cat ladders.

Comment on Dissent and Narcissism by Helen

Seems no-one demonstrates Mercurius point as well, though, as pseudoscientists. P Z Myers asks: Why does every kook with a stupid idea that gets rejected by scientists compare himself to Galileo? This was In reference to IDer Michael Behe, who in an interview modestly pointed out that hed been persecuted just like that famous historical figure.
Ben Stein is another IDer who feels SO persecuted, he has made an entire movie about it, called Expelled. As in, you see, expelled from society by his OMGRadical but oh so scienteriffic beliefs. Quote:
 Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator. Do you realize that some of the leading lights of anti-intelligent design would not allow a scientist who merely believed in the possibility of an intelligent designer/creator to work for him& EVEN IF HE NEVER MENTIONED the possibility of intelligent design in the universe?EVEN FOR HIS VERY THOUGHTS& HE WOULD BE BANNED.
In todays world, at least in America, an Einstein or a Newton or a Galileo would probably not be allowed to receive grants to study or to publish his research.
Obvs Stein, too, feels a kinship with the Great (and Persecuted.)
Monado at Science Notes points out, To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough to be persecuted: you must also be right.

Pitch The Bitch

Out to dinner on Saturday - the only downside being that Sunday's battle with the paint was conducted with a hangover. But hey, there's always an upside. In this case, it was not having to sit through The X Factor in real time but instead on our wonderful DVD recorder. Louis Walsh? Where's the Fast Forward-button? Oggon's pre-sing VT? Double-Fast-Forward.So, anyway, the bandwagon rumbles on. This week we were down to five contestants, and this time they would each sing twice. I can't now remember what the criteria were - but Google is my friend, and it turns out they were American Classics and Britney Spears songs. Britney graced us with her presence, not to mention a hideous song and most of her arse falling out of Kylie's hotpants. Ewww. Apparently some Disney creation called Ciley Myrus (I think) also sang, but my readiness with the DVD remote means that we missed her. Turns out that T Rot (the penultimate Rottie) is a big fan of hers, and he "chaptered" her turn, so I'll watch it tonight and will do a post scriptum if necessary.I want you to know, friends, that rotting about The X Factor has become a huge chore. I'm so bored with it. The highlight of my year is going to be Christmas - not because I like the sound of carols (I do) or because I like the sound of children fighting over their Christmas presents (I don't), but because by then The X Factor will all be over.What can I say? Ruth was kicked off - which is fine, because despite having the second-best voice in the competition, she had absolutely no charisma and had reached middle-age before she reached thirty. All the judges had decided that she was a "rock chick", for which I have only two words:Shirley.Manson.As for the rest - well, JLS haven't sung a decent harmony since their first audition - which means that either they were very lucky then, or they've been too lazy to work on them since. By harmony, I mean something that isn't either unison or fifths. Think Counterpoint, lads!Alexandra was her usual workmanlike self - but she's just not special in the way that Leona was. Eggnog was dressed as a Teletubby, and looked, according to Mrs Rot, like a "bewildered pygmy". Well, actually she said "piggy", but I misheard her, and I prefer my version.Which leaves us with Diana. She sang REM's "Everybody Hurts", which is a terrific song and should, by rights, have been her passport to the final. However, somewhere along the line between boot camp and the semi-finals, she's totally lost her mojo. I know people bang on about her sounding like Dolores O'Riordan, but so what? They said Cliff Richard sounded like Elvis, that Chris Martin sounded like Thom Yorke. The point is that whereas I used to look forward to her singing, now I dread it. I still think she could win the competition, and of the remaining competitors she's the only one I care tuppence about, but inflation means that tuppence isn't worth what it once was. Cluelouis' contribution to the discussion was to suggest that she wasn't versatile enough because she didn't dance. I mean, ffs. In any case, has anyone seen Leona dance? I doubt's that's a pretty sight... I fear, though, that Oggon will win by a massive margin - who ARE all these people with access to a phone?Still, it's a sad day when you don't learn anything new, and I learnt that the Australian word for being completely out of tune is "pitchy". Although "pitchy" could be Geordie. All I can recall is that it was someone with their hair in a ponytail describing yet another abject performance.***So, from the ridiculous to the, well, not sublime exactly. BBC1 has made a series out of the Wallender books by Henning Mankell. Mrs Rot's parents put us onto them - they're fine examples of the genre - plenty of grisly death, a tortured policeman with a difficult home life, but set in Sweden, which (for those of us who have never been there) conjures up fewer mean streets than, say, Glasgow or Baltimore. Or even Oxford.The casting was superb. David Warner played the peri-demented father to perfection. Jeany Spark was just right as his daughter Linda, while Kenneth Branagh was pitch-perfect as the eponymous 'tec.The opening scene, where a teenage girl sets herself on fire in a field of rape, was shockingly arresting, but unfortunately it was all downhill from there. Everything about the programme was rushed, no-one was introduced, the rest of the police were ciphers who existed to feed Wallender with lines - even though we'd both read the book Mrs Rot and I struggled to keep up, though Mrs Rot's duties elsewhere in the house meant that she missed all of the murders. I rather think that was probably a good thing ...***Further to my mention in my previous post about my former career as a musician, I'm in the process of setting up a MySpace page where you can listen to stuff. It won't be up for a while yet, but watch this space (well, not this one, obviously).

Turtles delayed flights

8th,July，Newyork ,JFK Airport appeared 78 turtles,xxyy on the sand

Lasted 35 minutes, and a certain number of flights delayed for half an hour

Roasted Squash Soup

Zucchini being the exception, I have never been a fan of squash. I hated the bitter yellow squash often sautéed along with my beloved green zucchini and the cloying sweet butternut squash soups that were more suited for dessert. One soup I tasted this summer changed my mind. It was from Genoa, that paragon of Portland dining that is nearing its last service. The menu called it "Summer Squash Soup with Marsala and Cream". To my delight, it was savory, not sweet. I ate it up and started to reconsider my squash qualms.Last week a nice lady from the John Ross gave Brian a butternut squash. Then, a delicata squash arrived in my Organics to You box. I decided to try my hand at roasting the squash and making a soup.After perusing the web and asking my ex-linecook fiancé, I determined the best way to roast these squashes.Line a rimmed baking sheet with parchment or your Silpat and preheat the oven to 400° F.Slice the stem end off of the squash, then cut it in half the long way. It will smell like pumpkin! Scoop out the seeds with a sharp spoon. Make sure to clean it well and get all the threads.Place the squash halves cut-side down on the parchment. Add water to the baking sheet. I didn't know how much to add, so I just dumped about 2 cups on it.Slide the baking sheet into the oven. I set the timer for 30 minutes to start. After 30 minutes the delicata was ready to take out of the oven. Since the butternut was bigger, it took an extra 15 minutes. You'll know when they are done when you can pierce them easily with a fork and they are kind of squishy. (Or squashy.)I set the squashes to cool on the cutting board. When they were cool enough to handle, I began to remove the skin. I mostly tried to scrape out the insides with a spoon, but they broke apart into smaller pieces. I found it easiest to peel the skin off with my fingers. Some stubborn pieces wouldn't budge, but they were tender enough to eat, so I just left them. After skinning the squash, I placed them in a container and froze them till I was ready to make soup.Roasted Squash Soup2 tablespoons olive oil1 onion, diced small4 celery ribs, diced small2 roasted squash, peeled and diced1 red pepper, roasted, peeled and diced4 cups chicken or vegetable stock*1/2 cup chopped parsley2 teaspoons salt2 tablespoons black pepper1 cup evaporated milk**Place a heavy pot over medium-low heat. Add the olive oil, onion and celery. Cook about 10 minutes until tender. Add the roasted squash and pepper, stir to combine and heat. Cook 5 more minutes. Add the chicken stock and parsley, salt and pepper. Let it come to a slow boil, then reduce the heat to the lowest setting and simmer, covered, for about 15 minutes. When the squash has broken down and all the vegetables are tender (it should look like bubbling mush), use your immersion blender to puree the soup. If you don't have an immersion blender, puree the soup in batches in a regular blender. (Don't fill the blender more than 1/3 full lest you burn yourself.) I like the texture a bit rough, so we didn't puree it until absolutely smooth. Also, you don't want to overdo it. Like potatoes, squash are very starchy and can become gummy if over-processed.When the soup is pureed to your preferred texture, stir in the evaporated milk. Turn the heat back up to medium-low and heat it through. Don't let it boil. We served it plain, but it would be quite good with some herb oil, gremolata or even walnuts.*Add more stock for a looser soup, and less for thicker.**Don't get it mixed up with sweetened, condensed milk! Half & half or cream would work here, too.

BULL!

I’ve been wondering what I could write about other than my insane hours and the cacophony of conversations that reverberate in my head for about 16 hours a day as e-mails are torpedoed my way at lightning speed and IMs clamor at me incessantly from Communicator (internal Microsoft conversations), MSN Messenger (business conversations), and G-chat and AIM (personal conversations). I know I’ve promised not to get back into this pace, but really, what choice do I have? The work needs to be done and done quickly, I’m grateful to have a job, and Tom’s been given a lay-off notice, so it’s not a good time to complain about being overworked, is it? So I won’t bitch about that. But oh, do I ever have something to bitch about! This morning when I opened my Visa account online, I noticed a charge for $21.00 for ATV magazine. ATV Magazine? That’s for people who go four-wheeling in the desert, right?(Soooo me! Not.)I asked around the family if anyone had ordered this magazine and Tom reminded me that he’d joked a few times that I must have a pent-up passion for ATVs since he’d seen my name on that magazine label. (I stupidly assumed that I’d been given a free subscription when I ordered Time magazine.)I then called the phone number on my statement and I was greeted by an automated line (at a company called Magazine Customer Service, a division, I later found out, of Synapse Group Inc.) which immediately gave me the option to cancel a subscription. ‘Good enough start,"’ I thought, and pressed “2” as prompted.The syrupy woman’s voice then asked if I was SURE I want to cancel my subscription. 1 for “yes,” 2 for “no.” I pressed “1,” at which point I was asked to consider an offer for another year of ATV magazine for just $1 after I cancel. (HUH?) All I’d have to do is call BACK and cancel that year… or I’d be charged another $21. Does this sound like an offer you can’t refuse? Press “1” for “yes",” “2” for “no.” (Oh god, now we’re into double negatives! Um… “2”!) At this point, for a second time I was offered an “even more amazing deal” if only I don’t cancel. Please don’t cancel! I refused that offer as well – which was no easy feat, as I believe we were into triple negatives by that time. After declining all offers, I was given a slew of options, from 1 to 9, from changing my address to exploring magazine titles.Oh a whim (yeah, right!), I pressed “0,” hoping to be connected to a real live person. And keep in mind that “0” wasn’t given as one of my options! Lo and behold and miracle of miracles, I was connected to a real person! I told “Steven” that I had already canceled ATV magazine by way of the company’s automated service, but I wanted to find out more. How did I come to be charged for this magazine which I’m obviously not interested in? How, where, and when was this apparent sales made? Steven proceeded to tell me that my purchase of both the ATV and the Windows Gamer Magazine subscriptions were made on February 10, 2008 by way of an automated call that, it seems, I placed! Oh really? Windows Gamer Magazine?! No way – not even a free trial version! There has never been a copy of that magazine in this house! Yes, Steven insisted. I placed a call to this Magazine Customer Service company and requested subscriptions to ATV and Windows Gamer magazines and then, according to Steven, I gave an automated attendant my Visa number! That’s right – it seems that I stated my credit card number and associated information to a robot on a phone. BULL! I asked to talk to Steven’s manager who was a very nice woman who insisted that yes, I (or someone in my household) CALLED the magazine subscription company and ordered three magazines. She even gave me the credit card number I apparently used – which was a closed account. So wait… how did my new account come to be charged, I asked. She insisted that when the old account was closed, the charge automatically goes to the new account.“My bank authorized that?” I asked incredulously. Apparently so. No way! I spoke to the manager a while longer, but she could give me no additional information. I would be given a refund for both magazines and I would never be contacted by them again, so what more could she do for me, she wanted to know. Nothing, I guess. And we hung up. But aaarrrggghhhh! How did this happen? How were we charged for magazines we never ordered and how did Magazine Customer Service (a division of Synapse Group Inc., don't forget) get TWO of my Visa numbers? I feel violated still, and I’m really not sure what to do about it at this point. Any suggestions?

No seat plane ticket

Irish airline Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary has said: they recommended Boeing Boeing, the production of a kind of 'arrangement' of the aircraft. The so-called 'arrangement' is a no seat belt, but the vote has bound spaces.

UN condemns North Korean missiles

Image released in April of a North Korean missile launch
The UN Security Council has condemned recent missile tests by North Korea, calling them a threat to regional and international security.

Rachel.

Fed up with gossip, British millionaire posts details of his divorce settlement on the Web

Businessman Gary Dean was sick of the gossip. He found that
following a divorce from his wife of almost 20 years, local
rumormongers had branded him a cheapskate.
So he took the unusual step of posting details of his divorce
settlement on the Internet, allowing neighbors and strangers alike to
learn of the luxury cars, expensive jewelry and 3.7 million pounds
(US$7.4 million) in cash awarded to his former wife, Helen.
"Over the course of the last year I have been subject to gossip
about my divorce, some of it just silly tittle-tattle, and some of it
malicious," Dean, 47, wrote on the site, http://www.deandivorce.com.
Dean said he had been depicted by some as a "greedy, tight, ruthless" man "who abandoned my wife and children."
"It's simply not true at all and I've decided that instead of
allowing the rumor mill to continue churning out nonsense, I'd just set
out the actual facts to stop it," Dean wrote.Divorce hearings in Britain are held in private, and the details of
settlements rarely become public. When Paul McCartney and Heather Mills
divorced earlier this years, the judge took the unusual step of
revealing details of the US$50 million settlement to appease intense
press and public hunger for information.
Details of the Deans' divorce, settled at a court in Preston,
northwest England, in July 2007, show that Gary Dean agreed to pay his
wife a lump sum of 3.7 million pounds, plus 15,000 pounds (US$30,000) a
year for each of their four children until they are 17.
His wife also got to keep all her jewelry, diamonds and watches, a
Mercedes E500, an Audi convertible and the personalized license plates
7HD and 10HD.
The site also provides a description of the couple's comfortable
lifestyle, which included "two or three holidays a year on average in
high-class hotels."
"I take no joy in setting this all out here," wrote Dean, a
publishing and advertising millionaire who lived with his wife and
family in the village of St. Michaels, northwest England.
"I'd rather it be unnecessary, but if it stops the gossip, the
sneering looks and the seriously defamatory comments being made about
me it will have been worth it."
He told Friday's edition of The Times newspaper that being a
millionaire in a small community had made him something of a
local celebrity.
"If I lived in a city like London, Manchester or Birmingham, where
there are a lot of wealthy people, the type of money I have earned
would mean nothing," he said. "When you live in a small area it's
almost like living in a goldfish bowl."From the International Herald Tribune.

Dot dog

Wind Powerless.

Two things may be said about current environmental policies across the developed world: they have never been so heavily subsidized, and they have never been so untethered from reality. p Case in point is President Obama's "Green Jobs" policy.p The argument behind his proposals, including "cap and trade," is that green policies will provide environmental benefits while also promoting economic growth and jobs.p A good test of whether this is plausible is to look at the 'renewable energy' component of his proposals, in particular, wind power.p Wind power is a good test because it has already been extensively promoted in Europe and elsewhere, and indeed the President has appealed to Spain, Germany, and Japan as examples.p He isn't alone.p Google 'Spain' & 'wind power' and you will get more articles praising Spain's success than there are wind towers in those three nations combined.p But when you look at the articles, you will discover that what they mean by "success" is that Spain has a flippin' lot of wind towers.p What you won't get is evidence that Spain has achieved either economic or environmental benefits from all these turbines.p That is because there aren't any.p Consider this from the London Telegraph:E.On [the German company building the towers] is coy about profit margins. The European operations are flirting
with break-even cost, but the company's huge 10-mile wind farms in the
Texas outback have reached the magical level of €50 per megawatt hour
(with US government subsidies), far below natural gas at the current
market price.To unpack that, E.On's showcase windfarm produces power at a reasonable price with government subsides.p How much does the U.S. kick in?p E.On isn't saying.p It's always instructive to find out what the money doesn't want to hear.p Well, we now have some idea about Spain, which produces about 40% of its power from wind.p From Fox News:A new report out of Spain says if that country is any indication, Americans shouldn't be depending on
green jobs to help the U.S. economy.Gabriel Calzada Alvarez, a professor [at King Juan Carlos University in Madrid], has released a study with startling claims
about what's happened in Spain and what he predicts will play out in America.p Calzada says for every green job that's
created with government funding, 2.2 regular jobs are lost and that only one in 10 green jobs wind up being permanent.Here is the problem: when an industry is heavily subsidized, that means that resources are going to it that would otherwise be invested elsewhere.p The subsidized industry might be more productive than alternative investments, but if it were it would not need to be subsidized.p Of course, a subsidized industry might become productive after an initial government investment.p But you would look for that to happen pretty quickly, if the technology is really viable.p It ain't happening in Spain.p Likewise, the case of Denmark leads one to doubt the environmental benefits.p From the Financial Post:Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000
turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single
fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to
cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide
emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone). Flemming Nissen,
the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of
Denmark’s largest energy utilities) tells us that “wind turbines do not
reduce carbon dioxide emissions.” The German experience is no
different. Der Spiegel reports that “Germany’s CO2 emissions haven’t
been reduced by even a single gram,” and additional coal- and gas-fired
plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery.Indeed,
recent academic research shows that wind power may actually increase
greenhouse gas emissions in some cases, depending on the
carbon-intensity of back-up generation required because of its
intermittent character. On the negative side of the environmental
ledger are adverse impacts of industrial wind turbines on birdlife and
other forms of wildlife, farm animals, wetlands and viewsheds.Nor is the case of Denmark encouraging on the economic side.p Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15¢/kwh
compared to Ontario’s current rate of about 6¢). Niels Gram of the
Danish Federation of Industries says, “windmills are a mistake and
economically make no sense.” Aase Madsen , the Chair of Energy Policy
in the Danish Parliament, calls it “a terribly expensive disaster.” The
U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in 2008, on a dollar
per MWh basis, the U.S. government subsidizes wind at $23.34 — compared
to reliable energy sources: natural gas at 25¢; coal at 44¢; hydro at
67¢; and nuclear at $1.59, leading to what some U.S. commentators call
“a huge corporate welfare feeding frenzy.”This is not rocket science.p Wind power is frighteningly expensive.p It sucks up dollars and jobs.p And because of the unreliability of wind, it has to be backed up by other, carbon-emitting, power sources.p But those sources are less efficient if they have to be frequently powered up and down.p There is no reason to believe it reduces greenhouse emissions or dependence on fossel fuels.p So why are so many developed nations subsidizing it?p The answer is that everyone likes the idea of wind power, and so far, developed nations have the resources to invest in pretty but unproductive ideas.p All this is just good fun if you weren't eating off of one of those 2.2 lost jobs and if good environmental policy isn't really that important.p But if we really care about environmental policy we are going to have to start thinking rationally about it.p We aren't doing that.p All those wind turbines are just devices for turning fancy into federal dollars.p Update: the Calzada Alvarez study can be found here.p