As our ninth anniversary presents, Mrs Cleek and I gave each other tattoos - well, we went to get tattoos together - I didn't draw on her, nor she me.

It was my first and her ... 5th (?)

For those who've never had one done, I thought I'd share what it feels like. Take a sterile needle, stick yourself with it, deep enough to hurt, but not so deep that it draws blood. Or, give yourself a really hard and really small pinch (use your fingernails, or tweezers, or needle-nose pliers). Make it hurt, don't be shy - if you wince, you're on the right track. Now, repeat that, in a small area, for half an hour (or 90 minutes, if you want to see what Mrs Cleek endured). If it bleeds, wipe it off. But don't stop.

It's not the worst pain in the world, and after the first five minutes I was able to pretty much put it out of my mind by thinking really hard about the paint on the walls. But it still hurt enough (and still does) that I have a new respect for anyone who can get tattoos on places where the skin is more sensitive than it is on an upper arm. Like, for example, Mrs Cleek's new one on her upper back.

I am surprisingly drawn to the idea of getting more...

Mini-headline at CNN.com:

Iraq progress on constitution; 30 killed

Thanks to Salon, I now know about the Julie/Julia Project: a blog on which a woman attempts to cook all of the 536 recipies from Julia Child's "Mastering the Art of French Cooking", in a year, describing her results as she goes. She's hilarious:

On her attempt at Filets de Poisson Bercy aux Champignons

So the fish. The Filets de Poisson Bercy aux Champignons, I should say. I screwed this one up, I'll go ahead and admit it. Which is not to say it wasn't good. The fucker has a cup of butter, half a cup of cheese and very nearly a stick of butter in it, so how bad could it be? But the fact of the matter is, I over-poached my poisson. She said explicitly to poach the fish -- flounder, it is -- in its vermouth and clam juice -- I love recipes that use clam juice, it's so retro or something -- for '8 to 12 minutes depending on the thickness of the filets.... Do not,' says Julia, 'overcook; the fish should not be dry and flaky.' Well, I cook that fish for 8 minutes, and how you do think it turned out? Yup. This flounder would give my college acting teacher a run for his money.

And, the next day:

An aside on food insanity. I just read the article in this week's New York Times Magazine on Raw Foodism, and so this is no amazing observation, but Jesus Christ!! Two things strike me about this unfathomably ignorant trend. The first is, how male it is somehow, how Fast and Furious. "You're a vegan. Big fucking deal -- I don't heat my food. Take that!" And wow, the power of self-righteousness. The guy says he's never felt so good -- well, yeah, because nothing feels better than being better than everybody else. And the third thing is -- yeah, I decided I had three points -- My God, how sad. There is precious little comfort in this world. Why take food, one of the very few simple comforts, and turn it into an obstacle? Why rob yourself of one of the few honest pleasures you'll ever know?

If you read more, you'll see that she doesn't drop the F-bomb in every paragraph , but she's still pretty funny - especially when things get difficult, like when she and her husband attempt to get marrow out of a veal bone:

Then I go after it with a knife, and manage to worm my way into the interior. The pink stuff begins to drip out. This is somehow not how I imagined beef marrow. It's like guts, kind of. I stick my smallest paring knife into the center of the bone past this hilt, and scrape the stuff out. "Once we get our place in New Mexico," murmurs my husband as he looks on, mesmerized, "We're going to have to get ourselves a rescue cow. And treat it really nice."

Fun, for foodies.

The misleadingly-named Tech Central Station is running an awful article entitled Why Intelligent Design Is Going to Win.

Here are the bullet points the author structures his article around:

1. ID will win because it's a religion-friendly, conservative-friendly, red-state kind of theory, and no one will lose money betting on the success of red-state theories in the next fifty to one hundred years.

   Note that he has nothing to say about the merits of ID. But he's convinced that the popular will of people who breed quicker should be enough to make sure ID "wins" ("... families that reproduce people tend to reproduce ideas, as well" he says later). Well, popularity is pretty lousy way to measure the scientific merit of an idea. But, ID is a pretty lousy idea, so maybe that's its best bet. At least he's not hiding the fact that this is primarily a political issue for the IDers.

2. ID will win because the pro-Darwin crowd is acting like a bunch of losers.

   No, really. He wrote that.

3. ID will win because it can be reconciled with any advance that takes place in biology, whereas Darwinism cannot yield even an inch of ground to ID.

   What on earth can he mean by this? Let's read on:

   So you've discovered the missing link? Proven that viruses distribute super-complex DNA proteins? Shown that fractals can produce evolution-friendly three-dimensional shapes? It doesn't matter. To the ID mind, you're just pushing the question further down the road. How was the missing link designed? What is the origin of the viruses? Who designed the fractals? ID has already made its peace with natural selection and the irrefutable aspects of Darwinism. ...It must dogmatically insist that it will resolve all of its ambiguities and shortcomings...

   Or : science will never stop looking for answers; but no matter what the question, ID already has the answer (hint: it's the bearded guy in the sky). Grrrrrreat.

   I wonder, though; since ID already has the answers, can we assume it has had the answers all along? That is, should we throw out all the advances in biology that have occurred in the past 150 years thanks to Darwin's insights ? They can't have any value, if ID's "God Did It" is the real answer. Or should we just stop now and keep what we have so far ? How much do you suppose he values, oh I dunno, vaccinations and antibiotics ?

4. ID will win because it can piggyback on the growth of information theory, which will attract the best minds in the world over the next fifty years.

   And the best minds in the world will be satisfied with "God Did It"? That kind of thinking went out of fashion about 700 years ago.

5. ID will win because ID assumes that man will find design in life -- and, as the mind of man is hard-wired to detect design, man will likely find what he seeks.

Yeah, he really wrote that. This, too:

Hammers tend to find nails, screwdrivers tend to find screws, and the human mind tends to find design.

Bafflingly stupid, he continues:

Of course, the propensity to see designs doesn't mean that the designs aren't actually there. But the quintessential human perception is one of design -- and, to the extent that perceptions define reality, a theory built on the perception of design has a huge advantage over its competitors.

The human mind also prefers to group people into Us and Them, giving Us the attributes of angels and Them the tendencies of devils - call it tribes, teams, clubs, nations, religions, races, etc.; and the mind is perfectly happy explaining things it doesn't easily understand with nonsense superstitions. Now if I could take those two things and use them for political advantage... why, maybe I could write for Tech Central Station!

In a contest there shall be 11 rounds, 6 rounds of chess, 5 rounds of boxing. A round of chess takes 4 minutes. Each competitor has 12 minutes on the chess timer. As soon as the time runs out the game is over. A round of boxing takes 2 minutes. Between rounds there is a 1 minute pause, during which competitors change their gear.

It's... Chess Boxing !

(via Making Light

The iPod starts this work week with:

1. Stereolab - Orgiastic
2. Smaller Animals - Pornography
3. Robyn Hitchcock - Glass Hotel (live)
4. Mudhoney - Come To Mind
5. Derek & The Dominos - Nobody Knows You When You're Down and Out
6. Led Zeppelin - Trampled Under Foot
7. The Rolling Stones - Live With Me
8. Liz Phair - Explain It To Me
9. Buddy & Julie Miller - Rachel
10. Dinosaur Jr. - Poledo

Well... that's a strange mix. I think it means I hate my job.

Went to the show last night, saw all the famous personalities. The antiques were lavishly presented and the crowd ooooh'd and ahh'd in appreciation. Most of the featured items were in good shape, only missing a couple of details or a little filligree here and there. On some pieces, worn spots were noticable, but didn't detract much from overall value; given the huge market for the material, slight imperfections are tolerated and even enhance the value, to some dedicated collectors. Most items presented were made during the height of their manufacturer's powers and when the style was at it's peak, and so nearly all were appraised highly; the owners were sure to make a fortune. Two or three were of more recent production; and while they showed many hallmarks of the older preferred style, the market for these newer objects is only a fraction of the market for the older examples; the appraisers received these items politely and the owners were gracious and understanding of the situation.

There was a showing of lesser-known material from a lesser-known, manufacturer before the main show, but due to a schedule conflict (a wedding), we couldn't be there in time. But the main show, at least, was great. And I recommend that all who get a chance to see it do so, before they cancel it forever (for real, this time). If you can't be close to the main action, bring binoculars. And if you don't want to spend a lot on concessions, bring a flask.

Here's my ticket stub: