It's not a hummingbird.

At the botanical garden today, 2 women were staring at a little beastie that was going at the butterfly bush. It was not a butterfly.


(Enlarge.)

"Do you think that's a hummingbird or an insect?" asked one of the women, who seemed quite involved in the identification process. It wasn't easy, because it was small and darted around. The wings were nearly invisible.

I said: "To me, it looks like a miniature flying lobster, so I'm going to guess insect."

She said, "Yes, I think you're probably right, because it keeps hanging around, and hummingbirds are shy."

Instinctively recoiling at sentimentality and remembering this, I said, "Oh? I've seen some very aggressive hummingbirds. I've seen some hummingbirds who were real jerks."



Hey! Look at the tongue. Maybe it is some kind of crazy butterfly.

IN THE COMMENTS: Irene says it's a hummingbird clearwing moth.

AND: Peter Hoh thinks it's a snowberry clearwing, and that looks right to me.

AND: Rick Lee said:

I just posted one of those also... I asked my friend the entomologist if it was a hummingbird moth and she said it was a close relative, the bumblebee moth.

Hey, he got his to hold still... plus he's a professional photographer. No fair!

Hey, everybody, look at my breasts.

Says Meghan McCain.

Yeah, I know we already talked about this yesterday — Balloon Day. And I just did an "in the comments" update for that, which I think I'll move to this post, so you'll read it.

Chip Ahoy says:

I can't figure out what the fuss is about. I snap on a thick wide leather cock ring that forces my balls upward and to the front then put on a pair of worn tight-fitting 501 jeans that I wire-brushed the crotch area to bare fibers then position a camera with remote shutter activation directly in front of a stool where I sit spread legged presenting a straight on crotch shot to the camera lens with a mirror behind it so I can more accurately judge the angle with greater accuracy all the time. I usually discard the first few shots until I work out the lighting, then post the best ones on twitter and face book. Where these followers come from, I have no idea. Did I mention I'm very serious about politics?

That Meghan makes the pose appear so effortless and perfectly natural is stunning.

Chris Althouse Cohen says:

56 comments and not one of them says "let's take a closer look at those breasts" or makes any reference along those lines? Is it just too obvious to even say?

MadisonMan answers:

Chris: Yes.

The reference is to this old — and much talked-about — blog post of mine, which I was, in fact, thinking of as I quickly wrote this post. I'm interested to see how many of the lefty liberals and feminist poseurs who loved to say that I was attacking a woman merely for having breasts are saying that Meghan McCain is doing anything more than just having breasts.

And in the cleavage between Chris and MM's comments, we have Mr. Forward saying:

Hey boy, look over there. Balloons!

Ah, yes! How thematically satisfying it was to have Meghan's buffoonish, balloonish breasts rising into the public view on the same day as The Boy's Balloon. Now, the Boy in the Balloon has been downgraded to the Boy in the Box. I don't really know what that portends for Meghan's breasts.

ADDED: peter hoh says:

Chris Althouse Cohen wrote:

56 comments and not one of them says "let's take a closer look at those breasts" or makes any reference along those lines? Is it just too obvious to even say?

Is it just too obvious to point out that it was previously stated that "no one in our family can ever say anything obvious"?

The Philosopher's Petition: "Apprehended like a common terrorist Saturday evening, September 26, as he came to receive a prize for his entire body of work, Roman Polanski now sleeps in prison."

Begins French Philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy, who is collecting the signatures of "writers and artists." I put "writers and artists" in quotes, because the list includes, presumably as "artists," at least one actor and one fashion designer. If "artists" is a comprehensive term, why aren't writers "artists"? But I delay. On with the rest of the petition:

He risks extradition to the United States for an episode that happened years ago...

And he fled! That's why time has passed. He's avoided the jurisdiction. It's not as if prosecutors let the case go stale.

...and whose principal plaintiff...

Plaintiff! You might talk like that in France, but here in America, that's the language of torts. And we are talking about crime.

... repeatedly and emphatically declares she has put it behind her and abandoned any wish for legal proceedings.

And how much money was she paid to settle the case? What were the terms of the settlement? Do you approve — as a general rule to be applied to all — of dropping criminal charges whenever the victim has been moved to closure?  It is the nature of criminal law that it is a crime against the people, and not merely a wrong against the victim. Do you argue against that, philosopher? Why? Give reasons! Your assertions are not enough — philosopher.

Seventy-six years old...

Yes, he's that old because he fled and because he was protected in other countries that apparently did not take rape so seriously, at least not when it was committed by a great artist.

... a survivor of Nazism and of Stalinist persecutions in Poland...

If a life of suffering excuses crimes, many, maybe most, of our criminals would escape prison. Wouldn't the Nazis themselves have cried about their own suffering in the years preceding their rise to power? Philosopher, do you approve — as a general rule to be applied to all — that those who have suffered earlier in their lives should not be punished for the serious, violent crimes that they commit? Explain, in abstract terms that meet the standards of the discipline of philosophy, why you think this is so.

Roman Polanski risks spending the rest of his life in jail for deeds which would be beyond the statute-of-limitations in Europe.

We have statutes of limitations here in America too. Do yours absolve fugitives? Philosopher, do you absolve fugitives who succeed in evading capture while a period of years passes? Would you do that for everyone? For Nazis? Explain your reasons in terms that meet the standards of the discipline of philosophy, so we can judge.

We ask the Swiss courts to free him immediately and not to turn this ingenious filmmaker into a martyr of a politico-legal imbroglio that is unworthy of two democracies like Switzerland and the United States. Good sense, as well as honor, require it.

Do you assert that an artist ought to receive special treatment? Would an ingenious Nazi deserve to live out his life in peace? What does the special treatment of artists have to do with democracy? Explain what ingeniousness, filmmaking, and democracy have to do with your proposed rule.

Bernard-Henri Lévy, you present yourself as a philosopher. I would like to honor philosophy. Back up your petition with a philosophical argument that we can understand and critique.

IN THE COMMENTS: Peter Hoh said:

So in Bernard-Henri Lévy's world, there are common terrorists. One must presume that some other terrorists are uncommon. Perhaps some are extraordinary. I wonder how one can tell the difference?

Surely, the 9/11 attacks were uncommon. In fact, they were ingenious.

Let's not forget what the German composer Karlheinz Stockhausen said on September 17, 2001:

... Stockhausen...  called the attack on the World Trade Center ''the greatest work of art that is possible in the whole cosmos.'' Extending the analogy, he spoke of human minds achieving ''something in one act'' that ''we couldn't even dream of in music,'' in which ''people practice like crazy for 10 years, totally fanatically, for a concert, and then die.'' Just imagine, he added: ''You have people who are so concentrated on one performance, and then 5,000 people are dispatched into eternity, in a single moment. I couldn't do that. In comparison with that, we're nothing as composers.''

So, Bernard-Henri Lévy, by your standard, we should leave Osama Bin Laden alone?

"Oh Millard Fillmore/You're like Happy Gilmore/We all should chill more/Like Millard Fillmore..."

Composed by Seven Machos in the "School kids learn to praise Obama" post after Peter Hoh said:

The teacher(s) only get a pass if they were working on a song that included the names of all the presidents, with student composers suggesting verses for each.

And Miller said "kinda like '50 Nifty United States'," causing Seven to snark, "It's 57. Up your game!"

And Peter continues to serve up moderation:

Until I get proof that these are not some Freeper spawn doing a satiric skit, "Public School in the Age of Obama," then I'm going to have to assume that they are plants.

Yes, we won't be fooled again. Remember when this faked us out?



Some things are just too good/bad to be true.

Thanks to all my readers who gave immediate and overnight pushback to a vile new commenter...

... who I assume was pro-Obama and writing under a pseudonym here with the object of making this blog — and more generally, criticism of Obama — look racist. This coward put up his comment on my 9:50 p.m. post — "Should the President be insulting pop stars?" — at 11:52, presumably to maximize the time that it would be up on the blog and that it would sit here as long as possible before I would take it down, which I did as soon as I got on the blog this morning at around 9 (Central Time).

The commenter, Metlife, had never posted here before and had a profile showing that he'd joined Blogger just this month. He wrote — and the asterisks are mine: "can someone murder that f***ing n***** fast? It will be a good day when Hussein is murdered by one of our southern patriots."

The pushback was immediate. Joe wrote at 11:59: "Could the previous comment be stricken and the poster banned?" Just Lurking said: "Is that you moby?" (suggesting, as I am doing now, that Metlife was against not Obama but this blog community). John Stodder said: "Althouse is probably asleep, but if you have her phone number, wake her up and tell her to delete it." (No one did that.)

Seven Machos said: "Okay, first, get Metlife out of here. At least Cedarford is subtle and occasionally witty.... All racist ass clowns and pretend-racist-agent-provocateur ass clowns should take note of Cedarford's work. This is how it's done." (Cedarford is a longtime commenter who writes well but often expresses extreme ideas of the sort that I do not censor).

Peter Hoh said:

I'm guessing that nolife is a plant. A true Southerner always capitalizes the S.

And wouldn't a full-blown racist southerner consider that "southern" is an unnecessary modifier for "patriot"?

Plus he knew how to spell "Hussein."

Good ole boys spell it "Hoo-sane."

Former law student said...

Speak of laying a turd and someone does. Probably an agent provocateur, because he created a fresh identity for the occasion.

Blake said:

Ugh. The Mobys are getting disgusting in here.

Urban Dictionary defines "Moby":

An insidious and specialized type of left-wing troll who visits blogs and impersonates a conservative for the purpose of either spreading false rumors intended to sow dissension among conservative voters, or who purposely posts inflammatory and offensive comments for the purpose of discrediting the blog in question.

The term is derived from the name of the liberal musician Moby, who famously suggested in February of 2004 that left-wing activists engage in this type of subterfuge: “For example, you can go on all the pro-life chat rooms and say you’re an outraged right-wing voter and that you know that George Bush drove an ex-girlfriend to an abortion clinic and paid for her to get an abortion. Then you go to an anti-immigration Web site chat room and ask, ‘What’s all this about George Bush proposing amnesty for illegal aliens?’”

The strategy has been frequently attempted on conservative blogs, but has not been nearly as effective as Moby envisioned, since false rumors are easily debunked by fact-checking minions, and cartoonishly extreme commenters often get immediately identified as mobys and banned.

Lucid said:

Actually, Metlife, with his registration [email] and ip address, should be reported to the secret service. Threatening the president is a serious crime, as it should be.

I also wonder if Metlife is actually a lefty troll pulling an Alinsky.

Hey, Alinsky isn't defined yet over at Urban Dictionary. But I know what you mean, and I certainly think he is.

Jack said:

God, what a festering stinkhole of a web site this is. I don't know how you wingnut loons can stand stewing in your own shit like this, presided over by the shit mistress, Ann Althouse.

Of course she's too dishonest to tell you dumb motherfuckers that Obama's remark was made off the record, thus rendering her posed questions ("should the president be insulting pop stars?" and "what business is it of the presidents?") inoperative. And of course you stupid shit-for-brains don't follow the link to find out for yourselves. Maybe the ever-dull Althouse didn't bother reading enough of the story to find out that the comment was off the record, or maybe she's just dishonest.

You're stewing in a cesspool. And you like it!

And that's an example of the sort of comment I don't delete. I'm that into free speech. But Metlife deserves deletion and, as Lucid said, investigation by the Secret Service. I like to think the Secret Service is good enough that they are already on it.

"I'm going to boycott Althouse until she gives us another clue to this puzzle."

Says Peter Hoh in the Whole Foods boycott post, referring to this photograph puzzle (with added clue). Here's a big clue:



That man is Sam Rushing, of Ouray, Colorado.

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single blogger in possession of a good vortex, must be in want of a husband."

From the comments on last night's post with Bob & Mickey commenting on Ann & Meade.

Sara said:

When Ann & Meade marry, that will make 9 couples I know or that I've had some online contact with who met online and got married.

Ann, if it helps with all the naysayers, the other 8 are all happy and three have been married more than 10 years now....

Theobromophile said:

Ditto to Sara. People meet online all the time. I know a bunch of eHarmony folks, and my mum met my stepdad on Match.com back in the '90s. At least a comment section of a blog presumes a common interest.

Yes, we need to make a big distinction between the on-line version of what was once the personal ads in the newspaper. I think what is getting attention in my case isn't that we "met on line," because that's not unusual at all. In fact, I don't even think it would get a reaction if 2 commenters got together. (Why not email a commenter you like? You might end up in love in real life.) What is stirring people up is that a blogger is marrying one of her commenters, perhaps especially where the blogger is the woman and the commenter is the man.

Hoosier Daddy said:

I met Mrs. Hoosier in a bar while we were in college. We did a couple of tequila shots together, danced to The Fine Young Cannibals got engaged and married two years later. It's been 18 years of wedded blitz ever since.

AJ Lynch said:

80-90% of married couples met in a bar. Many have trouble admitting it.

Hoosier Daddy said:

Not only do I admit it, I wear it as a badge of honor and distinction. We had a rockin good time, made out in the parking lot and 20 years later we're still together.

All those fairy tales about romantic hookups is bullshit. Two years later she's telling the judge what a cocksucker he is and she ends up with the house, car and is banging the pool boy.

Yeah, how are you supposed to meet somebody? What is the officially approved-of way?

Michael Hasenstab said:

Gosh, you youngsters and your interwebs, meeting online and all.

I'm so old school that I met my wife inline. We were lined up (in person, not via computer queue), waiting to get into the same place early one Saturday morning. We talked (in person, not via some electronic thingie, this was pre-email), exchanged names (using pen and paper, this was pre-PDA) and telephone numbers (to our home phones, this was pre-cellular).

One of us called the other, then the other called one of us a few days later. Then we met once and both explained why we had no, zero, nada, bupkus, zip, nunca intentions of marrying because we both greatly preferred the single life.

We met a second time and part way through that date fell in love and decided to marry as soon as practical. And we did. And decades later remain blissfully married.

When the sparks are ignited, the method or media doesn't matter. A great match is a great match, no matter how it was achieved.

And a few friends and relatives did ask "Does he/she know the guy/girl?" Their questions didn't matter. We already had the answer.

Ha ha. By the way, from my experience, I'd say that the conviction that singlehood is best and I'm never getting married is, oddly enough, breaks through to the shortest path to a decision to marry.

Peter hoh said:

I like the way that "commenter" sounds a bit like "commoner."

It sounds like something out of a Victorian comedy of manners. "She's marrying a commoner? Oh my!"

Paul Zrimsek said:

"She's marrying a commoner? Oh my!"

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single blogger in possession of a good vortex, must be in want of a husband.

The scourge of bachelorette parties in gay bars.

"The gay men are there because, well, they don't want to be around a lot of women"/"Gay men don't go to gay bars because we don't want to be around women."

Hey, Dan, he said "a lot."

***

Do I need to make an "a lot" tag?

***

Thanks to Peter Hoh for emailing that link.

"I heard that Wall Street traders will treat us like liberators."

Comment by Peter Hoh on last night's post about the Bush speech that made me laugh the saddest possible half-laugh.

Bush speaks.

At 9 ET.

Comment here.

UPDATE: I do wish he'd been able to sell us on the plan with an explanation of how we'd be taking advantage of the market and probably making a profit in the end. (If that's the case!)

IN THE COMMENTS: peter hoh said:

I heard that Wall Street traders will treat us like liberators.

AND: I made a new post out of Peter's great great comment, so if you want to comment on that or just get a fresh start in comments on the Bush speech, go there. Also, in the WSJ Andy Kessler makes the argument I wanted to hear Bush make, that we can make money by taking advantage of the market.

Firms will haggle, but eventually cave -- they need the cash. I am figuring Mr. Paulson could wind up buying more than $2 trillion in notional value loans and home equity and CDOs for his $700 billion.

Now, why didn't Bush say that? Well, he kind of hinted at it. But maybe he didn't want to say it for reasons embodied in Peter's great great comment.

Court rejects challenge to the form of the Wisconsin referendum on gay marriage.

Wispolitics reports:

A Dane County judge upheld Wisconsin’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage Friday, describing the propositions included in the referendum put to voters as “two sides of the same coin.”

UW-Oshkosh instructor William McConkey challenged the amendment, arguing Wisconsin statutes limit referendums on constitutional amendments to a single question. McConkey’s attorneys argued that the marriage amendment asked voters to respond to two separate questions: how marriage should be defined in Wisconsin and whether marriage benefits should be allocated to unmarried people.

This decision is not surprising. I don't much like referendums, and I support same-sex marriage, but I don't like the use of a procedural hypertechnicality in court to thwart democracy. Defeat the amendment on the merits.

IN THE COMMENTS: Peter Hoh asks "What's the status of the amendment? Is it on the ballot for November?" No, it passed in 2006. This is an effort to invalidate it. "Defeat the amendment on the merits" was ambiguous. I only meant to say that if we're going to have referendums, the voters should prevail.