Fish Fear Me

Overheard In The Twin Cities Late Last Night

Convenience Store Clerk: How ya doin'?
Guy: Good. How about you?
CSC: Good. Just this stuff, man?
Guy: Yep.
CSC: Pistachios and ketchup.
Guy: Yep.
CSC:
Guy:(swipes card)
CSC: I've seen stranger.
Guy: I bet you have.
CSC: (hands receipt over) Have a good night.
Guy: You too.
Guy: (Is this a great country or what?)

Branding

I've been sticking to fresh or frozen vegetables lately to avoid the sodium that is often present in the canned varieties. I do make an occasional jaunt over to that aisle of the grocery store because sometimes canned veggies are more convenient or to get some peas. I only like canned or fresh peas. I'll eat the frozen kind if I have to, but blech.

So I was in the canned veggie aisle the other day and I noticed a brand that I didn't recall seeing before:

I was both astonished and delighted. I even guffawed. This was not your usual canned veggie aisle marketing. You'll get no "Made from Fresh Cut" or "Packed with Fresh Picked" from these folks. No sir, these people boldly proclaim, "Look. You, me, we're in the canned veggie aisle, right? Let's be honest here. But hey, we're like fresh!"

Like I said, at first I was delighted at the honesty. On second thought though, I was a little offended. I knew there wasn't a fresh vegetable in that entire aisle, but I guess I didn't like having that thrown in my face. How dare they shatter that fresh facade. Who do they think they are? 

I don't think that's the normal reaction though, since if this is the same company they have been around since 1934, though they haven't updated their webpage in six years(Hmmm). And I see Birds Eye uses the same term for their frozen vegetables. So I realize my reaction is not very rational. Still, I found the whole thing kind of off-putting in the end. 

I went with "Made with Farm Fresh..."

Dustin Dominiak: Dirtbag

I was going to lay low on political stuff until after the election, this being the week where the usual hysteria becomes even more frenzied, but I feel compelled to weigh in on the sleaze job done to Christine O'Donnell yesterday. I haven't paid all that much attention to the race because I don't live in Delaware and therefore am not compelled to choose between two candidates I don't particularly like. But yesterday Gawker posted a story from a guy named Dustin Dominiak that really crossed the line. It is easily the sleaziest hit piece I've seen against a politician in a long, long, time. 

Apparently this Dustin Dominiak had an intimate encounter with Christine O'Donnell three years ago and he sold his story about that for a "low four figures" to Gawker. No, I'm not going to link it, it's easy enough to find if that's what you want. He thought he could do all of this anonymously, but it took The Smoking Gun less than a day to out him. Serves him right, the dirtbag.

If I lived in Delaware I would vote for O'Donnell now just to piss off the people who think this stuff is fine and dandy. 

So what has Dustin Dominiak gotten besides his few thousands of dollars?

Well, first and foremost, at the young age of 28 he has managed to forever associate his name with the word dirtbag on the Internet. Other associations with Dustin Dominiak that are probably being created even as we speak could be cad, fool, scumbag, creep, coward, dishonorable twit, idiot, etc. That ought to come in real handy the next time a prospective employer or date googles his name. Good work, Dustin Dominiak dirtbag.

There's also the possibility that O'Donnell will win now and then Dustin Dominiak could be immortalized as the new term for backfire. Wouldn't that be great? "That hit piece on his opponent really Dustin Dominiaked on him, didn't it?" Hahaha.

Finally, of course, there's the bit about her not being part of the waxing trend, which "was a big turnoff," revealing Dustin Dominiak to be nothing more than a man-child who can't handle a woman in her natural state. That's sure to help you with the ladies too, Dustin Dominiak dirtbag. Oh, and calling a non-intercourse encounter a "one night stand" is really, really, lame. 

Let's not forget about the role of the Lord of the Dirtbags here, Nick Denton, and his chief assistant dirtbag, Gawker editor Remy Stern. I don't believe it's possible to shame them, so the only thing you can do is deny them the one thing they lust after: your web traffic.

It's easy enough to do if you use Chrome or Firefox as a browser. I use Chrome and all you need to do for that is install the SiteBlock extension then go to tools, extensions, siteblock, and add this handy list of Gawker Media websites:

gawker.com
gizmodo.com
kotaku.com
kotaku.com.au
kotaku.jp
jalopnik.com
lifehacker.com
lifehacker.com.au
lifehacker.jp
deadspin.com
jezebel.com
io9.com
fleshbot.com
gawker.tv
cityfile.com
cityfile.gawker.com
valleywag.gawker.com
artists.gawker.com
defamer.com

Do that, and presto, you will never accidentally give Nick Denton's dirtbag empire a single hit. I included all of the ones listed on Wikipedia and not just gawker.com because I think that anyone or anything that willingly associates with Nick Denton is a dirtbag. If you need the Firefox version you can get the instructions for that here.

I hesitate to join in on a digital lynch mob, but this is just too much as far as I'm concerned. If Dustin Dominiak wakes up and apologizes that will be one thing, but so far he is stonewalling and that just doesn't cut it. He deserves every bit of flak that is hurled in his direction unless and until he apologizes.

Sure, Why Not?

A time traveler, and possible cross-dresser, discovered talking on a cell phone in, get this, a 1928 Charlie Chaplin film?

An Irish filmmaker says he's convinced that footage from a 1928 Charlie Chaplin film shows a woman talking on a cell phone - and that after considering all the possibilities the only one that stands up to reason is that the woman is a time traveler from the future.

The video has gone viral, viewers are now deciding for themselves, and many have taken to picking apart George Clarke's earnest declaration that the lady in that DVD footage of "The Circus" is sporting an iPhone or Droid.

 

I think the answer is obvious: It's Spock and he's talking to Kirk on his communicator. You know, that time when McCoy went crazy and went through the time portal. Notice how the hat covers the pointy tips of his ears?

Mystery solved. You're welcome.

How Low Can We Go?

The big fall storm I first heard about a couple of days ago is moving through Minnesota today. We're supposed to get sustained winds in the upper 30s with gusts up to 50 mph this afternoon, but so far it doesn't look like that kind of wind has materialized...yet. They are talking 11 foot waves off of Grand Marais for tomorrow though, and this morning the all-time record low pressure for the state was broken:

AN UNUSUALLY INTENSE LOW WAS AFFECTING THE STATE OF MINNESOTA THIS MORNING. AT 1013 AM CDT...THE AUTOMATED WEATHER OBSERVING SYSTEM AT AITKIN MINNESOTA RECORDED A 962.3 MILLIBAR /28.42 INCHES/ PRESSURE.THIS BREAKS THE ALL TIME MINNESOTA STATE RECORD FOR THE LOWEST OBSERVED PRESSURE.

THE PREVIOUS RECORD WAS 962.6 MB SET ON NOVEMBER 10 1998 AT ALBERT LEA AND AUSTIN IN SOUTHERN MINNESOTA.

It looks like the backside of this storm is going to bring us some wet snow that won't stick around for long. A low of 27 on Wednesday night means I need to finally bring the garden hose in for the year. That should probably spell the end to the blooming flowers for the year also, so I'm guessing this weekend will be the time to do the final batten down of the hatches for the year.  

We had a wonderful fall, maybe the best ever, but I think it's going to be a hard winter.

Facts

NPR:

GOP Victory May Be Defeat For Climate Change Policy

Gee, it almost sounds like they think that's a bad thing.

Oh. Right. Well, it won't be a defeat for climate change policy. It will be a defeat for "a" climate change policy. One that is blinkered in its focus on CO₂, viciously reactive to reasonable criticisms, and propped up by a dedication to the narrative that is nothing less than a religious fervor.

Well, let's see what they have to say anyway.

The more carbon that gets released into the atmosphere, the higher the average temperature rises.

That's a scientific fact.

You, I'm sure, being the educated and astute reader that you are, noticed what they just did there. They actually took two scientific facts, rising CO₂levels and a slight rise in worldwide temps(more on that in a bit), slapped them together, and presto magico, my 9th grade science teacher is wrong: Correlation does prove causation! Take that Mr. Anderson!

Or not...ahem.

Let's see what comes next:

Human activities, such as driving, flying, building and even turning on the lights, are the biggest contributor to the release of carbon.

That too, is a fact.

Oh my. Well, this is rather awkward, but there's nothing to do but point out just how embarrassingly wrong that is and move on. I'll even use the text of the Holy ScriptureIPCC Fourth Assessment Report  and not some hereticskeptic as a source. According to the clergy(rats, I keep doing that) scientists at the IPCC, humans are responsible for around 29 gigatons of CO₂being released into the environment each year. Yeah, you read that right, gigatons. That's a big number.

But when it comes to the carbon cycle, we humans have nothing on Mother Nature herself. That number the IPCC estimates at around 770 gigatons. Yeah, you read that right, 770 gigatons.  All of the oil, coal, and natural gas burned, all of the trees cut down or land burned for agricultural use, all of that human activity adds up to about 3.5% of what nature itself releases in the course of natural events. That, my friends, is a far cry from, "Human activities, such as driving, flying, building and even turning on the lights, are the biggest contributor to the release of carbon." The argument is made that the human caused contribution is too much for the environment to handle, a conclusion that I think is far from proved, but the claim that humans are the biggest contributor in the carbon cycle is ludicrous. 

Oops.

There are also people on the other side who play loosely with the word "fact", of course. I'm not aware of any of them claiming the standing or credibility that NPR does though. 

Regardless, healthy skepticism about anthropogenic global warming, or climate change, or the most laughable latest term, climate disruption, is not based on simply denying everything, it is based on many serious questions about what has been proved scientifically and what is theory and conjecture. On the other hand, a reasonable skeptic right now does not scream about it all being a hoax or that it has been proved that man does not have an impact on climate. Neither of those have been proved either.

I think of myself as a reasonable skeptic, and this is what I believe:

• CO₂ level is one of many factors that can force changes to the Earth's climate. Solar activity, clouds, ocean currents, sudden and massive geological events are some of the others. We have learned a tremendous amount about each of those forces over the last few decades, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to what we need to know about each, let alone what we need to know about the enormously complicated interactions between them. I realize that I can't prove this, but all of the reading I have done on this issue tells me we still don't even know what we don't know. The focus on CO₂ to the exclusion of the others, when that occurs, is dogma and not science. 
• I only cautiously agree that there has been a slight rise in temperature over the last few decades, and then only because it's not a large enough number to argue about. The fact of the matter is that there are very few if any straightforward temperature records on which to simply base that conclusion. All of them, historic proxy records, actual historic temperature recordings, and current temperature recordings have been and are still subject to poor site locations, dubious data manipulations, and secrecy and stonewalling when other scientists try to examine why data was manipulated one way or the other. All of that is not to say that there is no value that can be gained from such records, just that various uncertainties demand more, not less, scrutiny of the data. It ought to be a huge red flag when scientists object to that and they have, time and time again.
• Computer models. God save us from the computer models. This is another area that I think has value, but only within reasonable levels of uncertainty. For certain narrow applications, modeling can provide insights into how forces develop and to some degree how they may interact with other forces in the environment. It does not take long though, the larger the scope of the model, for enough uncertainties to pile up in the assumptions that were made to make any particular prediction just as likely as another. In other words, garbage. We are nowhere close to understanding enough about all of the factors that influence climate to predict five years into the future let alone fifty, let alone 100.
• I still get astounded at the blatantly unscientific treatment that this topic gets in the media. Stories nearly always revolve around emotional appeals to authority, ad hominem attacks on skeptics, the highlighting of extreme skeptic views instead of mainstream criticism, and the urgent need to DO SOMETHING NOW that reeks of hysteria.  Actual science almost never has anything to do with it. Then there is the strange way journalists uncritically accept the phony "consensus" in the scientific community. On this issue, among others of course, the mainstream media have utterly failed to provide good information to their readers and viewers. They have assumed the position of propogandists instead of journalists, and then they wonder why their credibility with the public is increasingly in tatters.

The earth's climate and what man may be doing to it is certainly a worthy area of study. So are alternative energy sources to fossil fuels. What we most need on this issue though, is more honesty and integrity and less demagoguery. On this issue there are facts and there are "NPR-like facts." The facts as we know them now do not support a massive and expensive disruption in our energy use. They simply don't. People can huff and puff about deniers all they want and it's not going to change that reality. I do not want the GOP to ignore this issue, I want them to fashion policies that will help us understand what the truth is, not what ideology says the truth should be. The latter being where we are at today.

Great

Speaking of Wikileaks and stupid, no, make that criminally stupid, here's an example already of how they are going to get people killed even though they claimed they would redact important information that would identify people who worked with the Coalition:

At 160920C FEB 09, PTT 6 was informed by [Name withheld] the (not redacted you fucking Wikileaks morons) District IP OIC, of alleged detainee abuse at the Husaybah IP station. An update will be posted when more information becomes available.

(PTT 6 would mean Coalition Police Transition Team 6.)

That's up on The Guardian website right now with the district name not redacted. Do you think the assholes in Husaybah have internet access? Do you think the assholes in Husaybah can figure out who was the Officer in Charge of that other district on February 9, 2009? Of course they can

That's just one already. How many more are like that do you suppose? If Wikileaks operator Julian Assange was within arm's reach right now, I would beat the living shit out of him. I kid you not.

Let The Stupidity Begin

This afternoon, Wikileaks did their long awaited document dump of nearly 400,000 classified US military documents related to Iraq. There may be a few revelations, but I think it is most likely to provide an opportunity for many on the anti-war left to get their malevolent stupid on and try to drag others down to their level of idiocy. If the early posts are a guide, be bullish on stupid for the next week.

Let's start with this allegation from The Guardian:

US authorities failed to investigate hundreds of reports of abuse, torture, rape and even murder by Iraqi police and soldiers whose conduct appears to be systematic and normally unpunished.

You are going to hear a lot about something called FRAGO 242 and the related FRAGO 039. FRAGO stands for Fragmentary Order and it is defined here as:

Use to send timely changes of existing orders to subordinate and supporting commanders while providing notification to higher and adjacent commands.

I have not been able to find a full copy of either order, but Aljazeera has the following:

(FRAGO) 242 "Provided the initial report confirms US forces were not involved in the detainee abuse, no further investigation will be conducted unless directed by HHQ."

(FRAGO) 039 "Now requires reports of Iraqi on Iraqi abuse be reported through operational channels"

I would like to see the full text of each order. A search of the Wikileaks database yields no results, which makes me wonder if they are deliberately withholding the documents because they explain why the orders were issued. And why would that be?

Well, FRAGO 242 was reportedly issued in June of 2004. Hmmm, now what would have happened in June 2004? Oh yeah, the United Nations returned sovereignty over Iraq to the Interim Government of Iraq. In a letter to the United Nations at that time, Interim Government Prime Minister Allawi noted the following among other things:

In addition, the MNF and Iraqi government leaders...will refer issues up the respective chains of command where necessary.

The Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police reported to the civilian Government of Iraq after June 2004. MNF-Iraq had no more authority to conduct investigations on Iraqi police or army personnel than they did the NYPD. MNF-Iraq troops could and did intervene and file reports up the chain of command when they learned about abuses, but they had no legal authority to go further. 

It is not as though nothing ever happened up the chain of command either. I haven't looked them up, but I remember MNF-Iraq senior officers briefing members of the press about the constant efforts to professionalize the Iraqi Security Forces and the pressure they put on their Iraqi counterparts to end abuses. I'm not going to sugarcoat those very real abuses or excuse them away, but it was not an easy task to get Iraqi officials to make progress on that front while barbarians were threatening the very existence of the Iraqi government and slaughtering their own people by the thousands.

You are going to see a lot of this over the next few weeks:

In June 2004, DOD Issued Instructions to Ignore Iraqi-on-Iraqi Torture

That is absolutely false, and also what I suspect is a deliberate lie.

The falsehoods and lies are just beginning. They are going to turn into an avalanche over the weekend, but I would just urge people to read carefully and watch for distortions, circular links that purport to add credibility to assertions but really don't, and general hysteria. 

You know, the anti-war left from 2001-2008. They're baaaack.

Tell Me About It

Even by itself, I don't think this paragraph is a firing offense, nor do I think it is worth the outrage it has inspired:

“I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”

Additional context just reinforces that as far as I'm concerned.

Note that Williams is talking about a specific situation, on a plane, and goes to some lengths later in the discussion to point out that Muslims in general should not be singled out because of the actions of a few. His reaction on a plane though, his instinctual feeling, does not seem to me to be irrational given the damage those few did with airplanes on 9/11. It's not fair to nearly all Muslim men because they would never dream of committing such an atrocity, but just because most wouldn't does not mean it is irrational to watch out for the few.

Look at it this way. There's a park across the street from where I work that has some fairly secluded paths. Most of the time I don't see anyone on those paths, but occasionally I meet a woman walking or jogging alone. Sometimes I can see the wariness in their eyes or their body language as we approach each other. It's not personal and I don't begrudge them that posture. In fact, I approve because I know there are bad men out there and you can't always tell just by looking at them. Sometimes, rightly or wrongly, instincts scream to be ready for fight or flight. I would much rather a woman wrongly be wary of me than mistakenly trust a man who turns out to be a rapist. That's just the way of the world.

Here's another anecdote. Last week my sister and her husband were over at my mom's house and packing up to head back home. They asked me to keep my nephew occupied for awhile so they could finish, so I took him across the street to the elementary school playground that he loves. There were some kids out for recess and Liam fell in with them fairly easily, so I took a spot on a nearby bench and let him play under my watchful eye. It did not take long for me to notice the school staff keeping an eye on me, even after they realized I had brought a child with me and I wasn't just hanging out watching the kids under their charge.

That class left and another came out a few minutes later with the same results.

Should I, a man who has never even hit a woman let alone raped one, nor molested a child, be angry at the wariness and suspicion that has been directed my way? Um, no. Those people acted prudently based on general history, their duty to themselves or others, and circumstance. It saddens me, but I don't take it personally.

Now, if the woman jogger sprays me with mace for no reason, or the playground watcher accuses me of being something I'm not or something I didn't do, well then yes, I'm going to be angry and rightly so. If Juan Williams, or anybody else for that matter, were to demand that Muslims be prevented from flying or otherwise singled out, they would be wrong too. But that's not what Williams or any other rational person wants. 

It is unfortunate when perfectly innocent people are treated with suspicion, but the simple fact of the matter is that sometimes and in some circumstances it is understandable. Muslim Man+Airplane = one of those circumstances unfortunately, and it is entirely due to the memory of the actions of 19 Muslim hijackers on 9/11. If you are a Muslim man and this fact grates on you, you can know that I understand that. Then you can go tell it to Osama. 

Quote Of The Day

The quote of the day comes from Glenn Reynolds and a post that he put up yesterday:

One of the underappreciated virtues of good manners is that they help you to avoid making an ass of yourself when you are not as smart as you think you are.

Read the whole thing, but the basic context for that statement can be found here and in his links:

Meanwhile, I agree that the O’Donnell focus is a deliberate distraction. But I also think it’s important to use this opportunity — like the Sarah Palin “1773″ brouhaha — to point out that the credentialed gentry class isn’t nearly as smart, and certainly isn’t as well-educated, as it thinks it is. Because, you know, it isn’t.

Not only are they not as smart as they think they are, they act like complete assholes when faced with entirely justified criticisms. This has not gone unnoticed by the general public and I think that the postmortem on the 2010 elections will show that that behavior was a significant factor in turning what was going to be a bad year for Democrats into a disaster. 

I think it's also a factor in why Palin and O'Donnell receive support beyond what one would normally expect given their experience. There are valid criticisms of both women that have been presented, but people have noticed that an awful lot that has been directed their way has been astonishingly ugly and hypocritical. So much so, that whatever grains of truth the attacks may contain are overwhelmed by the repulsiveness of the attacker. Whatever else Sarah Palin does in her political life, she has already provided a valuable service in provoking the nastiest of our elites into showing their true colors.