Porn Run On Seized TV Channels, Residents Say
"Israeli troops who have taken over three Palestinian television stations in Ramallah are broadcasting pornographic movies and programs in Hebrew, irate residents say. Soldiers occupied the offices of three local television and radio stations on Saturday morning, and started broadcasting the porn clips intermittently on Saturday afternoon on the Al-Watan, Ammwaj, and Al-Sharaq channels, the residents said. "

In reading Seyyed Hossein Nasr's Religion and the Order of Nature for my thesis, I came across what is one of the more interesting arguments against evolution that I've seen. The book is about religious versus secular/scientific views of nature. His argument is that religion views nature as sacred because it is a reflection of God, and that the denial of the sacredness of nature by modern science is at the root of the current environmental crisis.

His view of evolution was mentioned only in passing, as Nasr wrote at length about this topic in another book. While his tone (calling evolution "absurd" and insinuating that some kind of scientific establishment conspiracy refuses to discuss the obvious flaws in evolution) suggests the book may be a lot of ill-informed rambling about the Second Law of Thermodynamics and microevolution versus macroevolution, the argument of interest to Religion and the Order of Nature was somewhat different. The problem with evolution, Nasr says, is that it isn't finished. Everything is still evolving. So there is nothing special about the arrangement of nature at present. It's simply a random spot in a never-ending process that has no particular goal. Therefore, there is no moral imperative to respect or protect nature -- it's all going to change anyway, and the present state of affairs is no more special than any other. In contrast, the religious view says that nature as it exists now is a perfectly constituted reflection of the eternal qualities of the divine. As such, the current arrangement of the natural world is something that has sacred significance and therefore must be protected.

It's interesting that his argument is not based on a contention about the truth of evolution (though he certainly believes it is wrong). His argument is, rather, that believing in creationism is useful -- it fosters an ethic of environmental stewardship that would help to avoid the environmental crisis caused by a belief in evolution's apparent callousness toward the makeup of the natural world.

This raises the problematic issue of the equilibrium view of nature. This view, which retains incredible popularity in environmentalist circles despite being challenged by new ecological and anthropological research, holds that non-human nature exists in a state of perfect harmonious balance on its own. The presence of humans can only mess things up and put nature out of balance. This view is necessitated by the proposition that nature is the culmination of creation.

I also don't think a view of the natural world as sacred (or inherently valuable in some other sense) is necessary to avoiding an environmental catastrophe. A view of nature as sacred is simply one mechanism of preserving the human species. A more explicit calculation of the sustainability of various practices could work as well. It's interesting how religion, which bases its claims on access to eternal truths, can become, in the hands of a careless defender, simply a mechanism for achieving another goal. I don't have a problem with that type of argument, but I doubt it's direction Nasr meant to go.

Some Detainees May Be Held Even if Acquitted
"Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday that some al Qaeda and Taliban fighters could continue to be imprisoned even after being tried and acquitted by U.S. military tribunals, if U.S. officials still believed they were dangerous terrorists."

Well, I'm glad they're going to be spending our tax dollars on this charade of taking them before the tribunal. No wonder Bush was so eager to visit Peru last week. The U.S. has very little experience with running kangaroo courts, so he wanted to ask former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori for some advice.

Quote of the day (in reference to a guided meditation led by Mohawk midwife Katsi Cook):

"She didn't just break out her little Native American stick and start waving it around."

From the e-mail I sent to Judy Fischer:

I have decided that I am going to decline the Watson. It's a tough decision, and not one I ever anticipated having to make, but I think all along a part of me has known that was the right decision to make. I don't have the excitement or the energy about the project anymore that I would need to make the most of the year and really live up to the goals of the Watson. And I think this is especially true vis a vis the alternate candidate who will now be receiving this kind of an opportunity. I may very well go to New Zealand to do a similar project at a later stage (which I don't think can be said of a lot of non-recipients, given the unusually academic nature of my project). But if and when I go, I think it will be with a clearer sense of what I'm doing and more enthusiasm for something with a clear place in my life (as dissertation fieldwork, for example). I want to assure you that I don't think the assessments of either the Colgate or national committees were in error -- they were simply based on a representation of myself as I felt in October. The proposal writing and application process were valuable experiences, and I regret not being in a position where I can feel comfortable accepting this opportunity.

I'm reading "El jardin de senderos que se bifurcan", by Jorge Luis Borges, for Spanish. And I came across this phrase:

"... no ya de quioscos ochavados y de sendos que vuelven ..."

Quiosco is a form of kiosco, meaning newsstand or kiosk.

Presidential order followed draft by lobbyists

"President Bush last year issued a presidential order on energy policy that closely followed a proposed draft given to the administration two months earlier by oil lobbyists, according to documents released by the Energy Department under a court order."

Just so you don't think I'm suddenly going all pro-Bush.

Wolfgang Sachs put his glasses back on 24 times during a half hour of his talk today.

Most of what he said was stuff I'd already heard before about the relationship between development and environmental sustainability and the need to find a different goal than raising the GDP. But something about the way he was talking got me thinking about it in these terms:

Take as our starting point that our goal is to make people happy. Happiness is caused when what you have matches up with what you want. If what you have and what you want don't match, you can do one of two things (or a combination). You can get more, or you can want less. In general terms, the idea of development, and of the modern economy in general, is to take wants -- even infinite wants -- as given, and then try to work with the supply side of the equation (which is not at all to imply that pre-modern wanys of doing things were therefore the opposite -- both strategies have been used in varying combinations throughout history, and we just happen to live in a time and place where "have more" usually trumps "want less"). And at this point I'm sure you've guessed where I'm going with this. The key is getting people to honestly want less, rather than thinking of it as just having less while wanting the same (which would decrease happiness, thus moving us farther from the goal). Now, it's easy enough to say that people need to think differently. The problem is creating social structures that encourage people to act accordingly. And I think that's where most development critics fail. The best they can do is proposals like trade restrictions that would make us have less.

I'm going blog-crazy today, and there's probably more to come, as long as saying that hasn't jinxed it.

Bush Statement On Campaign Finance Bill
Strangely enough, I agree more than I disagree with the President's assessment of the McCain/Feingold/Shays/Meehan bill. Yes, it is a step forward, and yes, there are questions in my mind about the restrictions placed on issue advertising. I don't see the need to raise the limits on individual contributions, as that only makes it easier for rich people's voices to overshadow the poor's, though that may have been a politically necessary concession. And I don't entirely buy that Bush's current stance is the one he's held all along. It may be one of the benefits of the war on terror that Bush won't have the time or effort necessary to fight on issues he doesn't really care that strongly about (though we have to be vigilant so that he doesn't try to use the war and the notion of national solidarity to keep opponents from fighting hard, either).

I committed an act of journalistic vandalism today.

A group has been putting up signs calling attention to injustices in Colgate's administration. There was one with statistics showing how athletics resources were skewed toward men's teams, and another about gender and race imbalances in the faculty. This poster said at the top "COLGATE SHOULD PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH..."

I couldn't resist, so I got out my pen and made it "COLGATE SHOULD PRACTICE WHAT IT PREACHES..."

Darn collective nouns, screwing everyone up.

Is it too much to ask that a comment system actually allow people to make comments?

Jazz band just hasn't been fun lately. It ought to be -- we've got full instrumentation for the first time in eight semesters (providing Dave shows up), and cool people like Antwaun and Emily. And we're sounding a lot better than we were with Darryl.

But we're not playing any good songs. Last semester we at least had "Moanin'," which is one of the coolest songs ever (although that was the one song where I played first part, even though second was for once the cool part). This semester the best we have is "Takin' It To Church," which Emily astutely pointed out sounds like a sitcom theme song.

And we're not soloing nearly as much. I'm not going to have a solo this semester, for the first time ever. Soloing is a big part of the reason I joined jazz band -- I suck at it, but it's fun to be able to mess around and try to create something of my own instead of just playing back the marks on the page (which Prof. Cashman has been very strict about).

Ah well.

I found this logo on the CAP alert page. It reminds me of when little kids punch each other by proxy.

Computer 1: *zap* pass it on.
Jesus: Ow! *zap*
Computer 2: Ow! *zap* pass it on.

Energy Contacts Disclosed
"The information was released by the Energy Department just a few hours before a court-ordered deadline, and after 11 months of resistance by the administration to lawsuits by public interest groups seeking to determine who influenced the writing of the administration's energy plan."

Finally.

I just had what was perhaps the best conversation I've had so far about the Watson. I called Norvell Brasch, the director of the Watson Foundation, and told him what was going through my mind. He said he had gotten some sense of that in the interview (when I had been trying to represent myself as I had been in October, when I was excited about the possibility), and that it was among the questions the committee had had about my proposal. And he said that the worst thing to do would be to take the Watson when I wasn't going to be excited about it.

And it seems like the only rationale for either side that I can be happy with at all is the one that says whoever the first alternate is would make better use of the Watson Foundation's resources than I would. But nobody will ever buy that. Altruistic-sounding reasons are always lame rationalizations, and the Watson is supposed to be about me and my personal development.

I don't think I can think clearly about my future anymore. Too many emotions, too many reasons that might just be rationalizations, and too much second-guessing where any of them come from. And it makes it all the more frustrating that everyone else, though they try to act like they understand the choice I have to make, they really can't comprehend the idea of someone turning down a Watson for any reason short of also winning a Rhodes. And it may come down to something as simple as the fact that I don't think I can face BL Turner having turned down the Watson and expect him to ever comepletely regain respect for me.

Israel Plans Big Assault If Truce Talks Fail
"There is a widely held view in the Israeli army and security circles that the only way to stop terrorist and other attacks on Israelis is to occupy the Palestinian areas where the attackers live and operate -- though even that provides no guarantee, officials acknowledge."

Palestinian militants are attacking Israel because, among other things, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip make them feel powerless. So the solution is a stronger occupation?

"Don't tell me not to tell you what to do!"

I watched far too much CNN the past few days. I think it was out of loneliness, mostly. I was at the AAG conference by myself, in my own room, with only the vague idea that somewhere else in the city there were a few other Colgate people. And there was no internet. I hadn't realised how dependent I've become on it, but it seemed like TV was the next best thing, because it was feeding information in at me even if I couldn't control it very well or respond.

And I also realised why I don't like TV news. In theory, it would seem like having that added medium of video would make the news better. It's one less layer of interpretation that the reporter has to put on it, when they can show you what happened instead of having to try to describe it. But really the video is a handicap, because they have to always be showing something. Most of what you see is file footage. And that adds bias so easily. A picture is worth 1000 words, as the cliche says, but you can never find a picture that's got the exact 1000 right words. Every clip they show will have some connotation that will tilt the story that's being read over it in one direction or another.

But even given that, CNN can be shameless in its bias. They did a piece on the energy plan that Congress is considering, which has as one of its provisions allowing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. During the story they showed file footage of herds of majestic caribou running across the coastal plain, juxtaposed with filthy oil drilling facilities belching out smoke. Granted, I'm not sure what footage you'd show that would communicate the opposite position -- increased oil supply and reduced dependence on OPEC aren't exactly photogenic concepts. But unavoidable bias is still bias. But their segment on the campaign finance reform bill was even more blatant. The title graphic that ran alongside the footage of Congress said "putting the muzzle on campaign money." I think someone noticed, because the follow-up story the next day just said "campaign finance reform."

I'm off to LA for the Association of American Geographers' Annual Meeting. I'll be back Sunday night/Monday morning. Now I have to go check my carryon for unexplained weapons ...

The coriolis effect is warping my beard.

I finally saw Requiem for a Dream last night.
"Eh, that's not so disturbing."
"OK, that's a little disturbing."
"Well, that's a lot disturbing, but they didn't show it for very long."
"Oh dear, here's a longer shot."
"Mommy, hold me."

But at least now I know what people are talking about when they start saying "Be excited! Be, be excited!"

And was I the only one who got this mild incest vibe from Harry and Marian (not that the movie needed anything else to make it more disturbing)? In the scene early on when they're laying beside each other and they have the split screen showing their faces in profile, I realised that their noses and chins were similar shapes. Which led me to think that they could reasonably be cast as family members in some other movie. Which led to ewww. But maybe I just have incest on the brain from reading too much Claude Lévi-Strauss in the car.

The other night I dreamed about Liz getting shot. She was just sitting there, and this guy came up to her with a red pistol that I took to be the bolt gun they use to slaughter cattle, and put it against her head. There was more to the dream -- context that, if not justifying it, at least explained why someone was killing Liz. But all I remember now is the one scene.

Freud would probably say this means I secretly want to have sex with Liz. While I normally think Freud is a complete crock, it might be useful to believe him in this instance. I don't particularly want to have sex with Liz, but I'd rather have sex with her than kill her.

I ran into Chris, who was coming down the Persson stairs.

She asked, "Why do you have that big grin on your face?"

"I could hear you whistling 'Sunshine of Your Love' when I was coming around the Student Union."

I finally got a letter in the mail from the Watson fellowship. When I took it out of my mailbox, I could feel it was thick. They don't send thick packets to losers.

And my first thoughts were "Oh crap."

I should be excited about the possibility of going to New Zealand. I should be looking forward to all the cool stuff I'd see and do down there. But I'm not. Maybe it's that I had been thinking so long about grad school that I'm just disoriented by everything changing.

But I think it's also doubts about my project. I came up with it as a Fulbright project, assuming that much of my time would be spent taking archaeology and Maori language classes at the University of Otago. But the Watson forbids you from taking formal classes. So I altered my plan for the Watson application, assuming that if I got the Watson (which as far as I could tell looked less favorably on the type of project I was planning) I would also get the Fulbright.

I can make a convincing argument to myself that, upon further consideration, my project wouldn't do justice to the Watson fellowship and that my time would be more productively spent at Clark or Wisconsin, and that the first runner-up would make better use of the money. But is this just rationalization of my fears?

People are going to be congratulating me. What do I say to them?

Apparently the things that were chasing the kitty were Domo-kuns.

Today was the first barefoot day of the year. It was a bit too cold for it, but I felt like it suited the spirit of the weather.

When I think about why I go barefoot, the thing that always comes to mind first is the tactileness of it. When I'm barefoot, I feel the ground with every step, instead of just feeling the inside of my sock. It adds a level of sensory experience to something as mundane as walking up the hill. I can appreciate the difference between the smooth slate steps and the grass pulling my feet in and the rough pavement where I have to watch out for scattered bits of gravel.

It's similar to the way I feel annoyed when I see people walking around with headphones on. I did that once, going up to 'Gate House to see if Marty was around late on my last day of sophomore year, with my walkman on so that I could listen to Dave's radio show. And even though it was one in the morning, every time I saw any people I would have this impulse to rip the headphones off while I passed them, so that they wouldn't see what I was doing. I feel like having headphones on means that you aren't really paying attention to what's going on, that you have made a conscious choice not to care -- the path is just something keeping you from where you're going, and you need to insulate yourself from it.

But that's kind of a hypocritical attitude for me to take. I don't wear headphones, but when I walk around I can get just as absorbed -- deliberately or not -- in whatever song is stuck in my head. Instead of listening to snatches of conversations, and the wind ruffling the trees, and my own feet on the stones, my ears are full of "yum, yum, Bumblebee, Bumblebee Tuna, I love Bumblebee, Bumblebee Tuna..." And I'm always thinking about the next thing I'm going to do -- the chart I'm going to make for The Maroon-News, the amount of time I have to eat before the lecture, the book I have to read tonight because I can't renew ILL materials.

Much as I try, I can't quite experience.

Bush Proposes $5 Billion Boost in Aid to Poor Nations
"President Bush Thursday proposed a three-year, $5 billion boost in U.S. aid to impoverished nations that embrace economic and political reforms, the largest increase in history, saying it could help ease the despair that gave rise to Islamic militancy."

He finally does something I can approve of.

Mugabe Wins Disputed Zimbabwe Election

Great. Just great.

To Brunchmeet or not to Brunchmeet? All along I had assumed the answer was yes. Naturally, I want to see Barbara and Beth. But I had a bit of a scare in terms of bus schedules this week and had to consider the possibility of not going to Brunchmeet. I feel kind of guilty for saying this, given that I know Barbara and Beth were both looking forward to Brunchmeet as well, but I liked the possibility I saw. It involved less riding on the bus (five hours Colgate to Boston, instead of ten hours combined of bus and bus station Colgate to Fredonia, and then another ten from Fredonia to Boston). It would be more relaxing -- going to two places instead of three for break. It would cost significantly less. And it's not like I'll never get to see them again -- Barbara may be in DC this summer, and Clark isn't all that far from Tufts. But at the same time, I feel like I'm letting them down if I don't go. And I feel like in retrospect I'll wish I had done it. So I don't know. But I have to decide by tomorrow, so I can buy tickets on one bus or another.

"Maintenance" and "sustenance" bother me. It seems like they should be "maintainance" and "sustainance," so as to parallel "maintain" and "sustain." "Sacrilegious" (instead of "sacreligious") is another one.

You know an article is important and deep when its title begins with "toward." "Toward an interactive theory of nature and culture," "Toward reinventing nature," "Toward a modern environmental ethic."

"It is a day that has started with knowing that tanks are about 50 feet from my house.
How bad can it get, I mean really, after that one?"

Sometimes you just need to see someone say something that puts it all in perspective. I figured I should count myself lucky that I can't truly understand what that's like, that my middle class heterosexual white male American scale of experience (and I've been exceptionally lucky even for a MCHWMA) doesn't reach that far.

So I went to read about it in the Post, so I'd at least know what was going on even if I couldn't really understand or feel it. And what do I notice when I get there? This. So all of a sudden I'm whipping out the atlas and running an image search on Google to see if I'm right in thinking that the Dead Sea is normally one body of water, not two. And wondering what sort of processes -- climate change? increasing withdrawals for urban drinking water? irrigated agriculture? -- are causing the sea to shrink, and how they may be similar to what's happening to the Aral Sea, and what the implications are for the Israeli/Palestinian/Jordanian environment. Completely forgetting the 17 people who died today.

And it looks like my plans for visiting Barbara and Beth over break are down the toilet. You'd think that Shortline and Greyhound would coordinate their schedules somehow, so that it would be possible to get from Hamilton to Fredonia without waiting three hours in the bus station.

What moron gave Björk a recording contract?

... and suddenly Yaccs stops working. I must be cursed.

OK, Multimania. I gave you a chance. You were doing great for a while. But this whole not allowing new comments thing is unacceptable. Have fun sucking the D in the kiosk.

I hold no grudge against dotcomments. I'd sincerely love to continue using dotcomments. But it's not worth the effort when there's not a single reliable host for them out there. So let's see how long yaccs lasts.

*hands the D to Multimania*

I think you know what to do with this.

Some thoughts that came out of questions about how the Bible could say that homosexuality is bad (assuming that liberal revisionist interpretations are incorrect) when that seems to go against the principles of the faith.

In terms of ethics and code of conduct, the Bible contains two basic types of statements -- specific rules and general principles. Granted, there is more of a spectrum from the most specific rule to the most general principle, but I think my analysis still stands. This means there are two ways of looking at how they fit together.

The more common way, especially among people who take the literal truth of the Bible very seriously, is an inductive approach. In any situation, they would look first for a verse that specifically addresses their situation. If none can be found, they look for more and more general principles. Principles fill the gaps between specific commands, which can operate as exceptions to the principles.

But I would take a more deductive approach. To me, the principles are what's key. We can then reason from the principles to more specific rules for whatever situation we encounter. The rules in the Bible, then, are attempts by the authors to do just that. They can be useful as far as giving us the answers to tough problems (which we can later verify for ourselves). But this deduction is context-specific. So it is important to always be checking St. Paul's reasoning, to make sure that he wasn't either thinking of a slightly different situation, or simply mistaken. EIther way, the principles always supersede the rules.

The height of procrastination: I just ran the English spell check on my Spanish essay, and made all the changes it suggested. A sampler:

Nerd scribe “Explicit Laguna’s Cocas” durance la Guerra civil de Espuma, queue foe ulna oportunidad Para prop robes armaments nevus queue serial may import antes en la Segundo Guerra sundial. Estes armaments tine UN grin effect en el pinto de vista de loss sol dados. El bombardier con avian as el major exempla. Un pilot tine UN vista queue apiece Como la vista de UN dies. Per al gismo tempo, hay mucho queue as obscure mass Para UN avian queue Para UN persona en el solo.

Nope, wrong number.

The phone is ringing. Caller ID says it's MultiMania's mom.

Bush Puts Tariffs of as Much As 30% on Steel Imports
"We're a free-trading nation, and in order to remain a free-trading nation, we must enforce law," he said. "And that's exactly what I did. I decided that imports were severely affecting our industry, an important industry, in a negative impact, and, therefore, provide temporary relief so that the industry could restructure itself."

So in other words, Bush wants to promote free trade by imposing tariffs. Just like he wants to protect our liberties by compromising constitutional rights. I'm guessing his 2004 slogan will be "Vote for Bush: It Will Help the Democrats."

What's the deal with Mongolia? Does anyone know what's going on in Mongolia (besides the people that live there)? Not really.

But that's exactly their plan. Lay low, so that people forget you exist. Nobody will ever suspect Mongolia.

Osama's behind this. We're watching all his likely escape routes -- Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, the Philippines. But Mongolia? Hardly. So just wait.

Someone in this room has been printing Confederate money.

Last night there was nobody in the geography lab. The lights in the room turned out because I had been sitting at my computer for so long. (As a tangent, I managed to lock up the lounge without triggering the motion sensor lights in it. It's a big accomplishment.)

While I was sitting there, I managed to get into a hyper-productive mindset somehow. I had the draft of my thesis open, and I was typing away. I was drawing in all kinds of references, from Ayn Rand to the 16th century beaver trade to "Buddy" Karelis to campaign finance reform. I was in such high gear that I couldn't write in a linear fashion. I'd do a paragraph here, then jump somewhere else and sketch out an idea before I lost it. Sometimes I wouldn't even finish sentences, relying on the opening to remind me of what I was going to say while I zipped back a few pages to fill in something else. I'm surprised my writing comes out as coherent as it does, seeing how fragmented my style of creating it is. Brendan once told me that I have a very stream-of-consciousness style, which makes little sense given that the order of my thoughts is very different from the order of my paragraphs.

I would have stayed and kept going except that I had to do the dinner dishes, which had been left for me since I had to leave for work right after dinner. So I did that, then went back to my room to work on my thesis. But now it was a chore to drag out any words, and all the analogies and explanations I had thrown down just an hour earlier sounded stupid and inaccurate. So I read some Lévi-Strauss and went to bed.

I think I'm going to be able to quote former Colgate University President Charles "Buddy" Karelis in my thesis, if the quote I'm remembering was really in his State of the 'Gate interview last year. It amuses me greatly to type the citation "Wahlers & Shocklee 2001."

From the "Colgate employees who need to get a life" file, this e-mail dated March 4:

I'm writing to you as the managing editor of the Maroon News, fully realizing that someone else on your staff is most likely responsible for the error I am about to point out; I know you will pass this along as appropriate. The following phrases appeared in the March 1 Campus Safety Blotter:

"A staff member reported their vehicle hit and damaged ..."
"A resident of 80 Broad Street reported their vehicle damaged ..."
"A visitor reported their vehicle damaged ..."

Pronouns must agree with their subjects in both gender and number. Thus, "a staff member reported (his or her) vehicle ..." Presumably the gender of the person reporting the incident is known, so the correct gender-specific pronoun should be used when the report is published. If the gender of the person is unknown, then use an article rather than a possessive pronoun ("a staff member reported a vehichle ..."). Or better yet, find out the gender of the person reporting the incident, which will allow you to use the appropriate pronoun, and make the statement more precise. The pronoun "their" is a plural pronoun, and may not be used with "a staff member," "a resident, "a visitor," or any other singular subject.

Your proofreaders should have caught these errors -- to write them is bad enough; to publish them is an embarrassment for all the world to see and judge. I assume you wish the paper to reflect well on both the student body and the paper's staff, which is why I share this observation with you. For what it's worth, this particular grammatical error can be found everywhere lately -- radio commercials ("Tell a friend about us and put a little sunshine in their day"), television commercials (a specific example escapes me at the moment), and all over the place in print. My theory is that it's an aftermath of politically-correct gender speech -- people are too lazy to write "his or her" in lieu of the now-unacceptable "his" only (regardless of gender), and so have slipped into using the more neutral "their" even when it's absolutely incorrect to do so. It's become so common, most people barely notice it. However, it is still incorrect.

Speech and writing are the outermost windows through which everyone views a person's education; that this type of mistake actually makes it into print at an institution like Colgate is simply unaccepable.

Another doo-dah band trip (this time with bad rhyming!):

Seven hours on the bus, doo-dah, doo-dah.
Couldn't eat (motion sickness), oh doo-dah day.

Goatees worn by all from 'Gate, doo-dah, doo-dah.
Drunk fan said "it's not too late," oh doo-dah day.

Drove an hour to find food, doo-dah, doo-dah.
Thoughts about Jill were quite rude, oh doo-dah day.

After 8, D.C. is closed, doo-dah, doo-dah.
Couldn't even buy the Post, oh doo-dah day.

Off to the Patriot League basketball tournament. Zomberg will be there. Back on Sunday.