g r o t t o 1 1

Peeve Farm
Breeding peeves for show, not just to keep as pets
Brian Tiemann
Silicon ValleyNew York-based purveyor of a confusing mixture of Apple punditry, political bile, and sports car rentals.

btman at grotto11 dot com

Read These Too:

InstaPundit
Steven Den Beste
James Lileks
Little Green Footballs
As the Apple Turns
Entropicana
Cold Fury
Capitalist Lion
Red Letter Day
Eric S. Raymond
Tal G in Jerusalem
Aziz Poonawalla
Corsair the Rational Pirate
.clue
Ravishing Light
Rosenblog
Cartago Delenda Est



Cars without compromise.





Book Plugs:




Buy 'em and I get
money. I think.
BSD Mall




  9/6/2010 -   9/6/2010
 8/30/2010 -   9/5/2010
 8/23/2010 -  8/29/2010
 8/16/2010 -  8/22/2010
  8/9/2010 -  8/15/2010
  8/2/2010 -   8/8/2010
 7/26/2010 -   8/1/2010
 7/19/2010 -  7/25/2010
 7/12/2010 -  7/18/2010
  7/5/2010 -  7/11/2010
 6/28/2010 -   7/4/2010
 6/21/2010 -  6/27/2010
 6/14/2010 -  6/20/2010
  6/7/2010 -  6/13/2010
 5/31/2010 -   6/6/2010
 5/24/2010 -  5/30/2010
 5/17/2010 -  5/23/2010
 5/10/2010 -  5/16/2010
  5/3/2010 -   5/9/2010
 4/26/2010 -   5/2/2010
 4/19/2010 -  4/25/2010
 4/12/2010 -  4/18/2010
  4/5/2010 -  4/11/2010
 3/29/2010 -   4/4/2010
 3/22/2010 -  3/28/2010
 3/15/2010 -  3/21/2010
  3/8/2010 -  3/14/2010
  3/1/2010 -   3/7/2010
 2/22/2010 -  2/28/2010
 2/15/2010 -  2/21/2010
  2/8/2010 -  2/14/2010
  2/1/2010 -   2/7/2010
 1/25/2010 -  1/31/2010
 1/18/2010 -  1/24/2010
 1/11/2010 -  1/17/2010
  1/4/2010 -  1/10/2010
12/28/2009 -   1/3/2009
12/21/2009 - 12/27/2009
12/14/2009 - 12/20/2009
 12/7/2009 - 12/13/2009
11/30/2009 -  12/6/2009
11/23/2009 - 11/29/2009
11/16/2009 - 11/22/2009
 11/9/2009 - 11/15/2009
 11/2/2009 -  11/8/2009
10/26/2009 -  11/1/2009
10/19/2009 - 10/25/2009
10/12/2009 - 10/18/2009
 10/5/2009 - 10/11/2009
 9/28/2009 -  10/4/2009
 9/21/2009 -  9/27/2009
 9/14/2009 -  9/20/2009
  9/7/2009 -  9/13/2009
 8/31/2009 -   9/6/2009
 8/24/2009 -  8/30/2009
 8/17/2009 -  8/23/2009
 8/10/2009 -  8/16/2009
  8/3/2009 -   8/9/2009
 7/27/2009 -   8/2/2009
 7/20/2009 -  7/26/2009
 7/13/2009 -  7/19/2009
  7/6/2009 -  7/12/2009
 6/29/2009 -   7/5/2009
 6/22/2009 -  6/28/2009
 6/15/2009 -  6/21/2009
  6/8/2009 -  6/14/2009
  6/1/2009 -   6/7/2009
 5/25/2009 -  5/31/2009
 5/18/2009 -  5/24/2009
 5/11/2009 -  5/17/2009
  5/4/2009 -  5/10/2009
 4/27/2009 -   5/3/2009
 4/20/2009 -  4/26/2009
 4/13/2009 -  4/19/2009
  4/6/2009 -  4/12/2009
 3/30/2009 -   4/5/2009
 3/23/2009 -  3/29/2009
 3/16/2009 -  3/22/2009
  3/9/2009 -  3/15/2009
  3/2/2009 -   3/8/2009
 2/23/2009 -   3/1/2009
 2/16/2009 -  2/22/2009
  2/9/2009 -  2/15/2009
  2/2/2009 -   2/8/2009
 1/26/2009 -   2/1/2009
 1/19/2009 -  1/25/2009
 1/12/2009 -  1/18/2009
  1/5/2009 -  1/11/2009
12/29/2008 -   1/4/2009
12/22/2008 - 12/28/2008
12/15/2008 - 12/21/2008
 12/8/2008 - 12/14/2008
 12/1/2008 -  12/7/2008
11/24/2008 - 11/30/2008
11/17/2008 - 11/23/2008
11/10/2008 - 11/16/2008
 11/3/2008 -  11/9/2008
10/27/2008 -  11/2/2008
10/20/2008 - 10/26/2008
10/13/2008 - 10/19/2008
 10/6/2008 - 10/12/2008
 9/29/2008 -  10/5/2008
 9/22/2008 -  9/28/2008
 9/15/2008 -  9/21/2008
  9/8/2008 -  9/14/2008
  9/1/2008 -   9/7/2008
 8/25/2008 -  8/31/2008
 8/18/2008 -  8/24/2008
 8/11/2008 -  8/17/2008
  8/4/2008 -  8/10/2008
 7/28/2008 -   8/3/2008
 7/21/2008 -  7/27/2008
 7/14/2008 -  7/20/2008
  7/7/2008 -  7/13/2008
 6/30/2008 -   7/6/2008
 6/23/2008 -  6/29/2008
 6/16/2008 -  6/22/2008
  6/9/2008 -  6/15/2008
  6/2/2008 -   6/8/2008
 5/26/2008 -   6/1/2008
 5/19/2008 -  5/25/2008
 5/12/2008 -  5/18/2008
  5/5/2008 -  5/11/2008
 4/28/2008 -   5/4/2008
 4/21/2008 -  4/27/2008
 4/14/2008 -  4/20/2008
  4/7/2008 -  4/13/2008
 3/31/2008 -   4/6/2008
 3/24/2008 -  3/30/2008
 3/17/2008 -  3/23/2008
 3/10/2008 -  3/16/2008
  3/3/2008 -   3/9/2008
 2/25/2008 -   3/2/2008
 2/18/2008 -  2/24/2008
 2/11/2008 -  2/17/2008
  2/4/2008 -  2/10/2008
 1/28/2008 -   2/3/2008
 1/21/2008 -  1/27/2008
 1/14/2008 -  1/20/2008
  1/7/2008 -  1/13/2008
12/31/2007 -   1/6/2008
12/24/2007 - 12/30/2007
12/17/2007 - 12/23/2007
12/10/2007 - 12/16/2007
 12/3/2007 -  12/9/2007
11/26/2007 -  12/2/2007
11/19/2007 - 11/25/2007
11/12/2007 - 11/18/2007
 11/5/2007 - 11/11/2007
10/29/2007 -  11/4/2007
10/22/2007 - 10/28/2007
10/15/2007 - 10/21/2007
 10/8/2007 - 10/14/2007
 10/1/2007 -  10/7/2007
 9/24/2007 -  9/30/2007
 9/17/2007 -  9/23/2007
 9/10/2007 -  9/16/2007
  9/3/2007 -   9/9/2007
 8/27/2007 -   9/2/2007
 8/20/2007 -  8/26/2007
 8/13/2007 -  8/19/2007
  8/6/2007 -  8/12/2007
 7/30/2007 -   8/5/2007
 7/23/2007 -  7/29/2007
 7/16/2007 -  7/22/2007
  7/9/2007 -  7/15/2007
  7/2/2007 -   7/8/2007
 6/25/2007 -   7/1/2007
 6/18/2007 -  6/24/2007
 6/11/2007 -  6/17/2007
  6/4/2007 -  6/10/2007
 5/28/2007 -   6/3/2007
 5/21/2007 -  5/27/2007
 5/14/2007 -  5/20/2007
  5/7/2007 -  5/13/2007
 4/30/2007 -   5/6/2007
 4/23/2007 -  4/29/2007
 4/16/2007 -  4/22/2007
  4/9/2007 -  4/15/2007
  4/2/2007 -   4/8/2007
 3/26/2007 -   4/1/2007
 3/19/2007 -  3/25/2007
 3/12/2007 -  3/18/2007
  3/5/2007 -  3/11/2007
 2/26/2007 -   3/4/2007
 2/19/2007 -  2/25/2007
 2/12/2007 -  2/18/2007
  2/5/2007 -  2/11/2007
 1/29/2007 -   2/4/2007
 1/22/2007 -  1/28/2007
 1/15/2007 -  1/21/2007
  1/8/2007 -  1/14/2007
  1/1/2007 -   1/7/2007
12/25/2006 - 12/31/2006
12/18/2006 - 12/24/2006
12/11/2006 - 12/17/2006
 12/4/2006 - 12/10/2006
11/27/2006 -  12/3/2006
11/20/2006 - 11/26/2006
11/13/2006 - 11/19/2006
 11/6/2006 - 11/12/2006
10/30/2006 -  11/5/2006
10/23/2006 - 10/29/2006
10/16/2006 - 10/22/2006
 10/9/2006 - 10/15/2006
 10/2/2006 -  10/8/2006
 9/25/2006 -  10/1/2006
 9/18/2006 -  9/24/2006
 9/11/2006 -  9/17/2006
  9/4/2006 -  9/10/2006
 8/28/2006 -   9/3/2006
 8/21/2006 -  8/27/2006
 8/14/2006 -  8/20/2006
  8/7/2006 -  8/13/2006
 7/31/2006 -   8/6/2006
 7/24/2006 -  7/30/2006
 7/17/2006 -  7/23/2006
 7/10/2006 -  7/16/2006
  7/3/2006 -   7/9/2006
 6/26/2006 -   7/2/2006
 6/19/2006 -  6/25/2006
 6/12/2006 -  6/18/2006
  6/5/2006 -  6/11/2006
 5/29/2006 -   6/4/2006
 5/22/2006 -  5/28/2006
 5/15/2006 -  5/21/2006
  5/8/2006 -  5/14/2006
  5/1/2006 -   5/7/2006
 4/24/2006 -  4/30/2006
 4/17/2006 -  4/23/2006
 4/10/2006 -  4/16/2006
  4/3/2006 -   4/9/2006
 3/27/2006 -   4/2/2006
 3/20/2006 -  3/26/2006
 3/13/2006 -  3/19/2006
  3/6/2006 -  3/12/2006
 2/27/2006 -   3/5/2006
 2/20/2006 -  2/26/2006
 2/13/2006 -  2/19/2006
  2/6/2006 -  2/12/2006
 1/30/2006 -   2/5/2006
 1/23/2006 -  1/29/2006
 1/16/2006 -  1/22/2006
  1/9/2006 -  1/15/2006
  1/2/2006 -   1/8/2006
12/26/2005 -   1/1/2005
12/19/2005 - 12/25/2005
12/12/2005 - 12/18/2005
 12/5/2005 - 12/11/2005
11/28/2005 -  12/4/2005
11/21/2005 - 11/27/2005
11/14/2005 - 11/20/2005
 11/7/2005 - 11/13/2005
10/31/2005 -  11/6/2005
10/24/2005 - 10/30/2005
10/17/2005 - 10/23/2005
10/10/2005 - 10/16/2005
 10/3/2005 -  10/9/2005
 9/26/2005 -  10/2/2005
 9/19/2005 -  9/25/2005
 9/12/2005 -  9/18/2005
  9/5/2005 -  9/11/2005
 8/29/2005 -   9/4/2005
 8/22/2005 -  8/28/2005
 8/15/2005 -  8/21/2005
  8/8/2005 -  8/14/2005
  8/1/2005 -   8/7/2005
 7/25/2005 -  7/31/2005
 7/18/2005 -  7/24/2005
 7/11/2005 -  7/17/2005
  7/4/2005 -  7/10/2005
 6/27/2005 -   7/3/2005
 6/20/2005 -  6/26/2005
 6/13/2005 -  6/19/2005
  6/6/2005 -  6/12/2005
 5/30/2005 -   6/5/2005
 5/23/2005 -  5/29/2005
 5/16/2005 -  5/22/2005
  5/9/2005 -  5/15/2005
  5/2/2005 -   5/8/2005
 4/25/2005 -   5/1/2005
 4/18/2005 -  4/24/2005
 4/11/2005 -  4/17/2005
  4/4/2005 -  4/10/2005
 3/28/2005 -   4/3/2005
 3/21/2005 -  3/27/2005
 3/14/2005 -  3/20/2005
  3/7/2005 -  3/13/2005
 2/28/2005 -   3/6/2005
 2/21/2005 -  2/27/2005
 2/14/2005 -  2/20/2005
  2/7/2005 -  2/13/2005
 1/31/2005 -   2/6/2005
 1/24/2005 -  1/30/2005
 1/17/2005 -  1/23/2005
 1/10/2005 -  1/16/2005
  1/3/2005 -   1/9/2005
12/27/2004 -   1/2/2004
12/20/2004 - 12/26/2004
12/13/2004 - 12/19/2004
 12/6/2004 - 12/12/2004
11/29/2004 -  12/5/2004
11/22/2004 - 11/28/2004
11/15/2004 - 11/21/2004
 11/8/2004 - 11/14/2004
 11/1/2004 -  11/7/2004
10/25/2004 - 10/31/2004
10/18/2004 - 10/24/2004
10/11/2004 - 10/17/2004
 10/4/2004 - 10/10/2004
 9/27/2004 -  10/3/2004
 9/20/2004 -  9/26/2004
 9/13/2004 -  9/19/2004
  9/6/2004 -  9/12/2004
 8/30/2004 -   9/5/2004
 8/23/2004 -  8/29/2004
 8/16/2004 -  8/22/2004
  8/9/2004 -  8/15/2004
  8/2/2004 -   8/8/2004
 7/26/2004 -   8/1/2004
 7/19/2004 -  7/25/2004
 7/12/2004 -  7/18/2004
  7/5/2004 -  7/11/2004
 6/28/2004 -   7/4/2004
 6/21/2004 -  6/27/2004
 6/14/2004 -  6/20/2004
  6/7/2004 -  6/13/2004
 5/31/2004 -   6/6/2004
 5/24/2004 -  5/30/2004
 5/17/2004 -  5/23/2004
 5/10/2004 -  5/16/2004
  5/3/2004 -   5/9/2004
 4/26/2004 -   5/2/2004
 4/19/2004 -  4/25/2004
 4/12/2004 -  4/18/2004
  4/5/2004 -  4/11/2004
 3/29/2004 -   4/4/2004
 3/22/2004 -  3/28/2004
 3/15/2004 -  3/21/2004
  3/8/2004 -  3/14/2004
  3/1/2004 -   3/7/2004
 2/23/2004 -  2/29/2004
 2/16/2004 -  2/22/2004
  2/9/2004 -  2/15/2004
  2/2/2004 -   2/8/2004
 1/26/2004 -   2/1/2004
 1/19/2004 -  1/25/2004
 1/12/2004 -  1/18/2004
  1/5/2004 -  1/11/2004
12/29/2003 -   1/4/2004
12/22/2003 - 12/28/2003
12/15/2003 - 12/21/2003
 12/8/2003 - 12/14/2003
 12/1/2003 -  12/7/2003
11/24/2003 - 11/30/2003
11/17/2003 - 11/23/2003
11/10/2003 - 11/16/2003
 11/3/2003 -  11/9/2003
10/27/2003 -  11/2/2003
10/20/2003 - 10/26/2003
10/13/2003 - 10/19/2003
 10/6/2003 - 10/12/2003
 9/29/2003 -  10/5/2003
 9/22/2003 -  9/28/2003
 9/15/2003 -  9/21/2003
  9/8/2003 -  9/14/2003
  9/1/2003 -   9/7/2003
 8/25/2003 -  8/31/2003
 8/18/2003 -  8/24/2003
 8/11/2003 -  8/17/2003
  8/4/2003 -  8/10/2003
 7/28/2003 -   8/3/2003
 7/21/2003 -  7/27/2003
 7/14/2003 -  7/20/2003
  7/7/2003 -  7/13/2003
 6/30/2003 -   7/6/2003
 6/23/2003 -  6/29/2003
 6/16/2003 -  6/22/2003
  6/9/2003 -  6/15/2003
  6/2/2003 -   6/8/2003
 5/26/2003 -   6/1/2003
 5/19/2003 -  5/25/2003
 5/12/2003 -  5/18/2003
  5/5/2003 -  5/11/2003
 4/28/2003 -   5/4/2003
 4/21/2003 -  4/27/2003
 4/14/2003 -  4/20/2003
  4/7/2003 -  4/13/2003
 3/31/2003 -   4/6/2003
 3/24/2003 -  3/30/2003
 3/17/2003 -  3/23/2003
 3/10/2003 -  3/16/2003
  3/3/2003 -   3/9/2003
 2/24/2003 -   3/2/2003
 2/17/2003 -  2/23/2003
 2/10/2003 -  2/16/2003
  2/3/2003 -   2/9/2003
 1/27/2003 -   2/2/2003
 1/20/2003 -  1/26/2003
 1/13/2003 -  1/19/2003
  1/6/2003 -  1/12/2003
12/30/2002 -   1/5/2003
12/23/2002 - 12/29/2002
12/16/2002 - 12/22/2002
 12/9/2002 - 12/15/2002
 12/2/2002 -  12/8/2002
11/25/2002 -  12/1/2002
11/18/2002 - 11/24/2002
11/11/2002 - 11/17/2002
 11/4/2002 - 11/10/2002
10/28/2002 -  11/3/2002
10/21/2002 - 10/27/2002
10/14/2002 - 10/20/2002
 10/7/2002 - 10/13/2002
 9/30/2002 -  10/6/2002
 9/23/2002 -  9/29/2002
 9/16/2002 -  9/22/2002
  9/9/2002 -  9/15/2002
  9/2/2002 -   9/8/2002
 8/26/2002 -   9/1/2002
 8/19/2002 -  8/25/2002
 8/12/2002 -  8/18/2002
  8/5/2002 -  8/11/2002
 7/29/2002 -   8/4/2002
 7/22/2002 -  7/28/2002
 7/15/2002 -  7/21/2002
  7/8/2002 -  7/14/2002
  7/1/2002 -   7/7/2002
 6/24/2002 -  6/30/2002
 6/17/2002 -  6/23/2002
 6/10/2002 -  6/16/2002
  6/3/2002 -   6/9/2002
 5/27/2002 -   6/2/2002
 5/20/2002 -  5/26/2002
 5/13/2002 -  5/19/2002
  5/6/2002 -  5/12/2002
 4/29/2002 -   5/5/2002
 4/22/2002 -  4/28/2002
 4/15/2002 -  4/21/2002
  4/8/2002 -  4/14/2002
  4/1/2002 -   4/7/2002
 3/25/2002 -  3/31/2002
 3/18/2002 -  3/24/2002
 3/11/2002 -  3/17/2002
  3/4/2002 -  3/10/2002
 2/25/2002 -   3/3/2002
 2/18/2002 -  2/24/2002
 2/11/2002 -  2/17/2002
  2/4/2002 -  2/10/2002
 1/28/2002 -   2/3/2002
 1/21/2002 -  1/27/2002
 1/14/2002 -  1/20/2002
  1/7/2002 -  1/13/2002
12/31/2001 -   1/6/2002
12/24/2001 - 12/30/2001
12/17/2001 - 12/23/2001
Friday, April 25, 2003
01:02 - Crikey!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/04/24/international01

(top)
From yesterday's SFGate coverage of the Australian SAS takeover of one of Iraq's airfields:

"The Iraqi air force understood that it needed to stay on the ground for its own safety," said Gen. Peter Cosgrove, chief of the Australian Defense Forces, who spoke to troops at the airfield on Thursday.

The Al Asad airfield, which housed the largest known contingent of Saddam's jet fighters, represents one of the big catches of the war. Three fighter squadrons -- the bulk of the Iraqi air force -- were stationed there, 112 miles northwest of Baghdad.

The Australians say they are still taking inventory but have so far found 57 fighter aircraft, mostly Soviet-era MiGs but also three advanced MiG 25 Foxbats, the fastest combat aircraft today.

Awwh, now 'ere's a real byooty! This hyeah MiG-25 Foxbat is not awnly the fahstest critter in the skoys, it's also extremely endaynjahd. Not many of them still exist in the wuhld! Now, let's see what happens if we stick our thumb up its tahlpoyp!

(Sorry.)

(No I'm not.)


16:35 - Where Have You Gone, Paul Tatara?
http://www.flakmag.com/features/tatara.html

(top)
Just today, it suddenly dawned on me out of the blue that I hadn't seen any movie reviews by Paul Tatara in almost a year. Tatara, I've mentioned once or twice before (though not at all lately), is one of two movie critics at CNN.com (the other being the pedestrian and downright boring Paul Clinton).

Or was, more appropriately. It turns out that Tatara, whose reviews were always immensely fun, academic, well-informed, highly discriminating, conversational, dynamic, and often uproariously funny, is no longer working for CNN-- and hasn't been since mid-2002, after what was ostensibly a contract dispute. And now, when I go to CNN's movie-reviews site, I find that not only isn't Paul Clinton filling the rolls with his fourth-grade-book-report drudgery, but nobody really is-- that is, nobody with a name. CNN only links to movie reviews by their titles, now, rather than by the name of the reviewer. And apparently that was the point.

From 1997 to 2001, Tatara appeared frequently, as often as 16 times a month, along with the critic who actually appeared on TV, Paul Clinton. In 2002, his workload suddenly dropped to, at most, five reviews a month. There were times in the past that CNN.com editors had told Tatara that the higher-ups weren't loving his work, and more and more the site was relying on Entertainment Weekly, its sister AOL Time Warner publication.

"There were always periods, after nine months or so, when someone would raise a stink about the tone of writing being too conversational, too harsh, too, too, too," says Tatara, who is not speaking in exclamation points at this moment. He's just warming up.

"Especially with the conversational tone. They wanted me to be faceless!"

"It could be that [CNN's] blood pressure was higher, because the site wasn't making money! I had a real readership, but they couldn't care less! They weren't allowing people any real personality! At this point, [CNN] is like the Kmart of news services, and instead of a news flash, they should have a Blue Light Special!"

And that's not all. Apparently the final straw was Tatara's December 2001 review of Black Hawk Down, which, admittedly, I allowed to inform my presuppositions of the movie when I bitched about it last year. (In my defense, it was Super Bowl day, and I was in no mood to be given a good impression by anything.) Since then, I've been set straight by friends and co-conspirators who shared Ollie North's opinion that the widespread panning of the movie by Tatara and others as a clumsy, nuance-free splatterfest was grossly unfair-- that the movie was actually astonishingly accurate to real life, and the jarring nature of its graphic scenes and the perceived bestial brutality of the Somali mobs was not exaggerated out of any appeal to bloodthirsty racism. Rather, the movie was just too honest for most of today's sophisticates to accept without a layer of wry Apocalypse Now wit and commentary and mythic storytelling. Real life doesn't play like a movie script-- and because BHD doesn't seem to have much of what's traditionally thought of as a well-constructed, sophisticated plot just means it's true to real life instead of to Hollywood expectations.

Anyway, so evidently CNN didn't like Tatara's review of BHD; and over the next several months they phased him out in favor of less-controversial writers. (I always thought there had to be some story behind the disclaimer/footers he attached to so many of his reviews: Warner Bros. is an AOL Time Warner sister company of CNN.com. Probably not put there voluntarily, eh, Paul?) CNN now has its wish: a parade of anonymous movie reviewers from AP and other random sources, filling billets without injecting any of that unwanted personality. Paul's last review, Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood, was on June 7. After that, he resigned and returned to his first love: screenwriting.

Which means he won't be doing any more reviewing, though he's apparently looking for review work. All his old reviews are still online at the Paul Tatara Movie Review Archive, which has the text of his resignation letter, as well as the assurance that the man's reviews were loved by a great many people, something I had suspected but not known for sure. I'd become a disciple of his work totally on my own; there's nothing like discovering that what you'd thought was a personal treasured secret is actually the basis of Internet fan sites.

Maybe Paul should blog his reviews. Yeah, he wouldn't be getting paid for them; but if he enjoys doing it, hey, it should be pretty obvious that there are lots of people out here who will write tons of drivel every day for no tangible profit and at the expense of our day jobs and social lives. C'mon, Paul-- you've still got fans out here. And there's movie after movie going un-reviewed-by-you. This cannot be allowed to stand.

Geez... that was about the easiest piece of online research I've ever had to do. URLs practically hurled themselves at me.

Thursday, April 24, 2003
20:57 - More Radio Fun

(top)
Whenever I leave work earlier than 7:00 PM, I get to hear what's on NPR before Fresh Air comes on-- which in this case is Pacific Time. Usually it's fairly benign, but there's always the strange air of some shadowy patronage behind it. It's always just a little too cheerful, a little too starched.

Today, when the radio came on, it was on a report of an Asian Hip-Hop Festival taking place in LA; it talked about the various rappers whose oeuvre spanned English, Cambodian, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Korean, and played a few samples. Good clean fun.

Then it mentioned that all the proceeds from the concert were to go to a relief charity for the North Korean people. "We want to send the message that we want food, not bombs, in North Korea," one youth said. From the tone of the show, it was decidedly unclear whose bombs he was talking about-- Kim's, or ours? The events of the past few months have conditioned me to assume always that when young activists get together to raise support for a cause involving a part of the world that we're taking an interest in, for whatever reason, it's damned seldom that said cause is aligned with US foreign policy.

One guy did say, in fact, that the Asians in the communities putting on the event do blame US foreign policy over the past fifty years, in part, for the situation in North Korea. (At least they were good enough to allow the in part part.) And then he delivered the real corker, proving wryly that the show must have been taped a couple of days ago at least: that he and his compatriots hoped that the trilateral talks this week between the US, NK, and China, would lay the groundwork for the relief and disarmament that North Korea and its people so desperately need.

Boy, that's really worked out well, hasn't it?


17:35 - What a Learjet buys us
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/shareholdersmeeting03.html

(top)
Some of the questions-and-answers from today's Apple shareholders' meeting are pretty entertaining (forwarded by Kris):

-An inquiry about proposal one, re-electing the board of directors, asked if there really was any choice at all in the re-election of the board, since Apple's shareholder notice notes "The six nominees for director receiving the highest number of affirmative votes of the shares entitled to be voted for them shall be elected as directors." There were a total of six nominees. Heinen said that people did have the option of not voting. Jobs then commented that he received 83% of the votes to be re-elected, the highest second to Al Gore who received over 90%. Gore added, "Does it matter who has the most votes?" which sent the crowd into laughter.

-A person expressed concern over dealership contract renewal . Cook responded saying that dealerships representing less than 0.2% of Apple's revenue didn't re-sign. He also said that some dealerships re-signed after the deadline, and that the number of signed-on dealerships will only go up with time. Jobs added, humorously, that 100% of the Apple Retail stores decided to renew their contracts.

-A woman asked about increasing market share, and what steps to take if one identified possible large corporate sales opportunities for Apple. Fielding the second question first, Jobs made Cook provide his e-mail address to shareholders, so that he could handle their suggestions about enterprise sales opportunities -- tcook@apple.com. Fred Anderson then answered the first question explaining that the Switch campaign has been working, and that among the consumer segment Apple has doubled its market share, based on information from IDC.

-The acquisition of Virtual PC by Microsoft was raised by one shareholder. Jobs said that Apple's relationship with Microsoft is good and that Microsoft likes Safari. He also noted that VPC has been moved to the Mac Business Unit at Microsoft and that Microsoft acquired the software not so that it could get VPC itself, but its underlying technology. Jobs said Apple has talked with Microsoft, and Microsoft promises to continue the software. Jobs also suggested that the price might drop since royalties on Windows no longer have to be paid.

Hyuck, hyuck, Al. That's one helluva shareholder mandate he seems to have gotten, though.

I'm sure there's a good reason for him to be on Apple's board. Otherwise why would all these people have voted for him?

I mean, there's got to be, right?

Wait a minute. Doubled its market share? You've gotta be kidding me.

What, we're up to 2% now?



14:22 - Ebert on Moore, War, and More
http://www.progressive.org/radio/ebertransc.html

(top)
Judson forwards me this transcript of a Progressive Radio interview with Roger Ebert. It's interesting... last month I'd pegged Ebert as a guy who seemed to have a good, sane perspective on big world issues, even if he did lean left ('scuse me, progressive). And I do still think that; I'm just not as sure how well this interview bolsters that opinion.

It starts off with Ebert's analysis of Moore's Oscar-acceptance speech, and weirdly enough he critiques it-- discussing ways in which Moore's acting performance behind the podium could have been better, how he could have gotten his important message out more effectively and countered the booing. Not a word about the factual idiocy of Bowling For Columbine, of course; it's as though that one thirty-second window in human history following Moore's wrapping his meaty hand around the little gold guy was the One Big Chance the world would have to broadcast the all-important message that Bush is a fictitious president promoting a fictitious war. He seems genuinely disappointed that Moore blew it-- that history could have turned out differently if only Moore hadn't hunched over the podium or spoken so quickly and huntedly. Also this didn't help:

Nevertheless, I agree with what he said. I don't think Bush was legitimately elected President. But I was very offended as a reporter when Michael came directly back to the pressroom where I was, along with 300 or 400 other reporters, and lectured us, "Now do your job. Don't report it was a divided house. Only five loud people were booing."
Do your job, he says. Don't stifle dissent. Moore would have made an excellent "minder" under Saddam.

The remainder of the interview is fairly interesting-- it's got a very hopeless tone to it, but then maybe that's just me projecting a post-war sense of relief and snarky cynicism onto a March 30 interview. If nothing else, we get a much broader cross-section of Ebert's views here (evidently he considers Sean Penn to be the best actor of his generation, and bemoans the unfair right-wing reactions to his and Sarandon's and the Dixie Chicks' statements-- hey, did you know that Ebert gets only long, thoughtful essays from liberals, but nothing but terse dismissive vitriol from conservatives? Who's been writing to this guy?). I'm not sure where he gets his impressions of Bush as a televangelist standing in a beam of light from a stained-glass window, receiving pronouncements from Heaven and acting on them without thought or debate, especially considering the world we live in where that does happen every week-- just not in the White House. It's another set of moral-relativism blinders, where only the mildest of religious inspiration is to be condemned here at home, but genuine insane genocidal raving from religious leaders elsewhere in the world is just hunky-dory, because hey, everybody but us is entitled to free practice of their customs. Ebert doesn't seem to feel it necessary to address the multiple sides of the argument-- maybe it's because of the nature of the organization doing the interviewing, but the timbre of the whole thing is so dispirited you'd think they were conducting the interview while clasped consolingly in each other's arms.

I still think he's a well-reasoned individual and capable of plenty of rational thought, but I'm having my doubts as to the selection of the battles he's choosing to fight.


10:44 - Piling On
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/30360.html

(top)
Andrew Orlowski at The Reg has a more in-depth speculative article on Apple's "piles" concept. It's not very well edited ("pros and cones"?), but a good read nonetheless. It sounds like this idea goes back way farther than the 2001 date the eWeek article suggests.

The paper describes "Piles" as an adjunct to the file/folder metaphor, in the paper (co-authored with Richard Mander and Yin Yin Wong). A clue is in the title, which describes piles as a metaphor for "supporting casual organization of information".

Piles were seen as complementary to the folder filing system, which was used more for archiving than grouping recently used, but related documents. "The folder as the sole container type presents an impoverished set of possibilities," the authors noted.

"There are different aspects to Piles," Solomon told us today. "They are a visual representation, but also helping them organize things, as a way to make suggestions. There are fuzzy edges - the computer is presenting you with 'what if?' questions on a pile of stuff.

This would be helped indexing of the contents of documents in real time, much as BeOS' BFS file system indexed metadata attributes in real time using a dedicated system thread. BFS designer Dominic Giampaulo joined Apple last year, and the rumor circuit has consistently suggested that better threading is a priority for the Panther update to MacOS X. Which suggests that Apple has both the will and know-how to provide a system capable of supporting very rich Piles.

If that's the direction in which all of last year's mysterious employee-and-technology-acquisition rumors have turned out to point, then I'm really looking forward to seeing this in action.

(Oh, and check out the al-Sahhaf joke they've managed to work in on their site. It's the vertical banner ad at the right, but it rotates.)

Thanks to Matt for spotting this.

Wednesday, April 23, 2003
20:11 - The Unconquerable Made-Up Mind

(top)
Fresh Air with Terry Gross tonight had as a guest Jonathan Schell, author of The Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence, and the Will of the People. I don't know anything about this author, other than that the people who bought his book from Amazon.com also bought books by Gore Vidal and Susan Sontag, so I can render a guess as to the bent of his opinion.

Which, during the course of the few bits of the conversation that I heard at stop lights (I had the radio turned down so I could ponder more important things, like what video rental places might still have Nerds Ropes), appeared to be that the war in Iraq is a demonstration of the new US attitude toward conquering the world, which we would never be able to do because of the indomitable will of whatever people we try to subjugate with our reversals of worldwide masterpieces of diplomacy like the ABM treaty and our new decision to solve the problems of WMD with force and aggression and pre-emption rather than with words.

Terry actually challenged him on that, saying that wasn't the whole point of this war that treaties and diplomacy had failed? And he stuttered for a bit, seemingly taken aback; but then he went off on a tirade that went something like this (I'm not quoting exactly, but this is as closely as I can recall it):

At least North Korea publicly stated that they were backing out of the ABM treaty; we, instead, have simply reversed our policy, and are re-arming for a new nuclear-armed world. Our people at STRATCOM are seeking out and designating new nuclear targets in Iraq and elsewhere as we speak. And the Bush administration made a statement early in this war that said that if the Iraqis should use chemical or biologcal weapons against the American troops, then we would use "any force necessary" in response-- which, of course, is diplomatese for "nuclear weapons". And we should also realize that the US is more aggressively developing nuclear weapons today than ever before; now we've got these so-called "bunker busters", which, uh, can take out certain underground installations. These "bunker busters" are nuclear weapons which further demonstrate that the US is committed to a double standard regarding weapons of mass destruction and who should be permitted to use them.

Gee. Really? We dropped four of these puppies on a restaurant and turned it into a rubble-and-Saddam-parts-filled crater, and the buildings right next to it were barely damaged. Damn, that's what our nukes can do these days?

This guy has not the faintest idea what "bunker busters" are, and he's writing books about war and diplomacy and going on NPR to talk about them to audiences of millions. What's wrong with this picture?

Maybe I should order a transcript of this show; there's probably lots more juicy material in there to work with.

UPDATE: Hmm. But then, as Matt tells me, there's the RNEP, a nuclear version of exsting bunker-busters that is apparently being developed. Somehow, though, I suspect that this only makes Schell correct by accident...

UPDATE: Actually Schell talked about the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, not the ABM treaty; my bad. The stream of the interview is here; the part I was paraphrasing above is between 16:30 and 20:00.

Hey, c'mon, it was from memory.


17:33 - Boutique Snowboarding
http://www.apple.com/ipod/burton/

(top)

Neato. Apparently there's a custom-designed snowboarding jacket co-created by Apple and Burton Snowboards which integrates with the iPod for that total digital downhill experience.

There's a pocket on the breast for the iPod itself, and you hook it up via the remote/headphone jack to a panel in the left wrist so you can control the playback via buttons under touch-sensitive fabric. And the headphones are presumably integrated into the hood.

$499, eh? And Glenn Reynolds is skeptical that some people would die for their iPods. You know not the depth of our devotion, my friend.


11:48 - Irreproducible Results

(top)
Blast! I can't get it to happen again, so I can't get a screenshot to prove this. But I swear it happened!

A little background: about a month ago, I sent in feedback to the iSync team to suggest that iSync should automatically synchronize Safari's bookmarks between Macs. I mean, wouldn't that rock? Having all your bookmarks available and consistent no matter which computer you're on? I know I'd love that.

Anyway, there haven't been any updates to iSync lately; it wasn't even revised in the 10.2.5 OS update. And Safari's only major revision lately, Beta 2 or v73, only talks about miscellaneous bug fixes and tabbed browsing.

But just now, I went into my bookmarks pane to add a new folder; when I clicked on the [+] at the bottom, I got a dialog box that said: "iSync is currently synchronizing your bookmarks. Please wait until the synchronization process is complete before modifying your bookmarks." (Or words to that effect.)

The thing is, iSync wasn't syncing at the time... and it hadn't done so in the past half-hour. And after I did a manual sync, on this machine and on my laptop, the respective machines' browsers still had their local complements of bookmarks, unchanged.

I think I tripped a piece of code in a new feature they may be putting in. Namely iSynchronization of Safari bookmarks, just as I'd hoped.

If not, that's a hell of a specific dialog box to hide in the browser as a prank...!

UPDATE: James Sentman and John Weidner both report having sighted this mystery dialog box. It appears to have nothing to do, behaviorally, with iSync itself; it's just a ghost at this stage.

And a rather poorly worded ghost at that.


Tuesday, April 22, 2003
01:26 - Peace, justice, morality, culture, sport, family life and the obliteration of all other life forms
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=6337_Peaceful_Religion_Watch

(top)
Charles Johnson has gathered together this week's crop of rantings and ravings from the highest authorities of the planet Krikkit. Reality is taking its time to sink in, but the timbre seems to be changing a little bit, subtly. I'm not yet sure whether it's for the better or the worse.

Shaykh Ibrahim Mudayris delivers the sermon, which he begins by saying: "O people of Palestine, O steadfast people on the land of beloved Palestine, I know that your hearts are bleeding painfully over what happened in Iraq. I know that your hearts were wounded by the fall of Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate. But, the fall of Iraq does not mean that we will give up our resoluteness and bow to the enemies of God. The quick dramatic events that led to the fall of Baghdad remind us of the Monguls, who entered Baghdad and overwhelmed it in a matter of hours. History repeats itself. That was caused by treason. And today's events smack of treason. But, O God's subjects, it is early to distinguish the traitor from the victim of treason. My fellow preachers and friends blamed some figures for treason and other things. But, I say from here: O people, O God's subject, you must wait until the facts become clear. We are sure that Baghdad was delivered and that it did not surrender. The whole issue smacks of treason. But, was Saddam the head of treason, or was he the victim of this treason?

Sigh. To quote Lileks once more, whatever.

The more I see these hysterical sermons seeking ever more far-fetched justifications for the Americans' inexplicable success and condemnations of the genocidal designs of the bloodthirsty Crusaders, the more I'm reminded of Grandpa Simpson tottering around, pointing at birdbaths and shrieking DEEEEAAAATH!


16:14 - My Mac's Got Piles
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1036539,00.asp

(top)
Hey, this is interesting. EWeek has scooped some info on OS X 10.3, codenamed "Panther"; we've known about several of its included features for a little while now, such as 64-bit support, multiple simultaneous GUI user logins, document sync with PDAs and other computers, and the usual performance boosts. But apparently there's more-- and not just of the "Hey, look, more iDoodads!" variety.

They said User at the Center features will make it simpler for individual users to personalize their computing experience and to move seamlessly among Macs and other devices. And as a marketing strategy, Panther's User at the Center capabilities are intended to challenge user-centric capabilities of Microsoft Corp.'s Windows XP as well as its forthcoming "Longhorn" client.

"User At the Center" is evidently a new design paradigm, tied in with the document-sync stuff (probably involving iSync to some degree), but from the language here it's a much more sweeping change to the user experience. There's also this:

In addition, sources said Panther will finally mark the debut of the much-discussed "piles" GUI design concept, which Apple patented in June 2001. According to the patent, piles comprise collections of documents represented graphically in stacks. Users can browse the "piled" documents dynamically by pointing at them with the cursor; the filing system can then divide a pile into subpiles based on each document's content. At the user's request, the filing system can automatically file away documents into existing piles with similar content.

Back when the original Mac OS was being developed-- that is, System 1, back during the Xerox PARC idea-sharing era-- Apple had yet to decide on just how the "Desktop" metaphor would look. The now-familiar ideas of a menu bar at the top of the screen, disk volumes down the right, and folders and documents that you could pull out and scatter around the 2-D space were not by any means the obvious direction Apple was planning to take things. I'm told that one of the front-runner metaphors for file organization, prior to the PARC trip (though the Alto's influence was in other areas than this), was a "stack" of paper-- seen from the side, piled up the left-hand side of the screen. The pile would grow taller as you used and created more documents, and the most recently used ones would be at the top. You would browse your document history by rolling your mouse up and down the stack; each file would flip up and present its icon under your cursor. Almost a Dock, in a way; and bear in mind, this was circa 1982.

(See David K. Every's Mac UI History page for clarifications on the origins of the Mac's user interface and the whole PARC thing.)

One reason why the "stack" metaphor wasn't satisfying was that it was date-based, rather than spatial; it was an incarnation of the "diary" metaphor, in which the user sees his data in time rather than in space. Unfortunately, as Lileks described so well last Wednesday, such a metaphor is butt. Humans think in spatial terms, not temporal terms. I'm much more likely to remember that such-and-such a file was in the blue folder over here in the corner, than to remember that I'd last used it on October 14, or that last time I looked, it was about twenty documents down from the top of the the ever-changing stack.

So what's this new "piles" thing? Is it a reiteration of the "diary" metaphor? I hope not; it's never been an idea that's worked well. Is it, instead, just another way of grouping data, with weird advanced semantics for associating files on the merit of their content or type? Interesting, if so... I'll definitely be looking forward to the screenshots as soon as insiders start leaking them to Think Secret.

It's hard to imagine them coming up with a worse name for a revolutionary new feature, though. (Microsoft doesn't fail me, though: apparently WinXP's successor, Longhorn, has something called a "shingleprint".)

UPDATE: Here's a Flash mock-up of the "piles" concept in action, by Richard Das. Damn, that's cool! I want it!

Thanks to Paul for the tip.



13:40 - Whiteboard of DOOM

(top)
The latest update:



Yeah, that's appetizing.

Oh, and I don't think I ever posted these two:




11:01 - The pain... the pain!
http://www.lordsoftherhymes.com

(top)
Go you and behold the music video at this site: "Lords of the Rhymes". Hizobbits in the hizouse, and they can bust a linno.



It's worth it just to hear A Elbereth Gilthoniel in rap format.

Pain like this can only be assuaged by passing it on.

Monday, April 21, 2003
01:56 - A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
http://atimes.com/atimes/Korea/ED22Dg01.html

(top)
What was that joke about how Heaven is where the cooks are French, the police are British, the lovers are Italian, the mechanics are German, and it's all run by the Swiss; whereas Hell is where the cooks are British, the police are German, the lovers are Swiss, the mechanics are French, and it's all run by the Italians?

(Oh yeah, I guess that's what that joke was.)

Anyway-- what is it when Iraq and Iran are jointly in charge of the Conference on Disarmament, and Libya is in charge of the Human Rights Commission-- only to have that position wrestled away by China and North Korea?

I'm told it's known as the UN, but I think I'll call it TEH SUCK.

(Via Corsair the Rational Pirate.)


18:24 - Well, that sure explains a lot
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/22/ngall22.xml&sSheet=/

(top)
Via LGF; this one's a real barn-burner.

George Galloway, the Labour backbencher, received money from Saddam Hussein's regime, taking a slice of oil earnings worth at least 375,000 British pounds a year, according to Iraqi intelligence documents found by The Daily Telegraph in Baghdad.

A confidential memorandum sent to Saddam by his spy chief said that Mr Galloway asked an agent of the Mukhabarat secret service for a greater cut of Iraq's exports under the oil for food programme.

He also said that Mr Galloway was profiting from food contracts and sought "exceptional" business deals. Mr Galloway has always denied receiving any financial assistance from Baghdad.

Asked to explain the document, he said yesterday: "Maybe it is the product of the same forgers who forged so many other things in this whole Iraq picture. Maybe The Daily Telegraph forged it. Who knows?"

Siphoning money off the oil-for-food program and then railing bitterly against the sanctions that were killing Iraqi babies; accepting blood pay and then doing everything a back-bench MP can do to derail the war effort and keep Saddam in power. It just doesn't get much more despicable than this.

If this war accomplishes nothing more than smoking out all those Western politicians who are in the back pockets of the worst dictatorial regimes the modern world has to offer, it'll have been a resounding success on that strength alone.

Begone, Gríma Wormtongue!

Sunday, April 20, 2003
23:27 - Weird Bugs and Poisonous Reptiles

(top)
I saw Bulletproof Monk today, after Lance and Drew and David and I (but mostly Lance) finished hanging and shimming the new door leading from my bedroom to the main upstairs bathroom. (Upon which the house is officially converted to a 2-bed, 1-and-a-half-and-a-half-bath, and probably divested of 1/3 its market value.)

Before I saw the movie, I'd thought: Great, it's Chow Yun Fat does The Matrix. And now that I've seen it, it's Great, Chow Yun Fat does The Matrix. And Fight Club, and Rush Hour.

Which isn't to say that it wasn't fun. It was dreadfully fun, and awesomely silly. I felt like giggling at the premise all the way through; this movie is to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon what XXX is to every James Bond movie. And I mean that in the best possible way. It seemed as though Chow's perpetual smirk throughout the movie meant that he was having a hell of a time keeping from laughing through every shot.

Obligatory Macs-On-Screen observation: when Kar breaks into Jade's palace and finds her tables full of treasures and exotic animals and such, he finds an iBook running the built-in OS X "Forest" screensaver. It fits in perfectly with the surroundings, and it looks gorgeous. I'm sure it was donated by some crew member who stuck his laptop in front of the director and said, "Hey, wouldn't this look good in there?" And it's awfully hard to say no to a smiling iBook.

Nice, crisp, fun feel-good action/adventure/kung-fu movie. I approve a lot.

Side note: From the look of the trailer for Pirates of the Caribbean, Orlando Bloom has officially been inhabited by the unquiet shade of Cary Elwes.


12:05 - All or nothing
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/1874166

(top)
I notice that not too many people are saying we should be asking "Why do they hate us?" anymore. Maybe it's because they've been reading articles like this:

SHEIK MOHAMMADI, Afghanistan -- The men showed up at the end of the party celebrating the new school. They broke the windows, ripped the vitamins poster in half, tore the skeleton system off the wall. They set fire to biscuits and books.

Abdul Bari Rohani hid his ID badge under a mattress. But the men found it.

"They looked at my identification card and said, `Who is this headmaster, this Abdul Bari, son of George W. Bush? We are looking for him,' " said Rohani, who managed to escape detection.

. . .

At many of the boys' schools and the nearby villages the men left leaflets claiming to be from the Jamiat Jehash Moslemein, or Muslim Gathering Movement, warning people working with the Afghan or U.S. government to quit for their own safety.

The leaflets say Muslims should not get into government cars, or visit any government worker injured in a mine blast, or go to dog fights. Girls and women should not go to school. All Muslims should stay off roads used by government cars and stay away from places where foreigners go, such as hotels.

In other words, the only thing we could do to make the Islamists stop hating us would be to return with them to the Dark Ages. And I think even those who wished to "understand" the motivations behind 9/11, and even to appease the demands of those behind it, are beginning to realize it.

So now the criticism from the left is the exact opposite: that we're not doing enough. That we've abandoned Afghanistan to slip back into Taliban-like theocracy. That we've liberated Iraq only to have it descend into anarchy. That we're ignoring the real targets in the War on Terrorism, and letting the forces gather for another 9/11 while we congratulate ourselves over our great decisive victories.

Come on. If anybody thinks that Iraq is the final goal in the War on Terrorism, or that Afghanistan was all we were going to do, and Iraq was just an unrelated side project that we tackled while we happened to be on a war footing, they haven't been paying attention. The WoT is nothing less than a complete overhaul of the Middle East, and I think everybody who has been taking Bush's speeches at face value since Day One realizes this. Those who haven't keep making the mistake of thinking that each battle we undertake is all we've got planned; that we're so caught up in the Hollywood imagery of cowboy romance that we're now ready to ride off into the sunset, unaware that we're actually in a monster movie and not a Western, and that the beast is about to rise again as soon as our back is turned, and damn, but we didn't expect THAT to happen!

These overly clever analogies mask a complete failure to grasp the scale of the conflict we now face; and from a viewpoint concentrated just on whatever battle we're tackling right now, it looks disjointed, unplanned, and unwarranted. But I don't understand how it can come as a surprise to people that we've planned for a thoroughly world-changing revolution here, a long-term solution that will wither Islamic terrorism by addressing the "root causes" that lie below the McDonalds/Coke/Levis "root causes" that elicit such sneers from the fashionable anti-Western Left. We're going to modernize the Middle East right out from under Islamic fundamentalism, so that it won't have any more ground in which to grow. Modern, productive states don't tend to succumb to religious fanaticism. They've got better things to achieve.

So, surprise-- we're in this for the long haul. We've been asking ourselves "why do they hate us?", and we've reached a conclusion and formulated a plan-- the only problem is that it's not the conclusion that those who originally asked that question hoped we'd reach. They hoped we would withdraw all our fast-food restaurants and Barbie dolls and stop imposing our fetid culture on pure and righteous third-world nations, and sign legislation limiting our use of environmental resources and give equal rights to gays and women and minorities, and then Osama bin Laden would leave us alone for sure!

Well, that ain't what we're doing; we've been pursuing a different plan, and it's been going well so far, and so the goalposts have been moved-- now we're not doing enough to root our Islamic fundamentalism. Things are moving too slowly. If we aren't going to do nothing, we must do everything, right now. Just as the gay-rights marchers demand complete equal rights instantly-- regardless of whether the world is ready for it-- the War Punditry Left demands instant gratification in the Middle East, no matter what it costs in grumbling from those who needed a bit more time to acclimatize to the new paradigm. Too slow! Move it or lose it! Don't get left behind!

Well, guess what: it's going to take longer than that. Hearts and minds take time to win. A country doesn't go from mud huts to Intel fab plants overnight. There's a long-term plan, and it's fully in motion now; Afghanistan was really just a mopping-up operation, a knockdown of one big hornet's nest, and Iraq is the first real battlefield of the WoT; it's the first actual toehold we've achieved. There will be more. The whole process will take years. Bush has said that all along, and if anybody didn't believe him, they've only got themselves to blame. We're committed to the revolution now; the worst thing we could possibly do right now is withdraw, leaving the job half-done, showing the world just how short our attention span is and how we don't follow through on any of our promises. That would be disastrous. But just as much so would be tackling every rogue state all at once, wrenching the Middle East (willing or not) into the modern age in the space of a year or two. We're removing obstacles, remember. We're keeping off the bacteria so the wound can heal. And healing takes time.

I worry that our worst fears could be realized if we should elect someone in 2004 who is not committed to the long goals of the WoT, who pulls back our influence from our half-finished restructuring of the Middle East, and who fulfills all our enemies' worst accusations about us.

And you know that the Left will stump for such a candidate, and if he's elected and does exactly that, they'll forget all about their accusations of our "not doing enough" and condemn the abortive WoT after the fact.

And then, when the next 9/11 comes, Bush will be in the historical laughingstock position of his father and of Carter, we'll be the world's pariah for not finishing the job, and we'll start the cycle all over again. It won't be anywhere near as easy next time.

We won't be riding off into any sunsets for a while yet. But that's okay, because we didn't plan to be.

Friday, April 18, 2003
01:01 - Unfrozen Funds
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/inside/la-iraq-a041803cash_lat,1,126038

(top)

Oh, this is nice and crunchy.

The Army decided to poke around in some suspicious-looking Baghdad houses that had been barricaded up; and what should they find, but $650 million in cash, in dozens of little metal boxes.

(Thus far.)

Real cash, too; evidently it's been vetted and found to be genuine. That's a lotta money. It'd go a long way toward any of the reconstruction projects we've got planned.

Officials did not immediately confirm that the currency was legal tender, but an Army private here who said he had worked for an armored car company examined the bills and called them genuine.

Taylor Griffin, a U.S. Treasury spokesman, offered assurances that any cash retreived from Hussein's regime would be held aside for the people of Iraq. "If we find money and it's not counterfeit, any assets belonging to Saddam Hussein and his cronies will be returned to the Iraqis," Griffin said.

Soldiers of the division's 4th Battalion, 64th Armored Regiment were ordered to stop searching the area shortly before midnight after commanders discovered $600,000 missing from an opened box. Officers said the cash was recovered in a tree and three soldiers were questioned.

Oh, look-- we're demonstrating our evil colonial intentions by giving it back to the Iraqis. Think how easy it could have been for us to keep it, to declare it as spoils of war, the property of a deposed government-- or even to just hush it up. (And we lay the smack down on our own guys who try to make off with some of the loot. No tontine for you bozos!) Instead, it's going into the trust fund with the oil money.

If, that is, the UN can be persuaded that lifting the sanctions against Iraq is permissible. Which shouldn't be too hard, right? After all, they wanted to lift the sanctions, all up until the start of the war, remember?

Oh yeah. The Americans are in charge now, so the sanctions must stay. I understand.


16:34 - Europe's Predicament
http://www.thebuggyprofessor.org/archives/00000074.php

(top)
The Buggy Professor has pulled together a few of the more incisive articles from the past months which help to explain the political situation in France and other EU countries (particularly Germany and Russia)-- what makes them tick, what ticks them off, and how they resemble ticks. It's rather creepy stuff. One of the featured articles is Dalrymple's "Barbarians at the Gates" from a few months ago-- full of florid hyperbole, I'm sure, but dozens of other articles lend it grim credence.

The post is long, but it's worth a read.

The impression one is left with is quite frankly that France and the EU flatly refuse to do anything "the American way"-- including adopting the typical American solutions to the very problems created by their refusal to resemble America, such as multiculturalism rather than our "melting pot". Their social mores forbid them to cast any but a blind eye upon the religiously-defined anti-Semitism in their street protests or the Wild West lawlessness of the North African immigrants in the cités, lest they appear to be as culturally insensitive as the Nazis or-- worse-- the Americans.

Some EU countries are starting to push back, though. I heard on the radio a little while ago that the Netherlands is making efforts (in the wake of Pim Fortuyn's assassination, whose motivation is only now being fully digested, though it was fairly clear before now to anybody who's been paying attention) to reassert the Dutch national identity. They're teaching Dutch language and Dutch culture classes to immigrants, supported with economic incentives, intended to encourage the non-native-born populace to miscegenate, to become-- if not Dutch, then at least hyphenated, just like the Americans. Such an initiative is dreadfully gauche and retrograde in the face of transnational progressivism, and I'm sure it horrifies Europeans for whom the preservation of all cultural purity except their own is paramount, but those are exactly the attitudes that ensured we had an unprotected left flank when 9/11 came along-- and even Europe's left recognizes that the cités aren't just a quaint tourist attraction whose problems a few more social assistance programs will solve. Europe's grown soft-- wilfully-- and soft is a perilous thing to be these days.

Old Europe seems to have learned the lesson of Nazi Germany all too well-- and in shying away from such a phenomenon ever arising again from among its own elite, has only succeeded in fostering it among those downtrodden populations it steadfastly refuses to interfere with. I'm not insensible to the moral teachings of West Side Story, but sometimes the world just stubbornly refuses to play like a stage production, and sometimes there is no moral.

Overcorrection always has unintended consequences.

UPDATE: Den Beste has the goods on France. Or, I guess, the bads.

Thursday, April 17, 2003
17:43 - Hindsight is 20/20
http://europundits.blogspot.com/

(top)
Where were these guys a month ago, I'd like to know?

Friendship gave way to overt hostility, despite the diplomatic smiles and the denials which functioned as confessions: "The Americans aren't our enemies"...By its intransigence and its promise of a veto "regardless of the circumstances," our country divided Europe, paralyzed NATO and the UN, destroying the possibility of avoiding a military confrontation through a precise, joint ultimatum that would have forced out the Iraqi dictator. Far from avoiding a war, the "camp of peace" precipitated one by playing Asterix against Uncle Sam. A ridiculed France has now removed itself from the game. You don't run a great country by getting high on media successes and rhetorical jousts. In this regard, Tony Blair, who took the risk of confronting his electorate while remaining faithful to his convictions, revealed himself to be a true head of state.

The President's conduct reflected public opinion. In the future, we will talk about the hysteria, the collective intoxication that shook France for months on end, the anguish of the Apocalypse that seized our better halves, the almost Soviet ambiance that welded together 90% of the population in a triumph of monolithic thought, allergic to the slightest dissent. In the future, we will have to study the media's partisan coverage of the war?with few exceptions, this coverage was more activist than objective, minimizing the horrors of the Baathist tyranny in order to better reproach the Anglo-American expedition, guilty of all crimes, all problems, all misfortunes in the region.

For weeks, Television Baghdad invaded our brains and our television screens to the point where the very few Iraqi dissident guests had to apologize for existing?to the point where a French singer, in an act of remarkable obscenity, left the stage of a variety show on France 3 upon the arrival of Saad Salam, a film-maker and Iraqi opponent. We will have to explain why the Kurdish minority was, during this period, forbidden from protesting when Saddam's hatchet men paraded on our boulevards, brandishing Saddam's portraits, screaming slogans to his glory, going so far as to lynch the poet-in-exile, Salah Al-Hamdani. We will have to analyze the alarming proportion of French (33%) who, not wanting a coalition victory, pronounced themselves, de facto, in favor of Hussein's victory.

Durn tootin'. Why do you suppose it's taken until after the war for voices like this to make themselves heard, though?

Think what could have been saved, if only they'd spoken up beforehand. Instead, there's now a political gash that will take years, if not decades, to heal.

If this is intended as a get-it-off-your-chest-whew-that-feels-good á la the CNN/Eason Jordan thing, it's ringing just about as hollow with me. Glad to see you've found your moral centers, guys. How's about finding it in time for it to count, next time?


11:11 - Random Thought

(top)
So I got to thinking...

There's a concept called a trusted opponent-- or if there isn't, there should be, and I'm coining the term right now. It's someone who, even though his position on some issue disagrees with yours, is logically and ethically consistent in his reasoning; it's not a raving lunatic, but neither is it someone who will waffle and espouse varying stances depending on circumstance or mood or audience, or use sneaky sucker-punches by way of argument. It's someone whom you wouldn't be ashamed to be convinced by.

So-- who would be a more credible opponent: a liberal who expresses respect for Bush? Or a liberal who loudly repudiates Stalinism?

In other words, does it give a member of a given group more moral authority to claim solidarity with that group's ideological opposition on certain issues, or to denounce the more extreme incarnations of his own group's ideology?

I'm leaning toward the latter. I know that during high school, when I was tending to the liberal side on more issues than I do today, I would have been a lot more reassured by a Republican who loathes Pat Robertson than by a Republican who supports environmental controls. There's just something more soothing about seeing someone's eyebrows aimed at the slippery slope behind him than seeing his hands held out supplicatingly towards me. It makes me feel like there's less to worry about.

And it would have been an excellent spur for me to think "Hey, maybe these guys aren't all nuts; maybe they have a point after all." If they repudiate their extremists, it tells me they're willing to sacrifice some solidarity with the members of their group that only they would support, in favor of coming to the table with their opponents on issues that all or most people should be able to agree (or at least compromise) upon. Seems reasonable to me. After all, is this about group loyalty, or about the relevant issues?

That's the kind of predicament Islam is finding itself in, it seems to me. While it's well and good to hear of Muslims in support of our troops and the War on Terror, somehow it just doesn't do as much as would hearing of Muslims denouncing al Qaeda and the Palestinian suicide bombers and the like. Not just denouncing them either-- but also denouncing those among their own leaders and respected figures who fail to denounce such things. These would include folks like Altaf Ali, Florida director of CAIR, who steals his opponent's notes to avoid having to answer hard questions; and Kevin James, New York director of government relations for (yep) CAIR, who despite being featured in December's PBS special Legacy of a Prophet as Exhibit A on the list of patriotic American Muslims (a FDNY hero, no less), now has a severely hostile Arab News article vilifying Bush and the War on Terror. These guys don't exactly reflect well upon the faith, and nor will a lack of widespread condemnation of them.

On the other hand, things like this really encourage me: an honest self-examination that isn't afraid to point out areas in which Islam might be lacking, or in which it could stand to benefit from the examples of other religions, if the goal is truly to aid ordinary humans in their everyday lives. I don't know how many people would subscribe to this fellow's viewpoint, but little would make me happier than to discover that "it's a lot".

Links all via LGF, which has the odd property that although Charles Johnson's own text borders on bile-spewing generalist invective, the much more expansive pieces to which he links-- in major news sources like Yahoo News and Arab News and the BBC-- tend to justify his words, sad though it is.

UPDATE: Speaking of LGF, this comment thread has turned somehow into Ex-Lefty Anonymous-- seems just about every reader is a former liberal who underwent a political shift with age, money, responsibility, and 9/11, while yet hanging on to many core liberal values. Lots of interesting personal stories, not one of them irrational (rationality and a willingness to agree to disagree on certain divisive issues is a hallmark there).

Interesting moniker they've (we've?) adopted, too: Eagles.


10:42 - Oh, that's perfect
http://www.instapundit.com/archives/008992.php#008992

(top)
One of Glenn Reynolds' readers has the perfect name for those concrete bombs the RAF has been dropping on tanks in Iraq:

It's Ironic that with the early buzz about "Shock & Awe" and the MOAB bomb, that the real big military technological advancement shown in this war is not the bomb with a bigger bang, but a bomb with no bang at all, the "Concrete Bomb", a GPS guided bomb meant to smash into things, but not explode.

Or as I prefer to call it the ACME Guided Anvil.

<clap clap clap> Very good, sir. You get a prize.

Wednesday, April 16, 2003
22:52 - There's nothing good on

(top)
The past couple of nights, I've been up way too late performing unnatural operations on my backup server. What should have been a simple addition-of-a-disk turned into a protracted odyssey whose details are too stupid and boring to even mention here.

(Not like that's ever stopped me before.)

I noticed that my offsite backup server, which does a nightly CVSup mirror of my main server, and whose single 40GB disk is clearly inadequate to serve the main machine's pair of disks at 80GB and 20GB respectively, was full. Yeah, yeah. I knew I shoulda seen it coming. More to the point, I should have done something about it back in February, at which point the disk stopped having enough space for the system to generate an e-mail to tell me it was out of space.

Ahem. So I went to Fry's and got me a nice modest 60GB disk, which I planned to add to the 40GB disk already in the machine. I'd partition it for /home or something-- it'd be easy. I'd done it a hundred times before. So then I went to the co-lo facility (e.g. a friend's garage), dug the 1U machine out from the slot in the cabinet in which it had been buried, peeled off the top, blew away about three epochs' worth of compacted dust and shale deposits with a can of compressed fluorine or whatever it is, and discovered... that the machine only supports one disk.

Razzam frazzam! Well, that's what I get for using a cheapo $600 1U server from one of our more economical lab rigs. Okay, so let's see...

Back to Fry's to trade in the 60 for a bigger disk to make the new single, hitting 95 on the freeway so as to get there before closing time, reaching the doors at 9:55-- only to discover that they close at 9:00. Bah!

So no 120GB disk for me. I guess I'll make do with replacing the 40GB with the 60GB; it doesn't buy me that much time, but it's still the cheapest solution I have to hand. And until my home equity line of credit checks get here, I don't have much in the way of disposable income to blow on unneeded gigabytes.

Thus began the trudge through putting a fresh clean install of the OS on the new drive, partitioning it the way it should be (like maybe with a / partition big enough to hold two kernels, and a /var big enough to hold a log file or two), and transfusing the 38GB of /usr sludge from one IDE chain to the other. This took two days. Well, actually it took about four hours, but I had to do it twice. (No, Brian, you can't create a bootable installation of FreeBSD just by copying the files over and hoping the BIOS recognizes that useless "Make Bootable" flag in fdisk.) And I wasn't exactly keen on becoming a fixture at said friend's house, or a lurking grue in their garage, hunched on a ratty old office chair squinting at a sidelong-mounted scratched-up cabinet monitor.

And once it was all copied over, the old config files moved to temporary directories, and the machine buttoned up and slotted back into the cabinet, it was still an image of the server as it was in late February-- so it was time for a day's worth of CVSupping to sync that last few gigabytes. By the time I had that running to my satisfaction, it was almost 5:00AM last night.

But it's all happy now. But I'd rather not write anything tonight; I'd rather sleep.

Wait. I guess I did write stuff. Damn.

And that war show has really gone downhill since the episode with the statues.

Tuesday, April 15, 2003
16:50 - As long as it takes
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/15/sprj.irq.abbas.arrested/index.html

(top)

1985 isn't so long ago. But regardless, when it comes to incidents like the Achille Lauro, the memories stay fresh.

I think it's all to the good that one of the first (of what may be a good many) terrorist nabs we've made in Iraq is of someone whose notoriety is from an incident nearly twenty years ago. It'll send the message that when we go after terrorists, it doesn't matter how many years we have to search or what protective governments we have to overthrow-- we'll do the Mountie thing and always get our man.

This, along with the Ron Jeremy arrest last month, should at the very least give a lot of people the cold heebie-jeebies: commit an act of terrorism that gets the Americans involved, and you'll be running for the rest of your life. And even if that sounds like fun, we will get you.

From the comments at LGF:

It should also be publicized that as "senior emeritus terrorist," he freely attended those Hamas/Fatah/Is. Jihad hate-fests in Egypt over the last two years and that Egypt laughed at our demands for his arrest.

And the fact that he was turned back at the Syrian border is a good sign too-- seems maybe some people are starting to listen. The dominoes are beginning to fall...


15:34 - Raising the bar
http://www.nationalpost.ca/world/story.html?id=ECE98D7D-B287-47A5-90FB-A76063AD1B4E

(top)
It's now a war crime to use any weapon on the battlefield that is less technologically advanced than the most insanely modern and precise wizard weapons in our arsenal. Anything that can kill a civilian as well as it can a military target is hereby deemed evil.

People who had volunteered as Saddam's "human shields" will be among those contributing testimony. "Any evidence we can get hold of, we will present," Mr. Shiner said. "The [ICC] prosecutor would have a duty to investigate if there was credible evidence."

Mr. Shiner said the activists' case will probe the coalition's use, or suspected use, of cluster bombs, depleted uranium ammunition and fuel-air explosives.

These weapons are unauthorized, he claimed, because they "can't distinguish between civilian or military" targets.

Mark my words-- the moment we develop "morality bombs", which can kill those with evil thoughts but bounce right off the pure of heart, it will become a crime against humanity to use any weapon other than those during a war.

Regardless of, you know, intent. In all this war-crimes folderol, why is it that nobody is even approaching the most obvious of all factors involved in the deaths of civilians-- whether the party doing the killing intended civilians to die or not?

Without that crucial bit of testimony, which in the non-military world has given us such distinctions as "manslaughter" and degrees of murder, it becomes morally equivalent for us to accidentally wound a kid while firing on an advancing T-72 or while defending a checkpoint against cars accelerating through the cordon, and for Saddam's thugs to torture that same kid in a children's prison or to drop mustard gas on his house or to hide weapons in his school.

The guys crying "war crimes!" either are deliberately ignoring this distinction, or are too dense and blinded by their own hatred to understand it.

(Via Bill Herbert.)


10:55 - Karl Marx Dances by the Pond
http://www.airside.co.uk/business/movingimage/ljducksvidmov.html

(top)

Aarrgh! Another bizarre retro-silly song with hypnotic 60s animation to try to get out of my brain.

Not... working... All the ducks are swimming in the water! Nooo! Make it stop!

Damn you Chris!

(I love this video, though. It's like, what if the Beatles had CG?)


10:13 - Apple caught in the crossfire
http://www.nypost.com/business/73445.htm

(top)
I've been trying to decide how I feel about this one.

One the one hand: it's odious that Apple, or any business associated with Apple, would take part in a boycott against Israeli-made goods. Particularly considering that such a boycott would be illegal under US law-- but it also suggests something very disturbing about the political bent of Apple's company policy. They really ought to take positive action to correct this situation, and here's where you can encourage them to do so.

But on the other hand, there's a little perspective to be had. For instance: I don't believe, from the evidence at hand, that this situation is the result of company policy. "Apple Centre", the business around which this brouhaha is swirling, is a wholly independent reseller based in Bahrain.

An Apple spokesperson told The Post that Apple Centre isn't a subsidiary of Apple and that no Apple employees work there.

The spokesperson said Apple doesn't comment on its parts suppliers.

So it appears to me as though the NY Post's decision to run a photo of Steve Jobs against the article-- and a rather unflattering one at that-- is a trifle misleading; it's not like Jobs called up the Post and told them he's withdrawing all contracts between Apple and Israeli companies. It's just this one reseller. And I may be wrong on this (Marcus?), but I don't believe Apple even has any kind of direct control over the policies of its resellers; the best they could do in this case would be punitive sanctions such as reducing Apple Centre's reseller rating. But something tells me that without a corporate obligation to police the politics of their resellers, they'd simply rather not get involved-- either way they know they're going to piss somebody off, but discretion is the better part of valor.

But those are both actually rather minor issues, I think. The biggest one, on the third hand, is simply that there is an Arab League boycott against Israeli products in the first place. I mean, jeez, man. Israeli companies make all kinds of high-tech goods. It's not just these clock chip batteries that are at the center of this Apple debacle-- there's microcode for Intel CPUs written in Israel, there's a huge networking equipment sector in Israel (my company is in heavy competition with one of them-- heh), and so on. And the Arab League is boycotting this stuff? Guys, this is a world economy here, and Israel happens to be making stuff other countries need. That's how you be a successful country. Capiche? It would be one thing if there were clock chip batteries and CPUs being made in Arab countries and exported all over the world; then this boycott might be seen as a way of effecting a legitimate political statement through free-market choices. But the attitude is apparently that "Well, if the only way we can have modern technology is by using parts made by Israeli high-tech firms, well then, by gum we'll just do without modern technology!" Sounds to me like the ultimate childish hissy fit. Sour grapes. Taking a heroic stand by dragging others down to their level.

Like the Southern Baptist Convention boycotting Disney because of Disney's support for gay rights, this boycott is one done purely out of spite, and bound to hurt only those doing the boycotting. I know I wouldn't want to be the one trying to explain to my kid why she couldn't watch The Lion King or eat camel milk ice cream.

This is a bigger problem than Apple is, or should be, equipped to deal with.


09:48 - Australians kick ass
http://heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,6278827%255E25717,00.html

(top)
Andrew Bolt in Australia's Herald Sun deals out some savage swipes against those journalists and politicians who warned direly against the war, laden with quotes from before the fact-- while at the same time wagging a warning finger at those who are now "moving the goalposts", claiming that what they were really warning against all this time was that post-war reconstruction would be difficult.

Rather than, for instance, that the assault on Baghdad would be a civilian-slaughtering bloodbath from which the Americans would shrink in horror and defeat.

Now he oughtta take on Janeane Garofalo.

Monday, April 14, 2003
14:22 - Apple vs. DRM?
http://www.oscast.com/stories/storyReader$291

(top)
Judson has found an interesting take on the "Apple's New Music-Purchasing Service" story that's been slowly materializing of late.

Since AAC has no built-in DRM technology, Apple's service is going to have to compete against Microsoft's closed, DRM-laden offerings. How can they do this without losing the buy-in of the record labels? Don't the labels require DRM in order for any such service to have legitimacy?

Well, apparently not. Here's how the argument goes...

Knowing that Apple has managed to get a blessing from each of the major record labels to allow it to move forward with its music purchasing software, the question that many people are asking is, "Why would Apple need to buy Universal's music division in the first place?"

The answer? It wouldn't.

A buyout of Universal's music division offers Apple a strategic advantage against Microsoft's digital rights management. If DRM gains widespread adoption, it could effectively push Apple out of one of one of its major computing strongholds: content creation.

. . .

Apple inevitably feared a future in which new music and video files couldn't play on computers not running Windows. If all the major music companies sign on to this DRM strategy, consumers may feel forced to stay "inside the lines" and use only Microsoft-created solutions

However, if an Apple-owned Universal Music didn't sign on to such a scenario, being the largest recording company could create the necessary leverage to keep other record companies from doing the same.

. . .

Additionally, if Apple established a business model that encouraged ripping mixing and burning all while making a profit for both itself AND the recording industries, it would be a win-win-win situation for consumers, Apple, and the recording industry.

Win-win-win for everybody except Microsoft, that is.

The article goes on to suggest that Microsoft is also now trying to bid on Universal, in an attempt to derail Apple's plans; but that this is driven by pure anticompetition rather than by similar goals.

I'm sure most of the recording industry is well aware of the importance of Apple-- more so than the market at large is, in fact, because of the prevalence of Macs in the content-creation field, particularly in video. Macs are everywhere in the studios. Doubtless numerous execs found themselves wondering whether if they bought into some proprietary Microsoft-managed DRM technology, they themselves wouldn't be able to use their own music service on their own Macs. Presumably they understand enough about technology to realize something of the nature of computing; presumably they've undergone an education in recent years as to the meaning of the phrase "information wants to be free". Maybe, just maybe, they've taken to heart the idea that their entire business model has to change in a radical way in order to survive in the Internet age, and that they won't be able to compete with the KaZaAs and Napsters of the world if their alternative is proprietary and restrictive. Thus far the value equation hasn't been able to come out with for-pay, device-bound assured DRM content on top of haphazard, variable-quality, totally free MP3s.

So Apple might have a winning formula here. What's good for Apple, it seems, is good for openness in technology in general-- because as long as there are one or more viable non-Microsoft alternative platforms, the economics work out in favor of making the tech open to all rather than making it proprietary to those individual vendors. If Apple's goal is truly to revolutionize the music industry with a DRM-free alternative market path, fighting for open versus proprietary technologies (while at the same time turning a tidy exclusive profit), then I don't see much of a downside for anybody but Microsoft stockholders.


14:09 - Weekend Wars

(top)
An update on the house is in order, I suppose...

Let's see: so far we've had the roof redone, had a plumbing flush-out done, bought that new couch and chair for the new master suite, torn out the wall between the two bedrooms, replaced all the electrical outlets and switches (three-way switches suck ass), installed a new stove and dishwasher and microwave (the latter two arriving today), installed new ceiling fans and light fixtures, broke up a corner of the concrete pad out back and dug a square for the new hot tub foundation, dug a trench for the conduit to the hot tub, got the front picture window replaced, and removed all the hideous blue kitchen cabinet doors and drawers so we can strip the paint and redo them in black with gold trim. We've also been pricing stone-slab countertops, stone tilework for the fireplace, carpeting, more lighting, and picking paint colors.

All it looks like we've done so far is piled sheetrock shards on the floor and propped up big pieces of wood with nails sticking out of them against the walls. We don't even have a real garbage can yet.

Ah well-- the electrical work is now all done, so at the very least we can work at night now. Now comes the fun stuff, the part that actually makes a visual difference. Up till now it's been tedious and unglamorous (and, as James will attest, shocking) until now, but here's where the fun begins.

Time to build a wall.


14:01 - Tabbed browsing for real
http://www.apple.com/safari/

(top)
Software Update-hounds will already have been all over this, but Safari Public Beta 2 is out. Its internal version is v73.

Tabbed browsing is very slick now-- much nicer than in v62. There's now a nicely controllable AutoFill function for forms, and bookmark importers for Netscape/Mozilla-- conveniently right after MacAddict published a tip sheet on how to work around Beta 1's lack of support for such things. (Those guys just can't seem to keep abreast of the news, can they? Poor fellas.)

There are still some dumb things left to fix, but it's definitely getting better.

Sunday, April 13, 2003
23:47 - The Whitewash Continues

(top)
Speaking of PowerBook G3s on-screen...



It's an oft-repeated story, and it's happening over and over again, in what's turned into literally hundreds of sightings throughout film and TV and all media. Apple products get used because they look cool, but the ad agency Photoshops out the Apple logo.

Favorite candidates include the PowerBook G3 (as in this Vehix.com ad) and the TiBook; these are easy to turn anonymous, as the big illuminated white Apple logo can be eliminated with a quick paint-bucket or rubber-stamp, and the result is (in the latter case) a smooth unbroken landscape-format silvery metal expanse on the opened lid as the actors beam at whatever's on the other side.

(Unless it's Austin Powers, in which case they don't airbrush out the logo at all; because the purpose is to demonstrate the advancement of the modern Internet by showing the butt-sniffing monkey video playing in QuickTime 4.)

Apple's LCD monitors are common too; but it's not so easy to wipe out the logo on those; usually, as in those stupid Fandango ads that get played before the feature presentation in movie theaters, they just stick on a little square of silvery tape. But there's no misidentifying the transparent feet at the edges, or the subtle horizontal striping, or the landscape format...

Oh, the guilt and shame that must keep them up at night.

Saturday, April 12, 2003
02:08 - Plumbing the depths

(top)
I thought I'd relax tonight with a good ol' big, dumb pachyderm of a movie: The Core. I gotta say, it fulfilled all my expectations of it.

Seriously-- I didn't exactly expect a hard-core sci-fi thriller. But as action/adventure movies of this sort go, it was by-the-numbers, but executed fairly well. It had a lot of scenes that really took things to the limit, scenes I wasn't expecting at all. Very well-done effects for the most part. A predictable plotline and timetable for cast members dying in valiant acts of heroism, but it was sold well. It pushed all the right buttons.

I was pleasantly surprised to find that the science wasn't as dumb as I was expecting. Now, granted, that's like saying the movie was more light-hearted than Schindler's List or shorter than Titanic, but I'm serious. It sounded as though they got someone with a reasonable grasp of the requisite jargon to vet the dialogue, if not the overall plot.

They did make a game attempt to do the same for the computers used in the movie; but while at least the computers don't beep with every keystroke anymore, they still run ILM-OS; the Internet still consists of big high-resolution digital maps of the world with messages traveling in big ballistic arcs from points labeled "Venice, CA" to "New York" and "Atlanta" and "Belize" and so on. And at least the heaviest-guarded and hardened DoD systems all give 404 errors now, before with one second left on the countdown clock putting up big banners saying CONGRATULATIONS - AUTHORIZATION GRANTED - FULL ADMINISTRATIVE ACCESS. And omniscient l33t h4X0r kids with gigantic ears and noses still make demands for unlimited supplies of Xena tapes and Hot Pockets in exchange for their all-powerful wisecracking. (Real live white-hat types are more indebted for their legitimacy to Hollywood for turning bizarre, preconceived caricatures of them into ingenious protagonists than to their own real-world actions.)

They certainly got one thing right, though: as everybody knows, all white-hats use PowerBook G3s for taking over the world.

(Well, maybe not; but those things sure are easy on the eyes, particularly on the big screen.)

Fun movie. Still a bit jarring to see a scene revolve around a desperate attempt to salvage a Space Shuttle reentry, but oddly moving in that it succeeds. Nice microcosm of the movie as a whole.


01:22 - Massive suckitude
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/13/international/worldspecial/13BAGH.html?ex=10508112

(top)
You know... this war has gone about as well as could possibly have been expected, for anybody who has considered the war a good thing. Casualties have been extremely low; damage to property and infrastructure has been unprecedentedly light; and the liberation on the popular level has proceeded without the need for sneer quotes except by the most cynical. It's hard to find a real point to pick at from the past three weeks.

But then something like this happens, and there's really no way to look at it in a positive light.

The National Museum of Iraq recorded a history of civilizations that began to flourish in the fertile plains of Mesopotamia more than 7,000 years ago. But once American troops entered Baghdad in sufficient force to topple Saddam Hussein's government this week, it took only 48 hours for the museum to be destroyed, with at least 170,000 artifacts carried away by looters.

The full extent of the disaster that befell the museum came to light only today, as the frenzied looting that swept much of the capital over the previous three days began to ebb.

As fires in a dozen government ministries and agencies began to burn out, and as looters tired of pillaging in the 90-degree heat, museum officials reached the hotels where foreign journalists were staying along the eastern bank of the Tigris River. They brought word of what is likely to be reckoned as one of the greatest cultural disasters in recent Middle Eastern history.

A full accounting of what has been lost may take weeks or months. The museum had been closed during much of the 1990's, and as with many Iraqi institutions, its operations were cloaked in secrecy under Mr. Hussein.

170,000 artifacts-- many of them indiscriminately smashed in place rather than stolen, according to the video. These aren't art, they're millennia-old pieces of our past, irreplaceable. One wishes to think that they're mostly just destined for private hoarders in hopes of ransom and extortion, but that's a hell of a best-case scenario-- and the amount of stuff that's just been casually destroyed would seem to discount it.

There's not much of a spin that can be put on this. Reportedly, the museum keepers pleaded with Marines for protection, and we gave some-- for like half an hour, before leaving. I know we're not equipped to act as MPs (why weren't MPs deployed by now? Is this an unintended consequence of Franks' taking advantage of the opportunity to strike while the iron was hot-- he gave up the MP presence he hadn't ordered to show up until later?); I know we're not deployed with enough manpower to protect against looting while still engaged with enemy forces-- but shouldn't the National Museum of Iraq, considering its contents, be considered one of the sites whose protection is an objective of ours?

As some of the commenters at The Command Post said, this is probably the worst news yet to come out of Iraq since the war began. On one hand, that says a great deal for the war as a whole-- if this is the worst disaster to occur, we've done pretty well. But equally true is that this is pretty damned bad.

It's certainly not enough to indict the war or its motives, in my view-- but it does represent a screw-up on our part. I hope we can sort of salvage what we can by offering hefty rewards for Iraqis to turn in what they've looted (considering Saddam's cultivation of the idea of Iraq as the historical heir of the great Mesopotamian cultures, perhaps there is some sense of civic/national pride that we can play on here). But that will only be a partial solution at best, and a messy one. The fact remains that this is a black eye-- a real shiner.

Granted, there would have been plenty of consequences of our trying to cordon off the museum, among which would be accusations from the world community that we're obviously trying to make off with the Iraqis' national treasures, or that our priorities apparently extended to museums and banks but not to hospitals or embassies, and so forth. But c'mon... this isn't just Iraq's national history we're talking about here; it's the whole world's.

Damned if you do, damned if you do something else. The best we can do, I guess, is try to prevent more such things from happening. Yuck.


UPDATE: A good counterargument to our applying martial law. Not much of a consolation, but...

Friday, April 11, 2003
01:04 - Ghost Town
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/videoplayer/newVid/framesource2.html?clip=LiveWebCast

(top)
I've been watching CBS' live webcam of this square-- the one with the big Saddam statue that the tank-extractor pulled down-- off and on for the past couple of weeks.

It's usually been deserted. Maybe a person or two walking around; a tank was parked in the foreground a couple of days ago. No cars were ever to be seen.



The square is totally packed with traffic now-- the curbs are lined with parked cars, and the street lanes are moving slowly but resolutely. People are walking up and down the sidewalks in long, unbroken lines. No running or shouting or looting in sight; some car horns can be heard, but only in a typical "big city" kind of way.

It looks for all the world like the surface streets near a stadium on game day, or the access road to a university. Busy, crowded, energetic, but in no way chaotic.

I don't know what "normal" looks like in this square, not having seen it before the war started. But if what I'm seeing here isn't what could be described as "normal", I'd be very surprised.

... Dan Rather's blurbs in the right-hand pane notwithstanding.


18:05 - The Legacy of General Woundwort
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12838556&method=full&siteid=5

(top)
It's not my fault that I'm so evil
It's society... society!
You see, my parents were sometimes abusive
And it made... a prick of me!


In the dusty playground the chanting children's voices grew louder and louder, ringing inside the head of a dark-haired boy who stood alone by a crumbling school wall.

"Bastard, bastard, bastard," the children spat.

The boy tried to run but the taunting continued - just as it did most days for him in the village of Al-Ouja near Tikrit in north central Iraq.

But on this sweltering hot summer's day the six-year-old had had enough.

The lonely, taciturn child slowly bent down, picked up an iron bar lying on the ground then slashed it through the air towards the other children.

The rag-tag group of boys ran off in fear. And Saddam Hussein first learnt the power of terror.

As one of the commenters at The Command Post suggested, this might well become a cautionary tale for parents to paraphrase to their bullying youngsters. "You want to grow up like Saddam Hussein?"

Even Hitler didn't gain the ignominy of being reduced to a tale to terrify or entertain children. Even today he's still a name that people avoid saying in polite company or in front of kids, and maybe-- like General Woundwort in Watership Down, who did become such a cautionary tale-- his legacy wouldn't have displeased him. Saddam, who was already on the way there (thanks to Parker and Stone, though I had no idea they were apparently quite accurate), now seems to stand an excellent chance of suffering that ultimate humiliation.

Good. Unless, like Woundwort, he would have gotten off on it.


15:58 - (Yester)day of the looters
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/11/wbasra11.xml&sSheet=

(top)
Don't declare Iraq lost to permanent anarchy and chaos just yet.

The meeting had barely begun when the officer proclaimed: "Gentlemen, I am here to get this power station up and running. I've got engineers and contractors itching to get started. Is there anything you would like to add?"

"Actually," said the station's planning manager, Adel Hussein al-Shati, a stout, elderly man who once studied at Portsmouth Polytechnic, "we'd like to do it ourselves." He then explained how long it would take and how many men he needed.

"Well that's a relief," the officer said. "Get to work."

"Of course," Mr al-Shati said. "This is our job and this is our country".

That's in Basra. The same thing will soon be happening all over Iraq.

When it's the Iraqis themselves who will be (willingly) doing the bulk of the reconstruction and the reorganization of the country, they'll increasingly be some of the most realistic and urbane people in the Middle East. We'll have removed just one major roadblock, the one they couldn't have eliminated on their own-- Saddam. We won't, however, have built them a new country out of charity. If there's one lesson we need to have learned by now, it's that charity doesn't win us friends. Removal of obstacles does. Charity just breeds resentment.

And it seems to me that to assume that without a dictatorial hand on their shoulders-- either Saddam's or Bush's-- the Iraqis will automatically devolve into the kill-or-be-killed mud-hut proto-civilization of the Y2K episode of The Simpsons is to suggest that they're a bunch of little brown savages.

Somehow I don't think that's a fair characterization.


15:09 - Goddamn hippie crap!
http://www.livejournal.com/users/stolichnaya/4651.html#cutid1

(top)
A student by the name of The Drunk Russian has posted a long, comprehensive Fisking of the long, consumptive April 2 Arundhati Roy column in the Guardian.

It's rich and chewy.


10:54 - So that's their little game...
http://breakingnews.nypost.com/dynamic/stories/A/APPLE_UNIVERSAL?SITE=NYNYP&SECTION=

(top)

Okay, so: last month we heard about Apple's plans to create a new digital-music service that reportedly had won the hearts and minds of the whole record industry, scheduled to bow in late April. A couple of days ago we heard about the new iPod models with separate control buttons, 15 or 30GB drives, USB2, and a docking station-- said to be slated for the end of April.

And today, this news breaks (via Mike Hendrix):

Apple Computer Inc. is in discussions about buying Universal Music Group, the world's largest record company, for as much as $6 billion, according to a published report Friday.

Talks between Apple and Vivendi Universal, Universal Music Group's parent company, have been held secretly for months, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Apple may offer $5 billion to $6 billion for the music company before Vivendi's April 29 board meeting, the newspaper said, citing sources it did not identify.

Those who see Apple as being a company that's perpetually on the edge of bankruptcy might do well to recall that they're actually doing quite well, thank you, with billions of cash in the bank and a healthy record of managed profit margins in recent quarters; but Vivendi, one of the record labels having to cope with the sudden digital revolution as well as the present sad state of the music industry, is actually on the verge of bankruptcy. Enough so that they apparently represent a good acquisition target to Apple.

Presumably what all this means is that Apple's getting into the music business in a big way. (Theme song for the upcoming ad campaign: Sosumi.) Presumably all the artists owned by Universal would then become part of Apple's marketing machine, hawking iPods in malls and running giant Keynote-created presentations on the giant screens behind them at live concerts.

Seriously, I'd love to know what form this will all take. Word has been that the online music service Apple plans to unveil will offer free 30-second clips and $1-a-song downloads, based on AAC (which has no built-in DRM technology, unlike Windows Media); they've also been reported to have signed up five of the biggest labels as participants, enthusiastic about the interface of the new system and its foolproof profitability and usefulness to the point where they're willing to jump on board and finally start endorsing the digital generation rather than fighting it. It'll be Mac-only, but so was the iPod at first. (Now, according to the Think Secret article, 58% of all iPods sold are Windows models.)

On an unrelated note, I've been hearing that the PPC 970 chips are on an accelerated production ramp, already being seeded to development machines, possibly for demonstration at WWDC. We might have them on shelves later this year after all-- soon to be followed by the 9800, if yar rumors be true. And OS X 10.3-- "Panther"-- will be unveiled then as well, with full 64-bit support and God knows what else.

It's an interesting time to be a Mac user, yes sirree.


UPDATE: CapLion has some comments on these developments.

Incidentally, here's some self-effacing Mac humor, in response to Den Beste's suggestion that Apple hire al-Sahhaf as their new spokesman.

Thursday, April 10, 2003
02:22 - More dollars than sense

(top)
Okay, so here's something that's been bugging me about Fox's coverage since the start of the war.

No, it's not about the political angle, or the commentators, or anything like that. It's about the video screen they use as a digital chalkboard for describing troop movements and such.



It's one of those big widescreen flat-panel plasma displays-- the ones that were like $15,000 a year or two ago, but now are "only" about $7,000; now you can see them in every booth at any given trade show, lining the walls of airports, and even showing ads above the concession stands at movie theaters. Yeah, they're expensive as hell-- but they're cool.

The trouble is, Fox appears to be using one purely for the sake of this camera shot shown here, with the screen off to the side so the commentator can gesticulate at it. It looks nice and slick.

However, the image displayed on it is stretched. It's a widescreen display; but they have to put a map on it, and then switch it to the full-screen feed so it fills the TV audience's 4x3 screen. When it's on the plasma display, it gets stretched to fill the display shape.

Which is usually fine for abstract stuff, but for maps it sucks butt. It means half the time, the displayed map or satellite image or flyover is distorted horizontally, and the rest of the time that big gore point in the Tigris looks more like a gentle bend in the river and less like a pancreas. When you're dealing with maps in particular, this makes distances misleading and undermines the point of trying to display a map.

I guess there isn't a good solution to this, other than not using the widescreen display for the gee-whiz camera angle in the first place, but then they'd look all low-tech and stuff! We can't have that, now...

... Okay, rant over.


17:08 - The horror of victory

(top)
Somehow, somehow they'll find a way to turn this into a defeat for America. Somewhere they'll find something to blame us for, some way in which they can paint us as war criminals and global oppressors bent on world domination and the slaughter of innocents.

NPR just had an hour-long segment of interviews with UN officials and diplomats, wringing their hands, anguished, frustrated almost to the point of tears over the current situation. "The mood around here is very bleak," they said. "It hasn't been this tense in the hallways of the UN since the Cuban Missile Crisis." In pained, agonized voices the interviewees mourned for the diplomatic process, the inspections, the human dignity inevitably destroyed by any war. "This is a humanitarian crisis," they wailed, as though Baghdad were the site of a nuke blast.

Not a word about the cheering throngs, the felled statues. Not a word about the tears of joy in Dearborn. Not the slightest peep about what the Iraqi people are saying to the world. You'd think it didn't matter.

They're confronted with the fact that a great good has just been done, and not just without the UN-- but in spite of the UN. They've been whisked through a scene change on the stage of history, and the curtain's just been raised-- and they're finding themselves on the side of evil. Yeah, they'd better be tense.

Meanwhile, Robert Fisk does his valiant best to wrap himself once again in a bloody flag of moral rectitude-- which he himself rescues from a mud puddle. The hero.

BAGHDAD, 11 April 2003 - It was the day of the looters. They trashed the German Embassy and threw the ambassador's desk into the yard. I rescued the European Union flag - flung into a puddle of water outside the visa section - as a mob of middle-aged men, chadored women and screaming children rifled through the consul's office and hurled Mozart records and German history books from an upper window. The Slovakian Embassy was broken into a few hours later.

At the headquarters of UNICEF, which has been trying to save and improve the lives of millions of Iraqi children since the 1980s, an army of thieves stormed the building, throwing brand new photocopiers on top of each other and sending cascades of UN files on child diseases, pregnancy death rates and nutrition across the floors.

The Americans may think they have "liberated" Baghdad after the most stage-managed photo-opportunity since Iwo Jima, but the tens of thousands of thieves - they came in families and cruised the city in trucks and cars searching for booty - seem to have a different idea of what liberation means. It also represented a serious breach of the Geneva Conventions. As the occupying power, the United States is responsible for protecting embassies and UN offices in their area of control, but yesterday their troops were driving past the German Embassy even as looters carted desks and chairs out of the front gate.

"Stage-managed photo-opportunity".

Some people are so incapable of joy that they refuse to see it in even the most inarguably positive and joyous event to have occurred in the Middle East in decades. It takes a special kind of person to watch the sledgehammers at the statues and the looters kissing the cameramen, and to then put sneer quotes on the word "liberation".

To be working so hard to turn such a massive humanitarian victory into an ignominious defeat has got to be one of the most contemptible things a "journalist" can do.


12:54 - What is it with these people?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83791,00.html

(top)
Information Minister Al-Sahhaf is alive and well, and working in Iraqi embassies all around the world under assumed names.

After TV showed Saddam's statue come tumbling down in Baghdad, Iraqi diplomats in Brazil carried box after box of papers out of their embassy -- and set them on fire. Then they denied police reports that documents were being destroyed.

"It's all lies," said Brazilian embassy official Abdu Saif. "We are only burning debris and recently cut tree branches."

In Tokyo, Iraqi diplomats hauled garbage bags stuffed with shredded documents out of the embassy. Neighbors whispered that the amount of trash was three times the usual level.

I swear I've never heard the words "it's all lies" so frequently as over the past three weeks, unless it was over the past six months from Arab ambassadors in the UN. Everything's always lies. Hollywood lies. Zionist lies. Crusader lies. Liars-- they'reall liars!


Would it be gauche of me to suggest that it takes one to know one-- or more appropriately, to see one where none exists?

Some of these guys must be so steeped in lying as a part of their professional lives that they honestly believe that the rest of the world is lying. I heard a story on the radio some time ago about a woman who as a professional hobby would attempt to defraud department stores into giving her refunds for clothes that she didn't actually buy there. She would do this at dozens, even hundreds of department stores; and whenever the store saw through her lies and refused to pay up, she grew furious and indignant-- after she left. "They wouldn't even believe me! How dare they? The eye-dacity!"

I'm beginning to think that the real threat to the US stems not even so much from state-supported Islamism (which has failed to follow through on its threats of devastating attacks to coincide with the start of our war in Iraq), as from the deeply ingrained mechanism of institutional lying that is de rigeur throughout the Middle East. Iraqis were prevented from seeing newspapers from outside the country until a few days ago; only now are they starting to see what the rest of the world really thinks about this war. (Remember that before we invaded, Iraqis routinely thought that the "human shields" were there because they'd been paid by Saddam. From the Iraqi viewpoint, what other explanation could there be? Think about it.) And in Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, the Arab Street is turning out not to be made up of throngs of young and willing suicide bombers-- but rather of average men and women who are suddenly finding out, to their shock and horror, that all the sources of information that they've been listening to all their lives have been lying all along.

They never even knew they were being lied to; the first indication that anything at all was amiss from the party line was when Al-Jazeera was forced to about-face from "Saddam's forces are slaughtering the invaders" to "There was practically no resistance, and the Iraqis are smothering the Americans and British with kisses and flowers" in the space of a day. Until that happened, they had no idea that what they were being told wasn't the truth. Suddenly their whole lives are thrown into chaos. So they're reacting with everything from disbelief to horror to throwing things at their TV sets to going home and crying. They've just had their minds punched in the gut by cold hard reality. That'll fuck you up.

But what does it tell us? That there's an infrastructure of media-based mind control in place in the Middle East, and that it's very closely tied in with the various state apparatuses; it's this system of manufactured truth that is the real enemy in this war, because it's what is preventing the Arab world from seeing the US as liberators rather than as oppressors. It's what turns even the less-than-devout against us on religious terms. It's what prevents people from learning from history, from understanding the world in which they live, from knowing what kinds of ways of life there are besides their own. It's what tells the people in these Middle Eastern countries that their way of life is the only pure and good one, and that America and Israel are the great evil powers in the world which threaten all that is good and just, for their own selfish ends.

We worry about violence on TV corrupting our children. Well, we might instead want to worry about propaganda on TV corrupting a whole region. Yeah, the media is to blame for the ills of today's world-- but not in the way Michael Moore thinks.

Which means that our current plan for reform in the Middle East is right on track. Liberating Iraq has been a twofold blow: on the one hand, it freed the people of Iraq, which is all to their own benefit as well as to ours, in removing Saddam from the equation; 26 million Iraqis now have a better future, and we have a more secure one. But on the other hand, the Arab media machine has been dealt a serious wound; Al-Jazeera has been severely demoralized and had its credibility shattered among millions of its critical viewership. Now that they know that what Al-Jazeera broadcasts is lies, or at least it was revealed to be such here and now in Iraq, the Arab viewers know that they can no longer trust it. And if they can't trust Al-Jazeera, who else might have been lying to them all this time?

Could it be, maybe, just possibly-- that all the people who have been using the words "It's all lies" are the ones most likely to be lying themselves?

Wednesday, April 9, 2003
01:53 - Here's a peace demonstrator for ya

(top)


Poor misguided fool. If only he knew that IndyMedia and International ANSWER were his people's true allies, that the Americans were only motivated by slaughtering Iraqi babies on a bloodthirsty lark, and that Bush = Hitler.


22:05 - VB Day
http://www.punning_pundit.blogspot.com/2003_04_06_punning_pundit_archive.html#923326

(top)
Andrew the Punnng Pundit has declared today "VB Day", the day of victory over the Ba'athists. And he makes a point that I think is frequently lost, even on those who have Bill Whittle on a slow intravenous drip:

The US is designed, from the ground up, for one specific reason, to do one specific task: to make life for Tyrants as hard as possible. America is not about Homelands, but rather about constitutions. During the darkest days of the Civil war, when the whole world waited outside to recognize America's dissolution—and the disillusion of the American people—the greatest president our nation had ever known stood up and made a speech. There he said that we would no longer be fighting just for the sake of being one nation, we would also fight for a bigger task; freedom for everyone. It was not until the call for Americans to free a people held in bondage went forth that America began to win the war. Singing John Brown's Body they marched into battle. Behind them they left Freedmen, and Freedmen's Bureaus. The fact that it took a generation to reconstruct a shadow of that Tyranny is a tribute to the men who ended it the first time...

And so today, we see that America has once more; this very day, 9 April 2003; fulfilled her mission. We have once more helped topple a dictator, a tyrant. We are told that theGame is over. We have fulfilled once more our historic mission...


It's a world of blogs and space travel, of McDonald's and destruction derbies. But one thing that this world has not outgrown, for all its progress, is tyranny. Tyrants existed back in the eighteenth century too-- imagine that. And oddly enough, that's what makes the Constitution as applicable today as it was then. That, I might venture to say, is why the USA still stands, in much the same form as it did two hundred years ago.

The world today is much freer of tyranny than it was then, but it'll never be completely free. There will always be Saddams who create themselves the moment they see the opportunity. In their absence, it's easy for America to evolve toward the postmodern middle ground that Europe has become; but as has now been demonstrated, that globalist paradise makes a poor deterrent against such men arising, and an even poorer countermeasure. Those are the occasions when the world needs America to be America.

The whole world can't be America; perhaps that's as it should be. But history will record April of 2003 as another of those occasions, repeated every few decades, when the world was saved from being a much worse place because America existed.


19:05 - One-liners
http://www.command-post.org/archives/004916.html

(top)
The comments pages at The Command Post (and other sites, such as LGF) are frequented by a lot of people who rattle off great one-liners that I wish weren't doomed to be lost. Blogging rolls forward; sizzling zingers succumb to bit-rot.

I can't resist commemorating this one. In response to this post, linked to an article in which Syria vows not to recognize any post-war "occupying" US military government in Iraq, "Ankchank" says:

Syria won't recognize the new government in Iraq? Yeah, it's called democracy. No wonder they won't recognize it.

Ow.


18:30 - The Real Heroes
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030409/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_pow_s_

(top)
Good-- I'm glad this is happening. I hoped it would.

First, they have to find him. But when they do, residents of this small town want to thank the Iraqi man who helped save POW Jessica Lynch by bringing him to West Virginia.

The man, a lawyer known only as Mohammed, reportedly led U.S. troops to the hospital where Lynch was being held. The 19-year-old Army private was rescued last week and is recovering at a military hospital in Germany. Mohammed's role hasn't been confirmed by the military.

The effort to track down the man is being led by James Thibeault, who has founded Friends of Mohammad. The organization will be based in Lynch's hometown of Palestine, which is about 70 miles northwest of Malden, a Charleston suburb.

The man walked fifteen miles-- from the hospital out into the desert to where the troops were, then back, where he made maps of the hospital (undoubtedly at severe risk of life and limb) and then back again-- to save a woman whom he didn't even know from torture and certain death. Whatever awards we have that can be given to foreign nationals, he deserves. I hesitate to "rank" such things, but his deeds' merit is easily on par with that of Lynch's own, if not greater.

That said, and as alluded to in this article, there may be something either very hopeful or really bizarre about an organization based in a place called Palestine named "Friends of Mohammad", whose purpose is something so non-partisan and human. It's about time.

I wonder how they'll find him, though. "Um... we're looking for a man named Mohammad. Anybody know a Mohammad living in this town...?"


14:51 - Mark your calendars
http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/001130.html

(top)
There's too much to link to. Everywhere I go, there's only one subject on bloggers' minds: the war's all but over. Sure, there are some regiments left in the north of Iraq; the 4th ID is still arming for entry "within a week" to clean up whatever might be left. Saddam might be in Moscow by now. But the overwhelming preponderance of blog content right now is the visual and textual evidence, today, April 9, 2003, of history in the making. Whether it's the 9th or the 10th, or whether people remember that it falls in April of 2003 or Safar of 1424, this will be a day to remember.

What gives me the most hope, though, is this account by Dean Esmay of what happened in East Dearborn, Michigan today. In a part of the world where the anniversary of Iraq's liberation will be reckoned by the Gregorian calendar rather than the Muslim one, it's a day of gladness unlike anything America's Muslim population ever hoped to enjoy in the days following 9/11.
Then I heard it rising above the traffic, that famous trilling sound Arab women make in moments of triumph. It came from a group of black clad women in front of what used to be the Camelot theater but is now a fruit market. They modestly covered their mouths with their headscarves, but I knew it was them. Their daughters in modern dress, looking like typical Brittany Spears teenage girls, danced with one another to the sound of Middle Eastern pop music like the MTV-influenced kids they are, waving to the boys with the flags in the Chevys and Ford pickups and PT Cruisers as they drove by.

One vehicle summed up this palpable outpouring of joy. Painted on the side of a black SUV: "No more fear in Iraq!"
It's been hard, and it will continue to be hard, selling the idea of freedom to a people for whom the coming of liberation is necessarily going to look like the threatening hand of an outsider power. But the first step has now been taken; Iraq will be the first true example of the post-9/11 US policy toward the Middle East, in which we cast off isolationism and show that we have a vested interest in creating democracy and freedom in a part of the world that for the most part has never known it. Like Kuwait, Iraq will become a net exporter of human dignity, and the people in the surrounding dictatorships and theocracies will see that there is a real alternative ready and waiting-- one that is gaining ground.

Maybe these folks in Dearborn can pass on the message, just through their actions today-- that the US is not, in fact, the great evil that they've always been told it is. It's not Satan. It's just a country-- albeit a country that's a success without a need for state-controlled TV, or for religious enforcement, or for thought police. It has no designs on other countries' sovereignty; only on its own security. And it is no disgrace to see in that, as Leonard Cohen put it, the machinery for change and the spiritual thirst. Democracy is coming, he might have said-- to the world.

The 14th century struck us in the back on September 11. Today, the 21st century strikes back, and not with a weapon-- but with the greatest gift a country in the position of the US can give: the removal of the obstacles which prevent the 14th century from transforming into the 21st and joining the rest of the world.

We remove obstacles. It's what the job description is of any manager at a corporation: I remove obstacles so that those underneath me can succeed. Sometime in the past two years, America decided to become a manager. Not a policeman; a manager.

Managers are often reviled and ridiculed; maybe America is the Pointy-Haired Boss to the world, fat and ignorant and isolated in its big cushy corner office. But it's those pointy-haired bosses that turn the engineers' individual miracles and stockholders' dreams into world-changing successes. All the engineers and stockholders have to do is buy into it.

Today is America's Middle Eastern IPO.


09:28 - Faces

(top)
Drop your masks, everybody; take a bow. The show is over.

International ANSWER responds:

On Saturday, April 12, join the tens of thousands of people of conscience who will surround the White House. The whole world is watching to see if the people of the United States can intensify the power of the anti-war movement at the moment that the Bush Administration is intending to slaughter tens of thousands of Iraqi people and occupy their country.

We urge every anti-war organizer and concerned person to bring your friends, neighbors and family members to this all-important mobilization on April 12.

...Baghdad has been bombed relentlessly, terrorizing the occupants of that city and of the entire country. ... U.S. and British forces have laid siege to Basra, bombing and destroying the electrical supply to the main water plant and blocking the Iraqi food distribution system...
Arab world incredulous at Saddam's fall
The overwhelming emotion for many was one of disbelief, tinged for some with disappointment after weeks of hearing Saddam's government pledge a "great victory" or fight to the death against "infidel invaders."

"We expected resistance, not what happened," said Ghadah Shebah, a business administration student at the American University in Cairo.
"You won't be seeing footage like this on al-Jazeera", the Fox anchor said.

And dozens of Syrians, Jordanians, Egyptians, Saudis, and others continue to pour into Iraq to defend their poor helpless Iraqi brothers against the horror of genocide at the hands of the Americans.

I wonder if they'll listen to the liberated Iraqis they meet when it's explained to them what has really happened-- or if they'll just slaughter them.
Realization dawns
A captured Iraqi colonel being held in one of the hangars listened in astonishment as his information minister praised Republican Guard soldiers for recapturing the airport.

He looked at his captors and, as he realised that what he had heard was palpably untrue, his eye filled with tears. Turning to a translator, he asked: "How long have they been lying like this?"

The "minders" have all vaporized. Minister of Information al-Sahhaf is gone. And suddenly, al-Jazeera has no more propaganda to broadcast; we in the West have been expecting this victory and these scenes of celebration for days now, but for those who get all their information from al-Jazeera and who take al-Sahhaf's words at face value, their world has suddenly gone from a promise of total victory over the infidels to the crushing reality of absolute, near-effortless defeat, in less than 24 hours.

"The whole world isn't like the US"; I've always known that, but I may not have really felt it until now. I may not have had a context in which to understand just what it means to have to face the reality, one day, that everything you've been told, all your life, from your most trusted information source, the most benevolent and compassionate and authoritative father figure(s) in the world, has been a lie.

I'm trying to figure out how it is that an entire swath of people can be trained so deeply and effectively to shut out reality, to believe in the most transparent and insane of propaganda, when there is so much counterevidence immediately available to anyone who chooses to look. What we're seeing here is the same state of mind that allows people to listen to imams who shriek for Allah to freeze the blood in the Americans' veins and believe that that represents the best and only positive future for the world.

"Freedom" is one of those words that has been tinged with cynicism, more so every time we put it in the name of some food or sexual device, or every time we talk to a contemptuous European. But we never really do get a sense here of just how much we take that simple concept for granted, and what it means to the people in these pictures, and how alien it is to those glued to their TVs waiting vainly for the next reassurance from the Information Minister. A simple concept, but really not all that common in the world today. The freedom to know.

Many seem not only to not know of other viewpoints, but not to want to know of other viewpoints. It's a bizarre kind of creation of reality through selectively allowing only certain bits of information in through the eyes and ears. It seems a whole lot of people, in fact, like it that way.

What is it that has driven so many people into this mindset? Is it their religion, their culture, their countries' political systems-- what? What common element is there? What culprit is there that we can identify without seeming racist, or bigoted, or ethnocentric, or intolerant, or (worst of all) generalistic?

How do we call a spade a spade, without being denounced by the Union of Differently-Shaped Shovels?

I'm sure the historians will be able to come up with something to explain the situation the world is in, the thorough rejection of reality throughout the Middle East and the desire to die in waves for an illusion.

I'm sure it will turn out to be the Americans' fault-- and Israel's.
UPDATE: AP and Reuters report on the incredulous reaction among Arabs in the region. Disappointment, disgust, the dawning understanding of a world turning upside down.
"We discovered that all what the (Iraqi) information minister was saying was all lies," said Ali Hassan, a government employee in Cairo. "Now no one believes (Arab satellite TV channel) al-Jazeera anymore."
Really? If that's true, that's a big first step.
UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds says that watching the footage of the celebrations and the statues toppling is "better than blogging". I agree; 'scuse me.
UPDATE: Balloon Juice has a much better photo-fisking than this post.
Tuesday, April 8, 2003
11:52 - Innocent Iraqi Children
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030408/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_war_

(top)
"War is bad for children and other living things!"

BAGHDAD (AFP) Apr 08, 2003
More than 100 children held in a prison celebrated their freedom Tuesday as US marines rolled into northeast Baghdad amid chaotic scenes which saw civilians loot weapons from an army compound, a US officer said.

Around 150 children spilled out of the jail after the gates were opened as a US military Humvee vehicle approached, Lieutenant Colonel Fred Padilla told an AFP correspondent travelling with the Marines 5th Regiment.

"Hundreds of kids were swarming us and kissing us," Padilla said.

"There were parents running up, so happy to have their kids back."

"The children had been imprisoned because they had not joined the youth branch of the Baath party," he alleged. "Some of these kids had been in there for five years."

Yep. That's a regime that cares deeply about international law and the well-being of its people, all right; I'm sure they would have voluntarily disarmed if we'd just given them more time.

In other news, anti-war sentiment has reportedly fallen to about 15% of the US public in polls. I wonder if those who continue to forlornly wave signs on Market Street or try to sabotage the Port of Oakland had (or have) any idea that these are the kids they've been working so valiantly to "protect".

UPDATE: Yeah, hush it up, Scott Ritter.
You've spoke about having seen the children's prisons in Iraq. Can you describe what you saw there?

The prison in question is at the General Security Services headquarters, which was inspected by my team in Jan. 1998. It appeared to be a prison for children - toddlers up to pre-adolescents - whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually I'm not going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace.

Yeah. Heaven forfend we should, you know, like do anything about it. It's bad and all, but the warmongers are worse!

Chalk this up as another great UN moral victory, along with the Congo, Rwanda, and Srebrenica.


09:17 - Evil Oppressors Part II
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2918453.stm

(top)
What was that again about how this is a war against Islam?

It is a sound which has echoed down the centuries but which has not been heard here for 15 years - the wailing call to prayer.

On Friday however, at 0430 (0130 GMT), in the minutes before the desert dawn, the voice of the Imam rang out.

What Saddam's Baath party had forbidden, the British Army had restored.

The townspeople, whose mosque was destroyed years ago, prayed in the privacy of their own homes.

But instead of their worship being a secret and dangerous thing, it was freely performed with new joy.

The 1st Battalion Royal Irish secured a public address system for the Imam and men from their attached Royal, Electrical and Mechanical Engineers installed it on Thursday night in time for Friday prayers.

Not that anybody will notice.

Via The Command Post.

Meanwhile, someone on Ar-Rahman posts these pictures, under the subject line "A New Crusade is going on!!"

Yeah, wouldn't you just love it if it were? There's only one problem: it's a horrific paranoid fantasy from Bizarro World.

Monday, April 7, 2003
00:21 - That ain't good.

(top)
Fox just finished hashing out its theories on a rather disturbing incident that was caught on camera an hour or so ago-- I saw it happen live, and since then the various commentators have been plying their speculation, with varying levels of success.

A camera position on a rooftop next to the bridgehead right behind the New Palace compound, where M1 tanks were positioned as though ready to cross the bridge into the eastern city, was feeding video to Abu Dhabi TV and Al-Jazeera. The camera was manned by Al-Jazeera's Tareq Ayoub, a Jordanian journalist.

A large bomb blast went off right between the tank on the bridge and the camera position; but it kept rolling. The footage showed an F-14 (?) streaking overhead, presumably having released the bomb.

Several minutes later, the camera captured the following sequence:



First one spray of concrete chips went up, right in front of the camera; then another, larger one, a little closer, a second later. Then, after another second, the camera suddenly tilted backward, skyward, and then fell sideways. The clip ended shortly afterwards (the feed cut away).

Fox's first theory was that the camera was actually sitting on top of a machine gun emplacement, and that those fragments we saw flying up into frame were shell casings. But commenters at The Command Post quickly dismissed that angle; the chips were clearly concrete, from incoming fire.

So we speculated (while Fox was fumbling with the timeline, getting the whole thing screwed up) that the tanks were prepping an assault across the bridge, and that they knew they had cameras on them-- so they called in a strike, either from the air or the ground, to take out the camera (like with taking Iraqi TV off the air-- with which this would be moralistically about equivalent, probably.)

But a more likely scenario, which Fox's commentators eventually explored as well, was that this was counter-sniper action; guns on the tanks probably saw the camera's lens and took it for a sniper scope, and returned fire. "If it looks like a sniper, you shoot first and evaluate later," said Joe in the comments.

But then there were those missile strikes beforehand-- three in all, they're saying. Sounds like they were pretty determined to hit that one spot. (In the video, you can see what do appear to be black-clad snipers; they may have been shooting at the tanks and the tanks called in strikes against the snipers, and then themselves turned and shot at the camera lens, thinking it was the sniper.)

So it's a mistake at best (or a justified action against a legitimate threatening target in a war zone), and a rather grave action at worst, and Fox has run the gamut. I'm sure we'll release a plausible alibi soon; I'm sure it will be defensible.

But I'm worried that we haven't seen the last of this video. I'm worried that even if we come up with a good alibi, the crystal clarity of the video will give it a life beyond our control. It will be adopted as clear and stark visual proof of the infidels' barbarity. It will elevate Tareq Ayoub, lamentable though his death is, to shaheed status. This video might be getting airtime five or ten years from now, in certain circles. We may have just created the Islamists' Danny Pearl.

I hope I'm wrong. Maybe this will not amount to anything; maybe both sides will come to agree on the unfortunate nature of misunderstandings and errors of judgment in the fog of war.

But I'm not holding my breath.


16:24 - An Exile Comes Home
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030407/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_iraq_h

(top)
Via The Command Post.

I once had the privilege to travel to Russia with a school group, in 1992, in the company of a man who had been living in Northern California in exile for ten years. This was only shortly after communism fell, and he was taking the first opportunity that availed him to hitch back to his family's home outside Leningrad, which had just become St. Petersburg once again.

The scene of reunion, in front of our whole group, drove home to all of us the real meaning of the fall of the old regime-- what it meant for the people it affected most. We all got to see first-hand what it means when freedom is restored to individual people who had had it withheld from them, who had had their families forcibly split up by the political realities of living in a real, live police state.

And it's starting again-- this is one of what are likely to be thousands of similar stories unfolding soon:

Khuder Al-Emeri, 43, left his Seattle restaurant behind three months ago to join the Free Iraqi Forces, a group of exiles trained by the U.S. military to serve as interpreters and guides in Iraq (news - web sites).

Wearing desert camouflage and assisting the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, his return to the Shiite village where he once led an uprising against Saddam's regime was a whirlwind of tears and hugs - seeing relatives he didn't even recognize after 12 years away.

"I came to help my people," Al-Emeri said.

. . .

Leader of a Shiite uprising during the first Gulf War (news - web sites), Al-Emeri left the country in April 1991 and said the Iraqi regime placed a price on his head. He was only able to communicate with his family - who was regularly questioned about his whereabouts - by relaying messages through acquaintances in Baghdad. The restaurant he ran, named "Peace" in Arabic, was seized by the government along with his other businesses.

His family were among those who rushed out to greet him - including his 15-year-old son, Ali, whom he hadn't seen since he left Iraq. When they first saw each other, they embraced tightly and wept.

Ali Al-Emeri said he was afraid to ever let his father go away again, but Al-Emeri assured him: "Stay home. You are safe. I am here, the U.S. forces are here."

I wonder what his family might like to say to the anti-war folks here in the US.


10:11 - All Your Base: 2003
http://fod.anitrade.net/html/ayiabtu.html

(top)
It had to happen. There was no stopping it.



Spotted by CapLion.


10:01 - Photographic quandary

(top)
I've been trying to figure this out since last night... watching the Fox footage of the 3rd Georgia State Battalion rolling into the downtown Presidential Palace and parking an M1 in the portico, I just can't seem to reconcile the view they're showing with any of the satellite photos.



The buildings in the upper left and the lower right have both been labeled "Presidential Palaces" at some point or another; the upper one is what Glenn Reynolds pointed out as the Republican Palace when he posted the satellite images, and the lower-right one is the one they kept pointing to on the video-board on TV as the one they were occupying right now. (The video from across the Tigris showed the wide flat area by the riverbank, out behind the lower-right palace.)

But I can't seem to decide where on either of these buildings the Fox video was shot from. There are these two porticos, sort of "linked" by a small covered causeway; and there's a dome in the background. I can't find the angle on the building, in the satellite photo, where that would be possible. There are those two portico structures in the curved colonnade areas out front, but the video seems to show a straight colonnade wall... and the rear, taller portico seems to blend right into the colonnade wall, after a low shoulder area, rather than being in an angle behind the curved wall as the satellite photo shows.

Can anybody shed some light on this? Are they maybe at some completely different location?

UPDATE: Ah! It's not this palace at all; it's the "New Palace", further west along the riverbank:



Thanks to Capt J.M. Heinrichs for setting me straight!


09:34 - Silence your Wind Tunnel
http://homepage.mac.com/maanerud/PowerMacG4PowerSupply.mov

(top)

Marcus has created an eight-minute video detailing how to swap out your Power Mac G4's power supply. It's not just really helpful, it's also funny as hell.

If you happen to have a "Wind Tunnel" Mac, and you love the smell of voided warranties in the morning, check this out.


09:29 - Color me surprised
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=PUDKPSFKWP3HGCRBAE0CFFA?type=topNews

(top)
I'm sure this will come as a complete letdown to some, and to others it won't be anywhere near enough.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. forces near Baghdad found a weapons cache of around 20 medium-range missiles equipped with potent chemical weapons, the U.S. news station National Public Radio reported on Monday.

NPR, which attributed the report to a top official with the 1st Marine Division, said the rockets, BM-21 missiles, were equipped with sarin and mustard gas and were "ready to fire." It quoted the source as saying new U.S. intelligence data showed the chemicals were "not just trace elements."

Yawn... blah blah. Whatever. They weren't fired, so how can they be a "smoking gun"? And 20 missiles? C'mon, all he could wipe out with that is Israel! We shouldn't concern ourselves with these decisions of a legitimately elected government of a sovereign nation. It's Bush who's the real terrorist! We have WMDs toooo! We've probably been... uh... secretly using them on Iraqi babies for three weeks now! In fact, that Presidential Palace that they bombed-- that was really a hidden cache of innocent Iraqi babies! A few measly sarin missiles is no excuse for exterminating the Iraqi people!

In seriousness, let's wait for CENTCOM confirmation, though. These kinds of things have turned out to be false alarms before.


09:20 - Modern product placement

(top)
Greg Kihn is a riot this morning... he had to break from his normal cheerleading about the war and savaging people writing clueless letters to him to do his standard on-air endorsements.

Well, I was watching the war coverage, and I saw this Toyota pickup truck, with three idiots in it with AK-47s, pull up to an M1 Abrams tank... and-- well, I say "idiots" because... well, isn't that like sending a tricycle up against one? And the tank just turned and blew that truck right off the road.

...So if you should go and buy a Toyota at Stevens Creek Toyota, you have to promise-- because as good as these cars and trucks are, they simply won't stand up to an M1 tank. So promise that if you go down and buy a Toyota right now, which you should, you won't use it to go up against any tanks. It just doesn't stand a chance.

Not quite the endorsement they would have asked for, I'm sure...

Sunday, April 6, 2003
20:56 - What the hell is a "blagger"?

(top)
Someone on the Ar-Rahman list sent around an HTML file-- in a message with the subject line, "BUSH THE BLAGGER", whatever that means-- which purported to describe how Bush was "caught in a lie" about the WTC attacks. (Evidently it's from somewhere on this site.) It goes as follows:

Towards the bottom of the transcript is the following quote. (Note: Some readers are reporting that the version of the CNN transcriopt they see in some parts of the country has been edited to remove the following comment. George Orwell would be proud!)

QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?

BUSH: Well... (APPLAUSE)

Thank you, Jordan (ph).

Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."

There is a problem with the above statement. There was no live video coverage of the first plane hitting the tower. There couldn't be. Video of that first plane hitting the tower did not surface until AFTER the second plane had hit.

Bush is lying through his teeth here.

[transcript of the speech]

Uh... well, he would be, if he had said at any point that what he had seen was live coverage. He doesn't. Not there, and not in the transcript. (And Orwell references are a great easy way to sound well-informed, but it's worth noting that the version archived at whitehouse.gov is not one of the ones that's purportedly been edited.)

His timeline is quite plausible. News coverage of the first crash would have begun minutes afterward. It was hours (perhaps days) before the video was recovered that was taken from street level, showing the actual footage of the first crash; but that's immaterial. Bush never actually said, clearly, that he had seen the plane hitting the tower. I saw an airplane hit the tower... in other words, "I saw that an airplane had hit the tower, according to the headlines on the screen and the footage of the burning building."

If he'd meant he'd seen the actual plane physically hitting the building, he would have said, I saw the airplane hitting the tower. Instead, he's saying he saw the news report of what had happened. Just like we all did.

And then he went back inside, upon which he was told by Card of the second crash. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Even though Bush is not a very good pilot (he was taken off of flight status for failure to take a medical exam which included a drug test), it would be silly to assume that a passenger jet hitting the WTC in clear weather was pilot error. The only other known impact between an aircraft and a New York skyscraper was when a military airplane crashed into the Empire State Building in a heavy fog. Because of that incident, there are mandatory altitude minimums over the island. If Bush really did see an airplane on TV hitting the World Trade Towers, then he saw that the aircraft was under control at the time.

And, it must be remembered that even after andy informed Bush of the second impact, and by his own admission Bush knew we were being attacked, he continued to read to the classroom full of children.

Just think about that for a while.

I've been doing just that. Know what it says to me? That Bush, like the rest of us in that gut-wrenching hour (except those of us who weren't awake to experience it first-hand), made one of those naïve but desperate assumptions that so many of the rest of us did: damn, what a terrible accident. Or Wow, that pilot sucked. Or This is going to be a hell of a mess for downtown Manhattan traffic. Who could have been expected to make a rational analysis at that time? My ICQ logs show that few people I knew were appropriately sober or rational about it at the time, before the second plane hit.

But then the second crash occurred, and Bush did what he knew parents all over the country would be doing that night: keeping their children's worlds running for them. He knew he'd be briefed, but that until then this was a military matter-- and for the time being, he had a classroom of kids to talk to.

The fact that he did so with a straight face tells me that he can stare disaster in the face and not let it faze him. It tells others that he was part of a horrible conspiracy.

But if you ask me, the arguments of the latter group are pretty damned flimsy.

Which means, of course, that on the list where this was being distributed, it's taken as received gospel.


20:52 - Now arriving at Gate 74...
http://nytimes.com/slideshow/2003/04/04/international/04cnd-airport.slideshow_1.html

(top)
This slideshow, at the NY Times site, is absolutely worth your time. It's a series of really great photos of the US troops taking over Saddam International Airport.

"Surreal", said Judith, who posted this at The Command Post. Damned straight, if you've ever been in an airport before.



Looks like an awfully nice airport, incidentally. Iraq may well turn out to be a premier tourist destination once this is all over. I know I'd love to see it up close-- Ur, and Babylon, and Nineveh, and everything else. Just looking at the bas-relief work on the terminal walls, it looks like an exceptionally well-appointed facility.

This must have been terribly unnerving for the troops, though-- having the photographer in front of them, walking backwards, snapping pictures as they secured the unknown parts of the airport. Does that mean the photographer was on point? (Or were these posed?)

Yes, yes-- I know these weren't posed. I was being facetious... that is, full of faceces.

Saturday, April 5, 2003
19:27 - So he is a folk hero
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/01/warab01.xml

(top)
Via The Command Post:

While the fate of Saddam Hussein may already be sealed, there is no doubt that he is creating himself as a legend which is being lapped up by the Arab masses.

Pro-western leaders, such as President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, acceded to the American war plan on the assumption that it would all be over quickly. Mr Mubarak has even complained that the Americans misled him by promising a speedy campaign.

The fact that Saddam has survived for 12 days is seen as a colossal success. Before the conflict, his star was falling in the Arab world, with few takers for his propaganda that he intended to liberate Palestine.

"But we are so desperate for an Arab hero after all our defeats on the battlefield and 50 years of humiliation that we will even turn that old criminal Saddam into a legend," said an Arab banker.

So that's a "hero", huh? Never mind what he's done to the Iraqi people or his Arab neighbors; at least he stands up to the Americans and wants to destroy Israel (unlike those whom we would call heroes-- like Sadat, and like the Iraqi lawyer who saved Pfc Lynch), and that trumps all. That's the highest aspiration and achievement. Tyranny, victimhood, and genocide. Huzzah.

I wonder if the revelations after the war is over-- like how we wiped out the Iraqi leadership on the first night, and have steamrollered over the legions of death squads without our casualties going into triple digits, or even Iraqi civilian deaths exceeding a couple hundred-- will even be noticed in these circles, or whether there will be a whole new generation of poisonous legends spawned from these steaming mounds of fantasy and hatred broadcast by Al-Jazeera and the Information Minister and the highest Muslim leaders.

If these two halves of the world can't be tied together with the restructuring of which the current Iraq campaign is the first phase, then they're just going to drift further and further apart, until we have two parallel and irreconcilable Earths inhabiting the same planet.

Friday, April 4, 2003
22:06 - Oh, for Pete's sake
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&e=5&u=/ap/20030405/ap_on_re_mi_

(top)
Murder charges have been filed against Asan Akbar, dutiful servant of Indymedia's exhortation for US troops to frag their commanding officers.

He was the sergeant in charge of munitions the night in question; he was unhurt, there were eyewitnesses, and he was led away raving against the US military.
Akbar, an American Muslim, told family members he was wary of going to war in Iraq. His mother, Quran Bilal, told The Tennessean of Nashville that she was concerned he might have been accused because he is a Muslim.
Of course. That must be it.

This country is trying to be as studiously fair these days as it possibly can, to the point of absurdity in avoiding charges of racial profiling and bigotry. But what the hell chance have we got?

Sigh.


13:49 - My God, we've got to try something!

(top)
There's a Deep Thought by Jack Handey that goes like this:

I think a new, different kind of bowling should be "carpet bowling." It's just like regular bowling, only the lanes are carpet instead of wood. I don't know why we should do this, but my God, we've got to try something!

Sometimes I feel as though the designers of everyday products have a sentiment just like this gnawing at their brains. It's the assumption-- nay, the conviction-- that what we have in our cars, our computers, our mixers and blenders just can't be the best possible solution for the problems they address. It's the belief that even though we came up with certain solutions years or even decades or centuries ago, there's no way we could have "gotten it right" way back then.

We were replacing the doorknobs in the doors of the new house last weekend, and I started thinking about the design of doors. How long has the basic shape of the "door" been part of our collective psyche? The knob at waist level, right at the edge opposite the hinge? It seems an obvious design. It makes perfect sense. If the knob is as far as possible from the hinge, you get the optimum leverage when pushing or pulling it open; and if the knob and the latching mechanism is right at the edge, it can interface easily with the strike plate with very little supplementary hardware. Doors in corporate buildings with crash bars and automatic openers and such can get very complex in execution, because they don't follow this model. Push on a crash bar near the hinge, and it's much harder to open than if you push on it near the opening edge. And how do you lock double doors with crash bars? It's got to have a weird vertical bar mechanism to latch it into the ground or the ceiling. But that's the best solution for the problem at hand.

So I look at memes such as Tolkien's hobbit-holes. And it turns out that Tolkien fell prey to the desire to do something "different for the sake of being different", by designing round doors with the knob right in the middle. Sure, it's aesthetically nice. But as far as practicality goes, it's off the map. The set designers of Peter Jackson's LotR movies found that creating a functional hinge for a round door was ass-hard. I mean, think about it. How is a hinge like that supposed to work? It's one of the least practical mechanical interactions I can think of. Sure, the set designers did a marvelous job, and a plausible one for that matter, and that's superhuman of them. But the overall point is that no primitive people would have come up with round doors with center-mounted knobs. It just wouldn't happen.

But fantasy and sci-fi authors find themselves in that quandary all the time. Every space movie and TV show has funky-shaped sliding doors. Some sliding doors rotate up and out of the way; others latch together like those horrible hooking mechanisms on old model train sets. Some have three-inch-high door sills for people to trip on. And it's all for the sake of looking "alien" or "futuristic", as though our current metaphor for "door" is bound to become outmoded any day now. Sci-fi authors and game designers create spaceships that are cube-shaped (Star Trek) or completely asymmetrical (the Wing Commander series, EVE Online), often using the snooty rationale that symmetry and swoopiness are human conceits, metaphors that never would have caught on in another spacefaring culture. The reality is, however, that they turn out to be practical. Swoopy shapes will always derive from atmospheric flyer designs, which have to look a certain way because of the laws of physics, which don't change no matter what lens you look at them through. And symmetry is practical for all kinds of reasons. If you put your thrusters off-center, the ship will spin. Even in deep space there's such a thing as inertia.

It's an open question whether sentient beings on other worlds would evolve to look just like humans, for these same reasons. There are arguments to be made either way; we look the way we do because of environmental pressures on our own developmental history. Slightly different pressures elsewhere would produce different-looking creatures. But chances are that they wouldn't have an odd number of legs, for example. It just wouldn't be physically practical. So I can more or less accept sci-fi concepts with aliens who look suspiciously humanoid, and I'm leery of such concepts in which the aliens have been given every possible tweak in order to make them as "alien" as possible.

But I have no problem, for instance, accepting a sci-fi future in which people wear baseball caps. Hat designs have come and gone over the centuries; from the simple hoods of medieval times, to the big wide-brimmed floppy things that got pinned up to make two or three corners in the 18th century, to yarmulkes and fezzes, hats have always had a considerable amount of style and fashion go into their design-- often overshadowing any practicality considerations (aside from specialized designs like sombreros and cowboy hats). But the baseball cap is quite possibly the most efficient and practical hat design we've ever come up with. It's spare, functional, elegant, versatile, and as unassuming or as flashy as you want it to be. I find myself having a hard time imagining that we'll ever come up with anything significantly better than the baseball cap, or that it won't outlive stylized fashion statements like the fedoras or stovepipes of our earlier history.

So many of these areas of design are simply waiting for someone to come up with "the right answer"; but all too often nobody is willing to acknowledge it when someone does.

We see this all the time in software engineering. People have been trying to come up with the inevitable successor to the "Desktop" metaphor for years now. We've had "Microsoft Bob"; we've had the "diary" or 'journal" metaphor (in which items are arranged by date of use rather than by spatial positioning). Designers have been enslaved by the notion that just because it was twenty years ago that Apple and Xerox PARC developed the Desktop metaphor for personal computing, then that metaphor has to be outmoded. There's got to be something better! After all, technology marches with the speed of the 3ID up the Euphrates. Why doesn't interface design do the same thing?

The trouble is, these new solutions that the designers keep coming up with are usually flawed. The "journal" metaphor fails because the human mind actually turns out to work with objects in spatial terms, not in terms of how recently you last used some item. Where's "picture1.jpg"? It's over here, on the right, underneath these three folders on my Desktop. You don't think "It's five items down the stack from the most recent item I used" or "It's under June 12, when I know I last used it". You think in spatial terms, supported by other kinds of meta-data. It turns out that Apple did, in fact, "get it right". And that's why, when given the opportunity (with Mac OS X) to throw aside all kinds of old metaphors that had been developed for the earliest days of the GUI, Apple actually ended up keeping a fairly large number of the elements of the old OS, and not just because they were familiar to old-school users. They kept them because they worked, and the result is something that still resembles the old Mac OS more than it does Windows (post-95 or 3.x).

This, in fact, demonstrates that the Windows designers had fallen prey to exactly the same treacherous mindset of second-guessing existing solutions. Back in the pre-95 days, they were desperately trying to come up with something that offered the functionality of the Mac, without looking too much like the Mac. The result was a garbled, confusing mess with "Program Groups" and no obvious way for the user to "get into" the interface. Windows 95 introduced several key interface elements which quite honestly revolutionized the GUI for the PC, but which still succumbed to the can't-make-it-too-much-like-the-Mac trap. (Hence things like "Recycle Bin" instead of "Trash", and icons arranged down the left rather than the right, and a bottom-centric UI rather than the top-centric UI of the Mac, and window-based contexts rather than the Mac's modal contexts.) I'm sure a lot of Microsoft's designers would have loved to adopt more of the Mac's metaphors more directly, because they knew those metaphors were right-- but were prevented from doing so because of political (and legal) pressure and the desire to make Windows "different for the sake of being different".

I'm quite sure that eventually, some kind of new metaphor will come along that will take the computing world by storm and sweep all previous interface ideas, including the Desktop, into the gutter of history. But I think it's going to have to be something really radically different-- enough so to require technology that's simply not within our grasp yet, such as completely immersive 3-D environments-- and yet something that doesn't abandon the nature of our brains, which is to gravitate toward metaphors that are spatial and visual in nature. It's going to be a while before something like that comes along; and until then, the consensus remains among UI designers to this day that Apple Got It Right.

Engineers have a very strong sense of "right and wrong"-- a kind of design ethics, if you will. There's a very deep undercurrent of firm moralistic sentiment among engineers when it comes to design; one of the most common things you'll hear engineers say in design meetings, or when discussing software's inner workings with each other, is that it should do the right thing. What does this mean? It's a belief that given a certain set of circumstances that the user finds himself in, and given a certain kind of user input or assumption, there is a clear "right thing" for the software to do. When engineers theorize about the security of SSH keys, whether and how passphrases should be stored in cleartext on the local machine, or whether and how a user should have to authenticate before committing an action or whether the software should ensure authentication in some other way, or whether a database operation or a function call needs to be done in a lock or not, or whether a certain function should be handled in a modal dialog or by a global control-- these are considerations for which there is room for debate, but engineers find it surprisingly easy to come to a consensus on what the right thing to do is in cases like this. When someone brings up the case of a user finding his way into an ambiguous circumstance or entering invalid or ambiguous input, when an engineer says "it should do the right thing", he'll get a lot of understanding nods around the table. For instance: a microwave accepts time settings in minutes and seconds; if you enter "120" it interprets it as 1 minute and twenty seconds. But the valid display range for seconds is 1-60; what do you do if the user enters "90"? Does it give an error saying you have to enter a value either under 60 or above 100? No, it does the right thing-- that is, the most correct interpretation that the user expects (e.g. 90 seconds).

UI theory is no nebulous and artistic pursuit; it's a genuine discipline with real concrete goals, goals that aren't always met for one reason or another, but goals that pretty much everyone agrees are good to have. Engineers tend not to think in the analog methods of artists and philosophers; their thoughts tend to be digital, even binary. That's why, I believe, so many Islamic terrorists have turned out to be from engineering backgrounds. The humanistic consequences of their actions seem to be things they can "turn off" in favor of their clinical pursuit of their goals. People who can see and legitimize multiple sides of an issue tend not to be so willing to commit themselves to a goal in which only one outcome or message is possible, in which success is measured by what is "right" (in one's own value system) rather than by what is "good" for humanity.

Engineers, then, aren't usually themselves the proponents of new ideas that break the norms of design purely for the sake of breaking norms. Engineers like rules and precedent; they like guidelines, ideals, specs developed in advance. Development is much easier that way, much more efficient. Engineers are seldom concerned with revolution, but rather with evolution: refining existing solutions to more closely match a predetermined ideal. If someone comes up with a breakthrough idea, great-- the engineers will leap to bring it to fulfillment of its potential. But the actual inventing and exploration is usually left to the dreamers, the Dean Kamens of the world. Because let's face it: the vast majority of inventions and breakthroughs in the world really aren't that practical. The road through engineering history is littered with Segways: brilliant; revolutionary; a solution desperately looking for a problem.

The road through world history is similarly littered with ideological Segways. Communism and Naziism were both reactions to America, that "grand experiment" that the European thinkers were determined not to be proven wrong by. How could this upstart nation of peasants and immigrants be exploding with success? Nobody, neither Hitler nor the Bolsheviks, wanted to believe that the Founding Fathers of the United States of America had actually gotten it right-- out of the blue, scribbling on parchment over mugs of ale in dimly lit colonial courtrooms. No way could they have stumbled upon the answer to the world's problems, the national model which would lead to both domestic tranquility and global prosperity. Who knew? So Hitler and Lenin tried their damnedest to prove America wrong; they espoused models of their own which were different from America's, just for the sake of being different. Communism is one of those things that looks great on paper, but there's a reason why no nations have naturally developed as communes from the start. It's a theory, and one that would make a lot of sense, if only humans were robots. Instead we find that the dirty, imperfect, exploitative machine of capitalism and entrepreneurship somehow manages-- because it's a system developed on the natural interactions of human beings-- to thrive and prosper and create miracles of commerce and technology. And Naziism, while founded on principles like "survival of the fittest" and "Chosen People"-- concepts greatly in vogue in the nineteenth century-- was fatally flawed because of the bogus assumptions that genetic purity and nationalistic identification were what made a people "the fittest", rather than miscegenation and "hybrid vigor" (and dumb luck). These ideas wouldn't have taken hold without outspoken exponents to stand on podiums and bang their fists and tell eveybody of how great their new revolutionary ideas were. In the end, they were proven the frauds that they were through the pressure of time and popular support. Just because their ideas were different does not make them right.

And so I finally come to the point that I've been meaning to make all this time: cars. You know, the automobile of today is remarkably similar to the Model-T Ford. It has four wheels; it has an internal combustion engine; it has the driver controls on one side of the cabin, in the front seat. Sure, the style has changed, as have the interior appointments and the efficiency of the engine and the general fit-and-finish, longevity, and reliability of everything. But if you were to describe a car over the phone to a Martian, he wouldn't be able to tell without a lot of tedious explanation how a PT Cruiser differs from a Stutz Bearcat or a Cord.

Some people have tried futzing with the basic configuration of the car as we know it-- putting the engine in the rear (Tucker), or by putting little motors in the individual wheels, or by using alternative powerplants, or by going to three wheels instead of four. But you know... engines are in the front of most passenger cars for a good engineering reason, and it's not just because of tradition or style. It's because the seasoned engineers of the auto industry know that it's the right thing to do given the current circumstances and technology. And cars have four wheels for very good reasons as well. We don't see three-wheeled Fords and Chevys rolling down the freeways because of perfectly valid technological rationales, not just because the engineers are too blinded by rote methods to Dare To Try Something Different. It's because someone, way back when, got it right.

And so... can anybody please explain to me what the rationale is behind center-mounted instrument consoles?



This is the Saturn Ion-- and it's not alone. It seems every concept car (and many production cars) that come out these days, whether a funky electro-hybrid (GM Impact) or a six-figure-price sportscar (BMW Z8), have their speedometer and tach and other primary gauges mounted on the center console rather than right in front of the driver. Why is this? Yes, it's an interesting aesthetic point to make... but is it not obvious to carmakers that the reason why you put the binnacle with the speedometer and tach and such things directly in front of the driver is so that he doesn't have to turn his head away from the road to see how fast he's going?

This is crucial information to the driver. Placing it as close to the driver's line of sight is a very real safety issue. In fact, I remember back in the 80s when GM was experimenting with heads-up displays to project the speed readout directly onto a semi-transparent segment of the windshield glass, so the driver wouldn't even have to look down in order to see how fast he's going. (I saw ads for similar systems as recently as five years ago. What's happened to them?) Cell phones and iDrive and onboard e-mail systems are making driver attention to the road a bigger concern than ever before. So why this sudden fascination with moving the gauges over to where they're harder to see than ever?

Unless I'm drastically missing something, this is a cut-and-dried example of different-for-the-sake-of-being-different, just as bad as (or worse than) the 1980s' fascination with digital readouts every which where-- from which the carmakers were forced to back off when it became clear that analog dials were much better indicators of frequently-changing bits of data like speed and RPMs-- data whose rate of change is just as crucial to the driver as is its instantaneous value-- than digital meters, especially ones whose values were only updated like once or twice a second. Bad, bad idea.

I'm sure some people will buy a lot of these cars because of the novelty of having stylistic symmetry across the dashboard; but I'm willing to bet that after the first week or two the novelty will wear off pretty damned fast, and going back to a standard "lopsided" car will feel like a blessed respite from the stupidity of technology that's too clever for its own good.

UPDATE: I should note that I'm not saying we should stop trying new things. That would be dumb as all hell. After all, trying wild-ass ideas just to see how well they go over is how those evolutionary changes get made, and how some revolutions get started. OS X, in its early days, tried all kinds of concepts that turned out to be stupid (the analog clock in the Dock, for example, and the non-functional Apple logo in the middle of the title bar, and renaming the Finder to "Desktop"); once it became clear that they were bad ideas, Apple came up with better solutions, many of which (such as the System Menus in the upper right) mimicked ideas that Windows had introduced.

But some wild-ass ideas have much greater consequences than others; deciding whether the AirPort status icon should be a Dockling or a System Menu item is going to have a lot less impact on people's lives than deciding whether Jews should be allowed to live. And putting the instrument cluster of a car in the center console just smacks of a short-lived fad to me.

CapLion, however, reminds me that many very successful cars have had center-mounted instruments; the Shelby Cobra, for instance, and a lot of European racer-derived cars, and the McLaren F1 (though that one has a center-mounted seat, so the point is rather moot). So it could be the retro impulse as much as the urge to Think Different.

UPDATE: James, a Saturn driver who had the same misgivings about the Ion's center-mounted instruments, wrote them an e-mail asking what the hell they were thinking. Saturn wrote back, as follows:

Thank you for taking the time to send us an email. We appreciate the time
you have taken to share your candid comments. Our brand new ION that was
released with the 2002 model year, has the instrument panel in the center of
the dashboard. It actually is placed at an angle and is at the level of the
horizon so that it is always within the driver's line of vision. This
allows us to use a smaller steering wheel with more up and down positions
for driver comfort. In addition, from the safety view point the driver does
not have to remove his/her eyes from the road to look at the instrument
panel because it is always visible, yet it does not block the view of the
road.

Ahh. So there is a rationale-- and a reasonable one at that. That's very good news; it pretty well assuages my concerns. And it raises my level of respect for Saturn by several notches.

Thursday, April 3, 2003
23:04 - I'm Not With These Guys
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2003/04/03/protest.DTL

(top)
Louis points me to this InstaPundited story of some peace protesters who have taken what I must admit is a quite unexpected angle: rather than breaking windows in protest of the war, they're breaking Windows.

As in:

"We smashed Microsoft Windows discs,'' explained Jeff Grubler of a small anti-war group calling itself "Think Different Anti-Censorship Collective.'' He said the affinity group, which is linked to a much larger network called Direct Action to Stop the War, has been working for years to bring greater public awareness to the suffering of Iraqis due to the Persian Gulf War and subsequent international sanctions.

Oh yeah, that'll make people wake up and see the light.

What these guys lack in fundamental reason, they certainly make up for in ways to keep people guessing.

I must say I certainly didn't see this coming. I daresay The Steve probably wouldn't exactly disapprove, given the odd and underhanded ways in which he's been thumbing his nose at the Man lately. But be that as it may, and considering the number of highly respectable Mac people I know just from my peregrinations about the blogosphere who place themselves firmly above such shenanigans, I don't think one can say anything conclusively about whether being a Mac user makes a person a complete muttonhead or not. (Or whether the reverse is true.)

I hope the protesters aren't trying to make some kind of statement like "All Mac people are against the war", the way some "leaders" of the gay community are trying to turn Iraq, somehow, into a "gay issue". As though any cause that's even vaguely in an underdog position automatically aligns against the war, or as though Microsoft is a suitable symbolic proxy for the Bush administration. Some people just don't seem to be thinking very clearly (like these guys, who seem to think that by blockading shipments of supplies to the front, they will bring the war to a quicker end). All together now: Duuuuhhh!

It takes all kinds, and this stunt is cute. But as I've said before, or at least meant to-- if any of these people (just for argument's sake) were to commit some kind of barbarous act of vandalism or terrorism in the name of Apple, I'd be first in line to smack some sense into them. Common sense and decency ought to trump any sort of loyalty to a group identity. You gotta police your own, or the greater society will do it for you-- and chances are you won't like how they do it. Especially if it means you get to share in the receiving end of the whup-ass.

Or so goes the theory, anyway.

UPDATE: Chris says I've missed the point; that this stunt was simply a big fake-out, that they told people they were going to a mall to "break windows" in protest of the war, only for it to become clear later that-- golly gee-- they were merely referring to MS Windows. Hyuck, hyuck. Well, I still say it's a cute premise, but that unless their goal was to parody the anti-war protesters in general (not impossible, but improbable given their group's affiliation), it's still unlikely to have proved any sort of point.

And I'd still just as soon not be counted among their ranks.


22:52 - Because We Can
http://ohlssonvox.8k.com/fdd_raid.htm

(top)
And now for something completely pointless. To the ever-increasing list of Gee-Whiz-Technologies-Supported-By-OS-X-But-Thus-Far-Functionally-Useless (currently populated by such things as Inkwell and Rendezvous), we can now add:

USB FLOPPY DISK RAID!

When I first tried to do this I looked at my DELL running Windows XP, but unfortuately it does not allow USB FDD RAIDs. HOW LAME!!!! So, I turned to my new favorite OS, Apple OS X. Here is how I did this low-hi tech marvel.

He stripes five floppies together and halves their access time. All he needs to get 127 drives striped together is more hubs, so he's taking donations.

If that isn't a worthy cause, I don't know what is.


18:16 - Life Under the Evil Oppressors
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2915451.stm

(top)

Once upon a time, there was word of the Christmas when the French and German forces laid down their weapons, crawled out of their trenches, and celebrated the season together in peace and brotherhood-- before the magical night passed away and they resumed the slaughter.

Well, that's from an age gone by. These are the stories we'll be retelling from now on:

The British soldiers suffered defeat on the dusty streets of Umm Khayyal, when they took on the local football team.

A thousand spectators came from all ends of the town to watch the match, with the players wearing full strip, boots and squad numbers.

The home side was rallied to a 9-3 victory by throngs of screaming men and children, who marked out the boundaries of the pitch.

In the face of such passion, Leading Airman Dave Husbands said the Marines were beaten from the start.

Quick, someone call the War Crimes Tribunal.


14:54 - Burnination!
http://user.fundy.net/ranold/trogiraq.jpg

(top)


(Hat tip to Scott.)


12:50 - Comics Roundup

(top)
I haven't been paying attention to the comic world as much as I should have; today at lunch I got myself caught up. Lots of good stuff that I've been missing. Well, "good" and, er... "notable".



Uh-huh. And here I'd thought the Xbox was yesterday's news. But at least the sentiment is fun-- as is the followup. Heh.



Hee hee hee. (It's the big Home button, which is only hidden if you choose to hide it, foo'.)


And, naturally, "Boondocks" has been hysterical and incoherent, as expected. (And by "hysterical" I don't mean "funny".) Here's a typical core sample:



A-hem. "A public that is either too scared or too stupid to reclaim their government." Anybody else see shades of that infamous Le Monde columnist who said, The French masses understand nothing, which is normal? At least in this strip McGruder acknowledges that he's a self-parodying cynic-- but not as much so as to repudiate his perennial stomach-turning more-sarcastic-than-thou elitism or anything. Is it that inconceivable that "the people" might actually be consciously and intelligently choosing differently from what the sloganeers think they should be choosing? Is it that hard to grasp that when you vest a nation's power with its people, those people are free to voluntarily choose a path that you might not agree with?

No, it's much easier to believe in conspiracy theories, and to bob along buoyed by the knowledge that you're so enlightened and so superior to all The People that you claim to speak for. Hey, remember when it was conservatives who got themselves caricatured over things like fluoridated water and televangelists and Kennedy?

To McGruder, 70% of the American public, because it doesn't agree with him, is stupid and intimidated. I dunno, Occam's Razor tells me almost exactly the opposite.


UPDATE: John sends me this corker:



Ouch.


Wednesday, April 2, 2003
23:14 - Money quote of the year
http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/03/0403/040303.html

(top)
Zero guesses who it's from.

Sometimes I think the reason America is so despised in some quarters is that we fail to live up to other peoples' worst expectations.



20:59 - You mean it isn't like this?
http://jimtreacher.blogspot.com/2003_03_23_jimtreacher_archive.html#200066386

(top)
This item by Jim Treacher is a hoot. What if?

<"Wayne's World" doodly-doodly-doot-wavy-screen-sound-effect>

Bushington, DB -- In a televised address from somewhere inside one of his 57 palaces, President George W. Bush today issued a fatwa on actress/comedienne Janeane Garofalo, calling for "all noble American people to hunt down the godless dog Garofalo and bring her to me alive." Bush then stepped back from the ornatedly carved podium and pressed a button on a large industrial plastic-shredding machine behind him, into which a pair of Secret Service agents slowly lowered a futilely struggling lamb, hooves first. "Such is the fate of all who would oppose me," Bush intoned, over the grinding of the shredder and the anguished shrieks of the gradually pulverized animal.

If that were in fact happening here instead of Iraq, would she still refer to it as "peace"?


14:18 - What country are we in again?
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20030402-084451-5231r.htm

(top)
Via The Command Post:

A Muslim fundamentalist source claimed Wednesday that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network captured five coalition troops in Iraq.
     The source who requested anonymity told United Press International by telephone that the kidnapping of four U.S. troops and a British soldier, took place last Saturday in al-Zubair region of southern Iraq, close to the Kuwaiti border.
     He said the "kidnapped troops will be equally treated as al-Qaida prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay."
     He said al-Qaida will soon release a videotape of the captured soldiers and will ask to swap them with al-Qaida suspects being held by the United States.

Really? I thought Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda.

Did they get lost or something?

Tuesday, April 1, 2003
18:48 - The Media & Stupid People
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030401.asp#6

(top)
Via the comments at LGF:

Garofalo labeled the U.S. attack on Iraq as "not fair" because it is an "unprovoked strike." Talking about those denouncing Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks for saying she was "ashamed" to be from the same state as President Bush, Garofalo suggested the attacks on the Dixie Chicks are a "wonderful way for really stupid people to hook up. They meet...they tell stories about who their favorite Fox anchor is..."

When co-panelist Michael Graham, a radio talk show host, recalled seeing a sign at an anti-war march proclaiming, "We Support Our Troops...When They Shoot Their Officers," Garofalo doubted it ever existed and flew into a rage about how "that's what all you right-wing radio hosts do. You make shit up all the time."

That would be this sign, you bowling-ball-hurling ninny.



Do a little research once in a while. Pay attention to the dang news, not whatever the SAG newsletter tells you to think. Reality is not defined by the effects of whatever controlled substances you sprinkle into your Starbucks backstage.

The worst part of seeing Hollywood in this complete meltdown of common sense and decency is having to cross off, one by one, the names of entertainers for whom I'd had so much respect. Robin Williams. Danny Glover. John Cusack. What has united these people in such blind and dismissive idiocy?

At least we haven't heard from Arnold Schwarzenegger on this issue yet-- nor are we likely to. After all, he's got a very real chance of being California's future governor, if he chooses to run for real... and with a certifiable genius-level IQ and enough money to enable him to pooh-pooh the Kennedys in his family, he's the one name I have left to stake my hopes on. For California and for Hollywood. Excelsior.

We've got nowhere to go but up.


15:21 - Down in History
http://www.blogsofwar.com/archives/week_2003_03_30.html#000753

(top)
John Little at Blogs of War received the following e-mail:

The United States Library of Congress preserves the Nation's cultural artifacts and provides enduring access to them. The Library's traditional functions, acquiring, cataloging, preserving and serving collection materials of historical importance to the Congress and to the American people to foster education and scholarship, extend to digital materials, including websites. The Library has selected your site for inclusion in the historic collection of the 2003 War on Iraq Internet materials. On behalf of the Library of Congress, the Internet Archive will be collecting content from your website at regular intervals during the War. The Library will make this collection available to researchers onsite at Library facilities. The Library also wishes to make the collection available to offsite researchers by hosting the collection on the Library's public access website. The Library hopes that you share its vision of preserving Web materials about the War and permitting researchers from across the world to access them.

I was going to say either John was having a little April-First fun, or else someone at the Library of Congress was. But apparently it's been authenticated.

Nice.


14:02 - Doo-hoo-hoo!
http://www.homestarrunner.com

(top)
Attention Homestar fans: don't forget to check out the site today.

As in today.


13:11 - If only this were an April Fool
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s822062.htm

(top)
We jokingly create "freedom fries"; they desecrate our war dead.

That's the France of Chiraq for you, I guess.

The words "Rosbifs [British] go home! Saddam Hussein will win and spill your blood" were painted in French over the base of the cemetery's main monument - an obelisk topped by a cross.

On one side was a swastika and the words "death to the Yankees".

Also daubed were the words "dig up your garbage, it is fouling our soil," and "Bush, Blair to the TPI (International Court of Justice)".

If these guys are trying to flourish the mantle of "civilization", then civilized is something I don't wanna be.


10:05 - Ah, fantasy
http://cmunkie.blogspot.com/2001_10_01_cmunkie_archive.html#6265536

(top)
How I'd love to try this out.

Not on a large group, though; after all, we all know how loath to use violence your typical peace protesters are, especially in large groups.

Not on a friend, either.

Hmm-- okay, maybe just in my braaaain. It's more satisfying that way anyway.

With all of this talk of impending war, many of us will encounter "Peace Activists" who will try to convince us that we must refrain from retaliating against those who terrorized us all on . These activists may be alone or in a gathering. Most of us do not know how to react to them.

When you come upon one of these people, or one of their rallies, here are the proper steps of etiquette to take when encountering a situation like this:

1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up a conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas. They will tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people who did this to us; we will only bring on more violence. They will probably use many arguments, ranging from geo-political to religious to humanitarian.

2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the mouth.

3. When the person gets up off the ground, they will be very angry and they may try to hit you, so be careful.

4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings about more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter. Tell them if they are committed to a nonviolent approach to undeserved attacks, they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a solution. Tell them they must lead by example if they really believe what they are saying.

5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are correct.

6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. Only this time hit them much harder. Square in the mouth.

7. Repeat steps 2 - 5 until cognition occurs, the desired results are obtained, and the person recognizes the stupidity of the argument he/she/it is making.

There is no difference in an individual attacking an unsuspecting victim or a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people. It is unacceptable and must be dealt with, perhaps at a high cost. We owe our military a huge debt for what they are about to do for our children and us. We must support them and our leaders at times like these. We have no choice. We either strike back, VERY HARD, or we will keep being hit in the mouth.

Note that this was written on October 11, 2001.

Sunday, March 30, 2003
23:05 - Now that's cat
http://www.jimmcneill.com/dance.html

(top)

Cute Flash of the day: "Lap Dance". Immediate first-hand familiarity for anybody who's ever had a cat.


22:17 - Only the purest of motives
http://www.ripburnrespect.com/

(top)
Well, good God.

Rember Apple's "Rip. Mix. Burn" campaign from a couple of years ago, when iTunes was only just getting going?

Well, apparently Gateway does: "Rip, Burn, Respect".

From the look of it, it's a marketing gimmick dressed up as an independent education-about-MP3-ethics site with commercial music-download tie-ins.

I don't doubt this is premature of me, but it looks to me as though this, coupled with their funky new pricing scheme, are signs that Gateway is flailing about for a strategy on the way to oblivion.


20:33 - I'm such a tool
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48367-2003Mar29.html

(top)
I'm a dupe of American propaganda.

Or at least, that's the only rational explanation-- isn't it?-- for why I feel such helpless fuming bitterness and (yes) rage upon reading this story, via LGF.
"Mr. Bush has lost us. We are gone. Enough. That's the end," said Diaa Rashwan, head of the comparative politics unit at the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo. "If America starts winning tomorrow, there will be suicide bombing that will start in America the next day. It is a whole new level now."

The anger was a clear sign that U.S.-Arab relations, despite the Bush administration's campaign to win hearts and minds, was at a low point.

"Bush is an occupier and terrorist. He thought he was playing a video game," said George Elnaber, 36, a Arab Christian and the owner of a supermarket in Amman. "We hate Americans more than we hate Saddam now," he said, referring to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

The popular al-Jazeera satellite television network broadcast the funerals of those killed at the market. It repeatedly showed pictures of severed body parts and wounded toddlers bandaged and crying in hospital beds.

"Those pictures have showed that America's war is not only against the Iraqi regime and the Iraqi army, but also against the Iraqi children and elderly. How can we trust them now?" said Mahmoud Sahiouny, 19, a Syrian computer science student who lives in Beirut.
It's because of my blind and fatuous belief in our own media and the obviously flawed information found everywhere online and from a million deceitful mouths, that I find it so maddening that these people are so convinced of their culture's rightness and the deep inhuman evil of ours.

How dare I believe that our forces are taking such pains to avoid civilian casualties that they're putting themselves at greatly increased risk and taking much more damage themselves than they otherwise would have? How can I blindly accept that even Iraqi estimates of civilian deaths are only about 70, or listen to the wags when they suggest that there's something fishy about how our "errant" missiles always seem to land in "crowded marketplaces"? How blinkered of me to smile politely but nervously and back away when told with a sneer to tune in to Al-Jazeera for the real unbiased reporting! How can I remain skeptical of the fact that we are trying to exterminate the Iraqi people-- after all, isn't that what I, a typical bloodthirsty American, really want?

If only I were so worldly and learned as these clear-eyed individuals; if only I could see the light and realize the truth of America's willful and cold-blooded massacres of Iraqi civilians, committed just to satisfy our own bloodlust and yearning to kill Muslims wherever they are to be found.

But no... I'm a lost cause. I'm just too blind, too deeply brainwashed.

And nowhere near as willing to take up arms because of what I see on TV.

And that's why we're doomed, when the real war comes.
Someone on the radio just said, "Judge a moth by the beauty of its candle." Well, ours was nice, wasn't it?.

Saturday, March 29, 2003
01:15 - An open (silly) question

(top)
I've never been good at the subtle art of the comic pun; as though to illustrate that, I'm not at all sure anymore that this is as funny as I thought it was when I first thought of it:


I'd originally thought it might make a good UN flag, but I'm not so sure that the premise works as well as I'd hoped. Hmm...

Who else might it work for? Anybody?

Bueller?
UPDATE: This is pretty interesting:
"And following the name was the fascination of the flag. The Reverend Slaughter happened to come across a February 25, 1776, copy of the London 'Morning Chronicle,' and in it he saw, as he called it, 'a remarkable article in these words': 'The Americans have a flag with a snake with 13 rattles on it, in the attitude to strike, and with the motto, "Don't tread on me." It is a rule in heraldry that the worthy properties of an animal on a crest should alone be considered. The rattlesnake is an emblem of America, being found in no other part of the world. The eye excels in brightness. It has no eye-lids, and is therefore an emblem of vigilance. She never begins an attack, and never surrenders, and is therefore an emblem of magnanimity. She never wounds until she has given warning. Her weapons are not displayed until drawn for defence. Her power of fascination resembles America - those who look steadily on her are involuntarily drawn towards, and having once approached, never leave her. She is beautiful in youth, and her beauty increases with age. Her tongue is forked as lightning.'"
Whether history shows we've lived up to this or not, it's still a striking ideal.

(Sorry.)

01:06 - Spare us the cleansing purges
http://www.right-thinking.com/comments.php?id=P947_0_1_0

(top)
This is one of the most refreshing and stress-relieving things I've seen in a long time.




18:54 - Da Slogans

(top)
I saw some real humdingers on the way back through Pleasanton-- more overt than any that I've seen here in the Bay Area, in fact. I'm not sure how that works.

Some of the window/bumper slogans were long and weird enough to make me wish I had a British-spec car with the driver's seat on the right, so I could roll down my window at highway speeds and have words with the driver.

How will killing Iraqi babies with cruise missiles bring peace? Hmm-- didn't we just cover a very similar question in a certain radio interview a short time ago? And in any case, if I had a big thick marker and some paper and some Scotch tape to scribble a reply message to hang in my own back window, and a third arm so I could tape it up without veering off the road, it would say, It won't-- that's why we're trying so hard not to do that! No country has ever gone to such absurd lengths to avoid harming civilians in a war-- and that's why we're vulnerable to terrorist tactics like suicide-bombing and dressing combatants as civilians. If we didn't care about civilian casualties, these things would not concern us! Hmm. Maybe I'd have to shorten it a bit.

And this one really cracked me up: Are We Kinder & Gentler Yet? Hey, buddy, it was being "kinder and gentler" that got us into this mess in the first place. Why do you think Osama thought he could get away with knocking down the WTC without us doing so much as whine about it?

And there were several that said Peace Is Patriotic. To those I wanted to reply that To the Iraqis, "Peace" is Death.

And, of course, a No Blood For Oil. On a Toyota with the second "O" modified into a peace symbol, naturally. I'd guess this is someone who would point with a smirk at the fact that Halliburton is up for a contract to rebuild Iraq after the war-- and probably would accuse me of "stifling dissent" if I mentioned that Halliburton was only one of several candidates being considered, and that as of yesterday (I believe) they're out of the running.

Ugh. I'm of half a mind to make up a banner to hang in my rear window that says, simply, Think Beyond The Slogans. But then, I'd be tempted to write up a dozen more signs, each with more words and a smaller font than the last, and paste them all across my rear window so cars would crash into me trying to read them and I'd never see them coming.


18:33 - Star Spangled Ice Cream
http://www.starspangledicecream.com/

(top)

I heard about this on Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me while driving towards Sacramento for a ballgame. Apparently, some guys in Baltimore have gotten fed up with Ben & Jerry's political stance, even though they like the ice cream and the wacky flavors it comes in. So they've partnered with Moxley's to create "Star Spangled Ice Cream", with flavors like:
  • I Hate the French Vanilla
  • Iraqi Road
  • Smaller GovernMint
  • Nutty Environmentalist

It would seem that at least these are for real; they've got a page with more flavor ideas for the future, which go to show just how not-seriously they're taking themselves. ("School Prayerleen"... "Gun Nut"?)

Thankfully, as someone on the show noted, there aren't any flavors with "Freedom" in the name.

Friday, March 28, 2003
02:42 - "I Was Wrong"
http://assyrianchristians.com/i_was_wrong_mar_26_03.htm

(top)
Something tells me we're going to see plenty more stories like this before all's said and done.

`Look at it this way. No matter how bad it is we will not all die. We have hoped for some other way but nothing has worked. 12 years ago it went almost all the way but failed. We cannot wait anymore. We want the war and we want it now`

Coming back to family members and telling them of progress in the talks at the United Nations on working some sort of compromise with Iraq I was welcomed not with joy but anger. `No, there is no other way! We want the war! It is the only way he will get out of our lives`

. . .

From a former member of the Army to a person working with the police to taxi drivers to store owners to mothers to government officials without exception when allowed to speak freely the message was the same - `Please bring on the war. We are ready. We have suffered long enough. We may lose our lives but some of us will survive and for our children's sake please,, please end our misery.

. . .

But what of their feelings towards the United States and Britain? Those feelings are clearly mixed. They have no love for the British or the Americans but they trust them.

`We are not afraid of the American bombing. They will bomb carefully and not purposely target the people. What we are afraid of is Saddam Hussein and what he and the Baath Party will do when the war begins. But even then we want the war. It is the only way to escape our hell. Please tell them to hurry. We have been through war so many times,but this time it will give us hope`.

Imagine, if you will, being the one to tell these people that we're backing out. Again.

Oh, and another thing. One might be forgiven for discounting the opinions of those who have been pro-war from the start, and who have never themselves been to Iraq. Well, since these people were anti-war until they went to Iraq, upon which they changed their minds... doesn't that make them the most worthy sources of all, except for the Iraqis themselves?


01:53 - Burnination

(top)
The weirdest things show up on Chris' Whiteboard of Doom.



...Oh, and his last name is Cogdon. I should have mentioned that.

See, 'cause otherwise it makes no sense.


...Okay, fine.



01:43 - New Family Member

(top)
Well, Lance brought Capri home today.



I've never been a dog person, really-- for me and my family it's always been cats. But I could get used to this.

22:02 - Oh, those politically incorrect Photoshop Goons...
http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1367

(top)
Yikes. This week's Photoshop Phriday is "Religious Toys". Some of these guys are vicious:

Yowch.

21:55 - Realism
http://ps2.ign.com/articles/391/391500p1.html

(top)

So there's a new game from Capcom-- "Auto Modellista"-- that lets you make your own VR rice-rockets and race them. And it's cel-shaded. Now that we've mastered fully realistic racing games, now we're doing cel-shaded.

Which is fine, really. I'm a big believer in the idea of stylization in virtual worlds, of not trying to achieve the absolute greatest humanly possible amount of realism. Once we can do fully immersive interactive VR worlds and walk around in holodeck-like towns and historical situations like Lileks has rooted for, that'll be one thing; but there will always be the need for video games that don't instill any more of a sense of realism than Super Mario Bros. does.

Sure, today's more realistic VR simulation games can come dang close to the real experience. But lemme tell you something:

Today, as I was driving back from the house up the Death Star trench that is Interstate 85, I heard up ahead of me an odd, high-pitched buzzing noise, the frequency wavering up and down. I cranked my window down a bit to listen harder. Was it some kid blasting his way between lanes at 90 mph, sweeping for cops? No, it wasn't pulling any further ahead of me as I drove. I recognized the telltale throatiness, under the needling whine, of what had to be a high-revving, unmuffled V-8. Either someone was barreling down the freeway in third gear in a truck, or...

Then the car ahead of me jumped aside into the carpool lane, and right in front of it was a Ferrari F355 F1 coupe. Ahhh, now I remembered that sound.

There were enough cars and few enough lanes on that freeway that he couldn't scoot out and pass everybody, so I pulled up close behind him and rolled my window down all the way. Ahhh, that sound. Having driven one of these once before (CapLion can attest to this), I know what it's like having that engine sound right up close to you, right behind you. I know what it's like to be going highway speed and sounding like you're revving at about 8K. I know what it's like to be eye-level with everyone else's door handles. I know why the balding guy in the driver's seat had that mysterious little smile, even with nobody in the passenger place.

So I trailed him for some five miles, pulling up alongside for some of it, dropping back again, just enjoying the sight and the sound. The F355 is not, in my opinion, the best-looking Ferrari ever; but it's one of the redheaded greats, and I was sorry to see it go when I peeled off at my exit.

Striving for realism in a video game is a great thing; but I'll quite honestly take a fleeting real-life experience on a chance once-in-a-year encounter over the most realistic always-available game any day.

Thursday, March 27, 2003
00:42 - Mac guys rally
http://www.igeek.com/articles/Politics/TimeForWar.txt

(top)
David K. Every, better known as the iGeek, has registered his stance on the war-- and it's a jim-dandy.

Look, I'm not some zealous patriot that thinks the U.S. is always right, or that you can't criticize the Government, and so on. Before this war is started, you can criticize all you want, when this war is over we can discuss/evaluate the tradeoffs of what was accomplished. During this war, stay the hell out of the way, and watch what you say. Indecisiveness in war is a way to get more people killed, so it should be treated as the life threatening mamby-pambyisms that it is.

I enjoy looking at problems from many sides, sometimes I even enjoy diplomacy and debate. But war is what happens when diplomacy and debate have failed; and they have failed. Our armies are trained to take land, kill people and break things; that's their job. When it is time for them to do their job, all else pales. Warriors understand this, some other people don't. This isn't the 60s sit-in, and is not a time for us all to remember our youths. Frankly, the peaceniks got many more killed than they helped anyways. If you don't like this war, so what? I don't like tax & spend policies, economic mugging that is a progressive tax system, and so on. There's a time and place to talk about it, and a time not to. This is the time to shut up. When the doves come out in a time of war, you don't get your hymnal, you get your shotgun.

I've always looked up to Every, with his MacKiDo site and its shrines of knowledge and computing philosophy. It does my heart good to see that this is the side he's come down on.

I agree with Kris, too: his conclusion kicks ass.


For the record, no, I don't endorse statements like "watch what you say"-- particularly taken out of context. I agree with Every's primary point, that a lack of commitment to the objective will make the war take longer and cost more lives; that supporting the troops ought to take precedence over trying to sway the government from the course we've taken. I don't agree that everybody should just shut up if they have a dissenting opinion during wartime for fear of jackboots at the door. And I don't think that's what he was saying in any case.

Disagree with the war's circumstances or motives, sure. Wave signs, fine, if you have to, if you don't mind the thought of the troops seeing you on TV and wondering whether the country is behind them or what. But don't throw rocks at National Guardsmen.


15:18 - The real human tragedy

(top)
Reading this latest post to the Ar-Rahman list, I've been trying to figure out how I feel about it. And finally I've come to the conclusion that what I feel is something that's rather new for me in this kind of situation: pity. Not anger, not bitterness, not derision-- pity. The kind of pity you feel for a rain-soaked, injured cat that you're trying to rescue, but it absolutely refuses to believe you're not an enemy. All you get is scratches and hate-filled glares for your trouble, and it would rather run back out into traffic than accept that you're trying to help it.

It's enough to bring tears to the eyes.
Dear IRAQ ! What can I do to Help?

  1. Hope: At this critical juncture when war is the buzz word of the War Mongers, many Muslims are left in despair and in a state of hopelessness. It may seem that the death of millions of innocents is now inevitable, but we must continue to strive our utmost to defend them and to spread the truth about this immoral war. Above all, we must remember that Allah Ta'ala has control over all things and can provide help in ways we do not even understand. Not even the 'greatest' superpower can overpower Him! No falsehood is to remain forever. No oppression is to remain forever. After hardship comes ease. The bitter reality of the Muslim nation will come to an end, and tomorrow will be definitely better than today. We should have HOPE in the ALL encompassing MERCY and HELP of Allah Ta'ala under all circumstances, whether it be in victory, defeat, happiness or sadness.
    Hadhrat Ibn Abbaas(radhiyallahu anhu) reported that : " I was(once) behind Nabi(sallallahu alaiyhi wassallam) when he said to me: 'O son ! I shall inform of a few things: Remember Allah, and He will protect you. Remember Allah, and you will find Him close to you. When you have to ask for something, ask of Allah Ta'ala. When you require aid, seek His aid. Believe firmly that if all the creation desires to benefit you in anything, they can never benefit you, but, that which Allah has decreed for you. If they ALL unite to harm you, they will not be able to harm you in anything, but that which Allah has decreed for you." (Tirmizi)
  2. Duaa: Make ernest, sincere duaa. Try to shed tears and beg Allah Ta'ala to alleviate the suffering of the Muslims in Iraq; and other places where Muslims are oppressed, not forgetting to make duaa for the brave "Human shields ". Beg Allah Ta'ala with sincerity.(like a child begging his mother). Also, conscientise the family and the children at home to also make duaa.
  3. Nafl Salaat: Even if;one is not a regular performer of Tahajjud salaat; atleast for the sake of the lives of the innocents; get up at the time of Tahajjud and perform two rakaats of salaah; contemplate on the sufferings,that the Ummah is facing today; beg Allah Ta'ala for His Divine Help and assisstance.Shed some tears; Ask for Forgiveness and help for the Abstention from sin and for Allah Ta'ala's Divine Solution.
  4. Participate in Peace Rallies and Anti -war campaigns: keeping in mind the shariah injunctions of good character, proper conduct, hijab, peace etc.
  5. Charity(Sadaqah): Give some charity(sadaqah) on behalf of the Muslims in Iraq; on behalf of the orphans; the widows;the martyrs and those that are the victims of oppression. This sadaqah may even be a loaf of bread or bottle of milk to a needy person in your area.
  6. Fast: Keep a nafl fast on any day of one's choice. At the time of breaking one's fast ;Beg Almighty Allah Ta'ala, to alleviate the sufferings of the Muslim Ummah in Iraq and other parts of the world where Muslims are unjustly being oppressed.
  7. Relief and Financial Aid: The lives;homes and infra-structure of the people of Iraq have been devastated over the last 12-15 years. Assist by aiding financially to a legitimate Relief agency in your area. Spare ourselves from over indulgences and financially aid our Brothers and sisters in this hour of need.
  8. Make News outlets Aware: Keep a vigilant eye on the news outlets; magazines etc. and respond timeously to their bias comments and views. Participate in phone-in sessions on the Radio. If one is unable to do so; make those who are able to do so; aware of such comments; articles etc. so that timeous responses are made. Forward pertinent and relevant articles you come across to the International and local media outlets.


13:33 - My worldview is changed

(top)
Some spams are sent to make money; some are viruses intended to cause harm. Some are chain letters for the superstitious. No matter how bizarre the message, they all have an underlying reason.

But I just have to wonder: what is it that would cause a person to go to the trouble of sending out a mass mailing like the following?

Call out Gouranga be happy.
Gouranga Gouranga Gouranga.
Say Gouranga my friend..
Gouranga.......That which brings the highest happiness.

Um... Gouranga!

I feel better already.

UPDATE: Ah.

Wednesday, March 26, 2003
00:33 - Civic Beautification Projects
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/26/sprj.irq.mural/index.html

(top)

Certainly this doesn't prove Iraq is in any way connected to 9/11 or anything, of course. But still.

The plane's logo and coloring resembled that of Iraqi Airlines, said Getty Images News Service executive Brian Felber, based in New York.

The photograph, showing two rifle-toting Marines in front of the mural, was shot by staff photographer Joe Raedle, who is accompanying the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force from Task Force Tarawa.

Looks like how someone might draw 9/11 who only had it described to him over the phone.


10:43 - Encouraging

(top)
NPR's Forum this morning, while full of the to-be-expected teeth-gnashing over how our dictatorial government is totally ignoring the wishes of our loudest citizens (never mind that it isn't the majority), had an unexpectedly encouraging undercurrent.

The gist was that while the anti-war Left (or at least, the rational segment of it, which suffers from being drowned out by the sloganeers just as much as the Right does) still thinks that going to war was a bad idea, they also think that removing Saddam Hussein from power is an honorable goal. So now that we're at war, now that war is a given, they see it as in their interest to support the troops in whatever ways can help bring the war to a rapid and successful conclusion. Which, golly gee, is exactly what the pro-war side wants too.

It's kinda funny: pretty much everybody agrees on the second most important issue here, that of Saddam Hussein. But it's a polar division on the most important issue, that of going to war in the first place. And now that that topmost issue is stripped out of the equation, there's going to emerge a startling consensus. Now that the war is actually going on, not even the most petulant sign-wavers are going to be able to make a case for abruptly backing out and leaving Saddam in power, or less still for prosecuting an inept war that drags on forever and costs tons of lives on both sides. Only the most spiteful and morally bankrupt could root for the latter. And if they do, they'll be unmasked with all the more vehemence.

In other words, I think the worst of the domestic debate is over. I could even be made to see that this was part of the plan all along.

I could be wrong, but I hope I'm not.

Tuesday, March 25, 2003
23:19 - Are those sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apmideast_story.asp?category=1107&slug=War%20

(top)

I see this story is starting to get some wider play, at least:

U.S. forces in Iraq are using specially trained dolphins to help look for anti-ship mines in the waters off the key southern port of Umm Qasr. But it's not the first time such creatures have been used by the military.

The U.S. military has used intelligent sea creatures for three decades, including sea lions brought to the Persian Gulf to guard against attack by providing early warning of enemy saboteurs. Many sea lions have been trained to come to the surface to signal an intruder.

For the U.S.-led war in Iraq, having dolphins locate the mines would make it easier for troops to clear them. That would make it safer for military and humanitarian supplies to be delivered to Umm Qasr or another port city.

But you know what really got me about this? When I first saw it mentioned on the CNN news crawl a couple of days ago, did it use the word "dolphins"? Noooo. It said NAVY USING MAMMALS TO SEARCH FOR UNDERWATER MINES.

Because you know what would have happened if they'd said "dolphins". Oh, the poor cute hyperintelligent beings! Being forced to endanger their own lives for the evil military! Watching this, my roommates and I were wondering aloud whether there might be some way to harness unicorns or possibly even rainbows for military purposes; that'd really piss them off.

I'm put in mind of that story that's been told to me a number of times, in which a group of particularly persistent sign-wavers gathered outside a university lab where they'd gotten wind that experimentation on animals was taking place. They picketed the building all day, screeching at the top of their lungs for the researchers to set the animals free.

Finally, one of the scientists came out to talk to them. He listened to their demands, then said, "Fine"-- and walked back inside. The protesters sent up a great whoop of victory. And then-- the researcher came back outside, holding a large shallow tray.

"I hope you'll give them a good home," he said, as he upended the tray and dumped a mound of wet mud and nematodes on the protesters' feet.

But I'm sure I'm being unfair. After all, has PETA complained about the Moroccan Mine Monkeys yet?

If not, only a cynic would suggest that it's only because that one doesn't involve Americans.


21:52 - I thought this was the Information Age!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/24/iraq/main541815.shtml

(top)
As of 7:58pm CST yesterday, as linked from Blogs of War, this page at CBS News was a report on the "E-bomb"-- the long-rumored EMP-based weapon-- being used to disable Iraqi TV. It was a fairly detailed analysis, with a quote from Tommy Franks (disclaiming knowledge of the weapon), and reports that the TV station had gone off the air for four hours, only to reappear later at much reduced broadcasting power. The link was worded "The E-bomb is in the Hiz-ouse."

Now, however, the page only describes a modest and unremarkable conventional strike on the TV station.

What happened, CBS? Did the Pentagon send you a strongly-worded request to take down that information? Or did someone at the web desk get just a tad bit overenthusiastic in his reporting?


21:47 - Hey, did you know we're losing?
http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news069.htm

(top)
Hey, look-- a Russian intelligence site run by "a group of journalists and military experts", which is full of detailed information on the war which could only mean there are secret Russian spy satellite and descrambling equipment and signal interceptors everywhere from Basra to Nasiriya to Tommy Franks' lap.

And wouldn't you know it, it describes the war-- in great technical detail-- to be going decisively in the Iraqis' favor. Far from being dug in and immobilized, the Iraqi army is highly proactive, maneuver-based, and destroying US tanks by the dozen. We still haven't taken Basra or Umm Qasr, and Franks has ordered the troops to ermergency defensive postures on multiple occasions. Didn't know a T-72 could take out an M1 Abrams? Thought even we had trouble scuttling those things using our own tanks? Well, wonder no more, because these guys have the scoop.

It's really quite fascinating. It's like The Onion, only for military news, and not funny.


10:59 - Dead Man's Party

(top)
This is a little less than timely, but the other day Edgar Burke sent me the following thoughts on the Saddam video that was played a couple of days ago, and what its chances are of being current:

I was not impressed. The video was introduced by the Minister of Information, who told us to wait for an important and "historic" speech from Saddam. It then cuts to the - what's it called - station ID playing the national anthem for a least a couple of minutes. Only then do we get to the actual video.

A couple of things struck me about it. If the translation was right, Saddam refers to the invasion starting "today"; of course, the video was being shown several days after the start of the invasion. Also, lots of names were thrown out, but nothing specific. He did mention Umm Qasr and there has been strong resistance there, but he made no specific reference to that. Finally, he made no mention of the American POWs, a sure way to alert the world that he was alive and in control.

The CNN pundit (with one of those sneering British accents Lileks has been talking about) seemed overly impressed. She was certain that this proved Saddam was alive. After all, he mentioned Umm Qasr and Mosul! (Though nothing specific about Mosul.)

A different idea sprung into my mind: This was a tape created before the start of the war. A number of different tapes were created at that time, each with a different set of names and places. After the start of the war, the tapes with the most relevant names could be played. It would be kind of a propaganda mix tape. In a few days we'll probably get another tape full of vague references to current events but nothing specific.

I especially like how he praised the "bravery" of one of the division commanders, who was actually the one who surrendered his whole 8,000-man unit early on. If that's what Saddam likes to see from his people, he's either on our side or dead.

On another note, Jeremy Levy sent me this link, Saddam's biography page from the official Iraq website. At the bottom, it has the following interesting quote:

"Led his country in confrontation the aggression launched by 33 countries led by US. which waged war against Iraq, the Iraqis' confrontation of which is called by Arabs and Iraqis as the Battle of Battles (Um Al-Ma' arik) , where Iraq stood fast against the invasion, maintaining its sovereignty and political system. "

If that's the last entry Saddam's made in his blog, it's eerily fitting.

The site seems to be down now, though. I wonder how that could be.

Monday, March 24, 2003
14:13 - An unfair tactic
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-war-callhome24mar24004422,1,3509140

(top)
You know, what really sickens me about the anti-war movement is their callous blatant disregard for the lives of innocent Iraqi civilians. What's especially galling is that they seem to think they're saving lives by trying to avert a war.

There-- how's that for snarkily turning the argument back in on itself?

Ooh-ooh! I've got another one: How many more innocents must die because of your commitment to peace?

Sunday, March 23, 2003
02:15 - That's how to start off a week
http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/03/0303/032403.html

(top)
Lileks is in fine form this morning, coalescing the events of the past couple of days better than most, through the judicious application of one layer of observational indirection.

He's losing patience ever so slightly with the BBC, and the feeling I get in reading the way he conveys that impatience can only be described as "guilty glee".

Wait'll you see the new word they've coined.


01:59 - Something to be proud of

(top)
Before embarking on another afternoon of hard manual labor (sledgehammering concrete pads, digging up water-heavy sod, changing locks), and before buying the chair to go with that super-awesome sofa (we came up with a layout for the new master bedroom that will accommodate both), Lance and I stopped for lunch at Togo's. While I was ordering my sandwich, the girl making it saw my shirt and said, "Oh, Strong Bad!" We chortled about Homestar Runner for a bit; then when the other guy came to take my money, he said with a grin, "Hey, how much is that shirt?"

And now, in a Cold Stone Creamery after dinner, the girl who was making my ice cream said, "Hey, a Strong Bad shirt!"

I'd call that Total Meme PenetrationTM.


01:25 - Did someone set up us Saddam?
http://www.blogsofwar.com/archives/week_2003_03_23.html#000695

(top)

John Little at Blogs of War doesn't think much of the Saddam video just aired.

I can't believe I stayed up for the "historic speech from Saddam". It looked like another file piece. There was no way to put a date on it. It was intorduced by the Minister of Information who I increasingly suspect of running the country since he is the only official we really hear from. I want the last hour of my life back.

I don't know if there'll be much more info on this tonight (CNN and FoxNews both seem to have little more than a headline on the matter), but I'd like to hear whether it's true that the Minister of Information merely introduced the video rather than passing the microphone to Saddam in person, and whether the video in fact contained anything temporaneous.

If Little's brief analysis is correct, I'm actually weirdly encouraged in a way-- because it means the Iraqi power structure, such as it is, is living up to its well-earned and sterling reputation of honesty and kept promises. Up till now I was wondering, "So what about all that Stalin-class propaganda? C'mon, let's see some real world-class lying of the out-the-ass variety. Let's see some bluster and posturing and some verbal missiles fired at right angles to reality."

Well, it looks like that's all back in operation. To say nothing of good old-fashioned torture and slaughter of POWs, which I expect will absolutely scandalize that Human Rights Watch guy who was on the BBC last night. Or not.

Saturday, March 22, 2003
02:47 - Miscellaneity

(top)
Chris and I stopped off at a 7-11 on the way back from squash just now; and looking at the headlines and cover stories of the weekly magazines on the rack, I realized: these were all printed before the war started.

The war might be over before the first magazine his the stands that says WAR!

Interestingly, though: the BBC, on the way home, was reporting (via the Iraqi information minister, ahem) that Saddam has appeared repeatedly on TV, confident and healthy, over the past several days.

Have I just been missing the reports of this everywhere else?

Oh, and just now they had on some guy from the international Human Rights Watch or some such organization... demanding in broken English that the Americans show proof that they're making some small attempt to distinguish military targets from civilian areas. You know, nothing much-- we cannot expect those bloodthirsty Americans to provide more than the barest minimum cooperation toward human rights. But all we ask is that they try to at least acknowledge the Geneva Convention. Whatever restraint we can get those barbarians to show is a victory for humanity everywhere.

Sweet merciful crap. Now I know what Lileks meant by those indelible BBC sneers.


02:32 - An "Oh God, what have we done?" moment
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/03/23/do2305.

(top)
As the human shields roll back home:

"Don't you listen to Powell on Voice of America radio?" [the Iraqi driver] said. "Of course the Americans don't want to bomb civilians. They want to bomb government and Saddam's palaces. We want America to bomb Saddam."


We just sat, listening, our mouths open wide. Jake, one of the others, just kept saying, "Oh my God" as the driver described the horrors of the regime. Jake was so shocked at how naive he had been. We all were. It hadn't occurred to anyone that the Iraqis might actually be pro-war.


The driver's most emphatic statement was: "All Iraqi people want this war." He seemed convinced that civilian casualties would be small; he had such enormous faith in the American war machine to follow through on its promises. Certainly more faith than any of us had.

Perhaps the most crushing thing we learned was that most ordinary Iraqis thought Saddam Hussein had paid us to come to protest in Iraq. Although we explained that this was categorically not the case, I don't think he believed us. Later he asked me: "Really, how much did Saddam pay you to come?"

Okay. Now that that's all cleared up...

All wars have winners and losers. Perhaps, in order for this discussion to be meaningful, we ought to be asking not who is for the war and who is against the war-- but, rather, who the war is for.

So let's review: Who will benefit, physically or politically, from our successfully prosecuting this war?
  • The US' national security
  • The Iraqi civilian population
  • Iraqi troops willing to surrender
  • The UK and other nations in the "coalition of the willing"

And who would have benefitted, physically or politically, from our not prosecuting this war?
  • Saddam Hussein and his sons
  • Iraqi troops loyal to Saddam
  • Islamic terrorists operating out of Iraq or anticipating Iraqi assistance
  • France
  • The anti-war protesters

So... what, then, is the problem? If we are willing to sacrifice the interests of anybody in the first list for the benefit of those in the second, then something is very, very wrong.

(I note, by the way, that the UN loses either way. Either we go to war without their approval, rendering them meaningless as an international body; or we don't go to war because they don't approve it, and thus prove that none of their resolutions have teeth. They could have won by approving war, but instead they put themselves into a no-win situation.)

And if there's one thing to be absorbed from this, it's that even if Andrea on that radio clip really was just a feeb who hadn't thought things through, Mohammed (her opponent) certainly had a crucial point: Iraqis want the war to happen, as so many anti-war activists are gradually and independently finding out, to their great shock and awe.

When that's entered into the equation, what real reasons not to fight are there?


23:49 - Lorem gypsum dolor

(top)
Today was spent in systematically removing approximately $100,000 of saleable perceived value from the new house.

As the first order of business after taking possession, we're removing the partition wall that divides one bedroom from another, and turning them into a combined second master suite. The new partition wall will be moved down a few feet and be composed of columns and an arched doorway, and curtains. That way there will be a bedroom area that's divided from a semi-public drawing room area; that's the part that's going to get all the aesthetic Christopher Lowell-esque interior decoration treatment.

I bought a couch for it today; in Levitz, I saw it over against the wall; I sat down in it, then I was seized with the urge to never get up again. As I sat there, dumbfounded, an elderly couple walked past: "Isn't that sofa just the most amazing thing?" And we all sat around marveling. I don't know why it's taken them this long to invent the perfect sofa, but I think they must have sold like six of them today at just that one store.

When Lance came in from the car, I said: "Hey-- you know what I love?"

"What?"

"This couch."

Anyway, removing that partition wall involved axes and crowbars and kung-fu. Easily the most fun I've had causing havoc and destruction in a long time.



That drywall didn't stand a chance.
Friday, March 21, 2003
01:30 - The New Godwin's Law

(top)
Zjonni and I had a long and interesting hot-tub discussion (is there any other kind?) regarding the war and public opinion toward it, and the various factors that have gone into shaping that opinion, especially over the past several days. I'd just shown him the Mohammad-vs-Andrea audio clip, which has reportedly been swaying opinions left and right (as it were), and he'd left my room with his arms held out in front of him, making the "O" face from Office Space. And thinking about what kind of meme it is, and how effective it is in driving home its point, made me wonder about how the psychological and political fallout from this war is going to look a couple of years from now. "The facts are on our side," he says. But are facts enough? Facts are the basis for our reasoned arguments here in the blogosphere, or at least in theory they are. We rely on facts and rhetorical skill to make our case and hope our audiences are open-minded and intellectually curious enough to follow the links we present and (hopefully) arrive at the same conclusions we do.

What's going to happen two years hence? The war in Afghanistan hasn't proven to be the psychological coup that many thought it would, because the facts and positive memes (girls being allowed to go to school, Starbucks and McDonald's and Hyatt hotels going into Kabul, soccer stadiums being used for soccer instead of executions) keep getting obscured by negative anecdotal memes like inflated civilian casualty rates, still being given credence even months after being discredited, and accusations of American empire/hegemony. I find myself wanting to keep a quiver of hard-hitting anecdotes to whip out in a pinch when in an argument, when I really want to lay some festering opinion to rest and sink a fact in up to the fletching.

The question, though, and what our discussion centered on, was the legitimacy of such an approach as an argumentation method. Do we legitimize anecdotal reasoning by using it? Or do we rise above that temptation, dismissing it as the domain of the opposition?

Because I've noticed-- and so has Zjonni, who wrote about it back on 9/14/2001-- that if there's one thing held in common by the anti-war Left, it's the tendency to argue by slogans, ad hominem attacks, and other such "cheap shots" that provoke a swift gut reaction in the listener, even if they're not based on fact or reality. The opponent can recite facts and reason all he wants, but the sad reality is that his boring facts will not sway the sloganeer. What we've got is yet another manifestation of the old creationism-vs-evolution debates, in which one side is reasoning from fact and working theory, but the other side is reasoning from faith. No matter what the scientist says or how many barbs he deflects, he's not going to sway the guy whose platform is founded on faith. The two sides are operating on completely different sets of rules. The one side refuses to use certain argumentative techniques that the other side feels no compunction against using, and so will never gain the upper hand.

A prime example that he brought up is the ongoing argument by which anti-war forces rage about how American depleted-uranium rounds have caused thousands of birth defects in Iraqi babies over the past twelve years. Look at these pictures we have! they shout. Deformed babies! Who can be so callous as to doubt our claim?! Never mind, of course, that depleted uranium does not have measurable radiation-- because it's depleted. It has less radiation than the carbon in the human body. And yet that point usually only gets brought up as about comment #19 in any given thread on the subject, and nobody ever seems to pay attention or internalize it. Why? Because the reasoned facts are boring, and the sloganeering and visual sucker-punch is a lot more effective.

The person whose position is based on faith will never budge; their faith will never be shaken. Stand at a podium next to someone screeching that depleted uranium causes birth defects; do your best to refute it. You'll never win, at least in convincing your opponent to your position, because no matter how factual and well-reasoned your argument, in the vocabulary of his argument, yours doesn't look any more forceful than stamping your feet and saying "...Nuh-uh!"

But that's the key: even if you don't ever sway your direct opponent, the goal of the argument is not to sway your opponent anyway; it's to sway the onlookers. The audience might well prove to be more willing to listen to a reasoned argument and differentiate between a faith-based platform and a platform of fact. This is where we who prefer to stick to facts actually stand a chance; you can see it in action in the Mohammed/Andrea clip, in which Andrea leaves the show clearly no more chastened in her pacifist position than she ever was before... but the audience, the thousands of people who have heard the clip by now, whether during the original radio broadcast or during its subsequent travels throughout the Net, are left thinking that God-- she was such an idiot! It's they who are the real targets of well-reasoned arguments. The direct opponents, the ones secure in their faith, are a red herring. There are a lot fewer of them in any case. What matters are the numbers won to your cause, not the volume at which they can screech.

It's easy to dismiss the mobs on Market Street as "rebels without a clue"; but to dismiss them without applying public opposition to their opinion runs a terrible risk: that the audience, the "silent majority", will hear their raving and take it to be valid because it's unopposed. They'll take it as the word of an authority. When the BBC compares our "shock and awe" campaign (which has killed between 10 and 200 Iraqi civilians, depending on the source) to Dresden (250,000), you can wave a dismissive hand and say "People are stupid"-- yeah, but these people are being listened to. If you meet the challenge head-on, you won't win over many of the actual opposition; but your arguments-- especially if well constructed and reasoned without yielding to the opposition's underhanded tactics-- will sway the much greater numbers of those watching and analyzing quietly from the sidelines.

Winning those numbers is a daunting task. There are a variety of traps to fall into when undertaking an argument toward such an end; avoiding those traps is a matter of "honor" more than prudence, but only by sticking to that sense of honor do we maintain a rhetorical moral high ground. And that's what's going to stand the test of time.

Zjonni said that in his arguments, he refuses to lower himself to the level of his opponents when they engage in the tactics currently so favored by the anti-war crowd: ad hominem attacks, appeals to gut reaction, pleasing ironies, sheer volume, and poorly-documented anecdotal evidence.

Ad hominem attacks can be very satisfying ("You chirping bird!"); they can be very effective. The temptation to yield to this kind of tactic is immensely strong, particularly when up against an opponent who deserves it. They're easy to identify, though, and while some debaters make a comfortable living using nothing but this tactic, no such rhetoric will have any relevance further down the road, when whoever the person was ad-hominemming against is no longer an active public figure or actively opposing the viewpoint in question. When that happens, all that's left is the original point-- which may well be revealed to have no substance.

Appeals to gut reaction are like the movie poster for Patch Adams: in the words of Paul Tatara, CNN's movie reviewer, with the clown nose and the warm smile, it was "like getting punched in the stomach with a fistful of dollars". It's the "aaawww" instinct, the temptation to show pictures of cute puppies or deformed babies to melt or enrage the viewer. Because who can resist puppies or babies? It's waaay too easy, and completely non-substantive. I remember being in a mock debate in seventh grade exploratory class; the topic was abortion, and I was on the "pro" side-- until the opposing side trotted out a photo of -- well, let's just say I know precisely what it's like to be on the receiving end of this particular argumentative tactic.

Pleasing ironies are what constitute most peace protesters' signboards: NO BLOOD FOR OIL. BUSH=HITLER. AT LEAST SADDAM WAS ELECTED! If a casual observer digs even slightly into any of these, he finds that it's completely bogus; but on the face of it, it can trip the same kind of frontal-lobe nerve that reacts to the gut-reaction tactics described above. Especially if there's a joke or a gag involved. These days, there's a strong tendency for us to think it's funny-- so it must be true! I don't think anybody seriously can make a reasoned case that the only difference between Bush and Hitler is the moustache; but in the first second and a half after seeing that kind of sentiment on a sign, worded wittily enough and accompanied by a good enough picture, the viewer's mind is softened up enough by the humor and irony to think, hey-- maybe he's right! And getting barraged by thousands of these signs in a day will break down anybody's defenses. This is the tactic that I'm tempted to label "The New Godwin's Law"-- compare Bush to Hitler, and you've automatically forfeited the argument.

Sheer volume is the tactic of putting a giant megaphone on your car and driving around preaching your message, like the Blues Brothers, at such a volume that you can't be drowned out. This is the tactic used by the protesters in San Francisco who think that if they just make their moves more and more extreme-- vomiting and shitting in the streets while obstructing traffic and interfering with daily business-- then they're sure to not be ignored. This tactic is best left to fantasy, right along with outright violence; because as we've seen, it's really easy to take this too far, and you end up alienating your entire sympathetic audience. And it's easy for this tactic to escalate into outright terrorism.

Finally, poorly-documented anecdotal evidence is the most insidious tactic of all, and it's the one I'm having the most trouble eschewing. Any time we post a link in a blog which digs up some obscure passing quote from some second- or third-hand source, we're employing this tactic. I can post a link to this story (via LGF), in which the "human shields" are leaving because "Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera 'told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny'"... and while this is exceedingly effective, it's also not the kind of meme that's going to stand the test of time. It might turn out to be false. It might get eclipsed by similar events that can be interpreted in a crucially different way. It might make for an amusing story sometime down the road, but it's never going to make as good ammunition after the fact as it will in swaying someone's opinion right now, in the heat of the moment.

And that's really what I wanted to get at: there are two kinds of audiences that I find myself arguing with the intention of persuading. There is the general public, people who I may or may not know personally; I might persuade them or I might not. It's really not too much of a concern to me whether I do or not, as it's overall just a game of numbers, of percentages of the audience convinced; but naturally I want to present as compelling a case as possible, in case it gets quoted or backlinked or inspires comment from someone at random months down the road. And so naturally I want these arguments to be as factual and well-documented as they possibly can be. If that means being a little less inflammatory and anecdotal than I might be, if that means being boring and stodgy and unoriginal, if that means carefully researching everything until I have an absolutely ironclad case to present (and all the attendant lack of effectiveness against a counterargument from someone willing to use the aforementioned underhanded tactics in response), then that's the risk I run. I'd be doing it with the understanding that my well-reasoned argument would stand up better in the long run and be relevant much longer than someone's ad hominem attack or cutesy ironic slogan.

But the other type of audience is the person with whom I'm personally acquainted-- maybe a close friend who holds a view opposite to my own, someone who I would really love to have on my side, someone who I want to be able to talk and laugh with after the whole issue is behind us. How does one conduct this kind of argument? Reason and fact are effective, but not always-- because, crucially, the person you're talking to is an audience, not an opponent; and he'll also be listening to people who are presenting opinions opposite your own, and those people might be using those very tactics that you refuse to use yourself. You might not want to lower yourself to using things like anecdotal memes. But the stakes are much higher, because you're trying to convince a friend-- and you're likely to lose, if the other fellow your friend is listening to feels no compunction about using those kinds of tactics. They're more effective, even if they don't stand up factually.

So-- in this case, do you stoop to the level of using those tactics? Is this a case where you might deem success to be of enough importance that those underhanded maneuvers might be justified? If it's an anonymous audience of many, it isn't crucial that you convince any one individual reader; but if it's a friend, it is crucial. So in these cases, I feel as though I'm justified in keeping that proverbial quiver of ringer points and memes slung around my shoulder, firing them off just when they'll be most effective, hoarding the karma points and spending them as I deplete my ammunition. Such a meme is a "big gun"; it's like a nuke, in that by God it'll get the job done, but there are real consequences for using it. Where it's appropriate to use would be a situation where I feel success trumps argumentative ethics; holding to a standard of rules-of-engagement is a nice-to-have, but success is a requirement. I really, really want the person to agree with me. And I'm willing to have some of my arguments come up for audit after the fact, and I'm willing to defend and justify them then, if it means that in the interim we can have consensus and harmony and the satisfaction of being on the same side.

I'm not talking about lying, of course; I'm talking about things like the Mohmmed/Andrea clip, the Day By Day cartoon, and in fact pretty much the entire blogosphere. It's all stuff that supports my position, yes, and it's all very persuasive. But it still all amounts to opinion; it's the kind of evidence that makes a strong case only when taken as a whole, evaluated as a collective zeitgeist, but which can seem uneven and unbalanced when examined piecemeal. There's no guaranteeing the validity of what you see on a blog, compared to what you might see on a major news site. There's no rhetorical legitimacy to formulating a political opinion based on a great comic strip or a sarcastic parody anti-war signboard slogan. Sure, it's funny; sure, it's great for provoking a gut reaction. Sure, over time it can cause a sea change in someone's worldview stronger than any number of dry documented facts can. But it's not the kind of evidence that will be as valid two or three years from now.

So in a (very roundabout) way, what I'm doing is more or less to try to put the whole concept of this "blogging" thing into perspective as a form of social discourse. What most of us are doing, really, is recording our memes in our own self-defined forums that we know follow certain well-published biases; we declare that we know we're all biased in a certain way, and then we have carte blanche to post nuggets of data that we otherwise might consider completely inadmissible pieces of evidence in a scholarly work. These nuggets all fit together as threads in a vast tapestry of opinion, a continuum that spans a generation of what once might have been called "wit"; and within those parameters, it's a phenomenon unlike any other in human history. Its power to convince and to incite to action is like nothing we've ever seen before. But its power is a dangerous one; with great power comes great responsibility, as they say, and we have to be sure we know what kind of thinking we're up against, and how to combat it, and how not to combat it. Opinion is a powerful tool, but it's not an end in itself.

How will we look back on this Iraq action two years down the road? I hope we can click open our old archives and be proud of what we find there. I don't know if I can say I will. But I know that if I at least keep in sight the tactics that the opposition uses, and find that I've been able to avoid responding in kind, I think I'll be pleased.



Yes, I know I'm being kinda hypocritical here; I've never been one to stick to pure fact and reason in the things I write here, and-- let's be frank-- ad-hominem attacks and pleasing ironies are fun, which is why I do them. Indeed, it's hard to reconcile this call to logic with my defense of the Mac; to advocate Apple is to advocate what is essentially a liberal cause (the Mac's superiority is based on ideals, anecdotes, entitlements, community mentality, etc), and the arguments I've used more often than not fall squarely into the categories I've described here. Facts and logic and reason would tend to dismiss Apple as irrelevant.

I'm not saying we all should avoid using these kinds of tactics at all times, or anything like that; and I doubt I'll be practicing what I preach anytime soon either. The whole reason I blog is that I like posting bits of out-of-context information that I can spin in a way that's to my liking. My point is that we're all entitled to use whatever underhanded tactics and biases we like; that's our right and what makes blogging fun. But let's just not kid ourselves that that's not what we're doing.


UPDATE: Various people have been ahem-ing and mailing me URLs about depleted uranium, and how it's really nasty stuff, the likely causative of Gulf War Syndrome, etc, etc. One scientific resource in particular that was brought to my attention was this study by Vladimir S. Zajic, which seems rather exhaustive. However, Zjonni and I pored over it for some time, and found that while it detailed a lot of the direness of risk entailed by being in the line of fire or scooping up DU-tainted dirt, the paper a) did a lot of speculative math about the DU dust contamination by a hypothetical projectile (followed by radiation readings taken by the Christian Science Monitor and Iraqi officials, as reliable as we know those to be); b) claimed that DU dust would be spread by weather effects (not true-- it's heavier than gold dust); and c) made no attempt to claim that DU had a link to birth defects-- except once, in which he admits that "the cause of these birth defects is unknown". And check out his list of references. "Nukes of the Gulf War"? "Swords to Plowshares"? "Metal of Dishonor"? The Independent? He's got a lot of actual scientific papers in the mix, but these other nuggets make them poor company. He then goes on to praise "respected British journalist" Robert Fisk.

We then did a Google search on "depleted uranium" "birth defects", and in the first five pages of links found nothing resembling a scientific paper that linked DU to birth defects. (After five pages we gave up.) And given the nature of Google, you'd think that at least some groups would have done a lot of linking to such a paper, kicking it up toward the top of the result list, perhaps? You'd think that those groups whose websites did fill those five pages of results would have had it as their flagship supporting evidence. But there was nothing. Plenty of resources which agree that DU is nasty stuff, responsible for plenty of health problems if ingested, but not the culprit in any way that can be proven for those birth defects (the pictures of which, gathered as they usually are into a group, show vastly differing symptoms which can be easily attributed to a variety of much more likely and present causes in Iraq at the time-- for one, no people had ever before been exposed to crude oil smoke in anywhere near that quantity before).

The upshot would seem to be that depleted uranium certainly isn't something you'd want to stir into your cereal, but I remain to be convinced that those waving signs with pictures of deformed babies are motivated by fact rather than the desire to kick the viewer's mind right in the nads.


Yet another UPDATE: Zjonni has dug up the following two sources which seem to do a pretty good job of refuting the claims in the Zajic study:

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_s03.htm



14:40 - Yay!

(top)
Just planting a little stake in the ground: I just got the call confirming the recording of the property. (Actually I had to hunt around a bit for it; nobody seems to want to check their voice-mail, let alone pick up their phone.)

So I'll likely be incommunicado for a few hours... while we start moving in.


13:40 - MSN bound for portal hell?
http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/21054.html

(top)
Another link sent me by Kris-- this osOpinion piece by Tiernan Ray suggests that MSN has business-modeled itself into a corner, and a future in which it replaces AOL is likely to be even more dreary and prosaic than this one. With AOL hemhorraging money and MSN in a full-court press to woo its customers, it's hard to see Microsoft "failing" like the article predicts, or AOL emerging stronger than ever; but I do agree that I can't imagine anybody being terribly proud of having built a faceless portal empire like what MSN threatens to be.

This past weekend I had another desultory encounter with what some still believe is Microsoft's (Nasdaq: MSFT) interest in the "content" business. While trying to hook up to the Net a friend's ultralite laptop running Windows XP Professional, and bereft of the ubiquitous AOL (NYSE: AOL) software, I was taken on a tour of frustration as the preloaded Microsoft Network tried first to use a username it hijacked from another dial-up connection, then led me on a tedious and insanely slow walk through utterly irrelevant shopping and news links, none of which had anything to do with the Internet. I ultimately toasted the MSN connection and set up a third-party ISP account I had in my back pocket.

MSN won't make most people's experience of connecting to the Net very special. This is a network that doesn't care about being a network, like a supposedly hip restaurant that secretly yearns to be a car wash. And so it comes as no surprise that IDC has recently concluded MSN may soon give up on being an Internet access player. What is left after you jettison the dial-up part, the so-called "content" business, would leave MSN in the position of being a re-tread of C/Net's failed "Snap!" online service from five years ago.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. I'd sure hate to be in charge of trying to fill that particular business niche.


13:34 - Steve, you're making it hard to like you
http://rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_032030/content/stack_h.guest.html

(top)
Rush Limbaugh apparently doesn't think too highly of Al Gore's joining Apple's board either.

This was just devastating. We use Macs here at the EIB Network. We're an entire Mac shop, and Algore, who probably wouldn't know the Internet if he was on the computer, is now a member of the Apple board of directors.

I have to see if one bad apple can spoil the whole bunch. Gosh, I hope not, and I hope he doesn't have anything to do, other than ceremonial duties, with this outfit. If they start letting him reinvent Apple like he reinvented government, oh boy... I just ordered a couple of new G4 Power Mac towers, and this is the way I get paid back? Geez.

And to think, when I followed this link that Kris sent me, that I was worried I'd hear a Rushian rant about how this just proves how stupid Apple is and how much Macs suck. Instead, it turns out that he's mostly just sharing our smirks and mock dismay.

Jobs' putting Gore on the board may well have been the underhanded political statement that it so readily resembles; as a corporation, Apple can't really take stands on the big divisive issues, and even when sending out its "QuickTime News" e-mail newsletters, it refers to the content of featured broadcast political items in the broadest possible terms, so as not to alienate half its audience. The most political Apple has gotten is to do things like put up that banner image of Carter on its main page a while back. (Unless you count the giant US flag they draped down the freeway-facing side of 3 Infinite Loop for a year-- but that hardly makes them all that unique.)

But these moves by a known left-wing Jobs aren't being received with much humor; Apple as a company may be studiously neutral, and its CEO may be a postmodern hippie, but more and more Mac users are being revealed to be conservatives. I correspond regularly with at least a dozen folks with @mac.com addresses, all of whom share roughly the same views on the war and such, and none of whom don't. And more seem to be appearing every day. We can count Chris Muir among these, it turns out; and now we find out Rush Limbaugh is similarly inclined.

I'll bet this pisses off Jobs no end.

Thursday, March 20, 2003
02:51 - A different kind of countdown

(top)
By the way, I went by the title company today and dropped off that monstrous cashier's check that they needed; and a couple of hours ago I got a (possibly automated) e-mail from the loan officer announcing that my mortgage was 100% approved and ready to fund.

Which means they record tomorrow morning, and send me notification of recording around noon; and then I'm probably going to take the rest of the day off (the Navy seems to have cancelled its tour of our software labs, for some mysterious reason they call recent world events).

It's gonna be a long weekend-- but in all likelihood a fun one.


01:19 - I knew it
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/

(top)



01:09 - More watching, more waiting

(top)
Not many people seem to be blogging a whole lot today-- if it's for anything like the same reasons as my own, I'd venture that it has something to do with how none of us really feel qualified to say anything; I sure don't, anyway. If I were to post anything about the war, it would either be lame regurgitation of bullet points covered in much greater detail elsewhere, or rehashed philosophy about the moral rectitude of the invasion, by this stage reduced through exasperation to simply telling people to listen to that now-famous audio clip of the Iraqi expatriate telling off the Little Chirping Bird.

Running through a bunch of fan-art uploaded by the Teen Girl Squad demographic; there's an encouraging diversity of opinion, with some actual supportive material appearing from time to time. But by far more predominant are deep sentiments like "Why is this happening? The Americans are going to kill countless innocence. There are people in Iraq that are just sitting in their houses waiting until a bomb blows them up, because they can't do anything about it. I wish it would stop..." and "Bah, this war is unnesessary. I'm pretty sick of it now." Look-- the purpose of this war is not to entertain you. Argh. I don't want to have to put up a public statement with links and resources trying to educate the site's users before they pop off, or (worse) banning politically-motivated postings, so I've gotta vent a little bit here. Phew. I feel a little better.

Anyway, one person who has been doing double-blog-duty in the face of the dearth of postings elsewhere is Lileks, and I couldn't hope for better. The "money quotes" come fast and furious ("For these people there is no history before 1968, when the world sprang fully-formed from Timothy Leary's forehead..."); want to laugh on this sober day and yet not feel guilty or callous about it? Hop on over and linger a bit.

Just one random free-floating thought of my own, though: If Saddam has already been capped, and if that means the war will be over in a matter of days and with ridiculously few casualties, think how silly all the partisan vitriol throughout the past few months is going to look in retrospect.

And so, back to the twitchy page-reloading.


09:25 - Update Your iPods
http://www.apple.com/ipod/download/

(top)

Wow. Some days, you just stumble across something that fits your situation like a well-crafted horoscope:

Some customers have reported that over time their iPod's battery life has declined. This update enables the iPod to more accurately monitor its battery charge, thus using the entire battery capacity and regaining long battery life. The result is longer playback time and extended standby time. After updating the iPod, customers can expect at least 10 days of standby battery life on a full charge.

Prior to this update, the iPod would sometimes mistake a temporary low voltage condition as an indication that the battery was discharged. This resulted in the iPod shutting down prematurely, even though the battery was still capable of powering the iPod.

Oh, you mean like exactly what's been happening with my iPod. I knew it wasn't that my battery was that badly exhausted-- it's not that old.

Okay! Let's see if we can cause a spike at Akamai. Three... two... one... download!



08:59 - A New Media War
http://www.blogsofwar.com/

(top)
John Little at Blogs of War has been up all night posting updates every few minutes, relayed from TV news feeds from the front. He's been kept at it with the help of an encouraging spouse and large doses of caffeine.

I've found the coverage of specific war events to be better there than just about anywhere else. From CNN and other major news sources, I'd almost get the impression that nothing happened last night. When, in fact, it may be that quite the opposite is the case.

Wednesday, March 19, 2003
00:00 - We're in good hands
http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_fullstory.asp?id=3828

(top)
"Freedom is the right of all sentient beings!"

Via Hiker-- it seems an Ohio national guardsman has changed his name to "Optimus Prime". It's on all his official documents, including his military ID and callup papers for when he got sent to Iraq for the present war.

My favorite part, though, is this:

"I got a letter from a general at the Pentagon when the name change went through and he says it was great to have the employ of the commander of the Autobots in the National Guard."

I hear tell that in the ranks above Colonel, promotions owe as much to "people skills" as to merit. If that means generals have this kind of sense of humor, I think that's no bad thing.


22:31 - The day's not without its dose of the surreal
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2003/mar/19gore.html

(top)
Al Gore has just been elected to the board of directors at Apple.

Hmm... how best to take advantage of this treasure trove of opportunity:

Al Gore ignited the personal computer revolution in the 1970s with the Apple II and reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s with the Macintosh. Gore is committed to bringing the best personal computing experience to students, educators, creative professionals and consumers around the world through his innovative hardware, software and Internet offerings.



11:50 - Bowling for Honesty
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

(top)
Thank CapLion for digging up this one.

For those (like me) who are still seething from Bowling for Columbine, and who even after registering our own reactions are still unsatisfied by the lack of scorn sent its way (and in fact the legitimacy conferred by the whole Academy Award thing), this article is just what we've been waiting for. David T. Hardy has done his homework, gathering together the case for the dishonesty of the movie, and presenting it along with facts and transcripts for your perusal. Other sources have made these same points in the past, but weaker. This time it's much harder to call them into doubt.

It's all good, particularly if you've been hungering for something like this ever since friends and co-workers swarmed around your cubicle keening about how funny and poignant and insightful and ingenious a documentary it was, and how the whole office should go see it, and how blah blah blah. My favorite part comes at the end of the Charlton Heston speech transcript that Hardy demonstrates to have been chopped up, spliced, rearranged, mixed with other speeches, and soundbited so as to make it sound in the movie like a defiant call to arms for the NRA against the whiny residents of Littleton:

One more thing. Our words and our behavior will be scrutinized more than ever this morning. Those who are hostile towards us will lie in wait to seize on a soundbite out of context, ever searching for an embarrassing moment to ridicule us. So, let us be mindful. The eyes of the nation are upon us today.

I guess Moore took it upon himself to make those words prophetic.


11:06 - The March of Progress
http://www.norvig.com/Gettysburg/index.htm

(top)

I once saw a performance by a Thomas Jefferson reenactor; speaking to the audience in character, he said that he (Jefferson) was a terrible public speaker, and that he typically wrote his speeches himself but then hired professional orators to deliver them for him; but he noted, with a wry smirk, that today the reverse is true.

But how would history have written itself if Abraham Lincoln had had access to PowerPoint?

I don't think it would have been an improvement.


10:44 - Butter that bread

(top)
On Forum this morning, the topic was a particularly nauseating one: Michael pulled up a bunch of poets and asked them all how they felt about the war and whether they thought it would possibly influence their world-shatteringly important work.

Poetry is a particularly egregious example of this; but in general, isn't it weird that art-- in almost any form-- cannot possibly be conservative or pro-war? Because then it would be simplistic and jingoistic and reek of propaganda. If you're going to do art about war, it has to be ironic and insightful-- and those things cannot coexist with straightforward agreement that war is the right path forward.

One of the poets-- a Pulitzer Prize winner, no less-- called in the following nugget:

A few weeks ago I wrote a poem that I didn't even realize would end up being so appropriate to the times... [he'd previously mentioned that he'd thought the chance of war, even just weeks ago, was very remote] ... it was about waking up to a very peaceful morning, very early, while it was still dark... and hearing the rain down in the valley, and being so thankful for this peaceful moment... and yet at the same time as this placid scene was taking place, there was this war being planned in my name by people who I had nothing to do with them being in the position they're in. And I thought, what part of me... [losing coherence] is represented by this war?

The part that lets you write sarcastic poetry and whine about the government, you nimrod.

Like it or not, half the people in the country (who voted) voted for Bush. And that was pre-9/11; his party got a massive vote of confidence in the elections last November. And now, three-quarters of the country supports the war (although that figure is contingent on UN approval). You know what that means? The war represents the will of the people. No matter what fantasy world you inhabit, no matter how much rain is falling in those valleys beneath your placid mud hut, that's the way it is.

It's a minority (albeit a very loud and obnoxious and occasionally treasonous one) that opposes the war; but the whole point of the war is to protect that minority and its right to exist-- in spite of its protests. No matter how many poems you write about how nice peace is, and how good it would be if everybody could just get along, such poetry is not the criterion that al Qaeda is scrutinizing in order to decide whether they should attack us again.

The Forum program heard poets and artists from all corners weigh in, but they all spoke with the same voice: War is bad, m'kay? If they'd managed to convince themselves that this was an original or insightful sentiment, then the state of art in this country is a pretty sorry one to begin with. Considering the chunky bits of luscious irony they kept trotting out (like Lysistrata, to which I have one word in answer: Athena), I can't say I'm impressed by the moral or intellectual consistency of what are supposed to be our most celebrated and richly rewarded creative minds.

I wonder, offhand, if there's such a thing as an artistic discipline that could be pursued in trying to create pro-war artwork that won't get dismissed as propaganda, and can instead be appreciated as Art on the same terms as the by-now-commonplace shadowy romanticized portraits of messianic figures wearing suicide belts?


09:35 - Iraq's Sterling History
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/timeline.htm

(top)
Marcus just forwarded this to me-- a detailed timeline of dealings with Iraq, by the State Department, from the end of Gulf War I through 2002.

Note that it doesn't even try to implicate September 11 as an important date. Guys, we're not obsessing, all right?

Tuesday, March 18, 2003
21:35 - Counting Down
http://www.bruner.net/blog/2003_03_16_blarchive.shtml#90816396

(top)
Greg Kihn at KFOX is running a "48 Hour Countdown", giving away $1000 each hour to lucky callers.

And during this period of worldwide breath-holding, it seems a lot of people are taking the opportunity to jump the fence from one side of the war debate to the other. Some formerly pro-war voices are having second thoughts; but seemingly a lot more in the anti-war camp are making their way to the pro-war side, whether with timid waves or with upper-arms-bared resolve. Now that it's down to the wire, people are starting to really think hard about matters, and decide where the facts really leave them; and when all's said and done, the polls and the blogs are bearing out that the path we're on is the right one.

Rick Bruner, for instance, just put up a post that's so good it got him InstaPundited; it'll probably jet him from complaining about his lack of feedback to the giddily freaky position of wondering feverishly how (and whether) to reduce his radar signature. He comes out, "at last", as a warblogger. And he does it with style, too: by demolishing all the anti-war arguments with facts and with reason and with wit.

One of the many money quotes:
Al Qaeda wouldn't collaborate with Saddam because they're religious zealots and he's a secular tyrant. Gimme a break. Al Qaeda demonstrated clearly in their planning for September 11th they'll do whatever it takes to smite their enemy, even if that means suffering through lapdances in the strip clubs of the Great Satan. If they can buy box cutters in our Wal-Marts, I'm sure they could suck it up to borrow a few kilos of anthrax from Saddam.

It's so good to see that all these arguments we've been tossing back and forth in the past few months, when run through the wringer of rational thought, can bring the thinker to the same conclusion no matter where on the political spectrum he originates. And if I've become sure of one thing, it's that post-9/11, the traditional political labels just don't fit anymore.

And if there's any other thing I've become sure of, it's that at the very least I know I don't want to be counted among those who wave signs that say AT LEAST SADDAM WAS ELECTED! and then jam their thumbs in their ears and go LA LA LA LA when someone tries to ply them with reasoned debate.


11:48 - Changing the World
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-614607,00.html

(top)
Everybody's linking this Ann Clwyd piece, the one describing the human shredder machine and other pieces of Iraqi innovation that Chirac and others are desperate to preserve. Andrew Sullivan's response:

What Clwyd says - clearly, unforgettably, indelibly - is something that some people think is unsophisticated or crude or manipulative. What she says is that the Saddam regime is evil. I'm aware of the argument that there are many evil regimes in the world and we aren't invading to destroy all of them. But there comes a point at which such arguments say less about the world and more about the people making them. Saddam's regime is certainly one of the vilest on earth. Its malevolence and brutality is documented beyond dispute. In a world in which morality matters, the leading theologians and moralists and politicians would not be bending over backwards to find arguments to leave this regime alone, to lend credence to its lies, and to appease its poisons. They would be casting about for reasons to end it. I think that is what has given Blair his strength these past few months. He knows he's right.

And on NPR this morning, there were interviews with fleeing Iraqi citizens, packing up their belongings into wheelbarrows and heading for the hills. Why? Surely, to avoid the Americans' missiles, right? Wrong. According to the interviewees that the reporter talked to, what the Iraqis feared most in the coming days-- once the war begins-- is Saddam and the Iraqi army. Apparently the army has already been going through and spraying bullets into the various towns; the fleeing people showed the bullet holes to the interviewer. These guys never once mentioned fear of getting blown up by Americans. They fear what their own country's leadership and muscle will do to them once chaos begins to reign.

These are the kinds of things that the world has grown accustomed to just letting happen, over the past several decades. It's more humane, more culturally sensitive, more live-and-let-live to just avoid all contact with countries that exist in a state of medieval brutality. We've internalized our own postmodern Prime Directive: don't interfere, because it's not our business. They'll just end up resenting us anyway. Well, that's all going to change now.

It's time this world entered the modern age. And I mean the whole world, too, not just those privileged countries that have the luxury to make a choice about it.


11:21 - Rise Up, California
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030316/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/vandenb

(top)
NPR this morning interviewed the very well-informed and erudite leader of the effort to infiltrate Vandenberg Air Force Base and patriotically prevent the Aerospace Command data from reaching the aircraft operating in Iraq. He had all kinds of historical facts and logistical data to support the logic behind putting thousands of American soldiers' lives and the entire precarious Iraq military enterprise at grave risk and calling it "legitimate non-violent resistance".

The lieutenant at the base that NPR interviewed afterwards made it sound as though the only thing the base would do to protect itself against treason and fifth-column activities-- even while she identified them as such-- would be to use the minimum possible necessary force to protect critical military equipment.

Emboldened by this wussiness, the protesters think they're going to be able to go in there and disrupt transmissions, block personnel movements, and throw the war effort into chaos, and all the base commanders will do is send out a spokeswoman with a clipboard to try to shoo them away.

There are going to be some dead bodies right here at home before this is over.

If anybody sane is in the area of VDB once the war gets underway, I think it would be an excellent idea to gather together and form a defense of the base-- anybody with muscles and the willingness to use them should form a shoulder-to-shoulder block in order to prevent the useful idiots from getting so far in their relentless pursuit of insanity that they end up dead. Civilians can be non-violent; the base guards won't.

A big part of what we're doing in Iraq is showing the world that we're a resolved nation, dedicated to taking swift and decisive action to neutralize the evil that caused 9/11 and remains a threat today. But every time a protest group feels so unchallenged as to stage a raid on its own country's military bases, and the "silent majority" doesn't stand up to lay them flat, that statement that we're trying to make as a nation is dulled. Do we really want the impression we leave from this conflict to be "the US military versus the US people"?

Or is California really just that far gone?


UPDATE: CapLion thinks so. Although in response to his "But don't take my word for it, just spend a few days in San Francisco..." I'd have to say that I don't have to take his word for it-- I live here. :) I just bought a house here. I signed the bleedin' papers this morning.

And while I know most of the population of California is concentrated in the cities, one shouldn't discount the massive numbers of people who live in rural areas or small towns throughout the state. I grew up in one. You're as likely to find Young Republicans or Harley dudes in any of these places as hippies-- hell, I grew up behind the Redwood Curtain, and it wasn't until I moved to Pasadena and lived next to Dabney House that I first smelled marijuana.

This may be the state that saw to Jerry Garcia's ascendancy; but it's also the state that gave us Ronald Reagan.

And with 75% of the public supporting the war (a record in recent memory!), even in the face of more-strident-than-ever protests, we would do well to remember that just because the few are louder here than elsewhere, it doesn't mean that the many deserve to be flushed. There are still a lot more of us than there are of them. Even here.

I have a better idea. Shoulder-to-shoulder block, yes. Non-violent, no. Beat them into frigging pulp.

Well, yes. I have no doubt that that's what it would come to-- these are peace activists, after all. Hardly the least violent of nature's beasts. But what I mean is, non-violently is at least how the blockade ought to start. Even if just to play out everybody's scripted role.


Monday, March 17, 2003
21:54 - Marvelous

(top)
I wish I'd caught her name-- the Environmental Minister or something, in the UK-- being interviewed by the BBC in response to the Bush speech. It went by so fast, and I was reeling from the wordplay, that I dropped it on the floor.

BBC: Do you think that once the war starts, once war is upon us, the country will rally around its Prime Minister and support the war?

M: I hope that the country will recognize the need to rally around its troops.

BBC: But then, as Robin Cook said, the leader of the House of Commons, who just resigned: it's possible to support the troops, but oppose the war...?


And her response was a deliciously acid:

M: I'm sure they'll appreciate that sophistry.


God, I love British wit and diction.


20:52 - No Anti-Aliasing For Oil
http://daringfireball.net/2003/03/antialiasing.html

(top)
A few days back, John Gruber of Daring Fireball posted an article on one of Safari's quirks: it's too aggressive with Quartz anti-aliasing. Mac OS X's text smoothing is unparalleled, yes; but Safari ignores two aspects of the anti-aliasing model that the rest of the OS properly takes into account: 1) You're not supposed to anti-alias the very smallest fonts; and 2) You're not supposed to anti-alias monospaced fonts.

The thrust of the article is about those monospaced fonts, which Gruber rightly identifies as being useful in the modern world only for "displaying markup and programming language source code." Nothing else. Nobody wants to read text in Courier. Any plain-language text that's rendered in a monospaced font these days is done so only for satirical or legacy purposes, as to simulate a teletype or some such. It's a graphics-based world now, dagnabbit; and unless you're trying to write code or lay out tabular data for rudimentary layout/transport media such as e-mail, monospaced fonts are dumb.

But such uses do still exist; and when OS X apps like Safari try to anti-alias the monospaced fonts that I still use, it's sabotaging a paradigm that had been established way back in Mac history.

Gruber points out a particular example of why it was that the Mac has always been regarded as the prime platform for prepress and text layout. Apple has not just been the company that happened to put all its eggs in the GUI basket and shun the command-line and all its manifestations; it's also been the company that's knuckled down and set itself the task of defining how text and graphics and layout should be done on computers:

9-point Monaco is the last surviving masterpiece of the original Macintosh?s painstakingly hand-tuned set of pixel-perfect bitmap fonts, and deservedly so. Sure, it?s been tweaked in recent years (for example, to distinguish the lowercase L from the digit one, the zero from the capital O, and to enlarge certain punctuation characters, like the period, which originally was just a single pixel), but today?s Monaco 9 would look very familiar to a circa-1986 Mac programmer. Mac OS X introduced a newly refined 10-point counterpart, which feels much larger than the ostensible one-point difference from Monaco 9 would imply. Monaco 10 is also eminently readable, perhaps quite a bit more so than Monaco 9 on today?s high-resolution displays, and yet is very true to Monaco 9?s spirit.

He's got screenshots, too; he's not kidding. Monaco is a nice, nice font for monospaced applications. It's my default font for Terminal and for plain-text e-mail messages in Mail; though these are both Cocoa apps that take full advantage of Quartz rendering, they elect not to anti-alias Monaco and other monospaced fonts.

But just a few days ago, I found myself fiddling around with the prefs in Terminal; I was toggling the "anti-alias text" checkbox and watching the UNIX command-line text shift between smooth and unsmooth, between velvety OS X-y goodness and throwback, knife-edge legacy letting. And you know-- I left that little toggle switch off. The Terminal simply looks better without anti-aliasing on.

Part of it is because Monaco is so carefully tuned to look good without anti-aliasing. But I think it's just as much to do with Gruber's statement that "individual characters carry much more importance in source code than in prose. The ability to discern individual characters is more important than creating on-screen characters that more accurately reflect the style of high-resolution output." I think he's nailed it.

Safari has several kinks to work out; I'd thought that it would turn out to be the best browser at handling text since OmniWeb, since OW used the Quartz layer to its fullest potential and-- quite frankly-- rendered absolutely gorgeous text because of it. Chimera/Camino and IE, by contrast, seemed clumsy and uneven with their text handling; the kerning and leading never quite worked right. I always attributed that to the fact that IE and Camino were browsers that did their own text engines and eschewed the OS-level rendering that OmniWeb took advantage of, for whatever reason. I figured that since Safari was patently the most Cocoa browser to date, then surely it would follow the rules better than any of them. Right?

Well, not quite. How does one explain this?



Check out what happens to the leading on the lines that have italicized text in them. I've highlighted the text so you can see the excess spacing between lines; there should be no white visible. It should be an unbroken block of blue.

I've sent in this bug report already, but I'm starting to think that Safari's adherence to Cocoa standards in text handling is either inadequate, or massively overenthusiastic. I'm not at all sure which.


Incidentally-- and this is only tangentially related-- if anybody is wondering why Safari's performance in handling lots and lots and lots (e.g. hundreds) of form elements on a page is abysmal compared to other browsers such as Camino, it's evidently due to the fact that Safari's reliance on AppKit and Cocoa form widgets is biting it in the ass: AppKit and the Cocoa widgets are performance pigs. They're massively object-oriented, which we've known about forever; this is their blessing and their curse. Cocoa in its elegant architecture has enabled Apple and third-party companies to bring out more new software in less time, over the past two years, than I seem to be able to remember any other company doing in the past. Cocoa is revolutionizing the development process. But the price to be paid for that is the speed penalty that comes with OO design; OO is never as fast as highly tuned procedural code, sometimes very dramatically so. And the upshot is that Safari's performance in meter-pegging performance tests severely lags behind that of apps like Camino that sort of "cheat" and sidle around the OO structure, whether it means they lose the benefit of the OS-level rendering layers or not-- and whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.

I have an 800 MHz iMac here at work, and a 533 MHz PIII running Windows 2000. By any measure, megahertz-myth or no, the iMac should trounce the PC. But if I load a table-heavy page in Safari and IE on the two machines respectively, and start rapidly resizing the window, the Windows/IE contender beats the Mac flat. Why?

Two reasons: 1) IE on Windows is a kernel process; on the Mac it's squarely a userland function. Whether this is "cheating" or not is open to discussion; it certainly can't be denied that it helps boost a very complex set of functions to impossible levels of speed under Windows. But 2) OS X has the OO-ness of Cocoa to deal with, and that does cause a serious slowdown. It doesn't hurt the platform much in raw computational speed, such as in Photoshop filters or SETI@home; but when it comes to UI-intensive interactive work, Cocoa is a big drag.

Now, the good news is that the sunk cost of going to such an OO-intensive framework as Cocoa is just that-- sunk cost. It represents a fairly flat investment of CPU horsepower which will eventually be made irrelevant as the CPUs themselves improve. Just as the OS9 line was tuned to really come into its own with the G3 and especially the G4, OS X is really going to achieve UI "breakout" with the 970 and, in particular, the POWER5-based 9800 which will succeed it fairly quickly. OS X will run on G3s and G4s, but it really wants something with a bit more oomph, and machines with a bit more RAM (512MB is really a practical minimum, I've found) before the user will cease to feel trammeled by it.

What this amounts to is that yes, the Mac is slower than the PC, in many key areas; but that this is not attributable to any one factor, and each of those contributing factors is an investment made for a reason. The CPUs themselves sacrifice raw clock speed for vector processing, short pipelines, and low power. The OS sacrifices computational speed for OO-based developmental ease. The Cocoa widgets and style elements sacrifice feedback speed for looks and consistency. There's an argument to be made in favor of each of these factors; unfortunately, it's a different argument for each one, and the argument against each one has to do with-- yup-- speed.

So, once again, it's all down to "get those dang 970s here already".

And a 30-inch ACD while you're at it.

And bring me some sharks with laser beams on their heads!


13:46 - How-many-inch...?
http://www.macosrumors.com/

(top)

I've been hearing this rumor over the past couple of days now, from various independent sources, all of which seem to agree:

We have been able to confirm with Apple sources that the company is indeed planning to introduce a 30-inch Cinema Display this summer, and will be dropping the price of its already impressive 23-inch model at that time.

You've got to be kidding me. Thirty inches? That's one hell of a jump in size. Either Apple's in big with some supernatural LCD maker in Taiwan that has some super-secret method for making monster-sized panels with acceptable viability rates (the biggest reason why big LCDs cost so much, traditionally, is that it's damned hard to manufacture them-- the more screen area and the more pixels, the exponentially greater the chance of unacceptable yields), or... or... I don't know any good "or".

You'd think they'd at least jump to 25" or maybe 27" first, wouldn't you? 30"... ye gods.

But if it's true, boy-howdy. Word is that this new flagship would reoccupy the $3500 price point that the original 22" Cinema Display held, and that the 23" HD Display had until a few weeks ago when Apple lowered the price unexpectedly to $2000. I remember hearing back when the 22" was new that yields were so low-- like maybe two or three viable panels in 100-- that they weren't sure they'd even be able to make a product out of it. But apparently they've got that very well under control now.

I know a few people who are probably striking a very odd pose right about now: both hands held out in front of them, fingers and thumbs in opposing "L" positions...

Sunday, March 16, 2003
14:32 - Me and my iPod have a date

(top)
Well, since this is the last weekend that I'll have before I take possession of the house (and begin spending every waking weekend hour working on improvements and construction and move-in stuff), and because there's an excellent post-rainstorm cloudburst in progress, I'm going to head up to the summit on Silver Creek Valley Road and do some heavy-duty nothing.


13:41 - I Can't Believe They Invented It
http://www.t-mobile.com/tzones/cameraphones/default.asp?loc=hme

(top)
Oh, good. Now people can take pictures of the car wreck they were just in because they were talking on their cell phone.

And send it directly to the insurance company, who because they don't demand to know whether the insuree has a cell phone (hands-free or not), gets to bump up my premium to pay for these asshats' repair and hospital bills.

(And if I were to get out of my car and threateningly approach, for instance, the SUV-driving bimbo who a couple of weeks ago floored the gas pedal to launch her Escalade into the right lane just as I went past, oblivious to my presence because of her goddamn phone, missing me only because I leaped in a split-second movement into the next lane over, purely lucky that there wasn't a car there already-- I would be the one to get arrested.)

The Bay Area seems to be way behind the curve in adopting cell phones-- in the South, from my experience there, every single person has one and is talking on it more often than not. But that's one area in which I'm not particularly interested in this region catching up to the frontrunners.


12:32 - Thank You For Your Support
http://thelink.concordia.ca/article.pl?sid=03/03/11/1149203

(top)
The latest to grace the fair walls of Montreal's Concordia University:


Let's run a little thought experiment, shall we? Let's say that on September 11, 2001, oh, I don't know, the CN Tower got knocked down by a terrorist-piloted airliner. (Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there were 3,000 people eating in the revolving restaurant at the time.) Let's say Canada launched its own War on Terror in response. Let's say they tore into Afghanistan and rooted out the immediate threat from al Qaeda and the Taliban; let's say they developed a long-view plan to nullify Islamic terrorism at its source, including eliminating the threat of an armed Iraq, culminating in an invasion a year after the Afghanistan action.

Would students in American universities be painting things like this on their public walls? Would we see murals of Canadian public figures waving CN-Tower-shaped phalli around while wearing Napoleon hats or Mountie uniforms?

Come to think of it, considering recent events around here, we probably would-- and that's what's really pissing me off.


12:09 - One Of Those Weekends

(top)
Yeah, it's just another of those same-old, same-old weekends where I find myself just muddling through assorted and sundry tasks-- house things, taxes, mountains of e-mail, hammering on code at work, Homestar Runner toons-- instead of feeling any desire whatsoever to blog.

I don't seem to be alone in this; most of my friends appear to be lost in a miasma of video games, far more so than usual-- perhaps to blot out the outside world? Who knows. I'm beginning to think that the reason why so many people in the circles I travel in are so vehemently anti-war and anti-American is that they live entirely within this whole Virtual Universe, where national boundaries and cultural identities and acts of terrorism and brutality and war truly are irrelevant. As long as the VR environment of the day remains intact, who cares what goes on outside the door or what flag waves over the street? As long as the power keeps flowing and the DSL line stays up, what more to life need there be?

Anyway-- I'm now in the final week of escrow. I signed the vesting form on Friday; the title company had managed to dig up the only piece of documentation in the entire pile of paper that had an incorrect mailing address for me: my deposit check, which was written on the last check in the checkbook which had my old (previous) address on it; and they mailed the express packet to the old Pepper Tree house. (I'm sure the current residents were taken somewhat by surprise.) So after a flurry of faxes, and a series of epithets from the loan officer directed at the general incompetence of the title company (the representative of whom never, ever picked up her phone or returned calls), the title form is signed and the loan company has sent out the documentation for me to sign and UPS back up to them on Monday, so they can fund on Thursday and we can record on Friday.

And then I can take the rest of Friday off (after running a tour of our software lab in which the Navy is coming by to see if we're a company that takes software development seriously-- apparently they've been unimpressed with other companies in our segment that they've checked out. And a contract with the Navy is not something to be tossed aside lighly), hurl myself into the new sunken living room, and shout out to the high heavens: NO MORE SPOOOOOORTS!

So yesterday I went in to work to get started on the multitude of infrastructural projects we've all been queueing up to work on as soon as this third in a series of marathon software release cycles is completed; since we just on Thursday blessed the limited release build, we're now freee for the first time in about a year. The trouble is that we've actually been in overdrive for a year, running these three development cycles simultaneousy, which is about twice our normal workload. But it's been going on for so long now that the rest of the company has gotten accustomed to it, and now they are totally unused to the idea of letting us have a few weeks of time to ourselves-- to do the infrastructural stuff, to take care of those "quadrant 2" tasks that we can't do when "urgent and important" tasks suck up all our time and manpower. But we managed to wrangle ourselves a bit of a time refund, so it's now time to take as much advantage of that as possible. Because there's no way I'm going to get all the work I need to do into the eight weeks we've been allotted. It's more like a year's worth of work. Plus there's still going to be a development cycle in the background. Oh, joy.

But in three hours of pounding yesterday, I hammered out the editing module for the new service table that I've been working on. Now we have user authentication and different views for engineering vs. marketing/sales (a good thing, believe you me), and a real editing function on a real database back-end. It even looks pretty hot, if I do say so.

Today it's been mostly an e-mail day thus far. But now that I think about it, it's just been an e-mail morning-- and I haven't even left my room yet. If you don't mind terribly, I'm going to go wake myself up now.

Friday, March 14, 2003
12:20 - Not All Rock Stars are Clueless

(top)
Greg Kihn is the morning DJ at KFOX, the classic-rock station that wakes me up each morning. He's not exactly what you'd call a household name; but as aging rockers go, he's one of the most respectable I know of. The Greg Kihn Band only ever had maybe two hits back in the 80s (one of which, "Jeopardy", was spoofed by Weird Al), but nowadays he's parlayed his one-hit-wonder-ness into a fine running gag. The man who's had almost as many hit records as he has ex-wives!

And his band still plays, from time to time. Plus you oughtta hear his son Ry play.

Anyway, Greg is particularly interesting to listen to in the mornings because he's unabashedly pro-WoT and patriotic, and he fields irate e-mails on the air every morning, tearing them down as best he can. He's not the best public orator in the world, quite frankly; some of his on-air ranting is more comic bluster than eloquent rhetoric. He'll put on a big Pomp & Circumstance-esqe fanfare to play behind him when he gets going; it rises to a triumphant fever pitch as he builds up more and more steam. It's camp, and he knows it. It's why we like him.

(He's also a big Mac fan. Apple has often sent the station various products to play with, in exchange for Greg's unsolicited shilling for them on-air. His co-anchors put up with it from him-- you can almost hear them snickering in the background whenever he starts talking about his Macs. But they defer to him and give him the stage.)

Anyway, Greg was giving an on-air response to an e-mail he'd received that shrilly condemned Bush for setting out to kill "innocent Iraqi civilians", as is such a common refrain. In his response, Greg explained in a very measured manner that we'll be specifically going out of our way to avoid harming civilians. He said, "It's just not our style".

I fired off the following e-mail to him:

        "We go out of our way to avoid targeting civilians".

        It's not just "not our style", it's the reason why we've been spending
billions and *billions* of dollars over the past decades to develop
weapons which take out not just the target *building*, but the target
*person*. We have missiles that can fly into an individual person's
house's *window* and leave the adjoining buildings on either side
completely intact. We have Predator drones that target terrorists in
their cars where they're as isolated as possible from innocent
civilians. We even have EMP weapons designed to disable electronics so
enemy weapons systems become useless, without even a single *military*
life having to be lost.

        Why the heck would a country that has nuclear weapons capable of
leveling cities devote all its attention to creating weapons that cause
*less and less* damage, with more and more specific and targeted
results? It's because minimizing civilian casualties is the paramount
goal of American military development, and we've achieved more toward
that goal than any other country in history.

        People who whine about "killing innocent civilians is wrong" will get
no argument whatsoever from US military leaders; however, they *might*
get a frustrated punch in the mouth.

Within minutes, he responded (though not on the air), "Those people that whine about killing civilians will whine anyway no matter what we do. . . Of course Saddam wants as many as possible to die on both sides.  I expect him to pull every cowardly, cheap trick in the book."

I know he's not a Chrissie Hynde or a Peter Gabriel-- but these days, that's no bad thing at all.

Thursday, March 13, 2003
10:01 - Q228001: Network Adapter Does Not Work if Unplugged
http://dybka.home.mindspring.com/jill/qarticles.html

(top)
Marcus sends me what should make for a happy morning's clicking and giggling: a collection of Microsoft Knowledge Base articles with absurd, ironic, or just plain stupid content.

Q253912: Out of Memory Error Messages with Large Amounts of RAM Installed
"WORKAROUND: Reduce the amount of memory that is installed in your computer to 512 MB or less."

Q149525: Poor Performance May Occur During FTP File Transfers
"If a send request occurs that is less than one segment, Silly Window Syndrome (SWS) can occur."

Q175362: January 1 May Appear as February 1 in a Date
"When you enter or fill dates in a worksheet in Microsoft Excel 97, a date that should appear as January 1 may instead appear as February." Hope you, like, didn't need that date for anything.

It's a long list, too. Someone's had themselves a grand old time compiling all this stuff.

Wednesday, March 12, 2003
02:18 - Inching forward
http://www.apple.com/powermac/

(top)

Well, we're up to 1.42 GHz now.

It's not too bad a package, for what it's worth; the innards have been re-architected based on the Xserve plumbing, hopefully with the result that data throughput is no longer as bottlenecked at the system controller as it was. (There's still the CPU bandwidth bottleneck, which won't be solved until the 970 is here, so things could still be plenty better.) But the PCI bus, the ATA/100 controller, FireWire 400/800, and gigabit Ethernet are all directly addressed by the system controller without any bridging, so that might be quite nice.

There's still the cost issue-- $1500 for the base 1GHz single through $2700 for the dual 1.42 GHz (or more with the RAM and Bluetooth and such tricked out more fully), prices that require some creative thinking and/or drugs in order to place them in the same ballpark as comparable Pentium-class machines. (It's worth noting, though, that these are the lowest price points that PowerMacs have ever had.) But there are still the usual tradeoffs and justifications (system integration, ColorSync, short pipelines, FireWire 800, at least comparable performance); that much hasn't changed. Apple's got benchmarks posted which claim superiority in Photoshop 7 tests over the 3GHz P4-based Dell, which we've all learned to treat with some skepticism-- but which at least show that Apple is confident enough in its machines' competence to make such claims in the full knowledge that independent testing labs will run their own numbers.

And in any case, the machines aren't devoid of new goodies. There's FireWire 800, again; there's integrated Bluetooth; there's 802.11g; there's the 4X SuperDrive. The site shills for M-Audio's up-to-7.1 professional sound cards, which ought to legitimize Macs further on the modern audio front (up till a short time ago, Mac owners were out of luck if they wanted 5.1-capable audio). And, of course, those displays have all come down a whole bunch in price; co-workers are telling me that all the other LCD monitor makers are having to scramble all of a sudden to lower their prices in order to match the offerings of what they continue to perceive as the leader in display technology and quality.

So they're scraping that butter over too much bread. They're at least metering things so as to reach that 970 milestone just in the nick of time, so it would seem.


01:52 - Hot Damme
http://www.thewavemag.com/pagegen.php?pagename=article&articleid=23130

(top)
Seanbaby has done a lavish filmography of every Jean-Claude Van Damme movie ever made. And you know what that means.

Universal Soldier receives a near perfect Van Dammeter score because of its massive clash of JCVD clichés where a sassy female reporter shows up during the splits-filled muddy fight scene in the rain. During the fight she's hit by an exploding grenade, but through what must have been the filmmakers' lack of knowledge of what a grenade is, she gets right up a few minutes later.

If I could write even a single sentence that's in the ballpark of what Seanbaby cranks out by the bucketful in every page like this he's ever written, I'd die a happy man.


09:24 - Our World-Historical Gamble
http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-0311

(top)
Everybody's read this by now, right?

Good.

Tuesday, March 11, 2003
18:29 - Here's why we're gonna make it after all
http://www.whitehouse.org/

(top)
Any country which allows a site like whitehouse.org to exist-- as a barefaced and scathing parody of the real White House site-- is in no danger whatsoever of providing the "Bush=Hitler" types a hint of a leg to stand on. The Presidency allows this kind of thing to float around on the Net, lurking just outside the government's very door, luring Web visitors in who are a misfired domain suffix away from reaching the President's official site; the only legal notice the White House serves is to politely request them to stop the direct defamation of persons such as Lynne Cheney. Companies like Disney and Paramount are apparently a lot more aggressive about this sort of thing than our evil government is.

I especially love the NUKE DISSENT banners. The site owners are undoubtedly aware of the delicious irony.

(Thanks to Damian Del Russo for letting me know of something I should have known about long ago.)


15:15 - Dork fries
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/11/sprj.irq.fries/index.html

(top)
I'm with Corsair: the House of Representatives changing "french fries" to "freedom fries" is tacky and juvenile in the extreme.

However, at least in this case we can have the comfort of historical precedent. In WWII, according to NPR, sauerkraut was renamed to liberty cabbage, "frankfurters" were solidified in their new identity as "hot dogs", and-- unbelievably-- German measles became known as liberty measles.

This doesn't, however, absolve today's newspeak perpetrators from their persistence in not realizing that the "french" in "french fries" refers to frenching, a preparation method. They didn't originate in France.


UPDATE: CapLion is considerably less put out by "freedom fries" than I am. (I'm trying to come up with a pun that involves "put out" and "put in" or perhaps "poutine", but failing.) But J Greely suggests a better name for them would be New York fries. It's not terribly inaccurate, considering that New York has always been such a hotbed of newly imported foods brought by immigrants or cultural exchange; and besides it's got plenty of WoT cachet. (Whoah-- perhaps I should avoid using French words like cachet... much as the British deliberately pronounced words like fillet and ballet with a hard T and the emphasis on the first syllable, so as to de-Francify such words.)

Well, either way, I like the sound of New York fries... pending legal clearance with the food-court restaurant of the same name. Somehow I doubt they'd mind much.



14:49 - So... very... tired...
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/mwny03.html

(top)
No matter which way you read this article on the impending retooling of Macworld New York, the subtext is unmistakable: it's just not doing as well as the San Francisco event, and it's time to see if a fresh coat of paint can salvage it-- because the alternative is to scuttle it altogether.

At the heart of the decision, and of the dissolution of the tight binding Apple itself had with the event, seems to be the fact that Steve Jobs is well and truly tired of pulling biannual miracles out of his ass.

The decision to break with tradition and not have a Jobs keynote reportedly was made by Jobs himself. When exhibitors asked why he wouldn't be doing a keynote, many were told it was because Jobs felt it was getting tougher every year to produce the same amount of innovative products and excitement for a keynote. "Apple feels they have to pull a rabbit out of a hat at every keynote and it was getting tough for Jobs to live up to the hype," said one exhibitor.

I guess it was bound to happen; the kind of energy Jobs has kept up since his return to Apple in 1998 hasn't been the kind of thing the company can sustain forever. It's been reinventing itself at a breakneck pace, hitting all kinds of homeruns with new products and astonishingly few failures by comparison to their performance throughout the 90's. But they've been living on borrowed time. Now comes the sugar crash. Once they make it to the plateau of the 970 and a stable OS X with Quark Xpress native at last, I imagine the company will heave a deep sigh of exhaustion and zonk out for a long nap.

I don't expect they'll stop coming up with cool stuff; I just think Jobs doesn't have it in him to keep the company inventing on a timetable like they have been. It's time to let Apple get back to a more sane schedule, bringing out products when they're ready, rather than timing everything according to the keynotes and trying to live up to ever-increasing pre-keynote rumors and hype. Many of their most successful products over the past year or two-- the iBook, the iPod, the new displays-- have been released at surprise press meetings; and keynote introductions like the iMac, Safari, the TiBooks, and so on have frequently been slow to market (the 17" RealUltimatePowerBook still isn't shipping in quantity-- and word is that Apple knew all along that this would be the case). Apple's playing a losing game, trying to outsmart the user base when the user base is paying such close attention to the company that Jobs can't fart without the rumor sites picking up the news.

So it's back to a less glamorous but (hopefully) more sustainable product development model. There'll still be MWSF, but now we'll have half the opportunities to have our greatest dreams fulfilled as scheduled on the event program-- or, if you prefer, half the opportunities to be irrationally disappointed.


13:54 - Where the hell is La Habra?
http://www.whittierdailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,207~12026~1234836,00.html

(top)
...Because I'm of half a mind to drive down there (aha, it's in the southeast LA/Anaheim area) and stand in front of that 9/11 memorial with whatever other Californians still exist that haven't gone completely bugfuck, and tell any more protesters that might care to show up that they'll further deface that memorial over my bloody, peace-riddled corpse.

Haven't these people realized just how far off the deep end they've gone? Do they have no understanding of that most human of all our pretensions, perspective? It's when I read stuff like this, from Andrew Sullivan, that I find myself deeply ashamed to be sharing a country with people so addled and yet so determined to prove how political they are:

On a more minor front, I was walking the beagle on Saturday in my local D.C. park and stumbled across the pretty-in-pink "Women For Peace" demo. The demonization of the president was far more evident than any criticism of Saddam Hussein. In the few conversations I managed to have without losing my cool, I asked some of the demonstrators whether they were aware of how many people Saddam Hussein had killed in his short time on earth. "Not as many as Bush," came one reply. "America is the true terrorist nation," another opined. Now I am second to no-one in defending these people's right to say whatever they believe, and it was a beautiful day for a feisty demonstration. But what can one make of the arguments one hears? Maybe it's because I'm surrounded by these sentiments, but it's hard not to wonder what these people will say or do once this particular phase of the war actually gets under way.

I'm as willing as anybody to concede-- quite happily, in fact-- that the anti-war position has some good points in favor of it. There is an intelligent debate to be had. Reasonable people can disagree over whether the pro-war points outnumber the anti-war points.

But this... this is America? "Not as many as Bush!" This is the considered opinion of the man-on-the-street? Do I have to open myself to the possibility that this country, far from being populated with clear-eyed resolute idealists with a real understanding of what humanity is and what it means to be free, is in fact full of eager participants in the Nigerian E-mail Scam and people who forward chain letters and stay indoors for a month because their moon is in Gemini?

The postmodern bohemians speak of a time when we'll all be enlightened and free, with instant access to all human knowledge. Well, we're seeing a glimpse of that today already, as interconnected as we all are and as well-published as so much information is; and if anything, it's demonstrating the reverse to be true. I've never heard of a people in history with so much intellectual freedom and access to information, that is so wilfully misinformed and self-destructive.

I'm instead put in mind of a friend's quip that we once thought that if you had a million monkeys at a million typewriters, you'd eventually produce the greatest intellectual works of all time; but instead, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not the case.


10:06 - Losing faith
http://coldfury.com/archives/001057.php#001057

(top)
You know, we'd better get this war started right quick, becuse Mike Hendrix is beginning to despair.

If I live long enough, I will see some sort of national healthcare service implemented. It will be the same sort of tangled mess that all such systems are. I will see more destructive tinkering with the economy by muddle-headed politicans and government bureaucracies intent on making socialism actually work this time. I will see more gun-control legislation implemented, and eventually a ban on private ownership of firearms, and for all the tough talk from gun supporters (including myself), none of us will do a damned thing about it. The vision of jackbooted thugs knocking on individual doors to seize the guns, and gun-owners massing in the streets to resist, will never come to pass. Legislation will be passed over the vociferous objections of gun owners, and they will be required to turn in their guns to police-run collection agencies by a certain stated date or face criminal prosecution, and most of them will do just that. Some will hide their guns, bury them in the backyard or whatever, and they'd be better off just turning them in, because to use the gun to protect your home or your family will land you in jail. Just as has already happened in Britain, just as is happening right now in Brooklyn with Ronald Dixon and plenty of other less-publicized people who dared to think they had a right to self-defense. The Leftists are winning. Dixon will go to jail, probably for as little time as Brooklyn ADA Charles Hynes can get away with getting for him and still hope to get elected to the Senate, but go to jail he most assuredly will. And a small part of the Great American Experiment will get locked away with him. The difference is, Dixon will get out eventually; the American dream of individual liberty will be in for life plus twenty. Freedom has a funny sort of inverse relationship to taxation: in the same way that all temporary taxes are actually permanent, freedoms lost are never regained. The Great American Experiment had a good run, but we're nearing the bottom of the downhill slide. And you can't fight gravity.

When I was a kid, my dad and uncle would take the neighborhood kids out for a ride through the countryside in the back of my dad's '59 Chevy Apache pickup truck on summer Sunday afternoons. We always had a ball, and looked forward to it every week. We'd take along water pistols and squirt each other and passing cars with 'em. We'd laugh and laugh, and my dad and my uncle thought it was all just great. And it was.

But that little corner of America died a long time ago. It was pulled off life support by the nanny-staters; it's been illegal for kids to ride around in the back of pickups in North Carolina for years now, and even water pistols are frowned upon these days. Too dangerous, don't you know. Someone could get hurt or killed. Someone might grow up to think that guns are okay because of those water pistols. So now the kids are reduced to Playstation 2's, Xbox's, and MtV for their kicks, instead of being out in the sunshine and interacting with their neighbors and families. And something precious has been lost. Lost, or thrown away. Why, with all the dangers and horrors my childhood was fraught with, it's a miracle anyone from my generation managed to survive to adulthood at all. Or so some would have us think anyway.

I tell you, this is a post that makes Bill Whittle's essays seem fatuous and masturbatory. I hope like hell he's wrong, but I fear he's right.

9/11 woke up a lot of liberal Americans whose vision of the world owed more to Star Trek than to the Constitution; people like me who had been more than happy to live in this age, when gay rights are more of a given than they've ever been, and when the air is nice and clean even in LA for part of the year; but when we woke up, it was to a post-Vietnam national mentality that says Too late, pal-- you wanted the New Earth so bad, you've got it. So you lost America in the process. Too bad; there's no going back now. And unless we start colonizing space, the historical conditions that led to America in the first place may never happen again.

So is that it? We've lived to see the death of America as a concept distinguishable from the modern European model of nations? Vietnam set up the generation with the power to kill it, and 9/11 gave them the weapons they needed? I'm sure such a future doesn't seem so bad to a lot of people-- it's good enough.

And just where have we heard that before?

Monday, March 10, 2003
02:08 - That's not very nice
http://www.canoe.ca/WinnipegNews/ws.ws-03-10-0005.html/

(top)
CapLion sends me this link: a pizza delivery-person in Winnipeg stopped her route to help a gunshot victim. When she got back to the pizza place, her boss fired her.

When RCMP and paramedics arrived, McAulay learned she was going to be held up for another few hours because she had to give police a statement. She called Frank's Pizza and asked a co-worker to phone her supervisor and fill him in.

When McAulay finished with investigators and returned to the restaurant about 10:30 p.m., Boyd was there to deliver the bad news.

"He said, 'What the hell were you doing there?'" she said. "He told me I was fired because I was a threat to the business."

McAulay said she tried to explain, but Boyd told her he "didn't care."

"I was shocked. Actually, disgusted," she said. "I'm not an EMT and I know that, but ... I wouldn't want anyone to turn away from me. It's a person's life that's at stake."

Boyd told The Selkirk Journal he didn't fire McAulay because she helped the gunshot victim.

"She wasn't dismissed because she was at the shooting scene," he said. "She was away from her job for no good reason."

Imagine what would have happened if she'd had a gun and used it to stop the suspect. She'd be strung up from a lamppost by now.


15:59 - Bride of Whiteboard of DOOM

(top)
The latest banner ad to grace Chris' cubicle whiteboard:



11:59 - Uh... heh heh
http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/03/0303/031003.html

(top)
In reading Lileks' review of We Were Soldiers:

It reminds you that a truth, repeated enough times, becomes a cliché. Once the smart set identifies something as a cliché, it?s stripped of its truth and regarded simply as a trick - regardless of how true the cliché may actually be.

... I realize that when I wrote about Black Hawk Down fourteen months ago, I fell into precisely the same too-smart-for-this-movie trap that he's describing. I saw the overt blood-and-gore as a directorial Can You Top This? ...instead of the real-life hell that the situation actually was. I assumed I was watching the War Movie To End All War Movies. I should have known that it was just sincerity making a desperate last stand.

I've been talking lately about how "sincerity is dead"... expressions of naked patriotism seem like anachronisms, and the only political statements my age group seems capable of respecting are those that enclose a wry, ironic, and usually totally bogus insight. I have friends who would roll their eyes at a Victor David Hanson article and go watch a Flash animation instead just because it has Kanji and a googly-eyed drippy-fanged Bush in it.

But for all its recent moronic pomp, Hollywood appears to have an undercurrent of sanity and integrity; unerneath the loud posturing of the stars, it seems the producers and directors and writers are yearning for a time when the emotions and values they choose to portray on screen could be taken at face value. Maybe it's a triple-layers-of-indirection self-effacing commentary on entertainment as a phenomenon, holding up the audience's very tendency to expect searing irony instead of honest heartfelt sentiments as the subject of artistic scrutiny. Maybe the filmmakers are so far removed from sincerity that even they don't know when they're being sincere.

But I'm inclined to think that maybe, just maybe, the irony bubble's about to burst just like the dot-com one did.


11:11 - Geeks are such smartasses
http://www.freshports.org

(top)
Someone checked in some files to the FreeBSD ports tree the other day; if I'm reading the tea leaves aright, the effect was to resolve a file conflict in several various ports. And the comment entered by the committer was:

Clear moonlight beckons.
Requiem mors pacem pkg-comment,
And be calm ports tree.

A Latin haiku. Good God.

Sunday, March 9, 2003
20:44 - That's just sad
http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/news/page.cfm?objectid=12715943&method=full&sitei

(top)
The Mirror's summary of what happened this morning in Kuwait:

A British Army source in Kuwait contacted me to explain how the extraordinary surrender bid unfolded. The source said: "The British guys on the front-line could not believe what was happening. They were on pre-war exercises when all of a sudden these Iraqis turned up out of nowhere, with their hands in the air, saying they wanted to surrender.

"They had heard firing and thought it was the start of the war.

"The Paras are a tough, battle-hardened lot but were moved by the plight of the Iraqis. There was nothing they could do other than send them back.

"They were a motley bunch and you could barely describe them as soldiers - they were poorly equipped and didn't even have proper boots. Their physical condition was dreadful and they had obviously not had a square meal for ages. No one has ever known a group of so-called soldiers surrender before a shot has been fired in anger."

What the Brits should have done, it seems to me, is given them all some nice field rations before sending them back. Let them at least eat well for once. Send the signal that all we want is your leader. We do not want to kill you soldiers, let alone your country's civilians. The last thing on our minds is causing unnecessary death or suffering. That's what we're here to prevent.

Either way, though, those Iraqi soldiers will have a lot of explaining to do when they get back to wherever they were posted.


UPDATE: Then again, the British troops may not be the best-equipped force in the world either:

Not all the Challenger II tanks, which broke down on exercised in Oman last year, have been adapted for desert use.

And the replacement of the SA80 rifle, which showed a tendency to jam in dusty conditions, is not complete so some troops are likely to still be armed with it.

But what is less well known is that soldiers are also short of even the most basic of kit - their boots.

Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Paul Keetch is in Kuwait where some British troops are already stationed.

He says he has been shocked to learn how short of equipment the British are.

They have acquired, he says, the nickname "The Borrowers" because the borrow so much from the Americans.

Yikes.


Saturday, March 8, 2003
21:06 - I think I like Automobile Magazine

(top)



20:15 - You put that damn thing down right now
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030305/168/3fgvq.html

(top)

No, not that damn thing. The other damn thing.

...Okay, upon closer examination, that doesn't seem to be an iPod the nutcake is holding in his right hand. The cable/cord is coming out of the wrong end. Looks more like it's a digital camera, now that I take its color and apparent thickness into account.

I'd hate to see an iPod fall into such a person's hands.

Random note, though: how many incidences of violence and vandalism and dissent-crushing have we heard about at peace demonstrations lately, or even in recent decades? And how many were associated with those supposedly violent and immoral pro-war demonstrators?


15:28 - A Hometown Boy on the Front Lines
http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,57961,00.html

(top)
There aren't too many Macs out in the combat zone these days-- but the few there are, or indeed the only one that this article claims exists, aren't there lightly.

"It is the only one out here in the desert," said Weed. "The problem with computers in the Army is they are bought by the gross and not necessarily purchased to accomplish certain functions. The Army doles out laptops in the same way we dole out boots, tents or any other class of supply."

According to Weed, he was issued the rugged Panasonic Toughbook, but it didn't work fast enough. Weed declined to specify what he does exactly, but said he works with giant satellite and reconnaissance images, presumably for battlefield planning. When he opened these giant image files on the Toughbook, it would slow to an excruciating crawl, he said.

"Frankly, lives are in the balance here, so the quicker I can get stuff done accurately, the better," Weed said. "The Mac makes this work simple, quick and efficient. The other laptops either can't open the files or lock up halfway through, losing whatever I was working on at the time, and then (I have) to restart the computer and start over."

Weed's PowerBook has a 1-GHz chip and runs Mac OS X. He had to write a special requisition order to get it, he said.

We salute you, brave Mac. Oh, and Major Weed too. (Damn, I hope that isn't a prank name.)


11:39 - Every Switch Ad Parody EVAR
http://eshop.macsales.com/Reviews/Framework.cfm?page=/hardwareandnews/switchparodies

(top)

... Or, if not, at least a pretty good collection of them nonetheless. It's got all the best parodies, and all the stupid ones too.

I could do without the little emoticons in the captions, but...


11:34 - Goebbels Lives
http://www.radioislam.org/islam/english/iraq/blix.htm

(top)

Boy, Blix just can't win, can he?

The UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, currently the man who has a great deal of saying wether there should be an "American" invasion of Iraq - judging to if he believes Iraq has "satisfied" his inquires or not - is a man of Jewish ancestry and has a background in Zionist circles of his native country, Sweden.

Where have we seen this kind of thing before...

G'wan... tell me again how Bush is the one who, if you added a moustache, would be indistinguishable from Hitler.


11:06 - Home of the free, indeed!
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=113433&category=REGION&newsda

(top)
So the security officer of the Crossgates Mall who signed the trespassing complaint against the belligerent mallgoer-accosting peace-proponents... has been fired.

Williams, who has worked in security at the mall for more than nine years, said he signed the complaint on the orders of his boss, assistant director of security Fred Tallman. Those orders came after Tallman told the Guilderland police officer working the case that he (Tallman) was too busy to come to the police station and that Williams represented the company and should sign.

"I just followed directions of management of that mall to the letter," Williams said Friday evening. "And I get fired for doing my job."

I guess we live in a land where