AdamSmith

Just re-picked up a tome I had previously started, then had gotten disrupted in midstream by divorce and related life interruptances: The Strangest Man: The Hidden Life of Paul Dirac, Mystic of the Atom. Endlessly fascinating. I love that whole generation of genius physicist mystics -- Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Fermi; and then the irrepressible Feynman, et al. (Irrelevant digression on Fermi! Actually not so much a mystic, he built that first chain-reacting pile in the underground rackets court at U. of Chicago from 8am-noon every day, then went home for lunch and a civilized siesta til 4pm when they reconvened and continued stacking uranium and graphite till 8pm. Then on the final day, when they winched out the control rods, he called out from his slide rule in advance what the neutron counter would be about to say, inerrantly -- thus they called Fermi 'the Pope' because he was not only Italian but in matters nuclear he was infallible.) ...ANYWAY I have here veered off onto recalling this quote because of being reminded of it by another book, namely American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Actually I think I've raved about it here before. But now re-reading it for the nth time. Just beyond compare.

Taibbi is great. E.g., http://www.huffingto..._n_1894781.html Also http://www.huffingto...=elections-2012 from whence your extraordinary quotation. Wikipedia is lucid too on "apostle"... http://en.wikipedia....tle_(Christian)

ROFL I want to see what was cropped out of that picture.

As Mencken said: In Gold we trust.

Put a tiger in your tank?

P.P.P.S. Julia upstaging Letterman...

P.P.S.: Julia does 'Psycho'...

Utterly superfluous P.S.: Outtake from the original Julia series. Her bourgeois technical acumen remains striking.

No, no. I'll take you to Crook's Corner in Chapel Hill. We will have a nice evening, free of these botherations. Meanwhile, remember the Galloping Gourmet?

You will have read enough Jefferson biography to know he was addicted to spending, and ended his days in debt to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Which was really something to do, back in the day.

So...pictures, please! The mouth waters.

Well, yes, of course. My previous statement was too absolutist. As with the boys, indie girls can be a lot less regimented, freer with their time and favors, loopy & individualistic on the fortunate occasion. I recall some 3 years ago, on the eve of a business trip to Japan, getting into the pre-groove by hiring a lovely Japanese lady the evening before my flight, and getting a good bit of etiquette coaching over dinner together after the bonking was done. Etc.

I do not. In New England, I restrict my hiring of girls to this Boston-based agency: http://www.bostonintescorts.com They cum with my highest recs. Not that anyone else here would care.

If she had not kept that stupid fucking video recording, it would all have been okay. Ogunquit is one of the happily queerest towns on earth (Montreal's beach paradise). And the whole state (viz their senators) is rock-ribbed libertarian. What foolishness.

Would be difficult to say it any better... This private letter expresses views never meant for public consumption by of one of the most prolific minds of modern times on the subjects of God, religion and tribalism. Few people have had access to the thoughts and uncensored opinions of this brilliant mind as it relates to his personal views on God and religion. The personal nature of the letter and the timing of it in Albert Einstein's life adds to the implication of the certainty with which he wrote it. The sureness of his script and the methodical nature with which he chose his words lend to the documents weight. The ideas expressed are the culmination of a lifetime of work exploring the most principle questions of existence. If there were a guide for seekers of answers, this letter would be the introduction. The auction is for the original, handwritten, in German, letter and envelope, sent from Princeton NJ, to Eric B. Gutkind, on January 3, 1954, a year before Einstein passed away, sent as response to Gutkind's book “Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt”. ... I read a great deal in the last days of your book, and thank you very much for sending it to me. What especially struck me about it was this. With regard to the factual attitude to life and to the human community we have a great deal in common. ... The word God is for me nothing more than the exp ression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them. In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary. Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, i.e; in our evaluations of human behavior. What separates us are only intellectual 'props' and 'rationalization' in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things. With friendly thanks and best wishes, Yours, A. Einstein The translation above is an abridgment of the letter from Albert Einstein to Eric Gutkind from Princeton NJ in January 1954, translated from German by Joan Stambaugh. Since its purchase, the letter has been stored at a professional academic institution which specializes in the care of cultural heritage collections. The item is stored in a temperature, humidity and light controlled environment. The authenticity of the letter has never been questioned, as it has been well known in the scientific community for over 50 years. This is further enhanced by the original envelope, stamp, and postmark. The auction will commence at the opening bid of $3 million US dollars. For more information on the letter or for interviews, please contact Eric Gazin, President of Auction Cause, the agency managing the sale, at (323) 655-0554 or via email at einsteinletter@auctioncause.com http://members.ebay....d=gazinauctions http://religion.blog...?iref=obnetwork

And a fascinating 3rd-party exegesis... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj-OlW83b6U&feature=player_embedded

...and, for like-minded, a bit of the Dawn of Man sequence...

...first words in '2001,' more than 40 minutes into. Anyhoo, here a clip of the miraculous Blue Danube sequence, for those elite who care ...

One can, in concluding thoughts here, say: Thanks for your open words from the heart to all addicts, and your display of the loving, generous, giving, nonjudgmental, evolved spirit we can all aspire to become. My deepest hopes for you and yours, now and to come.

Well. I admit. Almost. Something I do not quite wish to say. ...If I said you had to meet me at Morehead City instead of Hatteras Head to hear the words, would that suffice to call it off...?

Dear heart: I finally have you by the (xxxx) now. Your technical training will not let you escape the acknowledgment that you simply cannot, from that news report quoted, assert those results may be inside the margins of error. Those reports do not give the information on sample size and distribution of results that would let you calculate a chi-square (or your other, even more devious devil-dances!) that would invalidate those poll results. (PS If I am wrong, you know what you can do to me in consequence! )

Although this science vid on the Hubble Space Telescope's latest record look back into Deep Time doesn't ever quite get to the point, still the stuff it tries to convey is as close to religion as I know how to come... http://www.cnn.com/video/?iid=article_sidebar#/video/bestoftv/2012/09/30/deepest-universe-image-ever.cnn

Guess BuzzFeed does have its uses... 20 Bizarre Examples Of Medieval Marginalia Yo, medieval scribes: no one's going to read the text you so painstakingly lettered if you continue to draw weird and dirty pictures in the margins. Well, I guess you're all dead, so we can't fix this now, can we? Baby Praying Mantis top10 Community Contributor 1. A penis tree From a 14th century copy of Romance of the Rose. Source: culture-et-debats.over-blog.com / via: gotmedieval.com 2. A monkey with an arrow stuck in its butt From Bibliothèque Mazarine MS 520. Source: gotmedieval.com / via: gotmedieval.com 3. Ass arrows, again From the Rutland Psalter, c. 1260. Via: laphamsquarterly.org 4. An inappropriate rabbit From Breviary, Use of Verdun c. 1302-1305. Source: http://25.media.tumb...pc0go1_1280.jpg / via: kardiologn.livejournal.com 5. Another inappropriate rabbit From Bodleian Library’s MS Douce 5. Source: gotmedieval.com / via: bigshoediaries.blogspot.com 6. This obviously boneless individual Source: tonyynot / via: mediumaevum 7. An ape bludgeoning a man with an axe Via: mediumaevum 8. Whatever's going on here Via: janiek.wordpress.com 9. Creative, naked nose picking? From Book of Hours, Walters Manuscript W.102, fol. 92v. Source: farm9.staticflickr.com / via: medmss 10. A man voiding his bowels Via: andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com 11. An amputee brawl From Bodleian Alexander (MS Bodl. 264). Source: gotmedieval.com / via: gotmedieval.com 12. Ape sodomy From Bodleian MS Douce 6. Source: gotmedieval.com / via: gotmedieval.com 13. The guy on the left From The Vows of the Peacock c. 1350. Source: img.gawkerassets.com / via: io9.com 14. Ass trumpets From The Vows of the Peacock c. 1350. Via: io9.com 15. Man riding a head toward a naked woman Via: janiek.wordpress.com 16. Hellbarrows From The Taymouth Hours. Source: 2.bp.blogspot.com / via: gotmedieval.com 17. Nom nom nom From The Taymouth Hours. Source: 2.bp.blogspot.com / via: gotmedieval.com 18. THIS GUY From Codex, with gloss of Accursius, MS Canon. Misc. 495. Source: tinyurl.com / via: bodleian.ox.ac.uk 19. Babies torturing a naked man From Breviary, Carthusian use. MS. Canon. Liturg. 410. Source: tinyurl.com / via: bodleian.ox.ac.uk 20. A snake man playing the bagpipes with his anus From Pierpont Morgan Library’s MS G24. Source: gotmedieval.com LINK: For more amazing marginalia, check out Got Medieval. gotmedieval.com

I like Reines's style. He was the one who excoriated CNN over the ambassador's-diary flap, which is what this email interview initiated by the BuzzFeed reporter is also about. BuzzFeed published the entire exchange: On Sunday morning, BuzzFeed correspondent Michael Hastings emailed Philippe Reines, Hillary Clinton's longtime aide and personal spokesman at the State Department, asking a series of pointed questions about State's handling of the Benghazi fiasco, and Reines' over-the-top attack on CNN. The emails quickly got personal, with Reines calling Hastings an "unmitigated asshole" before an exchange of harsh words on both sides. The email chain concluded with Reines writing that Hastings should "Fuck Off" and "Have a good life." The full exchange (with one typo fixed) is below. From: Michael Hastings 
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 10:32 AM
 To: Reines, Philippe I 
 Subject: Request for comment 

Hey Philippe: A few quick questions for you. Why didn't the State Department search the consulate and find AMB Steven's diary first? What other potential valuable intelligence was left behind that could have been picked up by apparently anyone searching the grounds? Was any classified or top secret material also left? Do you still feel that there was adequate security at the compound, considering it was not only overrun but sensitive personal effects and possibly other intelligence remained out for anyone passing through to pick up? Your statement on CNN sounded pretty defensive--do you think it's the media's responsibility to help secure State Department assets overseas after they've been attacked? Let me know if you have a second.Michael ______________________________________ On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Reines, Philippe I wrote:
 Good morning Michael I'm adding my colleague Toria Nuland who I believe you know. She has addressed much of your questions below during her daily press briefings, so I'll let her weigh in to remind you of what's already been thoroughly answered. As far as the tone of my email, I think you're misreading mine as much as I'm misreading yours as being needlessly antagonistic. But on your questions pertaining to CNN's handling of the diary: • You know that all USG personnel were evacuated from Benghazi after the attack. So I'm not sure why you're asking why State didn't find the diary first. • On material, I'll let Toria reiterate, but the answer is no. Though you might want to ask CNN if they took anything else from the crime scene that they haven't yet told anyone about. • In terms of the media's responsibility, I'll start with the outlandish statement that I believe the media does have responsibilities. Your question seems to imply they have none and any expectation of responsible behavior is too much to ask. To be specific:I believe CNN had the responsibility to act as human beings and be sensitive to their loss when they first approached the family. I believe CNN had a responsibility to not make promises to the family it would not keep. If that's too much to ask, I believe CNN had at the very least a responsibility to make their intentions on the use of Chris's diary clear to the family from the outset. I believe CNN had a responsibility to not deceive its own viewers for more than 48 hours on the source of their reporting, using convoluted attribution they themselves had to clarify, before admitting it was the diary they were relying on. I believe that when they finally did admit to using Chris's diary, they had a responsibility to their viewers and to the family to explain why they broke their pledge. I believe that many within CNN agree with everything I'm saying. More than anything else, I believe that CNN - since they had already read every word of the diary before calling the family on Friday the 14th, the day Chris's remains were returned home - had all the information they needed at that point to make an editorial decision on whether the contents of the diary compelled them to report on it. I believe the time to invoke their standards to justify using the diary came six days late. I believe that CNN, if they felt strongly that they had an obligation to use the diary should never have presented the family with a choice in the first place that they'd later disregard. I don't believe that CNN should get credit for issuing a flimsy confession only when caught with their hands in the cookie jar. I believe the statement CNN issued late last night, 24 hours after Anderson Cooper's ill-conceived statement on air, basically says they agreed not to use it until they didn't feel like it anymore, and only admitted to it when they were about to be caught. I don't believe that's much of a profile in courage. Lastly, I believe that you of all people, after famously being accused of violating agreed upon ground rules and questionable sourcing, would agree that it's important for a news organization to maintain its own integrity if it is to be trusted. That begins with keeping its word. If you can't manage that, then don't give it. 
I realize that the way this works is that you only you get to ask me questions, but I have one for you: if you were in Benghazi, went to the scene of the attack, found the ambassador's diary, read every word of it, would you have called them and asked their permission to use it, then when you weren't granted that permission agree that you wouldn't use it in any way, and then a few days later just change your mind? If the answer is yes, then you obviously agree that CNN handled this perfectly fine. If the answer is no, if you would have decided its contents demanded reporting immediately, how would you have handled this differently then CNN? And you should feel free to use every word above, in its entirety. Though I suspect you won't. Philippe ______________________________________ From: Michael Hastings Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 12:04 PM
 To: Reines, Philippe I 
Cc: Nuland, Victoria J 
Subject: Re: Request for comment Philippe: Thanks for getting back to me. No, you read my email correctly--I found your statement to CNN offensive. From my perspective, the scandal here is that the State Department had such inadequate security procedures in place that four Americans were killed. And then the Ambassador's diary--and who knows what else--was left behind for anyone to pick up. Thankfully, it was CNN--and not Al Qaeda or some other militia--that found it and was able to return it to the family. That CNN used portions of the material in the diary they found at the scene--material that appears to contradict the official version of events that State/WH has been putting out--is completely in line with practices of good journalism. I don't know how involved Arwa Damon has been in this. But for what it's worth, Arwa is one of the best war correspondents working today. She's consistently risked her life to get these stories, and to find out what actually happens in these conflict zones.I do agree that the media has lots of responsibilities, and CNN fulfilled its responsibility by returning the diary while still managing to inform the American public of newsworthy information. So it's unfortunate that you are trying to make a scapegoat out of CNN. That State was forced to flee Benghazi--again, because of such inadequate security, leaving behind all sorts of sensitive information--tells us more about DoS than CNN. The misinformation here seems largely to be coming from State and the administration. The defense that the administration has offered that there was no intelligence warning of an attack is weak. If there was no intel, then clearly the CIA and other intel agents stationed in Benghazi weren't doing their jobs well. If there was intel, then we have some kind of cover-up--whether out of incompetence or ass covering before the election or just the trauma of losing four good men, it's hard for me to say at this point.
 All the best, 
Michael ______________________________________ On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Reines, Philippe I wrote: 
Why do you bother to ask questions you've already decided you know the answers to? ______________________________________ From: Michael Hastings Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 12:50 PM
 To: Reines, Philippe I 
Cc: Nuland, Victoria J 
Subject: Re: Request for comment 

 Why don't you give answers that aren't bullshit for a change? ______________________________________ On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Reines, Philippe I wrote:
 I now understand why the official investigation by the Department of the Defense as reported by The Army Times The Washington Post concluded beyond a doubt that you're an unmitigated asshole. How's that for a non-bullshit response? Now that we've gotten that out of our systems, have a good day. And by good day, I mean Fuck Off ______________________________________ From: Michael Hastings Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 01:40 PM
 To: Reines, Philippe I 
Cc: Nuland, Victoria J 
Subject: Re: Request for comment Hah--I now understand what women say about you, too! Any new complaints against you lately? ______________________________________ On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Reines, Philippe I wrote: 
Talk about bullshit - answer me this: Do you only traffic in lies, or are you on the ground floor of creating them? And since Fuck Off wasn't clear enough, I'm done with you. Inside of 5 minutes when I can log into my desktop, you'll be designated as Junk Mail. Have a good life Michael. ______________________________________ From: Michael Hastings 
 Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:50 PM
 Subject: Re: Request for comment 
To: "Reines, Philippe I" 
Cc: "Nuland, Victoria J"
 I'll take that as a non-denial denial. All the best, Michael http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/hillary-clinton-aide-tells-reporter-to-fuck-off

Seems the "rolling calamity" has now officially entered the When Pigs Fly zone... Ouch! George W. Bush’s favorability rating in new poll now tops Mitt Romney’s A recent poll has former President George Bush’s favorability rating is now higher than that of struggling Republican nominee Mitt Romney. By Kristen A. Lee / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Published: Friday, September 28, 2012, 12:33 PM Updated: Friday, September 28, 2012, 12:33 PM Tony Gutierrez/AP Did you miss me? In a recent Bloomberg News poll, former President George W. Bush had a higher favorability rating than Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, 46% to 43%. Mitt Romney may want to rethink keeping George W. Bush at arm's length. A recent poll has found that the divisive ex-president's favorability rating is now higher than that of the struggling Republican nominee. Forty-six percent of those surveyed by Bloomberg News had a favorable opinion of Bush, compared with only 43 percent who had favorable feelings about Romney. Romney's unfavorable rating was also higher — 50 percent compared to Bush's 49 percent. Former Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer pointed to the Bloomberg News poll on Twitter — writing that Bush's favorability rating was his "best level in years." The last GOP president left the White House with a dismal 22 percent approval rating, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll from February 2009. While Obama has used former President Bill Clinton as a key surrogate on the campaign trail and a major speaker at the Democratic National Convention, Bush has remained on the sidelines of the presidential race. His presence at the GOP convention was limited to an appearance in a tribute video that also featured his father, former President George H.W. Bush. Saul Loeb/Getty Images Do you want the good news? Mitt Romney's unfavorable rating was only 1 point higher that Bush’s — 50% to Bush's 49% percent. Statistically, speaking, that’s a tie. A spokesman for the younger Bush said earlier this summer that he was simply "enjoying his time off the political stage." But a Romney confidant told The News in July that "it's better for us that he isn't there." "He reminds voters of the party's past instead of the future Romney wants to emphasize," the Romney ally said. While the poll appears to reflect warmer feelings toward Bush, it also points to sliding support for Romney — particularly since he was caught on video dismissing 47% percent of Americans as government dependents at a fundraiser. Recent polls have shown Obama pulling ahead of Romney in several key swing states. Romney is looking to turn the tide with a strong debate performance against President Obama on Tuesday. While Obama's favorability rating (52%) was also higher than Romney's, it was dwarfed by those of his Democratic predecessor and his wife. David Handschuh/New York Daily News But compared to former President Bill Clinton, both Romney and Bush are practically pariahs. Clinton has a favorability rating of 64%. Former President Bill Clinton has a 64% favorability rating, and First Lady Michelle Obama's was just a tick lower at 63%. Ann Romney's favorable/unfavorable rating stood at 49% to 29%, but an additional 22% said they didn't know enough about the would-be First Lady to have an opinion. Voters felt less favorably about the running mates on both tickets than they did about the presidential contenders. Carolyn Kaster/AP First Lady Michelle Obama did almost as well as Bill Clinton. Her favorability rating was an impressive 63%, while her husband yielded a respectable rating of 52%. Vice President Joe Biden's favorable/unfavorable rating came in at 42% to evenly split at 41%, with another 18% saying they weren't sure how they felt about the VP candidate. The Bloomberg News poll of just over 1,000 adults had a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points. klee@nydailynews.com Read more: http://www.nydailyne...4#ixzz27yfd1VwT