Nicholsclan.com : a dimension of mind...

People Using Up Your 15 Minutes of Fame

I'm sure you've always wondered (or maybe just fantasized) about which celebrity you looked most like. Well, in the process of researching face recognition software, I ran across My Heritage, a site that answers that question once and for all. Or maybe just stirs it up well. If you try it yourself, you'll need to do a quick and free registration. Also note that it requires a close-up straight-on photo, and it doesn't work too well with kids.

And since I'm sure you're dying to know, this is how I fared. If nothing else, this may explain my fascination with the 1812 Overture and reruns of Who's Line Is It Anyway. But Leonardo DiCaprio?? C'mon, I didn't deserve that.


So for further testing I uploaded Kim. You should be so lucky to keep this kind of company. Although in honesty, the Glenn Close thing frightens me a bit.

The Month In Review

I thought maybe I'd just share some of the highpoints of my past month:

• I can't wait for the kids to return to school. They are restless and miserable and bickering and they need something to do.
• Job cuts of 30% are announced in my group at work. But final decisions won't be made for a month yet, so don't worry 'til then. Right.
  
• The school tax bill arrives, which reminds me that enlisting the boys in the military would be a cheaper alternative.
  
• The terror alert is raised to "guys with WMD's are probably hiding in your basement." This reminds me that election day is coming, and makes me wonder if any of those guys in the basement would be willing to chip in for the school taxes.
• The Pope says Muslims are violent. Hugo Chavez says that Bush is the Devil. Bill Clinton says Fox News coddles the political right. Jerry Fallwell says that running against Hillary on '08 would be like running against Lucifer. All of which leads me to conclude that pretty much everyone's speech writer must be taking kickbacks from Jay Leno and Jon Stewart as this kind of late night satire fodder just doesn't happen by accident.
  
• The "fund raiser" tax arrives, whereby I'm coerced into buying all manner of useless overpriced stuff in the interest of supporting various school activities because inconceivably my school taxes don't cover it. But at least the volleyball team is selling expensive pies this year. Blueberry... yum.
• There's swimming, volleyball, bible quiz, gymnastics, and cheerleading so far. But only because drama club and challenge bowl haven't started yet. I look forward to work because it's the only period of the day where I'm not driving someone somewhere or attending a game/meet/match/competition. I regret ever wishing the kids had something to do.
• Pretty much everyone is sick. The kids have been together in school long enough for the germs to mutate into new virulent mucus producing strains, which the kids then take home and share at dinner. I'd be sick too except that we never have time for dinner anymore.
  
• I landed a new job in the big yellow box. Instead of caring about what happens after people buy our products, I'm going to the other end of the cycle and create the products that annoy them in the first place. Cool.
• I miss my Beauty. We used to spend time together. Now we just trade emails where we fantasize about life after the kids go to college. At least we get to see each other in the bleachers now and again.
• How long until summer vacation?
  

Brotherly Love

"If you love someone, torment them relentlessly."

This seems to be the credo of brothers. I didn't grow up with a brother, so I don't entirely get this. However, as the parent of brothers, this seems to be the way it works. There's something decidedly alpha-dog about the behavior. Physical domination by the older one following by over-dramatic yelping from the younger one.

Unfortunately, the one who feels victimized by all this is me. And if they don't cut it out soon I'm gonna start smacking them on the nose with a rolled up newspaper.

WWJD Redux

In his address to the U.N. yesterday, Bush urged people to reject religious extremism. I'm inclined to wonder if he wishes that to apply in the U.S. as well. Our self-avowed born-again leader is openly advocating for the right to torture captured suspects. Cal Thomas, a columnist who makes no bones about his his rabid Christianity, asserts in his September 19th column that the terrorists have no qualms about torturing us, so we need to be willing to do that to them. He goes so far as to chide John McCain, a torture victim himself, for not being willing to torture the enemy.

I couldn't have possibly slept through that much Sunday school. When did Jesus become a militant? As I recall, Jesus was the ultimate peace and love guy. Turn the other cheek, love thy neighbor, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Let's face it, this guy was only a sitar and a dimebag from being the world's first hippie. Even during his execution he extolled his followers to forgive the men executing him, for they know not what they do. If ever anyone had cause to tell his troops to rise up and crush the enemy, you'd think Jesus would have launched a little jihad of his own from Golgotha. But no, he was true to his principles and teachings, even in the face of people doing unspeakably evil things to him.

Christians believe he was then resurrected after his death. Surely this was a good time to raise his army up and smite the Jews, the Romans, or both. But no, he still maintained that tolerance, love, forgiveness, enlightenment, and truth were the path to follow. And he taught his disciples to lead by example.

So where in all this do these so-called Christians get the idea that war, torture, deception, and violence are an acceptable and justified means to their end? Jesus wanted the whole world to follow him too, and (according to mythology) had the power to make that happen. He could have crushed his enemies in a single thought. But he didn't. The only reasonable conclusion from this is that people like Bush, Cal Thomas, and others are co-opting the power of religion for other nefarious purposes. Isn't this exactly what the Islamic extremists are doing? Why should we not consider these guys Christian extremists?

And if we do, by Bush's own assertion, we need to reject them, including him. But that's hard isn't it? There have been lots of calls, including my own, for Islamic moderates to quiesce the radical extremists. It seems so obvious that the moderate majority should be able and eager to do this. After all, the extremist's actions reflect on Islam as a whole, and not favorably.

But put the shoe on the other foot. Are the Christian moderates in this country prepared to rise up against our own extremists? Especially when we're bombarded by the message that to oppose them is to embolden our enemy? Exacerbated by the fact that 80% of what the extremists avow, moderate Christians agree with. Is it really that important to put energy into rising up against that 20%? How much harm can they really do?

I'm sure the Islamic moderates are undergoing the same struggles. And I'm sure they don't understand why the Christian moderates don't control their extremists. This is not to say that I'm letting the Islamic moderates off the hook. Not at all. But I am putting the Christian moderates on that same hook. If you're a Christian, I want you to ask yourself something. Can you separate the wolves in sheep's clothing from the rest of Jesus' flock? Can you call out the impostors who feign to represent the will of God? Can you interpret for yourself the true meanings of the teachings of Jesus? Can you really do what he would do? Let's get our own house in order before we set out to clean up the neighborhood.

Jesus Camp

I think there has to be a point where evangelism, regardless of how well intentioned, becomes child abuse. Just because other radical factions in the world are brainwashing their children into religious militarism doesn't really mean that Christians need to answer in kind. You gotta ask yourself, WWJD?

The Littlest Arrrrg

Me wee deckhand is doin' his right best to display his pirattude. But at a mere 11 yars, it's tough to cough up the raspy gruff of a salty sea dog. Not that this is slowin' 'im down a'tall. It would seem that with a plentitude of air, one can get the wee'est of voiceboxes to shiver its timbers.

The effect is a might startlin' though. In part 'cause the volume of his "Arrrg" makes me portholes rattle. But mostly 'cause the tone lacks the fear inducin' revenge-is-a-dish-best-served-cold timbre. It's more of a just-cut-me-damned-fingers-off-with-me-own-cutlass cry of agony.

But despite the pain he inflicts on those in earshot, we can't discourage the lad. His heart's in the right place. And bein' a pirate is all about heart, and bein' true t' yer own. Sail on me lad. Sail on.

Ahoy, Me Hearties!!

At long last it be Talk Like a Pirate Day. If'in ya don't know the lingo, you should be clickin' here fer an edumacashunal video.

And if ya be needin' a good pirate name...


Now go slosh some rum in yer gullet, fetch yer saucy wench, and set to plunderin' the neighborhood!

Oh Silly Me...

In response to the Pope's refusal to apologize for quoting an obscure 15th century Byzantine emperor who noted that Islam codified violence as part of its doctrine, Muslims are now attacking churches and have threatened to bomb the Vatican. Apparently the bombings will continue until the Pope apologizes for the statement and publicly asserts that Islam is a religion of peace. This bears tangential similarity to the Neo-Con strategy of bombing Iraq into tranquility.

All of which leads me to wonder if future historians will label this "The Age of Irony." Contingent, of course, on the actual existence of the future.

Pirattude

Arrrrg me mateys! Next Tuesday (9/19) be International Talk Like a Pirate Day. Don't be caught wid yer dabloons down!

Also be given some cogitation to grabbin a pint or two of yer best ale and watchin' the Wench Swap episode of ABC's Wife Swap on Monday, 9/18. TLAP's own Ol' Chumbucket and Mad Sally apparently subjected some loafer wearin' landlubbers to some sea farin' pirattude. Foller the link above to read Mad Sally's blog. I know, I know. Watchin' Wife Swap dudn't sound too piratish, but we gotta support the crew. Besides, Two and a Half Men is still in reruns.

Microsoft Hits Fowl Ball

As most of you know, Bill Gates is poised to foist the new Vista operating system on us at the end of this year. -- Probably -- Like all preceding Microsoft OS releases, this one has been delayed several times, and may well be again. But it will ship eventually. And then we'll wait and wait for the suckers, ummm... "early adopters", to debug the thing. Then Microsoft will release Service Pack 1 to fix all the really scary bugs. Then the rest of us can upgrade. So we're pretty safe until deep into 2008.

In the meantime, we can chuckle along with the Latvians. Apparently, "Vista" means "fowl" in Latvia. And while Bill Gates does vaguely resemble a chicken, he's no Frank Purdue. More importantly, "Vista" is also slang for "frumpy woman", which isn't an entirely disingenuous description of most of Microsoft's products. And it would seem that not a lot of funny things happen in Latvia, so they are really yukking it up over this one.

Personally, I'm pushing for adopting the slang term in English. Wouldn't you really like to say, "Oh yeah, she's a real vista." Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge. It has a nice ring to it. Unless it's ringing for you I suppose.

Freedom, Truth, Politics, and Harry Potter

Much hullabaloo has been made of late over the "Path to 9-11" mini-series running last night and tonight on ABC. It is being positioned as "fictionalized", which gives license for the makers to create most any reality they want within the historical context. And apparently they have taken such license.

But this is hardly the first such media attempt to take dramatic license with historical events. This happens all the time. So it would be unwise to pass judgment on this one movie in isolation. Moreover, I can't in good conscience even limit my concern to the genre of docu-dramas. Human beings are inherently visual learners. What we see tends to become real, even if we are informed upfront and completely believe that the depiction contains fiction. The trouble is that there is truth depicted which resonates with things we already know to be true from independent sources. The fictionalized parts then become bound by proximity and continuity to the truthy parts in our mind. The line inherently blurs.

9-11 is a politically volatile and emotionally fresh area right now, so it's hard to look at "The Path to 9-11" objectively. So let's step back. Consider the following works of fiction and the historical event or period they are set in. Ask yourself if your view or the views of people you know have been colored by the fictional work.

• Oliver Stone's "JFK" - The Kennedy assassination
• "The DaVinci Code" - The early history of the Catholic church
• "Clan of the Cave Bear" - Human history in the Ice Age
• "A Tale of Two Cities" - The French Revolution
• "Tora Tora Tora" - The bombing of Pearl Harbor
• "The Passion of the Christ" - The execution of Jesus
• "Munich" - The Munich Olympic massacre

This list could go on forever. And it spans the history of fiction, making it clearly not a recent phenomenon. The point being that the effect of fictionalized stories on history cannot reasonably be in dispute. This is even happening in indirect ways. Courts are finding that juries are treating crime lab findings as increasingly credible, and this has been linked to the success of the CSI shows on TV where the labs' results are indisputable. Fiction influences reality.

So what can be done? Should we censor "dangerous" fiction? Hell no. I cannot advocate book banning, movie banning, or any other form of censorship based on the perceived volatility of the ideas expressed. No one is qualified to decide where that line is. For cryin' in your beer, there are still people out there who think that Harry Potter is inspiring the practice of witchcraft. If there's confusion over whether or not JK Rowling writes fiction, who's going to draw the line for Michael Moore's work?

It would also be unreasonable to require truth to be told in all historical contexts. Minimally, it would beg the question of which truth? Should the Battle of Little Big Horn be told from the perspective of the US Calvary or the Sioux? And I can't advocate anything that would stifle the creativity that fiction offers.

But I don't think that leaves us in an intractable situation. The solution can be reasonably simple. Where it's not obvious, fiction should be clearly labeled as such. This means that the CBS Evening News can't run a story they made up without a clear acknowledgement of it being fiction. But the ABC Monday Night Movie can be as fictional as it chooses without disclaimer. In addition, extant libel laws should be used where specific defamatory fictional actions or statements are attributed to actual people. And the courts should allow for a sufficiently liberal application of these libel laws to discourage writers, directors, and producers from using actual characters outside of what would generally be accepted as an accurate historical context.

Madeleine Albright, among others, are complaining that there are scenes in "Path to 9-11" depicting them saying things which were never said, and taking actions which were never taken. They should be entitled to libel damages from ABC. Further, the burden should not be on Albright to prove she never said those things, but on ABC to prove she did. Faced with such potential legal liability, producers would either gain prior consent for the depiction of actual people in fictional works, or they would create fictional composite characters to perform the fictional acts.

Will this prevent people from thinking of "Apollo 13" as the definitive history of that space mission? No. But it will encourage a more responsible writing by authors. Writing that will at least make it reasonable for intelligent people to readily distinguish between fact and fiction. Yet there will always be goobers who remember Titanic as a love story instead of a shipwreck. Not to fear though, I'm planning to put a hex on all of them if I ever graduate from Snape's 3rd-year Potions class.

My Dinner With Dad

One of my favorite aspects of dinner with my sons is the conversation. It rarely touches on how everyone's day was. That information is simply not forthcoming. But the talk does cover the gamut of substantive topics: science, religion, politics - all the good stuff. Last night was no different.

Somehow the idea of absolute zero came up. For some reason my younger son was speculating on the temperature of his chicken as measured in Kelvins. He then went on to explain absolute zero pretty accurately as the point at which all motion within atoms stop. This apparently lead him to think about places in the universe that are at absolute zero and how things roaming through space might cope with that.

I assured him that absolute zero existed nowhere in the universe. Quantum physics actually prohibited anything from getting below its zero-point energy, which non-intuitively, is not equal to zero. It was a limit which we could approach asymptotically, but not actually get to in nature.

So apparently a thought experiment was in order. He posits, "Suppose there is a place where the temperature is absolute zero. And gravity is also zero, and while were at it, let's make it a perfect vacuum as well. "

"Okay," I agree.

"Now," he says. "Lets push a rock into this space. Will it come out the other side?"

"Well the rock is warmer and would transfer heat into the space, so yes."

"Wait," he says. "Let's make the rock at absolute zero. Will it still go through?"

"Hmmmm..." I say as I ponder and stall for time. The atomic or quantum motion in the rock will have stopped, but the Newtonian momentum shouldn't be effected by temperature. It's not a factor in any of the motion equations. So I think it will still pass through - probably without slowing down at all.

"But you're not sure," he presses.

"No, I'm not sure," I confess.

"HAH!", he exclaims, pumping his fist. "I stumped him! Can I be excused?"

Which leads me to believe that perhaps I've missed the point of these conversations all along.

Fascists - It Takes One to Know One?

GW and Rummy have been tossing about terms like Islamic Fascists and Islamo-Fascism lately to describe the enemy in the War on Terror. This dovetails nicely with Rummy's claims that opposition to the war in Iraq is akin to opposing the U.S. entry into WWII. Hitler was a fascist. No reasonable person thinks we should have ignored the threat posed by Germany 65 years ago. Therefore war against fascists is justified. Ipso facto, terrorism = fascism. From a marketing perspective the dots connect better than bikinis and beer. But does it wash?

I've always understood that fascism was a political philosophy which embraced nationalism, militarism, and anti-liberalism. And yes, the terrorists qualify as militaristic and anti-liberal, but they lack the whole nation-thing. That seems a rather critical point. Foxes are fuzzy and have pointed ears, that doesn't make them tigers. Note that I'm not arguing that terrorists are harmless or that we should ignore them, just that they are not fascist. In many ways, it would be easier for us if they were. We have vast experience fighting fascism effectively. fascists have armies to engage and governments to topple. Terrorists lack that sort of centralized organization by definition.

Is that important? After all, fascists are bad, terrorists are bad, why quibble about the difference? The reason to quibble is that the tactics for opposing one are different than the tactics for opposing the other. Any hunter knows that to effectively bag your quarry, you have to understand the animal you're hunting, know its habitat, its behaviors, and have the proper tools to capture or kill it. By refusing to acknowledge that terrorists and fascists are different, we are disabling ourselves from opposing them effectively. And this has been a major problem with the War on Terror to date. We are fighting the way we know how to fight, not necessarily in a way that is most effective against the enemy we are opposing.

On an interesting and related note, Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each. Take a look at his list by following this link. While you're there, think about how the terrorists measure up against each of the 14 traits. Then go back and ask yourself how the Bush administration rates against the 14 traits. Scary, ain't it?

New and Improved Blog

I know you're all dying to see all the new features which took me several hours to get right, and I'm sure they are unlikely to impress anyone. Nonetheless, they all appear at the bottom of each post.

The "posted at" link can be clicked to get a single page which shows just that article and any comments. This is useful if you want to view the post and all the comments, or if you want to paste a link to that specific article in an email or on your own blog.

The letter icon will allow you to easily email the article to any friends who might care.

The "comments" link shows the number of comments currently logged against that article. If you click it, you can view the comments and also (and more importantly) post your own views. I've left this open and am allowing anonymous postings for now. However, if we start to collect automated spam in there, then I'll have to tighten that up a bit. But please, feel free to post. I'm hoping to make this a little more interactive. Some of you are pretty willing to send me email, so I'm hoping you'll be willing to share publicly.