The Hound Of Ulster

Hawking has SPOKEN:

Returning to a theme he has voiced many times before, the Cambridge University cosmologist said today that space-rockets propelled by the kind of matter/antimatter annihilation technology popularised in Star Trek would be needed to help Homo sapiens colonise hospitable planets orbiting alien stars.

I love the Star Trek bit.

I know, I know. I’m being a hypocrite. I dislike intentionally slanted reporting when it comes to political matters, so I should object to this, as well. Putting Star Trek there serves no purpose other than to make Hawking’s suggestions look silly. It’s not fair, and not necessary.

Plus his words look odd enough without any journalistic “help.”

The long-term survival of the human race is at risk as long as it is confined to a single planet. Sooner or later, disasters such as an asteroid collision or nuclear war could wipe us all out. But once we spread out into space and establish independent colonies, our future should be safe.

There isn’t anywhere like the Earth in the solar system, so we would have to go to another star.

If we used chemical fuel rockets like the Apollo mission to the moon, the journey to the nearest star would take 50,000 years. This is obviously far too long to be practical, so science fiction has developed the idea of warp drive, which takes you instantly to your destination. Unfortunately, this would violate the scientific law which says that nothing can travel faster than light.

However, we can still within the law, by using matter/antimatter annihilation, and reach speeds just below the speed of light. With that, it would be possible to reach the next star in about six years, though it wouldn’t seem so long for those on board.

First off, why should we expect to exist after some asteroid collision?

And secondly, how does this work?

He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that scientists still have “some way to go” to reach his prediction in his bestselling A Brief History of Time that mankind would one day “know the mind of God” by understanding the complete set of laws which govern the universe.

This set of laws, which will probably rely on theory that requires more than three dimensions of space and one of time, could be uncovered within 20 years, not least because next year the giant LHC atom smasher will go into operation in the CERN nuclear physics laboratory in Geneva to provide new information for that quest by simulating conditions not seen since the birth of the universe as well making antimatter in a special factory.

Sometimes I have a hard time telling where science stops, and the science fiction begins. Maybe it’s because they look so much alike in this instance.

This MSNBC ARTICLE suggests that Bush is thinking cosmetically rather than dramatically.

So the White House is ready to change course in Iraq, right?

Not quite. The president and his senior staff arrived in Amman, Jordan, on Wednesday with a deep sense of discontent about the direction of Iraq. But that doesn’t translate into a major course correction, no matter what the pundits—or the Democrats, or James Baker’s study group—suggest. Somewhere between Stay the Course and Reverse Course lies Bush’s new approach. Call it Adjust the Course.

Look at how the White House is approaching the high-stakes meeting in Amman between President Bush, King Abdullah of Jordan and the Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. The president’s fundamental judgment about Maliki is unchanged.

But Stanley Kurtz is thinking DRAMATICALLY. (And here is an interesting data POINT connected to that thinking.)

The Iraq experience now leaves us with no excuse. We have been shown in no uncertain terms that our military is far too small to handle the demands of the war on terror. And again, this will hold true in the future, even if we leave Iraq. In fact, the disastrous cascade of strategic problems that would follow a rapid withdrawal from Iraq would likely strain our army far more than Iraq itself is doing now. Even a relatively successful exit from Iraq in a year or two would not solve the problem. Win or lose, Iraq war or no Iraq war, Iran strike or no Iran strike, we need more troops. There are simply too many huge security risks in today’s world to get by on a shrunken post-Cold War military.

I just don’t see that as the problem - probably because I don’t really know anything about the facts involved. And partially because I’m not exactly sure how a big military really solves this “terrorism” problem.

How would a big military help with THIS, for example?

Iranian-made munitions found in Iraq include advanced IEDs designed to pierce armor and anti-tank weapons. U.S. intelligence believes the weapons have been supplied to Iraq’s growing Shia militias from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which is also believed to be training Iraqi militia fighters in Iran.

Evidence is mounting, too, that the most powerful militia in Iraq, Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi army, is receiving training support from the Iranian-backed terrorists of Hezbollah.

Maybe we could use the large military on this SITUATION.

From CPATT PAO:

BG Abdul-Kareem, the Ministry of Interior Spokesman, went on the record today stating that Capt. Jamil Hussein is not a police officer. He explained the coordinations among MOI, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Defense in attempting to track down these bodies and their joint conclusion was that this was unsubstantiated rumor.

He went on to name several other false sources that have been used recently and appealed to the media to document their news before reporting. He went into some detail about the impact of the press carrying propaganda for the enemies of Iraq and thanked “the friends” who have brought this to their attention.

AP did attend the press conference.

That last line is a killer. And so is THIS. But at least they’re both completely expected - so they might effect my blood pressure slightly, but they haven’t caused any heart attacks.

Darren Aronofsky’s new FILM opened (poorly) this past weekend, and I’m greatly intrigued. Pi was a study in bizarreness, but not without significant punch in spite of (or perhaps because of) that strangeness. And Requiem for a Dream was an astounding, brutal (and astoundingly brutal) bit of film-making: impossible to recommend to anyone, but quite possibly the most emotionally powerful and devastating film I have ever seen.

Critical reaction to The Fountain has been highly polarized. Many consider it a preachy, overblown mess of a film - and those are the ones who liked it. The other critics almost universally despise it. Sounds very promising.

Jim Emerson, Ebert-in-waiting, has THIS to say about the film:

Yes, “The Fountain” overreaches on every level, and that’s exactly what I like about it. Big subject, big canvas, big ambitions. A young director’s ungainly and overwrought folly? By all means, in the sense that Paul Thomas Anderson’s “Magnolia” or Gus Van Sant’s “My Own Private Idaho” or Martin Scorsese’s “New York, New York” or Bernardo Bertolucci’s “1900″ are follies.

They’re all bold attempts — some more successful than others — by passionate young filmmakers in their late 20s to mid-30s to sum up their own sensibilities and experience, to cram just about everything they know and feel, about life and about movies, on the screen at once.

That doesn’t make for smooth, comfortable viewing, but I’d much rather watch somebody shoot for the moon when the stakes are sky-high than sit back while they play it safe.

Yet there are any number of things beyond the critical polarization to recommend the film.

First, naturally, are Aronofsky’s previous efforts. Now, it is quite possible for a director to move from “definitely watchable” to “absurd” in one film. (Anyone remember Michael Bay? Or the even more disturbing example of Wolfgang Petersen?”) But that seems more common in “tent-pole” directors. I highly doubt Aronofsky’s going to make that move in a single offering.

Second, the inarguable and little known fact that Clint Mansell + the Kronos Quartet = genius. I’m not exactly sure what to say about the “Clint Mansell + the Scottish rock band Mogwai” tidbit, but that doesn’t make the first equation any less true. The Requiem track from Aronofsky’s second film was a wonderful piece of music, and rose above the “film score” genre.

But perhaps my most basic reason for wanting to see the film is the TRAILER. The visuals are astounding. And they’re completely natural, it would appear. Check out this little factoid:

Instead of using CGI, Aronofsky chose to do the special effects for the film by using micro-photography of chemical reactions on tiny petri dishes. He has said that CGI would take away from the timelessness of the film and that he wants the film to stand the test of time.

It also made it possible for Aronofsky to make the film on a much smaller budget than he was originally planning. And I’m a huge fan of non-CGI, when possible - or appropriate. Not exactly sure when I’ll get to see this one, but I’m definitely planning to see it.

Liebrethal wants to take the Wolf route:

Mike Lieberthal wants to play at Chavez Ravine. Multiple sources said the 13-year veteran would be happy to serve as backup to Russell Martin, and the interest is reciprocated by the Dodgers. However, a deal is contingent on two conditions. The Friday deadline for teams to offer arbitration to their free agents must pass without the Phillies making an offer to Lieberthal. Second, Lieberthal must pass a physical. – Los Angeles Times

But Gagne’s less CLEAR.

“I’m just focusing on getting healthy and getting back to the mound,” Gagne said over the Thanksgiving weekend. “I’m focusing on that and nothing else. I’m anxious to know if I’ll be in L.A. or not. I don’t know what’s going to happen. I don’t know their direction. A lot of the decision is up to the Dodgers. They’ve signed some good guys the past two years, and they’re going in the right direction. But I don’t know if I’m in their plans or not.”

Actually, Eric, this is up to Boras.

Captain Ed ADDRESSES the latest NSA news.

The hysteria surrounding this program might finally start receding, as long as these remarks get some significant play. After all, having a former Clinton aide wish he could reveal more about a secret program to reassure people of the good work done by it rather than to torpedo the Bush administration should raise some eyebrows among the paranoid. Former Reagan counsel Alan Raul went even further, telling John Solomon that he believes that the public underestimates the level of concern and dedication for civil liberties in the federal government.

Once again, the public’s support for a tough but necessary program has been reinforced by its careful execution by the NSA. This should not surprise anyone, as even the New York Times acknowledged that they had no information that the agency broke any laws or violated anyone’s civil rights when they broke the story. All they had were “concerns” about the program’s legality from their anonymous tipsters.

Sorry, Captain. I don’t think these comments will get anything close to “significant play.” I’m becoming a cynic, perhaps. But the NY Times can do no wrong in the eyes of the MSM, no matter how obvious its wrongdoing may be to the rest of us Americana. I expect it will all be swept quietly under the carpet.

Like THIS.

On a more uplifting note, HERE is Bill Simmons’ NBA East article, which I just has to pass on because it’s so very, very funny. (Be quiet, Orange Jay. No one asked you.)

Sapientiae Amator LINKS to an interesting POST on adapting books for the big screen. Here’s the key segment:

The comparisons between movies and books, or books to movies is seldom helpful. They are very different art forms, and should be judged by very different criteria. The purpose of a movie is not to be a good book, any more than the purpose of an apple is to be a good orange. Nor is the purpose of a movie to improve a book through adaptation.

The purpose of a good movie is to be a good movie, and that purpose is often furthered by adapting the story from a good book.

Sapientiae asks about films that are better than the books from which they were adapted, and I was only really able to come up with one: Rebecca. But I don’t think anyone could argue that du Maurier’s book was great. (Well, I suppose someone could. But they shouldn’t.)

The Guardian has an interesting LIST - though I must say that the inclusion of the Rathbone version of The Hound of the Baskervilles makes me furious. Or at least it would, if I weren’t already furious about the fact that Apocalypse Now is considered an adaptation of Conrad’s brilliant Heart of Darkness.

But I get worked up about odd things.

THIS is no surprise.

Frist, a surgeon who served two terms, had been preparing for a possible presidential run for more than a year but said he decided this was not the time.

“In the Bible, God tells us for everything there is a season, and for me, for now, this season of being an elected official has come to a close. I do not intend to run for president in 2008,” Frist said in a statement.

Dean Barnett LIKES the move - and the guy.

Myself, I think he tried to be “all things to all people,” as best illustrated by the stem-cell about-face. And he succeeded in being nothing to anyone.

Politicians.

Every now and then, I’m reminded of why former star players make such bad color guys (or head coaches, for that matter). Often, folks that are extraordinarily gifted at something are acting on a more “instinctual” basis than the rest of us regular humans. As a result, they rarely understand what they are doing “intellectually.” Instead, they just do it.

How else can one explain the presence of Joe Morgan?

I’m sure there are exceptions, but I can’t think of any at the moment. I do know that it’s not Bret Saberhagen, though.

Former Royals pitcher Bret Saberhagen doesn’t hold any illusions about his chances of making it into the Baseball Hall of Fame. But Saberhagen had some startling words for Hall voters about what he’d do if he got in. “I’d have to decline,” Saberhagen said by phone. “I wouldn’t accept it unless the Hall decides to put Pete Rose in, which is where he belongs.” – Kansas City Star

The simple fact is that Pete Rose cannot be in the Hall of Fame. So how can he “belong” there? People like Bret are always forgetting that the Hall’s CRITERIA contains this little tid-bit:

Any player on Baseball’s ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate.

The interesting thing is that Rose has a unique clause in his “banishment.” Rose is allowed to apply for reinstatement once a year for as long as he likes. “As of 2006, he has applied for reinstatement seventeen times and has been turned down every time.”

But the actual fact is that Pete Rose does not belong in the Hall of Fame. It’s a simple matter of logic. The very essence of the Hall excludes him - it’s built in. That could change, of course. The Hall could modify its rules, or MLB could reinstate Pete. To say that he belongs there now is to ignore actual facts.

But Bret was a good player, so that’s probably the real problem.

Throw-ins can make or break teams. And THIS is probably my favorite example. (I’m sure part of it is my deep and abiding hatred for the Giants. But part of it is it’s such an extreme example.)

The Twins already had pried a future All-Star closer (Joe Nathan) and a projected innings-eater (Boof Bonser) out of the Giants for catcher A.J. Pierzynski.

But what really elevated that November 2003 deal to legendary status was the last name to make the list: Francisco Liriano, then a Class A lefthander.

If Liriano wasn’t a throw-in, he was darn close.

Ouch.

Plus, the Hated Ones don’t even have A.J., if I remember correctly. I think they kept him for about a year. Ouch.

Here are a couple sides on the “Keith Ellison Swearing In on the Koran” flap: PRO and CON. (Actually, maybe that should say “con” and “anti-con.” That would be more accurate. Bainbridge is pretty much responding to Prager.)

Schumer says REAGANISM is dead, which seems unlikely.

And Nancy took things in a somewhat unexpected DIRECTION.

Congressman Alcee Hastings and I have had extensive consultations, and today I advised him that I would select someone else as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Alcee Hastings has always placed national security as his highest priority. He has served our country well, and I have full confidence that he will continue to do so.

This whole “nominate and support someone that will lose so you can look bad” model of Congressional Leadership confuses me. A new approach, that’s for sure. Still, as much as I would like Pelosi to look bad, I think this is almost certainly good for America. (Good for the GOP, maybe not so much. But that’s not the main criteria right now.)

THIS doesn’t help my judge obsession, I must say. Wow. That’s absurd. My uncle’s blind, and he’s never had a problem with this. Sure, he might not know what bill it is, but that’s not the same thing as thinking it’s unfair. By that criteria, one might argue that life is unfair to blind people. It’s just the way things are, but some people can’t accept that. They need to be normal.

At least American Papist has some GOOD news, though.

It’s still there. The November elections did not change that, at least.

Dean Barnett REMINDS us of something we seem to be forgetting:

6) What makes it idiotic? Is it not a salient point that FDR and Truman were able to subdue the Axis Powers in less time than it’s taken Bush to do whatever he’s done in Iraq?

No, it is not a salient point. If the goal were to defeat Iraq and the Iraqis as we defeated the Nazis and Imperial Japan, it could be accomplished pretty readily. For instance, if we gave Baghdad the Dresden treatment, I have a feeling incidents of sectarian violence would undergo a sudden, dramatic and marked decline. But we don’t want to do that, rightfully so, because it wouldn’t be nice. Lots of innocents dead, an outraged Kofi Annan – it would just generally leave a mess.

Idiotic might be a strong word, but i was pretty shocked to see the “We’ve been here longer than WWII” stuff when it came out. I have no idea why Iraq is compared to Vietnam, and WWII makes even less sense. (Actually, saying I have no idea isn’t quite right. I know why they do it. It just isn’t right.)

Check out Flopping Aces for a STORY that’s going all around the blogs today - spreading like a wild fire. In general, I think the media reporting on Iraq is somewhere between appalling and deliberately manipulative. (Thank goodness for guys like Mike FUMENTO.) But this one seems like it’s either “much ado about nothing,” or a huge, huge mistake on the part of the MSM. I know which one I’d like to be true; I’m just not sure the MSM is quite that blind yet. Not saying it’s impossible, mind you. But I’m not convinced.  Yet.  (Michelle’s got a whole lot MORE, including an interesting letter from the Army.)

Mark Levin has a general ADMONITION that seems very timely:

Nobody is talking about victory. We had many very severe setbacks during all of our major wars, from the Revolutionary and Civil Wars to World Wars I and II. Our country brought together the greatest minds NOT to devise ways to hold discussions/negotiations with the enemy, but to develop strategies to defeat them. That doesn’t exist today, or if it does, those voices are drowned out by a variety of “I told you so” claims. Other than a few lone voices, led by our own Michael Ledeen, where are the discussions about taking down the regime in Iran (a Jimmy Carter creation)? Most distressing, we hear nothing about this from any elected leaders of either party. Yet, that’s the surest way to ensure victory in Iraq, is it not?

The tone seems to have shifted drastically over the last couple of weeks, and that’s bad. Iraq is not Vietnam. But we could turn it into one in a hurry, if we’re not careful.

I’ve never been a big Buchanan fan. Partially, I suspect it’s because his conservative credentials were earned and burnished before my political time. Partially it’s because he strikes me as a bit Wandererish, and I need more optimism in my political universe. And partially it is because he seems to have moved from the “far right” to “downright wacko conspiracy-theory territory.” He’s becoming a regular Jerry Fletcher.

Hard to know how else to read THIS article, which seems to go to great lengths to suggest there is “someone other than Putin at fault here” - a theory that strikes me as perfectly reasonable - but which also seems to go to great lengths to suggest someone (or some “socio-political” group) in particular.

At least that’s the way PODHORETZ and GOLDBERG read it. (Those two posts might give you a hint if you’re still wondering about which “socio-political” group they think Pat is trying to finger, by the way.)

Israel seems to be Pat’s answer to nearly any QUESTION nowadays, and I find that somewhere between utterly and disturbingly uncompelling. Even if it were true that our foreign policy decisions were closely connected to Israel’s best interests, that seems a far cry from any such global conspiracy stuff. (Of course, my general view that government conspiracies are badly over-diagnosed in general - and in this current political climate in particular- probably doesn’t make me a great test subject of Buchanan’s theories, anyway.)

But there are two other things about that article I find troubling. One is the issue Goldberg addresses: that sort of rhetorical writing is cowardly. If Pat thinks it’s the Jews, he should say so. Or he should be much subtler about it. Feels a bit like saying: “a certain person who shall remain anonymous, but whose initials are Winnie the Pooh.” If you’re going to such great lengths to spell it out, why the reluctance to avoid saying the actual word?

And secondly, why defend Putin at all?

As the Journal’s Bret Stephens POINTS out (behind a subscription wall, darn it!), Russia is not our friend. Hasn’t been for a very long time, and the future changes of its friendliness are not looking promising, either.

It’s time we start thinking of Vladimir Putin’s Russia as an enemy of the United States.

This isn’t simply because a former KGB agent turned Putin critic died last week in London after ingesting a dose of polonium 210, an element that usually functions as a neutron trigger in atomic bombs. Nor is it that Alexander Litvinenko’s death is the latest in a series of killings, attempted murders, imprisonments and forced exiles whose victims just happened to be prominent opponents of Mr. Putin. It is because the foreign policy of Russia has become openly, and often gratuitously, hostile to the U.S. …

There is no case for Russia’s continued participation as the eighth member of the Group of Seven, once a club for mature democracies only. Putting Mr. Putin on notice that only gentlemen belong in gentlemen’s clubs would be the right first step. Treating him for what he is — “unworthy of the trust of civilized men and women,” as Litvinenko wrote from his deathbed — would be the next.

Food for thought.