Jan 29, 2009

Because, Really, Who Keeps Promises Anymore?

Slate in a completely idiotic article determines that there's nothing that should keep Congressmen from voting against the blatently unconstitutional D.C. Voting Rights Act:

the only argument I can see against a vote for the D.C. bill is that it could be viewed as violating the oath taken by members of Congress and the president to uphold the Constitution. But with legitimate arguments by credible legal scholars in favor of the bill, the constitutional question is not settled.

With but a little fancy footwork, the congressional oath no longer needs to mean a thing! If only other oaths, like marriage, were so simple to escape from (...oh wait...they are!). The real reason, the author notes, is that by voting for a bill that the Supreme Court will almost certainly find to be unconstitutional, the issue will be raised before the public. Well, that sounds like a great idea. Congress, already the biggest joke of an organization in our happy polity, should be encouraged to break the oath they took because...oh, well...it brings an issue to the fore. Slate would do better if its opinions on breaking the law weren't so blatently biased. You can always find a useful idiot to support any position. That doesn't give an excuse to deliberately disregard the oath you made to the law of the land.

But, who cares about the law, as long as I get what I want?

P.S. Ken Starr's argument that Congress can do anything it wants with DC because "[t]he Congress shall have power … to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" within the proposed federal district is also ridiculous. A simple path of logic would then say that Congress could give, without an amendment, enough congressmen to give DC itself massive majorities in both houses of Congress, effectively taking away all meaningful representation from all other states. It would also give Democrats massive, eternal majorities.

Jan 28, 2009

A Nice Wyeth Article

From The Weekly Standard; discusses his life and work honestly and eloquently. Good read.

On Cato the Younger

[[Warning: Long post]]

Two summers ago, when vacationing in Florida, I decided to pick up Dante's Purgatorio for some light reading. FYI, the Divine Comedy is not light reading. Nevertheless, very near the beginning, in Canto I, as Virgil leads Dante to the island of Purgatory, Dante notes
I saw beside me an old man alone,
Worthy of so much reverence in his look,
That more owes not to father any son.

A long beard and with white hair intermingled
He wore, in semblance like unto the tresses,
Of which a double list fell on his breast.

The rays of the four consecrated stars
Did so adorn his countenance with light,
That him I saw as were the sun before him.

. . .

Now may it please thee to vouchsafe his coming;
He seeketh Liberty, which is so dear,
As knoweth he who life for her refuses.

Thou know'st it; since, for her, to thee not bitter
Was death in Utica, where thou didst leave
The vesture, that will shine so, the great day.
That man was Cato the Younger, or Cato Minor in Latin (as opposed to Cato Major, or Cato the Elder, his great-grandfather). He was a Roman Stoic statesman, known for both his unflinchingly rigid morality and his full-bore defense of the Republic when Caesar came to power. For this, he has been venerated for generations. Dante made him the eternal gatekeeper of Purgatory (unlike his fellow pagan philosophers, who were forever in the mild sadness of Limbo). The American Cato Institute is named for him (indirectly). George Washington had plays about him read to his troops at Valley Forge to encourage them, even though such activities had been prohibited by the Congress. Even today, the man has fans, and I count myself among them.

To be sure, we know much about Cato (compared to many of his contemporaries), though that which we do have can be difficult to decipher. Plutarch wrote about him in his Lives, but that wasn't for over a century after his death. Cicero wrote a supportive pamphlet about him after his death, creatively entitled Cato, and Julius Caesar responded with his Anti-Cato. Cicero's is lost to us, and Caesar's only exists in fragments. Marcus Brutus was dissatisfied with Cicero's attempt so wrote a different supportive pamphlet, which Octavian (later Caesar Augustus) responded to in the negative, just as his great-uncle Caesar had done.

What we learn from the man is impressive and should be reflected on today. For a time, he served as a military tribune, and Plutarch notes that when he left, "he was sent on his way, not with blessings, as is common, nor yet with praises, but with tears and insatiable embraces, the soldiers casting their mantles down for him to walk upon, and kissing his hands, things which the Romans of that day rarely did." This is because he "willingly shared the tasks which he imposed upon others, and in his dress, way of living, and conduct on the march, made himself more like a soldier than a commander....In this way, without knowing it, he produced in his men at the same time the feeling of good will towards himself. For genuine desire to attain virtue arises only in consequence of perfect good will and respect for him who displays virtue."

He returned to Rome and became a quaestor, fulfilling his role marvelously--hacking away at waste and corruption of the public funds. He was there for a year, and then stepped down, lauded by the public for his incorruptibility. Having been quaestor, he was automatically a member of the Senate as well. He aligned himself quickly with the Optimates, the conservatives who had supported Sulla's dictatorship. He, however, since his childhood, had hated Sulla, and sought to return the Optimates to their pure republican roots. He was elected as tribune of the plebians in 63BC and assisted his friend Marcus Cicero (consul at the time) in rounding up the members of the Catiline Conspiracy. In one of his first debates with Julius Caesar, he argued that conspirators should be put to death, even though they were Roman citizens. Caesar believed that imprisonment and exile would suffice, for taking the life of a citizen was reprehensible and contrary to law. Cato, however, won the Senate to his side by pointing out that were the conspirators allowed to live, they may well succeed in destroying the Republic and the laws for which it stood. Breaking the law was, in effect, the only way to preserve the law.

Cato's and Caesar's personal and political feud began at that point. It was exacerbated when, intent on propriety within the Senate, Cato accused Caesar of reading personal notes from the conspirators while the body was in session. He pulled the paper from Caesar's hands, only to find that the note was from Cato's half-sister, who was also Caesar's mistress. Caesar was known to take in his political rivals' wives and family to gain traction against them. Angered and embarrassed, Cato's and Caesar's mutual dislike only increased.

When Caesar attempted to return to Rome with both a Triumph and a consulship, Cato filibustered, speaking all night so that the Senate could not vote for Caesar to run for consul in absentia. Caesar was forced to enter the city peacefully, foregoing the Triumph, to run for consul. He won that election, to Cato's dismay.

According to Wikipedia (always the best source, I know...):

When Caesar became consul, Cato opposed the agrarian laws that established farmlands for Pompey's veterans on public lands in Campania, from which the republic derived a quarter of its income. Caesar responded by having Cato dragged out by lictors while Cato was making a speech against him at the rostra. Many senators protested this extraordinary and unprecedented use of force by leaving the forum, one senator proclaiming he'd rather be in jail with Cato than in the Senate with Caesar. Caesar was forced to relent but countered by taking the vote directly to the people, bypassing the Senate. Bibulus and Cato attempted to oppose Caesar in the public votes but were harassed and publicly assaulted by Caesar's retainers.

As the Triumvirate formed, Cato and the Optimates attempted to force a schism between Pompey and Caesar. They were ultimately successful, because Pompey feared Caesar's political ambitions. In 49BC, Cato convinced the Senate to strip Caesar of his expired command. Were he to enter Rome again, he would do so without legal immunity. This was to have devastating consequences.

Caesar's army, for its part, was still loyal to him. Though he attempted a compromise with the Senate (which Pompey would have happily given), Cato refused to allow him any power. Forced with the choice between exile and war, Caesar chose to march on Rome. He was declared an enemy of the Republic by the Senate, and many senators, including Cato, soon took to the field with Pompey against him. After Pompey's defeat at the Battle of Pharsalus in 48BC, Cato escaped to Utica. However, Caesar was close on his tail. Finally, refusing to live in a world devoid of freedom and controlled by Caesar, Cato attempted suicide. An injured hand, however, prevented him from properly stabbing himself, and he was stitched up. According to Plutarch, "when Cato recovered and became aware of this [having been saved], he pushed the physician away, tore his bowels with his hands, rent the wound still more, and so died." "Give me Liberty or give me Death" was never so true.

The Republic was Cato's love, and his entire life was fought in defense of it. Though his efforts were ultimately unsuccessful, and Rome fell (or rose) into Empire, it should be remembered what James Stewart says in Frank Capra's Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. "Sometimes the only causes worth fighting for are the lost ones." Certainly a fascinating character of history, easily earning his mantle in the pantheon of political greats.

Jan 26, 2009

Shrek the Sheep

So, I'm like four years late for this news story, but I nonetheless found it awesome.

Shrek the sheep lived in New Zealand, hiding in the caves whenever the musterers would muster the herd to be sheared. He managed to hide out for six years.

Now, sheep wool, like human hair, continues to grow, and if it is not cut, it will just get longer and longer. Therefore, when Shrek was finally found in 2004, he looked like a giant cottonball:


I think that they just shouldn't shear sheep for six years at a time.

Jan 22, 2009

Obama Needs a Formalwear Lesson

Barack and Michelle Obama are both pretty classy people, and both are (as far as I can tell) pretty stylish. Now, being a guy who would rather wear sweater vests, tweed, and a driver's cap (at the tender age of 22, no less!), I don't know much about fashion. Oscar de la Renta, Gucci, Fabrege (I don't think that's a stylist)...it just doesn't mean anything.

However, I do know something about old-school style. President Obama's people apparently don't.

The President committed a major fashion faux pas when he showed up to the inaugural balls in *gasp* a white bowtie without a tailcoat (see below; Michelle created a tiny stir by wearing white in winter, which is a less well-defined no-no).


To be sure, they both looked very good. However, the President needs to learn a few rules of society. He may know them and have just jumbled them up a bit, since he's done the full formalwear correctly in the past:


Here are the simple rules for the average layman. First, and most importantly, a guest never overdresses for the occasion. The host always sets the standard. Most balls nowadays are 'informal' (which, in society lingo, means 'black tie'). When they are informal, it is rude to show up in full formal attire. That begs the second question. What is full formal attire? Traditionally, for men, full formalwear entails a wing-collared shirt, a tailcoat with notched lapels, a white pique tie and vest (vest must be low-cut, tuxedo style; non of this 'prom' junk that buttons up to your chest), and pants with two thin satin stripes up each leg. A pocket square is a nice addition, as is a carnation or other white flower in the lapel. White dress gloves are also a nice touch.

It is, of course, not that big of a deal. Styles change, and a president (especially one with as much of a pop-culture following as Obama) can play a big part in changing that style.

Jan 16, 2009

Andrew Wyeth (1917-2009)


Wow...I was really sad to hear today that Andrew Wyeth passed away. Though I am only into art as a hobby and have no professional training, I can still honestly say that Wyeth is one of my biggest inspirations. He took watercolor and egg tempera to a whole new level. His detail work is incredible. He often used the 'dry-brush' watercolor technique, and achieved impressive results; his works somehow blend realism and impressionism. His compositions focused on light, which he did really, really well.

Wyeth, of course, is most famous for Christina's World and for the still famous, though lesser-known, Helga pictures. In 2007, he was awarded the National Metal of Arts by President Bush. It was well deserved.

Wyeth's works were like a still idyllic, though less innocent, Norman Rockwells. He will be missed.

Jan 15, 2009

It Takes a Big Man to Admit He Was Wrong


I am that man. I was incorrect in my belief that planes don't float.

For those who have seen the news, a US Airways Airbus A320, en route from NY LaGuardia to Charlotte, hit a flock of geese. The pilot, executing a truly remarkable feat, managed to land the plane in one piece in the Hudson River. The plane, incredibly, didn't break apart.

For years, whenever I've ridden an airplane, I've guffawed over the stupid assumption that "in case of a water landing" passengers would have any chance of survival. Tubes of metal, I reasoned, don't float.

That's where I should have stopped myself for my faulty logic. Logic would dictate that tubes of metal don't fly either.

Today marks that day, that case of which they spoke, in which a water landing was necessary. I will never laugh at that part of the safety card again.

I will, however, continue to laugh at the funny guy with the cigarette who appears to hitting on the lady in the yellow dress. Dude, ladies stopped finding cigarettes sexy back when bellbottoms were the new 'thing'.

Jan 13, 2009

So, What's Inside the White House Anyway?

With yet another peaceful transition of power on its way in Washington, my interest in our capital city and in its most famous landmark has skyrocketed. Recently, there has been a spate of interest on the web/TV. For those who missed C-SPAN's special "Inside the White House" on Dec. 14, it is now available to buy on their website. Here's the trailer:



If you watch that and don't have goosebumps, then the only explanation is that you are a Communist, or a terrorist, or both. I'm only kidding a little.

Also, The White House Museum is an awesome resource for historic photos of almost all the rooms in the house. It's super cool and updated often, so check it out.

Now, I've been a longtime fan of The West Wing. The show has been praised by former staffers of the Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 administrations for its realism. The only major complaints seem to be that (i) staffers don't tend to remain that idealistic in the rough-and-tumble world of national politics and (ii) the real West Wing isn't nearly as expansive as the one in the show. In fact, people have made blueprints for the TV West Wing.

And here's the real West Wing:
As you can see, the actual West Wing has a Chief of Staff's office, but it is not adjacent to the Oval Office. Instead, it is past the President's Private Study (see below), the Dining Room (see below), and a Deputy Chief of Staff's office.

President Reagan in the private study, 1987 (h/t White House Museum)

President Bush and Vice President Cheney meet in the president's dining room (h/t White House Museum)

Additionally, there is no 'Mural Room' (it seems to be loosely based on the Diplomatic Reception Room), the Roosevelt Room is far more boring than in the show, and there are no bullpens. Perhaps, however, the most distinctive difference (and, I think, the best) is the lobby. The current West Wing lobby is pretty lame. Aaron Sorkin apparently recognized this, and so he actually reverted it back to the Truman-Johnson lobby, which consisted of a Roman-column facade and classy black and white marble floor tiles (see below).

(h/t White House Museum)

I love the White house--its history, its architecture, and the unique place it holds in the American psyche. It's come to symbolize the eras of our nation--political and cultural--and its character as well. That's why the occupant means so much to us. Through him, we see a reflection of ourselves and the choices we make as a people. There are few things left in this country that are not politicized, but in some odd way, the White House, the center of American politics--and I mean the institution, not the administration inside--remains stubbornly apolitical.

How's Your Big Cats Knowledge?

National Geographic's Big Cats quiz. I got all but one right...so close...

Jan 8, 2009

King Frank II, Queen Brynda, or King Paul I?

Those are our options when we ask the question, who would be the current ruler of the United States had George Washington accepted the offer to be king (ceteris paribus)? An article in Ancestry Magazine from last September (h/t Slate) tries to figure out exactly where we would be now. Slogging through the different types of primogeniture (agnatic, cognatic, agnatic-cognatic) and having to decide at the start whether to go to Washington's elder half-brother (Augustine) or his younger full brother (Samuel), the authors end up trying them all out.

The funny thing is that the claimants, Frank, Brynda, and Paul, probably have no idea that they could be sitting in the White House (or, perhaps it would still be called the "President's Palace"), waving ceremonially, while the Congress, consisting of a Prime Minister leading the executive and legislative branches, argues over a bill on the floor.

What a world it might have been!

Jan 6, 2009

New Cheetah Fossils in...China?

photo from Daily Mail

National Geographic is reporting that new fossils out of China have thrown a wrench in the works of the theory that cheetahs originally came from the Americas. There are some arguments over whether this species has been identified before, but it looks to be a pretty big development (for those who care about this sort of thing).

I did a report on the genetic bottleneck of the ancient cheetah populations back when I was a first year in college (when GWB was being elected to his second term...how long ago it all seems). Paleontologists believe that there may have been fewer than ten remaining individuals at the end of the last ice age, resulting in an utter lack of genetic diversity. Cheetahs from different regions in Africa can give and receive skin grafts without rejection of the donor tissue; they are that similar. Cheetahs also suffer from a very, very low sperm count and a very, very high rate of sterility, making their plight more desperate. It's interesting to learn more about how they came to be what they are today.

On another note, there are Asian cheetahs in Iran which are gravely endangered. It's good to see that as wacko as the regime in Iran tends to be, they at least are reasonable enough to seek protection for that treasure.

Jan 3, 2009

How to Make a Puppet Pattern, Part III

I was told that it would be a good idea to show an example of me doing this. That is a good idea, so here it is. I'm working on a triceratops puppet now, and I needed to make a body. Ergo, I made an ellipsoid.

Beware--I was making a pattern on a piece of black posterboard (it's all I had) with pencil to make it show up. Hopefully it's not too painful to see.

I determined that the height would be 6 inches (making a=3) and that the width would be 4 inches (making b=2). Following the formulas in this post, I found the height and width of the pattern.










I drew an extended line to the left. Somewhere on that line is the center of the circle that will have a radius making both the top and bottom of the height line and the far right point of the width line all points in the same arc.





I copied the angle on the left and mirrored it on the right. You can see where the two arcs intersect. I drew a line from the top of the height (the longer one; this picture has been rotated 90 degrees), through the intersection of the arcs, all the way to the dotted line. This formed the isosceles triangle that was needed.




Using the line that I just drew, I took a string and a pencil and created an arc, connecting the three points that I needed. Because of my 'simple' compass, the line wasn't nearly as smooth as I would have liked, but it'll work.





I recreated the same arc on the other side, leaving me with a pre-cut pattern.






The pattern after cutting.







I copied it eight times onto the foam.







I then cut out the pieces. The foam had been in my closet for a little while, so it was slightly curved, which actually worked to my advantage later.





I coated the sides of the pieces with contact cement and then began sticking them together. Here, you can see it halfway done.







The ellipsoid, halfway done.







The inside, halfway done.







I finished it off, resulting in this: the final product.











It worked perfectly. I cut off the top and part of the bottom to make the holes for my hand (since this will be the body of my puppet).

So that's how it works in reality, not just in theory.

Jan 1, 2009

Billy Mays is a Republican?

That's hilarious! Maybe he can be the new spokesman or the chair of the RNC, since the current candidates seem to be too busy throwing pointy objects at each other.

L.G.: So all those kinds of products are in the $19.95 range or less and your high-end product is ICanBenefit.com. Since we're in the middle of a presidential campaign, I have to ask, would it be possible to use you as a pitchman for a presidential campaign?

B.M.: Well, Chuck Norris does.

L.G.: Right, he did for Mike Huckabee, but that was more sort of a humorous thing, I suppose. A lot of the fundraising is done on the internet, in small increments—indeed, in many cases in $19.95 increments. Could you see a situation where you're selling Barack Obama or John McCain in that way, or is that just too nutty?

B.M.: I think if I was approached by the McCain camp. I'm a Republican.

L.G.: Maybe this is unfair to ask, but how would you pitch John McCain? Would you say, "Billy Mays here for John McCain?"

B.M.: Security. The world's a safer place. Country first. "Billy Mays for John McCain! If you want to keep you and your family safe, vote McCain!" I'd have to think about it, I wouldn't like to bash anything. I'd like to keep things positive.