Surprisingly, they’re not referring to Daddy Day Care:

The "Mother of All Bombs," of course, is the US’s own non-nuclear GBU-43, which can destroy nine or ten city blocks, but which is also so large that it has to be dropped out of a cargo plane. It’s also only a fraction of a percent as powerful as the bomb the US dropped in 1945 on Hiroshima; compared to the largest modern thermonuclear warheads, it’s relatively flea-sized. The US has never even bothered to put more than a handful in its entire arsenal.

And now the Russians, in addition to their own nukes, can also drop four fleas at one go. While describing the near-nuclear-devastation results as (I kid you not) "environmentally friendly." Points for imagination on that one.

Thing is, the bad news here has nothing to do with the kablooey and everything to do with the politics. The US and Russia have been sinking into old-school brinksmanship since Pooty and the Chimp each took (and continued to keep taking) power. The big picture is indeed getting a little scary — but because of the dysfunction of both governments, not because of any one weapon. This should be fairly obvious; to paraphrase NRA supporters: "high-yield airburst thermobaric fuel-air munitions don’t kill people — people do."

Not quite sure why we’re supposed to panic about this one particular bang, but Fox News and its cohorts seem hopeful that we will. I guess if you’re not constantly frightened about something, you’re not truly patriotic these days. (Notorious recent example pictured at right.)

The most dangerous weapon in the world right now is the ability of the powerful to mobilize a generalized fear and hostility.  Everything else follows.  This might be good to keep in mind. 

Next in line to frighten us: the Bitter Ex-Spouse of All Bombs, which will glower at us menacingly from across the room at a party before making out furiously with someone almost at random; the Depressed Coworker of All Bombs, which will creep us all out with its constant talk about "getting even;" and the Drunken Brother-In-Law of All Bombs, which will drink ten city blocks’ worth of our beer and then throw up on Canada.

Hat tip: Colin.

I never expected that a paperback romance would ever be mentioned on this site. But my old friends Patrick and Deanna, whose wedding I attended, whose advice I value greatly, and whose home I crash in whenever I’m in San Diego, are (weirdness begins here) on the cover of an upcoming Harlequin novel.

They’re not models. They’re just a real married couple who won a contest. But I can also confirm that they’re actually even better-looking in real life.  Also, whenever they kiss, a powerful sea breeze sweeps through the room, opera music begins to play (usually something by Puccini), and in the distance, you can hear lions roar.  Fun at parties.

They are also successful, happy, and good at filling their lives with excitement and challenges and good friends. Truth be told, if they weren’t so bloody wonderful, they’d probably be completely annoying. But no, they’re just terrific people. So while Harlequin romances aren’t exactly my thing, I must say, something about seeing the two of them on the cover of one just seems completely… well… inevitable.

Yes, that’s the word.

My congrats to two of the nicest, most loving people I know.

Much of what I’ve read, both in print and online, written in remembrance of the sixth anniversary of 9/11 has been quite remarkably partisan.  More than a few lefties are taking yet another opportunity to repeat the point that Bush derailed the war on terror by invading Iraq.  More than a few righties are seizing the day to imply that those who oppose Bush are sabotaging the war on terror.  And I’ve seen writers on each side imply that the other side is dishonoring the memory of the 9/11.

These writers themselves are dishonoring the memory, very much, if you ask me.

The people who died in the World Trade Center weren’t left or right, rich or poor, old or young, male or female.  They couldn’t even be stereotyped as Americans, by any means; there were victims from 90 different countries, from Antigua to Zambia. 

And in the first days after the event, partisanship fell away.  I remember a time — a very brief time — when, aside from a few obscenely jaded political operatives, some of whom would soon sharply influence the course of events — almost all of us were shocked out of our daily routines to see each other not by labels and stereotypes, but simply as people.  Fellow human beings.  There were gay victims, and illegal immigrant victims, and gun-toting NRA victims, and wingtip-shoe-wearing victims; in their passing, they were all the same.  And in observing their loss, we were all the same, too.

Remember that?

Beyond these borders, as the world mourned its own victims and ours, moments of silence were observed across Europe, and memorial vigils were held from Japan to Iran.  For a moment, in our grief, humanity became the only thing that mattered.

We promised we would never forget.  And look how much we — all of us — have forgotten already.

Six years later, I think that’s what we’ve lost.  That’s what we keep losing every day.

I think maybe that’s what we ought to remember.

And then we should act on that memory, every day, like it matters.  Then we’ll be honoring the victims of September 11th.

My two cents, anyway.

Apparently it’s not just a "set of beliefs" — it may simply be who we are:

Trying to step outside ideology (if that’s possible), and leaving aside the loaded words "liberal" and "conservative" for a bit, maybe I’m missing something, but if studies like this keep coming up with the same results, this information may have important practical implications. You need to land a damaged plane, deliver a baby under stress, win a battle on the ground, etc.? A brain that simply does not process distractions, alternatives, and conflicting information might be much better at it. You need to make long-term plans and decisions in a complex and constantly changing world uncharacterizable by singular notions? The all-the-options brains might fare better.

Otherwise, you get policy driven by ideology.  And we all see just how peaceful a world that makes.

What leapt out most while working on Who Hates Whom is the symmetrical thinking of reactionaries — we’re completely in the right, the other side consists of lesser beings who do not see the truth and must bend to it and become like us, yadda yadda yadda — leading both sides of many (certainly not all) conflicts. This is of course a lot less troubling to look at in faraway conflicts than one you’re more directly involved in, which is part of what I hope will make the book useful. (Still, you enjoy feeling troubled, Jon makes a bit of a hobby out of finding disturbing parallels between our own unsavory leaders and others. Rainy day fun!) Over and over, extremism — which is, after all, merely a heightened inability to consider alternatives — fuels its counterpart on the opposing side, often to the detriment of all.

In short: Barry Goldwater once said, "extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." Maybe not, but it’s frequently a direct contradiction in terms.

Not that we aren’t all getting a daily lab course in this, if we care to notice.

And of course, the idea that how your brain processes information should somehow largely determine the course of your life (which, of course, it does) in any way other than the sort of self-selecting manner that already exists may run counter to everything a free thinker holds dear. So maybe there’s no valid application for the UCLA/NYU findings after all.

Worth thinking about, though.

Watching France v. Argentina in the opening match the other night, I couldn’t help but think I’d seen French second-rower Sébastien Chabal somewhere before.

Oh. Right.

Then again, I still say Munster scrum half Peter Stringer is really Bat Boy from the Weekly World News.

Incidentally, if you missed New Zealand v. Italy or Australia v. Japan, you can re-enact the lopsided results by taking a bag of rugby balls the edge of Niagara Falls and throwing them over, one by one.

Each ball is a Kiwi or Aussie possession, and the air resistance on the way down is the Japanese or Italian defense. When the ball hits the river below, count that as a score for New Zealand or Oz.

Each time the ball bounces all the way back up the falls and lands in your hands, give five points to Italy or Japan. Then toss that ball directly back over the edge.

When you run out of rugby balls, add up the score.