In all of this googling of ancient history I came across some interesting, non-related, tangential kind of things:

a basic world history text on the web: Guide to the Past.


The Long Now Foundation, which I've known about, but not in the breadth of their projects.

I like their bax X logo, form the Roman numeral for 10,000, though it seems to me they should have two of them if they're trying to look at the last 10,000 years for the next 10,000.

I like their diagram of 'now', 'nowadays', and 'the long now'.

And a tangent from the contents of the American Heritage Dictionary: Proto-Semitic

Proto-Semitic Language and Culture. Guide to Appendix II. Chart of the Semitic Family Tree. Semitic Roots Index.

What kind of a date are we talking about for Proto-Semitic? If late neolithic or early chalcolithic (per Huehnergard, above, paragraph 26), and if Jorn has those dates right in the Ancient Near East [cite], then we're looking in the timeframe of 5000-3300 BC. Compare that with a date of 1775 BC for Abram's migration (from my world history timeline [cite]).

My point? Proto-Semitic culture was probably at least 1500 years before Abram. What was that culture like? Huehnegard gives some linguistic clues. It was probably not a lot different from Abram's day - most things didn't change very fast back then. But it's fascinating to think about.

The implicit question for a man of faith like myself is: ok, how does this jibe with the Bible?

The simple answer is: I don't know. The slightly more complicated answer is: I'm not worrying about it.

A bit more: I don't know how all of this stuff fits together. I'm pretty inclined to take most of the archaeological findings as reliable (though some of the interpretations are surely mistaken). I'm pretty inclined to go with geologists' take on the age of the earth. Does that cause me to doubt the Scripture? Nope. I don't think we're clear on what Scripture is actually claiming. The implications for faith are clear: God created the world. Human choice has brought ontological and existential catastrophe. We must trust God. We need God. Beyond that, the pre-Abrahamic parts of Genesis (before chapter 12) are murky when it comes to science and history, at least to me. Are they claiming to be historic, really? To what degree?

The trick comes in walking the line of Biblical authority between literalism on the right(wrong), and liberalism on the left, where the Bible is never history. I feel confident of where I'm walking. Conservatives get nervous because this kind of approach opens the door to liberalizing. True. But I'm also convinved it's the only way to move forward and take the Scriptures as they were intended by their authors and by God.

Here's something you're probably totally not interested in: more Proto-Indo-European.

American Heritage Dictionary:

Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans. Guide to Appendix I. The Indo-European Family of Languages (this one features a beautiful chart relating all of the languages that I have not seen before). Indo-European Roots Index.

Now for some less important, but deeply interesting, basketball items:

Roy Williams is going back to UNC.

Paxson! I still say his name when I make a shot. The dude who used to rain in the threes is the new GM in Chicago. Good luck handling Jerry Reinsdorf.

Though I'm conflicted about the war, the lack of destruction and civilian casualties has been simply amazing for everything they've accomplished. One example: all of the oil well fires are out.

But I heard some guy on NPR say precision munitions could actually increase the frequency of war. I wonder if that's true...

You know you're a geek when you see 'FTL' on your waistband and your first thought is 'Faster Than Light'.

However, I've got nothing on these guys:

Kottke linked Slashdot's poll for which spaceship you'd most like to own. I only know half of these. Somehow I think that's the point.

As for me, I'd happily settle for Decker's flying car.

Oh yeah, and, like Brad noted, Yahoo's got new search now too. My reply:

yeah, right. i saw it and it's basically a Google clone. and the results are much worse, so busy you have to have those red arrows in the tour to even know what they're talking about. long live Google!

Post I sent to the Google Weblog:

Kottke's got three Google links in his sidebar Remaindered Links:

Amazon signs search deal with Google. Google ads on Amazon.

How Google Grows...and Grows...and Grows

Microsoft Covets Google's Niche 'We believe that we can provide consumers with a better product and a better user experience.' I doubt it.

The Google Weblog links an invective article about Google's inordinate place on the web and how a few well-connected webloggers can take over the language. Not sure if I agree or not, but it sure is interesting.

I'm out of town again, so posting will be sparse to nonexistent.

'It's enough to make you start writing again...' I posted to the twinlog for the first time in a long time.

MentalBlocks on the future of warfare. And it's not the tank. There's actually more firepower, in the age of precision munitions, in having a firespotter on the spot who 'calls in' (paints with a laser, gives GPS coordinates, or whatever). Tanks are uncomfortable, hard to maintain, and hard to get out of in a hurry (like when you're going to explode). They're hard to keep fueled.

It occurs to me that Steven wrote about this before. And when he was talking about obsolescence he wasn't even talking about precision bombs.

Retired Maj. Gen. Don Shepperd of CNN says he likes Franks' plan and why.

Jim Litke of AP asks if the deciding game has already been played in AZ-KU.

Come on Jayhawks. Go Kansas University of Iowa.

I've been on a total Sister Golden Hair kick for the last couple of weeks. I didn't even know the name of the song until friday. I heard it in McDonalds on vacation and was amazed once again by how interesting the verse structure is. The verse sounds musically like a bridge to me, something about the chord progression in that key. It's so surprising and wonderful. I don't care about the lyrics, and the chorus is pretty standard.

(Jaq, any musician's comments on what's going on in my mind here?)

Now that I mention it, I like quite a few songs by America. I think I particularly like the melodies, the harmonies, and the vocal style.

There go my picks, right down the toilet. I lost my finals teams last night.

And I'm totally ok with it. As a matter of fact, I pulled for both of the underdogs. I wanted Novak to hit another three (for skinny white guys everywhere). And, if I had my druthers, Kansas would win the whole thing.

(I haven't mentioned yet that I killed Sports Illustrated, pick-wise. I'll spare you the analysis, but their picks were terrible, and they had Arizona winning the whole thing.)

From a Google Ad:

Who would Jesus bomb?
anti-war bumper stickers
from Unknown News
www.unknownnews.net/

The ad got pulled for violating Google's No Hate Speech Rules, but later got reinstated. The whole story (via Google Weblog).

C'mon, Jaq, admit it. Tom Brady is great.

After reading DEBKA(via MentalBlocks) I feel positively sanguine. Their map says 4 columns but shows 6. Sound like there are more available, too. I wasn't getting this from CNN. Glad I read further

If you're discouraged by how the war is going, check out USS Clueless, especially this post. Among other items, Steven links to Ha'aretz which says:

There has never been a war with such a high level of disinformation about what exactly is happening on the battlefield as the present conflict in Iraq, according to Israeli researchers and senior military officers....Contrary to the sense that has been created in the last few days, including in the media, there have not been any particularly tough battles in Iraq so far, and the American military has chalked up a series of achievements.

People are hungry for news, and they're getting it from embedded reporters. But, for the most part, they're getting exactly what the military wants them to get.

How will the media evaluate this coverage, looking back. Does embedding compromise theri objectivity? Is it a co-opting of the media that they will find unacceptable? 'news' is a product for which there is a market, so the media will keep serving it up. But shouldn't they be keeping in mind, and reminding their viewers, for the sake of journalistic integrity, that they lack major pieces of information.

This embedding thing turns all of the major media into a military propaganda arm under the guise of objective reporting. That's pretty good for fighting a war, not so good for getting the whole picture.

One last question: How's the whole Psychological Operations thing going? Sure would be nice if we didn't have to fight in the streets of Baghdad. It's often been said we're waging a different kind of war where public opinion around the globe really matters, and most of all in Iraq.

Steven also links MentalBlocks, which looks pretty knowledgeable.

Oh, and by the way, Israel's totally loving us right now.

Did you see Michael Stipe has a protest song up? fwiw

Here's an idea I'm totally ripping off from Kottke: what Google thinks is related to my site. Very interesting. Mostly what I'd expect. A new high in Google vanity.

And, finally from the Kottkefest, I really agree that too many reporters are being upbeat about this, concluding their reports with 'My pleasure'.

On the military side:

We have obvisouly learned two very important lessons form Vietnam:

1. Support the troops. Everyone is falling all over themselves to do it, even if they're against the war.

2. Fight to win. You must have the will to win.

Question: If we are faced with a war we should fight, but could possibly lose, will we be willing. We have the will to win now. Could we have the will to lose?

Thoughts on the War in Iraq
(Warning: Incongruous Thoughts and Feelings Ahead)

I've been driving Christine crazy with my constant tuning into the war news. As much as I love the NCAA MBB Tournament, I've barely watched any of it. Instead, I've watched a lot of CNN and listened to a lot of NPR (or tried, through the radio hells of the NC mountains and rural TN, AR, and OK).

So, what do I think?

I'm conflicted.

Saddam Hussein deserves to go down. The UN hasn't dealt effectively with him. France (minus Bourdeax) can fall off into the Atlantic. I want our troops to win. And I'm annoyed with a lot of the press.

But I know the US can't claim the moral high-ground. We typically act unilaterally in our own interest, and our biggest interest is money, followed closely by power (which secures money). It's still the economy, stupid.

Kottke's right in a lot of what he says. We are not going to war for altruistic reasons. We've been a little bit honest about this. We've said we're protecting our people. We've couched it in terms of liberation, which is a nice secondary result. But, as many people have pointed out, there are lots of places where we don't get involved.

(I happen to think Kottke's being too cynical about this being principally an economic opportunity and I think the bad explanation thing is not the main point internationally. More on that in a minute.)

I've been assessing Bush these days, too. I heard a very interesting interview on NPR with Richard Brookhiser, the author of The Mind of George W Bush in The Atlantic Monthly. It was complementary in a lot of ways. Bush is decisive. Brookhiser described it differently, but I conclude that Bush really has principles that drive him and enable decision-making.

The problem is, I think his principles are too facile. I think they're too simplistic. I disagree with his perspective of what's best for America and our role in the world. Doesn't it boil down to domestic wealth and morals and international unilateralism? I'm not as hard on Bush as Kottke is. I'll give him partial credit for good intentions. But I think the results are largely the same.

Which brings up something else I read this week: the cover stroy of last week's Newsweek: Why the World Hates Us:The Arrogant Empire. America's unprecedented power scares the world and the Bush administration has only made it worse. This is the foremost reason, I believe, why other nations ahve not supported the disarmament of Iraq: they're trying to band together to put a leash on us. And I can't blame them. For years we were more benevolent. We encouraged alliances and diplomacy. Now Americans (by and large) are sick of diplomacy and the UN. But it turns out that the only thing worse than the UN and it's circus and inefficiency and the corruption of its nations is no UN at all.

Bush has not been interested in the world. He has not travelled. He wanted less foreign involvement. His major plank of foreign policy in the campaign was less 'nation building'. It reminds me now of the naive Jimmy Carter, thinking he could do things in Washinton a new way, without the politics. Didn't Bush think we could get by without the diplomacy?

After September 11th, now that we've got a war, the uninterested Bush has become the strong, hawkish Bush, aligning with conservatives who want to make the world safe for America (and it's corporations).

Clinton had no principles and couldn't decide. But I'll take his foreign policy any day.

After this war, President Bush and his Administration are going to find that they need diplomacy. They are going to find that they have a big hole to dig themselves out of. Just sending in the troops won't work (and I hope they don't have to go again, to N Korea or Iran or Palestine). I don't see us being able to get much done.

I don't see USAmericans caring, either. At this rate, we'll get four more years of Bush and a worsening international situation, probably with the UN just barely holding onto legitimacy, and NATO less-so.

Fareed's conclusion is powerful:

There are many specific ways for the United States to rebuild its relations with the world. It can match its military buildup with diplomatic efforts that demonstrate its interest and engagement in the world’s problems. It can stop oversubsidizing American steelworkers, farmers and textile-mill owners, and open its borders to goods from poorer countries. But above all, it must make the world comfortable with its power by leading through consensus. America’s special role in the world—its ability to buck history—is based not simply on its great strength, but on a global faith that this power is legitimate. If America squanders that, the loss will outweigh any gains in domestic security. And this next American century could prove to be lonely, brutish and short.

Further, I would say that eroding the goodwill of other nations, looking like a bully, will make our nation much less secure than any amount of defense spending can remedy. We can't failsafe national security. Better to invest in international goodwill.

This is something this administration has not done. The attacks of Septembet 11th cried for a change of foreign policy. They attacks were monstrous and worng. But they demand self-examination, not self-righteousness.

Second apology: for those of you who tried to get into the Tulsa Invitational, there were a lot of problems. Only five of us got in. So sorry if that was frustrating, too.

That said, I'm kicking butt. I'm leading and I'm really happy with my picks. I picked fewer upsets this year.

By my count, there have been 12 upsets, 6 of which I picked right (including Mich St over Fl, which I love). I sure wish now that I'd picked Maryland. That one I should have seen coming.

I picked 8 upsets so far and 6 of them were right. Should've put some money down, aye?

I picked the first round of the West and Midwest brackets totally right!

So what was my strategy? I was more conservative this year, in general. A lot of my picking is who I want to win. I picked all 4 9 seeds and 3 of them won (and NCS almost did). It just so happened that I liked all of the 9 seeds better than the 8 seeds they were playing. I looked for places to pick up upsets - overrated teams like Creighton and Memphis (and I generally pick against John Calipari). I once preferred the Big Ten and ACC, but that has mostly evaporated. I picked against Billy Donovan as soon as I could.

That's pretty much it. Now you, too, can pick just like me.

But really, I can't take much credit. As you see, it's pretty unscientific. It's not even based on intuition.

We were gone for a week in North Carolina. Sorry I didn't post that I'd be gone. I should have.

I was working on a glowing review of the Kansas game yesterday until they choked. I'm a closet Kansas fan because:

1. I like Roy Williams
2. They get better Iowa players than Iowa.

Hech, I might start calling it Kansas University of Iowa. When I want to make myself crazy I think about what the Iowa basketball program might be like if we'd been able to keep Lute Olson and attract the top Iowa talents that Roy Williams got - Raef LaFrenz, Kirk Heinrich, and Nick Collison. I still pull a lot for Lute and Roy and Kansas. However, this year I'm going to pick Kentucky to win it all. That's who Sagarin's got. And I like pulling for Tubby Smith. I'd love Roy Williams to prove me wrong, but he's been so snake bit in the tournament.

I'm managing a pool called The Tulsa Invitational. Come on in if you want. The password's 'invite'.

Here's something you might be interested in knowing: I spent the morning last saturday with the most excellent Collaborator, Jason Streed. It was a great time. Among many other very-smart things, Jason said you could get a better liberal arts education at Laputan Logic than at most schools.

I was driving to meet the kids in Iowa at my parents house when I first heard Father and Daughter. I though it sounded like Paul Simon, but I didn't trust myself and googled more generally so it took me a long time to find out it really was Paul Simon. I certainly feel this about my daughter. (Listen to it with Flash.)