Priceless historic treasures looted

by

This hurt to read:

The world’s first written words may have been lost forever. After surviving for more than 5,000 years, distinctive clay tablets that are recognised as the root of all mankind’s written communication have either been destroyed or stolen in yesterday’s looting of the Iraqi national museum.

In addition to the tablets containing cuneiform writing – which utilises symbols chipped into the clay using wedge-shaped tools – thieves also took some of the world’s earliest examples of mathematics. These include calculations that have directly led to the modern system of timekeeping using hours, minutes and seconds based on the number six.

I hope that something better comes along

by

SCENE: Evening in a bar. Our HERO walks into the the bar, pausing by the piano as the bar’s PIANIST plays an opening riff. The PIANIST looks up and greets our HERO as he plays lightly on the keyboard.

PIANIST: Evenin’! You look like you could use a drink.

OUR HERO: Yeah. I’d like a grasshopper, please.

PIANIST: [Calling to the bartender] Hey, can we have a grasshopper for the frog?

OUR HERO: Uh, that…that’s Kermit, Kermit the Frog.

PIANIST: Oh! Rowlf, Rowlf the Dog, here. Pleased ta meet’cha!

[ROWLF plays a fancy glissando on the piano]

ROWLF: I’m no Heifetz, but I get by.

[ROWLF continues to play lightly, as KERMIT looks out the window]

ROWLF: Lemme guess — broken heart, right?

KERMIT: Huh. Does it show?

ROWLF: Listen — when you’ve been tickling the ivories as long as I have, you’ve seen a broken heart for every drop of rain; a shattered dream for every falling star.

KERMIT: Exactly. She just walked out on me.

ROWLF: Eh, typical. That’s why I live alone.

KERMIT: You do, huh?

ROWLF: You bet. Finish work, I go home, read a book, have a couple of beers, take myself for a walk and go to bed.

KERMIT: Nice and simple.

ROWLF: Stay away from women — that’s my motto.

KERMIT: But I can’t!

ROWLF: Neither can I. That’s my trouble.

ROWLF: You can’t life with ’em, you can’t live without ’em.
There’s something irresistable-ish about ’em.
We grin and bear it ’cause the nights are long —
I hope that somethin’ better comes along.

KERMIT: I see what you mean.
It’s no good complainin’, and pointless to holler.

ROWLF: If she’s a beauty she’ll get under your collar.

KERMIT: She made a monkey out of old King Kong.

BOTH: I hope that something better comes along.

ROWLF: Ah, but what could be better, than a saucy Irish Setter,
When puppy love comes on strong?
Or a collie that’s classy…
A laddie needs a lassie…
A lover and wife gives you a new leash on life!

KERMIT: Uh — uh, was that a new leash on life?

ROWLF: Oh yeah. Uh, sorry about that. Two, three, four…

KERMIT: I don’t mean to scare ya, my friend, but I bet’cha,
come Father’s Day the litter bug’s gonna get’cha.

ROWLF: The urge is righteous but the face is wrong!

BOTH: I hope that something better comes along.

KERMIT: Still, it’s fun when they’re fetchin’,
and agree to see an etching,
that you keep at your lilly pad.
There is no solution, it’s part of evolution…

ROWLF: The pitter-patter of soles, the little feet of tadpoles!

KERMIT: Uh, Rowlf, tadpoles don’t have feet!

ROWLF: Oh. Sorry about that. Two, three, four…

KERMIT: There’s no limitation to mixin’ and matchin’.

ROWLF: Some get an itchin’ for a critter they’ve been scratchin’.
A skunk was badgered, the results were strong!
I hope that somethin’ better,

BOTH: I hope that somethin’ better,
I hope that somethin’ better comes along!

ROWLF: Beep-bop-biddy-biddy, doom-bom-diddy-diddy, dom-bum-um-ummm…

[KERMIT walks off]

ROWLF: It’s not often you see a guy that green…had the blues that bad.

Ghosts, goblins, and Things That Go Bump in the Night

by

Elizabeth: Six feet of addictions, Dyanna: Very superstitious…, Kirsten: Hey baby, what’s your sign?. There’s something of a mini-meme regarding obsessions, superstitions, the occult, and all things that go bump in the night running around right now.

(Hrm. Random side note — not all things that go bump in the night. I’d elaborate, but I try to keep this website somewhere in the PG to PG-13 range, and it’s a bit early in the morning to go veering into R territory. But I digress [oh, boy do I digress…]…)

I figured I’d go ahead and just start tackling the subjects in order. Given my tendency to babble, however, you’ll have to click on to keep reading…

Read more

The only way out is in

by

I just got back from seeing The Core.

In an effort to kick-start my brain back into gear, I think before I go to bed tonight, I’m going to have to watch something that actually has decent plot, interesting characters, and — most importantly — some semblance of scientific crediblity.

Armageddon should do nicely.

To Tim Robbins, re: Bob Roberts

by

The following letter was sent to Tim Robbins via his agent. I have no real idea if he will receive it, or whether he will answer. No matter the outcome, I’m preserving the letter here.

Mr. Smith,

I’m not entirely sure if this is the best (or maybe even appropriate) way to go about this, but if would be so kind to forward this letter along to Mr. Robbins, I’d greatly appreciate it.

Mr. Robbins,

Last weekend, in the midst of ranting with a friend about all things political, I found out that she hadn’t seen “Bob Roberts.” Having been a fan of the film since I saw it in the theaters during its initial run, I pulled it out and we sat down and watched it — her first time, and my first time in about a year or so.

We both enjoyed it a lot, but I was astounded at how much more topical it seemed today than it did at the time it came out. Substitute Roberts’ folk background with Bush’s oil family background, and in many ways, they seemed almost frighteningly similar in their ideological attitudes. We spent some time after the movie talking about it, and in the course of the discussion became somewhat curious as to what you might think of the film now, especially in the light of the current administration.

At a time when the separation of church and state is becoming increasingly less distinct, when our personal liberties are becoming more and more curtailed, and when any opinion that does not mesh with that of the ‘powers that be’ is deemed “un-American” and cause for censure (as demonstrated by the unfortunate cancellation of the Bull Durham celebration due to the political views of you and Susan Sarandon), it seems all to much like what was satire in 1991 has become the sad reality of everyday life today.

I found one article on the Internet about an interview you did for ‘The Tech’ at MIT where even at the time that ‘Bob Roberts’ was being released, you were seeing some similarities between Roberts and the then campaigning George W. Bush.

The campaign that Roberts launches shows more than a few similarities to the campaigns of today’s candidates, which is somewhat amazing considering that the script was written six years ago. “Well, there are some strange similarities,” Robbins admits. “Just the other day Bush, at a campaign stop, was asked what voters could do to help him in November, and he said, I think jokingly, ‘Vote often.’ And as you know, Bob Roberts says something similar. It’s strange to see. I guess it’s good for the movie but I don’t know if it’s good for the country.”

Since then, of course, Bush has stepped up his religious rhetoric, creating even more similarities between him and your fictional character.

Should you have the time and inclination to respond to this, I’d love to hear a little bit from you about how you view ‘Bob Roberts’ now, ten years later, in a political and cultural climate that would be very familiar — and probably comfortable — for the satirical character you created. If you were comfortable with my posting any response you might be able to give to my website, that would be wonderful, however, as this is primarily my own personal curiosity at play, I would not post anything publicly without your permission.

In any case, thank you much for your work over the years, for creating ‘Bob Roberts’, and for standing up for your beliefs in a time where doing so is becoming more and more unpopular, and at times fraught with consequences it never should have.

Sincerely,

Michael “Woody” Hanscom

Questions regarding Saddam's statue

by

Some questions regarding the widely publicised images of Saddam’s statue getting toppled. This is more information that resides in that netherland of suspicion, rumor, and possible conspiracy theories, so keep that in mind.

From this Agonist post, we go to Kynn Bartlett’s comments on the apparent lack of people involved in the toppling of the statue, and then a comment to Kynn’s post by ‘Citizen Able’ leads us to this DC Indymedia post with another look at the picture in question, along with some other (less credible, IMHO) implications.

As I said, this is definitely veering further into possible paranoid conspiracy theory territory. The thing is, those are just so much fun! Just remember not to disengage your brain.

Could this be true?

by

Interesting theory from the Tehran Times:

Suspicions rose on the same day when U.S. troops, that had been stopped at the Euphrates, immediately were able to advance toward the heart of Baghdad without any significant resistance by Iraqi forces. Nobody asked why Tikrit, that was once called the ideological heart of Saddam’s government and the last possible trench of the Iraqi army, was never targeted by U.S. and British bombs and missiles. Or why when the elite Iraqi forces arrived in eastern Iraq from Tikrit, the pace of the invaders advancing toward central Baghdad immediately increased. Also, it has been reported that over the past 24 hours, a plane was authorized to leave Iraq bound for Russia. Who was aboard this plane?

All these ambiguities, the contradictory reports about Saddam’s situation, and the fact that the highest-ranking Iraqi officials were all represented by a single individual — Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed al-Sahhaf — and the easy fall of Baghdad shows that the center of collusion had been Tikrit, where Saddam, his aides, and lieutenants from the Baath Party had been waiting for al-Sahhaf to join them so that they could receive the required guarantees to leave the country in a secret compromise with coalition forces.

This possibility was confirmed by the Al-Jazeera network, which quoted a Russian intelligence official as saying that the Iraqi forces and the invaders had made a deal. The Russian official told Al-Jazeera that the Iraqi leaders had agreed to show no serious resistance against the U.S.-British troops in return for a guarantee that Saddam and his close relatives could leave Iraq unharmed.

Is it possible? Well, of course it’s possible. The question is whether it’s an actual probability, or if it’s just a well thought out conspiracy theory. Either way, we’re not really likely to know unless someone high enough in the heirarchy turns whistleblower (not a very likely option).

I have to admit, though, it is a convincing argument for the possibility. I’m weighing whether my ingrained distrust of conspiracy theories outweighs my rapidly-growing distrust of our current administration, or vice versa. For the moment, I’ll just chalk it up as a very intriguing idea.

(via The Agonist)

The Agonist discussion thread about this is so far leaning to the side of it being a combination of media spin and conspiracy theory, but one of the posts brought up something I’d been wondering about myself, that this theory could make sense of.

Last week, on April 3^rd^, Daily Kos wondered where the Iraqi army was.

Whole units are missing from the battlefield and that has to concern CENTCOM planners. Whole divisions are gone. The arrogant and clueless Richard Perle says they’ve gone home. He’s an idiot. They’ve done no such thing. If they did, you’d see signs. Abandoned equipment, lots of surrenders, the surrender of cities or even the beginnings of civil war as the regulars shot it out with the Baathists.

Instead, they’re nowhere to be found.

My bet, they’re hiding in the close suburbs of Baghdad, maybe 100,000 men. Now, they may not be there. But if Saddam is a student of Stalin and not insane, he’s got a plan for a counterattack when the US is least able to reply. Kaplan isn’t wrong when he says the Republican Guard isn’t all that elite, but they have unit cohesion and discipline. So they didn’t run away.

Saddam has used very small forces to tie down US troops. Only in Basra is there a sign that whole divisions have been used. So, unless Perle is right, and that would be a first, where IS the Iraqi Army?

The assumption then was that Hussein was keeping the majority of his most elite forces close around him in Baghdad, in order to give the advancing U.S. forces “the mother of all battles”. However, as was seen in today’s advances into Baghdad, that never happened. As thrilling as the pictures coming out of Baghdad were today, it still leaves the question of just where all of Iraq’s troops went unanswered. This AP story asks some of the same questions:

CAMP AS SAYLIYAH, Qatar — With American troops rolling through Baghdad, U.S. military leaders are asking a disturbing question: Have Iraq’s Republican Guards really melted away, or are they regrouping to fight another day?

Early fears about the battle for Baghdad raised the prospect of house-to-house combat and even chemical warfare. But U.S. forces quickly overran the capital.

Upon entering the city, Marine Cpl. Nate Decavelle wondered out loud with a yawn: \”Where are the Iraqis at?

[…]

One U.S. official involved in both military operations and intelligence said there are thousands of Iraqi troops unaccounted for.

“That’s the scary part. We don’t know where these guys went to. Did they just melt into the population? Are they planning to come back out as paramilitary? Are they laying in wait?” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

So — what now? Is Saddam dead? Exiled? Still in hiding? Is the Republican Guard really gone, or merely waiting for U.S. soldiers to drop their guard?

And lastly — how many of these questions can be answered without more loss of life?