Signs you're a little shorthanded

Apparently, with all the suspensions resulting from the last Red Sox-Yankees series, plus the spate of injuries currently afflicting the Sox, if anything were to happen to Mirabelli, the back-up catcher would be . . . Gabe Kapler?

Let's hope Mirabelli stays safe until Varitek returns, OK?

And, on a completely unrelated note, is there some sort of rule that says that all baseball players must chew something at all times?

How time flies

I can't believe it's already been a week since last I touched my blog. [No wonder everyone stopped visiting last week. Looking at them reminded me a bit of the Doonesbury strips where Mike and his girlfriend started up their website, and watched traffic surge and plummet on a nearly second-by-second basis.]

So, let's play a bit of catch-up.

• Lines being drawn in the sand. Let's see. The Democrats have Bruce Springsteen, REM, Pearl Jam, and the Dave Matthews Band. Oh, and Rebecca Romijn-Stamos. [Extra bonus points for the last one.] It appears that the Republicans have: Brittany Spears, Alice Cooper, and Gene Simmons. Not much of a contest, guys. Sorry.
• Swift-boat idiots. I don't think I need to say anything more than the fine folks over at Pandagon have already said.
• Sign that your party might be in trouble. You're hosting a wine tasting--and there are more non-drinkers than oenophiles at the event.
• Tarnished gold? Regarding the Hamm controversy: I agree with those who think that if video replay is going to be used, you have to use it fairly. When I teach, my re-grade policy is that if you ask for a re-grade, I'm going to re-grade the problem. If you come up net positive, great. But if I catch a mistake that I missed the first time, I'm going to count it, one way or the other. So, if the net result was to show that Mr. Yang deserved the gold, after including both the higher start value and any uncaught penalties, great--give another gold medal. Otherwise, let the results stand.
• Huzzah, Part 1. A friend of mine reports that he can finally call himself a physicist now that he's been published in Physics Review Letters (aka PRL). Of course, does this make me some sort of mutant hybrid--half-physicist, half-engineer--for having an article published in Physical Review E?
• Huzzah, Part 2. In the universe's continuing quest to make my life as complicated as possible, I now have two job offers to deal with. [I'll get around to saying more about this at a later date.]

I suppose that's it for now. Somehow the snark seems to have been sucked out of me for the time being. But, I'll be back and up to my usual obnoxious self before not too long. . . .

Creepy

I'm of mixed opinions of the ads during the Olympics--the Visa ads in particular. The last shot of the old woman putting on her glasses with an almost feral grin especially gives me the wiggins.

Who'da thunk it?

Looks like the lovefest that visited New York during the great blackout last summer didn't quite make it to Florida in the aftermath of Charley. $10 bags of ice, $10,000 tree removals, and $400 hotel rooms don't sound particularly charitable.

Not a good way to engender happy Floridians willing to support Dear Leader.

Oops!

From the Dumbya Move Department: According to a Fox station in Milwaukee, much of W's campaign apparel (at least in the state of Wisconsin) has been produced by plants in China, Honduras, and Haiti. Clearly, outsourcing is OK for the Republicans, even as part of their campaigning strategy.

Scary cat photo

These are some frightening furballs.

Today's rant is brought to you courtesy of my library.

To begin, please note the time at which this e-mail was received:

Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:02:44 -0400

Now, the message concerned the recall of a book I had borrowed from the library, on a four-week loan, informing me that the book has been recalled. Fair enough, it happens from time to time that multiple people might want to look at the same book, even a book on real analysis from the MIT science library.
What really gets me, though, is the request for when they'd like the book back:

Please return the item by: 08/13/2004 04:05 PM

Yes, folks, that's right. They wanted the book back one hour after they e-mailed me, for a book out on a four-week loan (nominally; it was really a three-week loan, but that's beside the point).
And what would happen if I didn't get it back within an hour?

Please be aware that unreturned recalled items are subject to a special fine of two dollars per day.

Even more fun! A two-dollar fine just because I happened to be out of the office at the time. Fortunately, I did get the message at 3:30, so I didn't have to worry about the fines. But, as one might imagine, I was nonplussed by this. In this "automated age," we can do better than this, folks.

Asked, but not answered

Perhaps it's a touch of naivete, hoping beyond hope that Dubya would actually answer the questions that Larry King asked last night--and, to his credit, there were a few that were relatively hard-hitting. [Given Dubya's predilection for having everything scripted in advance, the questions were even more surprising.]

But two moments stood out in this discussion. The first came early on, in response to the "Swift Boat Veterans for Bush" ad. Bush was given multiple opportunities to say "No, I don't support this ad. It's uncalled for." But, true to form, in each case, he sidestepped condemning the ad, instead choosing to go after all "527" ads. [Presumably, if Republicans had more money in 527's than the Democrats do, they'd be all for them.]

The other moment came in the discussion of stem cell research. Again, Dubya was disappointing. [Then again, how is that surprising?] King asked a very good question: "you don't support embryonic stem cell research, but you support in vitro fertilization." It was clear that he was going to ask Bush what should be done with the embryos left over from fertilization therapies. Of course, Bush didn't let him ask that question--he jumped in and just stuck to the same tired old speech as before.

As a bonus, he also whiffed the question on the seven minutes, but how can he possibly justify his actions then?

Brilliant evasions, but they tell us far more about his real motivations and beliefs than I think he'd like to admit.

Little white lies

Hmm. Dubya is trying to reinvent history once again. He now claims that he played varsity rugby during his Skull and Bones days. Interestingly enough, the Yale Athletics department finds this very curious--especially given that Yale has never had a varsity rugby program!

If he's willing to tell little white lies about what he did and didn't do in college--and telling a whopper that is so easily verifiable, at that--why should we expect that he'd tell us the truth about anything else?

Update: I had a little more that I want to say about this point. I think what galled me about it is not merely the fact that he lied about it, it's the manner in which he did it. From Karen Hughes's book comes the remark in question:

"President Putin knew you had played rugby, but he didn't have the context. I mean, you just played for one semester in college, right?" Hughes said.

Bush corrected: "I played for a year, and it was the varsity."

Now, Bush could have said, "Yeah, I played for a year," and that would be that, end of story. There's no question that he played rugby: there's the photographic evidence that shows that he played (badly, and practically illegally). Yet, he's so eager to make it look like an accomplishment bigger than it is that he proceeds to tack on the little extra lie. It was an entirely unnecessary addition, and it's a total fabrication. That's what bothers me. He didn't need to lie in the first place, especially given the relative unimportance of the matter. Yet he went ahead and did it anyways.

It's more fun, in a completely crazy kind of way

I'm not sure what to make of the Red Sox commentators on NESN, who made the suggestion that it's more fun for outfielders to run into the scorebard at Fenway instead of the wall, because there's more stuff to collide with, and because it makes a louder bang.

That's like saying it's more fun to stick your hand in a blender instead of a fan because there's more chance for splatter.

And, on a side note, it took me a second to realize that the Boston fans weren't booing their third baseman, they were shouting "Yook."

Ups and downs, part II

Up: it looks like a recommendation of a musical work to my conductor might finally get used in a concert.

Down: The work is by Schütz.

Ups and downs

On the "up" side: for the first time in nearly four months, I will come into work tomorrow morning without a manuscript requiring my immediate attention waiting for me. I'm not exactly sure what I'll be doing tomorrow, but I think I'll be able to figure something out. [Heh, heh.]

On the "down" side: a joke e-mail has triggered a set of responses in my group that borders on thermonuclear meltdown within the group. I'm just sitting on the sidelines and watching this one unfold. I just hope things don't get any nastier than they are at the moment.

Signs of latent Republicanism

You know you're a Republican when you believe:

• Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
• Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony
• The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
• A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
• Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
• The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
• If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
• A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
• Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy.
• Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
• HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.
• Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
• A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
• Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
• The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.
• Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.
• You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.
• What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.

The onward march of progress

When I came to MIT six years ago, the default quota on the university's mainframe system was a whopping 10 MB. Six years later, it's now a quite large 1 GB. That's faster than even Moore's law would predict (you'd get about 160 MB under that particular rule).

So, I guess it shows that storage is becoming cheap—but getting faster performance will still be a big challenge in the years to come, as we work our way down to the electron limit of nanotechnology.

Not so grumble, grumble

Lost in all of the hubbub of the last few days for me was the fact that I had a paper accepted for publication. It's a summary-type paper in a ChemE journal--as opposed to a more general journal. And, lost amongst three rather lengthy (but quite favorable!) reviews was the brief sentence:

I am pleased to inform you that the paper is acceptable for publication provided that you make the modifications described in the reviews.

So, good news. But now I have to revise while editing two more, and waiting for a fourth to come back from review. Huzzah.

Grumble, grumble

Once again my talk at AIChE is scheduled for the last freakin' day of the convention. This really, really bugs me. Once again, there was another session which could have been appropriate for my talk, and would have been earlier in the week, when more of the attendees would still have been in town. However, I think that the session I'm in is more likely to reach my target audience. After all, bridging time scales and length scales is a nice idea, but there are too many different fields all in the same session. It's a great "brainstorming" session; I'm trying to "sell" my work.

Style versus substance

Take a gander at the respective blogs of W and of the Kerry-Edwards campaign; tell me which one you think is more about delivering content, and which is just trying to dazzle.

Just a note to web designers out there: eye-catching doesn't have to be garish.

Update: In looking at the different blogs, I noticed one other important difference between the two: comments are encouraged on the Kerry-Edwards blog (the typical post has around 200), but aren't even an option for Bush-Cheney. Once again, we see which side is actually giving the people a forum, and which one is just paying lip service to small-r republicanism.

Couldn't say it better myself if I tried

The Answer Guy pretty much hits the nail on the head in telling us what is wrong with W.

Go read it. Now.

What are you still doing reading this page? I told you to go read his summary. Get to it.

Go!

Just accept it, and move on

Starting pitcher Tim Wakefield gave up six home runs in today's game against the Tigers, tying a rather unfortunate record that hadn't been challenged in 64 years. Amazingly, he also managed to win the game. Ya gotta love baseball.

Polls you don't want to see

When the internals of polls produced by the network most favorable to you show that you're sinking fast, perhaps it's time to consider that you just might be in trouble.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

The irony of this is too rich. George W. Bush, the ultimate in "legacy" admissions, now believes they are wrong.

I hope this means that he turns in all of his previous academic credentials--his Yale and Harvard Business School degrees--as they were improperly earned as a result of family history, not personal merit.

The Unassailable Truth

From the proverbial you-know-what's mouth:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

The truth is finally out. Why the usual suspects on the left haven't picked up on this is beyond me.

Poetry and the army

The New York Times has an article this morning about an unusual National Endowment for the Arts program that is working with the armed forces to encourage soldiers to become writers.

Now, the question is, what will be the result of such a project? Will we get autobiographies, or will we get the next Wilfred Owen?

For by my glee might many men have laughed,
And of my weeping something had been left,
Which must die now. I mean the truth untold,
The pity of war, the pity war distilled.
Now men will go content with what we spoiled,
Or, discontent, boil bloody, and be spilled.

I'm guessing the military's hoping for the biographies and the novels--the next Red Badge of Courage, not the next "Strange Meeting." But that's just a hunch.

Time for another trip

To DC once more wend I my way.

Blogging will be light for the next two or three days, unless I happen to get on a good (i.e., cheap) internet connection.

Can you cry wolf?

Everybody should go read this summary of the blatant mis-statements and outright lies that allowed this "administration that never lets the factual record impinge on what it says to the American public" to lead our nation to war.

Moreover, the appearance of even implicit politicization in the raising and lowering of the "terror alert status" has caused many Americans to wonder if they should even take these new threats seriously.

Great job, BushCo.

Artistic discrimination

Will Baude over at Crescat Sententia had an interesting question about whether or not Gershwin's stipulation in his will that English-language productions of Porgy and Bess should be performed with an all-black cast is either discriminatory or enforceable.

This raises, for me, a more interesting question: can a playwright, composer, filmmaker, etc., be discriminatory in specifying that a particular role should be given to a particular type of individual--in terms of either gender, race, or other characteristics.

Personally, I think that part of the difficulty in answering that question is that the circumstances have changed so much over time. In Elizabethan England, Shakespeare's plays would have been presented with an all-male cast; today, though, nobody bats an eye at women playing the role of women in Shakespeare. In a similar vein, back in the Classical and early Romantic eras, songs were freely transposed between different voice parts--and between different genders, so that it was just as likely that a woman might sing "Erlkönig" as a man might sing "Gretchen am Spinnerade."

However, sometime around the late Romantic era--more or less contemporaneously with coincidental with the rise of copyright and performing rights--it stopped being acceptable to make such changes. In Händel's day, no one thought twice about transposing an aria to a different key--including Händel himself. On the other hand, almost no one would dream of transposing the big solo in Bernstein's Chichester Psalms, or cross-casting Blanche DuBois as a man. It's too much of a change in the structure of the piece, and in the composer's (or equivalently playwright's) intentions.

In the world of film, this would be akin to casting Ruby Dee and James Cromwell in Jessica Tandy's and Morgan Freeman's roles in Driving Miss Daisy. The intent is to create a very specific world with a very specific feel. Altering that by changing the races of the cast members would destroy that balance. It's also why Shakespeare can sustain those changes--the goal isn't to recreate a world, it's simply to create a drama. That independence is critical; where it's there, the rules are much different from where it's not.

Good news, bad news

The good news: Mitt Romney will no longer be able to name a replacement for John Kerry, should he prevail in November.

The bad news: do we want to think about the eschatological portents of Senator Affleck?

So what's the difference?

Can somebody explain to me what is the difference between a six-hour miniseries and a six-episode "limited series," other than the difference between running on consecutive nights and once a week?

Note to self

Do not blog--or comment on blogs--before you've actually woken up for the morning. It just increases the chances for miscommunication of ideas.

Whah?

Doesn't Ben Affleck have anything better to do than to tag along with the Kerry-Edwards campaign?