Thomas Drake is a former Senior Executive at the National Security Agency.  He was targeted by the NSA because he exposed that the agency had intel that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks and because he blew the whistle on a massive secret surveillance program aimed at Americans.

Transcript

Transcript

Transcript

Transcript

Transcript

I’m serious.  They didn’t even wait for the corpse to cool.

Tonightly we will be talking about the Republican debate with our panelists Mike Yard, Yamaneika Saunders, and Chris Gethard.

Or maybe Ferguson, hard to tell.

By NY Brit Expat

An incident at dinner in Italy during my vacation there and the subsequent discussion has driven me to prioritise this piece. Following a wonderful dinner at a local restaurant, one man decided that it was time for us to listen to his misogyny on women’s reproductive rights. I knew he was saying offensive things as the two English speakers at the table refused to translate what he was saying. Upon my insistence, he tried to speak in English, but what he was saying was so offensive I refused to believe he was saying it. I turned to my husband and the other English speaking friend and they shook their heads yes, that is what he was saying. This man argued that women have to the right to choice but if they get pregnant with a child they do not want, they must be forced to carry the child to term and to give it up for adoption. Those that know me would not be surprised at my angry response in which I spoke of women having the right of property in their own body, spoke of bodily autonomy and reminded him that we were not incubators, but human beings. I concluded by calling him a misogynist and telling him that this was not an opinion but hate speech.

Abortion has been legal in Italy since 1978 when Law 194 was passed. While not a perfect law, it was won after intense struggle by the women’s movement. This law not only guaranteed access to abortion, but access  to reproductive health care, contraception, and a whole range of rights for women and these were tied into public health provision. Like in the US (and this has been a failing in both countries), the conscientious objector clause has led to a decrease in the numbers of medical professionals willing to carry out the procedure on religious grounds (and in the US due to pressure from anti-abortion activists). So to hear someone (who is not religious) babbling this crap at me following dinner was way too much. So, who ruined dinner? Was it him or me?

This incident highlighted something that has become extremely obvious and this applies both to women’s rights and to racism. The days when someone who held these offensive positions knew to keep their mouths shut is long gone; instead they pose hate speech as opinion and demand their right to preach it.  Our response must be swift and strong so that these troglodytes are driven back to the primordial soup from which they have barely crawled out from.

In a follow-up discussion on the way to the car park, I told my English speaking friend what just passed the British parliament as part of the Welfare Bill. I told him that the Tories are changing the nature of the social welfare state which covered all women (child-tax credits, child benefits) to only cover the poor and working class. And then I told him about the limits to benefits only to 2 children in the future. I explained that the former made it easier to eliminate benefits totally (why should taxpayers take care of the working class – employed and unemployed — after all?). I explained the latter policy was a form of eugenics and was a neo-Malthusian policy. While he agreed with the former (he is a mainstream neoclassical after all), he was horrified at the latter (maybe because he has 5 children and has benefited from receiving benefits in several countries to help with covering the costs for all his children).

When women talk about reproductive rights and justice they are not only speaking about women’s rights to not have children. This is an essential part of reproductive rights: the right to choose not to have children, to have access to birth contraceptives abortion and voluntary sterilisation. But we are also speaking of the right of women to have children and to determine when and how many. This right has been most often denied to working class women, disabled women and to women of colour. Sterilisation abuse and forced usage of birth control against working class women, disabled women and women of colour is part of a long-term agenda of eugenics and neo-Malthusianism.

Wealthier white women fought for the right to not have children and to choose when they had them and to demand sterilisation without the consent of their husbands. Eugenics law that promoted the “betterment of the human race” by forcing wealthier white women to have children also led to laws that demanded the use of birth control to access welfare benefits and forced sterilisation for working class women. These laws have been the tools of choice against working class women, women of colour and disabled women and have been used to prevent their choosing to have children and to limit the numbers that they had. In the US, to this day, eugenics laws are still on the books to be used against disabled women; Buck vs Bell (1927) in which the Supreme Court ruled that compulsory sterilisation of the unfit did not violate the Due Process Clause of the US constitution.  This endorsement of negative eugenics has not been repealed and still stands as US law. So to say that to leave things of the past in the past doesn’t really hold up as these things of the past tend to revive. After all, patriarchy is still strong and these arguments are not only a position of patriarchy but of the bourgeoisie that does not feel the need to humour women in their bizarre beliefs that they, not the family, not the church and not the state control their own bodies.

We’re trying a new piece today based on sports and entertainment because by Sunday there’s not much left.

This will mean nothing at all to most of you but does illustrate the kind of sensibility I’m trying to bring to the post.  There is a show I like called Girl Meets World and it’s a silly Disney ‘tween comedy.  What makes it interesting to me is that in some respects it breaks almost every rule.

It was just a matter of knowing the secret of all television: at the end of the episode, everything is back to normal.

Things change.  In a way it’s like a 30 minute Gilmore Girls except that Cory and Topanga are Cory and Topanga, a power couple that make Ward and June look like the Bundys (the Gilmores, as you are well aware, have their own kind of family dynamic).  This year’s primary story arcs have been about Maya’s damaged family hooking up with Shawn, and Riley dealing with her feelings about Luke (see, Gilmore Girls!).  It’s not without its charms.

So what made this episode, Girl Meets Yearbook so interesting?  Well partly because it’s about acting and partly because it’s about change.

The change thing first.  Farkle Minkus is the son of Stuart Minkus, one time suitor of Topanga now filthy rich which he never tires of reminding you.  Stuart is whip smart and charming in that Lex Luthor kind of way.  He’s also a total dweeb.  Farkel is his mini-me.

Both of them have suffered the normal harassment which being an individual in that environment entails.  Farkle is lucky enough to have fallen into Riley’s circle and they’ve stood for him.  In this episode, Farkle is disappointed he’s become an adjective in the yearbook (despite editing it apparently, because that’s just the kind of dweeby job he and Riley like), so he rips off his distinctive Farkle outfit and emerges as Donnie Barnes, regular guy.

Riley is not unhappy with her description- ‘Most likely to smile herself to death’, even though her friends tell her it’s a total dis’.  That is until she finds out that she and Luke are not the cutest couple, it’s Maya!

And here we branch-

There is no resolution for the change plot (so far).  At the end Farkle Minkus admits to Luke and the gang that he still knows stuff but is not interested in conforming to previous expectations and pre-conceptions.  It makes one wonder what is going on at Casa de Minkus and if Stuart shows up with a Topanga clone wife I’m thinking we’re going Twin Peaks with the plot.

I’ll add this.  In some ways the character resembles my personal experience, but my image was exactly what I expected and cultivated.  Once I had made my connections I didn’t really have to behave in any particular way at all.  Study Hall?  I work at the Library, see you.  I got away with some atrociously massive crap that would have had me expelled if I wasn’t labeled and categorized.  I had a key to my own office!

Which brings us to acting.

The McGuffin on the second arc is that Riley is set off by Farkle’s rebellion and her non-pairing with the one she thinks is her dream Corey guy so she dramatically adopts the gothic character of Morosia M. Black (the second ‘M’ stands for Morosia too).  Maya is upset that Riley is not around to help her fix Farkle (that’s what Riley does, and she smiles all the time).

The details don’t count, but they end up carrying this dispute into the cafe Riley’s mother owns and Maya’s mother, an out of work actress, manages.  Maya asks her mother how she can be Riley.

Alright, but before you become another person understand you may learn things about them you didn’t know before.  You may learn a secret even they don’t know about themselves.

And then Katy Hart delivers a spot on Riley.

I love today!  Today is even better than yesterday and yesterday was the best Day EVER!!!  I’d think about tomorrow but I am afraid I would burst into sparkles!

Maya is supposed to be the rebel tomgirl but she’s grown a lot less dark since her mom and Shawn seem to be getting along.  Next day in class she shows up as Riley, fooling even Cory momentarily.

She is likewise a virtual clone of Riley, exposing the artifice of the character, in fact all of them.  Maya’s classmates tell her that they’re happy she’s playing the role, that they need a Riley and don’t care who does it (with the implication that they don’t much need a real Maya, or a Riley either).

Maya throws herself into the role until…

When you become someone else, even though you’re just acting, it’s impossible not to discover something you didn’t know before.

In this case Maya is reacting (in character as Riley) in defense of Luke and Riley being the perfect couple ‘it’s like we’re brother and sister’.

Oh.

Now do it again for the cameras.  Action!

My point has multiple layers, multiple layers has my point.  ‘Kid’s’ programming tackles some scary stuff in ways that are unexpected, especially by adults wedded to their tropes.  The actors are talented, some of them.  The writing and direction can be good.  I don’t expect you to like it.

And the final layer is that this spot shall oscillate between discussions of TV and Movie Trivia and Sports of varying popularity.

Sports

• How about them Mets? (1 1/2 Up)
• Damn Yankees

Rethinking an Olympic Format in Light of Katie Ledecky’s 1,500 Feat

By KAREN CROUSE, The New York Times

AUG. 9, 2015

Ledecky charmed her hosts last week on her way to becoming the first swimmer to sweep the 200-, 400-, 800- and 1,500-meter freestyles in a major competition.

…

Ledecky broke her 1,500-freestyle record on consecutive days in front of crowds that enthusiastically cheered her on. She had to strike while she was rested because she will not race the event again in a major meet until 2017, at the earliest. After Ledecky’s performance, the exclusion of the 1,500 freestyle from next year’s Olympic program has never seemed more ridiculously retrograde.

Entertainment

Yes, Fantastic Four is really just as horrible as you heard.

• Doctored doom: Reshot ‘Fantastic Four’ gets clobbered at box office with dismal $26M debut, By Michael Cavna, Washington Post
• “Fantastic Four is an unmitigated garbage fire,” and 15 other terrible reviews director Josh Trank is not responsible for, by Anna Silman, Salon
• Fantastic Four review – a dawdling indie drama dressed up in superhero garb, by Henry Barnes, The Guardian
• Here’s the Bigger Problem With the Failure of ‘Fantastic Four’, By Kate Erbland, Indiewire
• Fantastic Four, By Peter Travers, Rolling Stone

Not the Fantastic Four

• Hannibal Recap: season three, episode 10 – And the Woman Clothed in Sun, by Brian Moylan, The Guardian
• True Detective: place your bets on the identity of the killer, by Sarah Hughes, The Guardian
• We Mapped True Detective’s Wildly Implausible Road Trips, by Jordan Crucchiola, Wired
• True Detective Season 2 Finale Recap: ‘Omega Station’ Was a Satisfying Descent Into Chaos, By Jacob Hall, Esquire
• ‘The Mindy Project’ gets Hulu premiere date — and Kaling is ‘grateful’, By Yvonne Villarreal, Los Angeles Times
• Now that Jon Stewart has stepped down, does anyone have his edge?, by Edward Helmore, The Guardian
• Doctor Who Season 9 News: Reece Shearsmith Guest-starring in Gatiss Episode, Den of Geek
• Steven Moffat on why he hasn’t cast a female Doctor yet: “I think it would have been a disaster”, by Sonia Saraiya, Salon

That last is not as bad as it sounds.  Moffat really wanted to write for a Peter Capaldi Doctor, there was never any serious second choice.

Obligatories, News and Blogs below.

I don’t make a really big deal about it and I’ve spent a lot of time in other places, but in terms of media culture I’m totally a creation of the New York metropolitan area.  I had two of every network, including PBS as well as about 5 independent channels and that was just TV.

On the radio side there were 2 News Radio stations and WCBS 880 remains my favorite.  I don’t listen to much music at all, just news and sports.  I have also gone though periods where I was a fan of the Hard Rock and Alternative formats and I listened to Howard Stern’s final day at WNBC live.

However one that’s stuck with me is WQXR.  Until 2009 they were owned by The New York Times and it’s been on the air broadcasting classical (or what we now call Art) music in one form or another since 1929.  Oddly enough it started as an experimental TV station in a now abandoned format.

The format hasn’t changed much over the years though there is a little more concentration on 20th century composers of whom Francis Poulenc is one of my favorites mostly based on this one piece, his Sonata for Horn, Trombone, and Trumpet which he composed in 1922.

As a Brass player let me tell you all the parts are fiendishly difficult with contrapuntal rhythyms, tricky fingerings, and immense range, yet despite its complexity it’s extremely pleasant to listen to, kind of light and frothy.

Anyway I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.  This particular performance is by the faculty of Michigan State University.

Obligatories, News and Blogs below.

Fox News is half-right about Jon Stewart: How the brilliant satirist of the Bush years has been undone by his BFF in the White House

by Andrew O’Hehir, Salon

Thursday, Aug 6, 2015 07:00 PM EST

Stewart gradually evolved into the principal media mouthpiece or channel – the two things are not quite the same – for what might be called common-sense liberalism, the self-appointed pathway of Enlightenment reason. He has called himself a moderate and admitted voting for George H.W. Bush in 1988, and while you shouldn’t hold a person’s youthful indiscretions against him, I think that fact is important to the Stewart brand. He is disappointed, disillusioned and sometimes outraged by the evil and idiocy found on the Republican right and the thoroughgoing corruption of the political system. But he is not unreasonable, not an ideologue, not a “leftist.” He believes in comity and compromise, and yearns for the kinder, gentler days when a 25-year-old Jewish standup comedian in New York could vote for Ronald Reagan’s vice president without consciously self-identifying with a party of bigotry, warmongering and paranoia.

Was that a low blow? I’m honestly not sure. I come to bury Jon Stewart, not to praise him – except, wait, maybe it’s the other way around. First of all, let’s note that Stewart isn’t dead, so I’m under no obligation to say nice stuff about him just because he is leaving a television program after 16 years. Furthermore, there’s a reason most people get that Shakespeare quotation backwards: The speaker of that famous monologue, Marc Antony, repeatedly challenges his audience to perceive that what he says is not what he means: “Brutus is an honorable man,” and all that. He is using irony, in its old-fashioned Socratic sense (not the debased modern sense of easy mockery, or just a bad attitude), which is a mode that Jon Stewart has never mastered and largely avoids.

Stephen Colbert’s long-running satirical portrayal of a jingoistic Fox-style commentator, first on Stewart’s show and then on his own, had a random, hit-and-miss quality and often descended to cheap gags. (On balance, Stewart probably provides more laffs per minute.) But in his best moments, Colbert has employed the ironic mode to reality-altering effect, and never more so than in his infamous performance at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in 2006, when he mocked the empty, photo-op presidency of George W. Bush to the president’s face and derided the Washington press corps for its stenographic compliance: “Over the last five years you people were so good, over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn’t want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out.”

Stewart would make the same joke on his show, pretty much, but he would immediately walk it back to the mode of earnestness and be super clear about what he meant: CNN et al. had behaved like a bag of dicks and that was really a shame. Colbert, on the other hand, vividly demonstrated Socrates’ principle that the destabilizing and disorienting effect of irony depends upon the “aneiron,” the person who doesn’t get the joke. In this case, everyone at that dinner understood that Colbert meant the opposite of what he said, which is why none of them were laughing. What they had not understood, because it seemed inconceivable, was that a TV comic’s joke persona contained a radical critique of the nature of politics and the news media, and that Colbert was not going to observe the cozy, chummy conventions of a Beltway event whose sole purpose is to make the subservient Washington press corps feel like special snowflakes.

Stewart is not comfortable in that mode, and has never pursued that kind of confrontation. His on-air rhetoric slid perceptibly leftward over the course of the Bush administration, as he vigorously went after the bankers, the Iraq war apologists and the torture defenders. But even after his show hit a demographic sweet spot somewhere around the Democratic center-left – the position of the 2008 Obama voter – he struggled to avoid the impression of pure partisanship. As recently as 2010, although it feels like a lifetime ago, Stewart was calling for an end to partisan vitriol with his Rally to Restore Sanity on the National Mall. Even he must have thought the immediate aftermath was pretty funny: A few days later, Tea Party Republicans swept to victory from coast to coast in the midterm election that pretty much paralyzed Obama’s presidency. So that was the end of that.

Salon columnist Bill Curry has suggested that Stewart belongs to the Pragmatist tradition of Oliver Wendell Holmes, and seeks to draw a distinction between Stewart’s faith in reason and usefulness and Obama’s penchant for back-room political compromise. It’s a fascinating argument, but that might be an overly fine way to parse a TV comedian – often a very funny one, with a delightful ability to mock others and mock himself in the same moment – who has insisted on walking the narrow plank of reasonableness in times of rampant unreason, and now finds himself alone at the end of the plank above an ocean of hungry sharks.

I understand why it bothers Stewart that Fox News is depicting him, during his last days on the air, as a shameless Obama sock-puppet. He feels that it’s not quite fair and he feels more than a little vulnerable on that front. Both perceptions are justified. (Stewart himself said on the air that he has been much harder on Obama than Fox ever was on Bush, which is what you might call an invidious comparison.) But Stewart’s role as Obama’s stealth strategic defender, who has criticized the administration on several key issues while consistently seeking to channel progressive anger and disappointment toward the crazy and intransigent opposition, wouldn’t bother me at all if I felt convinced that it reflected underlying convictions. (I am not counting the nonideological relativism that drives the 21st-century Democratic Party as a conviction.)

As with Stewart’s pal in the White House, that question has only grown murkier over the years. All the contradictions of political satire in the Obama years would exhaust anyone, but Stewart’s performance of sincerity, the factor that gave his comedy its force and also limited its scope, has pretty much come unraveled. You can see that in his recent interview with Tom Cruise, which barely differed from a boot-licking celebrity appearance with Oprah or Ellen, and in which (as filmmaker Alex Gibney has observed), Stewart never mentioned Cruise’s central role in the noxious Church of Scientology. You see it in Stewart’s increasingly tedious feud with Bill O’Reilly, where they play the roles of media commentators with profound ideological differences and pretend to dislike each other, coming dangerously close to the kind of masturbatory media-insider banter Colbert mocked so mercilessly a decade ago.

Jon Stewart has had a great run as the host of a comedy show, the kind of longevity that has become nearly impossible in American pop culture. In political terms, his mission has either been fulfilled – if he was really sent here by Putin to bewilder us and destroy democracy – or was never possible in the first place. As I said earlier, we want to be permanently in on the joke and we want to believe in something. But what if the things we want to believe in are just a joke?

You may think this is the future, you may think that it’s the end.

I won’t give up the struggle.

Some times, sometimes you take a stand.

Every day is exactly the same.  Every day is exactly the same.  There is no love here and there is no pain.  Every day is exactly the same.

Future Directions

Jon Stewart is not dying.  The Daily Show is not dying.  The Sausage Grinder of Snark is not dying and neither am I (well, in the normal course of things.  I’m 120+ years old!).

I’ve been a huge supporter of Larry Wilmore ever since he took over from Stephen.  His Nightly Show has gotten better and better since it’s found its format (Daily Show + panel instead of interview, duh).  That will not change.

I’m totally willing to get behind Trevor and expect to feature his efforts at the helm as well.  I’ve watched a number of his comedy sets and he really is as bright and funny as Jon thinks he is.  He’s more international than anyone since Oliver so he gets the class thing and he’s also an expert on racism (South Africa?).

However.

While Jon is retiring to raise bees in Sussex, Stephen is taking up the sword again on Late Night.  I will certainly give him a fair shot too.

So while it’s easy enough to track the guests (which I intend to do) I have a serious viewing overlap at 11:35 and frankly the repeats of Larry are easier to access (1:30 am ET) or tape (30 minutes) than Late Night (1 hour and who knows?).

Well, it’s something to think about instead of silently weeping.

So we’re liveblogging the prelims and our invited also-rans are-

• Rick Perry (1.8 percent)
• Rick Santorum (1.4 percent)
• Bobby Jindal (1.4 percent)
• Carly Fiorina (1.3 percent)
• Lindsey Graham (0.7 percent)
• George Pataki (0.6 percent)
• Jim Gilmore (0.2 percent).

Thank you for playing our game.  Here’s a Home Version and some lovely parting gifts.

Sir Not Appearing In This Film

Now will you please stand, take off your hat, and bow your head as we quickly run through the list of who?s that you didn’t even know were running-

• Skip Andrews Army child and business owner
• George Bailey Pastor
• Michael Bickelmeyer Creative Dreamer
• Kerry Bowers Veteran and spokesperson for AFFT
• Eric Cavanagh American Progressive
• Dale Christensen International entrepreneur and business professor
• Brooks Cullison Attorney and Certified Public Accountant
• John Dummett, Jr. Constitutional Republican and strong conservative
• Mark Everson Businessman and former IRS Commissioner
• Jack Fellure Engineer and perennial candidate
• Jim Hayden Business-owner and Veterans Advocate
• Chris Hill Combat pilot and airline captain
• Bartholomew James Lower Businessman
• Andy Martin Author
• James C. Mitchell, Jr. Water Treatment Operator (Retired)
• K. Ross Newland Veteran and Pastor
• Esteban Oliverez Entrepreneur
• Michael Petyo Businessman and veteran
• Brian Russell Entrepreneur, innovator, limited government advocate
• Jefferson Sherman Common-Sense Leader
• Shawna Sterling Woman of Faith

Now stop it.  Stop that giggling.  These are serious people seriously running for president.  Honest.

Besides, what makes you think any of these 21 have a lesser chance than the 7 margin of error candidates appearing on stage?

5 pm on Faux Noise

An Annual Reminder.

Echo… echo… echo… Pinch hitting for Pedro Borbon… Manny Mota… Mota… Mota…

You may remember my brother the activist.  I keep trying to get him to post, but he’s shy and busy.  He sent me this yesterday and I thought I’d share it with you.

I need to add that he’s a great admirer of James Carville’s political savvy (though not his policies) and one story he likes to tell is how during the height of Monica-gate Carville was on one of the Talking Head shows and made a point about how important it is to stay on message.  Carville then proceeded to demonstrate his gift by working the phrase “Cigarette Lawyer Ken Starr” 27 times into the next 30 seconds.- ek

The date – August 6, 2001 – August 6, 2001 – August 6, 2001 – August 6, 2001 – August 6, 2001 – August 6, 2001 – August 6, 2001 – August 6, 2001 – August 6, 2001 – August 6, 2001 – August 6, 2001 – August 6, 2001 – August 6, 2001 – August 6, 2001 – August 6, 2001 – August 6, 2001 – August 6, 2001 – August 6, 2001 – August 6, 2001 – August 6, 2001 – August 6, 2001 – August 6, 2001 – August 6, 2001 – August 6, 2001 – August 6, 2001 – August 6, 2001 – August 6, 2001 needs to be as well known to Joe and Jane American as September 11, 2001.

Presidential Daily Briefing of August 6, 2001 PDB

Declassified and Approved for Release, 10 April 2004

Presidential Daily Briefing: August 6, 2001 – Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct foreign terrorist attacks on the U.S. Bin Ladin implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and “bring the fighting to America.”

Presidential Daily Briefing: August 6, 2001 – Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.

After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a [deleted] service.

Presidential Daily Briefing: August 6, 2001 – Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told an [deleted] service at the same that Bin Ladin was planning to exploit the operative’s access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike.

Presidential Daily Briefing: August 6, 2001 – Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.

FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

Presidential Daily Briefing: August 6, 2001 – Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.

So Vice President Dick, tell me again how the REPUBLICANS WILL KEEP US SAFE?

So Senator McSame, tell me again how invading and occupying IRAQ has helped the U.S. hunt down BIN LADEN?

I’m printing my own bumper stickers filled with images from 9-11 and this text-

“I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center”- Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor

“All right. You’ve covered your ass now.”- George W. Bush

“There is no dark side of the moon really. Matter of fact it’s all dark.”

Jon done, Republican Debate, Hiroshima, ‘You’ve covered your ass’.  Not really that much more to say today.

Science Oriented Video

The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations – then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation – well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.

–Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)

Science News and Blogs

• Dark side of the moon captured by Nasa satellite a million miles from Earth, by Oliver Milman, The Guardian
• Why the long face? Researchers compile directory of horse facial expressions, by Tim Radford, The Guardian
• Are you smarter than a Japanese schoolchild?, by Alex Bellos, The Guardian
• Can we reverse the ageing process by putting young blood into older people?, by Ian Sample, The Guardian
• Mathematical déjà vu, and Coffee, by Jon Butterworth, The Guardian
• Nasa says Congress cuts mean $490m is needed to buy rides on Russian rockets, by Reuters
• Generation game: earliest evidence of reproduction in complex species found, Tim Radford, The Guardian
• ‘Magnetic’ Discovery May Reveal Why Earth Supports Life and Mars Doesn’t, by Charles Q. Choi, Live Science
• Lexus’ New Hoverboard Is Cool, But Will It Fly?, by Elizabeth Palermo, Live Science
• Lion ‘Factory Farms,’ and the Dark Side of Wildlife Tourism, by Nicole Paquett, Live Science

Obligatories, News and Blogs below.

(While) I am far on the road to conviction, … (when) eight men, be they grammatical or otherwise, come forward and tell me that they have seen the plates too; and not only seen those plates but “hefted” them, I am convinced. I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified.

–Mark Twain

Revealed: the stone that ‘translated’ the Book of Mormon

Associated Press

Tuesday 4 August 2015 21.00 EDT

Mormons believe that 185 years ago, Smith found gold plates engraved with writing in ancient Egyptian in upstate New York. They say that God helped him translate the text using the stone and other tools, which became known as the Book of Mormon.

I want to be completely clear.  This is not a picture of that stone.  It is a rock from a beach in Maine given to me by my cousin that I have around for good luck (it’s pretty useless as a paper weight, it’s too round and keeps rolling off the desk).

It is however is the first one I’ve tried using the Macro mode of my Cool Pix 9700 so I’m interested in seeing how it comes out.