While watching the sad business of the shuttle a few days ago, I started to think back to Apollo XI. I remember watching the adventure unfold, and thinking, "These are the last few minutes in history in which people will not have been to the Moon!" I even had a scale model of the two modules.

An interesting little book: A journal of the late siege by the troops from North America against the French at Cape Breton, the city of Louisburg, and the territories thereunto belonging, surrendered to the English on the 17th of June after a siege of forty-eight days / by James Gibson. London : Printed for J. Newbury, 1845.
At the end of this tiny book it is revealed that parliament had some money waiting for Gibson or his descendants!!

Hey! "Huit pays europeens tournent le dos a la "vieille europe"! That's in today's Figaro.

Today's installment from Colby Cosh has this to say about Bush's address, in particular, his seeming difficulty with public speaking:

This isn't cultivated folksiness: anybody who describes Bush as a "good ol' boy" probably hasn't met one. It's something else. How does the viewer respond to his "I just gotta put my head down and get through the next 45 minutes alive" technique? It creates drama, for one thing. I think the most hysterical Democrat alive would admit that Bush's SOTU speeches are vastly more compelling, in that respect, than Bill Clinton's agonizing orgies of silky-smooth self-congratulation. Bush's visible difficulties give him a wholly genuine aura of intensity.

This is a good observation. It's just impossible not to listen. One point, though: I believe the pronunciation "nucular" is acceptable. I've heard reasonably well-educated people say "fillum", for example.

On a cheerful note: something I found in an actual paper-and-leather "book" today.

"At the glorious battle of Quebec Serjeant Macleod, amongst the foremost of the grenadiers and Highlanders, who drove the shaking line of the enemy from post to post, and compleated their defeat, had his shinbone shattered by grape shot, while a musket ball went through his arm. He was assisted to retire behind the British line; and in doing this was informed of the multiplied wounds that threatended the immediate dissolution of his admired and beloved General [i.e., Wolfe]. It was, under this weight of actual suffering, ad [sic] sympathetic sorrow, some consolation tho the good old Serjeant, (for by this time he was seventy years of age,) that the tender which he made of his plaid, for the purpose of carrying the dying General to some convenient place off the field of action, was accepted."

They had it hard back then. People were tough.

I've got to quote this in full from Damian Penny's Daimnation!, or whatever it's called:

It's not just Muslims

For those of you who believe the Palestinian death-cult is directly related to the Islamic faith, I direct you to the words of Father 'Atallah Hanna, a Greek Orthodox Christian Priest (with Israeli citizenship, no less), who openly preaches genocide against Jews living in Israel:
"The Zionist Jews are foreigners in this land. They have no right to live or settle in it. They should go somewhere else in the world to establish their state and their false entity. With regard to Palestine and its beating heart Jerusalem, it was never in the hands of the Jews. It was and will forever remain Arab. Jerusalem is an Arab city and the Jews must not settle in it, be masters over it, or carry out any type of religious ritual or ceremony in it. They must leave their homes. They have no right to live on land, [or in] cities or villages that are not theirs..."
"We do not believe in so-called 'peace with Israel' because peace cannot be made with Satan. Israel is the greatest Satan. No concession and no truce must be made [with Israel]. Any type of peace with this entity is concession, submission, and retreat from pan-Arab and national principles... The negotiations and the other attempts [at an arrangement] will not restore the Palestinians' rights to them. The Palestinians' rights will be restored only by resistance. What was taken by force will be restored only by force..."
"Resistance is the obligation of every Palestinian Christian Arab, as it is the obligation of every Palestinian Muslim Arab."

And this from Sharkblog:

The San Francisco Chronicle reports on a public opinion poll regarding American attitudes toward Jews. Among other things, the poll reveals that 24% of 18-24 year olds believe that "Jewish control of the media distorts the news", that 34% of Americans agree that "Jews have too much influence on Wall Street," and 37 percent believe that the Jews were responsible for killing Jesus Christ. (If I understand the New Testament correctly, it was the Romans who crucified Jesus, but I've never heard of anti-Italian pogroms) In any event, if anybody is jealous about Jewish financial and media power and wants a piece of the action: Come and join our team.

Sheesh.

Finally, a ruling on Power PEZ: is it a candy or a toy??

With respect to the Power PEZ, these goods again cannot be classified solely on the basis of Rule 1 of the General Rules. Rule 3 (b) is the one to which the Tribunal is directed, given that the blister card contains the motorized candy dispenser, which could be classified as a toy, and the two packages of candy, which could be classified as confectionery. It is the Tribunal’s opinion that, for purposes of classification, novelty packaging is not usually determinative; however, as in the case of the Power PEZ, the novelty is so extensive that it actually transforms the essential character of the product. The play value of the Power PEZ predominates over the candy. It is designed to be played with prior to the candy being eaten and even prior to opening the package. Furthermore, the play value is also durable, as evidenced by the fact that the Power PEZ dispenser has a replaceable battery and is a collectible. The Tribunal, therefore, agrees with the appellant, given the fact that the play value of the Power PEZ not only endures, but precedes any eating of the candy. As a result, the Power PEZ should be classified as other toys, other than of metal, incorporating a motor under tariff item No. 9503.80.90.

— Canadian International Trade Tribunal REGAL CONFECTIONS INC. v. THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE. Appeal Nos. AP-98-043, AP-98-044 and AP-98-051 (1999).

War on Thingamajig. Mr Rumsfeld the other day spoke of a war that could go on for "months, years", which may tend not to inspire people. What it says to me, at least, is: No objective and no exit strategy. As with any business plan, you have to demonstrate what it is you want to achieve, and how, before you can expect much support. Just shouting at people doesn't do it. Whining about the French dismissal of your view as "simplistic", instead of cleverly arguing against them, only makes their point. Complaining about how the world views the U.S. is also a waste of time, and only creates the odd impression that the U.S. has yet to convince itself of the necessity of action. Talking about other people's opinions is not what a determined nation does.
Nobody, other than a child, can honestly say what this war on terrorism is really about. The phrase itself sound dishearteningly like other Wars on Nouns, such as the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty. (By the way, is that one over yet? What were the peace terms?)
The original impetus for this war was the attack on the World Trade Center. That was what the Taliban hit was for; and, as far as anyone can see, most of the main al-Qa'ida people are dead, in custody, or routed, and the remaining perps' associates are all in Saudi Arabia, probably enjoying the good life. There is no place left to take this war; in fact, the whole idea of "al-Qa'ida" was that the organization itself, rather than any state, was the base of operations. Afghanistan was just where they were living at the time.
The War for Enduring Freedom? But that's surely one of those concepts that undergrads argue about, and if you were to ask somebody what they meant by it, he would no doubt thunder at you about freedom to do this and that, and aren't you ashamed of yourself for forgetting the war dead.
Well, let's make it easy. They mean freedom to live and work without the constant threat of terrorist attack. I do not think they intend to free the slaves or to right wrongs everywhere.
This is an excellent and manageable goal. Not unlike the War on Crime (1968-1972). But, as with the War on Crime, is it really a good idea to try to disarm and neutralize criminals, wherever they may be? Would it help much if bad countries were made to register their WMDs?
In a war you have to convince. To win a war you have to get the other side to want to stop. And how is the U.S. going about garnering support? By not being clear about this. It's as if they want the world to join some kind of international Skull and Bones. You know, you lie there in your coffin and admit what a loser and fag you are, then you do some minor shameful thing, and then your new brethren eventually pat you on the back and say "You're okay, fellow!" And they swear you to secrecy and so on. But they don't tell you anything up front.
Worse: if the U.S. persecutes this war in this way there will be no end to it.