It's nice to have some good news for a change.  You guys are pretty smart so I'll let you figure it out yourself.

Well this will be good for the stability of the Middle East.  With U.N. approval, British Navy personnel have been stopping and boarding ships in Iraqi waters to search for supplies being smuggled from Iran to the Iraqi insurgents.  Earlier today, shortly after stopping and searching a merchant ship, the British suddenly found themselves surrounded by Iranian naval vessels.  The British were detained and escorted into Iranian territorial waters.

Navy personnel captured at gunpoint (The Scotsman Evening News):
...A journalist on board the ship, Ian Pannell, said that they had just boarded a dhow, a traditional Arabian sailing vessel.

Mr Pannell said: “While they were on board, a number of Iranian boats approached the waters in which they were operating – the Royal Navy are insistent that they were operating in Iraqi waters and not Iranian waters – and essentially captured the Royal Navy and Royal Marine personnel at gunpoint."...

Viacom Sues Google

You probably know that the media giant Viacom recently sued the internet giant Google over Viacom content which appears on YouTube.  People who watch big companies like these have been saying that as soon as YouTube got purchased, the lawsuits would come.  Mostly because YouTube didn't have a lot of money, so suing them for damages wouldn't net much.

Now that YouTube is owned by Google, there's money to be had, and so now a company isn't limited to seeking injunctions so their content can't be shown on YouTube, now they can seek damages--quite a bit of damages actually.  Viacom claims Google owes it 1 billion dollars, which is pretty hefty.

Google for its part has been trying to negotiate with Viacom, to work out some sort of deal where Viacom content can be shown on YouTube.  The lawsuit may just be another way that Viacom is choosing to negotiate, so it may never actually go to court.

Viacom seems less interested in allowing YouTube to show Viacom content, and more interested in having all of its content taken off YouTube.  The sticking point, from what I've heard, has been the filtering of any future Viacom content from YouTube.  In order to prevent any more Colbert or South Park or whatever from appearing on YouTube, people would need to actively view every posted video and delete content owned by Viacom (which is a pretty wide variety of stuff).

Google has basically said "when you want something taken down, just send us a list and we'll take it down."  But that isn't good enough for Viacom, and they want Google to actively filter the material.  To which Google has indicated for that kind of service they would need some sort of compensation.  Of course Viacom is not going to pay Google to take down content which belongs to Viacom in the first place!

The complexity of such filtering, while perhaps not immediately appreciated by Viacom, is certainly appreciated now.  MoveOn.org and a number of other groups have sued Viacom for asking Google to remove videos which were not Viacom content, but parodies of Viacom content and therefore protected under fair use.  You see, it's not as simple as searching for "Colbert" and printing a list.  Duh.

All that aside, I think Viacom has a good case against Google.  The content really does belong to Viacom, and it is copyrighted.  The "we can't control what our users do" argument didn't work for Napster and I wouldn't expect it to work here, even though the content here is partial clips instead of entire songs.  The hope therefore is that Viacom will instead work out a deal with Google so that the case doesn't go to court.

In many ways it is good for a company to have clips of it's content appear on YouTube.  For example, I was never a big Family Guy watcher.  But after laughing my ass off to some clips on YouTube, I went out and bought the first season of Family Guy on DVD, and now I own seasons 1-4 on DVD.  The YouTube clips made the owners of Family Guy some money in my case.  It's really a form of free advertising, and some companies have embraced that.

Ultimately if the case goes to court, I expect Viacom will win, and YouTube will have to change dramatically.  I hope that doesn't happen.

Carol Burnett Sues "Family Guy" Creators

In one of the recent seasons of family guy there is an 18-second clip featuring Carol Burnett's famous cleaning-lady character mopping up the floor of a pornography shop.  Ms. Burnett has responded to this parody of her character by suing the creators of Family Guy for copyright infringement, and is seeking 2 million dollars in damages.

When I was a kid, I loved the Carol Burnett show.  I watched it all the time (even in reruns) with my family and laughed myself silly.  What I find odd is that many times the show included parodies of movies, TV shows, or novels.  So clearly, Ms. Burnett understands the use of parody, particularly in comedy.  One would think that to see her trademark character remembered after all these years would be flattering.

Guess not.

There's no way she is going to win.  It's obviously parody and is protected.  I can't see how she would not know this and so I'm assuming she just needs the money and is hoping for some sort of settlement.  It's depressing really, because I've always liked Carol Burnett.

So I've been taking my body temperature every half hour or so since Sunday, monitoring myself for any signs of fever, and I'll tell you something, if I show a temperature of 98.6?  I'm running hot.  I say this because my body temperature seems to be low all the time, usually between 97.4 and 97.9 but much lower when I first wake up.  Yesterday my waking temperature was 96.4, today it was 96.6.  If I have to move around a lot and exert myself, then my temperature slides up into the 98's, but that's the only time.  All the more evidence that when I show a fever of 99.9 using the same thermometers I've been using to measure all these 96's and 97's, it's probably a more serious than it might be for an average person.

No fevers yet by the way, just my normal low temperatures.

I guess I'm a cool guy after all.

Alright you bloggers out there.  I need help, and I can summarize the problem in five words: my categories are for shite.

What are Categories?

Feel free to skip this section if you already know what weblog categories are.  BlogHarbor, my provider, like other providers, supports the concept of categories.  Do not confuse categories with "keywords".  Keywords are just that, key words that you can attach to an article for use by certain aggregators and search engines.  A way of telling such an entity that "this post is about Star Trek" without ever mentioning the words "Star Trek" in the actual post.  Categories are different, they are organizational.

In some ways, visiting a categorized blog is like visiting a bookstore or a library.  Although all the articles are there to see, you can choose to only see articles grouped by subject matter, just as if you went to the "Horror" section in a bookstore to find the scary books, and then you went to the "Home Improvement" section to find a book about fixing your deck.  So it is here.

My categories appear over in the left sidebar under the word "Topics".  For example, this article is in the "Blogging" category, which is a subcategory of the "Internet" category.  If you were to click the "Internet" link in the topics sidebar on the left, the list of displayed articles would change to show only the articles that have something to do with the internet.  The topics list would also change to reflect the fact that there are subcategories under "Internet", of which one is "Blogging".  If you were to click that category link, the topics list would disappear altogether, beause there are no subcategories under "Blogging" and the list of displayed articles would show only those in the "Blogging" category.  When you first come to the blog you are on a category called "Main Page", and call categories are subcategories of "Main Page".  So as you navigate through subcategories you will see a changing header at the top of the page that shows you what category you are in, and gives you links to get back to higher categories.  The header only appears once you enter a category.  So when you click "Internet" you will see "Main Page >> Internet" at the top of the page, just under the banner.  If you then click "Blogging" in the topics list, the header will change to "Main Page >> Internet >> Blogging".  Each of the displayed category names are links, so you can get back to "Internet" or "Main Page" by clicking on those links.

On a blog, there's the added advantage that an article can be in multiple categories so that it appears in multiple places.  A news story about a stolen piece of artwork might appear in both the "Art" and "News" categories for example.  If I go hiking in the woods and come across a bunch of trash dumped by some jerk, I might post an article in the "Science / Nature" category and the "Personal / Pet Peeves" category.

Okay So What's Wrong with Unbecoming Levity's Categories?

My list of categories isn't planned like a library's or the yellow pages, but has grown organically and haphazardly.  As a result, some of the categories are in strange places.  Some articles are filed under categories that really aren't the best place for them.  Take "geocaching" for example.  Geocaching is internet-driven--learning about new caches, and reporting finds all takes place on the internet--that's why the "geocaching" category is a subcategory of "internet".  But once you are geocaching you are out wandering in the wilderness somewhere... and as an outdoor activity, maybe it belongs in the "Nature" category which is under "Science".  Or perhaps it should go in the "Entertainment" category because it is something you do for fun.  Ultimately the article I write might end up filed under all these categories.  It just all seems very confusing.

I suppose I shouldn't feel such angst over it... this ain't no library.  I write about whatever I feel like writing about, and not all of it is easily categorizable.  But I regularly find myself saying "this doesn't really fit into these categories... I need a new one".  So then I create a new one, and then there is a desire to go back through Unbecoming Levity's growing list of articles (2,149 and counting) to check for other articles that should go into that category.  This is an expensive proposition, timewise, and I usually end up quitting before I get too far in.

Today's new category was "Justice System" and under that "Court Cases", and yes, I went back and stuck old articles into that category.  I did this because I wanted to write an article about a couple lawsuits that have been in the news.  Instead I spent the time reorganizing old articles and then writing this whiny dreck.

So how do you organize your blog articles into categories?  Do you even bother?  Is there a better way for me to organize my blog?  I'll close with a hierarchical listing of my categories (which doesn't include my photo albums which is another organizational nightmare). 

• Art
• Civics, Ethics, & Behavior
  • Humanity
  • Inhumanity
• Entertainment
  • Books
  • Movies
  • Music
  • Video Games
  • Magic: the Gathering
  • Celebrities
• Humor
• Internet
  • Blogging
  • Discussion Groups
  • Geocaching
  • Webworking
• Justice System
  • Court Cases
• Love, Joy, & Happiness
• Media
• News
  • FYI
  • Obituaries
• Personal
  • Birthdays
  • Family
  • Pet Peeves
  • Vanessa
  • Writing
    • Poetry
    • Fiction
• Photography
  • Photoshop
• Politics
  • Abortion
  • China
  • Creationism & Intelligent Design
  • Elections
  • Gay Rights
  • Iraq
  • North Korea
• Random
  • Cool
  • Cute
  • Gross
  • Weird
• Religion & Spirituality
  • Atheism
• Science
  • Anthropology
  • Astronomy
  • Health
  • Language and Etymology
  • Math
    • Economics
  • Nature
    • Climate Change
  • Technology
• Sorrow

8:07 PM EDT today, March 20, marks the Vernal Equinox and the official start of Spring 2007.  Today at that time the sun will pass over the equator from the southern hemisphere to the northern.   This is what you probably already know.

But I learned a couple of things today that I didn't know.  First is that "equinox" means "equal night", which makes sense because on the equinoxes the length of day and night are exactly equal.  Here in the northern hemisphere the days will continue to get longer until the Summer Solstice at 12:06 PM EDT on June 21, 2007.  Since the last Autumnal Equinox we in the northern hemisphere have been getting less direct light than the southern hemisphere.  As of 8:07 we will officially begin receiving more direct light than the southern hemisphere.

The other thing I should have known is that, for the southern hemisphere, this time will mark the Autumnal Equinox.  I mean, I was aware that the seasons of the south are the reverse of the seasons of the north, winter here summer there, fall here spring there, but it just never occurred to me that the solstices and equinoxes were similarly flipped.  Silly that should never have occurred to me.

Oh, one other little thing I learned is that "solstice" means "sun stands still".  Since the solstice marks when the sun stops moving north or south and reverses direction, that's a very sensible thing to call it.

Another interesting tidbit, apparently the great Sphinx of Egypt is oriented so that it exactly faces the sunrise on the morning of the Vernal Equinox.

If I said that to like... um... anyone who cared about me, they'd probably fall all over themselves to warn me that I was falling for an extremely well known scam.  You get an e-mail from some nice person in Nigeria who says that he has millions in the bank, but he can't get at it due to government corruption and fees.  If you will help him pay the fees and bribes so that he can get the money out, he in turn will pay you back and give you a share of his fortune.  You transfer the money and Mbutu Ndunga disappears and never contacts you again, except to ask for more money.

It's sad when people (typically elderly people) fall for such a scam.  It's even sadder when they invest other people's money in these scams.  It's even sadder when they are a county treasurer that embezzles taxpayer money in an attempt to cash in on the big Nigerian payout that never comes.

Hard to believe a county treasurer, a person who handles money for a living, would fall for such a scam, particularly after being warned by a bank that what he was investing in is a commonly-known scam.

But that is exactly what happened to Thomas Katona, former County Treasurer for Alcona County, Michigan.  Katona definitely embezzled and invested at least $186,500 in this scam, but Alcona's yearly budget is $4 million, and an audit has revealed that the county has a shortage of $1.2 million.  Katona also apparently kicked $72,000 of his own money into this scam.  Guess it's going to be a public defender for Mr. Katona.  He has been arrested and charged with 8 counts of embezzlement, 1 count of attempted embezzlement, and 2 counts of forgery.

I heard the story mentioned on NPR today.  I'm amazed that it happened at all.  But then, I'm amazed this man was elected as a treasurer in the first place, as Salem News notes:

...Alcona County voters re-elected Katona twice even after he pleaded guilty in 1998 of defrauding clients of his private accounting practice...

• Former Alcona County Treasurer Charged with Embezzling Public Monies (Michigan Office of Attorney General Press Release)
• Ex-Harrisville treasurer to stand trial on charges he bilked Alcona County to benefit Nigerian scam (The Detroit News)
• E-mail scam nets unlikely victim (The Salem News)
• Michigan County Falls Victim to Nigerian Scam (NPR -- Day to Day)

Well today is the day we repeat the "no antibiotics" test.  I didn't take any avelox this morning.  Hope I don't get any fevers!  My side still hurts so there is still something going on in my lung, but maybe this time I'll be able to fight it off myself.

UPDATE 3/22/2007: I haven't had a pill since Sunday, and so far, no fevers!  I know it's still a little early, the doctor said it would normally take about 4 days for the fevers to return, but I am starting to hope they won't.  And then maybe I won't need surgery.  But my lung still hurts so something is going on in there.  I have another CAT scan this afternoon.  Hopefully that will show improvement.

A couple days ago, as I was coming out of the doctor's office, I finally caught on the air the scent that I knew was coming.  For me, Spring is heralded by a smell.  I can't really describe it... it's damp, a little pungent... it smells like the world thawing out and coming back to life.  For me it is typically the otherwise unnoticed boundary that marks the transition from Winter to Spring.  And, as with every joyful moment these days, I was immediately filled with a tremendous sadness that my Dad couldn't be there to enjoy it, that I couldn't phone him up or send him an e-mail about it.

This year I got the feel of Spring approaching even before detecting the scent of it.  We had some unseasonably warm days, lots of snowmelt, and the appearance of robins and other birds I associate with Spring.  A couple days prior to catching the scent I told my wife that I was depressed that Dad didn't get to see the coming of Spring this year.  She smiled and said "don't you remember the robins?"

She was right.  I had forgotten about that.  When I was laid up in bed with pneumonia, my Dad sent me the last e-mail I would ever receive from him, about something he knew I would enjoy.  I'm going to share it with you:

Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 11:59:16 EST
Subject: Hey

Hey Chuck,

How are you feeling? Hope your sickness is dissipating. Wanted to tell you about a strange (strange to me) event that took place here last Thursday. You know how robins show up in pairs usually, well we had a flock show up. I don't ever recall seeing such a thing. Grackles, yes, but not robins. Must have been 50 or more birds in the back yard. In fact our neighbor called to inform us. What they came for were the berries on the holly bushes. They just about cleaned them off. They are still, even today, coming by for more, but there's very little left and only a few birds at a time. The unfortunate aspect is the mess they left behind, it's every where. Have to watch where I step outside.

Pictures aren't great. Was hard to get them all without scaring them away, especially through the windows against the afternoon sun. I think I've seen just about every type bird I'm familiar with around these parts already.

Love you, Dad

In a way, these are my father's last words to me.  And upon reflection hearing him say he had seen all the spring birds already, gives me some small solace that Dad got to see this spring.  I can't tell you how much I miss him, and how much it hurts to be without him.  But at least he saw the birds he loved so much one more time before he passed away.  I've started my Spring 2007 photo album, and the first 3 pictures are Dad's robins... some of the photos he sent me when I was sick to help cheer me up.  Have a look, I thought they were pretty good pictures actually.

In all likelihood, if you are reading this you are a computer user who has a basic familiarity with the Internet and using computers, and that knowledge may serve you well as you read this.  This is a story about a 40-year old substitute teacher from Norwich, Connecticut, who apparently through ignorance of computers, is facing 40 years in jail, because of porn pop-ups on a classroom computer.

Having visited porn sites, I know full well that once you have one open, it's often quite difficult to get rid of it.  What happens is when you click the close box, either a bit of JavaScript or a piece of malware traps the "OnClose" event and opens a new porn page for you.  Close that one and it happens again.  And usually you have to close many such windows before they stop coming back.  This is standard operating procedure for most porn sites.  Usually porn sites are part of a "family" of sites all owned by the same distributor.  Thus when you click the close box on one site the next site in the family will pop up, unbidden.  And it is quite possible for this to happen even with standard IE-pop-up blocking turned on.

You can make this not-happen if you have a very good pop-up blocker, but such blockers are not reliable in my experience... they catch some pop-ups but not all.  There are other tricks (I'm told) that you can use if you are a real computer expert.  But the victims in this case were not computer experts.  They were a substitute teacher covering a computer class, and her 11 to 13 year old students.

According to Ms. Amero, in October of 2004, she entered the classroom to find some students at the teacher's computer, accessing a site about hair care.  One of them didn't belong in that classroom and the other did.  Being a substitute, Ms. Amero was not familiar with any of the students.  Shortly thereafter porn pop-ups began appearing on the machine.  Ms. Amero sought to get rid of them in a fashion typical of an average user.  She clicked the close box.

"The pop-ups never went away. It was one after another," she testified. "They were continuous. Every time I clicked the box in the corner, the red box, the red X, more were generated."

The school for its part, did what most schools do when parents overreact to something that could have happened to anyone.  They fired Ms. Amero.  Shortly thereafter, Ms. Amero was arrested--charged with four felony charges of risk of injury to a minor, a sub-clause of that violation specifically with respect to the morals of a minor.

Ms. Amero lost her court battle.  The prosecutor maintained that there is no way to get porn sites to pop up without deliberately clicking a link to open them--which is twaddle, and anyone with a passing knowledge of web surfing knows it.  Further he claimed that since Ms. Amero didn't simply pull the plug or throw a jacket over the monitor until the problem could be dealt with, then she must have intended to view those sites in the presence of children.

Ms. Amero claimed that substitutes are not supposed to disturb or touch anything in a teacher's classroom, and therefore believed that she could not shut the computer off.

I've seen inexperienced computer users when faced with an unexpected behavior--in college I worked for the school's computing services department, and one of my jobs was assisting people using computers.  Many of those people were computer illiterate, and let me tell you, the obvious solution isn't the first thing they try.  Many computer illiterate people are afraid they are going to "break the computer" and are therefore unwilling to try anything unusual.  It doesn't surprise me in the least that this substitute teacher would simply try closing the pop-ups ad nauseum.

I have read the entire record of testimony from the case, and see a number of problems here.  In my opinion this is a mistrial, and the case would need to be heard again.

With respect to the evidence, a number of the expert witnesses made claims that I know for a fact are false.  Whether or not they know they are false, I can't say, but I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that there are gaps in their expert knowledge.  The information services manager for Norwich Public Schools testified under oath that is was not possible to get into an "endless loop of pornography".  That's flat out wrong.  He was also asked under oath if spyware or ad-ware could generate pornography, and testified that they could not.  This man does not know what he is talking about.

The detective on the case is clearly very knowledgeable about computer crime.  And yet, at one point in the case he testified that if you click a link to a page, when you next view the link on a web page the link has changed color, but this does not happen if the page in question opened as a pop-up.  That's completely incorrect.  Your browser tracks URLs that were visited, not how they were visited.  Links to pop-up pages will turn purple just like links you clicked manually.  The reason it is important is it has direct bearing on whether Ms. Amero deliberately chose to view a porn page, or if that page appeared as a pop-up through the action of ad-ware or hokey JavaScript or whatnot.

The other, immensely huge problem with the case is the defense attorney.  The defense attorney is a self-professed computer illiterate, and should have had a computer consultant with him at all times so that when other witnesses are offering incorrect testimony as expert opinion, he could consult with his own expert and get him up there on the stand.  But the defense attorney appeared to be completely unprepared most of the time.  When the state rested the defense attorney wasn't ready to present his case, to the consternation and bewilderment of the judge.  "I wasn't expecting the state to rest right now."

The defense's first witness was a computer expert who intended to give a presentation in court regarding ad-ware and spyware he found on the machine, a presentation that would have explained the difference between clicking a link and being redirected, and which would have demonstrated how Ms. Amero could have gotten stuck in a loop of porn pop-ups without necessarily clicking on anything suspect.  He was not allowed to give his presentation (which I got the impression included slides, and ad-ware/spyware reports from the hard drive in question) because the defense attorney hadn't seen fit to give the reports and slides to the prosecution ahead of time.  If you don't disclose evidence to the other side, it can't be presented in court.  The only thing I could conclude is it was taking the defense expert time right up to the day before to get the presentation ready.

The defense expert was also dreadful.  Having only prepared to give a presentation, his responses to question-and-answer type testimony were confusing and ultimately probably seemed evasive to the jury.  I understood what he was trying to get at, having built web applications myself, but even I found myself saying "why in the hell would he choose to phrase it that way?"  He was also a little combative at times because he couldn't understand why he was not allowed to discuss his findings with respect to ad-ware and spyware on the box in question--mainly because the defense attorney wasn't doing his job.

Of course one of the big questions is, was the teacher deliberately viewing porn on the computer at her desk while class was in session?  Prosecution says yes, defense says no.  People who have been following the story have checked the haircare site in question and have discovered that it can indeed lead to a cycle of porn pop-ups (Associated Content 2/26/2007).

The other big question is, did the teacher do enough to prevent the students from seeing the porn?  From the testimony given, it seems that when students came up to the desk, the teacher tried to block the screen or otherwise shoo the students away.  But it is clear from the testimony of the students, a couple of them managed to catch a glimpse of pornographic material.  And from her own testimony, the teacher attempted to close the offending windows which kept popping up, and also at two points during the day told other teachers and the vice-principal she was having trouble with pop-ups.  She said she felt she was not allowed to shut the computer off, and upon being questioned about turning off the monitor only, said she wouldn't know how.

Contrary to the detective's claims, links recolor themselves when a URL is loaded in any fashion, and apart from redirects, it's not really possible to tell from looking at temporary Internet files whether someone visited links deliberately or though the action of spyware or some other agent.  The detective continues to say that he stands by the evidence and that people can't claim spyware or ad-ware was responsible without producing the spyware or ad-ware in question.  Which is rather convenient since the defense expert wasn't allowed to present such evidence in court due to the apparent ineptitude of the defense attorney.

The substitute teacher was in charge of the class, and it was definitely her responsibility to get rid of the porn, and if she didn't know how she should have called up to the office and explained immediately that there was a problem.  So it seems a little incongruous that she would wait until lunch to tell someone she was having a problem (while not bothering to mention that the pop-ups were pornographic in nature.)  I assume she simply made an unwise decision to try and solve the problem herself based on her own limited knowledge.  Therefore at present I can't say that this was a "willful" act (i.e. she was deliberately trying to endanger these children).  Then again, I doubt a 12 or 13 year old catching a glimpse of a nude woman is going to be impaired for life, but that's a topic for another day.

Assuming she is guilty, it seems to me that locking up a 40 year old woman (with no prior convictions) for 40 years because some kids glanced over her shoulder and caught a momentary glimpse of porn on her computer screen is a little extreme.  I think what would be more appropriate is something on the order of 4 months of community service and you can't teach anymore.  There are female teachers who have had sexual relations with their students who've spent no more than a few years in jail.  So something in this case is way out of whack with respect to the punishment fitting the crime.

What do you think?

• Reality Out of Focus: Julie Amero's Raging Internet Porn Addiction (Associated Content 2/26/2007)
• Case against Julie Amero needs to be deleted (USA Today 3/16/2007)
• Inaction sank Amero; read the full trial transcript (Norwich Bulletin 2/25/2007)
• Experts rebuke Amero ruling (Norwich Bulletin 3/9/2007)
• Julie Amero's Blog
• Teacher Faces Prison for Pop-Up Infested PC (PC World 2/7/2007)

Continuing in the vein of yesterday's post, I have a few more random thoughts to share...

Survivorman
Perhaps you've never seen this show, it's on The Science Channel (not to be confused with Discovery Channel or The Learning Channel).  I really enjoy it.  The premise is simple.  In each episode they take Les Stroud and dump him in the middle of nowhere with meagre supplies and about 50 pounds of camera equipment.  His only mission is to survive for seven days before the crew returns to pick him up.  He's not allowed to break down the camera equipment and use it for survival, and he does all the filming himself.  I can only imagine what an incredible amount of effort is involved in shooting himself walking past the camera or trudging off into the distance, only to have to return and get the camera.  This show strikes me as one James would enjoy.  I've seen this poor guy dumped in the arctic tundra, the swamps of Georgia, some desert out west somewhere, even one episode where he had to survive in a life raft at sea for seven days. You can order season 1 of the show on DVD if you are interested.  I discovered this show during my many days of bedrest over the last month or so.

North and West of the City...
I'm sick of this phrase.  I hear it all the time during weather reports, as in "2 to 5 inches of snow are expected in the Boston area, while areas North and West of the city could receive as much as a foot."  It's snowing today.  Unlike those in and south of the city, there's no rain following the storm here... it's just piling up.  Day before St. Patrick's day and the snow is just dumping down.  *sigh*

Cosmos and Carl
I miss Carl Sagan, and I loved Cosmos when I was a kid.  One of my best memories of childhood is sitting in the living room with my Dad watching Carl explain history, other dimensions, outer space, the doppler effect, and various other intriguing things.  Pat and I both talked recently of trying to find the Cosmos series on DVD to watch with Lynnea (though it might be too slow paced for her.)  Amazon has it, if you are interested.  One of my favorite segments of that series was when Carl explained what it would be like for two dimensional creatures to encounter a three dimensional one, as a way of explaining what a fourth dimension might be like, as a mechanism for explaining the concept of a curved universe as it relates to the big bang.  The two dimensional creatures were called "flatlanders" because they lived (appropriately enough) in Flatland.  I finally found that segment on YouTube, but it is included in a larger 10 minute video.  You can watch it here, the part about Flatland starts about 3 minutes in, after a discussion of Hubble's discovery that the universe was expanding.  In the next segment, Carl ties in the curved universe and questions about the existence of God.  It's slow paced but wonderfully done.  I really should pick that series up and watch it again as an adult--I've no doubt I'd learn more this time.

Destroying a Career
As you probably know, Valerie Plame testified today before House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and finally had a chance to speak out on her cover being blown by an administration with hopelessly misplaced priorities.  One of the saddest things about this, as far as I can see, is that her CIA career as a covert agent is basically over at this point.  That's got to be infuriating for her.  I can't imagine what that must be like.  From her testimony today:

..."My name and identity were carelessly and recklessly abused by senior officials in the White House and State Department. [...] I could no longer perform the work for which I had been highly trained." [...] Under questioning, Plame recounted feeling "like I had been hit in the gut" on the July 2003 morning when she saw a newspaper story by syndicated columnist Robert Novak identifying her...

Pace and the Unbagged Cat
Smooth one General, really smooth.  For those of you who haven't heard, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, stepped in it on Tuesday by saying he supported the Pentagon's ban on gays serving openly in the military because homosexual acts are "immoral".  Way to go, dickhead.  There are thousands upon thousands of gay people serving in our great nation's military right now, many of them putting themselves in harm's way.  Thanks for telling them that they're a bunch of immoral perverts.  General Pace, for his part, has refused to apologize for the remarks, and has only gone as far as to say that he regrets making them.  I'll bet he does, but only because it is inconvenient for him now that the cat is out of the bag.  As far as offending the gay troops who've been valiantly serving over the last four years of this misguided war?  It's clear what Pace thinks of them.  I never understood the ban on gays in the military, and I understood don't-ask-don't-tell even less, except that it allows good soldiers to serve a country that needs them, regardless of their sexual orientation.  And the same people that screeched in 1993 that we couldn't let gays in are screeching today that we can't let gays serve openly, for the same stupid reasons--because it would cause a breakdown in unit cohesion on the battlefield.  What a bunch of bullshit.  I'm sorry but a guy brave enough to crawl across a battlefield under fire while trying to avoid landmines isn't going to be worrying if the guy behind him is checking out his ass.  Give me a goddamned break, PLEASE.  Here's a thought, I won't ask then next time something as stupid as that enters your mind, and you don't tell, okay? (As a sad but not unexpected sidenote, conservatives are leaping to the General's defense.)