I was just testing the accuracy Google's search within this site when I fell upon this entry from last year. I forgot that I had said "I will NOT talk with that super-inflected Ultra Baby Gaga Tone. For example, I will never say: 'How big is [name here]...?...Sooo Biiig!'"

I went on to further assert my non-babytalking stance. Well, consider this an update. And an evolution. And a rather proud admission. It didn't take long for me to realize what a jerk I had been. Clueless. Tess made it pretty damn clear early on that she likes high voices and nonsensical blather right in her face. And since I'm in the giving-her-whatever-she-wants business, I've been hamming it up proper. (Fortunately for me, right now all Tess wants is babytalk, fluffy toys, milk, and a good crap now and then.)

Effective babytalk requires a constantly fresh output of nonsense, which has helped produce a fairly long list of nicknames for the little one:

• Milkbreath
• Milky
• Milk Bag
• Dairy Queen
• Chunk
• Chunkster
• Chunksteroonie McFatty
• Smiley
• Droolie
• Boogie Nose
• Cutie Patootie
• Sucks Toe (Indian name #1)
• Sac O' JaMilka (Indian name #2)
• Miss Fuss
• Miss Fuss, Esq.
• Faucet face
• Tax Cut
• Destroyer of Productivity (DOP)
• Soaky Shirt
• Mustard Butt
• Explodie
• Stain Maker

So say Hi to Miss Fuss, Esq., the name that fits best tonight.

Labels: at home

I felt like ripping my bedroom door off its hinges when I first heard on CNBC that the New York Times published a story revealing a highly successful and globally supported program to track terrorist financing. I quickly hit the Web to see what the angles and opinions were. I saw some indignation at The Huffington Post, but it was not surprisingly misdirected at Tony Snow for his criticism of the NYT's decision to publish the story. I had a quick laugh but it wasn't funny.

What Treasury Secretary John Snow and W said is right on the money. The NYT is out there in full frontal nudity. They are what they are. With their revenues drying up as ad monies flow toward Google and more interesting and free news sites, maybe this is a product of a desperate attempt to stay relevant or "edgy". To assume that that's what motivates them would actually be giving them the benefit of the doubt.

The New York Times is so smothered in their own hubris [Crowd: How smothered are they...?] that they forgot that they were the first major publication to acknowledge the importance of tracking terrorist financing around the world and demand that the Bush admin establish a program partnering with international banks to follow the money. This was back in September, 2001. Back when this stuff was important to them. And if that doesn't make you want to kick them in the teeth for this, then maybe you don't have any feet. I'm amazed by how many people are quick to downplay the undeniable fact that there are millions of lunatics out there who believe that killing Americans—any and all Americans—is their divine right and purpose in life. How soon we forget.

Take the next four minutes to watch this brilliant and emotional address by none other than David Letterman, soon after 9/11.

So, journalism continues to lose its way, with the New York Times leading the way. Who benefitted from the story? Certainly not U.S. citizens, and certainly not the banks around the world who were successfully implementing this tracking system. Certainly not citizens of any country at risk of terrorist attacks. This story served the New York Times and terrorists. That's it. This story did not achieve some grandiose goal of serving Truth, either. You don't have to be a flag-waving, freedom fries-eating, paranoid superpatriot to consider this act treasonous, or at the very least right on the edge of what treason means. You just need to be awake and interested in a future without terrorist attacks. Do we have to count how many acts of terrorism there have been since 9/11? Granted, nothing on that scale, and nothing here in the U.S. (cough cough...), but time is not on our side, particularly when the Times is not on our side.

When they busted that group in Toronto it seemed as if the prevailing sentiment was, "Eh...they wouldn't have had much of an impact, if they had even gone through with it..." Maybe it'll take another terrorist attack to wake people up again before a few years' time lulls them back to sleep and we cycle through it again. And I wonder who the Times will blame for a failure of intelligence or intervention?

Andrew McCarthy wrote an excellent, level-headed piece that says it better than I can.

Oh, and the Times' Executive Editor Keller stated that one member of Congress was told of the story before the decision to release it, and that he was the only member of Congress who supported publishing the story. That congressman is Rep. John Murtha, the same Congressman who said yesterday that the U.S. is the "biggest threat to world peace". Who the hell put the idiot pill in his soup, and what the hell is going on out there?

Labels: politics

Okay, this is pretty curious. Several people from all over with mysterious, unidentifiable threads spreading under their skin and physicians haven't a clue? Wha...? Normally I like any story with a "scientists perplexed" angle. But somehow, this one does seem a little less mysterious the more I read about it. Can't seem to find anything interesting regarding the composition of the threads. Until then, there are far weirder things to explore.

Labels: ponderage

It was just a matter of time, wasn't it? Apparently "they" can grow meat like plants. This is meat that never had a face, which I'm sure will tickle the folks at PETA. Yep...using stem cells and related lab wizardry, it looks like we're headed for clinical meat farms. Y'know, I'm not quite sure where I am on this one. I mean, the way we raise, feed, slaughter, and butcher animals for our backdoor BBQs ain't pretty, so we look away and pretend that it's just some magic yumminess on a bun. When I'm eating a steak I don't think, "this once ate protein pellets and sloshed in its own shit for years, doing little else than pissing, pooping, mooing, and stutter-stepping on its way to my esophagus." And neither do you, I suspect.

But we've come to take that whole thing so completely for granted that it seems darker and more disgusting to grow that burger in a petri dish. Doesn't it? But I have a feeling this little story will have legs (rimshot). I think this is going to happen. There'll always be a market for the slaughterhouses, but I'll bet that if this becomes a viable food source, it will split the vegetarian establishment into two, possibly three bitter houses of self absorption:

Labels: neat-o

So now there's this and this and the other studies. Despite what some in the blogosphere might say, or what their placards and bumper stickers might say read, nobody wants everything to fall to pieces on account of rising sea levels, drought, uncontainable fires, disease, floods, lost infrastructure, and LOCUSTS LOCUSTS LOCUSTS! [Thrown in for the Apocalypse Is Nigh crowd]

The other day I watched this fascinating piece on PBS about how global evaporation rates have gone down, which would seem to contradict global warming at first because it's often assumed that heat is the main cause of evaporation. But direct light is the leading cause of evaporation, which is telling the smart folks in climatology that we've experienced increasingly less direct sunlight around the globe due to particles in the atmosphere reflecting light back at the sun. This has helped to limit the greenhouse effect; pollution in our atmosphere has actually eased global warming. So, imagine how hot the data would be if we didn't have all that junk in the sky. Their conclusion, and I think it's a logical one: Any effort we make to stem the tide of global warming should be aimed at reducing greenhouse gases only. We should NOT make ANY effort to reduce atmospheric pollutants, until new data can definitively show that the greenhouse effect has waned to levels previously considered normal.

I'm with them, but I'm most certainly not with the bumper sticker people.

Labels: ponderage

I have absolutely no idea who Bob Duff is, and I've never read anything from him until I saw this article, but without a doubt, he's a wonderful human being and the best NHL writer alive today.

So I'm watching 60 Minutes earlier tonight...well, half watching and half hamming it up for Tess...and they had a segment titled, "In Search Of The Hobbit", about them thar bones they found a couple years ago of 3-foot adult humanoids in Indonesia, which have provided compelling evidence that the human ancestral tree is broader and more complex than our history books tell us. It's exciting stuff, especially considering the response from the skeptics, who typically arrive with their conclusions and egos armed at the ready. Their response is, no...these are just homo sapiens, and you just so happened to have dug up one with microcephaly, or "small brain", which is a (very) rare brain wasting disorder. If they find more of these skulls, and they likely will, these people will probably contend that it was a whole race of people afflicted with this disease. For them, such toss-outs are easier than to have to accept that the theses upon which they built their careers are in jeopardy.

The subject was recently covered in the esteemed Science magazine. This article is a good read. It basically comes down to this: Academia likes to think that it has all the answers to human history and those answers are rather tidy and comfortable and human civilization is about 5,000 years old. Those whose minds are tethered to their religion will go further, and claim that all of humanity is merely 5,000 years old, and if you go still further, you'll find the completely blind lot who claim that the Earth is only 5,000 years old.

We have enough bones already that prove all that to be nonsense, but these are especially interesting because they're 12,000 years old, and they are clearly different from modern humans but they were also clearly bipedal and users of tools, making them look an awful lot like a separate and unknown human species.

But anyway, I'm watching the program and listening to this wiry skeptic try to make a convincing argument for the brain disease theory. Just then, I was reminded of something that author/researcher Graham Hancock said in a History Channel (The Best channel on TV) episode about the underwater structures off the coast of the tiny Japanese island, Yonaguni. (You can become familiar with Hancock with a quick read from this excerpt from his best seller, Fingerprint of the Gods.)

Hancock has been researching ancient civilizations for decades and is the best-selling author of several books and etc. He has met many like-minded people, and he has met many academics to whom discovery means nothing. To them, everything significant has already been discovered and all that's left to do is expand and broaden existing theories and drive them into the population's brain until they become fact. But anyway, I was watching that HC program, when Hancock said something that intrigued me, so I hastily jotted it down. He said:

Archaeologists and historians regard themselves as the specialists of the past. They like to feel that they know everything that needs to be known. Therefore, the idea of a major forgotten episode in human history is a bit threatening, and when a very interesting phenomenon is found, such as the underwater structures of Yonaguni...instead of rationally and intelligently investigating that phenomena, most academics write it off at the outset, and don't even want to know.

It rings so true, and it really made me angry. So many Ph.D.s to protect out there. So many careers riding on conventional wisdom. They don't even want to know, which is one major reason why we remain, as Hancock so poignantly stated, "a species with amnesia."

If there's one thing that I believe, it's that there's a whole world of unconventional truths out there waiting to be revealed. The world needs more Graham Hancocks, and more importantly, eager eyes and ears.

Labels: ponderage

This might become a ramble because I just found some old videos that I haven't seen in oh, about fifteen years, at least. My mind is alight with memories. In 1983, when MTV was about music and it was pretty much the coolest thing going, I'd turn it on before school, turn it on when I got home, and watch video after video until my eyelids hit my knees. For the most part, music sucked then. You had to wade through synth-pop, early hair bands, and your general treacly garbage. At the time, I was a budding U2 freak and all the time I spent in front of the set was time spent waiting, hoping, that I'd get to see their Gloria video, the song that literally jump-started my interest in music on a deeper level than just listening; the song that made me ask for a guitar for my birthday. (I got a cheap one, but it did the trick. I was hooked immediately.)

Looking at it now it seems only mildly goofy, mainly due to the hair. But most videos from 1983 are hilarious if not unwatchable, which is testament to U2's early and lasting coolness. This band, they were so different. Instead of the costumey garb and makeup that you'd see on every other band, they wore their regular street clothes. They had jeans on. Shirts. They didn't give the camera that pseudo-tough stare, or that "you know you want me" gaze. They just plugged their instruments into their amps and played out on a barge somewhere in Ireland. Now that was different. I couldn't take my eyes off of it. And that guitarist...he plays differently than I've ever heard before. How'd he do that?...and how's he playing that bit?

Anyway, it had a huge impact on my adolescence and taste in tunes and interest in the guitar. I found a used copy of their first album, Boy, and when I got home and played the first song, I Will Follow, I literally froze and grabbed my cheeks. It's that song. This is them! I had heard it on the radio once, but it was never identified so it was lost if not forgotten. Holy shit, this band is mine, I thought. This is the coolest song ever.

Then I learned that my friend Tyler's big sister Megan knew U2 quite well, and she even had their absolute latest album, the classic War.She made me a tape, and well, that was it. I had found my religion. I found my thing. Nobody my age really knew about these guys, but by the end of the week my locker was plastered with U2 shit. All I wanted to do was sit upstairs in my room with my tape deck and shitty guitar and plink plink plink my way through the songs, doing my best to figure out what the hell they were playing. I learned how to play guitar this way.

Anyway, this was the video that kick started that musical journey:

A short time later, in '84...I remember the moment vividly. I was lying on the couch vegging in front of MTV. JJ Jackson announced a band I had never heard of before. He said it slowly, R - E - M, as if to make sure nobody thought it was arreyem. The opening riff was like a dart to the YEA! center in my teen brain. I sat up and watched intently. Here was another band that avoided all things frilly and false. Zero pretense, just a band of guys with instruments and amps and microphones. I could even tell that he wasn't lip synching his part. (I later learned that Michael Stipe refused to lip synch at the time, and this was the first video of its kind in that regard.) This was a band I had to hear more of. So I did, and U2 and R.E.M. became my two favorite bands, and pretty much defined my teen ID. I broadened widely in college and beyond, but they pretty much remain pillars of my musical aesthetic.

Not that you asked.

But hey, it was kinda a big deal for me to see these videos again, and I had to spew about it. I had one of those memory floods where all sorts of things came back to me...

Here it is, South Central Rain:

Labels: commentary

Yea, it's great that Zarqawi's a goner. There'll be a lot fewer dead civilians with him off the planet. But do they really have to put his dead face all over the news? How is this different from their showing decapitated U.S. soldiers? I'm glad the mission was a success. But shouldn't we rise above the whole "show the dead guy" routine? Think of all the kids that are going to see that. How can they possibly benefit from seeing that? I'm not better for it, are you? Showing his dead head can only inspire revenge among the remaining lunatics. Next time, use a bomb that leaves only a stain.

The idea of amending the Constitution to ban homosexual marriage has to be one of the worst ideas ever presented to the Senate. The Constitution is all about the protection of freedoms, not the restriction of freedoms. With hard science proving that homosexuality is organic, it's amazing to me how some people are so eager to fight a war on this. Surrender! Nobody wins this one. Why the hell are we still so preoccupied with sexuality, anyway?

Labels: ponderage

The intellectual and spiritual search for god or gods or similar cosmic whatnots is a worthwhile, noble endeavor. There's a universe of information to help you on this journey. Placing the burden of proof on whether or not a lion kills you seems a bit, I don't know, goofy? If this doesn't win first place in the 2006 Darwin Awards, I'll be shocked.

Labels: commentary

Score one for electronic surveillance in the fight to prevent terrorist acts. Maybe now folks in the U.S. will stop pretending to be outraged about the subject. Oh, and lookee lookee...they wanted to fly planes into Canadian targets. What's that? Terrorism isn't a threat anymore? Mmmmkay....

Labels: commentary

Dearest hockey gods: Buffalo hasn't won a championship in any sport, ever. The Bills came close four straight times, and in '99 the Sabres made it to the Stanley Cup finals, when the infamous "goal" happened. After that, all iffy goals have been reviewed by a team of spectacled analysts up in Canada, just to be absolutely sure they get the critical calls right. Again, after "no goal" happened.

Well, the Sabres are back in position. They just need to win tonight and they'll face the Edmonton Oilers in the Stanley Cup finals. They lost their top goal scorer to a concussion. Then they lost one of their best defensemen with a broken ankle. Then they lost their steadiest defenseman to a goin injury. Then they lost another defenseman to a broken arm. A guy who was +14 in the playoffs, which is unheard of. They've had to start three rookies in a rotation. These kids haven't played hockey in over a month, let alone NHL hockey, and double let alone NHL playoff hockey. And now, guess what? We've lost our best shot blocker, yes...another defenseman. Jay McKee. Tough as nails, but bad infections are bad infections. If they lose one more guy, they might have to ask me to lace 'em up, and I haven't skated in a decade.

Hey, I'm not complaining, ye gods. [Genuflect] I'm just giving you the facts in case your omniscience is temporarily disabled. [Genuflect] I'm truly not worthy to get in your face and demand a successful outcome for this young team of overachievers, who by the way are up against a team from Carolina, where the fans can't sell out a game 7 conference final. They didn't even have a flake of snow this past winter. Do you really want them to represent in the Cup finals? The Sabres have suffered. Western NY has suffered. Throw them a bone, will ya? [Genuflect]

And if you need anything more to convince you that the Sabres should win game 7 tonight by a score of 33-0, then you should know that Clay Aiken is a Hurricane fan and they brought him in to "sing" a "song" during the pre-game warmup. Ready your barf bags.

Oh...and one last reason that you should grant Buffalo victory tonight: Because Sabres captain Danny Briere looks an awful lot like Paul McCartney in his prime.

This would be a fitting spot for a thematic picture:

And hey, that reminds me: watching the Stanley Cup playoffs on OLN means having to watch the same five commercials repeated endlessly. But y'know what...I'm still not going to KFC for a fuggin chicken bowl, and I'm still not going to buy a Dodge Caliber, and I'm certainly not going to Pizza Hut. At some point, the folks who make money on TV advertising have to realize that the current model is nothing more than an annoying spam engine. It could be targeted, permission-based marketing. But no. Just drill the same handful of pitches at us and hope we finally turn on reason and scurry off like lemmings to the nearest purchase point.

By the way, at what point in advertising history did the adfolks ("creatives" as they call themselves in the industry...) decide that showing food prepared in slow motion makes it more appealing? If I had a nickel for every slo-mo sauce I've seen poured over this-n-that, I'd have $68.15.