"Toe nails keep terror suspect from court."

Interesting headline over on CNN. Less exciting than the Drudge news noted in that last post, but more likely to be true. Weirder and truer.

Al-Zarqawi arrested?

Drudge reports: "Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi, whom the US occupation authorities declared to be the 'target number one' in Iraq, has been arrested in the city of Baakuba, the Emirate newspaper al-Bayane reported on Tuesday referring to Kurdish sources." Let's hope so!

Death penalty numbers.

In today's NYT, Adam Liptak discusses the pending Supreme Court case that challenges the constitutionality of imposing the death penalty on a person who committed his crime when he was less than 18 years old. Under the current law, the youth of the offender is taken into account as a mitigating factor, and the question now is whether there should be an absolute rule. (There is already an absolute rule for those under 16.) In this context, what should the Court make of the fact that it has become rarer and rarer to give the death penalty to someone in this category?

A central issue before the court, which is expected to rule in the next few months, is whether the plummeting number of such death sentences - there were two last year - lends weight to the argument that putting youths on death row amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. Supporters of the juvenile death penalty argue that the small number proves instead that the system works and that juries are making discerning choices on whom to sentence to death, taking due account of the defendants' youth and reserving the ultimate punishment for the worst of the worst.

I'm opposed to the death penalty, but I think the supporters here have the better interpretation of the decreasing number. If the opponents' interpretation were taken seriously, that would also mean that, in general, for all murders, the more strictly courts and juries restrain themselves and reserve the death penalty for the most truly heinous murders, the more they generate evidence that the death penalty is cruel and unusual and therefore unconstitutional. Those who want the death penalty to be available to express the ultimate condemnation of a crime would need to hope to see it imposed more frequently, lest they lose it altogether.

Carnival of the Doodles.

Ambivablog has taken up the doodle mantle, which I dropped a while back. She's got some nice doodles at the link and is trying to put together a Carnival of the Doodles, so why don't you help? She's raised the issue of defining the doodle: "Honor system: we'll just have to take your word that it's an honest-to-God, spaced-out doodle and not a deliberate fake." So, what, once you think about the fact that you are drawing, you've deprived the thing of its essential doodlosity? I was more coming at the subject from the other direction: once you call something a "drawing," you invite serious art criticism. By offering your drawing up as a doodle, you fend off judgment. You're thinking people will look with a more forgiving eye and be slightly entertained or say "that's pretty cool." But by Ambivablog's account, you'd be a fraud if you did this.

"I'll link to that"/"I'll drink to that."

These phrases rhyme, I note. One is a common expression. The other is a phrase I find myself saying a lot these days. I'm not opposed to drinking or to drinking to things. Yet you never find yourself saying I should be drinking more, but you might think I should be linking more. You might say to yourself -- or have someone say to you -- you're drinking too much, but you never hear you're linking too much, do you? On the other hand, you might well hear -- or even say to yourself -- you're blogging too much. Do you ever hear that you're blogging without linking enough? Some folks say the big thing about blogging is the linking. Maybe if you blog a lot without linking, people are going to think you have a blogging problem. Maybe it's like the way you can drink a lot, and no one will say that much, but if you drink and drive, they're going to feel they have to intervene. By the same token (the reversed token?), maybe there will be interventions for people who blog heavily and don't link.

UPDATE: Now if you find yourself blogging and driving, you really do have a problem. Drinking and blogging, however, is a classic combination.

Stingy actors!

I see that Sandra Bullock has donated $1 million for tsunami relief. So Julia Roberts, Cameron Diaz, Nicole Kidman, Reese Witherspoon, Drew Barrymore, Halle Berry, Angelina Jolie, Renee Zellweger, and Jennifer Lopez: you're going to have to give one million ... or you're stingy!

Strange matter.

This is from Peter Singer's review of Richard Posner's new book Catastrophe: Risk and Response":

High-energy particle accelerators, used by physicists to investigate the fundamental laws of nature, could produce particles that create hyperdense ''strange matter'' that in turn might attract nearby nuclei, thus growing larger and attracting ever more nuclei, until the entire planet is compressed into a sphere no more than 100 meters in diameter...

The official risk-assessment team for one of these accelerators, at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, offered a series of estimates, one of which puts the annual risk of a disaster at one in five million. That seems a very small risk. But since the disaster would kill six billion people, that estimate gives it an expected cost of 1,200 lives per year. Even if the risk is estimated more conservatively at one in a billion, it has an expected annual cost of six lives. Would we build such an accelerator if we knew that six people would die every year in which it operates?

I don't understand the purported helpfulness of converting the problem of destroying the entire world into an annual death rate calculated along with the low probability. One in five million already sounds like a ridiculous chance to take. Can somebody remind me why we let scientists fool with particle accelerators?

UPDATE: James Bellinger, an associate scientist in the High Energy Physics Unit here at UW-Madison, emails:

Cosmic rays hit our atmosphere with a spectrum of energies: the higher energy, the rarer they are. We've seen evidence of energies so high that no earthly accelerator planned so far comes close to matching the center-of-mass energy you get when one of those cosmic rays hits a nucleus. Given that the earth (and the sun, or anything else in our solar system for that matter) hasn't imploded yet, you have to conclude that the risk is pretty small that undiscovered strange matter physics is going to kill us.

And some people have looked for evidence of "strange nuclei" in cosmic ray interactions. The last time I looked at this was back in 87 or so, but a quick googling about this morning finds a Japanese team which claims to have found a couple of odd events (PRL 65 p2094, 1990) and an upper limit on rates from another group. If the Japanese result is correct, then we at least know that strange matter doesn't destroy balloons . . . And there's this.

So please, let us keep playing with accelerators :-)

The ideal class size.

Different teachers have different ideas about what the ideal class size is. Obviously, it depends on the level of school you're teaching and the methodology you want to be able to use. For me, the ideal is 40 students. I'm quite close to having exactly that number in the two classes that begin at the end of the month. I always love semester beginnings -- such an optimistic time! -- but a semester beginning with two ideally sized classes is really quite excellent.

"We live in an era that has placed too much emphasis on diagnosis."

In the Washington Post, Tim Page writes about Glenn Gould:

[H]e talked happily, obliviously, on and on into the night about any subject that crossed his mind -- this composer, that recording, his favorite television programs (he loved "The Mary Tyler Moore Show"), the stock market (he played actively and lucratively), his love for animals, which he generally preferred to people.

His sex life seems to have been virtually nonexistent; his friendships were kept up mainly through the telephone (how he would have delighted in the Internet!); he worked by night and slept by day. It has been suggested that Gould may have had a touch of autism -- he was profoundly uncomfortable with most physical contact and demanded, throughout his life, the psychological safety of unbroken routines whenever possible. But we live in an era that has placed too much emphasis on diagnosis...

Is it true that back in the 1950s, there wasn't an emphasis on diagnosis? It seems to me that back then, people were intent on framing all sorts of behavior in Freudian terms. Popular culture was full of Freudian analysis, while today's culture is full of talk of mental disorders that have drugs and other treatments of the sort that do not demand the services of a psychoanalyst. Here's some analysis from a psychiatrist, Helen Mesaros, who studied Gould:

Although some of Gould’s symptoms on the surface may be similar to those typical for Asperger’s disorder, they differ because they have a psychodynamical origin; they are functional in nature and have a symbolic meaning as opposed to being nonfunctional and involuntary.

The old psychoanalytic diagnoses were colorful family stories of distant fathers and suffocating mothers. Today's talk of autism is not a new pathologizing of human behavior, just a new perspective on the origin of pathology.

Side note: I adore the movie "Thirty-Two Short Films About Glenn Gould."

"The blogosphere's tendency toward crackpot theorizing and political smack down."

The NYT is observing the blogosphere again and somehow I feel all inspired to smack them down.

The interplay between the sites, left and right, is typical of the rumbles in cyberspace between rivals at different ends of the political spectrum. In many ways, Web logs shone after the tsunami struck: bloggers in the regions posted compelling descriptions of the devastation, sometimes by text messages sent from their cellphones as they roamed the countryside looking for friends and family members. And blogs were quick to create links to charities so that people could help online.

But the blogosphere's tendency toward crackpot theorizing and political smack down could not be suppressed for long.

So those little, special things you bloggers are in a position to do are just fine, but when it comes to analyzing anything, you just revert to your usual crazy tendencies. Now, why isn't that a crackpot theory? Will the NYT ever notice how much sane and sound analysis goes on in blog form?

Online discussion can evolve toward truth, said Clay Shirky, an adjunct professor in the interactive telecommunications program at New York University and a blogger. One result is a process that can be more reliable than many new media, where corrections are often late and small, if they appear at all.

(New media? Isn't that a description of of old media?)

So the Times approves of the portrayal of blogging as some sort of low level phenomenon -- it can "evolve toward truth" -- but it won't recognize that there are plenty of bloggers who can seize on some fresh item and analyze it on the spot quite well and quite apart from crazy theories and pat ideology. The Times gleefully begins its piece with an idiotic Democratic Underground theory (Bush caused the earthquake), which the reader is left to think typifies the nutty blogosphere. Well, that's their theory and they're sticking with it.

Blogger doings.

Jeremy Freese has returned from blogging hiatus and he's posting about yesterday's brunch, pushing the blogging ethics envelope, and provoking a comments response from "arguably the single most irrepressible spirit to walk the earth." Bonus material: an old Communist joke from the 60s that I remember too, blog-stimulating alphabet magnets from Poland, and a year-old email (which I'd never seen before) describing the origin of the Althouse blog.

Colin Powell, screaming in outrage.

I'm always amazed at the unflappably fluent Colin Powell. He calmly and efficiently explains everything. But what's this?

MR. RUSSERT:  There's a front-page report in The Washington Post today that the administration is considering a prison to detain alleged terrorists where they do not have enough evidence to bring them to prosecution.  What's your role in that and do you seem...

SEC'Y POWELL:  I am not familiar with that and I can't talk to it.

MR. RUSSERT:  The State Department is involved.

SEC'Y POWELL:  I just don't have the facts on that one.

MR. RUSSERT:  Why would the United States detain people for life without bringing them to trial?

SEC'Y POWELL:  I have no information on this one, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT:  Let me ask you about the Middle East. 

The transcript does not show the repeated throat-clearings. Powell maintained his usual steady demeanor, but for the throat clearings and perhaps a slight hint of unease. Powell has steadfastly defended everything he has been called on to defend over the last four years. I'm sensing that this is how Powell, that intensely controlled and restrained man, looks when he is screaming in outrage.

The new "Sideways" backlash.

A.O. Scott writes in the NYT that "Sideways" is "the most overrated film of the year." The "Sideways" backlash has arrived. You can't get away with so much praise. Here's a movie that virtually all the critics liked, but how much did they like it? Maybe not enough to tolerate seeing it vanquish more thrilling, daring movies. It's just a charming, little film that hit home, but should it win the Oscar? We saw a similar chronology last year with "Lost in Translation," as critical praise led to backlash and the Oscar for "Return of the King" was saved.

According to Scott, the male critics have their reasons for being seduced by "Sideways":

In "Sideways," a good many critics see themselves, and it is only natural that we should love what we see. Not that critics are the only ones, by any means, but the affection that we have lavished on this film has the effect of emphasizing the narrowness of its vision, and perhaps our own. It both satirizes and affirms a cherished male fantasy: that however antisocial, self-absorbed and downright unattractive a man may be, he can always be rescued by the love of a good woman. (What's in it for her is less clear.)

It's the critics' own self-love we're seeing displayed in the over-good reviews. All right. That settles it. Now I don't have to drag myself to the second-rate theater where this film is playing in Madison. If it was playing at Point, I'd probably go, but it's so depressing to go to Westgate. I'll wait for the DVD. It'll probably be better on DVD anyway, being a small-scale film. It will fit the TV. Who needs the "downright unattractive" Paul Giamatti looming over you for two hours on the big screen anyway?

The Right Cabbage.

"The Right Cabbage Can Win a Scholarship."

Brunch topics.

Do we celebrate blog-birthdays now? Nina staged a brunch in honor of the first year of her wonderful blog. A certain blogger who doesn't want to be linked without preclearance was a no-show, assertedly because she food-poisoned herself after being intimidated by last night's ice storm into not going out to eat. Worse than missing the brunch, from the bloggish perspective, is not blogging about poisoning yourself. She has not posted since Christmas. Come on! How about some vomit-blogging?

Nina's blog, it should be noted, has not missed a day since it was born. We discussed whether you can celebrate a blog-birthday after only one year if you haven't posted every day. Maybe the post-free days shouldn't count. But if you were in a coma part of a year, you'd still keep your birthday on the same day, I said as we were leaving the brunch.

"Hey, watch out for that ice! I nearly killed myself driving in this ice last night. It would be bad dying on January 1st, but at least you'd have made it into the new year. Even though, not really."

"Your tombstone would be deceptive.

But we survived the brunch. We didn't die or get food poisoning. In fact, it was delicious. Nina put on her usual cooking show, which this time involved using multiple ovens during the event and scones and a cake that had been baked beforehand. Complex drinks were cococted. One trayful of food was burned -- purely for theatrical effect.

"Hey, what is this froth? There's froth on the bacon."

"There's always froth on bacon. It does that when the grease cooks."

"Froth is interesting. I've been thinking about froth. There is good froth and bad froth. There is the froth that we think of as particularly delicious -- cappucino, zabaglione -- and there is the froth that we think of as particularly vile and disgusting -- frothing at the mouth, spittle. Wait a minute, I've got to get my notebook. Not my notebook computer, just a little notebook."

"It's a Moleskin notebook."

"Yes, have you noticed how these Moleskine notebooks are suddenly everywhere and presented as if they are some big, important tradition that we've cared about for a long time? Whoever heard of these things before this year? And now it's Moleskine! I must have my Moleskine notebook! It's the notebook Hemingway used! How did that happen? That was some excellent marketing. Okay, I'm just writing 'Froth: good or bad?' and I'm going to blog about this later. Also 'Moleskine marketing.' Also 'burn something, theater.' I've noticed Nina always burns something, and I'm thinking she does it as theater."

Knowing nods confirm my suspicion. Ah ha! I knew it! So it's true? She actually does always burn something for effect? Apparently, the answer is yes!

So much yummy food was consumed and a long bloggish conversation in honor of the blog-birthday ensued, but as you can see, I didn't simulblog and I stopped taking notes, the better to wield a spoon and fork, so I'll end my little account here.

Tsunami relief and logistics.

Following up on that last post from yesterday, I see this quote, from David Nabarro, head of the World Health Organization's crisis team:

"Perhaps as many as 5 million people are not able to access what they need for living. Either they cannot get water, or their sanitation is inadequate, or they cannot get food."

This article in the Chicago Tribune put the number of survivors with "serious injuries" is 500,000, and has this quote from Jan Egeland, the UN emergency aid coordinator:

"The immediate relief problem had more to do with logistics than with money. We see now as our biggest challenge not the availability of funds nor the availability of supplies that are in the pipeline, but the logistical constraints on getting it out to people."

And this quote from John Budd, a UNICEF spokesman in Jakarta:

"Getting aid into Aceh is very difficult. You can get to the Banda Aceh airport, but there are no trucks and no fuel to move it out of there." He said the airport at Medan was also receiving tons of aid, but noted that there was only one road from Medan to Banda Aceh and that it was very rough and took 12 hours to traverse.

This AP article says that rescue efforts are about to end:

Officials were pessimistic.

"There is very little chance of finding survivors after seven days," Lamsar Sipahutar, the head of Indonesia's search team. "We are about to stop the search-and-rescue operations. If you survived the earthquake, you probably were killed by tsunami."

I hope people who are concerned about aid to the survivors appreciate the importance of the military when it comes to getting relief to people:

The American military was mounting its largest operation in southern Asian since the Vietnam War, delivering supplies from the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln stationed off Sumatra and sending a flotilla of Marines and water purifying equipment to Sri Lanka.

UPDATE: The NYT on the role of the U.S. military in providing aid:

While the Abraham Lincoln and four accompanying ships represented the vanguard of American emergency aid to Indonesia, American officials said seven more vessels led by the amphibious assault ship Bonhomme Richard were steaming west from the South China Sea with more supplies and were expected to be off the coast of Sri Lanka in the coming week, a Pentagon spokesman said.

Military officials said that yet another convoy, six slower-moving ships loaded with food, water, blankets and a 500-bed portable hospital, was en route from Guam, but was not expected to reach the stricken region for about two weeks.

Capt. Rodger Welch of the Navy, representing the operations directorate of the military's Pacific Command, said late Saturday that the American relief mission likely was the largest in the region in at least 50 years. "And we are only beginning this effort," he added.

About 10,000 to 12,000 American military personnel were now involved, mostly aboard the Lincoln and Bonhomme Richard groups....

American military officials said 1,500 marines and 20 helicopters would be deployed in the next few days to clear debris and aid survivors in devastated areas of Sri Lanka. The first contingent of 200 was expected to arrive today.