Blog Noir

Mon, 02 Aug 2004 18:33:28 GMT

http://www.postgradmed.com/issues/2000/03_00/garcia_sleep.pdf

L'Union de Les Mis?rables...

Sat, 09 Nov 2002 14:50:14 GMT

L'Union de Les Mis?rables...

I just read this most interesting article by Theodore Dalrymple, about the state of France. It isn't the first such observation of the condition of society within socialist-leaning countries. I'm particularly interested in France for perhaps the same reason everyone else is; I wonder what motivates them to be as they are, politically. How is it that they so clearly cannot see that a country with so many socialist inclinations can never grow to be very powerful, efficient or effective in terms of serving the will of its people, if it presumes to govern with deceitfully egalitarian, le pot au lait philosophy, all the while making autocratic policies and devious diplomatic agreements that fly in the face of these proclaimed ideals of the European Union.

Of course, I've had enough discussions with enough philosophers to know just how murky the ground can become beneath the unwelcome treading of one political writer as myself. Just the other day, in fact, I was browsing through Barnes & Noble and I happened to find myself unable to ignore a book on "modern" philosophy dwelling tediously on this very thing. It asks the question - or rather makes the claim - that how we collectively think dictates our reality, such that positive thoughts would channel forth a new substance from the aether and thus all would be made right with the world.

How depressing such ramblings are, and how unoriginal. Perhaps cogito ergo sum goes back even further than Descartes - in fact, I'm almost sure of it - and such optimism is no doubt the source of all the world's mythologies. If only we think happier thoughts, there lies for us a happier destiny. But, as delightful as such a whimsy would be, it is utterly certain that reality seems to feel no obligation to subscribe to such. I'm left feeling a hollowness after hearing someone belabor these starry-eyed aspirations - kind of like how I feel after watching an episode of Star Trek: TNG. I think I'm being charitable when I say that show is wildly optimistic fiction; I have my doubts that we will ever explore the stars when we live in an era when NASA has to convince a sizable portion of the population thatwe did actually go to the moon.

But back to France. Or let's just widen the mantle a bit here and spread the observation over most of Europe. There seems to be an underlying social romanticism that buttresses the policies of these countries, well meaning perhaps at first, but bound to being twisted into something less Pollyanna and more perverse. It can't be helped - such is the providence of any fantasy that is forced into the real world. We are left instead with one-horned goats rather than unicorns, and police who turn away from crimes in order to avoid damaging their grade point average within their precinct, rather than protectorates inspired to work hard against crime.

Yet how awful are the sneers of derision cast against someone who would suggest that criminals are not victims of society, but the victimizers of it, instead. It reminds me of that ha-ha-only-serious joke about the leftist who finds an old man being beaten by a mugger - when the thug runs off, the leftist rushes to the side of the old man, shakes his head and says solemnly, "What terrible things society must have done to him to make him want to beat you like this." It's enough to harden anyone to cynicism when one is pushed by force of guilt-ridden, leftist, ersatz moralizing into handing society over to the uncivilized.

It isn't correct to define the world in the starkness of black and white the right-wings bluster on about, but neither is it useful to water it down into a single shade of egalitarian gray, either. All intentions are not always good, not every idea is as worthy as any other, and no single social balm will salve every wounded forgotten child. But, it is easy for the warm, well-fed, untrussed bourgeoisie to think so, having never faced down a classroom full of miniature gangsters who know damn well that pasty bureaucracy makes it illegal to fail them, or a mob of angered Muslims who believe that killing a white, pork-fed infidel might secure a few extra virgins for eternity.

Anyone with the remotest sensibility understands that not every poor minority kid in the 'hood is a surly illiterate who brags about gunning down his neighbors, and not every Muslim believes in the righteousness of western destruction, but enough do that it makes learned caution a wise thing. Especially in inner-city classrooms and Arabic nations, neither of which many leftists have dreamed of setting foot within. But, if they had, they would likely treat it with the kind of frightened toleration that the pedestrians in Paris employ when young thieves threaten the lives of senior citizens in the broad daylight of wealthy neighborhoods. Better to make excuses for the threat, ignore it, and rationalize it than to be brave enough to confront it. Instead, they leave that to their elderly.

Site Update!

Thu, 07 Nov 2002 13:03:04 GMT

Site Update!

How about some hot, fresh content? Mmm! Mmm!

First, we have another new member who joined the fold here with me. He's an author/poet (the published kind) in New Zealand, and I'm glad to have him hostage where I can watch him. You know how those artist types are. Can't trust 'em. Anyway, now you can't say that I'm uncultured, so nyah. Check him out here on our site, or if you're a LiveJournal user, you might add him to your friend's list. annex is the name he goes by there.

We now have a telephone hotline you can call (no, not a 900 number, you pervert). So, you guys can quit asking for my number. This is as close as you'll get without buying tickets to the opera.

I have a new art addition to the collection. This one is called "Liberty Will Prevail". Check it out and buy something, dammit.

I guess that about does it for now. I'm putting the final spins on the EU section, but I also have some work-related things I have to finish, so that won't be up until Friday or Saturday.

Well, Hell...

Thu, 31 Oct 2002 20:15:45 GMT

Well, Hell...

Update: Apparently, in my zeal to be humorous, I managed to fuck up my history. I suppose this just goes to demonstrate that anyone can be susceptible to those kinds of errors of view. However, I'll be a good sport about it and leave it up, so you can see it and the interesting comments that followed. I encourage you all to read them. I've always tried to maintain that it is more important to be correct than right, particularly when attempting humor.

------------

(If you know nothing about Roman history, the following may make zero sense to you. See my note at the bottom.)

{{{{wavy time-warp lines}}}}

Power-mongering Pompey Provokes
By Maurenius Diodus

Kalends of May, 68 BC

ROME - Gnaeus Pompeius "Magnus", boy-general who would be king, fired off a memo to the Senate last week demanding the longstanding title " proconsular imperium," a title only bestowed on consuls and senators - in other words, those old enough to tie their own sandals. Once again, Little Pompey shows Rome his utter disregard for the mettle of his superiors. Of course, what more can one expect from an overly confident adolescent who presumes to plan and fight Roman wars around the world with his brand new wooden sword his big brother Caesar gave him.

He's been on a rampage for months about these so-called "pirates" in the Mediterranean. Some call them Mithridates freedom-fighters, but don't try telling Pompey that. This is the same Pompey who told the Messana citizens "Stop quoting the laws to us. We carry swords," when they had the cheek to complain about that little matter of him brutally slaughtering them by the score to get at a handful of Marians and their stray general.

Himself, as Pompey is known behind his back at the Senate, is not being a total tyrant. After all, he did finally deign to share his supposed "victory" over Spartacus with Consul Praetor Marcus Licinius Crassus, with whom Pompey and Julie Caesar have been at odds ever since. These two unlikely bedfellows have teamed up with an aging General Aulus Gabinius, forming a motley gang of roughnecks to tamp a bill down the throats of the Senate allowing Pompey a ridiculous amount of military and fiscal authority to chase off one Mideast megalomaniac, King Mithridates and these alleged "pirates".

First, he and his brainy adviser, Caesar set up their own "triumvirate" within the Senate, designing a more grandiose and aggressive foreign policy that can be summarized: "All roads lead to Rome."

Then they set up their own militia within the military, staging a civilian coup and yanking back power from a military establishment they felt had grown too skittish about risking troops in combat. So Pompey, like a petulant child who refuses to be denied his candy, has seen fit to label the Mithridates navy as a bandit horde, and demands the command of the entire eastern Roman military to deal with them.

It can scarcely be left to doubt that after eradicating such an easy target, Pompey will returned emboldened anew to demand more than just imperium with the might of the Roman military behind him. This pubescent pugilist styles himself the next Alexander.

The faux Alexander is doing well projecting the image of Protector of Rome. But has he really done the hard work to protect us from anything? The Gauls are still at large. Another Celtic attack could be coming at any moment. The economy is imploding. The crime rate is rising.

The only really bad guys who have been caught since Pompey first came to our collective notice are the slaves, who left Rome in a panic and delivered themselves at an armed Pompey's feet.
---

In case this didn't make sense to you, you might try reading Life of Pompey by Plutarch, as it is a fascinating account of the life of one of history's greatest men. Maureen reminds me of the voices of doubt that strangled illustrious military leaders like Pompey and Caesar, who, though having the interests of Rome at heart, possessed the hearts of generals, and so did not play well at politics. Rumsfeld, though no Pompey, has a similar attitude towards all this nonsense. Rumsfeld isn't afraid of his Democrat contemporaries, nor does he question that his actions are taken with American interests at heart; he is - as he should be, as he is paid to be - afraid of the terrorists and their sponsors. As Caesar said, "It is not these well-fed long-haired men that I fear, but the pale and the hungry-looking."

If you are seeing this in Livejournal, then you aren't seeing the whole picture. Adjust your vision by clicking here.

When Pr0n Attacks III....

Thu, 31 Oct 2002 05:54:56 GMT

When Pr0n Attacks III....

Well, that guy who knocked off his wife for nagging is in for some happy fun during his impending stay at sunny Leavenworth. He had this to say to his erstwhile in-laws at the trial:

"You trusted me with taking care of your daughter and I failed you."

Talk about a euphemism. I mean, in some areas of Miami, that would have been considered Taking Care Of Her in fine style, but one gets the feeling he's like that guy in American Beauty - the one who capped Kevin Spacey in the end - and he took himself and his "responsibilities" more than a little too seriously.

At first, I felt sorry that he wasn't going to federal prison, where his fellow denizens would have helped him come to a new appreciation for what it means to be a pr0n star. However, I predict that he will be having many days of even more regret up in Leavenworth under the helpful instructional duress of his military wardens. I hear that if you can't manage to get up early enough in the morning to do your regimented punitive work, they're allowed to... ah... assist you to the ground, though I'm not entirely certain about that. Do any of my military readers know?

Anyway, I feel bad for his late wife. What a terrible way to die.

Grade Inflation: Not Just For College Anymore...

Thu, 31 Oct 2002 00:18:53 GMT

Grade Inflation: Not Just For College Anymore...

Evidently, some of the younger doctors employed in the British national healthcare system are bringing more to their positions of what they've learned at university than just their medical schooling. In order to keep their grades up on the new "performance league tables" recently implemented by the government, some young doctors are denying treatment to high-risk patients, for fear that a higher mortality rate could damage their budding reputations. It's all about the numbers, baby. Of course, the higher-ups at the NHS stridently deny this. The surgeons, however, do not.

But, like all things truly fucked-up, if you look closely enough, usually you can find some incompetent assministrator to blame. Once again, we have an example of ignorant bureaucrats making wholesale decisions without any real comprehension of the consequences. The British government got all uppity after some kids died at the Bristol Royal Infirmary apparently due to a questionable bit of cutlery-wielding, but rather than to do something rational, like increase funding to that hospital, or convene a medical inquiry regarding the surgical procedure in question, they decided the solution would be to demand that surgeons publish their heart surgery death rates.

At a shallow glance, that might appear sensible, but that's the same kind of intellectual sloth that makes people believe that the war in Iraq is all about oil. After one thinks about it for longer than the time it takes to jerk one's knee, one realizes that people who need heart surgery generally are high-risk patients to begin with. People with diabetes, the elderly, and children, all are wont to die on the table more frequently. This new "death league" will not save more patients from dying unnecessarily. Indeed, quite the opposite, as doctors will be less willing to take on a complicated case for fear of marring their grade. All this is doing is ensuring that fewer people will do their dying on a surgeon's table, or more pointedly, on the hospital's accountability reports. Problem solved, according to the British Health secretary!

The moral of this story? Don't have a heart attack in England.

No Means .... No? Oui? Que?

Tue, 29 Oct 2002 21:23:51 GMT

No Means .... No? Oui? Que?

"We want to address a clear and firm message to Saddam Hussein," Dominique de Villepin told the lower house of parliament on Tuesday. But he repeated that force could only be used "as a last resort."

Is anyone sure what that "message" is supposed to be?

Pretty please, Saddam, if it isn't too much trouble, when you get time, if you could promise to only point your French weapons at the US, and only on alternate Tuesdays, we'd really appreciate it. If that's inconvenient for you, then I'm afraid that we will be forced to convene more UN meetings, and we might even use stern language after we've had one too many glasses of EU-approved champagne at the reception. Don't push us! We'll do it! We've done it before!

I think that the U.S. message is a far more effective one, but the UN doesn't want all the terrorists making targets of them, too.

We ought to send Samuel L. Jackson to do our negotiating, rather than Colin Powell:

Jackson: I don't mean to shatter your ego, but this ain't the first time I've had a nuke pointed at me.

Saddam: You don't back off, it's gonna be the last.

Villepin: Quit causing problems, you'll get us all killed! Give him what you got and get him out of here!

Jackson: Keep your fuckin' mouth closed, fat man, this ain't none of your goddamned business!

Kim Chong-il (North Korea): Let him go! Let Saddam go! I'll blow your fuckin' head off! I'll kill ya! You're gonna die, you're gonna fuckin' die bad!

Jackson: (to Saddam) Tell that bitch to be cool! Say, bitch be cool! Say, bitch be cool!

Saddam: Chill out, honey!

Jackson: (to Kim Chong-il) So, we ain't gonna do anything stupid, are we?

Kim Chong-il: (crying) Don't you hurt him.

Jackson: Nobody's gonna hurt anybody. We're gonna be like Fonzie. And what' Fonzie like? C'mon Kim, what's Fonzie like?

Kim Chong-il: (through tears, unsure) He's cool?

Jackson: Correct-amundo! And that's what we're gonna be, we're gonna be cool. Now Saddam, I'm gonna count to three and I want you to let go your weapons and change your regime. But when you do it, do it cool... Now this is the situation. Normally both of your asses would be dead as fuckin' fried chicken. But you happened to pull this shit while we're in a transitional period. But I'm afraid I can't let you have the weapons. We went through too much shit on account of these nukes to just hand it over to your dumb ass. Now I want you to go in that bag and find my wallet. It's the one that says Bad Motherfucker on it.

Jackson: Now open it up and take out the cash. How much is there?

Saddam: About forty billion dollars.

Jackson: Put it in your pocket, it's yours. Now, with the rest of OPEC, that makes this a pretty successful little score.

Cheney: If you give this nimrod forty billion dollars, I'm gonna shoot him on general principle.

Jackson: You ain't gonna do a goddamn thing, now hang back and shut the fuck up. Besides, I ain't givin' it to him. I'm buyin' somethin' for my money. You wanna know what I'm buyin', Saddam?

Saddam: What?

Jackson: Your life. I'm givin' you that forty billion so that I don't have to kill your ass. You read the Bible?

Saddam: Not regularly.

Jackson: Well, there's this passage I got memorized. Kind of fits the occasion....

I'd vote for him.

(If you haven't seen Pulp Fiction, then the terrorists have won.)

The Un-war...

Tue, 29 Oct 2002 05:11:13 GMT

The Un-war...

Well, I'm glad to see that Bush has told the UN where it could stick it, regarding Iraq. According to Gallup, his approval ratings are high here, so his political capital is more than enough to go through with this without the UN. As long as it's done well. And quickly.

Bush's rating on foreign affairs is somewhat higher, with 58% approving and 35% disapproving. A slight majority of Americans, 52%, approve of Bush's handling of the situation with Iraq.

When Americans are asked about their confidence in the United Nations' ability to handle the current situation in Iraq, just 12% have a "great deal" of confidence, while 40% have a "moderate amount." Almost half, 47%, express little or no confidence in the United Nations' ability to deal with Iraq.

By a margin of 54% to 40%, the latest poll results show that Americans support invading Iraq with U.S. ground troops in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power. When asked about the time frame for invading Iraq, six in 10 Americans say the United States should give diplomatic efforts more time to be effective, while one-quarter say the United States should invade Iraq immediately. Roughly one in 10 say the United States should never invade Iraq.

- CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll

Whether the UN thinks this would be unilateralist of us won't matter, so long as most Americans believe that this is in our country's best interest practically and idealistically. Besides, if we don't do something, I think Muslims in this country will have much more to worry about than they already do. Bush is smart to keep his mouth closed in regards to the religious crossfire going on right now, but it's getting difficult for American's to believe this "religion of peace" line, any longer. I personally think that Christians should be careful pointing that loaded finger around the way they are, since the Old Testament is particularly rife with violence similar to the Koran. (After all, what are we going to do? Outlaw Islam?) But let's be pragmatic about the situation and acknowledge that when people can't solve something by law, they do tend to take justice upon themselves, and so I worry for some of my middle-eastern neighbors. If we're putting the smack down on Iraq, then at least we are making progress that might satisfy some of the vigilantes' thirst for vendetta.

But, back to the UN.

They really are enjoying this opportunity to stand up to the America they all envy. Not-so-secretly, some of them wish that we'd lose a few more big buildings, just to humble us. Well, fuck them.

The UN's policy seems to be that if opportunity knocks, ignore it and hope it will go away, because there's a chance that opportunity might want to come in, and then it would surely expect tea, and the next thing you know opportunity would be scolding their kids and suggesting ways to remodel their home. This is slightly better than many of these Middle-eastern countries' policies, which seem to be that if opportunity knocks, shoot at it through the door because it might be a western infidel selling bacon or Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Editions.

I suppose it shouldn't be too surprising that they wouldn't understand the U.S. view on this whole matter. We are opportunity, and we're not going to wait out on the stoop forever. If we have to, we'll come through the window, grab them by the scruff and drag them kicking and screaming into the 21st century, because we're tired of their kids throwing rocks through our windows.

(Note: Sorry about the slow news day, but I'm editing some of the contributions for my upcoming EU site section and it's consuming most of my writing efforts. If you have anything to contribute, or you know anyone who might be interested, please email me. Yes, even if you have a conflicting opinion. I'm giving those air time, too.)

The Perils of Product Expansion...

Mon, 28 Oct 2002 05:27:22 GMT

The Perils of Product Expansion...

I was wandering aimlessly through Wal-Mart tonight; the kind of walk that you can only do in a 24-hour super store at 11pm on a Sunday. It's more of a haunting, really. One drifts with a ghostly countenance through the garishly lit aisles, unseeing; desensitized by the festoonery of marketing. Normally, I ignore all the fervent branding and impulse-buy displays that grope for my attention like whores in the Latin Quarter. But tonight, I happened to meander into the boys clothing section and to my surprise, I saw what I'm sure is a very ordinary thing to everyone else. But, it horrified me.

There, among the Osh-Kosh and the Wrangler's Jeans was a huge sign with two larger-than-life babies looking just so deee-lish, which is appropriate, since it was labeled McBaby.

*blink*

McNuggets, McMuffin, McGrill, McFlurry... McBaby.

Some things just aren't fit for certain brands, but because few people pay conscious attention to branding, this little... er... nugget of McDonald's line expansion doesn't seem to disturb anyone.

If aliens ever did land, they would just go ahead and eradicate us. I don't think we'd ever find a way to explain it. In my experience, most marketing is simply beyond excuse or reason.

Breaking News!: San Francisco Incompetent...

Mon, 28 Oct 2002 00:00:18 GMT

Breaking News!: San Francisco Incompetent...

I know it will come as a huge surprise to everyone to know that San Francisco - that hub of urban planning, that zenith of metropolitan efficiency - is experiencing problems with its utilities again. Before it was merely the lights that might go out, which set them back to approximately the colonial period for awhile there. But now, as the People's Republic of Berkeley strains gallantly against the grit of consumerism, San Francisco's urbane populace slips that much closer to the Stone Age. Yes, soon students won't have to undergo those inconvenient trips to third world countries for their personal enrichment - the third world will come to them, as their running water ceases to flow, thanks to inept management and, of course, the Sierra Club. Greenies everywhere rejoice.

San Francisco is trying to launch a $3.6 billion effort to repair, upgrade and expand the system through more than 70 projects that could take 13 years to complete. But the track record of the city, which has neglected major maintenance for years, makes its neighbors nervous.

Over the past 20 years, city politicians have shifted $670 million from water and electricity sales away from Hetch Hetchy maintenance to fund such things as health care for the poor and San Francisco's public transit system, city records show.

I have such a love-hate relationship with San Francisco. On the one hand, it is one of the most beautiful metros in America. On the other, I've spent most of my time there visiting UC-Berkeley, which means I had to actually stay in Berkeley, and the only safe place there is across the freeway at the Marina Radisson. In fact, the only redeeming feature of Berkeley besides LBNL is Spenger's Fresh Fish Grotto.

San Francisco is the kind of city that has grand, ambitious-looking expanses of urban architecture with which the population appears to have grown bored before they could finish it, forcing them to meter traffic across permanently incomplete bridges, which in turn, forces you to use the public transit system they put so much money into. They have large swathes of real-estate cordoned off as uninhabitable protected land - so the animals have a home - but then dole out development permits for human homes with the kind of strict reserve we wish France would use for its weapons sales. Taxes are absurdly high, rivaled only by the cost of real estate in even the most ordinary subdivisions. Still, they cannot manage to cover the most basic western social needs as water and electricity.

But hey, I hear they've got some really top-notch homeless shelters.

Eww...

Sun, 27 Oct 2002 22:44:35 GMT

Eww...

Well, it seems that Russia gassed its own citizens along with the terrorists, and it wasn't with some fantasy "sleeping gas", but a nerve agent. Russian officials were quoted as saying that the reason so many of those hostages died was, "because of the stress, they were hungry, they were not given timely medical assistance while they were held hostage."

Okay, maybe that's true, but it would have helped if they hadn't had their nervous systems disabled chemically. Then again, there wasn't much choice left, was there? Gas or gunfire? At least gas, though indiscriminate, is guaranteed. It's fucking tragic that these kinds of measures are forced. Tragic and disgusting.

So, I take back my smart-assed joke in the previous "Reuters editor" post about the hostages being killed because of the terrorist resistance. Some of them were shot that way, but some of them also died because they were gassed by the Russians. In any event, it is a terrible loss of innocent lives.

I'm getting cynical about it. Things just aren't going to get any better in that part of the world. It's been that way since the Ottoman Empire. One would think people would get tired of it by now. But, once again, this demonstrates that what the world needs are the great peacemakers, Coke and Pepsi. It's hard to wage long-term wars when you could be kickin' it with a capitalistic cold one instead.

In fact, I think I'll start the movement by getting myself some canned peace, right now.

But, Alack, That Monster Envy...

Sun, 27 Oct 2002 12:53:47 GMT

But, Alack, That Monster Envy...

I was reading through some articles about the EU, and I stumbled across this one, which didn't really surprise me, but it did bother me. Why does Europe pan-handle us so much? Why hate and envy us when we have been perfectly willing to help them build their own self-sufficiency, so they wouldn't need codependent relationships like the EU? The Europeans could have a lot more than they do now. My circle of European acquaintances is too limited to be representative of all European views, but the way I see it, Europe has at least some competent citizens in it, which is about as many as America has: some. There's no real reason that Europe couldn't keep up with us.

I think this public whining about the U.S. "unilateralism" is all a load of rubbish - an attempt to divert the responsibility they have to themselves and our relationship with them by pointing at us and making us the bad guys. The U.S. feels a bit like the self-made entrepreneur of blue-collar roots who married a beautiful, well-spoken aristocratic Europe, only to find out later that she has a severe drinking problem and a predilection for adultery. At this point we're seriously thinking about divorce, but we'd really prefer if Europe would sober up, keep her legs closed and get a job, because we truly do love her and divorces are so ugly.

But, it's all turned out to be one big joke on us. Like the NATO "alliance", which has proved to be a humiliatingly useless farce (for us anyway) with the sole exception of the British, who seem to be holding their end of it out of some kind of weird passive-aggressive guilt. To their minds, if Tony wasn't currently possessed by puppetmasters from the Planet Washington, they would be able to sip their tea and sneer at us in peace. Not that my British friends are saying this - they aren't, because the people are always more sensible than their government and media - but, if the UK papers are any indication, America doesn't love them anymore. According to the rest of Europe, we're cold, neglectful spouses who hardly notice them at all lately, since we're always at work or watching television.

But these are the manipulative, self-deluded rantings of an adulterer trying desperately to displace their guilt. Oh, if only we paid more attention to Europe, the Czechs and Slavs wouldn't have had to get in bed with Iraq, and maybe France would start speaking to us again. And well, if the U.S. thinks for one minute that it can just walk out on NATO, then they'll haul us into the ICC and try to take us for all we're worth. Yes, we're supposed to just give Europe the technology we developed with our defense budget even though after 9-11, Europe largely pretended that she never made those NATO vows. Since Europe has been a lazy, selfish bitch these past years, she has no way to make it in the world without us and now she wants alimony.

Look, Europe, we love you. We admire and respect the beautiful collection of people and history you are underneath the spoiled conceit - in truth, we aspire to be as elegant and refined as you are on your best days. And yes, we do listen to you and we care about what you think (well...except for The Guardian), when you aren't nagging us. But, you just can't keep squandering all your resources on addictions like socialism and these outrageous "globalized" economic policies (Feta cheese sanctions? What were you thinking?), then expect us to keep bailing you out. What about the children - Belgium, Denmark? - what will happen to them when Germany craters the Euro? And for goodness sake, will you please stop flirting with the terrorists? We're sorry about the IRA - that was a mistake - but, would you really rather be married to Saddam? When was he ever there for you? We were always there - don't you remember?

We do.

A Day In The Life of a Reuters Editor...

Sun, 27 Oct 2002 07:18:10 GMT

A Day In The Life of a Reuters Editor...

Chechnya Peace May Be Casualty After Moscow Raid

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia counts the cost Sunday of the bloody end to a theater siege by Chechen ~~terrorists~~ (rebels), but the chief victim could be peace in the ~~unrecognized fundamentalist~~ Muslim ~~theocracy~~ (region) of Chechnya.

In the early hours of Saturday, special forces, first using gas to ~~neutralize the terrorist threat~~ (snuff out any armed resistance), ~~penetrated the barricaded theater~~ (stormed the theater). ~~Some 90 hostages died, victims of the terrorist resistance to the special forces raid, however the terrorists were eventually neutralized.~~ [You can't say this; it disenfranchises the Chechens. Replace with the following:] (In the process at least 90 hostages died along with nearly all their captors -- 50 Chechens, including 18 women.)

[...]

------

Amid Anti-War Protests, U.S. ~~Protests~~ [only the EU can "protest"] (Decries) UN Iraq Delays

WASHINGTON/LOS CABOS, Mexico (Reuters) - Tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets of Washington and other cities to ~~decry~~ (voice opposition to) a possible U.S. ~~retaliation to Iraqi aggression~~ (war against Iraq), while the United States ~~voiced opposition to the sluggish U.N. response~~ [Absolutely not.] (decried a U.N. "debate that never ends") over a tough new resolution to disarm ~~the rogue dictatorship,~~ Iraq.

"We want to give inspectors what they need to do the job, and that job has to be the disarmament of Iraq," remarked U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell from, who was in the Mexican beach-side resort of Los Cabos for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit. [Don't overquote this administration. Can't you find someone more... ethnic? Call the ACLU.]

("This is going to be an ugly, unnecessary fight. Most of the world is saying 'no' to it," civil rights leader the Rev. Jesse Jackson told the crowd on Saturday at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington. "Pre-emptive, one-bullet diplomacy, we cannot resort to that.")

"We have reached the point where we have to make a few fundamental decisions in the early part of next week and go forward," added Secretary of State Colin Powell, who also was in the Mexican beach-side resort of Los Cabos for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit. [Better.]

[...]
---

Sniper Suspect ~~Militant Islam Convert~~ (Was Gulf War Vet), Control Freak

TACOMA, Wash. (Reuters) - John Allen Muhammad, the man arrested on Thursday in the sniper shootings that have terrified the Washington area, is ~~an Islamic militant~~ (a longtime convert to Islam) whom acquaintances describe as a controlling former soldier and drifter who once kidnapped his own children.

[...]

Bush ~~Offers~~ (Dangles) Free Trade to Encourage ASEAN Reforms

LOS CABOS, Mexico (Reuters) - President Bush plans to ~~negotiate~~ (use the promise of ) free trade agreements with countries in Southeast Asia to encourage those nations to adopt economic reforms, a U.S. official said on Saturday.

~~Dan Bartlett~~ (The Bush administration aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity), said Bush would announce the "Enterprise for Asean Initiative" later on Saturday, after meeting with seven leaders from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

[Note to secretary: Please tell Dowd to stop calling.]

Rooting for the Undermutt...

Sun, 27 Oct 2002 00:59:26 GMT

Rooting for the Undermutt...

Maybe it's because we are Americans that some of us will always cheer for the little guy, even if he's little because he sold his legs so he could afford to buy some plastic explosives to tape to the bottom of his wheelchair in order to blow up a public building to protest the use of animals for scientific testing. We just don't pay attention anymore to the why of it. He's the underdog with a cause!

What cause could be more heroic than that of independence? Why, we did the very same thing when we told the British to bugger off, didn't we? It all started because we wanted the ability to decide our own laws. Why shouldn't we sympathize with the Chechen rebellion? Wouldn't we be hypocritical to condemn the Chechens for fighting for their independence?

Maybe history will find me a fool, and a decade from now I'll look back on this and wonder how I could have been so narrow. But, I'm willing to risk it. It is my opinion that these Chechens are massacring people for their god, and they feel - as Christians did back during the Crusades and the Inquisition, and some still do - it is just fine to do so. This incident in Moscow, as most of you probably already know, is but one in a long and iniquitous line of bloodbaths as Chechnya attempts to liberate itself from secular Russia. And it's the secular part that counts.

I think Russia should go ahead and do what it needs to do to stop this nonsense, just as we're going to have to do what needs doing in Iraq to stop our own brand of terrorist nonsense. And Canada needs to shut up about it.

The way I see it, this would be a little like if Washington State suddenly started slaughtering people in Portland and Lewiston, blowing up apartment buildings, grocery stores and churches so that it could declare itself an independent Muslim theocracy. Now, for accuracy, imagine that western Canada sympathized with it and began hijacking United Airline flights leaving Denver in protest. How long do you think it would take our government to go smite the resistance? How many of you would sit at home shaking your heads with frowny faces at the poor oppressed Washingtonians? (Well, I should be careful about that. Berkeley isn't but an eight hour drive away. ) Canada really would have to worry about being annexed, then, and no amount of imploring the UN for peace talks would save Vancouver.

Of course, there are a lot of differences between Russia and us. But, fewer than there are between Chechnya and us. And I find it hard to ever sympathize with a cause that thinks it's cool to strike in cold blood like that. I suppose this is just one more round of human idiocy that manifests itself as wanton violence, but for some reason, seeing those pictures of the dead women hostages with their heads thrown back makes it hard for me to not slap the those who whine about how justified these things are for an oppressed people to do to their oppressors. Did those women and children oppress those rebels? Let's not forget, O left-winged ones, in our fit of sympathetic pique that our colonial militia did not hold hundreds of British women and children in Boston hostage and shoot them systematically until they acknowledged our sovereignty.

War is hell, but religious war is ironically something much worse. My sympathies go out to Russia, and I hope Putin puts the smack down.

The Best Yet...

Sat, 26 Oct 2002 04:26:35 GMT

The Best Yet...

This is my favorite so far:

The caption says: Patriots Never Forget... Remember September.

You have to see the larger version to fully appreciate how cool this one is.

Buy a nice pretty poster of this one here.

More On Sentient Guns...

Fri, 25 Oct 2002 23:19:05 GMT

More On Sentient Guns...

Another reader wrote in with further comment about the dangers of self-aware firearms:

Here is a copy of an e- mail we sent last night after listening to this idiotarian statement about twelve times:

"We've just been watching the analysis of the Moose press conference about the capture of the snipers. Again and again, your analysts used the phrase "the most important thing is that the gun is off the street." This is absurd. The most important thing, obviously, is that the sniper or snipers are off the street. The gun is a tool completely incapable of offering any danger to anyone by itself. Thousands of law abiding citizens own such guns, which do no harm at all. We might expect such an analysis from ABC or CBS, but it's disappointing to hear it from Fox. Whether it is a clich? or not, the idea that humans rather than guns kill is a rationally demonstrable statement. Guns do not "discharge"; people pull the triggers."

- S. & E. Bodio, New Mexico

Go ahead wit' yo' bad selves! If everyone would get off their duff and write, then we might at least be able to cause their system administrator some consternation as he glares at the backed-up email queue. Unfortunately, I think most of these media folks don't really care. But, Fox is disappointing in this case. Of course, this is Fox, home of the Lunar Landing Hoax "documentary" and the ersatz Alien Autopsy Film. One's expectations of quality must be kept in some proportion accordingly, I suppose.

Snipers Captured coughGunsaresataniccough, Film At 11

Fri, 25 Oct 2002 16:48:18 GMT

Snipers Captured *cough*Gunsaresatanic*cough*, Film At 11

Thanks to one alert reader, known to me only as "Ed", I've been urged to take a closer look at an interesting quote:

"We have the weapon. It is off the street."

- Chief Charles Moose

I just love quotes like this. I'm pretty sure that Moose meant that the weapon which was used perpetrated these crimes was in possession, therefor they are certain that it is these two fucks who did it. But, at first glance, it sure does sound like he's an anti-gun type, huh?

For the record, I'm willing to bet that he's not, Ed. But, it's still interesting to envision the cops spending all of their time tracking down a sentient gun, and finally after much consternation and panic, getting the gun into safe possession before it could fire itself at another innocent American. Predictably, the firearm put up some resistance to arrest, and had to be assisted to the ground. We know how ornery those rifles can be. But, all is safe now citizens, nothing to see here; the gun is off the street.

Even More Propaganda...

Fri, 25 Oct 2002 16:19:17 GMT

Even More Propaganda...

Check out the full version here. You can download the big version from that page.

Call for Papers...

Thu, 24 Oct 2002 20:10:26 GMT

Call for Papers...

I'm working on a multi-part series about the problems with the EU, how they affect the U.S., and why we should care. So, to my wonderful readership who are so helpful and generous with their links and suggestions, I'm requesting contributions.

This is such a long, in-depth story involving a lot of history and vagaries of foreign policy, that I will be setting it up on a separate page. Anyone who contributes will be cited according to their preferences.

Email me here.

Thanks!

Who'da Thunk It?....

Thu, 24 Oct 2002 19:41:48 GMT

Who'da Thunk It?....

Well, I don't think I've seen this much reporting caution in the papers since... well, it's been awhile. The kind of restraint that is being given to the speculation on whether or not Muhammad qualified as an Islamic terrorist certainly raises an eyebrow with The Bitch.

One newspaper report suggested that both Muhammad, 41, a convert to Islam, and Malvo may have been sympathetic to the Sept. 11 hijackers, although that was hard to confirm.
- - an MSNBC Report

John Allen Muhammad, who police say is a suspect in the Washington, D.C.-area sniper attacks, is a twice-divorced, 41-year-old Gulf War veteran who converted to Islam 17 years ago.

[Felix Strozier] described Muhammad as a strong believer in Islam who attended the Million Man March. The Associated Press reported that a former neighbor of Muhammad's said he provided security at the march, which was organized by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. Nation of Islam officials in Chicago had no immediate comment, according to the AP.
- CNN Report

It's hard to find the actual quote that Strozier gave about that. Maybe you'll have better luck than I did. Even that tidbit is conspicuously missing from most reports. It wasn't that way at first, but since then the front pages have been revised a bit to play down that factoid.

Maybe it means nothing. It could just be that this was a random Karesh-like Islamic nutball who really did "brainwash" his lil' frien' Malvo and off on a merry killing spree they went. But, I find it worth at least some further exploration of this possibility in the form of pointed questions about possible terrorist connections, and I can't even find the usual "..when questioned about possible terrorist connections to al-Qaeda, police declined to comment..." After all, we don't really know that they aren't, yet.

We do know that Muhammad was an Islamic activist, and that he spoke positively about the hijackings. Bellingham Police Chief Randy Carrol evidently remarked on this point, "It appears that they are and have acted on their own." However, it's rather unclear what he was addressing. It's for you to determine whether this means that they aren't terrorists, or if that question was even asked. How cryptic the media suddenly became today.

I think it's germane to ask this question first and loudest and repeatedly, until we get a definitive, "No, we're real sure it's all coincidental. He's just a nut with a gun." We need to print everything we find out about their past, including raw quotes about such important points as this guy's Islamic activism. If these guys are terrorists, or have any connections with al-Qaeda then we wanna know. And if they do then we need to take them down to the pound at Gitmo, sick the dogs on them and find out for damn sure what Muhammad knows and what he don't know.

Now, I'm not saying that everyone who walks in the Million Man March for Islam walks with the terrorists. But, I am saying that we live here in the real world, and when an Islamic activist starts popping people at random in our nation's capital for long periods during a time when we've had a lot of Islamic terrorist-oriented problems in this country, it's good to check those corners.

More on Accurate Acronyms...

Thu, 24 Oct 2002 09:42:56 GMT

More on Accurate Acronyms...

Charles Gill wrote in more on the MRI vs. NMR subject:

You are correct that before MRI was NMR (without the I, I think). Unless my memory has faded, NMR machines were first developed by a company called Nicolet Instrument (long ago absorbed by GE or Siemens, or somebody). Nuclear (say new-clear fast I told GWB in a recent email) Magnetic Resonance is also referred to as "proton precession". You subject an area to a very strong magnetic field which causes individual electrons (or protons) to align their orbits parallel to the magnetic field. Then you simply remove the magnetic field, and observe how the particles revert to their normal orbits. Not as simple as it sounds, but a very well understood phenomenon.

It drives me darn near bug nuts when I hear the morons in the national media refer to metal detectors as "magnetometers". They are specifically NOT magnetometers. Magnetometers only detect field strength and changes in the magnetic field. Magnetic fields are not affected by nonmagnetic materials (which is almost everything). While iron and some steels are magnetic, most types of stainless steel are nonmagnetic. Other nonmagnetic materials are aluminum, copper(bullet jackets), lead(bullet cores), brass(shell casings), and damn near every other metal. A stainless steel pistol, with an aluminum clip, lead and brass copper jacketed bullets wouldn't be detected by a magnetometer (although the spring in the clip is almost certainly magnetic, as well as the wear parts of the firing mechanism).

Thank God that these Islamic types are nearly cretins, and thank God that they don't really use "magnetometers" in airports.

Defense and Defensibility...

Wed, 23 Oct 2002 17:16:01 GMT

Defense and Defensibility...

I got an email yesterday asking why I was a warmongerer. This disappoints me.

I find your comments tasteless, warmongering and barabric [sic]... how could you be for war when peace is a perfectly valid option? I think this shows how lazy the right is, since it is always easier to drop a few bombs than commit seriously to diplomatic peace..."

- K. Alexander, Michigan

First of all, I think this individual has no sense of humor, which is always tragic. Secondly, I'm not "the right". It's possible to take a stand for one's opinions without being partisan about it. However, I think earnest criticism is one of the best things in the world, which is why I post this. Also, it allows me to address some important points about war in Iraq.

Saddam has affronted this country. It isn't all about "American ideals", although some of them are worth fighting for. He's flagrantly and repeatedly violated the weapons inspection treaty. Why is this okay with so many people? Don't you understand what this means?

We used nuclear weapons once - okay twice, to be technical - and yes it ended the war with Japan. Some people argue that this was excessive and unnecessary. The truth is that the American people really didn't know just what that thing would do. Sure, the politicians might have had some inkling. But, not really. The only people up to that point who had seen exactly what that thing could do were working for the military. People like Oppenheimer, Fermi, Feynman... and, of course, Edward Teller.

Now I am become death, destroyer of worlds... I guess we all thought that... one way or another...

-Robert Oppenheimer

But the H-Bomb, which was far more destructive than the original atomic bomb, was Teller's creation. He seemed to have a passion for it, in fact. So much so that when Oppeneheimer opposed the post-war development of the H-bomb, an unproven but generally accepted story has it that Teller retaliated by testifying against Oppenheimer's trustworthiness, causing Oppie to lose his security clearance. Whether or not it was a vindictive act, Teller was never quite forgiven for this, but the H-bomb became a reality nonetheless.

Trinity and the other early bombs which were tested out at Los Alamos were frightening enough - their destructive power was truly not appreciated until the first was detonated. But, seeing pictures of the H-bomb in action is like looking right at Hell, or a preview of what would come if the earth suddenly went careening into the sun. There's nothing that can prepare you for that. Nothing.

But, even those were the early attempts at nuclear warfare. It has gotten much better (or worse, depending upon your view) since. We labored hard and long for that power and knowledge, and fortunately we've learned to use it peacefully since. Americans have such a fearful respect for the atomic bomb precisely because it cost us so much, as humans, in terms of research, money, politics and of course, hundreds of thousands of civilian Japanese lives snuffed out in an instant. We've borne this national guilt as a kind of meme that has been passed down over the subsequent generations. Always fear the atomic, we sternly warn our children.

It is so extreme that words like "radiation", "nuclear" and "atomic" - terms that are largely benign - have been meticulously wiped from any peaceful applications. The medical MRI procedure, short for Magnetic Resonance Imaging, is more accurately the NMRI - Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging. But nothing peaceful could ever be nuclear in our burdened culture.

However, it could be looked at optimistically that in a universe where nuclear weapons are possible, we live in a world where the best possible culture had them first. That's a little jingoistic, I realize, but the world seems to have history amnesia. The other guys who were developing nukes wore swastikas. After that were the communists. Kind of puts things in some perspective, doesn't it? It is wishful, irresponsible thinking to protest that it was done in the first place. It was done, and such is the tumultuous course of human progress.

Since the arms race has settled down, a darker course has taken form. Atomic bombs and other weapons of mass destruction are now "off-the-shelf" technology. All the hard work has been done. One needs only to have the necessary materials. Wisdom isn't required, and neither is responsibility. Only money, the desire and the reason. Saddam has all three of these. There are but two things that prevent all the world's little Hitlers from using what they have:

Diplomatic sanctions;

Force

That's it. Really. The diplomatic sanctions make it hard to get what you need to make nukes without great domestic discomfort and the force is to deter you from using them, if those sanctions make no never mind to you - which they haven't, in Saddam's case.

And some people just shouldn't have weapons of mass destruction. They aren't a right every country, no matter how tyrannically ruled, should universally have access to; they are a burden and a responsibility. People who gas their own civilians en masse (like Hitler did) should not have the kind of unmatched raw power of these weapons. People who break treaties and invade countries should not be able to cripple more countries with the threat of nuclear attack. People who make assassination attempts on our president - as a mere show of bravado and vendetta - should not be allowed to take a shot at our capitol.

Think of those two planes on September 11 as bombs with wings and people in them, because that's in effect what they were. Bombs that were dropped on civilians in New York City. Not a military target. Civilians. There is evidence that Saddam backed that bombing. Why isn't that enough for us to demand his removal, by force if necessary? What might have happened if we'd balked similarly on the date that will live in infamy? Why don't we care, anymore?

This country houses so many of the world's refugees from dictatorships and war-torn regimes. Cuba, Haiti, the many in South America and Africa... We turn their victims into stars like Waris Dirie, a supermodel who came from Somalia and Ibrahim Ferrer, the Cuban legend. There is perhaps no better place in this country to see what happens to a people who are displaced by their leader than Miami, which is home to a dense population of Cubans, Haitians and other people lucky enough to float over.

Having spent plenty of time in South Florida, I can testify that many Cubans don't think of themselves as Americans, and feel not the slightest bit of guilt for that - you see, they are just waiting here for Castro to die so they can have their country back. I can't say I really blame them for wanting that asshole to kick over so they can go home, though it is disconcerting when you visit many places in Miami to feel like you might have missed a passport checkpoint back at the Florida Turnpike. It isn't that I don't appreciate other cultures, but ultimately it would have been better for everyone if Castro had never come into power. Miami will be one of the busiest ports in the world when he does buy the farm.

How many Iraqis would float over to Miami if it were possible? Castro, like Saddam, has no conscience towards his people - a people of a very different culture than Anglo-American (see little Havana) - and so many of them have risked everything to come here just to wait him out. Unfortunately for many people in these oppressive countries in the middle east, there is nothing left to risk. That is truly tragic and, though it isn't our first reason, giving those people the opportunity to have something worth valuing will be one of the best side-effects of Saddam's removal.

In the mean time, we have to stay the necessary course, if for no other sake than we should always have a lamp to lift and a gilded door for the world's tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

Elephantine Non-Sequiturs....

Wed, 23 Oct 2002 04:01:03 GMT

Elephantine Non-Sequiturs...

"Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do.
They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy,
they'd have indoor plumbing by now." -- Ann Coulter, in Slander

Ha! Ha! I bet Ann stared smugly at those sentences for hours after she wrote them, picking up the book to read it again and again just to remind herself of how damned clever she is.

Terrorists do not equal "they" without indoor plumbing. The terrorists who have hit this country lived quite well with all the westernized amenities, including plumbing, with the exception of that last part in the caves in Afghanistan.

"They" are the people who live in these countries, and the reason they don't have indoor plumbing is because they live under dictatorship regimes. In her fit of right-wingnut pique, she forgets that the only reason we dominate the world in science and technology is because we live in a democracy that recognizes our inalienable rights, including her right to be an insufferable spiteful bitch.

Christ-on-a-crutch, there's no need to be inhumane, disenfranchise millions of people and invalidate all this that we do as a country, merely for a shallow political insult, is there? At the expense of an oppressed people living in squalor at the hands of a power-mongering tyrant, she takes an unapologetic flailing stab at the left. Is this Ann's way of offsetting people like Krugman for the Hitler thing?

Okay, kiddies, no more throwing sand or I'm going to turn this country around and we're all going home.

More Propaganda....

Wed, 23 Oct 2002 02:44:39 GMT

More Propaganda...

Here's the latest in the series...

You can check out the full-sized version by clicking here.

No, See What I Meant Was...

Tue, 22 Oct 2002 23:20:19 GMT

No, See What I Meant Was...

The NYTimes reports that Bush has waffled a bit on his rhetoric of "regime change" while simultaneously releasing a number of Iraqi prisoners from Guantanamo.

"... if [Saddam] were to meet all the conditions of the United Nations, the conditions that I've described very clearly in terms that everybody can understand, that in itself will signal the regime has changed."

But then, this statement was later... ahem... amended(?)... to:

The president himself said today, in an appearance with Lord Robertson, the secretary general of NATO, that "the stated policy of the United States is regime change."

Waffler! Waff-le-r!

Who knows if this is political strategy, an honest gaffe or if this administration is starting to cave under pressure? One can never tell with Bush when he means to be clever or not, since he pulls off the stupid look with amazing aplomb. Of course, the press, always looking to scry the tea leaves of a cryptic administration, pried further and some unnamed officials suggested that Bush was trying to "[tone] down his talk of removing the Iraqi leader, by force if necessary, to mollify nervous allies on the day that the United States and Britain began circulating a revised resolution in the Security Council demanding Iraq's disarmament."

Maybe. But, that's kind of like insisting that the proof that the CIA is using mind-control rays is that there is no proof. We won't know if this is why Bush has waffled until this thing pans out. Of course, what's the fun in that? It's more fun to speculate wildly! We're going to spend the next week guessing what "regime change" really means, now that so many of us are all hyped up for getting Saddam out of Dodge.

Does that mean that, as long as he does exactly what he did ten years ago, we'll consider his regime changed and give him another ten years to fuck us over again? It's easy to start getting real uppity about that, isn't it? My dander is up just typing it. You thought people were cynical before? Wait until we have another round of having to redefine our basic vocabulary to backpedal-ese.

Or...was this a crumb to coddle the lefties a little so they'd have something to write about while Bush & Co. get to work on the hard stuff? While we're all running around trying to pin down if she-sells-sea-shells-on-the-Persian-Gulf, maybe we'll be to busy to hear the outrage of a U.N. that is pushed to accept our resolution. Fleischer handwaved it all aside in his usual annoying fashion:

"I can't imagine a situation in which Iraq would do these things. When these steps are taken to observe the peace and honor the U.N. resolutions, at Saddam Hussein's direction and under his leadership, give me a call to discuss it."

and

""I think it's a rather unrealistic notion."

Then why don't we just bomb him, if that's so much more realisitic? Not that I don't support diplomacy, but it's not like we haven't tried. How many times would you let the redneck neighbor's teenager and his gang beat the other neighborhood kids with a bat before you did something about it? Would you try talking nice and hope they didn't bludgeon your kid, too, or would you call the cops and buy a gun?

The only good waffles come with butter and maple syrup, dammit.