CAT - Getting their licks in...

Earlier this afternoon, I had a bowl of strawberry ice cream. When I finished the bowl, there was, of course, some melted ice cream in the bottom. Since they love that, I gave it to the cats.

Peabrain and Snowy had been shadowing me the whole time I was eating the ice cream, so they got to the bowl as soon as I put it down. Peabrain dipped his head down, and lapped-up a bit of the drippings. He looked up. (Stretch, smell the air, plan how to lick up the rest--who knows?) Then he licked some more, and again lifted his head out of the bowl. This second time, Snowy dove in, licking the bowl furiously.

Peabrain waited a moment. Snowy did not come up for air as he had done--much to his chagrin. When he felt he waited long enough, he was quite clever about how he got another turn: he licked Snowy's ear. Snowy, rather startled, looked up. Peabrain instantly resumed licking the bowl. It was classic.

NEWS - What should Google do?

About a month ago, I posted an article defending the actions Google took to enter the Chinese market. A reader asked me,

"I dont [sic] understand how you can say that you don't think that Google should censor its results and at the same time defend Google for censoring its results (i.e. for doing business in China, which requires the censorship of results). What do you really mean by this, and if you dont think they should censor their results, what do you think it is that they should do?"

The first thing I should say, is "thank you." I'm glad to know I'm being read by people who aren't either friends I urged onto my site or spammers who post comments without reading my articles. I'm glad to have readers!

I can understand Chris Santoro's confusion--because I did say,"I don't think Google should censor its results," and at the same time, I defended Google when they did just that. I suppose part of the confusion stems from the fact I'm not sure what they should do.

To clarify, I believe the Chinese laws mandating censorship are unjust. Any unjust law leaves people (and, by extension, businesses) with two choices--obey the law, or disobey it and risk the consequences. In this particular case, the Chinese government is violating its citizens' rights by demanding censorship--because governments have no right to censor information. (I don't want to digress into a long explanation of why that is here--if enough readers question this as a premise, I can discuss my basis for that belief elsewhere.) While governments have no right to censor (or to order others to do so), Google is not under an obligation to provide information--uncensored or otherwise. In that sense, Google is doing nothing immoral if they either break the Chinese law, or if they obey it.

While Google is not doing anything wrong in a moral sense when they censor their search results, I should point out that they are contradicting their own stated mission, "...to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." In complying with those laws, they are violating that mission; that mission, however, is not a moral mandate--it's simply their desired goal. Because they're going against that goal--a goal I consider to be desirable--I'd be inclined to say they should not comply with the law, even at the expense of not doing business in China.

That, however, is easy to say, since I don't have to pay that expense. Google, as a public company, also has a mandate to be profitable. The Chinese market is a large and fast growing market. If Google were to wait until China changed its laws, the delay in entering that market would harm their entry into that market, violate the mandate to make profits for their shareholders.

One might argue that Google, through their compliance, is helping the Chinese government commit the injustice. To an extent, that's true, and, ultimately--more than their violation of their mission statement--that's why I tend to think they're taking the wrong course with China. Their role in the injustice, however, is minor--the facts that they're not the ones who created the situation, and that there are other companies who would cooperate with the Chinese government both mean that if Google refused to cooperate, it would do little or nothing to end the injustice. If every other effective search engine were refusing to deal with China, and Google were the only company violating the boycott, then their action would be very potent aid to that regime and worthy of condemnation. However, the fact that other companies are assisting the Chinese government considerably mitigates their action. More to the point, while they may be collaborating with the unjust regime, Google is not directly harming anyone on their own--they are simply guilty of the inaction of not resisting the injustice through their self-censorship. Remember, while their stated intent is to provide information, but there is no moral mandate for them to do so.

It's undeniable that the real victims of the Chinese government's censorship demands are the people of China--who are denied legal access to information they have every right to, but it's also true that Google is another victim (as are the other search engines in China). After all--if they could provide uncensored access to information, they would be more useful, and therefore would be used more often, and therefore would be more profitable. Instead, the Chinese government forces them to choose between providing compromised information and therefore diminished profits or simply not participating in the Chinese market. Criticizing Google for choosing the former of those two poor choices is somewhat like criticizing a mugging victim for encouraging crime by not fighting off his armed assailant. That analogy isn't perfect: the hypothetical mugging victim does nothing wrong in handing over his wallet, while Google's compliance with its "mugger" is a little more active. (Hence my willingness to be somewhat critical of their actions.)

In the end, I tend to think Google made the incorrect decision in the case of choosing to censor Google.cn. However, I'm not convinced they acted immorally, and I'm not even certain their decision was incorrect all things considered.

TRAV - Pirate radio 95.9, Rocking the Coast

For much of our time on the road, we listened to "Radio Fiesta 590." Even though it was a Spanish language station, my dad found the polka-like music very agreeable. (I was also pleased that my Spanish was good enough I could get the gist of some of the news stories they broadcast.)

As interesting as "Radio Fiesta" was, on the drive home, we had a even more unusual listening experience, around Melbourne. We picked up an FM Rock station. Their music was, from my standpoint, very agreeable--though I recognized only four songs we heard--Metallica's "Hero of the Day," Korn's "Twisted Transistor," Pearl Jam's "Alive" and the Foo Fighters' "All My Life"--everything they played, would be what I'd describe as hard alternative rock/metal.

The station was not very powerful, and was soon overpowered by Orlando's 95.7. During the entire time we listened (for about ten songs), the only identification they broadcast was "Pirate Radio 95.9. Rocking the Coast!" There was only one commercial during that time--for a program on that station. ("Callahan and..." somebody--I didn't catch the other name.)

I can only conclude it was a real pirate radio station.

I'd never managed to catch an unlicensed station before--the irony of their "illegal status" is that they were better than any of the "legal" local rock stations. (I put that in quotes advisedly--I consider government licensing of radio stations as an unconstitutional infringement of freedom of speech and of the press. That is not an opinion the courts seem to share with me, however.) I don't know why the station owners were on the air. With no apparent way for them to make money, and them risk of onerous penalties if the government catches them (a local TV news story about an apparently unrelated--and not as harmless--pirate station claimed it was a felony to operate an unlicensed station in Florida), it doesn't seem worth it. However, I for one would complain to the FCC if they were taken off the air.

TRAV - Flagler

In the guest book comments, I simply wrote "Wow!"

Flagler's Whitehall mansion--open to the public as the Flagler Museum--is not as big as Biltmore or San Simeon. Of course, both of those estates are in fairly remote locations, while Whitehall is in Palm Beach, and both of the other homes were their owners' main residences, while Whitehall was a vacation home. The entrance hall alone is bigger than my house--that makes quite an impression on its own.

One of interesting touches in Whitehall was the drawing room's gilded aluminum. For about a century after aluminum was first discovered in 1825, no one knew how to generate enough electricity to produce large quantities of the metal; the relatively short period between its discovery and the ability to produce it comparatively cheaply makes the period when aluminum was treated like gold or silver into an interesting footnote. The application in Whitehall's drawing room is an interesting bit of evidence from that period.

In any event, Whitehall is a very beautiful mansion. If you happen to be near Palm Beach, it's definitely worth a visit.

JOKE - Total wreck of a pun

If a Toyota pickup became immobile after a wreck, would that make it a frozen Tundra?

NEWS - Port whine

Well, the infamous port deal--the one that seemed to scare the everloving daylights out of everyone despite the fact that it would result in little meaningful change to Americans who don't routinely ship containers into or out of New York--has been effectively torpedoed.

I suppose it's possible that Dubai Ports World's divestiture of its American interests is a ploy of some sort (i.e., nothing's changed save for a paper-only corporation being set up in between the layers--hence Schumer's oft-quoted "the devil's in the details" comment). My gut instinct, however, is that the deal is really dead--that the company took a look at how Congress and the local governments were acting, what most of the press was saying, and what the polls seemed to indicate about the public's response, and said "to hell with this!"

What has been lost with the deal?

Well, as I pointed out before, property rights have been harmed. Maybe I'm being too emotional and not rational enough, but I can't get that worked up by a sale of a government contract to another government being scuttled--now that it's over, I don't feel as bad as I did when I heard about Kelo or when we invaded Iraq, for instance. With eminent domain abuse and unjust, unconstitutional asset forfeiture laws endangering literally everything that every American owns, Dubai Ports World's problems on this front just aren't THAT important to me. This is no Kelo decision. However, property rights are property rights, and this is an unpleasant part of a really ugly picture.

We harmed our international relations when we killed the deal. The U.A.E. was perhaps not everything we could have hoped for, but they largely decided they were with us. When the rubber met the road, however, we, as a country, pretty much treated them as terrorist barnacles. One wonders if our navy ships will be quite as welcome in Dubai in the future. Beyond our specific relationship with the U.A.E., Nicholas von Hoffman made the observation in The Nation, "Free trade is based on the free use of money, and that means people we may not like or trust buy things dear to us that we would rather they did not have." Though he was more skeptical of Dubai Ports World than I, he made a good point I wish I'd thought of: what will killing deals like China National Offshore Oil Corporation's attempt to buy Unocal and this deal do to foreign investment? This is no small concern--pullout of foreign investment (because of a tariff in that case) was a major cause of the 1929 stock market crash and Great Depression. With India's and China's economies growing much more robustly than ours, we're not the only land of opportunity in the world these days.

What has been gained?

Pretty much nothing. People have been focused on problems with port security, but the net result appears to be that nothing will change on that front.

Also, Bush will have a slightly harder time advancing his agenda. Since my impression is that about 95% of his agenda is bad for America, anything that impedes it can't be all bad. That silver lining contains an ugly stormcloud, however. While Bush usually would deserve the sort of treatment he got on this issue, in my judgment, he DIDN'T deserve it THIS TIME, and I do hate to see him lose on one of the few times he's right. Also, many politicians who are every bit as bad as Bush (read: Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, and Hillary Clinton for three examples) have managed to gain points with the public when they were typically wrong.

The end of the Dubai Ports World deal isn't the end of American Civilization, but it's not progress, either.

TRAV - Kobe beef West Palm Beach style

My dad and I were both in the mood for Japanese tonight--so we went to Ebisu. When we got there, one of the specials was Kobe beef! And for $25, at that! I couldn't believe it--I'd always believed Kobe beef extremely expensive--on the order of $100 a pound. I asked, and the waitress maintained that it was, indeed, Kobe beef. I just had to go for it. I had no idea what the result would be. The worst cut of the best beef in the world? A piece the size of a postage stamp? A regular steak prepared in some strange "Kobe style" recipe? Who knew?

The steak was small, but not unreasonably small--with the other normal meal items, it was enough to satisfy me, though I wasn't extremely hungry when we had dinner. The presentation, though, was strange--the teriyaki sauce was served on the side, the steak was served on a bed of some kind of brown noodles (which made it look more substantial), and was garnished so heavily it was hard to judge its flavor--spinach leaves, lots of scallions, and a lot of pepper. It was, however, a very tender piece of meat. Despite the unusual presentation for steak teriyaki, it was excellent.

I tried a piece of my dad's sukiyaki, and had some sushi as an appetizer and a bowl of miso soup--all of that was first rate. As for the Kobe beef, it was very good, but if it was the best steak in the world, then being frozen for the 8000 mile trip from Kobe must have taken something out of it. Still, we'll probably go back to that restaurant next time we're down here.

TRAV - Trading beanballs

This afternoon, my dad and I went to see the Mets-Cardinals spring training game. Ugly for Mets fans--the final score was Mets 3, Cards 11. I have to say, I thought the Mets' fielding today was sloppy. The Cards, on the other hand, had their act together. Based on this game, I'd fear this' year won't be much better than the last couple were for the Mets, but the Cards have good prospects for post season play.

One highlight that didn't make the sports page: in his first at bat, Cliff Floyd was hit by a pitch. In his next at bat, Floyd had a decent hit that appeared to bounce off the pitcher's leg! That struck me as a fair payback.

TRAV - "Yes, wonderful things"

OK. My blog is getting way too political. I can't resist speculating here if the Egyptians are trying to prove their friendship with us and/or win back tourism post-9/11.

Regardless of their motives, they sent the exhibition. Unlike the earlier exhibition in the '70s (which I don't recall seeing at that time--probably because I was five when it ended), this time, they didn't send the "full collection"--among the things not sent were Tutankhamun's death mask and his coffin. My overall impression of the exhibit is that it was smaller than I expected, even knowing the more limited nature going in, and that there were fewer gold objects than I expected. I'm not sure just how much I was expecting or, for that matter, what percentage of artifacts they sent, but it seemed to me they weren't showing that many pieces. (That said, the exhibit was quite crowded--they might have had space problems had they displayed more artifacts.) I was also surprised how many pre-Tutankhamun pieces were included in the exhibition--there were two full rooms that dealt with the previous generations leading up to him.

The craftsmanship of the articles was amazing. It's important to remember that these things are almost 3500 years old! I have stuff I bought last year that isn't in as good shape. I don't mean to suggest all things Egyptian are better than all things modern--remember this is the very best of what they made, and it was built to last since it was for the afterlife. One wonders, though, how much of what's made today will last that long in any sort of beautiful or usable form.

It's still--despite being very expensive ($25--not including the audio guide)--worth seeing the exhibition if you get the chance. (It's only coming to four U.S. cities--it has already been through Los Angeles, and it's not going to New York at all--so it's not the easiest show to catch.)

There were a few articles that I thought worthy of particular comment (for a complete list of tomb artifacts, consult the Howard Carter archives, though many of those articles were not in this exhibition):

The two gold images of Lady Tjuya (Tutankhamun's great-grandmother)--her coffin and funeral mask--were particularly beautiful works. If they're even close to accurate depictions, she was a very, very attractive woman in her youth (the age her artist chose to depict). In any case, the likeness is flattering--it's one of the best artistic depictions of feminine beauty among all artworks I know.

There was one cosmetic jar in particular- that caught my attention--a lion seated on the lid symbolized the Egyptians, but the conquered Nubians' and Syrians' anguished heads formed the feet of the jar. I can't help but wonder why the Egyptians depicted themselves in symbolic animal form while their enemies merited human form. To me, that makes no sense. (Why not depict the foes as, say, mice or frogs?)

In the same room as the cosmetic jar and opposite to it, there were three vases/jars. One of them, a light-blue one, was one of the most beautiful shades of blue I've seen--if I had to pick my favorite color, that would likely be it. The two darker blue vases--one which looked like a teapot--were also a beautiful shade. (Now, you get to see my memory elude me: I thought the one I particularly liked was called a "Het Jar"--but I'm not sure, and the term "heset vase" keeps coming up in my search. One of the others was called a "Nemset jar." Since the Howard Carter Archives pictures are black and white and the color is what drew me to them, those pictures are of less value anyway--though I'd like to have been able to link to the object anyway. In any case I can't locate it at the moment.)

If I had to pick out one favorite article from Tutankhamun's tomb in the exhibit, I'd point to the gold dagger (I think this is the one). The sheath and handle were very finely worked. I don't imagine Tutankhamun had much call to personally stab people, but I imagine he'd have been wise to carry a dagger in case his guards abandoned him. If this was the one he had in life, he chose well--it is an elegant piece.

(BTW--if you were wondering, the quote I used for the title is what Harold Carter said when asked if he could see anything upon looking into King Tutankhamun's tomb for the first time.)

JOKE - Flapping puns--duck!

Would a duck that likes lawn sports be a croquet mallard?

(OK. I suppose only a loon would post a pun like that. Don't cry "fowl"--you were warned with the title.)

BLOG - Following too closely?

Alright, I'm inclined to think favorably about Dubai. Still, I think Google AdSense thinks I'm a little TOO enamored of the place--earlier tonight, the ad on this blog's main page was for "Dubai Hotels!" Come to think of it, if some generous reader out there would fund it, I'd be up for a fact-finding trip to Dubai. (And if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their tails so often.)

I guess this means Google's context-searching more-or-less works. The Dubai Tourism Council must be blasting through the next ten years' worth of Internet ad budget this month, however.

(I've also managed to nicely muck-up my much-vaunted codes. This post could be NEWS, JOKE, or BLOG. Revisions may or may not be forthcoming.)

JOKE - A sticky situation!

NBC news is reporting that a 12-year-old boy stuck a piece of gum on a painting while on a museum tour.

My first thought was that was quite a way to gum up the works.

My second thought was to imagine his/her parents: "Couldn't you have put your gum under a bench like a normal kid? Those only cost a few hundred dollars!"

BTW--if you're wondering, the museum already prohibits chewing gum in the gallery.

I'll bet I'm the first blogger to comment on this story! That's something to chew on...

NEWS -- Any storm in a port...

Well, the port saga continues.

Bush is continuing to defend the deal. In a surprisingly succinct comment from him, he said, "What kind of signal does it send throughout the world if it's okay for a British company to manage the ports, but not a company that has been . . . cleared for security purposes from the Arab world?"

Not surprisingly, Congress is still unhappy. I tend to think Congress will always be unhappy--if you gave them everything they wanted immediately, they'd complain that you caved-in too quickly.

There has been a fair amount of coverage of the Coast Guard's apprehensions about, "intelligence gaps" about Dubai Ports World. That doesn't worry me--many bureaucrats have an attitude that they should know everything about everyone.

In the BBC's story about the Coast Guard's apprehensions, the final paragraph makes reference to a lawsuit filed by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and implies--but does not explicitly say--that P&O had to seek permission from the Port Authority before the transfer could take place. If so, then P&O might only have limited rights to the contract, which, in turn, would affect my property rights arguments on this issue. I tried the Port Authority's press releases--there's nothing about it on there, unless hybrid busses or the Goethals Bridge come into play on this issue in an unexpected way. CNN's story on the subject is worth reading, both for lawsuit details and for another corruption angle (the claim that the U.A.E.'s $100,000,000 donation to Katrina relief was really a bribe). The story is more reason to look skeptically on the deal, but I'm still not convinced that this deal is as bad as its critics claim.


As a final note, I had a link on my "Dubya does Dubai" article to a Detroit Free Press article ("...even going so far as to lodge no objections to a 45-day security review of the deal..."). That article is already a different story from the one I linked to. Disappearing links are always a problem with news items, but this one isn't disappearing, it's changing. I've redirected that link to this blog entry. If you want to read a complete news story about the 45-day review, you'll find it here (I hope).

NEWS - New definition for dope

In Pennsylvania, a teenager created a MySpace page boasting of his exploits as a drug dealer. OK, I could feel sorry for the kid if he was making it up out of some strange sense of machismo or bravado or something--teens sometimes do and say dumb things with no harm done. However the news accounts imply the kid was actually dealing drugs--and bragging about his illegal activities publicly. This redefines the word stupid.