And here's the website
19 Year Old Female German Tourist Wins New Zealand’s Rabbit-Throwing Competition
And you thought it was cancelled.
Nope, it wasn't:
Miss Lutz won a trip for two on the Waitomo Riverjet and a $100 meal voucher for her throwing ability but admits to being embarrassed about the win. "I couldn't believe it, I just laughed. It was very funny."
By the way, for those who don't click through, the rabbit is dead.
The War On Christmas Is Starting Early This Year
From the American Family Association:
Boycott Gap, Old Navy and Banana Republic this Christmas
November 11, 2009
AFA is calling for a limited two-month boycott of Gap, Old Navy and Banana Republic, the three stores owned by San Francisco-based Gap Inc., over the company’s censorship of the word "Christmas."
The boycott is part of our ongoing campaign to encourage businesses, communities and individuals to put Christ back in Christmas. The boycott runs from November 1 through Christmas Day.For years, Gap has refused to use the word Christmas in its television commercials, newspaper ads and in-store promotions, despite tens of thousands of consumer requests to recognize Christmas and in spite of repeated requests from AFA to do the same.
Last year, Gap issued this politically-correct statement to Christmas shoppers: "Gap recognizes that many traditions are celebrated throughout this season and we feel it is important to display holiday signage that is inclusive to everyone."
Christmas is special because of Jesus. It's not just a "winter holiday." For millions of Americans the giving and receiving of gifts is in honor of the One who gave Himself. For the Gap to pretend that isn't the foundation of the Christmas season is political correctness at best and religious bigotry at worst.
The Gap is censoring the word Christmas, pure and simple. Yet the company wants all the people who celebrate Christmas to do their shopping at its stores? Until Gap proves it recognizes Christmas by using it in their newspaper, radio, television advertising or in-store signage, the boycott will be promoted.
Yeah. The thing is…. The Gap isn't censoring Christmas….
… it's celebrating as well as other holidays that come this season. checked out the websites of Gap, Banana Republic, and Old Navy and quickly found several items that feature Christmas items including several Christmas books, a pair of boxer shorts that says “Christmas” in several languages and pajama pants that also have “Christmas” written on them.
This isn't about censoring Christmas or Christianity; it's about failure to censor other religions. In other words, the AFA wants you to boycott The Gap because The Gap isn't bigotted, much to the AFA's disliking.
Is The Sarah Palin Newsweek Cover “Sexist”?
From Sarah Palin's Facebook page, posted last night:
The choice of photo for the cover of this week’s Newsweek is unfortunate. When it comes to Sarah Palin, this “news” magazine has relished focusing on the irrelevant rather than the relevant. The Runner’s World magazine one-page profile for which this photo was taken was all about health and fitness — a subject to which I am devoted and which is critically important to this nation. The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now. If anyone can learn anything from it: it shows why you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin. The media will do anything to draw attention — even if out of context.
Her point is worthy of consideration, but in the end, I don't buy it. And here's why.
What Sarah is saying is that Newsweek purports to be a serious "news" magazine, dealing with serious issues, etc., and therefore, it's not right that its cover depicts her in running shorts — a "cheesecake" shot, for lack of a better phrase.
The biggest problem with that argument, as I see it, is that Sarah Palin herself isn't "serious news" or about "serious issues". She's in the spotlight now because she came out with a book. Is she running for political office? She has no plans to, but hasn't ruled it out — that's been her pat response over the last few days. Is she a serious analyst on serious issues? No, she's not.
Sarah Palin this week is using the media to plug her own book — a book which is about her, her family, her life, etc. From everything I have read, the small portions of the book that deal with her political philosophy are rather mundane (certainly nothing "deep" or novel) — she's boilerplate Reagan-worshopping. Is that news? Is she to be taken seriously for holding views also held by half the country?
So she's using the media to plug her non-academic book, and she scolds the media for not being taken seriously? Taken seriously about what?
Let's not forget, she posed for that photo, only a few months ago. During the presidential race, she spent $150,000 of campaign money on clothes (a time when she did warrent some respect, if only because of the office she sought). In other words, she's quite happy to eschew serious issues if it gets her the spotlight. So what exactly is her problem?
Don't get me wrong — I think a woman can use her "female appeal" and still ask to be taken seriously in matters political, academic, etc. But Sarah hasn't asked us to take her seriously — not yet. You can't cry "sexist" or claim to be the victim of media bias, when you yourself use your sex to the exclusion of what supposedly passes for thoughtful discourse, or even political ambition. You have to have a cause — something other than self-promotion — in order to accuse someone else of trivializing it.
When Sarah gives a lecture at Harvard School of Political Science, or announces her intentions to run for office, or does something instead of appearing on Oprah or Runner's World, I will acknowledge that she is a "newsworthy" woman with something to say or something to contribute. But until then, she's nothing more than a media star — someone famous for being famous. Or more accurately, she's someone famous for (once) being famous (last year).
At this point in time, Sarah Palin is a mere media outlet using other media outlets to promote her media ("Going Rogue"). So what exactly is wrong with media outlets (Newsweek) using "cheesecake" shots of her to sell their wares? Sarah Palin is knowingly selling herself as a pop icon — not a world leader, great thinker, learned author, etc. And since people are buying, then why shouldn't Newsweek get in on it?
On Trying Suspected Terrorists In Civilian Trials In NYC
Andrew Sullivan gives the background:
When you listen to the Fox News right speak about this, they reveal amazing levels of fear. They have been truly spooked by these men with long beards and chilling eyes. They are so scared of them they are willing to drop any and all legal principles that the West has historically used with respect to mass murderers. Their fear brought them to institute torture, and to engage in mass brutality against prisoners of war in every theater of combat in a manner that will tragically taint the honor of the US military for a very long time. It led them to establish Gitmo, to create for the world a reverse symbol of the Statue of Liberty, and imprint it on the minds and in the consciences of an entire generation of human beings, whose view of America will never be the same.
I've read all the "concerns" about trying suspected terrorists in NY, in a civil (as opposed to military) trial, and none of them make sense.
For example, some fear there will be retribution against New York, a fear best represented by Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ). Speaking on the House floor last night, Shadegg went after Mayor Bloomberg personally, suggesting that the mayor's daughter could be "kidnapped at school by a terrorist" because of the trial:
SHADEGG: I saw the Mayor of New York said today, "We're tough. We can do it." Well, Mayor, how are you going to feel when it's your daughter that's kidnapped at school by a terrorist? How are you going to feel when it's some clerk — some innocent clerk of the court — whose daughter or son is kidnapped? Or the jailer's little brother or little sister? This is political correctness run amok.
It's not political correctness; it's simply not allowing ourselves to be terrorized by terrorists. We've tried foreign terrorists in civilian courts before, including the so-called "20th" 9/11 terrorist.
Other fears are just plain silly, i.e., that the suspect al Qaeda terrorists will recruit the prison population and, well, and something. Right, because prisoners are unpatriotic? I have a feeling that if you allowed Khalid Sheikh Mohammad to roam amongst the general prison population, he'd end up like Jeffrey Dahmer — lying in a pool of blood.
Then, of course, you have those who fear that KSM and others will get off on a technicality. Specifically, that the confessions that were obtained through torture won't be admissible, and they will end up getting off scot-free.
This is just as absurd. For one thing, the federal prosecutors have already thought of that, and they have enough to convict even without the tainted confessions. (Oh, and by the way, where's the outrage at the Bush Administration for allowing the torture in the first place?)
Secondly, KSM and others have indicated that they will enter a guilty plea, so it's not like there's going to be an actual trial.
Look, if we really hate these people as terrorists, and really believe in our way of life, then we show our strength by doing what we do. A fair trial right to attorneys, the whole bit. As Sulllivan writes:
I believe this is the best symbolic answer to 9/11: a trial, with due process, after tempers have calmed somewhat, that exposes this evil for all it truly was. And also reveals the tragedy of an American government that lost its nerve and has now, under a new president, regained it.
Not surprisingly though, the GOP is fueled on fear, not strength. And that's why you have the "outrage" that you see in some quarters of the rightwing. Witness this from O'Reilly's show last night where he was talking with Fox's legal analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano — who has been known to disagree with Fox’s right-wing narratives on legal issues. Napolitano disputed the argument that the suspected terrorists shoudn't be tried in NYC, citing the constitutional right to be tried in the place where the crime has been committed. “I don’t care about the Constitution!” host Bill O’Reilly responded. The debate continued:
O’REILLY: So why is he entitled to come to New York City to be tried in the civilian criminal court if he’s arrested in Pakistan?
NAPOLITANO: Because the document you don’t want me to talk about says when the government is going to prosecute you, it must do so in the place where the alleged harm was caused.
It's a very revealing exchange, because it shows how the rightwing doesn't care about the Constitution when it comes to things they fear.
RELATED: Jill at Brilliant at Breakfast takes a look through a wider lens:
A funny thing happened after the September 11 attacks. Americans talked tough, especially the bantam rooster-in-chief, about "dead or alive", or "turning their sand into glass." But it wasn't about toughness, it was about fear. We were a nation that had experienced (or viewed on television) something unthinkable, and rather than rally around the documents and laws that have kept us strong for over 200 years, we en masse reverted to the very same lawlessness that the right wing uses to characterize the Middle East.
In right-wing America, fear = strength and respect = weakness. This is why you have people like Karl Rove referring to Barack Obama bowing to the Japanese Emperor as "a gesture of weakness." Of course to people like Karl Rove, respect = weakness. Because after all, look how far the bellicosity of the Bush years got us — by the time Bush left office, the entire world hated America because we were fool enough to let George Bush and Dick Cheney lead our country for eight years. If Obama bowed perhaps more than was necessary just to show respect (and I would say that a very tall man bowing that deeply to a very short man isn't beyond the pale at all), after the last eight years, perhaps it's warranted.
But there is nothing that the right-wing wants more than another major terrorist attack on our soil. Glenn Beck talks about returning this country to how it was on 9/12, and it's not about good will and helping out. It's about fear — that blind, shit-your-pants fear that gives the right so much comfort. How fear makes them feel more secure, I have no idea. Perhaps someone can enlighten me how fear = strength while respect = weakness, and how hoping for a terrorist attack is somehow patriotic.
Word Of The Year Announced
Oxford University Press, who edits and publishes the Oxford English Dictionary (the source of all words English) and the New Oxford American Dictionary, has announced its "word of the year" for 2009:
unfriend – verb – To remove someone as a ‘friend’ on a social networking site such as Facebook.
As in, “I decided to unfriend my roommate on Facebook after we had a fight.”
“It has both currency and potential longevity,” notes Christine Lindberg, Senior Lexicographer for Oxford’s US dictionary program. “In the online social networking context, its meaning is understood, so its adoption as a modern verb form makes this an interesting choice for Word of the Year. Most “un-” prefixed words are adjectives (unacceptable, unpleasant), and there are certainly some familiar “un-” verbs (uncap, unpack), but “unfriend” is different from the norm. It assumes a verb sense of “friend” that is really not used (at least not since maybe the 17th century!).
Follow the link to see what other words were considered for the 2009 edition of the New Oxford American Dictionary ("tramp stamp", "death panel", "teabagger", "birther", etc.)
“The Sound Of Music” Turns 50
Fifty years ago today, The Sound of Music opened on Broadway at the Lunt-Fontanne Theatre.
Odd. I had a dream about that show (sort of) this weekend.
Did you know that Christopher Plummer didn't like working in the film, calling it "The Sound of Mucus"? He even detested singing the song 'Edelweiss,' calling it "schmaltzy."
'Edelweiss' was the last song written by Oscar Hammerstein (it was written for the movie).
This Week’s Newsweek Covers
U.S Edition:
International Edition:
Says it all.
By the way, Christopher Hitchens nails Sarah Palin Bible Spice in Newsweek. An excerpt:
The Palin problem, then, might be that she cynically incites a crowd that she has no real intention of pleasing. If she were ever to get herself to the nation's capital, the teabaggers would be just as much on the outside as they are now, and would simply have been the instruments that helped get her elected. In my own not-all-that-humble opinion, duping the hicks is a degree or two worse than condescending to them. It's also much more dangerous, because it meanwhile involves giving a sort of respectability to ideas that were discredited when William Jennings Bryan was last on the stump. The Weekly Standard (itself not exactly a prairie-based publication) might want to think twice before flirting with popular delusions and resentments that are as impossible to satisfy as the demand for a silver standard or a ban on the teaching of Darwin, and are for that very reason hard to tamp down. Many of Palin's admirers seem to expect that, on receipt of the Republican Party nomination, she would immediately embark on a crusade against Wall Street and the banks. This notion is stupid to much the same degree that it is irresponsible.
Then there's the question of character and personality. Decades ago, Walter Dean Burnham pointed out that right-wing populists tended to fail because they projected anger and therefore also attracted it. (He was one of the few on the left to predict that the genial Ronald Reagan would win for this very reason.) Let's admit that Sarah Palin is more attractive—some might even want to say more appealing—than much of her enraged core constituency. But then all we are considering is a point of packaging and marketing, where charm is supposed to make up for what education and experience have failed thus far to supply. We are further obliged to consider the question: exactly how charming is the Joan of Arc of the New Right, who also hears voices speaking to her of "spiritual warfare"?
He also writes: "Sarah Palin appears to have no testable core conviction except the belief (which none of her defenders denies that she holds, or at least has held and not yet repudiated) that the end of days and the Second Coming will occur in her lifetime."
Good Year For The Leonids
We're passing through the Leonid meteor shower, and the moon is new (meaning, there's not much of it there), so you should be able to see a lot this year.
Some background: The Leonid meteors are debris shed into space by Comet Tempel-Tuttle, which swings through the inner solar system at intervals of 33.25 years, looping around the sun then heading back into the outskirts of the solar system. With each visit the comet leaves behind a trail of dust in its wake. Every November, the Earth, orbiting around the Sun, goes through some of those trails.
As the comet approaches the sun, it heats up, and the dust trails are quite dense. This is what happened in 1998, giving us a huge number of meteors (thousands visible per hour) in 1999, 2001, and 2002.
But Tempel-Tuttle is now receding away from the sun, so it will be a few decades before we see Leonids at that level like a decade ago. Ten meteors per hour is average. This year, however, we will be skimming the outside edge of a particular dust cloud emitted from Leonid in 1567, and (as I said), the moon won't be bright.
The comets themselves may be brighter this year, too. When the "comet bits" in the dust trail circle the sun for many hundreds of years, the tinier (dust grain) material tends to be pushed away from the sun and dispersed by the pressure of solar radiation. Conversely, because they are relatively unaffected by radiation pressure and leave the comet nucleus with less velocity than their smaller brethren do, the larger pebble-to-marble sized particles tend to linger for a much longer time. Since we're going through a centuries-old cloud, we'll see brighter comets, perhaps even a fireball or bolide (a meteor that silently explodes like a strobe along its path). About half might leave luminous trains lasting anywhere from a few seconds to a few minutes.
All in all, it means that in some parts of the world (including ours), 20-30 meteors per hour will be visible (one every 2-3 minutes).
The trick is to know when and where to look. As you might have guessed, the Leonid meteors emanate from the constellation Leo.
North Americans – especially those living near and along the Atlantic Seaboard – will be able to watch for Leonids from after 1 a.m. local time right on until the first light of dawn, which comes soon after 5 a.m. local time.
Those in the eastern U.S. and Canada are especially favored because Leo will be high in the southeast sky between 3:30 and 5:30 a.m. EST, just before Earth is expected to exit the meteor cloud. For the West Coast, this translates to 12:30 to 2:30 a.m. PST, when Leo is much lower down in the eastern sky.
That's the PEAK: 3:30 to 5:30 a.m. But obviously, you might see something prior to that, if you look in Leo.
So what should you do?
No two observers prepare for a meteor vigil the same way. It helps to have had a late afternoon nap, a shower, and to wear all fresh clothing.
Be sure to keep this in mind: at this time of year, meteor watching can be a long, cold business. Expect the ambient air temperature to be far below what your local radio or TV weathercaster predicts.
Watching a meteor shower consists of lying back, looking up at the sky . . . and waiting.
When you sit quite still, close to the rapidly cooling ground, you can become very chilled. You wait and you wait for meteors to appear. When they don't appear right away, and if you're cold and uncomfortable, you're not going to be looking for meteors for very long! Therefore, make sure you're warm and comfortable. Heavy blankets, sleeping bags, groundcloths, auto cushions, and pillows are essential equipment.
Warm cocoa or coffee can take the edge off the chill, as well as provide a slight stimulus. It's even better if you can observe with friends. That way, you can keep each other awake, as well as cover more sky.
Keep in mind that any local light pollution or obstructions like tall trees or buildings will reduce your making a meteor sighting. Give your eyes time to dark-adapt before starting. Probably the best bet is to rest on a lawn lounge, all the way back, so you can look up and see the whole sky.
Find the constellation Leo, and locate the radiant, or originating point, of the meteor shower. The radiant rises between 1 am and 3am (EST) for the bulk of the Northern Hemisphere. The picture shows the constellation Leo to help you find it in the sky. The meteors will emanate from the "head" of the Leo.
If you have trouble finding Leo, look for the Big Dipper. Leo is below the bottom of the dipper.
Painful
Patriots-Colts. Last night. Ouch.
The one time I sit down to watch and entire game start to finish.
Harumph.
Flight 1549 3D Reconstruction
This is pretty amazing, especially the matter-of-fact tone to everyone's transmissions:
Worst Book Burning Ever
About a month ago, I blogged about a "Halloween Hootenanny" which was to take place at the Amazing Grace Baptist Church down the road in Canton, NC. There was going to be fried chicken, and book-burning. Also burning of music: everything from rap to rock to country to contemporary Christian. Oh, yeah — they were going to burn non-Kings James versions of the Bible, too.
What happened?
But when the big day came around, a combination of rain, protesters, and a state law against burning paper all conspired against them.
Here is actual video of the event:
Yup. No burning. Just throwing things in a white kitchen trash can purchased from Walmart.
Aren't you sorry you missed it now?
For their part, the Amazing Grace Baptist Church felt it all went just fine thankyouverymuch:
We wanted to say that the Book Burning was a great success[.] We wanted to thank all the Bible doubters who prayed for rain with us. All the protestors and media got wet; we were inside where it was nice and dry[.] We are not glad people got wet, we are glad that His Word was honored. Some have written praising God that he intervened and stopped the Book Burning because of the rain, protestors, and state laws about burning paper. Nothing was stopped. Our goal was to destroy garbage as noted below, and we did just that. We didn't care how it was destroyed; only that it was destroyed. These same people must have never heard about "Paper, Rock, & Scissors." Scissors cut paper, and paper tears real easy. We destroyed everything as planned. Praise God! God answered every prayer that everyone prayed, but they don't like the answer.
Yee-haw.
Vaccine Waiver For Creationists
This guy has a good point.
If you don't believe in evolution, you should not be getting any flu or H1N1 vaccines. Why not? Because flu strains evolve each year, and since you don't believe that living things evolve, then why are you taking a vaccine shot every year? Especially this year, when flu vaccines are in short supply?
Instead, creationists should get a vaccine waiver.
We Get Emails
I received this email from Erick Erickson, proprietor of Redstate, the pre-eminent right wing blog:
Today Barack Obama is going to announce that the terrorist mastermind of September 11th, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will be sent to New York City for a criminal trial in a civilian court.
In that trial, the terrorist will get all the rights afforded an American citizen in a criminal trial, including the right to a fair trial, the right to a taxpayer funded attorney, the right to review all the evidence against him, potentially including classified intelligence matters, the right to exclude evidence against him including, potentially, any confession obtained through enhanced interrogation techniques, etc.
So far, so good. But then, the next paragraph…
At best, this will be a show trial fit not for the American Republic, but a third world kleptocratic totalitarian regime.
Screeeeeeeech — BANG! ExCUSE me?!?
A fair trial, an attorney, the right to see evidence against him, cross-examine that evidence, etc? These are earmarks of a trial "not fit for the American Republic?" These are the kind of things thay have in "a third world kleptocratic totalitarian regime"?!?
Erick needs to read the U.S. Constitution to have a better understanding of the principles of this country.
From The West Wing:
JOSH: What do you say about a country that gives all kinds of rights and protections to the very people who want to destroy it?
TOBY: God bless America.
UPDATE: Nice discussion of Erick Erickson's email over at John Cole
UPDATE: Bill Kristol gets into the act, too. Seriously, what is up with the right wing? They want to have a banana-republic trial (at best), because that's American??
ALSO READ: The Rude Pundit points out that "Conservatives Are Scared of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; Liberals Are Not"