Quote of the Day (2007-06-30)

Zathras: Zathras is used to being beast of burden to other people's needs. Very sad life... probably have very sad death, but at least there is symmetry.

Source: Babylon 5

Quote of the Day (2007-06-29)

Bart Simpson: I want to be emancipated!
Homer Simpson: Emancipated? Why do you want that? Don't you like being a dude?

Source: The Simpsons

Quote of the Day (2007-06-28)

Jim Hacker: "When you give your evidence to the Think Tank, are you going to support my view that the Civil Service is over manned and feather-bedded, or not? Yes or no? Straight answer."
Sir Humphrey: "Well Minister, if you ask me for a straight answer, then I shall say that, as far as we can see, looking at it by and large, taking one thing with another in terms of the average of departments, then in the final analysis it is probably true to say, that at the end of the day, in general terms, you would probably find that, not to put too fine a point on it, there probably wasn't very much in it one way or the other. As far as one can see, at this stage."

Source: Yes, Minister

Quote of the Day (2007-06-27)

Sybil Fawlty: [on the phone] I know....I know....I know...Oh, I know!
Basil Fawlty: Then why is she telling you?!

Source: Fawlty Towers

Quote of the Day (2007-06-26)

Niles: I met someone once flying home from college. I got bumped into first class, found myself sitting there next to a positively ravishing woman. She was a bit older and I was trying desperately to be suave, so when she leaned over and suggested we join the Mile High Club, rather than admit I was unfamiliar with the term, I whispered back, "I really don't travel enough to make that worthwhile." God, that was twenty years ago.
[starts to chuckle, then]
Niles: Nope, still can't laugh about it.

Source: Frasier

Impeaching Cheney

There's a lot of talk on the left about impeaching Dick Cheney. Instapundit points out that if such a thing were to happen, Cheney would run the trial.

IMPEACH CHENEY IF YOU WANT, but do bear in mind that he'll preside over his own impeachment trial.

No, really. The Senate has the sole power to try impeachments. The Vice President is the President of the Senate. He presides. The Constitution provides for only one exception in cases of impeachment: "When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside." That's because of the obvious conflict-of-interest of having the VP preside when the President is tried. But there's no similar provision for having someone else preside if the Vice President is impeached.

Presumably that's because no one could imagine a Vice President doing anything significant enough to warrant impeachment, which was certainly an accurate reflection of the office's character for the first two centuries or so of our nation's history. And it's another argument against the VP being given extensive executive responsibilities, now that I think of it.

Kind of a fly in the ointment. Not that it would ever happen anyway.

Quote of the Day (2007-06-25)

Homer Simpson: Sometimes, Marge, you just have to go with your gut.
Marge: You *always* go with your gut. How about for once you listen to your brain?

Source: The Simpsons

NFL 2007 Ridiculously Early Predictions

It's that time of year again, time to jump out there and make my predictions for the upcoming season. This is the fourth installment of the series. As with any prediction, my success has been pretty hit and miss. As usual, I will walk through my expectations for each division in the league, and then name four teams from each conference I think likely to make the big game.

As always, I must disclose I am a personal fan of the Steelers, Patriots, and Packers. I do my best to not let that influence my analysis, but it's good to know. And, as I wrote last year, it also helps in understanding some terminology I might use. For example, to describe anything as "Viking-like", especially a defense, is a derogatory statement.

Here we go....

AFC East
New England has dominated this division for pretty much the whole decade, winning the division title each year except 2002. Last season they made it all the way to the AFC title game, which they led 21-3 at the half and appeared all set for their fourth Super Bowl appearance (and win) in six seasons. Then the defense collapsed in the second half and the Colts managed to pull out the game, and the Lombardi. The Patriots have made the biggest splash in the off-season this year, with high profile additions like Adalius Thomas and Randy Moss, making them the odds-on preseason favorite to win the title this year.

If everything falls together the way New England's brass obviously hopes it will, this should be a very good team. Tom Brady has never had a receiving corps this talented. If he was able to win three Super Bowls and have multiple seasons with over 4000 yards passing with the guys he had then, he should really turn it on this year. But there are several things that observers seem to be overlooking or forgetting in the rush to anoint the Pats.

1. The biggest improvement with the team has been at receiver. Last year's receiving corps was pretty nondescript and made up of a bunch of guys who had never played in New England before. And they made it to within a few minutes of a Super Bowl appearance with that corps. What cost them the title last year was a defense that is getting older by the day at linebacker and secondary. Yes, they picked up linebacker Thomas and drafted corner Meriweather. But the starting group of four linebackers will still be pretty old. And with Samuel threatening to follow in Branch's footsteps with a holdout, they haven't really upgraded there either. So while they've presumably improved the offense, the main problem they had last year in the playoffs was not adequately addressed. Now, it's only fair to point out that the defense I've just maligned was 2nd in the league last year in points allowed, so they clearly could still play. But it's still a bit on the optimistic side that they can continue doing so.
2. Speaking of the receiving corps, a lot was made last year that the receivers were all new except Troy Brown. Guess what. That's true again this year. One has to expect the top three to be Moss, Stallworth, and Weckler, none of whom played for New England last year. With Brown having been cut again, and not re-signed as of this writing, last year's newbies are now the seasoned veterans, being in their second year.
3. Randy Moss. What kind of player is he going to be? Will he be the superstar of a few years ago? Will he play hard every down, unlike he famously did in Minnesota? Will he be a distraction?
   
4. With Corey Dillon gone, Maroney becomes the top running back for the team. He had a good season last year, but that was a year when he split carries with Dillon, and in fact was not even the workhorse of the backfield. Now, Maroney has to become an every down back and go from 500 yards rushing last year to somewhere in he 1200 yards this year. It's an unknown that he can do that, and with Dillon gone there's no one to fall back on.

These are just questions. Patriot brass hopes and assumes the defense will play as well as it did last year, that the new receivers will be assimilated as well as last year's were, that Moss will be productive and buy into the system without being a distraction, and that Maroney can step up and be a good back. If all that happens, New England is clearly the team to beat in the division, and in fact the league. With the offense these changes will hopefully allow, they could be a top 10 team in both offense and defense.

Even if not all of those things come to pass, New England is still the class of the division and I don't see anybody seriously challenging them there. The Jets continue to be a solid #2 team and wildcard contender. The Bills and the Dolphins continue to work out their respective messes at quarterback.

AFC North
As I wrote last year, this should be an entertaining division. The Bengals disappointed last season with streaky play resulting in winning streaks followed by long losing streaks. Such would be expected from a young team just starting to hit its stride. I expect a more mature Bengal team this year to be the team to beat in the division. That is, if they can keep enough players out of jail.

The Steelers came off their surprising Super Bowl win with a disappointing season as well, limping along to 8-8. They still have some good talent and haven't had too many key losses. But the one key loss they did have was coach Cowher. Mike Tomlin is a total unknown, and we have to expect some rough spots as the team transitions to a new man, particularly with a roster still geared to Cowher's preferences rather than Tomlin's. While I think they will have a winning season, I cannot see them contending for the division title. Of course, being a wild-card didn't hurt them too much in 2005.

I don't really like Baltimore. I know they won the division last year and secured the second seed in the AFC playoffs, but the division ended up being pretty weak. Like New England, they face the continual aging of key players like Ray Lewis and Steve McNair. Against a rejuvenated Bengal team, I don't see them doing much.

Cleveland, well can we say. They continue to try to find a roster of guys who can produce. Contend? I don't think so.

AFC West
This has been a tough division to pick in the recent past, but no more. San Diego owned the division last year and will continue to do so. They are perhaps the most talented team in the league. But, like Pittsburgh, they face an overhaul of the coaching staff and that leads one to expect some rough spots. And Norv Turner hasn't exactly inspired confidence anywhere he's gone as a head coach. But with all that talent, and a chip on their shoulders at not even winning a playoff game when they were favored with the Super Bowl, they should be very successful this year.

Denver is the only team that could conceivably challenge the Chargers. But they've had a tumultuous off-season with multiple players dying. On top of that, they don't have the talent San Diego has, particularly at key positions like running back and quarterback.

Kansas City joins Oakland in the ranks of total rebuilding, and neither will be much of a force.

AFC South
The Colts are obviously the team with the big targets on their backs this year. After three straight seasons of playing second fiddle and losing to the eventual champions New England (2003, 2004) and Pittsburgh (2005), they managed to bring home the trophy last year. Because of that history, though, they remind of me the 2002 Bucs and the 2005 Steelers: teams that finally managed to win the Super Bowl after several seasons of knocking on the door and being disappointed. Of course, neither of those teams followed up their big seasons with anything special, Tampa with a losing year in 2003 and Pittsburgh at 8-8 in 2006.

I think the reason is simple. After so many seasons of struggling to get over the hump, as it were, having succeeded the team lost its edge and got complacent. Watching Pittsburgh last year, there just wasn't the fire, the edge that they had had in previous years.

Indy will face the same struggle, a struggle that is exacerbated by many key personnel losses since the big game. We're already seeing players skipping workouts and Manning having to work the phones to try to get everyone working again. The team was already in decline relative to their great years prior to 2006. Now player losses combined with complacency will take the team down a peg or two.

That said they will still win the division. Like the East, this division is a one horse show. They just won't be the dominant, elite AFC team they've been.

The Jags have been the only team who could contend the last couple of years, but like the Jets they are a solid #2 team and wild-card contender. The offense just isn't good enough. Now, there is talk they might go after Daunte Culpepper, and if he can finally recover from his injuries and if he can regain his old form, he would have to be the starting quarterback and they would suddenly become something of a dangerous team. But those are big if's, and he's still a Dolphin anyway.

The Titans ended the season strong, winning six of the last seven games to get to 8-8, including wins over both the Colts and the Jaguars. I'm sure they will be a dark horse candidate on many lists to surprise, and certainly they have to be considered to have the potential. But they are a young team. Vince Young is obviously young, going into just his second year and first as the starter. He had a strong season last year and was a big part of their run at the end of the year. But he still has a ways to go. They are young at running back. They are experienced at wide receiver, but not with great talent. The defense isn't so hot. No one can look past them and they certainly have a strong potential upside. But I still can't quite see them pushing past the Colts for the division.

The Texans, well they continue to try.

NFC East
This is a fun division, by NFC standards. The division typically sees multiple teams battling it out for the title. Last year, the Eagles were the surprise of the NFC, taking the division title from a Cowboy team that looked to have it in the bag, and with their star starting quarterback on the sidelines. Are they back to being the class of the division? It's hard to tell. Clearly the team has questions about McNabb, having had an injury problem the last several years. This is a team that needs a solid backup, but they made little effort to re-sign Garcia, and the rest of the depth chart does not inspire confidence.

We can eliminate Washington and New York, I think. Neither team is all that strong. The 'Skins have lots of questions about their surprisingly anemic offense, and a new, QB to boot. The Giants face a season with their coach under the gun to deliver, continuing questions about Eli Manning, and the loss of Tiki Barber who the team did not really replace. It's hard to see either team making much of a run.

So, what about Dallas? They looked good much of last year, and had Romo as the feel-good story of the year. But he faded down the stretch and the Cowboys let a seemingly secure division title get away. So they certainly have something to prove. And they have to do so with a new coaching staff, which as I've already seems guaranteed to lead to problems in the short run.

Overall, I have to go with Dallas again. They should be better on defense than Philly, and their receivers are significantly better. Certainly McNabb is a far superior quarterback than Romo, so far, but you cannot rely on him being able to go 16 games, and like I said their depth chart is not great at that position.

NFC North
The Bears are obviously the favorites here. Rex Grossman took a lot of hits from writers last season, including this one. But what must be remembered about Grossman is this: it was essentially his first season as a starter. His career to that point was so marred by injury that just playing 5 straight games was a major achievement. He hadn't played a full season in several years, so one had to question his ability to play at a consistent level for a full season, then the post-season. But before he fell apart, he had a fantastic first month. Chicago, a team known for defense, had one of the top offenses that first month. So, clearly Grossman can play. The question is, can he play at that level for 16 games? I'm not sure. But given the strength of their defense and the lack of any serious competition, they seem a pretty solid bet to win the division.

I took the Lions as a potential dark horse last year, and that didn't exactly pan out. But I was right in predicting that Kitna would be a good quarterback in Martz's system and that the offense would be productive. I think they will be even better this year, even though they shocked the world and went a totally new direction in the draft: taking a wide receiver with an early first round pick. OK, no more sarcasm. With more familiarity with that offense, Kitna should have an even better season and the Lions will be exciting. But the defense is still abysmal, and it's hard to see them topping Chicago. But if the Bears should falter, look for the Lions to sneak in and take the title.

The Vikings are a shambles on offense. They will presumably be more productive than the 2006 Raiders, but I don't know that that's saying a whole heck of a lot.

The Packers, I don't know. Too many holes. Another 8-8 would be a decent result.

NFC West
I hate this division. It stinks! I've picked the Cardinals two years in a row, thinking that all the offensive talent would translate into points and therefore wins. But with the Arizona brass ignoring offensive line for years, that didn't happen. The Cards seem like they've finally addressed that hole this year, hiring Russ Grimm to be the line coach. Is that enough to make me pick them again? No way. I officially give up on them. (The last time I gave up on an NFC West team, they won't to the Super Bowl.)

The Rams aren't really going anywhere for a while except down.

The division seems to come down to Seattle and San Francisco. I like where the 49ers are going, at least on offense. Defense still leaves something to be desired. Smith is developing nicely at quarterback, Frank Gore had a very good season last year, and they have some talent are receiver and tight end. I really think they could move up the ranks this year and become a contender again, particularly if they can tighten up that defense a bit, a defense that was worst in the NFL last year in points allowed.

The Seahawks won the division again last year. Even in a weak division they only mustered a 9-7 record, but it was enough. Former MVP Alexander had a pretty bland season last year, slowed by injury to his foot, an injury which might not be fully healed. Hasslebeck didn't have a great season either, throwing a lot of interceptions and also missing time due to injury. They've been the top team in the division for a while, but the primary reason is that they have been the only team be consistently not so bad. In a weak division they've been the best. But with the 49ers, who swept the Seahawks last season improving and seemingly the rising force in the division, I have to go with them over the Seahawks.

NFC South
This is another weak division. (The NFC prefix is a dead give-away.) The Saints were the surprise team of 2006, rising from the bottom of the league to the NFC title game. The gamble with Drew Brees paid off big time as he emerged as a top quarterback and led a very good offense. Of course, it helps that Colston was another surprise for the team at receiver, and that the team managed to balance Reggie Bush and Deuce McAllister. Seldom have so many new additions all contributed so convincingly.

The rest of the division is nothing special. There don't seem to be any truly bad teams, assuming they can stay healthy. But nobody all that good either.

In Atlanta, the buzz surrounding Michael Vick seems to have finally died down. He's finally be judged purely as a quarterback, and found lacking. And need I mention is off field problems this offseason? In an attempt to finally address their glaring hole at wide receiver, the Falcons picked up former rival Joe Horn from the Saints. He's been a good player, but he's getting older, and missed six games last season due to injury. Horn might be able to produce and give the Falcons a legitimate passing threat, but at this point that has to be considered hopeful speculation. Without that, the Falcons are again a pure running team. If Vick's legal problems take him off the field, they are really in trouble because they got rid of their capable backup Schaub. And with Vick running so much, injury is a constant worry for the team. I can't even see them building on the 7-9 record they posted last year.

The Panthers? I just think it's not there for them anymore. The offense isn't all that productive anymore. Delhomme seems to have peaked a couple of years ago. It's not that he's bad, he's just not great and doesn't appear to be getting closer to being so. The defense is still good, though there are questions about Kris Jenkins. Carolina can win games and even challenge New Orleans, but I just don't seem them as much more than wild-card contenders at this point.

The Bucs were a disappointment last year. The injury to Simms obviously didn't help, particularly as it exposed the lack of depth at the position they had after letting former starter Brian Griese go. But even before that they were not really asserting themselves as many had expected. The offense disappointed, with 2005's young stars all tanking in 2006. The defense, for so long the standard bearer of the team, ended up ranked in the bottom half of the league for the first time in who knows how long. That defense relies on too many aging stars. With Jeff Garcia at quarterback, they ought to have much better play on offense, obviously. But can guys like Clayton and Williams get back on track? One thinks so with Garcia there. Like Carolina, the Bucs are not a bad team and can challenge, but relying on a 37 year old QB new to the team does not inspire confidence, even if he did play well last year. Wildcard? Maybe. Division? No.

Super Bowl
It's far too soon to actually pick a Super Bowl matchup, so as always I will pick the four top teams in each conference, one of whom is most likely to make the big game.

AFC: New England, San Diego, Cincinnati, Tennessee
The first three are obvious, but the Titans, a team I didn't even pick to win the division? Well, I really can't see the Colts being true contenders this year. I do think they'll win the division, but not do much in the playoffs. The Titans, while I'm not picking them to win the division, have a lot of potential. If they can translate that end-of-season momentum into something this season, they could well come out of nowhere. If that happens, they will be a stronger contender than the Colts.

Everyone will pick the Patriots for reasons already stated. I won't be any different. At this point one has to give the New England brain trust the credit the deserve and assume they know what they are doing in acquiring people. Besides, for the first time in a few years, they haven't had any significant departures, either players or coaches. So they have to be the team in the driver's seat. They have the advantage of playing both the Chargers and the Bengals during the regular season, and so have a good degree of control over their own playoff seeding destiny. Of course, that also means they have a pretty tough first month of the season.

I really like San Diego, but with so much turnover on the coaching staff (headlined by head coach and both coordinators), and the fact that the guys brought in to replace the outgoing coaches are not necessarily an improvement, I have to expect something of a falloff from last season. But still, they have to be considered the primary challenger to New England.

I really like the Bengal offense. One of the best. But the defense being what it is, they are like the Colts of recent years. They will contend, be a dangerous team, and if things fall right might even with the big one. But they would need help to get there. But still, with that offense, there are few teams in the regular season who will beat them.

NFC: Chicago, New Orleans, Dallas, Detroit
The Bears and Saints are obvious, having met in last year's conference title game. Assuming Grossman can take a few steps forward as a quarterback this year and play the whole season solidly, they have to be considered the class of the NFC. As I wrote above, they have the potential to be a top 10 team in both offense and defense. And with their built-in home field advantage, they are tough to beat in January. Ask the Saints.

The Saints are an outstanding team, too. With all the attention on offense last year, what's often overlooked is their defense was ranked #11. So they too have the potential to a double top 10 team. They are now experienced, well coached, and just plain good. The biggest problem is that they play in a dome in one of the warmest and most humid locations in the league, which puts them at great disadvantage should they have to travel in the playoffs. As was shown last year.

I'm not really sure about Dallas, but I need four teams so somebody has to be there. They are a good team, and could have won a playoff game last year. They are better than just about anyone else in the NFC, so if disaster should strike the Saints or the Bears, or both, the Cowboys certainly look like a team that could step into the breach.

Now, the Lions. As I said, I need four teams for this section. I've already reached with the third team, so this is a real stretch (though not as much as picking Tennessee for the AFC). But I do like the potential of the Lion offense. If Chicago should falter, that offense should bring them the division title. And with the lack of strong defenses in the NFC, they would be certainly viable candidates to challenge for the conference title.

Quote of the Day (2007-06-24)

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Source: Monty Python's Flying Circus

Quote of the Day (2007-06-23)

C: What's this thing?
"ROMANES EUNT DOMUS"?
"People called Romanes they go the house"?
B: It, it says "Romans go home".
C: No it doesn't. What's Latin for "Roman"?
B: (hesitates)
C: Come on, come on!
B: (uncertain) "ROMANUS".
C: Goes like?
B: "-ANUS".
C: Vocative plural of "-ANUS" is?
B: "-ANI".
C: "RO-MA-NI". "EUNT"? What is "EUNT"?
B: "Go".
C: Conjugate the verb "to go"!
B: "IRE". "EO", "IS", "IT", "IMUS", "ITIS", "EUNT".
C: So "EUNT" is ...?
B: Third person plural present indicative, "they go".
C: But "Romans, go home!" is an order, so you must use the ...?
(lifts Brian by his hairs)
B: The ... imperative.
C: Which is?
B: Ahm, oh, oh, "I", "I"!
C: How many romans? (pulls harder)
B: Plural, plural! "ITE".
C: (strikes over "EUNT" and paints "ITE" to the wall)
(satisfied) "I-TE".
"DOMUS"? Nominative? "Go home", this is motion towards, isn't it, boy?
B: (very anxious) Dative?
C: (draws his sword and holds it to Brian's throat)
B: Ahh! No, ablative, ablative, sir. No, the, accusative, accusative,
ah, DOMUM, sir.
C: Except that "DOMUS" takes the ...?
B: ... the locative, sir!
C: Which is?
B: "DOMUM".
C: (satisfied) "DOMUM" (strikes out "DOMUS" and writes "DOMUM") "-MUM".
Understand?
B: Yes sir.
C: Now write it down a hundred times.
B: Yes sir, thank you sir, hail Caesar, sir.
C: (salutes) Hail Caesar. If it's not done by sunrise, I'll cut your balls off.
B: (very reliefed) Oh thank you sir, thank you sir, hail Caesar and everything, sir!

Source: Life of Brian

Quote of the Day (2007-06-22)

Suicide Squad Leader: We are the Judean People's Front crack suicide squad! Suicide squad, attack!
[they all stab themselves]
Suicide Squad Leader: That showed 'em, huh?

Source: Life of Brian

Read the Sunspots

The Canada National Post has an interesting article by Professor Timothy Patterson that ascribes climate change not to global warming, i.e. warming due to the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but to solar variability. I don't know that I immediately buy it. But it does show that the science is far from the picture of unanimity environmentalists would have us believe. On that subject, Patterson writes

In some fields the science is indeed "settled." For example, plate tectonics, once highly controversial, is now so well-established that we rarely see papers on the subject at all. But the science of global climate change is still in its infancy, with many thousands of papers published every year. In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.

The fact that within my lifetime, climate scientists were talking about a looming ice age is proof of that.

Quote of the Day (2007-06-21)

Jerry: "Listen to this. Marcy comes over and she tells me that her ex-boyfriend was over late last night and 'yada yada yada I'm really tired today.' You don't think she'd yada yada sex?"
Elaine: "I've yada yada'd sex."
George: "Really?"
Elaine: "Yeah. I met this lawyer, we went out to dinner, I had the lobster bisque, we went back to my place, yada yada yada, I never heard from him again."
Jerry: "But you yada yada'd over the best part."
Elaine: "No, I mentioned the bisque."

Source: Seinfeld

Quote of the Day (2007-06-20)

When danger reared its ugly head he bravely turned his tail and fled. Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin.

Source: Holy Grail

Quote of the Day (2007-06-19)

Sybil Fawlty: You know what I'll do if I find out that money is yours?
Basil Fawlty: [calling after her] You'd have to sew 'em back on first.

Source: Fawlty Towers

Quote of the Day (2007-06-18)

Lisa: Solitude never hurt anyone. Emily Dickinson lived alone, and she wrote some of the most beautiful poetry the world has ever known... then went crazy as a loon.

Source: The Simpsons

Quote of the Day (2007-06-17)

Duff book of records: Springfield is now the fattest city in the U.S.
Homer: Woo Hoo. In your face Milwaukee.

Source: The Simpsons

Quote of the Day (2007-06-16)

Mrs. Richards: I've booked a room with a bath and a sea view for three nights. I specifically asked for a sea view in my written confirmation, so please make sure I have it.
Manuel: Qué?
Mrs. Richards: What?
Manuel: Qué?
Mrs. Richards: K?
Manuel: Sí.
Mrs. Richards: KC? KC? What are you trying to say?
Manuel: No, no no no. Qué, "what."
Mrs. Richards: K. Watt?
Manuel: Sí: qué, "what."
Mrs. Richards: C.K. Watt?
Manuel: Yes.
Mrs. Richards: Who is this C.K. Watt?
Manuel: Qué?
Mrs. Richards: Is he the manager?
Manuel: Oh, Manajer.
Mrs. Richards: He is.
Manuel: Ah, Mr. Fawlty.
Mrs. Richards: Oh, what are you talking about, you silly little man?
[to Polly]
Mrs. Richards: Girl, I start to ask this man about my room, and he tells me the manager is a Mr. Watt, aged forty.
Manuel: No, no no. "Fawwl-ty."
Mrs. Richards: Faulty? What's wrong with him?

Source: Fawlty Towers

Quote of the Day (2007-06-15)

Prime Minister: We must do something to improve my relations with the press, which deteriorated considerably when my private secretary told them I felt I was above the law when it came to official secrets.
Bernard: Yes, you may well hang your head.
PM: What's the constitutional position, Humphrey?
Sir Humphrey: Well, in a sense, Bernard was right. The question, in a nutshell, is what is the difference between a breach of the Official Secrets Act and an unattributable, off-the-record briefing by a senior official? The former - a breach - is a criminal offence. A briefing is essential to keep the wheels turning.
Bernard: Is there a difference or is it a matter of convenience and interpretation? Is it a breach of the act if there is an unofficial, non-attributable briefing by an official who's been unofficially authorised by the Prime Minister?
Sir Humphrey: Not if it's been authorised by the PM, no.
PM: That's what I say. I should decide if it's in the national interest for something to be disclosed, not officials.
PM: Last week's leak must've come from an official.
Bernard: But what if the official was officially authorised or even unofficially authorised? What if the PM officially disapproves of a breach of the act, but unofficially approves?
Sir Humphrey: Then a leak would be unofficially official, but officially unofficial.

Source: Yes, Prime Minister

Quote of the Day (2007-06-14)

Cheryl "Rhode Island": Once I stole a pair of red underwear from the department store. My mom wouldn't buy them for me - she said they were Satan's panties!

Source: Miss Congeniality

Not Accepting Science

I've seen this comment come up a couple of times in different blogs. Pharyngula associates religious thought with child abuse. Why? Because a survey shows that those with religious belief are far more likely to not accept the theories of origin currently in general acceptance by the scientific community. And teaching children that current theory is wrong is child abuse. Now, I'm not defending the idea of creationism as science or anything like that. But I am disturbed by the apparent notion that believing in science means accepting whatever the current theory is, and anyone who questions those theories (a) reject science, (b) are morons, and (c) are ultimately human beings to be viewed as badly as child abusers.

I think of Albert Einstein. Surely no one will question that the man knew a thing or two about science. He's one of the greatest physicists of all time. But for most of his career he would be in the Pharyngula's category of child abuser, a rejector of science, and a moron. Pretty ballsy.

The early part of the 20th century saw the rise of quantum physics, which turned hundreds of years of physics theory on his head, as well as thousands of years of thought about the fundamental nature of the universe. Ironically, quantum's rise was due in part to Einstein's work on the photoelectric effect, which made scientists take Planck's mathematical notion of the quantum more seriously. But, despite the accumulation of evidence that made quantum theory generally accepted throughout the physics community, Einstein rejected it to his dying day.

Einstein was unable to accept the probabilism inherent to quantum theory. Hence his famous quote: God does not play dice. Rather than accept quantum theory based on rising tide of experimental evidence, he continued to push for a geometric theory built upon general relativity that preserved classical determinism. He had zero success, but continued to believe in the idea.

Einstein spent a big chunk of his life rejecting theory generally accepted by physicists and supported by experiment in favor of a theory tailored to his own preferences for how nature worked and what must be true, in his opinion, and for which there was no evidence. Quantum did not match his preconceptions of what must be true so the evidence in favor of the theory did not convince him. In these, he was not all that dissimilar to those in this survey who reject evolution and its evidence, people for whom Pharyngula and other alleged science lovers have so much contempt.

Science is not about subservient acceptance of whatever theory is current today. Every theory that has ever been generally accepted has eventually been rejected or modified so extensively that it no longer resembles what it started as. Science is built on constant questioning. There is never enough evidence. There's always another experiment to run. Plenty of very good scientists will be found who reject many commonly accepted theories.

This is something I find so amusing in the intelligent design debate. The so-called science supporters are so enamored of their theories that they refuse to call them theories and instead insist they are facts. But if they are facts, why are the scientists still experimenting to test those same theories, and why are those theories themselves evolving?

When I was an undergraduate, I took part in a research program at the College of William and Mary. Quantum electro-dynamics (QED) is one of the best tested theories in the history of physics. Physicists have measured some parameters of that theory to ridiculous precision. Despite all its success, the theory was unable at the time (this was 1989, but apparently this is still true today) to come up with the mean life of ortho-positronium (a positron-electron pair with the spin vectors of the two aligned). So you have the best tested theory in physics still facing issues and requiring additional testing to address discrepancies between theory and experiment.

Again, I'm not defending creationism or anything of the sort. I am questioning the idea that those who reject the prevailing theories of the day, including those who reject a theory supported by much evidence because it doesn't say what they want it to say, are somehow to be viewed as child abusers. Sometimes those people are called geniuses, and those slavishly devoted to current theory are left in the ash heap of history.

Quote of the Day (2007-06-13)

Peter Joshua: Is there a Mr. Lampert?
Reggie Lampert: Yes.
Peter Joshua: Good for you.
Reggie Lampert: No it isn't, I'm getting a divorce.
Peter Joshua: Please! Not on my account.

Source: Charade

Quote of the Day (2007-06-12)

Ilsa: A franc for your thoughts.
Rick: In America they'd bring only a penny, and, huh, I guess that's about all they're worth.

Source: Casablanca

Quote of the Day (2007-06-11)

H&H wouldn't let us use the bathroom when we were on strike. They put a cramp in our solidarity.

Source: Seinfeld

Quote of the Day (2007-06-10)

Ian Faith: They're not gonna release the album... because they have decided that the cover is sexist.
Nigel Tufnel: Well, so what? What's wrong with bein' sexy? I mean there's no...
Ian Faith: Sex-IST!
David St. Hubbins: IST!

Source: This is Spinal Tap

Quote of the Day (2007-06-09)

Ian Faith: The Boston gig has been cancelled...
David St. Hubbins: What?
Ian Faith: Yeah. I wouldn't worry about it though, it's not a big college town.

Source: This is Spinal Tap

Quote of the Day (2007-06-08)

Philip: Oh, I tell you. Women are not the sensitive sex. That's one of the grand delusions of literature. Men are the true romanticists.

Source: Indiscreet

Amero Gets a New Trial

Julie Amero's sentencing went a different way yesterday. The judge threw out the conviction and ordered a new trial. The Norwich Bulletin, who has been one of the few voices supporting the prosecution and conviction, cites "newly discovered evidence" which "apparently" contradicts the so-called expert testimony given in the trial. This new evidence has, of course, been around for months or even longer and accepted by just about everyone outside of the prosecutor's office and the Bulletin's office.

Quote of the Day (2007-06-07)

George: "A guy leaves a puddle of sweat, that's a signal?"
Elaine: "Yeah, it's a social thing."
George: "What if he left you a used Kleenex? What's that, a valentine?"

Source: Seinfeld

Quote of the Day (2007-06-06)

Homer: Homer no function beer well without.

Source: The Simpsons

Quote of the Day (2007-06-05)

Westley: I told you I would always come for you. Why didn't you wait for me?
Buttercup: Well... you were dead.
Westley: Death cannot stop true love. All it can do is delay it for a while.
Buttercup: I will never doubt again.
Westley: There will never be a need.

Source: The Princess Bride

Quote of the Day (2007-06-04)

Moe: Hey, I don't need no advice from a pinball machine. I'll have you know, I wrote the book on love.
Grampa: Yeah - "All Quiet on the Western Front".

Source: The Simpsons

Sgt. Pepper's

It's been 40 years since the Beatles brought forth Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. I have to admit to being something of a heretic. I love the Beatles but I'm never sure if I give John and Paul the credit every one else does as being so brilliant. How much did George Martin contribute? Without his arrangements, orchestration, and even composition, what would the band sound like?

That being said, there's no question they were a phenomenal band. Even today listening to their music, I feel bad for my generation and the one following mine because we never had anyone to even come close. The flower children had the Beatles, their younger siblings had Led Zeppelin, and we had, who? U2? Great band, but not exactly in the same league.

Anyway, here's to Sgt. Pepper's. Thanks to the Beatles, now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall.

Quote of the Day (2007-06-03)

Cletus: He really speaks to me, the average Joe six-tooth.
Cletus's Wife: When did you get another tooth?
Cletus: The sidewalk.

Source: The Simpsons

ShrinkWrapped: Marriage and Children

ShrinkWrapped has a very interesting post on the new movie Knocked Up and its social messages. I might just have to see the movie, and the 40 Year Old Virgin. Neither ever gave the impression of having much depth. But that's what's great about comedy. It gives you the opportunity to look at things without being beaten over the head with it.

Quote of the Day (2007-06-02)

I'll have what she's having.

Source: When Harry Met Sally

Quote of the Day (2007-06-01)

Jerry: "You know how the big toe is the captain of the toes, but sometimes the toe next to the big toe gets so big that there's a power struggle and the second toe assumes control of the foot."
George: "The coup de toe!"

Source: Seinfeld