .431. But when they score first, they are a .642 ballclub. Even the Pirates and Royals are winning teams when they score first. In fact, there is only one team in the majors with a losing record when it scores first: Tampa Bay (.421). Nobody else is close to that bad. (I'm not really sure how this happened. The Devil Rays have allowed a ton of runs, but not the most in the league, and certainly not by as wide a margin as you would expect for them to be this bad when scoring first.)

HEY DIPSHIT, did you notice that bad teams tend to have fewer games played in which they score first? You even ordered the teams by record! It is so painfully obvious only a braindead history major wouldn't ... nevermind.
Also, the Rays' pen is bad, but two AL teams have worse bullpen ERA. TB's higher BAA means they've probably allowed more inherited runners to score. Isn't doing this sort of research part of your job? U R like sucky.

But to expect any of this empirical evidence to have any sway in the MVP voting would be unrealistic.

Unrealistic, yes. To desire this, moronic.

After all, this is an era of small-sample size theater, when we focus on ridiculous statistics like "batting average in close-and-late situations." Do you know who the current leader is in that silly statistic? Florida's Wes Helms, who has 19 hits in 45 at-bats (.422). Ladies and gentlemen, your King of Clutch for 2006 is a bench player on a team stocked primarily with rookies.

I know you write to feed the kids, but I hope your (conjecturally tiny) brain appreciates that Wes Helms has nothing to do with whether BA in close/late is a ridiculous statistic. (Were it a useful statistic, it would just mean he's undervalued; the shit about rookies is obviously irrelevant.) The small sample size point, I agree with.

I'm not saying clutch hitting doesn't exist at all. For the most part, I do believe clutchness exists, but only to the extent that most good hitters are still good in critical situations, just as they are during other points of a game.

But this is no extent at all! Also, your article is called “The myth of clutch” and this is your evidence? HIRE THIS MAN. Treated with maximum generosity, the list of records you previously assembled should be interpreted to mean clutch hitting doesn't matter. Now you're acting like you presented evidence to say clutch hitting doesn't exist! WTF?!

David Ortiz is clutch. George Brett was clutch.

So clutch hitting is not a myth. I'm very confused.

I'll take my chances with either of those two guys in a close-and-late situation, but I wouldn't mind having any other great hitter up either: Willie Mays, Tony Gwynn, Mike Schmidt, etc.

You're hurting for words, a? A (seemingly arbitrary) list of three great (but not especially clutch) players, first and last names? Three more: Bonds, Ruth, Clemente. Three more: Mantle, Pujols, Brett. FUCK! Already mentioned Brett, sorry.

And don't be so quick to discount the value of add-on runs in the middle innings.

I know: runs are runs, no matter when they're scored...

Breaking a game open early with a home run is more valuable than a late, "clutch" home run.

...and you lost me. Also, it's bullshit that you put quotation marks around clutch. Punctuation is a poor substitute for argument.
I guess the problem with sportswriting is that you cannot express the (correct) opinion that early and late runs are equally good (or that offense and defense are equally important); for some reason you have to pick something.
This practice is bad for sportswriting. You know what's good for sportswriting (but bad for punters)? Shit like this. (Thanks to reader Donovan for the tip. See, if you show me something, maybe I will write about it, unless you are Boris.)
Let's finish up here.

It means the other team is going to use mop-up pitchers the rest of the game and allow your hitters to feast even more. It puts the game away early so you don't have to worry about winning it later and it means less stress for your starting pitcher and your bullpen.

I chose the clutch/late home run, but I told my bullpen and starting pitcher, so they're not feeling any stress.

I'm so hungry I could eat a ...

2006-09-12T21:54:00.000-04:00

Stock up on horse meat!

Riding a broad wave of bipartisan support, the House on Thursday approved a bill to ban the slaughter of horses in the U.S. for human consumption.

NOW, I don't want to get off track, but when the House rides a wave of bipartisan support, does that mean the House rides itself? A President, for example, being aligned with a particular party, might properly be said to ride a wave of bipartisan support. Or maybe the bill rode the wave of support. But the House? That's not on.

"This whole slaughtering process is an illicit, concealed, inhumane process as it relates to horses," said [Rep. Ed] Whitfield [R-KY], one of the bill's co-sponsors and its most vocal champion on the House floor.

“Illicit” is a funny word choice. Is it really concealed? Really?! I gather the process is inhumane as it relates to horses -- but is it also concealed as it relates to horses?

About 90,000 horses were slaughtered in the U.S. last year.

Let's record this for later: ninety thousand.

The opponents of the bill:

"What are you going to do with 90,000 unwanted horses? Who's going to provide for their care?" asked [former Texas Rep. Charles] Stenholm, who was the top-ranking Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee until 2004. "It's not in the best interest of the horses. There is nothing in the bill that provides for the humane treatments of horses."

Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns echoed those concerns Wednesday in a letter to House Agriculture Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.). Johanns wrote that passage would likely lead to "a reduction in the humane treatment of horses."

Johanns should know, if only because (wow, this is awkward) he'll be responsible for unwanted horses!

`The Secretary shall assume responsibility for any equine that is unwanted by an owner.'.

Onto the bill's supporters:

"We're looking at an industry that, beginning to end, is extremely cruel," [deputy legislative director and a lobbyist for the Society for Animal Protective Legislation Chris] Heyde said.

“Beginning to end” means something when the industry includes raising the animals, but it's a bit empty to point out the slaughter industry is cruel.

In the U.S., horse meat is sometimes used as feed for zoo animals.

Just recording for later.

More coverage of the support squad:

"It is one of the most inhumane, brutal, shady practices going on in the U.S. today," said Rep. John Sweeney, R-N.Y., a sponsor of the ban.

You know you don't have rights when: your slaughter is described as “shady.” But Sweeney scores points with the kids for speaking their language.

Sweeney argued that the slaughter of horses is different from the slaughter of cattle and chickens, because horses are American icons.

I have always supported legislation banning the slaughter of baseball players and jazz musicians for this very reason. They are fucking icons. Sing it, Rep.

Another way in which the slaughtering practices differ: 90,000 kinda sorta doesn't matter.

"They're as close to human as any animal you can get," said Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C.

The interviewer caught Spratt administering a true/false exam. This one's false.

wise campaign contributions
horseshit

A quick look at the revised text:

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON SHIPPING, TRANSPORTING, MOVING, DELIVERING, RECEIVING, POSSESSING, PURCHASING, SELLING, OR DONATION OF HORSES AND OTHER EQUINES FOR SLAUGHTER FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION.
`(1) The term `human consumption' means ingestion by people as a source of food.'
`(4) The term `slaughter' means the killing of one or more horses or other equines with the intent to sell or trade the flesh for human consumption.'.

So our icons may be consumed at the zoo? Lawmakers are, like, so weird.

If you'd like nightmares, learn what justifies laws to the lawdrafters themselves:

`(1) horses and other equines play a vital role in the collective experience of the United States and deserve protection and compassion;

This overstates the distinction between horses and livestock.

`(2) horses and other equines are domestic animals that are used primarily for recreation, pleasure, and sport;

Ummmm, okay.

`(3) unlike cows, pigs, and many other animals, horses and other equines are not raised for the purpose of being slaughtered for human consumption;

Not only is this basically the same as `(2), it's a laughable example of the naturalistic fallacy.

`(4) individuals selling horses or other equines at auctions are seldom aware that the animals may be bought for the purpose of being slaughtered for human consumption; and

I don't believe this. Anyway THEN FUCKING TELL THEM.

`(5) the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture has found that horses and other equines cannot be safely and humanely transported in double deck trailers;'; and

Can I bring Secretariat to the slaughterhouse in my Radio Flyer then?

`(8) the movement, showing, exhibition, or sale of sore horses in intrastate commerce, and the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation in intrastate commerce of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption, adversely affect and burden interstate and foreign commerce;'.

HUH? Seems the author requires a prosthetic Wernicke's area.

The "Seriously, September Eleventh" Awards

2006-09-11T23:10:00.000-04:00

Courtesy of reader Lauren, an awards show devoted to Bush's I-Swear-The-Proximity-of-the-Midterm-Elections-is-Just-a-Coincidence
speech.

We'll start the evening with every liberal's favorite, the This is Why
They Hate Us Award:
"Yet on that awful day, we also witnessed something distinctly
American: ordinary citizens rising to the occasion, and responding
with extraordinary acts of courage."

The Royal We Award goes to:
"On September the 11th, we resolved that we would go on the offense
against our enemies - and we would not distinguish between the
terrorists and those who harbor or support them."

The Get Those Soldiers Some Levers Award goes to:
"They are thrown into panic at the sight of an old man pulling the
election lever ... girls enrolling in school ... or families
worshiping God in their own traditions."

The Glass Houses Award goes to:
"They know that given a choice, people will choose freedom over their
extremist ideology. So their answer is to deny people this choice by
raging against the forces of freedom and moderation."

The There's Only One Beirut, Right? Award goes to:
"From Kabul to Baghdad to Beirut, there are brave men and women
risking their lives each day for the same freedoms that we enjoy. And
they have one question of us: Do we have the confidence to do in the
Middle East what our fathers and grandfathers accomplished in Europe
and Asia?"

The Tell it To Darfur Award goes to:
"Yet America has confronted evil before, and we have defeated it -
sometimes at the cost of thousands of good men in a single battle."

And last but not least, the I Guess It's Not Too Soon for 9/11 Porn
Award goes to:
"The attacks were meant to bring us to our knees, and they did - but
not in the way the terrorists intended."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's face it: they were the Twin Towers. (Eh? Eh?)

A good way to tell how conservative someone really is: Jimmy is on his knees. What is he doing?

Keepin' it real. For example.

Nothing against the French, but the jokes would almost make themselves.

Sometimes mere words produce a visceral reaction.

2006-09-11T22:31:00.000-04:00

Last week you might have seen this sign on the Columbia campus.

then I stole it

then I took a picture of it

it's also a funny way to communicate that I do not own a scanner

apparently it is also time for awful puns

sometimes the reaction is cringe

Sorry, Lalekhet. How do Ya Lekhet now?