I was talking with an old friend, just passing the time of day, and he asked me if I knew what had happened in the area around Chernobyl.

"No." I said, "But let me guess. It's a lush, green, paradise for wildlife."

"Ahhh, you've heard about it before."

"Nope. Just a lucky guess."

But since we actually, you know, atom-bombed Bikini and Eniwetok (boy, did we ever) and wildlife has successfully staged a comeback there (tourism too!), I had to figure a powerplant disaster would be at least as manageable.

Besides, we had just been talking about Petr Beckmann, an irascible pro-nuclear professor of engineering from, of all places, the University of Colorado at Boulder. Context is key.

Getting back to Chernobyl, Texas Tech has been sending expeditions into the exclusion zone surrounding the power plant and one of their researchers had this to say...

During recent visits to Chernobyl, we experienced numerous sightings of moose, roe deer, Russian wild boar, foxes, river otter, and rabbits within the 10-km exclusion zone. We observed none of those taxa except for a single rabbit outside the 30-km zone, although the time and extent of search in each region is comparable. The top carnivores, wolves and eagles, as well as the endangered black stork are more abundant in the 30-km zone than outside the area. Trapping of small rodents in the most radioactive area within the 10-km zone has yielded greater success rates than in uncontaminated areas. Diversity of flowers and other plants in the highly radioactive regions is impressive and equals that observed in protected habitats outside the zone.

In reality, radioactivity at the level associated with the Chernobyl meltdown does have discernible, negative impacts on plant and animal life. However, the benefit of excluding humans from this highly contaminated ecosystem appears to outweigh significantly any negative cost associated with Chornobyl radiation.

He's not kidding about those negative impacts. Check out these photos of the "Red Forest". But I practically cut my teeth on "after the bomb" horror novels. Where are all the mutants?

Clearly, our data document a vibrant ecosystem in the most radioactive areas at Chornobyl that in many ways is what we expect from a park dedicated to conservation. Less well documented are possible costs to the species living in this highly radioactive environment. Some of the small mammals living in this environment are experiencing doses from internally deposited 137cesium and 90strontium in excess of 10 rads/d and an external dose at least half that high...

...it cannot be said that radiation is good for wildlife. Instead, the elimination of human activities such as farming, ranching, hunting and logging are the greatest benefit, and it can be said that the world's worst nuclear power plant disaster is not as destructive to wildlife populations as are normal human activities.

Even where the levels of radiation are highest, wildlife abounds. In the summertime, beautiful fields of colorful flowers mask the underlying radiation that can be detected with sophisticated Geiger counters. Scientific findings on the effects of living in the environment have been mixed, but most studies suggest that even the extraordinary amounts released by the Chernobyl accident do not negatively affect the abundance and health of native wildlife. There are no monsters at Chernobyl!

These conclusions are in agreement with extensive studies on the survivors of Hiroshima/Nagasaki that did not document an elevated mutation rate in their children. Forty years post exposure, Hiroshima/Nagasaki survivors may have a slight elevation in some types of cancer. However, this increase is hundreds of times lower than the typical effects of cigarette smoking.

Make no mistake about it; too much radiation over a short time kills people, animals and plants. But too much heat or water also can kill. People die in house fires and drown in lakes...Studies show that mice exposed to a small chronic dose of radiation live longer than mice that were not exposed. This effect is referred to as hormesis.

Now, that is really interesting. Some of you may remember that story out of Taiwan last year, about the irradiated apartment dwellers?

In Taipai and other areas of Taiwan, 1700 apartment units were built using steel contaminated with Cobalt-60, exposing 10,000 occupants for 16 years to an average, according to preliminary estimates, of 4.8 rem in the first year and 33 rem in total. From national Taiwan statistics, 173 cancers and 4.5 leukemias would be expected from natural sources, and according to linear-no threshold theory, there should have been 30 additional leukemias. However a total of only five cancers and one leukemia have occurred among these people.

To be sure, there were a few jaundiced eyes in the house.

"There are several flaws in the Taiwan study," said Peter Burns, director of environmental and radiation health.[For the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency.]

"A proper epidemiological study would compare the exposed population to a similar population, not the Taiwan average, as cancer rates can vary markedly in any society," Dr Burns said.

Further, "because the exposure has only recently stopped, cancer rates would be expected to increase over the next 20 to 30 years, so that a long-term follow-up is required to be sure that the rates have not increased."

Killjoy.

I wouldn't discount his side of the argument automatically, but there have been some thought provoking findings trickling in from elsewhere.

In 1957, there was an explosion in an incredibly mismanaged radioactive waste storage facility at the U.S.S.R. Mayak nuclear weapons complex in the Eastern Urals of Siberia, causing large radiation exposures to people in nearby villages. A follow-up on 7852 of these villagers found that the rate of subsequent cancer mortality was much lower among these than among unexposed villagers.

A $10 million study was conducted of shipyard workers involved in servicing U.S. Navy nuclear-propelled ships, comparing those who were and were not occupationally exposed to radiation; the former group had exposures above 0.5cSv (0.5 rem) and average exposures of 5 cSv, while the latter group had exposures below 0.5 cSv. The cancer mortality rate for the exposed was only 85% of that for the unexposed, a difference of more than 4 standard deviations.

Stimulation of the immune system by low level radiation is being used on an experimental basis for medical treatment of non-Hodgkins lymphoma with total body and half body irradiation. This radiation was administered to one group of patients...but not to an otherwise similar “control” group, before both groups were given similar other standard treatments... In one such study, after 9 years, 50% of the control group, but only 16% of the irradiated group had died. In a 25 year old study with different standard treatment, 4-year survival was 70% for the irradiated group versus 40% for the controls. In another study in that time period with a more advanced chemotherapy, 4-year survival was 74% for the irradiated group versus 52% for the control group.

Several studies have reported that workers who inhaled plutonium, resulting in sizable radiation exposures to their lungs, have lower lung cancer mortality rates than those not so-exposed. Contrary to media-generated impressions, there is no record of cancer deaths resulting from human exposure to plutonium.

So, I guess we can conclude (tentatively) that radiation, while still horrible and damaging above a certain threshold, might not be as bad as we thought. Go enjoy an X-ray, every day. Puts me in mind of "The Road to Wellville".

I'm all for innovative medicine. But not as an early adopter. Looking back to the dawn of radiation therapy we find the sad case of...

...Eben Byers, a millionaire steel tycoon, strapping sportsman and U.S. amateur golf champion whose physician urged him to take Radithor. Byers was so convinced it gave him "zip" that he often drank a few of the 2.2-ounce bottles daily.

He consumed close to 1,400 bottles at $1.00 each between 1928 and 1930 before dying in 1932 of radium poisoning at the age of 51. By then he had not only lost his zip but most of his teeth from bone decay, his body was covered with abscesses and he weighed 92 pounds. The Wall Street Journal's headline "The Radium Water Worked Fine Until His Jaw Came Off" was essentially the death knell for such radium products.

What, no volunteers? At least try the Fiesta Ware!

It's party time! (Which party, you ask?)

The folks above are celebrating the introduction of a new bill called the Boxer Clinton "Count Every Vote Act of 2005." You can read the full text here.

I've read enough to not especially like it. Among other things, the bill would:

There's much more -- and the language is replete with identity politics jargon.

Sounds to me as if one of the sponsors is planning to run for president, and needs every vote she can get.

Personally, I don't like the idea of Election Day as a holiday, or of allowing anyone to run in at any time, early, late, whenever, without proof of anything. The whole thing reeks of sentimentalized corruption, political partisanship, and above all, dumbing down the vote.

While I dislike followers (who tend to be the dumber elements of both parties) the Democrats seem particularly beholden to enshrining and catering to voter stupidity. I think this act is another attempt to make it easier for the smarter people to tell the dumber multitudes how to vote -- along the lines of turning Election Day into a giant MSM, Make Every Vote Count, propaganda extravaganza.

It might backfire, I guess. As John Leo (via InstaPundit) put it recently,

We are seeing the bitterness of elites who wish to lead, confronted by multitudes who do not wish to follow.

The snow is coming down fast and furious; already there's a four inch accumulation.

The new puppy, Coco, likes the snow more than Puff does.

She was taking flying leaps in the snow, but the digital camera's delay feature makes them tough to catch.

As you can see, it's snowing hard enough that wet spots on the lens are visible. I really didn't want to haul the camera out in the snow, but I realized that if I didn't capture the moment, there's be no photos of her as a puppy in the snow. It's late in the snow season this year, and next winter she won't be a puppy.

(Of course now that I've said that, it'll probably snow through March, and into April!)

I am really tired, as I just got back from a long drive to southern Virginia to pick up the latest addition to the family.

Her name is "Coco" (same as Puff's grandmom), and she and Puff hit it off immediately. Here they are, meeting for the the first time:

They slept together in the car for about eight hours, so I think they're quite compatible. What with housebreaking and the rest of it, Coco ought to keep things lively around here for the next several months.

BTW, I checked out her pedigree pretty carefully. She's a real princess. (Descended from royalty, of course.)

Finally I have finished the temporary repair of my car's damned driver's seat! The mechanism was damaged in the rear end collision and the seat was loose and sliding back and forth, without any way to adjust it or stop it from moving. I had tried wedging a propane tank behind the seat, but it still lurched back and forth when driving. The problem was that the electric motor controlling the seat was broken, and the accident broke loose the frozen position in which the seat had been before the accident. It served me fine for three years without the motor working, because it was in the right position for me. But no one can drive sitting on a sliding seat!

So I took the seat out and began the dissection. It turned out that one of the curved magnets surrounding the armature had broken into small pieces, which shorted out the entire motor, then froze the commutator solid. When I removed the motor, pieces of broken magnet were everywhere, and it had that characteristic burnt electrical smell, which probably means the armature is fried as well.

I called the dealer, and I was told the price of a new motor is $425.00!

That's highway robbery, and in any case I am not about to pour my own money into fixing something which wasn't broken because of any fault of my own, so I started to wonder how on earth I might perform a temporary repair. I noticed that the armature is integral to the shaft of the whole mechanism, and is slotted at each end. When it rotates, it turns two long screw shafts which move the brackets which hold the seat above. So, I removed the cover, then using a hammer and a screwdriver, pounded out the armature from the motor housing, then carefully loosened the long screw shafts and hooked up each end of the armature shaft, so that the armature alone occupies the same position as did the motor. Then I put everything back together and reinstalled the seat.

Here's how it looks under there:

It's fine for a temporary repair, except it would take a very coordinated person about a half an hour to change the seat position.

(Not the world's most comfy "armature" -- but it's a lot better than slipping and sliding.)

Ace Pryhill must be psychic. Because, when she linked to this post I don't see how she could have known that what she's worried about facing with Uno is what I'm worrying about right now with Puff. He's 15 (very old for a large dog) has cancer, is disabled from advanced arthritis, and has outlived all his ancestors by three years.

Ace provides this audio link: Robin Young's moving tribute to "Moe" -- a 19 year old Chihuahua:

They should come with a warning label.

How will I know when the time is right?

But the time hasn't yet come for Puff. Many owners of a dog in Puff's situation would have put him down by now, for his back legs have given out from the arthritis and advanced hip disease. (The cancer which he has may also be involved.) He's forced to drag his nearly useless back legs behind him, but his front legs and chest muscles are still quite strong. It hurts me more to watch him drag himself around than it seems to hurt him. Here he is, struggling through the snow:

(Ironically, the snow, which he has never liked, gives his back legs some support so that he doesn't fall over as easily as when navigating hard ground.)

On Tuesday the vet told me that he's not facing anything immediately life threatening, but they can't do much for the legs except give pain meds. But Puff's enthusiasm is amazing, and I want to help. So I have decided to order a dog wheelchair, and let him try it out. There are a number of places selling them, but Laurie at Dogs To Go has been most helpful, and they're designing and building it for what I consider a very modest price. Not only that, they're shipping it with an invoice which I don't have to pay unless I like it!

It hasn't arrived yet, but when it does, I am sure Puff will consent to my doing wheelchair dog blogging.

Meanwhile, we are working on a new addition to the family in the form of a puppy to keep Puff company in what will most likely be his last few months. This will ease his pain -- and mine. I don't want to find myself in the position of Ace's co-worker --

who put her beagle BJ down over 2 years ago and she still can't bring herself to adopt a new friend.

As most readers know, I have no rules here applying to comments, which I only delete if they are spam, or use too much foul or clearly abusive language. That does not mean that I have to read, much less answer, comments. You can say pretty much anything you want, and if you want you can even put words in my mouth, argue with the words you've placed in my mouth, and declare victory. I don't have to reply, and usually I won't bother, because I'm not blogging for comments. Still, I do reserve the right to reply if I really feel like it, and occasionally, I'll get a gem, as I did today.

Thanks to today's comment, it's at last been officially confirmed that I am financed by the evil Republicans:

I stand by my implication that you may be financed by the Republicans. Your refusal to adhere to the "Classical Values" to which you
allude doesn't prove my implication, but it does raise serious questions about your motives. Also, if the Republicans supported Ralph "Lenin Lite" Nader, they would have no problems supporting any other pretender who happened to suit their interests.

But this puts me in a quandary. While I've already admitted that the Republicans are financing this blog -- by paying me a dollar a hit (plus ten dollars for every angry leftist comment), now on top of that there's the issue of adhesion. I can't very well accuse Mr. Raging Bee of refusing to adhere to "Classical Values," can I?

Then there's the issue of names:

And you're still using "Jeff Gannon's" name when you quote this clearly unreliable source. How much more transparent can you get?

1. allowing anyone to enter a highly sensitive and secure location using a fake name, thus bypassing long-standing security procedures while screaming about security and terrorist threats; and

2. giving such latitude to a person with a gay porn past while openly pandering to anti-gay bigotry.

I really think this whole Gannon flap is a lot of hot air. Nothinggate.

Those who think it's a real "scandal" ought to think again. Especially about hypocrisy.

ADDITIONAL THOUGHT: One last thing: I didn't imply that there's an anti-gay witch hunt. I have stated clearly that I think there is one. Because it's directed against non-leftist gays who dare to speak up, it might not appear to be directed against all gays. But the identity politics doctrine behind it -- that if you are a homosexual you must be a socialist or a Democrat -- would relegate gay people as a whole to the status of sheep instead of free citizens able to make up their own minds. Isn't that as degrading as any other anti-gay stereotype?

UPDATE: Via InstaPundit, I enjoyed Andrew Sullivan's take

"The real scandal is the blatant use of homophobic rhetoric by the self-appointed Savonarolas of homo-left-wingery. It's an Animal Farm moment: the difference between a fanatic on the gay left and a fanatic on the religious right is harder and harder to discern."

Lord only knows that the English Language, in all its magisterial glory, can be a stone bitch to deal with, but I have completely lost sympathy with its too abundant victims.

How many times in the last year have I seen someone "pouring" over difficult subject material? Too damn many. The root word is "pore", so when you study hard, you are "poring". How hard can it be?

Another tooth-gnasher, trying to "reign in" an unwanted trend or activity. I've seen it in freaking Newsweek, folks. THIS is journalistic accreditation in action? It should be "reining in", as with cowboys and their horsies.

Drifting around the net, I've seen "taking hold of the reigns of power", "reins of terror", and "her reining majesty".

Grrrr. That last sounds like a B&D club.

Worst of the lot, in my book, is the loss of the distinction between "jibe" and "jive".

One detective might say to another, "The facts just don't jibe, Joe." and he would be perfectly correct to do so. What he wouldn't say is "Y'know Friday, this whole thing just doesn't jive".

You want jive? Think Barbara Billingsley translating in "Airplane". "I speak Jive."

"Sheee-it!" equals "Golly!", remember?

Or, more technically: Jive

NOUN: Jazz or swing music.
The jargon of jazz musicians and enthusiasts.

Slang: Deceptive, nonsensical, or glib talk: "the sexist, locker-room jive of men boasting and bonding".

VERB: jived , jiv·ing , jives

VERB:To play or dance to jive music.

Slang:To talk nonsense; to kid.
To talk or chat: "You just jive in one big group, putting each other on, trying to top the last line".

VERB: Slang

To cajole or mislead.

ADJECTIVE:Slang

Misleading; phony.

It's got absolutely nothing to do with "jibe". They just sound alike. Kind of.

It's rather like confusing "cache" and "cachet".

With all this snow, California's balmy 65 degree Februarys are looking pretty good.

I have found that one of the least popular topics here on the East Coast is, well, hatred of the East Coast! Not that there aren't many things to love about the East Coast, but when you're transplanted from California and it snows, and you can't go anywhere without bundling up and shoveling out your driveway (and forget about running!), well, California just looks pretty darned good. But for a variety of reasons, East Coasters don't take kindly to Californians kvetching about the East Coast. (Not that I blame them; no one likes to hear their geographical and cultural surroundings put down, so I try to avoid doing that and besides, why whine and complain when you can just leave?)

Of course, as a sounding board I do have Puff, who was born and grew up in California. Right now I think he's wondering whether his master is in full possession of his mental faculties. But he's being patient.

Misery loves company -- and Puff and I are both pretty good at commiseration.

Assorted NeoMcCarthyites are trying to turn the Gannon non-affair into a proper anti-gay witch hunt, and it's getting downright comical. The worst aspect of this so-called scandal is that it's caused one of my favorite commenters to speculate that I'm dishonest enough to be on the Republican payroll! (I better watch out; next they'll audit my DNA to see whether any of it can be traced to Gannon.... My lips are sealed,er, zipped er, you know what I mean!)

Ahem.

Various theories have been proposed.

It's been suggested that the White House needs a major background crackdown. (Presumably directed against evil homocons.)

On the other hand the affair has been called a big yawn, and even a nothinggate.

Meanwhile, Jeff Goldstein has been searching tirelessy for signs of hypocrisy. (Obviously, if the White House isn't discriminating against the homos, they're total hypocrites.)

It's deadly serious, folks, and I still blame Deep Throat!

UPDATE: Ann Coulter is now defending gays against witch hunts! (Via Jeff Gannon.)

MORE: Tim Graham observes that softball questions at the White House are nothing new.

On top of this irritating snowstorm, my car was hit -- hard -- today in a very irritating rear end collision. And there's a utilitarian moral (hmmmm.....) to the story which I don't especially like.

After running a few errands in a local shopping center, I was on my way home approaching a fairly major T-intersection at which I intended to turn left. I got in the left hand lane, following the car in front of me, which was going pretty fast. So fast, in fact, that the driver entered the intersection after the light had already turned red. I decided not to push my luck with an already red light, so I stopped (no, I wasn't speeding and I didn't come to a screeching stop). Almost immediately I was rearended by a large van (of the size normally used to transport airport commuters). This bent and crunched my bumper and left rear quarter panel, screwed up the trunk latch mechanism so it binds when I open and close the trunk, and derailed the driver's seat mechanism so the seat slides back and forth and won't stay in place.

All because I was a good boy and didn't run the red light! Had I been a bad boy and ran the red light, I'm sure I would have made it through, and I wouldn't be facing the bureaucratic hassle I do now. (I don't want to be driving around getting estimates, and then arguing over how much my nine year old car is worth. Plus my damned back is sore, and the last thing I want is to go to a doctor or chiropractor!)

So what's the unpleasant utilitarian moral lesson?

I'm wondering if sometimes it's better to just do the wrong thing. . .

If you missed Charlie Rose the other day you missed Reynolds, Sullivan, Trippi, and Wonkette. Here are one man's impressions of the TV smash hit.

That man would be Dave at Logical Meme, who not so long ago rounded up a "Call For Papers" that had me in stitches.

It was a choice between laughter and wretched sobbing. Here are a few choice cuts from the tenderest part of the beast...

CFP: The Fetishists, Masochists, and Other Sexual Dissidents of Romanticism - Proposals are now being accepted for the thirteenth annual conference of the North American Society for the Study of Romanticism, "Deviance and Defiance," to be held in Montreal, Canada, 13-17 August 2005. Special session: "The Fetishists, Masochists, and Other Sexual Dissidents of Romanticism". Papers are solicited that would broaden the notion, beyond adultery and onanism, of what was considered transgressive sexual behavior: possibilities include doll fetishism, hypnoticism and s/m, incestuous pleasures, and cross-dressing erotic encounters. In this post-Sadean but pre-Masochian era, what would or would not have been counted as sexual perversion in the public, medical, or legal eye? How do matters of sexual unorthodoxy inform notions of privacy and personal subjectivity? In what contexts were private vices regarded as socially subversive?

Deviance and Defiance....

Next!

CFP: Dangerous Looks and Visual Pleasure: African American Writers and Filmmakers and The Gaze - This call for papers is for a proposal panel to be held at (dis)junctions: theory reloaded at the University of California Riverside’s 12th Annual Humanities Graduate Conference on April 8-9, 2005. The gaze, writes bell hooks, provides “spaces of agency for Black people, wherein [they] can both interrogate the gaze of the Other but also look back, and at one another, naming what [they] see. The ‘gaze’ has been and is a site of resistance for colonized Black people globally.” This panel will seek to explore the diverse ways that the gaze has been depicted by African American writers and filmmakers. The dichotomy of voyeur and exhibitionist will be called into question, as well as the resulting power dynamics that these looking relations entail and cultivate...

That one was so good it's worth another bite...

An analysis of gazes shared between women. Queer gazes, gazes in queer spaces. The gaze as a tool of racial coding. The ways in which racial passing or female asquerade complicate looking relations. Performativity of race, gender, and class and its relation to the gaze.

Moving on (but reluctantly!) we find this fulgurant gem...

CFP: Utopian Gender Space Special Session (2/15/05; SCMLA, 10/27/05-10/29/05) - It's Always Greener: Utopian Gender Space - This session invites papers that explore the geography of gender in/equality and its socio-spatial implications, particularly in utopian literature.

"particularly in utopian literature..."

This transcends self-parody and scrapes the tender palate of raw genius.
Read as much as you can stand. Good luck!

I must away, posthaste. My eyes are bleeding.

John Weidner at Random Jottings has put up a new banner photograph, and it's a beauty. I also like his new countertops. Soapstone, eh? That view from the Golden Gate bridge reminds me of all the good things San Francisco has to offer.

Excepting Ken Layne and the thousands like him, expats from the area seem to miss it rather keenly.

Big Chief Mouse in Hand says that he is too a real Indian.

Those white devil reporters were speaking with...oh, never mind.

Big War Bonnet tip to LGF.

I found a canine version of the Ten Commandments, which I thought I'd share.

1. My life is likely to last 10 to 15 years. Any separation from you will be very painful.

2. Give me time to understand what you want of me.

3. Place your trust in me-it is crucial for my well-being.

4. Don't be angry with me for long, and don't lock me up as punishment. You have your work, your friends, your entertainment. I HAVE ONLY YOU!

5. Talk to me. Even if I don't understand your words, I understand your voice when it's speaking to me.

6. Be aware that however you treat me, I'll NEVER forget it.

7. Before you hit me, remember that I have teeth that could easily crush the bones in your hand, but I choose not to bite you.

8. Before you scold me for being me for being lazy or uncooperative, ask yourself if something might be bothering me. Perhaps I'm not getting the right food, I've been out in the sun too long, or my heart may be getting old and weak.

9. Take care of me when I get old. You , too, will grow old.

10. Go with me on difficult journeys. Never say, " I can't bear to watch it" or, "Let it happen in my absence." Everything is easier for ME if you are there.

From Back Bay Kennels.

Well, I am certainly glad to see (via InstaPundit) that Ward Churchill has finally admitted he's not Indian. He says it doesn't matter:

Churchill did address the issue of his ethnicity, admitting that he is not Native American.

"Is he an Indian? Do we really care?" he said, quoting those he called his "white Republican" critics.

"Let's cut to the chase; I am not," he said.

His pedigree is "not important," Churchill said: "The issue is the substance of what is said."

How refreshing!

I'd still like to know about Churchill's claim of military service -- if that still matters. (As Matt Duffy points out, some people still care about false military service claims.)

A primary reason I blog is to oppose people who want to run our lives for us. Liberal activists, the MSM, and some of the louder, shriller (do I hear "triumphant"?) religious conservatives I count as among those who want to run our lives. A principle difference between the MSM, though, and religious conservatives, is that the latter need to win in order to run anything.

So I found it depressing to see (via Glenn Reynolds) apparent confirmation of one of my depressing theories -- that religious conservatives (especially the type I've criticized for wanting the Republican Party to lose) not only think they're running the Republican Party, but feel justified in hurling insults at libertarians.

....triumphalism permeated the proceedings. The Republicans, having just held the presidency and consolidated power in Congress, are perhaps entitled to some gloating. But out-and-out arrogance was the order of the conference, as well, and that is what threatens to undo Republican gains in the long term.

Arrogance toward Democrats isn't the problem -- though that was everywhere, from Ann Coulter's conservative stand-up routine (kind of a Republican version of "You might be a redneck if…" delivered to wildly cheering fans) to the popular t-shirt slogan, "What blue states? I only see red?"

No, the arrogance that will prove problematic, ultimately, was that directed at the libertarian-leaning conservatives by the social conservatives.

They're forgetting that in a democracy, they need to win. They need to build and maintain coalitions. Such coalitions are anathema to the people who opposed Arnold Schwarzenegger, and I think they'd rather lose than see people like him win. The sort of coalition proposed by QandO would help avert this impending loss:

...."socially tolerant, fiscally conservative" moderates as Schwarzenegger, and Rudy Giuliani may prove unbeatable on the national stage. If we want to remain a voice within the GOP, I suspect we'll need to hitch our wagon to their coalition, while we still have some political capital. Such a coalition will require uncomfortable compromises, but I really don't see any other possible alliances.

I couldn't agree more with Glenn Reynolds' statement:

I think that a shift toward religious conservatism is likely to cost the Republicans votes.

There are signs it's getting ugly, and mutually so. As Bill at INDC Journal puts it:

I would advise all of my respected socially conservative friends and fellow bloggers to take note: a lurch towards sane national defense and fiscal policy by a charismatic Dem or three (it could happen), coupled with one too many sneering "RINO" jokes from you hard righties, and this moderate - and many like me - are gone. One day we'll simply snap, our better judgment overwhelmed by a wacky sense of humor and stewing anger, and you'll wake up to a nightmarish world where the senior senator from Mass rides into the sunset as SecState and Billary is floating doomed socialized medicine schemes out of the Oval again.

In this way, demoralized libertarian Republicans will help the other party even if they still vote Republican. Voter psychology works that way. The American people are centrist and tend towards libertarian conservatism. (Note that more than one-third of Bush voters favored legal abortion in one form or another.) But if they think the Republican Party has been taken over by shrill Alan Keyes types, they'll simply decide they've had enough of them for awhile, and they'll vote Democrat.

Demoralized libertarian Republicans are therefore worse for the Republican Party than are demoralized religious conservatives. Assuming demoralized religious conservatives don't sit the election out, they make the Republican Party look more reasonable and centrist with their sulking and griping. Libertarian sulking and griping, on the other hand, makes the party look far worse in the eyes of the voters.

Now, while I admit my bias as a small "l" libertarian, I think this boils down not to what I want, but simple arithmetic. Almost math.

And my math tells me that pissed off libertarians hurt the Republican cause much more than pissed off religious conservatives.

How much does it really cost not to insult people, anyway?

I've been busy all morning with no time for posting.

But the 127th Carnival of the Vanities has now been posted by PunditGuy, who does an excellent job with many posts on a wide variety of subjects.

So go read it!

"You ever meet Christians? You wish you could shove a pipe in their mouth. Anything to shut them up."

-- Dr. Gene Scott

I just learned that my favorite eccentric televangelist has died:

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Gene Scott, the shaggy-haired, cigar-smoking televangelist whose eccentric religious broadcasts were beamed around the world, has died, a family spokesman said. He was 75.

Scott died Monday after suffering a stroke, said the spokesman, Robert Emmers.

The longtime pastor of Los Angeles University Cathedral began hosting a nightly television broadcast of Bible teaching in the mid-1970s. His University Network eventually aired a nightly talk show and Sunday morning church services on radio and television stations in about 180 countries.

Scott's church, a Protestant congregation of more than 15,000 members, raised millions of dollars through round-the-clock Internet and satellite TV broadcasts, where he would demand of viewers: ``Get on the telephone!'' to donate.

In some of his speeches, Scott would deliver complex lectures on Biblical languages to make points about the meaning of faith. But he also spoke on current events, sometimes lacing his sermons with profanity.

He supported the war in Iraq. ``Iraq is a threat to the world,'' he said in a 2003 speech posted on his Web site. ``So kick the hell out of 'em, George.''

Recognizable by his mane of white hair and scruffy beard, Scott never stuck to a conventional format in his talk show. He sometimes smoked on the show and once wore glasses with eyes pasted on them.

Unlike other televangelists, Scott's sermons did not condemn homosexuality, abortion or other hot-topic sexual issues. He argued such issues were a personal choice.

"I don't ask you to change when you come here," he instructs the congregation. "I take you as you are, as God takes me as I am."

Ever since I read Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas when it was published in excerpts in Rolling Stone magazine, I've always enoyed Hunter S. Thompson's stuff. I was sorry to see him go, and I especially wish he hadn't shot himself, because already his death is being spun as another indictment of evil guns.

And Thompson is being spun as a liberal icon.

Never mind that the guy hated iconology, resented the Trudeau cartoon of him, and above all, wasn't easy to pigeonhole. They'll pigeonhole him anyway.

This morning I saw a perfect example (by sports columnist Phil Sheridan) which got me off my ass enough to at least crank out a blog post. Excerpt:

But his best work was decades behind him. That may have something to do with Thompson's decision to take his own life at age 67. Maybe it was just inevitable, given his famous love of both guns and mind-altering substances.

And then there is this possibility: Thompson has named Ernest Hemingway as one of his own idols. Hemingway also started in newspapers, also wrote about sports. Hemingway also created a persona that became bigger and more well-known than his actual work. Hemingway also got to his 60s, his best work behind him, before shooting himself.

Just a thought.

Between his early, long-forgotten sports writing and his recent Web column, Thompson wrote about America. He liked to talk about the dark side of the American dream, and his work often was angered or disgusted by political corruption or hypocritical enforcement of drug laws. But the anger and disgust were fueled by more than ether, bourbon and amphetamines.

They were fueled by a belief in the American promise.

For those of us who believed along with him, who found the trail he blazed grown over and abandoned, there is some consolation.

Like most true originals, Thompson was a product of his time and place. There is no chance the celeb-obsessed Rolling Stone magazine of 2005 would have published the troubled and troubling work Thompson turned in back in the early '70s.

Imagine his coverage of the 1972 presidential campaign being dissected by faceless gotcha-bloggers.

And instead of dissection, why not stick to reporting? Instead of imagining Hunter Thompson's coverage of the 1972 presidential campaign being "dissected by faceless gotcha-bloggers," let's try to imagine something else.

Like, let's imagine Hunter Thompson's thoughts about Bill Clinton even being reported (much less "dissected") by at least one MSM reporter! I've seen plenty of references to what the man said about Nixon, and I have to admit, Thompson was quite adept at spotting the human dark side. It's what I like about him, for God's sake. And I don't have to agree with him to like his writing, not do I need to dissect. For starters, I have too much respect for the deceased.

So here's the unreported, undissected Hunter Thompson on Bill Clinton:

...one of my greatest tactical errors in politics... I don't want to go down in history or have my son read that his father endorsed Clinton two times.

I had no idea what a treacherous bastard he really is. I'm shocked he went so low. You'd think after grappling with Richard Nixon that you would know where the low road is, ... but Clinton's treachery is really sleazy. It's his character defects. I think Clinton will prove to be one of the great fascists of our time.

NOTE TO JOURNALISTS: do not dissect the above!

Thompson's words must be left exactly as-is!

But speaking of dissection.... in light of the recent hubbub over the precise definition of "journalist," might it be worth asking whether Thompson would have survived journalistic dissection? I refer, of course, to that very pompous term I've seen tossed about by MSM journalists lately -- "credentials":

Thompson abilities as a writer and, more importantly, as a ruthless con man were evident early in his life. He was born July 18, 1937 in Louisville, Kentucky. As a youth, he had several run-ins with the law but was regarded as brilliant by his high school English teacher. Even then he wrote in a sardonic style and constantly attacked the status quo.

After graduating (which he did while in a jail cell, serving a six-week sentence for robbery while the rest of his fellow graduates were receiving their diplomas), Thompson enlisted in the Air Force and graduated from Scott Air Force Base in Belleville, Illinois. In 1956, he was assigned to Eglin Air Proving Ground in Pensacola, Florida. Eglin was where he first began in the field of journalism.

When he arrived, he discovered that the base's newspaper, the Command Courier, was looking for a sports editor. Since he didn't really fit in with armed forces "lifestyle", Thompson conned his way into the position by claiming to have a journalistic background. As Thompson wrote at the time, "The people who hired me didn't bother to check too closely on my journalistic background ... I've managed to keep them in safe ignorance for about a month now."

And those who complain about his imaginary dissection at the hands of bloggers should remember that we're all part of the same anatomy lesson . . .

ADDITIONAL NOTE: While you're at it, I suggest reading Jeff Soyer's thoughts on Hunter Thompson's death. And via Glenn Reynolds, be sure to read Tim Blair's tribute. And, of course, James Lileks.

My dark side will really miss Hunter Thompson. Come to think of it, so will my light side....

I should have posted these last month, but when I went to California I left behind my camera's CompactFlash memory, so only just now have I stumbled across some previously unpublished photos of what can only be called neoclassical archaeological masterpieces. The following pictures were all taken at a excellent Italian restaurant Dennis discovered. Because of its decor as well as its food, I think it should be made the official Classical Values Restaurant.

First, some amazing murals actually painted inside the men's room.

Here's Mural One:

And from the opposite men's room wall, Mural Two:

And, by the front doorway, a bust of an unidentified (and somewhat stylized) Caesar directs his gaze at those who are about to eat, as well as those who have eaten and are about to leave:

Et tu much, Brute?

I'm glad to see the issue of takings of private property for private use is finally before the U.S. Supreme Court:

In New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere around the country, public officials are increasingly moving to seize property through eminent domain. The idea is to let private developers bulldoze the property and erect upscale condos, offices and shops in hopes of infusing new life into a vacant shopping center, a neighborhood or an entire town.

Whether that's a good thing depends on whom you ask.

Tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court will wade into the debate by hearing arguments in a Connecticut case that could result in one of the most significant property-rights decisions in recent history.

It is unclear how, or whether, the decision will affect hundreds of proposed redevelopment projects in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

But public officials and property owners from the Jersey Shore to the Main Line and beyond are watching closely because the court is likely to address a crucial question: Under what circumstances should local government have the authority to take private property and give it to a private developer?

Property owners in this region have sharply divided opinions.

Private property shall not be taken for a public use, without just compensation.

I grew up near the suburban town of Ardmore, Pennsylvania, which has a number of commercial buildings built before and after World War I. I consider them part of Ardmore's charm. They're old, but mostly pretty, and above all, they have character. They're all are occupied with thriving, relatively upscale businesses too.

This, however, has not stopped local bureaucrats from declaring the area "blighted" -- a move towards condemning these older buildings in favor of larger, fat-cat type private developers:

There is one "blighted" urban neighborhood where the sophisticated shopper can still find a decent cappuccino and a $6,000 hand-tailored business suit, all without ever leaving the Main Line.

Downtown Ardmore was declared a "blighted area" under state law on Thursday night by a unanimous vote of the Lower Merion Township Planning Commission. The move put Ardmore in a league with parts of North Philadelphia and Norristown, which critics decried as absurd.

This is the latest twist in the saga of the Ardmore Transit Center Plan, a $140 million project to transform this aging Lancaster Avenue shopping district into an urban village centered on a new R5 train station. It is designed to reverse an exodus of businesses and create pedestrian links to the Suburban Square shopping mall next door.

Officials eschew the word blight as an antiquated legal term, preferring to call these 10 blocks of Ardmore an "area in need of revitalization." Similar areas have been declared in Jenkintown and Norristown, as well as vast swaths of Philadelphia under Mayor Street's Neighborhood Transformation Initiative.

"You really can't avoid the word blight ," said Lower Merion planner Angela Murray. "It's in the law. People associate it with North Philadelphia, but it's actually very broad."

Declaring an area blighted under state urban redevelopment law gives officials a leg up in the competition for state and federal redevelopment money. It also brings increased power to seize private property by eminent domain - precisely what critics fear most.

The township's plan for Ardmore is a package of six projects creating 90,000 square feet of retail space, 150 apartments and 670 parking spaces.

One proposal would demolish 11 buildings in the first block of East Lancaster Avenue to make way for the "Gateway Mixed-Use Development," a $40 million retail complex and parking garage.

Though the downtown is spotted with vacant storefronts, the targeted block has no vacancies. It is home to family-run businesses, such as the Hu-Nan Chinese restaurant and Suburban Office Supply, that have been in Ardmore for as long as 70 years. Merchants and residents blistered the microphone for four hours Thursday night.

Not that my sentimental feelings about the place where I grew up should be controlling. If the private owners of these buildings decide that they'd make more money tearing them down and putting up newer buildings, well, that's their right, and like it or not, it's called progress. But why should the government step in and decide to confiscate an older building and give it to Wal Mart? Why can't the big guys just offer a fair price to the owner?

Constitutional violations aside, something about this process would seem to invite political chicanery, if not outright corruption. Want a good deal on a piece of property? Contribute large sums of money to the right guy's campaign, and it'll be yours for a song!

I hope the Supremes slam-dunk this thing, but there's no way to tell . . .

UPDATE (02/22/05): Eugene Volokh links to a revealing USAToday article on the case:

A ruling in the New London case could have "ramifications for property owners and governments across the country," says Perry, who submitted a "friend of the court" brief for a California-based libertarian group, the Reason Foundation, that sides with Kelo.

New ground for high court

Governments have used eminent domain for private developments in recent years — in New York City's Times Square and at Baltimore's Inner Harbor, for example. But never has the Supreme Court, faced with an appeal from property owners, agreed to resolve the question of whether property can be transferred to private developers to boost tax revenue.

Those backing Kelo include the NAACP and AARP, which say the social harm can outweigh the public benefits when governments take property for private economic development. The groups say government efforts to lure business and spur greater revenue can disproportionately hurt the poor, the elderly and racial minorities.

Those backing New London include the National League of Cities and the National Conference of State Legislatures. They say cities should have wide latitude to take land to boost their economies and that money generated by redevelopment can help public agencies such as police and fire units.

Noting that the Institute for Justice is behind the case (something an omission by USAToday failed to emphasize) Eugene Volokh also links to this more through Knight-Ridder report.

The Institute for Justice (a great organization, BTW) has a lot more here.

Federal crime seems to be going mainstream. Illegal cell phone jammers are selling like hotcakes:

Unsuspecting cellphone users may find themselves saying that more often now that cellphone jammers — illegal gizmos that interfere with signals and cut off reception — are selling like hotcakes on the streets of New York.

"I bought one online, and I love it," said one jammer owner fed up with the din of dumb conversations and rock-and-roll ringtones.

"I use it on the bus all the time. I always zap the idiots who discuss what they want from the Chinese restaurant so that everyone can hear them. Why is that necessary?"

He added, "I can't throw the phones out the window, so this is the next best thing."

Online jammer seller Victor McCormack said he's made "hundreds of sales" to New Yorkers.

"The interest has gone insane in the last few years. I get all sorts of people buying them, from priests to police officers."

I guess if everyone's doing it, it ought not to matter that according to the FCC, it's a federal crime:

The operation of transmitters designed to jam or block wireless communications is a violation of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"). See 47 U.S.C. Sections 301, 302a, 333. The Act prohibits any person from willfully or maliciously interfering with the radio communications of any station licensed or authorized under the Act or operated by the U.S. government. 47 U.S.C. Section 333. The manufacture, importation, sale or offer for sale, including advertising, of devices designed to block or jam wireless transmissions is prohibited. 47 U.S.C. Section 302a(b). Parties in violation of these provisions may be subject to the penalties set out in 47 U.S.C. Sections 501-510. Fines for a first offense can range as high as $11,000 for each violation or imprisonment for up to one year, and the device used may also be seized and forfeited to the U.S. government.

"This is not a crime that they're going after," said Rob Bernstein, deputy editor at New York City-based Sync magazine.

He said jammers are here, and their use is multiplying.

"Right now, there's a growing curiosity about jammers in the United States and New York," Bernstein said. "There's no better way to shut up a loudmouth on the phone, so people definitely want them and are finding ways to get them."

One way is at a spy shop on Third Avenue, which sells medium-sized jammers out of a back room for $1,500. The sales clerk there said he had sold jammers to a 50-year-old man who bought one to use on the Long Island Rail Road, and to restaurateurs.

One local purchaser bought a portable jammer last year, and said he likes using it at Roosevelt Field mall on Long Island.

"One time I followed this guy around for 20 minutes," he said. "I kept zapping him and zapping him, until finally he threw the phone on the floor. I couldn't stop laughing. It was so cool."

Jammers were first developed to help government security forces avert eavesdropping and thwart phone-triggered bombings. But by the late 1990s they were being sold to the public.

There are suspicions that some hotel chains employ jammers to cut down on guests' cellphone use and boost in-room phone charges.

(Personally, I'm not interested in blocking other people's calls, but if you want to get in on the crime wave, you can get a cell phone jammer here.)

UPDATE: The outlet above also sells a portable jammer which looks like a cell phone.

....it's good reporting!

And the latest spin on Jeff Gannon's sins is that he was apparently too good of a reporter -- because his stories (such as his amazing prediction that War In Iraq was about to begin) were always right:

According to my source, Gannon's insider tidbits were always on the mark. "Gannon's stuff was always golden," the producer says. My source says they kept asking themself, "how does this small news outfit get this info?"

How indeed.

From Eurekalert, an observation on May-December conjunctions...

Any older person can attest that aging muscles don't heal like young ones. But it turns out that's not the muscle's fault. A study in the Feb. 17 issue of Nature shows that it's old blood that keeps the muscles down.

The study, led by Thomas Rando, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology and neurological sciences at the Stanford University School of Medicine, built on previous work showing that old muscles have the capacity to repair themselves but fail to do so.

Rando and his group studied specialized cells called satellite cells, the muscle stem cells, that dot muscle tissue. These normally lie dormant but come to the rescue in response to damaged muscle-at least they do in young mice and humans.

In older mice the satellite cells hold the same position, but are deaf to the muscle's cry for help.

In the Nature study, Rando and his group first attached old mice to their younger lab-mates in a way that caused the two mice to share a blood supply. They then induced muscle damage only in the older mice.

Bathed in the presence of younger blood, the old muscles healed normally. In contrast, when old mice were connected to other old mice they healed slowly.

Sounds like something the Soviets would do, hey? Found it at "Futurepundit" via "Fight Aging".

As Randall Parker observes, we may be dealing with a two edged sword here.

There is a potential bright side to this report: If blood could be made young again then possibly cells thoroughout the body in many tissue types would act young again...However, there is a less optimistic interpretation to this result: The body may have evolved to produce stem cell growth suppressor compounds as the body ages in order to suppress cell divisions that could produce cancer cells. So blood that causes old stem cells to grow and repair tissue more vigorously might increase the risk of cancer.

Clearly, we have a long slog ahead of us before we reach the proficiency level of Dr. McCoy's saltshakers.

Less problematically, it turns out that coffee is an agent for good, on more than one level. And I just quit last year.

What next, cigarettes and deep fried fats?

Via Glenn Reynolds, here's a quote I am unable to resist:

some bloggers are just self-important ranters who seem to wake up every morning convinced that the entire Free World awaits their opinions on any subject that's popped into their heads since their last fevered post.

-- David Shaw

Of course, news anchors and mainstream journalists typically have larger audiences than bloggers. The "entire Free World" might not await their opinions, but I think it would naturally tend to be easier for them to become deluded and let it go to their heads than it would for most bloggers. Sure, I don't doubt that there are a few bloggers suffering from delusions of grandeur, but I think your typical daily blogger does things like check his comments, links, and the omnipresent Site Meter. I don't do as good a job as I might, but I am at least aware that if I'm lucky I'll get 1000 hits a day, and from the links and comments I have a fair idea of who might be reading.

And much as I hate to admit it, my audience does not consist of the "entire Free World." Not even a small fraction of it. I'm glad to have the readers I have, and I try to get something posted every day in the hope of keeping all of you interested. I don't know how "fevered" my posts are; often I don't feel like posting at all, but I try to treat blogging as a daily exercise. Like doing pushups or running. I have yet to see any relationship between how I feel and how well the posts are received. Sometimes I think a post is great and no one seems to like it, while other times I'll crank out something almost as an afterthought, and it will strike a nerve.

Were I looking for the daily shot of megalomania Mr. Shaw describes, I'd have probably done better to go to journalism school.

What most fascinates me about Shaw's analysis is the title: "The blog squad can add another notch to its belt."

Seriously, precisely how did bloggers (either individually or as a group) bring down Eason Jordan?

Might it be at least worth considering whether CNN -- certainly no loyal friend of the blogosphere -- might have been delighted to have Jordan resign? What if Jordan wanted to resign anyway? Why did he seem in such a hurry? The tape hadn't even been released, and if it in fact exonerated him, that would heighten my suspicions all the more.

Interestingly enough, Shaw himself expresses puzzlement over why CNN "caved" so quickly:

Although the official word is that Jordan's resignation was voluntary, I have to believe that the top brass at CNN, instead of rejecting his resignation, as they should have done, gave him a not-so-gentle push toward the door to defuse the increasingly nasty controversy.

What I don't understand is why they — and he — caved in so quickly. I wish he'd asked — begged, demanded — that the organizers of the Davos forum release the videotape of his panel. I can only assume that he said what he's accused of saying and that he doesn't want those remarks in the public domain, even if they were followed by his quick backtracking.

UPDATE: Professor Bainbridge thinks the MSM is trying to avoid the need for introspection by shifting blame:

Blaming others for one's misfortunes is always easier than considering whether one's own conduct may have caused them. So I expect the MSM to go right on whining about blogs, even if those of us in the blogosphere really don't have anywhere near the amount of influence we would like to think we possess. (Via Glenn Reynolds.)

So why did Jordan resign, anyway? Because bloggers asked him exactly what he said? Come on!

(I'm beginning to smell an aroma.)

AND MORE: (More CNN monkey business, that is.) In this case, CNN appears to have violated several federal firearms laws.

Via Glenn Reynolds, some of whose readers note that the concerns may be premature.

Gee, maybe some bloggers should ask CNN to explain the underlying facts.

NO! Scratch that idea!

I mean, if someone resigns after bloggers ask questions, it would be the bloggers' fault!

Wouldn't it?

I'm not sure whether this post is about the power of language or the language of power. Maybe it's about the language "infrastructure" itself. (God, another weasel word I hate!)

Anyway, there's an innocuous-sounding word floating around which, because it seems to have taken on emotional (if not quasi-religious) implications, has gained more and more power. It's now reached the point where it's become impossible to ignore.

The word is "watershed." You can now see it appearing on road signs in a variety of places, including the Pennsylvania Turnpike, which lets you know when you're entering and leaving a vast place called the Chesapeake Bay "Watershed":

I do not exaggerate when I say the Chesapeake "watershed" is a vast place. All "watersheds" are vast; in fact, the entire world's land mass consists of nothing but "watersheds":

All land is part of the watershed for some creek, stream, river or lake.

Some watersheds are immense; others are quite small. The Chesapeake Bay watershed is an area of 64,000 square miles and includes parts of six states (Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New York) and the entire District of Columbia.

So, a word government bureaucrats would have us regard with quasi-religious reverence actually means, well, drainage. All land is a watershed. So why dress it up with words?

To soften the public up for more government regulations, perhaps? Take a look at these. A wide variety of land use restrictions are being promoted over a gigantic area, even going so far as to regulate how a homeowner might fertilize his lawn. They're talking about draining, all right. Draining the taxpayers.

Interesting discussion here.

I've read innumerable accounts of bureaucratic regulation of land use based upon claims of the existence of various "wetlands" areas, with the constitutional justification for federal restrictions based on Maritime jurisdiction -- the theory being that "wetlands" (even ordinary swamps), constitute a "federally protected waterway."

I'm afraid even to research whether such jurisdiction might be extended from "wetlands" to "watersheds." This EPA-proffered definition is probably typical:

A navigable waterway is typically part of a broader aquatic ecosystem which includes tributaries to that waterway, a groundwater system, adjacent wetlands, and other waters within the watershed that affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the larger system.

At the expense of almost everyone?

I think such words suck -- especially when they try to take over the world.

While on the road I received an email update from HarkonnenDog about gay penguins. It seems their homosexuality is so entrenched that zoological attempts at conversion therapy have proved useless:

Trying to get three gay penguin couples back on the straight and narrow, zoo officials in the northern German town of Bremerhaven hoped Swedish penguin ladies would do the trick. So far, there's been no success.

The zoo came up with the ingenious idea of trying to convert the feathered queens by flying in some exotic birds from Scandinavia. But thus far, the boys haven't exactly been fighting for a taste of the action. On the contrary, they have shown their suitors the cold shoulder.

"The relationships were obviously too serious," zoo director Heike Kück said of the same sex penguin couples who seem to prefer sitting on stones, which serve as a replacement for the eggs they will never be able to lay, to flapping about over the evidently superfluous seductresses.

I think the bureaucrats ought to let them keep the stone eggs. If they must engage in anthropormorphic antics, they could always name one of them "Pebbles."

Years ago I had