Orange Fish at Shedd

My daughters and I just returned from a long weekend in Chicago, where we visited the Shedd Aquarium. Flash photography is not allowed, so it's always a challenge to get good existing light photos. For this photo, I couldn't get a sharp image of the moving fish, even with a high ISO setting. Therefore, I tried to pan the camera slowly with the moving fish, guaranteeing a blurred background.The fish is not in perfect focus but the image intrigues me; it's almost like the fish is floating in air. I call this image "floating orange fish" because I forgot to read the sign to actually know what this species is. Click for larger version. Image by Erich Vieth Here's another shot from the Shedd, from a delightful display of jelly fish, and below that a variety of other stunning images from Shedd: Image by Erich Vieth For a gallery of a dozen more photos, click on the title to this post.

Continue ReadingOrange Fish at Shedd

John Yoo is haunted

Remember John Yoo, the Bush Administration lawyer who was willing to drag his Yale J.D. through the dirt by writing government memos that justified torture? If Yoo thought he could simply walk away from all of the commotion and hide out far away, he was wrong. Here he is (believe it or not) teaching law at Chapman University in Australia. During a recent class, Yoo was haunted by an old "friend" (the video is less than two minutes long): My question: Is this an improper disruption of a classroom, or is it just desserts?

Continue ReadingJohn Yoo is haunted

Metaphysics at Borders

It's fun to see what passes as "metaphysics" at book stores. It ranges from handwriting analysis to communicating with the dead to astrology to reading tarot cards to all kinds of other cutting-edge new age stuff. But nothing sums it up like the covers to the following two books I saw tonight at a Borders in Chicago: img_8400 img_8401

Continue ReadingMetaphysics at Borders

Improper foundation! Let the ignorant people remain silent?

In a courtroom, a witness is not allowed to speak unless he or she demonstrates a reasonable familiarity with the topic at hand. If witnesses start spouting off without knowing what they are talking about, a lawyer may object, "Improper foundation!" and the judge should sustain the objection. That seems to be what Bill Maher is getting at in a recent post at Huffpo. Here's an excerpt:

And before I go about demonstrating how, sadly, easy it is to prove the dumbness dragging down our country, let me just say that ignorance has life and death consequences. On the eve of the Iraq War, 69% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11. Four years later, 34% still did. Or take the health care debate we're presently having: members of Congress have recessed now so they can go home and "listen to their constituents." An urge they should resist because their constituents don't know anything. At a recent town-hall meeting in South Carolina, a man stood up and told his Congressman to "keep your government hands off my Medicare," which is kind of like driving cross country to protest highways. I'm the bad guy for saying it's a stupid country, yet polls show that a majority of Americans cannot name a single branch of government, or explain what the Bill of Rights is. 24% could not name the country America fought in the Revolutionary War.
Many of us are totally in the dark. Many of us want to be informed, but how can you be, given the 1,000 page bills couched in obscure language crafted in backroom deals with the corporate interests who are really running the process through obscenely large campaign contributions?

Continue ReadingImproper foundation! Let the ignorant people remain silent?

Knowing someone versus loving someone

When I was a teenager, I sometimes got annoyed hearing people getting all excited when they talked with their children about the Disney characters Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck. I thought this was strange, because very few people could tell me anything at all about the personalities of these cartoon characters, other than what they looked like. In fact, I had seen a few old cartoons involving Donald and Mickey, and many of them left me unimpressed, bored or disturbed. Donald often flew off in a fit of anger. Not always, but often enough. Mickey didn't have the anger problem of Donald, but people who "loved" him usually couldn't tell me anything about him other than that he appeared in some cartoons, including "Steamboat Willie." Is he an exemplary character? Very few of the people who love him seem to care. I see the same phenomenon today. Tonight, I ran across this especially disturbing cartoon of Donald Duck, probably not one that you'll see featured at Disneyland. I can hear it now . . . "Hey, kids, look! There's a funny cartoon where Donald Duck commits MURDER!" I'm sure that most people don't care that Donald committed murder. They "love" him no matter what he has done. This cartoon goes to show you that people can think that they love a character without knowing anything at all about that character. We are really good at projecting, filling a knowledge void with good things (or bad things) about a character, a movie star or even a God. Case in point is Jesus, whom many people claim to know or love yet they know so very little about him. Or think of the people who insist that God loves us, yet they aren't interested in knowing about the many genocides committed by the God of the OT. Or consider a more modern example of a person who many people "love" or "admire" without knowing anything about her: Sarah Palin, who I've previously compared to "Helly Kitty." It turns out that many modern corporate characters are intentionally left empty, allowing the public to drum up their personalities in their imagination.

Continue ReadingKnowing someone versus loving someone