Accidental Blogger

A general interest blog

  • I should really be writing a post about Bush right now but I am going to wait and see what he has to say during tonight’s State of the Union speech. In the meantime, a local story in today’s paper caught my eye.

    "Brazoria Mayor Ken Corley wants offensive use of the "n-word" to be punishable by a fine of up to $500 in his town.

    "It’s not a particular problem in Brazoria," Corley said, "but it’s a national problem."

    Corley said he got the idea while watching two black ministers talking on television about how offensive that word is. "I just think it would be great if this little town of Brazoria, with 2,800 people, leads the way in fighting against this offensive language," said Corley.

    He said if the ordinance passes, he may ask for it to be expanded to include other racial slurs. He believes Brazoria would be the first place in the country where the racial slur would be outlawed. But at least one legal expert said Monday that such an ordinance may not stand up in court.

    The ordinance wouldn’t forbid anyone from saying the word, Corley said, but would outlaw using the word in an offensive or aggressive manner. Violators would be charged with disturbing the peace, he said.

    "It would be up to somebody who was offended to file a complaint, like any other disturbance complaint," he said.

    The person charged would appear before a municipal judge and be liable for a fine of up to $500, he said. Corley said he met with area ministers and about 60 percent favored the ordinance. "Even some of the ones that opposed it said they applauded me for doing this," he said.

    Corley, who is 62, white, and grew up in Brazoria County, said he often heard the "n-word" as a youth, but now mainly hears it in rap music and used by young people to greet each other.

    "Our kids are hearing this word on the radio and they’re bringing it home," he said.

    The ordinance would allow the word to be used as a friendly greeting, he said."

    The rest of the story here.

    Brazoria is a small community not very far from where I live. The mayor admits that racial slurs are not a big problem there. Also, it will be permissible to use the N-word as a "friendly greeting."  So how many incidents of actual "aggressive" use of the word will the town of Brazoria have to contend with?  Do you get the feeling that the mayor is trying to get his name on the national news?  I mean, is this a worthwhile endeavor by the city council?  And ironically enough, although the N-word is a slur against African Americans, under this ordinance, Mayor Corley will probably end up fining more members of the very community he is trying to shield from offensive speech. In reality, few non-blacks except the most reckless, go around mouthing this epithet in public (unless they are having a Michael Richards moment). The group that is most likely to get snared by Mayor Corley’s civility radar will be young black males who are prone to say the word publicly both in anger and jest. What a silly waste of time by a public official.   

  • The recent story about the two kidnapped young boys rescued from the clutches of a pedophile caught the  attention of the entire nation. Ben Ownby and Shawn Hornbeck, both of Missouri, were found in an apartment belonging to Michael Devlin, a 41 year old pizza store manager.  It was the search for thirteen year old Ben who was kidnapped a few days ago that led the police to Devlin’s apartment. There to their astonishment, they also found Shawn now 15, who had been missing since he was 11. The bitter sweet story of Shawn is one that evokes a sigh of relief as well as nightmarish emotions for all parents. To have found the boy alive after so long is a miracle. That he must have been abused is also a certainty. There is no doubt that it will be a long, hard struggle for both Shawn and his parents to make the necessary adjustments to revert to a "normal" life after what were surely four very troubling years.

    There is evidence that during the four years of captivity, Shawn did not attend school but was otherwise free to move about, make friends and even have access to the internet. Yet he did not escape or alert anyone about his situation. Many people are asking why. Often abducted children (and adults) are known to show similar behavior. Psychologists believe that Shawn may have been a victim of what is commonly known as the Stockholm Syndrome. 

    Others have pointed accusing fingers at Shawn and called him inconsiderate for putting his parents through the torment of not knowing his whereabouts. We will never know why Shawn chose to  keep quiet and stay with his captor for four long years, unless and until he himself tells us. But that has not kept Bill O’Reilly, the Fox News Channel blowhard and paragon of virtues from pompously weighing in with his own interpretation. According to O’Reilly, Shawn did not escape because he didn’t want to and because he was "maladjusted at home" and was having much more fun in the company of his abusive captor.

    From the January 15 edition of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor:

    O’REILLY: "Impact" segment tonight, the disturbing case of the two kidnapped boys in Missouri. As you know, police found 15-year-old Shawn Hornbeck in an apartment of 41-year-old Michael Devlin last week, along with 13-year-old Ben Ownby. Both boys allegedly had been kidnapped by Devlin, who ran a pizza place in the town of Kirkwood. Shawn had been missing for four years.

    And the question is, why didn’t he escape when he could have? There are all kinds of theories about that. Joining us now from Washington, Greta Van Susteren, who has been out to Missouri reporting on the case.

    All right, you know, the Stockholm syndrome thing, I don’t buy it. I’ve never bought it. I didn’t think it happened in the Patty Hearst case. I don’t think it happened here.

    […] O’REILLY: I’m not buying this. If you’re 11 years old or 12 years old, 13, and you have a strong bond with your family, OK, even if the guy threatens you, this and that, you’re riding your bike around, you got friends. The kid didn’t go to school. There’s all kinds of stuff. If you can get away, you get away. All right? If you’re 11.

    […]  O’REILLY: This is what I believe happened in the Hearst case and in this case. The situation that Hearst found herself in was exciting. She had a boring life. She was a child of privilege. All of a sudden, she’s in with a bunch of charismatic thugs, and she enjoyed it. The situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents. He didn’t have to go to school. He could run around and do whatever he wanted.

    From the January 16 edition of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor:

    O’REILLY: The kidnapping of those two boys should be front-page news in your house if you have kids. I actually hope I’m wrong about Shawn Hornbeck. I hope he did not make a conscious decision to accept his captivity because Devlin made things easy for him. No school, play all day long.

    So, according to O’Reilly, Shawn was living out a Tom Sawyer fantasy.  Shut up O’Reilly, let Shawn tell us if he wishes to.

     

  • Whenever I hear about torture, I inevitably think of this conversation with this psychopath:

    Doug Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody,
    including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no
    law that can stop him?
    John Yoo: No treaty.
    Doug Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
    John Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that. [read: "correct."]

    Frightening, no?

    But speaking of torture, CNN is reporting that the DOD wants to (eventually) try the Guantanamo detainees by using coerced statements as evidence.

     Defense Secretary Robert Gates is
    submitting to Congress a manual for trials of detainees being held at
    Guantanamo Bay that would allow the admission of hearsay evidence and
    coerced testimony, a Pentagon official told reporters Thursday.

    The
    manual was drafted to comply with a law passed last year that restored
    the Bush administration’s military commissions created to try terrorist
    suspects.

    The Supreme Court had struck down the commissions as unconstitutional. * * *

    The rights of the accused are "very much the same" as those in a court-martial, [Dan Dell’Orto] said.

    About 400 detainees are being held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. * * *

    Brig.
    Gen. Thomas Hemingway, a legal adviser to the Office of Military
    Commissions, told reporters that the manual provides for a "clear
    prohibition of evidence obtained by torture" if it was obtained after
    December 30, 2005
    .

    But if it was obtained before that time, and if the judge determines that it is reliable, it may be admitted, he said.

    Some city upon a hill we’ve turned out to be.

    So imagine this: I punch you.  "Tell me!"  I punch you again.  "Tell me!"  Perhaps you have the knowledge I am trying to extract; perhaps you do not.  You respond–lying, telling the truth, it does not make a difference.  I put out a cigarette on your skin.  You tell me what you think I want to hear.  Eventually I send you away, but you know I’ll be back.  For three days you are forced to stand in your cell, naked, with no light, no concept of time, no food, and absolutely no sleep.  Maybe house music plays the entire time–loudly.  Eventually you’re brought back.  "Mr. Anderson," I say, "we meet again."  (Anderson is not your name, though you can be forgiven for being unsure.  It may not have helped that I forced you to watch as I followed Professor Yoo’s… suggestion.)

    And then you confess.  You confess everything: things you have done and things you haven’t.  You confess to everything you think I want to hear, just please make it stop please make it stop.  You name names: real names, false names, the name of your pet goat when you were seven years old, the name of that girl you used to have a crush on.  Please make it stop.  You tell me that they did it, whatever "it" is about which I want to know the details and the culprits.  Please.  You tell me their future plans, even though you probably don’t know their future plans, even the ones who are really terrorists, because after all you are just a peon.  Why won’t I stop, you want to know, though you are well beyond being able to articulate that; you whimper, now, or yelp.

    Maybe you were the person we decided was unfit to stand trial (the torture made you that way, of course, but it really did and you are unfit).  Maybe you were the person we decided couldn’t have access to counsel because you came into possession of classified information about our torture techniques by being tortured by us.

    But maybe we’ll just go ahead and give you a trial.  It will be substantially similar to a court-martial, it will be a regularly constituted tribunal–insofar as by "substantially" we mean "not at all" and by "regularly" we mean "Kafkaesque."  And then you will be convicted and punished, perhaps sentenced to death.  The evidence supporting the conviction?  Those coerced statements.  The torture-product.  The things I forced you to say, the things I did not even believe at the time, the confessions and allegations of a broken human being.

    Is this what will happen?  Who knows?  CNN isn’t exactly forthcoming with the details.  I don’t know the content of Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s manual; I don’t know how the DOD intends to try people.  What I do know is this: the Bush Administration has turned the world into a nightmare.

  • Forgot to put this up yesterday.  The Carnival of the Liberals # 30 is up at Shakespeare’s Sister. Please check it out.

  • For the second year in a row the American Cancer Society has reported a decline in the number of deaths due to cancer. 2003 was the first year on record for which an overall decrease in cancer death was reported. The data for 2004 is similarly positive and it may bode well for the future. The decline was observed for most common forms of cancer in men and women – lung, breast, prostrate and colo-rectal. The boost in survival rates has been attributed to early screening and diagnosis, better cancer awareness and life style choices, improved research and treatment.   

    Whenever there is good news on scientific, medical or technological fronts with promises of improvement in the human condition, politicians like to horn in and share credit for the development.  Sometimes the credit is justified, sometimes it is self aggrandizement and occasionally it is a lie.  On the heels of the latest positive news about cancer death, George W. Bush lost no time to bask in reflected glory ascribing it to improved funding for cancer research. Bush made the following remark:

    "These are tangible results as a result of the research that takes place around the country,” said President George W. Bush, attending a roundtable discussion with cancer experts at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. "We’re spending about $28.6 billion here at the NIH, which was doubled from 15 years ago."

    Very noble, if that was indeed the whole truth!

    There is no doubt that success in scientific / medical research is to a large degree proportional  to governmental funding. There is also no denying that a huge increase in funding for cancer research in the last decade had a vital role to play in bringing about breakthroughs in cancer cure. But the little detail that Bush did not divulge is that all increases in research funding were approved by Bill Clinton. During the first few years of the Bush administration, The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and its branch, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) continued to receive funding at a higher level as guaranteed by the Clinton budget which was still in place. When the budget came up for renewal under Bush, the NIH saw its first funding cut in thirty six years. Under the stewardship of this ignorant, anti-education, war mongering administration, funding for all  non-defense related medical research (cancer research included) has been slashed. In fact, the NCI has seen the largest decrease in funding among all the branches of the NIH. In effect, money for research in Bio-Defense (bio weapons?) has gone up under Bush but support for disease, cure and health related research has been reduced.  Despite Bush’s boastful words, this is the first time since the 1970s that the NIH has seen a cut in its budget. Of course Bush didn’t tell us that.  Just ask the scientiststhe very same NIH experts in whose presence Bush made his misleading and self serving statement.

    In February, President Bush issued his proposed budget for fiscal year 2007. The $2.77 trillion spending plan included $28.6 billion for the National Institute of Health (NIH), the same as it received the previous year. After adjusting for medical inflation, which is higher than general inflation at 3.5 percent, the NIH will actually receive about one billion dollars less than the prior year. Eighteen of the nineteen institutes under NIH are also slated to have funding cuts with the largest cut to National Cancer Institute (NCI) funds. The proposed budget designates $4.75 billion for NCI which is a $39.7 million decrease from 2006 funding and $71 million less than 2005.

    One of the goals of President Bush’s Administration is to eliminate cancer death and suffering by 2015. The NIH had experienced tremendous growth, doubling its budget between 1998 and 2003. Last year NIH received its first budget cut since the 1970’s. With budget reductions, NCI will be forced to make difficult choices in cutting projects and will have to again look for other funding opportunities.

    More details here. 

  • Here are two brazen statements made by high profile public figures which illustrate that to become a successful right winger, one must eschew all sense of shame.

    Last Sunday on  60 Minutes (CBS), George W. Bush was interviewed by Scott Pelley. Here is one exchange that provides a glimpse into Bush’s unrepentant heart and arrogant mind.

    PELLEY: Do you think you owe the Iraqi people an apology for not doing a better job?

    BUSH: That we didn’t do a better job or they didn’t do a better job?

    PELLEY: Well, that the United States did not do a better job in providing security after the invasion.

    BUSH: Not at all. I am proud of the efforts we did. We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude, and I believe most Iraqis express that. I mean, the people understand that we’ve endured great sacrifice to help them. That’s the problem here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that’s significant enough in Iraq.

    And he also sleeps well at night, we are told!

    After Bush’s January 10 speech, Condoleeze Rice was grilled by senators about Bush-Cheney’s plan to surge in Iraq. During the questioning Sen Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., made the observation that neither she (Boxer) nor Rice would lose any children overseas, fighting Bush’s immoral war.

    ”Who pays the price?” Boxer repeatedly demanded. ”You’re not going to pay a particular price,” she told Rice, because the secretary has no ”immediate family” at risk.

    Rush Limbaugh, the untiring champion of women, minorities and civil rights, had this to say on his program about the Boxer-Rice exchange. (Actually, a number of right wing attack dogs have been all over Sen Boxer for her "insensivity" towards a single / childless woman!)

    Limbaugh: Barbara Boxer hit below the ovaries yesterday with Condoleezza Rice during the hearings that they were conducting on the president’s new strategy…..

    I don’t know where to start with this. Folks, this is, this is — well it’s unbelievable. This is — can you even describe this kind of thinking? Here you have a rich white chick with a huge, big mouth, trying to lynch this — an African American woman — right before Martin Luther King Day, hitting below the ovaries here. What about the childless Gloria Steinem? Drum her out of the feminist movement? 

    Women, children, African Americans, Martin Luther King?  Rush, we hardly knew ye!

    Update: Laura Bush recently made a more direct reference to Rice’s unmarried, childless status than Senator Boxer did.  The right wing was predictably silent about Bush’s remark.

  • Bora / Coturnix, Science Blogger at A Blog Around the Clock has done the phenomenal job of putting together an anthology of 50 best science blog posts for publication in book form. This may be the first time such an enterprise has been undertaken and successfully completed. It may also be an augury of things to come in co-operative internet-traditional publishing ventures.

    You will be able to access all the articles at Bora’s blog and also find the link to Lulu.com where you can purchase the collection in book form. Please visit and find your favorite science post to read.

    It doesn’t surprise me that Bora is at the forefront of this pioneering blogging accomplishment. He is a tireless blogger who literally blogs around the clock, I suspect. He is also very helpful to other fledgling bloggers. I myself have benefited on several occasions from his suggestions and technical help.  Congratulations Bora, for a truly marvelous (and worthwhile) job!  Now tell us, "When do you eat or sleep?"

  • Grass is greener on the other side of the fence. For one Nepalese airline employee, the mountain is more majestic on the other side of the world.

    In a baffling (and embarrassing) move, the scenic country of Nepal which is located in the foothills of the spectacular Himalayas, publicly misrepresented its natural environments. In a promotional brochure for tourism, entitled "Have You Seen Nepal?" the Royal Nepal Airlines depicted a photo of Machu Picchu as a must see Nepalese destination. The airlines has apologised and blamed a careless employee for the faux pas. I wonder how the employee made this blunder and why no one else caught the mistake. Was it hard to find suitably impressive photos of the numerous mountain peaks surrounding Nepal? Or was the neighboring Mount Everest not eminent enough for this imaginative employee? 

    [Story via Recurring Decimals]

    300pxeverest_kalapatthar_crop_1 (View of Mount Everest from Nepal)

      300pxperu_machu_picchu_sunset 

    (Machu Picchu in Peru)

    LIMA (Reuters) – Royal Nepal Airlines has apologized to Peru after mistakenly using a photo of the Inca ruins of Machu Picchu to promote tourism in Nepal.

    Peru’s foreign ministry said in a statement on Wednesday the flagship carrier of the Himalayan kingdom, about half way around the world from the Andean country, had put the picture of Peru’s tourism icon, Machu Picchu, on a poster under a slogan "Have you seen Nepal?"

    Peruvian mountaineer Ernesto Malaga, who was visiting India last month, noticed the blunder on a poster hanging on a wall in the airline’s office in New Delhi. Peruvian authorities requested explanations from the airline via the embassy.

    "The airline … offered apologies to Peru for using the picture of the Machu Picchu Sanctuary on a poster to promote their country and assured that the lamentable error has been corrected," the statement said. "As a consequence, the Nepalese airline fired an employee in the rank of a manager … It is concluded that it was an isolated error," it added.

    From a distance, some mountain temples in the Himalayas could be mistaken for Incan ruins, which also cling to steep slopes.

    Peru’s foreign ministry said in a statement on Wednesday the flagship carrier of the Himalayan kingdom, about half way around the world from the Andean country, had put the picture of Peru’s tourism icon, Machu Picchu, on a poster under a slogan "Have you seen Nepal?"

    Peruvian mountaineer Ernesto Malaga, who was visiting India last month, noticed the blunder on a poster hanging on a wall in the airline’s office in New Delhi. Peruvian authorities requested explanations from the airline via the embassy.

    "The airline … offered apologies to Peru for using the picture of the Machu Picchu Sanctuary on a poster to promote their country and assured that the lamentable error has been corrected," the statement said.

    "As a consequence, the Nepalese airline fired an employee in the rank of a manager … It is concluded that it was an isolated error," it added.

    From a distance, some mountain temples in the Himalayas could be mistaken for Incan ruins, which also cling to steep slopes. Nepal is actively promoting tourism in the hope that foreigners will return in big numbers to visit its snow-capped mountains and ancient temples after a long Maoist revolt.

  • I am sure most of you watched (or read about) George W. Bush’s fantasy filled speech on January 10, 2007 in which he once again tried to sell us a bill of dangerous goods in the name of national security.

    After perfunctorily taking responsibility for mistakes in Iraq (a bitter pill for an arrogant man), Bush assured us that if only we trust him and his disastrous ideas just one more time, he will redeem himself and American pride. In his megalomaniac delusions, he doesn’t realize that the two are not the same. Bush asserted that if only he can send a few thousand more soldiers into the meat grinder of the Iraqi battle front, his war efforts will succeed (what exactly is success in Iraq at this time?).

    Congress has raised a hue, cry and a red flag about Bush’s surge, rightly calling it an escalation of an already untenable situation. Condoleeza Rice who was grilled by the Senate Armed Services Committee, objected to the word escalation and prissily insisted on calling the increase in troop level an augmentation. It is baffling to see politicians shamelessly quibbling about choice of words when their action of choice by any name will have the same tragic result – death of more Iraqis and Americans. Yet they try to "prettify" what is unquestionably ugly.

    And why augmentation and not surge as it was before or escalation as it really is?  For me, the word brings forth images of cosmetic surgery. Breast, hip, lip augmentation – going under the knife to fix, tweak and enhance something one is not satisfied with. Is the latest Bush-Cheney-Rice plan to augment troop levels in Iraq similarly cosmetic in nature?  A desperate last ditch attempt to prove to Americans they did their best in Iraq. If it doesn’t work (which most experts say it won’t), then they can blame the failure on war critics at home and the government in Iraq  and wash their hands of the whole mess and move to their next game plan.  A convenient policy of Cut ‘n’ Blame.

    The next game plan! Is there one? George W. Bush is said to suffer from Oedipal complex (more to do with daddy than mommy), competing and failing since childhood against his more accomplished father. I heard George McGovern, a true war hero, call him Bush the Lesser the other day while discussing his book, Out of Iraq on C-Span. I don’t like comparisons between family members. But family dynamics  do shape characters for better or worse. Powerful leaders suffering the wounds of their own lack of self worth often extract the price of their insecurities by unleashing their fury on the world. As is often the case, low achieving sons of highly successful fathers spend their entire lives looking for a defining triumph that will redeem them in the eyes of the parent. They go from one failed project to another in search of a dazzling moment of glory which eludes them. Now that even the most committed Bushie can not spin adroitly enough to make a silk purse out of the sow’s ear that is Bush’s mess in Iraq, George W. must be in a panic mode. He must also be seething that Daddy’s old buddies have offered public advice to him on how to run his war. He needs success (or the pretense of it) quickly in Iraq or else he will look for it elsewhere – another fresh adventure that will restore his machismo.

    Amateur psychoanalysis of what makes Bush tick may be fun and a way for us to make sense of what appears to be utter insanity to a rational person. But Bushs’ insecurities and personal failings  do not account for the whole story of wrong headed policies. After all, this is not a monarchy and Bush is only the first among warmongering equals. He is the visible spokesman for more devious minds who have found in him a convenient and willing instrument for realizing their greed fueled world view of domination and exploitation. That is why one must look past  psychology and pay attention to hard facts and we may begin to understand what Bush really means by success in Iraq and beyond. The most ominous part of Bush’s speech were the following short paragraphs:

    Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We’ll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

    We’re also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence-sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies.

    The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom, and to help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East.

    The same crusading, messianic words of an imperialistic map-maker that we have heard before. This unprovoked saber rattling, along with the recent suspicious clash with Iranian officials in Irbil in northern Iraq raises the following question in my mind. Is Bush looking for a new target to vent his anger and frustrations or is it part of a grand middle east plan he and his advisors had in mind all along? If so, he may try an old pre-emptive maneuver as new tactic with the help of Israel, the only country in the world which may honestly believe that invading Iran is a good idea. Certainly some of the same discredited neo-con cheerleaders who led us down the disastrous path, have once again come out of the wood works to sing the familiar battle hymn. Bush who hates criticism, even honest ones, loves his echo chamber. So he will be more inclined to listen to the proponents of the "shock and awe" style of foreign policy rather than the sage advice of diplomacy meted out by Baker-Hamilton.  It is also interesting that the only US senator Bush mentioned by name in his speech for his good advice was Joe Lieberman whose super hawkish, one sided, pro-Israeli stance in the middle east is widely known.

    But what will this bellicose approach do to our military if it were to cater to Bush’s imperialistic dream of world domination (more pop psych 101 -The Alexander the Great complex)? Experts tell us that any expansion of military commitment now will exert enormous pressure on the existing armed forces. Military recruitment will have to go into high gear. The Pentagon will have to reach deep into the National Guards reserves and enlisted men and women will have their tours of duty extended to exhausting lengths. All scary predictions. Let’s just hope that things won’t become this bad.

  • I have no good ideas for a meaningful post. I also have to report for jury duty today.  So here are a few links to some stories that caught my eye in the past couple of days. I think there is something for everyone here.

    What’s in your wallet? : That pocketful of change you casually carry around may not be as innocuous as you think. Especially if it is Canadian currency.

    Einstein or Shakespeare? : What is more irreplaceable – art or science,  the artist or the scientist?  Find out. (This one is a basketful of apples and oranges of false choices, in my opinion) (via 3 Quarks Daily)

    Swimming with sharks and whales: Where do retired politicians go? Not to an honest day’s work, for sure. The hypocrites make me want to visit a vomitarium.  (Link, Sujatha) 

    Dead Letter Office:  How would you like to get an e-mail from a dead person?  No, this is not a sick Halloween joke. Some think it is a great idea. An enterprising Houston scientist thinks it makes a lot of practical sense.

    Bend It Rake It In Like Beckham: David Beckham, England’s fading soccer superstar has signed  on to play for the Los Angeles Galaxy. His salary is reported to be $250 million over the next five years – mostly from endorsements. We know that the glamorous Beckham can bend the ball. But can he bend the American mindset enough that fans here come to regard Major League Soccer as a major league sport?