Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion

Last week, Irregular Times writer Peregrin Wood wrote about a super-secure space mission dedicated to releasing microscopic animals called tardigrades into the deep, cold, empty, irradiated vacuum of outer space. Peregrin Wood promised that “Any time now, scientists will examine the water bears that were retrieved from the vacuum of outer space, and look to see if they are still alive.”

Oh, how naive.

Four days later now, and the report on the tardigrades from outer space is, dare I say, a little bit tardy.

What are they trying to hide? More importantly, what are they really trying to do, exposing the tardigrades to the cosmic radiation of outer space? Anyone who has read a Fantastic 4 comic book can imagine the implications of super-powered little microscopic animals unleashed on the world.

A dictator with that kind of power could rule the world. No one would have the power to resist. Is that what this space mission was really all about? Designing a new tardigrade biological weapon to enable the wicked people behind the scenes to make us all slaves?

The lead researcher on the Tardigrades In Space project, K. Ingemar Jönsson, has not answered these questions. How convenient. I wonder why? Could it be that no one has bothered to translate the phrase, “None dare call it a tardigrade conspiracy” into Swedish?

A couple of days ago, there was a little bit of a dispute, in response to my first mantis shrimp blog entry, about whether people eat mantis shrimp. It turns out that the Italians do indeed eat mantis shrimp. Here’s one recipe: Canocchie alla Pezza.

It will be noted, however, that this recipe does not call for the use of tawdry cocktail sauce. Instead, it suggests lemon, garlic, salt and olive oil. A much lighter taste.

For a better read, catch the same blogger’s visceral repulsion to the stomatopod, in her article entitled: The Horrible Mantis Shrimp. Fun fact from that article: A few mantis shrimp species have sufficient strength in their front claws to break through the glass of aquarium tanks, and scuttle around your home in fury for a while before dying.

Another blogger, Astron, refers to mantis shrimp meat as “tender and sweet”. Oh, the humanity!

It’s the second installment of this mantis shrimp blog today, and what a glorious morning it is to talk about stomatopods for me, Mantis Shrimp Man, the web’s preeminent stomatopodophile.

Stomatopod is the Latin name for mantis shrimp, and you may have caught yourself wondering what the heck stomatopod means in Latin. Obviously, pod means foot, but what about stoma? I remember from back in high school biology that leaves have stoma in them, pores to let moisture out. So, does stomatopod mean porous foot? Almost. It means mouth foot.

Does that mean that these mantis shrimp actually have mouths in their feet, with little teeth and stuff? While that would be very interesting, no. The choice of the Latin name mouth foot was chosen because their anatomy revolves around an interesting front pair of feet that are used to capture food and bring it to their mouths.

I’ll be talking about that pair of feet quite a bit in the future, because they’re just fascinating. Be patient. In the meantime, read a short article from Duke Magazine on the subject.

World, you shall now celebrate, for lo, the mantis shrimp blogging has begun. My name is Mantis Shrimp Man, and I have requested and received from Irregular Times an Irregular Diary account, and a category within the Irregular Diaries that is devoted to mantis shrimps. That makes my category within the Irregular Diaries the world’s one and only mantis shrimp blog.

Tonight, I introduce the concept of the mantis shrimp to you through the scientific name of the mantis shrimp: Stomatopod

Stomatopod is a bit of a difficult word to remember until you break it down. It’s the word tomato with an S on the beginning, with a POD on the end. The way I think about it is that a stomatopod is like an iPod, except that it’s a tomato with a lisp. It’s an absurd enough idea to stick in my mind.

Is an iPodish tomato with a lisp really a good description for a mantis shrimp? Well, that’s what this mantis shrimp blog is really all about… sort of. Once you explore the fascinating life of the mantis shrimp deeply enough, however, you should be able to answer that question.

Ordinarily, I’m not super fond of Senator Joseph Biden. Biden tends to bluster, and to tilt toward the right. However, I could help but applaud when I heard Joe Biden say the following words at last night’s Democratic presidential debate in Dartmouth, New Hampshire:

“Rudy Giuliani doesn’t know what the heck he’s talking about. He’s the most uninformed person in American foreign policy now running for President.”

Blast, Biden! Blast!

The worthlessness that is the Democratic Party was exhibited in clear view today.

Congress passed a resolution 341-79, condemning MoveOn for placing an advertisement in a newspaper.

Last time I checked, there was still freedom of speech. Last time I checked, there was still freedom of the press.

Last time I checked, the Constitution still forbids spying against American citizens without a search warrant, and torturing prisoners, and imprisoning people without a fair and speedy trial.

So, is this what the Democratic majority of Congress has delivered us? Condemnation of MoveOn for its legal activities, but nothing to stop George W. Bush – not even a censure resolution?

Why the hell should I ever vote for a Democrat ever again? They’re spineless wimps.

Oh, but I suppose I don’t count. I suppose I’m just one of those on the liberal fringe that believes that nobody is above the law. I guess that makes me a kooky radical these days.

Bush: Kids’ health care will get vetoed

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 4 minutes ago

President Bush again called Democrats “irresponsible” on Saturday for pushing an expansion he opposes to a children’s health insurance program.

“Democrats in Congress have decided to pass a bill they know will be vetoed,” Bush said of the measure that draws significant bipartisan support, repeating in his weekly radio address an accusation he made earlier in the week. “Members of Congress are risking health coverage for poor children purely to make a political point.”

At issue is the Children’s Health Insurance Program, a state-federal program that subsidizes health coverage for low-income people, mostly children, in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private coverage. It expires Sept. 30.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers announced a proposal Friday that would add $35 billion over five years to the program, adding 4 million people to the 6.6 million already participating. It would be financed by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.

The idea is overwhelmingly supported by Congress’ majority Democrats, who scheduled it for a vote Tuesday in the House. It has substantial Republican support as well.

But Bush has promised a veto, saying the measure is too costly, unacceptably raises taxes, extends government-covered insurance to children in families who can afford private coverage, and smacks of a move toward completely federalized health care. He has asked Congress to pass a simple extension of the current program while debate continues, saying it’s children who will suffer if they do not.

“Our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage — not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage,” Bush said.

The bill’s backers have vigorously rejected Bush’s claim it would steer public money to families that can readily afford health insurance, saying their goal is to cover more of the millions of uninsured children. The bill would provide financial incentives for states to cover their lowest-income children first, they said.

Many governors want the flexibility to expand eligibility for the program. So the proposal would overturn recent guidelines from the administration making it difficult for states to steer CHIP funds to families with incomes exceeding 250 percent of the official poverty level.

You heard it, folks. Bush keeps flappin’ his gums about how important the kids are but when it comes right down to it what is his message?

Fuck the little bastards.

Hey I just saw this news piece on Bill Richardson and thought you might want to consider why Bill Richardson is the best candidate for President of the USA in the world we have today.

Why We Should Exit Iraq Now, by Bill Richardson

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have suggested that there is little difference among us on Iraq. This is not true: I am the only leading Democratic candidate committed to getting all our troops out and doing so quickly.

In the most recent debate, I asked the other candidates how many troops they would leave in Iraq and for what purposes. I got no answers. The American people need answers. If we elect a president who thinks that troops should stay in Iraq for years, they will stay for years — a tragic mistake.

Clinton, Obama and Edwards reflect the inside-the-Beltway thinking that a complete withdrawal of all American forces somehow would be “irresponsible.” On the contrary, the facts suggest that a rapid, complete withdrawal — not a drawn-out, Vietnam-like process —would be the most responsible and effective course of action.

Those who think we need to keep troops in Iraq misunderstand the MiddleEast. I have met and negotiated successfully with many regional leaders,including Saddam Hussein. I am convinced that only a complete withdrawal can sufficiently shift the politics of Iraq and its neighbors to break the deadlock that has been killing so many people for so long.

Our troops have done everything they were asked to do with courage and professionalism, but they cannot win someone else’s civil war. So long as American troops are in Iraq, reconciliation among Iraqi factions is postponed. Leaving forces there enables the Iraqis to delay taking the steps to end the violence. And it prevents us from using diplomacy to bring in other nations to help stabilize and rebuild the country.

The presence of American forces in Iraq weakens us in the war against al- Qaeda. It endows the anti-American propaganda of those who portray us as occupiers plundering Iraq’s oil and repressing Muslims. The day we leave, this myth collapses, and the Iraqis will drive foreign jihadists out of their country. Our departure would also enable us to focus on defeating the
terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11, those headquartered along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border — not in Iraq.

Logistically, it would be possible to withdraw in six to eight months. We moved as many as 240,000 troops into and out of Iraq through Kuwait in as little as a three-month period during major troop rotations. After the Persian Gulf War, we redeployed nearly a half-million troops in a few months. We could redeploy even faster if we negotiated with the Turks to open a route out through Turkey.

As our withdrawal begins, we will gain diplomatic leverage. Iraqis will start seeing us as brokers, not occupiers. Iraq’s neighbors will face the reality that if they don’t help with stabilization, they will face the consequences of Iraq’s collapse — including even greater refugee flows over their borders and possible war.

The United States can facilitate Iraqi reconciliation and regional
cooperation by holding a conference similar to that which brought peace to Bosnia. We will need regional security negotiations among all of Iraq’s neighbors and discussions of donations from wealthy nations — including oil- rich Muslim countries — to help rebuild Iraq. None of this can happen until we remove the biggest obstacle to diplomacy: the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq.

My plan is realistic because:

It is less risky. Leaving forces behind leaves them vulnerable. Would we need another surge to protect them?

It gets our troops out of the quagmire and strengthens us for our real challenges. It is foolish to think that 20,000 to 75,000 troops could bring peace to Iraq when 160,000 have not. We need to get our troops out of the crossfire in Iraq so that we can defeat the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11.

By hastening the peace process, the likelihood of prolonged bloodshed is reduced. President Richard Nixon withdrew U.S. forces slowly from Vietnam — with disastrous consequences. Over the seven years it took to get our troops out, 21,000 more Americans and perhaps a million Vietnamese, most of them
civilians, died. All this death and destruction accomplished nothing — the communists took over as soon as we left.

My position has been clear since I entered this race: Remove all the troops and launch energetic diplomatic efforts in Iraq and internationally to bring stability. If Congress fails to end this war, I will remove all troops without delay, and without hesitation, beginning on my first day in office.

Let’s stop pretending that all Democratic plans are similar. The American people deserve precise answers from anyone who would be commander in chief. How many troops would you leave in Iraq? For how long? To do what, exactly? And the media should be asking these questions of the candidates, rather than allowing them to continue saying, “We are against the war . . . but please don’t read the small print.”

Monster storms have nothing on scantily clad women.

I’m trapped in the Minneapolis St. Paul Airport because we’re under a tornado warning. Apparently, someone has seen a tornado moving very close by, and we have just been ordered away from all windows and doors. The airport emergency plan has been activated

Nonetheless, across the hall from me, at the Northshore News stand, a man has just bought an issue of Maxim magazine, which this month features a woman named Erica Durance wearing an outfit made out of black, translucent material.

T&A beats a twister. Smackdown.

GOP members of the United States Senate left the Senate chamber in a near stampede yesterday, when Senator Larry Craig returned to caucus with them. “Call my wife and let her know I didn’t let him touch me,” one GOP senator was overheard to say into his cell phone.

“It is outrageous,” said another Republican senator to PNN news service, “that Harry Reid refused to allow us to hold a vote on whether to take a special emergency cootie recess. The American people deserve an up or down vote on immoral sexuality in the Senate. Up or down!”

Mitt Romney’s campaign issues a press release explaining that, in protest of the return of Romney’s former ally to the Senate, the Romney for President campaign would refuse to even mention the word “Senate” for as long as Craig was in the Senate.

“Are the shades of Pemberley to be thus polluted?” asked Romney’s campaign manager.