From SpaceWeather.com… for my fellow astronomy buffs.

Space Weather News for August 31, 2005
http://spaceweather.com

Reminder: When the sun goes down tonight, step outside and look west. Do you see a pair of lights beaming through the rosy glow of sunset? That would be Venus and Jupiter: the two bright planets are converging for a beautiful close encounter. They'll be side-by-side for the next few days.

Visit http://Spaceweather.com for sky maps and pictures from around the world–including the South Pole where the sun is just coming up after a long dark winter, but the sky is still dark enough to see Venus and Jupiter.

I've decided to revisit the Random Thoughts portion of the site.  Rather than try to port over the thousands of database entries I had in the old site (more than 2500 as of today), I'm relaunching Random Thoughts as of tomorrow, September 1.  This will allow me to revisit the Random Thoughts database and extend it with current material while removing some amount of older junk that I no longer wish to use.

So, if you've seen the Random Thoughts on my old site over the last few years, you may — read as "will" — see at least some of them again as I move forward with the new site.  Still, I only update them once per day as time permits…

The new Random Thought archive is now outside of the normal blog chronology, so they'll no longer be viewable as the first post of every month.  They'll now only be accessible from the site link in the About section of the sidebar on the right.  This helps ensure they don't blur the lines between static and dynamic content and inadvertently skew my normal post statistics.

The entry that's on the site right now (as of 8/31) will remain as the Random Thought of the day through September 1 (tomorrow) so that I can kick off the new schema on the first of the month.

Sadly, I looked for more automated options of managing the Random Thoughts.  I was unable to find anything that could integrate with WordPress and easily handle the >2500 entries I currently have.  Oh well…

A hearty "Thank you!" to all of you who so promptly asked, after Katrina revisited, about the friends I referred to when originally addressing the hurricane Katrina situation.

The last personal report I had from one of them (she's the one who told me about the power being out) was that the power was still out, there was much flooding, even more worry, but they were indeed doing well enough under the circumstances.  I was happy to hear that, although I still stand by my original response to staying in New Orleans: Are you an idiot?

Regardless of the response, I feel for those caught in the storm's path.  I am, obviously, especially happy to hear that my friends in the area survived unscathed and are doing as well as can be expected.  I realize that many of those who stayed did not have means of evacuating, no way to move all of those who needed to be moved, and only stayed out of absolute necessity.  This is of course discounting the laughably fatuous who stayed because they… well, they’re dumb.

Political aside: The government — any government — should have done more to move those unable to move themselves.  There were too many left behind who only remained there out of necessity, mostly based on the inability to relocate their loved ones successfully in such a short amount of time… or at all.  It's shameful; let's learn from our mistake and take action to ensure that, in the face of any kind of catastrophe, we the people do all we can to ensure the well being of the least of these.

My intention was to respond to increasing e-mails about my friends' status.  Luckily they are all well based on the sliding scale of hurricanes — alive, relatively unharmed (physically more than emotionally), and sheltered in an as yet un-flooded building.  I think we can all say that we hope it remains that way.

It was bound to happen.  You know how wishy-washy I am when it comes to long-term relationships.  It's therefore with a certain level of self-induced disgust that I must break off my 27-day-old relationship with Senator Bill Frist.  After commending him on his support of stem cell research, he stepped on my buzz by supporting (un)intelligent design in the classroom.

This move is akin to supporting the introduction of Genesis-based creationism in the classroom.  Actually, that's exactly what it is — besides an offensive mix of church and state and a complete bastardization of true science.

If you've followed the hoopla regarding intelligent design, you know that it is essentially creationism by a different name, the premise being that, while science can explain a great many things, there are still those items which can only be explained if a greater intelligence were involved in their design.  Sounds biblical, huh?  I thought so, too.

While Frist is now endorsing the inclusion of religion in the general science curriculum taught in public schools, I will remind the general viewing audience that he doesn't equally support forcing churches to teach evolution alongside the biblical book of Genesis.  Would it not be fair to force religions to do so if the public is being forced to include spiritual dogma in what is otherwise a "separated" government organization — public schools?

Intelligent design is a falsehood perpetrated by religious zealots who cannot otherwise get into the public school system without the "science cloak" ID provides them.  It laughably ignores the scientific principal and unconscionably tramples all over the truth.  This is not science; it's fanciful propaganda based on misrepresentations of the facts and a complete disregard for the meaning of true, pure science.  I shudder to think that this could ever happen…  But I'm not stupid enough to say it can't.

Let's just hope science actually prevails and religion is left to the churches.

In my haste to post something pithy about hurricane Katrina, I inadvertently downplayed the severity of the event, perhaps because it was only just beginning to unfold and because, at the time, New Orleans appeared to have escaped the life-threatening flooding which was unleashed only hours later.  For that I apologize, but only because, in view of the loss of life and property, the utter devastation, the harm to America's economy, and the obvious negative impact to the animals in the storm's path (wild, domestic and otherwise), I may have presented myself a bit more taciturn than I actually am — although that seems difficult for a cynic like me.

As an avid weather nut, I've been intrigued by Katrina.  Despite this, sometimes it's more important to put aside the cold intellectual interest and realize — perhaps respect is a better word in this context — the catastrophic effect Mother Nature has unleashed.

For all of those who have and will suffer because of this storm, you have my sympathy and support.  For those who have taken it upon themselves to act on behalf of the many animals impacted by this event, you have my admiration and respect.

The story continues to develop…

I watched Hotel Rwanda a few weeks ago during a weekend hiatus doing chores.  Oh, one must be excited about spending all of one's free time doing chores.  But I digress…

While visiting David Corn's site today, I found his analysis of the movie.  Although I'd added Hotel Rwanda to my list of things to blog about, it was one of "those things" that I'd eventually get to — just not today.  David's article pushed me to finally do something.

I won't delve into the level of detail David does.  I will, however, say that watching this movie certainly gives one pause to consider, under the Clinton administration or otherwise, how much and often "the West" turns its back on the world at large unless there is something significant to deem otherwise.  In the case of Rwanda, we idly sat by and watched thousands die at the hands of genocidal murderers who wanted nothing more than to destroy all remaining vestiges of their prior occupation by European colonizers.

Would we have acted had they been large oil producers?  Would we have acted had they been Jewish?  Would we have acted had they been white?

Although relevant, none of those questions need be answer to understand the horrific travesty which took place in Rwanda and which is presented in the movie.

Rather than bore you with my own analysis of the movie and underlying story, I'll simply recommend that you see it.  I don't care what kind of movies you prefer or what interest you have in films based on real events — you simply must see Hotel Rwanda.  It's beautifully understated and eschews sentiment rather than raw emotion, essentially letting the facts of the story tell the story itself.  I assure you that's sufficient.

You don't need to know the facts of the incident.  That being said, I wouldn't want to stop your cultivation of knowledge of these events.  Regardless, whether you see this film fully understanding the context or not, you must see it.  You must see it to understand the moral compass America — and, to a lesser degree, the West in general — continues to operate under.

We see your agony.  We see your pain.  We see the horrible events which befall you.  But, unless you have something to offer, we won't do a damn thing about it.

Sad.  So very sad.

Need I remind you how much I hate people?

Then again, perhaps I only spotted.

Well now…  They're all a bit waggish, eh?

I'm sorry?  Did you say you don't know what I'm referring to?

Bah!

Doesn't anyone blindly follow the blog links I have posted on this site?  Why doesn't anyone arbitrarily visit the seemingly random web links posted on every single blog on the intarweb in the überverse?

Regardless of your answers to those inquiries, I still mock you for not knowing that of which I speak of.

For you "slow" people among us, what I'm talking about is this thread and it's comments over at The Poor Man.  Don't just welter in the puerile humor of the post; read the damned comments, too.

Why, if you don't childishly wet yourself as I did…  Um, hold on.  Wait — forget I said that.

What I meant was that you will chortle indubitably.  That is unless you think I've gone completely mad, of course, in which case you will likely point and laugh, much as I do every day at innocent plebeians.  But that's another story…

Oh, and check out those pants and shoes in the ABBA picture.  And I was concerned mine had gone out of style.

Once again I must thank Betty Bowers for being America's Best Christian and telling it like it is.  I happily gorged myself on her latest newsletter and hurled headway into laughing uproariously.  Betty truly does express in words what so many of us feel, and I appreciate that level of honesty from a conservative who so rapturously enforces the conservative Christian ethic — hate everyone equally, especially if they're different from you; practice religion your own way because the bible is for wimps; Dubya is satan's… er… uh… god's gift to the planet; you can never vacation enough, especially when world affairs are at risk; Pat Robertson is indeed a spiritual leader, but those he designates for divine elimination should be more carefully selected; and Focus on the Family is the world’s bestest converter of gays to the heterosexual way, most likely because they know (never having been gay and having not a single clue what that must be like) that gays choose to be that way, that every gay is a straight person looking for help, and that you can never parade around enough "converted" queers to satisfy everyone.

Watching hurricane Katrina dance briefly over Florida before heading into the Gulf on her way to Louisiana and Mississippi, I was amazed at how the storm dropped to tropical storm strength before rapidly climbing back to a category 5 hurricane, only to fall back to a category 4 storm before making landfall.  With friends in New Orleans, I've watched the storm's progress with great interest.  Given the city is well below sea level (by six feet, give or take), flooding, which is already taking place, is the biggest concern, seconded by the normal damage hurricanes cause.

Having already made landfall in Florida and Louisiana, Katrina's third landfall later this afternoon will be in Mississippi.  Both states are likely to suffer the storm's wrath in many ways.  One of my friends in New Orleans said they were already without power around 5:00 AM CDT this morning.  Knowing how that usually goes down there, I'm betting they'll be without power for 7-10 days at least, but I certainly hope I'm wrong.

Amazingly, as I've been moving content from my old site to this one, I have run across some of my geriatric posts regarding the French.  I was not happy with France back then, but not for the herd mentality reasons many would think.

Surely you anticipated my amusement with the raucous hoopla the French are now causing with Lance Armstrong.  A French daily sports newspaper, L'Equipe, recently ran a story that said Armstrong had been doping in 1999.  They claim that a four-month investigation found that six of his urine samples during the 1999 race tested positive for the red-cell booster EPO.  The article headline was "The Armstrong Lie."

I feel for Lance in this case and strongly suspect the French are demonstrating ignorance and jealousy.  Ignorance in that he was not doping and their assumption that they can say what they will; jealousy in that they've lost their own race for so long that they can't stand Armstrong for being the world's leading bicycler and seven-time champion of the Tour de France.

Although, during chemotherapy treatment for cancer, Lance did indeed take EPO, that was in 1996.  All tests conducted outside of his chemo schedule indicate he was clean, yet the French have somehow found samples from six years ago that test positive.

Huh…  Let's put this into perspective.

When Lance announced his retirement earlier this year, the same newspaper wrote, "Never has an athlete's retirement been so welcome."

And who performed these tests?  That would be the French.  Do you think it's possible someone wanted to taint Armstrong's reputation?  Perhaps, especially if they're French.

I'm also left to wonder why the lab did not inform Lance before informing the newspaper.  Would it not be prudent, in the interest of forgoing libel suits, to have engaged the "person of interest" first?

Organizers of the Tour de France said they were shocked by the latest allegations.  None of them seemed to remember that all previous allegations against him, made by the French, of course, had been proven false.  Instead, they quickly jump on the bandwagon in an attempt to put the American down.

"The Tour de France believes that the results of the lab are 100 percent reliable.  It's the best lab and a lab known for doing such testing," Matthieu Desplates said (he's a press attaché for the Tour de France).  He went on to say that "everyone felt betrayed."

The lab performing the tests claimed that they were unable to test for EPO in 1999.  They went back to the "B" samples provided by the riders to see if they could screen for additional substances not screened for originally.

Here's the real fun part…

The lab conducted the latest tests randomly on anonymous samples.  Even they were unable to provide rider names with the results.  Despite this, L'Equipe said it was able to confirm the positive tests were Armstrong's by matching his medical certificates with the numbers on the samples.  Yet they fail to mention that another 15 samples from other riders from the 1999 race also have reportedly tested positive.  Why are they not held up for public ridicule like Armstrong?  Why are they not publicly decried as liars and cheaters?

They're probably French.

Should the allegations prove to be true, it would indeed be an unforgivable event.  The important part of that is "should the allegations prove to be true."  Thus far, we have a single newspaper report making the claims and a French lab somewhere that is still testing six-year old samples — in theory, anyway.  Oh, and the tests are random on anonymous samples, yet somehow a single French newspaper has been able to match results with a rider — while ignoring the other 15 positive samples.

The entire situation is suspect.  As I said, the French have made plenty of allegations like this before, all of which have been proven false.  Why should this be treated any differently?  For now, the burden is on the French to provide unequivocal proof of their claims and verifiable by independent third parties who can remain completely untainted by French bias which has already been demonstrated time and again on this very same issue.